I’m going to make a confession. I would love it if multiculturalism worked. I would love it if we could all just get along. Nothing would be better. I could enrobe myself in the latest ethnic wear and celebrate diversity. The world would be good.

Sure, there is the little thing about losing the last remnants of our rich and ancient culture and traditions, but hey, that’s old school these days. Besides, who needs traditional culture when we can have a multiculture? Multiculturalism is hip; who wants a culture that’s old and daggy? Multiculturalism is, like, way cool. All the young kids love it, and like, you know, they’re the future.

The only problem is that no matter how hard I try, I can’t get multiculturalism to work. I try to be hip, I try to be cool, and then another study shows that multiculturalism is having a detrimental affect upon Australian society. It’s like, take a chill-pill reality; I prefer the delusions of multiculturalism. But it won’t go away.

An article describing a study conducted by Ernest Healy, senior research fellow at the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University, 'Fewer volunteers in migrant suburbs' (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fewer-volunteers-in-migrant-suburbs/2008/02/10/1202578600916.html), shows that “When you create societies from mixed backgrounds it may not lead to overt violence … but to something scarier, a withdrawal from the civic sphere”. It goes on to say that “ethnic diversity can hasten a withdrawal from ‘collective life’.”

The article concludes by saying that “the assumption multiculturalism would automatically lead to strong cohesive communities without government assistance may have been naive.”

So there you have it, multiculturalism amongst other things leads to a withdrawal from community life.

Way to go policy makers, thanks for implementing policies over successive governments that lead to the destruction of community life and withdrawal from the civic sphere. Yeah, that’s real cool. I didn’t like my country anyway. And who needs community? I’m on facebook. You can screw your community, I’ve got facebook and multiculturalism. The destruction of community is like, so lame, get over it. Take that reality.

NUNAWADING COMMUNITY CENTRE.

Unless you were privy to the background of this place, you would not know that initially, it was branded for one ethnic group.

That group used corrupt methods of manipulating council to fund the centre, and then promptly named it "The (ETHNIC NAME)centre of Nunawading"...

The council had to virtually threaten to cut off all means of life to them until they re-branded it 'Community' centre.

As I've long said .. multi culturalism simply facilitates ethnic minorities trying to advance their own cultural agenda at the expense of the host culture.

It's a fact of life, with ample evidence. Why even bother arguing against this?

Hence..the phrase "MultiCultural" is an insult.. it is offensive and is problematic in terms of nation bulding.
"Citizenship" is all we need, and any ethnic group should only be rewarded for things done which dismantle all cultural barriers between them and the mainstream society.

1/-Reward Unity
2/-Discourage Diversity. (this does not have to be active.. it is the obvious outcome of the first point.)

Polycarp,
It is this type of unmitigated tripe that gets you into trouble and reduces your credibility.
If I were to take you at implication value Every ethnic group is crooked and every good ole white Aussie group is on the up and up.
Give us a break old son You're smarter than that borderline racist comment,even if THAT centre was started by dubious means.

Surely you must realize that(you being such a vocal advocate for your church) comments like that reflect badly on them and what they stand for.

According to South Australian Department of Education & Children's Services: Australian multiculturalism accepts and respects the right of all Australians to express and share their individual cultural heritage within an overriding commitment to Australia and the basic structures and values of Australian democracy.
The study you refereed show that there are fewer volunteers in migrant suburbs, NOT that multiculturalism is bad for Australia.
Migrants from non English speaking countries have to solve many and basic problems and they are exhausted from the hard work, (they have the worst, harder, less healthy, low paid works and they have to work overtime or two jobs to cover their basic needs) and they do not have free time for volunteering or they do not know many things about the volunteering in Australia. In most countries Australian's volunteering goals have covered from the Union movements which are many times stronger than in Anglo Saxon world or from the governments.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

This thread is a reminder of the
'bad old days.' When the term
'New Australian' refered to any
migrant to Australia.

And, as my father used to ask,
"How long does a migrant have to live
here, to be called simply an Australian?"

Here's an excerpt from The Age, 24/1/1957,
letter to the Editor:

"I for one feel no apology is owing...
for...'racial prejudice' against foreign
immigration. It is nothing to be ashamed of
to prefer one's own kind...I want to see
Australia great, to be a united and strong
country - a British country with one
people...I make no apology for...not wishing
to see a mongrel, motley Australia. I
believe in a British Australia."

Here's another excerpt:

He said,"Fellow Australians, both old and new.
I'm glad to see yus all here for this important
ceremony. In welcomin' yus on behalf of Council
though, I would stress one point, important to all
of yus who are wanting to be nationalized.

I would urge yus all to learn to speak English properly.
I know that, in my own particular line, which is plumbin,'
I often have the greatest difficulty in understandin'
what some of yus are talking about ...

Now, this is only one instance of how important it is
for reffos...er... citizens...to learn to speak English
properly; I mean ter say, if yus can say 'comment tallez vous'
in your own tongue, isn't it just as easy to say, 'How are yus
goin,' in English?

So listen to the old Aussies around yer, and in next to
no time yus'll be spoutin' English left, right and centre just
like the rest of us."

Is Australai's 'down under' label today, still a
label for backwardness?

Do Australians today still
have an intolerance towards "new Australians?"

Restaurants today serve food of many nations. As
Australians travel overseas, they become aware of the
different ways of life in other parts of the world,
But have they learned to be more sympathetic to the
problems of the migrants here?

Let's wait and see and judge from the responses
this thread produces...

If you've ever had the displeasure of visiting 'TheRealists' website, you'll know it is a thinly-veiled race hate site. The initial post is just a copy of their latest blog entry. With articles like "Appeals won’t stop gang crime" (refering the black gangs), you get the picture pretty quickly: feeding on fear, ignoring the real statistics, etc.

The lead in "I’m going to make a confession. I would love it if multiculturalism worked." is laughable.

So, some migrants, in some suburbs, for some time, prefer to put their energies into families, friends and neighbors than into the more distant organised civic, sporting, and welfare organisations.

And in doing so, in the eyes of those who can't tolerate THEM not being like US, bring about the end of Australia as we know it!

"So there you have it," says The Realists, "multiculturalism amongst other things leads to a withdrawal from community life." Where does the 'among other things' come from?

Dr Healy, the author of the copycat Putnam study, actually said: "... it would be wrong to conclude migrants from non-English speaking countries were unfriendly and uncaring and less altruistic than Australian-born people. It was likely their altruism was directed to friends, families and neighbours, not through organised civic, sporting, and welfare organisations."

That's all his research data allowed him to say.

That doesn't stop Polycarp from trotting out his usual nonsense: "As I've long said .. multi culturalism simply facilitates ethnic minorities trying to advance their own cultural agenda at the expense of the host culture. It's a fact of life, with ample evidence. Why even bother arguing against this?"

Why indeed, when you don't even need any evidence? Even when you can spin 'evidence' that goes the other way?

What is it with you guys? Every time someone mentions 'multiculturalism' you lose your faculties.

I take issue with characterising TheRealists.com.au as a race-hate site (see earlier post by Sams).

Your reference to an article that mentioned black gangs in London as your justification for this description ignores the fact that even the then Prime Minister Tony Blair said that the violence wouldn't be stopped "by pretending it is not young black kids doing it".

