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.