The Communist_Manifesto_states:

[In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.]

In 1951 the following was said:

[September 22 1951, defeat of the referendum to ban the Australian Communist Party confirmed that Australia’s temper would remain democratic. [?]

Labor leader Ben Chifley said the Communist Party Dissolution bill “opens the door to the liar, the perjurer and the pimp to make charges and damn men’s reputations and to do so in secret without having either to substantiate or prove any charges they might make”.]

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and MULTICULTURALISM. Suggests that we don't condemn a person because of their ideas, -so far so good. But what do we do about a person who clearly stands steadfastly on a foundation which has as its supreme objective, the destruction of the freedom we currently enjoy ?

Notice carefully the last sentence of the Manifesto.
-Violent revolution
-Establishment of the rule of the proletariat.

Looking at the bigger picture of Communism, it is clear that there is no room for democracy.

So, why did the ban on the party fail in 1951 ?

I suggest is was due to misinformation, spin and lack of general knowledge about the true goals of that party.

In a democracy where the courts are independant, how can banning such a movement be seen as opening the door to the pimp the perjurer and the Liar ? What about 'evidence' ? Did such a concept dissappear in the Bill ? Hardly. Clearly something else happened. Perhaps it was in the wording of the bill ?

Should we invoke Voltaires "I hate what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" ? but what about 'believe it and work in accordance with the things' said, especially if such working is aimed at the violent overthrow of the social order ?

The perceived "Red Menace" threat during the 1950's was largely a creation of the Menzies Government which then had to be seen to be doing something about it and the referendum was defeated on the basis of it being a blatant attack on Civil Liberties. This was actually the third unsuccessful attempt to ban them.

http://www.naa.gov.au/the_collection/cabinet/1952_cabinet_notebooks/1952_events_issues.html

It's interesting that at the time, there was opposition to Australian Servicemen bringing their Japanese War Brides home because it could cause "unrest" so socially we are at about the same point today - looking for "Reds under the Bed" and hysterical xenophobia.

Are you proposing that ALL political or religious groups that oppose government policy should be banned or only ones that have any reference to violence in their manifestos? What about other neo-political groups that oppose Globalisation for example? Some of their demonstrations can get pretty violent from time-to-time.
Greenpeace too.

There are also a number of active extreme right wing groups that have fire-bombed the occasional Chinese restaurant. They may not have their specific methods written down but their actions speak for themselves.
There are religious groups in the US that have also blown up abortion clinics and murdered medical staff. Should they be put on the same banned list as some radical Muslim groups?

Perhaps it's time for a McCarthyist type of society where everybody is either under suspicion or an informant.

Then we can all be united in our paranoia.

The only sure, secure and peacful society is a monocultural one.

I envy Japan in this regard.

There's many kinds of multiculturalism, and many shades of politically correct.

To chalk either one of these complex ideals up to a single issue is false.

Multiculturalism simply means the many cultures from around the world. You wanna go tell your vietnamese neighbours you hate multiculturalism?
Be my guest, but don't expect me to join in. If we have a problem, and I'm not convinced it's nearly as serious as it's made out to be, then you look at that problem, not just blame it on immigration in general.

As for PC.... it's so very PC to bag being PC. The term scarcely has any meaning any more.

Hi Rache

My view is that only groups which intend to constitute a new government by force should be outlawed.
Any group which has in its foundation documents such as the Manifesto the idea of 'violent overthrow' should be declared seditious forthwith.

The 'Reds under the Beds' -'Knee Jerk' reactions whether political or social are anathema to peaceful society.

You mentioned Islam. I have this recent image of all our parlimentarians (unless there were some consientous objectors to attending a church service) in Church, as per the constitution pre-amble "Humbly relying on the blessing (or Guidance) of Almighty God" and then I think of some 'Abu Izzadeen' type character gate-crashing in on the service and screaming out that Islam is going to take over Australia. "like it or not" (I saw him saying this in UK)

Like here http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003024.html

An except of an interview with him:

JH: You want Sharia law in this country? If you want to change the way this country functions, why can you not do it in a democratic way ?

AI: Democracy means sovereignty for man; and as a Muslim, we believe sovereignty for the Sharia, therefore I would never take part in democratic principles. Rather I will work to change society in accordance with Islamic methodology.

COMMENT...so... if he won't work under democractic principles... one wonders which principles he intends to promote? Clearly if he wishes the country to be under Sharia law, there is a strong likelihood of him 'emulating' his prophets approach to such things which include

"I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the Messenger and in all that I have brought." Hadith Muslim book 1 number 31

Now..all one needs do is examine whether this hadith has been viewed as 'sahih' (legitimate) and 'strong' in the Islamic countries (not western, they will not give a true answer) and you have the basis for a proscribed movement under our anti terrorism laws. (My opinion)

DB - your suggestion that groups wishing to overthrow the government be force be outlawed is appropriate for this time.

Though it is likely there will one day come a time when our government has atrophied, and is no longer acting in the best interests of the people.
(I may disagree with what the government is doing, but I do at least believe they believe it's in the best interests of the people, and I concede plenty of people agree with them).
Whether revolution is necessary, I of course, cannot say at this time, but it is quite plain to me that having a law allowing a government to crack down on dissidents is dangerous.

Leigh,

Japan is monocultural?

I looks very Westernised to me but with a few remnants of their former culture retained for ceremonial and traditional purposes.

Leigh: See ya'. Australia: "Love it or leave it". Multiculturalism is one of the most Australian things ever. It is an Aussie characteristic to get on with others.

Every time you post your old National-Party type stuff I am reminded of the time a right-winger went into a shopping centre,walked down to the meat section pulled a hunting knife out of his overalls and started to stab a pork roast - he then took to the check-out and threw it on the bench. The check-out fellow looked him square in the eye and said: "You pork hunt...?" Now was the really a question?

TRTL you actually raise a very important philosophical issue.

