>>And notice, too, Redneck, that Pericles, who initiated a discussion with myself, has since totally backed away, failing to reply to my questions.<<

Let's have a look at those questions again.

>>Huh? So one shouldn’t condemn those who hold such views so long as they’re not manifest in concrete law? So we should never attack political viewpoints, for most of these are just proposals for the future?<<

It's not the views that need to be condemned, but the intent.

>>You see, in outright disagreeing with Fraser, one denies the fact that in practice only whites seriously have to be responsible speakers. The Other’s bigotry is excused as a “response to racism”. Why not Fraser’s?<<

Why not, indeed.

"The Sydney Mardi Gra floats nuns, reverends, and those who innocuously say “poof” on air. In light of the UWS links, don’t you find their having never floated a Muslim to be pathologically treating them as permanent guests?"

Nope.

>>In light of the possible legal dilemmas arising from “multiculturalism” re Trad’s having to creatively devise a means to appease his fellow sharia law sympathisers to the over-tolerance of Australian law, I implicitly asked you whether you would ban such meetings from happening, say, a second time?<<

Nope.

>>Is it not inconsistent, for example, of a Wassim Dourahei (Hizb-ut-tahir) to claim, on the one hand, that Australia ought to tolerate his organisation’s political views (RE Howard’s refusal to invite him to terror summit), and therefore implicitly heterogeneity, and on the other that this society (indeed the entire planet) ought to transform into a politically homogenous society that is intolerant of criticism, alternative viewpoints, and change, under dogmatic Islamic Sharia law (the UK website shows an intolerance of democracy)?<<

Yep.

>>Since freedom of speech is based on the assumption of tolerance and equal rights, I find no inconsistency in being pro free-speech ONLY for those who are also pro free-speech, since those against it could only be a virus upon its very principles. Do you think sharia law sympathisers are such a virus?<<

Nope.

I trust my answers make as much sense as your questions.

That is what exactly xenophobia and racism mean practically - segregating Australian inhabitants by tribes where non-London-linked are upon generations permitted to only serve pizza to a higher race of not able read and write even their one and own English:

<<

I think that the real point here is the Italians, Greeks and Asians have not so much integrated into our culture, they have changed and enriched our culture. Strong coffee, Chinese take away and pizza are as much Aussie as meat pies and Holden cars. The great strength of modern cultures is their ability to change.

Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 1:51:50 PM>>>>

Still haven't provided any actual evidence Redneck. here say and opinion does not count any hard evidence to contribute?

To AMEL,

Are you one of the low IQs Fraser was talking about or are you just a racist bigot?
I made the point about Western European Nations (i.e. Britian, Germany, Sweden, Holland etc.) all undergoing similar
MASSIVE demographic changes as well as Australia. You said that Japan has always been Japanese and China has always been Chinese, then since Britian, Sweden, Germany, Holland (forget Australia for the moment) has always also been strictly themselves, then why do they also have to undergoe this similar MASSIVE demographic change also, against the wishes and better judgement of most of their native peoples? This was my point.

How can you possibly think that the white Australia culture is racist and only caring about themselves and their own kind?
This is precisely my point overall. All western nations (especially Australia and Canada) have had a massive immigration/refugee program and multicultural program for half a century now. Western Europeans are the most welcoming, tolerant people on the planet, that is why we are the only nations that have, although unwillingly, undergone these massive demographic/cultural changes. It is only the last wave of immigration (from the thitd world -Asia and Middle east) that has caused any one to be concerned at all. In every western nation we have consistently peacefully stood by while certain diasporas became our crime capitals where racial bashings, murders and rapes happen consistently.
It is only after putting up with such disgraceful, ungrateful behaviour for twenty years now in Australia with Cabramatta/Bankstown that we are finally fed up.
Still, though, to this day, there is no attacks of mobs (like there would be in their countries) on their little communities.
How are we racist and wanting to stay the same when we are the only cultures willing to atlteast try this multiculturalism out.
Only after being kicked in the teeth are we now openly against it.

To Scooper9,

Next time, before you think you are intelligent look closer at the information. You are all alike you so-called "left-wing"
people, you read the first page of everything, go with the first impression, but you vehemently accuse everyone else of doing; you are stuck in a permanent state of

"Guess what? I've just read the first couple of pages of Chomsky and Pilger and they tell me that Walt Disney was really
a war criminal! Now I'll run outside and become an activist.I'll get back to the reading and actual detailed study some other
time. Appearing to be on the MORAL side will make up for intellectual shortness, I think! "

These are the actual numbers, and I grant you that I was out by 1 million or 8%, which isn't much anyway.

The crazy part is that by seeing the "Sudan-born Community" link you should have noticed this before accusing me
of being an intellectual lamehead.

The Australia-born Community
The Community Today

Ancestry
In the 2001 Census, the top three ancestries that Australia-born persons reported were, Australian (4,917,590), English (2,696,780) and Irish-English (918,540).

Of those born overseas, the three main countries of birth in the 2001 Census were:

United Kingdom: 1,036,245 (5.5%)
New Zealand: 355,765 (1.9%) and;
Italy: 218,718 (1.2%).

ADD THE FIGURES YOURSELF :

Australian born who claim UK heritage = 4,917,590 + 2,696,780 + 918,540 = 8,532,910

Overseas born who claim UK heritage = 1,036,245

TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO RESIDE IN AUSTRALIA WHO ARE DESCENDED IN SOME WAY FROM THE UK IS 9,569,155.

As a percentage of the 20 million people who reside in the country this equates to 48%.

Check the link out yourself :
http://www.dimia.gov.au/statistics/stat_info/comm_summ/textversion/australia.htm

I'd say that is a drastic change in any language. And to clarify for the nitwits, it is not about change itself, as the Australian people/culture has proven for over fifty years that they are capable of drastic change, but rather it is about certain types of negative change that we, as a fair and decent society, think we should not have to endure.

This is interesting. We acknowledge that for the notion of a 'race' to have any meaning, its definition has to be so inclusive as to be useless in practical terms. On the other hand, some still insist that we all 'know' what we mean by a race - with Redneck specifying "three principle races (Asian, Caucasian and Negroid)", with " very real differences in temperament, intelligence and physical ability " between them.

Presumably Redneck's 'Asians' include people who trace their descent to that region of the world between the Mediterranean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. Please tell us what aspects in temperament, intelligence and physical ability distinguish them from the 'Caucasians' and 'Negroes'.

Presumably Redneck's 'Caucasians' are those who trace their ancestry to the area between the Atlantic Ocean and the Caucasus Mountains. What are the distinguishing common features of their temperament, intelligence and physical ability, pray tell?

'Negroes' are a bit of a problem, since the word derives from the Latin 'niger', meaning 'black', rather than from a geographical region. Does Redneck's 'Negro race' include, say, Papua New Guinea highlanders and Australian Aborigines, or are they 'sub-races'? In any case, what are the aspects of their temperament, intelligence and physical ability that distinguish them from your other so-called 'races'?

Redneck says that if I disagree with his ideas, then I should provide evidence. I suggest he consults any reasonably contemporary introductory anthropology text book. Failing that, there is quite a good coverage of the debate at Wikipedia.

I note that Redneck hasn't produced any evidence to back his claims at all, other than his own opinions.