The site provides alternative views to the orthodoxy that mass immigration and multiculturalism are intrinsically good. Exclaiming 'race hate!' when a point of view is expressed that you are not comfortable with does not further the debate.

"Exclaiming 'race hate!' when a point of view is expressed that you are not comfortable with does not further the debate."

Your strawman argument doesn't further the debate. I didn't "exclaim" at all - I pointed out a fact, using just one example out of hundreds. You are right about one thing: I am not comfortable with points of view founded on racial hatred, which is why I felt the need to point out the subtext of the initial post. That certainly does 'further the debate' in my opinion.

Multiculturalism works, look how well the English, Irish, Scots and Welsh get on together in this country. They even intermarry these days.

I just had a quck squizz at 'TheRealists' website, and Sams is quite correct - it's just another thinly disguised racist hate site.

With respect to this thread, Spikey's right - the study merely shows that "some migrants, in some suburbs, for some time, prefer to put their energies into families, friends and neighbors than into the more distant organised civic, sporting, and welfare organisations."

Just another troll from just another racist.

Why not debate the evidence rather than reverting again to name calling?

The study confirms what other studies, both here and around the world, point to: That members of multicultural communities are less altruistic than members of more homogeneous communities. It's pretty clear.

Here is a quote from the article that points that out:

"in ethnically diverse areas, both the Australian-born residents and the migrants from non-English speaking countries are less likely to volunteer than their counterparts in the more homogenous neighbourhoods."

We can either open our mind and accept that multiculturalism has some disadvantages, or chose a closed minded point of view that says multiculturalism is an intrinsic good regardless of any evidence that may point to the opposite in fact being true.

"Why not debate the evidence rather than reverting again to name calling?"

At least three people already have, and a couple have indicated that your 'contribution' just takes parts the research out of context. Why aren't responding to them, but instead using the old 'Poor me, I'm so persecuted' line?

Time to stop wasting time on this thread methinks.

I think this statement kinda gives you away, The Realists.

Just a tad.

>>We can either open our mind and accept that multiculturalism has some disadvantages, or chose a closed minded point of view<<

This is classic Boaz-speak.

"You can either open your mind and accept that I'm right, or admit that your mind is closed to argument."

Sounds very, very familiar.

There are no disadvantages to multiculturalism itself. But it is seen as a disadvantage by people who prefer to deal only with people as much like themselves as possible. This is an understandable, but ultimately pointless, stance.

The world has forever been in a constant state of movement. Entire tribes migrated huge distances, long before Creationists believe the world came into existence. Improved communications and simpler, cheaper travel has, every century, every decade and even every year, brought everyone that much closer together.

Not simply geographically, but in terms of interdependency as well.

The basic fact is that we cannot pretend it isn't happening. We cannot prevent it from happening. So the only intelligent course of action is to make it work for us.

Unless of course you prefer to live your life in a permanent state of disappointment.

Or warfare.

There are no other choices.

Everyone knows that multiculturalism has benefits and it also creates challenges. The positives include we can all see that we are made in God's image. Positives also include learning of other cultures and forming friendships around the globe.It is obvious to anyone who can see that we have all inherited the adamic nature. Because secularist deny the obvious they come up with silly little non discriminatory policies that invite people here who don't share their same secular or Christian values. Many of these people must laugh as we provide bucket loads of welfare. If ever we were to be attacked they would rush to the aid of the attackers. England, France and any other place where Islam has a toe has proven to be nothing short of a diaster. We are foolishly following the same path.

'TheRealists'

Without resorting to name-calling and so forth, I think it's quite clear that at the very least, your posts are misleading your view.

Your initial statement, that you would love to believe multiculturalism works etc, combined with the sarcastic nature of your post, appears to be an attempt to position yourself as one with just a passing interest, who has found this study and is presenting it for discussion.

In fact, your site shows that this is not some mere passing interest, rather, it is an ongoing agenda you appear to have.
Thus, in my opinion, your initial post is designed to make people believe you're really interested in seeing multiculturalism work, but regrettably, you've come to believe it does not.

I believe a more accurate supposition is that you hate what multiculturalism stands for and you're attempting to win converts to your view.
The speed with which you cry foul and position yourself as a victim of taunts, instead of addressing the more substantial claims, doesn't give me much confidence either.

To get to what appear to be the core points brought up here:
1) Pericles pointed out the inevitability of aspects of multiculture. More constructive suggestions in managing social cohesion and accepting the inevitable might be more productive than yet another predictable spray about minorities.
2) Antonios has pointed out some of the difficulties migrants face. Others have pointed out that favouring neighbours and friends might be an alternative face of community interaction.
3) As Pericles mentions your "admit I'm right or admit to being closed minded" is rather childish.
4) As has been mentioned by posters, an overriding respect for Australian culture is mentioned as part of the official manifesto.

Perhaps your site would be better characterised as a 'minority-hate' site, insofar as perhaps you don't target a particular race.

I notice that no-one else has picked you up on it Boaz, but I for one would sure like to know more about the Nunawading slur.

>>...one ethnic group... used corrupt methods of manipulating council to fund the centre, and then promptly named it "The (ETHNIC NAME)centre of Nunawading". The council had to virtually threaten to cut off all means of life to them until they re-branded it 'Community' centre.<<

Details please. With references.

Because as it stands, you are splashing around innuendo of decidedly criminal conduct (corruption) without bothering to present any evidence.

Since the centre is clearly now known as the Nunawading Community Centre, we only have your word for its previous title.

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/page/page.asp?page_Id=238

Please, tell us a few facts about this latest claim of yours, that leads straight into your conclusion that:

>>As I've long said .. multi culturalism simply facilitates ethnic minorities trying to advance their own cultural agenda at the expense of the host culture. It's a fact of life, with ample evidence. Why even bother arguing against this?<<

"The (ETHNIC NAME)centre of Nunawading" clearly represents to you some form of "proof statement".

But those of us who have watched you at work over the years know better than to take you at face value. Jailed Pastors, and all that.

So come on, you know the drill. Let's have a look at the detail.

The anticipation of your providing chapter and verse of a scandal of mammoth proportions will undoubtedly keep me awash with adrenalin.

TurnRightThenLeft: "Perhaps your site would be better characterised as a 'minority-hate' site, insofar as perhaps you don't target a particular race."

No, I wouldn't even afford them that. If you look the site over, its only some cultures that are targeted copiously and consistently: Asian and black, (including indigenous, despite the fact from their point of view, we are the immigrants!).

eg. http://therealists.com.au/?p=92

Dear Realist,

All of us who are proud to call this beautiful
brown land our home , who've been accepted here,
who've toiled, sweated, and worked to make this
country what it is today. We've paid our dues and
should be made to feel welcome.
Not to do so goes against
the very ethos of the Australian "Fair Go" for all.

We all have our histories,
no matter when we came, or from where.
We're part of this country's history.

Nobody's history is more worthy than anyone else's,
each is a part of the rich tapestry of this
country.

We all have our past heritages, but we also
have a future that we want to leave for our children
and grandchildren.

The kind of future that they will
have depends on us. It's our choice whether this
country will be united or divisive. Putting labels
on people does nothing for cohesion and is so
"yesterday."

We should move beyond that - this is not
the 1950s - this is the 21st century - and we should
have nothing to fear from newcomers anymore.
We were newcomers once too.

