Great article, but I am wondering why Mr Howard wants people born overseas to be more Australian yet won't make those people from the former British Isles learn to speak proper Australian.

The Scots,Irish and most places outside of London except the east end and cockneys are all unable to speak Australian ( don't start me on the NZ ) and yet we allow them to come here and live without becoming Australians or learning the language. These people refuse to become Australian, vote or serve in our armed forces and have created gheto's for their kind which are no go zones of Australians. The only difference between them and other refugees is that they have come here for economic reasons and not political. I think they should all be deported unless they become Australian and learn our language.

Re the last paragraph, what is somewhat ironic is that the Sudanese migrant community is for the most part Christian - certainly the dozen or so I know are all church-goers. Yet this community has failed the famous Andrews taste test. A good article, Kevin. I'm just waiting for that professional white lizz-the-yank to weigh in and tell us all why you are wrong!

Ummm Yindin....... you’re an idiot!!

Well at least Kevin Rennie has actually had some real experience with non-white immigrants, unlike most of lefties who applaud mass immigration from the safety of their white enclaves in the wealthy, inner suburbs. I applaud him for that, at least.

I have lived all over Sydney, the best parts near the beach and the worst parts of the southwest. My own impression is that our ``multicultural society'' does NOT work. In a city as geographically large as Sydney there isn't much obvious racial friction simply because of the fact that people of different cultures and races don't mix that much. Given the choice, most people, whatever their background, choose to associate with their own kind. The richer the area the more obvious it is. The Balmain basketweavers can sing the praises of "multiculturalism'' as much as they want but their actions speak louder than words and they have created one of the whitest enclaves in Sydney because that's the way they like it (they like the ethnic restaurants, just not the ethnics).

If we were all crowded in together like they are in London, the Cronulla riots would be an annual event.

The most "multicultural" areas of Sydney are the most unattractive, crime-ridden and socially dysfunctional. The best places are the most homogenous. That's really all you need to know when evaluating the legacy of this failed social experiment.

Thank you Kevin-

you are so right -that Howard and his cronies just " don't get it".

Kevin Andrews- is lead by John Howard and Howard is the LEADER whose record is clearly and righteously xenophobic -

John Howard as everyone knows is small-minded and excruciatingly ignorant-he approves Andrews stance and probably doesn't understand what the problem is -just doesn't get it.

The Cronulla riot was set up and fuelled by fabulous Alan Jones etc and one eyed attitudes such as your own- you just don't get it

grn, hurling abuse at people who, you anticipate, may disagree with you is hardly a useful contribution to this important discussion. Moreover, it won't deter people putting another side of the argument.

So, here's my disagreement. Your "own impression" that our multicultural society doesn't "work" because in Sydney "there isn't much obvious racial friction" seems like a contradiction. That Sydney can be so diverse and yet have so little racial friction seems to be an indicator of a successful multicultural society.

Your explanation is a different one: you claim that it's due to "the fact (sic) that people of different cultures and races don't mix that much".

The fact is that your "fact" is wrong. Multiculturalism encourages diverse people to mix, but not surprisingly it takes time. ABS official data that show that at least two-thirds of all second generation Australians marry outside their ethnic grouping.

While it is too early to collect data on the rates of intermarriage of recently arrived ethnic groups, the data show that where there is a third generation from Lebanese, Chinese and Indian origin, they have an intermarriage rate of above 70 per cent (Siew-Ean Khoo, "People & Places", Vol. 12, No. 2). An awful lot of mixing must be going on beyond your field of vision.

Your claim that the most "multicultural" areas of Sydney are "the most unattractive, crime-ridden and socially dysfunctional" while the "best places are the most homogenous" is snobbish and superficial. You would need to look at why recent arrivals settle first in which areas and who is involved in crime or social dysfunction.

So, I'm afraid that your conclusion: "That's really all you need to know when evaluating the legacy of this failed social experiment" would not earn a pass on a Year 12 exam.

Grn, as a non-Sydneysider I can only take your word for it regarding the situation there, but the situation is markedly different in Melbourne. Certainly the North-Eastern area where I lived is marked by both relative affluence *and* a distinct variety of ethnicity. Ironically, it is the area represented by Mr Andrews federally! Yet I've never noticed the slightest racial tension in the area.

FrankGol, you are being utterly misleading in your selective quoting of ABS stats.

Go to the link below and read section and table 4.3, "Intermarriage with persons of Australian ancestry". As you can see, the ABS sees this as an "indicator of the social interaction
between the ethnic community and mainstream Australian society." The percentage of non-white spouses citing a partner with Australian ancestry is extremely low, low single digits mostly. Even after the third generation.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/3382D783B76B605BCA256E91007AB88E/$File/20540_2001.pdf

The supposed success of multiculturalism is the Great Lie of our generation, sustained because some people want it to be true, not because it is. Our future is more ethnic segregation, not less. Just look at many US inner cities and the north of England to see where our future lies.

Australia today is no longer simply an "Anglo-Saxon" country.

I wonder how many people know for example that more than 80% of teachers in Australia are of Anglo-Australian origin? This can impose quite a burden, when their training has not been adequate to prepare them for classrooms containing children up to 100% non-Anglo Saxon.
Sadly of the thousands of teachers in Australia only 10% have undertaken language and cultural courses to equip them to handle multi-cultural classes. So, despite educational policy statements at both national and state level, the evidence is that many schools and teachers still believe that their major task is to assist 'migrant'
children to 'assimilate' swiftly into the Australian way of life.
My Howard and Mr Andrews are not the only ones who strongly feel that
"God is Anglo-Saxon" so everyone should recognise it and conform.

We have to have a new impetus in the sphere of formal education as well as community education programmes to introduce Australians to the many different communities that make up this country today.

By the way, facts such as the European settlement of this country should also be taught, as opposed to the myth of "Anglo" early settlement. How many people know that the First Fleet, arriving on January 26th, 1788, was commanded by an Anglo-German, who was to become Australia's first Governor, Arthur Phillip, R.N., who also held a commission in the Portugese Navy. The soldiers under his command included a detachment of Germans, the sailors manning the Fleet came from every continent, and the convicts, while overwhelmingly English, included a number of West Indians, Irishmen, Italians, and Jews. That the immigrants for the next 200 years came from half the world.

In this century it should be the right of ALL Australians to use their language and enjoy their culture and heritage. The Prime Minister and the Immigration Minister, as well as the Institutions of any nation should serve all of its people, instead of serving only one section, as has been the case in the past...

Actually grn, I don't think I've meant anyone who explicitly "wants" multiculturalism to work. But I see it working around me all the time. If it can work here, why can't it work everywhere?
And of course multiculturalism means a certain amount of ethnic segregation - how could it be otherwise? Obviously the ideal is for it to become less entrenched and more spontaneous and voluntary with time, but that's largely what tends to happen with each new wave of migrants.

The main thrust of the pro-multicultural stance appears to downplay the significance of Australia's British heritage. Australia will always have an overwhelming influence from British culture, especially since all the minority groups are to small to be sustainable. A speaker of Sinhalese will only have a few thousand fellow speakers in this country for example. So in light of this, it seems appropriate that teachers can prepare NESB students to survive in a predominately Anglo culture.

