Excellent article John! Exactly what Australia needs to do to - protect what we have here now and stop any more immigration without much stricter controls.

I am really concerned with the Left in this country who, as you said, will argue that multi-culturalism is working and that we should keep on funding anything that promotes it. They really have missed the point - Australia does not want people living here who don't accept Australia's way of life, can't speak at least some understandable English, don't want to integrate with us, wish to segregate themselves in their own ghettos and preach hatred of our dominant culture etc

Essentially, if people don't come here and accept and integrate into Australian society - accepting our Christian heritage, rule of law, democratic system, language and customs - then they are not welcome in my view.

Just look at Sheik Muhammed Omran, who preaches division and claims that Osama Bin Laden is a good man (see Lateline transcript, 25/7) and blames the war in Iraq for terrorism (see 60 Minutes transcript 24/7)!! Quite frankly, if I were immigration minister I would have him and quite a number of others deported and I certainly would not be allowing any more Islamic immigration until strict criteria, such as those which you advocate in your article, were put in used to determine people who will accept and integrate into Australian culture.

Whilst I respect the intellect and career of John Stone I have to disagee with his proposition that multiculturalism has been a failure and should be halted. To me Mr Stone sounds like the late Enoch Powell MP in Britain during the 1960's. Ranting's which polarised people and demonised minority groups with different skin colors and cultures; causing unnessary friction and division in the community. Populations have been on the move for centuries; why even Captain Cook was a migrant of sorts, although I don't think he turned up with papers requesting permanent residency from the Aboriginal population. Similarly many of the critics of multicultural policies have no hesistation visiting China town or Lygon Street in Carlton and enjoying a lasagne or a latte. Stopping muslims migrating is no gaurantee to prevent terrorism. However the de-occupation of middle east countries, attacking world poverty, trade policies which prevent both the real and perceived dominance and exploitation by the west in my view have the best chance of success to dim the flames of terrorism.
Terrorism can be carry out by anyone and is not religion specific behaviour. Examples such as the unibombers in America, IRA et al in Ireland. What governments can do is address some of the more obvious causes such as those mentioned above more vigorously.

John... that took courage, well done.
Identifying specific groups of people or ideologies and recognizing the dangers of inviting them to your doorstep, is as "racist" as telling Trout Fishermen that they are racist for not wanting European carp to come to our waterways.

Acknowledging that:

"achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat by any means" (Marxism)or
"eliminate the 'Jewish problem' by a final solution" (Nazism)
or
"The world and all that is in it, belongs to Allah and his Apostle"(Islam)

-are dangerous ideas is not 'racism'.

The hard core followers of any idea, are directly connected to the foundation documents/texts/founder of that idea or movement. This applies as much to Christians, Buddhists, Hindus as it does to any other movement.

The critical goal, is to identify dangers in the foundation documents/texts and founder of any idea or movement.

As a Christian (conservative evangelical) I am most happy for my own views to be compared with those expressed by Jesus. I also defy anyone to find in the life and teaching of Christ, anything suggestive of the types of historical behavior commonly said to be 'Christian' (crusades blah blah). The one theme which peremeates our Lords words and work, is self sacrifice.

Aramis, when Enoch powell was spouting his fury, as far as I know their had not been a 911 or a determined attack on British Society as we have just witnessed. But does it show he was just before his time ?

We need to distinguish between responsible Social policy and personal attitudes. A Christian might be able to love a Muslim on a one to one basis, but this does not blind him to the dangers of a large Islamic population which will seek to subjugate and humilate and specially tax him as a 'Dhimmi'.

The greatest danger we face today, is not the re structuring of social policy, which should be a reasonably emotion-less exercise, but it is the knee jerk volatile and often violent reaction of the man in the street who feels powerless. That is the kind of reaction which saw the Doncaster mosque firebombed

Mr Stone inveighs against "official multiculturalism", but if the first/best example he can come up with is the SBS, I'm still at a loss to understand what we are supposed to be afraid of here.

His remedies are pretty vague too.

Abolishing the SBS simply deprives us of an alternative to the commercial TV stations, which is good news for the Kerries but pretty shoddy for the rest of us.

