The problems with Arabs arise not because they are Arabs, but because they are Muslims. Until all Muslims, irrespective of race, take an honest, critical look at the outdated dogma of their religion - as have Christians with theirs - there will be no improvement in relations. Blaming race, appearance and other peripherals, which have been present in Austalia for two centuries, is humbug.

Mirko,
How do we explain all the muslims of other races, who do not participate in violence. I must be spoiled living in North Qld, because we have muslims here, and have never had any trouble, they go about their business in the same way we Christians go about ours. Perhaps you are correct it is the enviroment in which these people live.

the bleeding heart brigade.

The sweeping generalisations are coming from the author of this, and he is just as bad as the rest.

They get given equal opportunity. They have a natural urge to congregate together and this is what is creating the segregation, incoreect attitudes from both sides and tension.

It is a government responsibility to ensure they place new migrants in areas of employment shortage or population need, not let them be drawn like magnets to the ghettos with other people who have been locked up in detention centres, or disenchanted with Australian society.

The fair go comes from not transplanting a way of life here. i bet in NQ due to the proportion of population of muslims they live in harmony, and interact well with others. Simple realy, but too simple it seems for those that want to be bleeding hearts.

They get a fair go, We Aussies dont have Aussie Activists or community networks like these (which is a further example of segregation) so look at reality and see the government needs to manage a community with planning, not allow them to congregate and segregate themselves. its the same for Aborigines and other minority groups

I note that the very first post on this topic by Leigh went straight on the attack blaming Arabs for being Muslim. Though Arab and Muslim are not necessarily synonymous.

Is it so morally repugnant to stigmatise certain groups or are we to rise above our humanity and only consider the ideas repugnant not the person who holds them? Mirko might like to also consider his views say in relation to those who consider paedophilia to be acceptable and or those who consider suicide bombing as a very commendable and worthwhile exercise. Surely our human instincts to revile such groups is an evolved trait which serves humanity well and is not to be lightly dismissed.

The problem is that humans quite naturally stigmatise and alienate various groups; it is how to manage our basic humanity that is the problem. Religion used to be a very useful tool in this regards but when one has competing religions one has a problem. Again it is the otherness that is the problem and of course if one does belong to a religion that forbids women from marrying outside the religion, which Islam does, then surely in a society such as Australia it is morally correct to stigmatise those who hold the view that a religion has the right to restrict a women from marrying whom-so-ever she pleases. Surely those who would restrict the freedom of others must be stigmatised and alienated from mainstream society. It is not the fact that we as humans stigmatise and alienate, that is a given, but as members of a multi-cultural society, it is what we stigmatise and alienate people for that is important. Paedophiles should be alienated so should those who would restrict the freedom of others—they should not be welcome in Australia.

Another vague/ soft approach to a critical issue

>>...we should not allow these superficial differences to divert us from the fact we have the same basic needs and our wellbeing is promoted by the same type of things.<<

It’s not the ‘superficial’ differences but the deep insincere ones that the average Australian does not recognise that is my concern.

Yes Arabs are not all muslims – (some Lebanese will also argue that Lebanese are not Arabs) – but the underlying problem is islam unfortunately; islam does not have the same ‘basic needs’ that we and the rest of the free world enjoy.

At the risk of being inflammatory and suspended again for speaking the truth I make it my business to defend my country from the ‘Fatwah’ that is set by corporate islam to invade, occupy and overrun us; and be given an equal opportunity to flourish by our duped governments.

The goal of islam is to conquer, take over, re-posses, re-claim humanity back to Allah. This in itself is the huge difference with all other ethnicity and race.

We (non-muslim Australians) are allowing this to happen through our head-in-the-sand attitude, PC stupidity, and insufficient knowledge of our own religious foundation.

Eminently sensible Mirko. A good article.

Racial tensions have manifest themselves around the world throughout the history of humanity, not least in Australia before multiculturalism. So that begs the question; why did successive governments think that Australia could have multiculturalism without racial strife ensuing sooner or later? Even if problems with European – Aboriginal relations weren’t enough to make them think twice, problems with the early Chinese immigrants or later, Vietnamese refugees should certainly have made them very wary.

Multiculturalism is a nice ideal, and for as long as a society remains prosperous and we vigorously promote tolerance and equality, things might just hold together.

