I'm glad you mentioned 'moderate multiculturalism', David :)

Most of us here would agree with you, that ethnocentrism has its drawbacks, but many would also be mindful of 'immoderate multiculturalism', and aspects of various cultural practices, often justified by religious principles, which would seem to some of us to fall into that category.

As long as a 'culture' (to anthropomorphise cultural practices) observes equal rights of men and women, in spirit and in the letter, and as long as people of all cultural backgrounds recognise the rule of law, then I'm sure you would agree that they would be working within the framework of 'moderate multiculturalism'. I certainly have no problem with that.

But if they attempt to impose a different, and differential, notion of equal rights, or of the rule of law, on sections of Australian society, and implicitly on all of Australian society, then you may be right to consider that they are acting improperly, attempting to operate outside those bounds, and perhaps even to breech those limits against fellow-Australians who happen to 'belong' to their cultural group.

No Australian should tolerate limits put on his or her rights, opportunities or behaviour, or on those of anybody else, just because of some attachment or 'belonging' to a particular cultural group. Equal rights mean that we all, men and women, Anglo, Indigenous or whatever, should be equally free of any limitations or restrictions to live and operate in Australia's open, civil, society, and equally responsible to observe its laws.

Joe

Honestly Joe, whenever I get a bit narky you pop up with a sensible and reasoned comment and I have to respond accordingly! Its always a pleasure to talk to you and I think we are fundamentally in agreement. I think that multiculturalism in a moderate form is a good thing. That basically means that people are free to live as they please provided that they do not impinge on the rights of others. I think that the spectre of immoderate multiculturalism is a bit overstated. Some migrants will have behavioural problems and may experience extreme cultural shocks. Some cultural backgrounds might be deeply at odds with some aspects of Western life, but these problems can be worked through with an open and honest discussion. Putting up the shutters is not the best response to those issues. Apart from a few hotheads and self-publicists I don't honestly think that there is any major movement amongst any migrant community to impose any particular way of life or viewpoint on other Australians.

Well, David, my point was that "any major movement amongst any migrant community to impose any particular way of life or viewpoint on other Australians" may include other Australians from 'their own' particular ethnic group. Those are the Australians whose rights I am concerned about.

And that raises the issue: on religious or 'cultural' grounds, should a 'group' have the power to dictate to less powerful 'members' of the 'group' how they should live ? Should the rights of those Australians be abridged on 'cultural' or religious grounds ? Should those Australians live more restricted lives by virtue of being a 'member' of a 'group' ?

And that in turn raises the very thorny issue of group rights which, in my view, are ALWAYS antithetical to the individual rights which a liberal democracy, such as Australia is supposed to be, guarantees and fosters.

Many of us would not want multiculturalism to accommodate such anti-democratic notions in the slightest. But as long as the individual rights of all Australians are safeguarded, equally, under a definition of multiculturalism, then I'm comfortable with it.

So no 'intelligent design' in schools, no outlawing of the use of cows or pigs for food, and no sharia in the courts: separation of 'church' and state and no privileging of any holy book.

Joe

Loudmouth:

...You articulate the hopelessness of the insurmountable difficulties of multiculturalism to a tee. Muslims rightfully have a culture centred on Islam, with all its faults: Similarly, do all ethnicities congregating in this country, have a right to all foibles associated with their respective cultures.

...As an example, tribal impediments to justice conflicting between Aboriginals tribal laws and “White Mans” laws, to this day are huge. Circle sentencing is an Aboriginal justice innovation, which may be applicable, to some degree, towards the clash between cultural expectations of individual ethnic cultures and Australian Law.

...After-all Joe, It is unreasonable to expect immigrants migrating from Countries with cultural extremes, to be considered educated enough to live under the expectation of a law which offers as the fundamental maxim of the Western criminal justice system that says, “A citizen cannot be excused because he was ignorant of the Law”.

...The whole “thing” of Multiculturalism fails miserable on this plank alone!

Dan...

Dan,

People from many countries co-exist fairly comfortably in Australia, on the basis of equality of rights for men and women, and observance of the rule of law.

Provided that no group seeks to bend the rules to suit some outmoded notion of culture or differential rights, and that no government or jurisdiction makes any concessions to such demands, I'm fine with that.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth:

…But you appear to dodge the issue Joe; a precedence is set in the circumstances of variation of the application of the law applicable to Indigenous Australians: The precedence is “Circle Sentencing”. Incidentally, it’s a reform I totally agree with, (in its special application applicable to the indigenous population at the least), in its design to minimise jail terms, and is culturally specific!

…So the problem now arises, where to be consistent, I must likewise agree to its broader application, by varying sentencing procedures applicable to all cultures in Australia, and based on the same principals of cultural difference. Please discuss this issue of precedence in application of “culturally tailor-made” sentencing procedures: I believe it is a key issue in the debate on multiculturalism and ominously points to another critical failure in Governmental immigration prerogatives.