Would'nt it be nice if the fight against racism was the fight against segregation and oppression? These days anti-racism is a template for more immigration. And thought control. And anglo bashing. And basically a tool for subversion.

Geoff,
A refreshing look at the subject, the trouble with conservative thinkers, is just that it's conservative, no imagination, as to what could be. I have looked up my dictionary and under "conservative" there is no "progressive" in the meaning.

"The solution advocated is either the strong assertion of secularism and the values associated with democracy and human rights, or the renewal of national identity, which in Australia's case is associated with a fair go, mateship and the Judeo-Christian tradition."

I hate hearing politicians talk about "fair go" and "mateship". I'm sorry, but what do these words actually mean? Can you define them? To me, they're just a politician's way of getting out of answering what being Australian really means.

Personally, I believe that "Australian" is defined by a lot of qualities we share in common with other countries. That is irrelevant. We cannot say "this quality is not 'Australian' because the Dutch have it as well." Our Australianess exists, regardless of other patriotic values.

Briefly, these include: democracy, parliament (Westminster style), freedom of religion/conversion, freedom of the press/speech, freedom of political beliefs, equality of the sexes, equality of all people from all ethnic groups, the freedom of religious and political groups to influence the State but not control it (and vice-versa!), etc. Also, personally, I accept that Australia does have a Judeo-Christian heritage, and I think it is important to understand (as we must know our past to know our future).

In regards to multiculturalism, in a sense its a balance. There are some things which are totally benign and not the subject of much debate: e.g. diversity in food, music, clothing, etc. Some Aussies may complain that more people are watching soccer than the cricket, but who cares? Its ultimately not a major thing.

There are some things which are very important: e.g. threats to the values I listed above. When a particular "culture" teaches that the basic rights and freedoms of all Australians should be supplanted (especially against their will) for its belief system, we must acknowledge that this culture is not compatible with Australian culture, and this is an example of where assimilation trumps over multiculturalism.

Australians have had three decades of being preached at by the Labor lefties, we must be tolerant, we must not be racist, we must accept immigrants who will make no attempt to accept Australian values, who will consider our lasses as 'cat's meat',who will show what Lebanese do to girls who do not sit in their room wearing a hijab.
Mr Gallop, when are you and your leftie buddies going to realise that you are disenfranchising the Australian people, that you and your buddies have marginalised us?
When are you going to realise that you have targetted the wrong people? That you have tribalised and divided a country that was not tribalised or divided?When do Australians get some of your precious tolerance?

"Australians have had three decades of being preached at by the Labor lefties, we must be tolerant, we must not be racist, we must accept immigrants who will make no attempt to accept Australian values, who will consider our lasses as 'cat's meat',who will show what Lebanese do to girls who do not sit in their room wearing a hijab."

What the hell are Australian values? I take offense at being told that to be considered a citizen of this country I must adopt some sort of unwritten value system and adhere to it or be considered an outsider. I'll value whatever the hell I want thank you very much, and I'm more than happy to let others do the same.

There are, however, LAWS that govern this country, that are designed to stop anti-social behaviour that threaten the peace and wellbeing of other 'citizens'. Everyone in this country, no matter race, religion or creed, is subject to those laws. As far as I'm concerned you can do whatever you like as long as you don't breach them. It is, after all, a free country. Is it not?

And it will keep going until we have a change of government

The Australian Peoples Party

www.tapp.org.au

members and candidates wanted

hey Stabinthedark.. that was no random 'stab' there mate... your post was 'SMACK ON' ..
Whenever "Labor" speaks about immigration, tolerance, multiculturalism they really mean VOTES.

TOLERANCE IS A DIRTY WORD... when it is not clothed in the neccessary proviso's such as 'we cannot tolerate intolerance' and we must apply this strict criteria to all creeds seeking to enter Australia.