When the government is undeniably NOT working in the interests of the people.. it almost becomes incumbent on 'the people' to overthrow it, but.. the point is.. at 'what point'.... who is to judge ? I guess this is one reason why I am adamant that a healthy dose of Christian tradition linked up with Government is not a bad thing as long as it does not favor one tradition over another.

Romans 13 was written in a context of Colonial Power and Roman Tyrrany, but it says "All authority is given by God" etc etc..
Considering this regime was established by 'force' its not a large mental jump from that to saying 'We can change the government by force'. Its an argument, drawing conclusions by way of indirect reasoning, and I would emphasise that the rest of Scripture is need to balance out such an understanding by Christians for sure.

But I believe Cromwell used this kind of reasoning.

I like to toss around these issues because it helps all of our understanding I think.

As was said.. MC and PC are not the same thing to all people. They also have 'degrees' of implementation.
From my point of view, I'm just saying that we should direct all government initiative into nourishing unity rather than division.

I believe that many good policies MC and PC included, lend themselves to the 'megalomaniac' element who uses them as a blunt instrument on other people freedoms.

Its like the furor currently going on in the USA, about a film showing 'family diversity' including gays and lesbians with children and was being shown to 8 yr olds PC gone mad.
Parents were up in arms about it.

PC 'Tolerance' should have limits. One such limit is that we cannot tolerate intolerance or seditious inclinations.

PS... a qualifier for that 'the people should over throw it' .. in a democracy of course this means 'vote them out' :)

But if they implemented something such as Sharia Law.. or Dictatorship of the Proletariat.. where there is no chance EVER to change the government, then the time for war has arrived.
Cheers all

Boazy: "I like to toss around these issues because it helps all of our understanding I think."

I guess that's a reasonable rationalisation, but to many of us your propensity to being a 'tosser' - as exemplified by your posts in this thread - is a little more prosaic :)

"only groups which intend to constitute a new government by force should be outlawed."

Revelation 6:2 - I looked and there before me was a white horse! It's rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.

Revelation 8:7 - The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down upon the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.

Revelation 9:4,5 - They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man.

Revelation 9:15 - And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind.

Revelation 22:5 - There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

Plenty more attrocities throughout this plan of conquest. It certainly constitutes an intent to "constitute a new government by force". Thankfully one overriding theme in the story is that the bulk of people refused to be cowed by an overwhelming show of force and brutality.

BD is right we should outlaw groups who take their direction and inspiration from manifestos of conquest and terror. I've presented a tiny portion of the readily available evidence against one such group.

R0bert

BD, It always seems to be about the Muslim boogey-man.

There are about 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, roughly 1 in 5 of the total population of the planet. Of these, a minority are in the Middle East. Of these, some feel disaffected by a history of repeated betrayal and mistreatment by the West over the last century.

Within this decreasing minority are a small number of extremists waging a political battle with what they see as their enemy. Add the hostile presence of what is technically a “failed state” in their region – Israel - and then hopping on the bandwagon is a (relatively insignificant) number of religious zealots who are using these conflicts to expand their personal misguided agenda.
Despite their apparent status, these clowns have no real influence on the overwhelming majority of followers of that religion, who just seem to want to live a quiet and peaceful life.

I fail to see how the words or actions of an extremely small number of people can be used to condemn 20% of the world’s population and accuse them of plotting some sort of overt plan for world domination.

They are no more representative of the wishes of a billion people than the leader of the KKK is representative of the Catholic Church.

There are extremists in the Christian world as well, but with far more influence and military firepower at their disposal.

Of course you can (and no doubt will continue to) quote random ancient texts and the words of a handful of selected loonies but as much as you would like to believe it, this doesn’t make it true.

ALL religions by definition seek to denounce non-believers and to perpetuate themselves in any way they can.

Why not mention the violent deeds and history of Christianity for example.

Islam doesn’t have a monopoly on violence, barbarism, oppression or growing irrelevance in the modern world.

I’m guessing that you formulated your own beliefs long ago and are continuously looking for reasons to justify them.

Wobbles,

You merely demonstrate your total ignorance of multiculturalism and Japanese society.

Certainly, Japan has adopted some superficial “westernisms” for the tourists that they wish to attract. And, those of the younger generation who adopt Western dress, food etc. don’t encourage multiculturalism which means, my poor uneducated friend, that they don’t want their country invaded by other races permanently and have special considerations given to them. If they adopted our ways completely, they still would not be multicultural in any sense of the word.

Perhaps you would like to find out just how many non-Japanese people have been allowed Japanese citizenship.

Are you at all familiar with Japan and its people, Wobbles? My wife is a regular visitor to Japan; I am an occasional visitor. We both have Japanese friends.

A few remnants “retained for cultural and ceremonial purposes”? What nonsense! Even if this were true, which it isn’t, multiculturalism still does not enter into it.

How dare you compare a proud and ancient race with the ridiculous posers like yourself and other ignorant Australians!

The biggest barrier to any discussion is that most multiculturalists don’t even understand what multiculturalism is. Even the people behind the introduction of it have tried to tell you ignoramuses this; but you are all too silly catch on.

Ronnie Peters,

Sorry. Your kindergarten immaturity and poor language skills are beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you could find someone who could express what ever it is you are trying to say in an intelligible manner so that I could respond

Leigh,
Japanese Multiculturalism.

Despite their homogenity, there are at least two minority groups in Japan.

Ask your (probably long-suffering) wife about the treatment of “hirabetsu buraku” and the “Ainu” peoples, the look up the 2005 UN report about the “deep and profound” racism and xenophobia that’s happening in Japan.
Then find out about their current “kokusaika” movement.

Japanese culture has evolved greatly over the years, from the country's original Jomon culture to its contemporary hybrid culture, which combines influences from Asia, Europe, and North America and their current social policy is a movement away from social homogenisation to pluralism.

Not quite the perfect model of a successful society if they are trying to adapt their culture to the rest of the world.

As for citizenship, I thought they were pretty much “full” and don’t actually need any more immigrants beyond their large numbers of Korean and Brazilian workers.

Also, your observation “.. that they don’t want their country invaded by other races permanently and have special considerations given to them. “ Isn’t this a bit like what we are doing here as well?

Finally, personal abuse says a lot more about you than it does about others.

Turnleft Turnright,

It might be more dangerous to the long term surival of our people to have laws that dont allow the government to crack down on dissidents especially when it comes to threats of terrorism and demands for Islamic states.

If some of the old Kings and Queens of England hadn't cracked down on dissidents then they wouldnt have been in control of their countries for very long. Nor would the Roman Ceasars.
The trouble with Western society today is that civil liberties and tolerance are being used as weapons against the West and there comes a point where common sense in the name of survival needs to override some aspects of this. If that means cracking down on dissidents so be it.

Rache -: “Why not mention the violent deeds of history and Christianity for example.”

Indeed, we should look very hard at that period in history when the Priests headed up by the Pope had such power over the peoples minds. The pope could raise armies and wielded power over the Kings of countries. The Christian church does not have that power today but the Muslim religion does.

If we are to learn from history as they say, then we should see the same dangers inherent in the Muslim religion as were present in the Christian religion a few centuries ago.
The Muslim priests(clerics) have the same power over the people and the control of countries and armies as the Pope once did.

Incidently that’s why such a culture clash is happening between the Muslims and the West . The Muslims are still at that stage in their religion that the West was at a few centuries ago when all the violence was being perpetrated by the Christian church.

Sharkfin,

Unlike Christianity, which has a head representative, whether it's a Pope or an Archbishop (or even a Queen), Islam doesn't appear to have such a structured hierarchy, where one person is in central control.
Current activities in Iraq show that they can't even agree among themselves on a local level so I can't see them being organised enough to mount a global counter-crusade in any sense.

Cultural and language differences across the world also limit them in this way. Covered women in Iran, bellydancers in Turkey, women as prime ministers in Indonesia for example - so not much commonality there.

The violence perpetrated by Christians didn't stop centuries ago. Six million Jews plus about 120 million dead in the last 2 World Wars, the use of WMDs on civilian targets and so on.

More recently, 800,000 were slaughtered in Rwanda (a prominently Catholic country where the Church not only condoned but actively participated in the killing. Two nuns were recently sentenced for their role - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article632885.ece
and
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2001/06/07/rwanda010607.html for example).

Believe it or not. I'm not defending the horrors of terrorism and I'm not condemning Christianity but my point has always been that this whole debacle is being fuelled both sides for their own reasons and we really need to maintain some sort of perspective.

CJ.... you rascal.
Dear Rob
Only those who do not know me would think I'd post some of the material I do and not expect some comeback as you provided :) I welcome that.
I simply point out that the 'initiator' in those verses you supplied is God, not man. It is not 'man' calling out for God to destroy and annihiliate, it is God Himaself in the process of judging the world.
There is also the issue of the degree of symbolism in those verses, and I cannot claim to have a complete answer on that point.

RACHE.. Its never about the 'Muslim' bogey man, its about the 'bogey man of Islam' as a doctrine, and believe it or not, it is just as much about the Roman Catholic bogey man or the Anglican bogey man. Probably more the RC than Catholic, but when you see those traditions established at State level, the same problems can arise.

The starting point is probably RCism which has as a pillar of its faith that the Pope is the only legal head of 'The' Church on earth.
We have managed to extricate ourselves from the problems associated with this in Australia and we have a government which is broadbased and inclusive of the various traditions. I think its true to say that the Catholics have agreed to peacefully accept that not everyone in Australia is willing to concede that their view is the correct one.

The problem is with such ideologies as Islam and Communism. Neither of these can or would ever accept a denial of ultimate power. it is their absolute goal. Its like feathers to a chicken.

"The world and all_that_is_in_it belongs to Allah and his apostle"
is a political statement of doctrine and objective just as much as the goal of proletarian revolution.
Communism, Islam, Catholicism and Anglicanism are all political by nature. In contrast to this, "The Church".... Christs body on earth is not political, and exists in the hearts of all those who know Him and have given their lives to Him as Lord and Saviour.

Wobbles,

You seem determined to dig yourself in deeper and look even sillier, if that’s possible.

Yes, there have been vague rumours by outsiders concerning discrimination against aboriginal Japanese. So what? Still nothing to do with m/c and, remember, the discrimination and ill-treatment aboriginal people in pinko, PC multicultural Australia claimed by some. Again, nothing to do with m/c.

You seem to have made an effort to get some second-hand, unreliable internet information on Japan. Again, this has nothing to do with m/c.

You simply do not understand multiculturalism. You and those of your ilk seem unable to distinguish between multiculturalism, multiracialism and non-discriminatory immigration.

You say to me: “Also, your observation “.. that they don’t want their country invaded by other races permanently and have special considerations given to them. “ Isn’t this a bit like what we are doing here as well?

This is a truly an ignorant, ridiculous statement. We have had an enforced policy of multiculturalism in Australia since 1975, which has seen the country take in people of just about every race and culture in the world. This has been forced on us by both major parties, without consultation, and supported by the political dregs like Greens, Democrats and a few independents. This is our official policy as opposed to Japanese official policy designed to protect their racial integrity.

If you continue to criticise posters who express an opinion in a thread created by a third party, then you are going to have to lift your game.

OLO for people like us who don’t really have voice in matters political and social. Just who the hell do you think you are, presuming as you do, to take other people to task just because you disagree with them?

You are just another arrogant fool best ignored.

Leigh: So post an anecdote that is not politically correct and those who embrace political correctness assert that this not-politically- correct-enough-for-their-culturally-sensitivities is kindergarten and infantile. Yes, Yes. We agree. Bye the way that "pork hunt" is an old Aussie joke. Love that Aussie sense of humour. Saw a boat the other day called "Pork Hunt". Reminded me.

Leigh just because Japan’s population is mostly the one race doesn't make them all embrace the one culture. That is impossible. We all have different cultural mores. For instance: Leigh are you suggesting that you regard the cultural mores of Japan's gay community as the same as everyone else? So in your ideal monoculture you would embrace gayness?

Then there is the silly comparison between a small country that hasn't had a need to call on immigration to populate and a country that for various reasons choose to take on immigrants. These immigrants came from all different cultures. Moreover, there were/are the Indigenous peoples’ in Australia who held to their cultural mores.

But people like you, who wanted everyone to be like you, started causing trouble and whinging, whining and vilifying good folk because they were different so the government decided the best thing to do was to acknowledge this difference and promote multiculturalism. Regardless of any government decisions we have a rich mix of cultures and are thus necessarily multicultural.

The main two cultural differences are the monoculturalists and the multiculturalists. This is not to forget all those that hold their own cultural mores, ideals and way of life.

Monoculture sounds as bit too much like Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fueher. And Fundamentalist Islamic folk’s ideal is monoculture. Fair enough when in other countries they are supposed to obey the laws of that country but their inclination to kill people who are not PC with their religion makes the idea of any monoculture as about appealing as a holiday in Iraq or a fat man’s cleavage.

I think it is Japan’s high regard for citizenship and focussed nation building that helps with the supposed homogeneity.

Ronnie,

Pity that you couldn’t get an interpreter, but I suppose that reading and writing ability would be hard to find in your circle. I’ll try hard to understand you.

1. You did not post an “anecdote”. You directly criticised me. I have often thought that your posts were idiotic, but I have never criticised them. Everyone is entitled to think whatever he or she wishes, in my book.
2. Homosexuality has nothing to do with culture. It is a perversion – at best, a sickness.
3. I do not wish other people to “be like me”. I merely wish that you and people like your girlfriend, Wobbles, would allow me to think what I think without comment. Start your own thread, or comment on the instigator of the thread by all means, but leave the rest of us alone.
4. The government (Fraser) brought in multiculturalism without consultation, not because of your wet reason. I am highly amused by your insinuation that only multiculturalists are “good folk”. I have no objection to people of different races/cultures immigrating to Australia; but I do not, and never will, support the current political policy of a multicultural industry which emphasises difference and expects taxpayers to cough up for it.
5. Suggesting that I am a Nazi – the common catchcry of leftists – is total nonsense and completely ignorant. I would have thought that National SOCIALISM would have been more in your line.

You, of course, will stick to your line just as I will to mine. Try ignoring what I say if you don’t like it. That’s what I’ll be doing with you.

PS Islam is a religion, not a culture. Check that with Irfan Yusuf

Leigh,

Despite your ” total ignorance..my poor uneducated friend...how dare you...ridiculous posers like yourself and other ignorant Australians... ignoramuses... too silly... kindergarten immaturity... look even sillier... those of your ilk... ignorant... ridiculous...and arrogant fool” comments - you then accuse ME of “presuming" to take YOU to task just because I disagree with you?

How about including some FACTS in between the insults to back up your immature reactionary opinions.

Mine came from UNESCO reports and research documents written by Japanese professors and sociologists. Yours were obviously scraped from the deep hate-filled recesses of your imagination.
Perhaps you could educate us all about the specifics of why multiculturalism is so inherently dangerous and evil. Tell us how we are so culturally unique from the US, New Zealand, Canada and other English-speaking Western democracies. What are you so frightened of?

On second thought, never mind.

Oh, and the “vague rumours “ about internal racial discrimination in Japan aren’t rumours at all but a serious social problem and make your initial comment about a “sure, secure and peaceful society” ridiculous.

Underneath their veneer of quiet solemnity Japan is a bubbling cauldron of social insecurity about it’s own future in the modern world and political changes are underway to address this.
Every society - whether multicultural, monocultural or multiracial- has it's own internal problems and imperfections, and the illusion of uniformity is only skin deep.

BD, "I simply point out that the 'initiator' in those verses you supplied is God, not man. It is not 'man' calling out for God to destroy and annihiliate, it is God Himaself in the process of judging the world."

Clearly we have a different view on who the instigator was just as we both have a different view to the average muslim about who the instigator of their scriptures was. If a belief that the instigator was god is sufficient for you to excuse that kind of threat against non-believers then why not for muslims?

Why as one who will not have that mark on his forehead should I regard the threat in your scriptures as less threatening than the threats in the Quran?

R0bert

Dear Rob
if those things start to happen, and someone like yourself has read the good word on the subject... and if he failed to repent, knowing full well also that the intention of these partial punishments were to bring about a realization of our sinful condition, then it boggles the mind.. truly. If you know it is God who is acting, do you mean to tell me you will sit there and stubbornly yell at Him "Sorry God, you don't fit MY image of how you should be, so get lost"... cripes mate.. don't let me be near you if you ever say that kind of thing.

I don't completely understand the specific intent of each bit of imagery, but I do believe it had meaning for the Church and world at the time, and it also has meaning for the future. So, the task of interpreting that, is not easy. Many differing views exist and I won't say any one of them is all correct or incorrect. Perhaps the best thing is to look at the end of it all.. a new heaven and a new earth..

I can understand your personal revulsion to the idea of 'Torture' in Revelation, but as I said.. imagery... literal ? or symbolic ? This is not at all like the example of Mohammed slicing and dicing the camel thieves.. that was straight forward 'He did it'.

PC and MC are dangerous when they force us to recognize and respect difference which can be destructive to our freedom. There is no threat to your immediate freedom in Revelation, and it does not in the slightest advocate any Christian hurting or harming anyone else- k That is an important distinction between Christianity and Islam or Communism.

Up until today, that moron Abu Izzadeen was ranting his way around London.. looking for 3 more wives, condemning the British Gov'tm Berating the Home Secretary in public and Praising the homicide bombers of 7/7 and finally he has been arrested.
HOORAY.. thats my point, they (UK Authorities) are seeing past the idiocy of PC and MC.

no wonder many don't want to join OLO discussions..

From Wikipedia's entry on multiculturalism:

"In 1999, the legal philosopher Paul Cliteur attacked multiculturalism in his book 'The Philosophy of Human Rights'[9] Cliteur rejects all political correctness on the issue: western culture, the Rechtsstaat (rule of law), and human rights are superior to non-western culture and values. They are the product of the Enlightenment: Cliteur sees non-western cultures not as different, but as backward. He sees multiculturalism primarily as an unacceptable ideology of cultural relativism, which would lead to acceptance of barbaric practices, including those brought to the Western World by immigrants. Cliteur lists infanticide, torture, slavery, oppression of women, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, gangs, female circumcision, discrimination by immigrants, suttee, and the death penalty. Cliteur compares multiculturalism to the moral acceptance of Auschwitz, Stalin, Pol Pot and the Ku Klux Klan."

Furthermore:

"Another more recent and conservative criticism, based largely upon the Nordic and Canadian experience, is presented by the administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson, who views multiculturalism as a utopian ideology with a simplistic and overly optimistic view of human nature, the same weakness he attributes to communism, anarchism, and many strains of liberalism. According to Njalsson, multiculturalism is particular to a western urban environment and cannot survive as an ideology outside it. Some variants of multiculturalism, he believes, may equip non-egalitarian cultural groups with power and influence. This, in turn, may alter the value system of the larger society. This realist criticism of multiculturalism maintains that in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US, multiculturalism may aggravate a situation where old-stock families are not permitted by the countries of their forebearers to consider themselves English, French, Scandinavian, etc., while newer arrivals can claim two or more national identities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism#Reaction_against_multiculturalism_in_Europe

"This is not at all like the example of Mohammed slicing and dicing the camel thieves.. that was straight forward 'He did it'"

Ok BD you got me there, I accept that much of the the bible is fiction and that the contents of Relevaltion will never happen.

It's still a rather sick piece of fiction to keep around though and some of your co-believers seem to actually take that stuff seriously.

If I believed that stuff was real I am uncertain if I'd have the moral courage to stand against it (I hope I would). People have paid up to protection rackets throughout history. If that stuff was not just fiction what is being operated s a protection racket.

A bully with a massive need to be worshiped to makes all the rules and then announces that because others don't follow the rules well enough they will be punished unless they say how much they love him. Your gods mummy or daddy should have sent him to the naughty corner years ago.

It's not just the torture, the rest of it is morally repulsive as well.

R0bert

Dear Ranier
You can present a contrary view, most welcome, but do like Oligarch did, and support any contention with some evidence.

if you look at Oligarchs thoughtful and well researched post, you will realize that there are those who wish to contribute.. well done Oligarch !.. and the little gem in one of those quotes bears repeating and underlining.

[Gunnar K. A. Njalsson, who views multiculturalism as a utopian ideology with a simplistic and overly optimistic view of human nature, the same weakness he attributes to communism, anarchism, and many strains of liberalism]

That.. is like the KEY TO THE CITY for this discussion. It summarizes all I would say on the issue, and I'm glad it has been said by someone else as well.

Utopian..idealistic...optimistic view of human nature.

Rob.. I totally can see your view there mate, the imagery is horrific to our peaceful sensibilities, and certainly would not score well on the "human rights" scale. Perhaps we are trying to understand 1st century imagery through 21st century eyes ? Perhaps this is like Jesus saying "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" ?

BD,

Your are right, as usual. MC and PC are virulent cancers.

However, there is no point arguing with fools, unless you are just doing it for the sport:)

I just hope I'm around long enough to see their reactions when the awful truth and consequences of these filthy, suicidal policies hit home. They've seen nothing yet!

Food For thought.
Several years ago we contacted Phillip Ruddocks office and spoke to his advisors concered about the two clear sets of rules in this country when it came to marraige.
We were refering to people getting married [ muslims] in this country when they already had a wife.
No worries says the advisor that just like an Aussie bloke having a wife and a mistress.
When we pointed out we didnt want to have the same crisis that the UK had some fourteen pluss years agorushing acts through parliment neither advisor knew what we were refering to.
The legal situation reached the point where the English Parliment was forced to rule that Muslims did not have to follow English law when it came to such things as divore, they instead can follow islamic Law. So neither God knows whos who child and nor do the Australian people and tax payers[great]
If you think thats scarey what about the fact that our ministers didnt even know
So if you and I do it in our own country we go to goal.
How say you David from a Churchy point of view?

Speaking of the church could you ask the Salvation army to pass on the donations taken from the good public regarding the drought appeal to but food for the farmers stock please.

I must say the Muslims that I spoke to of this country were outraged by the christian churches raising millions from the Red cross Appeal for farmers and not buying one bale of hay.

They tell me thats a crime under Islamic Law.
I reckon it should be a crime under the misuse of public funding law.
Anyway I will leave you to ponder our wonderful ill informed Government.

Leigh..thanx 4 the support as usual :)

PALEIF
I can't comment on the Salys, because I know nothing about that... I suggest you do some digging and come up with some response from them, by all means sus out the person responsible and give them a phone call and report back 2 us here..
They do a great work generally, so I suspect there is some kind of comms problem there..but pending your investigation :) I'll refrain from saying much.

Churchey point of view about defacto bigamy ? Yep.. its very nasty stuff. I did check the situation out with the Dept of Immig regarding a man who has more than one wife. If not mistaken, he can only bring one wife here, but its a while back now, and I'm a tad vaque..I recall them saying he can only claim one as his legal wife in regard to centrelink. So that would apply to the children also.

There have been some interesting exceptions, and Kaysar Trad is one of them, (his situation was prior to the law being tightened up on families of polygamous background)

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/01/1033283486605.html
[Trad arrived in Australia at 13 as part of a family reunion complicated by polygamy. His half-brother who had settled in Sydney got permission to bring his mother and siblings from Lebanon. Because his mother was married, she was able to bring her husband. At the time her husband was married to two other women. One of them (Trad's mother) came along, too, with her children. The older wife divorced her husband in Australia and the patriarch lived with Trad's mother.]

and this bloke is another case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuTa1VlRJZU

But unless we are all vigilant...and are prepared to expose abuses or changes to the law which promote this kind of thing, we have no one but ourselves to blame for the result.

Thanx for your contribution.

BOAZ_David said: "That.. is like the KEY TO THE CITY for this discussion. It summarizes all I would say on the issue, and I'm glad it has been said by someone else as well."

I usually avoid copy'n'paste jobs, but those excerpts were compendious enough to make the point. Multiculturalism is indeed a misguided view of human nature. The sooner this pernicious doctrine is repudiated, the sooner the nation's best interests will be served. In fact, Australia's very existence as a unified nation-state is being threatened by this multicultural separatism.

David

Thanks. I already dug. The barrister for the Red Cross farm hand appeal said this;quote] 'I tell you right now not 'one cent 'of that money is going to buy one bale of hay.
Ask a farmer what he wants more than anything in these times and its feed for his stock to keep his farm going and his pride.

Do you remember the tV adds ?Lots of footage of dying animals pulling at the heart strings of the public. Nine out of ten of the public we asked said they thought their donation was by large going to buy feed and water for stock.
Shame on Church leaders at having to be nagged! to also help Gods creatures.

I spoke with the head of the Sallys on friday.
Same deal. They suggested i put something in writing requesting they and RSPCA combine some of the millions given by public for feed for stock.
Will do and post it here if thats ok.

re the other. Yes you can only bring one here.
That does not mean you cant meet other women here and Marry in Muslim law.
The Government say but its not recognised by Australian law. Maybe not but still- It has the same result like more kids and many of those are living off welfare.
point is as I said UK had to rush laws through parliment years ago and our Ministers dont even know. If we got married in a church while already married we would be in strife.
They say but- We dont belive in your God- We dont belive in your laws. Some even get a divorce - just to comply with Australian laws for welfare. It means nothing to them. As they say- No worries its just a pecice of paper to us. Nothing more.
I stress i know many good Muslim people as well. My point is are the Government so stupid they cant see that some are thumbing their noses at them
One law for all I say. No marriages if your already married because thats the Aussie way.
Goodnight

I think we should forget the reds under the bed thing David, the wall came down years ago. That's the least of our problems.

Thanks for the U Tube example; I find this easier to look at as I get impatient reading complex versus and so on.

I found an interesting one too, which I would be interested to know your response to:

Dawah in Australia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEw2Cb1b2ME

This is a debate about Islamic and Australian cultures and how we can live together.

What stood out was the statement that it is against the nature of Islam to negotiate under anyone else's terms but theirs. Unless you an are Islamic authority, they will not recognise your authority.

I was never an advocate for assimilation, but this premise makes multiculturalism impossible.

He goes on saying that they will start the debate, not under our terms, but under their terms.

No wonder their Sheikhs insulted our women and our ancestors.

As to that U Tube Mohamed guy that you referred to, I think that was negligence on the part of Centrelink to allow that to perpetuate. It is possible that Child protection was negligent, as violent men like this are not a good influence over children.

This guy was ripping people off, he showed nothing but contempt and violence, and worst of all, he kept playing with himself through his brown tracky dackies. What an ugly suburban piece of trash this man behaves like. I hope channel 7 charged him for assault. I also hope Centrelink demands overpayments, and command some respect for our welfare system.

Even I can't afford to drive a car to the value that he was driving. Now he wants to start a buisiness on a disability pension? Allah, p-lease!

REDS under the BEDS ? :) sure.. I don't see them as so much of a threat these days, BUT... keep a close eye on the ETU and see the connection between Muslims and ETU/unions. As I see it they are both using each other for a bigger impact than either one alone would have. Asio should be watching them like hawks. The student arm (Resistance) does have dangerous influence when they attack broad based issues, and it gives them control of large numbers of youth who can (and in Malaysia have been) be re-directed towards more violent acts against the state) It's easier than you might imagine.

PALEIF
thanx for that..and YES feel totally free to post anything like you said here.. I'm as rabid as anyone on any hint of corruption or nasty goings on in 'Big Church'... Lets persue this, and there is also value in indicating to the Sallys that the issue is being discussed on a major national forum :) I'll 'delegate' that to you cobber.. I'll just be the facilitator. One thing to check though..is.. did the money go to ANY Farmer welfare related projects ? Its always possible that while feed was not supplied, other things might have been, so clear that one up before going the 16 wheeler approach :)

SAINT.. I'm so glad you recognized that very important point. "Who's Terms"
I've been confident that given time, participants here will actually dig out the truth for themselves and will not just see such things as "Bozo's incoherrant religious woffle"

Thats IS the crucial issue for Islam, and no amount of "Lets hold hands and sing Kum Ba Ya while we have constructive inter-faith religious dialogue" can ever change it.

NEWS UPDATE.

In support of the contention that 'emphasizing diversity'= 'Socially polarized nation' I offer the following from the Australian.

OOPS...and I thought the TERROR zone was in Israel.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21201104-2702,00.html

Last night, Zreika admitted to The Weekend Australian the Arabic press release was sent "in order to get the right message to the Muslim community because they were up in arms. They wanted to kill us. No one knew what was happening".

Zreika said he had received death threats from men purporting to be Hilali's supporters.

"I got two death threats," he said. "One guy was basically saying, 'You keep taking that f...ing stance and I'm going to take your f...ing head off. Why do you want to sack the mufti? Who are you? You don't represent me'."

What was I saying about 'radicals drive agendas' ?

I rather like Tom Zreika.... it would be a pity to lose such a nice bloke.

BD, "Perhaps we are trying to understand 1st century imagery through 21st century eyes ? " - keep that in mind and there is hope for you yet. Once you begin to understand that you have the chance to understand that a lot else in the text fundies treat as the literal word of god needs to be treated as documents from another time and place. The content is impacted by social convention from the time.

You might also consider that some Muslims appear to have learned that lesson, some have not and they are a real threat but those who understand the limitations of ancient documents decreeing how we live today pose little threat.

R0bert

THE BATTLE IS WON... TIME FOR RECONSTRUCTION..

The Cultural "Marshall Plan" for Australia.

Now that we have the right words in our basic policy foundation "Dept of Immig and CITIZENSHIP" we can consider ways to nourish and foster that new citizen at every level.

CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE TIME: Please consider ways we can promote 'Citizenship' across racial/cultural barriers without unduly discriminating against people.

EDUCATIONAL. We can show how conflict between political entities, States, Races is reduced though intermarraige. Kings who married their enemies princesses, Families/Royalty who intermarried with the nobility of previously acrimonious states. Role plays and video's can be utilized showing pathways to peace via intermarriage.

IMMIGRATION. Extra points can be awarded to people of multi racial marriages. (this should raise a yelp :)

POSTER/AD CAMPAIGN. Posters etc can be placed on bus stops etc to promote the idea. TV ads which show multi racial/interactial couples can be given some extra support or tax breaks ?

OTHER ?

cheers all.

Boazy: "THE BATTLE IS WON... TIME FOR RECONSTRUCTION..

The Cultural "Marshall Plan" for Australia... bla bla bla"

I wouldn't be getting out the champers (or tea & bickies or whatever) just yet old son. Howard's attempt to dabble in Newspeak will come back to bite him next election, as 'multicultural' Australian voters increasingly wise up to his regime's agenda of divide and rule.

It's probably not your cup of tea either, but these topics have been intelligently discussed by a reasonably diverse panel and audience on ABC TV tonight on their new program 'Difference of Opinion' [ http://abc.net.au/tv/differenceofopinion/ ).

While it was in no way a conclusive discussion, I think it's fair to say that there was a consensus among all those who spoke that 'multiculturalism' is here to stay, although there was some diverse opinion about what it actually means.

CJ..."intelligently discussed" as opposed to we earthlings at OLO 'uninteligently' discussing the issue ? :)

I had a look at the site. Seems ok. The conclusions you reported seem reasonable.. the point about 'some are not sure of what it means' is quite predictable.

Its also part of the problem.
I simply cannot depart from the fundamental idea of 'diversity does not produce unity' in cultural terms. It defies common sense, and history.

There is nothing wrong with a diverse society per se, it can have a sense of unity but only if the State encourages it. The state should not even mention 'multi' in terms of culture. A culture emerged from the founding of modern Australia, and it does have specific values which are identifiable. To attack or undermine that sense of identity and culture by suddenly saying "Well, now ur just one of many" is an insult and a slap in the face of those who 'thought' we actually did have a culture. There never was any need for that.

All that is needed is the promotion of our existing culture and the persuasion of all newcomers to embrace it to the extent that they can for their own generation, and more so for their offspring and so on.

The alternative path is to emphasize a fragmented cultural tapestry which inevitably invites cultural and ethnic competition. If you can show me how this has not occured over the history of man with nation states... I'll welcome it, but I doubt you can.

The only workable and viable model for a nation state is a 'large majority' of a single culture, with a controlled level of minorities who even when all added up don't exceed say 30% of the total.
This does not mean minorities are 2nd class or discriminated against (apart from the normal discriminatory nature of the rule of law when it comes to cultural practices) it means that their own particular culture will submit to the prevailing one in social and employment relations.

The failure to recognize things happening for what they really are, due to PC and MC thinking,.. will result in this:

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

The cause .. a simple fight between to people ? sure.. just as Cronulla was nothing more than a few hotheads and some firey literature on the day.

Gee Leigh, you think fairly poorly of Australia and her peoples. Or is it just me, Wobbles, Rainer, all those leftists, greenies, gays, Indigenous peoples and feminists, Muslims and a bunch of other Australians outside your conservative ideals. Talk about self-loathing. (Did I mention those “whinging” feminists - the ones that you think deserve a smack in the mouth – you leave everyone else alone and just post your comments don’t you? – that is untrue and you know it).

Oh golly gee, you want a Utopia where everyone is your in tune with your conservative “values”, were everyone is like-minded – one nation, one people, one idea. That is what Hitler conned the people into thinking, on the other hand, Australia embraced multiculturalism - now where would you sooner live? Oh yes you want to join the monoculture ideal of fundamentalist Islam, some strains of Christianity and Nazism. Good for you – so very PC of you in your perfect conservative idealised world.

So Boaz and Leigh you want your own caliphate where MC and PC are against God and country. The Islamic culture/religion/ideology doesn't allow MC or PC and neither did the Nazi regime. (Leigh you know very well, I didn't say you were a Nazi. Leigh just pointed out that you seem to forget that those kind of societies where MC and PC are fazed out have in the past led to disaster.)

As for PC, well the conservatives and reactionaries just replaced the other peoples PC with their own PC. So you howl down those that question the current orthodoxies. You discredit their ideas with claims of leftists (rather than racists) and all the other negative carry on - rather than encourage analysis and actually comment on the content. Worked pretty well with global warming situation. Poor old greenies couldn’t get a word in edge wise without being howled down by the conservative version of PCness.

No wonder the National Party in Qld only get around nine percent of the vote.

Ronnie...
the Hitler thing always worries me in connection with this type of discussion.

Hitler wanted a 'pure aryan' race.. a genetically pure nation.

I advocate a blended one.... where the distinction between 'tribes' (and the associated competitiveness and racist suspicion) is faded.

Its not something that can be forced, but it can be stage managed to a degree by Government initiative. Just as there can be an emphasis on 'diversity and multi' culturalism, there can also be a shift to 'blended' culture and race. Its a matter of pulling a few policy levers.

Imagine if communities were rewarded not for 'difference initiatives' but for initiatives which demonstrate inter-racial/cultural solidarity, and togetherness type activities.

A multi pronged campaign, media, education, local area.. would all contribute to the lack of need for MC or PC because we would see each other as 'Aussies' rather than Greek. or Italian, or Irish or..whatever.

A media blitz showing images of various skin colors doing things together would be a great advantage.

-Black couple A has dinner with White couple B
-Asian couple C has picnic with white couple D
-Inter-racial couple E has a barby with Black couple F
-Family Gathering showing various races together, all connected by marraige and f'ship.

