Saltpetre,
You said, "How to avoid issues? Firstly by being selective in our immigration program"

I am interested to see what you propose to be the selection criteria for immigrants and genuine refugees.

The selection criteria I would like is outlined in my last post on this thread.

Dear Saltpetre,

Thank You as always - for your well reasoned
post.

We know that in some cases, people who practise
the migrant religions are subjected to
indignities inflicted through pettiness, cruelty,
and misunderstanding. In Coffs Harbour, NSW -
Sikhs have been refused entry because their
turbans supposedly breach a club rule against hats.
In Melbourne Hassidic Jews wearing full beards
and earlocks are taunted by passing drivers, and
during the Gulf War some cowards singled out Muslim
women jostling them on footpaths, heaping vile
abuse on them, and spitting at them from cars.

In the media, a television ad for gravy mix shows a
group of saffron-clad Buddhits monks tucking into a
meat stew - an unthinkable affront to their faith -
while a newspaper cartoon has Saddam Hussein exposing
his buttocks in a mosque. In terms of sacrilege, a
Christian equivalent might be a corn-chips advertisement
featuring a crucified Jesus. "We just want to be
treated equally," pleads a worshipper at a nearby mosque.
Slowly, and most importantly, this, for most reasonable
people in Australia is beginning to happen.

Religion has never held a formal place in the Australian
legal system. In theory, the law is secular, based on the
everyday values of reasonable people.

But religion has still had its influence, helping shape the
community values the law applies. When most patrons of
our public transport systems shared an Anglo-Celtic
heritage and religion came in two dominant brands,
standards were fairly uniform. Not now, when our transport
systems carry passengers of a dozen cultures and a like
number of religious backgrounds.

The problem for the law is how to allow for the range
of attitudes and values created by such diversity.
If there are too many concessions to religious minorities,
majority opinion could be outraged: too few concessions,
and many Australians would be torn between the law
and their faith.

The compromise, as drafted by the Australian Law Reform
Commission, is that, "the law should support individual
religious and cultural freedoms where their
significance to the individual outweighs the harm the law
seeks to prevent..."

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Some cases decide themselves. For example,
a minority of Muslims believe in female circumcision.
In Australia, the practice is abhorred and treated
as an assault. Compromises is impossible in this case.
In other instances, it is essential. Take polygamous
marriage, which is illegal in Australia. Members of
some religions, including the Mormons, may enter such
marriages legally overseas before coming here.
They can't be forced to change their family structure,
and so the law recognises their married status.

Other situations require finer judgements, such as how to
decide these cases: a Sikh, wearing a turban as a
matter of religious duty, is charged with failure to use
a motocycle helmet; a Jehovah's Witness refuses a
blood transfusion for a dying child; the RSPCA argues for
a ban on the ritual slaughter of animals, necessary to
sanctify the meat for Muslim and Jewish consumption; a
Jewish woman, granted a civil divorce is barred by her
religion from re-marrying until she obtains a religious
divorce.

As things stand, the Sikh is likely to be given a helmet
exemption; the Jehovah's Witness may be charged with
manslaughter; halal slaughter in the name of Allah will
continue; the Family Court may pressure the divorcee's
ex-husband but has no real power to force a religous
separation.

Every decision is important because, as the Law Reform
Commission says in recent discussion papers, the final
answers to questions of religion will affect all
Australians.

As one Commissioner stated, people ask, "What's happened
to Australian values?" But those values are now
dramatically different and the system just has to change
to cope with that - And the changes have to apply to
everyone."

See you all on another discussion.
I have nothing further to add.

Saltpetre "you both deserve to be punished"

Ouch! Yes, Ma'am can I have another? Ooh!

"Oz has successfully 'assimilated' Greeks and Italians, and a host of other Europeans"

Not surprising.
We're part of a cultural continuum going back 6000 years.

"You appear determined that these simply cannot be 'assimilated'"

I don't want Africans, Arabs and Indians pretending they're "Australians, mate".

I want them to be Africans, Arabs and Indians.
In Africa, Arabia and India.
Where that makes perfect sense.

"There is a way to make multiculturalism work, and it involves watering-down and even isolating 'differences', and finding and working on commonalities, common best-interests."

That's exactly what multiculturalism isn't.
MC is all about the differences, not the commonalities.

"assist newcomers to meet, mingle and become at ease with the other members of the community in which they live - and for those other members (Aussies) to become familiar with and at ease with the newcomers."

And wouldn't that be a hell of a lot easier if those people were already similar/related to us in the first place?
The shorter the gap, the easier the leap.

"get over thinking the only 'decent' Aussie is a 'white' Aussie."

No, the only "Aussie" is a White Aussie.
Decent or despicable.

"Aussies/Australians" were, are, and always will be White.
We were White 200 years ago, 100 years ago and 50 years ago.
We will still be White (if we survive at all) in another 200 years.
Anyone else is something else.

I cannot *be* Turkish, Thai or Tahitian just by adopting their "ways".
(They would probably snicker at my attempts).

I could become a member of their nation to some extent, but I and they would never refer to me as *being* Turkish, Thai or Tahitian.

The others can be our friends, lovers, spouses, colleagues, teammates, neighbours (if we *want* them to be).
But "Aussie", they cannot be.

Foxy "I have nothing further to add."

Oh, did you add something?
I must have missed it.

Well Shocker, you hit the nail on the head:

>"Aussies/Australians" were, are, and always will be White.
We were White 200 years ago, 100 years ago and 50 years ago.
We will still be White (if we survive at all) in another 200 years.
Anyone else is something else.<

Talk about head in the sand.

I'm afraid the horse has well and truly bolted, and we have second and third generation 'Aussies' who look Chinese, Lebanese, Afghani, Iranian, Indian, and just about every other 'rainbow' colour, and most are talking 'Strine', texting, tweeting, facebook-ing, etc, in English (or 'Stralian') and in many cases doing it way better than you or I can.
(And some would have a far better understanding of 'Aussie' history than many 'umpteenth-generation' 'Aussies'.)

And many first-generation 'Aussies' are also 'having a go'.
(And many of them doing a far better job of it than some of our 'original' Australians - but that's a whole 'nuther story - but, in your view, do these not also qualify as 'Aussies'? Sort-of White, maybe, but some not wanting a bar of 'White'? An ongoing dilemma.)
TBC>

Continued:

To the bottom-line: It's the job of multiculturalism to break-down the boundaries, to expose people from other nations and cultures to our much better more-inclusive 'culture' of law, democracy, tolerance, egalitarianism, opportunity and a 'fair go' for all.
Given time, boundaries can be broken down, and good 'ol Aussie culture will still not be substantially changed. Some concessions, yes, but only at the edges, and the central 'fabric' remaining intact.

'They' will become 'Aussie', given a reasonable chance. Maybe not as Aussie as you or Banjo and perhaps many others, but in all but 'appearance' damn near as Aussie as the next bloke - in business, in our universities, schools, shops, shopping centres, workshops, factories, major cities and regional centres and towns, and in politics.

It's a new age, in Oz, and around the world, and baying at the 'tide' will not make it advance or recede.
We all need to get with the times, and do our best to shape the future, or it will happen anyway, and perhaps not as 'we' would like it.
(Sure, some things - FGM, etc - Oz cannot, and will never accept. That is a given. The Chinese stopped foot-binding centuries ago; people can change for the better - not the least, ourselves.)

And you can bet these new Aussies will respect 'Anzac' - many have seen and been overtaken by far worse, and not 100 years ago.
Give 'em a chance - nothing more, nothing less.