The trouble is, in Australia inequality is increasing all the time, and is in our faces more and more blatantly, not least in terms of big business making ridiculously huge profits and paying obscene amounts to CEOs and top execs while at the same time continuously cutting jobs, or in our tax system within which the rich and powerful simply don’t pay a proportionate share, let alone the larger share that they are supposed to pay according to skew towards higher income brackets, or in the decline in basic services, not least health and tertiary education, while the tax burden remains as high as ever, on in the massive decline in the quality of our environment and all the forever increasing restrictions implemented as a result.

continued below

No these things are not racially based, but they do place pressure on our whole society and that manifests itself in divisions, not least racial or cultural divisions.

Add to this the direct racial and cultural pressures brought about by terrorism and associated issues and we have an almighty messy situation looming.

I believe the real issue will blow up as peak oil hits us. When fuel prices rise to the extent that many people can’t make ends meet, lose their jobs, lose easy access to food as lines of transport break down, and suffer massive inflation thus rendering their money and assets largely worthless, then the simmering divisions are really going become major schisms.

Even if we manage to get through the peak oil scenario relatively unscathed, it will still create enough stress and unrest to lead to massive divisions. Multiculturalism can only have added greatly to this background of simmering divisions.

Having laid out this dismal scenario, I must say that it is the notion of multiculturalism, along with our terribly bad resource management, and pseudo-democratic management of big business and community services that I am taking issue with. It is certainly is NOT with the people themselves that Australia has allowed to immigrate

So our freedom to associate is limited to "we" non immigrants according to some. That sounds welcoming.

And a covert concession that new immigrants who are in close proximity with those who have endured the Australian Gulag will be influenced by their understandable resentment; excellent work Realist. We're still operating under the assumption the boats are full of terrorists. Perhaps we should relocate people by legislative force into postcodes - white guy, black guy, sikh, mormon, hindu, muslim etc

The English immigrants of the 50's and sixties were housed together, in the main, in "hostels", row upon row of nissan huts; it was the Adelaide experience that they pretty much moved to a single suburb, Elizabeth - and now they are every where like pepper and salt in the great Australian social soup. As will be our swarthy brothers and sisters - in time - if we treat them as we would like to be treated.

People like the familiar; that's why we are in the middle of some bizarre social panic over a few mad mullahs and women in gabardine with scarves on thier heads - and none of us need a further theology lesson on the root and branch of Islam and its clandestine agenda to rule the world. Give it a rest. Move on. Get over it

Mirko Bagaric makes some fair points but I contest his opening line. There was nothing like 5,000 people involved in the street BBQ at Cronulla beach that later turned violent. And of those present, only a small collection became involved in the racist and violent behavior that made such colourful media footage.

The hyperbole of the media is understandable - though not forgivable. It uses hyperbole as a sales tool.

But if Mirko Bagaric is to present himself as a social commentator then he should try to maintain an honest sense of proportion.

A restrained examination of the Cronulla affair may simply allow the non Sutherland Shire Sydneysiders to smugly raise their eyebrows as they confirm that rednecks dwell in "God's Country". And those who enjoy stereotyping young men of olive complexion as violent will be an equally satisfactied by the isolated vandalism of cars in Maroubra.

But beyond illustrating the obvious - that there's occasional tension in this here big old diverse town of ours - there's not really much to learn from the Cronulla incident.

Perhaps just a lesson for the grass roots politicos - take care to own your argument.

Because from this one - a new and unknown Premier has been able to launch his career on the steps of that old kernell the law and order debate. A collection of representatives speaking for minority goups and localities have been able sell themselves as "community leaders". A bandwagon of advocates for various causes (whether they be anti-immigration or pro cultural diversification) have made strange bedfellows in their capacity to re-frame the events to suit their arguments. And the media has been able to exercise shameless hyperbole helped to the great satisfaction of all of the above - but perhaps to the detriment of the general population - to boost sales during the slow summer season.

... and Sydney got to hear that tired old refrain from sections of Melbourne yet again - you know it ....

All the rest is hyperbole.

Mirko, I very much agree with the central ideas of the article, now comes the "but".

Why so soft on the violence and abhorent behaviour that led up to the riot and continued elsewhere afterwards? Your language regarding systematic and sustained racism, sexual abuse etc by what are from almost all accounts gangs of predominately lebanese youth really seems to soft peddle that issue.

