On Payman, there is nothing more self-entitled than getting elected to the Senate via the long-established rules and processes of the Labor Party only to leave at the first moment you disagree with them.

What a child!

Multiculturalism is the worst thing to have been inflicted on Australia and the West. We now look different, speak different languages, have different values, different religions, - and nothing in common. Just being “all humans” is not enough to keep the country together. Australia is falling apart.

And still the odds and sods immigrants flow in, thanks to a political class interested only in itself, not its country and certainly not its people. Too stupid to realise that they will disappear, too.

Of course, ‘the people’ have taken the abuse with barely a whimper.

Israel is currently at war with Palestine and Lebanon and in the past with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Helped by US munitions and no doubt satellite intelligence. If it was a suburban neighbourhood perhaps they're the ones who should move. Israel not only gets journalists sacked like Antoinette Latouf but their own special antisemitism envoy. At least the Voice and gay marriage went to a vote.

If Hamas killed 1,500 the IDF have recently killed 40,000 but that's apparently proportional. My guess is that surviving children might end up supporting Hamas. The next POTUS may not support Israel in which case Australia has not backed a winner. This is a shameful episode.

Of course, it is the received wisdom among the Australian "intelligentsia" (hi, Laura Tingle) that the peasants are terribly, terribly racist, and what will fix this is massive multicultural influxes from [racist] India and China.

Even after 1m migrants in 24m, Adam Bandt perceives a "disgusting, migrant bashing race to the bottom". Instead of him being taken off to a padded cell, his views are almost mainstream, he's admired for his "courage".

A very relevant article.

The White Australia policy was implemented to keep the peace from Anti Chinese riots.
Interestingly, the Darwin riots of late 1800,s have disappeared from Wikipedia. Censorship at work.
Multiculturalism is a baby from its birth in early sixties., but all politics is wedded to it.

The urgent issue before us is dealing with Islam on our shores. All Muslims have a propensity towards anti-Western Think: And Muslim women are forbidden to think for themselves, meaning the Muslim Women’s voice is in-genuine. There are NO soft Muslims.

Posted by Taswegian,

Disappointing. Usually you slightly left lean makes sense.
You’ve swallowed the radicals bait with your post above, which is coated with Arab oil money, and has manifested itself as rabid antisemitism.

Jews are now strongly advised to leave France ASAP. There are rising calls for Jews to leave Canada, and with a Muslim population in Australia favouring them 8 to one in Australia, this trend will soon manifest here. The rise in Antisemitism in the US is unprecedented, along with acts of violence spreading towards Christian places of worship.
This is truthful injustice which your views support, shame on you!

Graham. I suggest you go and read some of the real history of Palestine in Adel Safty's book Might over Right. Before the Balfour Declaration, Jews made up less than 10 percent of the Palestine population and you can hardly cite the Old Testament as an authorative justification for letting them take over Arab land.

The little girl from the West should be applauded for the stand she is taking against the murder of the legitimate women and children of Gaza.
Taswegian and I seem to be voices crying in the wilderness in the name of justice.

David

A multicultural West is a contradiction in terms; the only West that can be accommodating to other cultures is a West that knows itself and, on the strength of that understanding, encounter others. (David Gress, ‘From Plato to Nato’)

David, what is your basis for deciding that because someone was there prior to 1917 it gives them a superior claim over those who came after?

I didn't cite the Old Testament. I think it is an historical fact that there have been Jews in the country now called Israel for about 4,500 years. One doesn't need the Old Testament, or the New Testament to know that.

The Arabs have not been there for anywhere as long so if you want to use the "I was here first" argument, then Jews have a better claim than Arabs.

I favour dealing with things as they are, and as they are there is a thriving democracy called Israel made up of Jews who have lived there for thousands of years, Arabs who have lived there for maybe 800, and Jewish refugees who came in the 19th and 20th centuries.

There is no justification for conquering those people and taking their land away from them and forcing them to be refugees onto someone else's land, or killing them.

Don't quote books at me, do some thinking about the practical consequences of what you are proposing. Genocide is not something I support, but it appears to be something the books you read do.

