It makes you wonder, doesn't it.

>>Yes of course it goes without saying that "MultiCulturalism" has not just failed but failed utterly<<

Thanks Boaz. I expected no less form you.

But let me dig a little deeper for you, and see what we can find, eh?

Britain was invaded by the Romans in 55BC, when the country was inhabited by a mix of Britons and the northern European Belgae. Then came (roughly in chronological order) Frisians from Holland, Jutes from Jutland, Angles from Schleswig Holstein, Saxons from north-west Germany, Vikings from Scandinavia, Normans from Normandy, Romani from South Asia, Huguenots from France, Hanseatic merchants and Protestant refugees from Germany, West Africans (Elizabeth I tried to get them arrested and expelled, but failed), black American soldiers from the American Revolutionary War, Lascars from India, Bengalis from Bengal, Jews from Russia, Irish refugees from the Famine...

And all that, before even the start of the Twentieth Century.

What was that again, Ludwig?

It is impossible for a country to support immigrants, as "the majority of people in a given country with a given culture would object to that culture being progressively diluted as peoples with very different practices and beliefs became a prominent part of their society".

There are far more examples of successful integration than failure.

You just don't like the idea of foreign people, do you.

@stevenlmeyer
the definition of multiculturalism I provided was in fact the working definition that was supposed to guide policy development. It was the working definition that those of us lobbying for a multicultural australia were using. With Keith Bull I wrote Multiculturalism from Practice to Policy which was an accurate description of how Multiculturalism was perceived by those of us who were promoting it.
But as you rightly point out (and this was the point of my article) that notion of multiculturalism has been lost - whereas the intention was that the onus ought to be on the cultural minority to demonstrate that their particular practice did not violate Australia's core values that notion has now been reversed as your example demonstrates.
@Ludwig - I tried to make the point that the idea of a monocultural society has always been a myth.
I suppose the real challenge that we face is summed up neatly in this you tube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

Pericles,

(The Roman conquest of Britain was in 43 AD)

'There are far more examples of successful integration than failure',well yes, if you confine that observation to the liberal-democratic West prior to the mid 20th century. However it's certainly and tragically not true for the Islamic world where non-Moslem minorities are generally oppressed,forcibly converted or expelled.
'Multiculturalism',rightly or wrongly is seen as a Trojan horse for the spread of Islam,a totalitarian doctrine inimical to Western liberties.

stevenlmeyer's example is regrettably,all too common,there are many others,e.g. non-Moslems are required to adopt Islamic dress codes at public swiming pools so that Moslems can be 'included',their inclusion is our exclusion. Unfortunately there appears to be an unending supply of 'useful idiots' who think that 'multiculturalism' implies accommodation to others' intolerant attitudes.

So,let's acknowledge the huge smelly,noisy elephant in the room

MultiCulti has failed and we are paying dearly, very dearly for it's failings.

But the authors want "I believe that we too need to have a debate about these issues in Australia", why? bwcause they are the sort of bureaucrats and academics who profit from government funding of multiculturalism.

I'm proud of cheese, rationalism, democracy, social-mobility, internal-combustion engines, guns, steel, free-education, free-speech, etc etc.

I am not really impressed by curry, thai cooking and chinese new year... but these seem to be the sole benefits we have from multiculturalsm.

What I don't like is the crime, the vastly increasing masses of welfare-dependant, the colapse of 'social capital' graffitti, and squalor of the 'multicultural' suburbs.

But the author has no idea about this... he lives in a suburb like Sydney's Newtown, or Melbourne's Fitzroy... pure professional-class. white ghettos. THese lefties don't see multiculturalism, they only see multicultural restaurants, staffed by workers who live a safe distance from their nice white, professional public servant suburbs.

PartTImeParen@pobox.com

You just don't like the idea of foreign people, do you.
Pericles,
That is a very ignorant statement. Anyone with ½ oz of grey matter can tell that it is the foreign people who invade others who are the ones who force their mentality onto the hosts. Australia has been no exception. But back to the question of the thread. Whenever there is a show or festival most people appreciate what foreigners have to offer. What most people don't appreciate is those foreigners who want to make things worse due to dumb$hit religions.

That's also true, mac.

>>Pericles, (The Roman conquest of Britain was in 43 AD)<<

But my copy of De Bello Gallico has this to say in chapter 5:

"Accessum est ad Britanniam omnibus navibus meridiano fere tempore"

Which I could have sworn recorded the arrival of Julius Caesar in 55BC.

I count that as "invaded".

Certainly the inhabitants did, as you can see here:

"Cassivellaunus hoc proelio nuntiato tot detrimentis acceptis, vastatis finibus, maxime etiam permotus defectione civitatum legatos per Atrebatem Commium de deditione ad Caesarem mittit."

He came back in 54BC as well.

It seems to me that this country divides pretty quickly into those who hate to see change of any kind, and find reason after reason to moan and whinge about how the country's going to the dogs, thanks to all those smelly foreigners.

And those who get on with their lives, who don't necessarily think that foreigners are bent on evil, and who also don't believe that we need to continue to live as we did in the 1950s.

But heck, I'm an immigrant here too, so what do I know?