Perhaps the perfect example of "multiculturalism" in all its Great Big Glory is identified in a Mike Carlton piece titled 'One Nation wrapped in a Blue Ribbon'.

Yep this sums up the shortcomings of Janet Albrechtsen, Paul Sheehan, Bernardi, Kevin Donnelly etc etc whenever they write about multiculturalism.

I must say this is actually quite a good article that does actually jump into the deeper end of the detail- including why our case could be regarded separate from those of Germany and the UK.

Generally something that has been quite lacking in the entire world of printed articles, for the past two decades.

You need to more realistic about peoples attitude to foreigners.

It took us a while to accept the influx of Europeans after the second world war, but by and large they looked like us and observed the same basic culture, even though the food might have been different. The Italian Mafia also arrived with them. After the Vietnam conflict, the flood of Asian migrants gave us some more challenges, but they seem to have settled in fairly well and embraced our culture without too much conflict although the odd criminal element rears its head from time to time. Also their religions, though different, offer no confrontation to most Australians.

The influx of Muslims poses serious problems. The attitude of Muslim men toward women is different, the women dress differently, they adhere to a different religion. Although my impression of the rank and file Muslim is that most would like to blend with the established society, the Imams in some of the mosques have a different agenda altogether. They would like to see the introduction of Sharia law and in other ways, convert Australia to Islam. This doesn't go down too well with the average Australian, and is probably the most likely cause of conflict between the established Australian society and the latest newcomers

They are not the only ones intent upon bending us to their ideological will, VK3AUU.

>>the Imams in some of the mosques have a different agenda altogether. They would like to see the introduction of Sharia law and in other ways, convert Australia to Islam.<<

Our own beloved Christian hierarchy are also busy with the introduction of their own orthodoxies, as you would be only too well aware.

Supporting the subversion of our children's education:

http://onlinecatholics.acu.edu.au/issue64/commessay1.html

"The Campus Crusade for Christ... is pushing to have the intelligent design theory taught in every high school in Australia"

Cardinal Pell's comment?

"the theory of evolution... is sometimes taught 'in an anti-God way.' 'If that’s the case, I’d be happy for them to talk about design or intelligent design,'"

Incidentally, he also believes that prayer (to the right God, of course. And by Catholics only) can cure cancer.

"Obviously, cancer can be cured by prayer" he told the ABC.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/pell-adamant-prayer-cures-cancer-20091221-l8fy.html

And clearly, he doesn't want any "competing technologies" where that's concerned.

"He has threatened politicians who are Catholics with exclusion from communion... if they vote in favour of a secular law permitting stem cell research."

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/06/pell_causes_catholics_stress.php

Catholics are also concerned about competition from other sources. Like Amnesty International.

"...[Bishop Prowse] warns that without [a change to their policy] Amnesty International can expect Catholics to take their goodwill, time and money elsewhere.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1951825.htm

They all seem to be tarred with the same brush. Do. It. Our. Way.

But in the overall scheme of things - i.e. given the ratio of Christians to Muslims in Australia - I know which group is more likely to influence legislation.

When one is neither a Muslim or so called Western religious person, such as a Catholic, Anglican etc, I do find that I am not guided by all the trappings of any of them, it would be a much more peaceful world without them.
All I can say with the unfortunate loss of life on Christmas Island is, if they had joined the correct way to enter Australia this unfortunate accident would never have happened.
Multiculturism is a two way deal, accept us and we will accept you, but that doesn't include treating women as second class citizens, the latest arrivals do not seem to understand this.
Ojnab

Australia has benefited greatly by having a large variety of immigrants. Australia is heading down the sewer by allowing social engineers to label every voice racist who has genuine concerns with very good reasons about the rise of literal Islam in this and other nations. There is good reason why people want to leave Islamic countries in droves. There in no good reason to try and emulate what they have fled from. To deny the rapes in Western Sydney is not ideological based is typical of the left who are only to quick to lambast any resemblance of Christianity left in this country but even quicker to leap to the defense of the indefensible. If by choosing who comes here on the basis of who makes good citizens is racist then so be it. Hopefully if we use that criteria of what is good for the country we will become more racist and less naive.

As a member of a tiny minority within the much bigger Australian society I have to hope that multicultural societies can work.

But do they?

Let me ask the hot potato question.

Are multicultural societies sufficiently robust to be able to withstand a stress test?

By “stress test” I mean a situation in which things go badly wrong such as a severe and long-lasting economic depression.

Please note the question. It is a question about the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be. It is a question about the nature of societies, not about ideology.

Also please note that I do not doubt the viability of multicultural societies when things are going well or, at least, not too badly. But I do wonder about the robustness of multicultural societies when the going gets tough.