"We are one but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream
And sing with one voice
I am, you are, we are Australian."

For a start the attempt at satire in your initial post is totally, like, lame. If your arguments against multiculturalism were going to be considered and intelligent I'd presume you wouldn't need to oversimplify and misrepresent the case for it in order to make that case easier to dismiss. I notice you do the same thing on your website, including making the fascinating assertion that some people who engage in criminal behaviour WERE BORN OVERSEAS, ergo multiculturalism doesn't work.

See? Lame.

Basically I agree with Pericles, as usual. Australia became multicultural — in the sense of having more than one culture — the day the British settled. And people are swarming round the earth more than ever. This is a colonised country, and new arrivals keep coming. As a nation, we're a collection of mostly mutts.

If ethnic diversity makes communities withdraw from community life, then we identify and address that. Multiculturalism is not a perfect instrument and requires constant tuning.

Besides, what's with the "they're taking our cultures" stuff? Last time I looked we were still a parliamentary democracy. I celebrate my northern European heritage all the time. I relish my George Elliot like a good Englishwoman, I wear clogs like a good Swede. Similarly, I love the fact that living in a multicultural society I have friends from all over the shop who have different culture and customs.

I think the conclusions you are drawing from the study in question is far-fetched phooey.

Sams,

When you bully by calling people *haters* you are only doing your causes harm.

Veronika,

Multi culture hasn't worked. A huge voice in society is still deeply opposed. Basically it's not yet been accepted, and obviously won't ever be.

I think it is time to look to other ways to deal with sharing our planet, god knows how or what...

The Realists claim(s): "The study confirms what other studies, both here and around the world, point to: That members of multicultural communities are less altruistic than members of more homogeneous communities. It's pretty clear."

Earlier today, I quoted what Dr Healy, the author of the study, actually said: "... it would be wrong to conclude migrants from non-English speaking countries were unfriendly and uncaring and less altruistic than Australian-born people."

"Wrong to conclude". How is it that TheRealists can get it so wrong?

It's possible, of course, that TheRealists is illiterate and just couldn't read his own favourite quote correctly.

Regardless of the real motives for TheRealists quoting (and misunderstanding) this study what did the study show? "About 18 per cent of Australian-born middle-income earners aged 25-64 were volunteers, for example, but only 13 per cent of those from non-English speaking countries." Big deal. If your English wasn't too good and you were a relative newcomer to this nation, would you be out there volunteering for the local footy team or trying to get your family organised and established and developing good relations with your neighbours?

TheRealists also quoted Dr Healy: "When you create societies from mixed backgrounds it may not lead to overt violence … but to something scarier, a withdrawal from the civic sphere.” Pardon me for rolling about on the floor, but not volunteering at the same rate as the rest of us is worse than violence? Something "scarier"? Come on, get a grip.

I think it's stretching it a bit far to use marginally lower rates of volunteering as a surrogate for withdrawal from "social life". A lot of hot air if you ask me.

We could all examine our own ancestry and see if it is multicultural, then see if the result is pleasing or not.

Personally I come from a very diverse background; predominently Scots and English, then Irish and Welsh. Going back a bit further the oldies were Normans,Vikings, French, German, Lombards, Bretons and Saxons and as far back as I can get (and probably ever shall) the Kings of Wessex. Now there's multiculturism and I feel OK about it.

There were over 50 nationalities on the First Fleet and two of the people were Negroes. One of whom lost his life by drowning when he tried to save someone who'd fallen into the harbour at Sydney.
There you have it, folks, our first recorded hero and volunteer was an African.

Spikey, I'll make a few points:

1. The "wrong to conclude quote" is followed by "However, altruism directed through formal groups represented a ‘commitment to the broader social good’”. Meaning that being altruistic to friends, families and neighbours is not the same as through organised civic, sporting, and welfare organisations. Whilst I didn't quote the whole article, I do think that the quotes were representative of the article.

2. The study also shows that there is less volunteering even among Australian-born residents in multicultural communities. This is a point that is conveniently ignored.

3. You might think it a lot of hot air, but community volunteering is a measure of Social cohesion. I feel that a less cohesive, more divided Australia is a scary thought.

What we mustn’t forget here is that these problems are real; multiculturalism does impact people's lives. It does cause less social cohesion, less trust within societies, less volunteering and less altruistic behaviour. For mine, these outcomes of multiculturalism are bad outcomes. To the extent that you feel that these outcomes are not desirable you must also conclude that multiculturalism is not desirable.

And for the record, I do not feel that pointing out the negative aspects of multiculturalism equates to race hate, minority hate, or any other type of hate.

TheRealists
I don't think you are necessarily being racist and you certainly have a right to say what you think and why. One can believe that multiculturalism has failed without being a racist.

However, multiculturalism has bought many things to this country. For me the one big plus is the belief that the more we mingle and co-mingle with other cultures the more we see we are intrinsically the same. This has to be a good thing in the long term rather than a stark them and us mentality which only creates tension and division.

First and foremost we are all human with a desire to live peacefully and happily with our families and for our lives to be enriching in whichever way one might wish.

Until we reach that point we will always be at war with some group over the most petty of reasons. In the England of old, there may have been no multi-culturalism but there was the issue of money, class and schooling (and even how you spoke) and in culturally uniform Ireland the great problem of religious differences and its dreadful consequences.

I was lucky to have grown up in a very multi-cultural society including a large Aboriginal population. My father is Austrian and we lived amongst a large group of other Germans, Austrians, Chinese, Aboriginal, Australian, Greek and Italian families. It felt odd when we moved into a very anglo-saxon culture some years later, with its uniformity. Both were fine to grow up in; one was just more colourful than the other and there was more variety of food, but in essence people are the same no matter where you are.

I am sure that when good ol' Maslow was devising his hierarchy of needs, he did not differentiate on culture.

If there has been a decrease in volunteering, one might also assume that because multi-culturalism came about at the same time as two-income families became the norm, this may have had some impact on voluntary work hours. Correlation does not always = causation.

I am of asian background, born and raised in Sydney and understand the frustration of people not identifying me as beng "Australian", despite the fact that I speak no other language but English and know no other country as my home.

I don't blame the people that ask me "where I'm from" but feel irritation at the numerous number of immigrants from asian countries that segregate themselves, eliminating the need for them to learn to speak English or integrate into the community. The shops in the areas they live all have signage in other languages, sometimes without any english text at all.

Looking back 30 years ago, Lakemba would probably have been a largely caucasian suburb. Are there many caucasians who would gladly move to that particular suburb now? Or would they feel as though they didn't belong?

What are the benefits of multiculturalism? For people such as myself, it allows me to live in a country as beautiful as Australia with all its freedoms and opportunities. For the ignorant, they're able to proudly proclaim they live in a multicultural society while eating pad thai.

The disadvantages? There are people that live amongst us that we cannot communicate with. They don't share out views and their loyalty lies with a country other than the one they reside in. They insist upon policies and protocols being changed to suit them in the name of cultural sensitivity. They demand we respect their traditions and beliefs without having respect for our Australian values.