The neo-colonial dogma of multiculturalism does not seem to want to disappear. They say multiculturalism is successful. Since it is so high maintainence, this stance is questionable. But at least it has the backing of the establishment, keen to convert Australia into the teeming masses of potential consumers from who cares what nationality.

Grn

You accuse me of being “utterly misleading” in my quoting of ABS stats.

I went to the ABS link that you nominated where, as you advised, I studied Section and Table 4.3.

“The percentage of non-white spouses citing a partner with Australian ancestry is extremely low, low single digits mostly,” you claim. “Even after the third generation.”

Misleading indeed! Table 4.3 deals with 1st and 2nd generation intermarriage only. Where do you get the 3rd generation figures from? They are not provided there.

What the author actually says in Section 4.3 (note: same author as I originally quoted) was that: “However, among ancestries of all groups, there is a clear trend of increasing likelihood of intermarriage from the first to the second generation and from the second to the third and later generations.”

To give you the benefit of the doubt for an honest mistake, you have misread Table 4.2 which shows intermarriage with a spouse of AUSTRALIAN ANCESTRY ONLY – it does not show intermarriage with a person of another ancestry. This is NOT the same as saying, as you do, that the ethnic groups do not mix.

Now, go back to the same author's Monash paper (People & Places) and you will see what a difference it makes when you look at intermarriage broadly (not just what you call ‘non-whites’ marrying people of Australian ancestry - your ‘whites’?)

Her conclusion is that the data is crystal clear:

“Not many Asians or Middle Eastern ancestry groups had a third generation in 2001. Of those that did – the Chinese, Indians and Lebanese – 70 per cent or more had married outside their ancestry group.”

So, all in all, when you claim: "The supposed success of multiculturalism is the Great Lie of our generation, sustained because some people want it to be true, not because it is. Our future is more ethnic segregation, not less", I'm afraid the reality of inter-ethnic mixing as evidenced by intermarriage in Australia rather spoils your personal Great Lie theory even if you are sustained by what you want to be true.

This bloke Rennie is either deluded or just plain DANGEROUS.

Let's analyse a sentence of his- Referring to English language learning centres for migrants:

"It wasn’t utopia. There were gangs and violence, sometimes ethnically based but not always. There was rivalry between groups and lots of problems associated with adjusting to a new country. But these young people embraced Australia without having to lose their roots, language and culture. We were all richer for it."

Does anyone besides me see it :

1/ No Utopia.
2/ Gangs and Violence.
3/ Rivalry between groups/gangs.
4/ Lots of problems adjusting.
5/ DID NOT LOSE THEIR ROOTS... language or culture.

Now...for the absolute nut case conclusion-

6/ "We are richer for it"?

How in the heck.. does 'gangs/violence/rivalry/maladjustment and clinging to non Australian roots' make us "richer" ?

It is those VERY ROOTS and LANGUAGE and CULTURE which caused the 'gangs, violence and rivalry' it did not just appear out of thin air..it has a (now follow Pericles finger) CONTEXT.

IF..... Rennie had said "as their connection to their roots faded, and they saw themselves more as 'Australians' than Bosnians, Islanders, Vietnamese...etc " then..his conclusion "We are richer" would logically have followed.

But he didn't..and we aren't.

FRANK......thanx for supporting my 'mantra' :)

ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE, ONE RACE..... with your observation as follows:

“Not many Asians or Middle Eastern ancestry groups had a third generation in 2001. Of those that did – the Chinese, Indians and Lebanese – 70 per cent or more had married outside their ancestry group.”

Which is exactly what I mean... as intermarriage occurs, the sense of 'us/them' dissappears...and we see ourselves as 'Australians' first and foremost.

The best thing we can do is facilitate this and promote it.. with education and policy.

Dear Davo,

Australia is no longer predominantly an Anglo country. The population of Australia is made up of over 140 ethnic backgrounds, speaking over 90 languages, in their homes, and practising more than 80 religions.
To-day over 700,000 Australian children have a first language that is not English.

And yet how can we combat racial prejudice and banish it from the Australian scene? The Australian School - it is the key to national reform in this area. The term "Migrant" or nowadays more fashionably "ethnic" are divisive terms, and merely euphemisms for "Non-Anglo-Saxon." These terms generate a backlash against special programmes which are seen to benefit only a minority section, as against the so called "Mainstream" in our community.

The debates about ethnic radio, multicultural television, and the whole sphere of multicultural services in Australia, totally obscure the point that they are designed to serve - Australian workers, Australian taxpayers, and in the main, Australian Citizens.

It's not a matter of applying funds or facilities sectionally; it's a matter of reforming the facilities to cater for the whole population, instead of as has been the case in the past, only the Anglo-Saxon section of it...

My comments about problems such as gangs and violence were about the schools and their communities not the language centres many of the students had attended when they first arrived. If I gave the impression that there were more problems than in other more homogeneous schools it was not intentional. Fights were a rarity. It is my remarks which are being taken out of context in some of the comments.

For a more recent perspective I suggest watching the repeat of tonight's SBS Insight program on Friday afternoon that looks at the current situation in Noble Park. It is not a rose-coloured discussion nor was my article meant to gloss over the issues.

Nice article, Kevin Rennie/top ender (?). I see it's brought out some of the usual suspects - who display their intransigent xenophobia and tenuous comprehension of Australian society yet again.

I have no idea what Yindin was getting at, but grn's flawed evaluation of what s/he claims is "the legacy of this failed social experiment" has been more than adequately disposed of by FrankGol.

Davo doesn't seem to realise that the ascendancy of "Australia's British heritage" is well and truly relegated to history in contemporary Australia, despite the fantasies of some who'd like to turn back the clock about 70 years. I'd like to know what he means by "the neo-colonial dogma of multiculturalism" - what "dogma" is this and who espouses it? Why is a multicultural immigration policy "neocolonial"? I think we may have another Year 12 failure, Frank :)

Boazy: "This bloke Rennie is either deluded or just plain DANGEROUS".

Boazy's certainly deluded, but he'd only be dangerous if anybody took him seriously. Rennie was clearly talking about his "experiences during the 80’s and 90’s teaching with high Non-English-Speaking-background (NESB) and English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) student populations in Melbourne secondary schools". Show me a high school anywhere that doesn't have its "gang" rivalries and occasional violence.

Boazy needs to calm down and take his medication, or perhaps have a quiet few moments with his imaginary friend.

Also Boazy, if that's what you really mean by your "mantra", why do you persist in expressing it in such a Nazi-like way? All that slogan's going to do is attract the Stormfront crew and alienate the vast majority of people who aren't white supremacists.

So all gangs in this country come from immigrants and non-anglo racial groups? Imagine that!

Since mu gets it, let's have more Muslims here to liven things up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEeRY_07EzY

Just a little perception adjustment, if I may.

>>If we were all crowded in together like they are in London, the Cronulla riots would be an annual event.<<

I take it from this, grn, that you expect London to be a seething mass of perpetual rioting? Think again.

Yes, it is crowded. And yes, there have been, and will continue to be, outbreaks of dissent, frustration and violence on London streets. But they are far fewer than you seem to imagine, and tend to die down fairly quickly. They are a feature of inner-city living.

