Banjo,
>> We are not, and never have been, a multicultural society, we have been a multiracial society since 1788 and it is expected that all people here respect our laws and social standards above all else. Ethnicity has nothing to do with this. <<

You are right to distinguish between “multicultural” and “multiracial”, however I think one should also distinguish between “multiethnic” and “multicultural”, although this distinction is sometimes fuzzy and to much extent depends on the role of religious traditions that shape “cultures” more than “ethnic” groups or nations. Since 1945 or so, Australia has been getting more and more multiethnic, with immigrants coming from a variety of “continental” nations or ethnic groups. No major problems with this. Problems arose only after immigrants came with different “cultures” based on different religious traditions, (Actually only one, which in its aggressive missionary zeal is not unlike Western Christianity’s just a few centuries ago).

Melbourne (where I lived most of my life) has about the same percentage of people of Greek descent as Cologne (where I live now) has of Turkish descent. I can assure you that the Turks in Cologne are much more visible than the Greeks are/were in Melbourne.

By “visible” I don’t mean unfriendliness, just isolation, living in “parallel societies” as Germans call it. Of course, not all of them. However, there is one paradox: children and grandchildren of the original immigrants, who - in distinction to their grandparents - speak perfect German that I can only envy - sometimes “carry” their ethnic (and religious, thus cultural) identity much more visibly, than their parents and grandparents who although living in their often isolated neighborhoods remain glad to have settled here. Of course, not all, there are many who keep on proclaiming (e.g. on TV) that they are “integrated”. And of course, this problem is much more benign that the parallel problem with Muslims in Britain or France.

Hear Hear Priscilla

Imajulianutter,
So nothing is even slightly wrong with this picture?
http://www.alltogethernow.org.au/about/our-people
Ok then, if not for the fundamental Racism of Anti Racism itself it could be dismissed as a fancy of silly White women.
Liberalism didn't defeat it's modernist opponents it absorbed them and retained their most potent characteristics, so Racism is a part of the decaying system in which a group like All Together Now operates. Racism in this Anti Racist form isn't post modern it's wholly modern and largely unreformed, (they just don't shoot or sterilise people so much anymore) the fact that it imagines an anti Racist man in an Anti Racist world should have given it away.
George has it right in his post, race is no longer a valid political theory, but ethnicity is real and different ethnic groups exist in different realities within the matrix of a civilisation, that's the key concept here, we no longer live in Nations and we have to imagine ourselves now as part of a civilisation. We can decide here and now that the present system is not just dying but dead, that it's history of nations, races and classes is no longer worthy of recognition and propose an alternative, otherwise we'll just go on forever as we are.
I would really like to stop talking about race and culture altogether and begin talking about an Oceanic or south Pacific civilisation but as long as we have the threat Anti Racism that's impossible and people like me have to make plans for defensive White ethnostates just in case.

Jay, I'm not sure what you mean, but it reads as an over analysis.

This is not rocket science. The issue here is a system based on individual rights and the systemic forms which flow from that: equality before the law, due process, political enfranchisement, seperation of the public and private domains and the right and capacity to be informed as opposed to being constrained by revealed truth.

Islam is opposed to this; Tabbaa has stated this; yet we have this nicompoop writing specious gibberish about "respectful coexistence with people from diverse cultural, religious and ethnic groups."

The system of liberal individuality has nothing to do with "respectful coexistence"; in fact it is based on just the opposite; you don't coexist with something which is threatening your individual rights; which is what islam is doing.

It astounds me that women, in particular, should directly support an ideology which is fundamentally misogynistic; I don't know how logic can be so twisted as to argue in favour of islamic values when those values are implacably based on a profound oppression of women.

I am increasingly pessimisstic about the ability of the West to deal with islam when so many of the West's 'intelligentsia' and policy makers patently have no understanding of what they are dealing with.

Cohenite,
I beg your pardon, that post is more a digression it's only context is as a reaction to the praise for All Together Now, it's astonishing to me too that a woman, a homosexual or a Liberal would support a version of Anti Racism which attempts to "appease" Islam or simply appropriate "Muslims" as a victim group to further a separate agenda.

Priscilla Brice-Weller--<This view is connected to racism because intolerance of religion often implies intolerance of culture or ethnicity, an obvious example being the genocide of Jews during World War II.>

It is the religions that start the Ethnic(tribal)division, in the first place. The Jews are a prime example of a religion refusing to marry anyone outside of the Jewish religion and so causing the division Of Germany into two tribes.

This proved disastrous when the Great Depression, Financial meltdown hit Germany harder than any other country in the world. When are the academics,Universitys and Historians going to get this right?

The refusing to marry outside of the religion, is racism(dressed up as lamb,religion). After all the waging of a Holy war means you can attack another culture or ethnic group and the murder is Holy.
Baa! Baa!Baa! Poor little Religious Wolf, I mean Sheep.