yvonne, That you think governing by cultural need is more beneficial to Australia than governing to Australian needs says volumes.
I have no interest in assuring whether or not your cultural needs are met. Or being taxed to ensure they are. If you can not achieve your own cultural requirements I pity you. That would make you not only socially challenged but culturally challenged as well. Do you get more tax revenue as a community of disabled cultural social victims?
That you attribute something you read in another post to me and use that as an excuse to flaunt your racism says even more. You have no idea what my colour or race is. I would consider it a kindness if you actually read and comprehended what I post rather than insinuating and inserting comments or arguments from others postings.
From what I can tell it is you who carries the chip. But then again as you say. You've gotten great benefit from doing so.
If your Australian. You will promote yourself as Australian and people wont give a tinkers bell ring if your Mediterranean, Asian, American, or European. If you must promote yourself as being from some other place then it is only natural that your motives towards everyone else not of that culture become suspect. And that is MC ISM at it's worst. It has nothing do do with St. Paddy's day Parade or Chinese New Years or a Greek Festival. Or being Jewish, or Christian, or Muslim. It isn't the presents of diverse cultures that makes a country multicultural. It's when the country is governed by cultural dictates. It is just wrong. It separates communities into cultural enclaves and divides people on issues according to culture and not as if they concern all Australians period.

Banjo, you and Horus sing the same chorus. Keep mangling the truth about multiculturalism - you and he continue to believe a simple-minded spiel.

“MC was imposed and we did not have a say in it.” Yet, you say that the Whitlam Government brought it in and the Fraser Government continued it. These were Governments of different political complexion elected by the Australian people with clear policy mandates.

But, you whimper, “It was never a referendum issue”. And because there was no referendum, you conclude that “electors did not get a say.” Was there a referendum on the GST, or the IR reforms, or Medicaire, or funding for private schools, or the sale of Telstra and Qantas, or the invasion of Iraq? Governments govern, and if we electors don’t like their policies we vote them out. That’s democracy.

You say that: “both Libs and Labor had an agreement not to raise Immigration as an election issue”. You are simply confusing immigration and multiculturalism – they are different. Immigration policy (in simple terms) is about who should come to this country. Multiculturalism (in simple terms) is about how different cultural groups in Australia should relate to one another.

You allege it “was widely said that we had no culture and these factors created anger amongst many Aussies.” Who said that? The Government? Your friends? Your plumber? Whoever said it was stupid.

You say: “All cultures do not love one another.” All Catholics don’t like all Protestants – sufficient reason for uniform religion in Australia?

You allege: “The British Government has dumped MC and so has Labor and Liberals here.” Wishful thinking, Banjo. In Britain “Tony Blair has backed the idea of a multicultural Britain in the latest ‘Our Nation's Future’ lecture.” (6 December 2006 www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10563.asp) and the majority of British people agree (August 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4137990.stm ).

The examples you gave last time of aspects of unacceptable cultures are all currently against the law and bear no relationship to Australia’s multicultural policies. We agree on this: Australian laws set social standards for our community. Why the paranoia?

FrankGol,
Your only concern is to put spin on matters to suit your own agenda.

For others that are interested. Google up Telegraph.com 9-12-2006 and see the full text of Tony Blair's speech. Any impartial and reasonable person will deduce that Blair has dumped MC. He talks a lot about separetism and integration. In his last line he says about "Duty to integrate" Wonder why Frank did not give a link to that?

Anyway I'm not here to convince you Frank. That would be impossible.
But be prepared for change. All will be revealed in the fullness of time.

Banjo you're living in dreamland buddy! MC can't simply be dismantled. We've got quite a few generations who grew up with it and who actually like learning about other cultures and peoples and customs. It can be re-named to whatever suits your fancy but the only way to halt it is to shut the airports.

Have you found out what MC is? What the government defines as multiculturalism? There is no discrepancy between accommodating various cultures and maintaining rule of law. Cronulla is not the face of MC - Chinatown is; Leichhardt is; your neighbour is.

PS. There's a huuge difference between England and Australia. This isn't England.

bennie,
I said the dismantling of the MC industry!

You may not realise that there is a whole industry built up around MC, both State and Federal.

There are millions of dollars of taxpayers funds spent each year on this. Not only for staff but all sorts of projects. Have a look at the annual reports of the relevant departments.

That is what is going to be dismantled.

I hope some of the saved funds will be spent on integration promotion.

Saturday - Banjos claims: ‘The British Government has dumped MC (Multiculturalism)’

Sunday @ 2.15 – FrankGol says : ‘In Britain “Tony Blair has backed the idea of a multicultural Britain in the latest ‘Our Nation's Future’ lecture.” (6 December 2006 www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10563.asp)’

Sunday @ 3.27 – Banjo says: ‘Google up Telegraph.com 9-12-2006 and see the full text of Tony Blair's speech. Any impartial and reasonable person will deduce that Blair has dumped MC…In his last line he says about "Duty to integrate" Wonder why Frank did not give a link to that?’

Real time (now) - FrankGol says: The link I gave goes direct to the PM’s speech. Far from dumpimg MC, the British PM said:

‘So it is not that we need to dispense with multicultural Britain. On the contrary we should continue celebrating it. But we need - in the face of the challenge to our values - to re-assert also the duty to integrate, to stress what we hold in common and to say: these are the shared boundaries within which we all are obliged to live, precisely in order to preserve our right to our own different faiths, races and creeds.’

Here is the last paragraph which Banjo falsely alleges I didn’t give the link to. Look at the last line. Readers can decide for themselves who’s telling porkies.

‘If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us. Then you, and all of us, who want to, can worship God in our own way, take pride in our different cultures after our own fashion, respect our distinctive histories according to our own traditions; but do so within a shared space of shared values in which we take no less pride and show no less respect. The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means. And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it.

'The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means.'