Notting Hill was famous for its riot back in the late fifties.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/nottinghillcarnival2002/story/0,12331,780023,00.html

It is now most notable for being the home of upwardly-mobile Tories.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4314926.stm

Brixton was a classic example in the early eighties.

http://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/riot1.html

Look at it now, through the eyes of a travel journalist:

http://www.victorborg.com/html/bohemian_brixton.html

Brick Lane used to be a byword for inner-city poverty. I used to drive past it on my way to work, thirty years ago, and can testify to its squalor. Here it is today:

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10024877

It's worth extracting a couple of phrases from the Economist article:

"Brick Lane itself is a monument to multicultural tolerance of the most photogenic sort: Bengali curry houses compete with beigel bakeries; a Church of England school sits opposite the Bangla City supermarket, where restaurateurs heave away jumbo frozen fish. Up the road, snowboard shops and art galleries announce the invasion of cool-seeking yuppies."

And:

"The Jamme mosque on the corner of Fournier Street and Brick Lane is a symbol of the area's history as an immigrant launch-pad. Before 1976 it was a synagogue; before that a Methodist chapel; and earlier still a church for French Huguenots."

To misquote Mick Dundee, "That's not multiculturalism. THAT's multiculturalism".

It's perfectly fine to be against multicuturalism, that's your choice. But it doesn't bring with it all the ills of the world, as you like to suggest.

Pericles, that's cheating though, you're talking about Indians, and everybody knows they have high IQs, therefore of course they do well.

And if you agree this is a silly conclusion, go and tell redneck that in the "Privileged whites" thread.

BTW, not 100% relevant, but an equally interesting Economist article on racial differences in Britain is here: http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8089315. Unfortunately it's been recently changed to subscriber-only content, but it essentially shows that not only has recent focus on assisting struggling cultural groups been successful, it's actually left the "whites" behind.

By Michael Jonas | August 5, 2007

IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to race-based admissions to schools, and it poses challenges to advocates on all sides of the issues. The study is already being cited by some conservatives as proof of the harm large-scale immigration causes to the nation's social fabric. But with demographic trends already pushing the nation inexorably toward greater diversity, the real question may yet lie ahead: how to handle the unsettling social changes that Putnam's research predicts.

"We can't ignore the findings," says Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. "The big question we have to ask ourselves is, what do we do about it; what are the next steps?"

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/rambr

So you can believe the ramblings of a silly old fool like Peter Gibilisco or read the rest of this study and be enlightened by the truth.

There is plethora of evidence that shows MC destorys the fabric of society!!

EasyTimes, America is not Australia, and America has never been all that great at multiculturalism.

Your link doesn't work, BTW, looks like it's truncated.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

Sorry the above one should work!

Well dnicholson you could blame the main stream America for being “not good at it” or you could use the far more logical argument that actually says mc does destroy Australia’s social capital!

We are having this thing lumped upon us like a cross to bare and to be honest the main stream does not want nor need it.

Peter Tang etc -

you derive wisdom from CNN -??

Check report of John Howard & Co. associations with EXclusive Brethren - & Co

"The Catch The Fire ministries sparked a row with the Islamic Council of Victoria in 2002 when it claimed in a newsletter that Muslims were demons training to make Australia an Islamic state, that the Koran promoted violence and that Muslims derived money from drug dealing...." LINK with

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22546811-662,00.html?source=cmailer

Jews were demonized - Hitler was widely revered. Most people like you thought the Jews were a problem. Hitler delivered propaganda plenty - and people bought it - ITS a TRAP

Oh but then the holocaust didn't even happen - silly jews

ARE YOU RUN BY YOUR FEARS ?? Who are the terrorists really ?? They could be people who are fatally pissed at extremely bad attitudes (not to mention outrageously insulting and dehumanizing stereotypes) WE are required TO REACH UNDERSTANDING through dialogue not judgement and blame and acts of terror- with so much demonizing and ugly blame
how would U expect self respecting people to defer to such superior ignorant mainstream attitudes

I'll invite any Muslim to come over - to dinner too - so now will I be reported as suspect and conspirator...

Howard sold alert fridge messages and you may even have used your fridge magnet..
Multiculturalism is NATURAL inevitable human evolution. You don't deal with the difficulties and change by demonizing groups of people. yes we are all human but ... some are more human than others...

When the likes of the old toad Alan Jones are rewarded for spewing forth pearls of racism we can admit its mass scale stupidity that buys his bile.

The old criticism on CNN about Islam being evil patriarchy -and subjecting women to honour killings- is coming from a society where the sexism may not come in scarves and honour killings but it DOES come in many forms that are sick and oppressive. I'll give you plenty of research.

EasyTimes or Michael Jonas

You assert that “…a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded…that…in the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings.”

From this you declare that there is a “plethora of evidence” that multiculturalism “destroys the fabric of society”.

Oh dear! I hope you’ve got some of that “plethora” at hand because the “massive new study” shows nothing of the sort.

Robert Putman’s latest study extends his earlier work, published as “Bowling Alone”. His main thesis was that the US had experienced a major collapse in civic, social, and political life since the 1960s. Putman’s major empirical evidence came from his finding that participation in bowling clubs in the US had declined.

Note: according to Putman this collapse started in the 1960s – well before multiculturalism was ever discussed as social policy in the US, or in Australia. What Putman identified was change rather than decline. These changes had little or nothing to do with immigration or ethnic diversity. Changes include:

(a) Changes in family structure with more people living alone or in smaller families and single and childless people - less likely to engage in communal events.

(b) Suburban sprawl requiring people to travel much further to work, shops and leisure opportunities. As a result they have less time and opportunity to become involved in community groups.

(c) Electronic entertainment, e.g. TV and computers, has privatised leisure time. The time spent on these reduces the involvement in groups and social activities.

(d) Casualisation and fragmentation of the work force with increasing numbers of women returning to work after giving birth.

Now multiculturalism doesn’t cause people to sit in front of TVs and computers or to have smaller families and later or to live in the outer suburbs. The causal association between the changes Putman observes and cultural diversity is tenuous in the extreme. The apparent reduction in trust and isolation is just the latest bandwagon jumped on by those opposed to multiculturalism.

Frank, good point re the historical trend, but Putman has been quite specific in admitting that "social capital" has not only diminished over time, but is also notably lower in more diverse communities. But he certainly doesn't conclude that this is a necessary state of affairs, pointing to cases where this doesn't hold, and suggesting possible solutions (which sound mostly like the sort of things we take for granted here).

However, in one sense, it's not an entirely surprising conclusion - the more diverse communities would presumably tend to be the ones that have experienced more recent immigration, and it would folly to deny that it does take some amount of time for ethnic/cultural barriers to be lowered. But to take the conclusion from this article, which is essentially that ethnic diversity has led to some negative consequences in the US, and extend it to suggest that multiculturalism by its vary nature "destroys the fabric of society" is completely unjustified.

Frank Gol, Putnam said people in more diverse communities tend to hunker down like turtles more than homogenous commnunities. People in ethnically diverse communities are less likely than people in homogenous communties to participate in and be trusting of the wider community. Therefore ethnically diverse commmmunities are not really that great. As we all know except capitalists, academics, socialists need i GO ON.

