I recently received one of those emails that does the rounds all to often trying to promote outrage. In this case it was a rework of one that went around in 2012 regarding "calls" to tone down Anzac day because we might upset some in the community.

As far as I can tell there was a report, it did make some reference on 3 of 96 pages to multicultural issues but not in the way the email I received suggests.

A couple of links discussing the topic for those wanting some background
http://troydavidjohnston.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/anzac-day-under-threat-by-the-tabloids/
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/anzac-day-2015.shtml

I'm left with the impression that we have more to fear from those who deliberately use lies and an important day such as Anzac day to perpetrate hate and division than we do from any in the community who may not get the relevance of Anzac day or who because of their own background may not view it the same way others do.

I'm not talking of those who in good faith pass on emails of this nature, I'm thinking of those who knowingly craft the lies and send them out.

R0bert

Robert,

It is important to get the sequence of events right:
1) There was a report which mooted that ANZAC Day might be divisive in a MC context [1].
2) Then, the emails did the rounds in response.

Actually, I made a comment on another thread about ANZAC Day being seen along those lines. At the time I was unaware the argument had already been aired. I was doing a bit of surmising purely on what I have come to know of the thinking of many of those pushing MC in this country.

ANZAC Day is currently very iconic and anyone who suggests it should be tampered with needs to tread carefully.So it is unlikely you will get anyone coming out and saying it has to go . What you will get is chipping around the edges

Look at it rather like those budget leaks which test the waters prior to budget release/formulation—how are they said to work?
1) You have the leak
2) If the reaction is too strong
3) You come out with a PR spiel that it was never a possibility & the critics are speaking through their hat.
4) Then BINGO! those who responded angrily get portrayed as promoters of outrage and scaremonger.

I have no doubt that there are currently no plans in the pipeline to morph ANZAC into a HARMONY DAY.Though I suspect that even now,in those schools & institutions where “progressive” elements hold sway, ANZAC Day commemorations have much more in keeping with HARMONY DAY than a traditional ANZAC DAY.

Footnote
1 Whether it was mentioned in 6 pages or 96 pages is immaterial.

war has killed your husband
war has destrotyed your HOUSE
WAR MADE YOUR HUSBAND BOY CHILD DEPENDANT ON DRUGS..to sleep drugs to wake..drugs from the far off lands that pays for the secret wars

HE CANT Sleep at night
there is nothing regarding freaking war that is ok

or all right

war is murder theft rape pillage and plunder deface disgrace
war is hell..living hell..its the place true evil doth dwell

so YOU GOT AN EMAIL FROM A MASTER
LETS EXAMINE THIS DISASTER

OK FIRST LIMIT THE TOPIC
,,..<<..I'm not talking of those who in good faith pass on emails of this nature, I'm thinking of those who knowingly craft the lies and send them out.>>

im noting not a lot of fact/DETAIL?
but hey the topics up...flesh the topic out

<<>.I'm left with the impression that we have more to fear from those who deliberately use lies and an important day such as Anzac day to perpetrate hate and division than we do from any in the community who may not get the relevance of Anzac day or who because of their own background may not view it the same way others do.>>

YEAH..THERE ARE MANY ATHEISTS OUT THERE THAT THINK DEAD IS DEAD
well just like man made global warming..or fighting for king and cuntry is flawed..

so is the death..of the dead
here are the notes..recorded..during that first war
as the dead went to that place we all go..once they say hes dead
http://new-birth.net/booklet/Subaltern_Spirit_Land.pdf

Dear RObert,

It is a concern.

Because this ploy leads towards confrontation and
lays the foundations for attacks by certain
people and groups. Take "One Nation" as an example.
It rationalises
attitudes in these groups which have remained unaltered
and engrained for decades

ANYHOW..WHAT THE BIGGEST THREAT?
fear itself..those beating up the fears/know they lied
hugely//now..need huge fears to hide behind.,.

they ARE ABOUT TO DECLARE TIME..[WWW]WORLD WIDE WAR
and loose fastly and furiously..we welcome our new leaders
our last ones let us down.

ITS SAD RATHER THAN FUNNY/BUT ITS ALL ABOUT FIAT MONEY
or rather the extras that make the cash/that has bought about our own end..but in the who had to re-pay.

they simply made our money go away
can you prove what you own..nor can they

[its just going to be easier today]

stuf it listen to todays first hour
[28 MINUTE/MARK..ON for a fast version]
learn way to much about THE BIGGER THREAT

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/podcast.php

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6293&page=11
here are some more
http://rss.infowars.com/20140421_Mon_Alex.mp3
http://rss.infowars.com/20140422_Tue_Alex.mp3

why bother..they sleep brother

SPRQ, I've not been able to find a lunk to the actual report to get the context for myself but the commentary I've seen ( other than that repeating the general content of the email ) indicates that the content which is being used as the basis for the email is a note that there is potential for some section of the community not feeling included and it being unsettling for others. Covering the bases but no quotes that I've seen of anything suggesting toning Anzac day down. Also note the original came out during Gillard era but the revised version makes it all sound current.

OUG, the second link I provided has sample content very similar to what I received.

Foxy I get your point but at the same time I'm of the view that the opponents of One Nation were guilty of the same kind of misrepresentation to stir up fear and disquiet in the community. To the point where protests against One Nation involved physical violence against some trying to attend meetings. Misrepresentation and fear mongering are not the sole province of any one group in the political spectrum.

Have you followed any of the discussion in the US regarding attempts to outlaw lying in political campaigns? Interesting arguments both for and against. I'm in favor of political discourse being held to some kind of account but bothered by the ability for it to be misused to silence genuine discussion.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

Prof. James Jupp in his book, "From White
Australia to Woomera," sums things up rather
well regarding "One Nation."
He states that:

"In one sense, "One Nation" was a farce. It was
inept, incompetent, unintelligent, and spurious.
It earned large sums of money through donations
and public funding for which it was unable
to account."

"In another sense it was a tragedy.
By creating a block of 1 million voters strategically
placed between Labor, the Nationals and the Liberals,
it tempted the parties to pander to its prejudices.
The Liberals adopted much of its refugee policy.
More importantly they pursued their own similar
agenda against multiculturalism and Aboriginal
reconciliation. The ALP under Kim Beazley had no
policy on immigration worthy of the name and followed
lamely behind the Coalition when the "Tampa"
crisis broke out in August 2001. The Nationals were
divided and had most to lose."

"The worst effect of "One Nation" was that it gave
legitimacy to those who had always opposed the changes
of the past thirty years. Its message was spread by the
media to the entire population. It created the belief
that there was a large constituency of "Aussie battlers"
whose prejudices had to be treated seriously. It
encouraged anti-intellectualism, like all populist
parties."
"This meant that much that had been creative in national
development since the 1960s had to be argued for again.
By failing to do so, the Howard government consolidated
its own electoral position in 2001 and legitimised the
whole agenda which he and his colleagues had been
developing since the early 1980s. This led directly to
the punitive detention of asylum seekers and the
hunger strikes of Woomera."

This is not some urban legend.
The government really did spend a fortune on focus groups and a report.

The prime minister even responded to media questions about it.
I wish someone would report the *name* of the document, so we could read it.

Apparently anything and everything "offends" someone these days.

This is our war memorial day.
Every country has one.
Japan has one. Germany has one.
Get over it.

If foreigners have become Australian citizens, they shouldn't be "offended".
Anzac Day is about the nation *Australia* (which they supposedly now are part of) and its fallen.

Any naturalised citizens who make trouble at these events should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to "their" land.

Our day is unlike the baton-twirling, cheering-crowd American type.
Ours is sedate and serious.
We don't bombastically "glorify" war.
What's there to be offended by?

And what's this have to do with "culture"?
We never went to war with anyone because of their "culture"!

There is no evidence what so ever that any new Australians, now or in the past, have shown any substantive desire to destroy the well established tradition that is ANZAC Day. It is far more likely that the hate peddlers and their piddling number of supporters, who reside in such political parties as One Nation and Australia First, on finding they can't garner the slightest modicum of popular support through the ballot box will resort to lies about migrants in an attempt to divide Australia into opposing sectarian groups. These hateful bigots are simply trying to create division where no division exists. I give credit to our migrants past and present who in the main do their best to become Australians in their own way, and the contribution such people make to the true Australia, it can't be easy for anyone of them.
Its notable that no worthwhile links have been posted on the subject.

RObert, "Have you followed any of the discussion in the US regarding attempts to outlaw lying in political campaigns? Interesting arguments both for and against. I'm in favor of political discourse being held to some kind of account but bothered by the ability for it to be misused to silence genuine discussion"

It is impossible and leads to all manner of abuses, one being continual challenges to gag.

The only protection is free speech (and liberty).

In the late 1980s I lived in Marrickville area, Sydney, which has to be one of the most diverse places in Australia (my immediate neighbours included people of Italian, Irish, Tongan, Aboriginal, Egyptian and Greek background.) I heard about a project between one of the schools and the local studies centre at the library. A group of high school students, of similar varied backgrounds (also including Vietnamese), each chose a name from the war memorial and researched that soldier. This was before easily accessed digitised records. They did amazing projects - tracked down families, interviewed them, dug out old records and photographs and so on. I was shown their reports in the local studies collection - amazing work - they'd clearly been passionate about the task. And I still remember the pride I felt in the pride these young migrants felt in becoming Australian.