It is true that they are a small minority of the arab/muslim population in Australia but from what I have seen from afar their actions over a number of years have been having a significant impact on those unfortunate enough to cross their paths. Not just one night of rage expressing pent up frustrations but rather reportedly years of abuse of innocent bystanders, a total lack of respect for the rights of others and the law of the land.

Those who condem the actions of the mob of 5000 on that one night but who fail to express abhorence for the ongoing crimes of these gangs do not reduce racial tensions rather they contribute to a sense of tribalism which makes it worse.

The riots were deeply disturbing but much more offensive and disturbing is that ethnic gangs have been carrying out racial and sexual violence for years with little of no public censure from those who should be speaking out or moving to stop such behaviour.

R0bert

"Worldwide empirical research"

This guy is keen to get his bona fides across early. It is all backed up in those un-referenced scientific studies.

"Recent scientific studies into human wellbeing,"

Snigger. From the highly regarded wellbeing faculty I take it?

Or would that be the regurgitation of twee boilerplate faculty:

"Racism can only be defeated if we understand its root cause and come to accept the reassuring commonality of the human condition."

Those root causes again. Or perhaps the prozac and therapy enthusiasts society:

"In a nutshell, the things that are conducive to happiness are fit and healthy bodies, realistic goals, self-esteem, optimism" ...

Truncated, it was tedious.

Or finally, this optimistic nugget of social policy:

"As individuals we should all be working towards the above ends."

See, if we all pull together and try really really hard, and wish on a moonbeam, then ...

"Lets make sure that we continue to live in a society where all citizens are given an equal opportunity to flourish - this is the best guarantee of our individual prosperity."

This man is a professor of law. That is interesting.

MPP,

Yes isn't it sadly hilarious approch to such a heavy social issue.

"Mirko Bagaric argues we need to foster an environment where
individuals can flourish regardless of race or religion."

how do you spell Lobotomy... a nice little padded room on the moon for the neutral-people to keep trying and trying and trying to flourish regardless of race or religion.

Mr.P.Pig, merideth, lots of ridicule but what exactly are your problems with

"we need to foster an environment where individuals can flourish regardless of race or religion."

Mirko has not promised an easy road to that goal, rather suggested that we should work towards it.

Do you have a fundamental disagreement with the basic concept?
Is your concern that some races or religions hamper "flourishing" so that it will never happen?

I have some sympathy with the idea that some religious beliefs hamper individual and social development but interpret Mirko's article to mean that invividuals are free to flourish as much as they are willing to do so. If you don't think that is a worthy goal please explain why.

Some constructive comment rather than sneering derision might be useful. Please!

R0bert

R0bert:

"Mirko has not promised an easy road to that goal, rather suggested that we should work towards it."

Mirko managed to say very little of anything. This is not my fault.

"we need to foster an environment where individuals can flourish regardless of race or religion."

On the face of it there is nothing wrong with that statement, of course you would be well aware that it means absolutely nothing as is. I defy you to find one concrete action that is implied. This is the main criticism I am making. Presumably this interfaith/race dialogue has been going on for a while by now and the preparatory rhetorical flourishes have been made, we are about to start drafting the important bits by now, surely - the bits that actually mean something, right? Wrong. There is nothing beyond the intro. Otherwise you would be talking about the details instead. Lets face it, most people don't know what to do. That does not mean that anyone should win by default, simply because they have a spiel ready to go.

If someone comes across with lines like "scientific studies into human wellbeing" then it is appropriate to cast doubt on how rigourous the findings are likely to be. When people talk about flaky pseudo-science these are precisely the sort of noises they refer to. There are good reasons to be sceptical.

Root causes, you have encountered this elsewhere I take it. On the face of it a sensible approach surely. Only problem is they're invariably associated with rewarding the people that behave the worst, obviously they are the ones suffering from the greatest injustice and so if only we are more accommodating. Humans learn, the point is that the root causes argument, as generally implemented, probably teaches the wrong things.

Now to the actual solutions that are mentioned in the article. The last two paragraphs, which can be paraphrased as "if we all pull together and try". That is it, after all the groundwork that is all he has to say. How seriously should this article be taken.

