In a nutshell: help people in their own countries.

Poverty comes from lack of opportunity.

Every person or persons family was once a migrant, coming to Australia most likely for the opportunities these people today want.

If we do not kick them up the backside and leave them to thier own devices once they enter, perhaps we would not have the social and poverty problems many people fear.

You cannot expect people to turn their way of life completely on its head instantly, they need exposure to the Australian culture that many of us 'immigrants' have embraced.

We cannot be racist or culturally bias but we can protect OUR OWN CULTURE. This can be done via helping our new arrivals integrate with society, not by moving into clusters of other refugees, and not by trying to assist them throught the centrelink or 'poverty' network.

People are hard working when they want a better life. We must help them integrate to society by assisting them with finding suitable living arrangements, work opportunities and social amenities.

The enaction of a review period of 3 years for new arrivals and the appointment of a new arrival officer to personally ensure each person is reaping the opportunity in Australia is essential in solving these issues. It would not be hard to do, so lets do it.

Realist, I support pretty much what you say, but I would add a verrrrrry strict proviso, and it relates to protecting our own culture.

The only people who have the right to decide who comes to Australia, is US.
-Not the UN,
-not the Greens,
-not the Democrats,
-not the vested interest migration agents like Marion Li,
-nor anyone else BUT....

our elected representative government.

"We" determine,

'WHO, and on what grounds'

'SELECTION CRITERIA' (which may include a number of factors) all of which are aimed at ensuring ....

-Social compatability (as defined by us)
-Political Stability (as defined by us)
-Cultural cohesian (as defined by us)
-Strategic national population goals (as defined by us)

In line with these specific objectives, potential new arrivals will be CLEARLY shown what it means to live in Australia, if they come from a background which may in certain areas be at odds with our culture and laws. They will also be required to sign a document to this effect, with conditional residence determined by their loyalty to it.

Examples:
-SIKHS
will be told, that even if they are reading their scriptures (which apparently has to be done over a 50 hr uninterupted period) they can be ARRESTED immediately if the police deem it neccessary. They will also be informed that certain occupations may not be open to them if they wish to use their turbans 24/7.

-MUSLIMS
will be told, that domestic abuse is a) not a valid part of our culture, and they will be treated exactly the same as everyone else if they beat the daylights out of their wives.
-They will also be told, that their food laws must ALways be subject to our cultural norms, no matter how many of them may dwell in a particular suburb.
-BUDDHISTS.. what's to tell, they seem to fit in.

Under no circumstances whatsoever, will assylum seekers be allowed to 'sue' our elected government.

The only way to help the world's poorest is to see that the countries they live in are run as decently as possible and only a positive UN can do that.
Sending money to dictatorial regimes is useless. We see daily on TV where nations who have populations starving so miserably still have enough munitions and arms to wage war at all times.
Bringing in those who have totally opposing life styles has proven an absolute mistake, one that this country will pay for for many years. To open our borders has resulted in a severe loss of security and a marring of our own way of life.
Far better to have some way of regulating third world countries where the poor can have some comfort but the leaders have to face up to an authority if they do the wrong thing by their population.

Poverty also arises from lack of initiative. Ever since China, South Korea and even India embraced capitalism prosperity ensued.

The riots in France (and for a breif moment, Birmingham)show how open ended immigration creates problems for the host countries.

Democracy and capitalism are the key ingredients for a prosperous society. It is up to individual countries to decide whether to take it or leave it. Immigration transports problems. Some North Africans for instance swap a life of poverty in their home countries for a life of poverty in Europe. Don't let it happen here.

Tiziana, you say that "much of world poverty is not just the result of richer countries’ failure to help, but often the direct result of policies the same rich countries pursue in their own national interest." There are two fundamental errors here.

Virtually the whole world was very poor by present standards 200 years ago. The industrial revolution and subsequent technological and economic advances led to a large gulf in incomes between the rich industrialised countries and the rest. But this didn't cause or exacerbate poverty elsewhere. On the contrary, average incomes in poorer countries rose at an historically unprecedented rate through the 20th C. Western economic dvelopment led to higher standards throughout the globe. In the last 30 years in particular, the incomes of many hundreds of millions in China and India have risen enormously, the number of global poor has fallen dramatically. Poverty is not the "result of richer countries failure to help."

Second, the vast bulk of world trade is amongst rich countries. Freer trade would not only help poorer countries, it would increase incomes and opportunities in richer countries - it is in their own interests to drop trade barriers. Trade barriers are in no country's "national interest". Rather, they - and in particular Europe's Common Agricultural Policy - inflict great cost on the community at large in order to protect a favoured few from having to deal with the real world.

The best way to help combat poverty might be to get first-world voters to understand and oppose the negative impact of trade barriers on their own well-being.

So now we place practicalities aside and talk about sentiments:

Let not the Left hijack our feelings, converting them to one-dimensional economics: we care about refugees and migrants because it could have been us. We care because just as them it could have been us to not be born in the "right place".

We care because instinctively we know that people should be able to go wherver they want on the face of this earth, just as birds do, that the lands were there long before there were countries, states and borders.

On a slightly more practical level, we also care because we experience how difficult it is to invite our friends and relatives from certain countries to see us in Australia - even for just a visit, to overcome the wall of suspicion and convince the government that economics do not play a roll in our case.

Yes, there are, sadly, compromizing practical considerations as well, there are terrorists and other criminals who wish to spoil things in our country if they can and there are also those who wish to make a living at our expense. It is out of our selfish human interests that we block others from arriving, keeping the space only for ourselves: this is an acceptable weakness - but should not be idealized: the ideal is that every human can walk across this planet of ours whenever and wherever they choose to.

I don't want to argue over whether China embaced capitalism, there is just one thing I want to say, international business is good for China and the world.

I do business with company all over the world. I pay the workers well and they afford themselves. The companies do business with us benifit a lot by ordering from us. Why should people always argue? We all love peace. We don't want war. We need each other as we developing. Perhapse men think too many things and they loss their hair easily. So my toupees sell well all around the world. If people just live peacefully, I don't need to manufacture any toupee. My website http://lyrical-toupee.com should be changed into http://lyricals.com, and I will be very happy!

Tiziana says that some on the Left are concerned about poverty. What exactly is poverty? If a person was settling down for the evening in Mongo, Chad and they didn't have a plasma TV screen hooked up to the Foxtel Gold Package is he or she poor? Do these people crave what we have?

Sage.. another notable comment :)

Yes.. "poverty"... my wifes family live in Malaysia, (Sarawak Interior)and her late dad would be lucky to rub $10 together in a month. He was a very caring and generous man, who gave much more than he received in all his struggling life. Many people are 'rich' in kind. Buffaloes, cows, pigs.. a decent size Buffalo will bring you $1500 our money.

I don't consider him or the others in the village 'poor', they don't have much money, true, but boy oh boy.. they are so rich in family, culture, faith, and mutual care.

Part of the problem of Western definitions of "Poverty" are just that.. they are 'Western'. It always makes me just about choke when I hear of the 'unemployment problem' among Indigenous people here, as THOUGH.. they will only ever be truly human if they have a 'western' type job.

The UN is a basket case. It is just as prone to vested interest and manipulation as any human orgnization. I tend to have sympathy for the idea of imposed democracy, no matter what the left might feel.

I think Boaz and ilk illustrate the huge shame that Aboriginal tribes did'nt have the means to apply the same thinking to the white boys who showed up uninvited in the 1700s. Keep up the cutting edge thinking about winners being grinners as it is very illuminating and obviously gives some of you 'caring folk' great satisfaction. Must give the families of the Iraqi and Afghani civilian dead pause for thought as well.

The present Govt is through bad policy, ignoring one way to assist
global poverty. It is flawed thinking that everyone wants to live
in Australia. Many in SE Asia for instance, prefer their own cultures, family ties and all other things that matter in their
culture. But they would like to earn our kind of money, for they
could earn in a month, what they earn there in a year.

The meat industry in WA for instance, is being totally stifled,
by lack of labour. Export orders are being rejected, sheep are
being trucked thousands of km East, all because of lack of workers
here.

It would be a clear win-win solution to allow contract workers from
SE Asia to work here, on a fly in fly out basis. They would earn
our kind of money and then return home to their communities to spend it. All that extra economic activity in their communities, would
have to be good for their economies and for them. Our export industries would benefit too and even the sheep would benefit from not being trucked thousands of km. Why the Govt is so blind on this
one, frankly has me beat.

Will we ever solve Australia's poverty problem, most people live in relative comfort, but not all. In Townsville North Queensland, we have a population of approx 200,000 of which over a thousand families are homeless, if this is typical of Australia in general there is a large minority of our own people living in poverty, by Australian standards. Why would we bring large numbers of immigrants here to share the same fate? With the draconian Bills entered into the Federal Parliament this week, I expect our number of homeless to swell, as low income people lose the struggle to meet their mortages, and join the ranks of the homeless. A very sad situation in a developed country such as Australia, we have competed thus far with the global enonomy by applied technology, however our exports have been static for the last 5 years, and so now we plan to compete by cutting wages and conditions of the most vunerable in our society. We must be proud of our astute line of thinking, the reverse Robin Hood theory, immigrants who come won't be the poor variety, and this of course will do absolutely nothing to solve our poverty crisis, we should remember the old expression "charity begins at home" when we cure our own problems, then let's take as many immigrants as our economy will allow.

Not once in Tiziana Torresi article did she even mention whether unrestricted immigration was inimical to the interests of the Australian people. People with Ms Torresi’s peculiar mindset once again display their total lack of empathy with Australians. Although, with a name like Torresi, she is probably just another hyphenated Australian who could not give a fig for the people of the country she or her parents migrated to.

With over 100 million people being added to the world’s population every year, one can only speculate upon te sanity of Ms Torresi and her cohorts if they think that world poverty can be simply solved through immigration. A simple appreciation of obvious facts might stimulate a bit of neuronal activity in Ms Torresi’s dormant brain.

For 200 years, the white North European people people have led the world in scientific and social acheivment, and it is to the lands of the white North European people that immigrants and asylum shoppers most desperately wish to migrate too. Obviously, white Prots are doing something right.

The Catholics, which Ms Toressi is probably a member, took a lot longer to throw off the dead weight of religion and follow the Prots. But some advanced Catholic countries are now beginning to stabilise their populations and become prosperous.

Asian cultures which largely adopted our models of government and economics are doing just fine.

That leaves just black Africa and the Muslim world going backwards. If Ms Torresi and her friends want to solve poverty, then they should be looking at what cultural and genetic factors are at work in these societies which make them utter failures. Instead of constantly attcking succesful societies, a bit of informed criticism towards the cultures of failed societies would be far more constructive.

Multiculturalism is an obvious failure, as the brewing civil war in Catholic France is now about to show once again. Imitating failure is not a noted ideal for North European people.

Yuyutsu,
Note: you evaluate protection of our borders as selfishness, by the following quote; "It is out of our selfish human interests that we block others from arriving, keeping the space only for ourselves: this is an acceptable weakness - but should not be idealized: the ideal is that every human can walk across this planet of ours whenever and wherever they choose to." What is your home address as I can direct some homeless street youth looking for accomodation your way. Providing you apply no rules and requlations they will fit in well, their diet is alcohol and their enjoyment sex and pot. They are not allowed into my home space because they do not abide by my rules.

I work with them where they are until social changes in their lives happen where they can become proud citizens and make worthy contributions to our society. Though I currently give them a feed I would hope they are not relying on me for a feed in five years time, but are themselves taking my place to assist others..

