Australians should have the right to say who comes to Australia
and in what numbers.

Do you as Australians believe a referendum should be called to ask the public what they consider important on issues of immigration and refugees?

Should these most important decisions be left to the Government, UN and social engineers to implement policies to the detriment of normal Australians?

A referendum on who comes here and in what capacity would lance a boil that must surely be getting ready to burst, think Cronulla.

However laudable, the practice is much more difficult. As with any referendum (think the Republic) questions can be loaded.

An interesting take would be leveraging the "GetUp" group to lobby. Or even a political system modelled on the framework of MyFootballClub.

Though, I've avoided the underlying issue ... what would be the criteria for selection? I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it would appear by your comments on Cronulla you're suggesting it may be race or religion. This is far too simplistic in my view.

How would we as Australians (and that's all the different cultures and nationalities that make up this country) feel if we were judged based on our current or former prime minister (white anglo saxon males - generally conservative). Or maybe judged by other Aussie icons such as Kylie Minogue or Neighbours.

How do you cut through the stereotypes of nations, cultures and religions? Especially considering most are not overly interested in truly understanding each of these factors, but then we provide them the power to state whether the next wave of immigrants are welcome?

I think it is a great idea, as long as...

i) it was agreed that the decision would be "final" - say, for a period of thirty years

ii) the referendum question stated clearly both the selection criteria and the numbers allowed

Bring it on.

I would estimate five years to get a question agreed (think of all those lovely "conventions of the people" we could hold along the way), another year to allow the ins and outs of it to be aired and debated, then a convincing defeat simply because the question wasn't simple enough.

Aaaah, bliss. Thirty years of peace and quiet. OLO would go out of business, but them's the breaks.

Face it, the chances of any quick agreement on the question are nil. The starting positions would range from "Keep 'em all out, 'specially the mozzies" - which I suspect would be SCOTTY's favourite - to "let 'em all come, the more the merrier"

Imagine reaching a consensus from there. You'ld actually end up somewhere around where we are now.

But even that would be defeated. 'Cos that's what happens in a referendum.

Pity. It would be fun.

>>A referendum on who comes here and in what capacity would lance a boil that must surely be getting ready to burst, think Cronulla<<

Incidentally, how long ago was Cronulla? I forget exactly how many were killed in those weeks of out-of-control rioting, but I'm sure it must have been a lot, given how many times it appears as an example of our violent racial history.

But now I think of it, I haven't actually noticed the streets running with blood, as many hoped... er, sorry, predicted.

The only death resulting from the Cronulla riots was that of innocence. And even with that blight on our record, I doubt there is a country in the world that deals with immigration and racial tensions more peacefully and successfully than Australia. I'm not sure what the SCOTTY's of the world expect - for us to all sit around singing kumbaya?

Perhaps he wants to see more of those ethnicy threaded friendship bracelets?

I believe that no government would allow a referendum on immigration

because the Australian public would give a resounding call of NO to more of what we have endured.

That being mass immigration from cultures that will never assimilate or those who want to subjugate our society to thier own peculiar brand of religion.

Not to mention the follow on effects of such immigration such as the dumbing down of our learning institutions, crime reticent to immigrants from low socio-economic countries and the massive welfare bill that comes out of our pocket to pay for people who will never pay thier way.

The academic bleeding heart do-gooder brigade would all have to emigrate themselves because they wouldnt beable to live in such a country as racist as Australia after a defeat of thier social engineering agenda and thier will to make us all into one happy melting pot of violence and chaos.

Wouldnt it be wonderful

Dear Scotty,

You have an irrational, inflexible attitude toward an entire category of people. Your prejudice is always rooted in generalizations and ignores the differences among individuals.

You continually stereotype people. You've got a rigid mental image that summarizes what you believe to be typical about a given group.
You think in terms of general categories to enable you to make sense of the world by simplifying its complexity. Your stereotype is not checked against reality.

If you find that an individual member of a given group does not conform to your stereotype for the group as a whole, you take this evidence as simply an 'exception' and not as grounds for questioning your original belief.

You are irrational, illogical and inconsistent. Clearly you're not concerned about genuine group characteristics. You simply accept negative statements that feed your existing hostility.

The sad thing is if you're prejudiced against one minority group, you will tend to be prejudiced against all others.

You represent the worst element of our society in Australia.

