Whilst I generally agree with your article, I find it curious that you describe your grand-daughter as 'one quarter Vietnamese, one quarter African-American and two quarters white'.

Why do so many people see 'white' as a monocultural, one-size-fits-all category.

My children's ancestry, for instance, includes English, Cornish*, Irish, Scots, Dutch, German and Maltese (itself a grab-bag of diverse European and Arabic influence) heritage. One could lump them under the catch-all 'white', but that ignores the fact that each of those 'white' ancestries is as culturally distinct as any 'ancestry of colour'.

*I listed Cornish separately, as the Cornish are the last holdouts of Celts in England, and because there is also a persistent tradition of a strong 'Spanish influence' in Cornish families.

I should imagine Clownfish that the author was trying to emphasise the obvious physiological features of her grand daughter rather than a particular blood line as these are the things that some people normally base their attitudes on. Incidentally I agree with everything contained in the article and it should be said more often.

I can't remember reading a more concise summary of the dysfunctions of 'Multiculturalism' as an ideology. Institutionalised multiculturalism is not needed in a liberal democratic state, in its most egregious manifestation it encourages the re-creation of, in microcosm, the backward and misogynistic societies that many immigrants have tried to escape. (In the name of 'religious freedom' and 'anti-racism' of course). No matter how some propagandists try to conflate religion and race, they are clearly not identical.
We really don't have total religious freedom, haven't the multiculturalists noticed? All religious practices are subject to liberal democratic principles.

The Western liberal,secular, democratic state is one of the greatest achievements of human civilisation, we must not allow it to be undermined by patriarchal tyrants and their 'useful idiot' allies.

The fatal flaws in Multiculturalism,are- the acceptance of cultural relativism and the ready assumption that friction between minority ethnic/religious groups and the rest of the Australian population is mainly due to prejudices within the majority society.

I see your point, snake, but that is partly what I'm talking about.

My heritage is, I'm sure pretty much everyone would agree, 'white' (with the exception of Maltese, everything on my sons' laundry list of ancestries comes from my side): yet I'm not, physically, especially 'white'.

I've been mistaken for Maori (very frequently, even had people come up to me in the pub and start talking Maori), Aboriginal, Spanish, Italian, even Hawaiian! In summer, even without deliberately tanning, my skin becomes more pronouncedly olive than my Mediterranean-heritage wife's (personally, I put this pronounced 'colour' in my genes down to my Cornish ancestry).

So, while my ancestry is 'white', I'm not especially *white*, and I regard my heritage as being culturally diverse as any.

Thank you for your honest and “un fearful” story about Multiculturalism, the basic truth is that Australia does have a community issue that needs to be discussed.
Firstly, the term itself “Multiculturalism” is one of the most incorrectly used words in Australian history; the simple fact is that the meaning is totally wrong. Most Australians during the 1990’s were sold by the Government the story that Multiculturalism was a positive and necessary step towards unifying our interesting mix of new Australians, however this is has been one of the greatest con jobs ever pushed on all Australians.
“Multiculturalism” as the word clearly states, describes an environment of many individual and separate groups (cultural, racial, religious groups, etc.). The term works towards creating division and reward the Multiple Minorities in the process. Successive governments have basically been rewarding and paying for these forms of self imposed segregation.
Our obvious community feelings towards Extremist elements in Australia have made the differences even more prominent for everyone to see and discuss. For the first time in many decades the general public is asking itself the hard questions:
-Where is Australia heading and is our uncontrolled migration policy working?
-Is assimilation of some minority groups in the last 30 years working?
-Is the term “Multicultural” the correct word to describe the positive coming together of the many different racial groups of people from all over the world that have chosen to come to Australia and become Australian or should it be change to “Multiracial”?
Overall, Australia has had in its past 200 year history until the 1980’s a lot of good luck. Our mixing pot of many people from many places around the world had created a cohesive and unique positive Australia, heading in the right direction, slowly through hard work, striving to remove all forms of inequality towards all people in Australia; working towards the perfect Australia with no differences between any people, no matter what race, religion, sex or sexuality. Cont/next page

Cont/contiue
However since the 1980’s we live in a constant state of unrest, the creation of minority groups that proactively work towards the separation of our unique Australian culture.
We should be very proud of our mixed race construct and even more righty proud of our special Australian way of life. A united Australia not controlled by minority groups or radical/extremist religions groups.
Let us all be proud of our Australia, our people, our unity, let’s not become so politically correct that we sell out our children’s future.
Let’s not live in fear of free speech because we could be called racist by some minority group that screams the loudest

Yawn - here we go again. Yet another article using a misrepresentation of the reality of multiculturalism to construct a veneer behind which to launch more attacks on Muslims and migration.

To respond to a couple of points in the article:

"At what point, then, does multiculturalism go from being an inherent 'good' to being problematic?" - when it stops being multiculturalism and turns into the monoculturalism that the author is promoting.

---

"Australia can be proud of its liberal, democratic, humanitarian and egalitarian culture. It must not be abandoned".

I couldn't agree more. Which is way the anti-liberal, non-egalitarian mindset of monoculturalism should be resisted.

It took Australia a very long time to develop this aspect of our culture, and multiculturalism is an integral part of it, regardless of those who can't see anything about it other than different skin colours and a wider variety of food choices, or who misrepresent it to mean everyone can do what they want (which is the old monocultural way - except everyone had to act the way those in the dominant class wanted to act.)

I accept that it is rather strange that the leaders of countries like Germany and Britain are saying multiculturalism doesn't work when their countries have never adopted it, but that's just another example which shows that not everything done or said in other cultures or countries is perfect.

Multiculturalism has a pluralist liberal-democratic ethos at its core. The fact that attacks on this core value should be resisted is just another proof of how false the repeated assertions are that multiculturalism somehow means anything goes and all beliefs, practices and actions are equally valid.

Great post Jenny. You sound like a compassionate person - but you’re not naïve. It’s a rare combination

Excellent concise critique of "multiculturalism". So often (even in some of the comments above) multiculturalism is confused with issues of race. It is about culture, not race. Hopefully we have been succesfully integrating people from all over the world for a very long time (me included), and within a generation or two they look, sound and feel like Australians.

What is a problem is a culture which comes here which quite explicitly rejects ours, insists on keeping itself to itself, has precepts such as theocracy and the suppression of all females which is totally anathema to our way of life, and the more extreme among them even dream of imposing their culture and way of life on us.

Let us continue with generous immigration policies welcoming new people from all over the world, but let us ditch "multiculturalism". If you want to come to make your life in Australia, be prepared to become Australian.

What utter rubbish.

Your swimming pool is just an example of the Oz culture evolving, & integration as it should be.

I love the idea, & the fact of "coffee coloured people by the score" I have lived enough of my life in the tropics to find the full European complexion looks unhealthy. Roll on the blending.

However I strongly object to special treatment of ethnics, no matter where they come from.

I object to our taxes being used to buy some ethnic vote, & even more so, for that spending to gravitate to ethnic leaders, who perpetuate difference.

I don't like ethnic restaurants. [Had to say that, as so many give food, for god sake, as a prime reason for the fiasco].

I strongly object to centrelink having a non English phone line.

I even more strongly object to taking 3 days to get through to "THE REIIREMENT LINE" English number, [always engaged], when the non English number is always available, but not to me.

Anyone noticed that I object to the policy, more so than the ethnics themselves.

Drop the policy, & the funding, & most of the objections will melt away, in most of the population.

Andrew Bartlett - in what way has Australia ever really been 'monocultural'?