To begin with we see that the world is littered with the wreckage of multicultural, multiethnic, multi-religious, multiracial societies that have failed or are failing stress tests. Think of Cyprus, Fiji, Lebanon, Pakistan Sudan or Afghanistan even prior to the US invasion of 2002. What would be the fate of Iraq without oil? Will it survive in one piece even with oil? Will Libya?

One multicultural country that does not appear to be doing well in a stress test is the United States. It does seem to be fracturing along racial, ethnic and religious lines.

I note also the angst generated by a small number of boat people in Australia. You may deplore this phenomenon. You may heap scorn upon the people who fear boat arrivals. But you cannot deny the reality of the sentiments.

One researcher who reluctantly concluded that, at least in the short term, increasing diversity resulted in all manner of pathologies is Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone. Here is a link to his paper:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/full

And here is a link to a discussion of the paper:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html

I have no doubt many people will question my motives for even raising the question. But I think it’s worth asking.

"Multiculturalism in Australia is about letting people in Australia keep parts of their former culture provided there is no conflict with the laws of the land".

People in liberal democracies have the right to do just what the author has written above and so, those societies are all, to some degree, multicultural. The statement implies that immigrants in Australia would be denied that right(by whom?) without the protection of Multiculturalism, which is nonsense. I'm rather offended, however, I'm prepared to give Dilan Thampapillai the benefit of the doubt here.

So what's all the fuss about?

I'm not trying to impugn your motives, stevenlmeyer. But I do wonder where you are coming from.

>>we see that the world is littered with the wreckage of multicultural, multiethnic, multi-religious, multiracial societies that have failed or are failing stress tests. Think of Cyprus, Fiji, Lebanon, Pakistan Sudan or Afghanistan even prior to the US invasion of 2002<<

I'm interested why you have selected those particular examples.

Particularly Pakistan, which was created from the get-go as a monocultural destination for India's Muslims. If it is failing, you surely can't be suggesting that it has anything to do with "multicultural, multiethnic, multi-religious, multiracial" circumstances, for this reason alone. If you are, then there is no hope for any society, anywhere, whether "multi-" faceted or not.

Nor does the fact that there are two or more groups of people within a geographical boundary automatically place it under the banner of "multicultural", in the sense that it has - quite deliberately - been employed in this article.

A definition which, I think you will find, cannot be applied you any of your examples.

But perhaps I am missing your point.

>> Multiculturalism in Australia is about letting people keep parts of their former culture provided that there is no conflict with the laws of the land.

And there in lies the problem. They don't respect our laws, in fact, they even try to change our ways. Santa, Xmas, even swim suits I have heard.

>> To make nasty remarks about the costs of flying grieving people to Sydney to attend their families funerals

So what about Australians who lost loved ones in the QLD floods?

Why did they not get free travel?

Just remember, without labor's 'loose laws', these people would have most likely been stil alive. Perhaps labor paid because they felt partly responsible!

>>Regardless, we do have an adequate legal framework to deal with any particular problems that might arise from within any migrant community. Any behaviour that goes beyond the boundaries of our law can be dealt with within our legal system.

So just which planet id the author on!

>>The critics always seem to ignore positive examples of multiculturalism.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that these people mentioned are happy to be Australians and happy to obey and respect our ways.

>>The critics frequently bemoan the loss of Australian identity. But if their sense of identity is so weak that it can be imperiled by the appearance of a Chinese sign outside a shop in Chinatown or by the appearance of a woman in a burqa, then it is the critics who have the identity problem. In some recent letters to newspapers it even sounds as if the critics are angry at migrants for not personally becoming their friends. Surely, nobody could be that emotionally needy?

This is Australia mate. We don't treat our wemon as a 'lessor being', nor do we insist that they cover their face while in public.

Now of cause, there is always the option for them to GO HOME!

After all, they are guests.

Scott Morrison is a former Head of Tourism Australia. He was campaign director of the successful Liberal Party campaign for the 2004 federal election. After such a successful career in public relations he can communicate clearly

What is a wemon?

"The influx of Muslims poses serious problems." VK3AUU

The problem is not with the Muslims as such, but how Islam is interpreted and put into practice.

Unfortunately, orthodox Islam is strict, separatists, sexist, undemocratic, obeys only shariah law and totally rejects the secular law of the land.

The only way ahead for Muslims is to reform Islam so that Muslims have a choice of leaving Islam without being rejected by the Muslim community and called all sorts of names and threatened with death.

Islam, like communism, is a dying ideology. Almost all the Islamic countries in the world can't function as a modern state. Many Muslims are migrating to the West or economically viable countries.

Good question, jjplug.

>>What is a wemon?<<

Apparently, it is a 'lessor being'.

Someone who rents out their house, maybe?

Hi Pericles,

You ask why I mention Pakistan.