Halting Muslim immigration is simply a knee-jerk reaction, which would exacerbate the existing us-and-them to a potentially dangerous level. To work effectively, it would need to be coupled with the re-export of those already here, which would put us on a level with the average despot.

His three proposals for tweaking citizenship requirements are pretty meaningless in this context - it is difficult to work out how they would have any impact unless (see above) you only allow citizens the right to stay, and re-export the rest.

And the sixth - only allow people in who speak English - is completely laughable. What language did the British bombers speak, John?

The context - "we must accept that we are at war and start behaving accordingly" - is everything here.

Mr Stone protests that his proposals are not "racist", but "cultural", but it is disingenuous of him to use the words "we are at war" and not believe it will stir up a racist response.

But the most unfortunate aspect of this is that John Stone is an educated and relatively well-known commentator. Having applied his substantial intellect to the problem, he comes away with so little of relevance, and so much that relies on emotive reaction and gut-response from people who prefer not to think for themselves. This is an enormous shame, and is an indicator of either i) the problem is indeed intractable or ii) that he is quite deliberately stirring up pseudo-nationalist sentiment in the cause of ultra-right-wing conservatism.

Blaming multiculturalism for the terrorist attacks, and arguing for policies that would see Australia retract from any meaningful dialogue with a globalised world, is a counter productive extension of the trends that lead to terrorism in the first place.

Understandably, many people across many nations have become uneasy about the rate of cultural change in a globalised society. In the West we see that ommunication and trade have become fluid, Asian economies are on the rise, Judaeo Christianity's monopoly on values is on the decline (I blame Paris Hilton) and we are regularly confronted with different cultures and ways of doing things. Rather than focusing on our common humanity, our leaders have reacted to this unease with cheap opportunism, xenophobia, scapegoating of local minorities and a general emphasis on why difference is something to fear. Our fear keeps us uneasy and helps them get re-elected (children overboard).

As leaders they should be encouraging us to focus on the benefits of different cultural perspectives, and the fact that when it comes down it, our core values (ie a desire for stability and mutual relationships of care and respect with others in our communities) are very similar. This is multiculturalism.

Encouraging stereotyping of other groups that you can't be bothered trying to understand, setting close minded emotional and structural boundaries about whose in and who's out only exacerbates conflict in the community. Ironically it actually increases the likelihood of terrorism, as groups that are already disaffected may start to become radicalised. This kind of 'race to the bottom' (shoot to kill policies, regressive immigration etc) is just what the terrorists want. They are people who have given up on legitimate political ways of effecting change and just act out aggression. If they have their way people will stop trying to understand each other, pick a side and start killing each other. I believe attacks on multiculturalism like this article actually promote this kind of aggressive mentality.

Are we so hopeless as to play into the terrorists hands?

Pericles,
there are elements of truth in your comments, as would always be the case with something so flexible and nebulous as culture etc.
It seems to me that John is actually looking for answers, which may not be the cuppa of everyone.

I disagree that we have to 'export' the existing muslim population, I feel limiting immigration would be a sufficient measure.

As for John's 'right wing' etc connection, supposed or real, well he/they have as much right in this 'multi-cultural' society to influence the structure as those who would seek to swing it in a different direction.

Now, one out of left field, I wish they have the same passion to 'limit the immigration' of Chinese manufactured goods :)
But thats another thread.

I can't wait till our dear friends of the green/left arrive- we will see huge increase in the statistical occurence of 'racist' 'intolerance' 'narrow minded' and similar adjectives which seem to defy connection to the subject matter usually, but give them a 'I'm here and I matter' kind of buzz.

Oh.. not to forget that as of today, all of we Christians who post here, are now:

-British Israelite believers (huh ?)
-All (including Philo who is Orthodox) affiliated with the 'Christian Identity' group of the USA.
-Anti Semitic
-Intolerant.
-Vicious
-BAD Christians. (refer user manual)
-Most likely have a cache of M16's under our beds (militia)
-More than likely white supremacists.
-Most likely will deny our connections. (This is the 'lock' on the pen the author of the post has placed us in)
-Right wing (I detest right wing politics)

Its so laughable to be good sitcom material :) Pity it comes from the hand of people who appear to want to be taken seriously. (and who most likely will not after this)