Red Neck,

Thank you for giving a pratical example of what racism is:
Double standards at looking at exact incidents: aborigines, others are criminals, the rich drunk catholic school boys had a good intention and may have regretted what they did.

Now that I know what you stand for, I will ignore your postings.
Enjoy living with yourself,

Chris Shaw I think when you wrote ..."The world IS multicultural" you actually meant "The WEST IS multicultural"

I, perhaps like you, have lived (not holidayed) in East Asia, the Middle East and Europe and you should check your demographics rather than rely upon wishful thinking of cultural bliss overseas.

China, for example, still finds in policy terms that it is 97% Han Chinese. The Saudis or the Japanese - how diverse are their societies? Visit their streets and see what you really think. It is the West that invites formal multiculturalism, it is the rest not the west that doesn't and who have to deal everyday with reality ie diversity that won't go away.

Most non-Western countries have explosive combinations of ethnicities which are suppressed to keep states or at least the incumbent's grip on power intact. This is hardly the same as pursuing a successful multicultural social policy.

Many non-western countries are not multicultural and find it hard to tolerate different peoples. I recently heard a Chechen complain that the "UK and USA just want us to get along with the Serbs here but we hate them and want to kill them". Understandable hostility without question but whose is the preferred policy direction RIGHT NOW? We all must get along and get over our historical cultural grievances no matter how revolting or recent, or not?

In Thailand, Philippines, failed Eastern states not to mention the Sudan etc etc, vicious unrest comes from supremacist muslims. Theirs is not an issue of multiculturalism, for they would end any notions of that sort of thing if they succeed, but of dogma. Victory would almost mean the death of any form of multiculturalism there as we understand it - if it existed at all in the first place.

Finally, from my POV, Australia is poly-ethnic not multicultural - obviously there are people from non-Australian backgrounds like my very own dear naturalised NESB father, yet here we are today ...all Australian ... including him, including me and including you presumably. That's the way to go.

To plantagenet,

Firstly, I'd like to clear up your (feigned) confusion over my identity. I am not Bronwyn. In fact, I'm not even female. You really shouldn't assume so much.

Secondly, I'm not advocating multiculturalism. In fact, I've always considered the term to be a politically correct delusion. In every society there is a dominant culture and, although influenced and shaped by a variety of other cultures, some level of cultural homogeneity is needed for social stability. My grandparents were migrants and they integrated as opposed to forming a diaspora with other non-Anglos. Even if Australia is a "cultural black hole".

The French model has obviously failed as it allowed its North African migrants to form non-integrating, insular communities. Contrast this with Germany which is home to several million Turks. The German model doesn't tolerate the notion of multiculturalism to the same degree that France does. As a result, the eastern districts of Berlin aren't burning.

Now that I've cleared that up, I'd like to state that the point of my original post was to demonstrate that the socio-economic problems faced by this country exist regardless of immigration. Australia could have the 'White Australia' policy still in place, but the same social problems would exist. Social disillusionment in this nation goes beyond some angry Muslims.

Wromg, wrong, wrong, Mr Oligarch.

Immigration is a two edged sword. The Achilles Heel of Capitalism is endless growth, and immigration has certainly helped to sustain Australian economic growth. But it is obvious that some ethnic groups make good citizens and are a boon to the country while other ethnic groups are the exact opposite. Asians and Italians in particular are noted for their work ethic while people from other ethnic groups are noted for their high levels of welfare dependency and criminal behaviour. Welfare is now the biggest debit in the Federal Government budget which gobbles up an amazing $60 billion dollar per year, five times the defence budget.

Exactly the same levels of unemployment in France found for Muslims can be found in Sydney. Unemployment for Muslim men in France stands at 19.5%, double the French average. While one half of the inmates in French jails are Muslims, even though they only represent 7% of the population. But in Sydney, unemployment in the Islamic community in Auburn is 26.2%, in Canterbury 20.3%, in Liverpool 20.2% while in the Melbourne suburb of Moonee Valley it is 39.1%. (ABS statistics)

Exactly the same unemployment characteristics that have been blamed for the intifada in France is now being repeated in this country. The only difference is that Muslims are 7% of the French population while they are only (thankfully) 2% of the Australian population. At least for now. Muslims are noted for having large families and continued immigration will soon put white Australians on the endangered species list along with the Yellow Footed Rock Wallaby.

Immigration may continue to provide economic growth for Australia, but whether that endless growth is sustainable in even the short term is debatable. But one thing is certain. If immigration is to continue then the primary goal of that policy must be that it exists for the benefit of Australians, not immigrants

Redneck I think you'll find thet the welfare budget is much greater.You are quoting the Federal Govt welfare bill.The states and all our councils also contribute towards welfare.It is a lot more than 60 billion.

So we have the cost of Federal Welfare and crime at 92 billion or $9200 pa per working person.These are the main reasons reasons for our high tax regime.Is it any wonder that the ordinary worker feels like a slave to the system?

Sorry Oligarch the style, content and quality of your arguments were too similar to Bronwyn's.

Analysing this in terms of law enforcement realities rather than a sociology classroom. These guys who fire bomb in France (lets hope it does not happen in Australia) are thugs who adopt parts of a perfectly good religion (Islam) to justify "tribal" violence.

I use the term tribal in the sense of young bloods proving their manhood be kicking the s... out of somebody.

You may intellectualise about this phenomenom all you wish but the thugs would probably laugh at the justifications you supply.