It is difficult sometimes to get your thoughts into 350 words.

I mentioned Pakistan, which initially included Bangladesh, precisely because it was created to give Muslims a safe haven, as they saw it, from Hindus. Pakistan was created because many Muslims feared for their safety in Hindu dominated India.

In other words, to put it in modern terminology, they feared for their safety in a multicultural society.

I don’t blame Muslims for their fears. The birth of India and Pakistan as independent nations was accompanied by incredible sectarian violence. We may never know the full death toll but it probably runs into hundreds of thousands.

Sorry that I did not make myself clearer.

However, all that being said, Pakistan itself is undergoing tremendous conflict along both tribal and religious lines. I would not like to be Shia, Ahamadya or Christian in Pakistan.

Abdus Salaam, the first Muslim to be awarded a Nobel Prize for physics, was unable to return to his native Pakistan because as a high-profile Ahmadya he would not be safe.

Pakistan is certainly no poster child for successful multiculturalism.

VK3AUU and Philip Tang

I have to disagree with you both.

There is NO problem with Muslim immigration or with the separatism that some Muslims want to practice.

The problem lies with trying to APPEASE Muslim demands or, to be more precise, the demands of certain Muslim religious leaders.

mac

I agree totally with your post of Tuesday, 22 February 2011 4:06:02 PM

If that’s all there is to multiculturalism then all multiculturalism amounts to is a statement of the rights enjoyed by all citizens of a secular liberal democracy.

But is that really what the multi-culti crowd have in mind?

Dr Eva Sallis in her article, "Australia's Dangerous Fantasy," (first published in The New York Times, December 2005, updated November 2006), tells us that:

"Newcomers, especially if they have come to Australia in linguistic or ethnically distinct groups have always had a hard time at first.
But past streams of migration gave Australia its reputation as a country of diverse peoples that is all the better for it."

Like the US, we have new anti-terrorism legislation, first passed in 2002, then significantly strengthened in 2003. This legislation inevitably validated broader community mistrust of Arab and Muslim
Australians. Dr Sallis points out, "Australians are fearful of terrorism and terrorists, and are fearful of the threat of invasion from the north, yet the governments have done nothing sustantive to allay these fears and to increase knowledge and appreciation of Australians of Middle-Eastern background. Dr Sallis points out that in the last five years there has been documented and anecdotal evidence of a mass increase in harassment, vilification, and violence towards Australians of Arab appearance in the media, talkback radio, and in popular imagination.

Prejudice creates what it fears. Dr Sallis says that, "through prejudice young people's prospects are curtailed. Young Arab Australians in Sydney struggle to get an education and jobs and are increasingly ghettoized in poorer suburbs. Their own families often live defensively and as a result are highly prejudiced about Australians. The increasing hostility of the broader community reinforces this inter-community racism, rather than challenging it."

Our politicians have benefited and continue to benefit from fear of
Muslims and Arabs rather than working to educate and lead Australians beyond it. Dr Sallis points out that:" A volatile part of our community is living in deep alienation, unable to belong and another volatile part seems to be living back in the irretrievable past with a fantasy of an all-white Australia." Sallis tells us that - " If contemporary Australians are to live at ease with themselves, they need more education, less fear mongering, and not least, greater honesty about the culture of racism that is so damaging to them."

As I suspected, stevenlmeyer, you are using the word "multiculturalism" in a somewhat cavalier manner.

>>In other words, to put it in modern terminology, they [Indian Muslims] feared for their safety in a multicultural society.<<

As the author of the article stated presciently in the first sentence:

"Multiculturalism is a term so broad that it can mean anything to anyone"

You have chosen the meaning "any place in the world where more than one culture/religion/ethnicity live together".

May I respectfully suggest that this is too broad to be of any use to anyone.

To illustrate this, try to imagine, define or describe a location that contained no trace of "multiculturalism". I suspect that the endpoint of this exploration would confine the answer to "just my own household, since my neighbours on one side are Nigerian, and on the other, Jewish".

Let's explore further.

>>Pakistan is certainly no poster child for successful multiculturalism<<

This rather confirms my suspicions about your definition. I doubt very much whether a country whose full title is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan would consider itself in any way, shape or form, multicultural.

The point is that none of these countries can be usefully employed as providing either examples of "multiculturalism at work", or lessons on how to avoid conflict in a "multicultural society".

A point with which, it would appear, you are in agreement.

>>The problem lies with trying to APPEASE Muslim demands or, to be more precise, the demands of certain Muslim religious leader<<

That would appear to be very much in line with the author's position.

"...critics of multiculturalism use the most aberrant examples of behaviour from migrants to discredit multiculturalism"

What is being said is, please try not to use the activities of a minority as justification to lash out at everyone.

