Is Australia REALLY a “Multi Cultural Nation”? What does it mean?

(1) - what do we mean by the term “multi cultural”?
(2) – Is that what our nation actually is?

To answer (1) I would Wager that most people think they mean by the term “multi-cultural nation” that we are a nation that accepts equally ALL peoples of all ethnic identities and cultures from around the globe. Further that our society treats and RESPECTS those different and diverse beliefs and practices.

However . . . .

. . . to answer (2) this helps to demonstrate that IN FACT we are not in any sense strictly or actually what is known as a “Multi cultural nation”; that is to say that unless we went as far as to allow each little different group to have FULL respect and equality given to them by allowing them to practice and be entirely subject to a separate LEGAL SYSTEM with different laws special to each culture.

To do anything less is NOT to really afford each and every group FULL respect and equal treatment. It certainly means that we DO NOT MEAN really when we say that ‘our nation respects ALL different groups and ways’ . . .

. . . because if we actually did WHY does the nation force ALL the differing groups to ultimately be subject to and to adhere and obey fully the one particular legal system/culture [the British one] which is the ONLY one officially used and recognized?

Thoughts?

If we are really a multi cultural society we'd have to respect those Muslim brown skins. We'd have to respect their human rights to impose sharia law, to engage in female genital mutilation, to practice "honour" killings etc.

Keep Australia white, it's our traditional culture and is the reason why we're so prosperous. And yes, yes, yes the abos can stay, we don't have to kick them out, as they are small in number, weak and no threat.

Morrison is doing a great job protecting our culture.

I would offer the suggestion that by no definition does 'multi' mean 'all'. So no - we do not have to include all cultures to be multicultural.

To Lester -

Those stupid remarks about "white race" and keep our nation white etc. is why the debate has been able to be hijacked and trampled by the left.

First to make such comments is in a strict language/meaning sense racist whether in fact you really did mean to express that or not, perhaps like many inarticulate people who lack the experience in thinking to be able to properly articulate their points [yet do not get confused with my point here, I do not refer merely to the non-tertiary peoples but to ALL in our society BAs or not since our education and media systems have destroyed all honest discussion in the topic resulting in everypne from left to right and rich to poor are unable to articulate these ideas] and many who say "white race is best' may really just be thinking of the culture and way of life, morality and laws etc. but DUE to total absence in our schools and media of anything which may help to better decipher through the intellectual mess, the person blurts out an erroneously conflated claim which seems to essentially connect the white racial genetics with the white culture and morals.

To the fellow who remarked to me "multi" may simply mean some and not ALL cultures . . . . . .

. . . . Naahhhh, ya sure, REALLY?

That is, I don't recall open and explicit disclaimers to state that they however DO NOT hold equal this or that group [e.g. muslims or kooris].

This goes despite the unofficial real stance that DOES NOT in any real sense live up to those bold claims, and my best example of proof is how the nation's laws and absolutes are ONLY from the European cultures.

That is not to say I do not agree that all cultures are the same.

I realize and agree that Jottiiki's point is to make visible that very lie and deception perpetrated mostly by the left but official also the right.

Matthew S.
spot on mate, where are more like you?

To all who still are not brave enough to openly admit on this forum that what I claim in this thread is completely true and obvious [that in truth the nation’s leaders of right and left ALL silently hold their own culture and laws superior to all others].

That would for example, require that someone who normally thought they really do not judge any culture as better or worse to NOW realise and admit to all that therefore [in line with such premises] they think ALL of the following are totally equal to our ways, not worse or better, good or bad, moral or immoral -
even the Muslim practice of gender apartheid and oppression of women, the fact that in most non-western cultures and practices an outsider is seen as less and unimportant [perhaps why ONLY western nations do any humanitarian work – even disgustingly rich Arab oil states ignore helping their own fellow persecuted muslims who are refugees], don’t forget to swear that any kind of arranged marriages and caste systems, also religious intolerance and hate found in traditions of some groups, etc.

This ridiculously illogical, contradictory and groundless claims is pretended by the left to be based upon what is called "moral relavatism" which espouses that NO moral system is better or worse than others, ALL are merely relative.
YET as I always argued in philosophy esays - the notion of this non-moralistic and non-absolute good and ethical system is NOT able to be demonstrated as it has no actual and real foundational premises to spring from.

That is to say, IF this is the way to see different cultures and peoples then as any of those fake and illogical philosophers and others who claim [like Charles Taylor] that each ethnic group is somehow totally existentially separate from all others such that one cannot be able to leave one ethnic group 'bubble' and enter another 'bubble' with any remaining reference frame with which a universal judgement could conceivably be made.

.. . . continued . . .

However like I alwas argue, this type of universe disallows for the existence of individuals with their own minds and free will BUT instead has a world where myriad different groups exist in existentially separate bubbles and which in each all persons are somehow subject to that particular group ways and laws which CLEARLY negates the individuality and free choice that the western philosphers first used to even want to talk about equality of all persons.

In fact it seems only in the western bubbles could any such free thinking individual creative person exist.

It is precisely this type of erroneous and deceptive use of language and media by the Left mostly that leads to situations where courts and parliaments find themselves in a bind as to how to proceed IF some ethnic group approached them with arguments of equality and ask them to include certain special provisions in law for just their group for instance in marriage laws or inheritance laws [already in Canada as something like a Sharia Court for allowing muslims to discriminate and unfairly treat less than men the woman in their culture in matters of inheritance]

We desperately need honesty and clarity which should follow eventually.

Why does multiculturalism always require a dumbing down to the level of the newcomers ?

Who comes and who goes should not be guided by color or race,, rather, it should be guided by religious believes and, if any form of religion contains violence then that religion, along with it's followers should be banned from entering our peace loving nation. If they are already here, even if they have been born here, they choose, thier religion, or Australia as they can't have both. Not here!

As has been said, being muli cultural doesn't mean all cultures, just a mixture, and it should be a selected one at that.

The other issue is that of respect. Respect for us as a nation.

Otokonoko "we do not have to include all cultures to be multicultural"

Oh yes we do or we'd be "discwiminating" (sic).

We used to have a multicultural immigration policy.
Commonly called White Australia.

That policy included *any and all* European peoples.
Dozens of distinct types.

What we have now should more accurately be labelled "pancultural", as there are *no* exclusions.

And neither Australia nor any other society/nation is "pancultural", which is why the term was never adopted.

It's obviously absurd, ridiculous, contrary to the real world.

In the real world, most countries do in fact have multiple cultures/peoples.
But one *dominant* one that generally defines the society/nation.

Russia has over 185 ethnic groups, 27 of which basically rule their own territories.

But ethnic Russians don't say they're Chuvash and Chuvash don't pretend they're "Russian".

None are truly "multi", just they're own type living in their own space.
And Russia as a *whole* is still overall culturally Russian.

Matthew S "an erroneously conflated claim which seems to essentially connect the white racial genetics with the white culture and morals".

Erroneous?

Cultures have historically been produced in relative isolation.

That isolation also fostered the numerous genetic variations.
But which egg/chicken came first?

Surely the genetic distinctiveness of a population would influence its cultural manifestations?

Why is it that all European peoples were capable of manifesting advanced civilisation (even laggards like the Scandinavians), but all Niger-Congo and Malayo-Polynesian peoples are "primitive" in comparison.

Why isn't there *one single* Niger-Congo or Malayo-Polynesian people who built and sustained a great civilisation?

Maybe the fittest genes create the fittest memes.

Mixing them all together may not produce an optimal outcome, but a deterioration to a lowest-common-denominator level.

