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.