If someone could explain to me what the term "multiculturalism" means I would be able to decide whether I was for it, against it or indifferent to it.

stevenlmyer,

So far I've never read, or heard, the definition of 'multiculturalism' from its promoters and neither have they explained why in fact, a 'multicultural' policy is necessary in a liberal democratic state.

That's not all, stevenlmeyer.

>>If someone could explain to me what the term "multiculturalism" means I would be able to decide whether I was for it, against it or indifferent to it.<<

I found myself stumbling over the idea of a "cultural diversity movement". Where, apparently, "there is a ripple of apprehensive expectation".

I think they may be a dance company.

There is also this throwaway line to chew over.

"...waves of protest from ethnic organisations across the country"

It must have been while I was asleep. Have you had any such waves up your way? It's been pretty quiet here in our little backwater of Sydney.

Oh, here they are. A "sell out crowd" of "more than 300 people" who "packed the lower Town Hall".

Gasp. Too many, obviously, for the upper Town Hall.

And what was this riotous mob calling for?

They were "unanimously resolved to call on the government to reinstate the term 'multicultural affairs' in the title of Bowen’s Cabinet post"

Shades of the People's Front of Judea.

"Whadda we want?"

"Reinstate the term 'multicultural affairs' in the title of Bowen’s Cabinet post!"

Wenda we wannit?

"Now!"

Take cover guys and gals. The revolution has begun.

Aux barricades!

For those who have not read a definition of multiculturalism and its purpose in liberal democarcy - here is an original definition from Fraser:

"Multiculturalism is concerned with far more than the passive toleration of diversity. It sees diversity as a quality to be actively embraced, a source of social dynamism. It encourages groups to be open and to interact, so that all Australians may learn and benefit from differences set within a framework of shared fundamental values which enables them to coexist on a complementary rather than competitive basis. It involves respect for the law and for our democratic institutions and processes. Insisting upon a core area of common values is no threat to multiculturalism but its guarantee, for it provides the minimal conditions on which the well-being of all is secured. Not least, multiculturalism is about equality of opportunity for the members of all groups to participate in and benefit from Australia's social, economic and political life" (Fraser, M. (1981). Multiculturalism: Australia's unique achievement. p. 3).

It seems that only those scared of loosing their own cultural dominance question its validity or need.

Hi Pericles

I've just come back from a walk. I can report a marked absence of burning barricades, sirens or police baton charges. In fact there was a total absence of police. Nor did I detect even a whiff of tear gas in the breeze. I spotted no police helicopters overhead.

Mostly I just saw a beautiful spring day.

En route I bought bread at a French bakery run by a Vietnamese gentleman. Now there’s a splendid example of "cultural diversity"!

So 300 people attended this meeting in Sydney! Well the number who attended last week’s AFL grand final numbered 300 SQUARED. That 300 X 300 for those not mathematically inclined. A like number are expected at the replay this weekend.

I guess that shows where Victorians’ priorities lie.

The “indifferent” vote seems to be winning by a landslide.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11040#184801

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11040#184806

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11040#184808

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11040#184819

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11040#184820

Gentlemen, Here is THE real definition of "Multiculturalism". Together with WHO & WHY they invented it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

Yes, that's right, its another branch of cultural & economic terrorism, invented by CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists to destabilise, weaken or "white ant" modern western capitalist democracy.

What happened in OZ between 1945 & 1965 was not "Multiculturalism". It was multiple linguistics. Those immigrants who did not come from Britain, came from Europe, in other words they did not come from other cultures, they were educated Christians, from other, 1st world, modern western capitalist democracies.

Their mothers recipe for Sunday dinner after church may have been different, they may have started life with another language & needed to learn English, but apart from that, their culture was identical to ours.

Radical Extreme Muslims are another kettle of fish altogether. The Politically Correct Thought Police who inflicted this on Britain & Europe have proven beyond all doubt that it is a recipe for racial & ethnic tensions leading to more crime, more wasted taxes, moral & ethical degeneration.