My parents migrated here, worked hard, never collected welfare, learned to speak English and raised their children as Australian. I believe if all immigrants did as such, multiculturalism would indeed make this country wonderful. There would be no need for such an issue to be raised and phrases such as "racial-hatred" to be bandied about. Maybe I'm biased it being my family, but I believe that our experience of Australia would be a far more harmonious one if immigration promoted assimilation and integration into society rather than highlighting just how different we all really are.

This so-called "article" from the so-called "Realists" is a load of twaddle. The same old divisive guff from the same people.

We live multiculturalism, and it obviously works. We are it and it is us. All Australians are a blend of different cultures. This is the norm, not the exception, and anyone who imagines they belong to some "pure" ethnic or racial group is imagining things.

Dear Realist,

I agree with you that Community volunteering
is a sign of cohesion. That has been my
experience.

Let me tell you about the suburb in which I
live. It's a suburb of Melbourne.

Here we have volunteers taking reading material
from our local library system to the elderly on a
rostered basis. We have a mixed group whose ancestry
is as follows: Polish, Indian, Colombian, German,
Japanese, Philippino,and Taiwanese.

Meals-on-Wheels are delivered by another mixed group
whose ancestry is: Irish, Norwegian, French and British.

Our Community run U3A - (University of the Third Age), the
chairwoman's ancestry is Hungarian and the teachers are
from a wide variety of backgrounds - too numerous to list
here.

Your argument Sir, does not have much validity.

At least not in the Community in which I live.

Foxy, sure it does, all over, we are arguing it, it is problematic or we'd all let it go, both sides.

I'm old enough to have seen waves of "ethnic migrants" and witness the seeming inevitable racist victimization that follows only to see it fade in to the dark corners inhabited by the odd recalcitrant xenophobes who mourn some mythical time when “they” were the dominant phenotype. A place where rampant fear and festering resentment meant they were mainstream rather than some pathetic social troglodytic outcast in their ’own’ (sic) land they now alienated in. Doomed victims, about to be usurped by some horrific foreign culture from the bowels of Hades. A place so unspeakably evil that the boat men of the river Styx refuse to sail.

Whew…., you get the flavour. Human nature is that it seeks those who they feel most comfortable with….people with whom they can identify, those of shared experiences… Surprise! ... People of their culture.
Even those whose ancestry is from that most deplorable of mothers, BRITANIA aren’t as one, Welsh, Scots Irish and the English god knows how many warring cultures there.

Assimilation works for the Borg but few else.
Even the curmudgeonly French vary from region to region.

The idea of one Australia (n) is as bizarre as it is absurd. Because of the world getting (figuratively) smaller, more choices, more knowledge, and more exposure to different cultures we are today unrecognizable to Aussies say of the 50/60/70s et sec.
Even in our originating countries the locals would call us foreigners.

Denying that we have changed and will continue to is like King Canute commanding the tide to not come in.

Me? to hell with where my parents come from. I celebrate St Pats, Halloween (Scots), and any other day that involves fun, Greek philosophy, Chinese wisdom, Drink Czech beer eat Indian Curry, watch Yank TV, drive a Korean car, enjoy Swiss& Belgium chocolate (hmmmm Chocky), love Turkish coffee and Lebanese halva, Hate sport and would love to go to Madagascar, Peru and the Galapagos… I think you get my point.

Concentrate on what we share not our differences and bugger labels save one, Human (well almost).

Name calling just weakens anything you want to say examinator. Why not face the fact people are unhappy with it and talk about othr options..

Spikey mentioned Putnam but didn't elaborate.

Putnam is largely responsible for the notion that volunteering and being active in clubs and community organisations are indices of social cohesion. He found that less and less (white, middle-class Americans) were involved in things like 10 pin bowling leagues these days and concluded that society must be falling apart.

The upshot is that less people of any cultural background are community minded, altruistic, neighbourly networkers. We network internationally on the internet instead.

As others have pointed out, globalising change isn't going away. Cosmopolitans will inevitably be more comfortable and do better in the world than monoculturalists. Maybe it's time to classify groups like TheRealists as just another cultural group among many having trouble adjusting? Maybe we should have programs to help them adjust to the new circumstances they're finding so difficult?

Let us for a second forget polycarps Muslims.
And if we must the 1970,s Asian migrants, yes both like WASPs have some, a few, who are of concern.
After ww2 we took migrants from the old world, they sometimes faced bigotry and sometimes hate.
Today the great grand children of those folk are pillars of our country.
Maybe of pollycarps church too.
I find it strange that we are mostly divided not by race but by religion.
We are you know, divided by the very thing meant to unite us.
Our problem is not multi cultures it is multi religions.
And bigotry on all sides.

Ph00_stains,(pity about the pseudonym)
I think you missed my point.
So much for my attempt at satire.
I was saying deliberately in over the top language (for giggles) to illustrate the silliness of dwelling on the negativity of the situation.

Every wave of immigration is followed by a heightened level of anxiety from the residents. This is manifested by focusing on mythical evils by victimizing/demonizing the new arrivals. Given time one the fearful realize that it’s all in their minds it all fades away. Except in the minds the terminally xenophobic which seem to hold onto these prejudices as a means of self identification (importance) see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

I’ve lived through waves of “reffo’s”, “spags”, “wogs”, “chinks”, et al including their tall of whom were vilified and victimized only to become part of the whole in time.
I have seen the average diet go from meat and three uninterestingly prepared veg, meat pies with sauce (tomato) to tabouli, pizzas, being able to distinguish between Malaysian and Chinese food.
The latter interesting foods were considered subversive in their initial times.

I was saying isn’t it a pity we can’t skip the nasty puerile bit and go strait to the acceptance.
I also said resistance to change albeit “futile” is lamentably part of current human nature as much as acceptance is…the difference is familiarization and time.

This acceptance is only retarded by attitude “focusing on differences” and rigid labels.

Oddly enough BELLY, the same applies with religions if given a chance. We accept a multiplicity of denominations of Christianity, Buddhism etc yet some still clash with Islam. There is plenty of history that shows that religions can exist together.
Moorish Spain and even the Genghis Khan’s Ulan batu had representatives of most religion and all were tolerated. If Mongols can why can’t we? ….Attitude.

There is nothing in evolution or genetically that says the acceptance process can’t be truncated. I suggested by dispensing with labels bar one ….Human beings we are all that.

It's all very well and good to talk about acceptance and I have to applaud many Australians for their open and friendly nature. I don't think this is supposed to be a debate about tolerance or hate between caucasians and ethnic minorities. The question is are there groups of immigrants that do not accept and tolerate our way of life? And if so, how do they fit into society?

It's all very well and good to say immigration is grand because you like european beer and eat sushi and wear italian shoes and other shallow, insignificant things. Is multiculturalism about foodstuffs and holidays?

Sure, I eat with Chopsticks and celebrate Chinese New Year. That's part of my cultural heritage, but ultimately I identify with being an Australian. The problem is there are people that come to this country that do not.

They will, Flightless, they will.

>>Sure, I eat with Chopsticks and celebrate Chinese New Year. That's part of my cultural heritage, but ultimately I identify with being an Australian. The problem is there are people that come to this country that do not.<<

Just give them time.

Of course, one sure way to drive them back upon themselves, and ensure that they stay as close to their clan as possible, is to share the views of TheRealists.