If you consider that our Parliament opens up with the "Lords Prayer" and the "Lord" in question is none other than Jesus-The Messiah/Christ who is recognized as 'Son of God' by Christendom world wide, then..that the Quran actually and specifically CURSES Christians and Jews by name for this very belief,(Quran Chapter 9:30) and calls on Allah to DESTROY us, one could hardly suggest that such a creed is in any way compatable with Australian values or culture.

So, this is doctrinal aggravated INtolerance. i.e. it is not just a state of mind, it is a desire for the actual physical destruction of those holding Christian and Jewish beliefs.

The sooner this is realized the better.

HUMAN RIGHTS ? a primary human right must be to have freedom of choice of religion, EXCEPT when that religion denies such a choice to others by political structures and aggressive policing. (like Saudi Arabia)

Stabinthedark asks 'what the hell is Australian values?'.

Well according to Geoff Gallop, Australian values are the "values associated with democracy (equality and human rights) and the Australian tradition of a fair go".

According to the Macquarie dictionary a value is: the ideals, customs, institutions in which the people of a social group believe.

I would argue that multiculturalism is not an Australian value because it goes against the Australian value of equality. Certain Islamic peoples may not subscribe to the Australian value of equality for all women for example. The multiculturalist creed would demand that we 'tolerate' such inequality exclusively for those who adhere to the islamic faith. That, my friend, is not in tune with Australian values.

"I would argue that multiculturalism is not an Australian value because it goes against the Australian value of equality. Certain Islamic peoples may not subscribe to the Australian value of equality for all women for example."

Many 'white' peoples, born in Australia, a lot of them second and third and fourth generation Australians, don't subscribe to your 'Australian' value of equality for all women, either.

In fact a great deal don't in my experience, but maybe I've just been unfortunate enough to mix in less than desirable circles.

And yet no one seems to be singling them out? In fact, many of them would be considered the archetypal beer swilling, footy watching, pie eating, 'she'll be right' Australians. More than just simply 'tolerated', they're paraded as something to aspire to.

The idea that somehow we should all share a set of 'common' values that define us as Australians is a joke. We have laws that govern against the discrimination of women. Australians of a white European background or newly immigrated Muslims, everyone adheres to those laws, or you face the penalties. Outside of those laws you're more than free to value what you like, in whatever way you like.

I'd be more than interested to see a list of these Australian 'values' and how it came about, and who defined the terms. Sounds to me like a bunch of nationalistic crap that gets wheeled out everytime we need to define an 'us' and a 'them'.

I was going to enter this debate but so many people have the fundamentals so wrong I won't bother.

You should all go read the relevant pieces of legislation in regards to Multiculturalism and the statements on the topic from Immigration and Citizenship. They clearly state the policy. You'd all see how silly you are all carrying on.

Geoff, you included mate.

I was taken aback by one of your opening remarks.

'The solution advocated is either the strong assertion of secularism and the values associated with democracy and human rights, or the renewal of national identity, which in Australia's case is associated with a fair go, mateship and the Judeo-Christian tradition'

Our national identity owes far more the the Greek Traditions of the Western Liberal Democracies than it does to the mostly now rejected Hebrew traditions. It is remarkable today's scholars link the Jewish traditions to Christian traditions. The Christian traditions are rooted in the 'Sermon on the Mount' and Christ and the only link I find to the Hebrew bible in that sermon is the belief in the Ten Commandments.

Christian beliefs mostly reject the Hebrew traditions and even you'd have to agree the Hebrews showed they rejected christianity ... in a most empathic way.

Judeo-Christian traditions? The link is indeed very tenuous, just like a Labor admission to an historic commitment to the White Australia Policy, almost non - existent.

Keith, but surely you recognise the Hebrew Scriptures comprise 2/3s of the Christian Bible?

Stabin The Dark,
For our values, look back a couple of posts to that of YngNLuvnit.
He has listed some cocisely. Note, they don't have to be uniquely Aussie. I could not find anything to disagree with his post.

