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 > A Real Test of Diversity > Comments

A Real Test of Diversity : Comments

By Saeed Khan, published 5/10/2006

Rather than leading the way towards a better future, opponents of multiculturalism are taking us back a century

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 23
  7. 24
  8. 25
  9. All
Xenophobic. Having accepted about 140 different cultures into our country I would have thought a more apt label for us would be a country driven by xenomania. In Saeed Khan's case it seems our education system is still capable of churning out dills.

Embarrassment. Under the rules of multiculturalism we have been forced to accept the unacceptable. Should we be embarrassed about people who have four wives? Should we be embarrassed about the cultural delight of FGM? Is their any embarrassment felt by treating women as chattels?

Racist. It is impossible for us to divest ourselves of the racist tag because we are importing racists and bigots. Ask the ‘K’ brothers or the Skafs for verification.

It would appear that membership of the Greens hasn’t changed. You still have to be an intellectual dwarf to be accepted.
Posted by Sage, Thursday, 5 October 2006 11:14:47 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
Mr Khan is able to say 'no' with great vehemence to many things. I am not clear about what he would say 'yes' to.

I am a migrant also from an non-Anglo country and came to Australia because it is Australia. So if you are also an ethnic and pretend not to understand what Australian means or you spend your waking hours knocking the place, ask yourself - why did you choose to come to this country and not another?

I came to Australia because is a cool, English speaking, democratic, Western country. Let's have all the diversity that 'cool' can encompass but the rest - English speaking, democratic, Western - is clear and simple. They are not part of a Howard plot, they are not oppressive nor discriminatory. Stop knocking them.

I do not believe that such people are honest when they pretend that they are unsure about, or worse, offended by Australia's desire to remain Australian. Or that Australia's desire to remain Australian is a racist plot.. How ridiculous and dishonest to equate the dictation test with requiring migrants to speak one language, English, when they want to be citizens. Not when they want to be permanent residents, mind you, only when the want to be citizens.

I want my children to grow up and participate in the life of this cool, Western, English speaking country. I love these things, I love this country and its promise. I find the constant nay-saying by ethnics rude and offensive. Put a sock in it.
Posted by Peter Abelard, Thursday, 5 October 2006 11:34:32 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
What a joke. My favorite bit of dishonest propaganda
"The Dictation Test was also used most famously in 1938 to try to keep out Egon Kisch, an anti-Nazi activist trying to warn Australians about the danger of Hitlerism. When the Dictation Test failed the Attorney General of the day, R. G. Menzies, drafted a Sedition Act against speaking ill of Germany, among other things, which was recently brought up to date."
Oh. You mean Egon Kisch the communist and one of the leaders of the failed lefty revolution in Vienna? How dare we try and keep someone like that out....

What I love is the authors statements are inherently racist. He implies that only whites can learn english.
Posted by Alan Grey, Thursday, 5 October 2006 11:52:53 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
Saeed has proved his point judging by the first three posters on this topic. Australia not only kept out Egon Kisch when he had information about what was happening in Germany under Hitler but they kept out the Jewish refugees that fled Germany at the same time.

Both could reasonably be seen to have contributed enormously to the holocaust, along with the rest of the world who sat by and refused to listen to the likes of Egon. Some accomplishment.

Today we who are here and have been here a few minutes in geological time are trying to force new people to do something we did not have to do. Today my great-great-great grandparents who came to Australia from Silesia in 1844 would not be accepted.

Yet while not being able to speak English for decades they built up large chunks of South Australia's farming land and contributed billions to the country. Still do.

The question now is which of the 140 odd nations of people would you good folks like to leave? Arabs? The Australian born muslims whose family have been here since the 1850's? The Skafs and the Lebanese gang rapists were born here - where should we send them?

They are in jail where they belong - where do the people go who planned and supported an illegal war?
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Thursday, 5 October 2006 12:50:59 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
Marilyn Sheppard, you are too angry and the only thing you seem to be interested in, or able to engage with, is your anger. It is your badge of virtue. If I may say so, this much anger as a way of life is poisonous. Don't spend your years in the black hole of seething rage.
Your heart will not bear it for ever and will attack back. The only person who has any power over your own attitude, I am afraid, is yourself. Without tempering your resentment I predict a massive coronary.
Posted by Peter Abelard, Thursday, 5 October 2006 1:26:05 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 don't think the the angry posts to this opinion site are representative of the average Australian's point of view. At least I hope not.

Australians that I know are not that mean and not that unreasonable. They know how much this country has been enriched by the various cultures that live here. The vast majority of migrants from all parts of the globe are hard working and cause no harm.

In my community is a lovely old Chinese lady. Totally harmless. She chatters away to me in Mandarin, and her daughter does the translating. She would absolutely fail the language test. And she probably knows very little about Australian history.

But I am very glad she is in my community. She's much more decent than many Caucasians here who have Australian birthright.
Posted by gecko, Thursday, 5 October 2006 1:49:37 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
I wonder how much money is wasted on providing interpreters and printing forms and information sheets in foreign languages by government agencies (eg centrelink)? Forget the english test, but take away foreign language services such as these. If the help of Australian government agencies is required, then the person requiring them should be able to speak/read passable english.
Posted by Country Gal, Thursday, 5 October 2006 1:59:19 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 most effective way to undermine a society is through mass immigration. Multiculturalism is inherrently offensive to the host population. It brings out the 'ole lazy white Australian but inspiring ethnic story (employers?).

The author does make a valid point about Howard increasing immigration then pretending to be 'tough' on immigration. A bit like the employer that pretends to have a skills shortage (like the transport industry). Personally I find it repulsive that businesspeople determine our immigration policy. I often wonder at the ratio of pro migrant groups to anti-migrant groups, 10:1, so why are the multiculturalists so worried? Dog whistling mate.
Posted by Angelo, Thursday, 5 October 2006 2:32:58 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
Migration Criteria (language/citizenship test)"xenophobic at its core"

This is most interesting.

Citizenship/values/language tests for those seeking to come here and live, are aimed at:

1/ Social Cohesian
(ensureing a reasonable degree of interpersonal communication levels)
2/ Preventing Alienation and Marginalization
(due to limited functionality due to limited language skills)
3/ Promoting Harmony
Due to a basic social/cultural compatability between new arrivals and existing Aussies.

Yet we are now told "YOU ARE XENOPHOBIC".. my my... How in the world does one jump from a set of positive presuppositions to such an angry and negative one ?
THE ANSWER: "an AGENDA"

Then, we are told 'YOU ARE RACIST' because of a dictation test which could EASILY be passed by many black africans from British colonies.

There was such a thing as a 'White Australia' policy, and it is no different from an 'Italian Policy' a 'Greek Policy' or a 'Calathumpian' policy. Of course, back in those days they knew absolutely NOTHING about the dangers of large numbers of culturally different racial groups sharing the same territory, what a pack of dum dums they were...the WAP simply MUST have been based on pure superiority right ? After all, we whites are in fact the 'super/master' race... that was of course their view when they constructed it ? Common sense and experience had nothing to do with the policy...right ?

I suppose a good read of the various speeches, and parliamentary documents of the day would do nothing to change the 'you are racists' view held by Ethnocentric Isolationists like Saeed with political agenda's, but hey- what the heck.

The British or those in Australia during the WAP could NEVER have foreseen such things as Iraqi slaughtering Iraqi, because such things had NEVER happened anywhere in the British Empire... what a sorry lot of ignoramuses eh ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 5 October 2006 2:33:11 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 reason that there is a focus on Australian Values and immigration is quite simple. Australians are aware of terrorist attacks that blow up and kill and injure people in other countries and they don't want it to occur here.

There are risks that some of the people immigrating might bring with them terrorist ambitions and Australia can't put its head in the sand and make believe that it is not a possibility so the citizenhsip changes are designed to be a help. In effect we want people coming to Australia to integrate and become Australians first including learning to speak English. Along the way parts of their national character will blend into the Australian way, thus further enriching the nation.

What we want to avoid is groups coming to the country and forming small pockets of the nation they came from with all their mother country values and practices and not becoming integrated with us. That way the risk of harm from a terrorist perspective is enhanced and not dimished.

There is no sinister motive. It is all about taking steps that might help us to welcome people from overseas and feel safe about it. When people read and see terrorism taking place in other countries, of course they will be concerned about their future safety.
Posted by Sniggid, Thursday, 5 October 2006 2:34:13 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
When ethnic people ask, in a sneering fashion, just what are Australian values, one could say ,"That if you do not understand our values, you should not live here"
Our values, our laws, our lifestyle have made a good,steady country that was, until an unfortunate migration of some, a peaceful good nation that many have come to share.
Now we have the sneerers like this author who would probably like to make it just like his good old home town was.
The racists are the migrants who come here wanting to impose their beliefs on us .They would like to impose their intolerant bigotted cruel religion on us because nothing, except maybe the welfare , suits them.
The stupid term,'Dog Whistling',the latest fad in debate, is over done and means nothing.
Posted by mickijo, Thursday, 5 October 2006 3:26:45 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 a simple statement of the fact that my Silesian grandparents would not be accepted today is "anger" I am puzzled to say the least.

How many of our ancestors from all over the world could speak English when they lobbed here and how many of them learnt the local Indigenous languages and customs?

By accusing me of anger instead of addressing the issues is pretty counter productive but then I get that a lot.

Now Sniggid - so all those immigrants might be "terr'ists" with their books and different language hey?

Why don't you ask an Iraqi in Baghdad about shock and awe that we participated in - you now bombing the city into oblivion. Or about the new age napalm used on civilians, or the demolition of towns and cities from one end of the nation to the other and then go and ask the people of Afghanistan.

Neither nation had ever suffered any form of suicide bombings before we turned up and the people of neither nation had anything to do with September 11 in the US. It's more than bizarre that we behave like terrorists all over the muslim world and think we are civilised then blame them is they fight back.

Ask the residents in the south of Lebanon how they iike being driven out of their homes by over 1 million unexploded cluster bombs or the Palestinians how they have enjoyed the 212 bombing raids by the Israelis in the last month.

The problem is a deranged lack of perspective - 132,000 people die in Australia every year and to date not one of them has died because of a "terr'ist", while in the US for the last 5 years 150,000 people have been murdered by fellow Americans.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Thursday, 5 October 2006 3:29:02 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
Great post Marilyn,
Mickjo, being out of your depth in this discussion doesn't mean you always will be. its just means you have to try harder to like your fellow human beings.
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 5 October 2006 3:35:58 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
'It was only due to an extreme labour shortage in the booming post-war economy that attitudes to the immigration of people from Southern Europe improved after World War II. The 1958 Migration Act introduced a simpler system of entry permits and abolished the Dictation Test.'

This is an extraordinary assertion.

A reading of the activities of people such as Foreign Ministers Spender and Casey, Immigration Minister and PM Holt from '49 onwards, would absolutely refute the spurious inferences of Saaed Khan. A knowledge of the legendary request, to a noted linguist, to translate the Lord's Prayer from Gaelic to English would also refute another of his unlikely assertions.

This is evidence there is a general lack of knowledge of Australian History. When such statements can be made with apparent authority, but little apparent research, the calls for a requirement for new arrivals to have some knowledge of local history doesn't go far enough. All people in Australia should be required to have the same ... especially writers of articles to journals.

An Aussie quip about covers it. We'd say the writer was talking out his ....!
Posted by keith, Thursday, 5 October 2006 3:47:27 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 argument about the need to learn the "Australian Culture" as a condition to live in Australia is flawed.

I believe that all a person needs to adhere to is the law. It is a simple matter: If you don't follow the law, you are charged under the law. There is no choice to anyone regardless of where you were born or what your race is. For a new comer, they need to get a general understanding of the law (not the values) and they can choose to accept it and enter the country or not. For a resident, you have 3 choices: follow the law, don't follow and be charged, seek to change the law through the law.

Values change and so they should. Hopefully to the better through multi-culture contact. One good value in Australia is "System of trust". It applies to many of our everyday activities e.g. fundraiser boxes. It is a good value BUT PROTECTED BY LAW. One bad value (especially in Melbourne) is "do not let the car in the next lane a chance to change lanes infront of me". This is a value that can change by learning from others
Posted by Mr Justice, Thursday, 5 October 2006 4:17:35 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
Sorry rainier, I am suitably chastised by your superior intellect. Now where is me Playboy magazine? Oh!Bugger! the dog's eaten it!.
Posted by mickijo, Thursday, 5 October 2006 4:27:45 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 coming to a few basic conclusions - correct me if I'm wrong on any of these counts:

1. Yes. Social cohesion is important. Language tests at suitable intervals, and instructing immigrants on Australian ways is not a bad idea. Nor should suggesting these things be labelled xenophobic.

2. The Howard Government is playing a hypocritical double game here - on the one hand, it has singled out muslims when there are many minorities with the same issues. Clear case of vote grabbing. And yeah, you can quote the violence of the koran or whatever, but if the issue is introducing a universal system of integration, you can't make those distinctions unless you are willing to start cataloguing immigrants by their religious beliefs. I'm not willing to go there, and personally, I don't think most Australians are either.

3. While the author made some dubious points, he did make one very good one - the Australian Government is considering more migrant workers.
To be fair, it is a solution to our skills crisis, which doesn't seem to be going away. How can this drive for cheap workers, quite possibly with dubious english skills, be reconciled with the recent comments by both Howard and Beazley?

I'm interested on all your thoughts on these....
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 5 October 2006 4:30:13 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, calling contributors “dills” or “intellectual dwarfs” rather than addressing their substantive points suggests you have nothing significant to contribute. What do you mean precisely when you claim that “Under the rules of multiculturalism we have been forced to accept the unacceptable”? What rules? Who do you mean by “we”? What is the “unacceptable” that “we” have been “forced to accept”? Who forced us?

Peter Abelard, the use of the word “ethnic” as a noun is meaningless. We are all “ethnic”, so are you proposing a pecking order of moral worth among “ethnics”? (The same applies to mickijo’s term “ethnic people” –sneering or not.)

Alan Grey, how could you possibly mis-read the article to claim that Saeed Khan “implies that only whites can learn English”? Are you reading what you are predisposed to read?

Country Gal, your views on interpreting and translation services are callous and inhumane. These services are essential even if they simply help people in their transition years.

Angelo, when you say: “The most effective way to undermine a society is through mass immigration” have you forgotten that Australia as we know it today has been developed through successive waves of mass migration? And what do you mean when you claim that the “host population” (define?) finds muticulturalism (define?) “offensive” (evidence?).

BOAZ_David, I agree that to read the various speeches and parliamentary documents of the day would be useful if only to alert you to the irony of your calling people who agree with the writer “Ethnocentric Isolationists” or “a sorry lot of ignoramuses”.

Mickijo, there are many Australian people who genuinely ask: What are Australian values? It’s a reasonable question and reasonable people take it seriously. You don’t have to sneer when you ask it. Nor do you need to be afraid when others ask it.

The equation of immigration with terrorism is simplistic and generates baseless fear.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 5 October 2006 4:52:04 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
Immigration for an economic system that will shaft us at any moment...no loyalty, no security and minimal benefits apart from a mortgage we can't afford. Why should I support this immigration policy? What have I got to benefit from not being xenophobic? Job insecurity, Anglo bashing (as seen in Sydney) and further isolation in an aloof society of people with nothing in common.

Australia does not have a skills shortage, we have a greed problem. The skills shortage is imaginary considering we still have considerable unemployment. Any skills shortage is the result of an economy to big for the population it purports to serve.

And Rainier you masquerade as someone highly intelligent, but only offer cut and run one liners. Is it possible to actually demonstrate your intelligence?
Posted by Angelo, Thursday, 5 October 2006 5:08:00 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
Many question the nature of the Australian identity and culture.Well first of all your language is the the vehicle by which your culture interacts and evolves.We have a very rich language that goes back centuries,with words and ideas taken from hundreds of cultures.

The Aussie version of English has it's own lexicons and slang which make us distintive from both the Yanks and the Brits.The Shame is that we are losing our distinctive character because of this global malaise.Our language is being butchered because we do not have any expectations or standards for those who want to become citizens.

Aussies have a great larconic sense of humour.We are the masters of understatements and love practical jokes.There is still a great national sense for the "fair go" and John Howard needs pay particualar attention to his IR legislation in this regard.

In recent years we have really lost our way in terms of discipline,family values,and respect for other people.I have never seen manners at the low ebb that exits now.These are all signs of a decaying society.

Saeed needs to study and appreciate the culture that affords him so much prosperity before he rants and raves about discrimmination.The Muslim countries in the Middle East have enormous wealth in terms of oil but many of it's people are among the poorest and least educated in the world.Perhaps Saeed needs to observe the religious bigots there too.

You'd think that those who come here would be greatful and joyous beyond belief,alas no,just notions of victims who want to push the envelope of their own biased agenda's.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 5 October 2006 8:34:21 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
After reading the first few paragraphs I thought "This bloke is playing the devils advocate, no one could believe this crap". But on completion I had changed my mind. He does believe this garbage. Given his political affliiations, I am not surprized. Why are lefties so hung up on conspiracys?

Contrary to the authers views, ethnic people are not being attacked. What is being seriously questioned is the ideolagy of multiculturalism and well it should be. MC is a failed ideolagy and to say there is "unity in diversity" is the biggest joke ever. Where is the unity between Croats and Serbs and when will the sunni and shia Iraqis unite? Never!

The concept of MC was foisted upon us by Grazzby, Whitlam and Fraser and has been used by politicians to give money, and jobs, to ethnic 'furhers' in exchange for votes. MC has not worked anywhere in the world so why is anyone surprized that it does not work here.

I do not accept that we are MC. We are multi-racial, and have been since 1788, but MC we are not. There are many aspects of other cultures that are not permitted here, either because those aspects are unlawful or not socially acceptable. The core of our culture stems from Britain, being the most dominant culture, especially in the early days of white settlement. Our political system, our laws and our judicary are all based on the British democratic system.
Our main types of music, entertainment and sports are Westernised.
Our laws take precedence over any religous or cultural dictations.

Like all cultures, ours is continuly evolving but we must not allow ourselves to be forced into change by socisl engineers who think they know better than us. MC was a social engineering experiment that has failed.

Multiculturalism is a furphy. For about 40 years we have been duped by the politicians and the MC industry.

We need to concentrate on integration and ditch MC.

