In 1860-61, riots at Lambing Flat, in the Victorian goldfields, primarily by white male miners, occured. While originally motivated by high unemplyment and an opposition to Gambling dens in the area, the riots and protests developed into mass anti-Chinese immigration rallies. Rioters stormed the Chinese quaters and killed several Chinese miners. A series of attacks followed, forcing Chinese immigrants to eventually abandon the gold fields.

This civil disturbance led indirectly to the adoption of the White Australia Policy, implemented to stop further immigration from China and Eastern Europe (primarily and debatably). In my humble opinion, this is one of Australia's darkest hours.

To say that this country does not have a racist and xenophobic past is to wear very large blinkers. Take this quote from Edmund Barton, Australia's first Prime Minister:

"The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman" (1901)

I realise these are different times with a different world situation. But some of the arguments in support of the Howard Governments legislation sound erily similar to the arguments proposed in favour of the White Australia policy. eg. ITS OUR COUNTRY. They're different. They don't assimilate.

Today the Chinese community in Australia is one of the most vibrant, embracing and authentic. China town in Sydney is one of my favourite places in the city. If the White Australia policy were still in place , we would not have a wonderful, special part of Australia. The country would be worse without it

Well, sneekeepete, It certainly would be an advantage if you did not speak and write in English. That way I would not be able to read the rubbish you write.

One of the problems about multiculturalism is that it can separate people from the host culture and the host cultures ethics, values and attitudes. This is particularly strong when members of a community don't speak English and are able to isolate themselves, by essentially living and working within their own communities,, excluding influences from outside.

This basically means that they do not have a strong attachment to Australia and its laws.

A few years ago, in Sydney, a "Lebanese" man killed his daughter because she offended the honour of the family. There was one witness: that is, the man's son, the victim's brother.

The family arranged for the son to depart Australia for Lebanon, and as there is no agreement between Australia and Lebanon to force witnesses to return to Australia the murdering father still walks free, and the family's honour has been maintained.

How can anyone embedded in Australian / Western culture even think that a killing for 'honour' is in any way acceptable? The only way that I can think that this man thought that it was acceptable is that multiculturalism encouraged him to maintain his barbaric ideas of family honour and 'human rights', or at least shielded him from being drawn into the values of the host culture.

One death from 'multiculturalism' is one death too many.

The subject of Multiculture gets more and more raucus, one would think that after thirty or fourty years ,it would be a forgotten matter. Perhaps if the immigrants had been from nations that are identifiable with western standards it may have melted away, but now it is raging like a rotten tooth and it is time we had a referendum on the whole subject.Because I think the pain and the deterioration to this nation is going to get worse.
France is on the brink of civil war,England is one awful mess, the Netherlands are on the edge. Do we want that here?
Bring the referendum on. It will be perhaps the only way to cure the nation's worry.

Hamlet, mickijo and others, no sensible purpose is served by raging against something you describe as "multiculturalism" when you are vilifying something completely different. Hamlet, what you described as a barbaric murder is a heinous crime, but multiculturalism had nothing to do with it. No reasonable person can claim that a policy of multiculturalism encourages or allows murder. No reasonable person - whether they support multiculturalism or not - would agree that murder is acceptable here, in Lebanon or elsewhere. It is a crime, full stop. So to conclude that "One death from 'multiculturalism' is one death too many" is a nonsense. It would be just as silly as saying that because the murder occurred in our democracy that Australia should reject democracy.

mickijo, just last Monday I returned from an extended stay in France and England and toured both countries extensively. I saw nothng that fits your alleged description - "France is on the brink of civil war, England is one awful mess". Applying language like "raging like a rotten tooth" and "the pain and the deterioration to this nation is going to get worse" is comic-book stuff. We don't need a referendum; but you might like to go and see your dentist and doctor!

mickiijo

I'll play your silly game. What question should be put in your proposed referendum?

Would it be something like "Australia revises it immigration law to exclude all people from countries not identifiable with western standards"?

Would this include the 17% of Americans who do not speak English? Would it include the London bombers British citizens who did speak English? Would it include French citizens from African colonies?

Would it include Indians, Singaporeans, Mongrel Mob Maori from NZ?

Or should the question be "Lets stop all people thay mickiijo is afraid of from coming here and let him continue in blissful ignorance"

Just who are "they" this month and who will you hate next month?