Davo

You say: "People in ethnically diverse communities are less likely than people in homogenous communties to participate in and be trusting of the wider community. Therefore ethnically diverse commmmunities are not really that great. As we all know except capitalists, academics, socialists need i GO ON"

Well, frankly, yes, you do need to go on.

How does any of this relate to the claim that multiculturalism "destroys the fabric of society?"

Can you tease out for us the causal links between diverse rates of communal behaviour and social policy? What's the logic behind your use of the word 'therefore' in the above quotation? That is, how do you justify turning an empirical statement ("...are less likely...) into a value statement ("are not really that great")?

mu : "The Cronulla riot was set up and fuelled by fabulous Alan Jones..."

Must as well attribute the rising of the sun to the cock's crowing.

FRANKGOL.....

you are frustratingly thick sometimes mate... truly.

You said:

Can you tease out for us the causal links between diverse rates of communal behaviour and social policy? What's the logic behind your use of the word 'therefore' in the above quotation? That is, how do you justify turning an empirical statement ("...are less likely...) into a value statement ("are not really that great")?

1/ CAUSAL LINKS. should not be connected to 'social policy' but 'social outcomes'....
The causal link is between 'ethnic diversity and ethnic rivalry'....it is self evident in the same way the 2 competing footy teams both seek to win...How come this is obscure to you ?

2/ EMPIRICAL -> VALUE

Again.. this is so simple..I'm surprised you mention it. (because to do so is a bit of an admission of 'thickness' :)

Follow Pericles FINGER....

a) "Less likely to" (Integrate, adjust,join in with, participate in, share values of, work together with)

b) "Not all that good"

Now.."B" is the direct consequence of "A"... As clearly as day following night.

The only way I can understand you not 'getting' this is either:

1/ Dogma.
2/ Thickness.

You seem to 'get' it in your piece about mixed spouses for 3rd gen migrants....but then.. suddenly you slip into some wierd mode of denial......

"He's a walking contradiction..partly fact and partly fiction" as the song goes :)

I have a feeling we have a communication breakdown. You are often claiming "If we really knew what MC is all about" we would not oppose it.
But I suggest, "If you appreciated WHAT we oppose.. you would disagree less with us"

It seems that "what" we oppose, is not what you see MC to be...hence the problem.

Another classic, Boaz.

This time from your "if I use enough words it will look as though I'm saying something" catalogue.

>>The causal link is between 'ethnic diversity and ethnic rivalry'....it is self evident in the same way the 2 competing footy teams both seek to win...<<

So we can assume from this - since it is a causal link - if there are, say, half a dozen Greek footballers in each of the the teams that are playing each other, they will join together to beat the non-Greeks?

There is no reason why different ethnicities shouldn't work together rather than compete - in fact, it happens every day. Just look around you.

One of the factors that is excluded from the equation is time. Yet even Boaz, with his famous coffee-coloured melting-pot concept of integration, would have to acknowledge that before you reach coffee-coloured, you need to move through the black-and-white stage.

The problem here is that when you take a snapshot, everything is trapped in a time-bubble. The photograph cannot tell you what went before, or what will come later. In the same way that an opinion poll taken three years before an election will not tell you what will happen three years into the future, a survey conducted in a particular year will only record views that existed at that moment.

The Putnam piece is interesting, and does clearly show that there is a greater level of interpersonal discomfort in areas where different ethnic backgrounds live side by side. But what it cannot show - because it was a once-off exercise - is whether these relationships improve with time, or decay further.

It would be more useful, I suspect, to see a "five-years-on" survey conducted with the exact same population - and I mean the same individuals - to measure their discomfort levels and compare.

In my experience, familiarity causes these fears to disappear over time, and for the individuals to live more comfortably with each other's differences, rather than insist that everyone conforms to some arbitrary norm.

Well said Pericles! Time will take care of things - at least for those of us - who are willing to put the 'fair go' into practice, and not merely mouth the words.

FrankG,

yes, that was a typo. I meant table 4.2, not 4.3.

4.2 clearly shows the level of intermarriage with mainstream Australia is extremely low.

Take the Greeks. This group is often touted as an example of how well an ethnic group can assimilate. But look at the stats: even in the third generation, only 14 per cent of Greek men and 11 per cent of woman marry people with Australian ancestry.

You on the other hand, are pinning your argument on stats that merely show higher intermarriage rates among immigrants only. So what?

grn,

Apart from your ‘typo’, you are quite wrong about the ABS intermarriage statistics.

You say Table 4.2 “clearly shows the level of intermarriage with mainstream Australia is extremely low”. It does nothing of the sort.

You suggested we take the ‘Greeks’ because they are “often touted as an example of how well an ethnic group can assimilate”.

So you find that “ even in the third generation, only 14 per cent of Greek men and 11 per cent of woman marry people with Australian ancestry”.

You fail to understand one crucial factor (discussed at length in your ABS reference). “Australian ancestry” does not include people from British ancestry. Millions of Australians fill out their census form with English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh as their ancestry because that’s how they define it.

Only 36% of Australians gave ‘Australian’ as their ancestry. Several millions more referred to themselves as of British ancestry even if their families had been here for generations.

If you use this very restricted definition, you find a remarkable fact: Couples where both spouses are of ‘Australian ancestry’ make up only 17% of all couples in Australia.

But if you take Greeks with a spouse of Australian or Anglo-Celtic ancestry the figures are:

2nd Generation – Males 26% Females 19%
3rd Generation – Males 62% Females 56% (People & Places p39)

So I am not, as you claim, pinning my argument “on stats that merely show higher intermarriage rates among immigrants only”. So what, you asked me, anyway? Well, it was you who claimed that in Sydney “there isn't much obvious racial friction simply because of the fact that people of different cultures and races don't mix that much”.

Table 4.1 clearly knocks your theory for six:

It shows that 42% of 2nd Generation Greeks Males and 35% of Females have a spouse of non-Greek ancestry and for the 3rd Generation, it’s Males 74% Females 68%.

Looks like mixing to me.

Frankgol – What are you talking about?

The article was comparing different groups in the community on how they interact. The trends you are talking about are universal trends the ones I was talking about a distinct in more multicultural areas.

The article states that people in multicultural areas are less likely to interact, give to a charity, volunteer etc then those who live in more harmonious parts of society.

Not only that but the author of the research was a champion of multiculturalism and spent a number of years checking his sums to make sure he got it right seeing that the findings where a contradiction to his views.

All MC does is create divisions where there were none before.

MC is a one way street immigrants demand respect for there culture while demanding equal and fair access to Australian institutions which are completely non exist in many of the cultures they are so vigorously defending.

Pericles – I doubt the survey results will change with in 5 years because of all the mores and dogma’s the new and the old groups have.

People are different and just like groups of friends form around traits they have in common so do communities.

MC is an obvious win lose situation. The winners are those moving to the new country due to the fact that they would not be moving across the world if they did not have a lot to gain. The losers are those who are part of the society which forms the backbone of the country. They will have there communities broken down and generally have their national pride defunked.

MC is sadly cannibalising the Australian culture I love!

