The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Integration or disintegration: a test for immigrants > Comments

Integration or disintegration: a test for immigrants : Comments

By Bill Muehlenberg, published 22/9/2006

Simple demands: they should have lived here for four years; they should know a bit about Australian history and values; and they should be able to speak English.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
The current laws require:

"English Language Requirement
You should be able to speak and understand basic English

You may be exempt from this requirement if:

you are a person aged 50 years or over

a person whose ability is affected by a physical or intellectual impairment

if you provide evidence of having completed the English language tuition with the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) and you can respond in simple English on aspects of the application."

So John Howard was stating nothing new. My question is why it was raised at all. Devisive Johnny being mean and tricky yet again.
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 22 September 2006 10:05:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we should go one further. I think everyone should also be required to get a working knowledge of the local indigenous language. And citizens who can't speak English intelligibly should be deported immediately to Nauru.
Posted by JaneS, Friday, 22 September 2006 10:18:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lol Steve...The real question would be, why are the moonbats coming out of the woodwork and gettin all riled up if it was nothing new?
Posted by Alan Grey, Friday, 22 September 2006 10:18:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“If a person wishing to live in this country is not willing to learn the language (and four years should be plenty of time for that) and understand a bit about what Australia stands for and believes in, including some of our history, then a good case can be made that that person is not fit for citizenship.”

Hear hear!

“While there certainly can be diversity, there also needs to be a core of unified values and convictions that all can agree too. Assimilation and integration, in other words, is vital to any nation seeking to survive and thrive. No country will succeed for long if it allows a million competing values, beliefs and languages to run unchecked, with no social and cultural glue to hold it all together.”

Hear hear, again. This is only common sense.

“To expect unchecked diversity without some unity is a recipe for disaster. Yet many on the left seem to want just that.”

Many on the left want ‘just that’ because it is the aim of the left to destabilize society. Comments from the left on OLO confirm that this is the case. The ‘ethnic industry’ doesn’t want to lose its influence and well paid jobs for people with unpronounceable names and poor English, so they are, of course, going to whine about ‘draconian’ measures. They know that they are unnecessary troublemakers and a drain on the public purse. The Greens, of course, are a bunch of freaks, and the Australian Democrats are fast becoming so.

If people don’t like the long-overdue changes to citizenship, they know what to do
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 22 September 2006 10:20:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But Leigh, I have yet to see anyone elucidate what these values are, apart from the legal requirements that everyone is automatically required to observe. Someone mentioned 'a fair go' as being quintessentially Australian... which would require the disqualification of half of the Australian Government.

It's easy to say, "It's common sense!" but what appears common sense is often simply instinctive knee jerk reactions to things that on further investigation, appear quite nonsensical and very far from clear.
Posted by JaneS, Friday, 22 September 2006 10:24:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gotta watch those "unpronouncable names" hey Leigh? By the way, do I pronounce that as "Leeee" or "Lay"? ;-)

Interesting to note that studies into adults learning a second language in-country conclude all converge on time period of about 5-7 years it takes on average of daily usage of the new language, talking with native speakers, to attain a level of proficiency rated as "advanced" or "near-native".

5-7 years.

And we're gonna sit 'em down for an English test after 4 years.

Hmmm.....

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for English language learning and English language testing. Heck, that's the industry I'm training in.

The Adult Migrant Education Service funds up to 510 free hours of English language training, usually delivered over about 18 months, for certain eligible new adult migrants. Again, note the studies which conclude you need nearly double that number of hours' tuition to attain good proficiency.

So the gummint will demand proficiency, and then enforace a test that is at leasy one year too early, and with about half the training required.

Double hmmm.....

Simple principle of liberalism: If the government (that's you, dear taxpayer) wants to infringe on personal liberties, such as demanding what language you should speak, then the gummint (that's you, dear taxpayer) can pay for it.
Posted by Mercurius, Friday, 22 September 2006 10:32:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Steve M on this - why do we beat this values stuff up along with English etc etc - those provsions have always been in place - what has happened of siignifigancein recent years that brings this folly to the front of peoples minds?
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 22 September 2006 12:12:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh: "Many on the left want ‘just that’ because it is the aim of the left to destabilize society."

I'll acknowledge that some elements of extreme leftist ideology would lean to the destabilization of society. Just as I believe the elements of the extreme right will do the same.

For you to say that this is the intention of the left however, is just plain ignorant. It can happen as a by product, but find me a leftist who isn't on the extreme fringe who genuinely wants a collapsed, destabilised western society.

With this argument, you dismiss the entire leftist dialogue as being destructive. That makes you no better than those who refuse to believe President Bush is totally evil, and refuse to listen to anything he says at all.

Sure, I think he's made the wrong decisions.
But at the heart of the matter, people undertake these actions because they believe it is the correct course of action.
Bush himself doesn't need more money, so I can't really argue that that is what is driving him.

The point I'm getting at here (aside from the fact that I could just as easily point out the destabilizing influence of the right in inflaming tensions) is that the goal of the left is not to destabilize society, that notion is preposterous, and is an impression you have formed in your mind to reinforce your political leanings.

I'm certainly a lefty, but I wouldn't be as stupid as to actually believe either side of the political fence are driven by a desire to destroy or destabilize society as we know it.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 22 September 2006 2:20:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How 'bout we apply the English test to CityRail train guards? Surely they should be made to converse in English rather than the mysterious language they currently use.
Posted by Sage, Friday, 22 September 2006 2:33:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sage, I think it is a Dutch dialect used by Rail Guards.

For example, as one wit remarked, every time the train departs, the guard announces an homage to the famous Dutch explorer "Stencklier D'Sclussen".
Posted by Mercurius, Friday, 22 September 2006 2:37:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By criticising my comment, I assume that Mr Muehlenberg is happy if the government's debate on citizenship does just involve shallow jingoistic nationalism and prejudice about Vegemite, mateship and the Melbourne Cup.

I shouldn't be surprised, but nor should he be surprised that some migrants, and even some of us who were born here, might find that offensive, and yes - even divisive.

Mr Howard and his apologists continue to assert that there is nothing divisive about the "demands" they are making. I can only assume they either don't talk with or just don't listen to the thousands of migrant Australians (yes genuine dinki-di, ridgy-didge Aussies) who find it offensive to suggest that people who don't speak good English are somehow not genuine Australians.

Why is it that migrant Australians have to meet demands to know a bit about Australian history and values when many people born here do not?

The real political correctness is that shown by Mr Muehlenberg, shouting down all dissent as unAustralian and insisting that unpleasant realities - such as prejudice and racism - are not to be named. One can only assume that this makes it easier to pretend these realities do not exist, and thus one can't be accused of pandering to them.

As usual, indigneous Australians do not rate a mention. The base assertion is that if you don't speak English, you're not a real Aussie. It is not indicated where this leaves people who don't speak fluent English but whose connection with this country goes back 100 times longer than that of the spokesmen for white Anglosphere supremacy who now assert the sole right to determine what constitutes 'Australian' values.

The real tragedy with the hollow jingoism being served up is that our nation would really benefit from a genuine debate about what citizenship means and what it should entail. For example, it would be nice to see, alongside the demands on migrants, some suggestion of the obligations on government towards their citzenry. Or would this run contrary to one-way version of mutual obligation that this government is so fond of?
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Friday, 22 September 2006 2:40:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am confused yet again.

There has been an english "test" for people applying for citizenship for a long time.

So why do we have citizens who cannot speak english (I don't know of any), surely their application should have been rejected. Why are the people who approved citizenship not exposed and sacked from their jobs?

Oh I forgot, Its OK if you donate to the Liberal Party Berowra campaign at PO Box 1866 Hornsby Northgate Shopping Centre (Minister Ruddock's electorate office).