You see, they actively agitate against the absorption of new cultures, most probably because change makes them feel uncomfortable. In the face of their opposition - if there were enough of them, that is - the tendency would be for new arrivals to seek protection from their fellow-countrymen. 'Twas ever thus.

But time has a habit of making these petty differences disappear, to the point where we all wonder what the fuss was about. How many people still want to see a "British Australia", as Foxy reminded us was once widely expressed.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2268#49620

Just TheRealists, I suspect.

That's a very pretty picture that is painted. I do think it's a shame that we can't all get along, but I don't believe racism and white supremacy is at the heart of the problem.

TheRealists,

Your 'few points' in response to mine bore little relationship to mine, but never mind. The main point is that the research you introduced - and misunderstood - did not conclude what you said it did.

Moreover, the assertion that a lower rate of volunteering among newly-arrived Australians 'proves' that multiculturalism has failed is a load of illogical nonsense.

Pericles put it succinctly: "If there has been a decrease in volunteering, one might also assume that because multi-culturalism came about at the same time as two-income families became the norm, this may have had some impact on voluntary work hours. Correlation does not always = causation."

I have read quite a deal of your website. I think you basically conflate immigration policy with multiculturalism. They are two quite different things. The first is about who is allowed to come to this country and the second is to do with programs to encourage positive outcomes from diversity for all Australians. I'm sorry you seem unable to see the sorts of benefits that Pericles identifies. It's your loss.

Dear Pericles,

Well put.

AS Phillip Adams once expressed:

"It's important to remember Australia
before the most recent wave of immigration.

It was dull, self-satisfied and joylessly conformist.
Not simply null and boring, but nullarboring.
Not merely mindless, but lobotomised.

Of course, the option of multiculturalism involves
taking some considerable risks, but almost every
human experience is based on experiment, innovation
and adventure.

In the past we've had to travel the globe
(which, thanks to multi-cultural marketing, media
and technology is suffering from galloping homogeneity)
to see worlds that contrasted with our own.

In a multicultural society, such experiences would be
within walking distance. Or over the back fence.
Good heavens, we could even risk inviting them inside.

I remember ordering my first 'cappa-cheeno.'
Minutes later I learned two new words from the
man behind the hellishly steaming espresso machine,
'prego' and 'grazie.'

And that was just the beginning...I began to suspect that
the world didn't end sharply, a few miles beyond St. Kilda
beach."

This was back in the 1980s.

Most of us have since moved on.

Some never will. As Pericles points out,
they're in the minority, and will end up on the
dust heap of history as our diverse population
continues to grow and live in harmony.

Your argument about the rise in two income families fails to recognise that volunteering is relatively higher the more homogeneous the community is, notwithstanding any rise in two income families.

My article stated that multiculturalism is bad for Australia. I feel that policies that cause Australians to be less caring towards each other is a bad thing for Australia.

I think that the white flight from troubled suburbs, the segregation of schools by race, the breakdown of community life are all more important than any shallow benefits that multiculturalism may bring to some in our society.

Can I just make another point? So far people have argued about how they enjoy certain food, have learnt new words and how an African helped another African once. My argument is that multiculturalism is making Australian communities less caring towards each other, which is backed by research.

Just because I picked up an umbrella for an Asian lady recently doesn't discount this. Just because I have friends from Asia, Europe, North America, India and Israel doesn't discount this. Just because I enjoy singing Karaoke with Asian friends and eating Indian with my Indian friends doesn't discount this. Just because I chose to stay in the city doesn't mean that people in more troubled suburbs don't feel the need to flee the city as their neighbourhood becomes more multicultural.

Just because I (or you) benefit from multiculturalism doesn't mean that everyone benefits.

I don't care about the people who benefit from multiculturalism.

I care about the disadvantaged people living in troubled suburbs that experience the negative aspects of multiculturalism. The people who may not be well off, who may not be super-intelligent, who may not even have Internet access or even a login to OLO, but who have to lap up all the so-called joys of multiculturalism that we citizens of this world thrust upon them. They're the people caught up in this bold experiment of multiculturalism. The irony is that the very people who purport to care the most for these people peruse policies that do them the most harm.

Do you volunteer, TheRealists?

TheRealists: "I don't care about the people who benefit from multiculturalism."

Well I don't care about your improbable stories of interaction with other cultures, and I don't care about your manipulative prose repeating the dogma of how "scary" multiculturalism is. You haven't got the reception here that you were hoping for because the people here have the intelligence to see right through your facade. In short, you've picked the wrong crowd to try to manipulate. You might as well go back to recruiting ignorant yobbos and skin heads on your pathetic hate website.

I suggest others look at the report "Living Diversity: Australia’s Multicultural Future".
http://www.ifacca.org/publications/2002/01/01/living-diversity-australias-multicultural-future/
"A landmark Australian survey has found widespread support for immigration, cultural diversity and multiculturalism, and no evidence of ethnic ghettos in Australia"

Multiculturalism is thriving in Australia, with no evidence in crime stats, etc. that it is anything to be scared of.

Pelican and Flightlees,
I relate closest to your comments and the crypic comments of PHoo.

We have been multi-racial since the first fleet but we are not and never have been multicultural. The word is a misnomer. India is a multicultural country, where they have differing laws and social standards for people of differing cultures.

We expect ALL to abide and respect our laws, social standards and our governance. We allow some aspects of other cultures,religions,etc. but not all. e.g. Not allowed is bull fighting, cock fighting, honour killing,consumption of dog meat, dolphin or whale meat. Women can wear revealing clothes without being labeled a whore and women can go out alone or mix with non relative males. We have nativity scenes in malls at Christmas and Santa Claus. Women have equal rights in law and education. To my disgust, our governments even turn a blind eye to girls being subject to FGM, but I do not know of any culture that is accepted completely, except our own. There are even aspects of American culture that are not acceptable here.

As Flightless said there are people here that think their culture is above our laws and standards. It is our own fault this has occured because under the imposed ideology of multiculture we told people comming here that they could could continue as they lived elsewhere and we would adapt to them.

If want a cohesive community we must insist that our laws and standards are upheld by everybody. If some believe aspects of their culture are more important to them, then they should not be here.

It is pleasing to see that integration is taking the place of the ideology of multiculturalism.

Boaz, don't forget Nunawading, will you?

>>NUNAWADING COMMUNITY CENTRE.
Unless you were privy to the background of this place, you would not know that initially, it was branded for one ethnic group.
That group used corrupt methods of manipulating council to fund the centre, and then promptly named it "The (ETHNIC NAME)centre of Nunawading". The council had to virtually threaten to cut off all means of life to them until they re-branded it 'Community' centre.<<

The key words here are "corrupt methods", and of course the name that they "promptly named it".

Evidence, please. A date, perhaps? A newspaper cutting?

We don't want a repeat of the Swedish Pastor fiasco, do we...

Banjo:

"We have been multi-racial since the first fleet but we are not and never have been multicultural." But also:

"As Flightless said there are people here that think their culture is above our laws and standards. It is our own fault this has occured because under the imposed ideology of multiculture we told people comming here that they could could continue as they lived elsewhere and we would adapt to them."

And there's more: "It is pleasing to see that integration is taking the place of the ideology of multiculturalism."

Come on Banjo, get it right. Are we a multicultural society or not?

