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?