Good on you Jenny Goldie. My grandkids are of Mozambican, French, probably Chinese and Indian descent (Mauritian Creole), Irish, English, Welsh and Scottish descent (from me), I believe German and Swedish (other grandfather) and (from my wife) Warlpiri descent. They are beautiful and intelligent and an absolute delight. They have to survive in contemporary Australia so my traditional, Irish style Catholic, working class culture and my wife's traditional Australian desert, hunter gatherer cultures aren't all that useful to them. We are teaching them to feel that they are citizens of the world. They are proud and happy to identify as Territory Blackfellas and I am happy that they do that as long as they know what that means. I keep reminding them of their other heritages that I expect them to be proud of as well. But we are not teaching them that you can go to Hell for eternity for eating a sausage roll on Friday, that Protestants are the spawn of the devil, that the Pope is infallible and that using a condom is a sin, as I was. We are also not going to teach them that women are inferior to men and that men have the duty to execute women for trivial cultural reasons, that old men can marry several, much younger women, that death from cancer is actually caused by sorcery and the perpetrator, or a member of his family, should be sought out by magical means and killed, or that you have to undergo genital mutilation to be a man like their grandmother was. They will be taught to respect and honour all of their ancestors and their heritages. They will also be taught not to be trapped by any of these old cultures and to consider themselves damned lucky that they were born in Australia when they were. When a culture no longer does its job it can kill you and others. Multi-culturalism can never work for us unless we recognise that fact.

Go to any worksite or any male dominated space populated by Anglo (white) men and you will hear women being referred to as meat - or worse.
What a fatuous and nasty piece of writing this is.

Clownfish

I am referring to a policy (and to some extent a mindset or framework), not making a demographic description.

Australia effectively had a policy of monoculturalism from the outset at Federation (called assimilation during some periods). 'Australia for the white man' was a core 'value' behind the colonies drawing together as a single nation in 1901.

We have moved a long way since then, but we should not forget those foundations - like all foundations, they shape structures and behaviour for a long time, and the less we become aware of them, the more likely we are to be influenced by them; wittingly or otherwise.

"We have moved a long way since then" sure Andrew, but seem to be no better off in many people's opinion

some cultures resist any kind of multiculturalism, and want no truck with any other culture and seem to at best endure it in spite .. like aboriginal culture .. what a failure that has been, years of pouring resources and money over everything, an apology .. nothing works .. surely we'll learn from this that some cultures do not get along well with others.

The white Australian (whether it is anglo originated or not) culture seems to be the most malleable and open .. yet is constantly denigrated, a reliable target and easily bullied .. constantly expected to bend and accept everyone else.

What grates on people is it is often seen as a one way street, where cultures are encouraged not to worry about changing when they come here, not to need to even speak english to communicate and that it's ok to dig in and be "special", in fact, to demand to be special.

works for some .. look at the effort we put into trying to make good our relationships with the 2 cultures most at odds with ordinary Australia .. and all the bleeding hearts defend it as libertarian growth, what rubbish, take a look .. it's not working is it

You seem to believe that Australia’s “core values” are a constant and rather than something that is ever changing. This is a conceit. There are some values that do seem to be both enduring and worthy of defending in Australia’s culture; commitment to democracy, the rule of law and a rough egalitarianism. These are values that Australians of 1960 and 1920 share. But the current view that there should be no distinction between male and female, that divorce is fine, that any family structure goes ,that there is nothing amiss with single parent families and there is nothing different between hetero and gay relationships would not only not be shared by Australians of earlier eras but would actually appal them. I have little doubt that Australia’s ‘core’ values in 50 years’ time would appal many of today’s Australians.
Societies’ values evolve overtime to reflect what works which in turn changes as technology, the strategic environment and the economy changes. The true value in Multiculturalism is that it gives a society fresh insight and new perspectives with which to build a common future, a future that works better than the present

"Go to any worksite or any male dominated space populated by Anglo (white) men and you will hear women being referred to as meat - or worse.
What a fatuous and nasty piece of writing this is."

What a fatuous and nasty comment from shal. Because there is (regrettably) sexism at the Ocker worksite, says shal, we should accept the ex cathedra utterances of racist/sexist clerics? Talk about non sequitur ...

This is in the main a good article.

It highlights some of the more deeper fears about multiculturalism which when more deeply probed has little to do with skin colour or race but more about fears of losing some strongly held democratic traditions and freedoms (real and perceived).

However, fear and miscommunication are the enemies of multiculturalism. You hear stories about Muslim women being spat on or verbally abused for wearing a head-dress but equally you hear about Australian women of non-Muslim background beng abused by Muslim men who perceive them as nothing more than 'meat'. I know of one elderly Muslim gentleman who used to throw dirt on his neighbours clothesline because they had underwear out for drying. Prejudice and fear based disdain is not confined to any one race/culture.

Tricky situation. Perhaps if more Muslims and non-Muslims mixed together in social company we would learn more about each other and remove some of those communication obstacles. The militants on both sides are probably immovable but generational change will eventually shape out those ruffles.

Many Muslims are in Australia because they fled oppressive regimes, many Muslims embrace democracy and more freedom for women, many also not wearing the headwear. People are making generalisations about Muslims in Australia based on media reporting of the more militant Imams and their followers.

However, any migrant has to adhere to the common laws and those laws should be firm and blind to cultural differences.

What a stupid and inane comment from Nicco.

The author cites Muslims referring to women as meat, as an example of the failure of multiculturalism and the sorts of values which we should reject as inconsistent with our liberal democratic values.
Yet the monoculturalism that she defends is guilty of the same failure.
The liberal democratic values which are the basis of her argument simultaneously cloak the kinds of sexist attitudes which she condemns. Muslims referring to women as meat will feel right at home in many white male dominated situations in Australia. If it's wrong for muslims, and is at odds with our liberal democratic values then where is the call to do something about what already exists here?
Oh but that would mean an admission that her whole argument is built around the creation of a straw (muslim) man.
The empress has no clothes.

What a stupid and inane response from shal, who completely misses the point. No one is claiming that our Australian liberal democracy is perfect, but as a community we embrace certain ideals, and reject certain attitudes. Sexism is reprehensible wherever it occurs, but especially so when it is condoned by community leaders. This is not an argument for monoculturalism - it is an argument for the basic human rights which any citizen should expect.

The wearing of the niqab and the burqua is a terrible slur on Muslim manhood as it is based on the premise that Muslim men are unreliable lechers and despoilers of women. To protect the women they put them into the niqab and burqua. But what about men who are bestial ..according to their own mores ? Nothing is done to them. A woman could lose her life if caught in an extra-marital act but do you ever hear of the fate of the perpetrators of the sex act? Nothing happens. They are only being "typical boys" We hear of women being stoned to death, hung or decapittated. This part of Muslim culture must never be tolerated. There should be no such thing as "honor killing" ...it is naked murder and should be treated under law as such.

There is nothing redeemable in such acts which are advised under sharia law.

socratease

Nicco quit while you're behind.

What the author actually said appears to be irrelevant to you now. You have managed to re-shape the argument to suit your own ends.
I'll try and put it in terms that you understand.
The author was saying this:
1. multiculturalism works except when it is at odds with our liberal democratic values
2. Muslims say things like women are seen as meat. This is at odds with our liberal democratic values and therefore proves that multiculturalism has failed. Because we can't have attitudes that are at odds with our liberal democratic values we should reject multiculturalism.

However this argument against multiculturalism applies only to muolticulturalism. There are already elements of our society which hold similar and/or parallel views. BUT they are accepted and often condoned within our society becasue they're part of our existing Australian culture. We shouldn't apply the same test of suitability to attitudes and behaviours already existing in our society.
The author seems to be saying that our liberal democratic values are under threat ONLY when that threat comes from the outside.

Ergo: outside is bad. Inside is acceptable because it's part of our culture.
This is a patently stupid and unsustainable argument.

I don't know what world the author lives in, but when it comes to setting women's liberation back a few decades you don't need to go find a couple of Imams. Try entire football teams, their managers and coaches, try women's magazines that teach every young woman that her appearance is the most significant thing about her, and it better be the RIGHT appearance if she wants to count as human in the world.

Not many Muslims controlling those cultural outlets in Australia. We do it all by ourselves.

On the other hand the Imams are easy to identify and shout down.

I'm sick of all this Muslim bashing - has everybody forgotten when nuns wore black from head to toe, never showed their hair or their ankles, and clanked about with wooden rosaries? We coped.