All of the Communist regimes who encouraged us to adopt this rubbish are cohesive, stable, Mono-cultural & Patriarchal regimes which are now rising above us White fools in the west after they adopted capitalism, economically, but remained as stronger, stabler cultures, or societies, than ours.

The really sad part is that "liberals" like Malcolm Fraser fell for the Propaganda of the Politically Correct Thought Police as well.

2blokes in a pub, the communist says "i want to destroy modern western capitalist democracy". The Liberal, Egalitarian, Christian turns around & says "really, Me Too".

Brian Kollin,

(1) thanks for the definition, however,it's not relevant to my question as it's purely normative.
(2) avoid ad hominem arguments such as "only those scared of losing their own cultural dominance question its validity or need", it's about the same intellectual level as claiming that criticism of our high immigration rate is 'racist'.

The definition you presented is a rather trite statement that still doesn't justify the existence of a government funded multicultural policy in a democratic society. Why not ask the various 'multiculturalists' to explain their versions of 'multiculturalism'?

I don't care about 'multiculturalism' one way or the other,as long as the promoters spend their own money,not the taxpayers'.

Wow.

At first, I thought you were joining in the fun, Formersnag.

>>Yes, that's right, its another branch of cultural & economic terrorism, invented by CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists to destabilise, weaken or "white ant" modern western capitalist democracy.<<

That's really funny. A worthy addition to the tongue-in-cheek approach adopted here to date.

Then I became suspicious.

>>Their mothers recipe for Sunday dinner after church may have been different, they may have started life with another language & needed to learn English, but apart from that, their culture was identical to ours<<

I see. It's ok, as long as they are Christians and European, is that right?

But wait. You move quickly on to...

>>Radical Extreme Muslims are another kettle of fish altogether<<

Haven't you missed out a bunch of people along the way?

Where do Chinese and Vietnamese families fit into your scenario? Is their culture identical to ours? Except for the Sunday lunch, of course.

And what about non-extreme, non-radical Muslims, who just want a peaceful life in an open and tolerant society? How are they "a recipe for racial & ethnic tensions leading to more crime, more wasted taxes, moral & ethical degeneration."?

But this is simply hilarious.

>>All of the Communist regimes who encouraged us to adopt this rubbish are cohesive, stable, Mono-cultural & Patriarchal regimes which are now rising above us White fools in the west after they adopted capitalism, economically, but remained as stronger, stabler cultures, or societies, than ours.<<

You've been to Russia recently, I take it?

http://www.newcriminologist.com/article.asp?cid=153&nid=2166

Be honest. You just don't like foreign people, do you. It's ok, there are still a few others like you who feel the same way. Just keep taking the angry pills.

Multiculturalism is a misnomer, simply because there is no other culture that we accept entirely. We accept some aspects of some cultures but not all or any.

I consider us multi-racial, and always have been since 1788, but not multicultural. Our basic and fundamental laws, governance and social standards are all based on the British Westminster system and dispite some 40 years of diversity being imposed on us we still have the same basic standards.

The ideology of MC is that all cultures will come together and this is a fallacy. Take the Croats and Serbs, the Greeks and the Turks, Sri Lankens and the Tamils. There are others and these groups make a mockery of the term 'Unity in Diversity'. The Lebs don't seem to get along with anyone. The Indian caste system is an example of alien diversity.

MC has been shown to be a failure. I am just really disappointed that we compromise our own cultural standards by turning a blind eye to such activities as forced marriage and FGM. We still import people from countries where such things as incest and pedophillia are practiced, and some very alien culinary habits.

If we desire a cohesive community, we need to be selective as to whom we invite into our country, on a cultural basis.

We do OZ MC a great disservice if we think it is no more than rainbow colour costumes, street pantomimes, and yummy treats.

It’s also given our politics more breadth : now, not only do we have policies for the young and old young, rural or urban (who are anyway often from the one clan) but we now have policies that target race/culture .