We may become "one" (eliminating "waycism" [sic]), but we'll be a dumber, weaker, uglier "one".

rehctub, what of atheists and agnostics?

They may or may not promote violence, but you'll never know from any religious association.
They don't have one.

All religions, even Buddhism, has had its violent adherents.

Dear Jottiikii,

Australian multiculturalism is one of the great success stories of the world and something we should be proud of, be prepared to defend, and be willing to celebrate when we can.

I have many migrant friends who have embraced Australian citizenship, all with real purpose and commitment including a Vietnamese friend whom I committed to give English lessons to over several years when he first arrived in this country. When he brings me a gift each Vietnamese New Year I do not think 'why isn't he forgetting about the practices of his former country and adopting our culture?' rather I accept it with thanks and with good grace.

Similarly at a recent auspicious family gathering I along with many others wore kilts, sang some fine Scottish tunes with the piper, partook in some haggis and drank far too much. There was no expectation that 'frocking up' was mandatory, nor was eating haggis, nor even drinking. Those not of Scottish heritage would have enjoyed the celebration of a different culture but would have been comfortable in their own sense of who they are and their respective cultural backgrounds not to have felt threatened nor left out.

This to me is one of the great benefits of multiculturalism. Comfort and understanding of others cultures and backgrounds rather than fear and a sense of exclusion.

It does not mean we will not have those who find it difficult to look past their fearful natures but they are thankfully very much in the minority. While this government seems to be intent on giving us less reasons to be proud Australians I think our multiculturalism allows us to walk tall on the world stage and is something we will hopefully continue to be rightly proud of well into the future.

Australia has laws that enable anyone to practise their culture within the bounds of reason. Muslims can live by Sharia law if they so chose, however, if a muslim choses not to, the harsh penalties cannot be applied simply because he is muslim.

' if any form of religion contains violence then that religion, along with it's followers should be banned from entering our peace loving nation'

except rechtub secularist humanist who slaughter the unborn. double standards.

After the London Underground bombing of 2005
Peter Costello was troubled by the fact that
young people born and raised in a democratic
society would turn to terrorism and kill their
fellow citizens in the name of Islam. He gave a
speech at the Sydney Institute in which he
argued that freedom and tolerance can be protected
only within a legal framework that is accepted by
all. I think it is appropriate to include it
in this discussion - because in my opinion, it sums
up rather well what a Multicultural Nation Australia
means:

"...Outside Australia's Indigenous people, we are all
immigrants or descendents of immigrants - some earlier
than others- but all with an experience of immigration
during the foundation of modern Australia. Australia is
part of the New World the world of immigration, not
part of the Old World, or the places they embark from. This
is why we are suspicious of inherited titles and privileges.
Nobody can afford to get too precious about their position
of entitlements in this country because we all know that
position and entitlements are comparatively new."

"Australia's immigration experience is also a broad one.
Originally it was Anglo-Celtic but after the war our
immigrants came increasingly from Europe. In more recent
times, Vietnamese and Chinese and other immigrants have grown
increasingly in numbers. And all these immigrant communities have
made successful contributions to Australian life."

"Australia is often described as a successful multicultural
society. And it is, in the sense that people from all
different backgrounds live together in harmony. But there is
a predominant culture just as there is a predominant
language. And the political and cultural institutions that
govern Australia are absolutely critical to that attitude of
harmony and tolerance. Within an institutional framework
that preserves tolerance and protects oder we can celebrate and
enjoy diversity - in food, in music, in religion, in language,
and culture. But we could not do that without the framework
which guarantees the freedom to enjoy diversity."

cont'd ...

Lester1>> Keep Australia white, it's our traditional culture and is the reason why we're so prosperous<<

Poor choice of verbiage Lester.
Keep Australia modern and forward thinking suits better.
We do not want sharia or any other social engineering platform that takes any existing rights and laws away from us.

I also include all the nanny state legislations meant to keep us safe or controlled.

cont'd ...

More from Peter Costello's speech:

"The Australian Citizenship Oath or Affirmation tries
to capture the essence of what it means to be
Australian. It reads as follows: "From this time forward
(under God) I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its
people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights
and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold and
obey." To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty
first: loyalty to Australia. One pledges to share certain
beliefs - democratic beliefs - to respect the rights and
liberty of others and to respect the rule of law."

There's a lot os sense in this pledge. Unless we have a consensus
of support about how we will form our legislatures and an
agreement to abide by its laws, none of us will be able to
enjoy our rights and liberties without being threatened by
others. Costello says that, "We have a compact to live
under a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes. In
doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected."

>To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty
first: loyalty to Australia>...by Foxy

Australia's intelligence agencies believe that more than 100 Australians have travelled overseas to fight with groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria. A Brisbane man is believed to have become the first Australian suicide bomber in Syria in a truck bomb attack earlier this year.

Representatives of the group, who are aged from 17 to 40 and come from suburbs stretching from Lakemba to Penrith, have spoken out about the crackdown, saying they are outraged at the infringement on their human rights.

Wissam Haddad, owner of the former Al Risalah Bookstore in the Sydney suburb of Bankstown, who has not had his passport cancelled, but knows many of the men, said there was nothing to link them except their religion and their reputation for speaking up about discrimination. Mr Haddad said they knew of each other, but had little in common, and did not attend the same mosques or prayer halls.

Fifteen of the men have instructed lawyer Zali Burrows to seek a review of the cancellations. ''I anticipate it will be a battle,'' said Ms Burrows.

Mr Haddad said ASIO attention on their communities had increased since the death of popular Sydney sheikh Mustapha Al Majzoub in a rocket attack in Syria last year, while carrying out humanitarian and charity work in the conflict-torn country.

An ASIO spokesman said that under the Australian Passports Act 2005, ASIO may request on security grounds that an Australian passport be cancelled or an application for an Australian passport be declined.

“Multi Cultural Nation”?

Kat

do not want sharia or any other social engineering platform
sonofgloin,
To achieve that we must first rid ourselves of the cause that brought us to this stage, PC.

In my view, Australia is already a Multi-Cultural nation. Generally, most structured immigration has proved quite successful with some notable exceptions.

Unfortunately, many of those from Islamic countries will not easily assimilate into the Australian culture, and some individuals, never ! Nor do these people have any intention of embracing any component of our unique Aussie lifestyle, as most of us are already well aware.

Moreover there's empirical evidence from my sources, indicating substantial growth within some Sydney suburbs, of a renewed strategy of total Islamization, and introduction of strict Sharia law, within their lifestyles.

Further, growth of this Islamic militancy is apparent by media reports that several hundred individuals have now left Australia for either Syria and/or Iraq to engage with rebels in their attempt to overthrow the governments of both those countries ? So serious is this exodus from Oz, President Obama has singled out Australia specifically, for this very unhealthy proclivity of our young Islamic Australians, pursuing this humiliating course of conduct ?

So is Australia a 'Multi-Cultural Country' ? Well, I suppose we are. 'What does it mean' ? In the case of a burgeoning incursion of Islamic émigré, a very unacceptable feature of our immigration policy.

Indy....social engineering or human engineering...this always has the time frame of all working as one. and as o sung wu politely made out, this will always be the bigger picture, whether it be green or other wise, the problems we face, can be the future, or just give it a chance.

Kat

The radical Muslim cleric Ben Brika was asked
in an interview on the "7.30 Report" a few years
ago, "But don't you think Australian Muslims -
Muslims living in Australia - also have a responsibility
to adhere to Australian law?"
To which he answered, "This is a big problem. There are two
laws - there is an Australian law and there is an
Islamic law."

No. this is not a big problem.