Attitudes expressed by a very small minority of Muslims are already well and truly present in Australian culture, and always have been. They're often sleepers, and so twice as insidious.

Yes, Western women can reveal their bodies, but my god at what cost. Unrelenting criticism and judgement, insecurity, self doubt and self mutilation.

Oh yes, we've got it right in the West. Personally I'd refer to cover up.

Maybe we don't actually SAY it in Australia about women, as do a couple of Imams, but anybody who thinks it isn't permeating every atmosphere is living in a bubble.

And some of the worst offenders are women criticising women.

As so often occurs, the dicussion has been diverted from 'Multiculturalism' as a doctrine to multiculturalism. Either some commmentators here don't understand the difference or they're the ones attempting a straw man argument.

shal,

Where does the author defend monoculturalism? Societies are not perfect, so the best measure is relative and the relative position of women in Australian society is far superior to their situation in Islamic countries. "Muslims referring to women as meat will feel at home in many white male dominated situations in Australia". Is that attitude reinforced by our laws?

Do the majority of Australians favor something equivalent to Sharia, the segregation of the sexes at work or the stoning to death for 'adultery'? According to a recent Pew poll these are views held by a majority of 'democratic' Egyptians.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/01/egypts-conflicting-views-democracy-and-religion

Your tu quoque argument is nonsense, get some perspective.

Jenny writes:

“But when a woman from whatever culture – and it may not be Muslim – is denied her full right to personhood, then it is a problem. When little girls are subjected to female genital circumcision, it is a problem. When gangs adopt an 'eye for an eye' approach, when individuals call for the death penalty, when the Australian 'fair go' ethos is rejected, it is a problem.”

Er, hang on a minute, when did Chris Bowen advocate female genital mutilation, gang violence and the oppression of women? The answer is of course that he didn’t, and nor would any other person I can think of who supports multiculturalism. Multiculturalism does not put any group of citizens above the law, it gives then freedom to live as they choose within the bounds of the law.

The real enemies of the Australian "fair go" ethos are people like Jenny, who attack a straw man of multiculturalism to enforce conformity to their chosen cultural norms

And as for Sheikh Hilaly's revolting comparison of a woman to a lump of meat, what about this:

Back when Greeks were the ethnic group Australians were busy taking a set against, there was a joke about where you'd find all the flies gathered at a Greek wedding - punch line - on the bride.

Somebody please point out the difference, because I don't see one.

It is almost impossible to argue with the rational comment from Jenny in her article. Our aim should be to develop a multiracial society. There are now too many demands for us to shed our long held Australian values, some demands being extreme and unacceptable and thereby forcing Australians to be ‘at odds with those values we cherish’. One must be aware of grafting politicians to swim with the tide, coveting any votes at any price.

We don’t just cherish these values today, they are not values we have only developed in the last year. Instead, they are what we have decided we want from our lives, for our children, seemingly with little variance from the majority of Australians since all their lives. I for one do not want to change. Within reason, I like what Australia is, what it has always been. I always felt that if I disagreed with something, I could argue my case in whatever forum I chose

However, on this subject, I agonise over the quality and understanding of our political representatives as they have never been as poor than they are now. But I am comfortable in knowing that baring insidious factional influence, a la NSW, reflected in corruption by threat or undue influence particularly under the Federal Labor government, I can make an effort to change them with my one vote. I cannot ask for more than that.

In many cases, we blame the traditions of new migrants for their unusual cultural habits, forgetting that like Christianity they have been indoctrinated all their lives. They know nothing else. The one factor receiving little consideration in the assessment of future migrants is their ability to socially integrate. How you do that, I do not know but after 60 years of accepting migrants, for the good of this country, someone should find out ......soon.

So, any politician, who, after reading discussions on this subject, still does not realise that this is a matter of great concern to every Australian, should go back to their electorate and resign.

To most people, nothing is more important

Excellent article.

And I'm glad someone understands the difference between multiracialism and multiculturalism.

Shal

You are right in your assesment that many white anglos actually do view woman as meat. This is especially the case with those who promote and participate in the porn industry. The link between pornography rape,incest and perversion will never be investigated honestly because to many want to protect their 'right'to watch perversion. Pornography indoctrinates children from a young age leading them to believe that we are just animals unable to control our sex drive in anyway. Added to this the permissive sex education (with no morals) confirms to these kids what they have seen. Although I am no fan of Islam I have been in many workplaces where secularist men are happy to speak about their conquests and show no respect for woman whatsoever. The hypocrisy stars them in the face. Feminist are often happy to defend men behaving immorally as long as those men repeat the équality mantra'. Look at those rushing to the defense of Assange.

I oppose Islamic immigration on the basis of what the Koran teaches and the actions of those who follow the prophet throughout the world. Corey was right. Islam is the problem not Muslims. Do you believe Australia would be better under Sharia law? Do you believe that polygamy should be legal? Do you believe females should be circumcised? If you do, you make a very bad citizen. I am happy for Muslims to come here but not followers of Mohammed. They have an extremely bad track record when immigrating to other countries.

Pride is a hardly a matter of concern to this Australian born scribe when reports are published of widespread drug use, booze and appallingly prostitution among juvenile aborigines in Alice Springs.

Is it simply a coincidence Brough emerges from the sanctity of his halo with a finger pointing wave of condemnation?

With storm clouds on the 2007 electoral horizon, My Fellow Australians getting restless and the UN giving the Deputy Sheriff a globally announced hard time on Aboriginal Welfare and Conditions, some unknown hombre named Brough emerged from a dust storm to collaborate with the Posse in the invention of a hastily invented Intervention.

From the moment the Posse packed their saddlebags for the Great Big Leap Forward, experts with decades of practical experience in the matter were calling the Deputy's opportunistic initiative perfunctory, another fraudulent attempt to hoodwink the electorate.

Today, Brough's pride is limited to a censure of Federal Labor.

can anyone translate wakatak's rant for me please?

is this a dig at PM (MOS) John Howard?

Linguistically diverse is at the heart of the Challenge: Australia can be proud of its liberal, democratic, humanitarian and egalitarian, culture, until you touch and recognise the issues impacting the reality for "the creation of minority groups". A separation of our unique Australian values stare down at you, face to face.

Being politically correct is a barrier among most administrations in Australia. Among services, be they Community NGO or Government, rather than an action. Hence the clones working at all levels that produce systemic forms of "mono culturalism". Silo based networks that shelter themselves from pathways that could otherwise advance a greater productivity through social cohesion. It is a battle between civic society and the formal society. A gap alive. If anything we understand [about labels] such as linguistically diversity in mainstream, it is a key area where our social capital needs true, pro-active growth.

Multiculturalism has a pluralist liberal-democratic ethos at its core. I believe it is about humanity, civilizations, an effort to unify respect and wellbeing of ourselves alongside others, who may or may not have different cultural experiences, between sectors and it is about emotional intelligence when it comes to understanding these diverse views.

The problem is amid what we flag as common ground and not common ground. If I looked at the socioeconomic factors causing disadvantage I find the heroism within mainstream directly contrasts with our understanding of ordinary. No matter the cultural aspects. The gap becomes about linguistically diverse information. Where the capacity to understand the information required about ordinary things concerning ordinary peoples lives becomes "to much information". As the fast lane waged and working is driven by boxes and concisely printed forms, classifying, processing and ticking-off all that is depersonalized other then themselves, it expands the gap we work to actually close.

I liked the reference to the many playing at the swimming pool and Australia's appreciation of mixed spice and food.

Love is through the tummy isn't it.

It is also at the heart of human rights and ecological sustainability.

The matter for all is to make the small steps count.

http://www.miacat.com/

I would have thought that anyone with decades of experience in aboriginal affairs, in Australia, would have been far too ashamed of their total failure to admit it, let alone claim it gave them some right to further input.