Multiculturalism only works for so long in Western Countries until the money & therefore the good will also runs out.
That's why there's no multicultural society in any so-called Third world countries who don't have the funding nor the good will for such parasitic Academic idealist follies !

"this is the first time they’ve organised to support candidates along entirely ethnic and religious lines."

It is refreshing to see people, especially minorities, vote according to what is personally most important to them.

I personally find it silly to care about ethnic origins and groupings, nor do I consider Islam or Christianity (in the sense of the article) to be true religions, thus worth defending, but hey, for Fatima Payman this seems to be what matters most and I hope she also truly represents her voters in what matters most to them.

The article calls this "a level of sectarianism that no one alive can recall ever seeing previously in Australia" - I welcome it, I welcome when people express their true wishes rather than follow the herd and political parties which are irrelevant to ordinary people, I welcome when people and their interests are truly represented, whatever they be - I wish someone was representing mine!

The author praises Westernism, liberalism, capitalism and democracy.

Of these four, we have plenty of painful Western capitalism and only a pinch of democracy and liberalism.

Liberalism simply means "live and let live", but this is hardly the case around the world, including in Australia - instead we are beset by a thick web of legislation and bureaucracy ordering us how to live, what we must do and what we are not allowed to do, which the author lovingly refers to as the "Christian legal system". That others (including, but not limited to, Muslim countries) do even worse is not a valid excuse and offers no comfort.

Hi Taswegian,

"If Hamas killed 1,500 the IDF have recently killed 40,000 but that's apparently proportional."
- It was 1200, and Israel killed many of them itself.

Israeli army used Hannibal Directive during October 7 Hamas attack: Report
'The directive is a controversial policy of Israel’s military aimed at preventing the capture of its soldiers.'
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/7/israeli-army-used-hannibal-directive-during-october-7-hamas-attack-report
- Some including myself stated this, many others preferred a narratime.

"My guess is that surviving children might end up supporting Hamas."
- I also said on October 8 this would be a Hamas recruitment drive.
Just maybe not the orphaned toddler amputees.

Dear Graham,

«I didn't cite the Old Testament. I think it is an historical fact that there have been Jews in the country now called Israel for about 4,500 years. One doesn't need the Old Testament, or the New Testament to know that.»

There is archaeological evidence for the existence of a kingdom named "Yisrael" from the 10th century B.C. on, located in the northern part of present Israel, that is 3,000 years ago.

There is also archaeological evidence for the existence of a significantly smaller kingdom called "Yehudah" (Judea) to its south, around Jerusalem.

Both were vassal states of the Assyrian empire, as clearly inscribed on Assyrian scrolls.
At times they warred against each other.
The kingdom of Israel ended and all its population was exiled between 722-733 B.C., after it attempted to revolt against the Assyrian empire.
The Assyrians used to disperse and assimilate rebellious kingdoms throughout the empire, thus within a generation no Israeli identity remained.
Judea did not revolt and continued to pay its taxes to the empire and therefore remained.
Once Israel was no more, Judea had more breathing space and started to grow.

All claims of a close relation between Israel and Judea, including them having common ancestors and a brief period of joining into one kingdom (under kings David and Solomon), are Biblical. Science finds that very unlikely and provides good and fascinating explanations as to when, how and why the relevant Biblical claims were made, in the 7th century B.C, when no Israeli remained alive to confirm or deny these claims.

The Jews (excluding later converts) as they are now known, originate from the kingdom of Judea, not Israel.

As for the Arabs who live in and around Israel, many of them are also descendants of Judea, regardless of their later conversion into Islam.

This is not to deny Israel of legitimate claims to its land - which it has, only that they stem from modern times rather than from ancient and unsubstantiated books.

Dear Yuyutsu

I agree with most of your points but there is a skerrick of evidence of an alliance between Judah and the” House of David” in the Tel Dan stele, which dates from the 9th century BCE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_stele#:~:text=The%20Tel%20Dan%20Stele%20is,to%20the%20house%20of%20David.

This does not, of course, prove that Biblical accounts of the origins of the Jews are completely historically accurate, but the Hebrew, Christian and Islamic scriptures do incorporate quite a bit of actual history in their interpretation of their respective faiths (as you correctly point out in reference to the Assyrians).

