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?