There is one law we are all expected to abide by.
It is the law enacted by the Parliament under
the Australian Constitution. It you can't accept that
then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is
and what it stands for. Our State is a secular State.
As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for
worship. Religion instructs its adherents on faith,
morals and conscience. But there is not a separate stream
of law derived from religious sources that competes with
or supplants Australian law in governing our civil society.
The source of our law is the democratically elected
legislation.

We need to be very clear on this issue. Ultimately it is
important that everyone knows that there is only one law and it
is going to be enforced whether anyone acknowledges its
legitimacy or not.

We have a robust tolerance of difference in our society. But
to maintain this tolerance we have an agreed framework which
will protect the rights and liberties of all. And we are
asking our citizens - all of our citizens - to subscribe to
that framework. These are Australian values. We must be very
clear on this point. They are not optional and we expect
everyone who wants to live in our country to subscribe to
them.

Foxy "There is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution. It you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for."

Foxy: What is "it"? "Australia"? I could not believe what I was reading.

One set of laws we are all expected to abide by? We do not have to abide to any law enacted by an Australian Parliament, we can reject it or with lack of law that exists take our own action.

For example, as a vegetarian - and if I had the political numbers in parliament put this law onto the Australian people, would you and others like Peter Costello simply sit back and accept it - on what you have said? No. Get serious.

I know this from personal experience - when I first went vegetarian as part of a high school project and during the project period - one of my parents dumped a plate of meat on the table and demand that I eat it. Right or wrong? I was only a teenager, but I stood strong and said no.

Many people worldwide have rejected "government" law and taken a strong stand for the benefit of people worldwide. We should not just sit back and accept Liberal and Labor political party policies as part of Australia's "culture" - and certainly not "Anglo Saxon" as a term in my view - as their is no such country.

the jury on multi culturalism is still out. On the positive side I would say that many of us have made friends from many different parts of the world and enjoyed a feast of different foods. On the negative side we have imported some who hate the west, suck on the public purse while putting a case for honour killings, see young white aussie girls as meat and are even more totalatarian than our own home grown family destroyer feminist.

There are two
laws - there is an Australian law and there is an
Islamic law."
Foxy,
Sadly we can't deny that fact any more.

No. this is not a big problem.
Foxy,
what makes you overlook the fact that this is an invitation to oyher religion based Laws ?
How do we accept Muslim Law but then draw the line at others ?
We wouldn't be in this predicament if the silly Goaf hadn't opened the gates & thrown the key away. What exactly is in an academic's mind that prevents them from developing some foresight & looking ahead ?

Australia isn't multicultural at all, as soon as an ethnic or demographic group becomes assertive in any way they're squashed like bugs.
Salafists, Zionists, White Nationalists, Civic Nationalists and so forth do speak for the interests of their respective groups, there's no doubt about that but as soon as they start to organise and assert themselves in public out they're met with public order response teams, mounted Police and violent Leftist thugs.

For starters your definition of multiculturalism is bollocks. No sorry, like most that spews from the mouths of the right here IT IS A LIE!.

So what is multiculturalism?
What is culture?

"Culture" is what people do. Everything we do is culture. Going to the beach. Thats culture. Going to the theatre or the movies. Going to Mcdonalds. Watching Neighbors or Home and away. All "culture". Getting Chinese takeaway or a pizza, having porridge for breakfast, a meat pie and sauce for lunch or a stir fry for dinner. It all counts as culture. Everything we do is cultural and since we all do so much then we could also quite sensibly be called "multicultural". Every day we each live a multicultural life. We watch tv. Thats culture. We read. Thats culture. We eat, work, play, live. All culture. Multiculturalism is already here and so well entrenched in all of us that any call to stop or reverse it is ludicrous.

Culture always changes, grows and progresses. The culture you and the rightards wants to see is the homogenous, stifling, boring culture of the 1950s. Where anyone who wasnt a white male was a second class citizen. Where men ruled over their wives, families and society in general with incompetence and authoritarianism. A crap, insular and ridiculous society perpetually 30 years behind the rest of the world. A society rejected by the baby boomers and transformed by the immigration and multicultural policies of a succession of Australian governments. Governments head and shoulders above the past few.

As usual for OLO this article and much of the discussion is nothing but badly disguised racism and you should be ashamed of yourselves and your bigotry and hatred.

So many times have you rightist racists tried the same fear tactics and you have been proven wrong every time. This time it is muslims who are "creating ghettos", polluting our "values" and all are involved in some great big new conspiracy to introduce sharia law.

Not long ago the same things (the sharia law is new) were said about the Vietnamese, the Italians, Greeks etc. Before that it was the americans during the war, the Chinese. White australia etc etc. But they were wrong weren't they, these bigots and racists?
Chinatown is a vibrant and thriving "ghetto". Visited by numerous white Australians and valued as an integral part of Sydney.

What about Leichhardt, Cabramatta, Marrickville? (sorry i dont know the corresponding suburbs in other cities but I know they exist) All developed from the purported "alien monocultural wastelands" into well patronised and extremely valued and lucrative tourist, restaurant and cultural areas. So much for the warnings and fearmongering from the racist rightwing.

When will we learn that this is all just a ploy by those born to rule powermongers from the hard right who dont even believe what they say but know a good dog whistle when they see one. Whilever the general population continues to fall for the weasel words and spiteful fearmongering of these miscreants they will continue their racist rants and put them into practice when they are in power. How many times do they have to be wrong before we wake up to their lies and prejudices. How long will it take us to see their hurtful racist dogma for what it really is. A tactic to take attention away from the real issues of them and their rich mates and their constant screwing of the rest of us

These Muslim clerics : http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/potlatch/NukeTalkFinal2.gif

Have just read the following excerpt from Foxy's post:
<< There is one law we are all expected to abide by…We need to be very clear on this issue...everyone who wants to live in our country to subscribe to them.>>

If your all this smart....religion should be your friend?

Kat

Dear Nathan,

I don't quite understand what your objections are to
the framework of laws that are passed by our elected
governments because -
within a framework of laws, all Australians have the right to
express their culture and beliefs and most Australians recognise
the value of laws as rules of conduct that are
established by elected governments and followed by the community
to maintain an orderly and free society.

The Australian Citizenship Pledge has the following words:

"From this time forward (under God)
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people
Whose democratic beliefs I share
Whose rights and liberties I respect and
Whose laws I will uphold and obey."

Are you not a citizen of this country?

cont'd ...

Dear Nathan,

I wasn't aware of any laws regarding vegetarians
though. And what laws exactly are you against?

Mikk,
Does lying about the past count as a cultural pursuit?
This racially homogeneous patriarchal society you hate so much was producing wonderful art, philosophy and literature and bounding ahead in science, medicine and industrial processing.
Never mind also that the 1950's was a "golden age" for the Left, that almost all workers were in unions, that political parties had tens of thousands of members in each state and debating and political activism were respectable pursuits.
Look at Australia now, backward,intellectually stunted, wracked by division and inequality, a society where no debate or discussion is possible outside the narrow confines of political correctness.
Do you know why this is? Non Europeans lack the intelligence to contribute to much less advance a society,any society. When you replace 20% of the population with dumb people from the Third World and make their level of thinking and capabilities the baseline for all public policy then your society goes backward.
I know maths is hard for Lefties but even you would know the term "lowest common denominator".

SteeleRedux "a Vietnamese friend whom I committed to give English lessons to"

And why was that necessary?
Shouldn't you have learnt Vietnamese instead? White supremacist!

It's necessary because no human society can function without a common language.
It is what we *share*, not what differs, that makes any human society possible.

But can we "share" *everything*?
Then we end up having no defining elements ourselves.