By all means bring on a Referendum - and the results may surprise you.
Because today's Australia is made up of over 140 different ethnic backgrounds speaking over 90 different languages at home, including Scottish, Gaelic and Welsh, and we also practice over 80 different religions.

So bring on the Referendum...

why have a referendum on immigration, but not war, on public health but not public education?

pollies make their living by telling you that you are too dim, or too busy, or too ignorant to direct the nation through referendum. and you swallow it, so they may be right.

but i think if you got off your knees you would discover you could run the nation better than they ever did.

Foxy
Why stoop to such personal attacks on Scotty.
The fact remains that Aussuies do not want more Muslims here- and a few others who refuse to follow OUR laws
Scotty is simply saying- Let the Australian public vote on it.
Oh and I dont mean all the migrants living here on our welfare system either.
You must be blind stupid or just plain ingorant if you dont know the general feeling amoungst the Australian born public
Either way it hardley matters because Scotty is only saying what every single person I have spoken to is saying.

Apart from a few trouble makers the average Australian doesnt want to end up like France.
Yes Bring it on
Good on you Scotty for speaking out.
Dont worry about the back seat trouble making do gooders Scotty.
Since my two girls were set upon by Muslims when they were simply walking to the beach I am very outspoken.
They were just two young kids off to the beach for a fun day.
Now they wont walk to the beach alone. They were called Hoars sluts and told allah would etc etc them.
Yes Scotty indeed bring it on because here is one mother who wants them gone.
For Good
All of them

Dear Taryn,

So you think that I made a personal attack on Scotty... I actually think that I was quite polite after what he called me in another post - oh, let's see ... "A leftist loonbag..." "Potential terrorist..." "Socialist / leftist." And he doesn't even know me.

Then take another look at your post here - what's with all this name calling anyway. Do you have such a limited vocabulary that you can't come up with some more creative proper nouns...

I could have stooped down to your level and told you to "Blow it out of your pants," but I'm too much of a lady to do that!

TarynW, and every Australian-born person I have spoken to believes that immigrants have been of vast net benefit to Australia.

Sure, 10 years ago polls were consistently showing as many as 65% of Australians preferred lower immigration levels, but in the most recent polls that number has dropped to ~40% (http://smpf.flinders.edu.au/docs/No3%20Nov%2006.pdf). That 40% would include me, however you would most likely not be happy with what I would see as a more preferable arrangement: allowing more refugees from poor, "non-white" countries, and far fewer from rich white countries.

Dear Foxy....

you said: (about Scotty)

<<You have an irrational, inflexible attitude toward an entire category of people. Your prejudice is always rooted in generalizations and ignores the differences among individuals.
You continually stereotype people.>>

and.. from a 'Western' individualistic non tribal perspective, you have a point.
Unfortunately, that point is totally lost on those who are bound together by either a tribal or pseudo tribal connection.

For example.. I raised the issue of the Indonesian Fishermen claiming economic assylum. I then went further, and said "There is a strong connection to Islamic radicalism" in them... based purely on 2 things
Race
Religion
History.

The race and religion are closely connected, but the religion is the determinant of the 'race' in attitude.

Now.. it would be easy to accuse me of 'stereotyping a whole people' as you suggested re Scotty. But if I may.. 'that' thinking is soooooo 'western' :) that it stands out like a country dunny.

I say it with confidence due to the years I spent in tribal/multi religious Malaysia and saw first hand how it all works. In short..I lived it.

So.. I would have no hesitation in agreeing that 'Lebanese Muslims' should be denied access to Australia. (just to use one specific category).

You see.. it matters not a scrap if a bloke is a "hard working fella getting on with life" because when the 'crunch' comes, he will be there with his Glock guarding the Lakemba mosque like the other 1000s were.

You see.. the simple 'bus incident' which started massacres in Poso,(Indonesia) where a Muslim youth falsely reported he was 'beaten up by Christians' caused such savagery and brutality you would not believe it.
HERE. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB8yh4Bq_SA&feature=related

Once the heads started to role... it didn't matter who started it.
but everyone knows who DID start it.

Foxynichol,

Wether or not others have your level of edumacation is irrelevent, have you guys got your heads planted so firmly up your stuckup backsides you cant see anothers point of view for all the crap in the way.

But thats the way with the left they are elitist at the ordinary persons expense.

