When I became an Australian citizen, a while back, I used the affirmation form. Even so, I couldn't help feeling at the time that it was a bit hollow. In particular, the bit about sharing the democratic beliefs.

What belief exactly was it that I was sharing? The democratic process is subverted by lies and factionalism within parties. In practical terms, Australian democracy involves a periodic choice between two groups that look almost identical from the outside, and which are run from the inside by unelected (by the people) minorities.

Perhaps I should have sworn the religious form of the oath. At least then I'd have been consistent about believing things that are untenable.

Sylvia.

PALIMPEST said:

<<"The Fijian Indian thinks the Chinese a joke who thinks whitey bludges who laugh at the Allah blokes who sneers at the the poncy Italians who.........et bloody cetera. And all get on just fine.">>

in the Tom Calma thread.. and I loved it :)

But Palimp... what you didn't focus on.... is what can happen among these groups when... SHORTAGEs arise.

-Shortage of Job prospects.

If work is thin,....which ones do you put off? Aah..of course from YOUR perspective "Its all about performance" but.. (now this is secret mens business mate.. listen up) from THEIR perspective.... if you put off the Aboriginals first.. "Oh.. this bloke hates blacks"
Or.. the Muslims "Aah..he is an Islamophobe" or.. if the Asians "He hates slopes, only employed us as tokens"

NO..of course this might not be as graphic as I've painted it here, but absolutely assure you,...in the real world...where I also live, such things are a product of NOT regarding all of ourselves as 'Australians' first and foremost.

They are also a product.. a direct result of 'MULTI' cultural policies.

You and others can deny it till next seasons calves come home with the cows...but it will always be true.

P.S. Loved your 'et-bloody-cetera' :) gold.

We all know that secretly (well, not really so secretly) B_D needs to beat the two posts per thread per day posting limit to the comments thread to the OLO article "A year of wedges among the multicultural success stories", now showing at a screen near you. And pretty much on topic he is, here and there, too, because:

Being Australian means being able to buck the system.

Provided it is well done of your poster, bucking the system can be quite entertaining, useful even. It is to be noted that no article discussion was diverted to the general discussion area of the Forum, so no Forum rule was broken there. Forum rules are silent as to the reverse, should that be thought to be occurring.

Whilst it may be claimed that B_D's post represents the thin end of the wedge with respect to outflanking posting limits, it has to be recognised that wedges are what the article is all about: B_D is simply providing a demonstration of intelligent system-bucking in action, and, in compliance with the maxim "one picture is worth a thousand words" is both beating the word limit and staying right on topic here as well; so put that in your Forum log and split it, ed!

Just between you, me, and the Thought Police, I think B_D is simply taking advantage of an opportunity to show off his new capitals-reduced writing style, and very good that style is, too. (Actually, Foxy, I think it might have been the fully capitalised title to this topic that sucked him in. But let's not have any acronymy over this.) Who said an old dog can't learn new tricks!

Speaking of bucking the system, did everybody see Communicat blow the whistle on around 2,700,000 Aussies who didn't vote the other week in the discussion "One in five Australians failed to vote...."? And how I blew the whistle on a very, very much smaller number of Aussies who voted maybe as many as 2,700,000 times between them?

Not a bad thread, nice to see the raving abusive types haven't found their way here yet.

I concur with the earlier posters who made the point that the problem isn't immigrants per se - the problem we have, is with people.

Boaz, you may be surprised to hear that I partly agree with you - if indeed, those taking part in the court case aren't standing and showing due respect to the court, then of course I think the book should be thrown at them, and they should all be fined for contempt of court.

This is the core issue here - on OLO we see many people agitating to have immigrants from certain cultures restricted.

If there are cultures that aren't fitting in with Australian society, then the solution isn't to ban these cultures from entering - the logical solution is to make sure we treat everyone the same, and have robust laws. There's an element of hypocrisy in treating migrants differently, given that it's this different behaviour that's allegedly making problems.

If somebody thinks they can get away with things like disrespecting the court, then they need to suffer the consequences. I don't care if it's Darryl, the third generation Aussie sheep shearer from Oodnadatta or Khalid, the Lebanese migrant. You break the law, you suffer the punishment.
If the anti-immigrationist minority is right (and I don't think they are necessarily) and certain cultures aren't behaving, then those people will very quickly come up against the law.

Some people tend to think this will result in problems, but I tend to think that the issue here isn't about migrants at all, but it's about our adversarial legal system (I tend to think the inquisitorial model used in Japan is far more effective).

In any case, of course there are some difficulties when coming from a new culture and we need to understand that, but by the same token, we just need to ensure we treat all Australians equally - be they new citizens or have been here for generations.

I can't help wondering what Pericles the Cheated thinks of all this shameless cross promotion.

In so wondering I am not really trying to derail the discussion, for all the excursions touched upon in recent posts are but facets to the central issue, that as to the uncertainty abroad as to what being Australian, and Australian citizenship, means.

The one thing that is clear is that the status of all Australians, native-born as well as aspirant immigrant, purports to have been changed, so far as citizenship is concerned. Most are in the dark as to exactly what change has occurred. Pericles (Now Lower than a Politician) put his finger right on the light switch when he asked the question "If I were now to vote for a republic, wouldn't that be contrary to my oath of allegiance?"

Too right, I am very much tempted to say, but it isn't quite that simple a dichotomy.

To start with, you would not be voting FOR a republic (should that be your desire), but voting in one or a number of referendums proposing alteration to the Constitution. The violation of oath of allegiance would be that of those, being members of the Parliament at the time, who handed off the drafting and debate of the referendum proposals to any persons not being members and not enjoying Parliamentary privilege. Make no mistake, the very discussion of such a proposal breaks the law, and the only place where that breaking of the law can happen is within the Parliament, under privilege.

By promoting an oath or affirmation different to that of the one set forth in the Schedule to the Constitution, the archetypal Australian politician seeks to take the spotlight off their own disloyalty and breach of oath by making the real Constitutional oath unfamiliar.

The simple definition of a person, not being born here, and having come here to lawfully reside subject to Australian immigration law not already being a British subject, as Australian, should be that of their having subscribed, and continued to honour, that Constitutional oath and monarchy.

TurnRightThenleft,
What you have to say about letting the law take care of those that show contempt for our laws sounds good, in theory, but has not,does not and will not work in practice. For as long as I can remember there have been complaints about the leniency of setencing and inability of the law to act as a deterant. The current rukus about the sentencing of the QLD rapists is ample testimony of the law being inept.

For about 10 years beach attendees at Cronulla complained about the conduct of the Leb gangs, to no avail, before acting to retake their beach. The conduct of the gang rapists, Bankstown court, left much to de desired and the accused friends and relos hissed and spat on the victims when going to amd from court durong adjournments. No action taken. The conduct of the Pakistani rapists in court was nothing short of appalling and should never be tolerated.

Occasionally there is a raid and charges made, particularly in Brisbane, relative to cockfighting. They are found guilty, receive a slap on the wrist and are back in business soon.

What young girl would lay complaint about being forced to marry. At the very least she would be ostracised by her total family.

All Governments have known about FGM being carried out here for at least 14 years. One hospital alone treats about 50 patients a year for post FGM problems. Yet there has never been anyone charged with an offence. How many young girls suffer the torture and pain of FGM without medical attention in not known. This is Australia in 2007, not some medievil backwater.

These are just a few example of how the law is inept. There may be other groups heavily engaged in extortion, home invasion, sex slavery and worker exploitation. If they are identafiable they too should be prevented from immigrating. We do not have to import those groups that cause harm and problems.