By the way, the tests for English, etc. are to be for those seeking citizenship. Not for prospective migrants as the auther implied.
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 5 October 2006 9:18:38 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
Lets have multiculturalism:

Where is the problem?

Let each of us have to live by the laws of our culture of origin, what could be wrong with that? If thieves in our culture have a hand cut off, and adulterers stoned to death, then let us live, in our groups, according to our culture.

If our daughter disgraces us by having sex before she is married, then let us do to her what our culture may dictate, in our culture it is all she deserves.

Let each of us live by the 'political' systems of our cultures of origin. That is, if our culture of origin doesn't give women the vote, then why should they have the vote in this country?

If in our culture of origin we don't have elected leaders, but have people who are appointed somehow by a group of elders, what could be wrong with that?

Lets get rid of all anti-discrimination legislation, because all that does is stop us from carrying out the cultural norms and practices of our culture of origin.

If in our culture of origin favouritism, nepotism and patronage are the important means of advancement, rather than ability and effort, then so be it. What is wrong with cultural based corruption? For us it is not corruption, it is simply the way we do business.

Let us only speak our own languages, and lets use that as an reason to claim that we are unique and special. Our language is our culture, why do we really need to learn any other language? Instead, we can rightfully expect the host culture to pay for interpreters so we can do our business with the host culture at the host culture's expense.

Let us be tribal, let us be divided. (Let us play cricket by the rules as we understand them.)

Let us be multi cultural.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 5 October 2006 9:23:38 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
I must say I'm a little put out by some of the posts here.

In particular, the comment on Australian's recognising terrorism as a threat and requiring harsher immigration standards to combat it. It should be noted that Mohamed Atta, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, never applied for citizenship in the US (I think he came on a tourist visa, but I'm not sure). The bombers of the London tube were in fact British Nationals, many from well respected "assimilated" families. The proposed immigration laws would not have any effect on limiting the migration of terrorists.

As the son of an immigrant family, I find it rather distressing that immigrants seem to being villified in such a way. 24.6% of Australians are born overseas. Many in the so called "ethinic" communities have given Australia some of it's distinct "flavour" that I love. These include the Arabic speaking, predominently Muslim communities in Sydney's south west and in Perth's east (two cities I have lived in). These communities are bearing the brunt of xenophobic content of the proposed laws.

By the way, could somebody PLEASE tell me what are "Australian Values". And please don't respond with statements such as: respect for civil liberties, respect for women, a "fair go" and akcnowledgement of hard work. These values would disqualify our Prime Minister from gaining Australian citizenship.
Posted by la1985, Thursday, 5 October 2006 9:25:20 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
Australia values as decreed by the Australian government (38,000 BC- 1778 AD).
Requirements:- New Residents must be able to
1. Speak any one of the 700 Aboriginal languages fluently.
2. Knock a 'roo over with a boomerang at 70 metres.
3. Spear a 'roo at 50 metres.
4. Identify edible bush tucker.
5. Build a weatherproof bark shelter.
6. Craft a seaworthy canoe from a tree trunk with a stone axe.
7. Start a campfire without matches or a lighter.
8. Kill and cook a native species.
9. Know how to use a woomera.
10. Identify animals from their droppings, especially bull droppings when they see or read it.
Posted by aspro, Thursday, 5 October 2006 9:30:32 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
Aspro and la1985- good to see some people with humour and sense here. I wasn't going to post here at all, but you have inspired me to paste something I found on Crickey for your entertainment:

"We've heard a lot (probably too much) recently about so-called Australian values. But what about un-Australian values?

Yesterday a sports official suggested in Crikey that the car company Holden, by flying a heavily-branded blimp over the MCG on Grand Final Day, was acting in an un-Australian way because its rival Toyota was chief sponsor of the event. But that un-Australianess is nothing compared to the real thing:

The new IR laws are "divisive, extreme, unfair and un-Australian" - Kim Beazley.

Criticising the federal government over its detention of asylum seekers shows an "un-Australian lack of concern for sovereignty and security" - John Howard.

Sleep deprivation is dangerous and un-Australian - Greens Leader Bob Brown.

Not eating lamb is un-Australian - Sam Kekovich in a Meat and Livestock Australia ad.

Killing people who refer to you by nickname is un-Australian - blogger James Bone.

Suggesting there's an anti-intellectual climate in Australia is un-Australian - actor/cultural commentator Jeremy Sims.

The concept of spectators at the Brisbane Gabba "dobbing in a yobbo” by using their mobile phones to alert authorities to any unruly crowd members may be regarded as un-Australian - Queensland Cricket chief executive Graham Dixon.

John Howard's "new nationalism" reflects an Australia which is, at its heart, un-Australian - Christopher Bantick.

It's un-Australian to prevent southerners from migrating to Queensland -Bernard Salt.

The Sydney race riots were un-Australian - The Forum on Australia's Islamic Relations (FAIR).

Not to be interested in the AFL Grand Final is un-Australian - HG Nelson."
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 5 October 2006 11:01:15 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
Cripes.

What FrankGol said, basically.

No wonder we have social problems.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 5 October 2006 11:10:54 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
Better to go back one century rather than the fourteen we'd go back if one particular ideology became dominant in this country.

Not mentioning any names though.
Posted by CARNIFEX, Friday, 6 October 2006 5:11:59 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
TurnRight... you have the situation summed up rather well.. basically
1/ agree
2/ agree
3/ agree.

Mr Justice..
in one sense you are right.. but its a ‘minimalist’ approach to social integration/acceptance. I support an introduction to and examination on ‘Australian Culture’ because while law is one thing, culture is quite another.

An example I often use is from my wifes culture. If you ask one of her people ‘Hey mate..whats ur name’ he will almost CHOKE. because it is not culturally acceptable to ask a person straight out, their name. You ask another person. Thus, in Australia, we have many customs which have nothing to do with ‘law’ but MUCH to do with social intercourse.
People from a conservative Muslim background would be shocked at the open display of nudity and shameless sex on TV. At least they and I agree on that one, but a warning would be in order regarding the current status quo.

Frank.
Sages colorful adjectives probably don’t advance the debate much but they do make entertaining reading. I still managed to see his point. Onya Sage.

I defend my position Frank from your implicit charge of ‘Anglo-ethnocentrism’ because it is not ‘ethnocentric’ for a host of a home to welcome visitors under his roof under his cultural terms. Its simple common sense and good manners. Ethnocentrism would be where I maintain some peculiar notion of white cultural superiority. There is much I’d like to see change, and for the better. It would do so as we experience and see the benefits of some other cultures in our midst, but it should happen by intermarriage and social osmosis.

I would NEVER expect Asian parents to put their newborn child in ‘Aussie style’ solitary confinement in a separate room while it cries itself to sleep. I wish Aussie families and young parents realized how much anguish they would save themselves by simply keeping a young baby in the parents room for 8 months or so. When I saw this approach in Malaysia myself, I then tried it and had 3 trouble free babies.

Angelo.... Hi5!
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 6 October 2006 6:13:31 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
Banjo and Hamlet (and Fans),

How about some real examples rather than baseless emotive arguments to cloud the issue.

Having said that, I may be in agreement with you on some things.

Banjo says,


1. Our political system, our laws and our judicary are all based on the British democratic system.

3. Our laws take precedence over any religous or cultural dictations: couldn’t agree more!

Multiculturalism, in words of Stepan Kerkyasharian, the Chairman CRC NSW:

"Multiculturalism recognises that the people of NSW are of different linguistic, religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds who, either individually or in community of other members of their respective groups, are free to profess and practice their heritage.

"All individuals in NSW irrespective of their linguistic, religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds must demonstrate a unified commitment to Australia, its interests and future. They must recognise the importance of shared values governed by the rules of law within a demographic framework."

In relation to point 3, also have a read of my August op-ed published in SMH about the laughable federal idea of creating an Islamic institute of leadership http://www.saeedkhan.org/news/2160.html


2. Our main types of music, entertainment and sports are Westernised. Not sure.

Australia's most popular choice of "westernised' music, rock and roll, is based on the music imported into America by black african slaves that went on to become soul and jazz. It has also influenced Country and Western and even contemporary Christian rock groups.
Posted by SKhan, Friday, 6 October 2006 10:42:19 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
Acknowledging Multicutluralism as the failed experiment it is isn't going backwards, but it is a step forward and away from those living in denial..

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=71

Some will no doubt read this and try to jump in and say that I back the policy of Multiculturalism. Well I don't... and that would be disingenuous of them to do so. Mutliculturalism encourages cultural diversity, I prefer encouraging cultural unity. A nation should be united... not divided. Division does not strengthen a society.

No doubt, when I remark on our "Anglo" roots, and that is inevitable, those same people will again jump in and say that proves we have no "Australian" culture... and that it is in fact another distortion of the truth.

One would not say that American culture is English culture, yet the US like Australia had primarily British heritage as it roots. America is not that much older than Australia either so that old flawed argument about us being a young country and having no culture... also holds no water. In fact, no country in the "Anglosphere" has an identical culture. (The Anglosphere is a group of English-speaking nations which share historical, political, and ethnocultural characteristics rooted in or attributed to the historical experience of the British people. Primarily; Australia, Britain, Canada, the United States, India, New Zealand, and South Africa.)

Is Australian culture Indian? Canadian? American? South African? etc.... The answer is clearly no. Yet we all share similarities and people from these cultures would find it easier to "fit in" to each others societies because of that sharing.
Posted by T800, Friday, 6 October 2006 11:19:19 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
Something has been missed so far in all discussions that I have seen on immigration, mutliculturalism and the like. ITS OUR COUNTRY! As the anthem says, we have boundless plains to share, but why shouldnt we (the citizens, whether born here or not), get to chose who we share them with and on what terms. It might not be the politically correct thing to do at the time to deny entry to certain people or groups, or require that certain standards be adhered to, but tough. I dont let anyone wander into my home just because they knocked on the door (and certainly not when they sneak in round the back - the heeler'd get 'em). I choose who I let come into my home (and if I let someone stay), why cant we choose who we let into out country and whether we let them stay. Whats so wrong with that? Sure sometimes we'll make the wrong decision, and sometimes we'll offend people, that's life and learning. But its ours, and we should have the right to permit and deny entry as WE see fit, not as the rest of the world dictates. And by "we" (in case anyone is wondering), I mean the Australian citizens, as represented by majority elected government (whether or not we individually agree with them).

As for removing interpreter services, I hardly see it as inhumane. If someone requires centrelink assistance (for example), they have been in our country long enough to learn enough language to get by. If they are citizens, then they should have passed an english test (so no need for an interpreter), and if not, then why cant their embassy provide an interpreter, why should it be Australia's expense.
Posted by Country Gal, Friday, 6 October 2006 11:52:15 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
Multiculturalism, in words of Stepan Kerkyasharian, the Chairman CRC NSW:
Quote:

"Multiculturalism recognises that the people of NSW are of different linguistic, religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds who, either individually or in community of other members of their respective groups, are free to profess and practice their heritage.

"All individuals in NSW irrespective of their linguistic, religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds must demonstrate a unified commitment to Australia, its interests and future. They must recognise the importance of shared values governed by the rules of law within a demographic framework."

Unquote

Thatis interesting, because few people from truly mulicultural counties, such as India, where different cultural groups have different laws and regulations, would even recognise what is described above as multiculturalism.

So, the question has to be asked: where do we 'draw the line' in terms of multiculturalism? And doesn't 'free to practise their heritage' imply that if their heritage is in conflict with that of the host culture then it is the host culture that has to give way?

What if their culture intrinsically rejects he 'shared values' of the democracy that we live in? To give an example, for most of our society we have elected representatives. Many cultural groups have 'community leaders' who are not elected. These are incompatible in a democracy.

And what if a group see Australia's 'interests and future' in ways that the rest of us don't agree? They are still being committed to Australia in their own eyes, just not in a way that is shared by the host culture.
Posted by Hamlet, Friday, 6 October 2006 1:03:28 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
Ah Friday! - still the war goes on.

I have trouble remembering the names of some of the posters -

however any one who still equates terrorism with immigration or the in ability to speak english with terrorism needs to relax - they wont getya! really they wont - you're more likely to get your throat slit by an irate family member that blown up by a terrorist. So when the in laws turn up unannounced, be alert and possibly alarmed

Country Gal I remember your name - if only because of your insistance it is OUR COUNTRY - I have no idea what that means - I fell from my mothers womb and landed I know what where - I got lucky I suppose - this is not my land it is a place where I live.

Curiously - our National Anthem (the old one) made no reference to this land being ours - just about the Kween and how she was glorious and she rained on us - maybe thats why its so bloody dry - we dont sing to her any more

at least immigrants whether they speak english or not chose to come here - I have chosen to stay for only as long as it suits me - but they un like me - or most of us - have probably given the nation a pledge of allegiance at their citizen ship ceremony -

you could say many who are live here are just to dumb or lazy to leave

And as for english - our pollies spend more on self promotion than we do on multi lingual tramslations - of documents even a Rhodes scholar would struggle with.

Can any one tell me what difference it makes if some one can not speak english? -
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 6 October 2006 4:04:08 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
SKhan,
I did not give examples of aspects of other cultures that are not permitted here simply because they have been quoted many times on OLO and I thought most people would know of a few.

Also Hamlet gave some (be it tongue in cheek) in the next post and B-D gave a couple in his post.

However I will list a few. Polygomy, arranged marriages, child marriages, female circumcission, revenge killings, honour killings,
incest, bullfights, cockfights, eating some foods such as dog meat, dolphin meat, etc. voting for females, complete covering of the female body, the oppression of women, right to carry firearms in public place. These are just a few cultural matters different to Australia. I would not argue that our culture is seperior but that it is different and persons from other cultures should respect that and act accordingly.

If we do not allow certain cultural practises, I do not see how we can claim to be multicultural. Some people place a lot of importance on some cultural practises that we do not allow.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 6 October 2006 4:52:26 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
Kerkesharyian said:

"Multiculturalism recognises that the people of NSW are of different linguistic, religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds who, either individually or in community of other members of their respective groups, are free to profess and practice their heritage."

Well.. clearly from his NAME he is Armenian.
Lets say.. he wants to write a book or produce a TV show about the TURKISH GENOCIDE against Armenians in 1914-18. Does he want the Turkish elements of our community to simply lap it up as "his heritage being expressed" ? I kind of think, given that a Turkish author is on trial for 'insulting Turkishness' by alluding to the attacks on the Armenians, that they would be up in arms about it.

In my Gym the manager is Armenian and the wife of the owner is Turkish. The history is VERY close to the surface I assure you, but it is repressed for the sake of civil social intercourse.

Many 'heritages' are not only incompatable with Australian values and culture, they are also that toward OTHER outside cultures and heritages.

DIVERSITY does NOT make for hamony,.... it makes for a TIME BOMB.

Those who are skilled in pushing the racial buttons, can stir up unimaginable problems

Step 1 Place a pigs head on a Mosque door and splatter blood everywhere.

Step 2 (same perpetraror) Burn a church

Step 3 More attacks against a mosque. (same perpetrator)

Step 4 More church attacks... (same again)
Step 5 Graffiti in Muslim areas "Death to Muslim pigs"
Step 6 Graffiti in Christian areas "Death to Christian pigs"

By this time, the members of the 2 communities are so annoyed they start doing it THEMSELVES, and this....is what has happened in Iraq.

Any ethnic history could be exploited in this way Serb/Croat Greek/Macedonian etc.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 6 October 2006 5:05:39 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
CountryGal

Its our country? Is it really. Our majority elected Govt. decides who and when people come to this country, and they damned well made sure we all knew about the illegal immigrants on the Tampa (even though it is perfectly legal to seek asylum in another country).

This whole issue is a beat up, Howard has increased immigration while pretending to do the opposite (got to get the One Nation voters back on side).

We already have standards, an English language test AND a provision in the Citizenship Act to deny citizenship if a person does not intend to reside in Australia permanently. If our govt is not enforcing the law surely they deserve to be booted out.

This has been extended lately (by loopy liberal backbenchers) to denying welfare to parents who let their kids wag school, making drug addicts pay for their medical expenses and interfering in school curricula to promote their patronising views. This is our government deliberately dividing our nation for their political survival.

You do not need to be an Australian Citizen to receive Centrelink assistance, you have to be a permanent resident. If you wish to deny reciprocal arrangements with other countries you are disadvantaging the many Australian Citizens who are resident overseas.

How many immigrants do you see? Would Griffith in NSW exist if not for Italian migrants? Would Sth Australia have a wine industry if not for immigrants? Would the MIA in the Riverina exist without migrants?

You seem to be saying that we should choose who comes here based on race. Racism is a belief in the moral or biological superiority of one race or ethnic group over another or others. The term racism is also sometimes used to refer to preference for one's own ethnic group, fear of difference, views or preferences against interbreeding of the races, regardless of any explicit belief in superiority or inferiority fact.

Sorry CountryGal even if you don’t realise it you are a racist and you are being played for a fool by John Howard.

Boazy – at least you are consistent :)
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 6 October 2006 5:47:45 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
In 1860-61, riots at Lambing Flat, in the Victorian goldfields, primarily by white male miners, occured. While originally motivated by high unemplyment and an opposition to Gambling dens in the area, the riots and protests developed into mass anti-Chinese immigration rallies. Rioters stormed the Chinese quaters and killed several Chinese miners. A series of attacks followed, forcing Chinese immigrants to eventually abandon the gold fields.

This civil disturbance led indirectly to the adoption of the White Australia Policy, implemented to stop further immigration from China and Eastern Europe (primarily and debatably). In my humble opinion, this is one of Australia's darkest hours.

To say that this country does not have a racist and xenophobic past is to wear very large blinkers. Take this quote from Edmund Barton, Australia's first Prime Minister:

"The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman" (1901)

I realise these are different times with a different world situation. But some of the arguments in support of the Howard Governments legislation sound erily similar to the arguments proposed in favour of the White Australia policy. eg. ITS OUR COUNTRY. They're different. They don't assimilate.