You see Taryn they hate themselves for thier priveledged white skin and thier loathing knows no bounds except to hate those of us who will have to deal with thier peculiar aspirations by way of more laws to stop us normal people enjoying ourselves and to top it off let us fend for ourselves with Islamic scum that will infest whom they wish to bring here while they live in thier nice safe suburbs in thier nice safe government jobs or sit on the dole in some out of the way place where they can go and visit the unwashed masses once or twice a year.

They are traitors Tarryn, they hate themselves and there is nothing anyone can do for them now.

Please everyone send white feathers to them.

Tarryn I hope your daughter is ok. One muslim stabbed my friend in a kebab shop in Manly, they needed to redecorate afterwards

Scotty, your thread and you say:

"You see Taryn they hate themselves for thier priveledged white skin and thier loathing knows no bounds except to hate those of us who will have to deal with thier peculiar aspirations by way of more laws to stop us normal people enjoying ourselves and to top it off let us fend for ourselves with Islamic scum that will infest whom they wish to bring here while they live in thier nice safe suburbs in thier nice safe government jobs or sit on the dole in some out of the way place where they can go and visit the unwashed masses once or twice a year."

You must admit, you have a lot of hate and loathing yourself Scotty, and all this in just one sentence.

I agree that those violent, rioting, drunken Cronulla troublemakers should not be welcome in "our" country, but what other country would take them?

From a different perspective, I've witnessed two occassions where a Muslim woman was jostled in an attempt to remove her head scarf. One was spat on and her groceries scattered - the culprits? - white anglo kids still in their school uniform and being egged on by another very Australian housewife standing by.

Made me so proud.

I think, if nothing else, Scotty should be commended for raising this obviously critical issue. The fact that we're focused currently on the Islamic immigration is a sign of the current wave, we had similar discussions when we were concerned with the Asian invasion, before that the White Australia policy, before that Chinese, before that ...

What this thread has shown is a strong polorisation of opinion, which has been heightened over the past decade with wars in the Middle East, a strong media push of Islamic extremists and terrorists - but they are the minority!

I would hate if Christianity were based on the teachings of the Ku Klux Klan or White Supremists (all claim they are Christian). Or Hitler, he was Christian, with loose support from the Vatican.

The reality is that we will continue to admit immigrants from the Middle East, we will continue to see a rise in Islamic belief and the construction of more Mosques ... so how do we coexist? Or at worst, generate tolerance. For the experiences of Taryn, and the animosity from Scotty is indicative of a wider sentiment ... so the question to each of you is what can be done to change this? How do we achieve a better balance and not continue rhetoric that will result in increased rascism and potentially wide scale riots.

According to the research DNicholson's cited, 'Stralians who want immigration decreased, increased, and to remain the same, all hover under the 40% mark. (With most prefering the status quo.) So you can sit around and shout, as Taryn did, "Aussuies [sic] do not want more Muslims here" until the cows come home (indeed Taryn, perhaps find a field and do just that - we'll call you when the coast is clear) but a referendum wouldn't change anything.

Seriously, when the bogans get on this board it's enough for me to leave my Chardonnay unquaffed and pick nervously at my ethicy friendship bracelet. Frankly, it's only the comforting aspect of my palatial inner city mansion and the intellectual stimulation I get from my part-time job at the ABC that keeps me sane!

"The academic bleeding heart do-gooder brigade would all have to emigrate themselves..." Does my tumbledown old farmhouse in Tuscany count? We summer there.

Yeh righto mate!

ONE poll done before an election by a uni in South Australia, where I might add dont have a lot of the problems of the larger states.

1000 people interviewed by phone in other states does not make up 40% of the public o Australaia.

Universities not being the bastion of unbiased reporting would go a long way to tell us what this poll tells us.

And to say MOST polls is ludicrious. Just like SANTA is is going to drop you some pressies for XMAS.

Most polls over the the 10 years hover at the 70% mark and some phone in polls at 85%.

Try morgan polls for a starters.

The left are liars and will say or do anything to further thier agenda.

Bring on a referendum, so we can shut the multi-culti liars down once and for all and bring our streets and social cohesion back to where they should be pre the multi-culti experimental madness.

Wait until another recession hits and our young people cant find jobs because immigrants will do them cheaper.

Then we will start to see a clear picture of what the Australian public wants.

Fool you if you try to take our jobs away matey.

As long as the poll was conducted as a secret vote, it would return a true result. Then people would not be afraid to vote honestly and without fearing to be called 'racists' or be seen to be not politically correct. Don't hold your breath waiting for such a poll.

