Ok now gentlemen - enough is enough. We don't need tit for tat opinion pieces on OLO.

All groups and individuals who use the motif of multiculturalism and interfaith dialogue do so for reasons of self interest,multiculturalism is nothing but an ethnic spoils system in which the state doles out privilege to the "squeaky wheels" in exchange for support from these ethnocentric groups.

AIJAC is no more interested in the rights of other Australians than are the Islamic Research and Educational Academy or Catch The Fire Ministries and the AIJAC activists named above have to the best of my knowledge only ever taken action in defence of their own people.
What's more in addition to suppressing the voices of radical Islam they've been consistently opposed to any activism by Australian Ethno Nationalists or Civic Nationalists such as One Nation, the League Of Rights and Australia First.

With regard to Geert Wilders are we all so naive to think that if AIJAC had genuinely opposed his visit that they could not have had it stopped by pressuring or blackmailing the government? Mr Rubenstein can take the comment as he likes but my point here is that a government which relies on mutual aid from ethnocentric groups is open to pressure tactics, it's not really the case that other Australians see groups like AIJAC as powerful in their own right more that politicians are weak and compromised and will panic as soon as anyone from the Jewish community stamps their foot or raises their voice.
Nobody from the "Far Right" wanted Wilders here either because he's a charlatan but since they have no access to the government and it's media they couldn't make their views known outside the internet, if they'd had those privileges I'm sure they would not have hesitated in using them.
I'm accusing AIJAC and the other ethnocentric advocacy groups of playing coy about their influence over government, we see the nod and the wink and from the outside it appears smug and churlish.
Could a bona fide White Nationalist like David Duke or a Neo Nazi such as David Irving get a visa to visit this country?

Maybe you should think about why the overwhelming majority of the community want nothing to do with the far right.

Maybe people like David Jennings need to think about why the overwhelming majority of the COUNTRY do NOT want Ali Kazak or his like minded brethren in our midst?

Kazak and Rubenstein exchange conflicting views and swap so-called evidence to support their extreme positions. Few onlookers are any the wiser or give a stuff.

Both men show clearly why religion should be banned. They both live in a world deranged by their extreme beliefs for which there is no evidence. None. Not a shred!

Why is much of the world still locked into a superstitious, religious mindset? The Catholic Church has just elected a mere mortal to be Pope. Pope Francis is just a flawed human like all of us. He is not God's representative on Earth. God doesn't exist!

There is no evidence that any of the claims made by religious institutions is true. There is strong evidence that conflict between religions causes division and endless conflict across the world and has done for centuries.

So Colin and Ali and Pope Francis and all other fraudulent clerics, why don't you move off the world stage and allow realists and humanists to run the show?

I think most Australians don't have a problem with Muslims. Its just the people who aren't doing well and who want someone to blame that dont want people like Ali in the country. At any rate, MSN don't conflate your views with that of the populace.

You know, there are some good aspects of Sharia law that we could adopt.

Well, with Mr Kazak's articles OLO finally has a Palestinian propagandist to "balance" the chauvinistic drivel from the site's resident Zionists, unfortunately, it's just more chauvinistic drivel.

Mac,
Exactly, and the really sad part is that these issues have nothing to do with real Australians yet look at all the people who have no stake in Palestine taking sides.
Mr Rubenstein and Mr Kazak are both representatives of alien cultures who are loyal only to foreign nations, yet here they are dividing a third society.

David Jennings,
Here's a thought, why don't the rest of you take the example of the "Far Right" and REFUSE TO TAKE SIDES!, here's an article from Jim Saleam,
Neither Islam nor Israel:
http://ausfirst.alphalink.com.au/IslamismZionism.html

"You know, there are some good aspects of Sharia law that we could adopt."

What a stupid thing to say; how can any edict interpreted by an unelected priest, mullah or whatever grand title they bestow upon themselves be of any benefit to a mature person going about their business?

Sharia law is taken straight from a 1400 year old religious tome that was prepared by beligerent tribes running around making nuisances of themselves in the desert centuries ago; and idiots think it has relevance to today's individual rights based Western societies.

Democracy and freedoms are wasted on some people and that's fine if people want to be subjugated; but the problem is these fools are not happy until every one else is sharing their enslaved bliss.

Religion at best is a borderline pathology, illogical, irrational and intolerant; to take it on willingly implies a defect in character in my opinion.

Cohenite:

...You are displaying intolerance in preaching against intolerance again!