Today the Chinese community in Australia is one of the most vibrant, embracing and authentic. China town in Sydney is one of my favourite places in the city. If the White Australia policy were still in place , we would not have a wonderful, special part of Australia. The country would be worse without it
Posted by ChrisC, Friday, 6 October 2006 9:27:42 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
Well, sneekeepete, It certainly would be an advantage if you did not speak and write in English. That way I would not be able to read the rubbish you write.
Posted by Sniggid, Saturday, 7 October 2006 10:02:36 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
One of the problems about multiculturalism is that it can separate people from the host culture and the host cultures ethics, values and attitudes. This is particularly strong when members of a community don't speak English and are able to isolate themselves, by essentially living and working within their own communities,, excluding influences from outside.

This basically means that they do not have a strong attachment to Australia and its laws.

A few years ago, in Sydney, a "Lebanese" man killed his daughter because she offended the honour of the family. There was one witness: that is, the man's son, the victim's brother.

The family arranged for the son to depart Australia for Lebanon, and as there is no agreement between Australia and Lebanon to force witnesses to return to Australia the murdering father still walks free, and the family's honour has been maintained.

How can anyone embedded in Australian / Western culture even think that a killing for 'honour' is in any way acceptable? The only way that I can think that this man thought that it was acceptable is that multiculturalism encouraged him to maintain his barbaric ideas of family honour and 'human rights', or at least shielded him from being drawn into the values of the host culture.

One death from 'multiculturalism' is one death too many.
Posted by Hamlet, Saturday, 7 October 2006 1:12:56 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
The subject of Multiculture gets more and more raucus, one would think that after thirty or fourty years ,it would be a forgotten matter. Perhaps if the immigrants had been from nations that are identifiable with western standards it may have melted away, but now it is raging like a rotten tooth and it is time we had a referendum on the whole subject.Because I think the pain and the deterioration to this nation is going to get worse.
France is on the brink of civil war,England is one awful mess, the Netherlands are on the edge. Do we want that here?
Bring the referendum on. It will be perhaps the only way to cure the nation's worry.
Posted by mickijo, Saturday, 7 October 2006 2:14:00 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
Hamlet, mickijo and others, no sensible purpose is served by raging against something you describe as "multiculturalism" when you are vilifying something completely different. Hamlet, what you described as a barbaric murder is a heinous crime, but multiculturalism had nothing to do with it. No reasonable person can claim that a policy of multiculturalism encourages or allows murder. No reasonable person - whether they support multiculturalism or not - would agree that murder is acceptable here, in Lebanon or elsewhere. It is a crime, full stop. So to conclude that "One death from 'multiculturalism' is one death too many" is a nonsense. It would be just as silly as saying that because the murder occurred in our democracy that Australia should reject democracy.

mickijo, just last Monday I returned from an extended stay in France and England and toured both countries extensively. I saw nothng that fits your alleged description - "France is on the brink of civil war, England is one awful mess". Applying language like "raging like a rotten tooth" and "the pain and the deterioration to this nation is going to get worse" is comic-book stuff. We don't need a referendum; but you might like to go and see your dentist and doctor!
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 7 October 2006 2:44:29 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
mickiijo

I'll play your silly game. What question should be put in your proposed referendum?

Would it be something like "Australia revises it immigration law to exclude all people from countries not identifiable with western standards"?

Would this include the 17% of Americans who do not speak English? Would it include the London bombers British citizens who did speak English? Would it include French citizens from African colonies?

Would it include Indians, Singaporeans, Mongrel Mob Maori from NZ?

Or should the question be "Lets stop all people thay mickiijo is afraid of from coming here and let him continue in blissful ignorance"

Just who are "they" this month and who will you hate next month?
Posted by Steve Madden, Saturday, 7 October 2006 3:12:08 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
FrankGol obviously did not venture very far from the tourist trail. There is in fact a de facto civil war waged by Muslims in France. For a reference:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml

And there is severe underlying racial tensions in Britain, inflamed by a bombing last year by Islamic fanatics
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2005/london_explosions/default.stm

These two examples show the dark and nasty result of anything goes style of immigration policies. These acts were carried out by children of immigrants, who have an obvious disconnection to the country they live in. No one needs multiculturalism so why should we want it?
Posted by Angelo, Saturday, 7 October 2006 3:27:16 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
"Under the rules of multiculturalism we have been forced to accept the unacceptable"

"take away foreign language services"

"The most effective way to undermine a society is through mass immigration. Multiculturalism is inherrently offensive to the host population"

"back in those days they knew absolutely NOTHING about the dangers of large numbers of culturally different racial groups sharing the same territory"

"some of the people immigrating might bring with them terrorist ambitions"

"Why should I support this immigration policy? What have I got to benefit from not being xenophobic?"

"Multiculturalism is a furphy. For about 40 years we have been duped by the politicians and the MC industry."



What a sad, sorry bunch. OLO sure seems to attract 'em.
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 7 October 2006 4:37:04 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
Frank you dismiss hamlet's scenario out of hand. How unusual. Why not properly address it. if the culture of the Family involved accepts honour killing as is the case in some parts of the ME these days. Why has Multiculturalism nothing to do with it? Of course it has.

Likewise the tribal rampage after Cronulla and the years of intimidation on one side and years of tolerance that put up on the other... till it came to a head.

Did you celebrate 9/11 when it happened... well people in Melbourne and Lakemba and Bankstown did. I worked with some of them.

I know Italians who are racists and don't allow their daughters to marry outside the community.

I went out with a beautiful Lebanese girl, but she was so frightened in the end (and now I fully understand why) she had to move away.

Yes mutliculturalism and diversity are wonderful things... and pigs might fly.
Posted by T800, Saturday, 7 October 2006 5:22:24 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
Angelo’s ‘evidence’ that there is a “de facto civil war waged by Muslims in France” consists of a media article with the sensational headline “Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union”. Had he bothered to read beyond the headline, Angelo would have seen that the claim came only from a radical minority police union, Action Police, and was denied by the mainstream police union, the Police Alliance, and senior police all of whom characterised the violence as crime-gang-based and nothing to do with an ‘intifada’. Likewise the Interior Minister, a Centre-right candidate for the Presidency (who might be thought to have an interest in playing the race/religion card) said the violence was related to police action against drug smuggling gangs and other organised crime rings. These are criminal matters – nothing to do with multiculturalism or even immigration policies (not co-terminous concepts).

And Angelo’s ‘evidence’ of “severe underlying racial tensions in Britain, inflamed by a bombing last year by Islamic fanatics”? A BBC website focussing on the anniversary of the London bombings. But there is nothing there to support Angelo’s sensationalist claims. Indeed if you look closely you’ll find an excellent piece by John Simpson, the BBC world affairs editor, dated 31.8.2005. He writes, “Only three days after a savage series of bomb attacks in central London, half a million people turned out in the streets to applaud as the Queen, in an open car, led a parade of veterans down the Mall to Buckingham Palace.” Hardly the stuff of Angelo’s “dark and nasty result of anything goes style of immigration policies”.
Nor is this from the same writer: “The huge crowds who watched and joined in Sunday's parade were London's answer to all the fear and anger and excitability of the past few days; a Churchillian hand-signal to the bombers. Walking in the hot sunshine in the Mall with my family, I could see that the people round me felt much as I did: they were quietly celebrating their freedom. Not chanting or burning flags or screaming insults at enemies real or imagined, just enjoying themselves.”
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 7 October 2006 5:27:54 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
FrankGol, have another read of my post:

I simply said that anything that allows people from a cultural group to insulate themselves from the values of the host culture in Australia is wrong.

Multiculturalism allows, even encourages, tribalism by privileging the rights of cultural groups over the rights of the individuals in that group.

How would that murderer, after even living for a short time in Australia, be able to maintain his barbarism unless he was effectively insulated from the views, values and opinions of the host culture, without multiculturalism telling him, and others in that group, that they have the right to maintain their 'heritage' in the face of the rest of society?

And what sort of imported cultures do we have here who are willing to reject Australian laws by sending witnesses overseas so that the killer of one of their own family may walk free? It is also telling other women in that community that if one father could get away with honour killing, then their own fathers could as well.

One last, but related, point: Australian law prohibits marriage under the age of 18 with a court's permission, and prohibits marriage under 16 absolutely, this prohibition includes the taking part in a religious marriage ceremony with no civil authority.

Why then is the Lebanese community, amongst others, permitted to marry off (in religious ceremonies that have to be ratified in civil ceremonies years later) 15 and 16 year old girls in the face of these laws? Or is this just something else we have to accept in the name of multiculturalism?
Posted by Hamlet, Saturday, 7 October 2006 6:34:56 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
Mr Kahn,

PART I

For you to be offended by totally reasonable concerns is totally offensive, and betrays your racism to Anglos, a racism we are yet to articulate adequately, but in time we’ll all come to see how selfish are the concerns of those like you.

And when we do, which is utterly inevitable, multiculturalism will itself appear to be a racist philosophy.

We’ll see retrospectively the tacit white supremacist attitude of the left intelligentsia, in their assumptions that ethnic “minorities” are always in some sense an underdog by virtue of their not being Anglos, and in their assumption that these minorities are incapable of looking down upon Anglos. The barriers to fair criticism the far left (the middle-class left) have erected around our tribalistic newcomers will soon be seen as nothing more than racism itself (not to us but toward the minority!

To the tacit white supremacist of the far left, only a white man is in a position capable of looking downward. These nihilistic termites passionately turn a blind eye to the hard evidence of racist anti-Anglo gangs around Sydney and Melbourne, because it’s only the poor-white-skip-trash that get stabbed and bashed, murdered just for being white! They are not Marxists this middle-class left, they utterly despise the working class Anglo (e.g. Scott Poynting, UWS).

We’ll also retrospectively see the Anglophobia of many other’s, like Mr Kahn here, who can’t stop thinking of themselves as first and foremost members of some “ethnic” group, before they are individuals (as is perhaps most intense with practicing-racist Aboriginals). They are slaves to the superficiality of their traditions and have ethnicity on the brain!

How shameful it must feel, when you rudely remind the descenents of the very cultures who first institutionalised tolerance that they are inconsistent if they question multiculturalism, and then someone replies to you that there is nothing inconsistent in not tolerating the intolerant!

Mr Kahn’s comments are reflective of the typical “herd instinct” all racists have, where given the far left’s three-decades of nihilistic denigration of their own roots, they jump in with the boot.
Posted by abyss, Saturday, 7 October 2006 7:59:01 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
PART II

It must be so frustrating to be reminded every day that what you deem your true “homeland” is in a shambles, yet to be living in the land of those you to look down upon, perhaps like a Keysar Trad, as trashy convicts with no culture! All the while repressing the knowledge that it is just such bigotry that lead to that homeland's being rife with corruption and intollerance in the first place.

Those who question multiculturalism are not racist! To think such criticism equates to racism is to project your own tribalistic tendencies onto a culture such an attitude is totally alien to. Where's the evidence of vigilante groups over the last thirty years? Not one! Not a single mosque, but over a dozen churches been burnt and vandalised since 9/11!

There is nothing racist about being concerned about people who care only for their own tribes, their own little patches of Australia. In fact such a concern is a concern WITH racism, ethno-ism! One Nation was essentially, albeit inarticulately, a reaction to racism. But the far left, who 100% shared their trade policy and anti-Americanism, couldn't stand the thought of their little exotic pet-Others thinking negatively of them.

You are so transparent mate! Always focussing on the negatives about us! Someone needs to write a book called OCCIDENTALISM, and soon!
Posted by abyss, Saturday, 7 October 2006 8:24:28 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
Peter Abelard, I read your first post and agreed with it.

I read your response to the summation of Marilyn Shepherd and must concur completely with that too – particularly “your (MS’s) anger. It is your badge of virtue.”

The advancement of nations is determined by their ability to assimilate aliens, the alternative to which is social fragmentation, civil dysfunction to be ultimately resolved (if history is any guide) by external conquest from a force which would see assimilation enforced by non democratic means.

Sneekepete “Can any one tell me what difference it makes if some one can not speak english? –“

It is significantly harder for someone who does not speak English to assimilate, as effective “participate” within the development of the nation or comprehend their personal role and responsibility within it.

To end this modest post I could do no better than to quote from Peter Abelard’s first post

(although abyss’ sentence,

“Mr Kahn’s comments are reflective of the typical “herd instinct” all racists have, where given the far left’s three-decades of nihilistic denigration of their own roots, they jump in with the boot.”,

would suit admirably too)

“I want my children to grow up and participate in the life of this cool, Western, English speaking country. I love these things, I love this country and its promise. I find the constant nay-saying by ethnics rude and offensive. Put a sock in it.”

Well said Peter, best wishes to Eloise
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 7 October 2006 8:32:23 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
Steve Madden obviously doesn't live anywhere near Cronulla or know anyone that does. As for his fanciful drug war scenario he obviously doesn't read papers watch TV or listen to what the police have had to say about what happened. he also fails to acknowledge that many ethnicities were there to protest the Lebanese and their bad behaviour over a period of 10 years. Too bad you don't let the truth influence your opinion making Steve.

I hope OLO censors your uncalled for flaming too.
Posted by T800, Saturday, 7 October 2006 10:08:31 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
Frankgol is not being honest here trying to down play the riots in France.These riots raged for 12 days totally our of control in 300 different locations around the country.The Police knew who had the real power.Frankgol would have been warned of all the "no go" areas so thus things would have seemed to be normal.France has had growth rates of 1% or less for many years.Socialism the break down of the rule of law is killing them.These riots have been occurring on a lesser scale for many years now.

John Howard initially tried to portray France's problems as purely economic.He said that France just needed to improve it's IR laws and those on the fringes would find work.France with a pop of 60 million has North African Muslims who account for 40% of their gaol pop.

Now if we compare the Chinese race and their immigrant track record,they are not over represented in gaols,in fact the most common criticism levelled at the Chinese is that they are so industrious and disciplined ,that they are derided for controlling all the host country's small businesses.They might live in enclaves but they mind their own business,hold no grudges and are almost totally comsumed with working.Religion is not an obsession with them.

We all discriminate in accordance with whom we associate with,invite into our houses or whom we employ.Why not do likewise with our country.Why bring people here of any race including Anglo Saxions who may have serious anti-social tendencies.

Trying to appease The UN in being totally PC will just see Australia just go the way of France and we will eventually lose our Democratic freedoms to crime corruption and over zealous religious bigotry.

Democracy and our prosperity did not happen by accident.It takes a lot of hard work and vigilence.We are "The lucky Country" by design,not by some freak accident.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 8 October 2006 12:38:16 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
Anyone canvassed the scenario of 'monoculturalim' that appears to be one of the root causes - by this I refer to Americanization?

It has been going on for many, many years, insidiously permeating our 'Australian' way of life. No, not the heads on backwards inside baseball caps, not the Microsorft US Spell checker in your PC, but the slow grinding down & erosion of what was percieved as Ocker if you please.

Have we True Blues really had an 'identity' since losing Chesty Bond the legendary Bronzed ANZAC to a Chinese tee shirt factory in Guanzhou, or Paul Hogan - to a blonde Yank bimbo no less?

Our 'real men & women' - those who drive V8 utes, drink Bundy, and shag incessantly on the main, couldn't give a rats rectum until it affects the watching of a footy game, or the price of petrol/beer/bundy/smokes.

Question these intellectual giants on a most basic question say: the separation of powers in the Constitution, and you would be likely told to " ...F**K OFF!" They all have a valid opinion though when it comes to ridding our collective consciences of undesirables.

Stone the bleedin crows....so now if we attack perceived American values - the rationale(s) for the War On Terror perhaps? This as well is seen as un-Australian.

What is happening is the lack of education about real issues. The deafening silences from the media on anything but state sanctioned, sanitised, perception management of our lives via the cathode ray tube. Yes it's happening right now as we sit here Googling and look at 2 or 3 news sites - 9MSN, The Age, SMH... whoever...?

If you no longer agree, find out information and facts to the contrary, or beg to differ with the official version, then you have become by default " a seditioner" a malcontent or other suitably applied label.

Watch your backs, sleep with one eye open, and above all - keep that fridge magnet handy.

Aspro - you sussed it! 100% Correct. And just why did Rastafarianism become the mast to which aboriginal Australia nailed its 'colours' to?
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Sunday, 8 October 2006 12:04:34 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
Steve Madden “Well said, the problem with the posters who hate anyone “different” is that they have no comprehension that they are the problem.”

Oh so well said Steve and so absolutely hypocritical of you when, because I hold different “social” priorities and values to you, you denounce me as

“Your superciliuos ravings about a moral society are a load of bollocks.” (spelling errors included)

“nasty little neo- fascist”

and then

Steve tells me “Unlike you I help others, I do not trample them for my own selfish, parasitic needs as you do.”

I guess you are as inflexible in your choice of “different” as you are in your ideologies Steve.

“Bring on the next election, then we can return to the tolerant society we used to have, Howard should be sent to the garbage bin of history where he belongs.”

Oh we have it,

remember the last election, “Biffo the fist “ Latham was the best the socialists could offer as leader. Latham, the picture of “tolerance”

and pray tell us, where is he now?

Who do they put up this time – Beazley, the Rhodes scholar who will be remembered for being just a few buckets of lard too many.

Steve, I suggest you will be seen to choke on your own words with

"the problem with the posters who hate anyone “different” is that they have no comprehension that they are the problem."

Now the real reason for the post

Unfortunately, Saeed Khan and most predominantly in current times, other muslims seem offended by the “differences” which confront them in the place they chose to migrate to and expect it to change for them, oh how wrong they are.

Assimilation will, as a natural process of human intermingling, see those who “assimilate” flourish but those who do not will die out.

So Saeed, if you do not want to see your grandchildren possibly wearing punk haircuts, high heels or sporting breast implants, go back to where medieval repressive intolerance bans such individual expression because you (as a set of so called values) will die out here.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 8 October 2006 1:13:23 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
"Diversity is NOT unity, NOR does it create a strong society"

Now..for Steve Maddens benefit. Did you see the headline in the Sunday Herald today ? (Of course not :) ..its a 'NEWS' publication)
But here are the essential parts of the major headline.

MUSLIM CABBIES REFUSE BLIND AND DRINKERS.

Now.. past the headline, we find some facts:

1/ At least 20 dog-aided blind people have lodged discrimination complaints with the Victorian Taxi Directorate. Dozens more have voiced their anger.

2/ Victorian Taxi Association spokesman Neil Sach said the association had appealed to the mufti of Melbourne to give religious approval for Muslim cabbies to carry guide dogs.

Does anyone see what I see here ?

1/ Discrimination based on religion (against Australians)
2/ Sharia law via 'asking the mufti' if its ok.