I can remember a small Turkish contingent marching at Young in the late 50s.

They were welcomed & respected. I think there was real respect between them & us even during the fighting.

I agree with Paul1405.
There are very few people who think we should do away with Anzac Day, and those that spread those sort of rumours are lower than an ants knee.

The 'bigger threat' to Australia are those that strive to destabilize our unique friendships between multicultural people, in a country so successful at true multiculturalism that people from all over the world would love to live here!

The Anzacs from the two world wars met and fought beside many people from different countries when they fought overseas, and when they returned from war, they and their families welcomed immigrants who came here from war torn countries.
Why can't we all be more like them?

I can just recall my Grand Uncle Jim who joined the 1st AIF and fought at Gallipoli in 1915, and later on the Western Front. When I was about 8 years old, around 1960, I recall sitting at the kitchen table, and being left alone with Uncle, all having left the room except us two, stting opposite each other. A very awkward moment for an 8 year old boy, uncle didn't take kindly to children at all, had none of his own, due to a very private war injury suffered at Gallipoli, patched up in Egypt, and sent on to the Western Front, must have been a fun war for uncle. I plucked up enough courage to speak up, we never spoke, he tended to simply bark at us children rather than speak. My question to uncle was; "Uncle, what did you do in the war?" Uncle paused for what seem ages and then lent across the table, me thinking he was about to bite my head off for such impertinence, instead uncle looked left, then right, making sure no one was in ear shot, and with a cold glassy stare said "Son...I kept my f'n head down!" that put the frightners on one 8 year old boy. Years later, long after uncle has passed on, I would think, "Uncle you should have kept more than your f'n head down." I wished i could have been able to talk with uncle and find out more about the Great War and his part in it, I know uncle always spoke well of the Turk, he would say "he was only defending his homeland" but British Officers were another matter all together. I'm sure if a Turk and a British Officer were together, and uncle had to shoot one, I think the Turk would have found himself, safe and well and living in Istanbul. LOL

@Susie,

<< in a country so successful at true multiculturalism that people from all over the world would love to live here!>>

Ah lassie, spoken like a true Lefty.

So all them illegals and illeguys be boatin here 'cause they be likin our mult-ticult--er-ism?

Sounds to me like you been indulgin the barley wata a wee too much.

Paul1405 and Suseonline, this is not a "lie" or a "rumour" spread by One Nation types.

The government *did* commission this report and it contained the usual namby-pamby kiss-the-immigrants-arse back-stabbing leftist agenda.

There may very well be nobody offended by or opposing Anzac Day for "cultural" reasons.

But the bureaucrats will still make their traitorous walk-on-egg-shells recommendations regardless.

Okay Shock, you say; "I wish someone would report the *name* of the document, so we could read it." We being you. So you haven't actually read the unnamed report but you tell us it contains "the usual namby-pamby kiss-the-immigrants-arse back-stabbing leftist agenda."
Having not actually read the unnamed report how do you know it contains that "namby-pamby kiss-the-immigrants-arse back-stabbing leftist agenda."
What a shocker!

Shockadelic, do you have any specifics? I've been unable to find any proof of recommendations to tone down Anzac day. Lots of generalities but no references to either an accessible version of the report or specific content from it to support the claims which are being made.

My impression is that it included some general comments acknowledging risks, either to be thorough or to arse cover. The comments I've seen regarding that have suggested that it was very tame and bears almost no relation to the content of the email (or previous versions of the email).

I'm more than willing to change my view on this if someone can come up with specifics that back the story but at this stage it looks like a beat up designed to mislead and inflame tension without real cause.

If that is the case then I think it's counter productive to those trying to raise concerns about instances where specifics of multiculturalism are not be working. Like the story of the boy who cried wolf, it undermines the credibility of more factual claims.

R0bert

<< in a country so successful at true multiculturalism that people from all over the world would love to live here!>>

SPQR: 'spoken like a true Lefty'.

Actually I think it's spoken like a true libertarian.

People want to come here because they think we're a progressive western country that allows individuals the freedom to pursue their aspirations.

Refugees or not, many people coming here leave countries that prevent this if you are of a certain ethnic group, or religion, or gender. They believe that in Australia people from all backgrounds have this freedom. (Some of us call it multiculturalism).

Pity we don't always live up to their expectations that we are a true liberal/libertarian place.

(Before I get flamed: I do think libertarianism USA style can go to far, it needs to be balanced with communal attitudes. Total individual freedom eg not to pay taxes doesn't build community assets like roads).

Dear Cossomby, Suse, and Paul,

Australia is a nation of migrants and throughout
Australia's history, millions of migrants have
helped build this country. People who come here
are determined to establish a new life for
themselves and their families and are willing to
work hard to make the most of their opportunities.
In my experience - I have not heard of any one
denigrating Anzac Day. As a matter of fact I have
helped many students work on the meaning of
Anzac Day - similar to the project mentioned
by Cossomby. With very positive outcomes.
It is a concern how these nasty and vacuous
rumours get started and by whom.?

cont'd ...

I read that rumours had started about Anzac badges not
being allowed to be sold in a certain shopping centre
because the Manager of the centre was from the Middle-East.
This turned out to be a lie and racist nonsense.

Management responded with - "spreading such
misinformation seems only to generate hatred and resentment
against some sectors of the Australian community. Passing on
dangerous and divisive lies of this nature is irresponsible
and ultimately un-Australian."

Don't be so naive Cossomby. That was before we started letting in undesirables.

Once our new citizens breed up to get a larger part of the population, forget freedom. You will be down on your knees looking towards Mecca 4 times a day, whether you like it or not.

Of course you may all ready be doing that, hence the tone of your post.

Cossomby, "Total individual freedom eg not to pay taxes doesn't build community assets like roads"

I was intrigued by what you meant by that and in a progressive society.

Just a idea and maybe a few examples where people ought to be able to choose and opt 'out', so I understand what you meant.

Thanks.

Cossomby,

<<People want to come here because they think we're a progressive western country that allows individuals the freedom to pursue their aspirations>>

ROFLMAO

They want to come here to accrue economic advantage!

NB: They by-pass India --the worlds largest democracy. And Malaysia and Indonesia --which persons like you never tire of insisting --are tolerant Muslim nations where everyone is treated fairly!

And you want to know another funny thing: soooooo many of them want put their kids in non-progressive one-faith schools!

For most of us 'freedom to pursue their aspirations' includes 'freedom to accrue economic advantage'. We're a capitalist western country aren't we?

India, Malaysia and Indonesia? None of those countries are migrant-based societies, similar to ours, so I reckon most people migrating would think they had a better chance in Australia with our small population, and track record of migrant success.

Name one recent (post 1950) migrant to India, Malaysia or Indonesia who has risen to the top of that society?

Name any number in Australia.

We may agree on the faith schools.

But I don't think there should be any faith based schools at all. Everyone should go to state schools so everyone starts from the same basis. Religions can offer add-on classes outside school times.

I don't intend this to hijack the thread, so I won't make any further comments on this.

Robert,
I never received the email you speak of, but I recall seeing press articles about the report that the government commissioned regarding the centenary of ANZAC DAY.

I was angry that the government had spent so much money and sought the opinions of various groups, including non-citizens, for their views on ANZAC DAY commemorations. There was much public outcry about this and the government tried to distance itself from the report. I suggest the government leaked the report to asses the community reaction.

I can well imagine that some people felt so incensed that they sent emails around to ensure people were aware of the report and what it contained. This is no different to people advising others of some development that may impact on their living or area.

I see Paul is quick to put One Nation in the category of a minor group that was divisive, however I recall that ON came into being because the major parties were ignoring the feelings of electors. Paul himself is a member of a minor party that had many weird policies and only exists today because Labor saw them as 'useful idiots' and passes on preferences in the Senate ballot.

What I see as dangerous are those that deliberately put forward untruths that are designed to denigrate Aus and it citizens. For example, the sweeping statements by Foxy claiming 'facts' that Aus is racist. I do not believe we should allow such to go unchallenged. These untruths are without foundation and disparage our nation. Such persons should be condemned by all.

Cossomby,

<<For most of us 'freedom to pursue their aspirations' includes 'freedom to accrue economic advantage>>
Aye, but all too often they come here crying “we are refugees”

<<India, Malaysia and Indonesia? None of those countries are migrant-based societies>>
Well they are! How do you imagine the Indians and Chinese got to Malaysia -- And the Chinese to Indonesia??

And here's a few gems you didn't see in the Lefty-pro-illegal immigration media:
--"Former prime minister Tun Mahathir Mohamed [said] ... in the 1980’s [he], wanted Malaysia to achieve a 70 million-strong population."
--" Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop, said ....'We need the critical mass of people to drive consumption-led growth.'
---"Foreigners, meanwhile, [make] up 8.2 per cent of the population at 2.3 million."

