Yvonne,
Thanks for your reply to my question and I do appreciate the lack of name calling that usually comes from pro MC advocates.

However you did not give anything specific. You say that cultural differences are now acceptable and MC aided this. Cultural differences have always been acceptable, otherwise we would not allow any migrants. What is not acceptable is Government promotion of foreign cultures and nationalities to our detriment. We are expected to adjust to other cultures, not the other way around.

We have never been MC. We are multi racial with people of many nationalities. India is MC, where they have different laws for different cultures. Since 1788 we have been Monocultural which stemed from British colonization. Our laws, customs and social structure, etc. all came from Britian. Certainly we have evolved since then to more suit our climate and with the influence of large numbers of migrants from other countries. But we are still basicly monocultural.

The grand ideology of MC was to be a federation of different cultures and nationalities, with 'Unity in Diversity'. This is the biggest furphy ever as many ethnic groups do not respect cultures of other groups, let alone respect our culture. They compete with each other for a slice of the government pie, to promote their own culture.

Some ethnic groups are actively hostile to others. Take the Serbs and Croats and the Greeks and Turks. The soccer people had to introduce wholesale club name changes to try to stop violence. The Leb Muslims are contemptous of us and all other ethnic groups. So much for 'unity' and the promotion of foreign cultures. Some still have hatefull attitudes of the original culture after two or more generations.

All Aussie citizens have always had equality, irrespective of whether they were born here or became citizens. MC had nothing to do with that.

Apart from some culinary aspects and arts and crafts, there has been little advantage of MC and the cost has been enomous, both monetary and socially.

I enjoy jocks, Banjo: “Cultural differences have always been acceptable, otherwise we would not allow any migrants”.

Need in slaves rules.

"I enjoy jocks, Banjo."

OLO's very own Borat strikes again.

Ten propositions about multiculturalism.

1. Multiculturalism and immigration are two different things; it is either intellectually sloppy or dishonest to elide and confuse them.

2. Multiculturalism is not a doctrine that simply ‘came along’ nor was it invented by people of ill-will; it is a product of democratically-elected governments of both persuasions responding to community debate about cohesion amid diversity.

3. Multiculturalism is not inflexibly fixed; it is a policy which democratically-elected governments can and do change from time to time.

4. ‘Australian culture’ and ‘national identity’ are not eternal products to be pickled and preserved, nor are they ‘under threat’; they are social constructs which intelligent Australians constantly negotiate, add to and progressively refine.

5. Multiculturalism does not threaten 'mainstream culture' which, by definition, is dominant anyway.

6. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ do not stifle rational debate; but the actualities of racism and xenophobia are dangerous.

7. Despite hysterical claims to the contrary, multiculturalism does not give approval to practices that are against the law; multiculturalism endorses the rule of law; if the law is broken the transgressor should be dealt with.

8. Mischievous or ignorant language like ‘multiculturalism is a means to political domination’, ‘the fires of multiculturalism’, ‘opening the floodgates’, etc is meaningless hyperbole.

9. Multiculturalism is not a law, not a power, not some magical weaponry; multiculturalism is an idea; and ideas can be debated, clarified and refined. Ideas do not harm people; only malevolent people harm people.

10. Multiculturalism is an important element of a democratic ethnically-diverse society; its objective is to encourage interaction rather than separatism, to be inclusive rather than exclusive, to promote participation not isolation.

Now no insults, no slander, no nutters. Just debate my ideas on their merits.

You can not have a nation built around competing cultures, races and religions, vying for recognition and social empowerment, and then use words like unifying and inclusive. Or be out among the various societies, thanks to multiculturalism, and not observe the social divide and local exclusionary practices. The political and social encouragement of ghettos, enclaves, cities sectioned by culture, race and or religion, and the victim mentality of social redress behind these descriptors. The battle for victim recognition and cultural development. Multiculturalism is not a unifying concept. It pits cultures, races and religions against each other for recognition and social power. It's a mad ricochet of me me me as 'who is the victim' is passed back and forth like a reward and a standard of achievement.

As I'd already mentioned, “multiculturalism” is de-facto a modern English word for umbrella covering traditional xenophobia and racism of dominating majority. It has not much in common with religious issues but just a shy attempt to alter, in case of Australia, Anglo-ego in accordance to worldwide mentoring on inter-tribes relations, proclaimed by this country .

Can one change imaginable by a decree? Saudi king had decade ago issued fatwa that the Earth rests on elephants -or on what-so-ever Koran mentions – and a planet is still orbiting Sun.

Let some better enjoy correcting my messages rather than attempting to change this orbit or global warming realities – playing English is much realistic job for them than self-esteem in own global possibilities if even exersising at a level of this UK-semi-colony.