And from the home country:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Quotes: "Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right. "This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."

So what happens then?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html

Quote: ‘This will mean this is an area where the Muslim community will not tolerate drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling, usury, free mixing between the sexes – the fruits if you like of Western civilisation. We want to run the area as a Sharia-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.’

Do anyone think that Australia is exempt from this kind of phenomenon in the future, particularly with people like Ms Asian giving government sponsored lectures about the benefits of immigration?

PS: These zones are being setup not just in the UK, but across Europe.

You're not reporting accurately, Graham.

1. I said changing the bio mid-stream without explanation was disrespectful to the readers of the posts, which had been written against the background of the original bio note.

2. Alice did not restrict her proposition to the realms of anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws (which many people, like you and I, have a problem with). This is what she wrote:

>> The new national multicultural policy is a historical progressive step. But it is incomplete unless Australian society requires politicians and media commentators, who have the power to influence public opinion, not to stigmatise whole communities and spread hostility against them by distorting truth in the name of free speech. And the law should hold such people accountable for any inflammatory speech.

That's a proposition for a blanket ban on freedom of speech.

The "truth" she asserts has not been tested and "inflammatory speech" is highly subjective, as we have seen in your (incorrect, I think) assessment of divine_msn's post.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "Freedom of the press cannot be limited without being lost."

Graham - I'm not asking for a 'fight'. Merely clarification of your accusation that my post was disrespectful.

I made no comment about changes to the Authors bio other than: "I would also be interested in knowing why." when KenH drew attention to it. I have made no response whatsoever since, contrary to your most recent post.

My offer to apologise and repeal any untruthful or offensive comment stands.

You wrote, ".. it was your post on Thursday 10th at 1:00:07 PM and it was of the "if you don't like it here go back where you came from" variety" which I refute.

You have been asked to identify the specific wording/sentences but have failed to do so. I am thinking there could be 3 reasons: 1) My posts have not been read 2)You have chosen to ignore the request 3)You have erred in censure but do not wish to back down.

I have enough self-respect and integrity to admit mistakes and make amends. Please do me the justice of either verifying your claims or retracting same. Thank-you in anticipation of an honest response.

Hey, Squeers, we're not getting a bit carried away with this one are we?

"What divisiveness we do have in Australia is more often than not instigated by anti-social Aussies, and not interlopers. Ethnic enclaves are generally the product of that kind of hostile reception and not wilful separatism."

I think both of those propositions would be pretty hard to prove or to justify - depending of course on your interpretation of divisiveness and your definition of "hostile reception" or "wilful separatism". In fact I think you're dead wrong. I would contend that Aussies are amongst the most hospitable and tolerant of peoples, generally, and that "ethnic enclaves" are most commonly very much the result of free and active choice by new immigrants, even their preferred choice - for the very reasons of common language, culture and employment opportunity, and quite probably limited english usage. I grant there are and will continue to be exceptions, but you made the generalisation, painting us as hostile agressors. Who brought the various triads to Oz, and where are they cented? In Vaucluse, or St Kilda? Or Cabramatta and the like perhaps? And why so? Who is the predator here? Who suggested Aussie girls are "ripe meat"? What poor innocent creatures allegedly planned to whack a few Aussie soldiers at Holesworthy? Now where would they have got the notion that that would be a good idea? Aussies' fault I suppose, brought it upon ourselves because we're "hostile"? Give over.

Maybe your associating the generality of new arrivals too closely with an academic non-Aussie minority with whom you have close association? Not all immigrants are PhD students, not by a long shot - and of course students and academics wouldn't be expected to exhibit exemplary behaviour, would they? And, when your back is turned?

Cont'd:

Of all the races, cultures and ethnicities "welcomed" to Australia, with how many would the generality of Aussies have any problem? Coptic Christians, or Indians, Indonesians, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Vietnamese, Chinese, African - or simply rather with radical, hard-core Muslims? Am I (or maybe we) perhaps guilty in this "observation" of the error of extending the specific to inadvertantly encompass the generality?

I would pose a proposition that if given free choice, a majority of Australians would prefer if Muslim immigration to Australia was restrained, if not totally curtailed. Unjustified - both in proposition and purported response? Where might I be wrong, and why?

You would be aware of my basis for that proposition. Can I be totally wrong in this? One example - Afghan National Army.

"Integration is the only ethically defensible multiculturalism"

Do we have a right to any choice of the participants involved?

In so many theatres it has been virtually impossible to distinguish friend from foe - Vietnam at one time, and now Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, perhaps Syria, Zimbabwe, Iran, even Pakistan? etc.?

The nature of the beast. How many bites before developing aversion? I prefer to be Devil's Advocate than mute mouse.

Squeers,
You ask 'Why should immirants have to give up their cultutal practices when they migrate to Australia'

Answer, because some cultural practices are completely alien to our laws and social standards.

If you cannot see that some cultural practices are alien, I wonder if you even live on the same planet as the rest of us.

Australia is far too tolerant in relation to some cultural activities as it is. We ignore certain things and it will not be long before it is claimed that we accept them.

Each time we bend to accomodate some alien cultural practice, we compromise our own culture.