I have to agree with FrankGol and Celivia, concerning the tenor and content of many of the postings on this thread. Some of the comments above are little more than hateful expressions of misanthropic and xenophobic bile, spat and shouted at others.

While I've come to expect some robust debate in these forums, some comments in this thread definitely cross the line between civilised debate and an unproductive slanging match, IMHO. It's a pity, because others of us who might have something constructive to contribute to these discussions are effectively silenced by the repetitive ranting of a few correspondents who are apparently far more receptive to dog whistling than to reasoned debate.

Bennie you have missed my point

When I say what it is toady I am talking about the economic success and sheltered lifestyle! THE LUCKY COUNTRY! “We are the lucky country” Why change it? It boggles the mind why people would want too! Unless of course you are smug new immigrant who just wants to get his mates in on the act.

What I don’t want to see happen to Australia is what is happening in the United States today with citizenship been given out every time someone buys a happy meal or spends $10 at a caltex petrol station! There are 12mil illegal immigrants (estimate) who are demanding citizenship and 10’s of millions more who support it! If you let large numbers of people from poor countries into Australia it will slowly turn into an avalanche for as you know these people will have one vote like you me and for them there could be nothing better then getting more unskilled, uneducated unsophisticated and unAustralian people just like they are into this beautiful country.

Multiculturalism needs Australia
Australia does not need Multiculturalis

Mr Khan,

As “support” of your claim that I am a hypocrite for attributing to you a “herd instinct”, you (1) fabricate that I spoke of “Australian values”, and (2) intentionally misinterpret what I meant by “Occidentalism” as some racist cult of some sort, in order that you might undermine my position on “individualism”. But WANTING me to have said these things don’t make them true!

I am still waiting for you to show me a single claim that I make that supports your claim that I have “supremacist” ideals.

If you consider criticism of “multiculturalism” as “supremacist”, then you must be assuming that this philosophy is about little more than the noble ideals of diversity and toleration. But I don’t think anybody here criticising this philosophy is against these ideals, but rather absolutely in support of them, and their only worry is that these ideals might be threatened by multiculturalism. Haven’t you ever thought about in this way before? I think you have the cause and effect of racism around the wrong way!

I think I hold to a totally different conception of “culture” to that you probably hold to. To me, I’d de-emphasise “customs” and emphasise “ethics”, the way people relate to one another, both those they’re familiar with and strangers. All else is just superficial to me.

This is because insofar as ethics underpins law, which it necessarily does, and insofar as no “multicultural” state will ever sanction multiple legal systems, no “multicultural” state will ever support multiple ethical systems. Therefore there are no genuine “multicultural” states, but rather only a pool of consumers for business and identity politics.

Hamlet,

Those in a position of influence include:

A high school teacher of mine of Greek background who often mock Aussies as lacking culture and as lazy.

A Sydney University lecturer, non-white, mocked Australian culture as a meat pie, invoking brazen laughter from the class of 90% Asian background.

A UNSW tutor, of Indian and Islamic background, in class talking up the decadence of Western culture, and how other cultures might offer the West something it is lacking.

Sorry Easy times being the fruit of your parents loins who are the fruit of theirs etc...offers you nothin' apart from a name and maybe an inheritance measured at best in money and property and memoribilia.

Families like yours contibuted to this place they did not make it - you are part of it not .. it

Other civilsations predated ours - get over it we are doing ok for now - other civilisations are what we built ours on - face facts boyo - we are part of a continuum - we are only the pinnacle for now and even thats wide open for debate'.

Meanwhile back to the article...
(not that it comes to much)

“It seems multiculturalism and the ethnic population have become a constant target of conservative politicians in recent times.”

Really? It would seem to me that most “conservative” politicians don’t bring it up at all.

“The leadership of ethnic communities has been so far on the back foot trying to defend its rights and values. But for how long?”

You mean like Trad and Hilali when they defended the Lebanese rapists, Blaming their behaviour on Austraian society? Excuse me, but we don’t all go around calling ourselves Lebs and pack raping girls and telling them we are going to do it “Leb style”. Or the Pakistani rapists who said it was a cultural problem, and they didn’t know it was wrong.

“The call for Australian values is quite xenophobic at its core. It is just another dig at reviving Hansonism by making an issue out of ethnicity. “

You call it xenophobia, yet others would call it patriotism. I note you like objectifying people… Hansonism… ooo how evil. Hanson stood up for Australians and Australia, against the PC garbage and censorship and intimidation that Multiculturalists had used against the wider population for years. One Nation had a membership which encompassed many ethnicities and cultural heritages… hardly xenophobic..

FrankGol,

RE: “Some people (you say 1.5%) may have asked for Sharia law to be enshrined in Australian law. But it’s hardly likely to happen without a solid majority in support. So why are you beating the fear drums?”

Firstly, this at least betrays that you are at heart pro assimilation, since clearly you would be against genuine multiculturalism. And typically, closet-assimilationists abject their own frustrations over their state of inner contradiction onto those they call “racists”.

Secondly, this betrays your selfishness in ignoring (writing off as “racism”) the grievances articulated (even if unclearly) over the years by those living in communities with a high concentration (i.e. a "majority") of people who might sympathise with the “redneck” sentiments of Sharia law.

Is this simply because the complainants in this instance are white and might sound less educated than you, and so on the basis of prejudices you might hold of the “hick” you judge that they couldn't possibly have a GENUINE grievance, and must just be taking out their economic frustrations?

Effectively, you are telling people to either put up with or move away from those in their “neighbourhood” who hold such obviously redneck sentiments, sentiments you yourself find abhorrent, for otherwise you would not say Hamlet was fear-mongering, since “fear” could only arise in light of something abhorrent.

By what right do you have to dilute the demographics of a particular city, or even a part of a city, into the notional population at large, so as to play down the intensity of concentration of particular self-interested ethnic enclaves, just so you can accuse people of "beating the fear drums"?

Would you tolerate 1.5% of the Australian national population subsribing to the Nazism (modest compared to Sharia law), let alone 90% of a certain suburb?

Why would you feel the need to dilute such demographics? Does this need again betray that you have something to hide, something you’d rather not admit to yourself?

Coward.