The goings on in the electorate of Bennelong –which has a large Chinese population -- are a good case study. In the 2007 election , Chinese from old peoples homes were being told that Howard was anti-Chinese and given a courtesy bus to nearest booth to express their disaffection.

And it got the result the mischief peddlers desired.

During the last round the incumbent again played hard on the race/culture issue.First co-opting Bob Hawke of -– after Tianamen square you all can stay, fame-- for a private dinner with the Chinese community leaders, and then Kevin Rudd of -–Ni hao ma? Wo shi bendan -- fame, to pop into the local Chinese language school.

But alas, poor Maxine, the Chinese community was a wake-up and the seat holder got the kick in the tail she so thoroughly deserved.

However, such profiling fools a lot of ”ethnic communities” a lot of the time.And I fear it is going to get a lot more prevalent ---and we owe it in a large part to MC.

Gee Banjo, I'm Australian and I'm married to a Chinese woman and we get on like a house on fire despite our cultural differences. My experience seems to shoot a few holes in your latest comment.

Extensive traveling and living in other countries does help people to broaden their minds, helps them to see that humans are basically all the same wherever you find them.

Let's look for the positives rather than highlight the negatives, eh?

http://dangerouscreation.com

I much prefer 'citizenship' to 'multicultural' in the naming of a portfolio because citizenship denotes a mutual Australian-ness regardless of race or ethnic origin.

Australia is a multicultural nation - there is no need to spruik it from the hilltops and immigration in Australia is not exclusive of any race.

It is just more of the same organisations who think they might miss out on government funding. There is also support for new immigrants in the way of English classes and information sessions to understand our laws, system of taxation etc. There is no need for a multicultural department per se as multicultural Australia is firmly entrenched.

All Australians are protected by law in regards to equality and discrimination and I can't see any further value in a multicultural portfolio when the end has been achieved. The same goes for the Office of the Status for Women.

All a bit of fuss over nothing.

Pericles.
A lot of the Vietnamese and Chinese around where I live are Christians who've come here for the obvious reasons, they even proselytise in the streets.
A lot of the Sudanese who are integrating well are Lutherans and Catholics, a lot of the Sudanese and Somalis who are causing trouble are Muslims.
Most of the Lebanese in my area are Christians as well, they built a huge church in Thornbury and there were no protests, which is in contrast to Mosque and prayer hall development.
It seems that this "culture" issue isn't as random or as rainbow coloured as we're led to think, that it's all been carefully planned.
There's some pretty shocking revelations coming out about "Muslims", what was long suspected about the Highland Caucasians,Khazars/Ashkenazi,Afghans, Pakistanis and Vandal Arabs is being proven true as genetic research starts really moving ahead.
Read this link, bear in mind that the author is himself Jewish and that what he's been saying, based on his observations for nearly 40 years has been proven true only in the last couple of months:
http://www.michaelbradley.info/
He further explains his position here:
http://www.michaelbradley.info/esau/esau-part2.htm
There's a far more in depth presentation in "Esau's Empire Pt1" which is downloadable from that site as a PDF.
Also this week we learn that ADHD has a genetic basis, so that implies that certain behavioural traits can have a genetic basis, even if they are "disorders" if they're widespread among a particular group we need to take it into consideration.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68S5UD20100930
Human Genetic research is in it's infancy, I keep saying we're not in a post racial world, that we're entering the "Age Of Race" and we have to start dealing with the fact that race is real and it matters.
Now before anyone cries "Rayciss" bear in mind that all these revelations make "White supremacism" and "eugenics" obsolete, they don't support "Racism" but they do support "Racialism".

David G,
Well David, perhaps I should have explained my lasr comment more fully.

When I say we should be more selective in just who we accept into our country, I mean from our experience of them integrating into our society.

The vast majority of immigrants adapt to our social norms, but there are some that clearly do not. I did give some examples of some cultures that continue to hold old hatreds of others more important that adapting to our society.

There are some here that continue such practices as FGM and forced marriages contrary to our laws and we should not compromise our standards to accomodate this.