Australia is a nation grown out of immigrant settlement from its early history. It is this diverse mix that actually gave Australia the values we cherish and it is this diverse mix that has made Australia the country that she is today. Perhaps the author needs more education and be encouraged to practice less fear mongering. But then, I guess it's to be expected - when you look at some of our politicians who while denying even that racism exists, give it tacit approval and support through policy, whether this policy is on refugees, security, or on Indigensous affairs. All rather sad really.

The majority of migrants have come to Australia because of what it represents and its values. They have accepted that they are part of a community and have accepted its values with their own cultural flavour.

The danger is when a particular culture sees itself as separate from the rest of the community, and strives for ideals imported from far away and long ago, and contrary to the welfare of the community in which they live.

Multi culturism enriches us all, but there are certain core values that have to be shared or else society cannot function.

This is an interesting article, although I disagree with its fundamental conclusion that multiculturalism is not always inherently good.

In the first place, this article fails to distinguish between different ways in which multiculturalism has been practiced, even in an Australian context.

Secondly, and more problematically, the author fails to connect 'multiracialism' which she supports without reservation, to multiculturalism. One important thing to note is that in our society race and culture are frequently used synonymously, and, rightly or wrongly, people from different races are assumed to have different cultures. Therefore the acceptance of interracial relationships and 'multiracialism' is intimately linked to multiculturalism. One could not exist without the other.

To have a successful multiracial society like the one this author supports, we need to more than simply 'look past' skin colour. Being colour-blind is not a good thing, because it ignores difference and diversity and envisions everyone as 'just like us', where 'us' is the white, middle-class, heterosexual majority. Cultural differences exist - they exist between races, religions and nationalities, even between socio-economic classes and geographical regions within Australia. Without respect for these differences and the fact that they exist, how could we as a nation possibly respect individuals enough to cross these boundaries, boundaries that were once seen as insurmountable, in our personal and day-to-day lives?

On a separate matter, this article demonstrates ignorance and fear of muslims and also a lack of understanding of the sexism that exists within Australian culture already. Although I agree that the doctrine that requires women to remain covered because men cannot control themselves is degrading to both, and oppresses women, how is this so different to women in rape trials facing questions about what they were wearing, whether they were drunk, and 'were they asking for it' by being in a certain place, at a certain time? Sexism and other forms of oppression should always be challenged, but it is wrong to suggest that only immigrants are the problem here - they are perhaps just the most visible, and their manifestation of sexism is different to our own.

It is hard to get a get a grip on the slippery intellectual rigour, and perhaps dissemlitude, of posters knocking the thread of the article.

In her concluding statement she says “Australia can be proud of its liberal, democratic, humanitarian and egalitarian culture. It must not be abandoned in the wholesale and uncritical adoption of an ideology that, in its extreme forms, is at odds with those values we cherish.”
It is probably an oversight on her part that the plural was not used - “ideologies in their extreme forms”. There are enough of these around to make the hair curl on anyone having hopes for society’s continuing improvement.

The more social mixing for common purpose the better, but why should there be any fostering of silos of culture, aspects of which Australian society has for many years worked progressively to abandon?
The best opportunity for continuing real progress is via the younger generation coming together in common educational environments, swapping lunches and stories of home; so that good aspects are introduced, the unsavoury abandoned. That is unlikely where community funds go towards such regressive aspects as mono-culture education centres; and so-on.

From eccollect

>>in our society race and culture are frequently used synonymously,>>

But they are NOT synonymous and I for one refuse to participate in the charade that they are.

I freely admit to being anti-Islam.

I do not admit to being racist.

Islam is a belief system. In a secular democracy that values free expression I have a right to express my disdain, my contempt even, for ANY belief system. I intend to avail myself of that right.

And you know what? If you go around tarring people who express a disdain for a belief system with the racist brush then evenutally they will turn around and say "OK, I am a 'racist.'" And where that leads we don't want to go.

Incidentally there has been much media discussion about a recent survey showing than many Australians have a negative attitude towards Muslims.

Well guess what? As this Pew Global Survey shows, many Muslims in Muslim majority countries have a negative view of Christians and Jews. Especially Jews.

http://pewglobal.org/2005/07/14/islamic-extremism-common-concern-for-muslim-and-western-publics/

And in China they don't seem to much like Christians, Jews or Muslims.

I'm afraid that's the way we are and I don't see any hand wringing changing that any time soon.

You may think it appallingly bad taste on my part to point all these things out. But that would be as useless as shooting the messenger.

I would have preferred to insult you and your like minded kin RPG, unfortunately, with such an intelligent display no one would be offended.

waka .. oh gosh, that's so clever .. not

try harder

If multiculturalism means that within the laws and rules of our society (for example acknowledging that the abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation is against the law in Australia) people are able to speak the language of their country of origin and undertake cultural practices which are NOT against the law (such as celebrating the birth of Buddha, the end of Ramadan etc etc) then there is nothing wrong with multiculturalism.
Assimilation, on the other hand has a sorry history in Australia. In 19th century Australia at most religious-run Aboriginal "missions" Aboriginal people were told that their own language was the "language of the devil" and punished for speaking it or for trying to retain their 40,000 year old cultural practices. By contrast, at Hermannsburg in the Northern Territory in the late 19th century - presumably as the German Lutherans who ran the place spoke German around their own dinner tables - the Arrernte people were able to speak their own language, while also taught to speak English, and respect was shown to their traditional culture. There is plenty of Hermannsburg history on the web if you are interested. Societies stagnate without diversity anyway.

Multiculturalism: at what point does it stop being an inherent good?

The answer to this question is in my opinion multiculturalism is not
inherent good when elements in multiculturalism don't comply with

ARTICLE 1 of THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

To me, this is the confession of faith for everyone who believes in an open, free and secular society.

A 'Culture' that rejects that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”, that regards women inferior to men and doesn't give them the same rights.

A 'Culture' that rejects the notion that all human beings “ are endowed with reason and conscience “and in stead of accepting critical thinking, takes 'submission' as the essential element of its faith. Submission to whatever the cleric says.

A 'Culture that worst of all, rejects that “all human beings should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” and in stead stresses a fundamental enmity between believers and non-believers with the aim to eliminate all other believes.

With such a 'Culture' multiculturalism stops being inherently good.

I'd like to add, those who use the terms 'race' and 'religion' synonymously or won't acknowledge that the author is criticising multiculturalism as a doctrine, are either too lazy or ignorant to bother to differentiate, or have an agenda.

I'm also anti-Islam, I'm anti-any authoritarian ideology that threatens liberal democracy, whether it's classed as a religion or not.
Why have so many people in the West accepted the propaganda line that only Caucasians are racially prejudiced or intolerant? Would they really prefer to be a Copt in Egypt, a Uighur in China, an Untouchable in India or an indigenous inhabitant of the Amazon?
Westerners should naturally assume the moral high ground, not their hypocritical Third World accusers.

People use the accusation of 'racism' when the can't think of any real arguments to defend a position.

Andrew, once again we see the assumption that 'white people' are a monoculture.

What a load of tripe. Did my German or Dutch ancestors have the same culture as my English or Irish ones?

Even in the First Fleet, were the Irish convicts culturally identical to the English or Scots officers? Was even England itself a monoculture? One need only look at the trial transcript of a transportee, where an interpreter was needed to translate the East End argot of a street urchin for the benefit of the judge and jury.

What I think we are seeing with such broad-brush dismissal of 'whites' is the mealy-mouthed cultural relativism and reflexive assumption of 'white' inferiority that seems to be the unenviable shadow-side of 'multiculturalism'.

One of the worst aspects of MC as practised in OZ is that it becomes a tool of division and manipulation.

When it becomes legitimate through an official policy of MC to see the populous a series of ethnic communities, it inevitably follows that we should measure the comparative wellbeing of each community( Every community will have winners and losers but under MC what becomes paramount is the imagined average member of the group) .

And some communities will always be found to be faring better than others, especially if you fiddle with definitions and make them sound like this “anyone can classify him or herself legally as (a member of group x) , provided he or she is accepted as such by his or her community”. And even more especially, if you grant certain disadvantaged groups special benefits which encourage losers from all other groups to re-classify themselves members of group X.