Dear Rhian,

«but there is a skerrick of evidence of an alliance between Judah and the” House of David”»

You must have meant an alliance between the House of David (i.e. Judea) in the south and Israel (not Judah) in the north.

Yes, there is no reason to think that David never existed, he likely did, and ruled over Judea - only the claim that he ruled over a united kingdom, over Israel too, appears in the Bible alone, contrary to archaeological evidence.

There is archeaological evidence of Hebrew occupation of Israel and Judea going back to 1200 BC. The Canaanite cities of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer show signs of conquest by Jews in 1200 and the Merneptah Steele references Israel in 1208 BC.

In Jesus' time there were Jews living in Galilee and Judea, and the Samaritans, who were essentially Jews, but with a modified religious system, all lived in parts of what we now call modern Israel.

My point was never that the Jews had exclusive possession of the area, but that they have a better claim on the basis of tenure than the Arabs who only conquered the area in the 600s, were expelled in the 1000s and came back in the 1200s.

I think all of that is moot in that historically populations are mobile and the Jews are currently in possession. Somewhere in the late 20th century we decided that conquest or occupation were not the right ways to acquire land from others. That memo apparently didn't reach Hamas or Hezbollah.

Israel was perfectly happy for the Arabs to live in Gaza and build a modern society there, but the Arabs are apparently not interested in dealing with life as it is, rather than as they would like it to be.

"Israel was perfectly happy for the Arabs to live in Gaza and build a modern society there, but the Arabs are apparently not interested in dealing with life as it is, rather than as they would like it to be".

Graham, you have got it all back to front. At the time of the Balfour Declaration, there were only about 8 percent of the population who were Jews who all got on well with one another. Then the Zionists came along and upset the applecart, big time.

David

My apologies Yuyutsu, you are correct.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

« Multiculturalism is the worst thing to have been inflicted on Australia and the West. We now look different, speak different languages, have different values, different religions, - and nothing in common. Just being “all humans” is not enough to keep the country together. Australia is falling apart. »
.

The proximate cause of multiculturalism in Australia was the American Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. That was the day the UK lost its 13 colonies in America. It could no longer send its convicts there and decided to send them to Australia instead – a pristine country occupied by primitive Aboriginal tribes, considered to belong to nobody.

The arrival of the first batch of convicts in Botany Bay in 1788 marked the beginning of multiculturism in Australia.

It certainly created havoc among the Aboriginal tribes. It was a human tragedy.

That was 236 years ago, and our Aboriginal peoples have still not completely recovered.

But, happily, subsequent waves of immigration from around the world have been integrated peacefully and successfully. Though the overall development continues to remain positive, the current economic cycle calls for a slowdown in our migrant intake.

Albanese recently pledged to cut immigration to a “sustainable level” with the government planning to reduce net migration to a roughly pre-pandemic level of 235,000 by 2027.

In particular, the government has announced a “crackdown”, on visas for students, the biggest migrant cohort, as many are gaming the system by enrolling in dud courses.

Our system for selecting and admitting migrants is reputed to be one of the most sophisticated in the world, designed to admit skilled workers when and where needed and only those who authentically qualify for humanitarian admission.

In a survey last year 78% said immigration made Australia stronger. But most of them would prefer less of it. Two polls in December found that around 60% think the current intake is too high.

The situation is not dramatic but needs to be adjusted.

.

ttbn, it’s the sycophant propaganda arm of the government & Wokes/Rainbow Mafia along with world paedophile organisations gagging anyone who dares question their agendas. WA Labor had presented to Parliament, a petition with 32,000 signatures on it which was totally ignored in the… wait for it, “democratic process” of passing new Firearms legislation. In a not dissimilar process, in 2003, the Australian government of the day sent the ADF to fight the ‘War on Terror’. The rule of law has and still is, being eroded, Bill by Bill, Act by Act and very little is taught to anyone regarding creeping fascism/communism by proxy. It is not contained to any one party. The few senators and parliamentarians who recognise the enemies of democracy for who they are and do say something are howled down & derided by party hacks and sycophants (above ‘mentioned).

