what the hell are you on about boaz? self defense teams, spikes (by which i assume you mean to keep australian citizens of a certain ethnic background out of certain areas), alerts?

whats next?

brown shirts? vigilanties? aparthied? segregation?

you seem to have missed my point about the patrioticaly incorrect. put simply, apart from superficial differences such as your choice of holy book (i use the word choice with some trepidation), i see very little diference between yourself,thor,frederic and the other denizins of the far right and islamic fundamentalists such as omram or trad.

you show the same disrequard for the principals, both written and othersise that have established this country as a free, secular and tolenrant democracy

Rainier

You'd better point out to me exactly what was racist in Benjamin's post. I for the life of me cannot discern your concern

Rancitas

We are a monoculture. Western.

We could be a bi-culture, my preference.

Aboriginal and western.

We source immigrants from a multitude of cultures but we are a monoculture. Just 2% of the population thinks multiculture means they have equal billing with aboriginals. Arrogant actually.

Rainier,

Predictably, you do just as the quote you take from Benjamin says you do: you cannot accept that such criticism does not necessarily entail ethnocentrism, i.e. that some of us CAN genuinely be critical.

Rather than see Benjamin as suggesting a “universal subjectivity” as a smokescreen for “white power,” I think he simply meant a universal “principle.”

What we call a “custom” would reflect your “subjectivity,” that which is moulded by social structure (class, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc.), and is therefore historically contingent and thus regionally particular and diverse, and thus in principle open to transformation and debate, e.g. whether eating whales is OK, whether women can attend church/mosque, the meaning of “Australian,” whether women can vote, Islamic women’s practice of not swimming with kafir, etc.

What would be “universal” would be the “principle” of democracy, i.e. majority rule based on uncorrupted critically reasoned debate (something Hizbut tahir is terrified of!), since such a principle is the ethic necessarily presupposed in the pragmatics of all communication, i.e. in order that we can understand one another we must assume one another’s capacity to reply, and thus that we each have an opinion. This becomes an enforceable “right” to be heard, i.e. to be “who” one wants to be, in order that we stave off communication breakdown.

Breakdown happens where either the herd-instinct (unquestioned tradition) or anarchic individualism (postmodernity) dominates over a consensus-based critical democracy (modernity). Hence we have law preventing discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, sex, religion, gender, etc.

Now of course the whole problem is in creating the ideal conditions in which such debate is least corruptible, and that’s a long way off yet (Hamas’ victory is perhaps the farthest down the chain here), but that says nothing against the universality of the intuitive democratic principle, and thereby that amidst our diversity, humans nonetheless DO have a universal norm in light of which we can justifiably claim that ALL peoples must subject themselves to and work towards creating the conditions under which it can flourish. These ideas are a few centuries old now (in the West, that is).

jkenno,

Answer me: Wouldn’t you be furious at someone who lives nowhere near your suburb, TELLING YOU that your deducing a pattern of violent gang behaviour in members of Australia’s Pacific Islander community was “racist”?

Answer me: And when you try to reassure them, as you have done for us, that what makes you different from “racists” is that you do not generalise your experiences to the whole Pacific Islander community, please tell us how you would then feel if that same person took your very reply as a form of “New Racism”?*

* “A curious feature of the new racism is that it is very difficult to attack. This is because its advocates speak in terms that are remarkably similar to those of postmodernists and the New Left. They speak about the need to preserve identity, difference, traditions and culture. They also speak about the need to maintain standards of equality, fair play and so on. Who can disagree with any of this? Only rarely is anything unambiguously racist said (at least in public). Instead a characteristic of the ‘new racism’ is to speak in a kind of code. Words such as ‘special treatment,’ ‘Asian ghetto’ and ‘Aboriginal Industry’ carry with them connotations which the true believer can recognise, but which allow plausible deniability of racist views on the part of the speaker” (Robert van Kriekan et al, “Sociology: Themes & Perspectives,” 2nd ed, Longman: Australia, 2000, p.542; note too that since this text refers to “street crime” as a “pseudo-racial issue,” you might have to be a “new racist” for your views about Pacific Islanders.

Two questions for van Kriekan: Given its nebulous nature, how can you claim ‘new racism’ exists? Is Salam Zreika a ‘new racist’?

One more for jkenny: What ever did Thor say to give you the impression that he would NOT be happy to have members of the Lebanese or Muslim community join the Cronulla protesters in their anger at Lebanese (Muslim?) youth? Is it your projecting onto him what you abject about yourself: your ethnocentrism?

Because of multiculturalism,we have lost our power of Christian thinking,living,celebrating Christmas,Easter, and Australia Day ,which once upon a time over 40 years ago or more we could openly thank God for Australia , the blessings He has given us in every way the Christmas decorations with Jesus in the manger ,Christian carols,God was included in our Anthem's ,God Save The Queen ,at all theaters ,ovals ,and gatherings was sung first.

Jesus was not a swear word and prayers were said first thing daily in public schools up to the 50s.

On Australia Day ,I did not read ,hear or view anyone thanking God ,Jesus or giving thanks to The Almighty in any media ,TV or talks anywhere. God has gone (where) in Australia?
In the USA at least they thank God for all their polticians and country,but not here .Why?

We are hiding God and Christ because we imagine that we will offend the new religious migrants in Australia.

Just as we tolerate them ,they should show tolerance to us Aussies our ways and the undercover Christians need to show that we ARE a Christian nation before we forget that it always has been, and go for some other belief system,like Islam,or secular humanism all over.
God bless Australia !

Don't let multiculturalism destroy the real Aussie lifestyle, and our Christian heritage which is not encouraged or mentioned by all Aussie media as they want a non- Christian nation , (controlled by powers that be) a new flag,a republic eventually and a world wide religious system. Check it out yourselves .