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