Then, what follows, is our army of underemployed social science graduates ( who usually come from comparatively well off groups but for career enhancement reasons indentify with the disadvantage ) will mobilise through endless lobbying or articles on venues like The Forum, and take us ( the better farers) to task over our entrenched racism.

And politicians ( who are neuter ethnic gender, except when talking before ethnic forums , when they’ll suddenly discover their roots or language skills ) will introduce special legislation and hold special open air theatre, apologising for having made the disadvantaged eternally disadvantaged. And the national zeitgeist will reflect that when dealing with certain ethnic groups authorities need to tread lightly.

One recent article writer on The Form implied that the riot at Cronulla was evidence that MC & tolerance was lacking . On the contrary, the riot at Cronulla was the result of MC bringing pressures to bear on authorities to go easy on certain ethnic groups ( lest they be accused of racism, or worse) and a disgruntled communities reaction to it.

There probably has never been a subject that attracts so many comments as multiculturalism and rightly so.

So any politician of any colour who considers that Australians will tolerate the diminution of their values for any reason without a fight, is totally out of touch and should get back into the real world.

There are so many rational comments in support of the argument by Jenny Goldie and the usual run of dissenting views, justifying the placement of the article in the first place. It is clear that this subject is not over but also clearly appears to me that multiculturalism as it is currently structured is a multi-headed monster, appealing in total to no one except those who want to live in isolated enclaves and not assimilate as they should.

Multiracial has far more merit with authorities having total choice on who makes up the migrant population in our country, if they are able to accept that capability, which is questionable. Their motivations remain in other directions, maintaining the voting numbers and to avoid anything that is in any way contentious.

I thought i should correct misinformation being spread by the author of the article and others regarding Islam, "honour killings" and "genital mutilation" .

I refer you to the words of the eminent Middle-EAstern historian Bernard Lewis. Bearing in mind Lewis is a neo-con, this is what he had to say about honour killings and genital mutilation in his book "Islam: the Religion and its People" :

"At a time when European opinion and comment were predominantly hostile to Islam, the great Hungarian Jewish orientalist Ignaz Goldzilher devoted much time and effort to defending Islamic practice and achievements against detractors. A particularly important point he made was that Islam as a religion and as a culture should not be blamed for the tribal customs of some of the peoples who adopt it. A good example is genital mutilation of young females, widely practiced in Africa and, to a lesser extent, in some other places, but without any foundation whatsoever in Islamic scripture, tradition, or law. Another example is the practice of honor killing.
Islamic legislation in the Koran and in the Sharia is designed to protect women from abuse of this kind, but in many parts of the Islamic world today, even the rules of law designed to protect women are used to abuse them..." (p118)

As I said, Bernard Lewis is among the eminent of scholars in ME studies, which you can confirm for yourself, and certainly not an apologist for Islam. Yet, you will not find a more unequivocal rebuttal of the assertion that honor killings and genital mutilation are a part of the Shari'a.

The problem with most discussions about Islam is that no-one cares to refer to scholarly evidence. They are happy with what they read in the newspapers.

My own view is that there is a bit of an identity crisis underpinning this apparent phobia about telling as it is.

I agree Grateful. Islam as a religion/belief does not condone all of the 'cultural' practices of some Islamic peoples. These practices are age-old cultural activities that should not be a part of todays society in any part of the world- eg female or male circumcision, and honour killings.

These practices are not agreed on by ALL people who are Muslim, and who practice Islam as a religion. We should not tar all Islamic peoples with the same brush, just as we shouldn't do the same with all people of other religions.

Why was it ok for 'white' people of several other countries to come to Australia a few hundred years ago and completely take over the lives of the original inhabitants, but yet some of their descendants today are upset about having peoples from other countries/religions/cultures emigrate here today?

The 'white' invaders of the day certainly had no problems refusing to integrate into Aboriginal society did they?

suzeonline wrote:

>>The 'white' invaders of the day certainly had no problems refusing to integrate into Aboriginal society did they?>>

Absolutely right suzeonline.

Spot on.

I keep hearing the mantra that his is a “nation of immigrants.” It isn’t. It is a nation of settlers. The difference between immigrants and settlers is that settlers intend to supplant the pre-existing culture. That’s what the original settlers did.

Hopefully the heirs of the settlers have the smarts to learn from the fate of the Aborigines and not allow themselves to be supplanted. Otherwise the heirs of the original settlers may find themselves sharing the fate of the Aborigines.

Just to be clear, the heirs of the original (White) settlers need not be White. Race has nothing to do with it. They simply need to share the liberal, secular democratic values that the heirs of the original settlers have embraced.

So will the heirs of the original settlers be smart enough to avoid being supplanted in their turn?

Only time will tell.

But thank you suzeonline for making the point with such crystal clarity.

suzeonline,

"yet some of their descendants today are upset about having peoples from other countries/religion/cultures emigrate here today?"

Yes some people are, however that's not relevant to the discussion about multiculturalism as an institution. I don't care where immigrants come from, or what their culture is, so long as they respect our democratic institutions. There is evidence some immigrants have absolutely no intention of doing so, that's why I'm sceptical of bureaucratic 'multiculturalism'.

I find it difficult to understand why you and others misrepresent the arguments against institutionalised multiculturalism, after all, most have been presented clearly enough. Don't you understand the difference between 'multiculturalism' as social engineering and multiculturalism as a liberal democratic principle?

If you haven't read the earlier comments,do so.

suzeonline,

Just to re-iterate what mac says:

In one respect "multi-culturalism" is simply the right of every citizen in a liberal secular democratic state to practise any element of any culture so long as it does not conflict with the law of the land. We have that right now in Australia. It has been that way for a long time.

So explain to me, suzeonline, why we need a whole multi culti bureaucracy.

grateful and suzeonline
Some good points but it does not change the fact that some cultures do practice behaviours or acts such as FGM, sanctioned rape and honour killings even if it is a political/cultural perversion of a religious text.

How do we as a nation say NO that is not acceptable - we can only do that via legislation and punishment. It will take a while for some newer cultures to integrate in some areas but that is to be expected. However as it has been said much of 'traditional Austrailan' culture does not come up glossy either in relation to attitudes towards women.

Integration is not a bad word, it is about accepting long held values of a secular democracy as a right.

It is not about having to change or deny one's cultural or religious heritage. Many immigrant groups, Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese etc have kept strong their cultural heritage but embraced those other values. Ultimately governments should be concerned with maintaining the framework for those rights not interfering in people's private and cultural lives outside of those protective laws.

However, most new immigrants do seek those same freedoms and values that Australians have come to expect. It is as always, the behaviour of a minority who blur the lines and which leads to generalisations about any particular culture.

What is happening now is similar to the early experience of immigration from Europe. Same fear different brush stroke.

I remember as a child, all the adults of the day carrying on about the 'boat people' Vietnamese refugees, just like many do today about the current crop of asylum seekers.

The same arguments were used about these 'communists' coming to our shores and commencing an 'Asian invasion' that would take over our predominantly European way of life.

It never happened. Eventually most of these people did integrate to a certain extent, while still practicing their own culture in their new country.

Not ALL Muslim immigrants will refuse to integrate, or give back to our society. We have have good and bad people in every race, religion and culture.

Are the bulk of posters to this thread happy enough with the level of multiculturalism this country has thrived on since the 1700's up to now, but just don't want Muslim immigrants?

If so, that is called racism.

Pelican
<<Some good points but it does not change the fact that some cultures do practice behaviours or acts such as FGM, sanctioned rape and honour killings even if it is a political/cultural perversion of a religious text.

How do we as a nation say NO that is not acceptable - we can only do that via legislation and punishment. It will take a while for some newer cultures to integrate in some areas but that is to be expected. However as it has been said much of 'traditional Austrailan' culture does not come up glossy either in relation to attitudes towards women. >>

The answer should be obvious. Say "No" and discuss in a civilised manner. I remember seeing a pamphlet 15 years ago issued by the NSW Islamic Council stating genital mutilation is against the Shariah. And if the Shariah conflicts with Australian law then (by the Shariah) Australian law takes precedence. Inciting hatred against Muslims with lies (propagated by people with a political agenda) damages relations particularly when it leads to abuse and violence.