We should recognise that some have alien cultural practices they are not willing to forgo and we should not continue to allow them to enter the country.

I believe this would benefit us and the people concerned would be happier in a society their cultural practices are accepted.

Pelican,

For once I find myself in agreement with you. I think it's about funding for "ethnic" communities whatever "ethnic" may mean. What does one have to be to qualify as an "ethnic"?

David G I'm glad you and your wife get on like a "house on fire". Do the neighbours ever complain about having to call out the fire brigade at least once a week?

On a more serious, note, isn't marriage between two cultures the opposite of multiculturalism? I sometimes get the impression the multi cultis favour some sort of Apartheid.

The discussion has certainly digressed into irrelevant comments as to the virtues(or vices) of a multicultural society. The author of the article advocates the development of a 'multi-cultural' bureaucracy staffed with taxpayer-funded social engineers who most likely haven't reached a consensus on the definition of 'multi-culturalism' themselves and who all probably should get real jobs.

mac wrote:

>>The author of the article advocates the development of a 'multi-cultural' bureaucracy staffed with taxpayer-funded social engineers ...who all probably should get real jobs.>>

Don't be daft lad. Who would hire them?

Governments are important in delivering some services and programs but we can go too far. Not everything that happens in society needs a bureacracy - there is too much waste and the APS has become top heavy and bloated. It is not longer a pyramid structure but almost inverted with the pointy end at the bottom - this is not way to deliver on the ground essential services which is ultimately what government should be offering new immigrants - not social engineering policies that are done and dusted or feathering ones own nests to the detriment of other services.

The term Multiculturalism would seem to imply "Race relations",some sort of federation of ethnic communities or even civic nationalism.
Trouble is the term has been simultaneously hijacked and politicised by so called "Anti Racists" on the Left and Pro assimilation right wingers.
The charter of Rights and Responsibilities we have in Victoria provides the only administrative apparatus we need for "multiculturalism", beyond that the practicalities will always be decided by the community.
It doesn't matter what the government says or does, people will associate with those whom they feel most comfortable.
Most of the "trouble"is inspired by events and ideologies from abroad anyway, whether it's Jewish "trash" culture from Hollywood,Fascism and it's twin Antifascism from mainland Europe, Islamic Religious doctrine from Jeddah or secular "social engineering" from Tavistock in the UK.

Reading these posts I'd say that most of you are living in Australia, very complacent with it - and so you should be. It's a wonderful place.

I'm an atheist, I don't believe I am a racist, I love diverse cultures, I have friends who come from all walks of life, creeds and belief systems. I am Australian through and through although my mother was Italian and father English, was born and spent my formative years in South Africa - emigrated to Australia 25 years ago and am currently living in an ex communist country, I work in the UK when I have to - but I'm Australian. I found my cultural identity when we moved to Australia. I was never South African, European - I did not have a country that I wanted to live and die for if necessary until I found Australia. There is NO WAY that I will give that up.

I don't believe there should be legalised multi-culturalism. It's an abomination - NOT multi-culturalism BUT the legislation of multi-culturalism.

Understanding of others way of life, their religions, their belief systems and social mores are one thing, but to adopt them legally or accept them just because it is the politically correct thing to do is wrong and morally lackadaisical. (eg. Sharia law, the disgusting practices of both FGM and MGM (mail genital mutilation), the barbaric practices of kosher or halal slaughtering).
People who immigrate to Australia or any other country SHOULD integrate and become the best Australians (or ??) they can. By giving into multi-culturalism we are saying that theirs is better than ours - we are putting our social norms and mores and belief systems into a big melting pot and losing our identity.

That isn't to say that they give up their identity. It isn't to say that they can't or shouldn't have some (most of their) concessions and tolerance, No doubt we would adopt some anyway by evolution - BUT WE need concessions too - and the most important of those concessions is that they integrate and give up the barbaric and antiquated practices that have absolutely NO place in our modern era, the other concession is that they act like they believe that their adopted country is the best in the world, otherwise they should go back whence they came.