Australians know all about tolerance. We have been tolerant since the 70s, when MC was introduced. We tolerated our culture being pushed aside for a flawed ideal that rated original cultures ahead of national loyalty. An ideology, pushed by social engineers, that fostered seperate developement to a federation of ethnic cultures, not one cohesive community.

The cracks in that ideology started to show with the fighting between the serbs and the croats and hostilities between other ethnic groups. They are not tolerant! Then we have the Leb muslims who show no respect or tolerance to anyone but their own group. Now Leb gangs are fighting Asain school kids. Thats tolerance!

All this time Australians were being told the WE must br tolerant and thats the joke.

MC failed. It had to as it required not only tolerance but respect and understanding between all ethnic groups, and this was never going to happen dispite the millions of dollars of taxpayers money being poured into the "industry" of MC, for all its existance.

At last the Government and Opporsition have both recognized the failure and are abandonong it. Not before time.

For my money, immigrants can only be expected to leave behind any hatreds their culture carries, obey and respect our laws and social standards. Other than this they can live their lives how they wish.

And surely you realise the Christian churches focus pretty well exclusively on the New Testament in their formal teaching and liturgies. And it is highlighted in the practise of their Divine Liturgies.
I really don't know but, tell me, do the Hebrews include Christ's New Testament as passed on by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in their bible or liturgies?

I do know they do not even celebrate Divine Liturgy which of course is one of the common underlying tenets of all Christian communities.

Boazy: "hey Stabinthedark.. that was no random 'stab' there mate... your post was 'SMACK ON' .."

Erm, Boazy - did you actually read what StabInTheDark wrote? The bit you seem to have picked up on was actually a quote from mickijo, who seems to be one of your fellow Islamophobes.

What SITD said was:

"What the hell are Australian values? I take offense at being told that to be considered a citizen of this country I must adopt some sort of unwritten value system and adhere to it or be considered an outsider. I'll value whatever the hell I want thank you very much, and I'm more than happy to let others do the same.

There are, however, LAWS that govern this country, that are designed to stop anti-social behaviour that threaten the peace and wellbeing of other 'citizens'. Everyone in this country, no matter race, religion or creed, is subject to those laws. As far as I'm concerned you can do whatever you like as long as you don't breach them. It is, after all, a free country. Is it not?"

Now, these are sentiments with which I agree completely. Are you really sure that you do, Boazy?

If so - hallelujah! Boazy's seen the light, finally! :)

CJ. I've always agreed to those laws. No drama there.
My quarrel is with those who want to CHANGE those laws, or..circumvent them in the interests of their particular ethno/religious group.

"Todays Lesson".

Near me is a Petrol Station, and over the past few years I've come to be familiar with those behind the counter. Suddenly, I notice a change in ethnicity of them. There were less 'Aussies' (of the white variety) and more 'Indians'. So, my usual innocence assumed it was just the normal waxing and waning of people, with the indians coming in to gain experience so they can open their 7/11 or whatever. But no, what I found was that it was pure unadulterated racism and nepotism.

In short, the owners (Indian) always spoke their langauge rather than English in the presense of Aussie employees and brought more and more of 'their' people in to work.

This is the nature of a 'multi-cultural' approach as it is perceived by many migrants. Even THOUGH the 'Policy' (Keith) might not appear to allow or encourage such things, the REALITY is that this is the 'para message' sent by even the name of such a policy.

This is why it is crucial to remove 'multi' from any cultural policy and replace it with 'citizenship' where we can then focus on what it means to be a good citizen, such as SPEAKING THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE when ur quite capable of doing it, in the presense of those who represent that predominant culture.

If it is argued 'What predominant culture' ? then I suggest that is the que to ramp up the activism and rhetoric to 'extreme' :)

Now, I cannot end a post without a bit of a BB as u well know. The Christian principle involved here is 'do for others as you would have them do for you'... and this includes cultural manners and language.
I don't know many people who don't feel just a little bit uncomfortable being the ONLY person in a group who cannot understand what is being said. (in your own country of birth)

Just to clarify, I'm female :) (but thanks for your comments).

