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.