Dear Is Mise,

I'm a love-it-or-hate-it person.

I don't waffle!

Dear Joe,

I knew you'd like it.

"Quiet people have the loudest minds."
(Steven Hawking). ;-)

Hi Forum

I did reply to Yuyutu's comment ..... in trying to seek a "positive" in his comments.

Such post was "deleted" .....don't know why.

Please - don't tell me this forum is now becoming PC correct?

Foxy,

I too was struck by this quote from Dr Soutphommasane's speech:

"Contrary to its critics, Australian multiculturalism has never sanctioned a form of cultural relativisms.... There must be a commitment to liberal democratic values – to parliamentary democracy, to the rule of law, to equality of the sexes, to freedom of speech...."

Seems to exclude Muslims then, surprised that you posted it.

Well I genuinely think Sakeem Khan is a fraud, and a hypocrite.
He's either completely deluded, or a person deliberately wanting to disrupt our society and cause disunity and civil unrest.

I'd like to think I gave him a reasonable chance to show us that he true believes in what he preaches and despite his short response, however I did learn enough that I can safely conclude he completely failed the litmus test.

I think his article is designed to incite unrest rather than promote national unity, and I'd like to explain why I think he's full of it.

Now I did come out somewhat hard against Sakeem, in order to elicit a response:
I wanted to know if he was for real when he spoke about 'national unity' or whether he was full of it.

This argument could've gone two ways:
1. He could've acknowledged that some Australians have reasons for concern in regards to Muslims and immigrants; as evidenced by a poll during the last election that showed the majority of Australians were concerned about it (Can anyone find that poll again and link it please) and he could've made a show of allaying fears and a will to work together with patriotic Australians to try reconciling the differences and find a realistic way forward; but he didn't.
2. Instead he went the divisive path of labelling people (illigitimate), denigrating and marginalising them and their concerns.

THIS IS NOT THE WAY ONE WOULD ACT IF THE GENUINELY SOUGHT NATIONAL UNITY.

So I am asserting that by Sakeems own opinions/beliefs/actions - he's a fraud and a hypocite.
You can't have national unity if you are also attempting to label some people as illigitimate to stifle their particular concerns.
He's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
If you truly sought national unity you'd embrace those concerns in an attempt to overcome them.
Which is where the earlier comments 'completely deluded', and 'deliberately seeking disunity and civil unrest' are now relevant.

You cant fool all the people all the time Sakeem...

[Cont.]

[Cont.]

I want to note about liberal use of the word 'racist' and the harm that it can do.
I believe people like Sakeem use it to manipulate public opinion and to label and marginalise Australians who don't agree with his views.
Even if an Australians had reasonable and geniune concerns or prejudices people like Sakeen would attempt to stifle their views.
We should be mindful of the methods others use in attempt to divide us for their benefit.

Finally I want to talk about those 'so-called racists' themselves.
I want to put forward the idea that not all people are able to articulate their fears and concerns easily into words, or have a platform to voice these concerns.
Maybe they're facing differing levels of problems in different localities, so one size does not fit all.
These people who lack the skills to articulate their genuine fears and concerns into words or are more exposed to the issues in their neighbourhood might have a prevalence for expressing these genuine fears and concerns as 'racism'.
Also I want to put forward that its governments who ultimately fail to pay attention to their own citizens fears and concerns and have continued with bad policies and allowed situations to worsen.
Something to think about.

That's me, I'm officially done with this pile of trash thread.