Keith,
The concept of "divine liturgies" may be relevant to some more formal churches, but I have not experienced them at my church. We have worship, prayer, Bible reading, and sermons, but they do not seem to follow a set structure (the "divine liturgy that is the common tenant underlying all Christian communities"). Sometimes the pastor will read from the Old Testament (not just the Commandments) and sometimes from the New Testament. In layman's terms, we "read the OT through the eyes of the NT" and there are some specific things we no longer take at face value. (E.g. We accept that a lot of the cultural practices of the Torah, like kosher food and animal sacrifice, are no longer literally relevant, but the principles, like taking care of your body in honour of God and the sacrifice of Christ, are). Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are part of the New Testament, not the Old Testament. The writers of most of the NT (if not all) were Hebrew/Jewish so I guess it depends on how you define "Hebrew Scriptures" but I know my Jewish friends accept the OT and not the NT.

YngNLuvnit,
Sorry I gave you the wrong gender. That won't happen again. Also apologise for the typo when referring to your 'concise' list of values.

I did find your post very good and I have printed it out for future reference, especially the values part.

keith

Some argue that the Sermon on the mount is a statement of Jewish values. To understand these you have to know something of the Talmud, which is the Jewish interpretation of the Books of Moses.

For example do unto others comes from Rabbi Hillel's summation of Jewish law - "Any thing that is hateful to you do not do unto others, that is the whole Law, the rest is all commentary." Love thy neighbour as thyself" comes from I think Deuteronomy and some have considered that the Lord's Prayer comes from the same book, give or take differences in translation and an added reference to Jesus.

Scholars both Christian and Jewish have argued for years whether there is any real difference between the two religions. The Latin Catholic Mass for example was an evolution from the synagogue service. I am surprised that you questioned the link between the two.

Please read "Judaism for Dummies", it is a good book, I read it myself.

Logic

It may well be the case 'The Sermon' does reflect Jewish values. Even if I have underestimated that particular content it does not alter my point as it still only reflects a fraction of the content of the Hebrew Bible. Our Western Society has been influenced far more by the Epistles of Christ than by the stories of the Hebrew Bible. As an example Genesis is largely out of vogue with a greater emphasis on evolution, the work of science which of course we developed from our Greek traditions.

Claiming a similarity between the Mass and any Jewish ritual is like comparing oranges with soccer balls because both are round. Is the Eucharist celebrated in the Synagogue? For that is the essence and the heart of the Mass. The form of the ritual is of minor importance for the following of Christ's instruction 'do this in memory of me' is the reason for the mass. In no way can there be any similarity in any Jewish ritual.

Of course Christ was Jewish and naturally the cultural norms of the Hebrews would form his view on many values and if one is honest one would probably agree those values are pretty well common with in most civilised and ordered societies. However the West was hugely influenced by Christ and to some degree by his Hebrew traditions. However we've been open to other influences notably the Greek traditions Which is the point I've always made. The West draws from two great traditions, the Herbrews and the Greeks. Which brings me back to emphasis put on this modern day claim of a Judeo-Christian heritage. Such a claim ignores the influence of claim the Greek traditions.

YngNLuvnIt,

Yes I reralise 2/3 of the Christian Bibles are largely from the Hebrew bible. However our Christian communities are refered to by themselves and universally as Christian, not Hebrew, for it is the almost exclusive emphasis on Christ which is relevant.

I have never taken a position to exclude our Hebrew traditions I only question the modern day attempt at over emphasis of the western attachment to the Hebrew traditions and the apparent exclusion of other more important traditions. Notably the Greek traditions.

On all other issues we agree.

keith

Actually you are quite right in emphasising the importance of the Greek tradition. The Jewish tradition has also been greatly influenced by the Greeks and no doubt some has gone the other way so perhaps we should talk about a Hebraic-Greko-Christian tradition. It is difficult perhaps to sort out which part was which in as much as Judaism in the time of Jesus was itself very much affected by Greko-Roman traditions.

