I went to the Kernewek Lowender Cornish Festival on Yorke Peninsula in South Australia on the weekend. Visit www.kernewek.org

It was wonderful to see over 15,000+ people attending the festival celebrating the mining history of Kadina, Moonta and Wallaroo from people who came from Cornwall to Australia.

People were spending money in small businesses, many events were full and accommodation booked out and visitors and locals were really enjoying themselves.

Two youtubes below show one activity from the event and one from an event in Cornwall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYo-sihc058
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-UeB9VXPF0

With the above in mind, why do so many Australians fear multiculturalism - when they could be having a lot of fun and celebrating it? Sometimes I feel like telling 'racists' to keep their mouths shut and eat a Cornish pasty!

People are strange my friend. People are very strange...

NathanJ,

You are mixed up, which is hardly surprising given the multicultural politics being played by the hating leftists.

While the Cornish are a recognised minority in the UK and have always been much loved by ordinary Australians who are proud of their inheritance from the UK and the pioneering and nation-building of the early settlers, the political correctness of Oz 'Progressives' labels the Cornish as part of their hated Anglo-Celtic 'whites' (Australian citizens with British and/or Irish ancestral origins) that they (the 'Progressives') want diversified (diluted) out of existence.

The self-loathing leftists have always been crooked on (to use Australian idiom) our inheritance from the UK and now some parts of Europe as well :(

For God's sake don't mention those freedom loving Americans. The leftists will have a pink fit.

Elsewhere in the world there are teaming millions subject to awful totalitarianism, with wretched living conditions, lacking the simplest, fundamental civil engineering that ensures potable water, removal of waste and sewage that is fundamental to good health and basic freedoms we take for granted.

But no, the elitist political 'Progressives' aka International Socialists sledge and reject all of Australia's enviable (by the rest of the world) inheritance from the UK, to disrespect and deny it instead.

How to understand the leftists and their cringing cultural elitism, goodness knows. With them it is an emotional backlash not a reasoning thing, so what can one do? This journalist captures the emotional BS of the leftists as represented by one of the the fair-haired boys of the elitist literary set (Adams would like to think so anyway) and they have always been that way,

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/phillip_adams_on_how_to_be_a_moral_bullsher/

The Cornish, yeah great and there should be more of them. There, now I have upset the whining leftists.

".....There, now I have upset the whining leftists."

Lol! - far from it.

Your posts are becoming legendary, otb.

Funniest thing I've read today!

Nathan J
Celebrating Cornish "Culture" is just as stupid and pretentious as turning up to the Eid festival in Blacktown or going to an Irish theme pub. Your definition of "Racist" is also off, racists seek security in the primacy of their own culture, traditions and institutions, since multiculturalism is an Australian institution anyone who disagrees with it is by definition a dissident. So the last line of the OP is based on false premises, authentic Australian culture is based on multiculturalism, Methodism and our own idiosyncratic brand of social nationalism or nativism.
The "in group", the "racists" in that sense are people like you the "out group" are dissidents, contrarians and non conformists.

Yep you sure have the idea of multiculturalism wrong there Nathan. It was never about accepting migrants from anywhere in the UK, [even Jocks], or from western Europe. We even thought eastern Europeans were OK.

We never complained [too much] about those "reffos" brought in & chucked into the melting pot to sink or swim, by their own efforts. We recognised they came here to build a worthwhile life for themselves, even the 10 quid poms. We did whinge a bit about Mediterranean back, when some southern Europeans found it was easy to con a doctor & get on a disability pension.

The end is nigh Nathan, every day more people wake up to the con job pulled on them. No multiculturalism never had anything to do with people building a new life, it was a way of trying to force fair minded Ozzies to accept welfare for life bludgers from third world countries. The left want these voters, even though we all know they are here to bludge on us, & will build nothing, other than their ability to rip off the system.

You are not going to get real Ozzies to accept a new flood of boat people, or an increase of illiterate third worlders any time soon

Multiculturism sounded good when Malcolm Fraser said it and early in
the piece it seemed to be OK, but it started to deteriorate as more
that were somewhat incompatible arrived on the scene.

I think if you look at the home countries you can see how the level of
failure in countries is reflected in how those same people fare here
over a range and at the extreme end of those ranges necessitate their
own police crime squad.

As far as getting them out, any moslem who swore an oath of allegiance
on the Koran could be deported as the Koran allows moslems to lie to infidels.
Therefore the oath is qualified and invalid

Personally as an ex-pat American and now an ex-pat New Zealander I've never had a problem living in mixed race societies, though I have been aware that some cultural differences will create problems and misunderstandings.

New Zealand's multicultural society has some serious problems directly associated with the different cultural values and lifestyles. The problems have been exasperated by a substantial influx of Somali refugees who do not get along with the Pacific Islanders; and a huge wave of wealthy Chinese immigrants has driven up property values, changed the base of ownership of the Auckland CBD, introduced a Chinese gangland underworld, and doubled the memberships of every golf club. Indians from Fiji own most of the corner dairies, 2 dollar shops and a big percentage of taxi licenses. The indigenous Maori now make up only 10% of the population yet still enjoy certain privileges not available to others.

New Zealand is very open to interracial marriage. This could be one reason NZ was willing to accept same sex marriage more easily than Australia. If you see the kids coming out of a school its easy to predict that everyone in NZ will eventually have some shade of a natural tan in the not too distant future.

Several years ago I was fortunate to be given a project management assignment in Japan and to live with a Japanese family while I was there. Japan really opened my eyes to how well a society can harmonise when it is not 'polluted' or watered down with a large mix of different ethnicities. Being among the Japanese there is a mindset or an 'us-ness' that puts most on the same wavelength. It appeared to me they were far more polite and tolerant of simple mistakes than most of us Westerners. For instance slow drivers, or a driver stopped while looking for an address; old folks slowly crossing the street; and sharing a very crowded standing room only train, are all taken in stride without any anger or hostility. Road rage doesn't exist.

Multiculturalism started in Australia at Sydney Cove in 1788, since then its's got worse.

Conservative Hippie,

Japan is one of the most racist societies on Earth.