The plain fact is...it is ILLEGAL to deny a blind person a ride in a cab due to his dog. So...WHY is anyone asking the Mufti ? rather than asking the Equal Opportunity Commission or the LAW ?

I've said repeatedly, that to encourage and nourish 'difference' in cultural terms, to pander to minority cultures and religions ..to 'respect' them.. will does, and HAS lead/led to the above incident.

Special for Steve Madden. "are u going to claim that Muslims cabbies HATE blind people just like you claim some of us 'hate' anyone who is different ? or you going to see the discriminatory error of your ways ? :)

IT GETS WORSE.

"Muslims are good people and the community has to realise that the days of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant are well and truly over,"
(Neil Sachs, Taxi Driver association spokesperson)

Is that right Neil ? Actually, the 'day' was never about that, because it includes probably more CATHOLICS than protestants. But newsflash, this country still consists of 68% 'White/Anglo' backgrounded people.

Neils comments simply CONFIRM the claims of anti ethnic immigrationists that they will TRY TO CONTROL the cultural agenda once numbers are sufficient. Its now the "Day if Islam" in Australia ?
Is there any other way to interpret Neil Sach's remarks ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 8 October 2006 1:40:22 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
Dear abyss,

Thanks for taking time to articulate your “supremist views”. I acknowledge the fact that the sharper end of your ‘bandwagon’ has learnt a fair bit from the emergence of neo-cons and is thriving in the current political climate of fear and hatred.

Instead of using HEAVY words such as ‘nihilism’ you could have responded to some of the questions I raised in my article. Instead you have come up with a classic neo-conservative response…accuse, ridicule, and character assassination...with a sectraian touch. How sad! Only, if you could hide the obvious hypocrisies of your narcissistic rubbish.

On one hand you defend the idea of ‘Australian Values’ (seemingly a call for compliance...not that anyone knows what they are) and on the other hand you accuse me of ‘herd instinct’ for raising multicultural issues…all in one breath. Then you go on to subscribe to OCCIDENTALISM…So mush for your ethos of individualism.

The likes of you (Col Rouge and company) are stuck at the darkest bend of your own little abyss and don’t represent the mainstream Australia I know. I have a lot of faith in my fellow Australians, Anglos and non-Anglos!

Nevertheless, I am glad that this debate has encouraged you to express your fears and anxieties
Posted by SKhan, Sunday, 8 October 2006 2:36:39 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
Golly, we're getting personal a lot.

What's meant by difference-haters as being the problem, is MC only works when the majority accepts it can work , front-page sensationalism excepted.

Look at the benefits of MC. I love living in a country with so many cultures and peoples.

I could say to all those complaining, "why don't you move to such-and-such a country where this-or-that doesn't happen"...but I won't. I believe we've got no choice to accept those already here.
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 8 October 2006 2:52:18 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
Boazy

If you are going to quote the article why did you forget “Mr Sach said the problem was often reversed and that Muslim drivers suffered discrimination from passengers who abused them for being "terrorists".”

T800 the fool who thought he was a member of One Nation only to find he was not, there were only 3 members Pauline and the two Davids. (Liberal party stooges trying to undermine the Qld Nationals).

Col Rouge the LIAR who thinks intelligent debate is to cut and paste someone’s comments and append a snide comment (Been doing it for years Col how about some constructive comments?)

And dear Boazy who I kind of like, stuck in his open brethren quagmire, who relates everything back to the bible as is unable to function without his crutch.

Any more intolerant racists want to try to belittle my views, come on wallys make yourselves look even bigger fools than you already have.

I remember when this was a tolerant country, if you called a Croatian a Yugoslav he would tell you the difference, when lebo rolls were a new taste treat, when a souvlaki or falafel were special.

Now thanks to Howard’s cowardly politics of division we have all the racist worms crawling out of their putrefying holes to spread the cancer of hatred for his political advantage.
Posted by Steve Madden, Sunday, 8 October 2006 3:23:30 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
Steve... why I did not mention that is very simple.

Abuse of Muslim drivers, I suggest is the act of a loony jingoistic rabble. I also believe that such people are not part of a particular identifiable sub culture which is trying to force everyone else to call muslim taxi drivers 'terrorists'.

The actions of the Muslim drivers is 'calculated, deliberate and illegal and is an overt attempt to promote Sharia religious/cultural law over Secular Australian law.'

Im surprised you even brought that up. You could have paid much more serious attention to the implied cultural threat by Mr Sachs "When we get/have the numbers, you are OUT"

Now.. lets get serious here. That is virtually seditious. It is definitely culturally seditious, and while not actually illegal it is definitely brazen and threatening and confrontational.

That to me is by FAR the more important point in this story.

I've written to mr Sach accordingly, and to the herald feedback.

This incident is just another well deserved nail in the coffin of multi culturalism.

Emphasizing difference, accepting culturally incompatable people to 'our' land :) (thought u might like that) and then PROMOTING their incompatable values is ludicrous.

How did Cronulla occur ? Another easy one.

a) A period of values conflict between isolationist migrants and their offspring.
b) MultiCultural encouragement of "My culture has to be respected too"
c) An incident of physical violence which caused a) and b) to come to a head.

Now this is EXACTLY what happened between the Muslims and Christians of Sulawesi/Ambon etc. A Muslim kid was playing up, and was ejected from a bus, he reports "They (Christians) beat the crap out of me waaaaaaah" to his mob and the next thing you know 10,000 homes are burned (that is a real statistic by the way)

There's only one problem with 'multiculturalism' and its 'people' !
So, until you can produce new people, lets dump this flawed policy.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 8 October 2006 3:55:42 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
Steve madden, one of the main things I would put in a referendum would be to ask, Do Australian laws and VALUES come before any ethnic persons own culture?

Because it is obvious that many new comers here are ignoring our laws and probably will go on ignoring our laws unless they are stopped.
Lebanese gang rapists said they were going to teach the Australian girls how "Lebs do it!"
The likes of Trad and Hilali who are help up as some kind of criteria is not helping Muslims any .
I do not give a hoot whether you agree or disagree, I am not interested. But I know what is truth and what is not truth.
And turning our beautiful land back to a medievil oppressive tyranny will not happen if we can help it.
Posted by mickijo, Sunday, 8 October 2006 4:14:47 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
B_D,
As I said before. Our laws take precedence over any religipous and cultural dictations. This Sach bloke should know the law and both him and the cabbies need to be told in no uncertain terms about that.
In fact Bracks should have already called the Discrimination Commissioner by now and a press release should be out tomorrow, am.

I am outraged by this and I have never heard of any other instance where the right of a guide dog to enter was even challenged, in any form of transport, restrauant or public building.

Perhaps we are partly to blame because we insist we are MC and say all cultures can be practised. This is another example of problems caused by multiculturalism,

Keep us posted on events will you as we do not get all news from "Mexico"
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 8 October 2006 4:27:34 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
T800, you say I dismissed Hamlet's scenario out of hand. Not so. My post argued that Hamlet introduced a giant red herring. Murder is not part of multiculturalism and it is as absurd to suggest it stems from multiculturalism as it is to say it stems from democracy. Murder is the act of a criminal and should be dealt with according to our criminal code. I have never seen anyone argue that criminal behaviour should be accepted in Australia on the grounds that it is culturally relevant (or alleged to be) in another country. Setting up straw men to knock down is the weakest form of debate.

You ask me: “Did you celebrate 9/11 when it happened...people in Melbourne and Lakemba and Bankstown did. I worked with some of them.” My reply is that I did not celebrate 9/11; and I know and worked with Muslims and Christians and atheists who wept at those tragic events. Do people think ‘multiculturally’ when they celebrate tragedy and ‘monoculturally’ when they weep at it?

You say: “I know Italians who are racists and don't allow their daughters to marry outside the community.” To which I say, I know many Italo-Australians who are happy to leave that decision to their daughters and sons. And I know some Anglo-Australians who have not been happy to let their sons and daughters marry outside their communities. Should you and I be calling them ‘racists’?

I am sad that your love life did not have a happy ending because your “beautiful Lebanese girl…was so frightened in the end…she had to move away”. My friend’s beautiful Lebanese girl and her parents were more tolerant…or discerning.
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 8 October 2006 4:41:46 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
I have a very simple and short question.

I am a white 6th generation Australian what are the benefit's of multiculturalism for me
Posted by EasyTimes, Sunday, 8 October 2006 4:45:19 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
let's see... Steve madden... your lack of knowledge re ON is astounding. I believe Hanson and Ettridge were gaoled in Qld in reference to the so-called "false" membership you trumpeted about. Well Steve, guess what? they were found not guilty and all charges were quashed... the memberships were found to indeed be valid. I believe however the party still has not has it $500,000 returned by the electoral commission.

Frank... gee if I was to mention japanese and eskimos I bet you'd know some of them too. Do you think that perhaps i know more of them than you? shall we compare? I know a whole Italian community where I used to live I was engaged to an Italian till her racist parents decided to kidnap her and get her married off overseas... now let's not start by impuning my good nature again eh Frank, that's just bveing a poor sport. Vilifying others seems to be a trait of the regressive Left.

You still failed to adress Hamlet's scenario... and you still dismiss out of hand others who dissent from your obviously superiour pov. Well Frank having lived at the coa;-face of Multiculti I can tell you it aint working. Having actually studied it I can tell you it was unwanted and un-needed.... and I'm just counting migrants there. So what are the benefits Fwank?
Posted by T800, Sunday, 8 October 2006 6:05:45 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
Frankgol wrote:

T800, you say I dismissed Hamlet's scenario out of hand. Not so. My post argued that Hamlet introduced a giant red herring. Murder is not part of multiculturalism and it is as absurd to suggest it stems from multiculturalism as it is to say it stems from democracy. Murder is the act of a criminal and should be dealt with according to our criminal code. I have never seen anyone argue that criminal behaviour should be accepted in Australia on the grounds that it is culturally relevant (or alleged to be) in another country. Setting up straw men to knock down is the weakest form of debate.

Unquote:

Once again you have avoided the central point! Multiculturalism enabled this guy, in his own mind, to decide what he was doing was right, according to this culture. Of course it was murder, and of course it should have been dealt with by law: however, due to multiculturalism those around this barbarian had not absorbed enough culture to recognise that he should not have been protected in the way that he was.

Multiculturalism is no excuse for murder, but it is a factor when it insulates and isolates members of cultural groups from absorbing and accepting Australian values and Australian laws.

I never said that multiculturalism is an excuse for crime, I said that it removed the incentive for members of cultural groups to realise that they live in a democratic, secular, liberal, western society and that as long as they live here they have to accept this societies values and laws, right down into the deepest parts of their beings. They cannot just be in this society, they essentially have to be of this society, because these are the values of the culture.

Culture is not just food, language and festivals, it is about a total world view of what 'the good life' is. In the host society freedom, as we express it, of the individual, is the basis of the good life. In other cultures this is not the case, and therefore conflict is inevitable, as will casualties.
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 8 October 2006 6:09:53 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
I do not have an answer Easy times to your simple question: but if you dont know now you never will; get out a little more often perhaps that will help
And I have a question for you! What is the relevance of being a 6th Generation Australian?
Posted by INKEEMAGEE2, Sunday, 8 October 2006 6:14:26 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 do have an answer for your simple question, Easytimes.

A broader mind.
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 8 October 2006 6:34:08 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
The other day I was passing the Australian-Chinese ex servicemens monument in Sydney. On it were inscribed the names of many in Australia's Chinese community who had died fighting for Australia. For those who think that the ultimate sacrifice for your country is the ultimate act of patrotism, this monumnet symbolises a wonderful aspect of multiculuralism. These people, who died for Australia, were the ones that the White Australia policy, was designed to keep out.

I've noticed that many of the posts seem intent on putting the boot into Australia's Muslim community. This is unfair. The overwhelming majority of Australia's muslims are law abiding, friendly people. Consider Australia's Turkish community, which is a wonderful example of multi-culturalism in practise. Anecdotally, I have friends of Iraqi descent. While their fathers english is poor, they are honest friendly, hard-working people. Australia is lucky to have them.

Even the much attacked Taj El-Din Hilaly, (whos view I do not, in general, agree with), put himself in danger in an attempt to release Douglas Wood. While his actually involvement is disputed, it is generally believed his actions were undertaken with the best of intentions.

I would also like to point out to Boaz_David that the "Day if Islam" may be a little while comming. According to the 2001 census, about 1.5% of Australians idenitfy as Muslim, of which the vast majority respects the law. So don't worry Boazy, you can still drink in a cab for a while.

While I do not condone unlawful behaviour on the basis of cultural background (this is never an excuse), for every misdeed by a Muslim Australian, I could quote at least 2 by an anglo of similar severity.

Multiculuralism is a wonderful part of Austrlia. I believe that it is in Australia's long term interests to embrace it
Posted by ChrisC, Sunday, 8 October 2006 7:37:51 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
Inkeemagee2 being a 6th generation Australian means that I have more of an attachment to Australia and care for the path she goes! I don’t have a second home and I don’t have a foreign passport. Unlike most people who champion multiculturalism!

I will tell you why you don’t have an answer for my question it’s because there is no real benefit for people like me.

Sure I will be told by these “new” Australians that I am racist and hateful and xenophobic if I don’t accept that it is a good for me having people who I have nothing in common with culturally or socially move to my country.
I don’t need it! I quite happy and quite successful as it is.

Who are these people telling me that to be broad minded that I need people from all over the world living in my country and watering down my way of life! The way of life I love and cherish! The way of life my fore fathers would have dreamt of me having and that I want for my children and future generations of Australians.

Who are you people?

There are no advantages for people like me who can say proudly that it was families like mine that made this country into what is today.

Multiculturalism is a form of social taxation that successful groups of people aka Europeans are forced to pay because of their innovation and creativity. The people of less successful civilisations will use all manner of ways to guilt European people into giving up what they have strived and worked so hard for over the many centuries.

But alas the cat is already out of the bag and the debate should not be about being for or against multiculturalism it should be about what is to much
Posted by EasyTimes, Sunday, 8 October 2006 8:02:33 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
Mr Khan,

PART I

Firstly, I never even mentioned “Australian values”, and by “Occidentalism” I thought I obviously meant something like “Anglophobia”.

Secondly, I am nothing remotely like a “neo-con” (unless you mean "a descendent of convicts"), I am not conservative in the least. Nor am I an postmodernist. That worries you doesn't it? Someone who is progressive, yet pointing the "race card" back at the non Anglo! Well, you all had it coming, and it's only going to spread!

Now, I consider many of the migrants we bring here to be extremely conservative, and therefore I share your philosophy. But the big difference is that I don’t only notice conservatism, particularly the “redneck” variety, when it comes from non-Anglos, whereas your kind only notices it from Anglos.

Just like how many of our adolescent left-wing extremist academics in the Arts never stop short of making fun of, of stereotyping, Texans, or the South of the USA generally, but cry "racist" at the mention the factual rate of cousin marriage as 1000% higher in the Middle East.

One day, those like Germaine Greer will become seen as the true racists, the ones who considered the Other so worthless that they even concocted relativist theories of interpretation to justify there turning a blind eye to barbaric practices like female circumcision, all for the sake of saving face with the Other. So selfish and therefore racist she'll be seen as!

This is a pathological state of affairs the West is in, and you unwittingly show your bigoted colours by taking the side of such far left termites, particularly when we all know how your kind are only ‘progressive’ in your diasporas within Western multicultural nations, but vehemently conservative ultra-nationalists when it comes to your precious ‘homelands’.

The sooner the far left’s neurosis with the Other is overcome, and multiculturalism dies out (which in no way means diversity, tolerance and considerateness die out, only the bar on criticism!), and the world's barbarians overcome tribalism, and instead institutionalise criticism then the sooner we can all start dealing with ....
Posted by abyss, Sunday, 8 October 2006 9:07:04 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
PART II

.... the serious issues of poverty and corporate crime, i.e. the class issues, and stop voting conservative. I blame your ethnopolitics for holding us all back.

Finally, you say you are unsure what “Australian values” are, and if it's because you consider that these values ought really be referred to as “human” values, I totally agree with you.

But again, unwittingly, the fact that what you and all the other ethnocentric multiculturalists throw into the debate is nothing but what your ‘tradition’ handed down to you only shows your unwillingness to give it up for something new.

“Multiculturalism” to you means preservation of heritage, rather than diversity in itself, which implies transformation, change, which threatens you.

The reason you think Anglos are “blank” in a cultural sense is precisely because we are about the only ones who actually debate our tradition and transform accordingly; we can handle the abyss of looming nihilism and are empowered in our Nothingness you so mock.

But your heritage is threatened by multiculturalism too, but being protected by the far-left and the race-card you think the only ones who have to transform and adapt are the host Anglos, that the only ones who have to learn about tolerance are Anglos! But nothing could be FURTHER from the truth mate!

And your childish attack on the roots of Western music being in black slave’s jazz is just another tiresome example of how an anti Westerner copes with the fact they prefer to live in a Western nation, and in the process abject the discomfort of their "inner struggle" upon the Western host, denigrate it, find fault with it, so as to appease their utterly weak consciences.
Posted by abyss, Sunday, 8 October 2006 9:10:02 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 standard of this debate is more appalling than most. Some posters SHOUT (upper case in case you miss the point) pre-prepared positions, unwilling to listen to relevant evidence of those who disagree with them and unable to supply valid evidence to support their contrary opinions. (Others quote evidence that actually undermines their position, but they don't seen to notice.)

Some make outrageous assertions and claim as truth things they have no possible way of knowing (e.g. FrankGol obviously did not venture very far from the tourist trail; and FrankGol was warned about areas to stay away from in France – both absolutely wrong but, hey, since when have facts got in the way of revealed TRUTH!).

Some show they have no awareness of how ignorant they are about the meaning and reality of multiculturalism in Australia. They throw ludicrous bombs of fear about like psychological terrorists – multiculturalism apparently causes murder, illegal marriages, civil war, the return to medievil [sic] oppressive tyranny and the banning of blind dogs from taxis. What about global warming and cyclonic weather? Surely multiculturalism also causes them, and bad breath too!

The DIMEA website
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/06evolution.htm#policy sets out the government's policy on multiculturalism “to build on our success as a culturally diverse, accepting and open society, united through a shared future and a commitment to our nation, its democratic institutions and values, and the rule of law.” Yes, the rule of law: multiculturalism offers no mandate for murder, illegal marriages, civil war, the return to medieval oppressive tyranny or the banning of blind dogs from taxis.