Panculturalism (its true title) is an impossible utopian fantasy.

Our "great success story" is a temporary reprieve, sustained only by the momentum of history and the still overwhelming White Australian population.

Like a car with an empty tank, we still move forward only because of past momentum.

And with 80% non-White immigration, you're filling an unleaded tank with diesel.
Good luck!

"look past their fearful natures"

Why shouldn't we fear the absurd social chaos of a society with *no defining character* of its own?

Foxy, "whose democratic beliefs I share".

And where was the "democracy" in changing our immigration policy to include any and every ethnicity?
There's over 6000 of them, you know.

It was imposed from above. Not the people's will.

"But there is not a separate stream of law derived from religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian law"

I'm afraid there is, for religious fanatics.
And that is a "big problem".

sonofgloin "Keep Australia modern and forward thinking suits better."

Any policy restricted to advanced "modern" societies (e.g. Very High Human Development Index) will still be predominantly White, and therefore howled into oblivion by the anti-waysist (sic) activists and media.

mikk, all cultures are internally complex and evolve over time.
That's not what's being referred to by "multiculturalism".

The real 1950s included Brando, Bardot and the bossa nova.
All were popular.

"Chinatown is a vibrant and thriving "ghetto""

Actually, Chinatowns in many Western cities have been reported to be "in decline" for years now.

They are as fossilised and phoney as your imaginary 1950s.

Foxy,

You don't seem to understand that there are some who object to Australia's laws. This does make them "un Australian" as some might say.

For example in one case a Jehovah's Witness child (I've never been involved with this group) was forced to undertake a blood transfusion by an Australian court judge. This child had a medical condition - but the parents objected and were taken to court by the public health sector. The parents were very upset about losing the case, with lawyers fees written off. I felt it was a violation of the parents rights to raise their children.

Cases also involve refugees and asylum seekers. People recently protested on this matter in the office of Jamie Briggs MP, were arrested upon the closure of the office when they refused to leave.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/immigration-protest-held-by-religious-leaders-at-jamie-briggs-e/5545850

In terms of being vegetarian I'm an animal rights advocate and support groups that have pushed for change.

Based on what you have said we "have" to accept "law" - we do not and should not - or we let governments invade people's basic freedoms - in terms of human rights, but at the same time we see Australia have a populist Labor/Liberal dominated society with no policy leadership.

To balance that out however, we must realise life isn't just about laws.

OK I,ll put the cat among the pigeons.

Australia is NOT multicultural, never has been and, I hope, never will be. It simply is a term Al Grasseby imported from Canada which means many cultures. It is a misnomer.

We are a multi-racial society and have been since 1788, but we are mono-cultural and our culture is based on the UK social structure with the Westminster system, basically, of governance. The only aspects of other cultures that we allow are those aspects that fit in with our existing culture. Simply put, we allow some aspects of some cultures, not even one other complete culture.

The foundations of our government, Federal, State and Local, are derived from the UK, as is our defence forces, police, education, medical and other professions. Our social norms are mainly from the UK.

Try harpooning a whale or having a dolphin muster and see what happens, or even a barby with rover on the spit. Organize a bull fight and you will go to court, for even having a cockfight.

Polygamy is illegal but we let some silly fools get away with it as long as it is not registered. We also turn a blind eye to FGM and forced and underage marriages. Shows we put cruelty to roosters before cruelty to little girls.

No, we do not allow aspects of other cultures that are different to ours, but it is changing. There are some who are preposing Sharia law so you may soon be able to stone an adulterous wife and murder your daughter for her dishonour of falling in love with a bloke of a different caste. How about your wife needing your permission to leave the house!

We will need a few of these types of things before one can say we are multicultural.

Banjo,
You're right about Australia always being multi racial and monocultural.
The problem for the Left is that the people flooding in from the third world don't share their views on "social justice", the environment, homosexuality, women's liberties etc.
At the moment not too many of these people vote or are involved in politics but that'll change in a few years, what are the Left and the Neo-Communists who head the protestant churches going to do when there's a widely supported campaign to outlaw homosexuality or abortion?
The elites and their bourgeoisie will support Fascist and Islamist groups if it suits their objective, as they do in Syria, Nigeria and Ukraine,(the so called Obama Death Squads) the "social justice" crowd can ignore what their ideologues say but they can't un-say it for them.

Dear Nathan,

Of course life isn't just about laws.

A tolerance of criticism and of dissenting opinions is
fundamental to democracy. However a democracy is most
likely to survive in a society in which there is a
general consensus on basic values and a widespread
commitment to the existing political order.

Foxy,

"However a democracy is most likely to survive in a society in which there is a general consensus on basic values". The value of what? A coin? A lounge suite? A footpath?

There should really be a basic value to life, human rights and a safe society.

"And a widespread commitment to the existing political order. Who? Labor and Liberal political parties that have dominated the political scene? By the way, in terms of an "order" would you like fries with that?

After the last Federal Election there was a senate investigation, into the minor parties and their election - none of the three major parties (including the Greens) were happy with the election outcome. We should have a full investigation into Australia's electoral system, so it is fairer, democratic and representative for all - that equals new political parties and independents, not less - for a major change in our political culture - more action and less yelling and screaming in parliament.

Finally on values - where do our two major parties stand on refugees? No difference. As a result our country and its people lose out, as other nations see it as their "right" to have appalling "human rights" policies. The journalist currently in an Egypt prison and his family see the realities.

NathanJ

<<Finally on values - where do our two major parties stand on refugees? No difference. As a result our country and its people lose out, as other nations see it as their "right" to have appalling "human rights" policies. >>

Quite right, old chap...the major parties should just have IMPOSED an open borders policy.

Hey -come to think of it -- they need not even have had an election all they had to do was consult you and you would have told them what was morally permissible.

By the way NathanJ --What "other nations" have adopted appalling human rights policies *BECAUSE* of Australia immigration stance?

Dear Nathan,

I think you know quite well the context and
circumstances - of what we're discussing here.
If not, go back and re-read my posts.

I get the distinct impression that all you're
interested in - is simply stirring.
I'll leave you to it.

Foxy,

It's not simply stirring - that is a sidestep away from the issue. It's constantly used by some people who want to avoid facing up to many basic facts.

It's a very easy way out.

In terms of SPQR's comments visit: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/iran-protests-over-manus-island-riot-death-report/story-fn9hm1gu-1226831342422?nk=eb4d83daeed5244243da306db8f1f15f and you'll see my point - re the Iranian governments policy stance on refugees in terms of their views of Australia and our policies.

People don't have to agree with Australian Government laws just because other people or parties say so. We really need to have good quality, well researched policies that benefit our global environment for all.

That is not a crime.

Dear Nathan,

You seem to not understand the points being made.
There is no question about the right of citizens
to criticize the government and their policies.
However, a country where the citizens choose to
ignore the laws descends into chaos just like
Syria and Iraq. Is that what you want for
Australia?

People who refuse to acknowledge the rule of law
as laid down by democratic institutions do not
acknowledge the rights and liberties of others -
terrorists fit into this category. They do not
recognise the right of others to live without
being maimed, the right to live without being
bombed - and as such they forfeit the right
to join in Australian citizenship. We are asking
all our citizens to subscribe to a framework
that can protect the rights and liberties of all.
These are Australian values. And they have kept our
society stable.

I have nothing more to say on the subject.
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes.

Nonsense! NathanJ.

Your initial charge was: << As a result our [country’s immigration policy] other nations see it as their "right" to have appalling "human rights" policies. >>

Note well the "as a result" part.