We would benefit from more immigration, but only from northern European stock (the same stock that founded and built this country) and dispossessed White South Africans and Rhodesians. Australia doesn't need to be part of a social experiment.

BTW Foxy, what's the difference between Scottish and Gaelic (your post 6 December 2007 5:03:02 PM)? Did you mean Scots, a derivative of Old English? Gaelic Is the Scottish form of Goidelic which includes Gaeilge (Irish) and Manx.

I do find it rather amusing when the anti-immigrationists pop their head up, then:

a) say that most people agree with them.
b) make a series of claims, without really any backing statistics.
c) resort to pretty hateful rhetoric themselves - which is generally what they're attacking in migrants.
d) don't make any effort at an objective analysis of the effects it will have on the economy - this one is particularly amusing, as many of the most vocal opponents of immigration are from the ageing generation, yet without immigrants we haven't the faintest hope of getting anywhere near the number of workers we need in fields such as geriatrics.
e) use spelling mistakes, without considering that perhaps their cultural awareness is less than stellar, while at the same time, talking about the importance of a non-existent mono-culture.
f) accuse posts such as this one of being part of the evil lefty conspiracy, possibly in cahoots with the universities/unions/greens/whatever other establishment they loathe and disagree with.
g) launch attacks on anyone who disagrees with them as liars (and again, no backing)
h) manage to include tangents such as santa, evil elitists, white feathers, traitors - while (and this is really amusing) attacking other posters for 'irrelevance' and having their 'heads up their backside'.
i) act wounded and attacked when people point out the flaws in their argument, while still failing to do more than spray bile.

Sorry SCOTTY. A persuasive, calm, rational argument of the pros and cons, this does not make. Perhaps you should take a panadol and have a lie down until you're a bit more calm.

Jack the Lad wrote: "As long as the poll was conducted as a secret vote, it would return a true result. Then people would not be afraid to vote honestly and without fearing to be called 'racists' or be seen to be not politically correct. Don't hold your breath waiting for such a poll."

Just out of interest Jack, how do you think polls usually work?

Scotty, at your urging I looked at the Roy Morgon site, but I can't find the polls you're talking about. The first search item finding, from 2003, says that, just prior to the election, 15% of Australians saw immigration as a vital issue, but amongst Greens supporters, the figure was 28%, so I think we can assume a goodly proportion of that first figure does not support your original proposition.

In 2006, those that thought immigration was the most important issue facing Australia was up to 5% from 4% in the previous poll.

I'm not sure what I'm looking for here. In late 2001, there were a lot of negative polls about asylum seekers. Is this what you're talking about? Cause if you were, that would be kind of dumb.

Could you post the links to the polls you mean?

TRTL: I agree with many of your statements, and also your conclusion that we require a patient, collaborative debate to address these problems. But how do we enable this? And what are the outcomes? What should be the forum?

I'd be surprised if through these discussions, or a wider community, there was any decision that led to the reduction of immigrants from any particular area - especially the Middle East. So how do we address these issues?

JTL: Why would we benefit from Northern European stock more than Asian, the America's or even the Middle East? I would tender that there has been enormous economic and social benefit from the immigration of Chinese, Malay, Thai, even dare I say it, Iranians, Lebanese, etc.

Are there social ramifications of these groups, of course. Are there ramifications within the Northern European stock ... of course. Are they as noticeable by the media? politicians? Are they newsworthy?

What Scotty does say, and is countered by TRTL, is the tone of this thread certainly isn't assisting. Calling either party irrelevant is wrong - these views are vitally relevant and are better aired than left to fester. The rise of Pauline Hansen in QLD is preferable to the rise of White Supremacists in NT.

Back to my initial question: What can be done to change this? What can be done to improve the current situation? Ignoring right or wrong ... this is Australia's reality - people are feeling this way and its becoming increasingly polarised.

SCOTTY, that's amazing - all the polls you refer to show that 140% of Australians want only Asians and Muslims to be allowed into the country, and that only Aboriginals should be allowed into parliament.

Well, well, well heres a poll on stopping muslim immigrants March 17 2007.http://www.cdp.org.au/fed/mr/0703013f.asp

Over 6000 people polled and not hand picked by leftists to suit thier ends.

Be wary of press releases Scotty. Let's see now - that link is from the Christian Democratic Party saying guess what! The Christian Democratic Party is right!