Ruddock opens heart, Liberals fill wallet
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/05/1054700327441.html

The Howard govt. has politicised immigration for its own political ends, this disgraceful action is the cause of the angst we have today.
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 22 September 2006 2:55:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew, shouldn't you be rounding up stray cats on Manus Island?
Posted by Sage, Friday, 22 September 2006 3:14:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've never done that before Sage, so it would be a strange time to start doing it now? (or are you just assuming that anyone who disagrees with our government will end up imprisoned with the refugees in offshore camps)
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Friday, 22 September 2006 3:19:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your contribution to the debate Senator, you are a rational voice of reason. Which is much needed, because I feel this debate brings out the worst in us Australians. Even the usual group of Howard apologists seem to bring an extra dose of single mindedness to this issue.

Global warming, Industrial relations, the phony war on terror (better known as oil grab 2000), forget about these important issues, slagging off immigrants is much easier.
Posted by Carl, Friday, 22 September 2006 3:35:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with this article. But I really don't see what is so difficult about the question of values. It only becomes difficult when we try to be too prescriptive. In my opinion, and I'd be interested to see if there are any dissenters, we could probably all agree to the following broad propositions:

* There is a separation between Church and State. We accept that legislators will have values informed by their personal beliefs but we would reject any notion of Church or religion deciding what everyone should do just as we would reject the State deciding what everyone should believe.

* There is equality before the law. Although this is difficult in practice because it is clearly easier to "get a fair go" in the courts if you can afford $5000 a day barristers, we would all believe that it's important to strive to have courts that treat people impartially, objectively and according to law, regardless of who they are.

* There is equality in society. Although different people may have very different lives because of their wealth, education, opportunities in life, good fortune, good looks or whatever, in the end everyone in Australia is equal and should be treated equally by others regardless of race, religion or gender.

I don't claim we always live up to those ideals. I do think they are ideals and values that most of us in Australia would agree to.

Regards

Kevin
Posted by Kevin, Friday, 22 September 2006 3:37:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew Bartlett pops his head in to demonstrate why the Democrats is doomed to irrelevance.

Meanwhile Bill Muehlenburg makes perfect sense, and many of his critics don't.

Australia needs a core culture, which is derived from Anglo culture. Aboriginals make up less than 2% of the population, with many languages meaning the lack of speakers make it impractical and ludicrous to expect Aussies to learn. English is the national language, and has been since it was colonised with little resistance from the original inhabitants.

Now, get over yourselves and speak ENGLISH
Posted by hells angel, Friday, 22 September 2006 3:55:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like I said what has happened lately to trigger this stupid discussion -

I lived next door to a lady who had been here twenty years - hardly knew a word of english - her husband on the other hand looked and spoke like Chips Rafferty (you younguns might not know but he wuz a big star - curiously to some he was quintessentially Orstrayen)

We managed - we even liked each other
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 22 September 2006 4:26:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Go one further,

Utilising an immigratin officer, review them after 2 years and if they are deemed to not have taken positive steps in integrating or participating with Australian Society and the values we uphold, we give them 3 months to rectify we revoke their citizenship and put them back on the boat.

There are some who take advantage of our kind social security system, some who move to a ghetto and close off with only their own culture to integrate with, and some simply do not embrace the opportunity they are given, and this is the group that i assume they are trying to target by these new laws.

Its not just get a ticket and in you go, it should be what you do when you get in that is just as important.
Posted by Realist, Friday, 22 September 2006 4:36:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*typo. I meant to say, those who refuse to listen to anything bush says, and believe he is totally evil.

And Hell's Angel... did you listen to what Senator Bartlett was actually saying?

Unless I'm totally mistaken, the point he made was that these recent comments have led to nothing but "shallow jingoistic nationalism"

Is he wrong? is this debate actually producing anything else?

The real question is ultimately, how do we form a cohesive society that still respects the rights and beliefs of the individual.

Bartlett's comments don't seem to have actually attacked this in any way, but having read your post Hell's Angel, I can't help but feel you've simplified his statements into simplistic themes that you can feel comfortable attacking.

Ironically, this was precisely what he was railing against.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 22 September 2006 4:52:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As Steve points out there is already a language test requirement for citizenship. There are also language services available to new migrants. At least there were when I came here 26 years ago. Finally you'd think the market is a pretty good incentive to learn english. If you speak the lingo you can get a better job and earn more cash. In an age where most husbands and wifes work you'd think this takes care of itself.

As far as a values exam goes do we really think that an awareness test will stop terrorists? Everyone with a driving license is aware of the traffic rules yet every police force has an entire division devoted to traffic offenders.

Besides who will define the values? Do they change over time? If we assume that our laws reflect our values, perhaps it would make more sense and be a lot less controversial to set an exam on our laws, our political structure and life skills. eg what forms of discrimination are not allowed, three tiers of government, donating to the salvos is not the same as topping up your super, etc etc. The same course could be given to high school students so that they don't miss out.
Posted by gusi, Friday, 22 September 2006 4:58:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jane S says (22Sep2006 10:18:21 AM): "I think we should go one further. I think everyone should also be required to get a working knowledge of the local indigenous language."

Wow!

Living where I do, I'd have to learn the Darug language. How am I going to find lessons to teach me that?
Posted by David Latimer, Friday, 22 September 2006 5:13:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew Bartlett is guilty of the very thing that he accuses John Howard of,ie wedge politics.Notions of white supremacy just because immigrants are asked to learn English,know and respect a few basic tenets,is not over the top.Andrew wants to court the immigrant vote by driving a wedge between the new arrivals and those already established.He is the one creating the "them and us mentality" all for his own political advantage.

The only product differentiation the Democrats have,is to move further towards the loopy left,and Andrew's comments above,have verified and consolidated their further demise.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 22 September 2006 5:27:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reckon Steve nailed it early on. Existing requirements already lay out language requirements and no surprise they're nothing new.

Whcih raises the obvious question, why now? Alan asks "why are the moonbats coming out of the woodwork and gettin all riled up if it was nothing new?" Well that's just the point. If this ain't a feint, a wink and a nod towards the We-were-here-first mob, a latent signal the PM is on 'your side', why mention it?

The changes are, after all, purely symbolic. What symbol you take from it depends on how strongly you believe them bloody foreigners should mind their step when they get here, bringing all their weird habits and clothes and languages with them. "Stencklier D'Sclussen" indeed.

A final note - great to see Andrew Bartlett taking the time to mix it on an open forum
Posted by bennie, Friday, 22 September 2006 7:00:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Australian citizens can't speak English (at all) then I'm quite happy to learn another language in order to communicate with them.

I'm certainly not in the business of denying a fellow human being citizenship because I'm:

a) too lazy to learn their language or

b) applicants oppose the current government; their values and ideology.
Posted by strayan, Friday, 22 September 2006 7:53:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despite reading this and a number of similar threads, I am really scratching my head trying to work out what, exactly, is meant by “Australian values” – that is the common values we hold that are different from the commonly held human values of anywhere else. The supposed values that, for some reason, it's necessary to gain explicit consent to from migrants (or visitors) before they’re allowed to join our club.

Perhaps I am a suspicious type, but when I hear the term “Aussie values” I hear dog whistling that – lets be explicit about this – is a calculated and cynical attempt to appeal to those who want to create the very kind of nationalist myths and racially based monocultural fantasies that most Australians I know find unequivocably repulsive.

English language skills – yes, I can definitely appreciate these as important for anyone trying to engage with any kind of depth and competence with the dominant culture, although these skills are pretty poor in large numbers of Australians whether born here or overseas. But perhaps those posters claiming a central role for “Aussie values” could drop the motherhood statements and enlighten the rest of us (including migrants) on exactly what these are.

Oh, and which "bits" of Australian history? Brownlow medalists? Don Bradman's batting scores?
Posted by Snout, Friday, 22 September 2006 8:15:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some of you need a history lesson .

Yet again we see the PM comment on the Australian culture and migration...

But he is wrong.

He is wrong about Integration and wrong to single out Muslims.
We had Assimilation under the White Australia policy.
We had Integration after that.
We now have Multiculturalism.

Personally I don't agree with multiculturalism, but seeing as I live in a democracy, I "tolerate" the decisions our so-called representative Governments make. Even if like this one, we were never given a choice about it.. Here is a policy, that surely required a referendum be held on it, if any policy ever did.