When challenged you linked me to Iran’s criticism of happenings at Manus Island. So we would have to assume –following your comment—that seeing what happened at Manus (or rather the big noise advocates tried make about it ) Iran suddenly adopted appalling human right policies –tit for tat like! And we both know that was not the case --WHAT WAS SAID TO HAVE HAPPENED ON MANUS HAD ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON IRANS INTERNAL POLICIES –so your charge was total baloney.

Countries like Iran often back at countries like Oz who criticise them --and they are more than happpy to use the rumours & lies fed to the media by Oz advocate groups.

SPQR,
The BRICS countries are now the new champions of Liberalism and human rights, didn't you know that?
All the anti Western traitors and hipster pundits are lining up for their fifteen minutes of fame on Press TV and Russia Today.

Banjo is right about Australia being receptive to exotic cultural *aspects/elements*, while still retaining its own historical continuity.

This is the case with all the Anglospheric cultures.
The English language has adopted words from almost every other language!
We are anthropological bower birds.

The Anglosphere adopted pizza, cappuccino, surfing, Latin American dance, jazz, etc, while still retaining an "Anglo" identity.

As for our alleged patriarchal/heterosexist past: Mary Shelley, Bronte sisters, Amelia Earhart, Rosie the Riveter, Oscar Wilde?

The portrayal of the Anglosphere as the *most* monotonous, closed, insular societies is utterly fraudulent.

We are actually one of the most flexible/adaptable cultures in world history.

SPQR,

Worldwide there is a net of countries with appalling human rights policies - this includes Australia, Egypt and of course Iran.... and there are plenty of other countries I could mention - which have been doing so for a long time - and that is history we can't forget - but we can try and move to a positive future, with good policies.

So when Australia sets a bad example - and intends to stay that way, other countries government's (and some of its people) can think it is their "right" to keep appalling human rights policies going and innocent Australian's (and others) get "trapped" in what I call a fishing net.... (plus the people committing these violent activities stay in a mindset) and what do we end up with worldwide - throughout here and overseas? A tangled mess.

Australia must set a good example re basic human rights and not send a message to other countries that we will accept this behaviour and not just think we are exempt, because we are a more financially well off country.

This is why I disagree with Foxy, it is positive mindset and respect for others that will change our world for the positive - not letters and numbers written on a piece of paper or (law).

NathanJ,

<< … Australia sets a bad example >>
I would argue that Oz set a good example.

It takes a quota of “refugees”each year (and you can argue whether that is too small or too large –but that is separate issue)

What Australia did was say no to the multibillion dollar (in worldwide terms) people smuggling business. We are not going to accept people jetting in Jakarta international airport, hiring a cruise to take them just off the coast so they can call the HMAS taxi service for help on their Iphones -- with the sure and certain knowledge that having ditched their papers and rote learnt their lines they will be given the benefit of the doubt.

It not about human rights its about not being gullible

<<… it is positive mindset and respect for others that will change our world for the positive …>>
Kinda like, if we call join hands and chant a mantra the marauders wont harm us --–Nah! the Buddhists of north east India tried that against the Muslim invaders –it didn’t work!.

appalling human rights policies - this includes Australia
Nathan J,
That's very interesting to hear, where & what is happening there ?

Dear Foxy,

<<a country where the citizens choose to ignore the laws descends into chaos just like Syria and Iraq. Is that what you want for Australia?>>

I appreciate your desire to avoid the kind of chaos experienced in Syria and Iraq - I don't want that either.

Had everyone chose to respect the Australian laws, that would indeed prevent situations as in Syria/Iraq.

However, besides the fact that many, if not even most, Australians do ignore the laws to some extent or another, these laws are SUFFICIENT for preventing Syria/Iraq-like situations, but are not a NECESSARY requirement.

Besides preventing Syria/Iraq-like situations - which is a great outcome no doubt, laws and their observance also produce negative side-effects. It's like chemotherapy where cancerous cells are prevented from multiplying, but so do ordinary benign cells, causing patients to suffer tremendously. Can we not find a better cure for terrorism that does not involve suppressing ordinary good people as well?

<<People who refuse to acknowledge the rule of law as laid down by democratic institutions do not acknowledge the rights and liberties of others - terrorists fit into this category. They do not recognise the right of others to live without being maimed, the right to live without being bombed>>

Sorry Foxy, but I as a counter-example refuse to acknowledge the rule of law as laid down by democratic institutions - yet I fully acknowledge and even fight for the rights and liberties of others. I am not a terrorist and I do recognise and support the right of all others to live without being maimed or bombed.

Australia has a bad record on refugees - including under Labor. Our Australian government at present is simply negotiating / forcing countries (poorer countries near Australia) - where refugees have been coming from, so they don't arrive anywhere near Australia. Simply a "push away" approach. Why? It's easier.

Countries with appalling human rights policies, in which other countries (as a result) bring Australia into the picture - and this inevitably flows onto policy direction by terrorist groups or their government - has been ignored or "pushed away" on this page.

Why? It's easier.

So we face a constant cycle in terms of a range of problems such as lack of good policies in Australia, a culture of hate, international issues like our Australian journalist currently in an Egyptian prison (for potentially up to seven years), an ongoing global refugee crisis, future terrorism and a raft of other international problems.

Why isn't serious action taken? It's because of our countries "push away" culture or approach - but for me that's not good for the future.

NathanJ

For interest, what is Sweden doing in relation to claimed asylum seekers and why? The Nordic countries are always taken as example by the Leftists (who would know what Left is if they fell over it), so Sweden's experiences and learning should be relevant.

Advice and well meant.
It is good to travel. There is nothing like it to broaden. Gets us out of the cliche-ridden rut that is Oz media, including and sometimes especially the ABC. As for the 'independent' media, forget it.

Join YHA and go backpacking while your mind is reasonably supple and open to new experiences. It costs little and the rewards are mighty.

NathanJ,

<<Australia has a bad record on refugees …>>
Wrong –in per capita terms Oz ranks very highly & in terms of benefits it grants the new arrivees it also ranks very highly.

<<forcing countries (poorer countries near Australia) - where refugees have been coming from…>>
Wrong--
1) The illegals are “coming from …countries nearer” to Oz only after travelling from half way across the world –having bypassed a huge number of less affluent potential hosts –to get there.
2) “poor countries” Japan is hardly poorer than Oz –how many do they take in?
China –now the second greatest economy in the world –how many do they take in?


<<Countries with appalling human rights policies...yada yada yada ...>>
I could not work this one out...or much of what followed it?

<< Australia…a culture of hate>>
Wrong –the clearest bit of “hate” expressed on this thread was by one sympathetic to the open borders cause who didnt like anyone having a contrary view . And that is very often where you’ll find the “hate”!

but for me that's not good for the future.
Nathan J,
So, what in your opinion would be good for our future, let more superstitious & quarrelsome people in ?
How many more can we afford to keep for decades, how much more are you personally suggesting we should all contribute to a greater intake ?
How many more in your opinion could safely be taken in before they sway the political scene into the same crazed religious scenario which these people claim to run away from in the first place ?
Nathan, it's not productive or progressive in any way to state that Australia has a bad human rights record when you don't offer at least an opinion how to solve the problem ? These so-called refugees will always pose a problem to themselves & those who are kindhearted enough to take them in as history has so clearly put on display for us to see & realise what the future holds if we don't put ourselves first. I'm fully aware that the realists, unlike the idealists do not strive on feeing warm'n fozzy by sacrificing others' hard fought for living standard.

Australia is a welcoming migratory destination.
Those who wish to paint white Australian society as racist are being too precious in their thought process. They are adopting the U.N. mind set on racism, where any comment or any opinion on any aspect of difference is deemed racist.

But the fact is that a newchum who landed in Australia today immediately has ALL the rights of those born here. The wider society does not inhibit or boycott the endeavours of the newchum in any way. The hijab issue has been used as a marker to racism.....simply because it is noticed and dared to be mentioned, but the fact is that if a portion of the white population took on Roman gods and started wearing togas 24/7 it would be noted and commented on in the same manner.

The reason that it is commented on is because it is a statement of difference. It is a wilful exhibition of difference, yet the observer is branded a racist for making that observation. Less than 2% of immigrants leave the country for another within 10 years of their arrival....and the majority of those were pommies...missed the old dart....

The only racist issues in Australia are created by the legal and social engineering to justify their existence.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You for your opinion.
It is appreciated, as is Nathan's.

It appears to me by reading some of these posts that the term Left is actually a misnomer. It should be wrong as right or wrong. The only reason why they opted for the term left is because it doesn't sound wrong. But it IS wrong as are all their views.
So, from now on I'll refer to the Left as Wrong, right ?

Indy...you have forgotten about the neutral aspects, that is the "Multi Cultural Nation" we see today. OK...some don't want to play by the rules...or you just need someone or something to hate?....that would be human:)

Indy, I have a song just for you...

http://tinyurl.com/ln6pa2r

Kat

some don't want to play by the rules...or you just need someone or something to hate?....that would be human:)
Kat,
Spot-on that's why they're not welcome here any longer. The majority of post WW2 migrants have made immeasurable contribution & a successful integration into this Nation. The middle eastern religious war migrants have not proven so admirable.
Sydney & Melbourne have been transformed to near the point of no return to a peaceful society because of those migrants. yes some were refugees but we're talking in general terms, no positives ever came from a few handful being singled out
As for multicultural society ? I don't believe so, an assortment of cultures is more apt a description & so far as the term successful goes, well, that's just Ostrich kind of observing.

Indy..I feel you completely, but we all have to live some where?

Kat

we
Origins of Man,
We is the operative word here. WE, who get along with each other & do our best to support ourselves. WE also have the right to share what WE built & achieved with whom WE choose to.
When some poor sods have rolled up on Australia's door step WE took them in & with many WE were right but there are now different poor sods who roll up & DEMAND that WE take them in & babysit them. As far as they're concerned about us, WE are nothing but Australians who are supposed to be here only for their interest. WE don't like this game anymore !
Not now that WE can see what's in store for us !

As a taxpayer I would like to see the $$numbers on what multiculturalism is costing us directly and indirectly and including all levels of government.

Is there anyone who has any idea of the overall cost? We could talk about value for money later.

The aged and other vulnerable sectors are constantly being asked to tighten their belts, yet at the same time the federal government is unnecessarily adding to costs by (say) bringing in migrants with poor or no English. Why are the feds knocking back the many potential migrants with proficiency in English and skills that are in demand.

On the latter, why would the feds be bringing coals to Newcastle in effect by bringing in migrants with IT skills for example and so many with poor English, when Australia is desperate for well trained tradies, such as block layers for building?

If all of the multicultural 'initiatives' being funded out of our taxes were ceased tomorrow, what would the difference be? There are many who might have to find some real work to do, but what other difference would it make?

Individual>> Sydney & Melbourne have been transformed to near the point of no return to a peaceful society because of those migrants.<<

Indi it is a law and order issue, and that extends to the wider community....a police presence is what is lacking along with a zero tolerance policy. If you look at the crime stats it is the disenfranchised youth of these immigrants that cause the problems, just as our youth that are over represented in the stats...more beat cops less crime.

sonofgloin,
I have said many times, if there aren't sufficient Police then engage military personnel & make them Police deputies at the drop of a hat. Anyone trying to sabotage law & Order by yelling Police State or Miltary State goes straight into detention. We can no longer afford this pussy footing with a handful of crap stirrers. If people don't want the very possible emergence of vigillanteism than they need to acquire some sense & work together rather than dispute everything for the sake of disputing. Become responsible ! demand that everyone does NS. Make NS an issue for the next election. Do nothing & cop the consequences but don't expect decent people to bail you out again & again. Do nothing & you're on your own.

OTB,
The person responsible for multicultural affairs is:-

Senator Concetta Fierranti-Wells.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social services.

Her responsibilities are Multicultural Affairs. Arrangement for settlement of migrants and humanitarian interests.

It is possible that you could get her budget for the coming year and/or expenditure for past year.

Most State governments used to have MC departments as well but may not now.

You may recall that the Howard government dropped the term multiculturalism and was phrasing MC out. Gillard raised MC a couple of times but it did not gain public support and was dropped. The current government has scalled MC further down. I expect MC to be completely abandoned after next election.

I did read somewhere that we spent $41 million last year on MC but do not know what that included.

Sonofgloin,
<<Indi it is a law and order issue, and that extends to the wider community....>>
Unfortunately, MC and its associated ISM impinges on the way that crime is reported and remedied.

Banjo,
<< I expect MC to be completely abandoned after next election>>
I wish I had your faith . I think it is going to take a lot more than that to weed it out or our govt depts and school system. Too many careers depend on it.

SPQR,
One can always hope. I have been fighting against MC for 40 years and slowly the stupid polys have been getting the message that it divides us into tribes and does nothing to instil community cohesion. It simply costs us money and promotes the cultures of foreign countries. Immigrants were told they could carry on as they did in the old country and we would adapt to their ways. We, supposedly, had no culture according to the advocates. Remember the claim of 'Unity in Diversity'. Someone should tell that to the muslims and Sri Lankans and the Africans. Migrants should be assessed on what benefits we can get from them being here. Those that hold us in contempt should be told 'sorry our experience is that your mob don't fit, so no more'. Polys first obligation is to ensure a harmonious society.

6 years of Labor did nothing to promote interest in MC and the Abbott government has relegated MC to that of a Ministerial Secretary. There is every reason to hope it will officially disappear.

ORIGINS OF MAN "we all have to live some where?"

But they (immigrants) already did live somewhere.
Where? In a society/culture custom-made just for people like them.

The issue isn't that they must live "somewhere".
The issue is why must they live *here*, in Australia?

individual "We is the operative word here".

And "we" can be defined by *relationships* from direct kin (the McDonalds) to the tribe/nation (Australians) to an ethnic branch (Celtic) of an ancestral family (Europeans).

But there is no "we" on a species level.
There is no universal "relationship" that connects everyone.
There hasn't been for 60,000+ years.

"we all have to live some where"

Yes, Turks can live in Turkey.
Mexicans can live in Mexico.
Tongans can live in Tonga.

And Australians, the ethnic group, can live here.

And if *we* wish, some of our extended European family could too.
Because we have a *relationship* to them.

But the "relationship" ends with Europeans.
There is no meaningful "relationship" beyond them.

Only the Iranian and Indic peoples are distantly related to Europeans, but that connection was severed 6000 years ago.

"We" (Indo-Europeans) split in two; We became "We" (Europeans) and "They" (Indo-Iranians) and went our separate ways.

The only non-Europeans with any right to live here are the Aborigines.
And they have no "relationship" with anyone.

Geez you blokes talk a lot of rot.

This is the real Tony Abbott.