Pericles

I think you are trying to pick a fight with me for what might be called "traditional reasons".

I asked whether multicultural societies could be robust. Clearly, from the context of my post, I actually do mean:

>>any place in the world where more than one culture/religion/ethnicity live together>>

(Quoting Pericles)

I am asking whether such polities can survive a stress test.

I don't know the answer. But clearly many such societies have struggled and continue to struggle. One society that is struggling is the US.

BTW if any multi / cultural / ethnic / religoius / racial / polity can survive a stress test it's probably Australia.

I agree that my comment about appeasement was in line wth the author's position. I also said, agreeing with mac, that he was simply restating the rights of every citizen in a secular liberal democracy. We can all do what we like provided we don't break the law.

But I questioned whether that was really what the protagonists of multiculturalism had in mind. Do we, for example, really need to replace "AD" with "CE" when quoting a year. After all what is the meaning of "current era". Era of what?

I suggest we replace CE with SMWAGF (Since Melbourne Won a Grand Final) This is the year 47 SMWAGF. It has the advantage of being precise. In theory it would have to be reset every time Melbourne won a grand final but the danger is negligible. I think SMWAGF is good for at least three millennia.

From the time of Grassby to Howard, any official national statements on mutliculturalism have placed it in the context of the rule of law and democratic values (ie, our British heritage going back to Magna Carta, the later beheading of Charles 1st, the 1688 Bill of Rights and of course the C19th Chartism that was imported and applied to Australian conditions by officers, convicts and free settlers).

The problem is not so much multiculturalism as the failure of the education system and media to educate and inform about this revolutionary and radical tradition and context.

Most people in this country have had enough of multiculturalism. We have seen the good side, but the bad is too much to tolerate.

Morrison's comment were worthy and needed to be said. The pathetic overseeing of this country by feckless politicians of all colours indulging themselves by being excessive in such things, even legislating against normal human behaviour such as restrictions on freedom of speech where Australians can be called anything by people of foreign extraction, criticised, ridiculed, but are restricted to return the compliment under threat of prosecution.

All for the "ethnic vote"

This erosion of free speech (and be assured that is what it i), is part of the excesses that are pursued by governments, particularly this compromised Prime Minister who is under the misapprehension that flying here and there, shedding the occasional tear and courting the sycophantic media on a daily basis, is what will keep her in power. There never has been a more incapable and irresponsible 'leader' or government team than we are experiencing at the moment, equalled only by the opposition.
Future government accounting will show the funds she is throwing at everything, anything, anywhere that moves.

We see policy being made that will affect the future of this country for decades as they fly along by their seat of their pants, day after day with no resolutions for boat people, no courage to send them all back and falling for the old trick that they are all "refugees" from other lands, having just paid up to $12,000 for the journey, knowing that they receive thousands of Australian dollars for accomodation, medical support , food, thousands for re-settlement, all from a government trying to curry favour from the Australian voters, backmailed by the Greens.
No papers, all predominantly Muslim and all fully aware of the procedures to manipulate a weak and indecisive government. It is common knowledge everywhere that these "refugees" pass through six other safe countries to get here.

The beginning of Australia's approach to multiculturalism? From here is goes downhill, fast.

As with all other countries, it just doesn't work

rexw:

I wrote in my earlier post,
"newcomers, especially if they have come to Australia in linguistic or ethnically distinct groups have always had a hard time at first. But past streams of migration gave Australia its reputation as a country of diverse peoples that is all the better for it."

Our Greek and Italian communities are the largest groups and are fully integrated. Melbourne is famously claimed to be the largest Greek city outside of Greece. Vietnamese Australians experienced intense racism and hostility when they first arrived in the late 70s and early 80s, but time, and the entry of increasing numbers of Vietnamese-Australians into public life, have eroded that prejudice.
Today's expressed hostility towards people of Middle-Eastern appearance undoes more than a century of successful migration and settlement and polarizes people afresh. Several important events in recent Australian political and social life have made this particular eruption of racism and xenophobia different from the past. While denying even that racism exists, our politicians have given tacit approval and support for it through policies, whether they were policies on refugees, or security. Past and current governments have benefited and continue to benefit from the fear of Muslims and Arabs, rather than working to educate and lead Australians beyond it.

I stated in my previous post, "If contemporary Australians are to live at ease with ourselves, we need more education, less fear mongering, and not least, greater honesty about the culture of racism that is so damaging..."