Diver Dan,
Oh, good grief!
http://www.corey.com/thebulb/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/snoopy.png

No Colin, AIJAC is racist against Palestinians and continue the hatred of the owners of the land being squatted on by criminal settlers.

…A reopening of the investigation into the Harkoah club bombing three decades ago, and a new task-force to assist, should be very successful in maintaining anti-Muslim sentiment and keep the pot of hate on the boil between Jew and Arab in our communities.

… Naturally the officials are tracking down an Arab who stole a gas bottle from the State Rail Authority. Wouldn't peace be better served by allowing “Sleeping Dogs to Lie”? And would it be cynical of me to ask if the Jewish quarter in the Eastern suburbs have “smelt” another tax-payer hand out for improved security of Jewish schools?

…And will our SWAT teams moonlight now between busting Arab Bikie gangs and searching for an Arab gas bottle thief in the Western suburbs of Sydney, and busting Aboriginal heads in central Australia searching for sly grog: And all this under the banner of harmonious Multiculturalism?

Ok how about we inject some cold hard facts into this business.
In the 1931 Census of Jerusalem the population is as follows;
Jews, 51,222
Arabs, 19,894
Christians, 19,335.
So based on these prewar figures, how would you describe Jerusalem?

The same holds true for the rest of the British protectorate. There were more Jews there, (even though the British tried very hard to keep them out,) than there were Arabs. Until 1922 Hebron was a Jewish city. (If you don't know why that changed, go and do some research.)

Prior to the creation of Israel, the area was a wasteland. It was actually the development of the area by Jewish settlers during the 18th and 19th C which attracted a massive Arab migration from the neighboring countries.

Hi Dan,

I don't think Cohenite has demonstrated any intolerance whatsoever, except against backward and hateful ideologies, including most religions, but Shari'a in particular.

And maybe I am getting too old, but - pace David Jennings, above - my limited understanding was that Shari'a was a far-right ideology, one opposed to the concept of human equality and - opposed by definition - the rule of (secular) law. In my view, Wilders is very much to the Left of Shari'a.

But if you, or David, can give me any reasonably convincing reason to suppose that, in any way whatsoever, Shari'a is in the slightest way progressive (or have we all forgotten what that might mean ?), and that it recognises equal rights for women in particular, then I will think about giving it, and Islam, the time of day.

What's that, Dan, David ?

Dead silence ?

Yes, a defence of pre-medieval ideology is a bit difficult to carry off, for people who maintain that they are, or once were, in some small way, progressive.

Cheers,

Joe

Jo:

...You are displaying intolerance in preaching against intolerance again! ,Joke.. Ho..Ho “and all that, and all that” as Robbie Burns would say!

...It may amuse you to open JOM’s link just above. “Snoopy” missed the point, (and the football) too!

...And when the mood arises I will rise to your challenge!

Hi Dan,

Are you suggesting that one should never be intolerant towards repugnant and backward ideologies ?

If so, then I have to plead guilty in your court :(

But feel free to uncritically support backward and hateful ideological principles, it's a free country. For now.

Joe

Dan,
Actually my Charlie Brown link was meant to imply that talking about a dialectic in this instance is futile, Colin and Ali and their supporters will never change,the same thing will happen every time, Lucy will always pull the football away at the last second and you'll land flat on your back.
There's been a long line of Charlie Browns lining up to kick the football, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, but just as they are fully committed to the run up and are about to punt that pigskin through the posts they think "This time!".... and then come to their senses, on their back, in a cloud of dust.
Charlie Brown is a good guy but he can't control the world around him, hence his neuroses, Lucy will always pull the football away, Linus will never give up the blanket,Pigpen will always be dirty and the Little Red Headed Girl will always elude him.

"Religion at best is a borderline pathology, illogical, irrational and intolerant; to take it on willingly implies a defect in character in my opinion." So says Cohenite!

Taking it on implies an absence of intellect, my friend, as well as a surfeit of wishful thinking!

David G,
Yeah those Romans were real thickos weren't they?
That Pantheon thing is rubbish eh? Cor! and what about that Taj Mahal, those Pyramids and Ankor Wat nonsense, what a bunch of morons those religious people are!

Jay, thousands of years ago, human were primitive, fearful creatures who were superstitious and ignorant. It was to be expected that they would try to explain their existence using theological copies of themselves (the Holy Father, God, the Big Bop-pa,etc).

In 2013, humans have no excuse for remaining superstitious and ignorant and believing in elaborate fairy tales about mythical Gods.