I prefer to say Western traditions, it is simpler.

I was not aware of an overemphasis on the Hebraic tradition if so that is clearly wrong. Actually the modern Liberal Jewish and Liberal Christian views are now so close it is hard to tell them apart. That is a large number of modern Western Christians don't take the Eucharist any more seriously than most Jews do the Talmud.

Hopefully Islam will move in the same direction and our troubles will be largely over. We still have to find a decent way of life for the Palestinians which for many need not necessarily be in Israel, as long as they can live in guaranteed peace like the rest of us. I do believe that some sort of democracy is essential for all as it does provide checks against excesses.

Banjo:

“The cracks in that ideology started to show with the fighting between the serbs and the croats and hostilities between other ethnic groups. They are not tolerant! Then we have the Leb muslims who show no respect or tolerance to anyone but their own group. Now Leb gangs are fighting Asain school kids. Thats tolerance!”

Come on Banjo! If EVERYONE in this country were ‘white’ Australians there would still be gangs and they would still find reasons to fight each other. You only have to look at the war between this country’s ‘white’ bikie gangs to see that, and ‘white’ soccer hooligans in England who bash each other’s skulls because of a perceived ‘rivalry’ between teams. Yes race becomes an inflammatory issue, as does religion. But they’re biproducts of a bigger issue that we as a human race seem to have. That is a lack of tolerance and a constant need to define an enemy.

Further insulating ourselves by demanding those who wish to live in our country adopt some pre-defined notion of its culture does nothing to address this problem. The entire concept is ridiculous, because there IS no concrete set of value standards by which we all live. It is an individual and personal thing, and an ever-changing thing.

The problem isn’t cultural. It’s the fact that we as a human race keep defining separations amongst ourselves. Be they race, nation, religion or whatever. Until we address that by learning to accept and embrace other cultures as part of a wider world, there will always be fighting, hatred, and intolerance.

You’ve written off multiculturalism after what, 30 years? Undoing thousands of years of ingrained suspicions and separations amongst the human race will not happen in 30 years. It’s a slow process, but a necessary one in my opinion.

BOAZ_David,
It seems to me you have experienced and are protesting against bad manners and non-diversity in the workplace, two things that are not unique or endemic to any one culture or racial group. I'd suggest you raise your complaint to the management of the service station or a third party which deals in such matters.

Perhaps your petrol station employs Indians because they have a good work ethic and are willing to work the long and late hours that would be required for a job at a servo? Or perhaps it is a case of giving jobs to family members and friends, a practice that does not necessarily break down to racism but is common throughout our society and even within the "predominant" culture.

As for language, do you also object to the language of youth, which can become so colloquialised as to be unintelligible to the unlearned ear?

I have to support BOAZ

Just last month I was complaining to my wife that our local petrol station only employed Indians. This is located just off the SE in Toorak. For the last year I have seen nothing but Indians work there. A few weeks ago there was a sign "under new maangement" and now its back in Aussie hands.

The number of times I've seen immigrants only employing immigrants from there own country is too many to count. Most immigrants are far more racist than your average Australian. I used to believe in non racist policies, but for many years I've seen immigrants get away with being as racist as they want to.

Indians in my opinion are some of the most racist. I was once working in a hospital with an Indian doctor seeing poor patients, and his opinions were disgusting. He said that you can't turn a donkey into a racehorse whilst referring to some poor Australians.

Once I worked at a restaurant owned by Yugoslavians, I was doing work experience, and I was criticized because out of a staff of around 30 I was the only non Yugoslavian. The owner later killed his wife.

It seems to me there are continually policies designed to benefit small migrant groups at the expense of the majority of Australians. This include preferential entry to Uni courses for people with English as a second language, additional time for sitting exams etc, etc the list goes on. These are all examples of discrimination against white Australians.

