dnicholson,
I refer to the last 35 years of MC ideology. You must have been asleep or out of the country if you don't think MC has failed. It has divided the community along various ethnic lines, each competing for a portion of the millions that our governments have thrown at them. The policy specifically promoted the cultures of foreign countries to the detriment of our own culture. "Unity in diversity" has to be the biggest lie ever. Ask the Croats and Serbs about unity. Ask the Sunni and Shia Iraqis about unity. Ask the Leb muslims about unity with anybody at all. MC is totally dependant on all groups giving respect to all others and the wheels fall off when some do not have respect.

Like most MC advocates, you wear rose coloured glasses and only see the 'nice' things like dragon parades, beer festivals, folk dancing and children in costumes. You ignor the baggage that comes with some cultures.

Well the debate is over. You are too late. Both major parties agree that MC is out and integration is a better way to go. No one has claimed that integration is the opposite to MC, but the emphasis is on our community instead of the retaining of foreign cultures.

Don't you think that the 6o or so racially motivated gang rapes and the events leading up to and following Cronulla were a threat to our social cohesion. What about the ongoing hatreds between various ethnic groups, does that enhance social cohesion?

Banjo, you might then ask the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland about unity. They share virtually everything bar a belief in the sanctity of the virgin mary and their attachment to mother England, yet still can't get along. Cultural (and racial) homogeneity is no guarantee for unity either.

The Cronulla riots were certainly an ugly incident, but so were the of riots and protests at, say, the Melbourne G-20 summit. All sorts of things provoke criminal, anti-social, violent behaviour.

Further, explain to me exactly how you believe governments now push "integration" over "multiculturalism" and how that would have prevented the Cronulla riots?

As I said before, multi-culturalism is essentially the art of allowing people from different backgrounds to co-exist and integrate without having to completely "assimiliate" and leave behind *all* aspects of their culture that differentiate them from the customs of the prevailing society. Everywhere that I have lived has demonstrated that it is perfectly capable of operating successfully. I don't believe there's a simple, easy answer to explain incidents where that hasn't been the case, though no doubt the attitudes of the population at large are a factor. But I also accept that allowing too many individuals from a particular background to predominate an area is a recipe for unease - we have quotas on the total number of migrants that may enter Australia, so perhaps quotas on the total number that may move to particular suburbs would be worth considering.

dnicholson,
Issues about the pros and cons of MC have been debated many times on OLO.

You have certainly been out of touch if you are unaware that many months ago the announcement was made that MC was dropped in favour of 'integration' policy. I suppose it did not get a lot of media coverage because the Opposition leader concurred. I take it that you are aware that the major parties have a long standing agreement not to publicly debate immigration issues. Since then the Minister has further spoken about 'integration assessment' of potential immigrants.

I do not know exactly what made the Government decide to drop MC, but one can assume that events like the gang rapes, clashes between Iraqi Shia and Sunnis, Croats and Serbs were considered. Maybe the continued activities like arranged forced marriages, cock fighting played a role. FGM of aussie born girls is still being done dispite at least 14 years of educating the groups concerned. ASIO and AFP reports on ethnic crime is another possibility. But I think the crunch was the events leading up to and after the Cronulla day led the Government to beleive that our social cohesion was not what it should be.

The emphasis is now on our values and not on retaining foreign cultures. We are still stuck with those with alien cultural aspects, that are citizens, but from now on those persons with cultures that have not shown good prospects for integration will not be accepted for permanant residency visas.

In the longer term this will greatly improve social cohesion.

Wizofaus,

Yes, if fertility stays as it is (slightly below replacement) we might eventually need to take 80,000 migrants a year, which would be above zero net. However, according to a Ross Gittins column that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald a few months ago, the true immigration rate is running at about 300,000 a year. This is because a lot of migrants aren't included in the official statistics: refugees, even the ones we invite, New Zealanders, people who take out New Zealand citizenship to get to Australia, foreign students who complete approved courses, people on supposedly temporary visas that are routinely renewed, etc. The total plus the official migrants comes to about 300,000, according to Gittins.

According to Chapter 2 of the CSIRO report I linked to earlier, the age distribution is not a serious problem for Australia, with dependency ratios no worse than in the 1960s for even the lowest population scenario. A lot of European countries are doing very well by their people with the proportion of aged that we will be expecting. The government and media have beaten up aging for their own reasons, although it might be a real problem for places like South Korea, with a fertility rate of 1.3. It is 1.8 for Australia, and replacement is 2.1.

CJ Morgan,

So, what you would have me believe is that if an abusive troll, who is contributing nothing to the discussion other than personal attacks (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96360), were to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, fraud and having set up a number of other accounts, and I were to plead guilty as charged, regardless of what evidence has been presented, that the troll would immediately change his ways and begin to discuss the substance of my posts in a civil manner?

Please forgive my skepticism.

---

daggett wrote, "... there are plenty of members of the Greens who actively work against the stated goals of the Greens, in part, by smearing and otherwise disrupting others who do work for those goals"

CJ Morgan responded, "Yes, but they get weeded out eventually."

Are they now?

---

CJ Morgan wrote,"This thread's just about run its course anyway."

If you were more honest, you would have told us that you were running out of excuses not to debate the substantive points raised on this forum.

Now, run away and hide, and please don't come back.

=-=-=

Ginx wrote, "As to your fixation with getting answers to your questions ..."

Your prejudice against me has blinded you to the fact that it was not myself who first indignantly demanded answers to my questions.

"... I'm STILL waiting for ONE answer to ONE question."

Which one?

Ginx wrote, "You think I'm being sarcastic? Who are you??"

Already answered, I would have thought. Who's Ginx?

Ginx wrote, "Seriously; have you had some sort of a breakdown?"

No.

"... please explain?"

Sorry, but what is there to explain?

Reading these pages understands clearly that democracy is a very obstacle to Australian reality and Anglo-commonwealth determination.