Dresdener: "And the vast majority of these new migrants don't have white faces."

And then s/he has the temerity to try and argue that multiculturalism, like racism "separates and defines groups of people in terms of skin colour"!

Multiculturalism celebrates diversity in culture, racism assigns essential characteristics according to skin colour. Guess which ideology is worried about migrants who "who don't have white faces"?

I have numerous problems with the Dems, but their approach to immigration and multiculturalism isn't one of them.

Liz,
It is true the Lyn Allision didn’t actually say that males should not be immigrants, but she doesn’t like the new immigration processes, and she did refer to these processes as being “very male”.

So following this line of thinking, then she obviously doesn’t like males, and can’t expect males to vote for her accordingly.

I hope that clears up the issue.

HRS

Now that post explained your thoughts better than the first.

However, it's still not fair to judge that Lyn Allison doesn't like males. When she spoke of a 'male' approach, it's another way of saying a paternalistic approach. And women are frequently the flame holders of male-defined values. And men often do not support the same values.

Surely you know that it's common terminology used by all political parties. Many male politicians use that terminology.

If you want to challenge negative portrayals of men in society, then if would be helpful to your cause not to do the following:

(1) Attacking females at every opportunity.
(2) Constructing a hidden anti-male agenda in every thread.
(3) Channeling every thread towards your own agenda, when it's not relevant to the thread.

Lyn,

On the GST, do you recall that one reason used to justify the Democrats' GST deal was that it would make more funds available for social welfare?

Since then the Howard Government has slashed spending on social welfare spend with its "Welfare to Servitude" laws, forcing into prostitution at least one disability pensioner in Kalgoorlie, who was interviewed on Radio National's "Street Stories" of 24 June http://www.abc.net.au/rn/streetstories/stories/2007/1954374.htm

If the Democrats had grasped then what every thinking compassionate Australian knew, that is that the Howard Government was dangerous, untrustworthy and driven by a hatred of Australia's workers and poor, then it would have honoured its commitment to the public to block the GST.

Do you recall the fact that tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars was spent on lying pro-GST propaganda in order to get the Howard Government back into office, and even at that it lost the popular vote on a two-party preferred basis 48.5% to 51.5% to Labor? So the excuse of Howard having a mandate for the GST is utter nonsense.

A chance to defeat the Howard Government in the Senate which would have ensured its subsequent defeat in 2001 was lost, and the Democrats, together with the rest of us, have reaped the terrible consequences.

I ask you again, in the light of this sorry experience, to respond to my post above at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6431#94957

(Also, apologies for a mistake at the start of that post.

It should have begun:

"If the election were between Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF ON THE ONE HAND and the Australian Labor Party on the other, ...")

---

Also I ask you as I have previously asked Senator Andrew Bartlett to comment on the question of population growth fueled by record high immigration now at a real, but unofficial annual rate of 300,000 according to Ross Gittins at: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/backscratching-at-a-national-level/2007/06/12/1181414298095.html

If the Democrats were to re-establish the policy they once had against the principle driver of Australia's environmental, economic and social problems, that is, population growth, and were to take a stand against Australia becoming a one-party dicatorship, they would gain my enthusiastic support.

Liz,
As a highly democratic teacher, I feel very privileged when you lecture me and tell me what to do and when to do it.

I regard this as being very paternalistic.

I’m sure Lyn Allison made some type of Freudian slip in her comment about males, but as a male I do feel insulted if a politician does not like something and refers to it as being “very male”.

I guess this would be the same for a female if a politician did not like something and referred to it as being “very female”.

I understand that the results of latest polls indicate that the Democrats are heading towards political oblivion in the next election. I don’t believe this would be healthy for a democracy as it brings us closer towards a 2 party political system.

So I’m sure that Lyn Allison will apologise to all males for her Freudian slip, so as to regain as many male votes as possible.

HRS

I did hear someone recently discussing a 'maternal' approach. It was something to do with Indigenous issues and the interference of some white women. It was used in a criticial way, and I understood the meaning behind it, without being offended or feeling it was an affront to all Australian women.