I don’t imagine the loony right will be bothered by the proper definition of multiculturalism given by our democratically-elected government. They will go on believing whatever they want to. And displaying their pig ignorance forever and ever on OLO.
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 8 October 2006 9:14:53 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
Dear Abyss,

I respect the fact that you didn’t deny your ‘supremist’ ideals.

Occidental meaning of the occident (West), I would have thought the meaning of Occidentalism was quite obvious…and fitting to your narrow views in this debate while you are attacking multiculturalism.
Posted by SKhan, Sunday, 8 October 2006 10:05:38 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
Well said, FrankGol, I agree with you.

This is the main reason I have not been taking part in this discussion.

I tried to take part in a discussion on another thread about a similar topic but found the atmosphere extremely hostile- not much different from this thread.
When I read some of the posts on here, I was appalled once more.

This could have been an interesting discussion in where people could have shown different points of view without the hostility and unwillingness of a few posters to even look at other viewpoints.

They might as well join a monologue forum.
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 8 October 2006 10:38:16 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
Well frank are you aware that the definition of Multiculti has changed 3 times since it's original inception? No?

Are you also aware that most people do not know what the current definition is even those you seem to be sticking up for? Are you aware that living in an enclave enables one to not have to adopt those very things you quoted. Are you aware that the values mentioned happen to be the AUSTRALIAN ones you deny people have to adhere to due to their cultural differences. Are you aware you are living in denial frank?

You spend too much time telling everyone else they are wrong and telling us what is so good about Multiculti. I'm still waiting after several posts.
Posted by T800, Sunday, 8 October 2006 11:40:20 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
So we have a problem here. The problem is that in this so called democracy no one specifically asked if the voters, who would have to eventually fund the beast and whose lives may be affected by it, were asked if they consented to 'multiculturalism'.

The additional problem is that so much appears to have been done in the name of multiculturalism that no one knows what it really is. Fine phrases from various organisations and academics who have a vested interest in seeing multiculturalism succeed only cause the BS meters of much of the population to glow red.

Another problem is that so many of the incoming groups have claimed that Australia did not have a culture before these cultural groups arrived.

For all the apologists for multiculturalism, please ask yourselves how you would feel if you were told that your 'culture' either did not exist or was so worthless that it required an influx of cultures from other places to give it value?

Then those of the host culture are told to accept Sharia law, or similar constructs for other cultural groups. That is, to say that the law that we know, that has enabled this society to prosper and evolve, is worthless in the face of other cultures.

Yes, those 1.5% of the population who are of Islamic background have asked for Sharia law to be enshrined in the Australian legal system.

Then ask the old man, who has lived in his home in Lakemba for 50 years, how he feels about the pressure being brought upon him to sell his house, just so that the rest of the street bought out by an imported cultural group can close the street for Friday prayers.

If multiculturalism, at the level of the street, at the level of the magistrates court, at the level of the beach, was so success then no one would have cause to complain in any way.

You have to ask yourself why multiculturalism is opposed by so many people.
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 8 October 2006 11:57:11 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
S Khan,

so typical that in your responses to the arguments put forward by abyss, and that you made no attempt in answering, cut deep.

For deep down, anyone who champions a policy of selective difference and intolerance of a universal set of morals (as multiculturalism does) is in essence, the very definition of a bigot.

How dare you not see the obvious failures of multiculturalism, particularly related to third world cultures brought out on mass?

How dare you not give a damn about the countless white Australian youth that suffer racially motivated bashings out in Sydney's west?

How dare you, as a member of a "tribe", which is all those adhering to multiculturalist viewpoints represent, call us intolerant, those who have invited hundreds of cultures to live here successfully, without imposing 'dhimmi' status, or second class status as do all non-western cultures.

Isn't it funny that every migrant I know would never tolerate the idea of their "homeland", their "real country" (Australia is just a bank to many of these xenophobic hicks) being multicultural.

What do you think this says?

You comment about no one knowing what Australian values are, betraying your racism towards whites, because, unlike the tribalistic spiritual materialism that most cultures practice (i.e, praying five times a day, not eating pork, fasting, wearing specific cloth, as opposed to the western European tradition of critical thought, effectively crushing pointless ritual) you can't pinpoint our dress, our music, our food, can you...

All we want from other cultures is their food, as in reality they have nothing to offer in the way of morality. What substance do non-western cultures have?

You claim western music comes from black slaves, yet if so, why not any music from black slaves in Islamic nations?

Any Beethoven's in the non-west? Why? Mabye because they aren't open and don't nurture creativity, just cover it with a bedsheet?

And you dare tell us to accept racist cultures in the guise of multiculturalism?
Posted by Benjamin, Monday, 9 October 2006 8:48:44 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
Australians are sick of all the rednecks we've imported from the third world. Sick of our kids being bashed by middle-eastern gangs for being white.

How do you not see? Whites don't hang out in packs of 30, no group mentality, we are individuals.

You are so materialistic you think that the west has nothing, the west is a process of constant transformation, but we've lost that in the past few decades because the true racists, the supremacist left, don't see you as equals.

You can't be criticised for your the ethnic other!

You can argue all you like but the universal principles of human rights trump any specific cultural set of rules, traditions, and other irrational belief.

Any morality that isn't arrived at through reason is irrelevant, which is why, although your kind can't stand it, you are all becoming more western by the day.

You travelled the world to live here for crying out loud, it is obvious that the values we hold now are better, just as they are better than the way Europeans used to live.

Get over your racism, your tribe. You are a member of the human race first and foremost.

The sad thing is, only western cultures truly consider all peoples equal beings, women aren't to be covered with bedsheets here, as that is an irrational, decadent practice.

In time, multiculturalism will be seen as the policy put forward by supremacist leftist ideologues as a means of stifling debate into the inherent racism of the non-west, for in all honesty, when one looks at such societies, one can truly understand why the Spanish, British and French explorers considered them all savages.

Your holding on to a carcass if you believe multiculturalism isn't dead.

But if you truly believe in it, then your ill for it offers nothing but a protection of rednecks who hide behind irrational tradition.

Critical thought, reason, isn't only a western concept you know, it can be applied to others.
Posted by Benjamin, Monday, 9 October 2006 8:54:55 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
Sniggid - I note you refer to my contributions as rubbish! you flatter me - It is obvious that to have formed an opinion about my body of work you must have read it - I thank you from the bottom of my black heart.

The fact you think what I write is rubbish is of no consequence really - I suspect that you are not alone.

Some on else has said it but post was Australia has been built largely by those who spoke poor english - but that is a minor point - this present beat up about values and committing to Australia is a nonsense - it is about fostering patriotism (and we all know how bad that is ) - and the patriotism is sought as a rear gaurd action to bolster the governemnts stocks on a false war - that may develop into a real one if we dont pull our heads in.

There may come a time when terrorism really is a threat - based on the West's constant interference in the affairs of others - then you can all tell me that you told me so -

Right now this debate just gives people a cloak of legitimacy when all they really want to do is bag out foreigners.

The capacity to speak english is a measure of nothing - a test for commitment to values is a joke - if I was a self respecting terrorist I would study hard and sign up to any code of conduct if only to get nearer my target - it is more of a test of patience than anything
Posted by sneekeepete, Monday, 9 October 2006 9:15:48 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 always amazes me when people strongly criticise the hijabs of Muslim women.
Does it really matter to us what they wear?

I mean, look at the tattoos, multiple facial piercings (and other parts of body)and the pink and green hair some Westerners walk around in.

Why is one acceptable and not the other?

It doesn't disturb me at all what people wear or how they present themselves.
People can stroll around with buckets on their heads if they like.

I do have to agree though, that in some occupations, completely covering the face is not a good idea.
For example, teachers working with young children do use a lot of facial expressions.
So I have to agree that covering the face is not always acceptable.
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 9 October 2006 10:23:09 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
"There are no advantages for people like me who can say proudly that it was families like mine that made this country into what is today."

You gotta be kidding! Where to start?

A quater of the nation today is immigrant.
A large percentage of the population has always consisted of 'new' Australians.
We have a very peaceful co-existence despite this.

"What it is today" is precisely what you're complaining about.
Posted by bennie, Monday, 9 October 2006 5:38:20 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
T800, you ask if I’m aware that the definition of Multiculturalism has changed three times since it's original inception? Answer: it’s changed more times than three and the reason is that sensible people have engaged in reasonable debate about it. That’s democracy.

You ask if I’m aware that “most people” do not know what the current definition is? Answer: I can only speak about those on this forum who seem not to know – that’s why I posted the government’s current definition. (Hamlet thinks that because he doesn’t know, then most people don’t. He assumes they share his ignorance.)

You ask if I’m aware that the values in the definition happen to be the Australian ones I deny people have to adhere to due to their cultural differences. Answer on Australian values; yes; and on denial of legal obligations to adhere to these values: no, read the definition again; you’re not attacking multiculturalism.

Hamlet, you say that no one specifically asked the voters if they consented to 'multiculturalism'. Since it’s been successive government policy since the mid 1970s, and both major parties support it, you must have been asleep. You conclude: “You have to ask yourself why multiculturalism is opposed by so many people”. Indeed I do when I read this forum; but outside this, what’s the actual evidence? Why has no government ever lost office because of a groundswell of dissent against multiculturalism?

You say that so many of the incoming groups have claimed that Australia did not have a culture before these cultural groups arrived. That’s a figment of your paranoid imagination.

You ask how I would feel if I were told that my 'culture' either did not exist or was so worthless that it required an influx of cultures from other places to give it value. Answer: pretty bad, but since that’s not the case under multiculturalism it’s not relevant.

Some people (you say 1.5%) may have asked for Sharia law to be enshrined in Australian law. But it’s hardly likely to happen without a solid majority in support. So why are you beating the fear drums?
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 9 October 2006 6:06:38 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
Frank Gol, remember One Nation? There was a groundswell against multicult there mate. Jail time for its leaders when they threatened the status quo with their popularity. We are dictator democracy.

Notice the backgrounds of the London bombers?
Notice the backgrounds of the riotous youth in Paris?

A serious criminal problem isolated to ethnic imports thanks to stupid immigration policies.
Posted by Angelo, Monday, 9 October 2006 6:47:10 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
Frankgol,

Maybe you didn't get around to watching the SBS show 'Vox Populi" on Sunday nights, with the constant stream of people being interviewed who claimed that Australia really didn't have a culture prior to multiculturalism?

Or listening to those Radio National Saturday and Sunday afternoon shows with the same message?

Back in the 1970s and 1980s I worked in a organisation that meant I had extensive contact with immigrant migrant groups, through places like multicultural resource centres, and the same message was clear.

In the early 1990s the government office where I worked had a poster celebrating 'diversity'. I consisted of many small portraits and images of people from various cultures. But there was something missing, and that was any image from the Australia that I grew up in. So I did something to celebrate my culture, I got a small unobtrusive picture, a notable picture, of one wounded Australian soldier, who could not walk unassisted, being aided by another wounded digger, who had been blinded. You get the idea. I put that picture on the poster, so small you could barely see it, it looked in place from the photographic perspective,

Well, within minutes that picture had been removed from the montage, as it didn't celebrate enough 'diversity', because it celebrated a culture from before multiculturalism. That poster, and the action of its defenders, told me that the Australia that I knew didn't exist, its absence was palpable. It had to be denied.

And you wonder why I am not in favour of multiculturalism? It is because it attempts to deny my existence.
Posted by Hamlet, Monday, 9 October 2006 8:13:17 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
I have to agree with FrankGol and Celivia, concerning the tenor and content of many of the postings on this thread. Some of the comments above are little more than hateful expressions of misanthropic and xenophobic bile, spat and shouted at others.

While I've come to expect some robust debate in these forums, some comments in this thread definitely cross the line between civilised debate and an unproductive slanging match, IMHO. It's a pity, because others of us who might have something constructive to contribute to these discussions are effectively silenced by the repetitive ranting of a few correspondents who are apparently far more receptive to dog whistling than to reasoned debate.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 9 October 2006 8:20:44 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
Bennie you have missed my point

When I say what it is toady I am talking about the economic success and sheltered lifestyle! THE LUCKY COUNTRY! “We are the lucky country” Why change it? It boggles the mind why people would want too! Unless of course you are smug new immigrant who just wants to get his mates in on the act.

What I don’t want to see happen to Australia is what is happening in the United States today with citizenship been given out every time someone buys a happy meal or spends $10 at a caltex petrol station! There are 12mil illegal immigrants (estimate) who are demanding citizenship and 10’s of millions more who support it! If you let large numbers of people from poor countries into Australia it will slowly turn into an avalanche for as you know these people will have one vote like you me and for them there could be nothing better then getting more unskilled, uneducated unsophisticated and unAustralian people just like they are into this beautiful country.

Multiculturalism needs Australia
Australia does not need Multiculturalis
Posted by EasyTimes, Monday, 9 October 2006 8:55:32 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
Mr Khan,

As “support” of your claim that I am a hypocrite for attributing to you a “herd instinct”, you (1) fabricate that I spoke of “Australian values”, and (2) intentionally misinterpret what I meant by “Occidentalism” as some racist cult of some sort, in order that you might undermine my position on “individualism”. But WANTING me to have said these things don’t make them true!

I am still waiting for you to show me a single claim that I make that supports your claim that I have “supremacist” ideals.

If you consider criticism of “multiculturalism” as “supremacist”, then you must be assuming that this philosophy is about little more than the noble ideals of diversity and toleration. But I don’t think anybody here criticising this philosophy is against these ideals, but rather absolutely in support of them, and their only worry is that these ideals might be threatened by multiculturalism. Haven’t you ever thought about in this way before? I think you have the cause and effect of racism around the wrong way!

I think I hold to a totally different conception of “culture” to that you probably hold to. To me, I’d de-emphasise “customs” and emphasise “ethics”, the way people relate to one another, both those they’re familiar with and strangers. All else is just superficial to me.

This is because insofar as ethics underpins law, which it necessarily does, and insofar as no “multicultural” state will ever sanction multiple legal systems, no “multicultural” state will ever support multiple ethical systems. Therefore there are no genuine “multicultural” states, but rather only a pool of consumers for business and identity politics.

Hamlet,

Those in a position of influence include:

A high school teacher of mine of Greek background who often mock Aussies as lacking culture and as lazy.

A Sydney University lecturer, non-white, mocked Australian culture as a meat pie, invoking brazen laughter from the class of 90% Asian background.

A UNSW tutor, of Indian and Islamic background, in class talking up the decadence of Western culture, and how other cultures might offer the West something it is lacking.
Posted by abyss, Monday, 9 October 2006 9:39:26 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
Sorry Easy times being the fruit of your parents loins who are the fruit of theirs etc...offers you nothin' apart from a name and maybe an inheritance measured at best in money and property and memoribilia.

Families like yours contibuted to this place they did not make it - you are part of it not .. it

Other civilsations predated ours - get over it we are doing ok for now - other civilisations are what we built ours on - face facts boyo - we are part of a continuum - we are only the pinnacle for now and even thats wide open for debate'.
Posted by INKEEMAGEE2, Monday, 9 October 2006 10:33:23 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
Meanwhile back to the article...
(not that it comes to much)

“It seems multiculturalism and the ethnic population have become a constant target of conservative politicians in recent times.”

Really? It would seem to me that most “conservative” politicians don’t bring it up at all.

“The leadership of ethnic communities has been so far on the back foot trying to defend its rights and values. But for how long?”

You mean like Trad and Hilali when they defended the Lebanese rapists, Blaming their behaviour on Austraian society? Excuse me, but we don’t all go around calling ourselves Lebs and pack raping girls and telling them we are going to do it “Leb style”. Or the Pakistani rapists who said it was a cultural problem, and they didn’t know it was wrong.

“The call for Australian values is quite xenophobic at its core. It is just another dig at reviving Hansonism by making an issue out of ethnicity. “

You call it xenophobia, yet others would call it patriotism. I note you like objectifying people… Hansonism… ooo how evil. Hanson stood up for Australians and Australia, against the PC garbage and censorship and intimidation that Multiculturalists had used against the wider population for years. One Nation had a membership which encompassed many ethnicities and cultural heritages… hardly xenophobic..
Posted by T800, Monday, 9 October 2006 10:59:30 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
FrankGol,

RE: “Some people (you say 1.5%) may have asked for Sharia law to be enshrined in Australian law. But it’s hardly likely to happen without a solid majority in support. So why are you beating the fear drums?”

Firstly, this at least betrays that you are at heart pro assimilation, since clearly you would be against genuine multiculturalism. And typically, closet-assimilationists abject their own frustrations over their state of inner contradiction onto those they call “racists”.

Secondly, this betrays your selfishness in ignoring (writing off as “racism”) the grievances articulated (even if unclearly) over the years by those living in communities with a high concentration (i.e. a "majority") of people who might sympathise with the “redneck” sentiments of Sharia law.

Is this simply because the complainants in this instance are white and might sound less educated than you, and so on the basis of prejudices you might hold of the “hick” you judge that they couldn't possibly have a GENUINE grievance, and must just be taking out their economic frustrations?

Effectively, you are telling people to either put up with or move away from those in their “neighbourhood” who hold such obviously redneck sentiments, sentiments you yourself find abhorrent, for otherwise you would not say Hamlet was fear-mongering, since “fear” could only arise in light of something abhorrent.

By what right do you have to dilute the demographics of a particular city, or even a part of a city, into the notional population at large, so as to play down the intensity of concentration of particular self-interested ethnic enclaves, just so you can accuse people of "beating the fear drums"?

Would you tolerate 1.5% of the Australian national population subsribing to the Nazism (modest compared to Sharia law), let alone 90% of a certain suburb?

Why would you feel the need to dilute such demographics? Does this need again betray that you have something to hide, something you’d rather not admit to yourself?

Coward.
Posted by abyss, Monday, 9 October 2006 11:13:42 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
abyss,

If I knew what the heck you were saying I'd give you a proper response ('closet-assimilationists abject their own frustrations over their state of inner contradiction onto those they call “racists”'. What does that mean? Country Gal said we should abolish interpreting and translating services, but I think you're demonstrating a continuing need.)