Yuyutsu - "instinctively we know that people should be able to go wherver they want on the face of this earth, just as birds do".

To start with, birds of a feather flock together. And I would say humans are much more territorial than birds anyhow, so we are not 'free to roam'.

Boaz - "It always makes me just about choke when I hear of the 'unemployment problem' among Indigenous people here, as THOUGH.. they will only ever be truly human if they have a 'western' type job."

Indigenous people still need to work as they always have to survive: collecting food, water and providing shelter. The indigenous unemployed still collect benefits. And SOME sniff petrol, smoke dope and drink untill they can't walk (not a traditional part of their culture). So I would expect them to do something more meaningful even if it does mean "having a 'western' type job "

"instinctively we know that people should be able to go wherver they want on the face of this earth, just as birds do".

I would suggest the person or persons who are, already, where others would seek to "occupy" should have some say in the matter. That has been a common human practice since the time people occupied caves and built their earliest shelters and tends to suggest the notion that people follow a pattern of free migration (like birds) is a load of budgie pooh.

I for one would resist the occupation of Australia by religious zealots of any ethnicity who would choose to cast out the values I hold dear and replace them with something inferior which favoured their own cast.

I would suggest, someone wishing to go wherever they want should first seek permission of those already where they want to be and comply with the laws and conditions for acceptance. If they do not have sufficient respect for the laws of the recipient land to do that, then they obviously lack the values and temperament to make a success of eventual "assimilation" from their anticipated migration.

Such views are not selfish, they are protective of standards and values. A lot of this “universal humanity crap” is just the left wanting to find an issue on which to promote and justify their own worthless existence. The world is not just one big commune and anyone who thinks it is I suggest they migrate to North Korea and experience the merits of collectivism in all its glory – but hurry it is not much time left before NK manages to starve itself to death.

YABBY..spot on mate.

Short term or at least fixed term guest workers is how Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei and many other nations achieve solutions to their labor shortages.

KRAKEN
I don’t know how many are of my ‘ilk’ as you put it, but be assured, I totally welcome your comment about the Indigenous people of Australia. If I was indigenous (I’m married to an indigenous lady from Borneo, so I know what goes on) and know what I know now, I think a quick execution of all whites would have saved them. (i.e. national defense)

Such is the way of history that this is no longer possible and it leaves us 2 options.
-Seek to address wrongs done and reconciliation.
Or
-Just let them die out

(which was the Sarawak government decision about my wifes people, who are very much still around, due to their embracing of the gospel of Christ).
My preference is for the first option. There is much which can be done, which will still protect the current historical interests of the ‘invaders’ and the ‘invaded’.

THE IMPORTANT LESSON to draw from our own past history and from more contemporary history is that human nature has not changed. Every recognizable distinct cultural group coming to these shores is exactly the same as ‘we’ (the white mob) were when we came. They have culturalreligious centric interests and will do exactly what we did, seek to advance and push them to the forefront of national life.

My favorite illustration of this comes from Ivory Coast. The original tribes discovered much wealth in the diamond mines etc, they opened their hearts to surrounding tribes from across their borders, with the invitation to come and ‘share our prosperity’. They came.. they shared and then they tried to take it all, and now there is civil war.

YUYUTSU.. are u a Japanese female ? Your writing style kind of stands out, your comments are pretty good I feel, though a little idealistic. One point. Keeping others ‘out’ may not be ‘selfishness’ as much as responsible stewardship of security and social equalibrium.

Col Rouge wrote:

"I would suggest the person or persons who are, already, where others would seek to "occupy" should have some say in the matter. That has been a common human practice since the time people occupied caves and built their earliest shelters and tends to suggest the notion that people follow a pattern of free migration (like birds) is a load of budgie pooh.

I for one would resist the occupation of Australia by religious zealots of any ethnicity who would choose to cast out the values I hold dear and replace them with something inferior which favoured their own cast.

I would suggest, someone wishing to go wherever they want should first seek permission of those already where they want to be and comply with the laws and conditions for acceptance. If they do not have sufficient respect for the laws of the recipient land to do that, then they obviously lack the values and temperament to make a success of eventual "assimilation" from their anticipated migration. "

*From an Indigenous perspective I couldn't agree with you more. But I doubt you'd be agreeing with me for the same historically comparative reasons. But don't let me hold you back.

Philo,
you raised a smile on my face:
I do not, however, deserve such compliments as I am far from being such a holy and enlightened saint as you portray me.

On the one extreme, it is obviously impractical (though sentimental) to expect ordinary people like myself and yourself to turn the other cheek and open our doors to drunk street youth, but on the other extreme, it is unfair to demand those wishing to live on the land to become "proud citizens" - the humble expectation that they do not significantly harm us or our property and environment should suffice. One thing is that we do not have to accept anyone as a citizen or member of our society (and feed and support them), yet another is denying them the right to walk the face of the earth, even if we do not like them (assuming they pose no harm!).

Col Rouge,
accepting dangerous religious zealots is certainly not on my cards, nor do I support the Left as such: what I propose is some middle ground, where anyone can do what they want so long as they do not harm others: that is reasonable - but it is unreasonable to expect harmless others to observe your rules and regulations, values and temperament, or indeed be good candidates for assimilation.

Boaz_David,
Thank you! I know how to differentiate between ideals and practical duties.

Davo,
the kind of birds I had in mind are of the Jonathan Livingston Seagull type (by Richard Bach, http://www.szepi.hu/irodalom/jonathan/jonatan2.html ) - not the economic-minded "Breakfast Flock".

I thought for one brief moment that Rainer was undergoing a metmorphisis of attitudinal enlightenment,but thankfully he lived up my expectations of hiding behind his racial comfort blanket, by judging present Australians in the light of past violations.

Now correct me if I'm wrong Rainer.Aborigines had no concept of the Australian continent.They drew no maps or had a singular unifying language or had a single offical Govt that recognoised the continent of Terra Australis.They were involved in their own territorial wars murdering each other as were the Anglos.These were harsh times and Anglos treated their own almost as badly as the Aborigines.If a single Aboriginal Tribe had murdered other tribes and taken over Australia,then morally ,would this have been have been alright since they had the right skin colour?

I think Rainer that you and many others use their Aboriginality as a lever for advantage.

Dear “Redneck”,

Having just read your response to Tiziana Torresi’s article I suggest you re-read it and then re-consider your own response. Re-read it because she does not suggest that “world poverty can be simply solved through immigration”; but in fact quite the opposite.

Then re-consider your own use of the term “hyphenated Australians”. Creative as it may be I can’t imagine who would not qualify as a hyphenated Australian. Both Catholic and Protestant groups in particular are typically between second and fifth generation Italian, British, Greek Australians, etc. Not a great variation unless you compare it to Aboriginal Australians who themselves also migrated here at one point. Please explain then what you mean by this term.

In your wild speculation that Ms Torresi is both Catholic, and an immigrant to Australia, you seem to be suggesting that on arrival she should suddenly forgo any right to make constructive criticisms towards it. There are positives and negatives in any country and culture, and perhaps those best qualified to criticize are the ones who have lived within an alternative system. Making constructive criticisms does not imply a lack of empathy or appreciation towards Australia, so long as they are balanced and well thought through, which incidentally I would have said her article was.
And anyway, she does not mention Australia anywhere in the article, which could apply to any rich country.

In your comment that White North Europeans have led the world in scientific and social achievement over the past 200 years, you might want to extend your thinking to both modern and ancient history. Modern because recent immigration to Australia from Asia and Southern Europe has done a lot to develop the country. Ancient because Ancient Greece and Rome, and Renaissance Italy have had more influence on Western Civilization as it stands today than have Northern Europeans over the past 200 years.

Let me identify myself as fifth generation Irish (non-Catholic) Australian, so you can stick to the issues and don’t have to get lost in trying to guess where I might be from,

Schmuck

Dear “Schmuck”

I suggest that you read Ms Torresi’s article again because you are wrong. The article is a pro immigration, pro multiculturalism article and is even entitled “Opening Australia’s Borders.” Ms Torresi’s plainly states that any arguments that she uses against using immigration to solve world poverty are invalid if the rich countries do not do their utmost to solve world poverty. At no point does she point out how some countries have done just that by themselves while the people of two groups of cultures. Africaan and Muslim, are unable to stand upon their own feet despite trillions in aid.

My use of the term “hyphenated Australians is used to display how the term “Australian” has now become meaningless when indicating national identity. Despite what the fairy land idealists wish was true, all humans prefer to live among people who they consider are their own kith and kin, who have their own cultural values, their own sense of right and wrong behaviour, and with whom they feel safe. In a culturally divided society, ethnicity becomes more important for social identity, not less important.

It is hardly “wild speculation” that Ms Toressi is a Catholic. Any person with an Italian name could reasonable be considered Catholic. And I do object to people who flee their own stuffed up societies coming to my country and telling Australians everything that we are doing wrong. Overpopulation is one primary reason for world poverty and perhaps Ms Torresi could take up that matter with her own Pope instead of wagging her finger at successful Protestant societies.

You comment that Asian and Southern European immigration “has done a lot to develop the country” is hardly an valid opinion. Australians never needed these people in the first place, we were doing a pretty good job developing the country before all the Johnny Come Lately’s barged in and built upon what Australians had already created.

So you are “Irish Australian” are you? I am simply “Australian” and I have never thought of myself in any other way.

Hello Schmuck, wonderful post. Judging from redneck's response you scored some points - not that he would admit it.

For ole redneck to take your erudite comments seriously would mean admitting he is wrong and as we all know redneck is never wrong; he is perfection itself, wise beyond redemption, altruistic to a T, tolerant beyond compare. We lesser mortals should simply pack up our bags and move out of Australia rather than sully this wide brown land with our unsightly imperfections. (Do you think that Redneck would be lonely?)

;-)

This whole issue should be beyond discussion. The arguments here are pointless. Just look at events in Europe these last two weeks. There should be no more doubts about immigration.

Does Australia need trouble and riots? Can anybody today actually argue for anything but very selective and controlled immigration? I hate to say it, but even if limmited immigration continues (and it should), certain types must be excluded.

Of course I refer to Muslims. It may not be just, but they must pay for the sins of their bothers in France. Letting them in to Australia (or more into Europe) is asking for trouble, more trouble - that is! Until Muslims can show themselves to be as responsible as any other group or minority, they must be rejected. Their fault only!
(Besides, consider it a favor, helping them to be good Muslims. After all, their prophet Mohammed told them not to live among the infidels or take them for friends!)

Tiziana is absolutely right, for both the right and wrong reasons.

Kactuz

I wish it were that easy.

We cant stop anyone from coming in, most muslims make a valid contribution to society, many moreso than others as they exclude Alcohol and drugs which is a massive social problem in Australia.

I agree, those that feel that they are superior to the other peoples and religions, and those that act to destroy multiculturalism should feel the wrath. But we cannot expect to rule a line in the sand and say muslims this country, non muslims this country, as imagine the fear and propoganda that both parties would feel for eachother. It would end up creating generations at war and we would loose that exposure to eachother which is key to avoiding problems and race hatred.

The answer lies in the dept of immigration.

Integrate them to Australian society by all immigrants being subject to a 3 year review period to ensure they are making the most of the opprtunity in Australia, along with appointing a new arrival officer to personally handle and oversee each arrival. We would need one officer per 500 immigrants, the benefits would far outweigh the cost and by monitoring the progress and successful entering of Australian society, we can adequately control this problem. Especially if we assist with housing and employment and avoid creating clusters of immigrants not used to Australian society.