The other days I sat a final exam in Medicine, after 3hours I had to put down my pen, whereas more than half the class who have english as a second language stay behind with extra time to do the same exam.
Even students with ESL get extra marks to get into Medicine courses at Uni ( which is never mentioned in Unversity entry guides).

Basically I'm sick of being discriminated against in my own country.

"It seems to me there are continually policies designed to benefit small migrant groups at the expense of the majority of Australians. This include preferential entry to Uni courses for people with English as a second language, additional time for sitting exams etc, etc the list goes on. These are all examples of discrimination against white Australians."

No that is an example of Universities prioritising international students because of the money they bring in. And it's an example of Universities being underfunded.

Stabinthedark

No these are NOT international students.
These are Australian students/citizens/residents from foreign backgrounds (ESL) that are given preferential treatment due to MC policies.

As an example I can tell you that ESL students used to get 0.5 added to the TER for entry into syd uni med school. Nowhere in the university guides was this mentioned. The only reason I found this out was because I made enquires to one of the professors in med as to why someone else ( Aus student with foreign background/ESL) with the same TER as me was given a place and I was not.
Under equal oppotunity laws in Australia it is perfectly legal to discriminate based on language. It is a way of discriminating against white Australians. It is illegal to discriminate on any other basis except language.

Stabin The Dark,
Cannot agree with you at all.

I think it only reasonable that we expect those that come to live in OUR country to respect and obey OUR laws and OUR social standards. It is, after all, OUR country and WE make the rules. If I go to another country I obey their rules or leave.

We have a problem with the anti social attitudes of Leb muslims. Just ask any female that has contact with them as part of their work.
The Lebs have no respect or tolerance for any but their own. Most teachers, nurses, shop assistants, police, ambulance, receptionists, and others will tell you Lebs are rude and offensive. How females are treated in Lebanon is one thing, but here everyone should get some courtasy and respect. Ask the girls that put up with harrassmnt on the street or, for years, at Cronulla beach what they think of Lebs. Or the anglo blokes that have been gang bashed.

It is cultural. The Lebanese muslims are brought up that way. Even 2nd and 3rd generations. We do not have the problems with non muslim Lebanese or with most muslims of other nationalities.

What about the riotous fighting between each other by the serbs and croats. It is cultural and has been going on for centuries. The young here might not know why they hate each other, but they do.

Like it or not, we all live by social standards, society would soon fall apart if we did not. Like driving on the roads without rules.

If we wish to live in a peacefull and cohesive society, then we should stop allowing Immigrants from those groups that flaunt our laws and social standards.

ozzie

Those with fewer English skills were given more time because it would take them longer to do the exam.

My own son, who is 3rd generation Ozz by the shortest route and has a convict ancestor, was allowed to use a computer in his VCE exam because of a physical difficulty with writing, he could have had extra time if that was required. These English language concessions would have been given to some aborigines if needed and they are more Ozz than you or me.

There is no conspiracy here. I hope that one day you will work for a period in a country with another language as I did, you will change your tune when you learn what is involved. And when you become a Doctor you will need to learn quick fast about the variations in human culture, think yourself lucky that you don't need the extra time.

Donnie, thanx

How many people who are not directly effected by this have the time and energy to suddenly unscramble the cultural egg ? I don't focus on individual incidents, my focus is on the policy which creates the mentality which nourishes this problem.
NO to MC
YES to Citizenship.

To the article for a moment. (2 quotes)

1/ "Multiculturalism was all about equal opportunity in a new country and about educating people to respect their neighbours."

PROBLEM: Arises when a new/migrant culture is in direct conflict with Australian culture. Who respects who ? Equal opportunity for employment where a person (say a Sikh or a strict Moslem male with a long beard) cannot be allowed to work with machinery where his beard or turban are safety issues (Postal delivery helmet (sikh)) and machinery with fast moving parts (Strict Moslem)

2/ "How did it happen that a creed that was consistent with and based on values associated with democracy and human rights came to be seen as their enemy?"