I am living in an Eastern European country, I cook their foods, I talk their language I live like they do, I fit into their culture as much as I can, but I'm NOT Eastern European and never will be, I'm Australian - but I'm in THEIR country and don't expect them to change for me.

Interesting enough while we are making all the concessions to 'multi-culturalism', many of those 'multi-culturalists' haven't made any and it's labeled racist/xenophobic by the politically correct if we ask for or expect concessions from them. Divide and conquer - that what multi-culturalism does. BTW I'm not targeting 1 ethnic group or religion.

I have seen what 'multi-culturalism' has done to the England - it's not the England of 30 yrs ago - she no longer has an identity, she's weak - she's there for the taking and it is happening, slowly but inexorably it is being taken over changing and not for the better.

We still have our national pride - for goodness sake, don't lose that.

Fiandra.
That's all well and good if everyone is looking for "solutions", which boils down to a search for "Truth".
White people are obsessed with objective truth, it's a cult of "objectivism" which tolerates "Political correctness", toxic to the mind though it is.
I don't know if you've noticed but other races don't look for objective truth in every single scenario with which they are confronted.
The Aboriginals aren't interested in the truth behind the "Mungo Man" or the Bradshaw paintings.
Muslims aren't interested in proving or disproving anything in their world, they aren't even interested in the connections between their history and those of other groups,as witnessed in the destruction and looting of antiquities in the Middle East.
No one in the Islamic world is questioning the legitimacy of the Cloak of Mohammed, when Mullah Omar donned it and appeared before the Taliban the crowd pronounced him commander of the faithful.
Contrast that with the treatment of the Shroud of Turin.
If White people had shown no interest in the Mayan or Khmer or Inca history they would have been forgotten, the Guatemalans,Cambodians and Peruvians don't give a damn about their past, even the Chinese aren't really that bothered by all the archaeology under their feet.

We Whites question everything, we take our holiest relics and most sacred sites and we pore over them and subject them to continuous scrutiny.
So it is with our societies, if someone says "race is a social construct" we'll run with that and try to create a set of objective, demonstrable standards to fit the theory, we'll scrutinise it and consider our relationship to the theory, running in ever tighter circles.
We can create standards for ourselves in relation to other races based upon the "truths" we discover but if other races are not receptive to those ideas simply because nothing in their world needs to be demonstrated we're up a certain creek without a certain instrument.
We seem to be getting furrowed brows and the response "Yeah...So What?" from the other races to a lot of the "Multicultural Agenda".

LOL Jay of Melbourne

I agree that Muslims deny any fact that contradicts their religion. But Muslims are NOT a race.

Let me emphasise that. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RACE OF MUSLIMS.

Note that White Christian fundamentalists seem to have as much difficulty dealing with evolution as any Muslims.

So much for Whites being especially objective in their outlook.

Jay I dislike the word “race”. It is too imprecise. For example we now know that people hailing from East Africa are genetically quite distinct from people who trace their origins to West Africa. Yet both are regarded as belonging to the same “race”.

I prefer the word “deme”. I cannot improve on the Wikipedia definition:

>>In biology, a deme is a term for a local population of organisms of one species that actively interbreed with one another and share a distinct gene pool. When demes are isolated for a very long time they can become distinct subspecies or species.>>

East and West Africans belong to different demes.

Now there may or may not be significant genetic differences between demes. And that may or may not affect their outlooks on life and their capabilities. For example I find it intriguing that in the last seven Olympics all 56 finalists in the 100 metres dash traced their origins to West Africa. It wasn’t just the winners who were of West African origin. It was all those who made it to the finals. The odds against that occurring by chance are simply astronomical.

But, on the whole, right now, in 2010, we just don’t know if there are genetic differences between demes that affect outlook and capability. BOTH sides of the debate are simply spewing hot air.

The average genetic differences between demes may be tiny but they could still have a significant affect. On the other hand, and this is equally likely, they may have no significant affect at all.

We simply don’t know.

So why don't you stop spewing junk science?