The brains trust in Canberra though will continue to use current ineffective processes and we will have no choice but to become fragmented as a society and as a culture, eg America and the class base society.

Arjay scribbled : "Now correct me if I'm wrong...blah blah blah..

Yes you are incorrect on all counts but I don't have the time or space here to re-educate you and your comic book perspectives on white Australian history, Aboriginal anthropology, geography, let alone the troglodyte philosophies that underpin them.
Ask me again once after you’ve done some comprehensive studies in this area. I don’t thinks it’s fair that I should be asked to indulge your stoic adherence to blissful ignorance.

The answer to the Muslim question is going to have to come from the Muslim population themselves. Life will become increasingly difficult for them anywhere in the Western world, unless they realise that they have to help get rid of the extremists in their midst and send them back to the Saudi desert or wherever. Tolerance is the basis of our secular democracies and we have no choice but to be intolerant of the intolerant.

Both Christianity and Islam are proselytising religions which often used violence to spread their holy words and books. Luckily the protestants changed things and not too many take the old bible literally seriously these days.Luckily for us, the Catholic Church also lost most of its powers too.

That has yet to happen within Islam, they still have no right to freely say what they think about their religion. They still need to have their internal revolution. If they don't, life will become increasingly more difficult for them, even within Muslim countries, as they squabble over the various interpretations and the clerics enforce their power on those populations.

Kactuz.. some well made points.

Realist. I would be a bit stronger in legislation than you...

Your welcome to read how the 'radicals' (rather large numbers of them)
are treating Chrisians in Malaku Islands of Indonesia:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/5_14/pages/indonesian.html

Excerpt:
That is the testimony of Christina Sagat, a 32-year-old Christian from Kasiui, Indonesia, who endured genital mutilation by her Muslim neighbors and forced conversion to Islam. .... (see link)

The hotheads/radicals/extremists on either side will cause untold suffering.

But I'd prefer to speak of spiritual renewal in Christ for Australia as the solution to complex social problems.

As I was reading about how the Muslims of Indonesia, dragged Christians old and young to mosques to circumcize all from little girls and old men, with razor blades, and to pray Islamic prayers, I was reminded of another who did similar...His confession is below:

<<<9"I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. 11Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them..>>

If that was the end, how miserable our world would be today, but then we read:

12"On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,[a] 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?

We know the rest. (I guess) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=26&version=31

I have absolute faith in God, to change lives, including the lives of those persecuting Christians in Indonesia.

Unless Australia is to sink into the mess that European countries are in with their big population of muslims, we must stop the immigration of people who will not assimilate into our society.
France is paying the price now with ,quote,'violence from teenagers, mostly sons of North African and black immigrants who reject teachers and police as part of an oppressive white French majority.'
Pardon me , but are not white French teenagers also subject to the same teachers and police?
Is it simply a coincidence that other parts of France are experiencing the same violence,perhaps the rest of Europe who gave haven to 'asylum seekers' will be swept into the maelstrom as well.
It is hard to see any peace emerging from a clash of cultures for that is what is happening.

Refugees seeking asylum in Australia are fleeing persecution and oppression NOT poverty.

Genuine refugees may be both persecuted and poor because of persecution. Most illegal entrants unestablished as to their refugee status are economic opportunists. Australia takes about 12,000 established refugees each year, and those who come should be verified as their capacity to adapt culturally into Australian society. They should spend time in accomodation centres until they learn the language and culture if they cannot already speak or readily adapt to our culture.

The events in France are very instructive:

How did it start ?

1/ Two Muslim youths accidently die of electrocution while fleeing police.
2/ Now we have had 900 cars torched, riots each nite and social breakdown on a massive scale.

AMBON Indonesia.

How did it start ?

It is identified by a minor fight between 2 Muslim youths demanding money from a Christian public trasnport driver.

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~asiactr/haq/200203/turner.pdf (for a scholarly overview/assessment)

See THIS for a 'rubber meets the road' birds eye view of what the Muslims did in response:

A yemen trained Arab cleric, urged 'Laskar Jihad' warriors from surrounding areas to wage a 'holy war' against Christians....

http://www.geocities.com/kariu67/agnessouhokasoya.htm
(warning: content might be hard to stomach for some)

For those who would like to know the Islamic justification for the photo of the baby, here it is:

Chapter 9: PERMISSIBILITY OF KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE NIGHT RAIDS, PROVIDED IT IS NOT DELIBERATE

Book 019, Number 4321:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html

I still cannot work out, how 'night raids' are 'defensive' and as F.H. would say 'not transgressing the boundaries'.

These are 'selective facts', but they are still facts. They are not taken out of context, they refer 'exactly' to the events described.

No matter which side of the fence one sits on, (pro/contra) in regard to the Ambon or French outbreaks, the ONE undeniable lesson emerges.

LESSON: Different ethnic groups, and particularly Muslim groups in the context of Non Muslims, result in violence and death.

I tried a search on 'Christian atrocities in Ambon' and I welcome fellow posters to do the same exercise. There is very little.

Under a search "Muslim atrocities in Ambon" this is one of many which turned up.
http://www.rim.org/muslim/indonesia.htm

Philo wrote
"They should spend time in accomodation centres until they learn the language and culture if they cannot already speak or readily adapt to "our culture". "

Here we go again, proclaiming a national culture exists without ever explaining what this culture is.

You may well contend there is a national culture, you may well believe there is a national culture, but you don't say how this culture demonstrates how we think.

I don't think I'm being problematic in asking this question over again, so c'mon tell what what it is so I can see if we have shared commonalities (which is your overall objective is it not?)

Is it a bird, a plane..?

Until we see one successful experiment overseas of happy integration of muslims into a western country, I suggest we stop immigration immediately. Why not take advantage of the fact that we can learn from another's mistakes or success? Look at France, look at Holland, Indonesia, Italy, Germany, the UK.....I am not convinced that we are not heading in the same direction. I am happy to wait and watch someone else work it out first, than sacrifice my country, one of the few that is still living in peace and harmony. We have a relatively happy muslim community at the moment, and most Australians are happy to have them. Let's keep it that way with no further immigration.

Now Rainer I've appealled to you on many occasion to give arguments to the contrary,but you just retort with the same old subjective generalisations.

We should debate from the specific facts and concepts to the general,not just state generalities with no factual or logical back up.

Consider this story.A few weeks ago in our local paper a local Aboriginal girl was proclaimed as one of the highest achievers for their community getting a UAI of 94%.Upon looking at her picture I could see not a hint of Aboriginal origin in that photo.What defines and Aboriginal person?Surely the people who look Aboriginal should have media priority.

Not only have we taken their land,it seems that many with with a hint of genetic association now want to steal their identity as well, for economic and social advantage.

The traditional Aborigines must find this somewhat perverted.

Arjay, that is another topic.

You have no grasp of Aboriginality if you do not understand the skin thing.

What makes you an aboriginal person is not your colour, it is your ancestory combined with being accepted as a member of the aboriginal community by elders.

Just because you do not look dark does not mean you are not disadvantaged. It is the fact that you are in the community living with the same social disadvantage.

it is not just about the way you look. When people do not think you are aboriginal they can let fly with whatever they truly feel without them knowing they are talking to one. Imagine a life like that where you are made to feel A: Crap from white people like yourself who do not understand the make up of an aboriginal person and genetics, and therefore crucify them because they are being true to thier genes. B: Having people not assume you are aboriginal means you are exposed to the most cruel indirect racism and racist idealogy from those who do not know your background C: The same background disadvantages of an aborignal person D: A blurring of personal identities.

Stick to what you know Arjay, stop stockpiling beer and guns.

The US have probably the highest intake from immigrants from third world countries. The fundamental differences however relies in two areas:

- Skilled migrants/ 'brain drain' migration workers.
- Immigration management program: ensuring the new migrants are settled in the new homes.

The French approach is different from the American: throwing algerians, Islanders, africans based on francophony (or phonie) only and 'avoid' contact or managing these new groups and ethnicities hoping that 'time and future generations' will resolve the problem for them.

For decades police used to avoid 'les pieds noir' suburbs as they used to call them creating Redfern-like suburbs without services, infrastructure, jobs or even basic housing.

Creating your own time bomb hoping it will never go off is an interesting logic (or lack of).

BD,

Honestly for once: grow up!
Islam is here to stay and grow, live with it.
Go offer your next door Muslim neighbour a coffee or wish them a happy fasting.

Fellow Human.

excuses, excuses and more excuses

arab muslims are tired of running amok in their own countries, so they feel the need to transport their (self inflicted) misery elsewhere

there is nothing to stop these people from taking care of their suburbs themselves

riots by muslims in denmark apparently because a newspaper offended allah
and who was behind the riot in birmingham? Buddhist monks? SIkhs?

we all know the answer to that!

Rainier "From an Indigenous perspective I couldn't agree with you more. But I doubt you'd be agreeing with me for the same historically comparative reasons. But don't let me hold you back. "

Oh, I guess I work with an understanding of the way the world is - you seem to be emotionally locked on the way the world used to be.

For instance, based on your observation, I could resent the Danes for exacting gold from my forefathers in order they would not be butchered in their beds in Viking raids - So should I stand here and demand Dear Crown Prince Frederick and Princess Mary cough up with restitution? (Answer if you wish - as you wrote "But don't let me hold you back." - but I am not holding my breath!)

Rainier I suggest you come up to date, we are talking about the world today, not 200 - 300 years ago or so when the British Enclosures Acts and dispossession of ordinary Englishmen, Irishmen, Welshmen and Scotsmen from their land fed early migration into what is now USA / Canada (only the naughty boys coming to Aus.)

As for aboriginies, they can either assimilate or die out - their choice. Contemporary Australians do not hold feilty to them any more than we do to the British Crown.

I support assimilation because the alternative to it is "segregation".

So unless you want to put up a good case for "separate development" in all its forms, special rights for aboriginal minorities, segregation, aparthied or confinement of people of certain ethnic origins into ghettoes, I suggest you simply "get-up-to-date" and stop looking back over your shoulder for something to whine about

There seems to be a few cases of selective memory operating here. Has anyone mentioned the riots in Macquarie fields? The initial events that sparked the riots in Paris hold a remarkable resemblance to that situation as well as the death of t.j hickey in Redfern, but I guess there were no Muslims involved. That’s not to say that the situation in France isn’t being exacerbated by extremism, but then what religion (or political movement) hasn’t taken advantage of poverty, unemployment and social alienation to advance its own agenda?

The point is, it’s a bit rich to claim that they are rioting because they are Muslim, when the rioters in Macquarie fields were by and large true-blue Aussies (whatever that is).

And on philo's suggestion about internment till immigrants learn the language; well I noticed during the coverage of the Sydney riots that many of them had serious trouble putting together a coherent sentence in English, their apparent first language. why not apply the same standards you want to require from immigrants to aussie too?

after all as TISM asked:

"whats the difference between those boat people, and you"?

Col,

that comment on Aborigines was a little harsh. Every race is assimilating.

I look forward to your family joining many with aboriginal heritage in the near future

Predictable stuff. Post after post suggesting we close our doors to nasty furriners, and if possible, send back home the ones who managed to make it here already.

Long on emotion - mostly fear, interestingly - but very, very short on detail. Such as

Exactly, who decides who is to be kept out, and on what basis?

Exactly, on what grounds will people who are to be re-exported, be selected?