Under Mutliculturalism, there is no requirement foir Integration. If the PM wants that then he should change the policy to that of Integration. Instead of fiddling at the edges and continually changing the definition to try and shore up greater acceptance of it withing the wider community. Australia has been advertised for over a generation now to migrants as being Multicultural, that is; a society of many cultures. Who are we then to say to them, sorry,... you need to adopt our language and our values, when language and values are integral to culture. This is the rod we have made for our own back. This is the policy that dissenters have been branded racist for since its inception.
No.. Mr Howard is wrong. If the policy is wrong, then let's see it changed. Let's see someone with the courage of their convictions.

PS Andrew Bartlett is clueless on this as with most topics.
Posted by T800, Friday, 22 September 2006 9:02:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm in agreement with Snout (& most others above) on this. Bill's article amounts to little more than more dog-whistling. Howard (and to a slightly lesser extent, Beazley) has learnt well from his experience of the One Nation phenomenon of a few years back: the Australian electorate is - and has been more or less continuously since Federation - inherently predisposed towards xenophobia, so a pitch to the lowest common denominator is necessary in order to get elected.

Such is democracy, Australian-style. Maybe would-be citizens should be required to know that, too!
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 22 September 2006 10:41:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How is this for one simple way to help migrants fit into the "Australian way of life" Publish a list of behaviour which the majority of our citizens consider to be offensive and/or not acceptable. If this list is used to moderate the behaviour of both present and proposed citizens, then we are left with what could be called a "way of life". Of course this proposal will have to be very carefully studied by a panel of "experts" before it is implemented. Should be entertaining anyway.
Posted by ALAMO, Friday, 22 September 2006 11:27:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALMO says "Publish a list of behaviour which the majority of our citizens consider to be offensive and/or not acceptable."

Believe it or not, every state publishes such a list. Choose your state from the following list:

W.A.: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cc94/
N.S.W.: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/
QUEENSLAND: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/
S.A.: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/clca1935262/
VICTORIA: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/
TASMANIA http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cca1924115/sch2.html
Posted by David Latimer, Saturday, 23 September 2006 12:13:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just love how our existentialist Social engineers use construction and Utility language to explain their Nihilistic vision;

A few of my pet terminologies are; Diversity, in Utility this means it has a multi purpose and has a diverse range of applications to achieve a product; and The Nihilists interpretation it becomes Apartheid. Hmmmm. A bit of Psychology’s reverse polarity I must say.

The second is Tolerance; a beautiful word in construction when it comes to measure the mathematical stress points and load sharing abilities before a structure becomes unstable, and how much stress it can hold in ration to opposing negative forces
I must agree here, some social engineers must have had a premonition of what was to come. Nihilisms collapse of Civilization’s construction, and the ends of Reason.
Any questions?
Posted by All-, Saturday, 23 September 2006 8:22:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, All-, the same question most of us have been asking all along:

What, exactly, are these supposedly uniquely Australian values that we're wanting migrants to adopt?

Here’s a few of my own favorite “pet” terms, all from Bill’s article and the responses above:

what Australia stands for and believes in
the multicultural lobby
the forces of political correctness (PC)
Australian values
Shared set of values and beliefs
Core of unified values and beliefs
Assimilation and Integration
Survive and thrive
Shared view of what it means to be Australian
Cohesion
Stability
Common themes
Core (as opposed to non-core?) beliefs
Recipe for disaster
Certain agreed upon values
Reject the host nation’s values
Orwellian doublespeak
Ethnic industry
Destabilise society
Unnecessary troublemakers (with well paid jobs)
Core culture (derived from Anglo culture)
Colonised with little resistance from the original inhabitants
Move to a ghetto
Do not embrace the opportunity
Loopy left.........

.......Here boy!
Posted by Snout, Saturday, 23 September 2006 9:29:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why has this debate arisen now, when the requirements that Howard mentions are already in place? Simple - there is a large increase in the intake of migrant workers to fill skill shortages within the Australian workforce. Whilst citizenship isnt an issue for these workers at the moment (some will stay, some will return home), new migrants with poor english skills in particular is currently a topical issue. So forget the so-called divisive political agenda, its just a common concern. Also forget that this is aimed at Muslims - its aimed at anyone who doesnt speak English as a native language. Hands up all those who have rung call-centres (for banks, phone companies, mail-order), or been rung by tele-marketers, and have to deal with someone with poor english skills and a strong accent. If this doesnt frustrate you, then my guess is you're a bit simple.

I dont think any expects that migrants (whether they become citizens or not) speak the Queen's english (perfect rounded vowels in a clipped accent). But the ability to communicate in an effective manner on a day to day basis is essential. I wouldnt dream of moving to another country without having a reasonable grip on the language before I went.

Being a tax adviser I have the unenviable job of attempting to explain our complex taxation laws to those moving to this country (lucky for me I live out in the country and am not faced with migrants too often). Let me tell you, its hard enough explaining basic tax concepts to a new migrant (I've had trouble explaining to a British migrant that here the govt wont let you claim a tax deduction for personal superannuation contributions). Its so very much harder when they have business interests in their country of origin, which will be taxed here, under completely different rules to what they are used to (in many cases on a completely different tax year), and then when they dont have a good grip on the english language, well!! Need I say any more!
Posted by Country Gal, Saturday, 23 September 2006 9:54:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I notice that other posters want to whinge about no-one being game to try and define the values that we should be teaching our migrants. Simple - we reserve the right to whinge about everything! We are a nation of whingers. Oh sure, we get on and get the job done at the end of the day, but we make sure we get a good whinge in about our boss, our job, "bloody migrants" taking our jobs, the weather, the rain (or lack of), high levels of pollution, not enough time.

We love our environment (oh sure we mistreat it often, but we love what our country is anyway), we take pride that we have never been subject to a civil war (most countries have at some stage in their history), we love our freedom to express our opinion (and whinge), we love the choices that we are allowed to make (where to live, where to send our kids to school, where to shop, take bus, walk, drive, ride). There are so many things that make our nation better than anywhere else in the world. We need to teach our history to our migrants and to our school children. They all need to know when our country has been to war and why, how our parliamentary system works (or not, depending on your beliefs), why we still feel a strong connection to the land despite 90% of the population living in cities. What built the nation into what it is today.

Neither multiculturalism nor assimilation works. The balance is much finer than that. Anyone who suggest otherwise is a simpleton. Too many differences, and we dont have a common thread, a common goal. Too much the same and we impinge on peoples freedoms. So we walk a tightrope, and hope that we get the balance right.

Have a listen to the words of John Williamson in True Blue. It can bring a tear to the eye. Try it somtime.
Posted by Country Gal, Saturday, 23 September 2006 9:56:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here are some of my “values”:

Universal high quality public health care.

Universal high quality public education.

Adequate housing for EVERY person.

So, it would appear that I am at odds with the government, the economic system under which I am forced to live, and some of my fellow “Australian Citizens”.

The “values” debate is a diversion from the real issues.

The prime “value” expressed in our political system is the right to “profit” from the work of others, and accumulate obscene wealth while others have very little. Every other human “value” or need is essentially subjugated to this core “value”.

And it is not coincidental that the government is singling out Muslims as being at odds with our “Australian values” at the very same time that we are embarked on a murderous imperial quest to colonize the oil producing regions of the Muslim Middle East. How convenient that it is being highlighted to us how Muslims are less than “civilized” i.e. killing a few thousand of them won’t matter much, and certainly won’t affect our status as a “civilized” nation.
Posted by tao, Saturday, 23 September 2006 10:12:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CountryGal and Steve Madden

I think you hit the point, but took the negative side of it.

The positive side to mentioning 'now' the idea of Australian Values which appear not to be much 'new' is perhaps part of a bigger but unspoken campaign to de-alienate, or..bring in the from the cultural cold, those who's ancestry and history and culture is signified in the various components of the Union Jack.

Rather than being 'divisive' it is rather promoting harmony and solidarity with the largest slice of the Australian population and seeking to embrace newcomers into that sense of Australian-ness which arose with the founding of the nation.

