Emperor,
You asked me for my definition of 'racist'. I gave a definition above, in the context of what has been discussed so far, in plain English.
- it is racist to believe that the only loyal citizen or true patriot of this nation must be an English speaking monolingual.

Phil Dye didn't quite go this far, yet he did lean this way by encouraging mistrust towards someone based upon the language they were speaking. (His article in general didn't do a lot for me. I thought it was a bit shallow. But al least he's being open and honest, which is the first step in a reasoned discussion.)

You claim I'm trying to silence discussion. On the contrary. I'm not trying to silence anyone. Feel free to critique me, or anyone else, or their belief system.

What I would wish is to promote discussion and understanding. Yet it happens to be a simple fact that not everyone speaks the same language. We, as Australians, have different backgrounds and cultures. And promoting mistrust of others simply on the basis of their language is not helpful. Let's rather explore each other's differences. We might even learn something. We might even learn that others are not as different as we first thought. Or even if they are, we can grow in our cultural understanding.

Dan S de Merengue,

Why is your English not as good as your French and Kriol?

Dan S de Merengue wrote: "You asked me for my definition of 'racist'. I gave a definition above, in the context of what has been discussed so far, in plain English.
- it is racist to believe that the only loyal citizen or true patriot of this nation must be an English speaking monolingual."

I've searched and searched and can't find Dan S de Merengue's definition of race or racist. His supposed example of "racist" is one based on language, not race.

There are very few English-speaking monolinguals in Australia but the English language is the official language of, among other things, the conduct of law and the representative system of parliament that passes for "democracy".

It is arrogant (though not racist) to address a nation, in which one claims official status, in the language of a Middle Eastern desert tribe. It is not racist to call out this arrogance.

A race is a subset of humanity that is characterised by elements of genetic inheritance not shared by the rest of humanity. It is not a language and it is not a cult such as Islam.

Racism is treating people on the basis of their race (not their religion, not their language) and is especially egregious when it treats them as racially superior (or God-chosen) vs inferior. Racism is (rightly in my opinion) reviled as severe character defect. This is why confidence tricksters hijack the term to discourage on false grounds rejection of what the confidence tricksters wish to protect. An example is the use of the term anti-Semitism (a form of racism) by those wishing to protect Zionism (which really is racist). Another is the use of the term “racist” by ABC and SBS ideologues to label opponents of Islam.

It is also hijacked by those few who would wish to impose the curse of Babel on Australia

Julian,

"There are very few English-speaking monolinguals in Australia but the English language is the official language of, among other things, the conduct of law and the representative system of parliament that passes for "democracy"".Surely that was a typo?

The majority of Australians are monolingual English speakers.

Sorry, Is Mise, I didn't make myself clear. By "monolingual" English speakers I meant day to day language English and no knowledge of any other language. I an assuming that very many Australians have some learning of a second language at school. Yes, English is the language of the overwhelming number if Australians and English is our national language (unconvincingly disputed by Dan S de Merengue) in which law, administration and everyday speech are expressed.

//The majority of Australians are monolingual English speakers.//

But not the Queen's English.

Stone the flamin' crows, cobbers! Does it really matter whether we speak Strine, English, Scots Gaelic, Aramaic or whatever? A lot of brilliant scholars wrote in Latin and we only get to read translations (unless we know Latin); that doesn't make their work any less valuable. Dante's 'Divine Comedy' was not written in English but it still translates well; James Joyce's 'Ulysses' was written in English but it is still completely incomprehensible.

At the moment I am reading a translation of Dumas' classic, 'The Three Musketeers'. It's enjoyable, but I think I might enjoy it more if I was a native French-speaker and could read the original.

Some languages are easier for some people to learn. If I were to seriously apply myself to the study of German or French I could probably learn them relatively easily as if I was to try and learn an Asian language. A lot of Asian languages are tonal; the definition of a word depends on the pitch at which it is spoken. I'd find that hard to learn. But I have no problem looking at the words 'through' and 'trough' and knowing that the first rhymes with 'moo' and the second with 'off'. To us native English speakers that knowledge is second nature - for a Chinese person, it is as baffling and incomprehensible as their tonal languages are to us.

It's easier to learn new languages when you're young. A lot of older migrants have trouble learning the language of the country they move to.

Hab SoSlI' Quch.