I'm not sure that I agree with the title of this
discussion - "Why do people fear celebrating
multiculturalism?"

I'm not sure that most people fear it at all.
It's something that's simply a way of life to most
of us - especially since a very high percentage of
Australians were born in another country or have a
parent born outside Australia.

However, the current problem I suppose has arisen
because of the perceived threat of "boat people"
making headlines regularly.

Even though "boat people,"
who have been granted refugee status form only a very
small percentage - 2.5 per
cent of our intake.

Which is hardly a ripple in
our overall intake. Yet some think it is a
big issue (because the government has made it a big issue),
and the media plays along. Then there's also the fear of
Muslims and their implementation of sharia law.

Again, it is only 1.4 per cent of all immigrants who
are Muslim boat people from countries that follow
strict sharia law.
It should be noted that these people are fleeing those
sharia law countries. When discussing these people the mistake
that's often made is lumping them all together and
treating them as one homogenous species.

Nothing is further from the truth. Australian immigrants have
always varied a great deal in their ethnic backgrounds,
linguistics, educational levels, and their current social and
educational needs.

Some people forget that people have settled in Australia for a variety of reasons, economic, change of lifestyle, refugees, adventure, family reunions, and so on. And settling into a
new country has not always been easy for either the new arrivals
or the locals.

It is time that all of us accept that migrants to this country
do need and deserve our understanding and help to find their
footing in a new land. Talking about "real" Aussies is so
yesterday and has no place in contemporary Australia.

"Talking about "real" Aussies is so yesterday and has no place in contemporary Australia"

If that is true Foxy, it really is too late to salvage any of the great Australian values, & the place is probably not worth saving.

If I could claim asylum in the EU and get the same benefits as an African or Middle Eastern immigrant, the free house, free medical care, free schooling for my kids etc I'd leave tomorrow.
If we're really a nothing more than nation of immigrants than we should all have automatic right of return to our ancestral societies but as it is no diaspora European, no matter how poor or persecuted can claim asylum in the EU. For example the Boer people of South Africa are on genocide watch and tens of thousands are homeless and living in squatter camps yet the EU won't allow them to seek asylum.
If the bourgeois posters really fear living in a "monoculture" (even though there's no such thing) then they ought to be lobby the EU to take us back at the same time as they fill up our cities with the sub human trash of Asia, so for the yearly intake of refugees 13,000 whites should be repatriated with full social benefits in the EU.
The reality is that vast areas of Europe are underpopulated, particularly in the east and could use an injection of hardworking migrants, as we know immigration always makes things better right?.

Dear Hasbeen,

I think that you're actually pulling my leg
here with your references to "real Australians."
And "Australian values."
As Peter Costello pointed out ages ago,

"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'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 immigrants have grown considerably in numbers.
And all these immigrant communities have made successful
contributions to Australian life."

As Peter Costello points out "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 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.

I think your fears are unwarranted.

Many people in Australia, don't connect enough with their family background - and this is part of the problem - so they don't feel the need to connect with others.

When I first decided to support a family who came out to Australia (from a very poor country), I paid for them to go to a local Royal Show.

I had people say to me personally, it would be easier for the family to stay around people of their own culture or race - as this would place less pressure on the family in question. I disagreed.

The family was taken to the Royal Show (for their first time ever) and they loved it! This is an understatement - I saw the photos and was told about their fantastic day out. The family wanted to go the following year (which they did) - and DEMANDED they pay to go themselves.

People should be more willing to realise that connecting with people of all backgrounds is not always bad - despite what some people will tell you (as a scare campaign) - and the end results are worth the effort - and you can have a lot of fun at the same time with others.

We have plenty of multicultural events all year round, along with fantastic food, stories and people (all in Australia being of a multicultural background) and are adding to our society - and this includes ALL people!

To the (negatives) out there - find out about your family history and re-evaluate your life.

Natham J,
Sure we can go to ethnic folk days, like the highland games, Irish music and german beer festivals and dragon parades, etc and have a great time. But like most multiculturalists you ignore the baggage that comes with some alien cultures. You only see the nice things and kids in colourful costumes.

You ignore the cultural aspects of honour killing, forced marriage, underage marriage, female genital mutilation, female oppression. The consumption of dog and cat meat, eating of maggots and spiders and other obnoxious foods. There are hundreds of alien cultural practices in the world. Would you like to see dog fights or bull fights introduced here? What about the stoning of a young girl for falling in love with a boy of different caste?

The ideology of multiculturalists is to introduce as much diversity in people as possible without any consideration to whether or not they will integrate into our society.

People,such as myself, do not fear multiculturalism but we believe community harmony is far more important than diversity, therefore immigration should not be allowed for those that have shown they cannot integrate. Multiculturalisn is in itself nothing to celebrate.

In fact MC is a misnomer, we are multi-racial but not multicultural. We expect all to obey our laws and social standards.

Banjo, "We expect all to obey our laws and social standards"

However the migrants themselves demand change to accord with their political traditions and values, even where their expectations are diametrically opposed to Australian law, values and culture (although the self-flagellating leftists deny that Australia has any culture worth keeping).

To take an example, Australian farmers and Australian society have always been revulsed by the ritual killing of food animals, rightly perceiving such practices as cruel, unnecessary and rooted in medieval, religious fundamentalist ignorance.

However the political parties and the governments they form have cooperated to allow and turn a blind eye to ritual slaughter occurring in our own backyard, even while pointing the finger elsewhere. The media, including the 'fact-checking' ABC have been complicit in keeping ritual slaughter in Australia under wraps.

It was Australia that had to concede to the demand for ritual killing and compromise its own Australian Standards. Even so, the amended allowance of stunning now NOT to instant death is not always applied.

Now it is argued that the general application of the medieval protocols of fundamentalists is 'good' for Australia. It should be added that the so-called 'moderates' of those creeds are willing, voluntary supporters of ritual killing. So much for 'moderates'.

It was only when concerned farmers kept raising the rug on ritual slaughter in Australia that the animal welfare and rights crew (and the 'fact-checking ABC) 'discovered'(sic) what was under their noses all along and for decades. As if they didn't know, or ought to have known.

