"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)-