Exactly who will be responsible for settling their affairs and seeing these undesirables off the premises?

Exactly, how will the necessary bill be prepared for parliamentary approval, and who will sponsor it?

Exactly how much weight will be placed upon concepts of natural justice, fairness and equitable dealing?

Exactly, how will we square this approach with all the other aspirations that we have, such as for our economic prosperity? The actions proposed will close ourselves off from the rest of the world in much the same manner as North Korea. And don't expect anything from the rest of the world - USA and Europe included - except universal condemnation, coupled with a reduction of our international status to that of pariah.

The saddest aspect of it all is that this is an exact duplication of the thought processes that guide our parliament these days. No real thinking involved, just knee-jerk, xenophobic, mindless vindictiveness. Driven, as I mentioned before, by irrational fear, exploited beautifully by our government.

The example set by our leaders is being taken as license to blindly blame others for perceived wrongs, without employing a single brain cell in the process.

A fish rots from the head.

Pericles... as usual, mostly good points you raise. But, can you do us a favor ?
‘are you, or are you not’ in a position to put any suggestions along the lines you asked into policy ? Do you have a position where it might be worth while going to that trouble in this forum ?
If not, its probably pointless asking and actually expecting a full blown policy document to be contained in 350 words.

1/ ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA.
A committee, working group, drawn from Government mostly, with advice from opposition, religious groups, who reflect the predominant Anglo Euro cultural flavor of Australia, will base its assessment on current trends, long term experience/observation of the movement of cultures and their impact on host countries.(FranceHolland?)

2/ DEPORTATION will depend on their citizenship status. Existing citizens cannot be deported. New arrivals will have conditional citizenship, pending some assimilation criteria.

3/ SETTLING AFFAIRS of those deported. If they are deported on National Security grounds, they will be liquidated and the assets given to support networks for the poor. After deportation costs are deducted.

4/ THE BILL will be prepared by those skilled in such things, like you :) or, if time allowed, me, but I’m not so skilled in the legal side.

5/ SPONSORSHIP will be by interested parliamentarians.

F.H. “grow up” ? hmmm.. given that there are 290million Indonesian Muslims, on our northern doorstep who:

a) Have shown they are willing to enthusiastically supply thousands of ‘jihad’ warriors to support former ‘peaceful neighbours’ of Christians, hold open the legs of infant girls and elderly Christian women while they slice off their clitoruses with unsanitized razor blades, and herd male Christians into mass graves, and burn thousands of houses, and threaten them with death if they don’t convert.
b) Amien Rais, leader of the largest Muslim group has called for ‘holy war’ against Indonesian Christians

I hardly think it is me who needs to ‘grow up’ and not view increasing Muslim populations of having a danger element. And my neighbour is a lovely guy.. an Indian Hindu, lends me his tractor sometimes

For several years I lived beside the Scheyville Migrant Centre that operated in the 1940s to 1960s to take in migrants from Europe. The conditions were basic, but these people spent time there adjusting to the language and conditions of life in Australia. Many of the residents who came there in those days are now leaders in business in Australia.

What seems to be happening now new arrivals are not getting the language and assimilation skills but are accumilating in ghetos with no work or opportunities to improve their position. Flogging drugs and thieving property seems the most productive way of getting ahead in their mind.

Boaz, as you are very well aware, I'm not trying to be tricksy here, just focussing attention on the realities involved in fulfilling the simplistic "kick-em-out" aspirations of your fellow posters.

Your suggestions are of course very personal, and could not be expected to stay the course of debate even in this forum, let alone the wider community, let alone again the legislature. However, at least you gave it a shot.

There are already rules under which people are allowed into this country. If you decide to add "assimilation" style questions (as in the US, Canada and now the UK), that won't keep anybody out who actually wants to be here. And if you decide to exclude on the basis of ethnicity or religious grounds, you open up an international can of worms that will have severe repersussions on our economy. Are you prepared for that? Are you prepared to sacrifice your own business and livelihood, for example, if the government decides that your customers are somehow undesirable?

As for actually kicking people out, try to picture, if you are able, what are the logistics in actually carrying this out. Think for a moment of the photos of them being herded onto the planes, and the historical parallels the foreign press will inevitably draw. Then try to imagine the government that would risk such an exercise.

My intention is not to canvass policies for consideration, so much as to illustrate how unrealistic it is to voice them.

And it is this clash between the intellectual "ideal" and the reality of carrying out such policies that is the reason I consider such talk to be so inflammatory and dangerous.

Did you catch up with Mosley yet?

redneck[again], re successfull societys , you like the US- something like a "lucky?" 4% of the world's population consuming 25 % of the world's scarce resources .Just seems a bit unfair to me and maybe it won't work too well for them in the future.
i hope bill gates doesn't give all the profits away.

Hey I'm all for multiculturalism, but in light of what is happening in Europe with its muslim population, in the most tolerant of societies such as Holland and Sweden, there has to be limits or strategies put in place. Unfortunately I don't have the practical answers either but I feel that the debate is important enough to keep going.

Also, if the goverment doesn't address the issue while it is small, then all that will happen is that people will take matters into their own hands when it gets out of hand (a far more frightening prospect).

You can put all the anti discrimination laws into place as much as you like, but in the real world it's not going to stop the bubbles under the surface. Becoming Australian is not just a piece of paper. It is something to be earned, and it takes time, compromise, and a few generations. Some do it easily because they are closer to the dominant Australian culture, but muslims, who aren't exactly discreet in their presence here, are going to have their work cut out for them. More than the Greeks or Italians ever did.

The muslim girl who won the right to wear a burka to school certainly may have won her own personal battle for acceptance in the Australian courts, but in doing so she may have lost the battle for all Australian muslims being accepted by the rest of the community.

Oh gawd, Boaz, take a chill pill. Pericles is right - where on Earth are the xenophobe contingent going to go with this? Where would you begin and end your discrimination? What would be the criteria and processes for 'assimilation'? Or deportation?

It'll make great TV - Tampa will pale into insignificance. Those ABC docos that have been on lately come to mind. I suppose it'd fit well with armed soldiers in our streets, empowered to shoot to kill unconvicted suspects. Great timing... bewdy.

One of the reasons I've stayed away from this 'red rag' thread is that I have no wish to engage in the kind of polarised mudslinging that so often characterises debate about immigration issues in these forums, indeed with the same old crew.

Sometimes I get the impression that there are people who would rather like to see something like the Paris riots here. As if there isn't enough inflammatory and disrespectful discourse between people in our society already. What is to be achieved by adding to it?

Boaz,

It is good that you find the courage to express your thoughts and feelings as they are.
We all have our hideous dark side, along with its most non-politically-correct fantasies: it is very healthy to be able to express it openly - so long as we do not in fact act on it in reality.

From an absolute moral point of view, we have no right to control anyone else, including telling them where they can or cannot go. As humans, it is however more than acceptable to take the middle ground and defend ourselves against others who harm us, and in the context of this article, deny such people entry to begin with and/or deport them once found to be harmful.

We do not, however, have any moral right to deny entry from an individual who just wishes to live on this land (not on our property - say for argumet's sake in the outback) so long as they do not harm (or threaten to harm) any of us. On the other hand, we have no obligation to accept such people either, who do not wish to assimilate or at least integrate, into our society, and grant them citizenship or any other civil rights.

We do not need to like or accept their ways - nor do they need to like or accept ours. The middle ground is that we learn to tolerate each other, side by side.

Col,

that comment on Aborigines was a little harsh. Every race is assimilating.

I look forward to your family joining many with aboriginal heritage in the near future

Posted by Realist, Monday, 7 November 2005 12:29:57 PM

I'd ask Col over to my place for a cup of tea and to watch a few episodes of Dad's Army but I fear he'd take up the offer!

Realist"I have no grasp of Aborginality."
Well pehaps yourself and Rainer should edify us to what exactly our concepts of Aboriginality we should have.I see to a larger extent Anglo versions of Aborginality hijacking the agenda and not only stealing their land but also their identity.Apparently to be an Aborigine of the mordern era just requires an special frame of mind that is anti-establishment,yet expects the establishment to give them a free ride.

Blah,blah,blah is not good enough Rainer.Pauline Hanson asked the same questions yet was branded a racist.We are a tad more articulate and can defend ourselves.

Please explain Rainer and Realist.

Anyway back to the topic.France relaxed it's immigration laws and thought the feel good unfetted socialism and racial melting pot of the last 35 yrs would bring them close to nervana.This is the closest they have been to civil war for over 200 yrs.Riots all around the country.

In contrast the Chinese in the most dire of situations can just get on with life and make it work with sheer will and tenacity, with no religious hate or fanaticism.The Chinese are also polite and well mannered while they swing deals such as our cross city tunnel on unsuspecting morons like Anglos.Don't tell me that all races,religions and societies are the same.

Should we follow suit and bring in more people of the same religious and social ilk as France and be satisfied with the warm inner glow of chaos?

To Kartiya.

If you have a problem with Western society then by all means go and live in a Muslim one.

The United States is the leader of the free world and if it was not for the Yanks half the world today would be singing "Deutchland Uber Alles" for their national anthem and the Grenadier guards would be goose stepping roung Buckingham Palace.

If you want to judge the US on it's consumption then what about your own? Do you live on a five acre block like a peasant, weave your own shirts, ride a horse and grow your own vegies? I think not. One presumes that you are just another young person who loves to solomnly give sermons about the environment while wearing nothing but the most expensive brand name apparel.

The former Prime Minister of Japan (Nakasone) went public once by blurting out to the press that the USA was once a very great country But now it was stuffed, because it had too many negroes, hispanics and other riff raff buggering the place up. That seems to be a fair enough analysis to me.

For too long stupid Europeans have pretended to be morally superior to the US. So, as a means of displaying how superior and "smart" they were, they imported their own unassimilatable and crime prone minorities into their own societies. The resultant civil strife and surging crime rates that European societies are now experiencing was predictable and avoidable.

Australia's present homicide rate is 1.8 per 100,000. The homicide rate in the "black areas" of New Orleans is 50 per 100,000.

Go figure.

Pericles
I'm afraid I haven't caught up very much with Mosely, but given enough pestering from you, I'm sure I will :) I fully appreciate your standpoint, and I guess that up till recent days it would have carried more weight. Events in France, Holland and Denmark have taken the wind out of such sails I'm afraid.

I don't need events like those to actually happen in order to know they will. Life experience and human nature alone tells me they are inevitable.

As for the 'world' and its opinion of radical action as I'm suggesting, I have a mild feeling they are already relfecting on the folly of criticising such things.

I don't worry so much about my customers punishing me, there are always 'ways' around such things as Sadaam taught us. Selling through 3rd parties is one. I have quite a good network in Asia and the US already.

Sometimes, it takes people to stand up for "I wouldn't touch that with a barge pole" unpopular visions, (as the left are reminding us) until the rest catch up.

Yuyutsu.. fully concurr. No argument from me.

Mahatma
I've almost got you trained but your still using that naughty word 'xenophobe'.. I'll give u a few more weeks to lose it then I'll give you a verbal smack :) talk issues pls

REDneck, I only have one issue with your posts, the word 'genetic' in regard to others and crime etc... I hope you focus more on simple culture and ethnnic ties rather than genes. It would make your position seem a lot less like u've just finished reading Mein Kampf. Other than that, I fully support your basic thrust. You would lose no credibility by not mentioning genes.

blessings to all

"Blah,blah,blah is not good enough Rainer.Pauline Hanson asked the same questions yet was branded a racist. "We" are a tad more articulate and can defend ourselves"

Tad more Articulate that PH? LOL

and who is the "WE"?

