350 words is hardly sufficient to write a full treatise on a relatively complex notion, especially when you have people determined to try to read every real or perceived ambiguity in a way that furthers their claims.

We've dropped the replaced rubbish? Good.

""a project to support minority cultures OVER the dominant culture"

OK try this wording and see if you can misinterpret it. A project to support minority cultures IN PREFERENCE to the dominant culture".

"Those are claims about people's willingness to criticise certain cultural practices."

Yes. The multiculturalism project is trying to force people to ignore the failings of other cultures so as to not offend those cultures. And not just people, but also institutions. Police who let Islamists to fly under the radar lest any action be thought of as racist. Myriad institutions treating the suffering of disadvantaged groups as a welfare issue but ignoring the causes of the suffering lest favoured cultures be offended.

And increasingly there are legislative moves to outlaw offending these favoured groups.... "New offence for intentionally and publicly inciting racial hatred (up to 2 years jail). Race includes colour, nationality, ethnicity, descent, or ethno-religious background." That's in NSW. Similar laws apply in other states.

18C of the Racial Discrimination Act containing broad terms like "offend" and "insult" which chill legitimate debate.

And if you think this is a new phenomena, I recall these exact same fears about the outcome of multiculturalism being expressed in a series of articles (by an author whose name escapes me) in the Nation Times in the 1980s.

Why would I cling to it, mhaze?

//We've dropped the replaced rubbish? Good.//

My challenge to you clearly hasn't needed the momentary carelessness in wording - which is why you're reminding us of it. Pretending it was a tactic makes you look a little panicky, I'm afraid.

Anyway, I don't think we've really moved very far apart. You originally described multiculturalism as:

"a project to support minority cultures OVER the dominant culture"

and now, more precisely:

"a project to support minority cultures IN PREFERENCE to the dominant culture."

Fair enough. Doesn't make any substantial difference, though. The examples you've just provided are still examples of restrictions on criticism.

For example:

- institutions allegedly being reluctant to discuss cultural causes of disadvantage;
- police allegedly being reluctant to act for fear of appearing racist;
- hate speech legislation;
- section 18C.

Those are all examples of what you regard as excessive sensitivity around criticism. They are not examples of minority cultures being supported in preference to Anglo-European culture. Both of which are different propositions.

If minority cultures are genuinely being supported in preference to Anglo-European culture:

- Where is the evidence of that preference?
- What institution has ceased to operate according to Anglo-European norms?
- What law has been replaced?
- What Australian value has been displaced?

Because the examples you've now provided are still examples of constraints on criticism rather than evidence that minority cultures have supplanted Anglo-European culture in any meaningful sense.

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=1394280875526547

Konstantin Kisin
The most succinct comment yet on Multiculturalism !

If the extreme were to have their way, maybe they would replace multiculturalism with a distorted monoculteral version through forced assimilation, starting with children within the education system. Forced assimilation is not new, it was practised by the British colonisers wherever they went in the world, including Australia and New Zealand. The British believed their culture was superior to that of the indigenous. They would forcefully attempt to replace the native language with English, banning and punishing the use of the native tongue in schools, public institutions and churches, encouraging native religious conversion to Anglo-Christianity, and banning of indigenous cultural practices and traditions, referring to it as "devil worship". The British would force European dress and poor European style living condition onto native people, exploiting their labour, confiscating their land, while giving children fake or distorted English names in place of their real name . For a couple of hundred years forced assimilation was successful, it destroyed native language and culture in the majority, and it created a poor, but not fully Anglicised human being.

As one indigenous once confirmed to me, Multiculturalism is revenge & pay-back for White man's failures & successes ! Everything else, even if to self-detriment, is irrelevant !
It's a mentality only common sense can change hence the deliberate abolition of common sense pushed particularly among the intellectual self-preservation flock !

"What Australian value has been displaced?"
" rather than evidence that minority cultures have supplanted Anglo-European"
"What law has been replaced?"

Oh great, we're back on the 'replaced' train!!

Nowhere have I said Anglo-European culture has been replaced/displaced/supplanted (any other synonyms in your thesaurus?). I've even said that's not the aim of multiculturalism. But the urge to treat all cultures in the community as equally valid does mean that key values get watered down. Allowing women to be mistreated because we don't want to disparage aboriginal culture. Turning a blind eye to mutilation of kids because its 'their' culture. Doing culturally sensitive policing lest we be called racist. None of that means the culture has been displaced just that it is less strident, less confident and slowly less admired.

Just because there's no one at the bottom of the hill yet, doesn't mean there isn't a slippery slope.