You declared that at heart I am 'pro assimilation', since clearly I am against genuine multiculturalism. Did God tell you? I didn't. Or is it your dearest wish that I should be, and therefore I am, in your head?

Then you label me selfish, but I'm not sure whether that's because you say I am am pro-multiculturalism or anti-multiculturalism. Can you tell me again what I am please? And why that makes me selfish?

You ask me: 'Would you tolerate 1.5% of the Australian national population subsribing to the Nazism (modest compared to Sharia law), let alone 90% of a certain suburb?' My answer is yes to the first percentage but I reckon I'd be looking for a transfer if it got to the second percentage, wouldn't you?

You ask: "Does this...betray that you have something to hide, something you’d rather not admit to yourself?" Go on, be brave in the face of my cowardice; let me into my deep-surface secret: tell me what abyssmal secret I'm hiding. Pretty please! I won't sleep until you do.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 9 October 2006 11:49:21 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
Inkeemagee2

If you walk through the grave yard of civilizations you will find one thing in common. They were all brought down by other cultures.

Saying that the legacy my family has left me means nothing is an absurd statement. What you are saying is that some bloke who just got off the boat and cant speak a word of English even though he is now an Australian citizen, thinks Australia is between Argentina and Finland on a map and that the native language is French cares as much for this nation as I do? What a silly thing to say inkee my friend. I have roots hear it may mean nothing to you but it means the world to me. For me the big brown land is the be all and end all!
Were you born in Australia inkee?

Families like mine DID make this country. Families like mine bled for this country and died for it! Families like mine are the backbone of this country, the fabric, they hold this country together. If it were not for families like mine all the refugee’s who come hear fleeing from violence would be at each other again in no time and they would be back to square one.

If Australia went up the infamous creek that many of the countries these so called “new Australians” come from, they would be on the first boat out hear demanding to be let into some other western country that’s how Australian they are!
Posted by EasyTimes, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 12:27:39 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
Easy Times,
" some bloke who just got off the boat and cant speak a word of English even though he is now an Australian citizen, thinks Australia is between Argentina and Finland on a map and that the native language is French?"

What you have just described is an American tourist, not the vast majority of immigrants.

I think your views on immigrants, and indeed the rise and fall of civilisations may be a little ill formed. If you've got the time, check out Jared Diamond's excellent books "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "Collapse". Although I agree with your statement that cultures are brought down by other cultures in the context of Australia's indigenous population.

Abyss,

I think you may have been reading too much Ann Coulter. The 1.5% of Australian who are Muslim (actually, its probably more than that now) are not all collectively baying for Sharia law and dog free cabs. The vast majority are law abiding, decent citizens who pay their taxes, go to work and enjoy a BBQ. Just like the majority of Australians of white heritage.

You mention Sheikh Al Hilialy as typical Muslim. Despite the fact the man has never called for Sharia law to be implemented in Australia, I seriously disagree with many of his stances. So do many in the Musllim community. This includes Victoria's muslim council, that refuses to recognise his status as mufti, and many in the Turkish muslim community.

When you speak about the Australian Muslim community in such a way, it is quite insulting the vast majority of Australia's peaceful muslims who are exercising their right to freedom of religion

This debate as shifted to farcical levels now. I very disappointed with you all
Posted by ChrisC, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 1:30:16 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
FrankGol,

FrankGol states that he wouldn't have a problem with 1.5% of Nazi's, but would if it got to 90%.

For a start, I don't believe you, as why should anyone tolerate such oppressive, exclusionary policy such as Nazism (which is mild compared to Sharia)?

I suspect you only admitted to this because you were backed into a corner and knew that if you answered no your argument would be shown for what it is, weakness.

Do you agree that Sharia is barbaric? If so, why would you not have a problem if only 1.5% of population supported it (by spreading this number out over the whole population belies either your naivety, or dishonesty, as you know that Muslims are xenophobic and mostly live in the same community (don't want to mix in) so this 1.5% would be solely in a few suburbs in Melbourne and Sydney.

What does this mean for non-Muslims there? That women who are unveiled will be looked at as a slut, called a slut? perhaps even raped by these pious types?

Couldn't blame such women for being fearful given the comments by Muslim leaders about women over the years, most notably the vile Sheik Feiz who said unveiled women who are raped deserve it.

Do you remember the outcry from the Muslim community at this? Any protest of his mosque? No, of course not.

Not six months later this bigot was invited, on behalf of Australia's Muslims, to speak at the prestigious Dawa International Islamic conference, held in Sydney.

Why is he still a Sheik? Why is Hilali still there? Or Sheik Fehmi in Melbourne, who said he couldn't denounce Bin Laden because he doesn't personally know him.

He denounced the Pope only last month for his accurate quote about Islam, about Mohammed being violent. Do you know much about Mohammed?
Posted by Benjamin, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 10:11:56 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
ChrisC

How can you say the bigot Hilali, who called the 9/11 act "God's work" isn't a typical Muslim?

If so, why haven't Muslims protested out the front of his mosque to have him removed? They certainly know how to protest and complain don't they, write letters - as they did year in year out to have Nativity scene banned from Bankstown Plaza, and petition signatures.

How long do you think a Christian, or even secular leader would get away with a comment like that, or all the other vile bile he has spewed up over the years?

Most Australians would take their silence, which has occurred countless times after bigoted comments by their leaders, their silence on the race-hate books freely available in their Islamic bookstores, the silence on dobbing in those coward terrorists who bashed, stabbed, and threaten to pack rape, whites at Cronulla, as well as numerous other examples, as fact that they support Hilali's comments.

How can you not see this?
Posted by Benjamin, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 10:14:01 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
Steve Madden “Col Rouge the LIAR who thinks intelligent debate is to cut and paste someone’s comments and append a snide comment (Been doing it for years Col how about some constructive comments?)”

Now that is constructive Steve, accusing others of your own low habits which, in your case, substitute for “standards”.

When you can identify where I have lied I will be able to correct your deluded sub-intellect, until then I am happy to observe, on the post you first made that accusation, someone else has already disclaimed your statement in an attempt at rectifying your malignant accusation.

The sad thing is, being born a troll means there is little hope for you to ever growing into anything better than a troll.

SKahn “The likes of you (Col Rouge and company) are stuck at the darkest bend of your own little abyss and don’t represent the mainstream Australia I know.”

Well speaking for the silent majority, I guess all I can say is, you do not know many of us in “mainstream Australia”. If I were you, I would get out more, mix with “real Australians” instead of sequestering yourself in your own ghetto and pretending that Real Australians do not exist.

As I said before, Assimilate of face extinction, to me, whichever one you choose, it makes no difference because, either way, the outcome is the same and it quite suits me.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 3:34:24 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
Benjamin,

Thought its a good idea to bring in an Australian Muslim comments:

1. Sheikh Hilali: I dont recall him ever talking about Sharia laws in Australia, please quote the source or stats who is asking for Sharia laws to be implemented in Australia. "why is he a sheikh?" cause he studied Islamic faith and is preaching it (anoyone who does that is a sheikh). He introduced new Aussie sheikhs this year in the beginning of Ramadan. He is as conservative as most of his generation although I think he should stay clear of politics and focus on matter of faith.

2. Sharia laws: have an inheritence, family, divorce and criminal justice system. Did anyone investigate who wants to implement what?

3. The 'muslims are silent' statement sounds like an old boring broken disk and honestly its becoming annoying to all Australians Muslims and non-muslims. Here is an 'encyclopedia' of Muslim leaders denouncing terrorism and violence:

http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html

Peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 3:59:53 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
Col Rouge, maybe you haven’t intended to lie. But you’ve certainly got a few things wrong. However, take comfort you’re not Robinson Crusoe on that.

For example, in speaking for the silent majority, you advise us to get out more and find out how many people in “mainstream Australia” oppose multiculturalism. You advise us to get out and mix with “real Australians”. Assimilate or face extinction, you advise.

Well, I went down the street this morning a bought The Age. You could have knocked me over with a feather! There it was on page 1, along with Korea’s nuke test:

“People put freedom of speech and tolerance of different religions and cultures much higher in their lexicon of "Australian values" than mateship or a fair go."

Last week an ACNielsen/ Age Poll asked a sample of 1408 Australians to choose the value most important to them from a list of five. 27% selected freedom of speech. A quarter chose tolerance of different religions and cultures. More than one in five (21 per cent) selected a fair go, and 17 per cent nominated respect for democracy and Parliament. Mateship, often touted by media tart John Howard, came in last with only 8 per cent nominating it as the most important.

Labor and Coalition voters vary little in the importance they give tolerance of different religions and cultures, or a fair go. They support these values in roughly equal numbers.
So now you might be confused, Col (not lying I hasten to add): this poll seems to be saying that tolerance of diverse cultures and religions and the right to hear many voices rates pretty high among “real”, “mainstream” Australians. The “silent majority” seem to be saying something different to what you and a lot of posters on this forum are claiming.

Maybe you should get out more, Col, and take your mates with you and mix with ordinary, tolerant Australians, mate.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 6:43:51 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
Ummm Frank, where was the sample taken...from the age subscription database? That is sure to skew the results mate. I have partaken in surveys and the results don't mean much. You only have set answers to choose from and most of the time, you don't really want to do the survey in the first place. Most people just do it because they were asked and felt sorry for the people doing the asking.
Posted by Angelo, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 7:50:33 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 I had the opportunity to participate in the ACNielsen/Age Poll cited above, I would have ranked Australian values similarly to those quoted. I suspect that many of my friends, acquaintances and customers would have also responded similarly.

However, these are people who mostly are not given to proclaiming the "rightness" of their views anonymously on the Internet - particularly in the hateful, antagonistic and objectionable terms that one often reads in this forum.

Most of us value "free speech" more than just about any other "value" - however, as a fundamental social value it carries not only rights, but responsibilities - including (but not limited to) the obligation to respect the freedom of speech of others. It seems to me that atempting to 'shout down' the legitimate arguments of others, in intemperate personal attacks against those who post contrary views, runs completely counter to that most fundamental of values.

Unfortunately, it seems to be part of the 'culture' of the OLO Forum that a relative few unreasonable ranters can effectively silence others who might like to contribute to a civilised discussion about often difficult subjects.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 8:03:38 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
Sory Easy but I stand by my assertion -- being a 6th generation means nothing in my eyes.
And your family did not build this country - they were a part of its construction just like the post war immigrants - like the Chinese, the irish - ..get it.
And yes I was born here but it was not a choice i made - i just got lucky. But some days I wonder.
Too make matters worse I am not a fan of the flag or the constitutional monarchy either.

And in closing multiculturalism is here to stay:get used to it
Posted by INKEEMAGEE2, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 8:06:12 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
Frankgol wrote:

"Last week an ACNielsen/ Age Poll asked a sample of 1408 Australians to choose the value most important to them from a list of five. 27% selected freedom of speech. A quarter chose tolerance of different religions and cultures. More than one in five (21 per cent) selected a fair go, and 17 per cent nominated respect for democracy and Parliament."

unquote

And what part of those do not reflect Australian values of freedom of the individual, equality of opportunity and equality before the law - of individsuals?

As I have said before, and as my lecturer in a uni subject on multiculturalism taught: multiculturalism is about privileging a cultural group or groups rather than individuals. It can mean subsidising them to enable them to maintain their language, or even inviting non-elected 'community leaders' to forums.

I am an Anglican - but I am not represented by the bishop, the archbishop or anyone else in the church hierachy. I am represented at all levels of government, and in many non goverment situations by elected representatives. Any club that I belong to has elected officials. The bodies corporate for our home unit blocks are elected. That is the Australian way.

How many cultural groups have elected representatives? Those that have, I have no trouble with.

I also don't have any problem with Islamic women wearing the hajjib (so long as their faces can be seen). I have no trouble with various ethnic festivals and the like.

I do have problems with such groups as the Jewish population in the seat of Wentworth not wanting that seat's boundaries changed, because they want to vote as a block. (see http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/why/redistributions/2005/nsw/object/NO1965.pdf#search=%22wentworth%20jewish%20boundaries%22 )

By the way, I don't have a problem with Jewish people at all, I have friends who are Jewish: I do have a problem with any cultural group wanting to be able to manipulate democracy to their advantage.

Our democracy is about individuals and their rights and obligations. Multiculturalism is about groups rather than individuals.
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 8:25:37 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
http://search.ft.com/searchArticle?queryText=multiculturalism&javascriptEnabled=true&id=060822000941 This little baby documents the problems MC has unleashed. Its all good they say!

And another nail goes into multiculturalism http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20554070-2702,00.html

Both of these documents point out the intrinsic problems immigrants of other cultures bring to host countries.

I guess Inkee we will agree to disagree. Don’t wonder whether it was good or not to be born in Australia I have been to 26 countries and the Aussie one is a long way ahead!
You are right about multiculturalism being hear but so is terrorism (another niche benefit from multiculturalism) and I have no intention of getting used to it.
Posted by EasyTimes, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 9:08:26 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
FrankGol,

PART I

In accusing Hamlet of “banging fear drums” you reveal to us that at least part of you agrees with him that there is something to be feared about Sharia Law, else it would not be “fear” in those drums, right? That is, you do not claim that Hamlet misunderstands Sharia law, and thus that his fear is unfounded in principle, but your criticism of him is about his supposed hysteria over percentages.

David Marr not long ago made a similar Freudian slip when he said on Insiders that “We all know Sharia Law is barbaric!”

Now according to an Islamic PhD candidate at UNSW, insofar as any Muslim is to BE a Muslim they MUST support Sharia Law. In agreement with this, Keysar Trad, spokesman for the Muslim Friendship Association, in an email to a friend of mine on “conditions” to Sharia law, said

“There is also a capital penalty for adulterers, I have not denounced that nor have I denounced the penalty for theft. AS A MUSLIM, I CANNOT DENOUNCE ANY OF THE SCRIPTURAL PENALTIES AND STILL BE A MUSLIM, I can though say that these penalties can only apply when the deterrents are in place and the Caliphate system exists, for example, you cannot penalise adultery unless marriage is easy and affordable for people to enter into. You cannot penalise thieves by cutting off their hands unless you have a welfare state, this penalty was suspended by Caliph Omar because they were going through a famine. By the same token, the [capital] penalty for homosexual intercourse can only apply if all the safety measures are in place. It is not a penalty for feeling homosexual, but rather for acts of sodomy”

Now whether or not Hamlet’s “fear” over Sharia law is unwarranted – since as you correctly say it could only happen under a majority vote – one cannot deny that living in a suburb with people who sympathise with it would be like living with intolerant xenophobes who feel more pure than outsiders (e.g. Muslim woman fear contamination if they swim with non Muslims).
Posted by abyss, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 11:30:07 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
PART II

Now fancy this: every time you complained you got shouted down by those like you as “banging fear drums”! The five thousand at Chronulla’s turnout were deemed by those in your Age to ALL be rednecks.

The problem here of course is that the part of those like you which actually agrees with the principle of Hamlet’s “fear”, i.e. the “Hansonite” within you who'd consider the ethical beliefs of certain neighbours to be en masse worthy of criticising were they done by Anglos, this part of yourself you disown, and project (i.e. abject) into the Hamlet’s whom you then, for different reasons to Mr Khan here, derogatorily objectify as “Hansonites”.

To you, the Other (here the Oriental) is not worthy of criticising, of correcting, for holding to certain ethics you might disagree with (e.g. clitoral circumcision, veiling woman, ethno nepotism), because you deny them what makes us HUMAN, our capacity for critical thought and argument, for transformation and change. You are selfish in this pacifist (Germaine-Greer-like) position because you care more about people thinking ill of you than you do people’s standard of living.

You do this because (1) in your own cultural nihilism you see an Other as an ETHNIC, and (2) because the Other scares you into believing that you are “racist” if you criticise any portion of those like him (this is the basis of his identity politics).

He does this because he cannot overcome race and ethnicity, he is up to his ears in them, and so in assuming that you too think of yourself first and foremost in these ETHNO terms, he assumes that any criticism you direct at him is BECAUSE he is different to you, rather than BECAUSE you have sound reasons for why such customs are to you unethical. Such a disposition on the part of the Other here is utterly racist, ethno-ist, as compared to individualist.

RE your Age quote: what ever made you think “mateship” and “fair go” are any different from “freedom of speech” and “religious tolerance”? Was it perhaps a childish prejudice of the RSL “bloke”?
Posted by abyss, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 11:33:39 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 Frankgol

Aussies rate free speech and tolerance higher than mateship ?

You need to dig below the surface. I've asked people similiar questions but once you ask a couple more which address other related issues, it becomes clear that they are saying that because they feel they will be condemned if they don't. They will often respond to 'media' questions or surveys in the way they 'think' they should, rather than how they really feel deep down.

If you probe their attitudes to multiculturalism by mentioning certain practices of ethnic minorities, aaah.. it starts to emerge.

Tolerance has been drummed into everyone until they respond like lemmings. All you need to do is show the 'INtolerance' which surrounds them and BINGO the light comes on and they start to tell you how they actually feel.

I actually have hope and confidence that even you, would recognize intolerance among ethnic minorities as long as it is not described in terms which suggest the speaker is simply a narrow minded redneck or evangelical crusader.

C.J.Morgan.. it is clear that you are a caring person. But regarding the 'outbursts' and 'rants' on OLO and its 'culture'.. you need to be more robust mate. We are not all delicate flowers here :) We call a spade a spade and sometimes even a pick. i.e. Sometimes people speak from the hip rather than the brain. Its all good. Just means further clarification and dialogue is needed. Even your responses appear 'intolerant' at times, but without your views OLO would be the poorer.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 6:30:45 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
FrankGol,
Contrary to your opinion, multiculturalism is to blame for some taxi drivers not carrying guide dogs. If it was only one or two drivers one would simply say they are morons, but when it is many it becomes a cultural issue.

The policy of Multicutalism implies that people can practice their culture in Australia unimpeeded. Sure their is one passing reference to "rule of law' in the policy, and in the NSW definition but both encourage people to retain their culture. No where in the policies or information given to immigrants does it show the things that are against the law or socially unacceptable. So unacceptable conduct by some has to be (A) Because they are ignorant, or (B) They hold their cultural dictates higher than our laws and customs. We may be partly at fault here as for about 40 years we have been telling immigrants that we are multicultural and all cultures can be practised.