THE TAD MORE ATTICULATE PEOPLE THAN
PAULINE ARE HERE AND WE CAN OFFEND OURSELVES!

LOL!!

redneck , we [including you obviously], all like labels. On the clothing insult, i actually bought a nice chinese teeshirt [the prized ah-choo brand] from the red cross shop the other day .
But let's face it ,sooner or later, you are just going to have to assimilate.

BD,

You always get 'stuck' on atrocities!
The same horrors you described happened to jews, Muslims, atheists and polytheists in Africa, Spain, Europe, Bosnia, at the hands of a so-called Anglo Christians but you don't find anybody running after main stream christians with a bat!

Anyway, my view is a new comer to Australia need to understand Australian values(I believe they are 7 as per the AFR article few weeks ago) and what Australia society stands for in terms of respect the law, the society and each other. You seem to get stuck on who is wearing what and how they worship instead.

Arjay,

I cannot help but see your racist undertones by the manner in which you addressed this issue, especially when you are attacking on a personal level.

For you Arjay to say white people were treated harshly too 200 years ago, speak in context.

It was not illegal to kill an aborigine, they occupied the same status as native flora and fauna. Until the Myall Creek massacre (where babies were buried up to their neck and horses run over the top of them etc, decapitations, rape and mass murder etc by white folk)no white man had ever been hung for murdering an Aborigine.

They were displaced, not by choice. They had diseases introduced, not by choice. They were placed into missions and were forced to work as slaves when the same white man were paid for their labour.

As for your other comments on Aboriginality, I will not treat you to an answer for.

I used to be close minded and i had my views. Once you see the world for what it realy is and you integrate more, you realise that individuals are diverse in any culture, and if you you are not happy with certain individuals, let it be them NOT THE GROUP you dispise.

Arjay, it is like me saying everyone answering this forum is a racist, just because of a few.

At the end of the day, white man done the aboriginals over. lets just face it, it was no one living todays fault, and if it was not England it would have been the ruthless French anyway.

They had thousands of languages etc yes, but just because society was different to the white one you identify with, does not mean their was no ownership, no system of governance, no territory boundaries, no legal system and no inter tribal relations.

Go and listen to your bluegrass Arjay, and get your banjo out.

I have to agree with Rainier concerning Arjay's ignorant and offensive comments concerning Aboriginality. Of course when Hanson made similar comments they were widely criticised as racist - because they were!

Kartiya - I wouldn't waste too much effort trying to educate the eponymous redneck, who is stuck in the small, dark basement of his hateful worldview. From such a vantage point, attempts at dialogue are inevitably regarded as invitations to spout ignorance and hatred from his soapbox.

Here we go again.
Boaz david, redneck and the Col Rouge letting us know how it is.
I was chuffed to see BD's detailed criteria for entrance into Autralia;

I didnt really get the food thing and muslims though - what is it that bothers him sneekee asks - is it the same for kosher food and what abot a few decades ago when catholics didnt eat meat on fridays?

It could well be a losing battle for small country like us over burdened with assets and space and a pop'n growth rate rate less than 1% and waaaaaay below that of countries like Afghanistan (near 4%)and others whose cultures scare the willikers out of some of "us".

Our population density is also less than 3 souls per kilometre and those "other"countries" have densities much higher - again afghanistan 44/sqK, india 129/sq K, Iraq and Iran 57 and 42 respectively - although you'd have to figure Iraqs is thinning out at a fair rate.

And when they get here they breed like rabbits - I knocked up an equation elsewhere that put the potential growth rate of muslim converts alone, at the curent level, at around 60,00 new ones in the next ten years if they bred conservtively -

So my question is and its yet to be answered - what's the plan? if you want it stopped - and I dont - what does one do?

Short of imposed sterilization, or a return to the white Australia Policy or a coast line bristling with pointy sticks and manned( women would have no place on the front line) by those determined to defend "our way of life". What is the plan.

They're all watching us, gazing enviously out the land we stole. even Indonesia has a higher pop'n growth rate and a density 50 times greater than ours - and they're really close; I mean they catch more of our fish than Rex Hunt does.

Davo,

Riots are usually political / economical using whatever identity to propagate a message or seek attention. That is basic sociology.

The Redfern and Macquarie fields riots in our very own backyard few months ago were 5th generation Aussies. And so were the 300 drunk students of a local Catholic church in Bondi (3years ago) who went terrorising tourists and vandalising cars.

You are just selective about what you want to see.
Drop the blinkers every now and thenm you might enjoy a diverse Australia.

Boaz, bringing the current riots in Europe into the argument isn't quite the final word that you believe it to be.

Whatever the picture painted by the media, the basis of all the current excitement is money - or more precisely, unemployment and lack of money. These localized uprisings have been happening all my life, and I suspect they happened in many of my ancestors' lifetimes too.

Shortly before I left the UK in 1981, there was a spate of rioting in places such as Bristol, Brixton, Southall, Toxteth, Moss Side, Wood Green and Woolwich. Although the touch-paper was often lit by racists, the undercurrent was financial. As one commentator observed at the time:

"The first riot in Southall was different from the others. The violence began there when several coachloads of racialists were ferried into the area, ostensibly to attend a pub concert. Shops owned by Asians were damaged and the proprietors assaulted. Local Asian residents managed to organise themselves against their aggressors while the police had taken almost their entire force away to another district, allegedly on a tip-off. In all of the other riots in London, Liverpool and Manchester, black and white workers were in the broil together. They were not race riots but poverty riots. The riot in Southall did not rage because local black and white residents found it impossible to exist peaceably side by side. It was fomented by violent thugs imported for that purpose. And to those who insist that there will always be an underlying tension when different cultures exist in the same district, let them travel to somewhere like cosmopolitan Kensington in London and witness how privileged “Englishmen” have no resentment living in the same community as wealthy Arabs and Nigerians and Iranians."

The suburban riots in Paris demonstrate the same characteristic: poor neighbourhoods, high unemployment. Triggered by racists, the mayhem is used as evidence of the dangers of multiculturalism. In fact, it is at heart not significantly different from the protests of Jack Cade's rebels in 1450, or the Luddites of the early 1800s.

If the best that you can do Kartiya, is to respond with sneery one liners instead of a reasoned argument, I won't even bother responding to any of your posts directed at me in future.

I love your reasoning Sneaky Peter. Australians are so outnumbered by potential asylum shoppers that we can not stop them coming. Therefore we must not even try.

Could you submit yourself as an ALP candidate for the next election and tell the electorate that these are your policies? Howard needs you.

PERICLES

1/ Unemployment among immigrants.

Why ? one reason is their religious inflexibility or.. the perception of it by employers.
Reports of Muslims desiring time off at absurd times for prayers (one of the 5 pillars)
-wanting friday off
-the Halal/Haram issue... all contribute to making "Muslims" most unnatractive as prospective employees. Also, is their apparent willingness to 'fight' at the drop of a hat(2nights news).

When Muslims
-murder high profile Film makers ,
- make death threats against cartoonists in Denmark,
-Death Fatwa on Salman Rushdie,
-riot in France,
-The gradual implementation within the community of Sharia law in Canada
-Their justification for the death penalty for apostacy in Canada

...is it any wonder that 'Muslims' are 'nogo' zones as far as potential employees go ?

These are just facts. I haven't added any 'emotive' words thus far. It won't get any better, quite the opposite.

2/ The spiritual uniting force among Muslim immigrants.

As I've repeated ad nausium to some, the "foundations" of Islam are where desperate Muslims turn, in their time of crisis.

Just today, one of the arrested suspects is reported to have said ..quote "In some circumstances it is allowable to kill innocent women and children in fighting for Islam" .... now where on earth could this have come from ?

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html
Chapter 9: PERMISSIBILITY OF KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE NIGHT RAIDS, PROVIDED IT IS NOT DELIBERATE
Book 019, Number 4321:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

Well...THAT.. is where it comes from.

3/ The Radicals drive the Agenda

It seems obvious, but apparently it isn't. Once the community is polarized, the radicals will be the movers and shakers. What will be their 'fuel' ? Not just the issues, but their scriptures and traditions..their 'sunna'

So, this very day, we have this 'fulfilled before our eyes' and yet.... it seems some scales are on many eyes.

yuyutsu ,"not on our property ...[but it's ok] in the out back "!? fair go cobber ,....ever heard of NATIVE TITLE and the Australian holders of the same, or doesn't that compute where you come from ?

Kartia,

1. that was just an example - want another? suppose I welcome the immigrant in question into MY home (not yours!) or suppose the immigrant is invited by a religious group and is offered a place in their monastery. Need more?

2. Aboriginals are much more generous and inviting than yourself: they were in the forefront of the struggle to release the illegal immigrants from detention - they will surely welcome others in their native titles.

Boaz, let me see if I can phrase my point better.

I lived for most of the seventies in the shadow of IRA terrorism against the British. Their targets were selected - as are all terrorist targets - on the basis of causing the maximum amount of public nuisance as possible, in addition to the direct damage they caused to people. Like, killing them. Do a quick Google of IRA bombs london, and you will get the picture. Car bombs at the Old Bailey, bombs in London pubs, Birmingham pubs, a Mayfair restaurant, and many others. And that was just the seventies, it got worse after I left - the Stock Exchange, Harrods...

Before, during and after all this, I did not blame the Irish, even though the bulk of the bombings were carried out by Irishmen. I did not blame the Catholic religion, even though much of the IRA's work was carried out in its name. I did not blame the Protestants either, even though much of the antagonism had been fomented over time by the short-sighted and bigoted attitude their leaders often displayed.

It was terrorism that was the enemy, Boaz, not the Irish, or the various shades of christianity in whose name the atrocities were perpetrated. And today, it is still terrorism we are fighting, Boaz, not Muslims.

Your continued insistence to paint every Muslim with the brush of terrorism, to attribute every atrocity to the teachings of their religion, and to see only bad in a place where there is also much good, puts you firmly in the category of rabble-rouser. The fact that you do it with your keyboard rather than with a megaphone in front of an angry mob does not absolve you from the charge.

Boaz David,

Unemployment among some ethnic groups in Austalia is not related to their food preference Boaz. I had a first hand experience with ‘no-Muslims’ and “Anglo only’ recruitment policies in some of the large corporates in Australia and a tier 1 publicly listed recruitment company. No matter how good the candidates experience and how much below average salary they are willing to accept, but they persist and survive hoping one day the ‘white Australia’ policy will be totally wiped out.

Its a shame to think to think that Muslims in this community are unemployed by choice (although few cases may exist). I know of brilliant engineers, mechanics, and 711 shopkeepers with an MBA because the Australian values you keep blabbering about of ‘fair go’ do not apply to them.

As for your ongoing lies and misrepresentation on Islam (which I responded to on the ‘blaming the cultural bogeyman thread”) I can only say this: shame on you and your un’Australian’ values. I lived in this country for 10 years and Australians are beautiful, kind, honest, simple and welcoming folks. You need to go under a simulation test to see if you are fit for citizenship.

Fellow_Human: I wish there was a method of contacting other forum members... I am interested in the website proposition that you mentioned in another thread. I am a fellow Sydney-sider who has some experience in website design/graphics, as well as interested in contemporary Islamic thought.