The current course and direction, as illustrated by some almost tragic statements in the DIMIA annual report where 'diversity' is celebrated and promoted, in fact is not a pathway to 'rich diversity' it is a recipe for Cultural Alienation of most Australians.

The 'Aussie/Digger' response to such beaurocratic codswallop in the past has been 'Lambing Flat' rebellion. (and more recently Cronulla.)

The diggers knew for a fact that the government was hamstrung by British treaties with the Chinese (out of guilt most likely for the opium wars) which allowed the free migration of Chinese to parts of the Empire. Australia was clearly regarded as 'culturally expendable' to the Crown of the day, but hey..wait a minute.. the blokes on the ground said.. NOOOO.. we don't wish to be culturally swamped by alien people, culture and language.

So, a number of them, drove the Chinese out of Lambing flat and fought the government over the issue.

Anytime when 'multicultural' foaming at the mouth occurs, it means that the actual unfolding of cultural alienation is being shrouded in cute words and flowery phrases designed to assuage public anger over the deliberate erosion of their identity.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 23 September 2006 10:19:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jee wiz Snout, if you have not figured it out yet, then nothing I, or anyone can say will inform you, so it must be a rhetorical question that no person can or would answer.

But let me tell you , Professor Revolt Oliver many years ago describes Australia as the Worlds last Civilizations out post; now let test your authenticity in Judgment.
If you do not have a civilization, what do you have?; the diversity of Useless idiots and Anarchy where civil and ethical rights no longer prosper (Sounds like now days) or everyone can live in some Utopian pan – Universal sphere where reality never meets the present space time continuum; Lets test your knowledge on Quantum Quark Physics.
I thought so.
You can find out where and how it started here: If you dare: http://www.democracyfrontline.org/articles/
You might learn something useful for a change.
Posted by All-, Saturday, 23 September 2006 11:25:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We all know that the comments of John Howard and his clan are aimed at the Muslem Community which is non-integratable and disintegrational.

How can a nation integrate into another nation and not cause one to submit to the other?

Most Muslems who come here are from Asia - most are well educated and financially viable. However their islamic values are inconpatible and inflexible and a great hinderance for blending into the Aussie mix.

Many other religious groups have well adjusted and their contribution is immense - even though a lot haven't mastered the suggested values (English, sport, ...)

So the problem we are facing is the Islamic nation as a migrant group and not a particular race or ethnicity.
Posted by coach, Saturday, 23 September 2006 11:35:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Latimer
Touche
Rgds
Posted by ALAMO, Saturday, 23 September 2006 3:12:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two values from two young Australian born muslims on SBS Insight.

No.1, My religion comes before my loyalty to Australia.

No.2. I live by Sharia law, not Australian law.

Makes you feel relaxed and comfortable, doesn't it?
Posted by mickijo, Saturday, 23 September 2006 4:02:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mickijo,

I watched that program and I think you are taking what was said out of context, if not deliberately misrepresenting it.

I'm quite relaxed and comfortable about sharing this country with the Muslims on that show.

I'm less relaxed and comfortable about the whipping up of Islamophobia.
Posted by tao, Saturday, 23 September 2006 4:29:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To advance Australia fair.
Posted by Steve Madden, Saturday, 23 September 2006 4:42:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tao,

To me and all Australians who care for this country and those who understand the islamic mentality of denial, cry-victim, and deceit, we can read through the lines even when these young men and women lie through their teeth to promote Islam by sugar coating it...

here's part of the actual transcript - can you care to tell us which part was out uf context?

JENNY BROCKIE: But you haven't answered my question. My question to you is about those core values that have been espoused. Now, democracy, secularism, do you believe in those things?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Muslims do hold a unique set of values which will definitely, and I'll say very unequivocally, which will go against notions of secularism and democracy because Islam puts the role of the creator as the pillar for both the personal and the political.

But that is a belief. no-one is suggesting that the Muslims in this country are engaged in subversive activity to alter the political reality in this country.

We exist, we're under one set of laws and no-one is suggesting we are trying to implement sharia on this country. It's the exact opposite that is occurring
Posted by coach, Saturday, 23 September 2006 5:03:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tao,
I didn’t watch the program but I have read enough Islamic theology to know that what Mickijo is highlighting is not an isolated phenomena .It would even be argued by some of the Ulama that unless you had such view you are not a real or good Muslim.

The problem with you Tao is you are suffering from post-Vietnam leftist syndrome and not able see past the good underdog v's bad western oppressor senario/plot

P.S. Tao when the Taliban & their kind took control in Afghanistan, one of the first things they did was massacre thousands of leftists & their sympathizers-watch your back!
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 23 September 2006 5:07:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"post-Vietnam leftist syndrome"

Etiology:
Lying Governments, xenophopia, racist tendancies, more lies, conscription, oil, shame, embarrassment, more lies, conservative (not liberal) government, illness, been there done that.

Horus, learn some history - you may be called un-australian.
Posted by Steve Madden, Saturday, 23 September 2006 5:50:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What about English migrants, some of them need to learn how to speak the mother tongue, the best English is spoken in Edinbourgh and Dublin, over one hundred years ago the Australian government tried to put those kind of laws through Parliment to keep out Chinese migrants, it was found that Afgans could speak very good English so the laws were not approved, there are millions of Indians who would want to come here so they will be allowed to come, laws based on racial descrimination, "British speaking only" can be pigeon/holed with"anglo celts only"
those kind of laws were not passed in 1904 so why try to pass them now,
Posted by athair_siochain, Saturday, 23 September 2006 7:41:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALAMO,
Cheers!
Posted by David Latimer, Saturday, 23 September 2006 10:14:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder if support for: forcing through IR laws that 70% of the population feels are unjust, would be one of John Howard's Austalian Values?

If I were to emigrate I would consider it encumbent upon me to learn the language of my new country but I dont think that has anything to do with 'terrorism' which is what all this xenophobia is based on. If I was a terrorist seeking to destabilise a country I would definitely learn their language.
Posted by Rob513264, Saturday, 23 September 2006 11:05:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A four year wait is fine... this is for people who presumably have a permanant resident status anyways. These people aren't terribly inconvenienced IMHO - unless they're wanting to leave the country (ie to live OS), claim welfare, and/or use the Visa as a stepping stone.
Posted by WhiteWombat, Sunday, 24 September 2006 12:52:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I liked JaneS' comments very early in the thread.

Did we whiteys integrate when we came to Australia?

Did we learn the language?

Did we accept a set of values or learn their customs?

OOps I forgot integration only applies after you steal the land from it's original inhabitants... Phew I thought for a second people were being hypocritical...

For those who like to boast of their Christianity and Christian values amongst us ... when it says "Thou shalt not steal" does that rule apply to Christians or allegedly Christian Governments taking land off aborigines?

I wonder?
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 24 September 2006 1:16:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated....

you have some very pertinent points.
The land issue is probably the most difficult to feel comfortable with. In reality, that question is best directed toward those involved at the time, because most of us are as much subsequent "victims of history" ourselves.

Probably the best thing is to turn the question around at u.. are YOU ready to give up your land to Indigenous people ? I'll guarantee that if you looked hard enough you could find some who have a connection to yours (if u have any).

I've often thought of doing something like this.. finding Indigenous people in Melbourne, particularly those who have a connection to my own land, and telling them that 2 or 3 families can live freely on it.
Conditions would be:
a) Live traditionally, come and go as they please.
b) Hunt/Gather (in the Dandenongs)
c) Don't take or hurt what is mine.

Then I thought of another option.

The state government should compulsorily acquire all houses on the banks of Gardiners creek, and allow Aboriginals who have a connection to that area dwell in them. (Box Hill) A similar approach might be good on the banks of all major creeks.

Its a difficult one. The other option is seek to totally assimilate and integrate them, and compensate them such that they can then live as we do. I spoke with some indigenous people at the Maroondah festival this year. All they want is 'Equality'.

For practical purposes, I don't think the mass expulsion of you and me and all our kind would lessen the problem, rather it would create worse. I'd be wanting the same approach to ancestral lands in the Scottish Highlands... i.e. given back.

