Here we have a politically correct Academian taking the politically correct media to task for not being politically correct enough for his politically correct tastes.

If the professor wants a "truth that dare not speak its name" I suggest he look at the hate and anger in Islam. The fact is that Islam is intolerant and oppressive. It provides the basis for the alienation and hostility in so many Muslim communities, and makes integration and even respect for others (non-Muslims) very difficult for many Muslims. Of course I am generalizing, but the is evidence is there, even if it has escaped certain people who teach a limited politically correct version of history.

The Sydney events are not just about Australia. Any discussion of this issue without considering the global aspects of the problem and the inherant anger in Islam is a waste of time. What happened in Cronulla is the same that has happened in the streets of England and France. It is the same think that happened on a train in the south of France two weeks ago. It will also happen in the streets of Holland, Sweden and other countries - it is just a matter of time. It will get worse.

Why do so many people refuse to see the obvious?

John Kactuz

Dirk Moses:

"The defensive comments of some folks here are noteworthy. They bear out what I say in my first paragraph: that too many people are unable to engage with arguments that discomfort them."

How very undergraduate of you. Really, that is shameful that you allowed that one to slip past. Must be all that truth to power speaking giving them the heebie-jeebies.

Alternatively they may just think you are wrong. It is a possibility you know.

"And that they think they have all the answers. Yet, at least with the two dismissive comments here, none are ventured."

With 2000 words of your own I noticed not a single answer either. So what precisely is your reason for mentioning this?

Also, given that we achieve all this (nothing) in under 350 words, the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that we are far more efficient in our use of the language. Don't you agree?

"I don’t pretend to have the answers to the challenges of reconciling multiculturalism with national identity"

Dirk, you criticise dismissive comments for offering no answers yet at the same time included this comment in your article.

"it is not as simple as asking everyone to play by the rules"

It is as simple as everyone playing by the rules - the rule of law. I do have discomfiture with anyone being treated differently when they have committed crimes and it is partly because of the inability to prosecute violent thugs, of any creed, which has led to this situation.

PS: My apologies for the accusation of bias regarding Rev Smith.

t.u.s

Dear Dr Dirk
in regard to your OLO article, I'm wondering if you can assist me with some clarification.

I found the article itself to be the result of some very close examination of particular 'terminology' used by the mass media, which on the surface seems impressive. But I find that the implications you draw from these not well founded.

Here is an axample.

Or as Miranda Devine put it, “pasty-faced nerds with a taste for Nazi literature” opposed “the real hardmen, the Lebanese-Australian criminal gangs” (Sydney Morning Herald, December 22):

Miranda clearly says the problem IS 'those with a taste for Nazi Literature' and the other group "Criminal gangs" and this description is entirely accurate. But from this narrow expression of limited scope you draw:

<<in other words, the problem is not the home-grown neo-Nazis but the immigrants they despise irrespective of how they behave.>>

Though the problem has been identified by Miranda as 2 sided, you appear to portray it as 'one' sided, being the Neo Nazi whites who hate all immigrants. That is a racist conclusion which we do not accept.

For a professor of history, your view of the Cronulla events seems rather limited to the actual days of the outbreak, rather than (as a good historian would do) examine the long history of growing anti social violence which preceeded the 'straw which broke the camels back' of the attack on lifesavers etc.

To be blunt, that is shabby.

Your article seems to have pre-judged the whole Anglo population and condemned us to 'racist', when in fact, I believe I've clearly shown that your article itself is 'racist'.

[Deleted for flaming]

Irfan,

You are a bit tough on me, mate. You wanted only 800 words in your post on the Salam Zreika article, but you want an extra 50 from me! I've put out hints to you to answer a few questions, with no response, so I'll decline your invitation. I agree with Kay. You are getting a bit stroppy. Apears to have happened since your last article. We haven't seen one for a while. I have always found them informative.

Rossco,

Sorry you find my posts boring, but do you really expect anyone NOT to reject anything which doesn't conform to his or her own beliefs? You obviously reject what I think, as you are perfectly entitled to.
Must be something to do with the name Rossco!

I though the idea was to agree or disagree with people submitting articles they are trying to persuade with, not bashing fellow posters with different opinions on those articles. However, if you want it that way, I'm happy to join in. It could be fun.

We should remember, however, that what any of us thinks is only worth one solitary vote at elections.

bozzie mate,
first: how many australians can trace their ancestors back 200 years (i notice that you don't mention those who can go further)?
and second: look around you. multiculturalism is a fact whether you like or not. you seem to be lamenting it as if you can stem the tide.
why not try to make the most of the culture in which you live.
good luck,
bel