Keep posting with a level head and I hope others find what you say useful.

ma'a salama

"MUSLIMS
will be told, that domestic abuse is a) not a valid part of our culture, and they will be treated exactly the same as everyone else if they beat the daylights out of their wives."

That's why White-Ribbon Day is so important, right?

Pericles, if that is not clear enough, nothing ever will be.
Sadly, I suspect that nothing ever will be.

Funny how the race card played so frequently by the likes of Fellow blubbering Human. Well educated whites often have to perform menial jobs because they can't get "the" job. Not a race specific issue.

But when the influential and powerful in our society decide to mix people from different continents together, expect some kind of pecking order. This is what gives the racial egalitarian crew reason to live...since 'whites' are more likely to thrive in a European based society.

Don't let common sense get in the way of Marxist ambitions.

LIAR (F.H.)
MISREPRESENTER (F.H.)
RABBLE ROUSER (Pericles)
MORON (by implication IAN)

Well, I thought I'd actually list them. (feel free to list the 'names' I've called you all.)

I welcome such feedback, as always.

My challenge.

1/ F.H.
-show me a 'lie' ?
-show me a 'misrepresentation'

Your suggestion I'm lying ? is quite serious. I'll await your specific 'lie' before responding to it.

But, to your 'you answered sura 23.5-6 in the bogeyman thread' is not correct. You gave 'spin' in that thread and some allusions to 'its nice to free a slave' but I counter this head on, by pointing out that Sharia law explains it as currently applicable. Now who am I to believe ? You with your secular job, or an Imam who is an expert on Sharia ?
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=10896

What you failed to recognize is the CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER of the Sura's when you quoted Sura2.. 23 is subsequent to it. 90 is subsequent to 23 but does in no way extinguish the practice or validity of 23:5-6 if it did, it would NOT be a part of Sharia law.

PERICLES.
Unlike you to be shabby with history. The Irish were giving the English 'some' because of long historical roots mainly going back to Cromwell and the massacres he carried out. Of course the Irish are not to blame, its the English of the day. but at the same time, 'that' struggle can be seen in historical context. You cannot goto the Bible and show how "The world must be conquered and become Catholic". Islam is a different kettle of Middle Eastern Carp.

IAN.. I'm sure you can do much better than wasted posts like that one.
Why not try for example to engage on the actual point you are critical of, and argue against it with facts.

Please have a read of the link I provided Ian... it will bring you up to speed.

Pericles,
Your definition of terrorists doesn't identify motive but may assume they're merely deranged criminals. Check out whose been the bommers, and you will find well educated middle class people involved. They're not terrorising merely to be terrorists, they have an intelligent agenda.

If they are IRA Catholics or Muslim fundamentalists you'll find it's religious convictions and with clear concience they will kill others. It's based in their view of who is their enemy, and how they should treat their enemy. Stop denying they have no intelligent religious based motive when they clearly identify it's their religion that commands them. Wether it is IRA who kill Protestants or Islamists who kill their polytheists and Western Christian infidel as the enemy. Stop pretending they have no motive except be criminal.

It's clear that there are some Muslims who do not interpret the Qur'an literally and are good citizens. But to understand the fundamentalist interpretation of shari'ah and its judgments as the basis of their motivation must be understood and exposed. This is what B_D is doing by bringing to attention the basis of their belief.

It's the belief system that is the basis of how they identify who is their enemy, if they did not have this belief based in Islam but bommed for some other reason they still would have a basis for their terrorist action. They happen to believe the Qur'an gives them this clear command, to fail to carry this out is denying their faith.

Think again about what you have said, [quote]"It was terrorism that was the enemy, Boaz, not the Irish, or the various shades of christianity in whose name the atrocities were perpetrated. And today, it is still terrorism we are fighting, Boaz, not Muslims....
to attribute every atrocity to the teachings of their religion, and to see only bad in a place where there is also much good, puts you firmly in the category of rabble-rouser."

I see you have no trouble identifying a group of Irish Catholic Christians, but you pretend Middle Eastern fundamentalist Muslims cannot be identified.

B_D
Interesting!
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=10896

In "Jihads" (wars) women were taken as prisoners by Muslim warriors, and distributed as part of the booty among the soldiers. Each soldier was entitled to have relations ONLY with the slave girl over whom he was given the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP. This RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP was given to him by the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen". Due to this right of ownership, it became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her.

It may appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man's legal wife, but once Shariah makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not. It is necessary for a Muslim to be acquainted with the laws of Shariah,.. but it is not necessary for him to delve to find the wisdom of these laws because knowledge of the wisdom of some of the laws may be beyond his puny comprehension. Allah Ta'ala has said in the Holy
Quraan: "Wa maa ooteetum min al-ilm illaa qaleelan" which means, more or less, that, "You have been given a very small portion of knowledge". Hence, if a person fails to comprehend the underlying wisdom of any law of Shariah, he cannot regard it as a fault of Shariah (Allah forbid), it is the fault of his own perception and lack of understanding, because no law of Shariah is contradictory to wisdom.

The LEGAL possession over a slave woman gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. ... A free woman cannot be 'possessed', bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariah instituted a 'marriage ceremony' in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her.

Rainer,just argue the points presented and stop screaming racist along with Realist,Mahatma and Kartiya.Can you or anyone else define what it takes to be classified to be Aboriginal?Is it special way of thinking,genetics or the allure of sit down money?

I think it is disgusting that the Anglo Aborigines have stolen the agenda along with the top administration jobs while the those closer to the true genetic culture sniff petrol and languish in social poverty.Billions have been spent on solving the problems and they get worse because people like yourself continue to seduce followers with the notions of the victim mentality and the evil white oppressors.

We cannot change the past,the Romans along with the Vikings invaded raped an plundered England, and England in turn invaded Australia.It has been happening since homo sapiens killed off all the neanderthals.You cannot just hide behind the umbrella of past attrocities as an excuse for not having a go.Believe or not,welfare or sit down money is the greatest enemy of the Aboriginal Culture.

Arjay, If you met me in person you'd find it very difficult to say what you've just said for a range of reasons. One that would have an immediate impact on you would be how forgiving I am. I truly feel sorry that you don't know any better, but that's not my fault.
I wish I could help you but I also think its your responsibility to become better informed, better educated, and thus less racist.
Racism is not my problem, its a white problem.

I find it absurd to presume that everyone who identifies as Muslim will therefore have a specific (fundamentalist) approach to reading the Koran and the traditions.
There are some pretty nasty things in the Bible, but I don't automatically assume that all Christians believe in putting them into practice.

it is interesting whilst at the same time muslims assert their identity, westerners are extremely self critical to the point of self deprecation

racism is a white problem?

that assumes racism comes only from whites so is inadvertently racist, get your act together rainier

Davo, I've dealt with racisms - big and small, benign and overt, all my life davo. I say with with no badge of honor, its just how it is. How do you deal with it everyday?

IAN.. umm was that a response ? a grappling with the issue ?

Ok..I'll assume it was.. but I know you can do better.

Firstly... big tick.... you are RIGHT.. it IS absurd to suggest 'all' muslims or that 'anyone' who identifies with Islam will have the same fundamental understanding of the Quran and Hadith.. and for me, I cannot recall saying that.. so its a red herring or a straw Mossie, but its not what I've been saying.

Please take the trouble to read more carefuly, I structure my posts very thoughtfully believe it or not. I try to be careful to avoid 'generalizations' and throwing the ethnic baby out with the bathwater.

I've maintained all along and repeatedly, that the 'radical' end of the Muslim community spectrum will be the problem.

NASTY THINGS IN THE BIBLE... another brilliant observation !

Now.. lets go the extra mile and examine:

-Context

Are the 'nasty' things 'commandments' 'reports of bad behavior' or what ?

The book of Kings is a littany of repeated bad ungodly behavior. Not even blind Nellie or her cousin Dumb Steve would be so stupid as to suggest that a report of a bad king is some kind of commandment or example to follow.

In fact.. as each king is mentioned, their bad behavior is SPECIFICALLY used to illustrate how NOT to act.

IAN.. I seriously recommend some reading, on biblical interpretation.
(And Islamic Law may be beneficial) So, you can evaluate Philo's reproduction of a quote from Sharia law how a female captive is 'allocated by the Islamic state to be the sex slave' of soldiers (literally)

If you read the Levitical law about Captives, you would see immediately the difference between the 'Grieve for a month' and the Islamic "Don't have sex with her for a cycle... to SEE IF SHE IS PREGNANT'.. i.e. its nothing to do with her emotional need to recover from the trauma of war, its just to see if she is preggers or not so the master can sleep with her without another mans child in her tummy.

Realist “that comment on Aborigines was a little harsh. Every race is assimilating.
I look forward to your family joining many with aboriginal heritage in the near future”

I have no problem with that.

I would observe “people” make their own individual choices which make it certain that the “purity” of an ethnic sub-group will dilute over time as individuals follow up on their individual choices to procreate with people of other ethnic sub-groups.

Hence, aborigines will expire as an identifiable “ethnic group”, as surely as Saxons, Angles, Picts Celts and Normans have disappeared from England (although outcrops of Picts and Celts exist as inbred throw-backs in Ireland and Scotland).
I would similarly forecast radical Islamic values will disappear as successive generations identify closer with Australian cultural values, Women from Islamic and associated ethnic sub-group origins will decide that “the respect as equal” from a Christian is more acceptable than brutal domination and subjugation from an arrogant Islamic dullard. Likewise, there is nothing to be gained by following the rabid ravings of a bunch of religious fascists who are the power force in third world backwater.

Ultimately “there are a lot of coffee coloured people in Brazil”. Australia will follow a similar path and for our descendants, being “Australian” will be how our children and grand children will describe themselves, not as Greek, Italian, English, Lebanese or Koori or TSI etc.

So you can accept either a melding of cultures and ethnic origins or you can preach the “purity of the race” rubbish (in which “Aboriginal heritage” substitutes for “Aryan master race”), either way individual people will make their individual choices for their own personal reasons and that guarantees assimilation.

Rainier “I'd ask Col over to my place for a cup of tea and to watch a few episodes of Dad's Army but I fear he'd take up the offer! “

I would hate for you to consume your annual social budget in one grand gesture Rainier, after all renting a DVD and buying a box of “English Breakfast” costs money.

Boaz, the historical perspective of these particular IRA bombings is that it was predominantly a protest against the existence of positive discrimination (jobs, mostly) in favour of the protestants of the six counties. Invoking Cromwell is akin to blaming the present islamic suicide bombings on Richard I's massacre of three thousand unarmed muslims at Acre in 1191.

And Philo, I certainly do not assume that the terrorists are "merely deranged criminals". Of course they have an agenda, and of course it is masterminded by intelligent people. They are intent upon destabilization as an immediate goal, with political change as the longterm objective.

If you subscribe to the Boaz view of life, this is simply the start of a war against christianity, which won't end until Islam achieves world domination. I tend to think otherwise, that this is just another eruption of emotion from a group of people who perceive themselves as somehow downtrodden by richer and more powerful forces. It will blow over in twenty or thirty years or so, but in the meantime we should avoid the temptation to escalate it in our own minds from its simplistic foundations. Jobs, money, pride. Exactly the same as the IRA.

One of the most dangerous approaches that we can take to this situation is to glorify it with the image of a holy war. To do so is to reinforce the black-and-white imagery that extremists of both sides adopt in order to rationalize their positions. This is the aspect of it all that leads me to describe the words that Boaz uses as "rabble-rousing", an activity that invariably eschews annoying detail in favour of the emotive sound bite.