Racially motivated rapes and sexual assault is a far more worrying trend then a "few" drunk youths in the streets.

Both are wrong but to silence any criticism on the racist attitudes of Arabs, christian or muslim or non religous, but to spread the word around the globe that white aussie are racists is beyong belief. What blows me away time again is that the extreme left do not see how racist they are by assigning different standards to different races. What, are Arabs so inferior they can't be charged with such crimes against humanity?. Are whites so superior they should be better behaved? I read it was called paternalistic racism. I think so.

I do believe racism is on the rise. And I blame the extreme left. No different to Pauline Hanson. Howard did a better job of getting rid of the extreme that the supposed supporter of suburbia, the Labor Party, have done. Fancy Latham prancing around with Bob Brown and Peter Garret dancing around singing silly tunes and big noting himself with extremely white celebrities from an extremely white industry. Like us battlers really need that to represent us.

The left will be on the back burner until it moves back into suburbia where it all happens, not in the cosy little "foodcourt style multicultural" english type suburbs nestled close to town and the leafy northern suburbs.

Many Australians detest that closed in stuffy lifestyle and will detest all those pushing for their cultural genocide. So yes racism will increase. Aboriginals were treated the same, anyone with birthright here will fight for thier way of life, same as history tells us now and may remind us again one day when it looks back at the damaging "political correct" years.

Mirko also appears to be saying, stop blaming arabs for what they are doing, as it's not the normal arabic approach. I may be wrong but could some one inform me as to what arabac nation is neither a basket case or so heavily controlled and suppressed, that the only thing that flourishes is fear and violence.

It is not our responsiblity to foster an environment to satisfy others coming to our country, it is up to those coming to understand and accept our ethics, laws, social expressions and customs.

Mirko says that arabs want peace and harmony just like us, but the example in arab countries and the fact that arabs continue living the same way here, only has one result. A repeat of what their own countries culture is like.

To have any chance of acceptance and harmony in a country, you must have everyone following the same cultural norms. Otherwise its the new comers that are discriminating and being racist towards their hosts.

Australian cultural norms, mostly let everyone be themselves responsibly, and don't hassle others. Changes to our cultural norms, occurr when we as a nation realise that they are a progressive addition to our lives and we gradually adopt them as we become comfortable with them.

When others come here with our help and support, telling us that their way is not only better but we should accept it. Yet the example of what they want to continue with, is the primary cause of their cultural problems, they say we are racist and biggoted.

What we have to realise is than we can expect nothing less from those that follow barbaric and violent cultural isms and there is no place for them here. If those cultural norms are so important to these people than the peace and harmony, that this country culturally expresses. Then they should be in a country that expresses the culture of their choice and not here.

It is morally repugnant that Lebanese gangs are allowed to get away with physically and mentally violating other Australian groups.

Pommies don't call themselves English Australians! Neither do Greek, Italian, Yugolsav, Ukraine, South American, Canadian - the list goes on.

So it's OK to belt up a couple of Life (yes life) Guards and just get a pat on the wrist. The badly behaved whites were taken to task for their bad behaviour - but not the Lebs.

"we need to foster an environment where individuals can flourish regardless of race or religion."

Why does Mirko think we haven't been doing just this for decades?

It is not our way to impose our religion on others.
It is not our way to impose restrictive morality upon others .
It is not our way to use racist violence against others.
It is not our way to excuse violent behaviour towards others.

Yet Mirko excuses just these things and support for them in the Muslim Lebanese Community in Sydney and thinks that might help 'foster an environment where individuals can flourish regardless of race or religion'.

How can that be achieved?

First lets get our facts straight this recent event that sparked everything off was between three lifeguards & four lebs.
Refer: http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,17492835-5001021,00.html
Sounds like nearly a fair fight? Doesn’t sound like Lebanese gangs roaming the beach front to me.

How many times have you heard on the news two men (or three men, the number doesn’t matter) of caucasiun appearance were arrested today for assaulting a man (ie drunken brawl) in a pub.

What? This doesn’t happen? It does and probably most weekends in Sydney and more than once. But it doesn’t make great headlines.