Banjo I agree with a lot of what you say but:
"If we desire a cohesive community, we need to be selective as to whom we invite into our country, on a cultural basis"
and...
"We should recognise that some have alien cultural practices they are not willing to forgo and we should not continue to allow them to enter the country."

The problem with this approach is that:
1) you can't know before the individual has been accepted that he/she isn't willing to forgo these practices (even if they swear on the bible/koran/torah)
2) some alien cultural practices are enriching and excluding all of a cultural group on the basis that theirs is a culture that is different to ours would be wrong, not to mention stultifying.
Cultures are man made, they evolve (usually). We take the good from one and adopt it. The problems arise when we see the bad in one and allow it to continue because it is steeped in Religious Dogma and archaic rhetoric and it's 'too sensitive' an issue to bring up, we'll hurt their feelings, it's a restriction on their freedom' (until it becomes accepted as a norm).

If something is wrong/evil - no matter how you wrap it up or whatever you wrap it up with - cultures or religions, it's still evil. FGM, MGM, forced marriages, halal/kosher slaughtering, honour killings (murders),to name but a few. Even if some of their practices don't have a long term detrimental effect (to an individual) eg.MGM - many men don't mind that their bodies may have been violated in the name of culture/religion, some couples forced into marriage turn out to be happy - they are still evil - they have violated the individuals right and should be outlawed.

Australia and Australians should have the 'bxxxs' to criminalise certain barbaric practices and ignore the others regardless of its origins. In an ideal world we would welcome diverse cultures into our society, but there would be a caveat - that their citizenship could be revoked should they practice those heinous acts of violence upon another.

Pelican's post was excellent and I particularly liked this section,

"Australia is a multicultural nation - there is no need to spruik it from the hilltops and immigration in Australia is not exclusive of any race.

It is just more of the same organisations who think they might miss out on government funding. There is also support for new immigrants in the way of English classes and information sessions to understand our laws, system of taxation etc. There is no need for a multicultural department per se as multicultural Australia is firmly entrenched."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11040&page=2

The electorate is fed up to the back teeth with the plethora of advisory committees and forums that government relies on in lieu of consulting with the whole electorate as it should do in a democracy. Isn't that what elected members are for? Worse, these advisory committees are duplicated at State level, resulting in further hijacking of democratic representation and wastage of taxes.

Is it not possible for the hundreds of elected politicians and the thousands of public servants in federal departments to ascertain what needs exist and how to best satisfy those needs?

I note that the Australian Multicultural Advisory Committee was given a new term prior to the election. The government must have money to burn. Pity about homeless youth and the lack of money for education and hospitals though.

http://www.immi.gov.au/about/stakeholder-engagement/national/advisory/amac/

I agree with other comments here, that there are some religious/ cultural practices by ethnic groups that are both repugnant to Western morality and a violation of our human rights principles. The 'multiculturalists' never seem to set clear parameters as to the limits of cultural relativism, without these limits 'multiculturalism' is a rather pernicious doctrine.
Those of us who are not cultural relativists and who regard liberal, pluralist, democratic societies as superior to others are naturally sceptical as to the need for a multicultural industry.

I also agree with stevenlmeyer's doubts as to the value of the concept of 'race' as a technique to describe genetic differences, as far as I understand, the trend is for scientists to reject the idea.

However 'racism' is a useful card to play by those who want to silence criticism of their favorite ideologies.

Steven L Meyer.
You say tomato I say tomato.
I'm putting forward the Heresy in the interests of a creating a debate or a dialectic because I don't have a fixed point of view, it's junk science at this point, but so was "Global warming" now it's the new orthodoxy
Then again what if what I'm saying is all true, yeah it's weird that certain "Demes" appear to have different capabilities but all that means is that we have to look at Race Relations instead of the "Human Race" and judge our various compatibilities on that basis.
The ideal would be to keep searching for our truths but not be so inflexible as to keep imposing standards on ourselves every time we have an in sight into the way the world works, take a "wide sky" approach to all possibilities.

