The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A Real Test of Diversity > Comments

A Real Test of Diversity : Comments

By Saeed Khan, published 5/10/2006

Rather than leading the way towards a better future, opponents of multiculturalism are taking us back a century

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. 21
  13. ...
  14. 23
  15. 24
  16. 25
  17. All
http://search.ft.com/searchArticle?queryText=multiculturalism&javascriptEnabled=true&id=060822000941 This little baby documents the problems MC has unleashed. Its all good they say!

And another nail goes into multiculturalism http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20554070-2702,00.html

Both of these documents point out the intrinsic problems immigrants of other cultures bring to host countries.

I guess Inkee we will agree to disagree. Don’t wonder whether it was good or not to be born in Australia I have been to 26 countries and the Aussie one is a long way ahead!
You are right about multiculturalism being hear but so is terrorism (another niche benefit from multiculturalism) and I have no intention of getting used to it.
Posted by EasyTimes, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 9:08:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol,

PART I

In accusing Hamlet of “banging fear drums” you reveal to us that at least part of you agrees with him that there is something to be feared about Sharia Law, else it would not be “fear” in those drums, right? That is, you do not claim that Hamlet misunderstands Sharia law, and thus that his fear is unfounded in principle, but your criticism of him is about his supposed hysteria over percentages.

David Marr not long ago made a similar Freudian slip when he said on Insiders that “We all know Sharia Law is barbaric!”

Now according to an Islamic PhD candidate at UNSW, insofar as any Muslim is to BE a Muslim they MUST support Sharia Law. In agreement with this, Keysar Trad, spokesman for the Muslim Friendship Association, in an email to a friend of mine on “conditions” to Sharia law, said

“There is also a capital penalty for adulterers, I have not denounced that nor have I denounced the penalty for theft. AS A MUSLIM, I CANNOT DENOUNCE ANY OF THE SCRIPTURAL PENALTIES AND STILL BE A MUSLIM, I can though say that these penalties can only apply when the deterrents are in place and the Caliphate system exists, for example, you cannot penalise adultery unless marriage is easy and affordable for people to enter into. You cannot penalise thieves by cutting off their hands unless you have a welfare state, this penalty was suspended by Caliph Omar because they were going through a famine. By the same token, the [capital] penalty for homosexual intercourse can only apply if all the safety measures are in place. It is not a penalty for feeling homosexual, but rather for acts of sodomy”

Now whether or not Hamlet’s “fear” over Sharia law is unwarranted – since as you correctly say it could only happen under a majority vote – one cannot deny that living in a suburb with people who sympathise with it would be like living with intolerant xenophobes who feel more pure than outsiders (e.g. Muslim woman fear contamination if they swim with non Muslims).
Posted by abyss, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 11:30:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PART II

Now fancy this: every time you complained you got shouted down by those like you as “banging fear drums”! The five thousand at Chronulla’s turnout were deemed by those in your Age to ALL be rednecks.

The problem here of course is that the part of those like you which actually agrees with the principle of Hamlet’s “fear”, i.e. the “Hansonite” within you who'd consider the ethical beliefs of certain neighbours to be en masse worthy of criticising were they done by Anglos, this part of yourself you disown, and project (i.e. abject) into the Hamlet’s whom you then, for different reasons to Mr Khan here, derogatorily objectify as “Hansonites”.

To you, the Other (here the Oriental) is not worthy of criticising, of correcting, for holding to certain ethics you might disagree with (e.g. clitoral circumcision, veiling woman, ethno nepotism), because you deny them what makes us HUMAN, our capacity for critical thought and argument, for transformation and change. You are selfish in this pacifist (Germaine-Greer-like) position because you care more about people thinking ill of you than you do people’s standard of living.

You do this because (1) in your own cultural nihilism you see an Other as an ETHNIC, and (2) because the Other scares you into believing that you are “racist” if you criticise any portion of those like him (this is the basis of his identity politics).