As was made abundantly obvious by the experience of the UK regarding the child sex trafficking in Rotherham and other centres, the political correctness of multiculturalism can easily be protecting and even promoting shabby political pragmatism and deals to shore up votes in marginal seats.

The public should be treating with a great deal of suspicion the spruikers who demand that the public suspend their critical judgement and simply go along with political correct mantras that are never subjected to independent critical analysis.

Dear Banjo,

I understand your concerns.
However, I'm going to sound like a broken record
here but as Peter Costello pointed out -
we have laws that everyone is expected
to abide by. The laws are enacted by our Parliament
under the Australian Constitution. People who cannot
accept those laws then don't accept the
fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stand for.
Therefore is a person wants to live shall we say -
under sharia law
there are countries where they will feel at ease.
But not Australia.

And our citizen pledge should be as Costello says -
a big flashing warning sign to those who want to live
under sharia law. Any person who does not acknowledge
the supremacy of civil law laid down by democratic
processes cannot truthfully take the pledge of allegiance.
As such they do not merit the pre-condition for
citizenship.

In order to live in this country 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 are not optional. We expect all those
who call themselves Australians to subscribe to them.
Loyalty, democracy, tolerance,
the rule of law, values worth promoting, values worth
defending. The values of Australia and its citizens.

Dear Foxy,

Nobody could hold, let alone follow, hard as they may try, those "Australian values" you just mentioned, because they contradict each other - Tolerance conflicts with the other three: Loyalty, Democracy and the Rule of Law (I won't go now into the conflicts among the other three, but they also exist).

It seems that some in this forum prefer to therefore discard tolerance in favour of the others - I prefer to keep tolerance and discard the others.

Rhetoric
Quoting Costello selectively and out of context accomplishes what exactly?

What about ritual slaughter to take an example? There are other examples, including new rules for public swimming pools.

<Hefty bill for Muslim women's privacy at public swimming pool

RATEPAYERS could be stung up to $45,000 to install curtains at a public pool so Muslim women can have privacy during a female-only exercise classes.

The City of Monash has won an exemption from equal opportunity laws to run the sessions outside normal opening hours.
..
Ratepayers Victoria president Jack Davis said it was disgraceful for councils to subsidise programs that segregated people.

"People come to Australia because it's a better place," he said.

"So then you should become Australian and abide by the customs of Australia, not change Australia to suit your customs from another country.">
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/hefty-bill-for-muslim-womens-privacy-at-public-swimming-pool/story-e6frf7kx-1226004006696

People already know that the ethnic tail wags the political party dog. It is to secure a small, winning percentage of votes in marginal electorates.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Of course there are, were, and always will be
immigrants who abuse our system, just as there
are people born here who abuse our system.

Rabbi Marianne Williamson states that -
if you look at the facts the truth is
that the majority of immigrants, past and present,
bring with them an infusion of the same values
that our ancestors personified. They are people
willing to work hard for long hours to make a
better life for themselves and their families.

She points out that
our children do not stand to be corrupted by their
values, so much as their children stand to be
ocrrupted by ours. The scape-goating of today's
immigrants makes a mockery of our democratic
values. She says that -it is a national immorality when we
collectively say no to compassion.

Anyway, I shall continue to spread the message of
our former Treasurer - Peter Costello
and other politicians who see the bigger picture.
Much as I do understand the fears that are currently being
whipped up in the media and elsewhere. I believe that all
we can do is act according to our own values and
conscience. So while some people will continue to condemn,
I shall continue to inter-act with my Italian, Sri-Lankan,
Chinese, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Croatian,
Lebanese and Irish neighbours who reside in our quiet court.
Which is only fitting considering my own family and
ancestry being a broad mix of Russian, Scottish, English, German,
Chinese and Lithuanian.

Fox,

Costello was not supporting your opinion on multiculturalism and the endless diversity you would like, he was simply stating that as far as he is concerned, migrants should be accepting of Australian values and laws. After all, this why they come here and they are supposed to be fleeing from totalitarianism.

Further, is this the New Age spiritual guide you are wanting everyone to accept as an expert on Australia? A rabbi, you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne_Williamson

Foxy,
You say you understand my concerns about MC and diversity, but this is not reflected in what you say.

You quote Peter Costello, well I recall him saying that the best migrants were those that were born here. Of course he was supporting the introduction of the 'baby bonus' which was his idea.

It is one thing for us to have various state and federal laws about certain foreign cultural practices, but it is entirely another for those laws to be enforced. This is where our politicians fail. For example, look at female Genital Mutilation it has been against our laws for 20 years and yet not one court case has been heard and no convictions made. Yet there is evidence that the incidence of FGM is rising.

Take the matter of forced and underage marriage. Again there are laws prohibiting this but it is taking place. Only the odd prosecution, yet people like Dr Eman Sharobeem of the Immigrant Womens Health Service, Fairfield claims she is aware of 60 child brides in Sydney over the past 3 years. This is an astonishing figure and we do nothing because of cultural considerations. This is MC working?

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hotline-plan-to-help-hidden-child-brides-in-sydney-20140302-33sqm.html

The facts are that while we have laws they are not enforced, a blind eye is turned in relation to these and other matters concerning culture

Yuyutsu,
You said, "I prefer to keep tolerance and discard the others.

Well I disagree strongly with you. How far do you think tolerance should go? Should we tolerate underage sex and or marriage? What about the slaughter of dogs or dolphins for meat. what about polygamy?

Then there is honour killings and stoning for adultery.

Do we tolerate the intolerant. One of the problems we have had with muslims is that they will not compromise to fit in, it has to be their way at all times.

Dear Banjo,

<<Well I disagree strongly with you.>>

I can tolerate that.

<<How far do you think tolerance should go?>>

It's a very personal matter - different people have different capacities to tolerate. The best would follow Jesus' advice to turn the other cheek, but that's obviously a very high standard that should not be expected in general.

<<Should we tolerate underage sex and or marriage?>>

Well, who is "we"?

Speaking for myself I have no problem with it, but then everyone is different.

<<What about the slaughter of dogs or dolphins for meat.>>

As far as I'm concerned, killing animals is wrong, but I disapprove of the violent actions of PETA and such: if you kill/eat animals, it's your own bad karma to reap.