Has it occurred to you this may be a little biased.

Some credit however - it's based on polls from other organisations instead of their own - okay.
The thing is Scotty, voluntary polls are rejected by pollsters as inaccurate. The only accurate polls are when you have a proper sample.

When you ask a question such as that one, you will attract the people who feel passionately about it. In this case, that's likely to be anti immigrationists, instead of the more relaxed, live and let live, people in the population.

Programs such as Today Tonight (dodgy programs, I should say) often use their own viewer polls to back something, but the fact of the matter is - the people who take the time to actually do the poll probably have an axe to grind.

Here's an alternative poll for you Scotty, which used an actual sample:

The federal election.

Where Fred Nile failed comprehensively.
If people did overwhelmingly believe in Nile's calls for a moratorium on muslim immigration and felt it was indeed such an important issue, why did nobody want to vote for the guy?

What about One Nation? Why'd nobody wanna vote for them either? What about Pauline's United Australia Party? Why'd that one fail, Scotty?

Was it those wascally leftists again?

Actually, I'm rather glad that the extreme anti-immigrationists tend to be exemplified by voices that sound like Scotty's.
If they were less prone to fits of anger and wild rhetoric they may be able to persuade more people, but as it stands they keep shooting themselves in the foot.

Oh, and in the case of 'their' it's e before i. That's how we do it here in Australia.

Dear TRTL,

Thank you so much for bringing me back to reality. I was beginning to think that this forum was infiltrated by hacks - of the worst kind. Because some of the hateful things that were being written here did not represent the Australia I knew and loved, and it was frightening.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, and inevitably we will disagree on certain things - but to come out with name calling, and such prejudice - argued in such an illiterate manner - beggars belief. I was actually contemplating of totally pulling out of this forum. So again - Thank you .

Quite so, Foxy. Well said, TRTL and others.

I too have noticed an upsurge in the expression of hateful ideas recently at OLO, usually expressed intemperately in poor English. My theory is that the lunar right and their knuckledragging cohorts are expressing sour grapes at having been so convincingly trounced at the recent election.

Since they can't admit that the mean-spirited and divisive ideologies of the Howard government were responsible for its rout, they seek to transfer blame to the usual victims of their bigotry - people like migrants, refugees and homosexuals. Once they get it out of their systems, I'm sure they'll crawl back under their rocks.

Corri, 'Why would we benefit from Northern European stock more than Asian, the America's or even the Middle East?'

Purely and simply because those people are of our culture and therefore there would be no problems fitting them in and they wouldn't be agitating to bring foreign cultures into the country as 'equal opportunities' etc. Do you think that Asian and Middle Eastern countries would welcome White immigrants? In the interests of so-called equality, I would like to know your views on that.

Jack the Lad, what exactly is the Australian Culture, what is our Australian Identity - What are your views?

We are a 'young country', some say we are the "invaders from the north."

Seriously, have we been here long enough to have a culture, what about indigenous Australians and their culture? What about all the other cultures that have emigrated to Australia?

Should we talk about the "White Australia" policy of Menzies? Have we grown up, moved on since then?

Q&A, we could be seen as "invaders from the north", but that's because when the first fleet arrived, they found a Stone Age culture that had never done anything worthwhile for millenia. Cultural invasion is different.
Real Autralian culture is still really limited to European standards as most non-Euro immigrants don't appear to want to fit in but, instead, force their own religions and cultures on us.
What's your view on how Asian and Middle-Eastern countries would react to White immigrants?

CJ, when you wrote, 'the lunar right and their knuckledragging cohorts ' did you mean fascists from the moon? Or was it just a bit of 'vacuous sloganeering'?

Thanks Jack, take your point but I think it is “sticky” to suggest our Aboriginal culture didn’t do anything worthwhile. It all depends on our point of view – what is important (or not important) to one culture may not be as important to another. What makes one “right” and the other “wrong?”

As to other cultures forcing their culture on us … we could be forcing ours on them. This is the dilemma I think Australia is finding itself in – we have to find a balance, which brings me to your question.

Asian and Mid-East countries make it extremely difficult, as you would know and as I have experienced myself – BUT, this does not make it right or indeed acceptable.

I had hoped Australia would be able to do the right thing, but I fear we are just too juvenile. We are born into the life we have – you (I) could be a Muslim, Christian, Jew, atheist, whatever. We could also come from Oz, Somalia, China, Mars, whatever. We are what we are so why should any of us have less (more) rights than anyone else.

