People's opinion of multiculturalism is tainted by what TV channel they watch.
What many do not realise is that the ABC censors content to hide any
news item that denigrates any boat people or certain other migrants.
After the Afghan 30 yr old's attack on seven schoolgirls at Homebush
Olympic pool I watched the ABC on every news and current affairs
program to see if it got a mention.
Not a word. If you want to check this, just pick up a similar item
from another source and then watch the ABC.

There is definitely a censor at the ABC.
I have not been able to detect exactly what his rules are for
permitting the broadcasting of items, but it does include some
political anti labour news but does not seem to be consistent.

It is a game anyone can play.

Bazz, "There is definitely a censor at the ABC. I have not been able to detect exactly what his rules are for permitting the broadcasting of items, but it does include some political anti labour news but does not seem to be consistent."

Many would agree with you on that.

It is unacceptable that the ABC publicises a formal editorial policy that says one thing, but is silent on its informal editorial policy, that is apparently often at odds with the even-handedness (and accountability for it!) implied in its formal statement.

As I have said today in another thread I think linking concerns about Muslim migration, to our Multi Cultural country is fraud.
Muslim concerns are separate to decades of migration and should stay that way.
I know we had some rare problems, but to be honest nothing like the Islamic ones.
UN is no longer trying to follow its charter unless as is likely they follow one we never knew about.

Funny you should say that Bazz. How much are the ALPBC not telling the people?

http://pickeringpost.com/story/little-things-media-s-left-completely-missed/2482

Suseonline, "I was asking for proof from you about your claim that inhumane 'ritual' slaughter IS happening in Australia, but obviously you can't substantiate that"

Rubbish. I refer you to my previous post of Friday, 13 December 2013 1:59:41 AM. To repeat, our standards for human slaughter are modified and even forgotten for ritual slaughter. That is a policy and law fact. Those decisions are up to State and federal governments who are flexible.
Once again, that gives the lie to your claim (that I quoted in my earlier post).

I am not going to quote sites over and over for you. In previous threads I have referred to the federal standards and even linked to the RSPCA. You obviously haven't bothered to look. Or more likely you figure that requiring others to endlessly supply proof that you dismiss anyhow is a good game to play.

As has been pointed out to you and others many, many times before, humane slaughter requires prior,irreversible stunning. Cutting the luckless animal's throat and then trying to stun by reversible(!) technique so that the animal is actually killed by the knife was always unacceptable to beef farmers like my family and always will be. We care about the animals we raise. You don't. You put your cultural cringe first.

You have the front to say that because those religious fundamentalists who demand ritual slaughter might have lived here for years we should go along with what they want. You conveniently forget that they have been breaking the law all of that time, and their practices remain inhumane.

Again, another reply wasted on you. However, others who are not out to score petty PC points such as yourself, namely people who are concerned about stopping cruelty wherever it occurs, be it affecting the welfare of young aboriginal mothers and their children, or livestock, will read and know that others care just like them, which is good.

You know what's worse than a lefty OTB?
A feminist lefty ;~)

I've said it to your before. Remarkable patience LOL!