<<what about polygamy?>>

Yes, what about it? I won't do it myself, but if someone else wants to marry 3 goats, a broom and a coat-hanger, what business of mine is that?

<<Then there is honour killings and stoning for adultery.>>

This is where I'd personally stop turning my other cheek, but hey there are those who are holier than myself who still would.

<<Do we tolerate the intolerant.>>

Again, this is very personal. I draw the line at where they harm or threaten myself, my family or those I love.

<<One of the problems we have had with muslims is that they will not compromise to fit in, it has to be their way at all times.>>

I think they do compromise, but perhaps what you mean is that it's insufficient for you.

---

Dear OnTheBeach,

<<migrants should be accepting of Australian values and laws. After all, this why they come here and they are supposed to be fleeing from totalitarianism.>>

This is simply not so.

I am grateful to find refuge in Australia, but I didn't come here for your values and laws, as to replace one totalitarian regime with another, albeit lesser.
FYI, your values are not that great and they still have totalitarian elements, I just needed to compromise in order to flee from a bigger evil to a lesser one.

Dear Banjo,

I commend you for your concern about FGM, honour killings,
child brides, and other harmful traditional practices being brought
into this country - and practiced among certain minority
communities - even though these practices do not really
effect the majority of fellow Australians personally.
Yet here you are
obviously concerned about the well being of people you wish
to keep out of this country. Bravo.

But - Perhaps what you should be
doing is encouraging them to come - so that at least their
children will have a chance to be brought up in a free-er
country and be given a chance to drop these brutal traditions -
seeing as they are illegal here.
They are illegal, and do violate our laws.

However, as you point
out - our law enforcement agencies are not always
successful in preventing these practices. So that
shows that - just
having laws is of course not enough to stop many
of these practices.

The prevention (as with domestic violence) requires a
range of strategies at multiple levels of the social order.
What may possibly help would be things like -
programs in schools, and among youth (to let them know
what their rights are in this country), media campaigns,
and - intervention amongst particular groups.

This is certainly not something that will be stopped over night.
But, it is something that we do need to persevere with -
obviously.
And give the next generations a chance for a better and
free-er life, away from the old constraints and teachings
of antiquated and harmful traditional practices.

Look at it this way -
At least in this country - the younger generation stands
a better chance at life than they would have had under the
system from which their families are fleeing.
And by increasing our intake of these people our country
would be making a more meaningful contribution to eradicating
the many harmful tradition practices that are currently found
in certain countries around the globe.

"One of the problems we have had with muslims is that they will not compromise to fit in, it has to be their way at all times."

I disagree. Many Australian's have a set mindset of some nature and won't change - ever. I would state, that's what makes Australia very good in nature - but it can also be a challenge - and this is what can scare some people from recognising good quality cultural activity in Australia.

Being vegetarian I believe certain things, that the majority of Australian's won't - being consumers of meat. Only around 2-5% of Australia's population are vegetarian.

Also what needs to be taken into consideration, is when we discuss multiculturalism we don't confuse that with religion or the Muslim element alone. We need to try and recognise all individuals and groups have undertaken activity of some nature and believe in something and have views or policies somewhere.

No views or policies on some matters do exist - but many do not know about these. Many Christian churches (and other religions) for example have no policy on vegetarianism - but are very "pro life" elsewhere.

At the event I went to, I was able to learn more about the cultures of another country - this was educational, seeing Cornish Bards, with their use of language and music throughout the event.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~kevrenor/bards09.jpg

With the above in mind, I always question why some people are so suspicious of others they have never met - or truly and deeply do not know. They may wish to find out - but does this mean facing up to a form of truth, they cannot do?

I'm not suggesting that would be easy.

Yuyutsu,

You obviously didn't get a better offer then or since.

I agree with you that we have lost of lot of individual freedom, initiative and privacy over the years and especially during Labor administrations.

That is fine by authoritarian Labor and fine too by those who are swinging from the taxpayer's teat, employed (govt, NGO or private consultancy), or as welfare dependents.

Over the years I have become struck by the number of people who sacrifice independence of thought and act for the Nanny State that supports them and tells them what to do.

I am on the lookout for better possibilities for myself and family, as are many others like myself and my family who have done a lot of work and living in other countries. Timing is also a factor.

Foxy,
You said, "Yet here you are
obviously concerned about the well being of people you wish
to keep out of this country. Bravo".

You have that wrong. I am not particularly concerned about the well being of people in other countries. What happens in other countries is their business. I am concerned about immigrants bringing in and practicing cultures that are detrimental to us and our society.

I recognize that some cultural practices are difficult to stop and that is why I advocate stopping entry of persons where it has been shown to us that they cannot/will not curtail alien aspects of their old culture. FGM is a good example of this as the perpetrators of this crime simply thumb their noses at our laws. Some alien practices have continued here for 3-4 generations as it is ingrained right from the cradle. Further each new arrival refreshes the old alien ways.

Various strategies can be used to try an reduce the incidence of alien cultural practices, but the first and foremost is to demonstrate that we are serious about law enforcement and thus prosecute those that break the laws. Stiff penalties will soon let pending immigrants know that we will not tolerate the alien practices.

Natham,
Obviously you have a very child like view of what multiculturalism encompasses and no explanation will allow you to see the alien aspects of it, so no further discussion is warranted.

Yuyutsu,
If the stoning of females for adultery and honour killings are the only alien cultural practices that you object to then we have nothing further to discuss. There are many alien cultural aspects that I do not believe we (Australia) should tolerate.

Dear Banjo,

What you are suggesting does not make any sense.
You are pre-judging people simply because they
belong to a certain group - and thereby you are
assuming that they will practice the many harmful
traditional practices that some may practice in their
cultures. If we ban anyone suspected of these
practices - because they may or may not do
something wrong - we'd not allow anyone into this country.

We've had "alien" cultures coming here for decades -
not all of them take part in FGM, stoning (never heard of
that in Australia), child brides, sex-trade, slave
labour, male genital mutilation, foot-binding,
breast enhancements, tattoing, head-shaving, body-piercing,
domestic violence, child sexual abuse, incest, kidnapping,
violence, murder, drug-trafficking, and the list goes on.
The ones that do practice these illegal acts - should
face the full force of the law.

Anyway, you've been on and on about this for ages.
And as SteeleRedux pointed out to you sometime ago -
you keep on beating the same old drum and the skin is wearing
a bit thin.

Natham (n),

"Obviously you have a very child like view of what multiculturalism encompasses."

I don't know Banjo what your views are - as you have not put them down (in terms of this discussion page) - and you don't seem to want to discuss these further - so some may argue, that in its own self is childish.

The Commonwealth Government has identified three dimensions of multicultural policy, and the below are from that link, along with my personal viewpoints:

1. Cultural identity: the right of all Australians, within carefully defined limits, to express and share their individual cultural heritage, including their language and religion;

My view: So in terms of sharing cultural heritage, this is not something that should be looked down upon (as it is by some), when the term "multiculturalism" is used.

2. Social justice: the right of all Australians to equality of treatment and opportunity, and the removal of barriers of race, ethnicity, culture, religion, language, gender or place of birth;

My view: Fair treatment for people (in general and where reasonable), yet their are still people, with a conspiracy theory, that some in our community receive too many benefits based on how they (look), from an external view (like skin colour or what they wear.

3. Economic efficiency: the need to maintain, develop and utilize effectively the skills and talents of all Australians, regardless of background.

My view: I currently see a medical specialist who is not of an Anglo-Saxon background. She is very intelligent and has excellent skills in the area she works in - and I have been impressed with her work, since I have seen her as a doctor.

https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/programs-policy/a-multicultural-australia/national-agenda-for-a-multicultural-australia/what-is-multiculturalism

So in terms of wanting to celebrate and recognise the benefits of living in a society, with a range of people (from a range of backgrounds) you seem to either not know your own cultural background - or seem to think your family came out to Australia from nowhere. They didn't - they came from another country. That's not a bad thing to celebrate or recognise is it?

Foxy,

".... Originally it was Anglo-Celtic...."

Costello got it wrong (or was misquoted) as there were around 60 nationalities on the First Fleet,
http://www.racismnoway.com.au/teaching-resources/anti-racism-activities/puzzles/quizzes/19.html

and among the different races represented in those nationalities were some Negroes.

Dear Is Mise,

Peter Costello was referring to the Australian Government's
official policies that remained in force for 65 years.
The Australian Federal Government was very selective in
its migrant intake. The White Australia policy was
introduced in 1901 in the form of the Immigration
Restriction Bill.
The exclusion of non-Europeans was later strengthened by
other acts of parliament and by the notorious dictation test.
(Murphy, B. (1993) "The other Australia: Experience of
migration." Melbourne: Cambridge University Press).

History books tell us that
in the middel of the 20th century, the majority of Australian
immigrants came from the United Kingdom. The population
changed dramatically after World War II when Australia
increased its migrant intake considerably and broadened the
range of countries from which the immigrants were allowed to
come. Until the early 1970s, assimilation and the preservation of
"White Australia" continued as the Australian Government's official
policies. Migrants of every ethnic origin were expected to
assimilate promptly into a monocultural mould of Australian
identity, based on the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic culture.

The ideal immigrant was the one who assimilated easily, one
who became more similar to the host population as a result
of social inter-action and through the shedding of attributes of
their culture.

In the meantime, the postwar diversification in Australian
immigrants' backgrounds continued, and multiculturalism was
becoming more and more evident in all walks of life.

The new face of Australia was in existence, long before the
politicians and civic leaders were preared to admit it.
The very presence of foreign languages and foreign language
press in Australia mirrored the nation's growing cultural
diversity.

Several other factors combined to erode, and finally
eliminate in 1966 the White Australia and Government--
promoting assimilation policies. The contributing factors
included generally changing social attitudes, war service,
travel, foreign students in Australia, The revised immigration
policy allowed new people to come and settle in Australia;
people from a wide range of nationalities, races, religions,
and cultures. By the end of the 1970s Australia had acquired an
unmistakably new heterogeneous face.

Dear Is Mise,

The concept of multiculturalism continues to have
differetn meanings for different people.
Some Australians still believe that "a unique Australian
society and identity emerged with Federation and...this
identity should be the basis of immigrant assimilation."
Even our former Prime Minister John Howard has been
reported to be most comfortable with a singular national
identity and assimilationist polcy (Marginson, S. (1997a)
"Educating Australia: Government, economy and citizen since 1960."
Cambridge and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press).

Fox,

You quote John Howard implying that he somehow supports your opinions. However you are not comfortable at all with assimilation are you? Your idealism expressed broken record, ad nauseum, brooks no less than endless diversity to wipe out any vestige of the 'white' culture you and other culturally-cringing, elitist leftists despise and sledge.

It is the migrants themselves who benefit from immigration, with the population of the host/receiving country paying for them, both through ramped up taxes for infrastructure, health, housing and welfare and indirectly through loss of culture and quality of life. That is especially so with the extreme MC that you support, which puts such a premium on the maintenance of foreign cultures, even where there is obvious conflict with our own.

The political correctness of multiculturalism allows no independent scrutiny, no comprehensive audit and accounting for the direct and indirect costs of the over-enthusiastic immigration that has been so strongly criticised even by Labor Premiers, examples being Anna Bligh and Bob Carr.

There are many Australians including many earlier migrants themselves, who are demanding that the federal government:

- roll back the immigration numbers;

- be more discriminating in judgement to manage risks and give preference to the most suitable, skilled migrants who can and want to assimilate; and

- do more for the young Australian couples who have been paying for the welfae and infrastructure for migrants and their families and are taxed so high to do that, that they cannot afford to have children themselves.

Bluntly, there is a large majority of voters who are demanding that the federal government stop expending outlandish amounts of taxpayers money to foster and maintain foreign cultures at the expense of our own. The concerned, never listened to majority will continue to vote out governments that cynically serve the interests of ethnic lobbyists at the expense of the broad Australian public just to shore up the promise of a few percent of ethnic votes in marginal seats.