Dear ET,

MC is the Australian Culture that you love so much - only you can't
accept it. Well just like the dinosaurs - your way of thinking will eventually become extinct ...

BOAZ_David

Philip Tang gave us a short answer to the question about moving from empirical data to causal conclusion, “Must as well attribute the rising of the sun to the cock's crowing”.

Davo and EasyTimes opened the false trail and you followed them blindly.

In logic it’s called the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy – E came after A so must have caused A. Trouble is B, C, and D also followed A and any one of them or some combination of them (including A) – or something else - may be the cause.

Putman argues that Americans have reduced social participation levels and this is sometimes more noticeable in some minority groups. Some have concluded from those ‘facts’ that immigration and multiculturalism are the cause of the problem.

In reality, it’s possible that the causal arrow goes the other way – that reduced participation is the product of lack of multicultural practices. The other logical problem is that many other factors may play a part but are not noticed. I gave four alternative possible explanations of reduced social participation: (a) changes in family structure; (b) suburban sprawl (c) the rise of electronic entertainment and (d) work force changes.

To assert that multiculturalism “destroys the fabric of society” is superficial nonsense. Large-scale social change is always complex. Beware false prophets who say, “This is so simple”.

Your own logical clanger goes further. You claim – “as clearly as day following night’ - we can move from a statement of FACT (let’s accept Putman’s empirical claims for the sake of argument ethnic groups are not integrating) to a statement of VALUE (“ethnically diverse communities are not really that great”).

The facts may be agreed, but what you conclude SHOULD be done about the facts is a matter of judgment. We might agree, as fact, that Howard has led a woeful Government. Would it follow – “as day follows night” – that we should throw him out at the election? WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE comes down to value choice. Facts, values and opinions are related but different concepts.

Dear_Frank....

your conclusion in an above post is.. "Looks like they are mixing to me"....

and I support this. Why the heck are we 'fighting' ? :)

Its my whole point. I simply believe that rather than have structural processes which 'tend' to support and promote difference, they should rather support and encourage mixing.

How easy is that ? It means that press releases and encouragement awards would be more focused on public examples of MERGING rather than entrenched foreign cultural practices.
It does not mean that celebration of different cultures should be abandoned...but the emphasis shifted.
The faster we can ALL say in our census forms 'Australian' as our ancestry the better.

Frank...I don't know if you have ever lived in a community which was very ethnically and religiously divided ? and by that..I mean where the various groups were perhaps of equal or close numbers.... or.. as in my case..where the local minority was in reality part of a national majORITY.. and they made sure you knew it at every opportunity. That included morning prayers being blared out over the river and town at 5:00am.. by a VERY powerful PA system from the local mosque.

I also don't know why you seem to resist the idea of divergent ethnic/religious communities competing for available resources.
Do you actually not believe this to be so ?

That is what I'm talking about 'as day follows night'... I also don't believe that 'ethnic communities are not that great'.... I was saying "Emphasis in division" is not that great....sorry if I did not make myself clear.

Lets get at logic :)

A) "Diverse communities"
B) "Competition for resources, jobs, contracts, wealth, social and political prestige"

I contracted an Italian concreter for a job. All his subbies were.. wait for it.. "Italian" ) gee..I never saw that coming 0_-

You don't see any direct connection ? IF not...then I suggest you have definitely never read history and have been secluded in a cucoon for most of your life. Don't take that as me attacking you please.. I'm trying to drive home a point.

To the claim that multiculturalism "destroys the fabric of society", I reckon it's the exact other way around - as the fabric of society is being changed, diluted and stretched apart etc, people that otherwise wouldn't have an opportunity, now do. This is particularly true for migrants and Aboriginals etc. They are almost always not the agents for change/destruction, but the beneficiaries via the new opportunities that open up. Naturally, the homogeneous Australian society we once enjoyed is never quite going to be the same. But that's life in a changing world. Things aren't going to go back to where they were, so people will be better off by getting on with life and doing the best they can.

As to who or what the agents for the destruction of society are, I reckon rampant capitalism would have to rank right up there. As people get wealthier, they tend to hang on to their power and increasingly disregard people who they believe aren't as economically successful as they are. Things like this are the real society killers!

EasyTimes comments: "All MC does is create divisions where there were none before." Wrong. All MC does is bring the divisions that have always existed into stark relief, not create them. What we then do to deal with the differences says what sort of maturity we have as a country. And Australia has shown that we have always come up trumps! When you consider that every migrant/ethnic group that first came to Australia was treated with suspicion, it's a pretty good effort that we have the strong sense of generally peaceful Aussie culture that we do today.

David

We are not fighting each other – well I’m not fighting anyway. You are fighting some imagined malevolence that you label ‘multiculturalism’.

The issue of ‘mixed’ marriages is a case in point. You are pleased with the degree to which it is happening in multicultural Australia, yet in the next breath accuse multiculturalism of supporting and promoting ‘difference’.

You say: “I'm trying to drive home a point.” But what point? That multiculturalism encourages ethnic groups to co-mingle (as in interethnic marriages) or that multiculturalism encourages ‘difference (as in all-‘Italian’ concreting businesses)?

You accuse me of resisting “ the idea of divergent ethnic/religious communities competing for available resources”. What are you talking about in Australian terms? Catholics versus Protestants? It has been a notoriously vicious contest in this country, but I think things have settled down. The greater contests for available resources are between the rich and the poor (see the current debate on OLO set up be Peter Saunder's shocking paper).

By the way, I loved the three stints I had living in Turkey, especially the early morning wake-up call from the mosque. Just as I have loved the decade or more of living and working in the ethnically-diverse western suburbs of Melbourne, where my concreting jobs have all been done superbly. The concretors' ethnicity was irrelevant: I wanted a super job - and I got it. Ah, it's a great country.

Hi Frank :) glad you here you live in the 'enlightened' city of good ol Melbourne...*grin*

Actually.. I don't so much "accuse" you ... thats a bit strong I think. I'm tryyyying to understand you.

On your 3 stints in Turkey.. let me add a 'dimension' to it that you may not have experienced.
If your water had been cut off by the ethno religious group which the 'mosque' represented... and if each morning you went to the local market and passed by the bloke who was given the job of slaughtering all the men women and children of your predecessors simply because they were 'Christian', and if during an election where a Catholic bloke had been elected in spite of massive Muslim party activity,and you saw the rage on the face of every Malay/Muslim the next day, if you had spoken to villagers who had been threatened, abused, and deceived by Muslims...if your own house had been 'raped' by being forced to display 'pro Muslim' campaign posters (to influence Christians) If the leader of the local Christian executive body (representing hundreds of villages and churches) had been told point blank by the Muslim Chief Minister "CONVERT....or else"

Would you still 'hear' the 'wakeup call' as you put it the same way ? :)

I hardly think so.
I could go on for hours about how it is in a 'mixed' and competitive society. Your experience in Turkey was little different from Australia. VAST Turkish majority TINY non Turk minority. Very managable.. very peaceful... like Australia. (Lets keep it that way.)

But if you dug a bit deeper.. and went back to 1914.. when there were
around 1.8 to 2.1 Armenians there.. and then checked their population 1918 with the below inbetween.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide#Armenian_deaths.2C_1914_to_1918

well..you might have a wiser perspetive on how 'competing' societies relate to each other. Has human nature really changed ?

