Banjo, notice how White people definitely exist if they're being set up a sStrawmen but they don't exist if they assert their own ethnic or racial identity?
The way Anti Racists use the word "White" is different to the way we Whites use it, in their hands it's more of a class distinction or an in group/out group identifier, the bad Whites are "Rednecks" the supposedly good Whites are people like the author. This is how they can get away with making factually incorrect statements and generalisations about White people, it's the same as using the word "Muslim", it's descriptive of a class of person which is a workaround in order to avoid discussing White people in racial terms. The observation that anti Racism is just a code word for anti White is perhaps somewhat redundant in this case since the Anti White sentiments are not encoded at all they're explicit.
The question I'd put to the anti Racists is why shouldn't ethnic White people be in charge of this country and be the arbiters of what's acceptable and what isn't under multiculturalism, which is after all a wholly European concept?

sorry, forgot to add,
If there are negative outcomes with regard to multiculturalism in it's present form then the fault lies with the people who are overseeing it, the anti Racists in other words. Maybe Anti Racism and the fact that it's just a code for anti White is the core problem, did the author consider that White people might feel as though they're excluded from multiculturalism due to the fact that the way it's presented to us is as some form of punishment for being born of a certain ethnic group?

Senior Victorian has summed it up very well. Mohamad Tabbaa's answer to my question regarding just WHY the Sydney fracas happened indicates that he thinks that perceived injustices overseas justifies such behaviour. ( The links he provided were helpful)

Since 1945 migrants from several hundred different areas of the world have found sanctuary here and adopted Australian ways without the need to claim "global" citizenship. Most seem very glad to leave the chaos of a woeful existence behind. I am glad that everyone from a rubbish country is not out on the streets rioting.

At least Mohamad is promoting some worthwhile discussion which I fear is beyond the Muslim clerics.

"At least Mohamad is promoting some worthwhile discussion"

Unfortunately he is not contributing to it; at his post EmperorJulian sums it up when he says:

"there can be no reasoned argument against the very right to reasoned argument,"

The US video, cartoons and any other scabrous comment about islam are just pretexts and irrelevancies; islam wants NO criticism, however well reasoned or justified.

It astounds me that that basic fact and ingredient of this 'debate' is not more widely recognised; certainly it is not recognised by the MSM, which becomes collectively stupidier by the day, and it is ignored by our craven political leaders.

Tabbaa will not respond because, presumably, he realises that his position is untenable; the exigencies of islam are such that reasoned debate is impossible because islam will not entertain any suggestion that it is not perfect.

In such circumstances there is no possible 'discussion'; and there never was.

This author, like the authors of other articles on this same issue, restricts her observations to the Australian context, thereby purposely failing to evaluate the significance of our modest disruptive experience within the broader, world context, in terms of motivations and underlying intolerance and flawed principles. Should our reporters and commentators similarly apply a 'blinkered' approach to their assessments of our 'experience'? I think not.

Our tolerant and welcoming Aussie approach to multiculturalism may largely account for the modesty of the protests in our midst, but what is alarming nonetheless is that the thinking behind these protests is aligned with the thinking and motivations behind the mass protests abroad, and thus represents a sinister and simmering disquiet which is alien to our social fabric.

In Libya the US embassy was attacked and several of the mission murdered, including the ambassador, even though the US had recently played a key part in enabling the popular revolution in Libya to succeed in ousting Gaddafi and achieving democratic governance. Such an amazing display of gratitude for those US efforts - I don't think so! No, this leopard has some truly indelible 'spots'.

Pakistan is supposedly an ally in the war on terror, yet it has been the scene of the greatest of disturbances and the greatest condemnation of the US - although the US itself had nothing whatsoever to do with the production of the offending video. Such 'friends' need to be kept very close indeed!

There is a sickness afoot, perhaps engineered from decades and centuries of underhanded dealings and experiences, but this sickness is pervasive and without any easy remedy, though re-mediated it must be if there is to be any hope of a secure, peaceful and harmonious future for humanity on this finite and ever-shrinking globe.

Make light of our Australian experience at your peril, for our borders are porous and our bosom welcoming. A concerted discourse must be held, and an extensive reformation pursued, globally and on all sides, lest the cancer of irrational intolerance and suspicion consume us all with fear, hate and revulsion.

It's interesting how the issue can be turned around. It's a completely rational reaction for Australians to object to violence and signs saying 'behead those who insult the prophet.' Somehow, it has now become about those who object to such vulgarity!

Most of the issues with the article have been taken up well by other posters, therefore I'll just comment on this statement:

"Infeartainment often takes the form of easily understood stories expressed in opposites as good and evil which encourages people to think in terms of us and them."

It is impossible to break free of this form. People always judge things in terms of good and bad (not good and evil, that sounds like 'infeartainment'). Humans could not conduct their day to day affairs without judging certain phenomena as either good or bad. Moreover, the categories of 'us and them' cannot be escaped. Every one associates with a group of some description, this group can only exist in contrast to other groups. Nothing exists in-itself. This philosophical conundrum goes back to at least Plato, who tried to 'correct' this problem by devising the 'theory of forms.' Nonetheless, my point is that we associate with groups that we feel we belong, and not with groups that we feel we don't belong. Islam does it, Australians do it, Japanese do it, Africans do it etc etc etc. This is the ontological problem of the 'equality' and 'egalitarian' brigade; they want to eradicate judgements of good and bad and us and them, but cannot but fall into these types of categorizations themselves.

What seems to me to be the real problem the article is attempting to articulate, is that white people aren't allowed to form groups and make judgements on other groups, especially if they're not made up of white people. Yet, it's perfectly acceptable for Islam to form groups and make judgements on who is good and bad and turn it into an 'us and them,' as it is for Priscilla Brice-Weller and the All Together Now group.