People, at least those who really do desire the truth, should ask of any author on the topic about their sources and their credentials for speaking on the subject. In the words of Yusuf Islam "let truth be your armour and justice be your sword" (words i know well because the kids love to listen to the song, a rewording of Cat Stevens Lady D'arbanville")

By the way, my 6 year old daughter came to me 3 weeks ago to say that a man said some "bad things to Mummy" when they were in the car park. This is not uncommon for my wife. I was once threaten on a train with castration (using polite language) because of a perception that Islam oppresses women (honour killing, etc). Something to think about for those who want to think.

suzeonline wrote:

>>Are the bulk of posters to this thread happy enough with the level of multiculturalism this country has thrived on since the 1700's>>

Until quite recently we had no such thing as "multiculturalism". What we had, and continue to have, is freedom.

People were and are free to practise whatever aspects of their culture, or any other culture, that do not conflict with the law of the land as enacted by a democratically elected parliament and interpreted by an independent judiciary.

Please explain why we need any more.

I am serious suzeonline.

I have never seen a multi culti exponent explain why we need any more than the freedoms I've described above. Perhaps you can be the first.

>>...but just don't want Muslim immigrants?

If so, that is called racism.>>

No it's not. There is no such thing as a race of Muslims. Islam is a belief system and in fact we do exclude people from Australia that hold certain beliefs. For example, the Holocaust denier, David Irving, was denied a visa even to visit Australia.

NB: I am NOT suggesting we exclude Muslims. Nor am I equating Islam with Holocuast denial altho. as a matter of plain fact, many Muslims do deny the Holocaust.

I am simply pointing out that to be disdainful of Islam, as I am, is not ipso facto racism. And neither is excluding people because of their beliefs "racism."

"Racism" seems to be a word people use when they cannot win an argument with logic.

Unfortunately multiculturalism conflates races with religion.

Racism, the condemnation of a group of people because of colour, is an anethema, an abomination.

Freedom of religion is a right in this country. We are also free not to believe in God, nor practice any religion. We have freedom to criticise religion and its dogma. This is our democratic right to opinion.

However, we now see emerging separate rights for one section of our community. With this is the restriction on our traditional right to question religious practices or codes of belief. It is now a vertiable ‘”thought crime’” to question certain beliefs that conflict with the democratic freedoms of our society. The same “thought police” who seek to quash ‘observation’ also advocate removing all signs of our traditional religious festivals, such as Christmas, in order not to offend ...

This apparently priviledged group, distinguish themselves from, and are given carte blanche to condemn and belittle, the democratic freedoms of this country, which Australians have fought for, and even died.

By Australians, I mean the past waves of migrants into this country, waves of different races and of different religions, including Muslims, who are a vital part, indeed the very fabric of Australian society today.

Islam is not new to this country, Muslims have been here since the 19th century, an important part of Australian history; we have had waves of Muslims from Europe and elsewhere.

However, we are witnessing an unpleasant phenomenum distinct from our traditional, well respected Muslim society.

It might be well to consider that the term "Islamophobia" was invented in the 1970's by Iranian fundamentalists, who used it to silence Muslims who questioned the Koran, who wanted equality of the sexes, who wanted to either renounce religion, or practice it freely without dicatates from the doctrinaire. "Islamophobia" brought with it a death sentence.

Stevenlmeyer,
Well said, my thoughts exactly.

In fact I argue that the term 'multicultural' is a misnomer as we are in fact a multi-racial nation, and have been since 1788. We do not accept other cultures, we accept some aspects of other cultures only.

There are many aspects of other cultures that are either unlawfull or socially unacceptable here. Lots of the cultural aspects we reject are not associated with Islam.

I object to the government imposed 'multiculturalism' that is social engineering and puts someones original culture ahead of loyalty to our country. Our culture is continuiously changing, but it is our society that should determine what changes, not governments.

pelican,

Yusuf Islam was reported during the 'Satanic Verses'controversy as calling for the murder of Salman Rusdie,he has since denied it, unconvincingly, in my opinion. Not a good role model.

suzeonline,

One more time--Religions are ideologies.

stevenlmeyer,

I doubt if you'll ever get a satisfactory answer to the question "Why do we need a policy of multiculturalism?"


Danielle,

Agreed,up to a point. Islamic intolerance of other religions,particularly anti-semitism, also aggression is inherent in the religion,it was spread by violent conquest from the beginning. The reason that this this 'unpleasant phenomenon' has appeared is due essentially to the larger size of our Moslem community now, it's not an aberration.

Both stevenlmeyer and I have provided earlier links that indicate the gulf in conceptions of 'democracy' by Westerners and Moslems.

Pelican

Mac has given us a good opportunity to illustrate the importance of the truth in defending Islam.

Mac states:

<<Islamic intolerance of other religions,particularly anti-semitism, also aggression is inherent in the religion,it was spread by violent conquest from the beginning.>>

One now simply have to ask: Mac provide a serious scholarly evidence that would support your claims that Islam has been intolerant against other religions and was spread by violent conquest....and see what he comes up with

Over to you Mac...

Grateful, mac

Here is a link to a youtube video in which Yusuf Islam expresses a desire to see Salman Rushdie burned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-wjxwpvqps

(It happens towards the end of the segment)

This clip has appeared on youtube numerous times and Yusuf Islam has tried to have it banned citing "copyright" reasons.

I can find no evidence that Yusuf Islam ever retreated from the position who took then - ie that Salman Rushdie should be executed for writing a book that purportedly offended the sensibilities of the founding father of the current dictatorship in Iran.

mac

I agree. I'll never get a coherent answer from the multi culti exponents. All I'll get is accusations of racism.

But I do know what multi culti is in Australia. It's a way for the ALP to buy votes by setting up a patronage machine.

The long-believed 'truth' that "Australia’s long history of successful multiculturism is evidenced by the huge numbers of Greeks and Italians who have settled in Australia" is a lie. The fact of Greeks and Italians successfully integrating is NOT evidence supporting Multiculturism.
The Greeks and Italians were MULTI-ETHNIC and definitely not 'multi-cultured'.
Their culture was fundamentally identical to Australia's culture.
That culture is known as …....wait for it....C.H.R.I.S.T.I.A.N.I.T.Y.
They were ethnically different, but CULTURALLY identical.

Read the full explanation at http://www.ozunited.info/mulcul.htm

stevenlmeyer and others, you might well be interested in watching the documentary 'Undercover Mosque'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc7PqjD_S3s

grateful,

here they are some-

(1)'Byzantium: The Early Centuries'

(2)'Byzantium: The Apogee'

(3)'Byzantium : Decline and Fall'

all by John Julius Norwich.

These books detail the history of Islamic aggression against the Byzantines.

(4) 'The Armenians' by AE Redgate Chapter 8

(5) 'The Golden Age of Persia' by Richard Frye Chapters 4&5

(6) 'The Dream and The Tomb' by Robert Payne pp 21-30

If you're completely ignorant of Islamic history these might be useful.

(7) 'White Gold' by Giles Milton, this book is a history of attacks by Moslem slavers on Europe. The author estimates that a million Europeans were taken and enslaved by Moslems, these atrocities continued until the early 19th century. This history is not widely known, it certainly should be.

(8)'Crisis of Islam Holy War and Holy Terror' by Bernard Lewis

(9) 'The Arabs' by Eugene Rogan, this is interesting as it provides a pespective on Islamic societies' complete inability to modernize.

(10)'Lords of the Horizons' by Jason Goodwin

(11) 'Lords of the Golden Horn' by Noel Barbour

The last two tell the story of the unspeakable horrors inflicted by the Ottomans on the Eastern Europeans,this also, should be more widely known.

