Well SK easypeasy... got them all right all 14 of em... thing is most of them were only somewhat related to Multiculturalism and some were so blatantly weighted it wasn't funny. You should read mark lopez's book about australian Multiculturalism and actually learn something... in fact the lot of you should.

Multiculturalism is a divisive social policy. Tolerance is not something I'd base social harmony on. People who come here and still think of themselves as Lebanese or Italian etc should return to their country of birth. Children born here and brought up thinking they are not Australian etc prove that Multiculturalism does not work as it professes to. Hyphenated Australians are not Australians.

Who are these mainstream Australians you speak for Easy? the sneekemeister is Australian - ands I lurv MCism - I like Iguana as well - I prefer it with salad over chips though.

Why mock citizens with a certificate thats says so? - at least they have made an oath/pleldge - it is more tham most Australians who just happed to be born here have done.

And where is the arrogance from? - I havent been told by a foriegner to do any thing - foreigners didn't lable or promote MCism - governments did - Australian governments - and yes immigrants lobbied for it - and the power of arguement won the day - long live reason!

As I said in my last post - with great erudition and insight I might add
(you may like to go to the users page and see other such wisecontributions) -

... for an approach to civilised living that has gripped this great nation by the throat for three decades - lifting it the hieghts of the greatest civilisation under the sun -the arguements for it must be neither hollow or or feeble - I contend they were either worthy of Socrates or Aristotle! - alternatively the opponents to the idea were rather piss weak - you choose.

As I live and breath I remain Sneekee the peace maker - Sneekee the humble and sneekee some what annoyed

Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity

http://tinyurl.com/jb3ff

"A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University's Robert Putnam, one of the world's most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.

British Home Office research has pointed in the same direction and Prof Putnam, now working with social scientists at Manchester University, said other European countries would be likely to have similar trends."

There is a reason for both ethnic ghettos and for 'white flight' - people prefer to live among their own. A certain amount of 'diversity' is fine by the majority of people but we have reached the limit for most of us - Muslim taxi drivers refusal (based on the precepts of an alien religion) to carry passengers with guide dogs or alcohol.

Dee, you give a selective commentary on Putman's research, no doubt influenced by the media summary and gloss. What do you make of these three quotations:

1. 'Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it "would have been irresponsible to publish without that".'

2. 'Prof Putnam stressed, however, that immigration materially benefited both the "importing" and "exporting" societies, and that trends "have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed".'

3. 'In an oblique criticism of Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, who revealed last week he prefers Muslim women not to wear a full veil, Prof Putnam said: "What we shouldn't do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us."'

What I understand Putman to be saying is an immigration policy should be accompanied by a cultural policy to help 'host' and 'immigrant' communties deal with the social consequences of immigration programs. In Australia, this policy has been called multiculturalism.

Thanks for drawing attention to Putman's research.

Wrong again Pete...

"and yes immigrants lobbied for it - and the power of arguement won the day"

The vast majority of immigrants did not ask for it and a small lobby group won the day... hardly democratic, much like the reaction of fraser and hawke who both refused to put it to a referendum. Why? Because they knew it would be defeated.

I suggest once more you educate yourself by reading mark lopez's book on the subject.

FrankGol - Putnam grasps the corrosive effect diversity has on communities, and even acknowledges that it destroys cohesion. He observes this even between Swedes and Norwegians, ethnicities that very few people can tell apart.

Then he comes to the conclusion that this lack of connection is a ‘social construct’, one that can be socially ‘deconstructed’. He not only fails to see (from his own research) how entrenched in human beings is the preference to live with ones own; he fails to grasp that such proposed ‘deconstruction’ is totalitarian – ie a breach of the right for people to share with those with whom they identify. This tendency is more than a ‘social construct’, it is hard wired within the human race. There is no country on earth where multiculturalism is a success.

To expect the citizens of ‘host’ countries to change their way of life in order to suit immigrants is the height of arrogance. Perhaps those in power should be asking themselves what right they have to impose migrants from incompatible cultures upon us – then dare to label those who protest as ‘racists’.

Professor Putnam states that it would have been irresponsible to publish his research without 'proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity'-

Yet another backhanded admission by a researcher/academic that their work is not the pursuit of truth but a drive for political ends – in this case, the imposition of the failed doctrine of multiculturalism upon increasingly unwilling Western countries.