Again to this
<<, similar to ours, so I reckon most people migrating would think they had a better chance in Australia with our small population, and track record of migrant success.>>
I say: Aye but *AGAIN* all too often they come here crying “we are refugees”

And this bit: <<and track record of migrant success.>>
Is about to be servery tested with the passing of the mineral booms.

In fact, if you are in the wrong areas in many of our major cities it is already in doubt!

<<Name one recent (post 1950) migrant to India, Malaysia or Indonesia who has risen to the top of that society? >>

Irrelevant. This is one of those trick questions your side often employs. If a thread is about proving how bad and racist Oz is -you tell (preach to) us how Oz is a the racist pariah nation in the Asia-Pacific.However, if the thread is about why all the opportunists need to gatecrash Oz, the line is "well no other place will accept them"

Apologies R0bert, didnt mean to sidetrack your thread. I will refrain from doing further --unless deliberately PROVOKED by Suzie or that agent provocateur Cossomby!

"People who are in denial about racism in this country are simply ignorant. Lets look at the facts - we imprison
brown asylum seekers, we once celebrated our national day
with a white racist riot. There were assaults on Indian
students, a little political organisation called
One Nation, and of course "the intervention" - the heraldic
beak on our long hawkish treatment of Indigenous Australians".
Posted by Foxy, OLO 18-4-2014

It is a concern how these nasty and vacuous
rumours get started and by whom.?
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 24 April 2014 11:27

How hypocritical is this. Foxy wonders how these nasty and vacuous rumours get started and by whom. Some need to look in a mirror.

Re 'my side'. I am a pro-capitalist libertarian - I am happy about people wanting to come here to better themselves. I've previously argued that we should welcome economic migrants / refugees because they have an incentive to achieve.

If they are 'refugees' it means they are fleeing a situation where they are repressed and cannot archive their aspirations in their original country. If they bypass other countries to come to Australia, well, they show good judgement in having the same high regard for Australia as I do. I've pre

Malaysia etc. may have substantial numbers of Indians, Chinese, etc. but those countries were not founded as immigrant societies and do not have the immigrant make-good ethos that we do.

Actually when you talk about 'my side', it's not clear whether you are a lefty and think I'm right wing or vice versa

Cossomby,

<< we should welcome economic migrants …because they have an incentive to achieve. >>
They CANNOT be economic migrants and use the Refugee Convention to justify acceptance. And people like you who think that such is quite ok are aiding and abetting a major league scam.

<<If they are 'refugees' it means they are fleeing a situation where they are repressed and cannot archive their aspirations in their original country….>>
On that measure 4/5s of Asia and Africa would qualify! And in case you haven't noticed there are other channels which those with aspirations and talent can apply --and surprise, surprise tens thousands do each year!

<<Malaysia etc. may have substantial numbers of Indians, Chinese, etc. but those countries were not founded as immigrant societies and do not have the immigrant make-good ethos that we do. >>
Depends how you define *founded*. Have a think abut why the British encouraged Indian and Chinese Immigration in to Malaysia –And even today Malaysia relies on huge numbers of imported workers to keep things going. The idea that we alone owe our current standing to immigrants is a furthy that illegal immigration apologists dreamed-up whilst smoking some of the Greens real grass.

<<Actually when you talk about 'my side', it's not clear whether you are a lefty and think I'm right wing or vice versa>>
You cannot run with the Foxy’s and hunt with the SPQRs –if you run with the Foxy’s and Paul's you are supporting a far left agenda
(now watch the aforementioned two come out of the wood work & claim they're misunderstood!)

Dear Banjo,

Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to
tell the difference between rumours and
documented facts.

Sigh.

Paul1405, the report was talked about in the mainstream media (not just your chain email), who presumably actually read it.

None of them denied the "namby pamby" recommendations existed, nor did the then-prime minister.

""I completely disagree with all the conclusions of that report," she said."
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/anzac-centenary-commemorations-should-be-culturally-sensitive-government-research-claims/story-e6freuy9-1226309721615

Note, she doesn't *deny* the conclusions, she just disagrees with them.
Whether the government *acts* on its recommendations doesn't change their nature (or the money spent on it).

As you can't name the report, I presume you haven't read it either. :P

R0bert, the boy who cried wolf are the bureaucrats/academics who see potential or actual "offence" in everything White Australians do.

Cossomby, "India, Malaysia and Indonesia? None of those countries are migrant-based societies"

And we are not a migrants-from-every-and-any-culture-based society.

We are a European-(primarily-British)-migrant-based society.

So if immigration isn't a significant part of Indian, Malaysian or Indonesian history, *pancultural* immigration isn't a significant part of ours.

Only British/European immigration had any significance here for 200 years.

Why can India, Malaysia and Indonesia keep their demographics intact, but we must radically transform ours? (80% non-Euro immigration in recent years)

"those countries were not founded as immigrant societies"

Neither were we.
We were a penal colony.

Initially the only "immigrants" were convicts and those who managed them.
Free settlers (primarily subjects of the British Empire) came later.

"Actually when you talk about 'my side', it's not clear whether you are a lefty and think I'm right wing or vice versa"

Your side are utopians, ours are realists.

It's just that leftism is inherently utopian/idealist, so the pancultural agenda is primarily endorsed by the Left (Yes, some libertarian Right are just as naive, but they're less prominent).

Shockadelic, you need to let go of the 'Old Country's apron strings and admit that we are no longer a British colony for goodness sake!
And don't forget the Aboriginals were here well before your beloved 'white' immigrants.

Drag yourself into the current century and stop being so frightened of our current immigrants.
You may just enjoy life here in fab Oz a little more :)

Foxy,
You made a sweeping statement in which you claimed 5 specific items were 'facts' of Australian racism.

I suggest you cannot show evidence that the mentioned items show Australian racism.

It is shameful that you make up items and present it as 'facts' of racism.

A decent and honourable person would withdraw the statement and apologise, but it shows the deceit some will go to in promoting multiculturalism.

You are starting a rumour that the items you say constitute racism.

They simply do not and you are very aware of that. I'll remind you tomorrow again of what you said and that you also posted that you are concerned as to how nasty and vacuous rumours start.

Foxy <""People who are in denial about racism in this country are simply ignorant. Lets look at the facts - we imprison
brown asylum seekers, we once celebrated our national day
with a white racist riot. There were assaults on Indian
students, a little political organisation called
One Nation, and of course "the intervention" - the heraldic
beak on our long hawkish treatment of Indigenous Australians".

All true comments Foxy, and all are shameful examples of racism in our fine country.
Anyone who disagrees is in denial, or is happy with this behaviour.

Foxy is one of the most decent and honourable contributors to this forum, so anyone who considers her 'shameful' or 'deceitful' should take a long hard look at himself.....

I'm somewhat reluctant to buy into that discussion but its not all as clear cut as Foxy's original post suggests. The detail was thin so I'll run with the assumption that the claims were about well known events.

There appears to be a small level of racism involved in some of the assaults against Indian students but little to indicate that was racism from people born here (accepting there may be some). Some of the assaults were by other indian's and many by others from ethnic minorities. Many were demographic issues, students living in areas with existing high crime rates and being seen asnsoft targets. The article at Wikipedia isnworth a read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_Indians_in_Australia_controversy

My impression of the Cronulla riot was of a bad reaction to an ongoing crime wave by a gang of Lebanese youth (which did appear to have strong racist overtones) and the impressiin that the government/police were ignoring the issue. That whole drunken flag wearing outrage look is not one I admire but I also don't admire using that event out of context to smear Australians.

Its already been pointed out that One Nation probably got most of its support because mainstream parties were pointedly ignoring issues people were aware of. I suspect that some of the support was because of the ruthless treatment of ON by the mainstream parties and their supporters as well. The analysis was often poor and badly expressed however I suspect that if the other parties had been willing to address the issues more honestly ON would not have got a look in.

Lots of claims and counter claims around the intervention. It came on the back of some major coverage of seemingly widespread abuse of children in some communities. Reports of child sexual abuse in indiginious communities have gone up since the intervention however that appears to be an artifact of more reporting not more abuse. I'm not convinced the intervention was the right thing to do but its opponents don't seem to be putting up better plans.

You could also have a look a paper on indiginous homicide http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/C/0/B/%7BC0BBDBB3-5D3F-461F-B9D2-E4CD0AD58EC1%7Dti210.pdf

R0bert

ANZAC Day is iconic. Not too many are game to openly challenge it at this stage. However, we have had similar values & icons trashed in the recent past in the name of tolerance, harmony or some other piece of hype(overturned from ON HIGH, as it were).

Can anyone seriously doubt that people who hold views like Suzie and Foxy and Paul. If given sufficient encouragement (maybe a HR report and a concerted campaign by the ABC & SBS) might be born again as make-ANZAC-a-MC-HARMONY-DAY campaigners (with Crossomby being lead along by the nose) --I HAVE NO DOUBT, AT ALL!

While the email RObert received was false, there does seem to be some basis for conjecture about political and bureaucratic tweaking of the 2015 ANZAC centenary to accommodate multiculturalists' sensitivity.

