Dear Banjo,

I've just come back briefly to have a look at how
things are progressing here.

Why don;t you actually read what Suse is saying instead
of attributing all sorts of things to her and then
slandering her for it. You're now beginning to sound
like our neanderthal resident nasty (we all know he's
all out at sea and unhinged).

Anyway, here's a link that goes into greater detail - and gives
a Conclusion that is worth a read: :

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/grassroots/muslim-community-in-australia.pdf

Suseonline>>Sonofgloin, if we are to allow Catholic priests, nuns and brothers, as well as other Christian groups, to get about wearing their religious garb,<<

Dear Suse, Yesterday after posting my opinion.....my visiting still at uni/eternal student daughter read it and then became Foxy/Suseonline..... All her arguments are yours and Foxy....but I stand by my reasoning.

I have no issue with the local Mufti dressing in the expected uniform of the position...but I am against half the congregation making unmistakable religious and political statements just by their presence. Everyone except for the blind get a statement of intent every time they see the ridiculous impractical garb they persist with.

This is a ludicrous scenario...but apt.....If Priests and Nuns became citizens of Muslim nations and they incited their minority congregation to wear religious habits as the norm I would also object. It is a statement of difference, an insurmountable obstacle to integration. They know it, I know it...but yourself, my darling daughter, and Foxy fail to see it.

Re the discussion with my girl, it ended as it always does with me once again reminding her that the rights of the miniscule must should not be realized if it affronts or “damages” the majority for the sake of social cohesion.

Dear SOG,

Read the link I've given above your post.

Foxy,
Thanks for the link, I do not agree with the conclusions. It is the ingrained cultural and religion that have prevented muslims from integrating into our society. They generally hold our society and laws in contempt and consider their religious laws to be higher. For example Those that considered there was nothing wrong with the underage marriage of recent times.

The main problem is that muslims will not compromise in any way, to change their culture to fit in. We are expected to change to suit them at all times. e.g. Protests about the existence of bottle shops and lingerie shops in shopping centres forcing their closure. The refusal of muslim taxi drivers to allow guide dogs in their cabs.

Susie,
You may not agree with selective immigration but if done on cultural grounds it is not racism. Racism only applies if done on the grounds of race. e.g. Muslim Lebanese have exhibited much anti social conduct so I would stop allowing them in, however non muslim Lebanese have not done the same so would be allowed. Further, Coptic christens are said to practice FGM. If those here continue that practice then that group should not be allowed in. You see, race has nothing to do with selective immigration. It is a matter of disallowing those that have shown us they continue with alien cultural practices.

Foxy's link demonstrates the political spin that government agencies have been obliged to put out under recent administrations and especially in this case during the six long years of Labor+Greens government that was in place until very recently.

It is unnecessary for example to go on and on about the 'White Australia' policy. That was not all bad, black armband stuff either and was representative of many countries at the time. However if Foxy would like to debate the point, it was Arthur Caldwell and his so-called 'White Australia' policy that resulted in her own parents being offered sanctuary and a life in Australia, which they have obviously enjoyed. Caldwell intervened personally to extend an offer to the Lituanians after visiting a camp in Europe.

If any honesty in reporting is to prevail, the date, author and sponsorship of Foxy's article would be given. Because as is so obvious from it, it represents and markets policy particular to the government of the time.

Times change and so do the social policy imperatives of different governments, and that definitely applied to the previous Labor government. A topical example could the the Immigration Dept saying that '90%' of boat people (the prevailing politically correct term was '[asylum seekers') were 'legitimate'. That political factoid was later dismissed by Labor Foreign Minister Carr, who lifted the lid as did his Labor PM, on the numbers of economic migrants arriving courtesy of their travel agents, the criminal gangs operating people smuggling world wide and in this region.

Of course Foxy would not feel at all obliged to accept what Foreign Minister Carr and PM Gillard said where they might disagree with her (Foxy's) more Green-tinged opinions. However balance and facts are important and her link is just cherry-picking.

otb,

Perhaps this link may help clarify things for you:

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/grassroots/

If you click on the
"Full Version" - you'll get the full report of the
article I gave in my earlier link. It was written in 2008.
I'm not sure why you refer to cherry-picking.
The authors acknowledge their sources.
And they all are credible.

As far as what my parents went through and what they
experienced, that Sir - is part of the history of this
country - no matter which way you try to argue it.
The facts themselves are there as a historical
record.

As for your assumptions about my politics?
That is your fixation. Not mine. I'm actually
a "swinging voter."
Although I must admit
ever since you've been raving on against the Greens
they are beginning to attract my attention more and
more. I've never voted for them in the past but if
you're so anti them - then perhaps they're worth taking
a closer look at. So Thanks for that! If I do decide
to vote "Green," it will be as a result of you!