There's always been people who have argued strongly
against official multiculturalism. That it represented
"a threat to the very basis of Australian culture,
identity and shared values."

As Banjo Paterson so rationally explained - multiculturalism
has been and is a cultural characteristic of a shared
Australian identity, alongside Australia's First Nations
traditions and its British institutions.

Our national identity continues to evolve and grow from
pre-settlement to today, and into the future. Migration is
fundamental to the Australian Story.

As for Fatima Payman and other Australian politician's
views on the plight of the Palestinians?

The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion
and the conclusion is loud and clear:

Israel's occupation and annexation of the Palestinian
territories are unlawful and its discriminatory laws and
policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on
racial segregation and apartheid.

No matter how long a word like multiculturalism is used, it still doesn't conceal its meaning-Anti White !

I have sympathies with both camps on this issue. I think that Australia has benefited, and continues to benefit, greatly from its ethnic, cultural and religious diversity and, as other posters have pointed out, modern Australia’s origins as a colony mean almost all of us are migrants or descendants of migrants.

But … I also think migrants have a duty to respect and uphold the customs and core values of the countries they move to.

There was an interesting opinion piece in yesterday’s Australian by Alexander Downer which covered similar ground to Graham’s piece here on OLO. It quotes conservative British philosopher Roger Scruton as saying “we can welcome immigrants only if we welcome them into our culture, and not beside and against it”.

This doesn’t mean he advocates total integration. Scruton’s original article also says “We don’t require everyone to have the same faith, to lead the same kind of family life, or to participate in the same festivals. But we have a shared moral and legal inheritance, a shared language, and a shared public sphere.”

It’s worth reading:

https://spectator.org/multiculturalism-r-i-p/

Ps – I have forgotten how to insert web addresses as hyperlinks on OLO – can someone remind me?

Dear Graham,

«There is archeaological evidence of Hebrew occupation of Israel and Judea going back to 1200 BC. The Canaanite cities of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer show signs of conquest by Jews in 1200 and the Merneptah Steele references Israel in 1208 BC.»

There is plenty evidence for the existence of a tribe around that time called "Ivrim" (English "Hebrews"), meaning those who crossed [the river] - but there is no consensus over who they were.
It is believed they owned land either in northern Israel or near Damascus, Syria.

Other than the Bible, there is no indication connecting the Hebrews with Judea or Jews.

It is also evident that there were wars at the time among the Canaanites where cities changed hands. The Judeans may or may not have been among the winners, but even then, since Judaism did not yet exist, ethnic Judeans could not have yet been Jewish at the time by any modern criterion.

The Merneptah Steele shows trade relations between Egypt and Israel. The existence of the kingdom of Israel is not disputed, only the Biblical claim of its close relations with Judea to its south, where lived the people who eventually, much later, produced Judaism.

«In Jesus' time there were Jews living in Galilee and Judea, and the Samaritans, who were essentially Jews, but with a modified religious system, all lived in parts of what we now call modern Israel.»

None of them could be recognised as Jews as we know them today, but anyway, they all were Judeans.

The Samaritans originated from Judeans that were never exiled, who continued to live in Judea and meanwhile married local, non-Judean, women. When Ezra returned from exile, with powers vested by the Persian king to rebuild Judea (which by then included parts of former Israel), he ordered these people to immediately divorce their foreign wives and forsake their children born of them, or else... so as they were naturally unwilling to do so, they fled to Samaria and there established their new community and temple. That's why Samaritans were so despised at the times of Jesus.

Dear Rhian,

«Ps – I have forgotten how to insert web addresses as hyperlinks on OLO – can someone remind me?»

Just remove the 's' from the "https" in the link, thus
https://spectator.org/multiculturalism-r-i-p/
becomes
http://spectator.org/multiculturalism-r-i-p/

«But … I also think migrants have a duty to respect and uphold the customs and core values of the countries they move to.»

Why? Is that because the natives are stronger and have a police that can squash them?
What if their values are morally and ethically superior than that of the natives?
What in the world possibly grants any particular ethnic/cultural group exclusive rights over God's lands and continents? Is it their military might?

.

Dear Rhian,

.