We have a finite planet with finite resources. Unless we can live with respect for other people’s differences, while maintaining our own human rights and growing in a sustainable way – we’re stuffed.

If we continue to live in a divergent world (us/them) we will always have conflict, between countries and cultures – this can’t be good.

Dear Q&A,

You're a person after my own heart... Well said indeed!

As I've said time and time again on so many of my posts - whether we choose to destroy our civilisation or save it it is a collective decision and hopefully may well be made within our lifetimes...

But if hatred is allowed to fester and grow, then surely we risk our own destruction. If ways are found to reverse the process then we can divert unprecedented energy and resources to the real problems that face us, including poverty, oppression, unemployment, and the devastation of our natural environment. We may hope and trust that our ultimate choice will be to enhance the life on this beautiful brown land on which all 20 million+ of us share our adventure.

Jack the Lad: "CJ, when you wrote, 'the lunar right and their knuckledragging cohorts ' did you mean fascists from the moon? Or was it just a bit of 'vacuous sloganeering'?"

Neither Jack. I was referring to vacuous oafs like you.

I thought my meaning was quite clear :)

Q & A said:

"We are what we are so why should any of us have less (more) rights than anyone else."

My goodness... *think* mate... are you actually suggesting that Australia does not have a culture ? and that if it does, it should simply be 'one of many' here and not assert its heritage at all? but just let all and sundry (who have a STRONG sense of their culture) promote and defend theirs...but not we ours?

Ok.. lets look at some practical outcomes of your policy:

GREETINGS..
-A Maori rubs noses...we shake hands.
-Japanese bow, we shake hands.
-Some Eskimo's share their wives with visitors. We don't

FOOD. Muslims (and Jews) don't eat pork, we do. All public functions should specifically exclude pork because of them ?

DRESS/ATTIRE.
-Driving licences and many other things require photographic ID. Many Muslims don't like the idea of women being photographed.
-Some Pacific Island cultures regard bear breasts as 'normal' but showing thighs as 'sleazy'..should we adjust our dress to accomodate?

LANGUAGE.. Many people who come here speak different languages. Should our schools offer education in ALL languages?

There are many aspects of culture which concflict. We have to decide which should prevail. If we have a culture here.. IT should prevail.

So, if a Japanese man greets our Prime Minister, he is welcome to bow, AND shake hands, but don't expect our PM to bow. (or rub noses)

On the other hand, if our PM goes to Japan, he is welcome to Bow out of respect for the local culture. Same with visiting a Maori area, he can rub noses.

Is this really so hard to grasp?

Q & A ... more for you:

You said:

"If we continue to live in a divergent world (us/them) we will always have conflict, between countries and cultures – this can’t be good."

There are 2 major barriers to removing 'us/them'......

1/ Linguistic. (which language should prevail)

2/ Religious.

If 1.4 billion people believe in 'us/them' and do so based on theological foundations such as:

9: 29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

....then Im afraid you have an uphill battle.

Now.. you might think "Oh.. he is just cherry picking verses, taking them out of context to suit his argumentative purpose"

to which I respond.. "No, I'm not" I've researched this chapter and this verse extensively, and find support for the understanding I am offering, in the hadith, and biographies of Mohammad.

So...your idea of 'get rid of them/us' is simply not achievable.
-Bali
-9/11
-London
-Spain
-US embassies in Kenya etc

CONCLUSION. You said if we have them/us it can't be good.. I AGREE totally, but as long as such religious/cultural ideas as outlined above exist.. it is unavoidable. So, we must take steps to protect ourselves from the impact of large numbers of people who hold incompatable ideas.
For me, this involves
-selective immigration (based on values)
-History focus on how we arrived where we are.
-Promotion of Australian identity and harmony (rather than diversity)

Boazy, thanks for your considered response. Really, you have put a lot of time in it and I can’t help but picture you burning the midnight oil (or you are an early morning riser who burns a computer keyboard), cheers.

I did say “We are what we are so why should any of us have less (more) rights than anyone else."

And you respond “My goodness... *think* mate... are you actually suggesting that Australia does not have a culture?”

No, I am not suggesting that.

So while I appreciate your subsequent effort in rebuttal, your argument is based on a false premise (suggesting something which I did not). Your time and effort would therefore be wasted, unless of course you have intentionally responded this way to misrepresent what I was saying for your own purposes.

