I think where your view is an issue OP, is that it is asking one group to compromise its values and beliefs so as to stop a minority from feeling an irrational sense of discomfort. Such an expectation trivializes the beliefs and values of that group.
So consider a cultural group who were brought up on cowboy movies, and feel threatened/uncomfortable/anxious by someone who walks into a bank/jewellry store/7-11 with a large handkerchief tied around their head to conceal all but their eyes.
Out of consistency OP, you must argue those who want to wear a burqa, hijab, niqab respect that sensitivity and refrain from covering their face in public.
If you do not have that expectation, it would be patronizing towards those who wear burqa etc, on the basis you don't believe they have the subtlety of mind to adopt cultural sensitivity to the same degree as those you expect not to fly a flag at home.
I completely see where you're coming from, and thank you for engaging in respectful discussion.
The fact is that we already make decisions like this every day: what do we do when our rights/preferences conflict with the rights/preferences of others? For example: where does somebody's right to smoke cigarettes prevail over somebody else's right to not inhale passive smoke? Where does somebody's right to earn a living balance with the right of the employer to make a profit? Everything in life is a negotiation, balancing the rights of parties who often have conflicting goals.
It's not a black and white issue; it's very grey, and we have to take each instance on its merits, and balance the benefit of one party, with the cost to others.
In the case you make, the question is what the cost is to the bank teller to be approached by somebody wearing a burqa, compared to the cost to the woman of having to take her burqa off. That's a hard one, no doubt, as it could be a significant security risk - and fright - to a bank teller to be approached by somebody with a concealed face, but could also be a significant hardship for a woman to have to reveal her face to an unrelated man. I think commonsense dictates that a woman who objects to removing her burqa would only do business with a bank which had policies regarding such situations. In a country like Australia, where it's expected that you have to reveal your face in places such as banks, I think it's reasonable that the onus is on those who wish to engage in different behaviour (ie wear a burqa), to try and make arrangements that satisfy both parties, eg that they visit a certain branch which is comfortable with women in burqas, or a branch which knows the particular woman, or that they phone ahead, etc.
I may well be wrong on the "flag pole in private homes" issue, but I know that to me, not having a flagpole in my yard wouldn't cause me any hardship. So as there's no cost to me to not have one, but if the flagpole was there to honour my husband, had he been unfortunate enough to have been killed in combat, then I acknowledge that I may well feel very differently.
I know that the Howard Government insisted that all schools fly the Australian flag in order to get their federal funding, a few years back. Our school flies the Aussie flag, alongside a UN flag and an Aboriginal flag - and occasionally a pirate flag.
The more people in mainstream Australia fly the flag, the less it will get associated with the low-lifes in our society and that can only be a good thing.
You make a good point. I guess what would be wonderful is if those seeing the flag could be confident that it was flown with high aspirations rather than base ones. I think when it's on public buildings etc, it instils in me a great sense of pride, because I know the motivation behind flying it.
When it's on a private home, I can't help but wonder if it's national pride, or nationalistic hate-mongering.
As you say, if more people flew it out of pride, as pursefattener plans to do, then hopefully we can "reclaim" our national symbol, and eradicate the negative affiliations which have unfortunately been created in recent years. I think we can all agree that that would be a good thing. Though the number of people with a "stick it to them" attitude in this thread makes me wonder; it confirms my suspicion that negative and divisive motivations seem to motivate more often than pride.
