G'day, Loudmouth.
Yes, I do agree that multiculturalism should not include 'diversity' of rights.
This is because it is logical that when someone wishes to enter a new coutry, they should be aware of that country's mores; the observance of the old, but sensible, advice that "when in Rome, do as the Romans do".
Therefore multiculturalism ought be a blending process, not a separative one. It revolves around the question of why a person of another ethnic background wishes to live in our society.
Sure, the goalposts are moving regularly, but the game is still the same one.

Joe I agree, Yuyutsu I also agree, well said and understood

There's that flag again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z49QfhD7zXY

Good video, Jay

Im not against immigration or people of other races/countries. I have been married for 40+ years to a woman that is not exactly white. She and all my children were born abroad.

What I stand against are beliefs that teach hate and violence, as evidenced by an ideology’s own writings, not to mention the actions of its followers everywhere.

None of us would have a problem going into Chinese, Vietnamese or other immigrant neighborhoods – with one exception. There is a group that resists integration and acceptance of common values. This same group is know for establishing no-go areas where they live and in which non-members are not only not welcome but attacked. This happens in many countries so it isn’t an abnormality. Perhaps the fact that this group accepts that non-members are “lower than animals” and they are “not to be friends” with them may explain this. The hate promoted by Monis had thousands of “likes” on Facebook. Obviously his feelings are shared by many.

Do multiculturalists like Mr. Ozdowski ever think about this? No, never; they call for more tolerance and condemn the victims for not being understanding.

In case I haven’t been clear, any country that accepts Islamic immigrants is asking for trouble. Muslims are not a race, ethnicity, nationality or gender. They are people that follow the mores of Allah and Mohammad, embracing beliefs contrary to the ideals of secular law, equality, freedom of speech and religion (in case anyone hasn’t noticed the obvious), Muslims (ie, “the best of peoples”) come to the West and they bring their hate and violence with them and all the multicultural management in the world will not change this.

Now a relevant article:
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/robert_reich_tribalism_is_tearing_america_apart_partner/

Substitute tribalism for multiculturalism and Australia for America, and nothing changes. The only significant difference is that immigration is imported tribalism, rather than homegrown.

The fact is there are tribes and there are tribes; there are cultures and there are cultures. Some are easily integrated and accepting and some resist all manner of cooperation because they are based on a supremacist, violent dogma

Hi Kactuz,

I'm all for tolerance - within the bounds of the rule of law, the same rules of law for all. Any actions which flout those common rules, and most certainly those which call for the overthrow of democracy, etc., or tolerance of terrorism, are thereby beyond those bounds.

So the sensible, multicultural response to intolerance is intolerance: not to be tolerant of any bigoted opinion or action which goes beyond the rule of law, or anti-women or terrorist actions, no matter who the perpetrator, or how crazy he, might be.

So, IF a Muslim woman is spat at or has her hijab pulled or is insulted, then that must be opposed with the full force of the law. If any Muslim girl is taken off to be mutilated, or to be married off at 12 or 14 to someone she has never seen, then those are actions which must be opposed with the full force of the law.

No woman should be beaten, even if the bruises don't show - what is it with some people, if someone can't see the bruises, it's okay ? What primitive and backward sense of morality does that stem from ?

Racial or ethnic slurs should not be tolerated, from 'either' side. Any actions which incite gullible people to attempt murder, or to terrorise innocent people, or to encourage the beheading of non-believers in the horrible cause of one's own religious beliefs, should not be tolerated.

If any Christian beheads someone, it should not be 'tolerated'. If Buddhists attack and murders others on the basis of their different ethnicity or religion, they should be condemned, they most certainly should not be tolerated, and those being attacked - say, Rohingas - should be given urgent priority as refugees, even if they can't afford the ten thousand dollars which might get them on a boat, and a photo with SHY.

Question: are there any parts of Australia where Muslims dare not go, for fear of being assaulted ? If so, they should be identified and condemned. And vice versa.

Joe

Joe,
You'd understand the tribal concepts of payback and blood feud, Lebanese,Afghans, Pakistanis and some Indians are tribal people, they don't have a culture or communities nor do they obey the law of the land, it's not even a case of putting family first, it's family and nothing else.
Kactuz,
The results of surveys in Islamic countries couldn't be more emphatic, support for fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood etc and acceptance of military Jihad and asymmetrical guerrilla warfare as "politics by other means" are universal. The figure of 70% disapproval of 9-11 is usually seized upon by Islamophiles and traitors but that figure results from a question about whether it was right to kill innocent civilians in the prosecution of Jihad, the Koran clearly state that it is not, so religious Muslims will answer no, otherwise they support Islamist politics and violent Jihad as long as the "guilty" are targeted and the innocent spared