You don't have a Prime Minister, Julia Gillard in this case, stepping up to the podium to redefine and make a strong statement of support unless something untoward politically has gone down. Maybe Sir Humphrey and his senior public service cronies were too obvious or too edgy and the moves towards multicultural sensitivity backfired, forcing the female equivalent of PM Hacker, Julia Gillard, to hose things down (as Jim Hacker was sometimes obliged to do when disclosure was 'premature'. That indicates just how sensitised the public service is to the prevailing political correctness and always genuflecting to multiculturalism.

As often explained by Sir Humphrey himself in Yes, Prime Minister, there is a lot done behind the scenes that the public doesn't need to know and ought be denied immediately if it ever slips out.

This news report goes into depth and PM Julia Gillard's words, tightly crafted by her legal training, should be read closely. Julia Gillard was concerned and used the most powerful tool available to her, her PM podium and the strong statement of support for ANZAC.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/anzac-centenary-commemorations-should-be-culturally-sensitive-government-research-claims/story-e6freuy9-1226309721615

Shock,

"As you can't name the report, I presume you haven't read it either. :P"

As the one banging on about the "report" the obligation is on you to produce it, not me.

As for the "mainstream media" as you like to refer to it as. Murdoch gutter press is read and believed by 0.1% of the population (a report, on newspaper readership in Australia; http://mumbrella.com.au/abcs-newspapers-3-188553 ) hardly a mass audience compared to population.
Even in your Telecrap link, there is scant reference to the so called "report", the gutter press can't even name the author of the "report" other than a vague reference to Bureaucrats and the total spending on focus group testing, and a research paper to guide commemoration plans. With a total cost of $370k, of the $370K how much was spent on, what you a talking about, and how detailed was it? As for so called "focus groups" what they say could be of some value, then again it might not be worth two bob.

Paul 1405,

The then PM, Julia Gillard is on the public record as having denounced the recommendations of the subject report, which is probably resting in a locked cabinet in the PS department now because it seems difficult to find.

Are you calling Julia Gillard a liar?

See here,
<Anzac centenary commemorations should be culturally sensitive, government research claims

PRIME Minister Julia Gillard says enthusiasm for Anzac Day is growing as she rejected criticism in a new report.

Her comments come after the Federal Government was warned that celebrating the centenary of Anzac Day could provoke division in multicultural Australia - and told there were "risks" in honouring our fallen soldiers.

The centenary is a "double-edged sword" and a "potential area of divisiveness" because of multiculturalism, a taxpayer-funded report has found.

But Ms Gillard said as the nation gears up for the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landing, there will be a great sense of national identity.

"I completely disagree with all the conclusions of that report," she said.>

Why did PM Gillard find it so necessary to urgently take the podium to issue a strong denial of the recommendations, if the report didn't exist or if it didn't have any cachet? My post above refers, onthebeach, Friday, 25 April 2014 9:21:16 AM

The answer lies in the political correctness that requires constant genuflecting to multicultural sensitivities. The senior public servants were doing what was required of them by that informal policy. However it just doesn't do for the public to be told. Hence the urgent strong denial by PM Julia Gillard to hose it all down.

It was a very murky pond during the Gillard/Greens government. Although it is believable that Julia Gillard herself did disagree with the proposed PC massaging of the ANZAC Commemoration in 2015.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Anzac Day will
remain with us. Although the survivors of
20th century wars are disappearing - their legacy
will remain. This can be seen by the fact that in
the 21st century there are increasingly large numbers
of participants in Anzac Day ceremonies. We have an
inclusion of Anzac Day study units in school curricula,
widespread media coverage of the day itself and the
high priority accorded to reporting individual
Australian casualties in war zones such as Iraq and
Afghanistan have given it greater prominence in the
national psyche. Young and old alike are making
trips to Gallipoli and other historical sites.

The Anzac Day march is no longer restricted to
servicemen and women. In many towns everyone who wears
a uniform is represented, police, fire brigade,
marine rescue squads, scouts, guides, school children.
Children lay wreaths in front of the war memorial.
Some are wearing the medals of their grandparents, great-
grantparents. They are there to honour their ancestors, their
lineage, the family histories that have shaped our
collective history.

I still remember the day Sir Weary
Dunlop came and gave a lecture in our regional library.
He brought with him a colleague who showed the audience
sketches (slides) of what Sir Dunlop and the men had suffered.
Emotions ran high that day.

As long as we continue to pass on these legacies to
our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren.
Anzac Day will continue to be remembered. It is up to
us to ensure that this happens.

Beach,

I can't comment on the truthfulness or otherwise of the former PM Gillard, on this "report". Other than a few doctored words in a Murdoch rag which may or may not have been contained in said "report" and therefore wholly truthful. Simply produce the report and I'll comment.

On a much more serious note, a foreigner and his blatant Un-Australian activity. This morning on my return from the 6am local ANZAC service, a time, just a few hours this morning, for all Australians to pause and remember men and women who did make a huge sacrifice for Australia, many giving their lives, and I genuinely mean that. Forget the politics for a moment I was discussed that even on this morning local shops were trading. The newsagent was flogging the Murdoch gutter rag, the coffee bloke was making a quid from latte's, etc. I think as a mark of respect a little "sacrifice" by the rest of us, including business is called for. I know there are genuine reasons for some people to work on ANZAC morning, but flogging newspapers and coffee is not one of them. Is the likes of Murdoch so desperate for a dollar that the money changers have to flog his papers for him this morning? I'm not even asking that people give up the whole day, just the morning, a quarter of the day.

Paul 1405, "Simply produce the report and I'll comment"

Would be able to do that if the Gillard/Greens government had made it available to the public. Not so good on public disclosure were they?

Julia Gillard had to hose it down fast and take the PM's podium to issue a strong statement as damage control. The public got a fleeting glimpse of the PC multicultural future for the ANZAC commemoration at least and it wasn't pretty. Consult with the public on that stuff? Not damned likely!

Any wonder there has been so much buzzing in the hive since the exasperated Australian public acted to put the rubbish out in Canberra.

Dear RObert,

The following link just may put things into
their proper perspective:

http://www.eccq.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ANZAC-Day-and-Multiculturalism-28_03.pdf

We're told that -

"The assertion that Anzac Day could provide division in
multicultural Australia is entirely disengaged
(i.e - a furphy) from
the reports published by the National Commission on the
Commemoration of the Anzac Day Centenuary. The research
was not conducted to examine the impact of the
Commemoration on Anzac Day on multicultural Australia, nor
did it engage with culturally and linguistically (CALD) groups
on the issue."

OTB
Thanks for posting that link, it is the article I most recall about the issue.

The fact that the government commissioned a report that included 'focus groups' at a total cost of $473,000 angered me.

How dare someone suggest we consider foreign cultures in our commemorations of the 100th ANZAC DAY. It is none of their business.

The report said, Commemorations should be "culturally sensitive and inclusive", the paper states.

No wonder there was a serious backlash that made Gillard try to distance herself from it. No wonder some people were angry enough to sent a chain email to make people aware of what was suggested.

The report was never tabled so the government must have leaked it for the media to get hold of it.

The report was an utter disgrace, even for the government of the time.

cont'd ...

Dear RObert,

Try these two links:

http://abalnx.com/wordpress/hellenic/files/2012/03/ANZAC-DAY-RESEARCH-REPORT.pdf

http://www.anzaccentenary.gov.au/documents/anzac_centenary_report.pdf

Thanks Foxy, links to documents at http://www.anzaccentenary.gov.au/anzac_centenary/publications.htm

I assume it's this one http://www.anzaccentenary.gov.au/documents/anzac_centenary_report.pdf

but possibly this http://www.anzaccentenary.gov.au/documents/acab_report.pdf

I've not read either and some basic searching didn't match on any of the key words I expected to be there given the commentary about the report.

Who will the the first to find the relevant sections?

R0bert

Thanks Paul for pointing that out. Unfortunately Murdoch was not the only offending party, Triple "M" was broadcasting this morning as well.

Glad to to be able to assume from the tone of your post though that the Fairfax media didn't publish today and that the ABC, SBS etc shut up shop for the morning as a mark of respect. Hopefully none of those news agent's sold anything not published by Murdoch this morning (magazines etc).

Coffee shops had to be open, many of my fellow Latte sipping Right wingers could not cope without a coffee shop.

Whilst I did neglect to turn off the radio on the way to and from the dawn service I didn't stop in to get paper or coffee on either part of the journey.

R0bert

Suseonline, we don't stop being a British based people/culture just because the empire has fallen.
What language are we speaking, smartypants?

In the "current century" Whites are still the overwhelming majority of the population and the only significant cultural source.

I'm more frightened by you.
The traitors who will say and do anything to tear down what is to build their utopian Tower of Babel.

Oz if fab because of all those smart, funny, brave Whites who made it that way.

Go to one of those "colourful" suburbs you never set foot in, far from the latte leftie crowd.
What do you see? Fab or filth?

Paul1405 "As the one banging on about the "report" the obligation is on you to produce it, not me."

Here: "The National Commission on the Commemoration of the Anzac Centenary - Report to Government"
http://www.anzaccentenary.gov.au/anzac_centenary/publications.htm

p 70-71

Quote: "Risks identified for consideration included the potential for both unity and division in commemorating our military history in a modern multicultural Australia — Australians have expressed mixed views regarding the recognition and commemoration of non-Australian military service.
Overt ‘political correctness’ was also identified as a risk that could potentially generate negative reactions...
It should also be noted that the community does not know what recently arrived Australians think about the whole concept of commemorating the Anzac Centenary, particularly given that many are from countries that were enemies in past conflicts.
The service of current personnel, and being sensitive to current events, were considered important... it may be necessary to refine events or the tone of the commemorations to minimise the risk of rejection from any sectors of the community."

So here is the reference to "multicultural Australia", the perceptions of new arrivals and the sensitivity to current conflicts.
Namby pamby?

Oddly, they acknowledge how "off" political correctness is, but can't help themselves.

Cont...

The report also recommends special arse-kissing for women and Aborigines.

"Women and Australian Defence Force families, in particular, liked the opportunity offered to recognise a wide range of service, including the service of women and families in Australia during wartime"

"Many Indigenous Australians view Anzac Day as ‘a party that we have not been invited to attend’. Indigenous service and the service of Australians in Vietnam were identified as two important areas for redressing the perceived lesser commemorative honour that the past has provided those groups."

The only surprise here is that gays and people with a disability aren't mentioned.

From the government response
(Government Response to Anzac Centenary Advisory Board Report):
(Capitals as written in document)

"Recommendation 8
The Board recommends that improved awareness and understanding of the
CONTRIBUTION OF WOMEN in the armed services and on the home front be promoted...
Government Response: Accepted

Recommendation 14
The Board recommends that the role of INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS in the Australian Defence Force deserves greater recognition....
Government Response: Accepted

Recommendation 15
The Board recommends that improved awareness and understanding of the contribution of AUSTRALIANS from DIVERSE CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC BACKGROUNDS...
Government Response: Accepted"

Now, is all that a hoax, a myth, an urban legend?
Or is it the usual namby-pamby minority arse-kissing leftist drivel?

Guess we'll have to wait for the 200th anniversary for the Board to recommend "greater recognition for the contribution of GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, QUEER and INTERSEX Australians, blah, blah, blah..."

Banjo,

This news item gives a lead on the report the media and PM Julia Gillard were concerned about, by Colmar Brunton it appears,

http://acturca.info/2012/03/27/anzac-centenary/

The documents linked to by Foxy are later. From my quick look, no-one has linked to that report. One has the Executive Summary (what edit is uncertain) from the Colmar Brunton report.

So contrary to suggestions by some here that the report was a furphy, it did exist alright. Obviously so because Julia Gillard had to hose it down fast and issue a strong statement as damage control.

Placed in the political context of the Rudd and Gillard/Greens governments where there was a heck of a lot of deals being done in back rooms it would be no surprise if there was some angst felt in the veteran community and by the general public. The proof of the political sensitivity exists in PM Julia Gillard's reaction, which once some information got out, was very strong and immediate. She obviously believed it was political dynamite.

THANK YOU, Shockadelic--just as we suspected!

The ABC's coverage of Anzac Day commemorations today has been nothing short of fantastic - NZ, Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne, Bomana War Cemetary (Pt Moresby, PNG), Anzac Cove (fantastic, especially the address by the New Zealand Governor General), Villers-Bretonneux and Lone Pine.
In all cases, the primary message was that the commemoration was NOT to glorify war, but WAS to recognise the valour, the dedication, and the sacrifice of ours and other forces in the cause of peace and the preservation of our freedom (and the freedom of others) and of our values.
It was also emphasised how our two small emerging nations (Aus & NZ) 'came of age' in and of themselves, and on the world stage, through their participation in, and contribution to, the cause of freedom in this initial and terrible conflict.
Recognition was also duly given to all of our armed services and support men and women, past and present, in all of their contributions to the cause of peace, at home and abroad.

Anzac is secure; and the inclusion, in all the ceremonies I viewed, of those 'recognition' aspects, which Shockadelic has so kindly highlighted, has enhanced the embrace of the 'Spirit of Anzac', and its true meaning and legacy, to include a far wider audience - to all thoughtful and peace-loving peoples across this tiny and shrinking globe we call home.

Our nation came of age with Anzac, in shared contribution and shared sacrifice, and in punching 'well above our weight', both at home and abroad - and the values personified by the Anzac Spirit have been burned deep into the soul of every true Australian. Was, is, and will be.
The history of Anzac is one of honour, for our nation, for the generation that gave us this legacy, and for the benefit of all of our future generations - as long as we remember them.
Lest we Forget.

Our governments, State and Federal, have done us proud in the manner, content and conduct of these many worthy and thoughtful commemorations of Anzac, this day, 25th April 2014.

Dear Saltpetre,

Beautifully put, and I'm sure that all Australians
regardless of their ancestry,
feel just as strongly remembering of course
that many of them and their ancestors as well as
our Indigenous People fought in so many
of the wars alongside their fellow countrymen.

Foxy,
Remember, you said, "People who are in denial about racism in this country are simply ignorant. Lets look at the facts - we imprison
brown asylum seekers, we once celebrated our national day
with a white racist riot. There were assaults on Indian
students, a little political organisation called
One Nation, and of course "the intervention" - the heraldic
beak on our long hawkish treatment of Indigenous Australians".
Foxy, OLO Friday 18-4-2014 12.18.35

You could admit that you were misleading everyone here, as I am sure you know your 'facts' are incorrect.

Susie,
No one that misrepresents items as 'facts' of racism can be honourable. The above was written to deceive and denigrate Australia.
The fact is that Foxy has been caught out promulgating false information as 'facts'. She has since tried to pass it off as some other persons words and will not accept responsibility for her writings. It is a pity that some people are so careless with truthfulness. But then obviously some have no self respect.

Seeing that you agree with Foxy you must be included as one who is prepared to write untruths to promote your agenda.

I note that RObert did not find anything racist in the items.

I challenge you to show the items are 'facts' of racism.

Banjo a.k.a. otb, perchance?

Surely not; one is quite sufficient.

Why do some people go out of their way to pick on Foxy,
almost exclusively in a nitpicking, mean-spirited and unenlightened manner,
with virtually no merit to their essentially pointless barbs,
and absolutely no credit whatsoever to whatever 'barrow' they are pushing -
endlessly, inescapably,
like some rat running up a drain-pipe,
or trying to catch up to its backside,
on some self-constructed hamster-wheel?

Decorum Gentlemen, please.
People are listening.

No ill-will to either Banjo or otb, but please, think about giving it a rest?
We've all got our troubles you know; you're not Robinson Crusoe/s.

Where's your true-blue, dyed in the wool, dinky-dye, Son of Aussie 'Anzac Spirit'?
Two-up anyone?

BTT

The subject report referred to the ANZAC centenary commemoration in 2015.

There was an attempt to de-rail the thread through claims there was no report, despite PM Julia Gillard having publicly criticised its multicultural recommendations.

There are also attempts to plaster over with soothing 'never you mind' and extravagant, fulsome praise for the present ANZAC Day.

The elephant in the room however is whether the same people who promote multiculturalism, the diversity-we-have-to-have and are forever critical of inherited British traditions are saying they support ANZAC Day to conceal their intent to morph it into something else.

I am not saying that migrants themselves would be asking for that, but that the political 'Progressives' who assume that they always know what is best for everyone else would likely not be happy with ANZAC Day and what it represents. Quite obviously the Green Left, socialist alliance, Marxists and others have never been comfortable with ANZAC Day and would very much like to water it down into anything that could divert it into another direction.

So the question is rather should ANZAC Day be kept as it traditionally has been and was on 25 April 2015, or do the posters here believe it should change and if so, how specifically?

Shocker, thanks for posting a link to the REPORT from "The National Commission on the Commemoration of the Anzac Centenary and their report to Government.

Beach <<There was an attempt to de-rail the thread through claims there was no report, despite PM Julia Gillard having publicly criticised its multicultural recommendations.>>

Contraire, old chap, I had found the report quite early in the peace, it wasn't hard, but I thought as you and one or two others of the 'Usual Suspects' were banging on about it, I would leave it to you to provide the link, I believed you were obligated to do so, not me. Shocker at the 49th post provided the necessary link for you, three cheers for Shocker. There never was any claim from me that their was NO report, when in fact I knew of the existence of the said report. Therefore there was no attempt to de-rail anything.

I note with some amusement that about halfway through the discussion Shocker posted a link to an article in one of Murdoch's gutter rags, where the journalistic geniuses at The Daily Telegraph had be able to take an 84 page report and condense it down to about three lines. Like many of the 'usual Suspects' on OLO the Murdoch scribes were clever at using cut and paste and out of context to convey a completely false impression of what was in the report. As for Gillards reaction, who cares.
I have read the report all 84 pages, as for what it containes, and its finding and recommendations, all fine by me. What the Commission is saying about others, migrants and former enemies, is in a nut shell, 'don't try and rub their noses in it.' I think some are trying to read far more into p70-71 than what is actually being said

@Paul,

<<I have read the report …What the Commission is saying about others, migrants and former enemies, is in a nut shell, 'don't try and rub their noses in it.'>>

If that is all you got from reading it, little wonder you are a Green.

As I recall, you were totally oblivious to some of the Greens core policies till *you had your nose rubbed in it* . And even then it didn't change your behaviour.

I think the report might be better summarised as: do rub their noses in it. With the "their" 'being the community and the "ït" being the PC crap.

SPQR

I got more than that little ditty from the report, but I though by posting a simple "don't try and rub their noses in it." which even those on here who can't comprehend more than one sentence at a time would at least understand that. After all the 'Usual Suspects' rely heavily on Murdoch and his gutter press to formulate their thinking, they are always posting links to such rubbish.

<<As I recall, you were totally oblivious to some of the Greens core policies till *you had your nose rubbed in it* . And even then it didn't change your behaviour.>> If that's what you think, you are badly in need of a lesson on recall. I am well aware of Greens policy at at all levels of government, local, state and federal. Obviously you would not be aware of your parties policy as they don't have much in that regard, unless you include hate speak as policy! As your not too good at providing links I suppose finding One Nation or Australia First policies could be difficult.

Saltpetre,
Foxy and I have had differing opinions over the years, but I have never gone out of my way to pick on her.

But I do take serious offence when any poster deliberately denigrates Australia by misrepresentation and writing untruths claiming them to be 'fact' that show Australia is racist.

I have called on Foxy repeatedly, and now Susie, to support her sweeping statement but she will not, and I believe cannot.

All I can do is post what they have said to let other posters know they deliberately misrepresent 'facts' to further their own agenda.

Susie has called me a racist before, but it was very disappointing to find that Foxy stooped to posting wilful untruths, attempting to disparage Australia.

Dear Saltpetre,

Thank You for your kind words.

I have no control over what someone on this forum
says or thinks. They are entitled to their opinion.
However when they consistently refuse to accept
given documented facts sourced from people's
experiences, articles, historical archives,
et cetera, and they
accuse me of telling lies over and over again as
Banjo is doing, then of course they will subsequently
be ignored. I'm not into this kind of goonish behaviour
and it simply becomes too ridiculous to engage in.

@Paul,

<<unless you include hate speak as policy>>

LOL

The Greens -- and I hesitate to call them your party since I think the head honchos just use people you -- are the masters of hate. The Greens delight in dividing the community into identity groups and playing favorites--hence the very PC recommendations of the ANZAC report.

Shocker and OTB,
Good work both of you!

I wonder if you can track and find out just who the 'focus groups' were that the 'consultants' interviewed. My money would be on some Uni groups, likely inner city or some multicultural mobs.

The muck must have really hit the fan, considering Gillard's response and even a Qld Ethnic group put out a media release claiming no input.

Graphically shows the complete incompetents of the previous government. They had no concept of how the community feels.

Saltpetre,

Just something you need to be aware of. The antics of some on OLO follow closely what I traced-out very early in this thread:

1) Someone issues a report, or makes a post with wild claims.
2) Then when someone else responds, or calls then to account. The initiator fains innocence and sweetness and hurt.
3) Then bingo!, before anyone notices, the person responding or challenging the wild claim(s) or report is often seen as the unreasonable one.

Nice if you get away with it.

It ain't granny in that bed it is the big bad wolf posing as granny!

@SPQR, Saturday, 26 April 2014 11:05:42 AM

Aw shucks, Saltpetre was only 'White Knighting' with that ejaculation, "Why do some people go out of their way to pick on Foxy".

A not uncommon, traditional reaction of males. That is to instinctively defend the 'fair sex'. However Foxy does play the archetypal innocent stricken little woman well, pleading with lots of practice.

Outdated and rejected by women who prefer to be treated as adults who are perfectly able to make their own choices and be held accountable for them.

Saltpetre,

You are right that there ought be more civility in the broad.

Back to the thread.

Banjo, I don't have to 'prove' anything to you or anyone else on this forum.
This is an 'opinion ' forum, and my opinion is that you and a few other posters are racist.

And I agree with Saltpetre that you and others do gang up and try to derail Foxy.
So....a racist and a bully.

Sure, we all have our own opinions, but just think how boring it would be if this forum was left to just the racists and bullies?
You would would have no one to argue with...

It must be the long weekend. However we are but small specks in the universe, etc.

Maybe move on?

A question was posed a little earlier and I would be interested in reactions to it,

<So the question is rather should ANZAC Day be kept as it traditionally has been and was on 25 April 2015, or do the posters here believe it should change and if so, how specifically?>

"Capable generous men do not create victims
they nurture victims."
(Julian Assange).

LOL, Julian Assange is not a good choice for many reasons.

Besides, it is hard to imagine him White Knighting and rescuing a damsel in distress.

There is a perfectly good thread subject going begging and a question to chew the fat over as well.

Banjo, "I note that RObert did not find anything racist in the items."
I would not go quite so far as that. I suspect there will be an element of racism involved by some but none of the evidence I've seen suggests that it was the predominate theme in any of the points used to highlight racism in the post you have been challenging. I suspect weak analysis by commentators based on confirmation bias. Give a boy a hammer and everything is a nail.

It's interesting to see how much our world view appears to come into play with what we appear to take from the same events or words. I've not seen anything disturbing in the material that has been quoted so far, others see an agenda.

Whilst I don't thing that Anzac day is the forum to address wrongs done by the military or to make political points I do think in terms of the broader focus on rememberance that its valid to keep in mind the speciific contributions from some groups that may have been downplayed (or dismissed) in the past.

After reading some of the earlier comments I've thought about Aboriginal soldiers enlisting to fight for a country that did not give them the same legal rights as others. I've pondered what kind of hell it must have been for same sex orientated people who enlisted at a time when coming out had serious consequences both socially and legally.

I don't have simple answers to how those kind of issues should be addressed but in terms of report into a prolonged rememberance (which the report was looking at ) of those who have served they are issues which should be addressed.

R0bert

RObert,

There is a lot we could review against modern conditions and expectations, but that is inappropriate and becomes something else apart from commemoration, I believe.

If it was my choice I would never have have made commemoration such a big issue. Bob Hawke did that. Some of it was to keep veterans reassured while restructuring changes were being made to Veterans' Affairs. Some here might be aware of the changes wrought by the Hawke-Keating government, and topical issues (hard fought) for veterans themselves during that time.

Commemoration generally speaking, is a useful tactic for governments - cakes and circuses. Photo opportunities and front pages for politicians.

None of what I have said should be taken as any diminished view of veterans, their dependents and the sacrifices made and lives changed forever.

Whatever comes of the centenary commemoration it will be about politicians. That is not saying anything about the government or the opposition, it is just acknowledging a fact. Lets hope that instead of so many dinners and functions for the big knobs, more money and not just ribbons is handed to those who are entitled to it.

It is also inevitable that activists will be trying to hitch a ride on the occasion to further their own agendas.

However I believe that at this stage of proceedings all is going well, which should be taken as meaning that the focus will be on the veterans and their families as it should be.

Hopefully it will go off as the Royal visit just did: civilised, decent and peaceful. We need some good memories and there is no harm at all in getting that glow from pride in those who made the sacrifices.

I just love replying to Beach.

Little Buddy asks <<So the question is rather should ANZAC Day be kept as it traditionally has been and was on 25 April 2015, or do the posters here believe it should change and if so, how specifically?>>

There could be a problem or two if we kept Anzac Day as it was on 25th April 1915. For starters It would not be a good look if we were to land 4,000 Aussie and Kiwi troops at Anzac Cove in Turkey before dawn on the 25th, guns blazing. The Turks might get a wee bit upset, and start shoot'n back. Then we'd most likely need more than a 84 page report with a couple of references to ethnics to placate those Muslim Turks. however Beach, you could put it to Biggles Abbott it could prove to be the perfect opp for the Mad Monk to try out his $24 billion worth of folly, those new toys for the boys! You never know, Abbotts got some sillier ideas! LOL

<<The Greens delight in dividing the community into identity groups and playing favorites--hence the very PC recommendations of the ANZAC report.>> SPUD can you please point out which of those committee members were Greens? LOL

RObert,
You and I disagree a little.

There is nothing in the sweeping statement of Foxy's that could be taken as racist. It was purely intended to disparage Australia.

Susie,
You certainly have a right to your opinion and any box you put me in is your business. However when you and Foxy make statements that, by misrepresentation and without foundation, denigrate Australia I will strongly object and challenge your view. That is not bullying and I do not gang with or for anyone.

If you will not or, most likely, cannot present argument to support your stated point of view you are to be seen as one who lies in order to denigrate Australia. Who will accept that you speak the truth from hereon?

It is the little lies that lead to bigger ones and misrepresentations, like yours and Foxy's, that lead to nasty rumours getting started.