If you are going to use symbols of ancient religions to prove the substance of your beliefs, then it's time you sought help then moved on, embraced the realist within you!

Hi Dan, David J., et al.,

At this weekend's Conference in Melbourne, it would be wonderful if the highlighted speakers could come out in support of this decision:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/16381953/muslim-states-agree-to-historic-un-statement-on-women/

The cornerstone of a civilized society depends on its treatment of women, I believe. So the decision of some Muslim countries to join the civilized world is most welcome, if somewhat overdue.

As progressives, I wonder what your thoughts are on that ?

Cheers,

Joe

I'm just waiting for someone to tell me how successful multiculturalism has been. You know, the 'diversity is our strength' type stuff.

To me it seems pretty obvious what a disaster multiculturalism has been for the western world. When the tsunami hit Japan tens of thousands died but I never heard one report of violence or rape. Yet when Katrina hit the US, that paragon of 'diversity', there was chaos: rape, murder, looting...the works.

I just don't understand why we are importing division, bitterness and people who have no loyalty to a country that has given them one of the best standards of living in the world today.

Dane, it's a racial issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeA7OOBhlDk&feature=player_embedded

No, Dane and Jay, the difficulties have nothing to do with race (or shouldn't) and not much to do with culture, except to the extent that certain cultural practices conflict with post-Enlightenment values, such as observance of the rule of law, gender equality, etc.

Essentially, the conflicts now, and to come, deal with ideological principles. For example, it was reported during the week that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups consider gender equality as an abomination, a perversion and a invitation to immorality. Half the world according to this ghastly ideology, should basically have no rights, only those allowed by the men who 'own' them.

Another example involved the right of men to beat their wives, perhaps with a rolled-up newpaper, and only to leave marks where they would not show: "Give her a crack," as one eminent Islamist philosopher put it.

No, this has nothing to do with race, or culture, or perhaps even religion. The Socialist Left or SA cannot use that p!ssy excuse to divert the core of the discussion, wounded-goose-like, in order to allow their pseudo-feminist members to support backward, even uncivilized, practices.

I fear that this issue has a long way to go yet, as long as it can so easily be obfuscated.

Joe

@Loudmouth,

Yes indeed, the issue is ideological, earlier generations were menaced by communism and fascism, Islam is as much a threat to liberal democracy as either of those ideologies

…Really Joe, you simply write an “Epitaph” to your own theories; Multiculturalism is a “Dead Duck”! How blind can “One” be to reality. Those who may compare the purity of actions of the Japanese during the Tsunami period with a purity of soul, should reflect on the opposition to Foreign influence and opposition to Multiculturalism Japan represents. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2007/03/27/issues/multicultural-japan-remains-a-pipe-dream/#.UUU7ixemhc0...

And could current evidence in uptake nationality of 457 Visas give an indication of a refreshing return to a White Australia policy in disguise…Maybe Tony Abbott could best answer that one!

Hi DDan,

'Multiculturalism' is certainly not free of problems, but like 'democracy' or 'equality of opportunity', it is an ideal worth attaining. Yes, it may mean the suspension of cultural practices which conflict with the notions of equality and the rule of law.

For example, slavery may still be practiced in, for example, Mauretania (slaves were allowed to vote in elections there for the first time in about 2006), but one must presume that any slave-owners migrating from Mauretania will not be allowed to bring their slaves with them, or practice slavery here, no matter how hallowed that cultural tradition may be back home.

I have no problems with people coming to Australia and making their homes here, no matter where they might be from, as long as those post-Enlightenment principles are observed, equality, democratic rights and freedoms for all, and observation of the rule of law.

And having been happily inter-married myself for more than forty years, I would recommend it for all of our children as well. If that is what gets up people's noses about multiculturalism, then I'm all for multiculturalism. Haven't you noticed how beautiful our children are these days, compared to fifty years ago ? Imagine the next fifty years - the lucky generations !

Cheers,

Joe

Jay,

I watched the video. Imagine if a white person had said something like that! You have to wonder why our elites can't just look at the evidence instead of following some blind belief. The US kept importing cheap labour because they wanted an easy way to grow the economy. Now they have so many illegals they can't actually fix the problem. That is astounding. The only superpower allowed itself to lose control of its own boarders so that now there are so many illegals in the coutry any party that wants to stay in power must basically legalise them. They have lost control of their destiny.