He does this because he cannot overcome race and ethnicity, he is up to his ears in them, and so in assuming that you too think of yourself first and foremost in these ETHNO terms, he assumes that any criticism you direct at him is BECAUSE he is different to you, rather than BECAUSE you have sound reasons for why such customs are to you unethical. Such a disposition on the part of the Other here is utterly racist, ethno-ist, as compared to individualist.

RE your Age quote: what ever made you think “mateship” and “fair go” are any different from “freedom of speech” and “religious tolerance”? Was it perhaps a childish prejudice of the RSL “bloke”?
Posted by abyss, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 11:33:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Frankgol

Aussies rate free speech and tolerance higher than mateship ?

You need to dig below the surface. I've asked people similiar questions but once you ask a couple more which address other related issues, it becomes clear that they are saying that because they feel they will be condemned if they don't. They will often respond to 'media' questions or surveys in the way they 'think' they should, rather than how they really feel deep down.

If you probe their attitudes to multiculturalism by mentioning certain practices of ethnic minorities, aaah.. it starts to emerge.

Tolerance has been drummed into everyone until they respond like lemmings. All you need to do is show the 'INtolerance' which surrounds them and BINGO the light comes on and they start to tell you how they actually feel.

I actually have hope and confidence that even you, would recognize intolerance among ethnic minorities as long as it is not described in terms which suggest the speaker is simply a narrow minded redneck or evangelical crusader.

C.J.Morgan.. it is clear that you are a caring person. But regarding the 'outbursts' and 'rants' on OLO and its 'culture'.. you need to be more robust mate. We are not all delicate flowers here :) We call a spade a spade and sometimes even a pick. i.e. Sometimes people speak from the hip rather than the brain. Its all good. Just means further clarification and dialogue is needed. Even your responses appear 'intolerant' at times, but without your views OLO would be the poorer.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 6:30:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol,
Contrary to your opinion, multiculturalism is to blame for some taxi drivers not carrying guide dogs. If it was only one or two drivers one would simply say they are morons, but when it is many it becomes a cultural issue.

The policy of Multicutalism implies that people can practice their culture in Australia unimpeeded. Sure their is one passing reference to "rule of law' in the policy, and in the NSW definition but both encourage people to retain their culture. No where in the policies or information given to immigrants does it show the things that are against the law or socially unacceptable. So unacceptable conduct by some has to be (A) Because they are ignorant, or (B) They hold their cultural dictates higher than our laws and customs. We may be partly at fault here as for about 40 years we have been telling immigrants that we are multicultural and all cultures can be practised.

It is not only the actions of some taxi drivers that is unacceptable, You cannot ignore the complaints of female police, nurses, teachers, receptionists and shop assistants that say Muslim males are arrogant, rude and dictatorial to them. There is evidence that FGM is carried out here and girls being sent overseas to forced marriages or to have FGM done. The attitude of the accused gang rapists and family and friends in court shows contempt for our laws as clearly these people actually believed that females in western dress are whores that can be treated in any way. Abuse of girls at beaches and on the street and claims of offence at nativity displays in malls are other examples of no respect of our culture.

I maintain that we are a multi-racial country but not multicultural. We do not permit far too many aspects of other cultures to say we are multicultural.

If you claim we are multicultural, then just what aspects of other cultures would you permit and what aspects would you not allow?
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 10:22:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear hear, DB, regards OLO culture.

I'll take issue though with your suggestion people give answers others want to hear. In today's atmosphere people are more likely to follow the example set by our PM, and demonise those different, "that kind of person", anyone not 'one of us'. The derision from the right towards the "latte left", "chardonay socialists", "Balmain basket weavers", or the dismissive "Howard haters" is pretty coercive, is it not? As if valid criticism of Australia's lurch to the right is unwarranted in any context.

As for mateship rating higher than free speech? Australia has no monopoly on this nebulous concept of 'mateship'. Anyone aware of what governments are capable of - given the chance - would rate free speech streets ahead of the universal concept of altruism, as being typically Australian
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 11:26:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. 21
  13. ...
  14. 23
  15. 24
  16. 25
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy