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?