Unfortunately, we have a government (as does the US and the UK) that prefers grandstanding to the media over the development of sober, thoughtful, compassionate and constructive responses to a difficult situation. In doing so, they can, and do, make the situation more perilous for all of us.

Boaz,

You challenged me on women rights & slavery in the Quran and without being repetitive to whats on other threads, I proved to you that Quran position was the best in comparison to other scriptures.

Your approach towards the Hadith is where you become ‘vague’ on the truth. Islam to Muslims is the Quran. Hadith is taken only to what does not conflict with the Quran as for us religion is the message “God’s word’ and not the messenger.

The hadith you pick are believed only by those who are terrorists and are brainwashing material. But the remaining majority of Muslims rejects their existence as a truth.

To help you understand, let me simulate an example on your own religion:

- If I say there is a GOB (Gospel of Barnabos) that exists, banned by Pope Glacious I in the year 492 AD (78 years before Mohammed (PBUH) was born): that is a 'true statement'.
- If I say the contents of GOB talk about Jesus prophecies, Mohamed (PBUH) coming, why Jesus had to disappear and why and when he is coming back before the end of time: that is a ‘true’ statement.

- Now, if I claim that “All Christians believe in GOB” : that is a ‘false’ statement.

This is basic ‘logical processing’. You claim to be a 60 y.o. missionary with expertise on Islam. Your actions and the way you process logic simply conflicts with your claim.

Why occupy your mind with it? There is something metaphysical out there, but religion is a set of theories provided to the masses to keep order that differs according to culture, location and time of founding. It is like playing the pokies, none may win but there are at least billions of people who are wrong and are following a false theory supposing one was correct.

Lets take what you have been brainwashed with so far in your life. I have not had a specific religion, is this the reason I am one of the few who can take a step back and say, "hey there is something out there but until i know, or my future generations do, I am not conforming to another mans theory or way of living"?.

By subscribing to a theory, you are worshiping false gods/prophets to other religions.

Lets get this in perspective. The churches core role was order and governance of the masses by providing them with a belief structure back in the time when moral responsibility was far more powerful than the framgmented legal one. We needed it then to retain order. For those who are religious, not only do you have thousands of religions to choose (and who says the oldest or wealthiest or most popular is the correct one), but most people just subscribe to what they were born into, in essence having no choice at all. They all conflict in theme, theory and worship, so what is right and wrong?

For most on this topic i will be ridiculed for this. Why waste your time at this stage of our understanding worshiping a creator, we have to prove that intelligent design exists first. Then, who or what was it? if you need support ring lifeline, and put those hours of worship into something productive. We would have no basis for wars, hatred and terrorism.

We create these problems for ourselves. We have legal order now, leave the scriptures to the history books until we know for sure, then we can revisit and see who was backing the winner.

Dear Dawood,

Sorry did not ignore your posting. Although you need to know that all my insights, research, modernisation efforts and bloggs are self funded (sorry better to be open and set your expectations upfront).

If this is not an issue for you, please email me if you like on:

chess101@shinyfeet.com

Peace,

Dear All,

I just wanted to add a few words on poverty. I appreciated some of the points made about money not being everything. I don't think you need to be rich to be happy.

I think though when we are talking about poverty at a global level we have to be careful. There are so many people that live in really appaling conditions. People who don't have enough to eat, no access to safe drinking water, no basic health care, no shelter.

And just slightly above this, people who might have just enough to eat and maybe some basic form of shelter, but for whom any minor mishap, like a broken leg, can mean that they fall immediatley below even this basic level of subsistence.

And I don't even want to go into less basic goods, like education!

So, yes, of course, we don't all have to subscribe to a western understanding of what constitutes a decent job, or of the amount of things people need to be happy, but at this basic level, and we are talking huge numbers of poeple, I think it is not about a particular cultural understanding of what is a good life, we are talking about a level of deprivation that would be recognised as unacceptable by everybody, I think.

Schmuck

arjay, dispossesed Aboriginals who learnt to farm in the 1800's and 1900's were not allowed to own farms or land - their job was to make money for their white "owners".eventually white labour increased and the Aboriginals were shunted into town . they carried the bush for years and got nothing except whiteman's diseases and rubbish food in return .don't be so mean.
we and all immigrants owe them a huge debt- and john howard is too lousy even to say sorry .

Bronwyn, I was disgusted at the time of the Tampa by what appeared to me to be a completely one-eyed stance by both Bob Brown and Natasha Stott-Despoja.

They simply completely condemned Howard’s actions. They paid no credence at all to the following…..

1. Asylum-seeker movement to Australia had built up to a point where it was about to explode. We knew about many boats ready to leave Indonesia. Movement from Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries to this ‘halfway house’ had been in the news for months. The word had spread far and wide that Australia was clearly the most desirable destination for those who could get that far across the world. It was well and truly time to take real action.

2. If more boats had been allowed to come, hard action would most definitely have followed, and a larger number of people would have been caught up in the asylum-seeker / mandatory detention mess.

3. Asylum-seekers were taking the places of refugees. Those refugees who are brought to Australia as part of our immigration program are among the world’s most needy people.

4. Australia has every right to protect its borders and to make sure that immigration is under full control.

5. One of the main tenets of sustainability is a stable population, or at least, not a rapidly growing population. If the asylum-seeker issue had been allowed to escalate to the scale that is was about to, there would have been literally many thousands added to annual immigration numbers. I always thought that the Greens and Democrats were fundamentally concerned about sustainability. That’s why I joined the Greens. But expression about sustainability seemed to be next to non-existent.

I didn’t quit the greens because of Bob’s compassionate concerns for asylum seekers. I quit because his expression seemed to be so terribly lopsided, supported fully by Natasha, and with no dissent shown within either the Greens or Democrats.

I’m on the road for the next month, so my postings might be a few days apart, or at worst, cut off til first thing next year. Cheers

Ludwig,
I have a 28 year old friend who lived just down the street from me now working to assist asylmn seekers in Austria [not Australia]. There are thousands arriving each day. He assists them with clothing and language training. Obviously they have got the names confused. Most of them are from the African continent so can traverse by land. Australia is fortunate we are surrounded by water, which restricts the economic refugee.

Ludwig

Appreciate your post.

I'm concerned with sustainability too and I agree in an ideal world people wouldn't come knocking on our door. But with over 20 million refugees worldwide and us being part of the global village I don't see how we can put up the barriers indefinitely. Especially since we joined in the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq. I feel this gives us some sort of obligation to the refugees we helped to create, don't you agree?

If wealthy countries continue to shut the world's problems out, the resentment towards us will only grow and terrorist acts directed our way are likely to increase. As well as being the right thing to do I see helping the world's displaced as a necessary investment in making the world a safer place. We expect third world countries to open their borders to us so we can trade (read exploit) freely and yet we refuse to be open with them. I don't advocate free borders, I think we need controls - not just over the movement of people though but over the movement of goods and capital too. In fairness to genuine refugees I feel they should be given a chance at resettlement if they have risked life and limb to get here which of course they have.

What you're suggesting is that all asylum seekers should head for refugee camps and wait in the queue. Unfortunately there isn't one and it's usually luck or bribery that gets them out of these hell-holes. Refugees can wait in limbo for years and years and many will spend their whole lives in these crowded makeshift camps. I agree it is easier for us to insist they get in the queue but whether it is fair and ethical to condemn them to such misery is debatable.

And I'm not finished yet!

Ludwig - (Continued)

The vast majority of boat people are genuine refugees. Do you think about how many have drowned as a result of the Upstream Disruption Program operated jointly by the Indonesian and Australian Defence Forces? Do you know what happens to the ones that do make it back to Indonesia? Are you happy with the idea that they join Indonesia's 200 million, most of whom are poor and struggling enough as it is without having to play host to people shut out by much wealthier and less crowded countries?

I feel you've succumbed to the scare mongering put out by Howard, Reith, Ruddock et al around Tampa. What evidence do you have to support the assertions you make in No.1? Evidence from their interviews on arrival shows that most asylum seekers had never heard of Australia when they left their homes.

I agree with you that sustainability is crucial. Sustainability to me though is more than a numbers game. It has to include justice. I just don't think that Australia's sustainability can be divorced from the world situation as you are suggesting. I cannot accept the deaths of asylum seekers as an acceptable price to pay in order to suppress Australia's population numbers however desirable that may be as a stand-alone concept.

One last question, if a serious conservationist such as yourself can't vote green, who the hell is there? Have you read Bob Brown's Memo for a Saner World? I feel you've been unfairly harsh to a man who is one of the few truly decent and inspirational politicians Australia has.

No hurry for a response, I will check in from time to time.

Bronwyn - a brilliant post, maybe you could paste it on a few other threads here.

I agree with every point you make.

Yes, we do have to consider sustainability and balance that with population. We cannot afford to make ourselves a target by isolationist policies - we are a part of this world.

I find it perplexing that those who would shut the doors on refugees are frequently proponents of the Global Market.

Bromwyn I can't help but comment on your posts to Ludwig, as I disagree with you :) Fact is, there are 20 million refugees, the worlds population is increasing by 80 million a year, mainly in developing countries. Perhaps its time that every woman on the planet had access to family planning options and abortion choices
in the first tremester, as her human right. Anything else is only
going to increase the problems you speak of. I see that Muslim nations are finally addressing this issue, only the Vatican is staying backward about it.

Fact is Australia can't take them all. Half a million a year streamed into Europe, it didn't change the fundamental problem. They will go where there is opportunity. Yes we could have had a flood.
Terrorism has nothing to do with it, thats a religion problem.

You speak of justice, so do I. The Australian nation needs to decide how many refugees we can take and then apply justice. Poverty is relative. Refugee camps are full of women and children who don't have 2 cents, let alone a relatively large amount of money to pay people smugglers etc. Why should those with the money get preference over those women and children? Thats not a justice at all, thats wearing your heart on your sleeve.

It is better to retain poverty stricken people together and educate and assist them to gradually move out of their situation. By bringing say thousands of poverty stricken people into Australia does not help them - it destroys us. They see our affluence and coveteousness drives them to steal and to thuggish behaviour. When they are together with people of like situation they have some level of respect for each other. Place them in our society and they believe we do not respect them because they are not equal.

I support a charity to refugee children, and I write letters to the children. I can enclose photos of myself and family, but if it shows my house, car, boat etc such is not allowed. Our affluence is beyond their comprehencion, and to transplant them here only makes them more aware of their difference.

Yabby

"Terrorism has nothing to do with it, thats a religion problem."

On the contrary I believe the issues I referred to relate very closely to terrorism which is why I mentioned it.

The reasons people resort to terrorism are inextricably bound up in land, poverty, alienation and exploitation. Terrorists are not fighting for religion. That's a myth of convenience peddled by US power brokers to justify their so-called war on terror. Religion is just the lightning rod through which terrorists conduct their real fight which, misguided as it might be, is all about achieving political freedom and economic justice. Terrorists afterall don't have access to a powerful state-sponsored military to do their dirty work.

Scout

Thank you for your kind words. Yes I might cut and paste if a point seems relevant to another thread. Please feel free to do the same - anything to give these ideas some wider currency.

"I find it perplexing that those who would shut the doors on refugees are frequently proponents of the Global Market."

Do you? I actually think the two attitudes fit together fairly closely on the ideological spectrum. I agree though it's unfortunate that this thinking seems to have the ascendancy at the moment. We can only hope that one day we live in a saner world where fairness and sustainability are no longer sacrificed in the name of profit.