Seeking to assimilate newcomers to our core values is quite right.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 24 September 2006 7:45:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I liked JaneS' comments very early in the thread."
That may well be something they teach in our Universities these days; Although to romanticize about running around in Loin cloth bashing each other over the head in a Tribal War hardly seems civilized or anything to romanticize about ; But don’t let good Subjective Guilt trip get in the way of a good old propaganda campaign;

You would be surprised to learn that there are a great many Aborigines who would take great offence at your suggestions.

But if that is what turns you on, then go out and learn some of the Native Dialects and there are a few, and run around in your loin cloths if that is what you wish to do and romantasize what it would be like to be a Nobil of Old.
I’m Sure David Latimer can give you some History lesson to help on how to achieve maximum effect.
Posted by All-, Sunday, 24 September 2006 11:31:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill,
I agree with what you say and I do not see anything wrong in requiring those that seek citizenship to speak English and have some basic knowledge of our political system and history.

However I think we do not give potential migrants,and applicants for longer term visas, anywhere near enough information about our culture and society. We should give them a comprehensive list of culural matters they may find different here. Then maybe those that have strongly held views about some aspects of their culture, that are not permitted here, may decide not to come. Which is fair enough.

For about 40 years we basicly have been telling potential migrants that we are a multicultural society, where all cultures can be practised. This is deceitfull because it is not correct. There are many aspects of other cultures that are either unlawfull or not socially acceptable. I maintain that we are multi-racial, and have been since 1788, but I do not accept multicultural. It is a furphy. We are fooling ourseles as well.

The more information and openness we give to prospective migrants, the better off we will be in having migrants intergrate in future.

We can vastly improve our efforts in this regard.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 24 September 2006 11:40:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David turning the question around onto me is exactly the wrong thing to do, Is it unchristian? First remove the log from your own eye and then remove the speck from your brothers eye.

I have employed an aborigine in a city... have you?

I have apologised to the aboriginal people on behalf of my family and my fellow Australians ... Have you?

I have had aboriginals as guests to my house... Have you?

I fly the aboriginal flag on my website... Do You?

I have fought for aboriginal rights ... Have you?

And now the piece de resistance "The land issue is probably the most difficult to feel comfortable with." WOW you only feel discomfort ... Thou shalt NOT steal! Surely Christian values allow for a greater statement than yours here.

Now for the old chestnut "In reality, that question is best directed toward those involved at the time, because most of us are as much subsequent "victims of history" ourselves." - David they are dead!

Yes we are all "victims" of history ... but is it Christian to allow an obvious injustice to continue? An obvious theft!

I quite like the idea of you letting some aboriginal families live on your land under the conditions you suggest - but shouldn't the same rule apply to you? Shouldn't you live their way, as your acceptance of their culture, their values, in their land - like you propose for others.

I'm not suggesting we go back to the dark ages... I just would like to see Christians practise what they preach. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you ... Can you honestly say you are arguing this?

I wonder if our Govt came up with a "statement of core values" if we Aussies would sign it? We only need one core value "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and then Mr Howard and Ms. Vanstone could go live on Nauru.

Or don't Christian teachings apply there either? Is selective Christianity a strong & moral position? What would Jesus do?
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 24 September 2006 11:41:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All- (et al),

My question:

“What, exactly, are these supposedly uniquely Australian values that we're wanting migrants to adopt?”

is deliberately provocative but by no means merely rhetorical. In this and similar threads which reflect on what it means to be Australian and what our response should be to newcomers, there’s been something fundamental missing from the discussion – any sense of shame. I don’t mean the sense of wallowing, self lacerating guilt which is toxic to any personal or national soul: I mean the kind of shame that is the difference between a glib and fatuous culture that expresses itself through thoughtless stereotypes and one with real soul. A grown up culture.

It’s this shamelessness that can view the Lambing Flat episode as simply the inevitable consequence of historical and political confluences – a very Marxist take, if I may say so – rather than an expression of a very nasty tendency in the Australian psyche to mob bullying (which is shamelessness par excellence).

It’s the attitude that can look at the Cronulla riots with a shrug of the shoulders and say “Boys will be boys,” and “Well they had it coming, didn’t they?” And no, I’m not defending either group: there were thugs on both sides. The worst of whom were the supposedly responsible grown ups who sat on the sidelines stirring up the mobs. The shame comes not from knowing that the pictures of this unedifying spectacle were beamed around the world, or that our neighbors might shake their heads and mutter “well we always knew this about them”. It’s because it was just plain wrong.

It’s the shamelessness that dismisses as “black armband” any attempt to deal with the uncomfortable historical reality of Australia as a colonial settler nation that forcibly displaced another culture (or, more accurately, many other cultures). And that those other cultures have inconveniently failed to die off like they were supposed to.

cont
Posted by Snout, Sunday, 24 September 2006 12:29:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It’s shamelessness that can justify the ill treatment of a smaller weaker group by claiming they brought it on themselves by being different, by not trying hard enough to be just like us.

Many writers have hinted at a sense of alienation from their culture, a sense of being “swamped” as Boaz (and Pauline Hanson) put it. Fragmented. Divided. Destabilized. Fearful. Disintegrating. And the target of this discomfort is the Other, the Newcomer, the Alien, the Different. We try to reinforce a fragile sense of self by defining it against what we tell ourselves we’re not. A good example of this is the tendency of some posters on OLO to indulge in fatuous and superficial dissection of the inconsistencies and faults of Islam in order to justify their own versions of monotheism. Of course Islamist terrorism is a genuine threat, and demands a serious, grown up and at times courageous response. But picking on women in hijabs, or drawing offensive cartoons of Mohammed ain’t going to cut it.

The angst won’t be fixed by joining mobs, by pointing fingers, by attacking the vulnerable, by creating nationalist myths. It actually demands some soul searching and reflection.

Much of Australian culture is charming but superficial. We make heroes out of sportsmen, contribute a little local colour to English, lionize the “true blue” in sentimental songs. But what of the deeper values, the most basic of which I think is that of “a fair go” (which is simply the universal Golden Rule in the Aussie vernacular.)

A Fair Go is not just a platitude to assuage a narcissistic injury. It is sometimes painful, and demands a generosity of spirit that seems to be missing in much of the nationalist myth making we see on this and similar threads.
Posted by Snout, Sunday, 24 September 2006 12:31:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Touche, Snout.
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 24 September 2006 4:32:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout

You are spot on about 'a fair go'. We see it as a fair go for everyone. It is a very positive part of our culture. However it is not a universal Golden Rule. It does not apply to many in many cultures.

I think it important we focus on the positives rather than our negatives. Focusing on the negative only tends to create division and fearfulness.

I am not being provocative nor do I feel any shame when I state my opinion of what they are.

Acceptance of a fair go for all.
Acceptance of the rule of law.
Acceptance of our form of Democracy
Acceptance of diversity
Acceptance of the principle of equality
Acceptance of freedonm of speech
Acceptance of freedom of religion
Acceptance of English as the national language

Do you agree? Are there any other great values you see as forming Australian culture?
Posted by keith, Sunday, 24 September 2006 4:49:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tolerance
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 24 September 2006 5:02:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, keith and bennie well said.

This brings me back to my first post. Why are The Prime Minister, Treasurer, and Chief Law Officer of The Commonwealth of Australia being so unaccepting and intolerant.

One thing I do know is that they are skilled political animals.
Posted by Steve Madden, Sunday, 24 September 2006 5:25:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bernie

Tolerance of what?
Posted by keith, Sunday, 24 September 2006 7:22:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Much of Australian culture is charming but superficial. We make heroes out of sportsmen, contribute a little local colour to English, lionize the “true blue” in sentimental songs."

Snout, charming these things may be, superficial they are not. They are all a part of the glue that binds our culture together. We are indeed a very mixed bunch, with hugely differing backgrounds. That holds as true for those who were born in this country (and whose parents and grandparents were), as those that have arrived more recently. Whilst other things may form the base of a stable and decent society (which I believe we are, despite the odd deviation from the straight and narrow), those attributes that you have denigrated as being superficial are truly what makes us different from other cultures. Its pride when our cricket team flogs the Poms (its much more satisfying beating someone who invented the game)that helps to form a national spirit. Its also the sense of amusement watching other english-speaking nations try to understand our take on the language. Its being prepared to recognise the things that bind us together rather than the things that drive us apart.