By the way - for your information - you've probably been taught that when, "The First Fleet arrived. It brought 1000 English convicts.
It didn't. It brought 1000 convicts who came from a dozen different countries. "English jails were no respectors of nationality." The first Italian arrived on January 26, 1788 - Giuseppe Tuso. There were people from Ceylon, from India, from Spain, from Portugal, from Hungary. So when people say, "Do you believe Australia should become a multi-racial society?" The reply is, "It doesn't matter what I think, I can tell you what it is, which is a society of tremendous diversity."

stevenlmeyer,

"But is this really what the multi-culti crowd have in mind?" Indeed, sometimes I wonder(at 3 am) what the agenda for some of those very loud multiculturalists really is, not, I hope the imposition of their particular superstitions on the rest of us. For example, I will not accept the requirement that non-Moslems adopt Islamic dress codes at municipial swimming pools, in the name of 'inclusion', this is a violation of others' civil rights. The conflation of race, religion and ethnicity and the easy assumption of the moral high ground by members of ethnic communities is counterproductive as well, as this is basically a racist attitude in itself. However, we must not call it by its true name.

'Multiculturalism' seems to be a solution to a problem that really doesn't exist in liberal democracies.

Lexi,

There are cultures and there are cultures. The fact is that Muslims - all Muslims - accept an ideology that is contrary to the ideals of Western civilization. If you don't understand this, you haven't read the Quran and ahadith.

Yes there are good Muslims, but collectively their presence in large numbers in a Western society is a big minus. If you doubt this you need to look at the news and consider the situation in Europe. The US, Canada and Downunder are next.

As to hostility and racism against Muslims, you might also want to consider the hostility, anger and violence of Muslims against all non-Muslims, particularly where Islam dominates. Let me tell you that Islam says some vile things against non-Muslims and teaches that Muslims are better than us. Anybody that says “Praise be upon him” after the name of Mohammad obvious is either ignorant, or has little moral competence. Muslims have “submitted” to Islam and its values, just like the word means. There is nothing racist about condemning the theory and practice of Islam. It is a vile, violent, supremacist ideology that is incompatible with the notions of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality and separation of religion and state - or haven't you noticed?

Stop making excuses for intolerance, hate and violence. Instead of blaming everybody but Muslims for the things that Muslims and believe, try do apply the same standards to everybody.

Lexi,

There are cultures and there are cultures. The fact is that Muslims - all Muslims - accept an ideology that is contrary to the ideals of Western civilization. If you don't understand this, you haven't read the Quran and ahadith.

Yes there are good Muslims, but collectively their presence in large numbers in a Western society is a big minus. If you doubt this you need to look at the news and consider the situation in Europe. The US, Canada and Downunder are next.

As to hostility and racism against Muslims, you might also want to consider the hostility, anger and violence of Muslims against all non-Muslims, particularly where Islam dominates. Let me tell you that Islam says some vile things against non-Muslims and teaches that Muslims are better than us. Anybody that says “Praise be upon him” after the name of Mohammad obvious is either ignorant, or has little moral competence. Muslims have “submitted” to Islam and its values, just like the word means. There is nothing racist about condemning the theory and practice of Islam. It is a violent, supremacist ideology that is incompatible with the notions of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality and separation of religion and state - or haven't you noticed?

Stop making excuses for intolerance, hate and violence. Instead of blaming everybody but Muslims for the things that Muslims do and believe, try do apply the same standards to everybody.

I agree with you REXW, most Australians if they are honest also would agree with you, we are not afraid of the Muslim community at large but we are afraid of the Islam Religion, like all religions they are a pain in the neck.
Ojnab

kactuz:

You're not arguing at a mature intelligent level - but an emotional one. However, against my better judgement I shall respond - this once to your post.

Most of the information that I have presented in this thread I've taken from an expert - Dr Eva Sallis is an expert on the subject of the Middle East. Dr Sallis teaches at the University of Adelaide. She is an Australian writer, co-founder of Australians Against Racism - an organ that seeks to raise awareness of human rights and social justice through the media, arts, and education. Her writings have won several literary awards. In recent years she has devised and co-ordinated a number of social justice projects, including prime TV commercials on refugees, and a billboard project countering mainstream attitudes to Muslim people, and two nationwide people's writing projects from which two remarkable and influential anthologies were published. Dr Sallis studied Arabic intensively for seven years and has traveled many times to Yemen, Lebanon, and elsewhere in the Middle East. Dr Sallis has Muslim friends who used to feel that they were Australians, but now cannot identify themselves in all the negative space being created for them in our community. She has non-Muslim friends who are furious at being targeted as Muslims and are doing all they can to differentiate themselves from people they too are starting openly to dismiss. Perhaps you need to do a bit more research on the topic of Muslims in Australia - they can't all be lumped together in one group - as they come from different linguisitc and ethnically distinct cultures - many have been here for generations and have completely integrated into our society.

Lexi, when we hear Imams declaring that all women are the equal of men and that they have no agenda to convert their communities to Sharia law, then we might take some notice of what you have to say. Until then you will have to put up with the prejudices.

