Lucy, can you please tell me why people like Jane amd myself are being libelled as racist when we have opposed racism all our lives? When we care enough to fight for a world where no-one dies from hunger? When we dare to claim that species apart from humans have the right to live? The Aboriginal people lived here sustainably for over 40,000 years. In that time their total numbers were no more than half a million. How long can we keep growing at 435,000 per year before we totally wreck this country? At a global level, how can we keep growing at 80 million per year and avoid environmental collapse and mass starvation? Call me any names you like but please, answer my questions.

“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel” wrote Samuel Johnson, accurately referring to its inappropriate use. That was back in 1775.
In 21st century Australia, the term “racism” has become the favoured refuge by many: how else can an article by an author devoted to the present and future well-being of society here, and in the world generally, generate comments about that irrelevant characteristic of humanity – the colour of a person’s skin. Let those initiating them be hoist by their own petard: They obviously have given little thought to understanding the issue, and have no wish to attempt it

@Lucy Montgomery,

For the sake of clarity, as the coiner of the term 'rednecking', I will suggest an answer from Candide, to whom I think you are addressing the question "What did they actually say that was racist?". I hope I will not mis-represent her.

Neither Cheryl nor David Jennings have said anything in this comments thread that could be accused of being 'racist'.

Cheryl's remarks, which might otherwise be taken that way, were clearly made 'tongue in cheek'. What they both did was to blow the 'racism' dog-whistle by implying that posters who express concern about Australian population growth do so primarily to discriminate against intending migrants, not out of concern as to the possible effects of population growth on future living conditions for the entire Australian community.

Perhaps the reason this dog-whistle of 'racism' is blown is because in the absence of migration, Australia's population would not be increasing.

To the extent that population increase may be, or be seen as, a problem, that problem could so easily be solved by dramatically restricting migration. This discussion is as to the nature and extent of such population-increase caused problems. If the discussion is starting to elucidate persuasive arguments against continued increase, those with a vested interest in either Australian population growth as such, OR migration as such for reasons OTHER than the creation of such growth, could have a motive for wanting to derail the debate.

One way of derailing it would be to brand participants with a label that no one wants to be seen as being: that of 'racist'. Only a red-necked bigot would argue against the smear of 'racism', but in the instant of doing so the debate would be seen by all to now be about racism, not population increase. The debate would have been 'rednecked' by creation of the conditions that would permit bigots or the embarrassingly inarticulate to occupy centre stage, and soon be effectively shut down.

Rednecking is really practised best in the MSM and Australian national politics, rather than on OLO, but some try.

It seems that people do not fully understand the migration programme if they think that calling an end to migration will also mean that people no longer migrate to Australia. Australia has an obligation to accept its share of refugees - so refugees will continue to be offered a place in Australia. Secondly the family reunion scheme is likewise unaffected by any curb in migration. Both of these elements of the migration programme are part and parcel of social justice and our responsibility as a good global citizen.
What is opposed is those aspects of the migration programme that are designed to boost our population or make good the short comings in our own capacity to train people in certain areas.

If this forum has taught me anything whenever somebody makes a lazy generalized remark you would be wasting your time actually expecting them to come clean and justify or prove it- they're the type of low-standard individual that when faced with any hard question they'll just pretend they never read your post and will just have another empty whinge filled with more dubious accusations.

In this case, it's more convenient to pretend everyone concerned about population growth is really just using it as a cover for their xenophobia (and admittedly there are a lot of such people)- but it makes itself convenient to avoid having to address those that aren't.

Of course, I don't expect these people to prove me wrong. More likely, I pretend this post will also be casually avoided, or given some stupid rhetoric based on phony justifications of why the can't answer it.

Ruth1, I don't think they were calling you a racist. I think the point was that some people could use the population debate to advance another agenda. Maybe that possibility does scare some people away from the debate?