You wrote :

« There was an interesting opinion piece in yesterday’s Australian by Alexander Downer … It quotes conservative British philosopher Roger Scruton as saying “we can welcome immigrants only if we welcome them into our culture, and not beside and against it”.

This doesn’t mean he advocates total integration. Scruton’s original article also says “We don’t require everyone to have the same faith, to lead the same kind of family life, or to participate in the same festivals. But we have a shared moral and legal inheritance, a shared language, and a shared public spher »
.

In my view, Rhian, Scruton describes just the beginning of the process.

Alexander Downer quotes Scruton as saying, “We can welcome immigrants only if we welcome them into our culture …”. That’s the first step. The second step is the interaction of and reciprocal immersion into each other’s culture. The third step is genetic interaction.

Like everything human, nations are in constant evolution. None are entirely isolated from the others. They all interact and crossbreed to varying degrees. There is no such thing as pure “race” or pure culture among humans.

We even share genes with the rest of nature, not just with other human beings of different nationalities. We share 98.8% of our genome with chimpanzees, 75% with chickens, and even 60% with banana trees – not to mention, of course, the rest of our kindred in the animal kingdom as well as all the other life species.

According to a recent study, the first people to call themselves British were predominantly descended from northern Europeans.

Over 400 years of mass migration from the northern Netherlands and Germany, as well as southern Scandinavia, provide the genetic basis of many English residents today.

The arrival of Europeans between 400 and 800CE, including the Angles from which the word England is derived, accounted for 76% of the genetics of the British population at that time.

Subsequent arrivals diluted this proportion in Britons in eastern England to about 50%. Celtic remains high in southwest England, Wales and Scotland.

.

I have sympathies with both camps on this issue. I think that Australia has benefited,
Rhian,
Definitely yes however, in recent decades when intercontinental travel became literally too easy, travellers arrived unfiltered & ignorant & with unrealistic expectations & for the wrong reasons. When migrants came by sea the voyage provided opportunities to mingle & learn from fellow migrants which helped to form a much healthier mentality by the time they arrived at the lands they expected to give them a new life. They had the chance to adjust their expectations unlike with a fifteen hour flight where they arrived with an unchanged mindset & unenlightened unlike their predecessors. Just look how the migrants of yesteryear helped build Nations unlike the modern migrants who step off the plane with their hands held out & intentions of changing the land that took them in. In bygone years such changes were generally for the the better of all but lately have the opposite effect. Uncontrolled immigration facilitated by indifferent & agenda-driven immigration officers has created the deliberate causing of disunity here. Migration is supposedly to look for a better existence & building Nations not just running from responsibility & migrants demanding for the hosts to change & sacrifice their lifestyle !

What if their values are morally and ethically superior than that of the natives?
Yuyutsu,
That's why we need immigration officers working for Australia instead of immigration agents working for their Bank accounts !

Dear Indyvidual,

«That's why we need immigration officers working for Australia instead of immigration agents working for their Bank accounts !»

Had there been no immigration officers, immigration agents too would find themselves out of job!

Dear Yuyutsu

Thanks for the tip!

I think migrants have an obligation to respect the cultures and values of the societies they join for several reasons. One is that it is simply courtesy. Migrants are here by choice, and it is reasonable for a host community to expect those wanting to join it to abide by its rules. I wouldn’t join my local chess club and then insist that I would only play Scrabble.

Failing to integrate can cause social damage. Downer’s article points out that, in Europe, the tendency of some migrants to cluster in communities where they persist with their original language, religion, values and customs can provoke hostility, resentment and racism in other residents which in turn fuels alienation and grievance in the migrant community. This is harmful to both groups – for example in the way anger about migration has contributed to the rise in the far right in France.

More importantly, it prevents the gradual mutual integration described by Banjo. Diversity benefits society because migrants and host communities watch and learn from each other, copying the best bits and abandoning the worst. Food is a trivial but obvious example – “cultural appropriation” from migrants has greatly improved my dinnertimes!

There is also a communal dimension to this.