Typo, it should have been 2014. Meaning continuing the tradition as it has been in this country and as we know it, with the commemoration in 2015 reflecting that tradition. Most would have realised what was intended, however it was good to correct it too.

I did not mention 1915. That was Paul's.

Back to the thread and comments.

Banjo has a distinct and cognitive make-up.
A hostile and attributional bias - a kind
of paranoia. He attributes hostile intention
to others. His problem is he like some others
perceives provocation where it does not exist.
That's to justify his aggressive behaviour.
It takes a special breed of person to try to
cause this sort of slur to others.
However, as he's been told -
by giving documented facts and experiences
that some people have gone through - is not
a denigration of Australia. It's simply an expose of
some attitudes that do exist in this country.
Most Australians do not share those attitudes
and they are the ones that have made this country
so great. As Saltpetre, Suse, myself, and others
have pointed out many times on this forum.

cont'd ...

Just a reminder:

"We are one but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice
I am, You are, We are Australian!"

Beach, I just assumed you meant 1915. I always think you are 99 years behind the times. I can just imagine Biggles Abbott leading the charge, tin hat on head, for what ever for I can't imagine, would be better off with it tied around his backside, in that way he would be at least be protecting his brain. LOL. Over to you Good Buddy.

From what I saw on a range of television Anzac related interviews, there were veterans who had clearly come from other countries and fought for what the government of the day was the right thing to do.

I saw one elderly man - who spoke French. His daughter had to interpret for him. People like this had come from other countries and fought for Australia.

I don't like war in principle - and I hope in the future we can do better - but I really don't feel we should 'disrespect' people who have put themselves on the line, with a silly "left wing agenda" conspiracy theory as part of Anzac Day on these pages.

Our veterans deserve better.

Foxy, according to good ol' Aussie boy hero Banjo, you and I 'lie' and 'denigrate Australia! Lol!

If that is how someone like Banjo sees us, then I am really comfortable with my position on this subject.
We must be doing something right Foxy.

The main threat to our great country are those who seek to divide and increase aggression among it's people, and delude themselves in thinking they are
The Great White Hope.

You must feel humble in your own presence Banjo?

Saltpetre "Why do some people go out of their way to pick on Foxy"

Maybe because all we get from Foxy is fluff-and-bluff, duck-and-cover, copy-and-paste.

Day in, day out.

Paul1405 "What the Commission is saying about others, migrants and former enemies, is in a nut shell, 'don't try and rub their noses in it.'"

And we needed a $370,000 report to tell us not to do what we don't do anyway?

So you already knew the report existed and could have told us the name/location ages ago?

How helpful to the discussion!

Dear Suse,

Keep on doing what you're doing.
You can feel good that
you've spoken your mind without malice
or anger. Continue to throw down the
gauntlet. I'll do the same as I'm sure
so will RObert, Poirot, Paul, SteeleRedux,
Saltpetre, and many others on this forum.

Shocker,

If I can Google; anzac day commision century report, anyone can.

There is nothing in the report that is a big deal, 99% is about logistics of what's going to happen. Its in no way a controversial report. Just check out the who's who's on the commission they are people who are generally not open to controversy, the chair Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, AC, AFC (Ret’d), not exactly Mr Radical, they done what was asked of them.

Foxy,
Remember, you said, "People who are in denial about racism in this country are simply ignorant. Lets look at the facts - we imprison
brown asylum seekers, we once celebrated our national day
with a white racist riot. There were assaults on Indian
students, a little political organisation called
One Nation, and of course "the intervention" - the heraldic
beak on our long hawkish treatment of Indigenous Australians".
Foxy, OLO Friday 18-4-2014 12.18.35

You could admit that you were misleading everyone here, as I am sure you know your 'facts' are incorrect.

Susie,
The main threat to our great country are those that seek to divide. You and Foxy fit that category exactly by misrepresentation of items and claiming Australia is racist.

You lie and denigrate Australia. Now you try to laugh it off. Hollow laughter.

How un Australian and contemptible

Dear Banjo,

I am so glad that I don't fit into your
version of what being an "Australian" means.
Because to me you are diametrically opposed
to everything that Australia stands for.

Cheers.

Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 26 April 2014 7:01:35 PM:

>Saltpetre "Why do some people go out of their way to pick on Foxy"

Maybe because all we get from Foxy is fluff-and-bluff, duck-and-cover, copy-and-paste.<

Well, you are so rightly named, 'Shocker' - the one who so obviously delights in 'shock and awe' - irrespective of making practically no sense, and offering so very little by way of reason or justification for all manner of outlandish and 'engineered' provocations.

Foxy's a ripping fine lady, with more honesty, integrity and plain good sense in her little finger than you will ever have; and you, Mr Shockadelic Sir, are very definitely no gentleman.

And, from the thread on 'a multicultural society ..' -

Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 26 April 2014 6:30:13 PM:

>Saltpetre, "who simply refuses to see how society, any society, actually works"

Oh, please enlighten us.
How does a society "work"?<

Why, Shockadelic Sir, 'harmoniously' of course - for the most part - with everyone dutifully going about their rightful business, trying their best not to deviate from acceptable cultural norms and doing their best not to 'bruise' anyone else's cultural, ethnic, religious or masculine or feminine 'sensibilities'.

There will always of course unfortunately be 'deviants' - those unwilling or unable to 'conform' to accepted standards of behaviour; but in a civilized 'society' (at least a truly democratic one) everyone may reasonably rely on the long arm of the law (or the psychiatric services) to implement processes to bring such 'miscreants' to heel (one way or another).

And the 'rogues' - a tougher segment to identify or to 'pull into line' - and here one may have to rely on the likes of ASIC or ACCC, or even ASIO and such, to weed these out and rap them over the knuckles. (Some will nonetheless get away with much, and unfortunately this is one area of major fault in a 'liberal' capitalistic society.)

And the 'lost' - who may be helped by charities, NGO's or church organisations to recover their dignity.
(It takes all kinds; and a progressive society 'cares'.)

It is always very heartening to read posts that
are reasoned and intelligent. It's a skill not
easily acquired. Sound reasoning will conquer
unreasonable generalisations every time.
Thank You Saltpetre - you really are the "salt of
the earth!" It's people like you that keep the
rest of us coming back to this forum.

I second that sentiment Foxy!
I think this thread has run its course for me.
See you all on another thread.
Cheers,
Suse.

Dear Suse,

Thanks for that.

It's run its course for me as well.

Look forward to seeing you on other discussions.

Saltpetre "making practically no sense, and offering so very little by way of reason or justification for all manner of outlandish and 'engineered' provocations."

Quote me.
My comments are meticulously coherent, honest and realistic.

"you, Mr Shockadelic Sir, are very definitely no gentleman"

Yawn.

"trying their best not to deviate from acceptable cultural norms"

But what are the "norms" of 6000 different cultures?
Where is the "harmoniously" going to come from?

You could possibly have "harmony" with closely related peoples (although no guarantee. See Yugoslavia).

But you reject such reasonable limitations (White Australia policy).

Assimilation could also produce harmony.
People of many backgrounds, but all adopting a common culture.

But you reject that model too.

6000 cultures, most with unrelated histories, living side by side.
That's discordant, not harmonious.

Deviants, rogues, the lost? WTF?
You mean losers.

Well look at the countries immigrants are now coming from.
Winners or losers?

We used to take the winners (Whites/Europeans).
We could have expanded the range to others who have proven themselves winners (Japanese, South Koreans), but no, that would still mean mostly Whites.

Sensible, but "offensive", so now we take anything.
Kiss your civilised society goodbye.

I love how Foxy, et al. are always declaring threads finished.
Then return the next day.

Foxy,
No genuine Australian would disparage Australia by claiming 'facts' of racism with incorrect and unfounded items. So yes you are diametrically the opposite to what the essence of being Australian is.

No Australian would misrepresent his country that way.

Remember, you said, "People who are in denial about racism in this country are simply ignorant. Lets look at the facts - we imprison
brown asylum seekers, we once celebrated our national day
with a white racist riot. There were assaults on Indian
students, a little political organisation called
One Nation, and of course "the intervention" - the heraldic
beak on our long hawkish treatment of Indigenous Australians".
Foxy, OLO Friday 18-4-2014 12.18.35

Pity you do not have enough character to admit you stated that, and that it is wrong, and you were wrong to make such utterances.

Shocker,

>Assimilation could also produce harmony.
People of many backgrounds, but all adopting a common culture.<

Now you're getting the picture; assimilation through integration - in a supportive and welcoming 'environment' (read: culture).
Reservations? Sure, but no-one would sanely suggest that it would be easy.

Why bother? Look around; we (Oz) are now part of a global community, and it seems clear that we can neither stay a small and 'closed' community (for obvious security and economic reasons), nor are we realistically in a position to be absolutely 'pick and choosey' about who we might wish to join us in building our economy and our 'resilience' to withstand external shocks.