David

You had a sad and no doubt frightening experience.

But, tell me, what has all that got to do with Mutlicultural Australia in 2007? Have you had any experience of that sort in this country?

Neither have I. Multicultural policies help bring out our common humanity.

MC is a failure.
I hear today of more violence by ethnic minorities. Two people waiting at the lights in Carlton were attacked with rocks by a group of around 10 Africans. Just waiting at the lights doing nothing.
I also noted that the ABC unlike a few other networks refused to state they were Africans. Another report stated how it has nothing to do with race. I can't remember the last time 10 Aussies surrounded a car and stoned it trying to get the occupants out for no reason.

MC is a failure. Australia does not need migrants. Migrants are of no overall benefit to Australia. The tide is changing. Those of us who are educated and know this is destroying Australia need to speak up loadly against MC. For too long the PC hardliners have bullied ordinary Australians with the threat of being called racists. No longer. The more people of good standing come out and denouce MC, the more the average Aussie will feel safe to speak up against it.

Don't blame Multiculturalism for criminal activities that should be taken care of by the police.

Foxy,
MC tells Australians that bringing people here from all different cultures is good for Australia and Australians. I have given you an example of where is is not. I therefore blame MC for lying to Australians. MC is a failure.
One of these people last year murdered a colleague of mine by stabbing her multiple times in the neck. Should I again not blame MC and just say its only a police matter.
Sooner or later you need to admit its a symptom of MC.
How many of these incidents do you need before it becomes more than just a police matter?
You are a racist. By covering up these incidents you distort the truth and make particular ethnic minorities look better than they actually are. You consequently make other groups that are not responsible look worse than they really are. Things should be seen for what they are.

It was ever thus. Pick any topic that involves the differences between people, and it inevitably descends into the conservative bigots vs. the liberal love-thy-neighbours.

Neither side can convince the other.

One believes that foreigners are to be feared and shunned ("Australia does not need migrants. Migrants are of no overall benefit to Australia" - knopfler) while the rest can't understand the fuss ("Multicultural policies help bring out our common humanity" - FrankGol).

The reality, however, is that in this ever more connected world, we are somehow going to have to live with a greater level of cross-border porosity than ever before. This is reality, if only because none of the keep-'em-out brigade can come up with a workable alternative policy short of disconnecting us from the rest of the world.

Becoming a closed community, as we see in the North Korean model for example, is inconsistent with what most Australians want. So we will have to lump it, I'm afraid.

It would be better therapy, I think, if the xenophobes looked for a twelve-step programme that helped them with their insularity problem.

Alternatively, articulate a policy of engagement with the rest of the world that is a little more constructive than "close the borders and hunker down".

The world doesn't work that way any more. Sorry.

I simply don't understand how you can blame Multiculturalism for what certain criminals do?

To kill, bash, main,steal, et cetera are criminal activities. They are activities inflicted on the rest of society by usually a small minority. These people that break the law - will be arrested and tried by our legal system.

To say that I'm a racist because I'm for Multiculturalism? That's beyond my comprehension.

I believe in the rich diversity that makes up Australian society.
I feel that the gathering of many cultures is one of the most unique and rewarding aspects of living in Australia. I feel that the nature of being Australian is to be part of this deversity. And finally, the
wide and varied gathering of 'identities' is in keeping with the sense of potential and openess so many people enjoyed on coming here.
I feel privileged not only to have been able to make a home here but also to have found my own sense of belonging.

knopfler: "You are a racist"

I think that's what's called "projection" in psychological terms.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection for the general gist.

I recall you mentioning that you're a medical practitioner. I sincerely hope that you're professional enough to not let your personal antipathies impinge in any way upon your practice of medicine.

Understanding the REAL stories of migrants in this country.

Migrants no longer offer badly needed new skills. If they did, one yearly intake of 160,000 migrants would have solved the plumber, doctor and every othe skill shortage. All they offer is a vote for the H&I (Howard and Iemma) style federal and state government constituencies. Immigrants skillfully migrate to property bananza areas of capital cities. There they work for themselves and their own communities and vote for incumbents who selfishly pork-barrel grants to migrants over ordinary Australians. This suits the dysfunctionality of current H&I government because it keeps the economy growing, gives voting gerrymanders, allows H&I to ignore legitimate commuities and get on with their thusfar benign dictatorship. This dictatorship seems to have just one goal: transferring wealth from the poor to the rich with impunity.

Now if we didn't have permanent crises like drought, climate change, salinity, looming PEAKOIL, skills and ageing crises, and gridlock in every social service from police to hospitals to roads, Australia could assimilate this godforsaken dictatorship stupidity and still move ahead as a free nation. But those crises mean that Federalism will fall apart as petrol hits the $5/litre mark in less than a decade. Foreign interest groups within politically empowererd immigrant enclaves in all capital cities will tear this country apart to suit their own ends. This country will descend into regional civil wars that will make Cronulla riots look like sunday school. The upshot in a PEAKOIL world is that even the current elite southern European migrant blocs will fall apart as a strife torn Australia will invite overt invasion from asian regional neighbours. The lure of free Uranium gas & coal to solve their own PEAKOIL problems will prove too great.

This is the main reason Howard will lose. Most Australians understand the disharmony, erosion of basic rights and freedoms and the general gridlock that is breeding in our communities with clumsy "Go 4 Growth in migrant numbers, at the expense of the environment - with ZERO plans for sufficient energy and water to avoid an ensuing Thermodynamic Chaos" policy.

Continued..

Continuing..

From this time forth, every new migrant will dramatically increase water, power, hospital/healthcare, police, justice and all manner of public service shortages, for which H&I government have no plans other than building roads for new immigrants, akin to withdrawal of control rods in a nuclear reactor, that will hasten the imminent critical meltdown of aUStralian society.

The only way this nation will survive PEAKOIL is to STOP immigration and concentrate on developing new technologies. Particularly ENERGY technologies:

Total-Nuclear-Industries including a research seguay into laser based nuclearfusion,

Geothermal power laser drilling research,

A limited green energy backup infrastructure

And even a limited Unmanned SPACE power generation program.

We have, despite Howard and Costello's abysmal penny pinching economic management, the serendipitous wealth from all-time-high world mineral prices, to achieve targets in these areas that will insulate us both from PEAKOIL and from foreign invasion. To forego this future ENERGY challenge and waste that $wealth on roads to open up extra property bonanzas for new immigrants with very uncertain loyalties should be legislated as a crime in view of its future cost in Australian lives and the fate of this nation.

And the deathknell to the H&I dumb-notion that immigration-based-Economic-growth is Australia's future, is that the current US-economy valuation of our $Dollar$ will soon collapse along with the US economy. Then, as PEAKOIL bites harder all global curencies will be linked to energy stocks that are cheapest to transport. That means the $A will not be worth the paper its written on except for any remaining oil/gas/uranium reserves, all of which will be under threat of invasion.

Re various Cocks and crowings etc

Alan Jones did INCITE violence and terrorism. FACT.

