So here we have a lady who proclaims her loyalty to a Muslim country, that actually bombs it's own minorities, lecturing us on human rights. Obviously Islam is the religion of the ruthless.

It is about time we reclaimed our country from the stupidity that was multiculturalism, always only a way to pay leaders of ethnic communities for their loyalty to the left while wasting billions, & get back to just one Australia.

No dual citizenship should be permitted. With that gone, we will perhaps find only those committed to Australia & it's values applying for citizenship.

Labelling people in a way that stereotypes them in some political correct way does not really help anything.
It only makes things worse, and turns the majority into irrational crazy people.

Pauline Hanson's quote that "she is not targeting Muslims but targeting the ideology what Islam stands for" is valid enough.

Whether Pauline or the people attending Reclaim Australia type rallies are actually racist or not isn't the issue.

People who use the 'racist card' whether or not its valid are trying to block discussion of the actual issues.

IMO when the media focuses on Islamic extremists running wild all across the planet chopping peoples heads off then its only reasonable that an increase in Islamic population, culture and influence in our country would be treated as a concern by the existing population.
Islamaphobia on some level is at least reasonable to expect and it need not be racist.

Whether or not I do or don't agree with what is said by these people I most certainly respect the courage they show standing up to discuss these issues in the face of today's difficult politically correct world.

Rather than attack the motivations of the people making speeches and attending the rally's why don't you argue the message?

If you want Sharia law, then why don't you just advocate it?
If you want to remove Christmas, Australia Day, Anzac Day and remove Australians rights and their right to free speech, why not just make a forum piece arguing for that?
If you think pride in the Australian flag and anthems a bad thing why not just say so?

??

If you have a better argument than that which others present then why not just present your own argument if you think its meritorious in its own right?
Why attack others in the first place?

IMO, Your 'attacks upon others' based argument is really an effort THAT USES racism and political correctness AS A TOOL to both dissuade people from standing up for what they believe in and to dissuade anyone else from listening.

ttbn

"Islam is NOT a race, so how does this woman think people are "ignorant" for saying saying so?"

Agreed, Islam isn't a race it's a ideology, it's also strange that the author seems to think that religions aren't ideologies when she claims that---

"Islam is usually viewed as an ideology rather than a religion."

Of course it's an ideology.

If Islam is essentially a tolerant and peaceful faith, why are majority Muslim societies such as they are, usually violent, oppressive and technologically backward.

I would like to know which particular multicultural Australia the author seeks to 'reclaim'. Would she like to reclaim the Australia that my parents migrated to in the sixties, where migrants of all races and cultures were ALL expected to 'integrate' and leave behind those which were unAustralian? Or would she prefer the earlier version of multicultural Australia - with its white Australia policy?

I too am sick of the race card being misused. Race and culture and religion are NOT the same.

Personally, I don't have a problem with any of the demands the author attributes to Reclaim Australia. But, unlike most Reclaim Australia supporters, I would like to see the removal of all religious interventions - including Christianity.

We all need public and secular schools and hospitals - we DO NOT need religion, full stop. It is a personal choice.

The laws of Australia should apply to all without favour or exception.

I have just begun to read the book by Klaus
Neumann, "Across The Seas: Australia's
Response to Refugees A History."

It promises to be an interesting read.

Arnold Zable in the book's Foreword turns the
spotlight back on the present where he points
out that in 2015, at the time of writing asylum seekers
who have in recent years sought protection in
Australia are incarcerated both in onshore and
offshore detention centres. Many others remain in limbo
out in the community on various types of temporary
visas. The centres on Nauru and Manus Island are
hellholes, the inmates' agony compounded by isolation.
Out of sight, out of mind is the name of the game.

Journalists are not permitted. Information is hard to
come by. Disturbing claims of sexual abuse, beatings,
self-harm and attempted suicides are denied, but
proven true on the rare occasions when independent
investigators are allowed access.

And yet, Zable tell us to -

"Take, for instance, Melbourne, the great cosmopolitan city
in which the book is published. In this sprawling
metropolis the impact of past policy is made visible.
We witness the creativity and energy of the diverse and
varied communities that have made their way to our shores
and been allowed to settle, whatever the reason. We see
the impact of the many cultures whose migration stories the
author Neumann has documented. We see, for instance, how within
just a few years the local Hazara community has helped transform
the city of Dandenong into a thriving metropolis."

Zable agrees with Neumann in his conclusion, "there is nothing
self-evident or natural about Australia's current response to
asylum seekers and refugees." He hopes instead to have
encouraged the reader "to imagine alternative futures," which
"take into account Australia's capacity to assist people
in need of a new home, its responsibility as a regional
power, its legal obligations as a member of an international
community, and, most importantly, the precarious circumstances
of the men, women, and children who are seeking Australia's
protection."

cont'd ...

In Australia the public debates over refugee
policy and intense and vigorously contested.
Many claims and assertions are made about past
responses to refugees as being better or worse
than contemporary responses, or as being better
or worse when compared to those of other
countries. While Australia may have officially
abandoned the White Australia policy by the 1970s,
the debates over the "suitability" of
particular groups for re-settlement have never
ceased.

In 1947 the first source for immigrants remained the
British Isles. "Non-White" immigrants included
not only Chinese and Japanese, but also Jews and
Southern Europeans. As these groups became accepted as
part of White Australia, other groups were placed beyond
the boundaries of acceptability.

It is as Zable tells us "a great irony that in recent
years, Lebanese and Vietnamese Australians could
demonstrate their belonging to White Australia "not
least by joining the chorus that demanded the exclusion of
Hazara, Iranian and Tamil "boat people."

It will be interesting to see who will make it to
the exclusion lists after the Muslims in the future of
this country. Interesting to look into the future's
crystal ball and see the Australian story in the context
of global refugee movements, and international
responses to them compared to our own.