There is just as much violence and pack mentality in the “white Australian” male population as in any other racial group. (Don’t belive me? Go to some bars & clubs in the West like in Parramatta, Blacktown, Campbelltown, Liverpool etc. See where the Police cars are on a Friday or Saturday night.) I’m picking on those areas in some anti-anglo-westie-Australian way it could be Eastwood, Ryde, Mosmon or even Bondi. Mind you it could even be a fight at a football game between Serbian & Croatian fans.

I think that the violence is blown all out of proportion. I’m not condoning, being apologetic or approving of it. It’s just what happens!

So what can we do about it? We can focus on a simple assault on three iconic youths, and stew, bitch & moan about Lebanese gangs on talkback radio for a week get a couple of thousand pissed Aussie cheering Aussie, Aussie…
No wait we tried that.

No let’s put things in perspective for a moment. Say that assault took about 2-3 minutes to occur, in that time 12-15 children died from not enough food, clean water or malaria somewhere in the world. What is of more concern. We live in country with good education, healthcare etc. Lets focus on the real moral issues in our lives or in the world. Let the police & courts deal with the stupid violence.

As a measure for every news story you read hear or see every 10 seconds a child dies and we CAN stop it.

Sydney -Sergi

'First lets get our facts straight this recent event that sparked everything off was between three lifeguards & four lebs.
Refer: http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,17492835-5001021,00.html
Sounds like nearly a fair fight? Doesn’t sound like Lebanese gangs roaming the beach front to me.'

Well yeah from what you say it probably was a fair fight... but you only quoted what suited you.
Here is that report you quoted...but I'll include the parts you didn't.

'The Middle Eastern youths allegedly told the lifesavers to get off the beach and that they "owned" the beach.
The lifesavers allegedly responded by telling the youths that if they went in the surf, they would need rescuing because they could not swim.
Strong coarse language was allegedly used by both groups. The taunt about swimming turned the aggression physical, with the four youths bashing the lifesavers and another eight to 10 Middle Eastern males joining them, police will allege.'

Now was that 4 or 12 or13 or 14 Middle Eastern males? For sure that's a fair fight.

Why haven't the police arrested more than one 18 year old?

'he was charged with assault occassioning actual bodily harm in company and affray.'

You should also check the meaning of the police terms.
'assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company' and 'affray'.

Oh and the clincher in the report you also overlooked...

'A lifeguards on patrol at the time of the attack told The Daily Telegraph yesterday a colleague had just finished patrol and was leaving the beach when he was allegedly confronted and abused by one of the men.
"There was some pushing and shoving and then another bloke ran up from behind and king hit him and then he was on the ground. That's when I ran up to help," he said. "They punched me and kept fighting."'

Yep your idea of fairnesss seems to be the same as the cowards who perpretrated the assault in the first place.

Why did you feel the need to excuse and lessen the cowardliness of the actions of those violent Lebanese Muslim youths?

That really buggars me.

Individuals can 'flourish' irrespective of race and/or religion on if the following are true:

1/ The 'races' are not approximately equal numbers
2/ The religions are not fundamentally hostile to the values of the other.
3/ The Minority are not discovered to be persuing political,economic and social agendas which are in direct conflict with the values, laws and culture of the majority.

As long as these things exist, everything is fine.

Sergie, your name should be an object lesson in itself.
I (a white Anglo) will employ an Italian concreter to pour a slab. (a non racist action) but that concreter, will employ his Italian network of

-Bobcat/Tipper driver
-Laborers 3 of 4 were Italian, one was anglo.
-Concrete supplier

Which is a racist act.

Now just imagine if Italians were 50% of the Australian population.
There would be a polarization of particular trades along ethnic lines.
"Control" of industries has always been the persuit of humanity, 'guilds, associations etc'

Now, it doesn't particularly bother me, because we are social creatures and tend to follow the lines of most familiarity and trust and Italians are at most 900,000 in Australia.

But maybe next time....... I'll specifically look for a concreter who will not disadvantage my own race by almost totally excluding my race from the project ? And lets be totally clear here, he DID make 'racial' decisions on who he employed and subcontracted to.

So, it is anecdotally true, and in terms of social and tribal practice and research that people follow ethnic/religous lines in their economic and social interaction.

So, the best solution (sorry to all white supremacists here :) is to INTERMARRY and ASSIMILATE. That is the ONLY 'environment' where there will be no racial/religious overtones to our activities.... ?

Ooops... wait... that didn't work for the part chinese from Cambodia/Laos and Vietnam...... anybody with any chinese blood in Vietnam was persecuted because of the Chinese border incursions and was seen to be patriotically suspect.... hmmmmm

Part I

"Racism can only be defeated if we understand its root cause"

"This occurred, supposedly, against a backdrop of other incidents of violence by people of Arabic appearance. While we should be perturbed that people in our community engage in violent acts, we should not allow the anxiety stemming from this to fuel erroneous generalisations and stereotypical views about the hundreds of thousands of Arabs with whom we have forged a rich, diverse and harmonious nation."

These two quotes tell us a lot: Bagaric wants to find the "root cause". If this is true, why does he acknowledge that the people of Cronulla(and elsewhere in Sydney) had a grievance about Lebanese gangs commiting violence on their community, but then in the next breath he tells us how it was wrong for this anxiety to spill over into any kind of anger or generalisations? Why does he also refer to the white people in Cronulla as racists?

The problem is this: there is a real and massive problem with gangs of cowards from Middle-Eastern backgrounds, let alone other ethnic gangs such as the Asian ones who are involved, with the Lebanese muslim gangs, in, as quoted by the then serving NSW police commissioner and also former Federal police commissioner, that "most of Australia's crime is ethnic based", and that there are no "anglo-gangs" of any consequence except the bikies but they are not really just for anglos(there are even Lebanese members, Christian mind you), and they don't terrorise the public at shopping malls, parks, beaches and on public transport.
How dare Mr Bagaric call those protesters at Cronulla racists with no real reason to be frustrated, unless he first has an unofficial chat(due to the curse of political correctness, the police officers generally don't speak out, but they will off the record) about the real seriousness of the disgusting levels of intimidation these Lebanese gangs dish out, not just to the public, but also to the police.

Continue on Part II

Part II

Ask the officers how many stories fellow officers have told him about commanders ordering you to "let them go" or "retreat to the station" so as to avoid any kind of bloodbath and subsequent grilling over possible racism and then the commander gets no promotion, the political, selfish thing. Ask the young kids on the ground, the unemployed and the working class, whether they have been bashed, spat at, sexually harassed, forced to stop going to certain places, all because they are "skips".
Similarly, ask the Lebanese muslim kids and see the difference in what they say: the media always calls us terrorists and rapists, people seem to be staring at us. They won't be able to tell you about how their cousin was gang raped by a gang of racist Anglos taunting their muslimness, or how their brother was stabbed to death or shot because while drunk a group of white guys pushed him for no reason, or how every shopping night gangs of white guys hang around the plazas and parks and train stations staring at people, shoulder barging young men, swearing in front of old ladies and harassing to stalking level young girls, or how they play football in the middle of your street so that you feel intimidated when you need to drive through them.

Now, once you "teach yourself" the true extent of the actual racism coming from these muslim men, and knowing that whenever a white person brings this issue up they get told to "shut up racist", and no politician, except the One Nation members, even dare to acknowledge this big racism problem coming from a couple of Australia's ethnic communities, coupled with the fact that also for political and career reasons, the police do nothing constructive, they let the gangs do what they want until they become physical, if they catch them, what does Bagaric expect a group of people to do who are intimidated, bashed, in fear of their lives, but who get told to piss off for being racist when they bring it up?

Continued in Part III

I've never had a Muslim knock on my door wanting to tell me about their faith. The GB on this site really do have their heads up a smelly passage. You like to think that these comments by posters about Islam are through ignorance and I'm sure some are, but some a deliberate untruths to push their own regions beliefs. Islam is as a diverse religion as Jewish, not as diverse as Christianity with it's 30,000 + sects. Most Muslims practice a modern liberal form of Islam which fits well with our modern world. Some don't as some Jews not, as some Hindus and every other religion does. To say that Christianity is different is to display stupidity of the highest order there are many Christian groups with millions of followers that think the 10 commandments should be law, that don’t like democracy and secular government.

Mr.P.Pig, thanks for the response.
Agreed that the article lacks detail, I assumed that the author is trying to get agreement on where we should go rather than laying out a specific plan. Given some of the posts floating around it is not a given that we all agree that seeking "an environment where individuals can flourish regardless of race or religion" is a good target.

Maybe some more detail on just what that means and how we get there would be in order.

A fundamental starting place is the promotion and enforcement of the idea that people should not attempt to impose their own moral judgements (or their Gods) on others except for the protection of non consenting individuals. I may not have phrased that as well as I should, better phrasings are welcome.

Kind of getting rather tired of articles which carry on about the wrongs of Australian society and downplay the wrong done by the gangs in Sydney, I notice we have yet another one. Some of these authors are doing a much better job of convincing me that there might be a problem than the regular "anti-muslim" brigade. Those who consider what appears to be ethnic based rape, intimidation, violence etc is a trivial item have little understanding of some core values of this society.

R0bert

Quote from Realist: It is a government responsibility to ensure they place new migrants in areas of employment shortage or population need, not let them be drawn like magnets to the ghettos...

I always find it very amusing that people think we should legislate where migrants have the right to settle once they get here.

Let turn the tables a bit. Suppose things turned belly up here in Australia and you were forced to migrate to China, for example, for economic or political reasons. Where would you prefer to live?

(1) In an area of employment shortage dictated by the government -- which might be miles from the nearest town where you would be unlikely to find English-speaking doctors to treat you in time of illness, accountants to help you negotiate your new tax liabilities, and supermarkets that might stock products with which you are familiar;

(2) Or near a community of fellow English speakers -- the better to maintain a link with your heritage and find friends who could help you settle into the new place?

I rest my case.

heh, nicely said uneed2bcurious :)

he may not know (ignorantly) that some aussie communities are racist (increasingly in past years) and use(d) intimidation, hateful abuse and/or violent behaviour to exclude others from their shennagins.

uneed

I would prefer option one thank you.

I would want to learn the basics of my new culture. And I would want to blend with my new culture.

Cheers
Kay

Kenny,

>>I've never had a Muslim knock on my door wanting to tell me about their faith. <<

They won't not because they respect your privacy or your feelings but because they are using various other means to propagate islam and take over our country.

1. They outbreed the average non-muslim couple by 3:1
2. They use interfaith meets, multicultural events and posts like OLO to promote islam as a religion of peace.
3. They infiltrate government and move laws to prepare for a future Islamic state governed by ‘sharia law’.
4. They expertly use the media to cry minority victimisation and gain sympathy from our weak politicians.
5. They disrespect our way of life but act as if they can be part of our society.
6. They are confident that sooner or later all of ‘us’ are going to REVERT to islam. (yes we were once muslims they believe)
7. Their goal is to have an Islamic state here in Australia.
8. The major goal of islam is to unify all muslim communities and establish a worldwide ‘ummah’ – one borderless seamless worldwide Islamic nation.
9. Arab Petrol money is used to build schools and mosques with very little government scrutiny.
10. Intermarriage: manely muslim males to nominal secular Christians. (The kids are automatically muslims).

From the pen of Keyser Trad, Aussies friendly smiling muslim moderate spokesman:

(1996/7)

http://www.islam.org.au/articles/16/RACISM.HTM

"our ideology is the best salvation for the people of Australia, and the people of the world in general. Yes, we are a threat to the culture of drunkenness, paedophilia, and mostly we are a big threat to the culture of ELITISM."

"In a way, they feel safe because of the quantity of water which surrounds this country, so they feel fortified behind this great body, it gives them a feeling of security. But the reality is, the land belongs to God, not to them, and if those foreigners, whom they fear as migrants are not permitted to enter as migrants, they will come as settlers, in numbers so large that they will not be able to process them, hold them, or stop them. What will they do then? If these foreigners who are restraining themselves, because they see a legal hope, that they can come to this vast mainly uninhabited land for whatever reason, are told that there is no longer a legal way to come here, what will they do?"

Sounds like the answer to the moderate Keysers Question is jihad on Australia.

“People like the familiar”, writes Sneekeepete. “That's why we are in the middle of some bizarre social panic over a few mad mullahs and women in gabardine with scarves on their heads”.

The strong desire to stay with what is familiar has led to suppression of comment on some pretty fundamental things. I have gone through two phases of this; environmental concerns in the 80s, where we were labelled hippies, tree-huggers, etc and had our messages treated like crap, much later to become totally acceptable mainstream material. And population growth concerns in the 90s, where we were labelled racist, fascist, elitist and had our concerns thoroughly suppressed, only for them to emerge as eminently sensible in recent times.