David

Yep, that's sorta the problem with Imams, I guess.

>>Lexi, when we hear Imams declaring that all women are the equal of men and that they have no agenda to convert their communities to Sharia law, then we might take some notice of what you have to say.<<

Our own home-grown Imam, Cardinal Pell, holds similar views, in that he does not consider women the equal to men in his particular church.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/No-women-priests-in-any-lifetime-says-Pell-after-protest-at-Mass/2005/03/20/1111253885032.html

Oh, and guess what? The disciples of this particular Imam (which is simply Arabic for "leader") are also charged with the duty to go out and convert their communities to Catholic Law.

"An essential dimension of true discipleship is the willingness to invite others to follow the Lord Jesus and the readiness to explain His Gospel."

http://www.stmarysgvl.org/discipleship/evangelical-catholicism

It's all of a piece with these religionists. They all believe that they are in sole possession of "the truth", and insist that everybody else should be just like them.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Pericles wrote:

>>Our own home-grown Imam, Cardinal Pell, holds similar views, in that he does not consider women the equal to men in his particular church.>>

Absolutely right.

But you seemingly refuse to connect the dots.

If we appease one religion then we end up appeasing them all including Cardinal Pell’s. One reason for my strong stance against any form of religious appeasement is that I don’t want to give the Cardinal Pell’s of Australia an opening.

I still do not understand what this article is about. As mac says, all Dilan Thampapillai is doing is stating the rights that accrue to any citizen of a secular liberal democratic state. And if that’s all there is to multiculturalism then why all the fuss?

Why do we need a bureaucracy to promote multiculturalism?

What does it mean to “refocus” on multiculturalism?

See:

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/201102/s3142339.htm

Here’s Kevin Donnelly’s take on this:

>>It’s also no secret that much of the Labor Party’s branch stacking relies on ethnic enclaves and that many ALP politicians owe their political careers to ethnic warlords. What better way to get their support than by channelling funds and patronage via multicultural grants and board appointments.>>

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44250.html

And I think that’s the bottom line. All this is really about enabling the ALP to buy votes with patronage.

Steven:

The following website may clarify things for you:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/02/23/can-multiculturalism-work-for-labor

"Dilan Thampapillai is doing is stating the rights that accrue to any citizen of a secular liberal democratic state. And if that’s all there is to multiculturalism then why all the fuss?"

But I think thats his point. That people like Bernardi are imposing their views and taking away those freedoms from people. At least, that is what they are trying to do.

Lexi,

No that linked web page does not clarify anything. So some people think Muslims, Jews*, Asians etc don't fit into Australian society.

So what are you going to do about it? Send them to a re-education camp?

People will hold opinions. Some will even dare to hold opinions of which I do not approve. You think a speech by Chris Bowen and yet another bureaucracy is going to fix that?

jjplug,

I have not noticed anyone taking away any freedoms.

*For the record, I am Jewish. I know there are people who do not like Jews. I even know there are people for whom Israel-bashing has become an acceptable form of anti-Semitism just as Muslim-bashing has become an acceptable form of racism. Does that mean either Israel or Islam should be immune from critique, analysis, satire and scorn? And do you think it is in the power of government to change people's opinions? Do you think we need a thought police?

Get real folks. This is simply an ALP patronage machine.

The more I think about this thread the more crazy the whole multi culti agenda seems.

People have uninformed opinions. People have daft opinions. People even have racist opinions. All this may be very sad but there it is.

The notion that people will change their opinion because Chris Bowen or Julia Gillard tells them they ought to is itself a daft opinion.

I mean come on, can you imagine some guy who hates Jews saying, “Well gee if Chris Bowen tells me to stop hating I’d better change my mind”?

But this much I can guarantee. Nothing is more likely to inflame public opinion more than the sight of Labor handing out patronage to certain favoured groups.

As mac and other have pointed out, all Dilan Thampapillai is doing is stating the rights that accrue to any citizen of a secular liberal democratic state. So what is a multi culti bureaucracy supposed to do? If someone tries to stop a Jew wearing a “kipah” (skull cap) in public do you expect him to phone the “department of multi culti affairs”?

Get real. In these circumstances you call the cops. They are the people who are supposed to enforce the law. Not a multi culti bureaucrat.

Um, have you actually been listening to anything that Cory Bernardi has been saying?

Lexi,

Perhaps you have noticed that Muslims all have one thing in common: Islam. That is the problem.

As to the fact that Muslims come from “linguisitc and ethnically distinct cultures” – all I can say is “wow”. Who would have imagined that Muslims in Malaysia, Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey have distinct languages and cultures. Next you will be telling me that they have legs and hair on their heads.

There is another thing Muslims have in common: wherever they dominate, the persecute others, including other Muslims, and where they go, they cause problems.