From a classical liberal perspective, migrants should be free to act according to their own customs and values except where this harms others, and I’d mostly accept this. But conservates like Scruton emphasise the importance of shared values, traditions and culture for a healthy and successful society, and I think he has a point. One of his last speeches was a fierce defence of western civilization:

http://theimaginativeconservative.org/2022/08/thing-called-civilization-roger-scruton-timeless.html

(yay, link!)

At the leftwing end of the collectivist ideological spectrum, identity politics insist that we are primarily defined by the ethnic, religious, gender etc categories we belong to. This underpins what I consider the worst manifestations of multiculturalism, which elevates and perpetuates conflict between groups and seeks to de-legitimise the prevailing culture in favour of perceived oppressed minorities.

Dear Banjo

I agree with much of what you say – cultures and values are constantly evolving and the various perspectives that migrants bring can contribute to that in many different ways, some positive and some not. I think in Australia the outcome has been overwhelmingly positive, but we may need some tweaks to keep it that way.

You are right, too, that “pure” race is a fallacy, and especially that those of us of British origins are mongrels with bits of Celt, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman and other various European ancestry. Even the Celts were migrants who arrived in Britain in about 1,000 BCE.

Part of the problem is that there seem to be two concepts of “multiculturalism”, which I explore a bit in my response above to Yuyutsu. One is based broadly in individualism - respecting people’s rights to live, dress, worship, eat and believe as they please so long as exercising those rights does no harm to others, and celebrating the diversity this facilitates. The other is collectivist, based in identity politics which values people according to the categories they belong to – race, religion, gender etc – and then assigns greater legitimacy to groups perceived as oppressed. It is the latter I think that can be socially destructive

Dear Rhian,

Granted - people who wish to join a society need to respect its culture and values.

And no society is obliged to accept any people into its ranks, whether that be because they don't share its culture and values, or for any other reason whatsoever.

But do all migrants wish to join a society?

I, for one, did not. I came here because I wanted to live in this continent - I had no desire to join the Australian society (which I reluctantly had to put up with) and would have been more than happy to be left alone out in the bush.

Migrating birds too, have no desire to join a society, yet they arrive and nobody expects them to integrate - so what in the world allows you to treat humans worse than birds?

You elabourated and made good points regarding what in immigration benefits society and what does not, but as I see it, this is irrelevant because it is not our place to tell who may or may not enter this continent. We have every right to accept or not people into our society, but not into the land: I disagree with the notion as if any land is the exclusive property of a given society - and why would it?

Many societies can and already do live on the same land simultaneously - there is the human Australian society, but also societies of cats, societies of dogs, societies of kangaroos, societies of ants, etc. Why then should only one society of humans be allowed over this whole continent?

Did any human society create their land?
In my view, the land, any land, belongs to its Creator.

Scrabble player should not be admitted into a chess club, but the owner of the building may allow both chess and scrabble players to share their same games room.

While I share your feelings about collectivist ideologies, I cannot find a legitimate excuse to deny entry to the people who hold them, unless of course they pose a specific material threat.

.

Cultural, especially religious, differences are often a source of discord, occasionally leading to major conflict among host communities and immigrants. What to do about it ?

Should host nations practise religious discrimination, outlaw religious practices that are ostentatious religious signs and attire, or allow completely unfettered freedom of religion ?

As I see it, it is illusory to think that governments can control what people think or believe. People can think and believe what they want, and there’s nothing governments can do to stop them.

Religious discrimination is undemocratic. It is out of the question for democratic countries.

So, while it is illusory for governments to try to control people’s thoughts and beliefs, they can, at least, control what may be considered offensive social behaviour such as female genital mutilation, migrants flaunting ostentatious religious signs and attire and laying on the street praying in public.

Having said that, I must confess I find some females quite attractive with their beautiful headscarves. Nevertheless, I much prefer newcomers to the country, to follow the golden rule : “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” - or suffer the consequences !

.

“When in Rome, do as the Romans do”
Banjo Paterson,
yes but not as in Rome's declining years !

Had there been no immigration officers, immigration agents too would find themselves out of job!
Yuyutsu,
You've got that ar$e about. Were there immigration officers with more commitment to their jobs, agents wouldn't be able to do what they do & the shady migrants wouldn't get in !