Mu is quite correct. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) found earlier this year that shock jock Alan Jones had broadcast material "that was likely to encourage violence, in the lead-up to the Cronulla riot".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1893477.htm

I've been thinking about what Knopfler said ... and feel obliged to
add a few extra comments.

I think it's common sense stopping those who would destroy our society, without ourselves undermining the basic principles that define our society.

I fully agreed with Tony Blair's warning to those who arrived in Great Britain from other countries, whether in search of a political safe haven or economic opportunity.

"Staying here carries with it a duty," he said. "That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those who break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and its people have no place here."

That same caution would be appropriate in Australia.

FACT: Lebanese Muslims were on a mission to cause trouble and looking for a fight.
FACT: Talk show host Alan Jones reported on an ‘as is’ basis. He read out whatever messages he received and did not practice self-censorship.
OPINION: "that was likely to encourage violence, in the lead-up to the Cronulla riot".

No doubt some Lebanese Muslims were looking for a fight, but on its own that hardly would have been sufficient to provoke a riot the scale of Cronulla.

No doubt Jones was primarily reading out the messages of his listeners, but by a) focusing exclusively on the inciteful messages and b) failing to criticise them, his actions can only have increased tensions. As an example, to one of the few listeners attempting to add some balance to the discussion, he replied "we don’t have Anglo-Saxon kids out there raping women in Western Sydney. So lets not get carried away with all this mealy-mouthed talk about there being two sides". To listeners who made comments like "if the police can't do the job, the next tier is us", he openly encouraged them.

No-one is arguing that Jones single-handedly triggered the riots, but having brought up the topic of Lebanese troublemakers on his show, he certainly could have done a lot more to prevent them. However reading some of the transcripts, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the riots were exactly what he wanted to happen.

Dear FRankGol....

You asked:

But, tell me, what has all that got to do with Mutlicultural Australia in 2007? Have you had any experience of that sort in this country?

Good point Frank. I think once you have been through such things, you see the 'writing on the wall' with greater clarity. The problems we faced, were due to 'difference' which was entrenched along religious and ethnic lines mate.

All I saw and experienced was the 'end game' of difference. I'm not so naive as to think we can eliminate 'difference' in the first generation of migrants..and even by the second, but I always remember a bloke of Greek background at Glen Cromie near Neerim Sth telling me "Australia is the most tolerant country in the world" (then he listed some intolerance he is aware of in Greece) and "I'm not really very 'Australian' but my kids are much more so, and their kids will be even more" and this is how it should be...

All I'm saying is 'lets help the process' by enhancing and encouraging the pathway, rather than hindering their journey by pandering to the 'old' cultural mentality.

To the extent that 'MC' (the reality) contributes to this, all well and good. To the extent that it impedes that highway to a healthier Oz... then I say lets tweak it.

The ways we experience those things here, are not to racially or religiously blatant. Fortunately we have a very solid rule of law where our police and military are not 'ethnically or religiously biased' although they do represent the predominant socio/cultural critical mass of 'white/anglo-saxon background' I guess. The only reason this is a good thing, is that due to the inherrent sense of overwhelming majority, there is less likelihood of them feeling threatened by small minorities. and behaving in racially reactionary ways. There focus is 'the law' rather than defending racial privilege per se.

I suppose if one group went around yelling 'white scum/skippies' to the police, they might eventually take a less patient approach :)

Foxy,

I note you stated that the African carjacking was just a Police matter. Nothing to do with MC.
Did you realise there was another African carjacking in Melton the other day. Nothing to do with MC of course. Nothing to do with race. Just a Police matter. MC is good for Australia.
Get real and tell the truth.

ozzie,

I noticed that all the Victoria Police senior officers involved in the current scandal are Anglo-Australians. Is this just a Police matter, or a failure of mono-culturalism?

Dear Ozzie,

How can you blame an entire race or nationality, for something a select few of a particular race or nationality do?

You can't. And if you do - who among us will then remain blameless?
You're the one who needs to look deep within your own heart - and take a good long look. Because just perhaps you're not being quite rational. It's very easy to point the finger at someone who is slightly different to yourself - and who you don't quite understand.
But I wonder how you'd be in their country - where you were the one who everyone was staring at. I'm not excusing criminal behaviour here.
People who break the law - deserve to be punished. However - don't blame them all because of what a few have done. That's all.

Criminals are criminals no matter what their race or nationality - it's just wrong to taint everyone with the same brush.

For example -not every 'ozzie' goes around getting drunk at cricket matches and getting into fights. Or bashes bouncers in nighclubs.
Or is a bully. Or takes part in 'two-faced' behaviour - nice to your face (snide remarks behind your back).
Or is loud-mouthed, ignorant, and arrogant, when travelling overseas... Or is responsible for 'loutish' behaviour. Or tears down
and resents 'tall poppies.'

Knopfler/ozzie,

Actually, if you were to tell the truth, you'd say that the real cause of the problem is a clash of different cultures, not race. Race is just skin color, whereas culture is the attitudes people have picked up through their upbringing and through their associations with people they choose to mingle with.

Even the Caucasian race is made up of many sub-cultures: greenies, bikies, nerds, goths, bogans, hippies just to name a few. Just because bikies engage in antisocial activities like selling amphetamines doesn't mean we victimise every Caucasian by association. (In fact, we don't even victimise bikies that do the wrong thing!) If you were to look carefully, I'm sure you'd find that there are a whole range of African sub-cultures. Most are not violent, just as it is with Caucasians.

The other problem with making the issue one of race is that you are putting the targeted person on a hiding to nothing: there is nothing he can do to improve the situation in the eyes of the critic. He can't change his skin colour and nation of birth. However, if you nominate the problem as being one of bad or incompatible culture, at least it can be addressed without causing some extreme behaviour in the targeted person like sullenness or withdrawal from society at one end to violently lashing out at the other.

All that bringing race into the equation can do is to make the situation worse for everyone.

The myth of racism against immigrants debunked.

Australia's immigration program is based on benefits to a minority of affluent Australians in a system that approaches ancient FEUDALISM:

*Polititions benefit through captive votes, etnic enclave gerrymanders(the Lakemba factor), and that most iniquitous of all, the Coalition GST bonus from each and every immigrant.

*Property developers, gambling-magnates and bulk market businesses who rely on increasing, stressed, wealthy but agitated populations to buy,buy ,buy and make businesses wealthier and increasingly more monopolistic (media&telcos&developers&casinos are out of control under Howard).

ABS censuses are becoming nothing more than a new-age Doomsday Book of Australian citizens who have never-been-better-off. Nor more competitive, stressed and violent towards one another. Roman consuls would have died with envy! Anti-immigration sentiments have NOTHING to do with Racism. Government immigration-corruption is a much deeper part problem.

But get this final countdown! Immigrants are chosen on wealth under Howard and they are increasingly heard voicing the opinion that "Aussies(skips) are lazy and deserve to lose their country and their rights". "We have most of the elected officials now in local and state government and soon in Canberra". Stand around every second barbecue in Backyard Sydney and you'll hear this over and over. This is RACIST, not to mention Treasonist. And unlike the very occasional Aussie racisim, these people have the numbers and the organisation. To wit they are an unprecedented, significant medium-to-long-term danger to Australia.