And before you knock the songs that "lionize the true blue", try listening to the words and reading between the lines as to what they really mean - what they are really saying about the nature of Australians. I might be the product of the australian public school system, but I at least picked up a few analysis skills along the way.
Posted by Country Gal, Sunday, 24 September 2006 8:11:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some more "Australian" values (off the top of my head, and in no particular order):

* The Tall Poppy Syndrome
* Bring Back The Biff
* I'm Alright Jack
* Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi
* The Yellow Peril (latterly expanded to Islam)
* All the way with LBJ (latterly GWB)
* In like Flynn
* Six pack = foreplay
* Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb
* Dobbing is worse than any crime

Etc etc etc :)

I mean, these are all distinct elements of "Aussie" culture - as opposed to the universal values that dog-whistling rabble rousers like Howard, Costello, Beazley, Muehlenberg etc would like to claim as our very own. Should prospective visitors, residents and citizens have to sign up to these as well?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 24 September 2006 8:47:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith,
You have got the basics right. I would include respect where possible, but maybe thats splitting hairs. Good work!

Steve, Can you show where the PM and Treasurer showed unacceptance and intolerance. I thought what both have said has been quite reasonable. Their statements are easily obtainable.

Steve and bennie, Should we be tolerant of all things? What about wife beating, FGM, rudeness to women, gang bashings, gang rapes, no respect shown to police or courts,the consumption of foods we find unacceptable, cock fights, dog fights and bull fights. How tolerant should we be with those that cannot hold a soccer match without rioting, burning cars and shooting at buildings? Or intimidating voters going to a polling booth, then causing havoc after, including bashings and shooting people.

Where would you draw the line? Now is your opportunity to let us know how tolersant we should be.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 24 September 2006 8:52:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With the exception of FGM, I would have thought all of the antisocial behaviours listed by Banjo above have been very well documented in the social history of our dominant Anglo-Celtic Australian culture. Perhaps s/he could be somewhat better informed about Aussie social history before trying to malign more recent arrivals on the basis of activities that were part of the formation of the very same contemporary Australian culture that s/he purports to defend.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 24 September 2006 9:12:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Values, values, values. These values are walking out the door! Get your values here at a reduced price, but only until MIDNIGHT tonight! That's right! I've gone ABSOLUTELY mad, and I'm selling my values to the lowest bidder! We've got 'tall poppy syndromes,' 'scapegoating,' 'free-loading,' and who could forget the greatest value of them all, 'a fair go!' All walking out the door today only! But only until Midnight tonight...

And on and on the Crazy Warehouse Guy goes...

Why are we having this cut priced sale on Australian values? That's right, because our new workplace laws aren't really cutting the mustard with the punters. So let's find a scapegoat. Let's find someone to fear, someone to blame. Let's see if the punters fall for it?

It's really, really clever politics. Bang on about values, and good, honest, hard-working Australians (That's US) can feel good about themselves. And lay the boot into the bludging, whinging, free-loading, conniving, snivelling, foreign language speaking, wogs, frogs, chinks, dagos, poofter b*st*rds (That's THEM). And feel good about ourselves. And BLAME them. So we can feel good about ourselves, etc.

John Howard being divisive? Never! He wouldn't know how!
Posted by Nahum, Sunday, 24 September 2006 11:33:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, if only these tests had been around earlier, the whole Cronulla business could have been avoided! If only he had been asked the question "Where is Anzac Cove", Bilal Skaff would have definitely answered "Let me do it to you Leb-style," and could have been back on the boat to where he came from as soon as the pimply clerk could push the red button under his desk. Oh, hang on, this is the real world, not a red-neck wet-dream...

Bill Muehlenberg, if it is so important to Australia to only admit immigrants who pass the test, then how come Australia has worked as a social democracy for so long, and hasn't been dreadfully destabilised by the waves of untested immigrants who have swarmed in to build our Snowy Hydroelectric Schemes, fund our universities and run our fish and chip shops?

There is no practical purpose for the proposed tests except as a dog whistle to the xenophobic masses. Immigrants will just bone up on the test questions to get through. Some have even suggested that by relying on a test rather than putting money into English classes for migrants, that it might make the standard of English drop, because they will concentrate on getting through the test, rather than really learning English that can be used.

Ghassan Hage probably had the most sensible comment on this issue back on Monday, when he pointed out that all this would do would be to make the people who insist on it being done feel more Australian, and make immigrants feel ostracised. It's not about anything practical, because in reality it won't make a jot of difference.

Do people really think that spouting some rote-learned answers, like 'Vegemite', or 'Gallipoli', is really going to help people fit in culturally?
Posted by Moonie, Sunday, 24 September 2006 11:44:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australian Values is a mythical beast - there never has been one set of values in this country. Do you seriously think the people who came here in the first colonies who were governors and colonels had the same values as the men who worked the quarries in chains?

John Howard's waspy, colonial values are, I suspect, a far cry from the values of most Australians. It is the propagation of the myth that interests me - who is it who is trying to tell us we all believe the same thing...look into my eyes....we all believe the same thing...we all believe the same thing
Posted by Rob513264, Monday, 25 September 2006 12:45:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is obvious that John Howard is targeting the Islamic Imans (priests) who cant speak English , have no understanding of Western culture and are preaching hate in their own language in Australian mosques. With these new tests he may be able to stop some of them from coming into Australia to preach hate.

It probably wont work but at least he’s trying something.

Cronulla happened because the Australians had had a gut full of the Lebanese gangs coming down to the beach causing trouble. If these Moslem men have religious beliefs saying that women should wear covering clothes then shouldn’t they only be in the suburbs where the women are dressed like that . Isnt it going against their beliefs to be where the women aren’t dressed like that? Or don’t they really believe what their religion preaches.

Moonie says that social democracy and immigration has worked well in this country but I think its too early to make that call and that the suicide bomb plots in Melbourne are an ominous sign of things to come . Multiculturalism may appear to work for a while over a few decades or so but sooner or later there will be bloody tribal flare-ups like the riots in France which will be much worse next time they occur and bombings like we’ve seen in London.

SHARED VALUES WONT ALTER THAT. The thing that shared values will do is make intertribal(ethnic) marriage easier and putting those biological links in place is the ONLY thing that will stop the bloody ethnic cleansing(Territorial tribal warfare) that has raged across the globe since day one. If that intermarriage doesn’t take place then history shows that it is inevitable. Could be in five years could be in twenty more years but it is INEVITABLE.
Posted by sharkfin, Monday, 25 September 2006 2:27:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have I missed something? - What is all this talk about values? how does it relate to Islam? Has something happened? -

I read somewhere that US Diplomat Armitage threatened to bomb Pakitan back to the stone age - is that it? are Muslims here taking offence at that? - a bit sensitive dont you think - or are they upset that Treasurer Costello is telling muslims how to govern themsleves - I don't get the link between us, Islam and Values - I will have to get out more.
Posted by sneekeepete, Monday, 25 September 2006 7:57:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Taliban came from Pakistan when they took control of Afghanistan and have been backed up by forces in Pakistan. The Taliban harboured Osama Bin Laden who attacked America with planes. I'd say America has every right to be agressive to Pakistan when it backs up the Taliban. After all Osama Bin Laden did commit an act of war against America.
Posted by sharkfin, Monday, 25 September 2006 12:16:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes I understand all that but has anything of real signifigance happened?
Posted by sneekeepete, Monday, 25 September 2006 12:42:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country Gal,

You are of course quite right that Williamson’s song is not merely soppy, nostalgic jingoism. It pointedly criticizes the idea that “Australianness” simply means the ticking off of various cultural shibboleths: “is it a cockatoo?” No it ain’t.