I suspect that the usual culprits from the left have more trouble celebrating Australia Day and also Foundation Day (now changed to WA day in WA) than most do celebrating multi cultural day. I don't mind a bit of cooked cat and dog when celebrating multi cultural day. I am however thankful for the hospitals, schools, roads, electricity and other luxuries built here thanks to the British.

Dear runner,

You need to do your research and actually get your
facts straight as to who built what in this country
and who or what staffs the hospitals, et cetera.
Ever heard of the Snowy Mountains Scheme?

Foxy,

To quote your quote more fully,

"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's immigration experience is
also a broad one. ORIGINALLY IT WAS ANGLO-CELTIC [Capitalized for emphasis], but after the war our immigrants came increasingly
from Europe...."

So you say "Peter Costello was referring to the Australian Government's official policies that remained in force for 65 years...."
No he wasn't he was talking about the foundation of modern Australia which is 1788 and after.
There was no sudden move to modernity in 1901, in 1901 nothing of note happened that is in anyway comparable to the wholesale change that occurred in Sydney Cove in 1788 when modern Australia kicked off.

Dear Is Mise,

Ever since the start of its colonisation in 1788,
Australia has depended on three sources for the
continuation of its population: the Aboriginal
people; immigrants; and their descendants.

Throughout the 19th century, people of various
races migrated to Australia. They mainly came from
Britain, Ireland, India, China, Pacific Islands (Kanakas),
Japan, Germany, Scandinavia and North America (Murphy,B.
(1993). "The other Australia: Experiences of migration.
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. p. 20-27).

Gradually, public opposition grew to the use of coloured
labour. Australians feared that non-whites were preapred
to accept lower wages and this would lower living standards.
Several confrontations occured. Indian coolies (1841),
the Chinese on the goldfields of NSW and Victoria (1850s),
Queensland goldfields (1870s),
Kanaka labour on the Queensland sugar plantations (1880s and
1890s).

The focus of the Australian opposition was on the Chinese, but
all Asians and coloured people were included in the
campaigns to keep Australia "white and British."
Antagonism was therefore not only economic, but also
social and racial.

Finally, the Australian Federal Government decided to be more
selective in its migrant intakes. The White Australia policy
was introduced in 1901, in the form of the Immigration
Restriction Bill. Non-whites were to be excluded from
settling in Australia. Racial purity and protection of
living standards had to be ensured.

As stated earlier. in this context, the "white" of White
Australia was to mean primarily Anglo-Saxon (Murphy, 1993, p.30).
The White Australia policy remained in force for 65 years.
And the exclusion of non-Europeans was later strengthened by
other acts of parliament and by the notorious dictation test.
(Murophy, 1993, p. 32).

Until the middle of the 20th century, the majority of
Australian immigrants came from the United Kingdom.
This changed dramatically after World War II.

thanks for confirming your bigotry Foxy

Dear runner,

Thanks for confirming your ignorance!

Foxy that's just completely untrue, in 1945 something like 95% of people living in Australia were born here and immigration was in decline from 1960 until the mid 1990's, in 1976 it bottomed out at about 52,000 permanent migrants.
Australia wasn't built on immigration, that's an urban myth and most people agree that the massive influx of migrants in the past 20 years has been a disaster which is now threatening our quality of life and the future prospects of our children.

Foxy,

None the less I think that Costello, himself the descendent of Irish migrants, was wrong then if he intended what you say, multiculturalism started in 1788.
The First Fleet Negroes prospered, in the main, and they multiplied until there was a recognizable Negro community in Sydney

Dear Is Mise,

Neither Peter Costello nor I said that multiculturalism
started in 1788.

The White Australia policy was finally eliminated in 1966,
as well as the Government-promoted assimilation policies.
The contributing factors included generally changing
social attitudes, war service, travel, foreign students
in Australia, discrimination in registering British
subjects after 1948, and the confusion in the 1950s over
the control of non-European' entry. The revised
immigration policy allowed new people to come and
settle in Australia: people from a wide range of
nationalities, races, religions and cultures. By the end
of the 1970s, Australia had acquired an unmistakably new
heterogeneous face.

The official Government policies reflected these
social developments. They moved from "assimilation" to
"integration" and then to "multiculturalism." The Galbally
Report (1978) was the turning point, when it urged the
Australian Government "to encourage...the retention
of the cultural heritage of different ethnic groups and
promote intercultural understanding (p.1.38). Since then
the Australian Government has re-defined "multiculturalism"
several times. One simplified definition states. "Multiculturalism...
involves living together with an awareness of cultural diversity."
(ACPEA, 1982. p. 12).

However, the concept of multiculturalism continues to have
different meanings for different people. Some people are still
most comfortable with a singular national identity and
assimilationsit policy.

Foxy,

"None the less I think that Costello, himself the descendent of Irish migrants, was wrong then if he intended what you say, multiculturalism started in 1788....."

"Neither Peter Costello nor I said that multiculturalism
started in 1788...."

Never said that you did; note the comma before multiculturalism
"....what you say,[here!] multiculturalism started in 1788....."

Dear Is Mise,

Up until the early 1970s, assimilation and the
preservation of "White Australia" continued as the
Australian Government's official policies.
Migrants of every ethnic origin were expected to
assimilate promptly into a monocultural mould of
Australian identity, based on the Anglo-Saxon
and Celtic culture. (Theophanous, A.C. (1995).
"Uniderstanding multiculturalism and Australian
Identity." Melbourne: Elikia Books, p. 4-5).

The Ideal immigrant was the one who assimilated
easily, one who became more similar to the host
population as a result of social interaction and
through the shedding of attributes of their culture.
(Lewis & Slade, 1994,p. 38-39. Lewis, G. & Slade, C.
(1994). p. 151. "Critical communication," Sydney. Prentice Hall
Australia).

We cannot re-write history.
The facts exist. What we can do
is ask all our citizens to
subscribe to a framework that protects
the rights and liberties of all.
Which is the point that Peter Costello
was trying to make

Fox, "We cannot re-write history"

You do and you are constantly being picked up for it.

Trying to associate yourself with Costello is a rather obvious ploy.

Chalk and cheese.