While you're at it, you might as well try to clarify your position on what Australian law allows. "We expect ALL to abide and respect our laws, social standards and our governance." But also:

"To my disgust, our governments even turn a blind eye to girls being subject to FGM, but I do not know of any culture that is accepted completely, except our own."

You've got no hope of convincing anyone if you can't get your story straight.

Pericles.. I heard that from an insider.. I don't know of any news reports and I didn't name the ethnic group concerned.. but I assure you they were not Muslim nor Lebanese :)

MC is bad (as it turns out in practice).. I don't know why people even argue about it. The theory is great.. but human nature is the one minor flaw.

Porky: << I heard that from an insider.. I don't know of any news reports >>

Given your record, do you really expect anybody to believe that?

<< MC is bad (as it turns out in practice).. >>

That's simply your opinion, Porky. However, what is unquestionably "bad" and socially destructive is feeding xenophobia and racism on the basis of unsupported rumour and innuendo.

You will never learn, will you Boaz?

It is very bad form indeed to spray allegations around, as you have, and have done on a number of occasions before, without the slightest shred of evidence.

Here's a quick clue:

"I heard it from an insider" is not evidence. It is hearsay.

To take a rumour - in all probability from a prejudiced source - and spread it around as fact is the act of a scoundrel.

I am stupefied that you, after all the attention you attract each time you make one of these "claims", persist in doing so.

It really is not good enough, you know. You cannot just go around accusing people of corruption, and then use it as an example to support your argument, simply on the basis of idle gossip.

Spikey;
Firstly, I never try to convince any one that I am right. I put my point of view and if you do not agree that is your perogative.

1. Multi-racial we are, multicultural we are not. We have always expected those comming here to abide by our laws and standards.

2. The MC ideology imposed on us by Whitlam, Grazzby and then Fraser and other politicians put down aussie culture in preference to ANY other. We were told to accept the culture of others. But only partly, we kept our laws and type of government. But have allowed our social standards to be eroded in many ways.

You want examples of this. The Cronulla situation was brought about by the conduct of some ethnic groups to other beach goers there. Authorities did nothing about this for many years dispite many complaints. Finally the locals decided to do something about it. Nothing was done to prevent the, so called, revenge attacks.

We allow people like the Croats and Serbs to bring their age old hatreds with them when they come and act them out.

If you do not know, FGM is against the law in all states but not one person has ever been charged with an offence relating to it. Dispite ample evidence available. Government turns a deliberate blind eye. Do you agree that young Aussie born girls should be subject to this torture. Funny though, there are regular raids on cockfighting activities.

What about the removal of nativity scenes from malls and pre- schools Santa visits, because somebody claims offence.

3. No we are NOT MC. Name a culture that we completely accept and embrace.

Most ordinary Aussies care little about a persons religion or race but expect them to respect our culture, laws and social standards.

CJ,
It's worth considering how you may make people feel when you call them or their ways beliefs’ "xenophobic and/or racist" , they are actully very heavy and very often wrong, misplaced and exaggerated accusations.

Name calling has your causes a lot of harm.

Chainsmoker,
There are too many people who are against multiculturalism to re educate such a huge mass of the society, as you have seen try as they already have with various "programs" it is still highly unpopular.

Spikey,
I think Banjo may be alluding to a preference for multi-race over multi-culture because it requires people integrate.

P00_stains
Society with all it's foibles is a group of people who share through a combination of socially and legally determined rules by which they live.
While not in an act of war if a person plans and then kills another what is he/she if not a murderer?
Therefore behaviour that exibits or defends xenophobic or racist tendencies are as described. So too is an individual who presents themself that way.
Name calling, unfair etc applies when the claims are untrue.

Both CJ and I simply called a spade a spade rather than a manual implement otherwise known as a tool. For the purposes of manual excavation or moving of localized loose terrestial substrates.

Most sentient people would then question the relevant attitudes beliefs as to their appropriateness.

Ph00 stains,

Having spent ridiculous amounts of time watching these arguments about race/multiculturalism/immigration on OLO, I've come to the conclusion that few people understand exactly what the Australian version of multiculturalism actually is.

The core idea is that migrants will understandably cluster around the familiar until they get the hang of Australian culture. Sometimes that will take a couple of generations. If we're going to have immigration we need to accept this simple fact and assist people with integration if we can.

To my knowledge there's no evidence that your majority who don't support multiculturalism understand this. Every time we discuss it here there's plenty of evidence that people think it's about maintaining distinct cultural or even racial groups. Nobody has suggested that that would be a good idea. Supporters of multiculturalism here have talked about cultural integration going both ways - we learn from migrants and they learn from us, and we're a richer society for it.

These arguments are about race more than culture. We could be an entirely white anglo nation and still be multicultural. We have goths, urban trendies, junkies, suburban working families, rural communities, Aboriginal cultures, skinheads, petrol heads, surfers, bikie gangs, Ita Buttrose wannabees, corporate executives, communists, geeks, bogans, Catholics, Protestants, Exclusive Brethren, Masons, white supremacists, any number of cultures within our overall society. Why is Greek culture more objectionable than geek culture?

Chainsmoker has a valid point.

Why is Greek culture less acceptable then Geek culture?

Possibly because the Greeks or any other immigrant
group, is seen among low-status whites
as competitors for scarce resources.

Surveys have shown that this sentiment
is strongest amongst low-status whites
who feel most threatened by the economic
progress and what's seen as competition of the minorities.

The evidence from other countries
also shows a consistent pattern of
intolerance towards immigrants,
among low-status members of the
country's dominant group.

Things however do change,
once the immigrant group is able to
gain greater equality.
For example the strong hostilities that
originally existed against Japanese, Irish, Italian,
and other immigrants in the US
has gradually lessened as these groups have
gained entry to the broad American middle-class, where they
are now seen as equals rather than as rivals.

Antipathy is now greatest against other groups,
such as blacks or Chicanos,
who remain relatively impoverished.

In Australia, things will also change with time -
as immigrant groups gain equality.
Hostilities will undoubtedly continue - when
new immigrant groups take their place.

Events follow a fairly predictable course -
especially when
the sentiments come from low-status whites - who view any
newcomer as a competitor for scarce resources.

This low-status group will always develop
contemptuous beliefs about the
supposed inferiority of the minority groups to justify
their continued prejudices and supposed supremacy.

Coming from a low-status part of society they are
difficult to educate and the problem will
unfortunately continue to exist for them.

Chain smoker,

Thankyou very much for your thoughtful post. I hadn’t heard that policy on multiculturalism… I’d never really heard a policy on it, for me, it just seemed to fall into our language as a concept at some stage during the 80s. I need to think on it before I comment.

Your point on variations of culture is interesting and I generally agree, but for some extremes. Also I think the problem is less racism but more social.

I loath racism, my family is rather colourful via marriages and adoptions. We are Anglo and have had Chinese, Vietnamese, Manchurian and Japanese spouses along with some black African toddlers.

The cultural aspects of my family are easy and likeable but for one guy. His being Manchurian (Russian and Chinese) racially was no issue. The sticky point was we became unable to accommodate his communism as it was actually hostile to our beliefs. He was eventually, a big part in due to this attitude being utterly unworkable and much to the relief of most of us, divorced by his partner from our family.