Here in Victoria, migrants seem to be the least of out worries. The unrepresentative pseudo aboriginal push seems to be able to take over whatever country, ceremonies and customs they desire with the connivence of the new Premier and her government.

David.

Dear Indyvidual,

«Were there immigration officers with more commitment to their jobs,»

It should not be anyone's job to order others where they can or cannot live.

«agents wouldn't be able to do what they do & the shady migrants wouldn't get in !»

If all these officers did something productive instead, like building houses or growing tomatoes, then the migration agents too would find themselves without demand and will have to do the same, so would the migrants who will not be receiving any formal status with welfare attached.

Dear Yuyutsu

Your point about animals is interesting. I accept that the same space can be inhabited simultaneously by different “societies” of creatures without any interaction. “My” garden is also “owned” by wagtails, kookaburras, ravens and skinks. But when their interests conflict, they react. The wagtails try to drive the ravens away in nesting season. No “foreign” kookaburra is allowed in by the resident family. And though the skinks would love to have nothing to do with the ravens and kookaburras, the birds won’t allow it.

If migrants (or any other group, or individuals) choose to live in ways not compatible with other people’s values and beliefs I would not be greatly concerned if they made no demands of, and imposed no disadvantages on, the rest of us.

Unfortunately – as your own experience shows – that is almost impossible in modern nation states predicated on the rights and mutual obligations of citizens and residents. We cannot opt out of Australian “society” if we live here. We pay taxes that fund infrastructure, health care, education etc. If you are badly injured in a vehicle accident, you will mostly likely be taken to a public hospital and receive free emergency treatment. If the community is to pick up the tab, it has the right to insist you take measures that reduce the risk of this happening –e.g. laws requiring use of bike helmets and seatbelts.

It is the same with values. Current controversies over religious groups’ exemptions under anti-discrimination law show that sometimes incompatible value sets (freedom from discrimination and the right to follow one’s religion) cannot be reconciled or exist side by side.

It’s rather long and depressing, but this AFR article by Kenan Malick is a thoughtful summary of how different approaches to diversity in Europe have failed:
http://www.afr.com/policy/how-multiculturalism-went-wrong-and-what-to-do-instead-20150227-13qibp

It concludes:
“An ideal policy would marry multiculturalism's embrace of actual diversity, rather than its tendency to institutionalise differences, and assimilationism's resolve to treat everyone as citizens, rather than its tendency to construct a national identity by characterising certain groups as alien to the nation.”

I think that’s about right

Firstly, I don't know why Senator Fatima Payman has been singled out in terms of this article.

If we look at Senators, such as Senator Alex Antic from South Australia he has been running a campaign to get more Pentacostal Christians into the Liberal Party. One Liberal Party member in South Australia has also resigned over factions in the SA Liberal Party, with some saying the matter has links to the Pentecostal drive.

http://www.indaily.com.au/news/2021/06/04/the-divine-right-pentecostal-recruitment-drive-divides-sa-libs

https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2023/07/06/dark-forces-liberal-factional-tensions-erupt-as-mp-turns-independent

It must also be noted Senator Fatima Payman has also advised against the setting up of a Muslim political party and has openly said so.

http://theconversation.com/fatima-payman-advises-muslims-dont-establish-a-political-party-234372

"“I can’t speculate what they plan on doing and not doing. But what I can say is, I don’t think it would be wise to have a Muslim party."

I don't know how much clearer Senator Fatima Payman needs to be here, despite the comments from the Author. Yet we have others, for example here with the Liberal Party actively attracting faith-based, church going people to their party who are Pentecostal with the aim of changing and directing policy within the Liberal Party and nothing said. Fatima Payman did no such thing though whilst working as a Labor Senator - and is doing no such thing at present.

Finally, I completely agree with Yuyutsu's earlier comments on this post and on matters around early land in terms of settlement and ownership. It is a complex area in terms of history as you have to rely on early papers, writings, scrolls or things written in caves etc. and you can only go back so far. You then rely on other things, not all reliable or able to be proven as fact.

In terms of Rhian and certain people having an obligation to respect the cultures and values of the societies, as a person in a minority group (vegetarian in Australia) I am under no obligation to respect the cultures and values of people here, the majority I disagree with who consume meat (about 90%), but can accept their way of life.