I hope I’m not “reading between the lines” too much here, but Williamson is trying to distinguish between the stereotype and the soul, the image and the real, loyalty and Brand Loyalty. His song was, I think, a very apt choice for the public memorial of television celebrity, but I’m not sure that all of his “mourners” got it. I reckon it’s unfortunate that many of us know Williamson’s voice best as the singer of advertising jingles. He deserves better.

Is there anyone else out there who’s uncomfortable with the current fashion for the ANZAC legend? My own grandfather never told me the stories of his experiences fighting on the Somme: he died in a home for alcoholic derelicts when I was a year old. I remember my primary school headmaster, though. He was the one who banned marching and saluting and consigned the school drum kit to a locked and dusty shelter shed. He always managed to find a way to be absent on the government decreed school ANZAC day celebrations. He, too, fought in WWI. I didn’t understand then, but as an adult I’ve seen enough of post traumatic stress disorder (the real deal, not the pseudo diagnosis beloved of plaintiff lawyers) to get an inkling of what he was on about.

CG, I’m probably not as familiar with Aussie folk songs as you. Do you know Eric Bogle’s “And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda”?

No, I don't think a culture that defines itself in stereotypes and shibboleths is a strong or sustaining one. Nor is one which defines its own value in sporting scores and medals. This is my point. Such a culture is a sitting duck for manipulation by the purveyors of jingoistic symbols and those who dog whistle their own paranoid dreams. This is not, repeat not, my country.
Posted by Snout, Monday, 25 September 2006 6:19:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout, Sure do know the words to "and the band played waltzing matilda". Sung it for my music badge as a brownie guide many years ago (yup, I'm that old fashioned I'm afraid). My husband plays it regularly. Right up there with Redgums "I was only 19" (in response to Vietnam. Their both about humanising and de-glorifying war. They both however add to and round out a sense of Australianism - our attitude in the face of futility, and the impact that these events have had on our national psyche. After reading all the posts on this article, I think we can come to some conclusion. It is nigh impossible to put a finger on what it means to be Australian. We do have an attitude that it different to much of the world (including other english-speaking countries). All parts of our history, both the good and the bad, have helped formed what we are today. That's why I believe that its crucial for migrants to be schooled in what Australian history is, again both the good and the bad. Teach the lessons that we have learnt ourselves.
Posted by Country Gal, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 8:59:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout why don't you and your cultural cringe migrate? Talk about looking down your nose at a culture. (Not that you seem to have much of a grasp of it.) Is that why they call you Snout?

ANZAC DAY dear Snout is not a celebration of WAR. It's a day of reflection and Commemoration. A day of "mateship".

LEST WE FORGET dear Snout... do you know what that means? It doesn't mean "Gee we had a great time at war, lets do it again!"

The Ode...

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eyes, steady and aglow,
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

WE WILL REMEMBER THEM.

I've written a piece in the General section on OUR culture... maybe you could learn something.
Posted by T800, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 9:29:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
T800, I think what you describe as “cultural cringe” is what I would describe as a yearning to find the depth and soul of my culture. You may get this, or you may not. Without that depth, all you are left with are the surface myths and catchphrases and symbols, as hollow as a sponge cake, and as Williamson says, as easily sold out.

What you see as sneering or dismissal is, I think, nothing of the kind. What distresses me is that for many Australians any call to look critically at who we are, where we’ve come from and where we’re going is dismissed through exclusion: “why don’t you migrate?” or (with poorly recognized irony) “why don’t you go back to where you came from?”. It’s a brittle and immature sense of self that can’t withstand that examination, and poorer for it. Hence Cronulla, the bashing of minorities, the vague but pervasive fear of being swamped.

I brought up the ANZAC myth making because it seems to me that there is an obvious reason for its recent resurgence over the past few years: the last of the old diggers have died, and there is no one left to put a brake on the jingoistic chest thumping. When Australia Came of Age. National Pride. Forging an Identity.

No one left to say, hang on it wasn’t about that, I was there.

Like many of the old ANZACs, my old primary school headmaster’s revulsion toward chauvinistic nationalism and militarism was not simply because of his own personal distress about his war experiences: he understood that inculcating children with those values makes them sitting ducks for the politicians and the warmongers and the fearmongers, just as his generation had been. And he was angry, fiercely angry, about that.

It’s possible, T800, that I choose to honour the memory of the ANZACs (including my own grandfather I never met) in a different way to you. There are many ways of doing so, some of them less comfortable to the ego than others. Don’t be afraid of that.
Posted by Snout, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 10:57:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout , you can not reinvent something Australia is not, there have been 10 of thousands of The Marxoid/ Hedgellian Brain Injured who have tried over and over again to destroy Australia, (The Western Civilizations for that matter).
Australia’s dose of the Brain Injured Psych hit us about 35 years ago when lying Looters Egos and Useless Idiots became fashionable, and ruled the roust.
Only because they believe in nothing and are Existentialist in their interpretation of Ontology. Pathological liars of evil intent if you like. You obviously did not read the link I supplied to you. It quite plainly explains the chronology of events.

You continually invoke the Cronalla Event, only using your Marxoid/ Hedgellian Theory of Solipsism, so you lost me completely as it is not point discussing any topic with anyone who has predicated their assumptions upon total fallacies and false Hood.

It is much like terrorist laws, if the Brain Injured had listened to Factual arguments proposed in the first instance ; the early inception to De Australian'ise and demoralize the nation never would have happened and the damage would not be as extensive as what they now have created . . That’s the intention Snout ; that’s what they achieved, as well as Make hundreds of Apartheid states with in States. Or as some in other Lands call it , we are "OCCUPIED Territories" .
Like I said ; Nihilisms work is never done.
Did you forget the Redfern Riots and did you forget the Aboriginal and Somali Asylum seekers Riots in WA. Amazing what a Marxoid/ Hedgellian Brain Injury can do ; Very destructive.
How convenient.
Posted by All-, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 3:38:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All-

I did, in fact, read Felis’s catty but erudite article: I just failed to find the relevance to what I am trying to say. While I was vaguely aware of the debates around postmodernism and the other various -isms amongst humanities academics while I was at university I was too busy studying Krebs cycles, cruciate ligaments and cranial nerves to really take much notice. I’m kind of glad I never seriously tried to get stuck into Foucault and Derrida. They seem to have caused the end of Western Civilization (except for its last outpost in Australia), and I wouldn’t want to have been associated with that. Please appreciate, though, that my understanding of the brain injured might be different from yours because of our educational differences. I am curious, though: who the heck is/was “Hedgell”?

I am sad that you have read my ramblings as nihilist or arising out of the excesses of 20th century French existentialism. My thinking (I thought) was pretty old fashioned, basic Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian traditions of reason and justice. My point was that a sustaining sense of identity can only come about from an honest self appraisal, not from the adoption of superficial trappings or symbols, and that this process is sometimes difficult and painful. More psychological than philosophical, I agree, but then I’ve always been more interested in people than theories of people. You seem to have read my diatribes above as a defence of dogmatic multiculturalism or moral or cultural relativism (or maybe some other –ism). I am sorry if I came across that way, but it was certainly not my intent.

Country Gal

I can’t get the image of the little girl in the Brownie uniform singing “And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda” out of my head. It’s a tough song, a very adult song: I know it best from the version by Irish punk-folk band the Pogues. They had a great song about the immigrant experience: http://www.pogues.com/Releases/Lyrics/LPs/IfIShould/Thousands.html

I might see you guys around on T800’s culture and multiculture thread. Cheers, ciao, auf wiedersehen and ila l-liqa!
Posted by Snout, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 7:11:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that "Hedgell" was the person who destroyed the asparagus, and thus deconstructed the entire Aussie palate.

That was until the advent of multiculturalism.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 9:57:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel – I’m so glad the embedded humor aroused some minds- It would not have looked as good if I used Head -Jelly- ian in Relation to M/H Brain Injured.
But the Asparagus Hed-Gellian could have worked just as well. I like that, much better; Vegetable head, Obvious, but a bad attempt lost. Ha.