Always enjoy your down-to-earth posts and hope to read many more of them.

I disagree with you. Read what Bin Laden actually wrote and where his philosphies come from. For that you need to understand Islam a little, its lots of divided groups. Terrorism comes from the salafist/muslim brotherhood version. Sayd Qutb's "Milestones" is on the net, to give you an idea what its about. He had a huge influence on the extremist forms of Islam. The Saudi's follow an extreme form,
Wahabism, which teaches hate etc, but nothing like Qutb and Co.
Bin Laden clearly stated that Taliban Afghanistan was the the closest to a perfect Muslim State in his view. All that stuff has nothing at all to do with the CIA etc.

The problem really stems from Saudi Arabia. The Sauds run the oil and treasury, the Wahabs run religion. Huge petrodollars were spent
financing radical forms of Wahabist teaching at Madrasses around the world, thats where extremism has been taught. The Sauds didn't really care, they are busy doing their thing, the agreement with the Wahabs kept relative peace in SA, now its biting them in the arse.

Yes Bin Laden thinks oil should be 120$ a barrel and that Muslims are exploited because its not, but that has little to do with the worldview of the Muslim brotherhood. Zawahiri, bin Laden's no 2
is an Egyptian straight out of that school

Yabby,
Excellent post! I suggest Bronwyn ask F_H if extremists are motivated by poverty or religion.

Bronwyn, thankyou for your well-considered response.

You write; “But with over 20 million refugees worldwide and us being part of the global village I don't see how we can put up the barriers indefinitely” and “I don't advocate free borders, I think we need controls”.

It seems to me that these two statements are contradictory. Is a barrier different to a control? Anything other than free borders means erecting barriers. Its as simple as that.

“I feel this gives us some sort of obligation to the refugees we helped to create, don't you agree?”

I agree that Australia should be doing its fair share to help the world’s most needy. This means giving aid to those in desperate need in their home countries, and perhaps bringing a small number of those under real threat of losing their lives to Australia. Money and physical assistance is many times more efficient spent at refugee sources than on setting up immigrant refugees with all the things they need to get by in Australia. To quote Leigh from the very first post on this thread; “In a nutshell: help people in their own countries.”
I still think there is some merit though in increasing our refugee intake to perhaps double the current level, but only within a much-reduced total immigration intake (about 24 000 within a 30 000 pa total). More importantly, I wish we would increase our international aid budget to at least the UN recommended 0.7% of GDP and direct it to where it is really needed. But despite this monetary shortfall, Australia has had a reasonable input into international aid issues for many years, being one of the world’s leaders on a per-capita basis.

Bronwyn, I am not sure just what you envisage with border control. Can you tell me what you would like to see.

So that’s two crucial points briefly touched upon – border control and our national effort to assist refugees and the desperately poor.

More below

The other really significant point is my previous no 1; The number of arrivals was about to really escalate. This is crucial, because, if there had not been ominous signs of an escalation in arrivals, I too would have seriously questioned the need for such a different approach over the Tampa compared to previous arrivals. I recall a great deal in the media about the mobilisation of asylum seekers. It certainly wasn’t just coming from Ruddock, or the government.

Perhaps someone else reading this thread, who is a whole lot more internet-friendly than me, can point directly to some articles pre-dating August 2001 that express this increase in asylum-seeker movement.

I can very easily imagine a scenario where Beazley was in power, vacillating while the number of boat arrivals increased and increased, until the number of people caught up in the mess was ten or a hundred times greater, with thousands on their way. What would we have done then?

Bronwyn, you wrote; “I feel you've succumbed to the scare mongering put out by Howard, Reith, Ruddock et al around Tampa”. Not at all. I think it is very much the other way around; those who so strongly opposed Howard’s actions couldn’t see the big picture. This is why I am so furious with Bob and Nattie; they couldn’t see the bleeding obvious – if a small number of asylum-seekers come to Australia and we let them all stay, we will soon have to deal with a large number. And that the larger the number, the more strictly they would have to be dealt with.

Regarding Bob Brown; I have a high regard for him (It used to be a very high regard). He is indeed “one of the few truly decent and inspirational politicians Australia has”. This is why his one-eyed stance over the Tampa and the razor-wire and mandatory-detention saga that followed, affected me much more than it otherwise would have.

“if a serious conservationist such as yourself can't vote green, who the hell is there?” No one. And isn’t that the pits.

Sheesh Bromwyn, only yesterday I was mentioning the Qutb-Zawahiri-
bin Laden connection of political Islam, last night and tonight
SBS discusses all this. I hope that you have been watching :)

Ludwig

We share a lot of common ground here. I agree we should increase our international aid to 7 %. I also agree on doubling our refugee intake and reducing our total immigration.

Regarding border control. Yes, you're right I did use some conflicting terms. When I mentioned "free borders" I was referring to the borderless world I have seen advocated by some groups whereby people can travel freely from country to country without needing passports and visas etc. In such a world we truly would have a global market economy where people could travel to where the work is according to the laws of supply and demand. It has some appeal and might work in an ideal world, but in today's world most would probably agree the concept is fraught with danger.

I see some limits and controls as neccessary but I don't believe in the draconian measures implemented by this government. Asylum seekers should be detained on arrival while health and identity checks are undertaken, after which they can be returned to their home country if found not to be genuine refugees or given permanent protection and allowed to settle in the community.

The numbers of asylum seekers arriving on Australian shores relates as much to the conditions in their countries of origin as it does on their perceptions of how they might be treated when they get here. The extension of your argument is that it is okay to lock up asylum seekers indefinitely and treat them abominably to act as a deterrent to others. This is an end justifying the means argument which I will never accept. Apart from that I don't know if our opinions really differ that much.

Have enjoyed the discussion and look forward to seeing your posts on other threads.

Very good Bronwyn. We really do see eye to eye on this matter.

And we will see eye to eye even more after this posting.

I do not for one moment advocate indefinite detention of asylum seekers, nor to in any way “treat them abominably”. I can’t say if there was a deterrence aspect to the length of detention from some or all asylum seekers, I just don’t know, and of course no one is going to admit to it if there was. But I can say a few things about detention;

Australia learnt the hard way that detention is necessary, which evolved from a policy of no detention in the early days of ‘boat people’ arriving on our shores and the fact that they often left the centres and disappeared, as has been the experience in Britain and other European countries that have grappled with this terribly difficult issue. Ultimately, the detention of desperate people meant high walls, razor wire and guards. The inevitable highly unfortunate comparison with prisons arose.

Deciding which asylum seekers were genuine and which weren’t when many of them had deliberately destroyed their papers and/or did not willingly cooperate with authorities, was fraught with difficulty and understandably took very much longer than it would have otherwise. Australia could very easily have said; ‘no papers or no cooperation, no stay’.

It was also highly desirable to release or deport whole groups together, which meant that sometimes they all stayed put until the last and most difficult case in their group was resolved.

The great majority did get their cases resolved quickly. It was only a small portion – those difficult cases and deliberate obfuscators, which stayed for very long periods.

And finally, the great majority were not sent home. Australia exercised a very liberal definition of the 1951Convention on Refugees definition. By comparison, if these onshore asylum seekers had been judged equally to offshore asylum seekers, at one of Australia’s many overseas refugee stations, only a tiny fraction of them would have been allowed to stay

An Englishmen’s point of view

It seems that Tiziana Torresi is advocating the same approach to immigration as in the UK and EU for the last 15-20 years.

The results have been a complete and utter failure, no matter what approach has been tried from the liberal multicultural approach of the UK and Netherlands, to the stricter approach taken by France and Spain.

Once that gate is opened it is impossible to close them. In the UK the Muslim population is already electoral significant. At the moment any party that wishing to win a seat in most urban centres or in the Midlands must have a pro-Islamic agenda or they will be defeated.

Two white men can be sentenced to thirty years in prison for murdering an innocent black boy. Yet three Asians receive half the sentence for bashing a white mans head to pulp the murder not being “racially” motivated according to the judge. Though they did shout “die whitey die” as they killed him. The fact is that we are no longer equal under the law in the UK and this is just the beginning.

Economic benefits to immigration? In the UK even third generation persons of Islamic backgrounds are three times as likely to be unemployed as a "native" or someone from another migrant group. What economic benefits?

Crime statistics on Islamic migrants are not available in the UK (Guess why?) but in Sweden they show that they are the cause of a disproportionate amount of crime. This is especially true with regards to crimes against women (Check out http://fjordman.blogspot.com/).

Is this the path that Ms Torresi advocates?

Increasing aid to the third world? Why ?. The same treatment for thirty year’s, and they are still sick change the treatment. Aren’t three Marshal plans for Africa enough?

In Europe, every approach has been tried and failed. You just can’t assimilate these people they don’t want it and don’t see why they should. They want to assimilate us! In Europe, unless something is done they will by about 2050.

God Bless Australia and thanks for the Ashes

The justification for progress is the myth that progress brings wealth and if we continue to have progress all the poor in the world will ultimately be wealthy and this will cause their fertility rates to drop, due to the 'demographic transition'. So to deny progress its victims is to deny the poor economic justice and to condemn them to poverty and overpopulation. This is also the argument for first world population growth, open borders, and labour deregulation. It suits the Catholic Church, big business, and land speculators too.

It is true that things have improved for the first world in the 20th century. It is true things were worse 164 years ago in the 'first' world. They were worse because of the 'progress' of the industrial revolution. In 1842 the British working class had an average. life-expectancy of 17 years. 57% died before the age of five. The effects of coal on air quality and light were so devastating that the life expectancy of the city gentry was only 38 years and about half of the population of the industrial areas had rickets, which is a vitamin deficiency disease due to lack of sunlight. This misery was multiplied by the first ever globally explosive population growth that fed the industrial revolution and fed from it, which saw the English population increase from about 5 million in 1750 to 21.5 million in 1881.

The lie is that life was always like that until the 20th century and that things have never been so good in the first world or the third world.

The truth is that, before the industrial revolution, and before feudalism, many people lived long lives and grew straight and tall. Average heights of men in Europe fell from 173.4cm in the early Middle Ages to approximately 167cm during the industrial revolution. Return to earlier stature did not occur before the twentieth century. Likewise the healthiest groups in the Americas predated Columbus's arrival. Descriptions of Africans and Pacific Islanders by those who first encountered them give similar pictures. Descriptions and photographs of Australian aborigines support the same observations

My earlier post about progress was a response to Faustino.

I have to say though that the article, "Opening Australia's borders" is brilliant. Unlike most of the 'responses' which are almost all ugly and unbelievably stupid. Amazingly most inadvertantly show that they have not even read the article, but have just seized the opportunity to air some broken old bits of ideology.

Opening Australia's borders is NOT in favour of opening Australia's borders!

And it is very well argued.

Tiziana Torresi does not acknowledge that much more than social justice may be at stake in the debates over immigration. Some of us perceive that the human population of the world is in overshoot -- it's too large to be sustained. Indeed it is more than plausible that the current population of Australia is not sustainable. If this is so, cessation of immigration may be a matter of the survival of civilized life in Australia.

Most equalitarian commentators perceive that social justice can be obtained by sharing the fruits of the Earth. It is remotely conceivable that they may be right today, but they are innocent of an imminent future in which a reduced ability of the Earth to support us will make them wrong.

"What to do in a failing civilization", http://tinyurl.com/ey83c

"Overshoot in a nutshell (Malthus was an optimist)", http://tinyurl.com/q45aa