As to your professor, she is a politically-correct multiculturalist whose crusade against racism (ie, anything non-Western) is just a means to proclaim her moral superiority over the ignorant masses - all white Australians, of course. Only she is caring and enlightened. Note that she, by her own admission, is raising a racist child, her son (http://www.safecom.org.au/eva-sallis-mch.htm). Of course, it is Australia’s fault.

I asked you a question and you didn’t answer. Why? Instead of “countering mainstream attitudes to Muslim people” why don’t you ask Muslims to change their attitudes? Duhhh. Ask them to renounce the hate and violence in the Quran, or denounce the vile actions of their prophet, and then maybe there wouldn’t be such a problem. As I said, try putting the blame on people that accept an ideology that teaches that Non-Muslims are vile, inferior. I doubt that you have ever read the Quran, much less the ahadith.

As to Islam or Muslims in Australia, I assure you that I know more than you

Quote: The attacks on multiculturalism and the veiled racism and xenophobia of Coalition immigration policy since 1996 have done incalculable damage to Australia’s social fabric and body politic. For those committed to a progressive, tolerant and open society, recent events offer an opportunity to take a stand…

And what about the damage to Australia’s social fabric caused by people that don’t accept our values and/or who promote intolerance? Well, maybe freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality and separation of state are not your values because you obviously believe that some people don’t have a right to an opinion, and, of course, any disagreement with you automatically constitutes racism by people who are obvious spawn of the devil himself.

I looked at your link…
http://newmatilda.com/2011/02/23/can-multiculturalism-work-for-labor

It is basically an article about how ethnic politics can be played for political gain. I really liked that part in the article that says that a statement that "Islam is a totalitarian, political and religious ideology" is “religious vilification.” Perhaps then someone should look at the thousands of Islamic websites that tell us that “Islam is a complete system of life,” encompassing all moral, spiritual, legal and political aspects of human life. Is that, too, religious vilification? Oh yes, excuse me, since it is Muslims we must not apply the same standards we expect of others, right? Note also, the idea that “Multiculturalism has failed” is not exactly limited to Australia. Have you followed international news these last few weeks? Can you figure out what these people in other countries are talking about?

The only people trying to take away freedoms are the people like Thampapilli and Lexi, who believe that people have no right to express opinions about their values or about issues that affect their lives, and if people do have an opinion they don't like, it can only be the the product of ignorance and racism

Multiculturalism ... the Poem

I wanna be a Politician,
Wanna tread the floor
Get my bum licked by immigrants
Who turn nasty once they're out my door
But I don't have to live next door
So vacillating Aussy electors bear that chore
From where I sit migrants take the cake
They appreciate us politicians
push dead-wood Australians out the gate
and build a multicultured Nation
Where i'm Obama's bestest mate

Now all I have to do is sell
All the dirty portfolios from hell
To teflon CEO's
wrapped in Commercial-In-Confidence throes
They get paid thrity times as much as I
to tell the Public all my lies
While I nation build
My family dynasty I gild
And Australia becomes my
Dream come true
At the expense of you ... and you and YOU

Multiculturalism is viable except for groups that practise separatism. They are the orthodox Jews, classical Islam and extremist whites (white supremist).

The orthodox Jews are not a problem because they are small in number.

White extremists are groups like the old South Africa, the whites of the USA before the 1960s, Nazis, the small pockets of whites with British-colonial-mentality found mainly in the English-speaking Anglo Saxon countries.

Islamists are those who practice classical Islam with the lot of shariah law and all. Over the centuries Islamists have killed millions and millions of people. Only slightly less than the atheists dictators (Mao, Stalin, Polpot, etc)

Currently we are seeing a devout Islamists, Col. Gaddafi killing Muslims. The irony is that those shot at by Gaddafi also believe that Islam is going to free them from their situation.

Enlightened Muslims are those who have left Islam.

Islamists are the Muslims who have an Islamic worldview. They fail to see that Islamic countries are generally failed states (except those with oil).

Islamists are advised to look carefully into the history of Pakistan, a modern experiment of Muslims trying to establish an Islamic country based shariah law.

http://www.islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=662:return-to-roots-liberate-from-the-shackles-of-arab-religious-imperialism-part-1&catid=73:brahmachari&Itemid=58

kactuz:

I am really puzzled by your lack of comprehension skills. Kindly don't put words into my mouth and attribute things to me that I have not said. Re-read my posts and do try to understand what it is that I am actually trying to say. Our political conversation must shift away from the infantile finger-pointing that now pervades it. Nobody is trying to take away any of your rights, and certainly not your right to disagree. The point that is being made is that the right of free speech and a free press does not include the right to incite racial violence, to demonize or to denigrate a religion or a people.
If you don't understand that, then you really do have some serious problems. Perhaps your education could benefit from going to your local library and taking out the book, "Muslims in Australia," written by Dr Saed. It certainly couldn't hurt.