Snout, then you would understand this then. No more curve balls; A common Enemy is at large, and playing with peoples minds. Hegel is only one of many; This is the shorter abridged version ..
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb970219.htm
Posted by All-, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 2:27:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout

Wrong about the ANZACs forging our identy.
It was not they who defined Australia. It was the artists, publishers, writers and poets of a much earlier period who achieved that.
Among many others it was people like the former gold miner Jules Francois Archibald...to his mother, John Feltham Archibald to his father, Henry Lawson whos father was Pieter Larsen, John le Gay Brereton, David Mckee-Wright, Quong Tart, Jack Moses, George Robertson, Angus McDonald, the members of the bohemian Dawn and Dusk Club (Which had rules written in chinese), Louis Becke, Louisa Lawson, Barcroft Boake, Bertha and W.T. McNamarra, Sir Henry Parkes, Sun Johnson, Christopher Brennan, Kenneth Slessor, Katherine Pritchard and of course my favourite Barbara Baynton.
Most were immigrant or had one or two parents who were.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 12:47:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suggest new test - one for every body - even those who have lived here by virtue of good luck.

If we ever agree on what might be Australianess we should all be tested - and those who fail the test should go to a detention centre for re programming.

Songs of john wiliamson, chad morgan and slim dusty would play all day (those of Jimmy barnes and the Bee Gees would not be permitted due to suspect parentage)- at night they get Shannon Noll

Only the Sullivans and Kingswood Country would be screened on TV - the kids get playskool and Mr Squiggle.

Every one would go to a church service just the once - it would make no difference what denomination as long as it was Catholic or one of the Protestant types

The diet would be meat and three veg, or a BarBQ - pies would served on Saturdays

The meaning of ridgy didge, dinky di and fair dinkum would be studied and mandated to be used twenty times a day - when advised of any fact at all the detainee must also exclaim Crikey!

After one year of this the detainee must be able to distinguish between a core promise and a non core promise as well explain how to stack a suburban branch of a political party of his or her choosing - or they are forever banished to Hutt River Principality.
Posted by INKEEMAGEE2, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 3:27:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Snout
that post or 2 were quite impressive. But they do contain what I feel are a couple of flaws.

Re Lambing Flat

"very nasty tendency in the Australian psyche to mob bullying"

Nope..its a 'human' characteristic :) As I clearly explained and juxtaposed
-Boxer Rebellion in China (against whites)
-Lambing Flat in Australia (against chinese)

You seem to have missed that.

Then... when you said we "seek to define ourselves on by contrasting it with what we are 'not'"... as in 'not the 'other'..the migrant.. the Muslim etc...

Now on this point, while it may seem good reasoning, is lousy sociology i feel. We 'are' something whether or not we define it in terms of what we are not....
It is only when what we are 'not' is brought into our faces that we REALIZE our 'ourness'.

The desire to protect what we have and are, in terms of identity is probably the single most understandable and justifiable of human traits.

Marxism is not how I would explain my views on Lambing flat. I just see it as an understandble reaction to a situation. I think I can go further.. I would "justify" the intent, but perhaps not the method.

Unfortunately, the diggers so no other option, as the law was against their cultural interests. Cromwell arose for the same reason and I recommend a study of his emergence and his thinking during that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 6:27:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz,

Fair comment about mob violence being a human, rather than a specifically Australian characteristic. Negatives as well as positives can be unfairly attributed when we define ourselves against others and both can work against the recognition of our shared humanness. However I still question any nationalism that is used to justify such violence. Understandable and justifiable aren’t the same.

Keith,

The comment about Anzacs forging our identity was ironic, although in no way intended to trivialize the importance of the events of the first world war – especially for the men who suffered on the battlefield. My point was that the meaning of the experience, especially for the diggers themselves, was much more complex than that: for some it was physically and psychologically devastating, and others it was a massive betrayal. Simplistic myths dishonor these men, and more importantly blind us to the realities of others, such as Vietnam veterans, who may be suffering similarly today. Lest we forget, indeed.

I reckon you’re spot on, though, that we are more likely to find our sense of Australianness in our writers and artists than in our politicians, theorists and sportsmen. Not just the writers of old, either: Carey and Winton and Drewe come to mind, along with countless others: film makers, painters, poets. These are the people who create the truly sustaining myths of who we are and where we’ve come from. (And it’s many different things and many different places). The problems arise when were become unable to distinguish the myths from the truths they represent - as fundamentalists all over the world are now showing us.

All-,

If you’ve ever seen real living human brain tissue you’d probably say “head jelly” was a pretty apt description. It’s what makes it so flexible - and also so easily damaged
Posted by Snout, Thursday, 28 September 2006 7:33:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout

Your comments are so true about our artists poets etc.
So why don't we teach those subjects in our schools?
What is wrong with us that we don't value those men and women as highly as our current sportsmen. (Yep that was deliberate.)
etc etc etc
Posted by keith, Thursday, 28 September 2006 7:09:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is possibly spinning way off the current thread, keith, but I reckon if there was more literature and art taught in schools - not only "Australian" or European but from all cultures - there'd be a lot less trouble with fundamentalism.

Kids would learn how to read and be nourished by mythos, instead of having myths used as a tool to control their thinking. This is a skill which transcends culture.

Maybe this is the key to integration.
Posted by Snout, Thursday, 28 September 2006 8:47:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz,

On my reading of your prolific comments on this website, I'm not optimistic about your receptiveness to thew following advice - but it needs to be said anyway:

Stick to areas in which you have some real expertise (e.g. Christian evangelism or electronic motors), rather than more challenging intellectual fields like history, sociology and anthropology. Your various rants in the latter areas do little to enhance your credibility.

Best wishes :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 28 September 2006 10:16:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz,

I disagree with CJ there. Although some of your posts seem a bit "out there" to me, you always seem genuine and you're not thin skinned or abusive. Sometimes I even agree with you! I'd actually like a bit LESS of the Christian evangelism.

Cheers, mate:
Posted by Snout, Friday, 29 September 2006 4:41:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The post that had the transcript from Insight where the racist bigot Wassim Dourahei, leader of the vile Islamist organisation Hizbut-Tahrir, admitted that Muslims can never be democratic.

Notice how all the self proclaimed "moderates" didn't say a word? Wouldn't one say "he doesn't speak for me" in that instance?

Interesting.

Then again, most of us already know where most Muslim leaders stand on these issues from their bigoted comments.

People say things like, we are all different but can get along.

I disagree.

I believe there are values which are correct and those that aren't, and how we come to this conclusion is through reason, not some childish nonsense that some deity told you so.

It's alright to respect that but only in the sense that your values aren't imposed on, which in the case of Muslims, clearly are.

People are starting to see through the nonsense that everyone is different, multiculturalism is great.

We are all the same, we all, when it really comes down to it, want to live democratically. Some, particularly many Muslims, are so racist they can't even see it.

They have already voted with their feet to be in a western nation, yet long for the backward Sharia. This is a reaction to globalisation, they're identity is being eroded.

But why shouldn't it?
Posted by Benjamin, Sunday, 1 October 2006 4:53:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even if there was no western world, and the whole world was a Taliban state, eventually women would march for their rights, people would want freedom of conscience, and so on.

That is what the west is, a process of a search for truth.

People think we have no culture because we aren't materialistic when it comes to spirituality. We don't have to have cloth on our heads, we don't bow five times a day, we don't need to put useless tradition in the way, for it is all inside.

Spirituality can't be found in following a particular set of rules in the physical world, that is alien to the whole idea of spirituality.

The west appears as nothing because it is ever evolving. Our physical appearances, hairstlye, dress, constantly alter because they aren't important in that sense, our substance is our values. One can't describe a western appearance because it is constantly changing, although the values are concrete.

When you really think about it, it is only the western cultures that truly have substance, which is why there is no need to observe petty rituals or have a particular dress (physical symptoms).

After all, what does the western world take from other cultures apart from their food?
Posted by Benjamin, Sunday, 1 October 2006 4:54:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd also like to disagree with CJ. When I think of the people I often disagree with but would defend their right to speak, David Boaz is at the top of my list. He is a genuine contributor to this forum.
Posted by David Latimer, Monday, 2 October 2006 10:40:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy