Danny Nalliah's article criticises multiculturalism without actually defining it. A bit like throwing mud into thin air and expecting it to stick somewhere.

Fantastic article. I must add that the 'racist' card is definitely a tool to bully, vilify and denigrate white australians. Ignore Irfan by the way, he is a typical example of my point if you look at his previous posts.

While not necessarily agreeing with everything in the article, I think Danny's point that it would be "unfair that some immigrants would push towards Australia becoming like their country of origin" is a fair one. We enjoy freedoms in Australia not experienced in a lot of other countries because of religious or political ideologies. So we must not be afraid to take a stand against those who wish to undermine such freedoms.

One half of my family immigrated from Italy, the other from England, and both have settled themselves here, defining themselves as Australian. The non-English speakers have learnt English, and although one of my grandmothers makes spaghetti 14 times a week and my other grandmother regularly listens to the BBC, they are both fully integrated into the Australia way of life. I think this is a good model.

Mr Nalliah, I liked this paragraph:

"“Multiculturalism” is a tool that can be used to destabilise a nation. Australia welcomes people from all over the world. All who choose to come to Australia should be willing to become Australian. It is unfair that some immigrants would push towards Australia becoming like their country of origin. The government cannot and should not bend over backwards to trade the Aussie way of life for other ways. The current zeitgeist across Sydney’s beaches of ethnic rivalry has made it unpleasant for many immigrants and Muslims in Australia who want to live peaceful lives."

Well said, Danny Nalliah. I don't think Australians are the discriminating type. I myself am a dark-skinned immigrant like yourself (originally from East Africa). Having lived in a number of different countries before coming here, I have to say that I don't take seriously those who breathlessly despair of Australia's racism, recognising that such attitudes stem from people's ignorance and their never having seen the real thing. For example, having lived in England as a child before coming here (14 years ago), I can tell you that the (lower-class) English discriminated against people like you with alacrity and often little compunction (the derisive term “Paki” is one you would have come across a number of times had you lived there, and physical attack would not have been out of the question).

In Australia, however, discrimination offends against our fair-go sensibilities, and our commitment to egalitarianism does not easily lend itself to notions of innate superiority. Thus, two of the most cherished values held by Australians stand as a bulwarks against the possibility of racism. (While we may have a handful of real racists here, their existence should be interpreted in an Australian context, and so understood to be not an extreme representation of a bubbling, underlying sentiment held in check by our progressive elite but simply as representing a handful of freaks who stand as outstanding aberrations in a society committed to the aforementioned values of egalitarianism and a fair go.)

I've mentioned here before what Keith Windschuttle observed about Australian attitudes towards multiculturalism. He said that Australians are in favour of "soft" multiculturalism as opposed to "hard" multiculturalism. The former is the sort which implicitly calls for assimilation while allowing for gradual and comfortable acculturation by immigrants, while the latter is the balkanising, segregating, ghetto-creating sort celebrated by ABC and SBS progressive types. Naturally, Australians are far less comfortable with the latter form of multiculturalism.

(continued...)

(continued...)

Indeed, I believe the Pauline Hanson affair was merely an inarticulate expression of many people's concern with "hard" multiculturalism. The concern demonstrated by many Australians gave the Asians a hint and prod as to what they should be doing, and ever since then they have been rapidly assimilating. They have thereby eliminated the disquiet which Hansonism represented, and Australians are now far more “relaxed and comfortable” with Asians than before their concerns were allowed to be (inarticulately) expressed.

This brings us to the problem of the fracas in Sydney. What this situation reveals is the Achilles heel of multiculturalism, where some immigrants may not abide by the implicit understanding that their arrival here is conditioned on their intention to eventually assimilate. Muslims are proving to be an immigrant group that is reluctant to assimilate if not downright opposed to it. This raises serious questions with the whole multicultural experiment, and Australians are quite right and justified to begin to question and debate its suitability if its only going to be of the "hard" variety which nobody but ABC and SBS folk want.

Danny does his argument a disservice when he recommends us to love our neighbour as ourselves - from my understanding that biblical addage comes with out qualification - it does not say love thy neighbour as long as he looks acts and behaves like you;
Who the hell is the arbiter on assimilation - how Aussie must any one become before we accept them - what are the bench marks?

I know Boaz has attempted to articulate some - and good on him for that - but even then they are arbitrary - And I suspect born out of a singular point in time like so much of the vehemence written here and based on unreasonable fear - terrorism, Islamism etc - when we have visited these issues time and time again and invariably common sense has prevailed.

It does nt help that political opportunism has fuled these fears and political cowardice on the part of the ALP has let it go unchecked.

I have a sneeking suspicion that very few people see multiculturalism as an issue - while so many of us maintain racsim isnt a real problem in this vast brown land how could it?

Every time there is a nerve exposed with any racial over tones - and there is bound to be from time to time - those who rail again MC ism, stand up to be counted.

As I have said before the first mistake we made with the notion of many cultures one community is giving the concept a name in stead of accepting as simply the way we are.

A very good article Danny, and spot-on comments from Brazuca.

For years I suffered from the playing of the racist card over my attempts to highlight the problems with continuous population growth and the need for population stabilisation if we are going to live sustainably in Australia, a subject that is completely separate from any semblance of racism.

So I agree wholeheartedly agree that this term is chronically misused

Thanks Danny.Had your skin been a lot paler,many would be screaming racist.Not many are against the notion of many cultures entering Australia, however it is about people coming here under our terms i.e of law,respect and working together to improve this country.

People should be encouraged to keep their languages,traditions beliefs etc,however they must also learn about and respect the culture that affords them so much prosperity.

A good grasp of English is an absolute necessity to both intergrate both culturally and economically.

There is nothing wrong with the word" Multiculturalism" however the concept has been perverted by the politically correct to gain power through minority groups at the ballot boxes.The left have had a very simple attitude,if you are not for MC then you must be a racist.It's a bit like the question ,"Do you still beat your wife?"

If more people were honest like Danny Nalliah,we would not have these festering racial and religious tensions.

Thanks Danny, although you will not get any Big Wet Kisses and Cuddles any more from the apparatchiks and the Recruiters of NEW Imperialists army, that in it self is not bad. 5th column imperial hubris dealt another truthful blow, but it is not enough.
An excellent article, but understated none the less.
Danny, do you know of Howard Bloom?
http://www.howardbloom.net/lucifer/

Arjay, again a good post.

How much of this debate has been tied up with the difference between what is refered to elsewhere as Hard and Soft multiculturalism?
How many of the opponents are fighting against hard multiculturalism and how many of the defenders fighting for soft multiculturalism?

R0bert

SNEEKY... yes, I did try to articulate some things which may appear 'arbitrary'.. on the surface, but in fact I generally look at these things through a lenz of anthropology.
While not a scholar in that field, I do have a fairly acute sense of cultural awareness due to life experience and some intensive training.

Identifying those 'characteristics' which could fairly be termed "Australian Identity" is not an impossible task, and as with most cultures will show up in the literature, poetry art, stories and exploits of our pioneering forebears.

On the issue of 'LOVE OUR NEIGHBOUR' being unconditional, the same principle is also expressed as "Do for your neighbour as you would have him do for you" and "Love your neighbour as yourself". But lets bear in mind, that this is a principle of the kingdom of God, yet, apart from that, it also makes good sense. Of course we are not going to go through a checklist of cultural obedience before we lend them our shovel.

To love our migrant neighbour means we would pick him up from his bleeding and bruised condition on the side of the road after an attack rather than walk past him. (Parable of the good Samaritan) Also that we would lend him our stuff, and help him in any way we would help our long standing 'neighbours' but it sure does not mean we suddenly try to act in terms of his/her culture. We just act as we are.. and thats the point here, and its also all we 'patriots' are asking.

I just shake my head in dismay and bewilderment that the emergency services have a handbook of 'cultural appropriateness' in dealing with our multiplicity of religions etc. Why not just have 'our' standard way, reflecting our culture, and give all migrants a handbook of 'what to expect'.

Irfs attack actually demonstrates the thing he accuses Kevin and Danny of 'laziness' I think Irf is just 'irked' by the fact that a bloke with the same skin color as him is standing up for the predominant culture :)

Very well put and most replys got it right, can I risk being honest?
The problem seems to be not by any means all migration.
Some Muslim usualy Lebanese are not going to settle ever.
Just lets ask how did we ever think some would ever adopt our countrys culture?
Or is that not a part of multicultureism?
Throw the race card at me! its untrue but use it,however room exists in this debate for truth.

All is alluding to Danny Nalliah being a traitor to the cause of MC.Danny speaks the truth and you don't like your power base being eroded.

What is this new "Imperialist Army"?You have a them and us mentality All and thus have lost all credibility.

It just isn't "all" that simple.Many of us just can't wait for the Bush Govt to go.They have created more terrorists the Bin Laden could ever have hoped for.I think they're working for the Saudis.Iraq is on the verge of civil war and the US is trying to pull out.What a mess!

If chaos comes to the Middle East then we will have another world war because the rest of the world cannot survive without energy from the Middle East which owns 65% of reserves.

What are your solutions "All"?

Arjay,No body is aluding to anything, you are squealing at the wrong person here. The answer you seek is you and others finding out what the hell have stolen your minds, you must appreciate what Imperialism is, not what you like to think it is. As much as the brainwashers tell you. It is not Anglo-sphere or George Bush or Tony Blair or John Howard. Middle East has not just started; it has been like that for Thousands of years: Read more. The only Imperialism that has been on the march is Islam and what we define now as the Left. You have been sucked into the Vacuum of deception: Correlate the meaning of both their philosophy’s and your answer comes out the same “Antithesis”, Looting, stealing- rape, Occupation etc. The common principle revolves around crime, not religion or Politics.
I’m on your side mate so read between the lines.
Ask Danny your question; he would be more qualified than any to answer it. He lived it. So learn from that. Keep your rhetoric for some more deserving of it.

"The truth is that countries founded on the Judeo-Christian heritage (Western democracies) are the best to live in."

Says who ? Personally, I have quite enjoyed living in low-crime, low-tax countries with good public infrastructure (unlike Australia), and I presume a decent proportion of the 1 million Australins that now live overseas have as well.

We should have only a bi-culture, Western and Aboriginal.

Culture stands still with multicultural policy, no or slow growth. Integrated westernised culture would evolve with popular opinion being the driving force behind any cultural changes as it should be, not by law. To have a multicultural policy, when in the first place there was no actual multiculture, is a simply a massive and stupid error. The longer we have it the more apparent the problems will become.

Some great posts here, good to read so many see reality. Australians can handle the truth. However I think being constantly called racist has actually made people reject immigration all together and become racist. It is almost like the people using the term without reason want to see this division.

My repeated example is if I fight against a MacDonalds being built next door I am a hero, if I fight against a Catholic Church being built next door I am exercising my rights, if I fight against a Mosque being built next door I am a racist.

Who wins in this scenario? Anglo labelled racist and muslims thinking they are hated so hate back. The only solution to many would be a knee jerk rejection of all muslim immigration. Seems it is either accept invasion of sorts or reject totally. No middle ground options available.

Danny you arrived here in 1997, I arrived in 1950 by birth to an Aboriginal mother and Father, was stolen from my mother after my fathers death at age 3mths 6days, I was placed in 101 different foster homes as well St Annes Orphanage in Liverpool Sydney at an early age, a repettion as my father had also been a stolen child he was placed in a workplce at age 10yrs, my background is black as well as fair as the irsh get into everything and I have a somewhat fair complexion in contrast to my siblings who are all darker.

Try remembering Australia has a Black History! it has not sone well by the traditional owners of this land and many are living in 4th world conditions.
Before any one makes comments about racism not existing in Australia visit the outback towns of WA, SA, QLD and NT there is racism, much of it and not by the whites either, it is towards the traditional owners by every migrant who fails to learn the atrocities performed on us by the governemnt of land in less than 218yrs we have been annhiliated, assimilated and had our culture and languages stolen to the degree that if they were spoken in public then we were punished or if the culture was taught it was called paganistic rituals, yet the last Olympic games saw them used, our boomerangs are now made in china and accross the world, but do you buy them from a traditional maker?
Australia was named so by the new comers after the stars not by us the traditional owners who each have a seperate nm,ae for this land according to our teachings of the past which is now part of todays curriculum.

“The truth is that countries founded on the Judeo-Christian heritage (Western democracies) are the best to live in.” I disagree with that as well. But then we must understand that Danny is a christian zealot and catch the fire ministry is really bent.

It's assumed that Australia was settled by christians, but most that were transported here only came from christian controlled countries and had no interest in religion at all. In fact they were forced to church and were punished if they failed to attend. Mostly Danny is right and I applaud him for not bringing his religion into it. My own ancestors were forcible transported because they wouldn't bow down to the christian god and found themselves in Tas. That was denied for many years by the religious side of my family, to have Gypsies as ancestors was not cool.

Religious people hide behind this MC concept from both sides, they use it to try and gain advantage to push their agenda. But you can't get past the one standout fact, it is not culture that it is at fault, it is the religion behind the culture. My main business is in tourism and hospitality and our client el is from around the world. The worst are Americans, poms and the dutch, very arrogant. As for the rest, they are all the same, nice people who love what we have in this country to offer.

This country is fine with everyone, but the religious can't accept that, they must force their ways, no matter what. Peace and harmony will come to this country and the planet, when we remove the root cause of the trouble. A world of varying cultures that are free from religious dogma, suppression, propaganda and violence. Thats difference, it makes life so enjoyable, religion just makes it boringly violent

It would be ideal if we could resolve the problems of two cultures clashing, as is the case of Aboriginals and Westerners, before we added another dimension to the problem.

Though if you are to say anglos are racist for not accepting having other cultures forced on them then the same should be said for Aboriginals. The same should be said of palestinians. I don't agree before anyone jumps on my back, I just do not believe it is racist to protect ones culture from unwanted change.

I do not like to comment on aboriginal affairs because I see it as interfering, they always have my support sans my opinion. However I do wish I could see aboriginals celebrate their culture more.

warri warru, you complain about Aboriginals living in "4th world conditions". But isn't that the fault of progressive types who insisted on segregating Aboriginals so that they could pursue their "traditional lifestyle" and therefore miss out on the lifestyle enjoyed by mainstream Australians?

Paul Hasluck, who controlled Aboriginal affairs in the Menzies government until 1966 believed that Aboriginals should "attain the same manner of living as other Australians and live as members of a single Australian community enjoying the same rights and privileges." But Dr HC 'Nugget' Coombs, appointed head of the Australian Council of Aboriginal Affairs in 1967, managed to pursuade subsequent Labor and Liberal governments to adopt his policy for self-determinination and self-management of Aboriginals, since the problems they experienced, he believed, stemmed from the Europeans. The result? warri warru's "4th world conditins".

Make up your mind. Either people are gonna choose to live a primitive lifestyle, and so "4th world conditions", or they're gonna live a modern one, and so First World conditions. You can't have both. Most Aboriginals, of course, prefer to live a modern lifestyle, which is why 70% live in cities and large country towns. And -- horror or genocidal horrors! -- the majority of these are married (either de jure or defacto) to a non-Aboriginal, and so are in effect self-genociding! How can they do this to themselves!

You complain about traditional Aboriginal culture being called paganistic. But isn't it? As I understand it, traditional Aboriginal beliefs are pantheistic and animistic. Those, by any definition of the word, are paganistic beliefs.

You complain about the arrival of the "newcomers" to Australia. First of all, it's been two hundred years already, so get over it. Secondly, migrations have been occurring ever since the creation of man. Populations have moved hither and tither as a matter of human nature. In Africa, for example, the Bantu migrated east and west over generations. Why is it all of a sudden an unprecedented disaster and the height of immorality for Europeans to have moved around a bit as well?

Start making some sense, man.

The best article I have read about this subject to date.

Well said. Multiculturalism in the West is a festering, self-inflicted wound.

What Australian politicians have done to Australia via multiculturalism is treason. If we were the wild eyed, intolerant people that we are supposed to be, we would have risen up long ago and dealt with them. Instead, we squabble with each other while the followers of the Prophet wait patiently. Our complacency, self-deprecation and cringing make us our own worst enemy

I think that different things fuel racism. Racism can be fueled by hate or fear.

In Australia racism is being developed because of fear - not hate. Australians feel that they are being taken over, without any consideration to their feelings and thoughts, and having to change in order to accomodate different cultures and it feels like a threat to their way of life!

If we remove the threat, we remove the fear and then the racism will disappear.

Its up to our Governments to make it clear that if you come to Australia you have to be prepared to accept and live the Australian way of life.

Only a minority want Australia to change to suit their culture and ways. We shouldn't be changing things for the minority in a way that upsets the majority otherwise people will rebel.

In a democracy - the majority rules, thats why our Government needs to keep their eye on the balance.

Yes, people should assimilate, especially religous fundamentalists.. Australia is a secular country, and should stay that way.

warri warru, we agree on a good many things judging by your posts but in 1788 over 1000 British people landed on your shores that didn't want to be here any more than your ancestors wanted them here. I am an ancestor of these people and it is now my home as well. We would, no doubt, argue on the merits of my Indigeneity but, as I see it, this is my home, physically and spiritually. The passage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples since European arrival has been one of which Australia, as a nation, cannot be proud but do not underestimate the support within the community for conscious change.
Brazuka, you support many of warri warru's concerns by illuminating the fact that successive governments applied policies that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples had no input into. That is the one glaring omission in your posting: The Aboriginal peoples were never asked and it doesn't matter if it was 200 years or 10, the damage was progressive and relentless. The Aboriginal peoples have never had the chance to "get over it". That there are people living among us today that were taken from their families, without regard, makes it an issue in our lifetime. I suggest that your view of past events becomes a little less selective and your opinion of current issues become a little more broadly informed.
To tell Aboriginal peoples that the destruction of their cultures and the subsequent contemporary issues within and without their communities is an irrelevancy elevates their issues even further. In one posting you have succeeded in validating warri warru's concerns to a greater degree than he ever could.

Hello hello what's all this Judeo Christian herritage all about. The only book I've ever read from the Hebrew lineage is ...The Bible.

Anybody ever heard of Socretes, Plato, Sophocles, Homer, Aristophanes, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Archimedes, Ptolmny etc etc etc.

Greeks to a man. And the nature and character of Western civilisation probably owes them as much as it owes a little known bloke from Bethelem...

This is a country with a rapidly aging population, thus we need skilled migrants. How are we going to attract them without multiculturalism (here defined as a policy of encouraging respect, not just tolerance, for other cultures)? A lot of people associate themselves with their ethnic identity very strongly. Asking them to abandon something that is a part of the personal identity is like asking them to assimilate into the borg.

Craig Blanche, complaining that the Aboriginals were subjected to government policies without their imput doesn't make sense. I mean, what could they have suggested? In order for them to make any meaningful or informed recommendations, they would have to step out of their worldview and into that of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Otherwise anything the government came to them to suggest wouldn't make sense. Imagine Noel Pearson making the reasoned and informed recommendations he's making now without being able to speak English, or without having imbued the Judeo-Christian tradition through the educational establishment as well as his law degree. Imagine him wandering out from the dessert, unannounced (no strict concept of time), almost naked, his only posession a stick, and expecting him to be able to comminicate with the government, understand the options available, make reasoned and informed contributions and so forth. If he wanted to speak of his rights, he would first have to borrow the Judeo-Christian presuppositions that are the foundation for the rights edifice. As to whether he could speak for "his people" is another thing. Would he have been elected? Would "his people" have had a concept of democracy in the first place from which to derive the concept of election and representation? Would the women have been allowed to vote for him? If he wasn't elected, would the patriarchal authority his representation is based on be acceptable to the feminists in the government, etc?

And so on and so forth. In order to be anti-Western, you have to borrow the principles that stem from its Judeo-Christian heritage. You're being schizophrenic.

The recent events that have been portrayed by our media sources have stirred the ugly head of labelling "Freedom of speech" and "patriotism" with "Racist" and the "Multicultural card".

Danny is not the "first dark skinned Australian citizen" that has the same concerns and observations of "white skinned Australian citizens".

I was told once by a dark skinned Australian, that he had observed the protests in our detention centres. He observed those who were on the top of the building holding iron bars. He pointed out the way they held them across their bodies were the same way a soldier in their country hold their rifles.

Immigrants who have settled in Australia for a better, safer life for themselves and families should be very concerned along with Australian patriots, that the word "tolerance" will be thrown back in our faces when the tolerated no longer tolerate us.

The more legislation and laws we change to protect and empower Australia to unite, have only served to gag debate and communications of communities about issues that concern their daily lives.

It has created a fear and a fear of association that can now result in a jail term.

For those who have come to Australia with no intentions of intergrating, our governments and institutes have now provided them with the law of discrimination and vilification.

You would have thought that Australia would learn by overseas examples of instabilities but in our governments thrust to dilute in the name of Globalisation and economical rationalisation, they have forgotten they are dealing with human beings.

As I know Danny as a person, I can agree with this post and I know he has assimilated into Australia very well.

keith,
Since Australia was founded, more has been taught of the life and teachings of the lone man from Bethlehem than any of the great characters quoted. It has been this man's teachings that has formed our conscious attitudes. Ask how many have read Aristotle daily and then ask how many read the Bible daily and you will have the answer. I have the complete works of the these great men on my shelf, but the Bible is beside me on my desk for continual reading and reference.

Quote, "Hello hello what's all this Judeo Christian herritage all about. The only book I've ever read from the Hebrew lineage is ...The Bible...Anybody ever heard of Socretes, Plato, Sophocles, Homer, Aristophanes, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Archimedes, Ptolmny etc etc etc.
Greeks to a man. And the nature and character of Western civilisation probably owes them as much as it owes a little known bloke from Bethelem...

I once read a very interesting and, as I recall, related article by our canberra or sydney academic Chandran Kukathas entitled "Tolerating the Intolerable" I think.

I think of my father today and the NESB culture from which he came and all i can say is thank god his didn't colonise Australia. At least there are a few Aboriginal people left today.

rc - I am interested to know which culture it was that you refer to as a counter-example to the author's comments. It is not necessary to believe that Judeo-Christian cultures like ours are the best to realise that they are very very very good in comparison with many others.

brazuca - brilliant, lucid comments

I like the article. Noticed over the years lots of "just because I'm ...... you hold it against me" - whatever, and at those times the reasons given by the complainant were not valid at all - like the person complaining re lining up for the 1-15 seats on the plane.

We travel a lot and I find we make more of an effort to speak the language there, than many do here who have been here for 20 or more years. Its fun, who cares if you stumble (unless its to ask to sleep with his wife LOL) and communication takes place. And perhaps - therein lies one of the keys, at any rate, ie communication.

Sure : Here are 5 countries in Asia (or independent regions) where the majority of people are as well off as any Western democracy, and, in addition, where even the Western people who go there don't complain very much about the different cultural roots. Some of them quite enjoy it, although of course there are always dislikable things about any country. All of these countries also have a reasonable standard of living, and it seems reasonable to suggest that the people living in them are no worse off than any compareable country of Judeo-Christian heritage:

Japan
Korea
Taiwan
Singapore
Hong Kong

Time and time again the charge of racism is exploited by people of certain religious persuasions and those who are sympathetic when they hear their sacred beliefs spoken in a way they consider blasphemous or displeasing. By playing victim in labeling their opponents racist for expressing opinions contrary to their own, they seek to suppress debate on controversial aspects of their religion ensuring their position is authoratative. Such single minded defiance in exploiting race to stifle opposition must be exposed and condemned if we are to uphold religious and intellectual freedom in this country. Race and religion should not be confused even though there is often overlap. Racial identity cannot be chosen while religious identity can. This needs to be strongly emphasised in order to dispel the deplorable falsehoods of those who exploit the shame of being labeled a racist to protect their religious authority.

Is there a vast difference beween being patriotic or being racist.
We have seen wave after wave of immigrants since WW2 and most have fitted into their niche after a bit of a struggle.They have added to this country as well as taken from it.
There has been, until now, very little trouble .
But now we have Muslims who will not fit unless it is on their terms.
They demand privileges such as shops and pools given only to them. The Hindus,Swedes,Scots,Irish,Italians , all the rest of the many races have never made such demands. Nor have they threatened us with unspoken violence if their young men feel 'marginalised'.
The behaviour of some of the Muslims has been bad, yet we are 'racist' if we complain.
They claim this is a 'multicultural' country ----if it suits them----but they are and will always be a monoculture. Every thing has to suit them , it should be the other way round .
If they refuse to assimilate into Australian society they should go.
No culture should be allowed to cause such upset and division as these people have.
That is not racism, that is common sense.

Dear Kit D,

I don't think we need skilled migrants, at least not in significant numbers. I think we are all being quite profoundly duped by the fear of a so-called rapidly aging population.

We may need a small number of specialists with particularly badly needed skills, for which we should be able to draw on any cultural/ethnic/religious base, notwithstanding the fact that in doing so we are probably taking skilled people from countries where they are more urgently needed. This small number of immigrants would be insignificant compared to the number and diversity of immigrants established in Australia.

“How do we attract them without multiculturalism?”, you ask. By offering them a better lifestyle and much better income than they would get in their home countries or other possible immigrant countries, which we do simply by offering them an Australian standard of living. Multiculturalism, or the presence/absence of their particular cultural/ethnic/religious group would not generally be a significant factor, for as long as the general level of acceptance and respect from the community is good, which it is in Australia.

Should we reduce or modify immigration in light of the ever-stronger views that multiculturalism is a mistake? Well I don’t think we even need to bother with this question, as we should be reducing immigration greatly for quite different reasons. In the lead-up to peak oil, with ever-worsening water supply issues, degraded soils, exhausted fisheries, etc, etc, population stabilisation if not reduction, is going to be vitally important. Immigration reduction down to about equal to emigration, if not less, needs to happen for sustainability reasons, end of story.

PS. Thankyou for spelling ‘aging’ correctly

Brazuca,
I am not surprised that Craig Blance does not make ant sense to you, rather like you make no sense to me, I operate on logic and common sense, and factual history. Perhaps in your case you never let fact get in the way of a good yarn...

It astounds me that no-one here remembers that Mr Nalliah is currently appealing the findings of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where he has been ordered to publicly apologise for religious vilification.

Let’s not bother trying to put a fine point on it – Mr Nalliah is a complete loony. The Catch the Fire website used to have a rant from him claiming that god had been talking to him personally, telling him how to run things when the Family First ticket got him into the Senate. Maybe someone still has a copy they can share. There’s a fairly good entry about him in the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Nalliah

In spite of his statement that, “I believe Australia is one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world,” Nalliah contrasts tens of thousands of racially motivated killings in other countries with the relative safety of multicultural Australia. Yet he says that multiculturalism has failed, blaming immigrants who don’t become “truly Australian” for this alleged failure. His article here needs to be named for what it is, a mean snipe at Lebanese Muslims.

Finally he says “The truth is that countries founded on the judeo-christian heritage (western democracies) are the best to live in.” I suspect he means that when he visits Japan, Taiwan, and all the other non-christian first-world countries, the telephone signal from god breaks up.

Brazuka, my 'complaints', as I wrote them, had nothing to do with Aboriginals, government or policies. My 'complaints' addressed a posting that proposed a past and present based on a barely lucid view of what happened and how. Your reply does little more than elucidate your complete self-imposed lack of knowledge about Aboriginal Australia and cause and effect.
"If he wanted to speak of his rights, he would first have to borrow the Judeo-Christian presuppositions that are the foundation for the rights edifice." You're not serious?
Your last paragraph is a true gem and should be compulsory reading for those that desire a refuge from the thought process.

Thank you Danny. I thought this was the most balanced article I have read of late, on this popular topic.

Cheers
Kay

Philo,

You are quite correct. In Australia more has been taught of Christ and his teachings than of the classical Greeks. However we draw extensively from both. Our society while incorporating a great many aspects of the mythical stories and the very mythical nature of the Herbrew is also deeply rooted in the analytical and logical nature of the Greeks.

My limited vocabulary and my lack of expression hampers my explanation however to illustrate the difference between our two great heritages the following website uses the words I hadn't:

http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture4b.html

'They (Civilisations of the Ancient Near East and of Egypt)did not deduce abstractions, nor did they make hypotheses or establish general laws of the nature world. These efforts – science and philosophy – were the product of another culture, located in another time and place: the Greeks.'

We live in a system of Government derived from the Greeks, our society is very much technological in nature and that derives from the Greek scientific outlook.

We also live in a society that has adopted the basic rules of the Hebrew although of late a few seem to be going out of vogue. However many of us still apply those 'out of vogue' rules in our private lives even if the community at large does not openly endorse them.

I agree the teachings of Christ and his Hebrew Heritage have influenced the formation of our conscious attitudes but so have the Greeks with their heritage.

I also agree the Bible stories are a great source of comfort and inspiration. The Greek fables should not be dissmissed as uninspiring.

I still insist, and will continue to insist, that we do not have a multicultural Australia.

English is the official language - there is no other official language.

Our laws are based on English Common law, unlike parts of Canada and even parts of the USA, we do not even have the European system of law in parallel to English Common law, let alone any validity of Sharia law. Even where there has been some acceptance of Aboriginal traditional law, this is being broken down. We do not officially accept polygamy, except where the marriages have taken place before the spouses have arrived in Australia.

Australia does not officially accept under age marriages (I say officially because there are quite a few religious marriages taking place where the girl is under the age of consent, let alone the the official age for marriage: which is as good a reason to imprison some 'grooms' for 'carnal knowledge' with their 14 and 15 year old 'brides' as any other (Irfan - you know which group I am talking about). (see

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1434654.htm )

Our sports are almost universally based on those that originated in Britain: Cricket, Rugby, Rugy League, Soccer, or in other English speaking countries: Australian Rules, Basketball.

Our military and police traditions are based on English models.

Our laws about the treatment of animals are based on English precedent.

Our 'religious' public holidays are those of other 'Christian' countries, and if someone from another culture wants to take their own festivals off work then they have to use rec leave or other personal leave.

Multiculturalism is not about food, dance or literature. It is about accepting major differences in outlook. This we do not have, thank God.

Hey Arjay, c'mon mate, answer my question, don't be shy.

Here it is again:

Arjay, since you’re such a prodigious expert – could you tell us all what religion or culture a 'John Smith' would be? You seem to have some intuitive insights into what people’s background are without relying on the same evidence us mere mortals use.

* For others' Arjay was bagging Syed Atiq ul Hassan for his article.
Syed never once eluded that he was a Muslim.

Arjay dribbled - "When are we going to see an article from a Muslim that is pro-Australia,anti-terrorism and tells us how happy they are to be in this great country?

"http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4003#25958

C'mon Arjay, thousands of John Smith's want to know how good you are!

rc,
I assume when you live in these countries you assimilate and blend into the culture and lifestyle of these people and are well accepted as being Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Singaporian, and Chinese. Or are you always spoken of as being Australian. I would hope that migrant settlers to our country would consider themselves as firstly Australian before any of these races. If you lived permanently in Japan would you be Japanese?

Japan
Korea
Taiwan
Singapore
Hong Kon

"It astounds me that no-one here remembers that Mr Nalliah is currently appealing the findings of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where he has been ordered to publicly apologise for religious vilification."

What is astounding is that we have allowed such flawed legislation to be enacted in this country! What it boils down to is that if my religion attacks yours then you have recourse to a tribunal that can effectively invalidate aspects of my beliefs, have me silenced and even sent to jail!
I could invent a religion that is hostile to yours so when you publicly discredit my beliefs I can cry vilification, have you interrogated before the tribunal and possibly sent to jail! That is to say nothing of where the judge's religious sympathies might lie.
I hope you can see just how utterly absurd it is to have any kind of religious vilification laws. Religious beliefs are not like racial identities. Religious beliefs can be freely chosen, followed or discarded! It cannot be the role of a secular judge to decide which religious beliefs are valid and acceptable and which are not.

Philo,

So tell me what is "Australian culture" and how do you determine whether or not someone has assimilated to your liking?
Seriously, I'm interested in how you determine success against your own understandings of 'culture'.

For instance, does someone like me who can speak and write English very well and who is well read in Australian history and culture, more Australian than other Australians? Or do you use other criterion?

Australian culture:

One person, one vote, equality before the law.

Vengence has no place in the law.

Equality of opportunity, despite race, colour or creed.

Patronage means nothing. Cronyism being hated.

The country comes before clan. Bribery, also known is SE Asia as 'The Slice' is officially frowned upon and legislated against.

Women being equal to men.

Respect for democracy. Democracy seen as a strength not a weakness.

Freedom of association.

Habeus Corpus.

Jury trial - being tried by your peers not by the family of your alleged victim.

Freedom of belief. No official religion. No deals done between religious groups so that one religion gets to be president and the other gets the prime ministership.

Separation of church and state.

Mateship,

freedom to be 'different' so long as being different does no harm to others.

Liberty, within the constraints of informed consent, no arranged marriages.

Constitutional, federal government.

Right of ownership of property. Non ownership of humanity.

That give you some ideas of Australian culture?

Brazuca

"balkanising, segregating, ghetto-creating sort celebrated by ABC and SBS progressive types."

If more Anglo-Australians actually watched SBS and the ABC, instead of slagging off at them, we mightn't be having this divisive debate. There might just be some understanding and a better chance of peaceful coexistence.

"The concern demonstrated by many Australians gave the Asians a hint and prod as to what they should be doing, and ever since then they have been rapidly assimilating.....Australians are now far more “relaxed and comfortable” with Asians than before their concerns were allowed to be (inarticulately) expressed."

Asians in Australia are making a contribution and for the most part living amongst us peacefully as they always have done. The only change is that they've now been left to get on with their lives while the ugly and insular Aussies amongst us target a new group of immigrants - those from the Middle East.

sneekeepete

"As I have said before the first mistake we made with the notion of many cultures one community is giving the concept a name in stead of accepting it as simply the way we are."

I agree, sneekee. The term "Multiculturalism" has become a pejorative favourite of the Right. Just as the term "Political Correctness" was deliberately coined by the Right to discredit the perfectly reasonable aim of creating a fair-go for all groups in society, so too has MC become a wedge with which to bash the Left and stir up division.

"Pastor Danny Nalliah is the President of Catch the Fire Ministries Inc."

Excellent post, jpw2040. It's interesting - over the last decade we have seen a marked resurgence in Christian fundamentalism, and at the same time there has also been an increase in racial intolerance within the community. Are the two trends unrelated I wonder?

Danny tries to link French rioting to a church hall adjacent to a Muslim school being burnt in Auburn. He ends his article with loving one's neighbour.

Yet some time ago, he called on his congregations to pray to God that masonic and Hindu temples be torn down.

And I thought Muslim leaders were embarrassing!

Ifran,

Muslim leaders are embarrassing,

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

"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 Keyser’s Question is Jihad on Australia.

http://www.islam.org.au/articles/16/RACISM.HTM
read Keyser’s hate rant in full

Keyser Trad’s speech above is vile.

Is this the same chap peddling hate speech in churches in Vic.
Just what this site needs another bigoted Christian fundamentalist.
You having intergrated into my culture mate.

I can't see how Islam is some cure for pedophelia. Pedophilia is absotutely rife in middle eastern countries by many accounts, but the cultural taboo prevents recognising there is a problem.

Danny,

Generally a good article.
I read about the CTF story and the 'love' speeches:

'Love your neighbour' for you comes with 'only if he is Christian' or 'until he converts'.

Just be honest,

Peace,

rc,
"I assume when you live in these countries you assimilate and blend into the culture and lifestyle of these people and are well accepted as being Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Singaporian, and Chinese. Or are you always spoken of as being Australian. I would hope that migrant settlers to our country would consider themselves as firstly Australian before any of these races. If you lived permanently in Japan would you be Japanese?"

I'm not really sure what it means to "assimilate or blend into the culture and lifestyle". If you mean live within the bounds of the normal culture, then that would be true. Alternatively, it is very hard to think of what I could do in a place like Hong Kong that isn't also acceptable in Australia, or what I could do in Australia that also isn't acceptable in Hong Kong. Thus, at least for me, living a culturally acceptable lifestyle like the average person in Hong Kong isn't very much different than living a lifestyle like that in Australia.

As to whether different countries consider you as a member of their people after living their for long enough -- I think this differs on the country. There are certainly white people in Hong Kong that consider themselves Hong Kongkers, and Malays from Singapore that consider themselves Singaporean. Alternatively, as far as I'm aware, being Korean and Japanese is more based more on physical ethnic identity.

I don't see the identity acceptance as all-or-nothing issue and nor particularily to do with religion. Being o not fully Anglo, I doubt I could ever be considered French or Greek, even if I lived in those countries permanently, spoke the language without an accent etc. Thus, in that respect, those countries are more like Korea or Japan. The same is probably true for the first 20 or so years of my life in Australia. I very much doubt the average Australian would have considered me Australian despite being born in Australia, since physical ethnic identity (i.e., being white) was more important then (things are different now).

FH, hey mate:

'Love your neighbour' for you comes with 'only if he is Muslim' or 'until he Reverts'.

Just be honest,

Peace,(??)

Bwonryn,

>>…over the last decade we have seen a marked resurgence in Christian fundamentalism, and at the same time there has also been an increase in racial intolerance within the community. Are the two trends unrelated I wonder?<<

Yes. But this is not the complete picture. You need to add to the mix:

1. the increased manipulative insurgence of the Islamic community and their unbashful assault on our national values and connective social systems.
2. the relentless denigration of anything ‘christian’ mostly by people of your ilk for the past 5-6 decades.

rc - thanks for replying specifically. It is also interesting as I lived in one of them and spent much time in another on your list. I will give it some thought.

Assimilation...what does it mean ?

Its not a really hard concept.

If I goto my wifes people,

1/ I do not SAY "Thankyou" (they have no word for it) nor do they expect it... instead..I "DO" 'thankyou' at a later date by some friendly or kind act.

2/ I never flash over to so and so and ask him/her for a loan of their hoe, or shovel. I talk about the weather.. their family... various news... then, as a parting comment.. as if it didn't even matter..I ask if I can borrow their hoe or shovel.

3/ If I'm interested in a girl, romantically... I don't 'ask her out' I give a note to a close relative, indicating my interest, and find myself 'engaged' :)

4/ I NEVER ask anyone their 'NAME' directly. (related to taking of slaves in the past) I will ask another person his/her name.

5/ I'f Im continually given more rice and food etc, I don't get upset if I've already 'told' them "Im fulllllll" 50 times.. no, the next time they come to fill my plate, I put my HAND over it to prevent any more being served...

and so it goes on.

We in Australia, while we might not be fully conscious of all our tribal and cultural habits.. DO HAVE THEM, and just as we are expected to adapt reasonably to other cultures, we have the same expectation of migrants who come here to adapt to OUR ways.. thats what assimilation is. You don't have to stop being a Croation or a Serb or a Turk or a Greek or an Italian... you just have to learn simple cultural manners.

Perhaps one most obvious cultural habit we have is supporting the underdog, no matter who it is. We don't see our shock loss as an excuse to suddenly unleash tribal rage on supporters of the other team. (but some very ethnically based soccer teams do just that) so..SORRRRY... its just 'not on'.....shape up..and ASSIMILATE or ship out- no apologies.

Boaz,

For once I agree with with your comment.
Being Australian and looking after the community's interest and fellow Australians should come before any ethnicity or religion.

Coach,

None of the people I reached up to on OLO forums (or in my meigbourhood) is a muslim.
PS: I noticed as soon as Browyn, Scout or any poster mentioned 'christian fundies' you appear with a comment.
Is it possible you are taking it a little personal?

:-)

Peace,

warri warru - life expectancy of aboriginals was lower in 1788 than it was now. So were many other indicators.

Brazuca is right - you cannot have it both ways.

I have indigenous heritage but I am extremely thankful I grew up in an urban environment not out bush somewhere. The urban culture is much better than nomadic subsistence.

That is the problem with so-called multiculturalism - all cultures are treated as equal. What hogwash.

The Western traditions of common law, capitalism and democracy (all prosperous under Christian nations) are what our culture is based on. RC's Asian countries he mentions all have a combination of these things.(such as HK's strong ties to Britain, Japan's help from the US post war.)

Cultures are not successful by accident, they are successful because they have been beneficial - if Australia didn't have such a successful culture, people would not want to move here - they would choose India or Argentina or Mongolia.

t.u.s

Craig Blanche, tell me how one can derive a concept of individual rights from the traditional Aboriginal worldview. Let me use the US Declaration of Independence as an example to illustrate how Aboriginals could not formulate a concept of individual rights based on their traditional pantheistic and animistic worldview:

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..."

Now, how could Aboriginals conclude that "all Men are created equal" without first believing in the Christian account of man's origin? How could they believe that men are "endowed by their Creator" with anything when they do not believe in such a Creator and instead worship the created order itself -- rivers, rocks, sand and trees? And so how could they conclude that men are endowed with "certain unalienable Rights" without first borrowing extensively from the Judeo-Christian tradition from which such concepts derive.

Besides, your general view and attitude regarding Aboriginals seems to be based on the fabrication of Aboriginal history that has been foisted on us by ideologically driven historians who are less interested in the truth than in "imagining" it. Keith Windschuttle has done important work uncovering the mendacity that has been the fundament upon which mistaken views such as yours have been built.

See:

http://www.sydneyline.com/Fabrication.htm

Hamlet and BOAZ_David, good points re. Australian culture and assimilation.

Is this the same Danny Naliah who runs seminars that he says are above loving Muslims but then at the seminar they incite hatred against muslims, and state that "Muslims will take over Australia within 5 years, and then they will rape your wives and kill your children if you don't convert". No wonder multiculturalism is hard pressed to work when pastors who attend these seminars come out shaking fists and calling for "jihad against Muslims". That's what many witnesses saw happen, including well-known pastros and leader of bible Colleges. And what is the connection between this attack on multiculturalism and Danny's co-worker Daniel Scott who *publically* at bible College boasted of being paid by both ASIO and the CIA for his "insights" into Islam. What's danny's real agenda here?

Hamlet excellent article. Thank you. To Bronwyn[?] many of us do watch ABC and SBS as an escape from the brain dead commercial channels .But we do not accept that channels run on "our" money should be permitted to be so anti Australian, to the point that a good purge administered to some of the ideology would be extremely beneficial.
One would be truthful in claiming that both channels are racist in their constant grovelling to aliens at the expense of Australians.

"Nor have they threatened us with unspoken violence if their young men feel 'marginalised'."

Thank you! I have many close Muslim friends and I love them to death, so I'm not saying this about all Muslims, however...

I am so sick of hearing some Australian Muslims blaming Australian society, or Bush/Howard for going to war with Iraq, whenever they do something stupid (like burn a church down). Personal responsibility, mate!

RE: Ps. Danny- if you have a look at the "Creation, culture wars, and campus crusaders for Christ" forum you'll see plenty of "vilification" under Victorian legal standards against Christianity. (Its not vilification, its free speech, but it would be labelled as such in VIC).

Danny Naliah was not even at the conference he got in trouble for, his friend Daniel Scot was the guest speaker at the CTF conference. (Danny was in charge of CTF, so he got in trouble too.)

If you had read the ridiculously long transcript of the seminar (as I have) and attended the VCAT hearings after school (as I did- I was taking legal studies that year, and found this case a very interesting case study, from a legal and religious point of view), you would see that Ps. Scot's claims were far less volatile than a lot of OLO posts. He made two distinctions:

1) Not everyone who calls themself a Muslim is a Muslim, only those who devoutly follow the religion's teachings (the rest are 'fake Muslims' he said, which offended some Muslims present).
2) Those who devoutly follow the religion's teachings, under the guise of their holy book, are allowed to do a number of things.*

*These things offended the 3 recent converts to Islam (who admitted they knew little about the religion in court) even though Ps. Scot found these things in the Koran/Hadith.

Ps. Scot did tell the conference to "love Muslims and pray for them"- and he didn't say to do it "only if they convert". He has shown this personally through his many Muslim friends in his hometown (who have not converted).

He never called Muslims demons (though almost all media reported that).

What he said was volatile, surely, but it wasn't illegal (which is my personal opinion- we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say about that) and it certainly wasn't racist (as someone else mentioned, race does not equal religion, one is genetics, the other is a chosen set of beliefs).

As for asking people to pray to the Christian God that people who aren't Christians would become Christians- if the Christian God does not exist, and prayer to Him doesn't work, who cares? If He does exist, and prayer to Him does work, then its probably a good thing Christians are praying for more people to realise that!

I recall Mr. Nalliah’s persecution by the PC Victorian government, JPW 2040. So would most of the people who use this forum, so you have nothing to be astounded about. It just wasn’t part of the subject, that’s all.

The Wikpedia entry to which you refer says that he was a candidate for the Senate. He did not get into the Senate as you claim.

What I find astounding, if you really wish to talk about a completely different matter, is that Nalliah was found guilty of racial vilification because he merely advised a group of people of an actual entry in the Koran

There seems to be criticisms of one of Danny Nalliah's seminar about Islam. At one seminar, muslim converts were sent in to entrap Nalliah for 'hate speech'. Basically, Nalliah was set up. All he did was quote from the Koran, and it was these quotes that were deemed 'hateful'.

What were these Muslim converts doing at the seminar? Did they have an ulterior motive? Were they instructed to attend by anyone in particular? (methinks so - socialist halfwits, Kenny types?, muslims etc).

Seems like these vilification laws are designed to force feed the general public multiculturalism - instrumental to the fabian socialist agenda

Yep Davo and Leigh, can someone now recall the name of the woman who headed up the new Religious Vilification department, and set the Two Dannie’s up? P C would dictate it had to be a Moslem,and she was. I could not pronounce her name, properly without insulting anyone. Can anyone help?

Since we are now on the topic of the vilification case and the seminar held by Catch the Fire Ministries, I will contribute a few facts:
* At least two of the three Muslim converts were asked to attend the CTFM seminar on Islam by a woman named May Helou. At the time she was a member of the executive of the Islamic Council of Victoria, ran the ICV Support group for new converts AND was EMPLOYED by the Equal Opportunity Commission to assist the community in understanding the new law!
* One of the converts who made the complaint, Malcolm Thomas, is the new president of the Islamic Council of Victoria.
* Indeed, Danny Nalliah was not at the seminar.
* The case is being appealed and will be heard in the Supreme Court Court of Appeal before the middle of next year.
* Interestingly, Justice Morris ahs said, in the Alpha case (brought by witch Robin Fletcher) that the Act does not apply to 'vilifying' a religion - it just applies to vilification of 'people'.
Back to multiculturalism...
Yes, it is time to encourage everyone to integrate and get on with life. Multiculturalism is a favourite of the Bracks government - not only did they pass the RRTA but they passed the 'Multicultural Victoria Act' last year, enshrining multiculturalism into law. It asks us to respect the religious beliefs of all others. Now whilst I respect people, respecting their beliefs is quite another matter!
Government department even have to report on how many languages they 'translate' their documents into - one presumes that the more languages they use, the more 'brownie points' they get!
Not content with that, the Bracks government is currently planning a 'Charter of Rights’, which will further promote multiculturalism and a range of other 'rights'!
Jenny Stokes, Salt Shakers.

Brazuka, now let me get this right, you want me to seriously discuss a subject that you know nothing about but of which you speak with an expertise emanating from anonymity? You do realise that you just compared Aboriginal Australians and the US Declaration of Independence? Just checking, there must be a camera here somewhere…By the way, do you have Judeo-Christian on some sort of keyboard speed-dial?
Lets just address this constant barrage of Christian fetishism that you keep trotting out. If you, or anyone, posting a view that contains a religious reference to prove a point then you have lost my serious consideration on any point following it. Keeping up, so far? Ok, deep breath and keep reading…
Two things have caused the most pain and sadness in human history. Disease and religious dogma. I was bought up a Christian and still hold many of its values. Values, I may add, that are analogous to the basic tenets of all religions that I can think of. However, from that basic point, religions have evolved to become devices that validate abuses of power over others.
I believe in a supreme being. I call him God but that is not the only name that this entity is known by. God, or whoever you conceive God to be, surely does not need to entertain pedantic rhetoric to validate the undermining of basic human equality. Conceive of alternate avenues to authenticate your twisted ideals, if you must, but stop exploiting your God's ephemeral existence to gain advantage over another. There seems no end, either in this forum or from news around the globe, where God or Allah or whoever is trotted out as the reason for pontificating a hallowed superiority. So please don't bother espousing the relative merits of the twisted caricature of spirituality that you call modern religion. For every two words you give me in support of them I see a thousand pictures that tell me differently.
Brazuka, if you had an inkling of Aboriginal spirituality you would not have compared it to a man made document born from war.

Australian citizenship a prerequisite.

As an immigrant myself I would suggest this talk of multiculturalism is a cop out and weakens my country. Being able to live here without becoming an Australian citizen and even then, being able to have dual nationality, weakens our national spirit as being expressed in France, the UK and other multicultural nations. Divided loyalty leads to racism and racist expressions.

Clearly it is complex but can I suggest the following as a beginning?

1. Entry to Australia is conditional to assuming Australian citizenship withing two years. No dual citizenship. As a term of entry, Australian citizenship or leave becomes part of the contract with our country.

2. Existing immigrants (ie. without Australian citizenship) have the choice of staying as currently BUT if they break the law, they are exported. (Or for those moderates, given the option of becoming Australian citizens or leaving).

Assistance brochures at places like Centrelink will ONLY be in English. I learned english within a year and I dont consider myself exceptional. English is the national language and we dont have to expend resources catering for those who dont avail themselves to the services available to learn our national language.

It is time we incorporate our beautiful country and respect us as a sovereign country. We can remain multicultural (whatever that might mean), but lets get some respect for our country.

Givern the current concerns over the environment and Australia’s water shortage I would think it appropriate to investigate just how many people Australia can support... while 'soft' MC may well be fine, at some point there just will not be room for more people in australia! Maybe that’s now or maybe in a 100 years but I think its something that needs proper consideration. There seems to be an underlying assumption in MC that the more people that come hear the better. Is this a valid assumption?

Aussie languange and our way of saying things, can be hurtful - but it is usually not meant to be. 'She'll be right' attitude often crosses over into our speech and newcomers would find it hard to tolerate - especially in this 'politically correct' climate that exists today. Comments are made more in a jovial, jesting manner and not intended to hurt. I think the governments have taken this 'multicultural' attitude too much to heart, when most people don't really agree with them. Look at the Greeks; Italians and Asians - they are now "Aussies' because they choose to accept us and our ways.

Well said Danny.

I too believe people who migrate to Australia need to assimalate or leave. That means learning to read and write in English.

I also believe people who pose a risk of becoming a terrorist should not be allowed in under any circumstances. If a person's religion requires that all who do not believe in that religion be fought wherever they are found then that person should not be allowed to enter Australia under any circumstances.

If the federal government is sincere in it's “war on terror” it will heed Danny's words and the many other warnings about the true cause of terrorism. For further information I recommend “A Summary of the Qur'an” by Danniel Scot.

Until the 1970s, the term Multicultural was unknown in Australia - migrants entering this nation were known as New Australians. The millions who came here from other countries after World War II were assimilated - not without difficulty, and in the face of some prejudice - into our society.

Assimilation is "the process whereby individuals or groups of differing ethnic heritage, as migrant groups, or minority groups, acquire the basic attitudes, habits and mode of life of another all-embracing culture." (Macquarie Dictionary)

Multiculturalism is: "the theory that it is beneficial for a nation to maintain more than one culture within its structure." (Macquarie Dictionary)

Assimilation works because it is a natural process. For example, nutrients are assimilated into the body through the bloodstream. Multiculturalism hinders assimilation, in that it creates a mosaic of cultures, each claiming its right to exist, separately, within a nation. Ethnic culture flourished in Australia during assimilation. (There were cultural groupings, but then, Aussies themselves had turned Earl's Court, London, into Kangaroo Valley.)

Multiculturalism or Assimilation: which is scriptural?

"For by one Spirit are we baptised into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles..." (1 Corinthians 12:13) Here, as in other texts, the emphasis is on unity: individual members of the body working in harmony for the good of the whole. There are no Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians - just Christians. (1 Corinthians 10:32)

Australia's immigrants need not abandon their cultural heritage, but they do need to assimilate, much as people everywhere do when they become part of Christ's Church

jpw2040

Who said this:

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

Would this passage lead to prosecution in Victoria.

Irfan.

Is the author a Nazi? He's more politically incorrect than anyone here.

When will someone present the Koran to the Victorian CAT for assessment. It vilifies and incites hatred towards Jews, Christians and non believers. Would that body act and censor those references which indulge in those practices. Perhaps they’d ban the book. That would be easier than trying to collect evidence the passages were being spruked. Would anyone from Victoria’s CAT be allowed to attend a mosque where those particular teachings are sprouted?…not on your bloody nellie.

Answer to the above Question.

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

the riots at cronulla were not caused by multiculturalism, but rather by a deep seated hatred of lebanese. in the cronulla area this has been caused by the lebanese's offensive conduct;on the beach every weekend; in nightclubs- lewd comments to aust women and a demand to dance or have a drink even when the women are in company of boyfriend/fiance/husband, this leads to confontation.
when the lebanese are confonted, they will not have a fight, they call for reinforcements and weapons. talk to the young guys at cronulla they will confirm my observations.
why is it that we dont hold the greeks italians chinese in the same contempt

"The truth is that countries founded on the Judeo-Christian heritage (Western democracies) are the best to live in"

This says it all. Why have Muslims come to Australia in the first place - to escape the tyranny of their countries of origin. Excellent article and says it as it is

It doesn’t matter if these preachers were pig farmers, fundi xtians or trapeze artists, what ever, this court case is about free speech.

The Victorian Islamic Councils attempt to legally persecute opinion and expression totally undermines the concept of democracy.

It legally protects islam from critics.

Existing laws already cover illegal behaviour against all Australians. Laws relating to offensive behaviour, assault and battery, defacing property and incitement to riot are sufficient to protect us all.

The transparency of open debate and the right to reply is adequate protection for all of us.

If by its very nature the koran vilifies itself, and the muslim position is to pathetic and weak to debate, then let it be seen.

Best of luck in the Supreme Court, this case is vital for freedom of speech. And good on you for standing up to the social arm of the jihad

EDRIC,you speak the truth but alas it falls on the deaf ears of the politically correct.John Watkins tonight made reference to the Anglo racists who have no previous criminal records but will be granted no bail just to cover up the debacle of lawlessness their Govt have achieved in this state.

No mention of the violent Lebanese rioters at Maroubra who were granted bail to continue their skippy bashing escapades in Sydney where there will be no cameras.No mention of decades of abuse the local people of Cronulla have suffered under this perverted left wing form of Multiculturalism.

The ABC shows footage of the Anglos bashing innocent people of Middle Eastern appearence and then in the same sentence mentions the continued riots by thugs at Maroubra with no qualification as to who was doing the destruction and terrorising the local community.

The ABC are a national disgrace and should be revealed for the treacheous liars that they are.These racial conflicts would not have come to fruition if we had honesty from our Govts and left wing media who cover up the wrongs of racial minorities.

They have been responsible for this festering sore of violence and racial discrimmination by groups of Middle Eastern thugs who have the police,Sydney residents and their own law abiding people terrorised.

It would never have come to this if we had the courage to stand up to the PC brigade.Now we have the lunatic white supremacists gaining power and will stir the racial pot of insecurity in the hope of gaining power.

The left will love this since they will use images of these nutters to further justify the repression of free speech in the name of racial harmony.

The left are the masters of lies and deception by the omission of salient facts and logic.If the NSW Govt did it's job of being impartial and keeping law and order,we would not be seeing this racial termoil.When fear prevails,so will hate and thus more violence.

[Deleted for flaming. Poster suspended.]

[Deleted for flaming. Poster suspended for one week.]

Had multiculturalism not been around, and had we still the White Australia Policy (which some armchair nazis here support), Danny Nalliah would still be eating chapattis in Colombo. Biting the hand that feeds one isn't a very good character trait.

Also, could the moderators of these forums please be careful about some of the comment here on the "Catch the Fire" case. I understand it is currently before the courts. The last thing CTF would want is for his allies to ruin the appeal by making sub judice comments ...

Liberals, please sit down, as I do not want you to injure yourself while reading this.

(1) For those that leave your homeland and enter the land of Australia or America you will assimilate into OUR way of life. We have no desire to change our culture into something different.

(2)I don't care what race you are, it means nothing. If you do however, believe that our Constitution should be replaced with another document, you are a traitor.

(3) Speak English.

(4) You will abide by our laws, and not the laws or customs of the land you left to enter ours.

(5) Coming to our lands is a "privilege" not a "right" .

(6) If any of these things offend you, to bad, being offended is not against the law. Please use the same freedom to enter our lands, to LEAVE THEM.

Enjoy your stay.

Jeff

Ifran

I do not agree with the white australia policy nor do I agree with multiculturalism.

I do not agree with assimilation, nor do I agree with segregation.

In the middle of these two periods we had integration policy.
Still room for cultural difference and we would still encounter the same problems and the same joys from immigration except we would not have the identity problem we have now.

Others also seem to think that multiculturalism is another word for immigration. The US had centuries of immigration under a melting pot policy, not assimiliation, not segregation (well exception there, but not immigration as such). So all immigrants feel a right to be called American. I hear over and over again protests by immigrants "i was born here, I am Australian' so obviously many immigrants, muslim included do not agree with multiculturalism.

Many many countries have benefits from a multitude of cultures without multicutural policy. Singapore for eg has one police force and you better behave, no cultural difference excuse is going to get you out of out water there. No ethnic leader will stand up for you and of course freedom of press is not workable under such conditions.

An earlier poster suggested we do not have a multiculture as such, almost true. We don't really. It is a farce. We have western and aboriginal culture. Why do we deny this? Majority of people that come to Australia do so for a better westernised life. Why we pretend to be some rich tapestry of different cultures is over romancing reality. All it does is give young kids identity issues which leads to, strange enough, the American gangsta culture. Seems whenever someone is missing a cultural identity they adopt American. I guess it is so all encompassing. Why can't we learn from that and do our own thing, all of us together mixing it up for a new and improved culture.

The term multicultural has different meanings depending upon who's defining. Whitlam gave impression to new settlers that the term means: bring your own culture as practied in your own homeland and practise it here.

If you note who controls the agenda in the Department of Multicultural Affairs in Victoria you'll note it's a haven for Muslims; the only religion defined is "Islam in Australia." They're the body making recommendations to the Brack's Government on vilification laws etc. They're the ones producing the "Harmony" programme for State schools; as an endeavour to educate Australians on understanding Islam. They're the body spying on persons suspected of vilififying Islam.

Whitlam has sanctioned the agenda of evangelising Muslims in Australia to promote and protect Islam as a culturally acceptable part of being a Multicultural Australia. All people are free to share their beliefs, but when the Government of Victoria under Brack's protects and supports a religious multicultural agenda; then it's time for the secularist to become concerned. Christians must be secularists when it comes to administering power in State affairs.

Hindu, Buddaists, Christians etc, have no agenda to remove public vilification of their religion. The reason is, Islam is founded upon strict blasphemy laws, and free expression if it offends is against the laws of Allah. They imprison or stone to death such persons. Persons like the two Daniels left the countries of their birth because death threats had been issued upon them by Muslims.

Vilification of persons and religion happens every day on this Forum. It is the best tool to hone character and communication skills, as one searches for foundational reasons for one's belief. The Alchemist presents very strong arguments against religion that under the terms of the Victorian law, as interpreded by Judge Higgins, is seen as violation. However we love the Alchemist, because he identifies some basic truths that the ignorant and brainwashed religious ignore. Though he supports primitive religion because it has strong links to the nature of the Universe, Christians can learn from this because too often they imagine the natural world as evil so can be abused.

Irfan,

Your knowledge of Australian history need to be finetuned a little.
The White Australia Policy was dismantled from 1949 to 1966 by the Menzies and Holt Governments. Malcolm Fraser in 1977 legislated the formation of the Australian Institue of Multicultural Affairs and the first official Multicultural policy in Australia.

Contrary to your misconception Multiculturalism wasn't 'around' nor did it have anything to do with the abolition of the White Australia Policy. As you can see it was forward thinking liberals who instigated those particularly inspired advances.

Danny would also have probably been welcomed here long before multiculturalism was formed...oddly enough under the liberal inspired Colombo Plan.

I don't think you understand who's biting who's hand. But mine's bitten often...too bloody often.

The theory and practice of multicultutralism.

Wikipedia has a fairly good article about “multiculturalism” here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

The term sounds nice. The problem is, however, that there is an unspoken understanding that the concepts of “mutual respect” and “tolerance for cultural differences” do not apply to any culture originating in Western European or derived from Judeo-Christian heritage.

As implemented by governments and NGOs, multiculturalism is a one way street. By definition, at least according to the multiculturalists, non-western cultures are pure, unique and exploited by Westerners. Under this dogma these are, in fact, superior, even if some of their practices are barbaric and some of their customs revolting. Also, under the doctrime of Multiculuralism, any criticism of Non-Western cultures is considered ‘racism,’ even if it has nothing to do with race matters.

Oh yes, Multiculturalism only applies to Western Nations. It is unthinkable that any liberal, politically correct multiculturalist would ask a non-Western nation to respect Western ideals and customs. As I said, it is a one way street.

Under Multiculturalism, the values of non-Western cultures supercede any of those of Western cultures. It appears that the highest value of any non-Western culture is the right not to be offended. Thus the ideal of “free speech” must bow to the the sensitivities of non-western cultures and therefore must be limited.

Of course, the most sensitive of all non-western practices is the ideology of Islam. No matter what Islam teaches or what Muslims do, it is never their fault. If they kill, it is because they were provoked. If they riot it is because they government didn’t do enough for them. If they want to silence you, it is because what you say hurts their feelings.

Thus we have in so many places (Australia, England, Demark, etc…) an effort to ban free speech, so not to offend Muslims. See
http://www.newspaperindex.com/blog/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/
or here:
http://forum.newspaperindex.com/viewtopic.php?t=6

A Muslim’s right not to be offended is more important that your right of free speech. Galileo would turn in his grave. And kiss your bacon goodbye.

This is what they are teaching in our schools.

John Kactuz

Well written Danny. Im a white Aussie,as far back in the generations as you can go.My high school was predominantly Italians and Greeks and I got teased for being a "skip".Later, I was with a Sri lankan guy who hung out with only Sri Lankans. Him and all his friends bagged out white Australians & complained that everyone was racist.In that 3years,I had more racism hurled at me from them,they never got it from me or my friends.Ive been brought up Australian-to love all cultures and people-groups.Ive never been racist, not even in my heart, let alone in actions or words.Im offended when people complain that white people are racist.Neither I or my friends have been racist.It is a throw in the face when you are loving and welcoming to all people -because they are people- and they throw it in your face, calling you racist.Even if one "white" person is rude or racist, should you then rule out the entire race?That's not fair on average Aussies like me. I was used for a visa,I was teased in school by immigrants but I still love people of a different race.People need to grow up a little -if one fat person offends you, do you assume all fat people are butt-heads?No, you think,gee that person was rude.So the next time you see a fat person,you are still friendly.If one Muslim or one Christian or one Buddhist treats you badly,do you write off that whole religion?Saying all.....are horrible?Of course not. Grow up Australia,Im in my early 20s and sick of seeing people older than me fight over stupid things.God(whoever you believe Him to be) made us all, and loves all the same, regardless of skin colour

Thank you Danny Nalliah for posting this. I believe in what you are doing.

In response to some of the other posts about racism - I believe that racism is a form of disparaging another person because they are different. If you watch children they will tease, bully and taunt someone who looks different, thinks differently, or does not conform to the way the group taunting thinks they should be. I was a white person living in a black society when I was a child. I was the different one. When my family returned to the U.S. we moved to a small village. I was new, I did not sound like the other children. I was the different one. Racism is a grown-up word for the way we treat people who are different whether they be the same colour as we are or are of a different colour. Consider the racism in India - the caste system among one of the people groups who live there is a form of racism within that people group.
We need to consider each other and as the American Indians say 'walk a mile in their shoes' before we judge them. Multiculturalism is an attempt to allow us to do this - but if we have evil in our hearts then it becomes corrupt.
Janet

According to T.O.S. rules I may not post again for another 24 hours after this and I will obey by the rules, as I have already posted once today.

This is not about race. Drop the race issue. This is about people integrating into our societies, I don't care what color the person is. If he is white and does not conform to our culture, If he is has a darker skin color than mine and does not integrate into society, it makes no difference. Don't you people see, this is not about skin color, it's about an attitude and mindset. The race issue, is nothing more than a smoke screen to cover up the real issue. And that issue is turning Australia, America, the UK, into something different than what it is, and this is simply not acceptable. Thankyou moderators for allowing me to post in this forum.

Jeff

Danny Nalliah is so right, as a 7th decade Aussie who has seen it all change from Aussie culture to multi- culture I have seen so much change in our loved nation,some for the better when there was a minority of foreigners here.
What has happened ,is that the refugees,immigrants and others who are from many nations come here for the great social security and benefits we have ,but they want to keep thier same cultures going here as well ,even though most are draconian.(Ancient ideas) If they, and I say mainly Muslims at present(maybe other religions and beliefs later on)would live like we have for past 200 years (free)then Australia can be called their home.If you listen to the prophets we are in for more unrest in future unless there is change and the politicians knees knock at the next election ,who are guilty of ignoring all that is going on.

The young lions (Australia,Canada,USA,NZ,RSA,Singapore) all off shoots of the UK (Mother Lion) have done all they can to help those in need worldwide , and only get racist abuse for helping . Change HAS to come and not cowtowing to minorities whims.We are still a Christian nation that will not bow down to pressure from foreign groups ways.

OOOOO Dear o me:
Now this will not be published in any News papers or Radio or TV, for obvious reasons, BUT.

The detective superintendent in Charge Strike Force “Enoggera”- our Multicultural Race riot in Cronulla has just publicly released the Charge numbers on Air. You would be happy to realize that 28 charges have come about, not so good on the Multicultural side though: NONE of the Lebanese Moslems have been charged, oops sorry two flag burners have been charged, so 26 young White Australians are in the lock up and none of the others has seen a policeman. Is that Racism Irfan, The Brown Shirts you so Mention at work, or do you know something the rest of Australia does not? Or are our police just out gunned -as a police report some weeks ago suggested and that’s why NONE have been arrested? Do our P C Brigade Know the consequences if Police arrest the perpetrators?

Our Elite Leaders must be on Christmas holidays still, and this Superintendent will probably be out of a Job tomorrow: We are not supposed to know this information, and you can see why you are not meant to know.
That’s Multicultural Australia, well N S W at this point. Happy P C’ing.

Thanks Danny for your article. Immigrants that do not accept our culture as their own are being quite rude.

It is like seeking an invitation to dinner at a friend's home, and when sitting down to dinner, complain about the meal.

I will give anyone a fair go. If immigrants make an effort to learn the language and the culture, and otherwise display good manners, they will be accepted.

Those who despise our culture and our ways should be shown the door.

Good points and intentions Janet and Jeff, However I differ on a few scores about racism.

This redeemable ideology of ‘colour blindness' might be virtuous but it fails to appreciate the pervasiveness of racism
and thus denies racism as an overt and deliberate discrimination.

Racism is a structural and ideological practice in society as well as behavioural phenomena. And while it might feel good to look away from racism and pretend it isn't at play it does make it go away.

Simply arguing that that raising the question of racism is divisive is often argued here by those who want to rationalise their racism using 'cultural' justifications.

This piece of poetry always comes to mind when attempting to explain the above.

As I was going up the stair I met a man who wasn't there! He wasn't there again today, i wish, i wish he'd go away.

This dualistic interplay of solf acknowledgment and blatant denial of racism is often the logic used by posters here in discussing immigrants and assimilation and multiculturalism.

Read through some of the posts above and you'll easily identify the deniers/ head in the sand ostriches who see their man upon their stairs every time.

Lets draw out what racism actually means. It basically refers to negative discrimination towards a person of another race. It implies that white people are the main culprits, and non whites are to be protected. Our dear friend Rainier is subconsciously talking about racism from whites (in between wishing people with a different p.o.v a quick death).

How is racism displayed? Bashings, insults, humiliation and rejection. Hang on, all these things are on display from our Lebanese gangSTAs. Nahhh...go for the soft target...arrest an 18 year old waving a eureka flag and call him a white supremacist. I feel much safer now..NOT.

keith, are you the same keith who publishes his own books that are allegedly about history?

i think few people here have addressed the really interesting and perplexing issue - exactly how does one define multiculturalism? this is the crux of the issue. until we agree on a definition, we will continue allowing the discussion to be dominated by monocultural nutcases and pseudo-christian armchair nazis.

Perhaps in the end, when we mature a bit more, when we look beyond the colour of skin, the manner of dress, the language, perhaps then we will one day see all of this discussion, the huffing and puffing that precedes this posting, as just one thing, an attempt to differentiate each other. Differentiation legitimised by those in power - be they politicians, mullahs or priests. Oh so real in the mind and legitimsed in the name of fervant religion, nationalism or self esteem.

A word comes to mind, but I guess I will leave that to the imagination.

Power plays in some way legitimised like the Crusades, like WWII, like the Cold War, like........ power plays with the peons getting hurt.

On this beautiful day, there are some right now, dressing themselves up with a belt of explosives, ball bearings, to ....'differentiate'

I agree with Danny totally, that migrants should try harder to assimilate to this wonderful and democratic country. When multiculturalism was introduced in the early years, I was very concerned of its nature, policy, definition, promotion etc, that seeks to accomodate many cultures into one. The ways to do this is to provide or create various funding for various cultural promotions. I believe we should concentrate on helping migrants to better assimilate themselves to Australian ways of life. How the govt is able to adequately cater to this cultural promotion,so is detrimental to the govt and society at large, because the funding should be used for free health care, education,defence and economy for the benefits of Australians as a nation rather than to each exclusive group separately. It creates confusion, division, distability, because each specific group adheres to its cultural practices or norms with specific cutural manuals. We should have one standard oflaw for every one and written in English. The ethnic groups can practice their beliefs, practices in Australia, but should not expect the govt to fund for their programs and should not impose on others or our ways of life here. We should not allow a minority to use the word racist to intimidate or bully others for their own gain and agendas,believe me, there are such people. The police should be free to protect the community without fear of being labelled racist
I am an Asian migrant who came to Australia in 1983, and have successfully assimilated to the Australian way of life, I have made many friends,from many nations. The white Australians were very supportive of me and my sister, they helped us to resettle to this country. We had an Aussie host family during our early resettlement here, we have made a life long lasting friends through correspondence

IRFAN SAID ...."monocultural nutcases and pseudo-christian armchair nazis."

If I did not see more value in you being actually ALLOWED to say these things, than being banned or deleted for flaming, I'd complain to Graham Young. But the fact is, these hysterical outbursts which lack any sound analysis, which simply play the man, (very un-australian) underline the case which many of us have been making.

OH.. don't think we haven't noticed your straw man.. "Mono-Culturalists" I gave you a definition of MultiCulturalism from the Government site most relevant, so stop asking repeat questions.

There is nothing in the slightest wrong with a concept of a prevailing or dominant culture. It exists in Pakistan, in India, Iran, Malaysia, etc etc ad infinitum... without it, you will have serious and unfettered competition, which can lead to aggression. As happens in India when the prevailing culture IS challenged by Muslims. A mono/prevailing culture does NOT have to mean ill treatment of those citizens of different background.

ALL.. can you give more details on who that Policeman was, and any source for this ? That is serious stuff, and is the raw material to SERIOUS social unrest and lack of respect for the Police. If true, then it just FEEDS racially antagonistic and hostile attitudes to minorities. It also fuels the idea that the police are UNABLE AND/OR UNWILLING to deal with the problem of Lebanese gangs.

AS I PREDICTED... "Iemma will talk hard, act soft" (on those of his constituency)

Once again racism and multiculturalism are to be mixed and rubbed up against each other.

Culture and race are two different things, and must be treated differently.

The most horrific 'racial' massacre of the past 20 or so years happened in Rwanda. The Tutsis and the Hutus. The interesting thing is that as 'races' they are indistinguishable. Their languages are virtually identical. Their cultures are extremely similar, cows being the difference, however it was the small differences that resulted in the killings.

However culture in the context that we are discussing here is something else. It is a world view. It is an attitude. It is about how the individual sees him or herself.

To put things in a different analogy. Over the period of the Christian reformation various groups challenged the authority of the Catholic church. The mainstream Catholic view was that it was necessary to perpetrate violence against those who disagreed with Catholic doctrine. In response Protestants perpetrated violence against Catholics, both sides calling it either dealing with apostacy or maintaining faith. The priests, bishops and archbishops were self appointed community leaders.

Ultimately their authority in the secular world was rightfully rejected, and the west decided to elect representatives, not leaders.

Looking at today: in western countries it is assumed that religion and government should not be mixed.

Additionally there are no 'community leaders' because each person is their own leader. Each person is personally responsible.

This is modern Australian culture.Therefore I find it amusing that whenever there are cultural problems 'community leaders' are invited to attend this or that meeting.

Well, stuff that. My culture says that I have no 'community leaders' I have elected representatives. The government should cease dealing with anyone who claims to be a leader of any community. Individuals should be dealt with. Laws apply to individuals, not groups or cultures.

Community leaders should not be credited with any authority, except perhaps moral authority or to suggest moral courses of action.

Anything else is not of Australian culture. This is a society of individuals, not of 'cultural groups'.

Irfan,

No I don't write history books however if I did they'd be very similar to the alledged history you refer. But thanks for the compliment. I agree with you on the need to define or have a definition of multiculturalism.

I am an avid multiculturalist. I derive my definition from the source of the policy. The Federal Government's policy. I have submitted an article on just this topic after a little inspiration from one of your posts. But simply the official Policy holds the following:

"'Multicultural' is a term that describes the cultural and linguistic diversity of Australian society. Cultural and linguistic diversity was a feature of life for the first Australians, well before European settlement. It remains a feature of modern Australian life, and it continues to give us distinct social, cultural and business advantages.

The Australian Government’s multicultural policy addresses the consequences of this diversity in the interests of the individual and society as a whole. It recognises, accepts, respects and celebrates our cultural diversity.

The freedom of all Australians to express and share their cultural values is dependent on their abiding by mutual civic obligations. All Australians are expected to have an overriding loyalty to Australia and its people, and to respect the basic structures and principles underwriting our democratic society. These are: the Constitution, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language, the rule of law, acceptance and equality.’"

Note how it conviently skips the 50 odd year period of the operation of the White Australia Policy. :-) Still having been able to have left that attitudes that resulted in that display of national predjuice and intolerance behind is something for us all to be very proud

Irfan, Kactuz set out how many Australians feel about multiculturism perfectly.
Most of us feel totally disgusted our Government sits back and does nothing to stop minorities who appear to override our laws and literally throw our goodness to them back in our faces.
The Australian view of multi culture is quite different to the view of multi culture from a Muslim point of view.
Australians expect migrants to settle into a new land with as least problems as possible.
Muslims expect to be treated as important guests whose wishes must be paramount and who expect to live by their own laws, traditions just as they did 'back home'
No other migrants have failed so spectacularly as those of Islamic faith.
That is where multi culture fails, not because of the wish of Australians but because of the arrogance and obduracy of Muslim.

Keith, nicely put.

R0bert

keith,

Good comment.

Mickjo,

Myself and an overwhelming majority of Australian Muslims go about their day to day life like everyone else according to keith's definition.

Few 'loud' people express their extreme or specific views but it should be seen as it is: personal views.

Picking up a comment and using it to judge the majority of the community is wildely inaccurate.

D B , I will try and get sound bits of the entire interview, I will discuss where I may provide links when I obtain a copy. It was an On Air Broadcast and this policeman heads the taskforce for Investigations pertaining to the riot, and at least Honest, There are hundreds of Eye witnesses and victims also, stating police searching and finding weapons : Lebanese Gangs were sent away, without arrest-They were the Thuggish ones, But the other Middle Eastern Gangs were the War one. Armed to the teeth. Not mentioned in ANY media apart from the police report stating Police not to proceed as it was too dangerous. (I wonder what that means)
All are now on public record, but like I said: not in the Media. Figure that one out. A few Community leaders and Politicians putting some overtime hay.
Can not have those Public Idiots knowing the TRUTH now can we.

Wake up you ignorant Aussies and others, multiculturalism is here to stay after saying nothing publicly because the media would not print my letters to the editor some 20 years back after I become Christianized and read not only the bible but books by Hal Lindsey,

Like (The late Great Planet Earth)Stan Deyo's ,(Cosmic Conspiracy) Barry Smith videoes, and New World Order discussion groups ,seminars with Barry Smith who wrote "Final Notice, Warning and Second Warning,plus PS by BS also Hal Lindsey's( Planet Earth 2000 AD.) Many more with many discussions on the book (What Will Become of Australia ?) by Jack Burrell.

What we are seeing happen is what Hal said in his first book LGPE about 30 years ago that muslims are going to set up communities worldwide to take over eventually,(read it yourself)Barry Smith as well, in Final Notice and others.
What we need to do is love others , pray for the new foreigner's to get a hold of Australian way of life ,but most are not allowed to drink alcohol,fornicate(sex before marriage)smoke,dress provocatively,etc ,so how can they assimilate in Australia with a religion that is really anti Aussie ways?

The NWO has to assimilate as many nations as possible before the anti christ can take over with a one world religion compulsory for all races on earth as they believe I guess ,that there will be no wars over religion anymore.
The immigrants,refugees,boat people,illegal immigrants and others are all here to stay to dillute Christianity or to De - Christianize our nation and all others as well.

Persecution is rising towards Christians now in Western Nations I viewed a video on line today by 3 ex PLO terrorists who will tell you that most Muslims don't agree with terrorism ,but will support them financially in other nations ,even within USA they are training they say on this video. So let's put this all on the pollies to sort out with wisdom and hope.

Everything that I hear confirms what I believe and that is that we have to remove the race "get out of jail free" card from our Laws. Too many people are abusing the system and using their 'race/culture' to get away with doing the wrong thing by claiming racism against them. This ‘protection’ is limited to only some and that makes it unfair.

Acts of Discrimination that stem from malice or spite should be against the law regardless of what race or religion, size or shape you are.

There are those that use the racist card to get their way and to push their own agenda. Everybody should have equal rights. Not just those from other cultures and/or races that refuse to call themselves Australian.

We need to make acts of Discrimination that are based on malice and spite against the law as the way it is now, it isn't against the law to discriminate out of spite or malice but it is against the law to discriminate because of race - even if you are just exercising your freedom of choice and its nothing personal!

To those who claim that Australia is multicultural: I will believe you when the following occurs:

When the first Sharia divorce takes place in Australia.

When under age (ie, under the age of consent to sex - currently 16 in most places) marriage is allowed on cultural grounds.

When it is accepted in a court that woman's evidence is worth less than a man's.

When we don't elect representatives for parliament based on geographical electorates and instead elect them on the basis of what religious or ethnic group we belong to.

When the residents of a particular area can declare that area to be kosher or halal, and not let shops in that area sell any food not in the particular category that they chose.

When different groups are given very widespread powers to enforce their cultural values on their members with the right to punish being granted by the government to the groups.

When members of a particular ethnic or cultural group can specifically and publicly advertise for employees from that group and only that group.

Multiculturalism is about 'protecting' and fostering difference. It is about letting people in cultural groups maintain their distinctiveness and not letting people escape from that.

For instance, if it is a cultural imperative that people only marry people within their own culture, true multiculturalism is about the government enforcing that.

True multiculturalism is about preserving culture – no matter what the cost to the individuals who belong to that culture.

It is not about food, or language, or dancing, or music: It is about the value of the individual being balanced against the perceived value of their culture of origin.

In the west we value the individual, and the individual’s right to choose. That is the basis of our culture. Other cultures do not share this value, placing other aspects of the culture above that of the individual members.

So, make your choice: the right of the individual, or the right of ‘community leaders’ to control the individuals in their particular culture. Multiculturalism or individuals making their own decisions?

Hamlet,
I can see where you are coming from on your definition, and this was the definition that new cultural arrivals in the 1970's believed Whitlam meant. Such a definition breeds tribalism and fosters the same hostilities as found in Tribal Middle Eastern countries; as we witness in Iraq with Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

Democracy cannot function in the same environment as tribalism and we must difuse tribalism in Australia if we are to retain our core values. We share common secular needs and this must be the basis of Government.

The Australian, Richard Kerbaj, January 11, 2006
Ruddock upset Keysar Trad

Philip Ruddock has outraged the Muslim community on one of Islam's holiest days by telling crowds gathered to pray at a mosque that they must "uphold the laws of the country".

The federal Attorney-General caused the furore during a speech he was invited to give as Muslims celebrated the first day of the Eid al-Adha, the celebration of sacrifice, at the Lakemba Mosque in Sydney's west.

"I think it is important to acknowledge that when you are Australian, as all Australians, you have a responsibility to uphold the laws of this country," Mr Ruddock told the devotees at the state's largest mosque. "If we are able to live in a tolerant society, we have to offer tolerance to others."

The comments, on the day the nation's 300,000-strong Muslim community begins the Eid festival, were attacked by Keysar Trad, founder of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, who claimed Mr Ruddock's remarks revealed an underlying "contempt" for Muslims. "He doesn't have as much respect for Australians of a Muslim background as he should," Mr Trad said.

Mr Ruddock last night defended his comments, saying he made the remarks after two speakers, including Lebanese Muslim Association president Ahmad Kamaledine, made political references in their speeches. ...."

At http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17787765%255E2702,00.html

Does Mr Trad feel Muslims in Australian can act indifferent to Australian Law? Mr Ruddock is the Australian representative of our laws as Attorney-General so saying such is within his responsibility.

Speaking of Keyser Tread, please read this speech by him.

"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 Keysers question is Jihad on Australia.

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

This violent and hate ridden speech was around 1996/7, now Keyser is a well known spokesman for moderate islam... Thats as real as pauline hanson working towards landrights for Aboriginals.

Please pass this link and inform your friends

meredith,
I have included the next part of his speech as it demonstrates his views of Australian Law and people.

"What will a starving person do when he wants food?

They will no longer respect these laws which were drafted in a cocoon away from the reality that the land of Australia does not belong to white European man. In fact, if the original inhabitants had their way, or if we want to employ Pauline Hanson justice, then white man should pack his bags and leave this country, for your people Pauline, have been the worst of guests!

The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country, and now, they only take the select choice of other societies, and the descendants of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us. And because we are not elitists, we tolerate them. Yet they want us to assimilate, perhaps they will only become satisfied when we each die our hair red, wear blue/green contact lenses, and operate a fish and chips shop, otherwise, we would not be truly assimilating, would we?

"As for those whose souls the angels took while still they were wronging themselves - the angels said, "in what were you engaged?" They said, "We were weak in the land." They said: "was not Allah's earth spacious, so that you might have emigrated in it?" So for those, their abode is hell, and it is a bad destination." [S4:V97]

Yes Philo,

Just ugly as can be that Trad speech, here are some current islamist opinions of Mr Ruddocks speech.

http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?s=722de719c376e45031d5baafd17a6df0&showtopic=18924

note a posters nickname "Taliban Princess" ... just not nice at all.

I commend Danny for his article. The challenge faced on Cronulla beach has bee simmering for the past 10 to 12 years as groups of young men from the Lakemba area have descended upon the beach. They don't come to enjoy the surf! It seems that they come to "oggle" the girts in their brief costumes. They don't see their own wthnic girls clad like this so come for the thrills. They've been abusive with their language and their comments over the years, abusive with their physical aggression. Having attacked the lifesavers, the "locals plus" decided enough is enough. Personally I hate the word "multiculturalism". It, along with othjer "-isms" is an offensive word to me. Let's all be Aussies together and live as brothers and sisters in harmony. Yes, a fanciful dream to some, but I believe this can be achieved.

I though this article was about multiculturalism – not Muslim bashing.

I’m sure there are some legitimate fears regarding unlawful acts by groups of people from certain sections of our community. But I do not think that they come only from the one section. Having been in law enforcement for some time, I believe I come from an informed point of view.

I’d like the following:

Ifran, can you categorically state that you do not want a Sharia state in this country and believe in freedom of belief and religion

Boaz and all the others, can you categorically state that you do not want a Christian run country and believe in freedom of belief and religion

Can anyone possibly meet this simple request?

Philo says "The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country"

Yes, Anglo-Celtic convicts came from the UK, so what is the point apart from criticising people from the past you didnt know personally?

On one side my forbears arrived from England, via Ireland and before that, Spain. A generation on and one becomes a justice who states from the bench in 1829 that our mother country had no right to take land from the original occupants. What a dreggy belief system, huh?

We're not a colony now but these are our origins. And if waltzing matilda (a wonderful criminal if there ever was one) or the sight of uluru and the sound of a didj doesn't stir your heart just a tiny bit then wow, we definitely don't come from the same dreggy place.

The inability to forgive injustice is cultural immaturity, it's not positive and is not part of our kind society. We are a predominantly Anglo-Aboriginal society with neverthless, wonderful influences from elsewhere including my own father's NESB culture.

I often hear people use the phrase "Latin America". Well, when did the inhabitants of South America start speaking latin? What is their colonial heritage? Are the Spaniards black or white dregs? The Brazilians? The Portuguese? The Americans?

Why does Madagascar near Africa speak Malagasy? Because Indonesians colonised it centuries ago. How did they do it? Nicely? Speaking of Indonesia, it captured half of Papua New Guinea as its colony by force a few years ago. The Papuans are not err..javanese err..would you say dregs? Indonesia hasn't apologised either.

It's meaningless calling people dregs or black or white. Practically every state has been a bastard - look at the Greeks from whence our culture arose, theirs was a model democracy, NOT. Australia is a progressive country today but we all know there are other reactionary belief systems alien to ours that are operating in the world today, so...let's conscientiously not adopt them.

Get over the colour, the dregs and the scared of our history thing. Dwelling on the past is a furphy and can make you go blind.

Dr Bob is right as the young guys from Muslim go to places here in Perth also especially at night clubs I am told by the younger set, to oggle the girls in brief clothing.

Going by Muslim religious beliefs,these young men should not even be in the night club scene.

This man who mentioned this, said they just stand and stare (perv) on the girls going to the toilet ,etc and call them filthy sluts,whores and pros,etc.

He challenged them and nearly got into a fight when he asked them why they did it,as it wouldn't happen to their females .
It won't be long before there is the same trouble in Perth ,with Muslim youth , if this is allowed to continue.

There is definitely an attitude of racism coming from Muslim youth ,so don't blame the Aussie.

Reason, which part of sharia do you refer to? are you referring to sharia's assistance on the use of mediation and out-of-court arbitration as a primary means of resolving commercial disputes?

or are you referring to sharia's insistence that the judiciary be independent of the executive?

sharia is not a legal system. it is a legal tradition that encompasses a broad range of principles. many of these principles are found in our own legal system.

if you are asking me whether i'd like to see adulterers stoned or thieves have their hands chopped off, the answer is clearly no. capital punishment is something i don't believe in.

Irfan you text,

"sharia is not a legal system. it is a legal tradition", and that is a blatent lie, Sharia law , is "Allah's Law", and it is a legal system, and it is not welcome in America or Australia. And further more, if the moderators allow me, the problem the western world is having is with Muslims that do not integrate into our society. I am not texting this to be hateful, but the honest truth must be told without hate. I do not hate the Muslim people, facts are facts, there is a portion of the Muslim population that refuses to abide by Australian law, French law, British law, and American law, this can not be tolerated. And it will not be.

Jeff

Hi Danny
Great to once again hear your perceptive & courageous comments.
Prior to my acceptance of Christ I used to view the world the way that the majority of people probably still do - that all things & beliefs are equal. My former family & I used to frequent the various Cronulla parks, the mall & the environs. I used to blame all Lebanese for the behaviour that we had to tolerate ... until some Lebanese Christians moved near to where our marital house was in Kirrawee. We soon learnt what wonderful human beings they were.
In more recent years - & especially since I became a Christian - many of my friends are Middle Eastern. We enjoy times together regularly. But they are integrated into an Australian culture & are thankful that Australia accepted them as "new Australians".
Multiculturalism itself has not proven to be highly successful - though the pundits & those aspousing 'political correctness' would have one believe that it has been (successful).
So, whilst acknowledging your comments as intrinsically correct, it is also very important to recognise a "religio-cultural riot" for what it is - religio-cultural. It is therefore significantly important that we stop calling disturbances & acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims as 'racial'. They weren't initially "race riots"! Only the media & lawless "red-necks" made it appear thus.
In the efforts to avoid 'political correctness' & in the hope that we will get the semantics of our English language correct, can we call the Cronulla Riots what they were - an act of incitement occasioned by religious & cultural intolerance, viz a "relgio-cultural riot".
To my (our) Lebanese & Middle Eastern friends: "thank you" for being good Australian, & for making my life so much more enriched by your presence. I am sorry that your ethnicity has even been brought into the arguement.
May God bless you Danny, & empower you in your ministry.
LittleAgreeableBuddy

jeff, what qualifications do you have in sharia law? have you read any books on sharia law?

have you read, for instance, the transcript of a lecture given by a visiting leader of the Nahdlatul Ulama, the largest islamic organisation in the world? you can find it on the website of the Centre for Independent Studies.

if sharia's approach to commercial transaction was so alien, why is it that at least one australian judge has said that we owe much of our commercial law to sharia influences?

once again, sharia is a legal tradition with lots of variety and many differing and contradicting interpretations. if you choose not to accept this, that is your choice. i cannot stop you from being ignorant on this subject if you insist on it.

Irfan,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate that you wanted to qualify what I was asking.

However, can you please be clear –

Do you wish to see Islamic based law in this country?

Do you believe in freedom of belief and equal protection of all beliefs?

I know you know I am not antagonistic about Islam and have raised my 'voice' for tolerance, so please be clear for me.

And all you Christians, what about yourselves on these questions (as to Christian 'core' beliefs, etc?

Ifran

Do you want banks that provide interest free loans to muslism only in Australia?

islamic divorces with worse laws for women than we have here under Australian Law

a yes or no to both questions will do?

Ro,
Please read posts correctly. I always post quotes with inverted commas. What you quoted that I was supposed to have said was actually a quote from Kayser Trad. Please be diligent!

Reason,
I suggest you look at the record of recent / current democratic States where Christianity is the major faith, eg Australia; and ask do you want more of the same values or stricter laws based in religious observences with the death penalty. Though some Judges are inept in meeting community expectations the community are generally pretty close in espousing Christian values. Tolerance with forgivness is the initial attitude then justice with mercy, then judgment with balanced corrective penalty for violations of socially accepted norms.

apologies Philo, no offence intended by my misreading your quotation marks.

Philo,
I may or may not disagree with your assessment of the current state of the world.

However, I want a simple answer to the questions I posed. Can you be straight forward and answer them thus?

Reason,
Christians have been at the forefront of gaining liberty, equality in justice and freedom of expression. It is not known what some might do who call themselves Christian that do not follow Christ's teaching.

A true follower of Christ would or should do just that - follow Christ. For that answer I suggest you read the accounts by his followers of his teaching in the New Testament. Maybe some research by attendance at several different Christian Churches might help in gaining current attitudes and behaviour of Christians to the law. However ignore the unintelligent who may border on psychopathic attitudes [as exists in all communities] and seek out the opinion makers and shakers in the Churches.

Reason, speaking for the Christian point of view (though I can only speak for myself), I of course believe that Christian laws should be instituted in society.

Religion is an inescapable concept. Everybody is religious. Laws will always be based on a people's religious worldview, their basic framework of assumptions regarding metaphysics, epistemology and ethics which they take on faith, whether it is a worldview revealed by a transcendent authority (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.) or whether it is arbitrarily invented by a self-appointed elite (Humanism). Since laws are by definition religious, Christians are quite justified, just like everybody else, in trying to have their laws reflect their religious worldview.

We have a democratic system where people can decide under what laws they want to live. I believe I am well within my rights to pursuade my fellow citizens to abide by Christian moral precepts. But it is of course against Christian doctrine to force our religion on others against their will. That's why we must rely on the democratic system to offer the most agreeble situation whereby the religious worldview of the majority hold sway.

Thankfully, the Christian prohibitions of such things as rape, theft, and murder still largely carry weight. However, things are slipping, and pre-natal murder is now accepted by an apostatising society. This is a reversion to a paganistic devaluation of life, where pre-Christian societies practiced cannibalism, sacrifice, exposure of newborns (very late-term abortion), gladiotorial games, suttee, etc.

But Christians are in agreement that fighting this moral decadence must be carried out while respecting the democratic process. That, after all, is the Christian thing to do. Unfortunately, different religious worldviews do not necessarily respect the democratic process as much as Christians do.

Thank you Danny for writing what many of us are thinking. I am a white-skinned migrant and I feel too that we can successfully live together if we assimilate. I also agree that we have to be careful that we don't give away our freedom. Many countries that have used appeasment are now paying the price, including France. I remember what history told me about the way the world tried to appease Hitler. Look what we ended up with?!

The notion that Australia is not racist is wishful thinking. Thankfully it is mostly latent because racial minorities have generally been either relatively peaceful or well assimilated or both. There is the possibility that anger and resentment will again build up both within and against groups of young, non-anglo males leading to another Cronulla situation. Such events are likely to be isolated, however a level of simmering resentment that has some racial or cultural basis is likely to continue. This is not unexpected or very alarming, neither is it proof that multiculturalism does not work. The ethnic group mainly involved here, Lebanese, will eventually mature into their place in Australia and any trouble and resentment will fade out.

As one of Australian birth and anglo origin, I have married an asian born and have a mix race child. We joined the ethnic community group which ran a self-sufficient school teaching the language, culture and religion of the parent's birth. The child relates well to both countries and families. In a tiny way, Australia and the other country are both better off because of this child's education and the opportunity in a multicultural society to have the best of two cultures.

There are countless other examples like this with a happy outcome. We just don't hear much about them in the sensation-addicted media. I don't believe that multiculturalism has failed or is 'dead'. Long may it continue.

Brazuca puts the nail on the head, religion. Until such time religion is disassociated from society, including its laws as Brazuca attempts to do, will only serve to continue to promote the divisions and prejudices.

Religion is a private thing and belongs to the individual, to institutionalise it, promotes clubs from those 'saved' from the 'unsaved', infidels to gentiles.

Lets gets on with living in this beautiful country of ours without introducing religional factions that is the basis or the justifications for the powerplays we see around the world today and for millenia.

Arguments used by Brazuca belongs in another world, not Australia.

Religion has its place in society. At its best it can be liberating, : the writer of the great Christian hymn 'Amazing Grace' was a slaver, who was comnvinced by his faith that slavery was wrong, and wrote the hymn as a celebration of his own liberation from slavery.

Religion is everything when it comes to salvation. We cannot force others to accept our path to salvation.

Getting back to multiculturism, which includes religion: I guess that many of us want to feel comfortable, to experience what we consider to be 'the good life', for some of us it is about feeling 'at home' where we can be ourselves, with our friends and family.

I guess the same is true of people from other cultures. For some the idea of 'at home' means to be able to expand into others' spaces.

Well, my idea of the god life means not having to accept other peoples' world views unless they have carefully convinced me of their value. This goes as much for the drum beating Brazillians on Bondi Beach to the trendies of Leichhardt at their Flicker-fest.

I don't feel that I have to accept a militant religion, whether it is Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons or Islam telling me that my Western Liberal Deomocracy is decadent and deserving of jihad.

Another big problem that I have, and Irfan may be able to deal with this, is that my understanding of Islam is that it also lead to less tribalism, less violence and greater acceptance of 'the other'.

Does this mean that the 'Lebanese Gangs' have simply bypassed Islam in their progress towards the 21st Century? And if they have why are not more people from their own community giving them up to the authorities?

Or is it a matter that they prey on their own just as much as they prey on others? Just remember the Edward Lee killing and what happened to the Lebanese woman who considered justice to be more important than clan tribalism. Irfan, I am sure that you are aware of this particular matter.

Dear Hamlet

Earlier comments acknowledge that "Culture and race are two different things, and must be treated differently." (posting 8:33:54 PM 10/1/2006). Racism (of itself) is rarely a factor in crime. Initially culture &/or religion are.

People used to "stand on their soapbox in the Domain (Sydney)" freely expressing their opinions. Few would risk such activity today - if a permit was issued. Debate attracted a crowd of followers/dissenters, or, due to disinterest, no crowd. Rarely was there violence.

Is Irfan the well-known Sydney-based solicitor? If so, then fantastic! I have spoken with him on previous occasions. Notwithstanding, I hope that any answer given to your question(s), & I quote: "Does this mean that the 'Lebanese Gangs' have simply bypassed Islam in their progress towards the 21st Century?" (posted 11:20:42pm 13/1/2006) is in accordance with Australian citizenship standards & not similarly to parts of the Qur'an (Sura 66:1-5, 33:36-38 & 9:29,30 etc) & various Ahadith - for brevity I refer to the teachings of Professor Abdul NATIQ who explains that "it is quite lawful to tell something which is not true at all, that may reconcile people". He explains a 'tradition' of Umal Kalsum (Mohammad's daughter) - "Mohammad only allowed people to lie, firstly, in the case of war to deceive the enemy; secondly, to reconcile two parties, &; thirdly, when husband & wife talk together.". I might likewise ask, "And if they have why are not more people from their own community giving them up to the authorities?"

I shouldn't tolerate the murder of my mum (1990) nor behaviour which endangers the inherently Australian culture - an integrated multi-ethnic society. But that is a far-cry from multiculturalism. I don't wish to live under a mish-mash of moulded laws which are more repressive than the laws which we currently have.

May there be peace in Australia, for all Australians - regardless of ethnicity. It will happen because we set standards which made Australia attractive to immigrants ('new' Australians) in the first place. A "one-world" state is not the solution. Multiculturalism in that sense must be rejected.

Cheers to all.

Irfan, you wrote:

"or are you referring to sharia's insistence that the judiciary be independent of the executive?

sharia is not a legal system. it is a legal tradition that encompasses a broad range of principles. many of these principles are found in our own legal system."

One of the difficulties that I have with these statements is that sharia is generally part of a theocratic system, where it is impossible for the judiciary to be independent of the executive.

To demonstrate I will move away from the Islamic context completely, firstly to Israel, where the laws on marriage and divorce are exercised by the religious establishment, not by any independent judiciary. Israel is also an example of religious political parties exercising am immense influence on the government, lessening that country's claims to being a liberal democracy.

Now look at some laws in the USA that make certain behaviours illegal, not on the basis of any potential harm to anyone, but on purely moral grounds: laws against sodomy, oral sex, sex outside marriage, and I would even include laws against drug use. As Tom Lehrer once said, the US constitution guarantees the right to a pursuit of happiness, not of pleasure.

These laws in the USA were put in place by an executive heavily influenced by religious leaders, and until recently upheld by the judiciary.

The same sort of relationship that exists in countries with Sharia law such as Nigeria and Iran.

Any system of laws based upon a religious or moral basis, rather than to prohibit actual harm to others cannot maintain a separation of judiciary and executive.

What is the problem. People that come to our lands will either abide by our laws and customs or else. This is not a complicated issue. If one desires sharia law, let them move to a land with sharia law in it. And if such people want to change our ways to sharia law, they are traitors. Australia and America was not founded on sharia law, nor will it come to pass. It is finished. No more debate, no more talks about this insanity. We are not Muslim land, NOR SHALL WE BE.

Jeff

Dear Mississippimud & Hamlet

Mississippimud: I like your optimism when you say: ".. either abide by our laws and customs or else." (3:08:57 PM 14/1/2006), because it is exactly that reality that we as a nation need to face. Individuals, by nature, want to disobey many/some laws & regulations. It has been part of mankind's downfall since Adam & Eve - we don't like being told what to do. Cultural differences only exacerbate that desire.

What would you do, practically, about those who disobey? Surely you wouldn't extradite those poor 'defenseless' individuals? Imagine the world-wide public indignation! "Australia the intolerant!"

However, as to your quote that "We are not (a) Muslim land, NOR SHALL WE BE.", well that is debatable. We may not be in the next 20-years, or maybe not the next 30-years. But, unless Aussies stop emulating Americans by chasing a self-centred 1.7 birthrate & a 4-cars-in-the-garage mentality, it won't take very long for the "nor shall" to become a reality. Moreover, there have been Islamic leaders who have arrogantly proclaimed that to ultimately be our eventuality. I would hope for more than that as a future for my children's children.

Hamlet: when you say ".. that make certain behaviours illegal, not on the basis of any potential harm to anyone, but on purely moral grounds .." (2:37:37 PM 14/1/2005)& mention sodomy & sex outside marriage surely you don't naively suggest that those 2 examples don't have harmful consequences? You've heard about AIDS & STDs I imagine? Maybe you've also not encountered psychologically damaged children who, as adults, have little or no sense of identity? Our inheritances to the future generations aren't what we leave them in material gifts, but rather the moral & ethical skeleton which they inherit to be able to be good teachers to their children. That's how cultures survive millennium - good morals & ethic. "Harm" can be a very subjective value. Just ask questions across several divergent cultures to begin to understand that reality. Laws need an element of morals & ethics to make them function.

Cheers all

"We are not Muslim land, NOR SHALL WE BE"

Who has declared this to be a Muslim land in the first instance to warrant this rebuttal?

Islam

It claims all land is Allah's land.

I would like to say just read the rhetoric by a Muslim cleric in today's West Australia newspaper and see what he says about the UK now his home and what he says they (Muslims) are going to do in multicultural UK and the world.

Keith Co

read what Keysar trad the so called moderate muslim who is on our tellys all the time asking for tolerance has to say about Australia and islam.

From the pen of Keyser, Aussies friendly muslim spokesman:

"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 Keysers Question is Jihad on Australia.

Read the whole vile speech here and pass it on to people its importent to show Aussies what the so called moderates actully think of Australians and our Country

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

LittleAgreeableBuddy, wrote:

“mention sodomy & sex outside marriage surely you don't naively suggest that those 2 examples don't have harmful consequences?”

LAB, these are moral and health issues, not issues of crime or law, and in the vast majority of circumstances in today’s society the main harmful consequences would be to person’s personal salvation. But the law cannot enter into the relationship between a person and God, otherwise it would be legislated that we would all have to go to church every Sunday, attend Bible studies and television, books and movies etc would be heavily censored. This is indeed the position that would be under an Islamic or Christian theocracy, both of which I would fight hard against.

Or are you saying that a married couple who both enjoy ‘sodomy’ or oral sex should be prohibited by law from that activity in the privacy of their own home? I am not saying that the practise should be encouraged, or even condoned, but what a couple, married or not, do, with informed consent, in private should be no concern of the law.

You then went on and wrote:

“Maybe you've also not encountered psychologically damaged children who, as adults, have little or no sense of identity?”

Thus implying that I am suggesting paedophilia should be legal. How you got this from what I wrote I do not know.

If you have read many of my posts on OLO you will come across an overall theme of ‘informed consent’, linked with the idea that anyone who has sex with an under aged person, should be punished, and that included pimply faced 16 year old boys who have sex with their 15 year old girlfriends, or vice versa.

Our present laws involve principles from only three of the ten Mosaic commandments: that is, no murder, no stealing, no false witness. Whilst I personally try to have all ten rule over my life I would not try to impose them on others. To do so would be as bad as Sharia law imposed on the population, or any segment of the population.

Hi Hamlet, Meredith, dobbadan, Keith & Leo

Pity we can only 'post' twice in 24-hours - 4 would be better. I couldn't 'post' until after 2pm today. I'll do a "bulk".

Leo (posted 6:12:16pm 14/1/06): Keith responded at 8:01:45pm. Meredith clarified the thinking - response 9:33:24pm. The www.islam.org.au website is very revealing. So are the utterances of Muslim clerics & 'spiritual' leaders like American Khalid YASIN & Melbourne's Mohammed OMRAN.
About the land (Canaan) given to Abraham (Gen 13:14; 15; 17) by God: Islam says 'rights' flowed to Ishmael, son of concubine, Hagar - not to Isaac, son of Sarah (according to Jews & Christians). Typically, the Qur'an isn't clear. Mention is in Sura 33:7 & 14:13, 14 & 36. The Ahadith sometimes helps interpretation. Of land generally: Muslims believe Allah owns it, &, therefore logic says non-Muslim don't have the same rights as a Muslim.

Keith (posted 8:01:45 pm 14/1/06): Thanks for your affirmation.

"dobbodan" (posted 9:20:10pm 14/1/06): I'm interested to read that material. Which newspaper?
You (& everyone else) might like to investigate: (1) http://www.mpac.org/ (2) http://www.archives2004.ghazali.net/html/ex-_cia_official.html - link "Anti-Muslim Smears." (3) http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11215.shtml (4) http://www.americandaily.com/article/11185 (5) http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/45589 (6) many others, include FrontPage.com

Meredith (posted 9:33:24pm 14/1/06): Well done! I dialogue with Keysar. He is "the best of a (?) lot". As a person he's really quite nice. But Islamic 'truth' is the 'problem'.

Hamlet (posted 11:24:06pm 14/1/06): Yes, some of what I said related to moral issues - thankfully. We have erroniously legalised or decriminalised some very offensive behaviour. But changing our "criminal code" doesn't necessarily benefit society. One oughtn't to consider adultery permissible unless one selfishly wishes to commit adultery. We shouldn't stone an offender - as in Sharia law. What about disincentives? Instead, society 'congratulates' & 'rewards' an offender - a bad role-model. Laws which are anti-family are often anti-societal.
We're losing the perspectives of absolute right & wrong, the sense of responsibility, & the acceptance of consequences to actions. In our secular democracy we're gradually losing sight of those absolutes. That's where multiculturalism fails.

Cheers all

Fantastic article Danny, I agree with you, I think it is about time that people get honest, especially the media and politicians, the problem is they don't live with it, they run from it, and have there say behind closed doors, without really understanding, or listening to the average Australian. They don't want to know. I think a lot of jobs have come out of this multi-culti virus, political correctness, civil liberties, and so on. Well, so pleased to see an Article that is straight. The Australian News Commentary is another very good read, tells it pretty straight.

Are we deceived by Multi-culturalism?

No we are deceived by the lack of adherence to a spirituality.

Have you followed the discussion on the ‘The Problem with Liberal Democracy’ thread? It affirms much of your opinion.

I believe multiculturalism works.

Keith,

Multiculturalism 'works' in some places and contexts, but Australia is not one of those contexts, because we really don't have a multicultural culture here.

In India there is a certain amount of multiculturalism. Various religious groups have their own religious courts and tribunals that deal with issues of marriage, paternity, divorce and maintenance amongst each group. These courts and tribunals have the force of law. There are specific rulings that deal with cross religion and cross cultural marital and divorce issues, and the adherents of each religious group are bound by the rulings of these courts, even if they may be better off being dealt with under the rules and courts of another religious system. Hindus are dealt with by Hindu tribunals, Islamics are dealt with under Sharia law, etc.

This is true multiculturalism. It is only if Australia adopts a variety of Family Courts or Federal Magistrates Courts to deal with divorce, marital and parenting issues that we could claim to have at least a resemblance of a multicultural society.

So can you imagine Australia having a Family Court of Australia, a Sharia Family Court of Australia and even a Rabinical Family Court of Australia?

In Canada people in Quebec have their law matters dealt with under the Eurpoean system of law, instead of the common law system that handles the rest of Canada. A similar system applies to residents of Louisiana (yes, great Cajun music and food - Cajaun being a corruption of Acardian - those of French culture who sought a paradise on earth). These French origin of laws goes back to Napoleonic codes - which has a legacy in Louisia having a multicultural society.

So yes, multiculturalism works after a fashion, in some places. Australia is not multicultural, it just pretends to be.

I believe it would benefit everyone to look deeper into this problem, past race, past multiculturalism. There is a deeper problem, and no one wants to text it, or bring it up, and I believe it is time we do. The problem is with some Muslims (whether they are twisting the Koran or not) are wreaking havoc, around the planet. This should be the real issue. I don't text these words in hate, or out of anger, just reality must be told.

Jeff

Missi Mud

yeh they are the no 1 problem in most countries of the world.

Hi Mississipi whatever, I do agree that Muslims are a problem wherever they go, it is a mindset of culture and religion, hey, but spirituality is something they no nothing about, their religion is political.
On the other hand, multicultralism still has it's problems, the thing is that people can come to host nations without having to learn the language and, yes set up tribes or suburbs, with nothing but their shops, and language is not on. So on one hand you have immagration, and multiculralism, it should be immagration withut multi-culti mind set. Learn the language, intergrate and become part of the commnity, hey, I would be called a racist even with this remark. Live by the countries rules, surely all those that come here would not allow that multi-culti mindset in their own countries, respect and blend in, become an Australian by demonstrating that you love the culture of our country, and respect our history, as short as it may be, but it is ours, we have created this appealing place for them to come. Assimlate and speak our language.

Bluerock, Here is a study that disproves your and Danny Nalliah's assertion about enclaves and integration. But perhaps it feels better to hold on to comforting myths about immigrants and suburban enclaves?

Quote:

"
"What we found was that Australia is right in the middle (compared to other nations) - most areas comprise a host society/migrant mix," Forrest says. "Our cities are the least segregated of all Western countries. Segregation is minimal because of our wide mix of ethnicities, from over 240 different birthplace areas. You get areas that are highly migrant, but a whole range of nationalities are living there. Very rarely does any one group dominate."

http://www.pr.mq.edu.au/macnews/ShowItem.asp?ItemID=145

Hi everyone

I think that what some arguements of are missing is a clear understanding of what "multiculturalism" means.

A culture doesn't just mean the food that is offered at a non-Aussie takeaway, it means & includes the dress codes, the rituals, the religious practices & the codified laws of a said judicial system or belief.

My deceased wise dad once said at the beginning of my long music career, & before I could drive, "When the guys drop you off after 'a gig'it isn't necessary to honk their horns as they leave, waking the whole neighbourhood!" They were simple words of wisdom which showed an empathy towards others, but decried the 'innocent' habit of fellow teenagers. But he insinuated much more.

When one invites another into one's home, the invitee doesn't have an inalienable right to move all the furniture & establish new rules for living. The invitee is a guest. That guest ought to be respectful of the rights of the person who invited them.

Within Australia we have invited many persons & nationalities who have abided by our laws. They have integrated into a multi-national society - society has benefitted from such an embellishment. But they have conformed nonetheless in gratitude for our extended hand of hospitality.

Multiculturalism doesn't equate to multi-ethnicity. Multiculturalism insinuates that all cultures are equal. It denies the right to the host to dictate to the guest a standard of behaviour acceptable to the host.

For my part, I don't particularly want an Islamic imam telling his congregation how they ought to behave within Australia. I don't want a person to swear in court upon the Qur'an & its standards rather than the standards of the Holy Bible.

I am not anti-racial - I have a Chinese non-Christian daughter-in-law. But she respects Australia for what it is. She doesn't try to convert us it into a little-China or into an anti-Christian philosophy. There lies the difference.

Sadly, Islam seeks to convert the world. And that's where multiculturalism fails because it supports that premise that all cultures are the same.

Cheers all

Dear all

As usual, most got off the subject quite promptly.

Danny is a raving self-aggrandising and aspiring "model ethnic", whether or not he knows it. That is trying to be a goody-goody in the eyes of the majority - and it sells for the moment.

He must have read little about the history of multiculturalism, and understand even less.

As I have posted before, the concept is in part a guilty response to our racist past, but noble all the same. (By the mid 20th century it was no longer fashionable among the west.) Sadly it has been debased by politcial pork-barrelling - pandering to ethnic "comunity leaders" to win votes and financial support, and unwittingly doing stupid things like perfunctorily saying things like, we respect your culture, mantra-like, in the ubiquitous and numerous ethnic functions.

It is sad that the editor publishes something so ill-informed, and unbalanced. Just to incite a rally?

cheers

Chek

LittleAgreeableBuddy: I found you post interesting but am a little puzzled by some of your points. Perhaps, you could clarify what you mean by some of the following.

1. RE: "I don't want a person to swear in court upon the Qur'an & its standards rather than the standards of the Holy Bible."

It is acceptable for people not of any religious faith to take an oath of affirmation. Therefore, as the q'uran is equivalent to the bible for Muslims why would it not be acceptable for a muslim to swear on the bible?

2.BTW you talked alot about 'guests' my understanding is that immigrants are residents not guests.
Not quite sure what you mean about conformity. Adapting and adjusting is a two way street. I don't want carbon-copy anglo-aussies. Both the original residents and the new ones go through periods of change and adjustment. So far in Australia, it has worked. We don't have ghettos and while we remain vigilant we never will.

Not disturbing the neighbours in the middle of the night is just courteous and a common value among most humans. Not quite sure where you were heading here either? Have you noisy immigrant or born-here neighbours?

Chek

Agree that "I respect your culture" has just become a piece of rhetoric. It is more than just leaving your shoes at the door of a middle eastern friend it is accepting that their beliefs and values are just as valid as your own.

In Australia the majority of immigrants have done much to assimilate into our culture. Unfortunately, a disgruntled minority will never do so: they probably would never fit in anywhere, lacking courtesy and respect for others and swift to take offence.

Just what is fitting in anyway? If every male treated women the way Sam Newman or Shane Warne do, I think I'd be immigrating out of Australia - yet they are regarded as typical aussie men.

All cultures have much to learn and gain from each other. And it makes life a lot more interesting.

Long live diversity: of which this forum forms a part.

Islam is not in our lands to assimilate towards our ideas or culture. Please people wake up to reality. Mohammed was not a peaceful man, Islam at the root core is not a peaceful religion. Read the Koran and Hadiths. The wolf is not at your door anymore, it is inside your house. WAKE UP PLEASE! Australia will get its 9-11, please , I beg you, don't let it come to this. The ideology of Islam is warfare. Do whatever you can WITHIN THE LAW to stop it. I wish the best for the Australian people and all freedom loving lands, that do not want to live under islamic law.

Jeff

Little A Buddy,

People swear on/by what they believe in. You expect to show up in court and swear on the Bible as your absolute truth but what you expect, say a Jewish person to swear on the Bible?
Why does it offend you that a Muslim takes an oath on the Quran? Its our Holy book.

As for your other comment: “Islam seeks to convert the world”, nothing could be further from the truth. What is the number of missionaries in the Christian faith and what is their spend budget per year? There is thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) in Africa, Latin America and Asia with one responsibility: convert people.

PS: I ignored the time the Christian faith was riding British and French colonialism and conversion was by force.
Come on, think before you write.

MissisipiMud,

One of the issues of paranoia is that sufferers need a 'hostile other' to survive.

'they all want to kill me so I have to kill them first'.

People suffering these symptoms should seek medical attention.
This is not a joke, please research 'paranoia' and 'criminal paranoid behaviour'. Some terrorists and serial killers suffer the same symptoms.

Fellow Human,

Thank you for responding. I believe that Muslims that kill in the name of Allah for 72 virgins and rivers of wine, need some medical attention (and other kinds of attention.) And to be very frank with you Sir, the military will take care of Islamic terrorist with extreme measures, and all those that agree with them, or harbour them, and support them. No one is advocating "kill them all" as you texted Sir. But I promise you this, Muslim terrorists will be hunted down, and dealt with. We will destroy Islamic terrorists, all the time, every day.

Jeff

'Are we deceived by multiculturalism ?' - No.
Precisely 72?

I was at a meeting in Perth WA in 1986 when a man named Alberto Rivera gave a talk to about 600 people as he had a serious message.He had security guards to protect him and has written his life story in comic book form.He wrote about Islam and Muslim faith which he had a lot to do with in 35 years ,The one he wrote about Islam is called "The Prophet", and the world's future living with Islam. You can search the net and read it I believe. Sad to say, I just found that Alberto was murdered a while back. But it is worth the reading of "The Prophet"/Just type in his name and follow the links.

PS He invited the media to that talk he said ,and not one media person turned up.

Thanks dobbadan, Always willing to become better informed.

MissisipiMud,

When I said 'violent criminal paranoia' I meant everyone who thinks like that including Islamist terrorists.

Islamist terrorists don't differentiate between Muslims and non-Muslims. I lived in Egypt in the early 80's and have seen them killing other Muslims (& Iraq today). They are the world's bad news and the sooner we get rid of them the better. At least I won't find myself responding to postings like yours.

Peace,

Posters: I know plenty of folk who refuse to be assimilated into certain aspects of supposedly Australian culture. I intend to hold on to my culture. Thus Australia is a multi-cultural society while Rancitas is still around.

If you lot can’t see that multiculture goes way beyond skin colour, religion and ethnicity then you must be racist. You are apparently cultural supremacists who want to impose a monoculture based on some vague unreachable utopian ideal that is couched in exclusion of difference. You are usually apparently blinded to your own religion’s equally questionable ethical, moral authority and godliness. You are mostly callous thinkers whose ethnocentric attitude negates the humanity of others.

Danny Nalliah have a rethink. You have developed a right-wing conception of multiculture. In my Australian culture it is not correct to impose our will on others who are different. Live and let live and try to understand that multiculture is much more than meets the eye. (Conversation)

a good laugh!

“In Britain, defence attorneys for radical Islamic preacher Abu Hamza have hit on a novel approach. They’re arguing that Hamza’s hate speech and incitement to murder cannot possibly be criminal—because it comes straight from the Koran.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2001006,00.html

Meredith,

Awesome article!! I must send a letter to his defense team for finally telling the truth lolololololol. Toooooo funny !!

Jeff

Missi Mud

more on the vile Hamza and the silly PC Brits

This is even funnier in the saddest way:

"So prison officials have hired a male nurse named Harry to perform the task.

A prison source said: "He's known as 'Dirty Harry'.

This guy has got one of the worst jobs in the world. His main reason for being there is to clean Hamza's backside. Everyone's having a laugh about it. But Hamza can't be left unclean. It would be a health hazard."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14385572&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=hamza-gets--30-000-nurse---to-wipe-his-bum-name_page.html

The article about the Koran used as a defence for hate is an interesting case considering what the author of this article is up against re religious vilification

I am intrigued:

Quote:

"Posters: I know plenty of folk who refuse to be assimilated into certain aspects of supposedly Australian culture. I intend to hold on to my culture. Thus Australia is a multi-cultural society while Rancitas is still around."

Rancitas, if that is the case, what are you doing here? Surely you, or your parents if you were born in Australia, came here because of the attraction of the place and its culture? Multiculturalism requires that each one of us adopts part of other cultures, in effect to NOT hold on to the existing culture.

Maybe you are more assimilated that you realise. You are obviously literate in English, and by even posting here you have entered into a very important part of Western liberal culture, that is the freedom of speech, thought and expression. You have not refused to use the host culture's language and instrumentalities. You are protected and nurtured by the host culture's laws and governmental institutions such as medicare, social security, clean running water and the like (shades of 'what have the Romans even done for us?').

I presume that if you are a citizen that you vote in elections, or if not you at least get the benefits of living in a democracy. You do not appear to have rejected those.

You do not seem to step on too many people toes by the practise of your culture, otherwise your ability to practise that culture would have been curtailed, so in effect your culture must have very little effect on those around you. So, feel free to 'hold on to your culture;, as it really must be fairly petty and meaningless in the overall scheme of society in Australia,

The problem is that the Administration/Legal system that is used by the Australian Courts puts the weight of evidence on what is written on paper. The Koran is very powerful writing on paper. The Bible doesn’t appear to hold the same level of power or control. The Bible is seen as more tolerant and less strict and enforceable.

We need to stop being so tolerant, some things need to be put in writing and on paper and be made clear in relation to how much Muslims can reasonably expect a Western culture to change, otherwise we risk being taken over.

If our laws say that we cannot discriminate against Muslims for any reason as that is racism, then that gives Muslims the higher degree of protection and the power to rule. Since the Koran is said to direct and support the actions of the Muslims, even violence, then we have a problem.

Geophysically speaking this continent is old Asia - there's none older than this. It's certainly not going to move, and after two hundred years and more, it seems clear to me that Anglo Christian Australians are not going to either. The answer therefore is for Australians to embrace Australia's destiny as a nation in Asia and the Pacific. Indonesia alone has 170,310,000 Muslims.
A few angy xenophobes getting all hot and sweaty about how persuasive their explanations are [about a largely imagined national identity] in this forum - doesn't mean sh*t in the long run.

if Muslims don't like the way Australia runs things and not to their liking or religious beliefs, then why do they still keep wanting to come here and live?
Why aren't they satisfied in their own lands enough to stay?If I go to their lands where the Muslim religion is paramount,they will make me obey their way of dressing,food, ban alcohol consumption,and the western men I know who have had to work there (middle East)have to wear long sleeve shirts and more,all to please and keep their laws.

If the Koran is accurate , then why do some Muslims say there is nothing in it to say to kill all non- Muslims when others say there is, like the UK Islamic preacher ,Abu Hamza ,says to kill all infidels comes straight from the Koran. He lives in multi - cultural UK and is stating they (infidels) non-Muslims all need their throats cut,and that the UK is only a toilet,so why stay and live in a toilet, like he has done ?

We are Aussies, and we have a right expect respect to our forefathers,laws ,our Consitution,our Judeo-Christian heritage and our cultural ways forever if we please.
So why not just go? Would you Muslims wear a kilt in Scotland? I say,"no,you wouldn't", and we have WA Police Force ,now with Police Commisioner O'Callahan's blessings, allowing Muslims in WA Police Force to wear their head gear and Sikhs their turbans and beards too.

It is not only bad taste,but dangerous for the Muslim women police as they could easily be choked or held down with the head and throat covers ,the Sikhs who have hair as long as a metre,could also have the same fate , so safety for them is not an issue and has been thrown out the window . "Come on Aussie,Come on".

Dear Meredith

Thanks for those links. The first had me in stitches. The second made me feel quite sick. As a nurse I would not take on that job for a million dollars a week!

There was lengthy discussion in NSW this week re the special privileges granted to Muslim women who visit inmates in gaols. They do not have to comply with the same rules and regulations as other visitors, vis a vis: all jewellery (except for a tight fitting wedding ring) must be removed. This includes all nose studs, ear studs, necklaces, bracelets, watches etc. There are no exceptions to the rule. Also, anyone wearing a sweater with a hood must take off the entire sweater/jacket.

Muslim women on the other hand, do not have to remove: head scarves, hijabs or their birka (spelling?).

How's that for discrimination against all non Muslims?

Premier Mirrors Iemma, is "looking into it".

Cheers
Kay

Hamlet
My culture might not be important to you, but it is to me. More to life than OLO. The difference between Rancitas and other people of difference is that you lot can target others (especially immigrants) because of their colour, ethnicity, religion and so on. That is not a hard concept to grasp. Ethnocentricy is an interesting failing because when you have it you don't know you have it. Just as when you are cultural-centric you think that others are less important.

Hamlet
My culture might not be important to you, but it is to me. More to life than OLO. The difference between Rancitas and other people of difference is that you lot can target others (especially immigrants) because of their colour, ethnicity, religion and so on. That is not a hard concept to grasp. Ethnocentricy is an interesting failing because when you have it you don't know you have it. Just as when you are cultural-centric you think that others are less important.

Posted by rancitas, Thursday, 26 January 2006 12:28:54 PM

Racitas, I don't give a fig about the colour of a person's skin or their supposed race.

To me the issues of culture are:

A stated equality before the law.

Liberty

Individual responsibility,

Rule of law

Respect for law

Putting the overall good above that of the good of an particular clan, ethnic group or family.

Justice

Personal freedom.

Freedom of expression, freedom of learning.

Being able to all use the same language when communicating: it is language which binds us as a society.

Shared overall values.

Right of association.

Willingness to commit to one country - and only one country, no dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is to a country what adultery is to a marriage.

Democracy. Not having 'leaders', just representatives. As an individual I have no leader.

No patronage, each person to be be judged on his or her own actions and abilities, not on who they know.

Non tolerance for bribery or corruption.

Willingness to sacrifice for the good of my country and society.
Respect for others.

Honouring the flag, as a symbol of the state.

Treating others, partuculary the weak, the infirm, the aged as well as possible.

Not worshipping people, whether they be sports stars, celebrities or those in the media. They are just humans, and their excrement stinks too.

Those are my cultural values.

Can you tell me yours?

Hamlet, I liked your list. A fairly good summary of stuff many of us value about this country. I suspect that includes many on both sides of the "multicultural" debate.

Not sure about the dual citizenship comment though, I've never been a part of another country or had a need to try and obtain citizenship and find it difficult to be sure I understand the issue properly. So I'm taking some guesses.

As a nation we have coped pretty well with Kiwi's moving here and still supporting the All Blacks even against Australia (although Kiwi's who supported the POMs against Australia in the World Cup should be given a fair trial and then deported/shot/staked to an ant hill etc). Mixed loyalties are difficult but we all have them to some extent.

Maybe marriage is a reasonable metaphore for dual citizenship. When we get married we form a new family but are still part of our old one. If loyalties to the old family come before loyalties to the new one the marriage is in trouble, if it means we can enjoy a Saturday night with brothers, sisters and parents without harming our new family then great. For some dual citizenship may be a practical necessity, for others a means of recognising their origins and pledging their loyalty to their new home. Can't imagine ever wanting to give up my Australian citizenship even if I decided to live elsewhere for a sustained period but would not be willing to ignore responsibilities to my new home.

R0bert

Hamlet: Go read my blogs. That should give you an idea of my culture.

Some things are best kept private in this prejudiced country of ours.

If you expect me to summarise all Rancitas' compexities then I quess that is just another difference you'll have to add to your list of inferior aspects (in your mind) that we don't share. Nevertheless, apart from the wisdom I have gleaned from various cultures and religions (for instance, from the Bible I have come to regard the rights of certain other cultures as deserving of respect) here are some general rules in relation to a particular aspect of my culture. Before I go on I don't salute flags.
Some Rancitas' rules:
Do not coerce anyone and let nobody coerce you. Resist.
Do not humble yourself.
Do not be obsequious.
Pay tribute to those who deserve it.
Have nothing to do with bad people, avoid their company.
If there is no need to speak, be silent.
Don't draw attention to yourself.
Don't thrust your help on anyone.
Refuse undeserved honours.
Keep your word.
Do not preach at people.
Do not gloat over the misfortunes of others; nor take advantage.
Take no part in damaging power and do not cooperate with it.
Follow your DNA where it doesn't deny the right of others to follow theirs.
be as politcally correct as you can but be not afraid to confront issues for fear of being tagged.
And of course. Aspire to allow other cultures to be practised beside your own without trying to impose your implied superior culture on them - for to do so is to deny folk their authenticity.

Hamlet certain aspects of your supposed morality is just immorality dressed up in well-sounding phrases. (Act 3 Scene 1 verse 560 -690)

Col, well you didn't answer my questions, even avoided them. But I'll indulge your question(s) to me nonetheless.

No I do not believe in segregation, but I don't believe in the mono cultural ethnoracial Eurovision being promoted here in various forms - or the liberal melting pot asimilationist position. You are correct in stated that it is a journey, but I’m sure you would agree we all need to be able to define ourselves and subjectivities on the map before we all venture forward.

I see no sign of any evidence that white Australians actually know the difference between nationalist sentiment and their culture

This provide sound reasons to me on why there's obviously amazement and rage being expressed by many in this forum that people like Salam and I are able to foster ideas about what Australian white people and culture is about - without their authority or sanction.

As long as white culture (expressed vicariously here) is the defining cultural framework for white and 'ethnic' transactions (sets the limits on all thought about human relations, there can be no prospect for human equality or assimilation.

It’s interesting to me that white Australians often think of their Scottishness, Irishness etcetera before they think of their whiteness - but then only desire ethnic others to think about how well they are assimilating their racial or ethnic identity into this unstated whiteness. We can only ever be ethnic, Indigenous, Muslim, Asian and so on in ways in which we articulate our Australianness.

The liberal belief in a universal subjectivity ("we are all equal so get on with trying to be equal you ethnic people") presumed racism will magically disappear.

So before talking about models of assimilation, there needs to be critical inspection of this myth of sameness. I see a deep emotional attachment and investment here that either expresses itself through a need to lecture ‘ethnic’ people on how to become white, or alternatively, a pretension that ‘ethnic difference’ do not matter to them (when in fact it does).

My estimate is around 20% and very culturally diverse.

Hi all

Scout (posted 12:44:21 PM 18/1/06): response to queries:
"Telling the truth", under say the Holy Bible versus Qur'an? Their ideologies are different. The Bible doesn't condone lying & deceipt - it's condemned. The Qur'an? Not so - Surah 16:106 & 66:1-5 just two examples. Qur'an & Ahadith allow followers to selectively lie - for Allah, in war (jihad) & to their wives. Within Hindu (Vedas), for Buddhist (Triptaka or Dhammapada) - though "falsehood" references - don't condemn lying persay. Also Sikism, Parsism etc. Few clarify "truth" definition. Jainism's about the only other religion (except Christianity) which sets standards. Agnosticism & Atheism don't. Humanism & Post-modernism consider "truth" is relative (subjective) to individuals. If you think it's true, then it is.

I won't attempt a long explanation about my immigration philosophy. However, equate it to someone visiting your (physical) home for better comprehension. Expection? Appropriate conformity. Migrants start as 'guests'. Their bona fides & character before residency &/or citizenship ought to be a pre-requisite. Just because they come from subjugation or poverty doesn't give them inalienable rights which usurp ours. What about responsibility? Rights should be afforded as a result of responsibility & respect.

Your comment to "Chek", included, ".. it is accepting that their beliefs and values are just as valid as your own.", goes to the heart of the multiculturalism 'problem'. Multiculturalism assumes that all thoughts are of equal quality & validity. That's not the reality. [I will expand on the subject in my next communication - Human-Being response.]
Regards Sam NEWMAN & Shane WARNE: I agree. No sane person would suggest that they are Christians (& they deny it anyway), or very moral & ethical. Christians aren't sinless, viz "All man(kind) has sinned & falls short of the glory of God.". But they're supposed to realise error, confess (apologise) & repent (change the bad habit). Morons (like aforementioned) give all who live in a western secular Christian-based society a bad name. When sportsmen (& women) became "heroes" we've lost the plot - children emulate 'idols' thence their bad habits. Some adults are still children.

Cheers all

Hi all

Fellow_Human (posted 4:11:45 PM 18/1/06)
Refer above for an answer to your comment on the Bible versus the Qur'an. Most Jews are quite comfortable to swear on the Bible - they share much in common (except the NT).
Regarding my comment “Islam seeks to convert the world”: Koranic text specifically infers what is sought - see Surah 4:89, 8:39, 9:29 & 48:29, to name only a few references. The Ahadith further clarify the thinking.
Sorry if I offend you. But I don't have a 'problem' with you - I have a 'problem' with what your scriptures contain.
I certainly don't condone what has been done by humans, of many cultures & ethnicities, in the name of religion over many centuries. But only 1 religious 'prophet' led a life by the sword & proudly documented it.
One might only need to compare Surah 4:34 with Ephesians 5 to begin to understand the difference in respect for women between Mohammad & Christ. But the Qur'an & Hadiths go deeper - examples: women are deficient in intellegence, religious (knowledge) [viz Hadith Vol 1 intro p xiv, 1 Hadith 301, 3 Hadith 826] & gratitude [viz 1 Hadith 28]. Nor do I appreciate my wife & daughter (or any other woman) being considered as having 10 'awrah [viz 22 Hadith 858]. All these quotes are considered "hassan" or 'approved' by Islamic scholars. The last is particularly disgusting & demeaning of all women.

Swilkie (posted 5:49:34 PM 18/1/06)
We are deceived by multiculturalism because it has deviated from its original intent.
72 virgins for Muslim who reaches "paradise"? Refer Ibn-Kathir commentary on Surah 56:35-37. There are other quotes but I can't recall currently.

All!
For those interested & who are non-Muslim: you might refer to the following link for access to the Qur'an, Hadith & more. Link? http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Cheers all

The interesting thing about swearing on the Quran and on the Bible is the actual extent and practice in which it is done.

I won't say much about this, but I have sworn in thousands of people in court. Most people are glad to take the oath on the Bible, even Jews and some Islamic people, as they recognise that at least parts of the Bible represents the word of a God that they aknowledge.

There are others who prefer to be take an affirmation, with no religious content at all.

However there is a small group who, in spite of aknowledging a religious faith when giving their evidence, by stating an attendance at a mosque or a church and claiming to be believers, will not take an oath on a religious text.

For some this is part of their religion, as some Christians will point to the Biblical injunction against taking oaths.

However I have seen situations where an person giving evidence which is so at odds with all other evidence presented by other witnesses that it cannot be considered reliable, decline to take an oath on a religious text. Unfortunately this has mainly occurred, to my experience, where the accused is of Islamic background and it is their kin or friends who is giving evidence favourable to their case.

I have seen only one instance where a Christian has taken an affirmation despite his stated beliefs: this was in a third retrial where this person had previously sworn on the Bible twice. He was questioned about this by the defence barrister.

I believe that many Muslims take the oath on the Quran seriously, to the extent that if they deliberately decline to take the oath on the Quran, when it has been available to them, that they intend lying. That is, lying in court is okay, so long as the oath was not taken on the Quran.

Unfortunately I have not seen lawyers question witnesses about the validity of their affirmations on religious grounds.

And I no longer am involved in that area of work.

Hi all

Dobbadan (posted 9:31:50 PM 18/1/2006)
Your story of Alberto Rivera (Perth 1986) emulates St Marys' (Sydney) Dr Makin Morcos murder (1991). Fatwahs were issued. The crime is't solved. I retain copies of the legal documents & newspaper clippings.
Recently, Rev Fayek Iskander was 'allegedly' threatened by Farouk Alfrakhani. The Sun-Herald & Daily Telegraph ran stories. The incident? Interfaith meeting attended by Philip RUDDOCK & Keysar TRAD. An Arabic-speaking witness attended.

Human_Being (posted 9:02:09 AM 20/1/2006)
Thanks for being outspoken. Society needs courageous & ethical Muslims who oppose violence. Only then will society heal & live in harmony/peace.

Rancitas (posted 2:20:24 AM 20/1/2006)
You're right. Multiculturalism is beyond skin colour or ethnicity. So is multi-ethnicity. I'm opposed to multiculturalism - a plethora of negative opposing cultural habits. It's not resolvable. Cultural disharmony's entrapped mankind for millennia. Our culture is Australian - two centuries of predominantly harmonious ethnicities. We're 19-million people with an Australian culture. Non-compliants? Leave.

Hamlet (posted 3:35:44 PM 28/1/06)
Great to discover your 'speciality' & experience in court(s) - be it yester-year.
Jews & some Muslims will happily swear an oath on the Holy Bible because - as intimated previously - Judaism is foundational to Christian text & the Qur'an affirms the Bible, viz Surahs 18:27/28; 29:46; 35:31; 87:18/19 etc.
My disquiet with an oath on the Qur'an is - refer my 1:17:38 PM 28/1 posting - that the Qur'an gives Muslims permission to lie under certain circumstances, viz, Surah 16:106; 66:1-5 & under El Itadayah Vol 4 p 81; & "The Muslim Doctrine of God" p 41. That doesn't mean all Muslims are liars. But they can lie without guilt. The Ninth Commandment (Ex 20:15) forbids Christians & Jews lying. Certainly not all Christians conform. But they're under judgement from God (Yahweh).
I can't understand any Christian not prepared "to take on oath on the Holy Bible". Christian Scripture is riddled with affirmations, viz, Ex 33:1; Num 30:2; Deut 7:8 & 29:12; Ps 119:106; Ecc 8:2; Matt 5:33 etc. The Barrister I should've 'drilled' the witness. I'd suggest the person was 'nominal' at best.

Cheers all

James 5:12 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


12Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.

Matthew 5:37 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Reg: [arriving at Brian's crucifixion] Hello, Sibling Brian.
Brian: Thank God you've come, Reg.
Reg: Well, I think I should point out first, Brian, in all fairness, we are not, in fact, the rescue committee. However, I have been asked to read the following prepare statement on behalf of the movement. "We the People's Front of Judea, brackets, officials, end brackets, do hereby convey our sincere fraternal and sisterly greetings to you, Brian, on this, the occasion of your martyrdom. "
Brian: What?
Reg: "Your death will stand as a landmark in the continuing struggle to liberate the parent land from the hands of the Roman imperialist aggressors, excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture and any other Romans contributing to the welfare of Jews of both sexes and hermaphrodites. Signed, on behalf of the P. F. J. , etc. " And I'd just like to add, on a personal note, my own admiration, for what you're doing for us, Brian, on what must be, after all, for you a very difficult time.

*

Matthias: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "Jehovah".
[Everyone gasps]
Jewish Official: You're only making it worse for yourself!
Matthias: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
Jewish Official: I'm warning you! If you say "Jehovah" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?
Stoners: She did! She did! (suddenly speaking as men) He! He did! He!
Jewish Official: Was it you?
Stoner: Yes.
Jewish Official: Right...
Stoner: Well you did say "Jehovah. "
[Crowd throws rocks at the stoner]
Jewish Official: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "Jehovah. "
[Crowd stones the Jewish Official to death]
Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes

Hi all

Meredith (posted 11:19:22 AM 21/1/06)
The Abu Hamza article? Laughable if it weren't so serious - his likely guilt & the enormous cost.
Re religious vilification legislation comment: the "western world" has added morer draconian legislation. Courts may clog? Comments are silenced for fear of litigation. A Muslim, a Tibetan monk or a Zoroastrian talking at a public meeting doesn't offend me. If I disagree? I respectfully make comment or simply walk away - others hopefully will follow.
Litigation should only occur where acts of violence are threatened against individual(s) or against the nation. Those laws already exist.
The Religious Tolerance legislation opposes traditional Australian culture - freedom of speech, enshrined in our Constitution.

Rancitas (posted 2:20:24 AM 20/1/06)
In Australia you can maintain your cultural origins. But why would you want to?
I'm Irish. I don't want to maintain a Catholic vs Protestant stance. I don't wish to do the Irish jig or "get blind" on Guinness.
If I were an Alaskan Eskimo it would be senseless to bring Huskies & sled, animal-skin clothing to reside in an igloo. Need I go on?
Sadly (& thankfully), for many Middle Eastern people, & elsewhere, Australia is different to where they came from. Don't like the changes that Australia offers? Select another country.
Incidentally, I have many Middle Eastern & Asian friends. They assimilated. Australia offered them greater than their country of origin. They are proudly "new Australians", & I'm proud to call them my friends.

Hamlet (posted 12:20:13 PM 21/1/06)
Re "Rancitas: you see it similarly to the way that I do!!

Jolanda (posted 2:15:41 PM 21/1/06)
Tolerance? What a misnomer!
My mum was killed by a juvenile seeking money for drugs. I don't tolerate his actions. As a Christian I am called to love him. He therefore benefits from the Restorative Justice programme through which we are both working. Maybe his future, beyond gaol, will be greater than his past iniquities? He knows I care about him. Tolerance? No!

Cheers all

LittleAgreeableBuddy, I am sorry for your loss. It takes great strength of character to join such a program and allow positives to come from tragedy. However, I personally know it is an easier road in the end then to hate or seek revenge.

I read with interest your remarks on maintaining one's culture and your friends who have assimilated. I guess I have issues with this whole concept of assimilation, in particular how far should people be expected to assimilate. Various studies on assimilation and theories offered over and last 60 years are inconclusive. Frequently assimilition has been seen in religious groups (Protestant, Catholic and Jewish), rather then in cultural groups themselves. The debate continues, with current trends leaning back to multiculturism disguised with names like cultural plurism.

I am curious, agreeable buddy, surely your friends still hold some of their cultural heritage, even if they now behave in a manner consistent with Australian society. Continuing to choose partners from ones birth nation retards the pace of assimilation and maintains cultural practices. Personally, I think traditions are important practices in everyones lives. Why do we all celebrate Christmas in families in special and traditional ways? My partner once told me that sometimes the answer is simply 'just because'. The 'just because' in this case is 'just because it is part of who we are'. Are you saying that when you take on a new country all your traditions should be dropped, thus dropping part of the self? What would be the consequences of this? Even if traditions slowly change it takes many many years for assimilation to occur. Between some cultures it will never occur because the traditions of their past are too different.

I agree Danny, some immigrants need to do more to assimilate. But where is the line drawn? What allowances are made for those who simply cannot? It may take a few generations in some cultures. Not only will the rate differ interculturally but it will vary intraculturally. The latter particularly effected by age groups and the assimilation of other family members.

Hi All

Rainier (posted 3:19:13 PM 21/1/06)
France is next to Germany too, & they're all closer to England than much of Indonesia is to Australia. Are you suggesting that the whole of Europe embraces the dress, language, eating habits, dancing rituals, music styles, religion & legal system of say the Parisians?
Let the 170-million Muslims in Indonesia be who they are. Australia has a border too. Let Australians be a unique blend of what we were before the Whitlam philosophies tried to make us all unidentifiable from other nations. My daughter-in-law is a wonderful non-Christian Chinese lady who integrated. She left behind the poverty, suffering, politico-legal systems, dress-codes & culture of China when she 'escaped'. She's a proud Aussi.

Dobbadan (posted 3:45:57 PM 21/1/06)
I again refer you & others to the hyperlink to the Qur'an, viz:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/.
Unlike other religious text - including the Humanist Manifestos I & II - of all other religions, which are consistent throughout, the Qur'an is not. It is in constant conflict with itself in accordance with what is called “An-Nasekh wa Al-Mansoukh” (the abrogated & abrogating text). I can give examples in both Arabic & English to ad nausium.
Your comments about the Police in WA goes much further. In Victoria an arrest must be handled with 'diplomacy' across certain cultures. I deal with the NSW, Victorian & AFP at "senior levels" (Commissioner). Very worrying. Governments? Arrrggh!

Kalweb (posted 4:53:51 PM 21/1/06)
Spot on! Refer my comments to Jolanda in my 8:48:03 AM posting today (30/1). I see it often.

Hamlet (posted 1:57:20 PM 26/1/06)
You "slam-dunked" that one. Well said.

RObert (posted 2:26:37 PM 26/1/06)
New Zealand is another Aussie state, isn't it? I've worked with some great Kiwi musicians - they all lived in Bondi.

Rainier (posted 12:13:03 PM 27/1/06)
I don't see a person's colour - I just accept or reject the individual according to his/her morals & ethics. I notice a language accent for purposes of introductory conversation. Often people 'open up' over that topic.

Cheers all

I was a refugee from Cambodia and I love this country because it gives me new life, new beginning with many opportunities to pursue,so I always seek to give back of myself to help my fellow Australians in whatever ways possible to contribute to the well being and stability of this country. I was so proud to receive Australian citizenship in 1985 and I along many others were pledged on the Holy Bible to abide by the constitutional law of the country. Peter Costelo was rightevery
person wants to become Australian citizen must abide by the law
thecountry. Countries that adopted sharia law have so much violence, strife,atrocities ESP directed towards women and young girls. All good
,loyal,law abiding citizens and loving life and loving this country will agree with Peter Costelo that shaira law is unacceptable here.

Tamar

Welcome to OLO and thank you for your contribution to this wonderful country. We need people like you.

Best wishes for your life
Cheers
Kay

This forum is great as the newspapers and electronic media can't be trusted with the truth as they play games with words and reports that cannot be proved,..I read a report on a public forum that 100 people sent letters to the Editor of an Australian newspaper to test their honesty and fairness ,found that of the 100 letters sent by different addresses on a very important topic that only 3 were published,but if you wrote on racism they go with that.

Multiculturalism hasn't worked in the UK,USA,NZ and or Australia,never will , when we import an entirely new culture that clashes with Christianity.

Just do some research on Mohammed and Jesus Christ and compare their teachings,which are poles apart,Jesus taught and lived love to the end.

You won't ever get a fair deal from media on Christianity and what God is doing all over the world in a positive way,they only print or show negativity on Christians ,Bible,Creation,Church,Christianity,and how much God loves all mankind.

The Bible tells us in the book of Acts that we are all of one blood,so why don't people act like it?

Muslims whinge,call anyone ,"racist" and intolerant when they are challenged on the way they live and treat others who don't agree with what they demand to be changed to their way of thinking .Go to website below and see for yourselves.

http://dog-pundit.blogspot.com/2005/10/horrific-murders-of-christian-school.html

Hi all

Tamar (posted 3:19:47 PM 24/2/06)

Thank you & congratulations for your attitude towards Australia. You are precisely the type of person who is welcome to share in the blessings & wonderment that is "the Land of the Great Southern Cross".

Tragically many people confuse racial origins/ethnicity with multiculturalism - they are divergent philosophies.

I have little doubt that the reason that you &/or your family came to Australia was to escape persecution or victimisation. You have embraced the Australian culture & realise that there is a debt of gratitude required in becoming an Australian Citizen. That 'repayment' is simply to conform to the norms of Australia - its laws, its basic beliefs & its standards.

That's not too hard. It just takes respect for the country which allowed you to come here, & now regards you as one of us.
(25/2/06)

Kalweb (posted 4:13:41 PM 24/2/06)

Hear, Hear!
(25/2/06)

dobbodan (posted 10:58:44 PM 24/2/06)

Sadly, what you say is true. However, it is nonetheless true, & it is up to Australians to finally realise that truth.

Chamberlain tragically succumbed to the false beliefs & hopes of a world living in peace - his decisions & rhetoric was only righted by Churchill's determinations & the combined effort of many nations. The cost as some 60-million lives.

If Europe had acted appropriately when it 'knew' the truth many millions of lives would have been saved. Certainly 6-million Jews wouldn't have been killed.

Will mankind learn from its past errors? Unlikely, if history shows us anything. Whatsmore, when its too painful to confront us, we simply ignore history - or stop teaching it.
(25/2/06)

Cheers all

Indeed, and there are many Australians who need to become Australian all over again.

read Jerusalem Countdown by John Hagee He predicts ww3 within months unless Iran is stopped.

Hi all

Rainier (posted 11:57:05 AM 25/2/06)

Indeed! But will they? Again, if history teaches us much, then it is highly unlikely that those who have intransigent & uncomplimentary cultural views will assimilate. To those have longevity as citizens of Australia, yet who show violence as a means to solving disagreement, there can only be one outcome - incarceration for committing acts of physical assault.

However, from amongst the migrants, it is only the humble & those who are thankful for the kindness of their hosts whom we will find likely to embrace ideologies that are in conflict with their own original thinking. But the dissenters need to realise that they left their 'old' country behind when they sought residency in Australia.

Multiculturalism doesn't allow for a/any dominant way of thinking. All thinking is equal. That is its treachery. Thus I again am pro multi-ethnicity, but under one cultural banner - Australia's culture (a unique blend of harmonious cultures). I am opposed to accepting conflicting cultural thinking.
(25/2/06)

dobbadan (posted 1:19:32 PM 25/2/06)

A good book! I believe that it is a bit dangerous to predict time-frames on God's activities to 'correct' mankind though. The SDAs were wrong their prophesy - just as many others have been (not that SDAs got much right out of Daniel or Revelation) erroneous.

I personally like Mike EVANS' "Beyond Iraq" which was written about Iraq - before the current Iraq War (if memory is correct).

John HAGEE's "The Battle for Jerusalem" is another good text; as is Bill MUSK's "Holy War". There are many others.
(25/2/06)

Cheers all

In response to the internete's question,'Should Wet Papuansbe given refuge in Aust?' Yes,it's common sense to help the West Papuans who face persecution, deprivation and life threatening situations from the zealous Indonesian army,police who were known in the past to carry out persecution against Christians and civilians either directly or indirectly in the past.It's not wise to appease the Indo-govt so as not to upset them. They need to see that a good,strong society build on trust,truth,justice and open dialogue, not on fear, intimidation to maintain control over people. Aust govt has the right to exercise their decisions in regards to Asylum seekers who landed on Aust shores. We must defense the weak, helpless,speak up on their behalf while we can to save as many we can. We could communicate with the Indo-govt to reduce the presence of army, police in West Papuan in an acceptable level,to allow the west Ps of greater autonomy, involve the UN to look into West Ps'plights and take concret actions to ensure their safefy and well beings.We praise for Aust govt to allow the 42 Papuans a refuge in Australia.

Our Prime Minister apparently sent a letter to some church or other commending them for what ever it was.
Up popped a muslim spokesman who said John Howard had no right to send that letter.
Now it appears the muslims have decided that PM must bow to their rules and regulations. Is he expected to consult them each time he writes to someone?
This is sheer impertinence,how dare this minority try to assume authority over the Prime Minister of Australia. There appears to be no end to the trouble they are prepared to cause.Every day there is something new, a never ending complaint or whine from the same quarter. If Australia does not suit them why stay?