Was that a cultural or political or even religious problem? To me it’s always looked like the atheist Russians and the Chinese `loved` communism in place of a god, so I veer towards calling it incompatible on religious terms. But it is touchy, blurry and confusing

Chain Smoker,

Naturally I hope for a something workable for all, especially as I have black cousins and don’t want them to suffer racism in life. Nor do I want them to grow up as pseudo `race victims`.

I think there are only a few areas that ca not be ironed out or as you and Foxy suggest say `adjusted` to. Human nature underneath has too much in common for many of the differences too be of enough depth to be a genuine problem. I am not denying there is racism in the world, there is too much of it. But here in this discussion on culture, needs and belief I don’t think racism is the our issue.

I think there are a few beliefs or needs that are fundamentally unworkable or antagonistic to our basic standards. This is the core of the trouble. It is ruining the integration process and good will for many Australians and new people, the trouble just sours it for everyone until they become angry and resentful or apathetic and give up on what is a mostly workable future for lots of us.

As you said we are globalized now and we do need to work out how to get along in a new manner.

How much of our own culture or structure are we obliged too loose or alter for a new culture or belief system?
When can we say no to some and not others?
Who chooses?

Looking forward to more of your thoughts on this.

Foxy
I would add another dimension some cases those who are also outspoken about immigration are in fact 1-2 generation migrants themselves. The issue here is often a matter of identity or fear that they might get the backwash of the racist argument e.g.
In Melbourne parts of Richmond are dominated by Vietnamese oriented businesses simply because it makes good business sense to cluster but to the low status whites it becomes yet another example of “being taken over”.

Chain smoker.
You’re right most people don’t know what Multiculturism is. For that reason I rather than try to explain it, I treat it as a foregone conclusion part of an enlightened society.
The alternative is what? The post war reffo assimilation programs, heavily routed in imposing a different way of life on others. Like the failed practices, attitudes in places like Bonegilla Migrant camp and much later Dandenong Migrant hostels. Multiculturism simply makes sense.
I question the parameters of the report in question. What price respect for individuals (fears/ insecurities), not to mention long-term benefits to this country with an assisted integration?
Tor Hunloe in his book “Buddha to Bono” offers a triple bottom line to incorporate the environment I would add a bottom line to include maximizing human capital.
Therefore Multiculturism would be a given.

PH00_stains.
Communism isn’t a religion, it's an atheistic philosophy. In the context of Australia the individual is entitled to believe in communism, there are still some diehards today. The issues with your rellies are more accurately defined as:
• Compliance with current laws and
• a difference of ideologies therefore a matter of tolerance/acceptance on both sides not a matter of religion per se

Banjo

I accept your position regarding opinions. But, one person's opinion is not as good as another if the quality of the argument, the logic and the evidence base are inadequate in the one and superior in the other.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that "We have always expected those comming here to abide by our laws and standards". That would apply equally to cock fighting and to female genital mutilation (FGM). If allegations are made and evidence is sufficient for a prosecution, then the case should proceed. This is independent of the issue of multiculturalism. That policy does not condone FGM, despite un-evidenced and unsubstantiated claims to the contrary.

The Croats and Serbs act no better and no worse than the Irish and English at comparable stages of their settlement in this country. The fact is that ethnic-motivated violence in Australia is minimal - has multiculturalism played a part?

But let's not attribute too much to multiculturalism. It is, after all, merely a social policy. The laws of the land must still be obeyed. Multiculturalism has no magic powers to cause "social standards to be eroded" as you claim. If standards have been eroded let's look to all the possible explanations including increased individualism and greed, and the relaxation of regulation on private businesses.

As an Australian of Anglo origin I cannot agree that my 'culture' has been usurped or diminished by 'multiculturalism'. Everywhere I look I see the power in parliaments, councils, civic bodies dominated by Anglo Australians.

At any rate, I think your use of the word 'culture' is in need of definition. It's not something that is found in museums or in academies. Culture is lived by real people every day. It changes imperceptibly as our circumstances and environment change. No one expects 'Anglo Australian culture' to be the same today as it was in the 1950s. Much of the change that has come about since the 50s has been brought about by Anglo Australians. And good on 'em!

Interestingly, I'm finding that this thread has actually become quite productive. Rather rare occurrence for this topic, I think.

Perhaps we need to define more perceptions of what multiculturalism really is.
As has been pointed out by other posters, it's not an instantaneous thing - ultimately, it happens within a few generations, and I don't think any migrants to Australia would want their children to not assimilate to a certain extent - to do so would literally be denying them the chance to earn money, live, work, and be happy. These are people, not monsters, and you'll find the vast majority want what is best for their children.

Now a concession - it has been the case that minority groups have pushed for special rights and exemptions. Occasionally, if it causes no problems, it may be warranted, though in most cases, I think it's knocked back. For example, certain posters (I won't name him) often make claims of minorities asking for special treatment, however closer inspection reveals these requests tend to be refused.

Of course we can make requests, that goes hand in hand with freedom of speech - that doesn't equate to them being granted, nor does it equate to a society bending over backwards to give advantages to minority groups.

Ultimately this discussion falls into some broad categories.

For example: to what extent do minorities need assistance?

Most opportunities and positions of powers will flow to the majority (i.e. more Anglo people in power). To what extent is this true? How entrenched are such things?

The answer won't be that there are no entrenched opportunities in society, look at children in remote communities for example. Nor will it be an extreme 'only WASPS can succeed'.

It will be a grey area, not a black and white yes/or no answer. The answer will be that 'some' assistance is required, but it may be very little or a lot. The same goes for efforts to assist integration.

Spikey,
You say multiculturalism is "merely social policy"

MC was imposed on us and is much more than that. Millions of dollars have be spent giving grants to various ethnic bodies, not to ease their way into our society or promote integration, but for them to retain and promote their culture. We were supposed to make concessions to them on cultural grounds. At times, we were even told that we had no culture.

Fighting between Croats and Serbs not only involves riots but burning cars, smashing busses and shots fired into buildings. Violence between Sunni and Sharia Iraqis involved wrecking cars, bashings, intimidation of voters and 3 persons shot. The Incidents at Cronnula, by Leb gangs, included sexual harrassment, lewd comments and verbal abuse and bashings. Our authorities would not tolerate such conduct from Anglo aussies, and bear in mind some of these were 2nd and 3rd generation, not just newcomers.

Multiculture has a lot to do with the FGM matter. When asked the NSW Health Minister why no action has been taken. the reply, in a nutshell, stated "there are cultural considerations"

Ask those females such as teachers, police, ambulance, nurses, shop assistants and receptionists about the arrogant and demanding attitudes of Leb Muslims to them and see if they don't think our social standards have been eroded.

It is true that our culture changes over time, but that should be a process of acceptance over time by our community. Our problems are brought about by a government imposed ideology of MC. The biggest furfhy told has been "Unity in Diversity", that is utter fantasy!

As I said earlier, it is pleasing to see that this federal government has continued with the dropping of MC in favour of integration and let us all hope that MC just quietly dissappears.

Spikey's right about the meaning of 'culture'. It used to be something you'd go to 'get' at an art gallery or the opera. Culture now simply means lifestyle - the things we actually do as opposed to what we think. Values, laws, belief systems and so on are associated with culture only insofaras they impact on lifestyle. Cultures come with commodity or accessory sets which include language - you can easily spot a surfie or a hippy or a geek.

