Mmmm, the luxury of defining multiculturalism and how it hasn't worked for Australia. Being a mongrel bred, second gen Aussie, with family trees in South Africa, Portugal, England, Scotland, France, I can hardly slag it off as not working. Not having visited any of these countries, no doubt my forebears who were born there, left for their own good reasons and came to Australia, thereby "multi-culting" it. Back when they did so, the indigenous people of this country did not have a say about they pros and cons of multiculturalism.

Back in the days, before passports and immigration were invented, multicultural races and societies came about vis a vis, Roman invasion of the British Isles, Attila the Huns rampaged through all of Northern Europe to China, Vikings' invasion of British Isles, whereby multiculturalism was enforced by rape, pillage and plunder. At least these days, it's a little more civilised. So who's in a position to say any culture is so pure that it needs to be preserved in toto? Culture is a mutable thing. Otherwise we'd still be painting frescos of Jesus at the last supper and not women with square boobs.

And Bozzie, Oui! if I chose to live in France, I would quite happily saunter down the Champs Elysse with a glass of Verve Cliquot in one hand and a Gauloise in the other, would learn the correct pronunciation of Voulez Vous, however I would certainly hope that the French people would welcome me and encourage me in my desire to explore and assimilate. As much as they would want me to give them a great recipe for kangaroo pate.

Wot, so no takers for Kanga Pate?

Di, still struggling with the square boob's thing ;). You are absolutely spot on in your observations about cultures changing - certainly they do in societies which have any kind of change (improved technology and medicine being two changes I really want to keep).

For those who doubt it just have a look at a movie from the fifties or think about the humour in shows about the 70's and eighties.

R0bert

DEATH OF MULTICULTURALISM

This is one of the best articles I've read on it. Written it would seem by an 'ethnic' :) if his name is anything to go by.
http://www.irr.org.uk/2002/april/ak000001.html
Definitely worth a read for all sides of the issue.

Then, read about the dynamics and history of the Dutch situation. Fascinating AND very instructive.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/11/922941ab-4df5-47ef-87da-1d726d9f1db0.html

One of the key elements was that the 'guest workers' were mean't to RETURN home to Morocco etc, but a the critical moment they didn't WANT to, and the Government allowed them to stay AND bring their families = IMMEDIATE ghetto.

Now they are paying the price and the political climate is VERY much toward the 'right'.

Just think, some good analysis and sound social policy at the beginning would have avoided such polarization.

Humans usually are not willing to share their nations, cultures and rights etc ....... is very idealistic and indulgent to expect otherwise, any vague browse tho history will show this...
Churchill would not accept the word of Nevil Chamberlain that he had made peace with Hitler etc.

This is what Winston had to say on the subject of Islam in civilised society
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

—Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

John Lock another idealist, but one, who actully made a difference with thoughts on seperation of religion and law was also not to keen on islam.

It's facing facts that is importent, while idealism can be seen as kind, it is often foolish and even cowardly.

best wishes to al

Meridtih,

John Locke, as with many of his peers, did not acknowledge belief in other non Christian Gods and gernally rallied against 'atheism'.

He also believed that a state of nature was much more preferable than a state of war.(As both Christians and Muslims do).

I'm puzzled on why you're citing him as illustrative and contextually relevant to Australian soveriegty and nationhood - which did not evolve from adherance to precedents in international law at all.