xoddam, all laws are dictatorial. And multiculturalism as a method of governing is inhibiting us from dictating the law and enforcing the law on the basis that it is politically incorrect to do so. I am not against any particular culture. I'm against governing by culture. That is what MC has become. That you don't see that and want to refer to Dawkins for your inspiration is ok by me. All I ask is that you be honest enough to admit to your own religion of atheism or secularism in competition with the other religions. Having read Dawkins I found he can be as doctrinal and dogmatic as any religion for a person so against religion.
Do two extreme s make a moderate?
In the main religion in Australia is not authoritarian and children reading from the Bible or Tanakh or the Koran or the Bhagavadgiitaa, etc. are unlikely to become BRAINWASHED. But, and however much secular extremist attack religions, most religions will remain neutral and moderate in their expression, that some become defensive and politically entrenched can not necessarily be laid at the feet of religion. Atheist/secularist will have helped to create that environment.

aqvarivs: "In the main religion in Australia is not authoritarian and children reading from the Bible or Tanakh or the Koran or the Bhagavadgiitaa, etc. are unlikely to become BRAINWASHED"

I agree.

So what happened to your brain during your childhood, aqvarivs? Was it an environmental thing, or was it congenital?

"If you blokes can convince the Croats, Serbs, Lebanes Muslims and the Sunnis and Shia of that, we would be nearly there. Then there would be a chance for multiculturalism to work"
Posted by Banjo

Thanks for the advice Banjo --now how do you suggest i convince short sighted, narrow minded, ocker rednecks who post xenophobic crap here on OLO to be more MC?

aqvarivs, laws which protect individual liberty are not dictatorial. Atheism is one thing (an opinion, but by no means a religion); secularism quite another. Secularism is the liberal idea that government should keep out of matters of conscience. It was invented in Europe after various wars related to the Reformation, and has no relation to atheism. A secular polity is *necessary* to keep differences of opinion from tearing society apart.

I can't repeat these points often enough: In Australia, multiculturalism was the END of government "by culture". All it does is make people welcome.

From 1901 to 1966 Australia had a blatantly racist immigration policy and, until the 1970s, a draconian assimilationist system of "migrant assistance" which obliged non-British migrants to speak English, to live where they were told, and to identify as New Australians. Migrants and refugees are now accepted on their individual merits, not the merits of their race and culture.

From 1979 on, a few policies were adopted which attempted to address (in different terms) the decline in social capital which is -- as StevenLMeyer kept pointing out above -- a potential consequence of unplanned diversity. Services are delivered to migrants in languages they can speak. They are made welcome and free to live where they please. And our children are taught in schools to respect cultural differences.

Australian multicultural policy does *not* govern "by culture". There is not one law on the books, one regulation, or one educational resource that even *hints* that "culture" might take precedence over individual liberty and the rule of law.

Teaching children to respect other people's rights is a necessary part of a liberal education. There is a natural inclination to xenophobia, often reinforced by socialisation (especially the listening-to-talkback-radio kind of socialisation), which it is necessary to correct by inculcating respect for difference. It is hard to do that without actually showing examples, so liberal education teaches respect for actual existing cultures, particularly those vulnerable to racist attack and scapegoating.

That's it. Actual, existing multicultural policy goes no further. To decry imaginary ghettoes and policy straw-men proves nothing but ignorance.

Rainier,
In your quest to promote more mutual respect, the government could assist you by stopping the importation of those groups that have shown they won't integrate and will not abide by, or respect, our laws or social standards. This would leave only those already here or born here.

When you get the Croats and Serbs,Sunnis and Shia to respect each other and the Lebs to respect anyone at all, anything else like a few rednecks will be a piece of cake for you. The few that will be around by then won't be game to raise their flat little heads because of overwhelming public support for the new cohesive community you have created.

In fact you will have acheived Multiculturalism and integration at the same time.

Xoddam,

You are clearly under the mistaken belief that EVERYONE has a right to come and live in Australia.

You said “ until the 1970s, a draconian assimilationist system of "migrant assistance" which obliged non-British migrants to speak English, to live where they were told, and to identify as New Australians.”

Draconian? You must be joking.

Learning to speak the language, living where you are most needed and identifying yourself with the country you have just adopted as your new home, is just good manners. The onus is on the visitor to learn the language of the land, not the other way around. Speaking the language also helps bridge the cultural divide. How can that be a bad thing?

The very essence of the problem with multiculturalism is that it creates an ‘us and them‘ type situation.

You talk a great game about respect for other people’s cultures yet you happily overlook the lack of respect for OUR culture. What makes this so distasteful to many of us is that it comes from people we have welcomed into our country, affording them a second chance.

You said “I can't repeat these points often enough: In Australia, multiculturalism was the END of government "by culture". All it does is make people welcome”
You can say it all you want, it doesn’t make it true. Multiculturalism isn’t about making people feel welcome. People feel welcome when they are encouraged to be a part of their new society. Telling them that they don’t have to make any changes, (like learning English or associating with people outside their ethnic/religious group,) isn’t a great start.

You said “Migrants and refugees are now accepted on their individual merits, not the merits of their race and culture.”
Migrants should be chosen based upon the fact that they want to be Aussies, they would be a good fit with our community and they have some type of skills we need. Outside of this we should have temporary placement for refugees who are fleeing persecution. And thats it.