I just know you're going to dismiss these scholarly works because they're not written by Moslems.

and finally a link on the quaint Islamic concept of 'apostasy' by Dr Mark Durie.

http://australianconservative.com/2010/08/mark-durie-on-islamic-apostasy/

Mac you were asked for serious scholarship to support the statement that Islam is intolerant of other religions and anti-semitic.

These were your precise words

<<Islamic intolerance of other religions,particularly anti-semitism, also aggression is inherent in the religion,it was spread by violent conquest from the beginning.>>

Instead you provided a list of titles. I wonder whether you have actually read the titles because you have not used them to support your claims.

grateful, like this?

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/islamic-antisemitism-and-its-nazi-roots?print=y

Interestingly, when the author was due to address the University of Leeds, in 2007, the University was first forced to alter the lecture title, 'Hitler’s Legacy: Islamic Antisemitism in the Middle East', removing the words 'Hitler' and 'Islamic', and finally to cancel the lecture altogether at the last minute, due to 'security concerns'.

grateful,

Nice try,do you really think I get most of my information instantly from the Net,you should understand that knowledge takes time. I've been reading about ME and European history for 40 years, plenty of time to read those books. You really have no idea of how little you know about the subject.

I provided the titles so you could read the books( many of those books are in my personal library)most of them have been written by academic historians. Do you want me to scan and paste entire books? Read even some of the books and then you'll be in a position to discuss the subject with me, otherwise don't waste my time.

You made the challenge,so it's my choice of weapons and I chose books.

Stevenlmeyer <"So explain to me, suzeonline, why we need a whole multi culti bureaucracy."

Multiculturalism stops being an inherent good when some people of the host country set up the immigrants to fail in their new land.

It's interesting Stevenlmeyer, that you use the words 'multi culti' to describe a bureaucracy. It seems the 'multikulti' concept was thought up by the German Government, who were less than enthusiastic about the immigrants (multiculturalism) needed to rebuild their land after the second world war.

<"...The "multikulti" concept, as the Germans call it, had led immigrants to believe that they need not integrate, learn the language or adopt the customs and practices of their new home. To some extent, the Germans have only themselves to blame, because they were less than welcoming to the millions of Turks and others who arrived under the Gastarbeiter scheme to help build the post-war economic miracle. Many were given a right to reside but denied full German citizenship – excluding them from certain jobs such as teaching.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8071854/Multicultural-mistakes.html

We all know what happens in a country that tries to keep just one main religion, race, culture, or skin colour, to the detriment of all others.
We don't want to go back there do we?

You see Pelican, I simply asked of Mac that he provide the evidence to support his statement that Islam is intolerant of other religions and anti-semitic, and he scampers. He is unable to back up his statement and instead gets personal.

For evidence that Islam was spread peacefully, you can consult Oxford History of Islam, where it shows that "contrary to popular understanding Islam was not spread by the sword (paraphased because i do not have the book with me). Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his book, "The Preaching of Islam", provides a detailed account as to how Islam was spread peacefully throughy trade and 'missionary' work of sufis

Also, from Ira M. Lapidus (2002) A History of Islamic Societies: Cambridge University Press

"The question of why people convert to Islam has always generated intense feeling. Earlier generations of European scholars believed that conversions to Islam were made at the point of the sword, and that conquered peoples were given the choice of conversion or death. It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most conversions to Islam were voluntary. (...) In most cases worldly and spiritual motives for conversion blended together. Moreover, conversion to Islam did not necessarily imply a complete turning from an old to a totally new life. While it entailed the acceptance of new religious beliefs and membership in a new religious community, most converts retained a deep attachment to the cultures and communities from which they came.” p244

grateful,

Many historians recognise that the western ideals of courtly love and chivalry were a consequence of coming in touch with Islam of that period.

Many years ago I lived for a long time in a Muslim country. I found the religious leaders devout and gentle.

A genealogy of Islam, however, appears to have no relevence.

Are you aware that the UN Human Rights Council has approved the proposal of laws protecting Islam from criticism worldwide.

"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," the resolution famously said.

Of those who objected/abstained Terry Cormier, a Canadian diplomat observed: "It is individuals who have rights and not religions."

India abstained in protest as Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection. As the Indian Ambassador Copinathan Achamkulangare rightly stated the resolution "inappropriately" linked religious criticism to racism.

susieonline,

I think all of us here are well aware of the situation in Germany. This is certainly not the situation in this country, which couldn't be more different.

Mac

Grateful is playing a game with you.

TECHNICALLY he is correct. Islam, the religion, was not spread by the sword.

What the Muslims did was to conquer TERRITORY. This they did with “the sword”. (You’re hopefully not going to deny that Grateful. Muslim territorial conquests are well established history)

Once Muslims controlled the territory life usually, not always, became unpleasant for non-Muslims who had “dhimmi” status. In most cases it was simply easier to conform to the religion of the ruling class.

There were exceptions. For a brief period a sort of multicultural society flourished in the Iberian Peninsula, especially around Cordoba. This ended when the Almoravids and Almohads invaded the Iberian Peninsula from North Africa and re-established a stricter, less tolerant, more mainstream actually, version of Islam.

Eventually of course the Christians defeated the Muslims in Spain and established a regime that has become the byword for religious intolerance.

One way that Islam spread in the conquered territories was not so much through the sword as through the bedroom. If you were a pretty but poor Christian girl you might marry a poor but handsome young Christian boy. Or you might be practical and become ONE of the wives of a rich Muslim ruler who would look after you and often undertook to make life a little easier for your family if they too converted.

After all, the time honoured way in which conquerors spread their genes and culture is through the women of the conquered. And the Muslims were very much the conquerors and the Christians and others very much the conquered in those territories. Read up about the Janisseries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary

On the other hand, since none of this absorption of conquered people could take place until the territory had in fact been conquered you could also say that Islam spread by the sword.

You have an impressive library mac. You may wish to add this book to it:

lslam's Black Slaves: The History of Africa's Other Black Diaspora by Ronald Segal.

(Mostly the Arab slavers were interested in sex slaves)

grateful
I accept your heartfelt belief that Islam is not intolerant of other religions at it's core. It is human beings that make up religious groups and much of what is cherry picked is in line with other cultural norms and expectations.

Christianity has not always been a tolerant religion if we look historically, Islam has also had its share of radical spokespeople that do not bode well for Muslims living by the essential tenets of the Koran.

There are also some Christians who do not support a secular society, so to point the singular finger at Islam alone is one-eyed on the issue. As regards women, domestic violence can occur in any home, Christian, Atheist or Muslim. People will be who they are, regardless of their beliefs, even if those beliefs may consolidate or reinforce those natural inclinations in some way.

The treatment of 'infidels' or 'heathens' is the test of a religion (or individual adherents) in a secular society ie. willingness to embrace secular freedoms. I think the European and British experience has made it difficult elsewhere for Muslims - the threats of beheadings of those who 'blaspheme' in a free speech environment, the mantra of "You are either a Muslim or not a Muslim" which determines the way some people might be treated. None of these things help. But Christianity and other religions have their fair share of these intolerants.

It is moderate and secular Muslims that will provide the force for good in this debate hopefully quelling the minority of disruptives. Those non-secularists within the Christian Church are also in the minority as well.

Australia has been very successful in integrating various cultures within its borders and I suspect in 50 years time we will all be discussing and studying the issue of Islamic migration in the same way.

I hope your wife and other Muslim women will take on board that the actions of some racists do not diminish the goodwill of other Australians with all our mixed heritages.

grateful,

“... genital mutilation of young females, ... without any foundation whatsoever in Islamic scripture, tradition, or law. Another example is the practice of honor killing. ...” (p118)

Bernard Lewis, "Islam: the Religion and its People" :

“... conversion to Islam ... most converts retained a deep attachment to the cultures and communities from which they came.” p244

Ira M. Lapidus (2002) A History of Islamic Societies: Cambridge University Press

Yet, a modified version of female circumcision has now emerged as a Islamic practice in societies where it never occurred before. Honour killings, whilst not officially approved, have become entrenched, so women have to actively seek institutional protection - go “underground”.