I say this because you go on to say “Ok.. lets look at some practical outcomes of your policy”

No, this is not my policy – again, you are inferring this yourself and completely miss the point – so your argument is not valid.

All I can suggest is read my post again – but please, take off the blinkers, you sound as if you’re tunnel visioned with one purpose and one purpose alone.

Step back, try and see from another perspective … with a love that Jesus would, if that is your sway.

It is Sunday; I have other things to attend to. However, I felt you deserved some response given the thought and time you have given yourself.

Maybe we can continue another day or on another thread, these are serious issues that should not be prejudiced against. Thanks

Q&A's right, these are serious issues that need to be aired. I hope that we can continue to welcome discourse and as has been suggested by a number of people avoid the us/them arguments that are as apparent within this small forum as in the wider community.

My belief is, ignoring extremes of both sides, people prefer to get on with one another.

We can highlight differences in culture, we can argue what defines Australian culture or its peoples ... or we can focus on similarities and commonality.

Regardless of culture throughout the world, all races, religions; we share so much in common. We all love, raise families, trade, share, debate, believe. In fact, I'd suggest that throughout the ages there is more commonality in our social systems than differences. Nuances form in culture, language, practice, but the underlying theme is more or less the same.

So how do we use this to achieve a common purpose, as Q&A pointed out the Earth is finite, resource usage at current levels is unsustainable and unless there is significant environmental, economic and social change this entire thread and its ramifications will become redundant. At which point, who cares about similarities or differences.

CJ, as usual, you use terms that you don't understand. Don't you know what 'lunar' means? To point out your inadequacy rewards me with another of your childish insults. What does that say about you? Of course, you profess to be a Greenie enthusiastic heterosexual (an oxymoron if ever it was). Looks like the oaf calling the kettle black.

Q&A 'As to other cultures forcing their culture on us … we could be forcing ours on them'. Aren't we entitled to promote our own culture in our own country? Any time I have been overseas, I have conformed with what was expected in each respective country. I only expect visitors and immigrants to grant us the same courtesy.

Corri 'ignoring extremes of both sides, people prefer to get on with one another'. I'd prefer that too, but only as long as no-one comes here and tries to shove their foreign cultures down our throats. 'When in Rome...'

Dear Corri....

you said:

<<My belief is, ignoring extremes of both sides, people prefer to get on with one another.>>

and your belief is entirely correct.

But your understanding of human nature, lacks a dimension which is crucial. While you did recognize that there are extremes, you neglected to say it is those extremes which usually drive agenda's.

Most Germans were/are nice people... and the Nazi's were not many, but look what happened. Same with the Communists, Al Qaeda... etc.

The people with extreme views are highly motivated and highly mobile.

CRITICAL MASS.. is a key point in understanding cultural clashes and racial strife. When one group absolutely knows it has not even the chance of a snowflake in hell of changing things, they will be quite managable. But give them a sense of 'we can do it' and things change..even the moderates.

I can give you an example rather close to home. If the Indigenous peoples of Sarawak were not in fear of the Malaysian federal armed forces, they would probably address issues of gross injustice against them in ..shall we say 'more assertive' ways. I know what goes on, I know the politics, have family among them, and can speak with authority on this matter.

The abuse experienced by councillors at the Bankstown meeting to decide the fate of the Islamic school is a classic example. Around 200 'supporters' of the school came along and yelled abuse and foulness at councillors for rejecting the schools planning permit.

To them.. 'might makes right' when it suits their cultural/religious purpose.

It is for these reasons, we must be vigilant and aware of who and why people come here and more importantly...HOW they are likely to ACT once they feel they are part of a 'critical mass'.

Corri...and everyone...

for the pattern of 'migration to conflict' please read this report.

http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit70/Poso1.htm

It is the classic... and predictable way a multi ethnic community can be utterly destroyed, going from 'the richness of diversity' to the horror of attempted genocide.

Some background snippits.

<<The Japanese Occupation and independence in 1945 was followed by a chaotic period when Muslim rebels from South Sulawesi attacked interior animists and Christians.>>

<<Much had changed by the end of Suharto's presidency. In 1973, Suharto designated Central Sulawesi as one of ten new transMIGRATION provinces>>

<<The new roads and settlements also attracted a flood of voluntary migrants, especially Muslim Bugis and Makassar people from South Sulawesi.>>

(The 15 indonesians now at Christmas Island are from these)

<<Pamona Protestants lost their religious and ethnic majorities in the district. Many also had been displaced from their ancestral lands through processes of land commodification that had nothing to do with religion.