COMMENT: Very simply, when Australian culture is forced to compromise or give way to a minority/migrant culture, they ARE the enemy in cultural terms. Why ? because that is what 'enemies' and allies are all about. People invade to expand/extend their culture as well as rape and pillage. If anyone suggested that I should 'bow' to a Japanese Migrant simply because it is his culture, that person is MY ENEMY. Or.. that I should rub noses with a Maori for the same reasons.

Likewise, if I go to Japan or New Zealand and REFUSE to accomodate myself to their culture, I am THEIR enemy because it is my cultural arrogance and stubborn pride which causes me to behave that way.

EXCEPTION Yes.. I do claim one. Gestures are one thing, food is another. I have pleaded for understanding when offered a pigs head with bulging eyes. I explained that while I understand it is an honour, I just can't cope and asked forgiveness.

Cultural relativism, the philosophy that no culture is superior to another, is one of today's widely accepted doctrines. In the 21st century, to assert the superiority of Western civilisation over any other culture elicits accusations of euro-centricism, arrogance or even racism. 'All cultures are equal’ is a now a commonly-heard mantra. The manifestation of cultural relativism in social policy, multiculturalism, is ubiquitous. We are persistently exhorted to 'celebrate difference' and ethnic diversity in countless fields—politics, academia, museums, films, television and literature.

Government and academic documents paraphrase this dogma along the lines of : 'We want to see an Australia where there is increasing empowerment; where attitudes and biases that hinder the progress of individuals and groups are tackled; where cultural, racial, and social diversity are respected and celebrated’ If these words seem familiar, it is because you have most likely read them in similar form on countless occasions—at your local library, on local government leaflets, job applications—or heard them parroted by politicians over the last 40 years. Multiculturalism is one of the most resilient orthodoxies of our times.

It has also become one of the most contested issues of our times. Since its emergence as a doctrine of social policy in the 1960s, multiculturalism has had the capacity to arouse strong emotions from its apologists and detractors alike.

Its apologists contend that it is imperative that we should 'celebrate difference', that it is vital for the health and well-being of a liberal society to embrace a 'live-and-let-live' attitude that accepts and embraces the value of difference. Multiculturalism is perceived as the greatest safeguard against cultural conformity that leads to racism, fascism and totalitarianism. Thus, we are commanded never to be 'judgmental'. Judgmentalism is not only derided as oppressive and offensive; it is deemed to be philosophically untenable. Because all cultures have different standards, and no culture is superior or inferior to another, it is impossible to say what is truly right and what is wrong. (cont)-

- (cont)
Conversely, multiculturalism's critics have argued that it has been a malevolent force, that its promotion has been divisive. They maintain that state-sponsored multi-culturalism patronises ethnic minorities, that it has pitted ethnic groups against each other, that it has unfairly denigrated the culture of the indigenous population, and, ironically, actually served to exacerbate racism.

I believe we endure the poverty of multiculturalism and that state-sanctioned multi-culturalism has been counter-productive and worsened race relations; that cultural relativism, its philosophical parent, is self-contradictory: cultural relativism is an invention of the West, and thus it is self-invalidating.

Tolerance is something for which we should strive; the idea that minorities should not face unfair discrimination and that cultures and customs of different peoples should be tolerated, is a benign force. There is a difference between multiculturalism as a lived experience and multiculturalism as an enforced ideology. There is a difference between living alongside people who have different customs and outlooks, and the State encouraging us all to retain these differences, using its financial muscle to do so.

Cultural intercourse can be a healthy, fascinating and rewarding enterprise. Exploring and embracing other cultures are means of learning about our own culture's shortcomings—about what wisdom we can appropriate from 'the Other'. The study of difference, of contrasting languages, kinship structures, religions and ethnic arrangements has led us to a better understanding of the human condition in general.

no Banjo, I think StabInTheDark is absolutely correct.. unless u have an intimate understanding of the Lebanese community u can't go making assumptions based on what 'he' or 'she' said, show some perspective.