Who's to say that who we might otherwise 'pick' (from the seemingly preferred 'Anglo-sphere') would always ultimately prove to have the greatest potential to contribute to our economy and our culture?
Selecting only those most 'like' ourselves in all past immigration 'programs' would surely have restricted us to a much less dynamic, colourful and 'interesting' (and inherently 'capable') culture than we enjoy today.
In many respects we have evolved as a microcosmic community, incorporating beneficial elements of very many of the world's dynamic cultures - I suggest to our ultimate advantage.

The world is in disarray, with much population pressure. As a responsible member of the global community, we (Oz), being seen as having 'capacity', are expected to play our reasonable part in absorbing and integrating some of the mass of those displaced by innumerable conflicts not of their own making.

We have capacity, and we have a tested and proven integration model.
The rest is up to us.

Not that it would it be in our interest to just open the doors to a flood of uncontrolled immigration in a vain and ill-construed rush to 'big Australia', but neither can we sit back and turn a blind eye to so much human distress.

Plenty of problems 'at home', for which adequate solutions have proved elusive; we need some new 'vision'. Walking a few yards in someone else's shoes may help us to acquire that vision.

"assimilation through integration"

Two different things.
Which do you support?
Assimilation is them adopting our ways.
Integration is a blend or synthesis.

Both are not multiculturalism.

"we (Oz) are now part of a global community"

Always were.
We don't have to become "the world" to interact with it.

"nor are we realistically in a position to be absolutely 'pick and choosey'"

Yes we are.
If you want to steal other countries' nurses or miners, why not steal White ones?

There are plenty of Whites left behind in former colonies, and plenty in Europe getting sick to death of multiculturalism.

If they knew we were a pro-White nation, there'd be a queue half way around the world to get here.

Taking unrelated people from the Third World drains them of what little human resources they have (brain drain), and irreversibly changes our own demographics.
Lose, lose.

"restricted us to a much less dynamic, colourful and 'interesting' culture"

The "others" have no influence beyond our next meal.

Western civilisation in the past century has been overwhelmingly eclectic.
*Internally*.
No need for shock treatment to get the neurons firing.

This is the Information Age.
Google it, download it, fax it, duplicate it, add to cart.
No need to move people half way around the planet to get ideas.

"being seen as having 'capacity'"

Exasperated sigh.
But we don't!
This land is mostly desert!

We have already build upon much of the fertile land and our cities' infrastructure can't keep up with population growth.

"neither can we sit back and turn a blind eye to so much human distress."

If you want to help, address the problems as they exist in their homelands.

Taking a tiny fraction of their population does nothing but flatter your ego.

"Plenty of problems 'at home',"

Yes, like 700,000 unemployed and 100,000 homeless.
Where's their "better life"?

Our prime responsibility (if we do have such a thing) to "humanity" are those *already* living in our community.

No more immigration until all those people have jobs and homes, eh?

Shocker and Saltpetre,
You two blokes seem confused and both are putting the emphasis on the wrong criteria for immigrants/refugees.

Instead of 'white' versus 'Diversity', why not put more emphasis on the cultural practices that are detrimental to a cohesive society. Things like, imported hatreds of others, those that fight over religious differences, Those that persist in continuing alien practices like underage marriage, forced marriage, polygamy, FGM and continuing cockfighting.

Most immigrants integrate and there are only a few groups that persist in alien ways and practices.

Would it not be far easier to stop allowing in people from the groups that have shown us they have contempt for our laws and society, by continued alien practices.

If people are prepared to integrate and respect our laws/society it does not matter if they are physically different or have a different religion, if any. There is no need to have diversity just for the sake of it either. That does not earn us brownie points or improve our cohesion.

Banjo "Instead of 'white' versus 'Diversity', why not put more emphasis on the cultural practices that are detrimental to a cohesive society."

Whites are diverse!
Look at this language map of Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rectified_Languages_of_Europe_map.png

Every language has a people/culture. Some more than one people.

Only people who know nothing about history would say White immigration would be boringly monocultural.

How do we know which non-European *individuals* are going to engage in these behaviours?
Because they didn't tick the box?

We can safely presume that the Irish, Swedes and Latvians don't.

"it does not matter if they are physically different"

It matters to my amygdala and I'm getting a little tired (literally) of it thinking I need to "fight, flee or freeze" every two metres.

There's enough stress in modern life already.

It might matter to future generations who, like most people who've ever lived, want to feel connected to kin and historical continuity.

Human minds can't function in a vacuum (though Foxy is trying).

I can't look at ancient Chinese art, Aztec pictographs, Arabian mosques or African masks and think "My people".

I might think "Ooh, wow, interesting", but I don't think "I'm connected to that".

What are future Australians going to think when they look back at the photographs and statues of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries?: "WTF is that?"

Shocka,
You say 'whites' are diverse. Yes, but not near enough for multiculturalists. They want extreme diversity, maybe the encounters give them some sort of kick. But they cannot explain how we benefit from actual diversity. I would never say that 'whites' are boring.

For me, the non selection of people belonging to some groups is based on our own experience in our society. For example, our FGM educators and medicos know what ethnic groups practice FGM. The police have ideas about which groups exhibit anti social behaviour. We do have some knowledge about which groups conduct underage/forced marriages.

Maybe you have an over reactive amygdala compared to others. Most people do not experience a fight-flee-freeze to different people, I certainly don't. I wonder if you get the same feeling when you encounter a 'white' person with a lot of tattoos or a physically handicapped person who is different.

I can view different art as 'interesting' and say whether I like or dislike it. I don't HAVE to feel connected, although landscapes rate high because of my rural background.

I am sure some groups would be far happier in countries that better suit their culture and our society would be more cohesive.

Banjo,

How can 'we' benefit from diversity?
Well, at least we don't have to travel overseas (or rely on TV portrayals) to experience many of the better elements of these overseas cultures - their celebrations, exotic foods, philosophy and 'take' on life, and even religion and religious celebrations.

We can learn something from these 'others' - the backgrounds they came from, the countries, history, lifestyles, work, problems, politics and culture; their hopes and fears.
Every country has its problems, and every 'people', and generally 'our' problems are mostly pale by comparison with much, or most, of what many newcomers have left behind.
Some aspects of what they leave behind they will surely miss; perhaps never being able to return to their homelands again, resigned to making their way in this 'different' land of ours.
We can make the transition relatively easy, and in doing so make new friends; or we can make it very difficult, and risk generating dissatisfaction and despair - even fear, derision and disaffection - or might I say hatred. Our choice.

We can avoid any direct 'immersion' in any other cultures (this is entirely voluntary anyway - apart from passing on the street, or seeing these 'others' in our midst, in work places, school or hospital, etc).
We can be insular - but we will then miss an opportunity to extend our horizons and our understanding, our very perception of the realities of current events, and our appreciation of what our culture, our environment really has to offer, and also of how we can benefit from other peoples' experience, knowledge and capabilities.

Rather than wanting to change 'us', there are many who would wish to join us, to make a new life under our rules, our culture. Only the most fortunate will achieve this. The best will go out of their way to fit in, and those who don't will be weeded-out.

Many of our 'white' nationals are far from perfect.
Colour, appearance, accent, clothing, speech, or religion, do not make the man.
Stop learning, and we can only go backwards.

But, but Banjo ... have you forgotten the ethnic groups that have practiced MGM here in Australia for hundreds of years? Or are they too white to complain about?

Saltpetre,
You have not shown how we benefit from 'diversity' in any practical sense, except for a wider choice of eateries.

We do not have to import diverse ethnicities to learn about others, we can learn about other people from the internet or travel.

Multiculturalism is a philosophy that promotes separate development of various ethnic groups. It rates original culture ahead of national loyalty. Its goal has been to simply get the widest possible diverse people here without any practical advantage to Australia.

We have spent millions promoting foreign cultures and ignored the baggage that has came with some cultures. It is not just beer festivals and dragon parades, there some very alien aspects to some cultures that are detrimental to our society and our social cohesion. It seems multiculturalists want us to accept the adverse affects as the price we have to pay for diversity. I suggest that social cohesion is afar better goal.

We should dispense with MC and promote integration. We do not need Diversity for the sake of diversity, where there is nothing to be gained.

On the other thread, you mentioned selective immigration. I am interested in what you see as the criteria for allowing or not allowing people of some groups to enter as migrants/refugees

I guess my question is too hard for Banjo to answer.

Banjo doesn't bother replying to idiots

Yep, it's too hard for him. He's likely embarrassed by what his answer would be.... so he's playing it safe. Don't worry Banjo little buddy, I understand.

Saltpetre "We can be insular"

Oh no we can't.
That would be "discrimination" and you'll be hauled off to court, defamed, blacklisted, picketed, fired, ostracised.

And don't dare voice your opposition.
That would be "vilification" and ditto.

NSW had a state premier recently lamenting that some parts of Sydney were still "monocultural" (i.e. White Australian).

Any attempt by Australians to isolate themselves will be resisted by the authorities, who will use every means to shut us up and shut us down.
Only the immigrants/minorities have the power to choose in these matters.

"Many of our 'white' nationals are far from perfect."

And neither are some anti-racists, who resort to the same crimes, but think the "blood on their hands" is more morally justified.

Banjo has requested you elaborate on your preferred immigration restrictions.
I too would like to know.