Well put arguments in your last two posts Mrkim. In the case of the 3 year old with the butter knife or the 5 year old with the AK-47, no you don't just say "Oh well, they don't know any better", but you don't annihilate them either as some propose with muslims (I'm not saying that you propose this Mrkim). Even with the great white shark, you take measures to stop them attacking you and only take deadly action against specific animals when necessary to protect yourself, not against the entire species. As I said in my previous post though, the points you initially raised are valid. The issue is how you deal with them.

When dealing with those issues in western countries it is a case of conflicting rights. They have freedom of religion and the right to free speech, but how far does that go? There was a case here where a bus driver refused to allow a woman wearing a burkha onto the bus. She was not asking for any sort of concession fare so I don't think there should be a problem with her wearing the burkha, but in my opinion if they want to ask for a youth rate for example the bus driver should have the right to check an ID photo against the face. Of course law enforcement should have the right to get them to lift their veils when necessary, in my opinion. The question is how obliging should you be? Should you have a facility at an airport for instance where there is a room with only female immigration staff to check the passport photos of women in burkhas? Is that being courteous? Or is it unnecessary pandering?

Your argument about using the law to their own benefit reminded me of a case here in NZ where a young girl was raped by her HIV positive Uncle. They were from an African nation and he argued in court that in his culture they believed having sex with a virgin would cure them of AIDS. Thankfully the court refused to accept that argument. Hopefully that sort of attitude continues from our courts.