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are acutally rearranging their prejudices."
- William James (1842-1910)

“The Lebanese muslims are brought up that way. Even 2nd and 3rd generations. We do not have the problems with non muslim Lebanese or with most muslims of other nationalities.”

I’m sorry Banjo, but I have given two clear examples of non muslim Lebanese ‘gang’ related problems that are very real. You’re right, the problem IS cultural. But it’s not any one particular culture, it’s a culture of separation that the human race seems to face and harbour wherever they reside.

“If we wish to live in a peacefull and cohesive society, then we should stop allowing Immigrants from those groups that flaunt our laws and social standards.”

Like I’ve stated several times throughout this thread, we have laws in this country and anyone who doesn’t abide by them should – and will - face the penalties.

I have met several Lebanese men who treat women with respect and abide by this country’s laws. I have met many Australians of a white European background who do not. You may see the Lebanese community as a ‘problem’ because they are an easily identifiable group. I think the problem goes much deeper, and exists in all cultures and all societies.

Your solution adds to it.

Stabin The Dark,

So where are these Lebanese, that are not muslim, that are acting in an anti social manner? And what do they do that could be classed as anti social? I have only seen and heard good things about Lebanese that are non muslim.

"Good News Geoff" Gallop was a mediocre Premier. Sadly, his academic performance does not buck the trend.

Not once does this prolix article mention Australia's Western culture, history and heritage. Rather, Geoff treads down the same tired old road - the cult of the immigrant, the emphasis on separateness, vague values in place of common culture and the general "feel good factor" associated with mushy multiculturalism.

Piffle Geoff. Absolute piffle.

Caedmon said: "I believe we endure the poverty of multiculturalism and that state-sanctioned multi-culturalism has been counter-productive and worsened race relations; that cultural relativism, its philosophical parent, is self-contradictory: cultural relativism is an invention of the West, and thus it is self-invalidating."

Multiculturalism is particular to a Western urban environment and cannot survive as an ideology outside it. So although "mainstream" society may suscribe on face value to multiculturalism's cultural relativist philosophical underpinnings, multiculturalism also equips non-Western, non-egalitarian minority cultural groups with disproportionate power and influence, thereby allowing them to usurp the value system of the larger society.

Simply put, multiculturalism is cancerous, dividing a nation's cells until it ceases to support the living body of Western society (in this case, Australia).

To Keith,
You say no one here understands what Multiculturalism is, including Geoff Gallop, except for you. That’s great! I was hoping someone could explain to me. For a long time I’ve been puzzled about what it was.

You say we just have to read the legislation, which explains it. I hope this legislation wasn’t drafted by the same people which penned the Victorian Government’s race and religious vilification laws, which really left us all scratching our heads.

Mick V

I have often crossed swords with Keith but I think you have misunderstood his comments. He justs wants us to read the legislation first. His comments make a lot of sense to me.

Thanks, Logic.

I was just wondering if I needed to be a legal lawyer before I waded through the multiculturalism legislation. I was hoping Keith could perhaps give a quick overview here.

I am glad you thought Keith made sense. He seemed to spend most of his breath trying to draw a line between Christianity and Judaism. In this regard he didn't make a lot of sense. He needed to be reminded that Jesus was Jewish, so was his mum, so were his first disciples, so were most (if not all) the writers of the Bible, New Testament and Old.

Mick V

Your statement about being a legal lawyer was perhaps a Freudian slip. It would be perhaps a welcome change if lawyers were legal.

I was wondering about freedoms written in law as opposed to cultural freedom and why cultural freedom trumps the rights and freedoms written into law. The rights and freedoms written into law are for everyone equally regardless of culture. Cultural freedoms as exclusive to a select minority or majority depending on circumstance but, not to all under that law.