It is not only the actions of some taxi drivers that is unacceptable, You cannot ignore the complaints of female police, nurses, teachers, receptionists and shop assistants that say Muslim males are arrogant, rude and dictatorial to them. There is evidence that FGM is carried out here and girls being sent overseas to forced marriages or to have FGM done. The attitude of the accused gang rapists and family and friends in court shows contempt for our laws as clearly these people actually believed that females in western dress are whores that can be treated in any way. Abuse of girls at beaches and on the street and claims of offence at nativity displays in malls are other examples of no respect of our culture.

I maintain that we are a multi-racial country but not multicultural. We do not permit far too many aspects of other cultures to say we are multicultural.

If you claim we are multicultural, then just what aspects of other cultures would you permit and what aspects would you not allow?
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 10:22:57 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
Hear hear, DB, regards OLO culture.

I'll take issue though with your suggestion people give answers others want to hear. In today's atmosphere people are more likely to follow the example set by our PM, and demonise those different, "that kind of person", anyone not 'one of us'. The derision from the right towards the "latte left", "chardonay socialists", "Balmain basket weavers", or the dismissive "Howard haters" is pretty coercive, is it not? As if valid criticism of Australia's lurch to the right is unwarranted in any context.

As for mateship rating higher than free speech? Australia has no monopoly on this nebulous concept of 'mateship'. Anyone aware of what governments are capable of - given the chance - would rate free speech streets ahead of the universal concept of altruism, as being typically Australian
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 11:26:27 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
Hamlet, abyss, Banjo and Boaz-David
Every time I write something here, one or all of you tell me that deep down I really think the opposite. When I write that Hamlet beats the fear drums, you say it’s to reveal that part of me agrees with him - that there is something to be feared. When I tell you about the recent poll on Australian values, you think that deep down the respondents answer in the way they think they should, rather than how they really feel deep down. The 'repressed Hansonite' hidden within all of us will (with a little helpful probing by BOAZ_David) emerge and reveal that we really agree with you.

abyss, I love it when you talk dirty to me (Freudian slips, the Hansonite within, cultural nihilism, ethno-ist and my selfish Germaine-Greer-like position). I think you must have done one of those wicked social science/humanities university courses to learn such wonderful dirty-talk.

BOAZ_David, I think you went to the same university as abyss. I love your theory on tolerance being drummed (drums of fear?) into every one and then being drummed out by showing them intolerance (though I was a little anxious to learn that you sometimes speak from the hip rather than the brain).

Banjo, it’s comforting to know that, if we do away with multiculturalism, taxi drivers would allow guide dogs. However, it’s also comforting to know that the law of the land doesn’t have to be followed because of multiculturalism. I’ll use that defence next time I’m up before a court.

Mates, I can’t match your logic and your way with words. I’m throwing up – the white flag of surrender.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 12:46:52 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
Frankgol, could you please clearly state your definition of multiculturalism?

Then please tell me the advantages to Australia of this policy:

There are a couple of conditions: please don't talk about food, dancing and the like. I can get recipes from books.

Please don't also try to persuade me of an economic benefit from immigration, because immigration does not require multiculturalism.

Please explain why we should accept that groups with world views, or at least views of what constitutes 'the good life' that are different, or are indeed opposed to those currently held by the host culture.

You see, that is what it comes down to, a host culture coming in contact with a multitude of other cultures, and trying to accommodate them, whilst they try to carve a niche in the host culture's physical, sociological and political space.

Please tell me the strengths of diversity? Where does the benefit to a society come from its components having different goals, aims and ideals?

Multiculturalism benefits the cultural groups that obtain benefit from the host culture, but what benefit does the host culture obtain?

I wait to be educated and convinced.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 6:31:44 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
Well said Hamlet I could not have put it better myself.

Chris C – The Aborigines culture is being preserved as best it can. If you call wearing pants, driving cars and modern medicine a negative effect on Aboriginal culture well I guess you are right
Posted by EasyTimes, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 9:02:27 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
Perhaps I can help Frankgol answer your questions Hamlet : oh, and I will talk food - and economics - so dont go laying out terms and conditions in these pages -

If it werent for immigration and indeed multi culturalism the most exciting condiment we'd use is pepper.ha! brilliant

Multiculturalism also increases the range of goods and serivces we generate - not just the volume as blunt immigration might - I get the feeling your cool with immigrants so long as they only increase demand for sunblock,cheddar cheese and white bread - with increased diversity comes the capacity to expand export options; plus the strip shops look better - more languages more colour more movement - things that sparkle capture my attention - there are more sophistacted arguements but time is a wastin'

Accepting that others hold different world views and letting them live here does not mean we adopt those views - it also suggests that our veiws are well developed and can withstand challenges to those views - or can they? hmmmm!?

wishing to keep other takes on the world at arms length is a bit weak - keeping them at arms length also pre supposses we are right for ever and ever amen - surely we need to question our selves, our values our intentions our methods - unless of course we've got it down pat

The host culture - benefits from the challenge - like a student who asks the master "why do you do that?" - if the answer is because "I always do it that way" there is certainly room for an examination of old tired habits.

Diversity is one antidote to boredom - progress is born out of competition between ideas not out of a blind acceptance that what worked in the past is good enough - unless of course your Amish.
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 12 October 2006 9:55:36 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
Whacko! FrankGol,
You are starting to get something right at last
You say
"However it is also comforting to know that the law of the land doesn't have to be followed because of multiculturalism"

This is exactly what some immigrants believe and indeed it has been used as defence in our courts or in attempts to reduce sentence.

This is the attitude of the Melbourne taxi drivers and other Muslims that are rude and arrogant to females.

These people need to modify their conduct to conform with our standards of behavior. Multiculturalism encourages division.

We are a mono-cultural society, but flexable and tolerant enough to allow non christian religions and other cultural practices providing they are not unlawful or against our customs.

Integration needs a lot of encouragement and is a two-way street. We have done our bit by being inviting and receptive, now it is up to the new comers to be flexable.
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 12 October 2006 9:57:23 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
What a crock Sneekee...

"If it werent for immigration and indeed multi culturalism the most exciting condiment we'd use is pepper.ha! brilliant"

So wrong, no explanation necessary. Multiculturalism came in, in the 70s... you suppose pepper was the most exciting condiment available then? Eeeerp! Wrong. Exciting?

"Multiculturalism also increases the range of goods and serivces we generate"

Multiculti has increased government services - billions of dollars have been wasted creating and supporting them. Billions of dollars that could have been better spent. Billions of doallars have also been spent on imports as well. had a look at our balance of payments lately. mind you Multiculturalism is not required to import goods... just a demand.

"Accepting that others hold different world views and letting them live here does not mean we adopt those views"

No but we are expected to TOLERATE them and this causes division and disharmony within our society.

Anyone with a computer or half a brain can successfully get the "world view" Sneekee. Multiculti unnecessary.

"The host culture - benefits from the challenge - like a student who asks the master "why do you do that?" - if the answer is because "I always do it that way" there is certainly room for an examination of old tired habits."

LOL... cultures change on their own in that respect, just like work cultures... work practices change. Traditions however are often kept as a measure of respect to the past and those that came before.

"Diversity is one antidote to boredom"

I'm sure there are other more sensible antidotes. I certainly don't need Multiculti to relieve my boredom.

Australia is not insular... we do have contact with other countries and peoples... in a gobalised world this is moreso than ever in the past. Multiculti is unnecessary.

Now... how about trying to put forward some real benefits for Multiculti and not just empty rhetoric.
Posted by T800, Thursday, 12 October 2006 10:49:26 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
Oh dear!I thought my line on pepper was quite a good one - this certainly is a tough crowd -

I stand by my point of view - and I also agree we have plenty of contact with the rest of the world through globalisation - so multicullturalism is far from a revolutionary concept - just globalisation on a micro scale.

And as for billions of dollars wasted - I am comfortable with what we expend on supporting new comers because I have benefited from exposure to them - and the allegation of waste is really unsubstantiated - and you accuse me of rhetoric - gee willikers! or should I use the iconic Crikey!

We started calling the feature of living along side other cultures multiculturalism in the 70's - it was however there long before that as a fact of life - we lived multi culturally with Italians and Greeks the English and the Irish Macedonians Serbs - the tag came later.

And tolerating something causes division and disharmony - I do not get that - or maybe you confuse tolerance with putting up with - because you dont like it or them - I am confused on that point

Cant see the link between multicultaralism and the balance of paments myself. Are you saying that a population of 20mill - without multiculturalism or a high immigrant population - would be faring any better? - how so? - would it be wiser? - or maybe the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of the cost of multilingual pamphlets or a high demand for chick peas, ochra and coriander

And as for cultures changing sure they do - but what is wrong with exposing them to other influences - I see that as a good thing. Why do we accept that the rather linear approach to change that monoculturalism brings about - monocultures have a tendency to be rather backward - it is from the mix that comes the progress.
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 12 October 2006 11:37:26 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
Pete, you obviously don't know what the policy of Muliculturalism is.
You certainly don't provide any substantial reasons or examples of why it is important and should be supported by us.

Empty rhetoric is hardly facts... mind you over 30 years that's all pro-Multicultis have provided.
Posted by T800, Thursday, 12 October 2006 11:52:17 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
Pete

you wrote:

"We started calling the feature of living along side other cultures multiculturalism in the 70's - it was however there long before that as a fact of life - we lived multi culturally with Italians and Greeks the English and the Irish Macedonians Serbs - the tag came later."

unquote.

Yes we did, and sometimes not as smoothly as anyone looking back now would have preferred, there were some rough edges to smooth.

However I would argue that the groups that you have nominated, Italians, Greeks English, Irish Macedonians, Serbs.. are all part of a greater European culture anyway, with traditions and values steeped in classic European outlook on life.

The period up to 'multiculturalism' in Australia was essentially a type of micro-multiculturalism, if I can use that term, not the macro that we have now. Compare the basic underying world view of Europe with those of, for instance, the Subcontinent, Sub Saharan Africa and the Middle East, then consider China, with its cultural basis of Confusionism, which today is even submerging Maoism and communism.

These are very different world views to those of Europe. Those world views being reflected in attitudes towards authority and relationships between people, both inside and outside the family. Even the idea, and value, of 'the individual' varies greatly from culture to culture.

Whilst 'The Clash of Civilisations' ideas of Huntington may be open to criticism, the basic idea is the same. Do we need a localised 'clash of civlisations' in our cities?

And besides, I can remember eating curry (not just peppered foods) around 1962 or earlier..
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 12 October 2006 1:19:19 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
Ok, Banjo, T800, Hamlet, David_Boaz, easytimes and the rest of the misguided assimilationists (a rather respectful term considering some of your comments and views)…

Now that you have expressed most of your fears and anxieties we should start from the beginning.

quiz: How much do you know about the development of Australia’s multicultural policies?

http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/activities/quizzes/05multi_policy.htm

Be brave enough to take the test and feel free to admit if you fail miserably.

There are some tests about the Australian history on this site as well.

Good luck!
Posted by SKhan, Friday, 13 October 2006 8:57:54 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
Thanks for the compliment - t800 - srtictly speaking rhetoric is defined as effective use of language -

My post of the 12th around 9-50 was factual and ably supported by my post of the same day around Noon.

And I am aware of the policy - I live the policy - multiculturalism flows through my veins like tax payer funded brandy through those of our politicians or like Iraquis blood through the gutters of Bagdhad! Dont know what the policy is? Tish Tosh! I resided in Brunswick - home to the mullahs, the Greeks the Italians, the Sudanese - Franco Cotzo the purveyor of fine furniture - my Multicultural credentials are second to none - may be Al Grasby pips me by the width of a tie!

If empty rhetoric is all multi culturalists have it must be mighty powerful suff to have arrested the social agenda for so long and to the betterment of this mighty mighty nation -

the support you deny us is therefore redundant, superfluous to requirements, not needed, we are doing very nicely without it thank you very much

- you may however clamour outside to your hearts content - should you get hungry we will feeed you should you get thirsty we will offer you drink - you'll come around - people always do.
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 13 October 2006 10:27:15 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
I got 83% on your biased one sided test.

Cut straight to the chase SKhan why European Australians need the 3rd world masses flocking to our country?
With all the negative social baggage these people bring I just can’t see the argument for it.

I don’t expect you to ever concede the point Mr Khan because multiculturalism is intrinsic to you but all I am saying is that main stream Australians are getting sick and tired of arrogant foreigners telling us what’s good for us before the ink on their citizenship papers have dried.
It may sounding surprising to you Mr Khan but there is a heck of a lot more to being an Australian then just having a piece of paper saying that you are now a citizen of this nation.

From the feeble arguments for multiculturalism I can conclude that the benefits of multiculturalism are well…… multiculturalism itself. What I mean is that you are missing out on it in the same way as anyone who does not own an iguana is missing out on the enlightening experience of owning an iguana. Ask any iguana owner and they will tell you it’s the best thing that ever happened to them. Ask any ethnic minority on their thoughts on MC and you will get the same response.
As for me well I don’t want or need an iguana and I can’t see any reason at all for ever having one.
Posted by EasyTimes, Friday, 13 October 2006 11:26:05 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
Well SK easypeasy... got them all right all 14 of em... thing is most of them were only somewhat related to Multiculturalism and some were so blatantly weighted it wasn't funny. You should read mark lopez's book about australian Multiculturalism and actually learn something... in fact the lot of you should.

Multiculturalism is a divisive social policy. Tolerance is not something I'd base social harmony on. People who come here and still think of themselves as Lebanese or Italian etc should return to their country of birth. Children born here and brought up thinking they are not Australian etc prove that Multiculturalism does not work as it professes to. Hyphenated Australians are not Australians.
Posted by T800, Friday, 13 October 2006 11:50:54 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
Who are these mainstream Australians you speak for Easy? the sneekemeister is Australian - ands I lurv MCism - I like Iguana as well - I prefer it with salad over chips though.

Why mock citizens with a certificate thats says so? - at least they have made an oath/pleldge - it is more tham most Australians who just happed to be born here have done.

And where is the arrogance from? - I havent been told by a foriegner to do any thing - foreigners didn't lable or promote MCism - governments did - Australian governments - and yes immigrants lobbied for it - and the power of arguement won the day - long live reason!

As I said in my last post - with great erudition and insight I might add
(you may like to go to the users page and see other such wisecontributions) -

... for an approach to civilised living that has gripped this great nation by the throat for three decades - lifting it the hieghts of the greatest civilisation under the sun -the arguements for it must be neither hollow or or feeble - I contend they were either worthy of Socrates or Aristotle! - alternatively the opponents to the idea were rather piss weak - you choose.

As I live and breath I remain Sneekee the peace maker - Sneekee the humble and sneekee some what annoyed
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 13 October 2006 11:54:36 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
Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity

http://tinyurl.com/jb3ff

"A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University's Robert Putnam, one of the world's most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.

British Home Office research has pointed in the same direction and Prof Putnam, now working with social scientists at Manchester University, said other European countries would be likely to have similar trends."

There is a reason for both ethnic ghettos and for 'white flight' - people prefer to live among their own. A certain amount of 'diversity' is fine by the majority of people but we have reached the limit for most of us - Muslim taxi drivers refusal (based on the precepts of an alien religion) to carry passengers with guide dogs or alcohol.
Posted by dee, Friday, 13 October 2006 1:25:44 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
Dee, you give a selective commentary on Putman's research, no doubt influenced by the media summary and gloss. What do you make of these three quotations:

1. 'Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it "would have been irresponsible to publish without that".'

2. 'Prof Putnam stressed, however, that immigration materially benefited both the "importing" and "exporting" societies, and that trends "have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed".'

3. 'In an oblique criticism of Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, who revealed last week he prefers Muslim women not to wear a full veil, Prof Putnam said: "What we shouldn't do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us."'

What I understand Putman to be saying is an immigration policy should be accompanied by a cultural policy to help 'host' and 'immigrant' communties deal with the social consequences of immigration programs. In Australia, this policy has been called multiculturalism.

Thanks for drawing attention to Putman's research.
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 13 October 2006 1:42:17 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
Wrong again Pete...

"and yes immigrants lobbied for it - and the power of arguement won the day"

The vast majority of immigrants did not ask for it and a small lobby group won the day... hardly democratic, much like the reaction of fraser and hawke who both refused to put it to a referendum. Why? Because they knew it would be defeated.

I suggest once more you educate yourself by reading mark lopez's book on the subject.
Posted by T800, Friday, 13 October 2006 8:01:04 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
FrankGol - Putnam grasps the corrosive effect diversity has on communities, and even acknowledges that it destroys cohesion. He observes this even between Swedes and Norwegians, ethnicities that very few people can tell apart.

Then he comes to the conclusion that this lack of connection is a ‘social construct’, one that can be socially ‘deconstructed’. He not only fails to see (from his own research) how entrenched in human beings is the preference to live with ones own; he fails to grasp that such proposed ‘deconstruction’ is totalitarian – ie a breach of the right for people to share with those with whom they identify. This tendency is more than a ‘social construct’, it is hard wired within the human race. There is no country on earth where multiculturalism is a success.

To expect the citizens of ‘host’ countries to change their way of life in order to suit immigrants is the height of arrogance. Perhaps those in power should be asking themselves what right they have to impose migrants from incompatible cultures upon us – then dare to label those who protest as ‘racists’.

Professor Putnam states that it would have been irresponsible to publish his research without 'proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity'-

Yet another backhanded admission by a researcher/academic that their work is not the pursuit of truth but a drive for political ends – in this case, the imposition of the failed doctrine of multiculturalism upon increasingly unwilling Western countries.
Posted by dee, Friday, 13 October 2006 8:47:58 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 book is pretty long and detailed Pete so here...

http://www.ipa.org.au/files/news_527.html

you might gleen some things from this article.

"What Lopez tells is a fascinating story, the story of how a small number of activists---of a variety of ethnic backgrounds, including Anglo-Celtic---sought to change public policy."