Joe,

I don't doubt that there are successful multicultural marriages. I'm thinking at the national level though. What benefit does it bring to Australia to be multicultural? Better food? Or is it just an ideological belief that a room full of white faces must be somehow 'bad' and that multicoloured faced is somehow 'good'? Why is it we are so intent on destroying our own civilisation? I just don't understand it. Does anyone truely believe that if today's multicultural London went through somethink like the blitz people would pull together and work for the common good like they did in 1940? Who honestly believes poeple would 'keep calm and carry on'?

Jo:

…I am very pleased you attribute “Happily Married” to Multiculturalism. I too support Multiculturalism if Multiculturalism supports a White Australia policy with a firmly-fixed focus on Europe; particularly the British Isles. Experience and History have proved the strength and suitability of the genetic pool of the “Angles” and its adaptability. It’s a cultural “thing” Joe. Mixing cultures is mixing oil and water. Sure, oil will float indefinitely on water, but a subservient “Culture” is unknown.

…I remember as a bare-foot brat watching the “ Israelites” as they wandered around town. I would stop and stare; and they would stare back, with long hair tied-off with a rubber band and wearing strange little hats…and always carrying a book! That was before the “Beatles”. And I always wondered about the Beatles after that; If it weren't that they were British, I am sure I would have been suspicious of them too Joe! Foreigners can’t be trusted.

…Anyway Joe, read my post above, and the link to the Japanese suspicion of Foreigners; it’s endemic world-wide!

Dan,

To the extent that I can understand what you are trying to say, no, I don't 'equate' happy marriage with multiculturalism, but I certainly don't think they are incompatible.

And I certainly don't think that a white Australia is either desirable or worth fighting for. Australia has been multi-national from Day One - I don't mean just Aboriginal and British, but Aboriginal, Anglos, Jewish, African, and Irish, for a start, right from 26.1.1788.

Javanese and Macassarese and Timorese have been inter-'relating' with Aboriginal people across the North for centuries. We've always been multicultural in that sense.

There have been Chinese here since around the 1820s, 'Afghans' (i.e. what we now would call South Asians) since the 1840s if not earlier. African-Americans have been migrating here, as gold-miners, as workers, as Minstrels, since before the 1850s. And so on.

White Australia was a sh!t policy, which didn't even work from the beginning. It certainly wouldn't work now. An as long as all Australians, Aboriginal, British-originated and otherwise, adhere to the notions of equality, standard freedoms and the rule of law, then we'll all get along fine.

And if you don't like it, find somewhere else :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dr. Colin Rubenstein is proving the credentials of what the Israeli lobby are best at - using personal attack, false accusations, distortions and lies, when bankrupt and having no argument. This is nothing new, the ABC television Media Watch accused Dr. Rubenstein on 6 May 2002 of “spreading misleading information” of his own.
While I avoided mentioning any personal things against the officers of this Israeli lobby and provided evidence of their long years of concentrated activities aiming to damage Arabs and Muslims image and reputation through invited experts in this field, they attacked me personally giving lies and half-truths.
Dr. Rubenstein claimed that I “promoted rejectionism, extremism, conspiracy theories and engaged in apologetics for terrorism”, and that my “behaviour” while PLO representative made me “unwelcome in many quarters in Canberra.” All these are not true. Unfortunately On Line Opinion’s roles does not allow any more discussion and my reply giving all the evidence is longer than this space would allow.
For years AIJAC tried to discredit me to the extent of making up stories, but they miserably failed.
As for AIJAC’s trio leaders engagements in Religious Dialogue, Reconciliation and Multicultural Australia, this is simply nothing but a convenient division of roles for gaining respectability and cover-up of their uncritical support to Israel, a state guilty of ethnic cleansing, colonisation, oppression and racial discrimination against its non-Jewish population, whom I am one of its victims. It is a clever public relations exercise to serve Israel’s interests and use inside influence. What AIJAC has to do, for example, with Religious Dialogue, when it is not a religious organisation nor represent the Jewish community? Mr. Johnny Barker, former Mount Scopus Memorial College was reported in the AJN on 25.6.2004 as saying “The involvement of private organisations such as the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council had weakened communal roof bodies”, and Liz Wise wrote in the same newspaper on 2.7.2004, “Dr. Rubenstein is unelected [yet] claims to speak on behalf of all Australian Jews…I challenge him to step outside his neo-conservative rhetoric to discover the opinion held by other Jews..

This article from Open Democracy sums up the issues and problems pretty well:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/rumy-hasan/tensions-between-muslim-identity-and-western-citizenship

It certainly gives those of us on the Left something to think about.

Joe