TRTL used the word 'minorities', which is problematic when you're talking about culture. Everyone in this discussion is a member of some minority or other, including the minority that spend time discussing public affairs on the internet. I don't anticipate any suggestion that we need help assimilating, although Stephen Conroy's ISP filters suggest that our government perceives us all to be perverts, terrorists, anorexics and copyright abusers.

"MC was imposed on us"

So was democracy. So was Federation. So are taxes, building regulations, indoor plumbing, advertising, rain, relatives we don't like, our DNA, nature strips, traffic, superannuation. None of those are going away, and neither is multiculturalism.

"it is pleasing to see that this federal government has continued with the dropping of MC in favour of integration and let us all hope that MC just quietly dissappears"

The language has changed, the policy hasn't. Different governments take different approaches, but none actually drop it.

chainsmoker

Ah, a breath of fresh air that smells of common sense. For that relief, much thanks.

Well, I was hoping for something a little more open minded than the basic lump it or like it posts, but each to their own,. There is no point in wasting time debating…

Anyone who is interested in a constructive chat about this, can see the good and bad in both sides etc, please let me know.

This multi generational multicultural policy Chain Smoker mentioned, where is a copy of it online? When was it bought into law and by whom? I am still interested in reading it

The Department of Immigration website outlines the following:

"What are the Australian values?
Australian values include:

- respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual
- equality of men and women
- freedom of religion
- commitment to the rule of law
- support for Parliamentary democracy
- a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play, compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good
- equal opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background

Although these values may be expressed differently by different people, their meaning stays the same. The values may not be unique to Australia, but they have broad community agreement and underpin Australian society and culture.

The Life in Australia book contains information about Australian history, culture and social structures. It is designed to help you understand Australian values before you sign the values statement on your visa application."

http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/values/background/index.htm

I would suggest that these are not only Australian values as such but humanitarian values.

Should any group (racial/cultural/religious group) seek to change those inherent values in pursuit of another agenda it would be undesirable for sure. However, in my experience, most immigrants to Australia come here because of those values and the opportunities that living here might afford.

Banjo

Nothing like a few standard stereotypes as substitute for facts and reason.

As for the rest of your nonsense, see Pelican's post on Australia's values which underpin multiculturalism. Which of these values were foisted on you? Which do want to change?

It would be great if in real life we
didn't have prejudices. If we didn't
display bias about religion, gender,
place of birth, nationality and skin
colour.

It would be great if we could deal with
problems in a bias-free way.

The best that we can do is insist upon
respect for the rights and dignity of
each individual person, irrespective of
colour or origin.

Life is ten percent what happens to you
and ninety percent how you respond to it.

Lol, sounds like you think people are unable to be decent so it's better to just legislate it for them.

I think people have found that attitude pretty intrusive and offensive.

TheRealists,

my comments are going to be the meat in the sandwich as usual.
As they say we cant have our cake and eat it too.

Why do we place ourselves in the position that there is no way out. I love my friends who are god Aussies and by large Migrants.
After saying that how stupid are we.
In other countries you have to had worked for twenty years to drawn welfare etc.

What`s wrong with Migrant visas for one two five seven ten fifteen years to twenty years. After which your are honoured with an Australian citizen ship?

The sad fact is there are people like Antonio who has already said on olo " We will just vote you out".

Antonio also abused us because we called him Tony.

Get over it buddy. That`s a typical Aussie thing to do and its done as a sign of friendship, welcome and acceptance.
So if your offended to be included and treated as one of us - an Aussie, I guess I have made my point. ( Or you have)


You need look no further than our Minister for Water Jenny Wong who allowed a UK company to walk in here and buy up our largest water supply.

" This was done within days and there was NO Government rep at that table."
She couldn`t answer basic questions and stated she was unaware of this- and that.
For God Sake our Australian water supplied SOLD off to offshore with NO vote from the Australian public.

I am unsure of links to China within that company but the point IS who is looking after Australians interests!



The Rudd Government certainly won their election based on promises to migrants.
We just need some sensible migrants and Australians working united in regional areas to make this country stronger.


BUT!! Do not be TOO hasty to give out PR for free medical and citizen ship.
Wait a while and sort the wheat from the chaff.

Visa from one to twenty years is the answer.

Plucky Pelican.....

You quoted: (Australian Values)

1/- respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual
2/- equality of men and women
3/- freedom of religion
4/- commitment to the rule of law

This should be exemplified with some specific examples.

Such as.

1/ If a person wants to criticize your religion, he is free to do so.
2/ Domestic violence against wives is unlawful, and unnacceptable.
3/ Freedom of religion means you son or daughter can choose to follow a different faith than yours, and you have no right to prevent them.
4/ Australian law prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, and religious orientation. Thus, if you became a taxi driver, you cannot refuse passage to a blind person with a guide dog, nor a person who is carrying alchohol. Nor, can you promote the building of private religious facilities which would refuse access to non-you on state land.

I would add to this, that people should be prepared to utterly condemn all violence of ANY kind related to religion. This INCLUDES violence against other members of the community who may happen to be of an ethnicity or religion which is currently invovled in conflict with yours in other parts of the world.

You must also completely subscribe to the view, that if members of your religion are involved in conflict in other parts of the world, and Australia, due to reasons of self interest is allied to those on the other side, you will support Australia's position 100%

You must also agree, that if Australia is ever invaded by members of your own religion, you will fight, and even kill them in defense of Australia.

We have LOT of work to do in tightening up our immigration policy to protect our community from potentially seditious elements.

Oh.. we better get Pericles and CJ to mount their verbal stallions and rip the SMH to shreds for it's latest 'whack-a-mozzie' outburst here.

http://news.smh.com.au/national/some-muslim-clerics-condone-rape-report-20081121-6cza.html

Oh wait.. they just reported the findings of the "Islamic Welfare Council"....hmmmmmmm *suspicious look*.....

Now..we notice that it was 'funded' by the Coalition, so of course that determined the outcome right? :) sure.. just like every other report which is funded by anyone, including labor and the greens...does it.
Or maybe it doesn't.

Porky, I have no doubt that some Muslim imams have attitudes to women that belong in the Middle Ages - just like some fundamentalist Christians do. As stated by Islamic Council vice-president Sherene Hassan in the SMH report,

<< "I don't think it is widespread, but even if it is, one case is one case too many," she said.

"If this is taking place it is a violation of Islamic teaching and I'd be concerned about it." >>

One thing I'm puzzled by is the SMH report's claim that "polygamous marriages... allow a second wife to claim Centrelink payments because they are regarded as de facto wives under Australian law". I'm no expert on Centrelink payments, but my understanding is that women who are in recept of them get more if they are single than if they are deemed to be in de facto partnerships, so what advantage would be conferred by being a co-"wife"?

You're sounding a little confused, Boaz.

>>...rip the SMH to shreds for it's latest 'whack-a-mozzie' outburst here.<<

I looked very carefully at the article you pointed us to, and couldn't find anything that comes close to qualifying for a whack-a-mozzie outburst.

In fact, it seemed to be fairly well balanced.

>>"If this is taking place it is a violation of Islamic teaching and I'd be concerned about it."<<

Which is the sort of responsible reaction I would expect.

Wouldn't you?

Exit Porkycrap, stage right.