We are just going through another wave of this closeted mentality.

Let it all hang out. Let’s hear it, not suppress it

uneed2bcurious,

1.5 Settled somewhere where there is employment opportunities (not often miles from the nearest town), where there is sufficient support to help me get through the transition but not so much Aussie influence that it is difficult to learn the ways of my new country.

I'd probably want to maintain some Aussie friends but I would also be going out of my way to learn the local language, customs etc in an effort to give myself the best chance in that society and also to do my best to repay their kindness in opening their doors to me.

I'd still enjoy my cultural heritage and be keen to share some bits with my new neighbours. I'd also be trying to learn from my neighbours about their culture. I'd be making sure I obeyed their laws and acted in a manner which gave them no cause to regret my being there.

I would hope that in the interests of minimising problems to my hosts and myself that I would have access to services to help me through the transition period. I'd recognise the right of the country which took me in to consider the needs of the resident population when deciding how best to help me.

Maybe you could have another think about your case, you might have rested it a bit early.

R0bert

uneed2bcurious

resting a case on flawed assumptions is the quickest way to be laughed out of OLO (or was that LOL)... :)

I agree with Robert, you need to re-think that case......

You made the fatal error of many leftist, Green and PC groups of suggesting that migrants can go to another country (be they white to non white areas of vice versa) and TELL or DECIDE where they will go and what they will do.

I have news for you. When you enter a sovereign country, you go by their way or you take the highway. If they happen to offer a degree of freedom of choice in such matters..fine. but IF they don't.. its also fine, live with it or leave it.

All you have done, is underline the extreme urgency of we in Australia taking the initiative in such matters as settlement and migration conditions for the benefit of THIS country and its interests, not for the benefit alone of migrants.

Strange and shocking as it might seem, Australia does not exist as the 'cherry waiting to be picked' by all and sundry of this world.

Meredith clearly showed the mentality of even the 'public friendly' face of one community within our community, when he was not having a microphone from chanel 9 stuck in his face. So, learn... from this.

P.S. the reason for the cry from Labor for resettling 'huge numbers' of Pacific Islanders when their homes are inundated by rising see levels is so TRANSPARENTLY obvious that it is laughable. Specially to me who has seen migration used in Asia as a convenient political tool to boost numbers of those pre-disposed to support a party which advocates for them. duh. Sure, lets accept many, but NOT IN GHETTOS ! Spread them around.

To Kenny,

Ypu write

"Most Muslims practice a modern liberal form of Islam which fits well with our modern world"

and

"there are many Christian groups with millions of followers that think the 10 commandments should be law, that don’t like democracy and secular government."

Please explain, Mr Kenny, why every arabic/islamic nation in the world has officially stated that those "western values" such as "human rights" and "equality" etc. are not compatible with islamic sharia, and that certain sexual freedoms such as homosexuality which have only recently began to be recognised in the western, modern world, are regarded by the most moderate muslim as blasphemous and punishable by stoning to death, as well as adultery, which is, in the modern western world, hardly a crime beyond a minor relationship breakdown.
Why also, do we not know about fundamentalist Christian terrorists who massacre people in protest to the Jews occupation of the Holy Land, or in protest to gay mardi gras or secualr government or democracy. Such terrorist groups exist in huge numbers all over the world - these groups are Islamic, thought, not Christian.

To Coach in Regards to your response to Kenny,

1. They outbreed the average non-muslim couple by 3:1

Why is it that every culture instinctively is repulsed at the idea of having children with their own mother or sister/brother. or indeed cousin or uncle/aunty? Everyone knows it is because of the historically learned "memes" written into our biology through evolutuion, that tell us that such inter-breeding leads to deformities and stupid offspring. These are simple biological facts. That's why the royal families are all stupid, ugly people.

This is also why some tribal-type cultures, who often marry first cousins etc., have such high rates of birth deformities etc.. For example, in England, a government study done on this topic found that while the Pakistani birth rate in England was 2 or 3%, they made up one third of the birth deformities and such.

Could this be why many middle-eastern youth are angry, frustrated, with low IQs?

I am not attacking anyone, I am simply pointing out an obvious problem. Besides, it is disgusting to marry your first cousin, and I'm not going to cowardly hide behind political incorrectness.