“There’s no doubt that our country has been amongst the world’s most successful immigrant societies and this reflects the welcome that the Australian people have traditionally extended to newcomers including those from a vast variety of backgrounds. As well, it reflects the efforts that migrants have made to contribute to their new home. The policy of multiculturalism, which all sides of politics support, expresses our willingness as a nation to let migrants assimilate in their own way and at their own pace, because of our confidence in the gravitational pull of the Australian way of life.”
Tony Abbott 2012

"[Our] multiculturalism is a beacon of hope to a troubled and divided world," he said. "People from all around the four corners of this earth have come to this country of ours to be welcomed by us and to build a better life in freedom, for themselves and their children."
Tony Abbott 2013

Seems to me we have a genuine champion of multiculturalism in our prime minister Tony Abbott. To say otherwise would impugn that he is a devious liar capable of doing or saying anything to get elected.

Steele, Mikk and others who think we are multicultural.

Guess what, you have been had.

Just read and understand what is said on page 1 of this thread.

If we were MC, musims could legally have 4 wives, Honour killings could take place and young girls could marry. Homosexuals could be punished and dog meat consumed. These are examples of all sorts of alien cultural practices that are not currently legal. Look around the world, there are many weird and alien cultural practices that we do not allow. We only have one official language.

Yes we have been deceived by the MC fraud since the 1970s. The politicians have lied to us and we accepted it.

We are mono-cultural and only allow those cultural aspects that are European in origin. The sooner we dispense with the farce of multiculturalism the better off we will be.

Face it, we are multi-racial but not multicultural.

Here is an interesting link that's worth reading
on the subject of Multiculturalism and Australia.
It deals with government policies as well as the
debates and controveries surrounding this
highly emotive issue.

The Conclusion at the end sums things up rather well:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1011/11rp06

That is one person's view Foxy and it is dated.

Did your Googling ever enearth any evidence of government ever getting a mandate for the endless-diversity-we-have-to-have? This is supposed to be a democracy.

It's actually more than just "one person's opinion."

It is in fact - a Research Paper based on Key References and
Resources. On Key Australian Government Statements and
Reports. Plus Australia's highly respected and well
known Immigration Authorities such as Dr James Jupp,
Dr Luke Buckmaster, and Dr Mark Rodrigues, helped with insights,
and assisted in the preparation of this Research Paper.

Of course the paper will only make sense for those who are
capable of mentally processing the material.
It's obviously not for everyone.

OTB,
Despite the appearance, Foxy's link is not an official document by the Parliamentary Library. (surprised there is no disclaimer)

The author, Elsa Koleth is not employed by the federal Parliament. She is employed by others. You can google her name.

However the doc should be retained as it contains useful information, especially links to other official docs, and could be handy for a quick reference for some issues.

I found it an interesting read. It basically confirms the short historical facts that I gave in this thread. Thanks Foxy.

Dear Banjo,

The link I cited is a
Research Publication
prepared by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library's
Research Branch - Social Policy Section. Its author
was a Researcher who worked for that Department.

The Parliamentary Library is part of the Department of
Parliamentary Services and provides services to
Senators, Members, their staff, the staff of Parliamentary
Departments and the Governor General. The first library
services were delivered to Federal Parliament in 1901
and contain to provide significant support to Parliament
and the democratic process.

The publications provide an in-depth evaluation of an issue
as well as factual overviews. You can browse by topic.

You can also search Parlinfo - which includes all
library publications as well as Hansard, Bills, Comittee
documents and the Parliamentary Handbook.

The Research Publications are porepared by the Library's
Research Branch for the purpose of supporting the work
of the Australian Parliament. Research Publications are
written in areas where there is a high level of interest.

From Foxy's link "Multiculturalism was a policy introduced in Australia to deal with the settlement needs of migrant communities and was conceived as a means of recognising the preservation of cultural identities"

Now why did the government need a "policy" to preserve immigrants' cultural identities?
Surely that would be their own concern.

If they want to live the way they always have, they can, within the law.

We are a socially *liberal* society.
You can live any way you want, within the law.

If you don't like the laws, we are a democracy, so you can vote to change them.

There is absolutely no need for an official "policy" supporting anyone's "identity" or lifestyle.

Dear Shocker,

Perhaps you need to read the Conclusion in its
entirety of this Research Paper - and not just the
first sentence. It is self explanatary.
And explains why in Australia we have less problems
than other countries - thanks to our government policies.

Runner, ive been away for a while. Just wondering how you managed to once again link this thread, like you do to many threads, to abortion.

Runner, ive been away for a while. Just wondering how you managed to once again link this thread, like you do to many threads, to abortion.

Rechtub

the same way that the lefties ( and others) on this site link every evil to religion and every form of righteousness to the absence of religion.

you wrote
' if any form of religion contains violence then that religion, along with it's followers should be banned from entering our peace loving nation'

any one who can think can see that killing the unborn is among the vilest forms violence. It is usually performed by the godless.

Dear runner,

Then, we have people who are motivated, like the
Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they
perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what
their religion tells them. They are not psychotic; they
are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are
rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because
of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they
have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been
brought up from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning
faith.

Oh Foxy

'like the
Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they
perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what
their religion tells them. '

when was the last time in Aussie a baby killer doctor was murdered by someone acting anti Christian. I would suggest that their are hundreds of thousands of unborn babies murdered in contrast to next to nil doctors (if any in Australia) who have been murdered in Australia. Why do 'progressives' ignore the norm while using the abnormal in an arguement.

You are not so forgetful as to not remember how the abortion debate was all about the poor 15 year old girl who was raped. Try a little honesty in you case!

I have personally met hundreds or thousands of Christians in Australia none of which has ever suggested murdering a murderer. Have you?

Dear runner,

The point being made was in reference to your earlier
comments and sweeping generalistions.

This was to simply illustrate to you - that when talking
about people's beliefs and actions and the reasons
behind them - we must be careful not to make assumptions
or sweeping statements about them.

I'm glad that you understand that now.

Foxy

'The point being made was in reference to your earlier
comments and sweeping generalistions. '

yep and 'progressives' certainly are the champions of this.

Dear runner,

I didn't know you were a progressive.
From your posts one would assume the opposite.
Especially when all you have to do is Google
the information that's out there - which
you ignore or deny.

Information such as - from their inception
the Fertility Control Clinics have been subjected to
religious anti-abortion demonstrations and threats,
requiring the presence of security guards at the
entrance. The case of - Steven Rogers, a security
guard at a clinic in Melbourne who was shot in the chest
and killed made the news in this country.
Then we have - Firebombing (Molotov Cocktails)
of Medical Clinics throughout our capital cities
- and of course there's always the
various religious groups who consistently stage daily protests
outside of these medical clinics. They've been doing it
for years.

And will continue to do it. Because their acts are "good."
And they've been brought up from the cradle to have
total and unquestioning faith. And Christianity, just as much
as Islam, teaches children that unquestioning faith is a
virtue. Therefore if someone announces that it is part
of their faith, the rest of society, whether of the same faith,
or another, or of none, is obliged, by ingrained custom, to
"respect" it with out question, respect it until the day
it manifests itself in a horrible massacre - or the death
of a security guard. Well, thankfully in this country -
we have a framework of laws - to which even "progressives"
have to abide by. Thank Goodness for that!

Runner, to me god is a mythical figure and, should you, or anyone for that matter decide to worship your god, that's your choice and I have no problem with you or anyone doing that BUT, when you try to ram your beliefs down my throat, that's when you cross the line.

As for abortion, when a child has it's first birthday, three months after being born, I will start to see it as murder. Until then, it's my view it's an expectant mothers right to do what she, and to some extent her partner, which to do.

Now while that's my view, I have no problem with and respecting you having another view, so long as you respect mine.

As for multiculturalism, there is no room in our peace loving nation for anyone who worships a god or faith that harbors the likes of beheadings, just like we have no rights going to their country and preaching Christianity.