"The Costello Memoirs," is a very interesting read.
In a political career spanning eighteen years,
Peter Costello, Australia's longest serving Treasurer,
answers many questions and charts the victories and
defeats in one man's very public life.
Anyone interested in politics and what goes on behind
the scenes will find this a very good read - especially
because Peter Costello has never been a predictable
politician. He went into politics to make a difference -
as Peter Coleman tells us in the Preface of the book.

In discussing history - as I've stated in the past -
a historian can establish acts that took place at certain
times, but this, by historical standards constitutes
only chronology. The moment a historian begins to look
critically at motivation, circumstances, context, or any
other such considerations, the product becomes unacceptable
for one or another camp of readers.

Par for the course as far as historical facts are concerned.
As any reputable historian knows and has learned.

otb,

Kindly show where I am trying to re-write history.
I have given references to authors and historians
from whom I have obtained the facts. If you don't
agree with what they say please provide us with
evidence of your claims. Also I have quoted from
Peter Costello's book. This does not equate with
his siding with me or vice-versa. It's simply
quoting his opinion.

If you are unable to provide your references as to
why you object one can only assume that you are
merely stirring and baiting which deserves to be
ignored. It has
no relevance to the discussion.

Fox,

All of that quoting from Costello is a red herring. You did the same quoting John Howard. Obvious manipulative ploys, Fox.

Trying to turn it back on anyone who challenges the obvious fallacies in your rhetoric is another rather predictable ploy of yours, as is playing victim.

Do the decent thing and go back and answer posts like this one that was in reply to you but of course you ducked as always,

<You quote John Howard implying that he somehow supports your opinions. However you are not comfortable at all with assimilation are you? Your idealism expressed broken record, ad nauseum, brooks no less than endless diversity to wipe out any vestige of the 'white' culture you and other culturally-cringing, elitist leftists despise and sledge.

It is the migrants themselves who benefit from immigration, with the population of the host/receiving country paying for them, both through ramped up taxes for infrastructure, health, housing and welfare and indirectly through loss of culture and quality of life. That is especially so with the extreme MC that you support, which puts such a premium on the maintenance of foreign cultures, even where there is obvious conflict with our own.

The political correctness of multiculturalism allows no independent scrutiny, no comprehensive audit and accounting for the direct and indirect costs of the over-enthusiastic immigration that has been so strongly criticised even by Labor Premiers, examples being Anna Bligh and Bob Carr.

There are many Australians including many earlier migrants themselves, who are demanding that the federal government:

- roll back the immigration numbers;

- be more discriminating in judgement to manage risks and give preference to the most suitable, skilled migrants who can and want to assimilate; and

- do more for the young Australian couples who have been paying for the welfare and infrastructure for migrants and their families and are taxed so high to do that, that they cannot afford to have children themselves...>
[onthebeach, Friday, 29 May 2015 3:32:49 PM]

otb,

Quoting authors from their works and giving the
sources of the quotes is a perfectly legitimate
part of any debate or discussion - be it Peter
Costello, John Howard, or any one else. I listed
all the sources that I used in my posts.
I presented all the evidence - and you can provide
your own sources to disclaim what the authors are saying.

Making personal assumptions about me and
Calling me names is not an effective or acceptable
way to argue. It would be totally unacceptable for
me to call you a dick. You may well be one but,
what does that have to do with the logic of the discussion.
Name calling is not a legitimate argument to present.

Also, when a debater presents a quote it does not necessarily
mean that they agree with the quote - the quote
has to be taken in the context it is given. The John Howard
quote was a good example. It is one whose
context you totally misunderstood and all I can suggest
is you go back and re-read it.

otb,

If you persist in stirring and baiting.
You shall be ignored.

Fox,

Again you stoop to your well-worn tactic of poisoning the well against anyone who challenges your opinions.

There is no commonality, none, nada, between what Costello or Howard have ever said and meant and (to take an example) your 'take' on the criminal gangs smuggling people and the economic migrants who pay so handsomely for their services. They would never accept Open Door immigration and people smugglers and their apologists dictating to the Australian government and people.

Likewise neither would ever share your dream of an endlessly 'diversified' Australia where Australian culture, traditions and lifestyle have been lost.

Above all, they do not share but resolutely oppose, your leftist cultural-cringing elitism that refuses to acknowledge and despises the fundamental contributions and good of the inheritance from the settlers (your hated 'whites') whose creativity, hard work and sacrifice and that of their descendants developed Australia and were responsible for the freedom-loving democracy and egalitarian welfare State that Australia is today.

What you agree with is the infantile, undergraduate Seventies leftist BS of your oft-quoted, cultural-cringing elitist gurus like Phillip Adams, here pithily mocked and rightly so,

"Phillip Adams on how to be a moral bullsh…er"
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/phillip_adams_on_how_to_be_a_moral_bullsher/

It is 2015 and that 1960s and 1970s student newspaper stuff, culturally cringing leftist BS, was dismissed as superficial and entirely without basis back then.

On immigration policy, it is time that both sides of politics properly informed, consulted directly with and listened to, the whole of Australia and not just some select taxpayer-funded(!) ethnic lobbyists, that most other migrants don't agree with anyway, promising a few percent of votes in marginal seats in the West of Sydney and elsewhere.

otb,

Everybody's got their own poison.
Mine happen to be facts and evidence.
Terms - you obviously are unfamiliar with.
I shall leave you at your continued attempts
of stirring and baiting.
Whatever's eating you must be suffering terribly!

Fox,

You would say that. You are on the back foot.

All of that quoting from Costello is a red herring. Your opinions and world view and Costellos's are chalk and cheese.

It is also about trying to gain credibility/standing for yourself through assumed association/commonality with someone who is known and believable. Allows you to side-step inconvenient questions too. Very tricky.

You channel the very dated Phillip Adams and his ilk, or the modern day equivalent and human headline, SHY from the Greens.

Foxy,

I got it wrong, the colonial society in NSW in 1788 was an homogeneous society having a single culture and speaking only one language.
Ridiculous assertions that there were 60 nationalities represented among the First Fleeters should be dismissed as the myth that it is.
Likewise Greek migration is also probably a myth and it is well known that the influx of people attracted to the Gold Rushes were all from the UK.
An outstanding character at the Eureka Stokade was one Rafaello Carboni, it is thought that this was an alias used by a Scot whose accent was incomprehensible.