The burqua, is not Islamic in origin, but an ancient cultural practice.

Also, there are traditional Islamic practices - as there were traditional Christian practices - which have no place in 21st century Australia.

I do not believe that the vast majority of Muslims in this country accept nor tolerate these. But until their voices are loudly heard, such issues will be seen problematic by the wider community

stevenlmeyer,

Thanks for the support and info.

Yes, I realise 'grateful's' playing a game, what else can he do when the facts are obvious? That's why I referred him to those books which relate the insidious nature of the spread of Islam. I'm familiar with the process of dhimmification and the jiziah. The claim Islam wasn't spread by the sword is pure sophistry. Once the ruling class of a conquered nation was destroyed and replaced by Moslems and non-Moslems were assigned a greatly inferior status, Islamification(and often Arabization) was more or less inevitable (The Iranians have been one of the few Moslem societies in the ME to, an extent, resist Arabization). The populations of north Africa and the ME ultimately weren't converted to Islam by persuasion but by force- the periods of tolerance were few and far between. Of course, Western Christians were also brutally intolerant of relgious minorities during the medieval period,particularly Jews and Christian 'heretics' who were probably 'safer' in Moslem or Eastern Orthodox communities.
The cruel history of the Janissaries is related in both 'Lords of the Horizons' and 'Lords of the Golden Horn'.

I have to say that I'm sceptical of the idea that Islam is just another religion,given the appalling economic, social and political state of Islamic societies. The multiculturalists should really learn more about the nature of Islam and its affects on society.
The campaign to protect Islam from criticism is particularly sinister as it's an attempt to reproduce the 'ruling class' position of Moslems in liberal democracies.

Who gets to decide at which point Multiculturalism is an inherent good, and on what basis do they have such authority?

Furthermore, if they do have such authority to make such an enlightened decision, why is it that they cannot implement it?

grateful,

Do you believe that the UN Human Rights Council proposal of laws protecting Islam from criticism worldwide is a right move?

Do you believe that Moslems should protest, indeed root out, primitive practices now attached to Islam here in Australia?

For all the defense of Islam, we are short of hearing healthy debate by the Islamic community in our society about certain indefensible practices and beliefs.

I have not mentioned a couple of these, but doctors in public hospitals are aware of them; thus, would also be the wider Islamic groups.

Any change to particular practices should not be due to condemnation from non-Islamic
society, but should be the result of enlightened Islamic thought.

While Grateful is preparing an answer for Danielle re :
/// Do you believe that the UN Human Rights Council proposal of laws protecting Islam from criticism worldwide is a right move?///

And for Steven re the Victorian vilification act –from way back, which he side stepped.

He might like to comment on this:

"Let there not be two religions in Arabia".[ Mohammed’s dead bed admonition ]

The last word in Islamic multiculturalism and tolerance. He is fond of blaming the Wahhabis for any form of excess --but he can hardly blame this on wahhabism.

As one comenator adds:
“The 'Jews' and Christians were, INDIGENOUS ARABS who had as much, if not MORE, right to live in the Peninsula as the upstart Muhammad and his …followers.”

Some commentors observe that sections of the Australian community are unpleasantly misogynist. However, they are looked upon as being from the lower end of the gene pool. They are not clerical leaders.

The last few years have witnessed Muslim clerics abusing the courtesy of living in this country. Taj El-Din Hilaly, not only compared women who did not wear the Islamic veil to “uncovered meat” ripe for raping, but also laughed and make derogatory remarks about Australia on Al Jazeer TV; he particularly raised the issue that it was a crime to rape one’s wife. Sheik Feiz Mohammed and cleric Samir Abu Hamza supported Hilaly’s views; the latter also directed his male congregation to beat and rape their wives for disobedience.

These men are clerical leaders. It surprises me that their Islamic communities have not demanded that they be replaced. If not, why not?

When Hilaly was leaving for an overseas trip, a reporter questioned him about his comments. Hilaly refused to answer and accused the reporter of racism. This is not racism.

How are our Australian laws against domestic violence and rape in marriage to be applied when these are religious directives? How should our law respond to publicly issued directives from such individuals?

I am not at all surprised at what has emerged overseas. The PC movement effectively stiffled healthy debate on issues not consistent with, in many cases hard-won, western values. Rightly or wrongly, communities believed certain groups were in a priviledged position; indeed, certain groups may have believed this also - perhaps believing they
were also above the law - or the law didn't apply to them. The result is a massive back swing.

Australia is not a racist country, nor is it intolerant of different religions - especially non-christian religions. No critical observations about Budhhists, Sikhs, Bahai’s etc. etc... indeed, we welcome and enjoy this diversity. Nor did we have any issues with Islam which has a very long history in this country.

Well, I'm late in the piece here, so sorry if I cover old ground.
My first question would be, what values do we cherish? And then I'd ask, "are these values self-standing, universal and all that (has anyone made a list), or are they contrived after the fact?
I'll go for the latter. I'll say, "sh!t, ain't we lucky, p'raps we should have some universal values to back it up so's we can defend ourselves against criticism.
Trouble is, it's not that easy, is it? People go digging around and saying, "'ang-on a minute, if you say that then you must mean that and so on..", and it all looks rather dubious.
So then, rather than words which are, let's face it, problematic, some bright spark says, let's 'ave fireworks, and we can call it "Australia Day! We can all get pissed and celebrate gawd knows what!"
So when someone says "at what point does multiculturalism stop being an inherent good?", I say , at the point when the purists start getting serious!
From where I sit, our culture is a dog's breakfast, and it's not the fault of multi-culti. Multi-culti drives the economy, whether we're screwing some poor bastards offshore, or pretending we like'em as tourists. Multi-culti is our bread and butter.
Again, what values do Aussies cherish? and can they stand the allure of a fast buck?
Australia's prosperity was and is built on multiculturalism, if we're going to start inventing values now, is the economy exempt? And should the fact that we're lucky bastards have an effect on our morality?

Jenny Goldie ask’s the question,

At what point, then, does multiculturalism go from being an inherent 'good' to being problematic?

Jenny’s question implies that there is general agreement that multiculturalism is “good” to start with, an implication that Australians may not concur with. Older Australians can remember a time when an Australian could get on a domestic airline flight in the same way that today we get on a bus. It was a time when Police did not have the power to pull over your car at random and rummage around in your belongings, in order to combat the menace of ethnic gangs using cars to transport illegal drugs.

It was a time when the police usually needed a warrant from a judicial authority to enter your home, but with the need to combat home grown terrorism, even that Magna Carta right has gone out the window.

It was a time when children were not shot or stabbed in school, or where ethnic youth gangs entered school grounds to threaten and assault teachers and staff. It was a time when female teachers did not refuse to teach in schools with high numbers of students from a particular religious group, who’s religion taught them that women are inferior to men, and that it is unnatural for women to have any authority over males.

The former residents of Fairfield, Punchbowl, Cabramatta, Bankstown and Auburn, would remember when these suburbs were largely peaceful working, and disadvantaged class areas, before they fled the consequences of multiculturalism, and these areas turned into crime filled cesspits where hardly a night goes by without another shooting.

Spiraling rates of violent crime. Sydney now the Chicago of the Pacific. Police stations and churches in Sydney being shot up, The rape of 70 Australian Sydney girls at the time of the 2000 Olympics by Muslim race hate rape gangs. Endemic welfare dependency in certain ethnic ghettoes Race riots, and now terrorism.

Whatever benefits Multiculturalism bestowed upon Australia in the form of foreign food, it appears to me to be more than compensated by its negatives.

At the point where multiculturalism ceases to be an inherent good, is when a group exhibits no respect for the dominant culture - the culture which has given it a home, protection and sancturary ... indeed when a group isolates itself from what it perceives as a culture not worthy of respect (including its laws), and teaches this to its adherents.

MUTUAL respect (perhaps even 'loyalty') is a given.