"Another lovely little nugget from the book is how the tactic of accusing critics and opponents of racism was established almost before multiculturalism itself as a term was. Then and since, multiculturalism has often provided examples of what might be called the motivational fallacy. In the case of multiculturalism, the fallacy works as follows: I advocate multiculturalism as a way of combating racism and prejudice, therefore, if you criticise multiculturalism you are guilty of racism and/or harbouring prejudice. This has a triple benefit as a mode of argument. It delegitimises critics and criticism, it elevates the mode of action or claim being defended and it establishes or reinforces that action or claim as a moral asset for its proponents."
Posted by T800, Sunday, 15 October 2006 10:52:48 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
While all you may debate about Australian values and how immigrants should conform to these. Well in the eyes of an Aboriginal man YOU are all immigrants. The racism debate will always be in Australia due to the fact that we Aborginal people hate you all. We don't discriminate - WE consider you all immigrants. This land was never ceded (no treaty, no compensation, just stolen land) by us Aboriginal people and until you all realise this the immigrant and Muslim debate needs to take a back seat. Racism in Australia has its core and roots with Aboriginal people which is why its needed to be fixed first. White Australia has systematically oppressed Aboriginal over the last 200yrs. If you think that this is crap do you research with an open mind (a huge challenge for any white Aussie due to their social conditioning). You want our culture to display to the world but you don't want the people. Whilst Australia continues to focus on the Muslims and immigrants. Watch out for the Aboriginals. We've been peaceful in our approach to gaining rights but the radicals are gaining momumentum. Keep oppressing us Australia but eventually we will fight back like Australia has never seen.
Posted by nosy-t, Sunday, 15 October 2006 2:07:26 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
T800, all your selective anti-multi cultural references won't cure anyone from being a racist or develop the self reflective intellectual capacities you desperately require to live in this globalising world.

Did you know that the term multiculturalism was created to describe an existing social and cultural human condition - not a beginning point from which to demographically engineer it.

'White' people only equal 20 % of the world’s population - did you know this well known fact?

You really need to get out more mate.
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 15 October 2006 2:07:56 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
Rainier wrote:

'White' people only equal 20 % of the world’s population - did you know this well known fact?

Unquote:

Okay, as a 'white' person can I claim the same rights of other minorities against my culture being corrupted by outside influences?
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 15 October 2006 3:37:09 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
Hey all you pro multiculturalist I have the stick for you now all you need is a dead horse and you will be set to go!
Posted by EasyTimes, Sunday, 15 October 2006 10:15:09 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
Dee - When you talk about the "corrosive effect diversity has on communities", you seem to be arguing that any ethnic mixing is bad. Can you give an example of a nation that is ethnically "pure"? If so, how do you rate it in terms of your idea of a "successful" nation?

You make interesting linguistic choices e.g. Putman's proposed ‘deconstruction’ is "totalitarian" because people have a right to "share with those with whom they identify". Do people also have the right to share with others who are different, if they want to? Or are you a supporter of a "totalitarianism" of a different kind?

You assert that the tendency to want to share with like people is "hard wired within the human race". How would you prove this claim to a genetic universality? Or is it just a value preference?

You condemn Putnam because he thought it would have been irresponsible to publish his research without "proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity". Do you think researchers should just provide the "facts" and not provide recommendations for policy makers? Do you believe this is a universal truth. Would it apply to all the researchers you know? Or is your concern that Putman provides the "wrong" recommendations?

And do you really think that academics like Putman are capable of imposing what you call "the failed doctrine of multiculturalism upon increasingly unwilling Western countries"? How do these researchers go about imposing their "doctrines" on "Western countries" which, as you say, are "increasingly unwilling"? It must be very hard.
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 15 October 2006 11:52:31 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
T800 - I did not quantify the number of immigrants who lobbied for multi culturalism - I was not wrong - you made the wrong assumption:

I have been wrong before - I recall in 1977, it was in May I think.

I just said "immigrants" .

Lopez's analysis is far from revelatory - thats how most policy positon are adopted in liberal democracies - and ours is a fine example of a multicultural one at that.

And sadly many well meaning but misguided people who opposed to MCism are labelled unfairly as rascists - but a great many rascists hide behind that fact as well (see how even handed and level headed I am)

I am still troubled by the notion of our "culture" being corrupted by outside influences - to ward this off what do those who quake in their boots about this inevitabiltiy propose to do? - no one has answered me that - Stop immigration? what about those that are here? what about people like me who will foster the blossoming of other cultures in our midst?

We are knee deep in a multicultural omellete - how do you suggest we get the eggs back in their shells?

Do we cocoon ourselves in the hope we stay just the way we are?
Posted by sneekeepete, Monday, 16 October 2006 10:59:28 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
Hamlet,

Okay, as a 'white' person can I claim the same rights of other minorities against my culture being corrupted by outside influences?

Yes I suppose you can, but I've yet to read any research that outlines exactly what your culture is. Perhaps its because white people have never had to explain their culture to anyone, at least on a daily basis and because their survival and navigation of society does not depend on this never ending explanations about your culture?

But guess what I can. Here are some observations from me about your culture:

-Your culture means you can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of your race most of the time.

-You can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of your race widely represented.

-When you are told about your national heritage and about "civilization," you are shown that people of your colour made it what it is.

-When you use cheques, credit cards or cash, you can count on your skin colour not to work against the appearance of being a financial reliability.

-You don’t have to educate your children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

-You can speak in public to a powerful male group without your race on trial.

-You can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to your race.
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 16 October 2006 12:03:34 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
Rainier, my culture is simple, so simple that you cannot recognise it, as you only see cultures in terms of rites, and cultural practices, lore and oral history..

'My culture' involves an amalgam of the Enlightenment Project, the Reformation, Renaissance, Democracy and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not rites!) with a dash of the Greek classics and a collective memory of the Roman Empire. It doesn't include having to conform with what elders tell me to do, it doesn't involve having non-elected representatives.

It involves freedom of choice in relationships, freedom of association and freedom of religion. Freedom of speech and equality before the law.

The basis of 'my culture' is the cult of the individual rather than the glorification of concepts and ideas that maintain power and privilege in the hands of certain cultural leaders.

In fact, the exercise of 'multiculturalism' seems to be in direct contradiction with the before mentioned Declaration of Human Rights, which talks about the individual rather than groups.

For instance: Article 16 (2): (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

is directly against arranged marriages against the will or desire of the participants, so common in so many non-western cultures.

In fact, there has been denunciation of the Declaration as a form of cultural imperialism by the West, as it focuses on the rights of the individual rather than the group.

So, does what I have written give you some idea of 'my culture'?
Posted by Hamlet, Monday, 16 October 2006 1:43:40 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
pete, Pete, pete...

I don't believe I've ever mentioned "corruption" and I'm certainly not fearful.

As for my culture it's the Australian one many of your fellow travellers seem to deny exists.

Oh and BTW it changes over time too. My culture can trace it's roots and influences back tens of thousands of years as can most cultures.

Since Australia has a culture of it's own why do you suppose it requires multiculti as a policy?

How do we unscramble the egg... well we change policy. I prefer going back to Integration. I prefer people who migrate to Australia being Australians and living the Australian culture. Why else would they migrate and become Australian?

Surely if they considered themselves still... "Lebanese" shall we say... they would not require citizenship and perhaps would even prefer to live in Lebanon.

There is a lot that can be done to wind back this hugely expensive and flawed social policy.

Those people not willing to become Australians under the new policy of Integration can always migrate Pete or if they are O/S they can stay there. After all if they were fair-dinkum in the first place wouldn't they have integrated to begin with? It took over 30 years to get us in this mess and I'm willing to wait 30 more to get out of it.

Privatise SBS.

Huge savings from not propping up Multiculti and it's associated bureacracy and ngos etc, etc, etc.... the list goes on.. and on and on.
Posted by T800, Monday, 16 October 2006 5:59:32 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
My parents came from a non-english background. My father learnt english, but still has an accent, my mother has a basic knowledge of english.
They have both have worked hard and contribiuted to Australia. They taught their children proper ethics, values and the difference right from wrong. They always supported strong work ethics and respect for others. They did not need a test to enter the country, but sometimes needed some translating services. They know who they are voting instead of being dragged by the nose like cattle and they always obey the laws of Australia.
My parents still visit the old country to see family and old friends but call Australia home. My mother always said that Australia always had the best wool in the world, good doctors, a bit expensive like meat and vegetables but it's a beautifull country in her broken english, but still wants her kids to remember their heratige but follow Australian values.
When I help raise money for charitable causes, she cooks her "koulouria and tyropites" and sells raffle tickets to her friends.Many times we were called "wogs" and have some fight scars to prove it. But still I am proud to be an Australian of greek heratige that supports "Souths".
What I am trying to say is that you live in Australia and should care about your "home" if there is something wrong try to fix it the proper way. Integrade but don't forget who you are and offer the "best of you" to your country.
The greeks have two words for country "hora" which means country but discribes the land and "ethnos" which means country as a nation, as "ONE" as a "Whole" under one flag.
Tests can be cheated, pasports can be faked, politicians can make laws, but feeling proud to be part of of "whole nation", one flag, is to be an Australian.
Posted by bus303, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 1:24:28 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
bus303,
Well said. I know of many migrants just like your parents, some of whom became successful business people because of their hard work and commitment to this country. They recognized Australia gave them the opportunity to be successful and the safety to raise their children. They also were prepared to forego some of their old culture to fit into the new. I have nothing but admiration for such migrants as I have of mine four generations ago.

Like most Australians, I don't care at all about a persons ethnicity, it is their willingness to be part of our community that is the important matter. They do not have to reject their old culture and heritage, but meet us part way through integration.

The people I have a problem with are those that are inflexable and want us to change our customs to always suit them.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 9:23:59 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
bus303, the only problem with what you wrote is your support for Souths.

Sorry, but supporting Souths means that you belong to the strangest cultural group known in Sydney, probably the only group that will never fully integrate into Australian culture even given a millenium.
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 10:20:13 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
nosy-t,

You ought to distinguish between the diversity of political groups within the "white" population. Not because some of us are 'on your side', but because you ought to reserve your "socially conditioned" racism for the middle class left. They're the only ones who want to keep you as their pet Other. To the rest of us you're as worthy of being subjected to criticism as anyone is!

Were Aboriginal Australians always living in the context of global politics, or did they begin feeling "Aboriginal" when they decided they were not part of this world, the one the last two world wars happenned on?

If 'land' rights accrue to those who were here first, then does that mean that the descendents of the English, Irish, Scottish, have more 'land' rights then the more recent arrivals of the past seventy years or so?
Posted by abyss, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 12:21:51 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 may be I confused you with some on eelse and the corruption thing - you do seem however to want to isolate "our culture" from the influences of others - correct me if I am wrong -

As for me I dont care so much - I still fail to see how much genuine influence on the way we are they have had accept at the margins any way - with decades of multi cultural policies - as relient as their culture is so too is ours - we each take the bits we like and reject those we dont - so what?

The institutions that hold us together - Parliamentary Democracy, the court system etc all seem to be tickng over quite nicely in spite of the pollies best efforts - .
Posted by sneekeepete, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 12:34:18 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
Dear Bus303, it is MOST refreshing to hear from an Aussie of Greek heritage here. Specially one who uses that exact terminology placing 'Aussie' first and ethnic background 2nd. We all should do that, including we Anglos. Only when we see ourselves as 'Australians' will be begin to build a truly unified and harmonious society.

MOST IMPORTANT...DANGER AHEAD.
There have been 2 very important posts which shed light on the issue of diversity and the absolute DANGER of emphasizing diversity over a homogenous society. One is in this thread and the other is in the Muslim political culture thread. All those who support MultiCulturalism should note these with a very focused mind.

1/ Nosy-t said:

"Watch out for the Aboriginals. We've been peaceful in our approach to gaining rights but the radicals are gaining momumentum. Keep oppressing us Australia but eventually we will fight back like Australia has never seen."

2/ Sir Zulkhanain said:

I MUST DESCRIBE THAT THE MUSLIM POLITICAL CULTURE IS CONCERNED WITH THE ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE THAT HAS BEEN SENT BY THE ALMIGHTY LORD THE ONLY ONE THE REAL CREATOR ,AND GOVERNING AUTHORITY WHO HAS BEEN SENT THE CELESTIAL HOLY BOOKS BUT THE ULTIMATE ONE IS THE QURAN

(capitals are his)

In both these posts, we see evidence of the extreme end of the social/political spectrum.

.....and this IS the problem with diversity. "The radicals are gaining momentum"

And in case there are still some out there who have not seen it when I've ranted about it 5 million times "It is the RADICALS who drive the social/political agenda"

Nosy, everything you said is true. Its tragic and regrettable historically. But also irreversable.

Just like Anglos are biologically products of Celts invaded by Angles/Saxons/Jutes/Vikings/and Norman invasion and intermarraige, the best thing for Aboriginals would be to do the same. (intermarry, be absorbed) after all, neither they/you nor we, are superior, just different :)

Welsh Celts still don't like the English, but can do nothing about it. We are all in the same boat at the end of the day.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 19 October 2006 7:44:45 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
So whay is it we need cultural diversity again?

Why does a nation need to be culturally diverse?

Why is it acceptable for some Nations to have a national culture but it's not ok for Australia and Australians?
Posted by T800, Saturday, 21 October 2006 12:48:37 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
T800 if we didn't have 'diversity' how could we prance on the world stage with such memorable events such as Cronulla ? :)

In the past it was Lambing Flat and Chinese.

aah...such rich diversity.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 22 October 2006 10:35:46 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
BOAZ DAVID , With the criticsm of noseys post What you fail to recognise and give sufficient weight to is the level of racism felt by Aboriginal Australians [in varying degrees] .
Yours and others "GET OVER IT" attitude does nothing,repeat nothing to heal the trauma of disposssion and often targeted abuse for 200 hundred years.
Aboriginal Australians do intermarry when they want to and are basically not racist to others when they receive respect.
However the Federal government's attitude, eg . Tony Abbott's desire to LIMIT the necessary time spent passing on an ORAL Culture to suit Centrelink programmes [Genocide by Steath], giving lip service to addressing the disgracefull problems of Aboriginal health ,does nothing to ease the frustration of not being genuinely recognised as the only really "Australian" culture and one we should be proud of and enjoy.
If you don't like Aboriginal attitudes do some work and change the mind-set .
I'd like to see that !
Posted by kartiya jim, Monday, 23 October 2006 8:45:06 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
Hi Kartiya.. please...I'm not quite at the 'GET OVER IT' point regarding Aboriginals. Though I'd say it with that much passion to non Aboriginals.

I fully realize that the dispossession issue is a big one. But honestly, do you see any answer to it other than
a) Re-possesion
or
b) Assimilation

I did not mean to sound critical of Nosy's post.. I was simply making an observation. My sympathies are with him.

The dispossession issue, and the awful things done to Aboriginals.. are in fact no worse than done to my own ancestors. They were dispossessed from the highlands of Scotland to provide sheep grazing pasture. It is not a unique thing to Aboriginal Australians mate.

The problem is.. once you are disposessed.. game over.. its a done deal... there are only 2 real options..

1/ Fight to get it back. (and I mean all out war)
2/ Accept it, move on and embrace the new and become part of it.

No-one likes being deprived of their cultural or territorial heritage...no one. Most wars were fought for that very reason.
But in every case... and I mean every... they faced the 2 choices above.

Lets be very honest here, the desire to 'remain aboriginal' is pretty close to racist, as it suggests there is something superior about Aboriginality compared to Anglo Saxon life.
While some Anglos would feel 'superior' to Aboriginals, that does not make them so. The truth is, we are just different, but equal in God's sight.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 26 October 2006 8:33:29 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_David , Re-posession through the courts is the best way to go -free from political bias hopefully .
A Treaty, and compensation as has occurred in Tasmania is the way to show leadership and move the process forward .It is not rocket science .Paul Lennon is to be congratulated for his statesmanship.
Unfortunately Howard lacks leadership and seems fearfull of a free and open process of Reconciliation, particually if it includes compensation . There is just to much flak from his racist mates the Nationals [goaded by the pastoralist organisations].He insists on taking the rocky road .
However ,Agreements by miners and Aboriginal people are also showing the way forward and will be slowly but surely changing the way "business" is done .Be a bit more optimistic B_D.and keep waving your Aboriginal flag .
Posted by kartiya jim, Friday, 27 October 2006 11:58:27 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
SKhan,

Are you Saeed Khan, author of the article?

I notice you have challenged 'misguided assimilationists' (your term) on the development of Australia’s multicultural policies, even Australian history!!

I hope it is fair of me to challenge you as well.

Please answer a simple question of mine:-

In what way does the Islamic culture embraces multiculturism ?
Posted by GZ Tan, Friday, 3 November 2006 11:31:51 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_David, when you write: "...the desire to 'remain aboriginal' is pretty close to racist, as it suggests there is something superior about Aboriginality compared to Anglo Saxon life", I feel so sad for you. You really aren't thinking straight at all.

Re-write your sentence again but just change the word order e.g. "...the desire to 'remain Anglo Saxon' is pretty close to racist, as it suggests there is something superior about Anglo Saxons compared to Aboriginal life", then ask yourself whether that is also 'pretty close to racist'. Or is it OK for Anglo Saxons to have double standards?

I'm sorry if this sounds patronising (I know you wouldn't dream of being patronising to non-Anglo Saxons David) but it may not be too late for you to take a simple course in clear thinking; but you might need something else as well.
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 4 November 2006 12:09:48 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 opponents of multiculturism are taking us back a century”.

It would actually be more accurate to say that the supporters of multiculturism are making the same mistake that has fuelled all the bloodshed throughout history.
Wars are always between tribes over territory(ethnic cleansing) .

I cant understand the logic when people say we should learn the lesson from what happened in Germany and so put different tribes together in one country. I should have thought that the lesson we should have learnt from what happened in Germany was NOT to put two tribes together in one country.

Anyway you cant take mankind back a century when it comes to wars. This presupposes that man is not the same species he always was. That he has somehow changed. If when you are watching some documentary on television of some past wars from centuries gone by, don’t make the mistake of thinking that was back then and its not like that any more. Mankind still needs land and resources to survive.

The modern day equivalent of the Spanish Armarda , not necessarily ships, could still rock up on anyones doorstep today, if some country thought they had the muscle and the superior weaponry to take your country. What we see in those old Viking and William the Conqueror documentaries is still very real in todays world.

It really is colossal conceit of these left wing academics to think that they are so intelligent that they have made their idea of utopia- all the tribes holding hands singing “combyere Mylord” and loving each other a reality. They fail to realize it is just a grand idea in their minds.

Tribal intermarriage is the only thing that will ensure peace in this country in the coming centuries now.
Posted by sharkfin, Saturday, 4 November 2006 4:22:14 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 23
  7. 24
  8. 25
  9. All

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