Further to what Banjo wrote, I would like to promote the concept of multiracialism rather than multiculturalism. I say this as the adoptive mother of a couple of Asian and a couple of 'black' children. My grandchildren range from blue-eyed blondes to dark-eyed, brown-skinned. They all want to 'fit in' to Australian society and not be preoccupied with the cultures from which they or their birth parents/grandparents have come though they are not without interest in their cultural backgrounds. As far as immigrants are concerned, while the retention of some cultural characteristics like food and music is clearly desirable, the retention of illiberal, misogynist and undemocratic characteristics is clearly undesirable. I'm happy to have anyone of any race come to this country (within a smaller program though) as long as they comply with our democratic, egalitarian, humanitarian and liberal culture.

popnperish,
I agree with you, but how to acheive that is the difficult part.

I don't know how many times i have been called racist or Xenophobic for putting forward those views. I critisize aspects of cultures but that is not racism.

fiandra,
I advocate selective immigration because our politicians do not have the guts to simply say to prospective migrants and refugees that certain things are not acceptable here and if you are found doing these alien things you will be deported.

I think it more likely to get a selective immigration policy in, based on our experience of which cultures cannot/will not forgo certain alien cultural practices. For example, Serbs and Croats still hate each other after 3 generations here and it is the newcomers that keep that hatreds alive, so better not to bring anymore in.

Our health authorities know which cultures practice FGM and after 16 years of education, and being unlawfull, it is on the increase. The answer is to stop people of those cultures coming here. There is not that many cultural issues that we find alien.

The more we turn a blind eye to alien practice, the more we compromise our own culture.

As I said before most immigrants do integrate but we have to be strong and reject those cultures that do not.

Does anyone keep tabs on how much we actually spend, as a nation, on the practice of multiculturalism?

I'm assuming that by now we are agreed that it is to do with policies that actively support and maintain cultural differences, as opposed to those which encourage togetherness and assimilation.

I just get the impression that it has become a term predominantly used to stoke prejudice rather than create clarity.

So, anyone prepared to take a stab at the dollars involved? Or is it just the opportunity to rant about the principle itself? Which, by the way, I tend to disagree with.

But I suspect we are actually looking at the proverbial climatic turbulence in the Noritake.

Pericles, "Does anyone keep tabs on how much we actually spend, as a nation, on the practice of multiculturalism?"

I presume you mean in dollars alone,

"When specific criticisms are made of this policy, researchers and academics are usually commissioned by government organizations such as the Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) - which reports directly to the Prime Minister through the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet - to undermine and refute claims critical of this policy. The effect of such funding has been to distort and manipulate public debate.

Federal, State and local governments are likely to spend over A$100 million each year simply promoting, supporting and justifying the policy of multiculturalism. It includes the subsidizing of the multicultural media; academics and researchers who support this policy; and 'education' programs for children, students and the community. However, the full extent of multicultural funding is unknown, partly because it is often allocated in a covert manner."

By Stephen Rimmer
Volume 3, Number 1 (Fall 1992)
Issue theme: "Revealing the costs of immigration"

from http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0301/article_208.shtml

Pericles,
Cornflower is right. I started to keep tabs years ago and found that one had to get both Fed and State annual reports just to see the amount of direct grants. This is only the tip as there are so many hidden costs racked up by many departments and then many local governments also spend significant amounts on Ethnic affairs.

I was pleased to see the previous Government drop the term Multiculture and the present government has not put any emphasis on it. In fact the present PM used to talk about 'social inclusion' as an ideology but never quite explained what it included. Be interesting to see if that is expanded on during this term

I think the authors like this one here are simply trying to save their industry in the face of governments just letting multiculturalism die away.

"benefit from differences set within a framework of shared fundamental values which enables them to coexist on a complementary rather than competitive basis. It involves respect for the law and for our democratic institutions and processes."

Herein lies the real issue...if thesecommunities can musle dollars out of major parties to get the % swing they need for a seat, then it could be argued these 'grants' are actually inducements, prohibited by Federal electoral laws.