Bd, You sure have over heated. Shame on you expecting Eva to understand what your saying. Don't you know who she is, what she's achieved, whats she's done for this country and the advancement of our social fabric.

Her article, how well she says nothing, but blames the people who are being effected. Then goes about telling us that we should just accept her PC approach of giving up what kept us comfortable and relaxed, during the last century, until Eva and crew cried wolf. She constantly forgets, that it was the freedoms of this country that allowed her to do and say the things she does. Unlike the religious cultures she and her ilk have invited here to divide us.

The only answer to this problem is to get responsibly tough and start making everyone responsible for their actions and the outcomes of those actions. Multiculturalism doesn't work. You can see its effects around the world it causes division, just as religion does. The only result from that is, confusion, fear and finally breakdown and violence. Its a socialogical death sentence.

With the current approach of our governments and PC controlled education, law and bureaucratic systems, we are destined for a very rough ride.

Bd has provided a good start, but religion should be of the streets and just in homes and designated places of worship. It should be private thing, not divisive as it is.

What you prescribe Eva, aren't answers, just more feely good stupidities

Eva, 80% for talk talk. 0% for content. You appear to welcome the opportunity to produce waffle. Do you get points for using so many words to say nothing?
I suppose it offers an opportunity for a nice seminar, where more words can be wasted, along with the space, & tax payers money.
No wonder we dispair at the farce our universities have become, in many faculties.

Don't tell me that the word 'racist'is no longer in the lexicon of the elites. What will be used to cow the great unwashed? And my rheumy eyes can't believe what they see. An invitation to debate 'our' problems, which surely is Eva's version of charientism. Surely those who should debate 'our' problems are the entheomania-prone social engineers and their janissaries. After all, aren't they the ones who shaped society?

Just for the record, about 25 to 30 years ago members of our society expressed concern about the inimicitious nature of some migrant groups. Those expressing concern were told that 'experts' were shaping society and they knew what they were doing.

So here we are Eva, reading your epiphany and enjoying the wonderfully rich and diverse society which you and your colleagues have created.

My question to you is: "Did you and your colleagues (Prof Jerzy Zubrzycki et al) have any ideas or plans when you embarked on this lunacy? How can we sue you for loss of quality of life?"

Sage, you claim the word "racist" is used by "the elites" (whoever they are) to browbeat the rest of us. Yet in making this point you have used words that many amongst the "great unwashed" would never have heard of let alone understand. That could quite fairly be described as elitist.

In fact the term "elitist" is used in exactly the way you accuse people of using the term "racist". It is designed to simplistically pigeonhole people and lazily undermine their argument without having to present an alternative case.

Having said that, I still think the term "racism" is useful and unfortunately I still think it's very prevalent in Australian society. I agree with Eva that it upsets people and tends to shut down debate, but I wouldn't want to pander to people like Sage and remove it from our "lexicon".

Thank you for an easy-to-read and thought-provoking article, Eva.

Eva

Thank you for your article.

I like Allport's (1969) definition of prejudice better than yours: "Thinking ill of others without sufficient warrant".

Prejudice is not only confined to race, colour, creed.

People with mental illness in this country can suffer prejudice on a daily basis - as can people with developmental delay - as can people with cerebral palsy.

Cheers
Kay

Thanks Eva for an excellent article.

I am one who posted my thoughts on Greg Barns' article here :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3993#24567

One critcally important cause which has also been muddied by the propensity of detractors to falsely label its proponents as 'racist' is for our society to control its population levels. This position embraces support for effective immigration laws, which has been, in past decades, an unfashionable cause with left-liberal types (quite possibly even including yourself(?))

However, as I have written in other posts, the uncontrolled increase in numbers in Sydney, which has resulted in apalling overcrowding, is a factor which helped spark these riots.

If we are to allow people to settle here, and even to allow our numbers to continue to grow beyond what many believe to be already unsustainable, given the imminent threat of the end of cheap fossil fuel, then at least priority should be given to those who have genuine compassionate grounds on which to be allowed to settle here, and not to business migrants who are allowed to buy their way into this country, and in doing so, drive up the value of real estate for everyone else.