NathanJ

I agree with many of your points. My point about adhering to core societal values was specifically addressed to migrants, such as myself, who chose to come here. If I chose to move to Iran, I would abide by their dress codes, even though I disagree with them. If I chose to move to Israel, I would accept the obligation to do compulsory military service, even though I disagree with that. When I chose to take Australian citizenship I accepted the obligation to comply with compulsory voting even though I have reservations about it. And though I’m a republican, I swore allegiance to the queen.

While most Australians eat meat, I don’t know anyone who objects to people choosing to be vegan. Nor are there objections to other dietary choices such as following Halal or Kosher rules.

There are many social norms and values on which people can and do disagree and where we can fruitfully have constructive dialogue. I am not vegan but respect the ethics and reasoning of people who are. I suspect you are on the right side of history on this one – future generations will look back with horror on our treatment of animals in the way we now look back on slavery.

But there are some norms – democracy, rule of law, non-violence in pursuit of political change, non-discrimination on the basis of gender, race or religion - that are fundamental to the well-being of our society. Not every Australian accepts these, but most do. It is reasonable to expect people who want to join that society to abide by them.

Dear Rhian,

Yes, some species can be dangerous, so caution is reasonable.
Self-defence is unsaintly, but then we are not saints, so it is something we must accept (though never become proud of).

So when it comes to the ability of societies to act against outside individuals, I draw the line between preservation and greed/ambition:
Thus it is OK for a galactic civilisation to vaporise this planet because humans carry a virus that can infect and destroy a whole galaxy - but it is not OK for a galactic civilisation to annihilate our sun because it stands in the way of constructing a new inter-galactic super-highway...

The problem with modern nation states is not their mutual rights and obligations, which by itself should not be a problem - the problem is that [mainly due to competition between them] they allowed themselves to overpopulate irresponsibly beyond measure, not leaving space for anything else, human or environmental.

As you just observed, it is almost impossible at present to allow the space for parallel other civilisations.

To remedy this, a drastic reduction of population is required, but this takes time and should not exclude the deployment of mitigating second-best solutions in the meanwhile.

Two sets of solutions are:
1) to break existing states into smaller ones, or at least autonomies, where more diversity of lifestyle is possible; and
2) to expand on the concentric rungs of belonging to society.

To explain this second set, even today, citizens have more rights and obligations than permanent residents, permanent-residents more than temporary-residents, temporary-residents more than tourist-visitors, adults more than minors. For example, visitors (or their travel-insurance) must pay their own hospital fees.

So unauthorised migrants, for example, could be assigned to a further rung than tourists, with even less rights and obligations. They might possibly not be eligible not only for hospital treatments but also for legal/court/police support if they are robbed, or they might not be allowed into cities and densely-populated areas without supervision, etc. Details can be worked out, but that would be the spirit - minimal contact with society, minimal obligations, minimal rights.

Dear Yuyutsu

Your post reminds me of research I saw some years ago that suggested Americans were less hostile to unauthorised immigration than Europeans in part because in the USA “undocumented” migrants are not entitled to social security, free health care etc. If such migrants do not impose financial and other burdens on the broader population, it may be people are more welcoming to them. There are downsides to this model, though - it creates an underclass and leaves some sick and unemployed migrants in a terrible position.

US opinions also seem to have changed with the very large numbers of unauthorised entrants across the Mexican border in recent years – an estimated 600,000 in 2023. In December 2023 border patrol “encounters” reached a monthly record of over 300,000, most of whom were expelled. Trump is making huge political capital out of this “crisis”.

Here in Australia, the recent surge in immigration – a record 752,000 in 2023 – seems to have contributed to domestic social and economic problems, especially the housing availability/affordability crisis. I have long been a supporter of Australia’s relatively high migration, but you can have too much of a good thing. Again, perhaps, the touchstone could be that migration enhances, or at least does not detract from, the wellbeing of the pre-existing population. That could apply either to your “concentric rungs” model or Kenan Malick’s proposed approach of embracing diversity and universal citizen rights (though of course the two models are mutually incompatible, either could meet the benchmark).