Now there are some 2billion eligible immigrants from around the globe. As PEAKOIL approaches, we shouldn't blame them for thinking Austrlaia is an easy takeover target when our leaders and business elites have set up a godforsaken neo-FEUDAL system that supports that attitude in our own immigrants for short term plutocratic benefits.

Continued ..

Continuing..

Herin lies the racism myth. Forget RACISM. If Australians can't get better leaders perhaps we do deserve to be INVADED and face the inevitable ugly consequences. We need leaders that understand PEAKOIL and thus understand the prime needs to:

*Stabilise population to 21 million (overcrowding the Titanic & skimping on the lifeboat factor),

*As a PEAKOIL bridge, Go PBR NUCLEAR exports to make up for the loss in immigration GST growth

*Understand the thermodynamics of ENERGY and ORDER in CIVIL populations and choose sustainable GEOTHERMAL power generation over silly, flaky, green renewable schemes as a replacement for coal.

Howard/Costello have right-Feudally failed us and Rudd is impotent, only understands short polls and doesn't get the gravitas of ENERGY and thermodynamics!

So are we Australians, of all racial origins and intentions, doomed?

Time to wake up and demand better PEAKOIL preparation from whatever new leadership we get on 2007, the 24th of November.

Foxy,

In the last few days

African mobs rioting in Flemington, throwing rocks at Police cars. Now the media is trying to blame the cops for targeting the africans.

Stabbings in Box Hill, Chinese involved on both sides.

Attempted carjacking in Glen Waverley, Asians and Middle eastern involved.

Nothing to do with Race of course!

Multiculturalism is destroying Australia.

Foxy your pro MC propaganda is destroying my country

Ozzie

In “the last few days”,

* Three Kangaroos players - Aaron Edwards, Shannon Grant and Hamish McIntosh - face disciplinary action from their AFL club after a confrontation with police and security at a Lionel Ritchie concert at a Victorian winery. No Aboriginal players were involved.

* Victoria’s dominantly Anglo police force - still coming to terms with last month's OPI hearing into the unlawful release of confidential information surrounding the 2003 murder of male prostitute Shane Chartres-Abbott – has been rocked by further serious allegations of corruption.

* An ambulance was set alight in Melton in the early hours of the morning. Disengaged Anglo youth are suspected.

* Two Anglo youths have been charged with deliberately starting a fire in a national park in the State’s north-east.

As you say: “Nothing to do with Race of course!”

Incidentally, when you claim that: “African mobs [were] rioting in Flemington, throwing rocks at Police cars. Now the media is trying to blame the cops for targeting the Africans,” you might care to visit Flemington and Kensington where I live. You’ll get a quite different story.

FrankGol,

Did these incidents you describe involve murdering people with knives ( Box Hill, Chinese), smashing up cars and pushing glass into people faces requiring facial surgery ( Glen Waverley, Asain and ME ).

In no way am I denying Anglo's are involved in crime. However what I am taking about is 1) the violent nature of Ethnic crime and 2) the much higher rate of crime in Ethnic groups.

The incidents you discuss have been committed by a section of the community representing the vast majority of the Australian population. I have discussed incidents involving people from a very small portion of the community. For example the African community represents around 0.1 % of the population yet they have been involved in MANY violent crimes. The recent carjacking are a relatively new thing to Australia, in that they are totally unprovoked and involve extreme violence. There have been at least 3 of these in the last few weeks by Africans. Evidence from Sweden clearly demonstrates that many minority groups are FAR more likely to commit crime especially VIOLENT crime( www.BRA.se see publications in english, then look for crime by swedes and non-swedes). I'd be very interested if you have any evidence from a reputable source to say the opposite to this report.
Incidentally you claim I should visit Flemington where I may get a different story. i've done a lot better than that. I know a police officer who is in charge of trying to intergrate these people. Their job is as MC officer, to help them understand the role of the police. This officer has told me many things, for instance they told me they would never turn their backs on these people as they know they will easily just punch you in the head for no reason. He tells me there is a big problem. I suppose Frank if there was no problem, he would not have a job.

Ozzie

You don’t deny that “Anglo's are involved in crime”. However, you make unsubstantiated claims about
1) "the violent nature of Ethnic crime and
2) the much higher rate of crime in Ethnic groups."

First, you produce no evidence except anecdotes – that’s why I produced counter anecdotes. That gets us nowhere. Nor do the oral reports of one policeman or a group of African-Australians.

So your claims about violence and higher crime rates – often sexed up by the tabloids - are highly dubious.

The Australian Institute of Criminology is the major research body in this field. In 1999 they reported:
“The participation of migrants in crime appears to be an issue of considerable significance in many parts of Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. People with vested interest in these parts of the world express opinions and make statements irrespective of whether reliable facts to support such opinions and statements exist or not.” (“Ethnicity and crime : an Australian research study”, page 117; www.aic.gov.au/publications/ ethnicity-crime/ethnic-ch4.pdf)

People with vested interests make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims.

On the best available Australian statistical data, the Institute of Criminology concluded:

“ The crime rate of foreign-born population is lower than that of the native-born (Dr Morris, in his written comments to the Committee added an interesting qualification - crime rate amongst recent immigrants was lower than the 'Old Australians' in similar financial and living conditions).”

This finding is consistent with recent statements by Christine Nixon Chief Commissioner Victoria Police who has an overview much superior to a single copper.

The Institute’s evidence led them to conclude also that: “The crime rate of second generation of migrants is higher than that of their parents’ generation and this rate approximates the crime rates of the native-born population."

And that: “Members of the foreign-born population are victims of crime more often than members of the native-born population.”

You might also read: Scott Poynting, Greg Noble, Paul Tabar and Jock Collins, “Bin Laden in the Suburbs: Criminalising the Arab Other”, Institute of Criminology, Sydney, 2004&#8232

(a) For many years the peaceful Hindus in Malaysia have been persecuted by the Muslim-dominated government of Malaysia in that hundreds of Hindu temples were demolished. Frequently, gang of Muslims accompanied by Malaysian government forces armed with machine guns, accompanied those who went to demolish these temples.
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/.html

http://policewatchmalaysia.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=&archive=&start_from=&ucat=5& (photos showing demolition team guarded by uniformed persons armed with machine guns)

(b) Christian schools in Malaysia have been asked by Muslims MP to remove crosses nationwide. About 3 schools have already had their crosses removed.
http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2007/12/04/how-many-mission-schools-in-the-country-have-the-cross-removed-from-school-emblem/

It was good that residents stood up strongly to oppose the building of a Islamic College in 98 Johnston Road Bass Hill, in South-west Sydney. Muslims are a threat to non-Muslims especially when they are in a majority. Islam is not tolerant of other religions and experience shows that they persecute other religions when Muslims grow in number. When there are no more non-Muslims left, they would then fight and kill each other as seen in Iraq and Pakistan.

Multiculturalism with Muslims is an impossibility.

FrankGol
Just wanted to let you know that I am in the process of reading the study you quoted. Unfortunately it is around 140 pages. So far all I can say is that it is the worst study in terms of design I have ever read. There are major mistakes that really should not happen. I will post my proper reply soon. The Swedish study I quoted earlier is far superior in design and comes to vastly different conclusions.