Pamona Protestant Christians, like many interior groups in the outer islands, had also lost some of their indigenous political control. After the 1970s, much local authority was removed from customary councils of elders and transferred to a national bureaucracy. Modernist Muslims were installed in high-ranking military posts and Christians found it harder to get their leaders selected for local governance.>>

<<A Pamona Protestant leader of the political campaign, Herman Parimo, was jailed for heading a group of fighting Christians. No Muslims were prosecuted. This apparently partisan response by the authorities increased Protestant resentment. >>

Need to read the whole report to fully understand.
cheers.

Ok, so based on this thread to date, I concede there is a flaw in my expectatance of human nature - further that there are significant issues with our existing immigration laws and the "assimilation" of cultures within a fledgling Australian society.

So based on this thinking I see no alternative to a Jihad - it is not if, but when that we need to ask ourselves. Obviously we are unable to find a common understanding to avoid this - the practices of each culture, especially at the extremes is too diverse to find common ground. We are unwilling or unable to co-exist, and though many Muslims might be "nice" people it is inevitable, like the Germans with Nazi's, that they will jump on board with the extremists.

It is a shame, on my behalf, that I do not know more Muslims to roleplay this thinking. It is a shame that I have not the depth of knowledge to truly understand ways and means to achieve a common vision or ability to work together. It is a shame that I am now fatalistic and accept that Jihad is but a matter of time ... but what else can we do?

Though I wonder how many people like some on this site asked these questions before Hitler really took control? I wonder whether there is something more to be done ...

Your logic, and the examples you use to support it, occasionally take some fairly bizarre turns, Boaz.

>>It is the classic... and predictable way a multi ethnic community can be utterly destroyed, going from 'the richness of diversity' to the horror of attempted genocide.<<

You use as evidence one short article, dated 2002, by the prolific, and apparently level-headed, Lorraine Aragon.

Let me quote - selectively, as you have done - from another of her works:

"...national development in Indonesia has been presented through the rhetoric of religion, from the Dutch colonial era up until the present, thereby inserting a moral and religious charge to programs of “modernization” that have unevenly affected different ethnic populations"

"In contemporary Indonesia, a particular religion is neither nationally mandated, as it is in Muslim states such as Malaysia or Catholic states such as Spain, nor is it free of state interference. Rather, beginning with independent Indonesia’s Constitution of 1945, citizens have been expected to have a world religion (agama) and choose from a government-created list of official religions. The result, in a nation of hundreds of different ethnic groups with backgrounds in hundreds of different spiritual traditions, is anxiety over conforming to state regulations, conflict among religious groups vying for government and popular favor, and creative interpretation of local spiritual practices to align them with government classifications"

And this:

"...many guests from a wedding we had just attended were stricken with violent attacks of vomiting and diarrhea... most villagers thought the epidemic was triggered by ancestral anger. The bridal couple... had not asked their parents’ permission to depart the village where the last wedding rite was held... [b]ecause their parents [were] dead. According to the Christian doctrine introduced by European missionaries, ritual obligations between children and parents end with death. For Tobaku individuals, however, such relationships continue with consequences in perpetuity. Misfortune struck an entire community because the bridal couple failed to make a small ritual gesture of respect that had been obliterated by the Protestant ceremony."

I guess that's what you get for introducing Christianity, eh Boaz?.

Dear Corri,

All is not lost. Don't despair. Australians will work things out.
We always have and we always will. You'll see. Just give it time and education, and with all communities co-operating - it can't fail.
Historically, the voices of reason have always prevailed.

Hang in there Corri, you are a beautiful person. Onya Foxy, bye for now.

Thank you Foxy, Q&A and others. Let's hope we can find a reasoned approach.

For my part, I am going to approach a few mosques with the hope of gaining a better understanding of their beliefs, practices and culture. It is my commitment to hopefully start a process that builds bridges.

An analogy that I hold dear is that an ocean is made up of many drops ... I've chosen to be one positive "drop", I hope others can do the same.

I can remember our religious educator telling our class about the Tower of Babel, where the wholly spirit send all peoples from different color and creed in all separate directions. Is there a lesson to be had?
I wish you all a Merry Xmas*. *(this is now an incorrect political statement)