Yuyutsu,
No, as I said earlier, it's my current view that Left and Right are essentially the same school of thought, differences of opinion are sectarian in nature, not fundamental.
Conservatives as we know them are just as committed to cosmopolitanism and egalitarianism as their Left counterparts, in Islam they (incorrectly) see an inegalitarian system which threatens their "Aussie" fair go. There are no inegalitarian schools of thought in Western society and no anti egalitarian movements to speak of, that's why I said egalitarianism is unassailable.
On Abbott, I'd agree, Boats and also Gay marriage aren't places where one needs to draw a line, this is an egalitarian society, as you say people aren't usually seriously committed on way or another, at least it's my experience that away from the internet people who take a stand on the issues usually do so on shaky premises which they'll abandon when pressed.

Joseph Wakim, founder of the Australian Arabic Council and former Victorian Multicultural Affairs Commissioner.
Why am I not surprised?
Another alien lecturing Australians about what our values should be.

"a cartoonist could have a field day depicting two tribal elders watching the white sails"

It's been done. Years ago.

I shake my head at your inability to see your own irony/hypocrisy.

Of course, the Aborigines didn't welcome the "boats" or their alien occupants with strange beliefs/culture.
I'm sure they didn't shed a tear when hearing that yet another shipload of invaders was lost in the Atlantic or Indian Oceans.

And I'm sure, had they had the weapons/technology, they would have resisted their displacement with *enthusiastic violence*.

"the disruption, diseases and destruction"
Oh yes, it was a tragedy when it happened to them.
When it happens to us, party time!

Aborigines displaced?: Boo hoo!
White Australians displaced?: Hip hip hooray!

STFU.

Onya, Shockie.

Cripes shockie!
I was trying to manipulate Willem into admitting that immigrants/refugees are alotted a position in a hierarchy based on race not need and you've cut right to the chase.
What's the difference between an Australian White and an Australian Aboriginal if all they've ever known is life in Australia and whose identities are both enmeshed with the land and it's people?
The only difference is race...heresy I know but fortunately for the voices of reason you can't unring a bell.

Jay, it sounds to me like you are saying that those objecting to non-Western migrants MUST be racists. I would counter that 'racist' is not the right description here. I can easily imagine that the Legos of this world would be equally indignant at the arrival of heaps of white Russians who then choose to live in their own enclaves and agitate against perceived injustices in this society. Where's the racism here? No, I think the Legos dislike the change in character such people might bring to the nation. Cosmopolitanism, liberalism and egalitarianism are fine concepts for the Legos of this world as long as they don't threaten the existing 'flavour' of the nation. Of course one could argue against such protectiveness, but it remains a valid proposition to want to preserve a certain way of life. We wouldn't object if the Tongans or Fijians or Ugandans would do that in their own countries. Why can't the Legos do it in Australia?

Human beings are tribal and territorial. If there is one thing which unites all of humanity, it is the cultural universal of wishing to live among people that you consider your kith and kin, who's behaviour you understand, and with whom you feel safe with.

My premise (and Shockie's) is, that the so called "anti racists" see nothing wrong with any ethnic group wishing to protect their own culture, provided that they are not white. If "aboriginal groups" demand "self determination" and the right to live entirely on "their" racially apartheid areas to protect their own culture , that is OK. But white people must never do the same thing.

The culture of the North European protestant people is renowned for creating rich, advanced societies with personnel freedoms unknown before in human history. What is wrong with people like myself wishing to protect my own successful culture from social suicide, from unchecked immigration? Tolerance can never be a moral absolute because if you tolerate everything, you stand for nothing.

It is reasonable to make the conclusion by direct observation that too much immigration of incompatible immigrant groups will eventually destroy your own society. Almost every war going on at the moment is a race or religious civil war over who's cultural values take precedence in national legal jurisprudence. Therefore, racism in immigration is essential to the survival of my socially advanced culture.

What I object to, is an imported foreigner like Joseph Wakim, who's own Muslim civilisation is a failure and a disgrace, fleeing to my country and then having the effrontery to sneer at the idea that Australians should protect our own successful culture through restrictive immigration. If Australians were fleeing to Muslim lands because Islamic countries were rich, successful and free, I doubt if Wakim would object to Arabs protecting their culture from unchecked western immigration.

I base that on the fact that Muslims seem to be the world's foremost ethnic cleansers, with their own Prophet being the foremost advocate of such behaviour to protect and spread Muslim culture.