Their country, their rules. If you don't like their rules, don't go there. It really is that simple.

Foxy reread before desperately trying to find a case to justify your dogma

' I would suggest that their are hundreds of thousands of unborn babies murdered in contrast to next to nil doctors (if any in Australia) who have been murdered in Australia. Why do 'progressives' ignore the norm while using the abnormal in an arguement.'

to come up with Peter James Knight who was described as a hermit is a desperate dishonest case to prove your point. Even you could do better than that.

rehctub

'Runner, to me god is a mythical figure and, should you, or anyone for that matter decide to worship your god, that's your choice and I have no problem with you or anyone doing that BUT, when you try to ram your beliefs down my throat, that's when you cross the line. '

I see, I put a point of view and its ramming it down your throat. The multi culturalist, god deniers, the warmist and other put a point of view and thats what it is. One thing true Christianity has always done is give people the choice to choose. This is the opposite to many god deniers. That is why Islam has so much in common with socialism.

Dear runner,

Here's something from Richard Dawkins,
taken from his book, "The God Delusion,"
that gives a different perspective to your
claim about -
Christianity and choice...

"What is really pernicious is the practice of teaching
children that faith itself is a virtue. It isn't -
because it requires no justification and brooks no
argument. And that is something Christians have in
common with Islam. Teaching children that unquestioned
faith is a virtue primes them - given certain other
ingredients that are not hard to come by - to grow up
into potentially lethal weapons for future jihads or crusades.
Immunized against fear by the promise of a martyr's
paradise, the authentic faith-head deserves a high place
in the history of armaments, alongside the longbow, the
warhorse, the tank and the cluster bomb."

"If children were taught to question and think through their
beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of
faith without question, it is a good bet that there would
be no suicide bombers or murders of security guards
outside abortion clinics - or firebombing of abortion clinics,
or threats and demonstrations. And these people are
taught their lessons not necessarily by extremist fanatics but
by supposedly decent, gentle, mainstream religious
instructors, who line them up - sitting in rows, rhythmically
nodding their innocent little heads up and down while they
learned every word of their holy books. Therefore faith can
be very dangerous and deliberatly to implant it into a vulnerable
mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."

Non-religious fanatics have produced their fair share of historical atrocities.

Utopian ideology, promising a world that cannot exist, but must be believed in, has "justified" the murder of millions.

Today's impossible political fairytale, panculturalism, will no doubt produce its own legendary tragedy one day.

For years, the "tolerant" panculturalists have brainwashed themselves *and their children* to consider dissenters and skeptics as criminals, sinners, demons, undesirables, vermin.

It's a short skip from that to the Great White Massacre.

Foxy,

u do appear very gullible often quoting god denier dogmas. You quote the high priest Dawkins

'Teaching children that unquestioned
faith is a virtue primes them - given certain other
ingredients that are not hard to come by - to grow up
into potentially lethal weapons for future jihads or crusades.'

he denies a Creator ( something that can only come about by sheer pigheadedness) and pushes the something from nothing barrow (totally unscientific). No doubt he supports the murder of the unborn and justifies it by the totally unscientific notion that its not a human being. Same tactic as the jihadist and nazis. You really ought to think a bit harder before quoting such unreliable sources. Try reading Jesus teachings instead of pigheaded athiest who only want to justify their own perverted lifestyles.

Dear runner,

It isn't enough to believe in God's power;
as a believer you must wish to serve it, to
elongate the light. You must give your life to Him,
that He might use you in His work. Only in that way you
will become what you have not been and ascend to higher
realms beyond your current three-dimensional limitations.
You are like a house that has not had the lights
turned on yet. You might keep adding furniture with
your posts - but from them I can see that the rooms
are still dark. You have scarcely seen the light that
should await you as a believer. You need to preach and
judge less and actually practice the teachings of the
one you believe in - don't give advice to others -
take it yourself. Be a role model to us all, on this
forum.

Shadow Minister,

You provide me with yet another example to demonstrate the type of ignorance and even arrogance [to an extent] that the group of mostly as white Westerners display. You say that “Our laws” allow for any practice of any culture so long as it is “within the bounds of reason”.

However, have you not realised that my entire point in this thread is to overcome this blindness? Do you not therefore consider your words more carefully before stating so boldly and confidently that “our laws” [i.e. the British/European descended cultural and moral aspects now codified in OUR LAWS] let any culture do anything so long as that practice or action is “within the bounds of reason”?

Do you not right there immediately see my point that, unbeknownst to the arrogance of superiority self appointed, you describe some legal system to be “OUR”s but do not say WHO [but I know you mean the British set-up], then you make the strong claim that not only does that British legal system have the authority to cite parameters on morality but that you as well can do same.

Now, to take a breath of context here . . . .

. . . I happen to personally think that the type of moral/legal systems in general philosophical principle discussed over centuries by thinkers, is the first time any culture or society in history of earth has stumbled on the truest and most authentic set-up of all time, and further that the type of Universal Human Rights and equalities espoused today that descend from those European societies IS the way to go and should be embraced by the world, since it is first system to ever [theoretically at least] ask to implement full freedoms and equalities as is possible.

. . . contnued . . .

. . . continued . . .

the key difference between me and most people on this thread and forum is that I am honest [even if it makes me unpopular, since it is the right thing to do] whereas LEFT or RIGHT on this topic are blind, ignorant, deceiving themselves or just plain selfish and uncaring.

To clarify that look to the following scenario -

BUT, when some extremist nut like a white supremacist or an Islamic Taliban type supremacist come to me and argue – “who is the west to try to force THEIR view on morality and law onto to the world through international law etc.” [as one leader of Hiz-but-tahrir in Sydney among countless more, has said over and again even to the faces of the leftists who espouse to support his full ethnic rights of respect and equality] . . .

. . . I simply tell this bigoted creature of vile hatred and racist verociousness, “but the extremist religious type society of Caliphate proposed by you IS strongly and deliberately exclusionary of all ‘others’, is openly discriminatory and extreme in their narrow view which they believe should be FORCED onto everyone else” [even though they use the anti-force argument to argue for their Caliphate].

I have been present at discussions and so-called debates where
a representative from extremist caliphate seeking Islamic community in Australia [mostly in Sydney and usually from Hiz-but-Tahrir these days] directly accuses the west both left and right of being colonialists and imperialist dictators in their plight to force their concepts of freedoms and rights and ethics onto the world through international law etc., YET nobody at all says anything to reply, all struck dumb and confused.

It should I imagine force the leftists who pretend to rely upon some non-existent foundation they call “moral relativism” and which pretends to argue that no reason exists to prove a moral scale exists, to be on=spot and red-faced forced to either agree with nuts who say my beliefs no matter how you see them are not worse or better

' You need to preach and
judge less and actually practice the teachings of the
one you believe in - don't give advice to others -
take it yourself. Be a role model to us all, on this
forum. '

well Foxy should you stop promoting the garbage that comes from the likes of Dawkins and take your own advice I might listen to you.

Dear runner,

I shall continue to cite Richard Dawkins until
you start demonstrating real Christian values!

Foxy

'I shall continue to cite Richard Dawkins until
you start demonstrating real Christian values! '

Suddenly you believe in Christian values? You could of fooled me.

Dear runner,

It's about your self-proclaimed Christianity -
and not practicing what your preach.

I've told you so many times in
the past on this forum. The most radical aspect
of the teachings of Christ was His insistence on
forgiveness, even of enemies.

You show no signs of following this dictate
in any of your posts.

I'm merely suggesting you have the habit of pointing
out the flaws in others without seeing your own.

Well Dawkins IS the Pope in the religion of Atheism...so...