Here is a controversial one :) Greek and Macedonian family symbollically drop the Greek and Macedonian flags in the bin, and point to the Aussie flag ..woooo... now that might raise a few eyebrows. I'm sure there is some more delicate way to get the same message across, but hey...my job is to keep the thread interesting :)

etc etc.

St Paul, Minneapolis Taxi drivers.
Muslim drivers refuse to carry passengers who have alchohol with them. (i.e. in their baggage)

EXCERPT FROM LETTER FROM AIRPORTS ASSOCIATION TO ME regarding my sense of outrage over this blatant discrimination.

[For the past several months, the Metropolitan Airports Commission has worked with airport taxi industry representatives and with leaders from the Muslim American Society and the Somali Justice Advocacy League. The goal was to find a solution acceptable to everyone and transparent to the customer seeking airport taxi service. Unfortunately, those discussions have not resulted in a workable, voluntary, consensus-based solution. As a result, the Airports Commission is proposing stricter penalties for refusal of service: a 30-day suspension of a driver's airport taxi license for the first instance, and license revocation for a second instance.]

NOTICE the part "has not resulted in a voluntary solution"

In other words.. all I've been saying all along about Different Societies/Cultures will CLASH and COMPETE is totally validated in this incident.

Ronnie,
One correction -if I may:
Australia /Australians did not “embraced multiculturalism”
rather, multiculturalism embraced Australia,
much as a hungry lion would embrace its prey.

You see it all began when one day some lefty “intellectuals” discovered a lion cub by the roadside ( some other country had had the good sense to dump the beast).

The lefties (being always on the lookout for something novel) took the sweet little kitten home & nurtured it, but when it grew into a predator & began to eat them out of house & home, the lefties conscripted the tax payers to help maintain it -and alas its been that way ever since….

Well said Horus.. I think we read the same Jungle Doctor book :)

Today in the SMH (what ? not the Daily Terrorgraph ? sheesh)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/limit-muslim-migration-australia-warned/2007/02/15/1171405374552.html

[LIFE can become untenable when the Muslim population of a non-Muslim country reaches about 10 per cent, as shown by France, a Jewish expert on Islam says.

"When the Muslim population gets to a critical mass you have problems. That is a general rule, so if it applies everywhere it applies in Australia."

He said Muslim immigrants had a reputation for manipulating the values of Western countries, taking advantage of their hospitality and tolerance.

"Greeks or Italians or Jews don't use violence. There is no Italian or Jewish Hilaly"]

Yes.. of course he is a Jew, so would have a degree of bias. But has he spoken truth ? Observations of world events for a few decades and even many centuries suggest he is smack on the money.

So, perhaps its time to call for a low profile POSITIVE and SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE SELECTIVENESS in our Immigration. Points can be awarded on the basis of the propensity of a particular community to:

-Seek to advance the interests of those groups and countries who's values are counter to ours.
-Who's basic religious values call for divine destruction of other specific groups who form the foundation of our existing socio/economic/cultural structure.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that "IF it is in the Quran, then it can and should be proclaimed and preached"

Which includes "May Allah's CURSE be on them, May Allah destroy them,they are deluded, wicked, evil" (combined translations of Surah 9:30)

Who are the 'them' ? Why its Christians and Jews of course.

So, there is a most fundamental incompatability between Islam and [Jews+Christians

Sorry I haven’t the time to address your post in detail. I would only be going over old ground. Just to let you know I read your posts and do consider your words.

Before I start what do you think of Howard not referring to multli-cultural affairs as such but as citizenship something or other. So maybe we’ll shift from the emphasis on ethnicity.

So let’s go. My beliefs are not main stream. I value individualism above all else. I think that we all have our own personal culture. I want to live in a culture where I can be authentic and outwardly be my true self. So I reject any culture which impinges on this basic human right (within reason). For instance: In Islamic thinking it is not politically correct for these people to speak of new ways or others or to criticise the paradigm they set. Did you read about the French philosopher and teacher, Redecker. He wrote an article (I haven't had time to find it - read it) which was from reports a purely academic look at what the Pope said in relation to Islam. He is in hiding now because the fundamentalists tried to kill him.

However, I think you need to be a little more temperate in your thinking. Ask yourself, if Islam was so fundamental in all these peoples thinking wouldn't we all be dead right now? If all Islamic and Christians actually believed the fundamentalists and their writings we would be stuffed. The truth of it is I think that there are private selves and public selves. I know of an Iranian who (I can’t say much) hates his culture but “goes along”. He can’t immigrate so he has returned to a way of life he hates with a passion. Living a lie where he publicly says what is expected but longs for a better way of life. continued

continued

I use my real name here because (a) I am not interested in slagging while hiding behind anonymity (I think people who do this are outright bullies and cowards);

(b)I think the less the gap between our private and public thinking - the freer we are.

So it is my way little bit towards maintaining that freedom. (I think people who use non-de-plumes are fine if it is just for privacy and other genuine reasons - but my culture says if one speaks one must own it.)

However, I am no fighter (unless backed up) or martyr and just want to contribute my thoughts. Whereas some people on OLO are clearly looking for fight rather than a discussion. Of course they get the same thrill without the bruises. I do have feelings of regret when people on OLO try to get rid of those with other views by launching personal attacks and labelling because it kills off diversity and thus reduces individuality. Most people with an ounce of self esteem move on from verbal abuse.

It is paradoxical but I think whilst being PC can thwart free speech not being PC can also lead to a situation where fewer people or just the crackpots and interested parties speak up for fear of just being howled down with all sorts of character assignation (racists etc) which can lead to political debate stagnating and people - the real stakeholders “going along” . In other words we start down that road towards a culture where people’s private selves (opinions) is very different than their public selves (going along - silence) – a place where if you do say something that is offensive to the current orthodoxy they hunt you down and kill you. You lose this aspect of individuality- you lose all. OLO contributes to freedom by helping to keep that gap between public and private at a minimum.