KAEP:

Thank You for your attempt at poetry - however, I prefer the following
poem written by Brenda Krenus, Form 3, Richmond High, Victoria:

"If my skin was coloured
And yours was starkly white,
Would you start putting me down
Till I'd have to turn and fight?

If I prayed to a god
And it was different to yours,
Would you reason it out
As a good cause for war?

If I lay here starving
And you were suffering too,
Would you try to kill me
So there'd be more food for you?

If the world was dead
And you were at war,
Would you bring it back to life
So men could fight some more?

If man got together
And made the world clean,
Would you bring back pollution
And ruin another dream?

If the world looked like staying
In the state it is today,
Would you try to help it out
Or just let it rot away?

If men are truly brothers
Though we can't live in peace,
Should we obey the rules and fight
Or try to make the fighting cease?"

To Lexi re:

>>If I prayed to a god
And it was different to yours,
Would you reason it out
As a good cause for war?>>

The answer has often been "yes".

Ask any Ahamdya, Shia or Christian in Pakistan.

Ask any Copt in Egypt.

Ask any citizen of Lebanon

The first verse could just as well have been written:

"If my skin was starkly black
And yours was brown,
Would you start putting me down
Till I'd have to turn and fight?"

Ask any Asian refugee from Uganda.

Contrary to popular opinion in some circles, people with white skins did not invent racism nor are they the only practitioners thereof.

What is more skin colour is often irrelevant to bigots. Ask any survivor of a Nazi death camp.

Thank You for your attempt at RACISM - Its so commonplace. However, I prefer TRUTH.
The poem written by Brenda Krenus, Form 3, Richmond High, Victoria is
a racist tirade against the state of Victoria, one of the most racially tolerant states in the World where such a poem is totally misplaced. It laughs in the face of the quality free education Richmond high is giving this student. Most likely some older person, like you, with political and racist motivations is egging this student on :

"If my suit was coloured red
And my beard was coloured white,
Would you believe in Santa
Or Jihad against me with all your might?

If you sucked up to a Conroy Politician
And paid him more than me,
Would I vote against multicultural law
When he says we need more?

If Australia's roads are all clogged up
And hospital emergencies too,
Would you try to fit more people in
to sharpen your racist tool.

If the outback was forever dry
And the wildlife no longer there,
Would you bring it back to life
With more of your countrymen and the poor.

If over 50% of foreign borns got together
And made Australia like the world,
Would it be multiculture prone
Or a Balkan state Vendetta zone

If men are truly brothers
And women could refrain
Why can't we slow the rate of growth
With quality life & not racist oath

Steven:

No one is saying that all people with white skin invented racism. Nor that they are the only practitioners thereof. However, you have to admit that some are racists. I gave the young student's poem - because it was what she had actually experienced - and it was by way of reply to KAEP's poem (that preceded my post). Skin colour is often irrelevant to bigots as you point out (although I'm sure that some who have suffered because of colour - would disagree with you) - and I don't need to ask any survivors of the Nazi concentration camps. I have enough relatives who survived the Soviet secret police. However, as we both know there were also, of course, numerous courageous men and women who refused to participate in the subjugation and destruction of the targeted groups and individuals of that period. They died, some along with their entire families, or accepted their fates in concentration camps rather than betray their fellow men. Some are known, but most perished and are known only to God. These heroes embody human nobility in its highest form and stand as beacons in the otherwise bleak history of World War II.

KAEP:

It's a shame that you don't put your writing skills towards something really worthwhile and beautiful, something where the words would grab at one's heart-strings and make one's soul sing, something along the lines of ...

"We are one, but we are many and from all the lands on earth we come. We share a dream and sing with one voice. I am, you are, we are -
Australian..."

"Contrary to popular opinion in some circles, people with white skins did not invent racism nor are they the only practitioners thereof." stevenlmeyer

Quite true that every race have racial prejudice of sorts.

However, it is also true that (some) whites institutionalised racism like old South Africa, slaves in North America, etc. As late as the 1960s whites don't allow coloured to sit in the front of a bus in the USA.

Similarly, the Arab Muslims have encoded 'racism' into the Koran, hating the Jews, Christians and non-Muslims. So that it is never possible for a Muslim to integrate into a non-Muslim society.

If Muslims become Islamists (Muslims who take the teachings of Koran literally) the only countries they can live in is Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia

Philip Tang:

Not all Muslims take the Quran literally, the same as not Christians take the Bible literally. Fundamentalists exist in all religions be they Muslim, Christian, et cetera. But it is wrong to lump all believers in the one category and make sweeping generalisations about them without allowing for individual differences.