Back to the Greeks,
"From the last decade of the 19th century until WWI the number of Greeks Immigrating to Australia increased steadily and Hellenic communities were reasonably well established in Melbourne and Sydney at this time. The Greek language press had begun in Australia and in 1913, Australia had the first Greek weekly newspaper that was published in Melbourne. During WWI Greece remained neutral, eventually joining the side of the Allies. In 1916 the Australian government responded to this by placing a special prohibition on the entry of Greeks and Maltese people to Australia that was not lifted until 1920. There were a number of anti-Greek outbursts as a result of the neutrality stance by Greece, often instigated by Australian soldiers on leave. During these outbursts Greek shops or cafes were badly damaged or destroyed, with the worst rioting occurring in Kalgoorlie and Boulder."
This from Wikipedia, who have obviously got it wrong.
(contd.)

(contd.)
Here's another myth from Wiki
"Irish language
The first convicts and soldiers to arrive in Australia included a large number of Irish speakers, an example being private Patrick Geary, who in 1808 acted as court translator for Patrick Henchan, a convict accused of theft.[what rubbish, a translator in a colony where English was the language of everyone] A contemporary account from 1800 refers to convicts speaking Irish among themselves (this being interpreted as a sign of sedition), and it was acknowledged in the 1820s that priests could not perform their duties in the colony of New South Wales without a knowledge of the language.[garbage] There is a reference to Irish-speaking bushrangers in Van Diemen's Land in the early nineteenth century."
Utter rubish, if this were so it would indicate that there was more than one culture in the Colony.

I'm with you now,Foxy, multicultural Australia started after WW II.

otb,

1)Quoting Peter Costello was spot on.
It was right on the topic and therefore - a vital
part of this discussion.

2) You do not know what my world view is
nor that of Mr Costello. And my opinions are
not set in concrete. I do not see the world
in very rigid and stereotyped terms as you do.
Your comments are invalid - they also are irrelevant
to this discussion. For all you know
there just may be a family connection between
myself and Peter Costello's family.
Do not make assumptions about people you have never
met and do not know.

3) Philip Adams has nothing to do with this
discussion - neither do the Greens, Cinderella,
or Little Red Riding Hood.

Dear Is Mise,

Thank You for your kind words.

I look forward to many further discussions
with you in the future.

Foxy,

I've just made another amazing discovery; it seems that Great Britain, the source of our monocultural original Colonial society, was itself multicultural.
At the time that the First Fleet sailed and even at the time of the Second Fleet, many languages were spoken.
The languages included English, French, Lallans, Scots Gaelic, Irish, Manx and Cornish as well as some Scandinavian dialect in the far northern islands.
To add to the multicultural aura English was divided into many dialects, so much so that interpreters were needed between the Northern and Southern speakers.
I had the personal experience, when on a short detachment to the King's Own Royal Regement in 1953, of hearing their Colonel (who spoke impeccable British English) address his troops in broad Lancashire dialect, and I could hardly understand a word.
When the troops were talking among themselves they were absolutely incomprehensible to a 'foreigner'.
Then there were the different races, Elizabeth I complained about the number of 'blackamoors' that were in the London of her time; their descendents are today's Chocolate Cockneys.

It's great to know that we come from such a monoculture as Great Britain.

This article describing the British Left could easily be about the Oz leftist crew who ape them, shamelessly:

<The self-loathing of the British Left is now a problem for us all

It’s often been observed that a certain type of British Lefty hates Britain – and that they reserve particularly hatred for Englishness. Back in 1941 George Orwell made this acute remark:

England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution.

So what’s new? The difference today is that this shame and self-hatred now dominates Left-wing thought, whereas it was once balanced by the decent Left: who were proud to inherit the noble traditions of radical English patriotism.

Evidence for this disease is all around us, but shows up particularly in two red-button issues-of-the-day: the independence referendum, and the appalling revelations from Rotherham.
..
Yes, it’s infinitely depressing. But we cannot give in to despair. Instead we could listen again to George Orwell, who once said that, however silly or sentimental, English patriotism is “a comelier thing than the shallow self-righteousness of the left-wing intelligentsia”. Orwell wrote those words seventy years ago. It is time we paid attention, and turned the tide.>
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100284604/the-self-loathing-of-the-british-left-is-now-a-problem-for-us-all/

Dear Is Mise,

Al Grassby, quoted in "Cleo,"
February 1974:

Then of course in our history books you get,
"The First Fleet arrived. It brought 1000
English convicts."

"It didn't."

"It brought 1000 convicts but probably they came from
a dozen different countries. As somebody put it so
delightfully,"

"English jails were no respecters of nationality."

"The first Italian arrived on January 26, 1788 -
Giuseppe Tuso. There were people from South Africa,
there were people from Ceylon, from India, from
Spain, from Portugal, from Hungary."

"So, people say, "Do you believe Australia should
become a multi-racial society?" and I always
reply:"

"It doesn't matter what I think. I can tell you
what it is, which is a society of tremendous
diversity."

"In some schools, 90 per cent of the students speak
a language other than English as their first language.
But many schools still do not take this into account
and still emphasize teaching about Australia's ties
with England and the Commonwealth."

See you on another discussion.

otb,

Do try to keep up with the discussion.

The problems that exist in the UK do not affect
us in Australia. To quote your own words -
"chalk and cheese."

And as for the 'Leftists" hating the British here in
this country? Please supply us with evidence to
substantiate your claims. Do you even know any
"Leftists?"

On what evidence do you base you claims - apart from
your obvious hatred of "leftists," "socialists,"
"progressives, "fabians," and all those other poor
wretches you consistently carry on about on this forum.

Surprise us and do come up with something new and
intelligent for a change. Something worth reading -
not ignoring.

Foxy,

Glad you've come around to my way of thinking that Australian multiculturalism started in 1788.

Dear Is MIse,

Multiculturalism as a government policy was
established only in the 1970s. Prior to that it
was "assimilation," followed by "integration,"
and only much later by "multiculturalism."
Go back and re-read my posts.

Foxy,

Government policy may have been assimilation after 1945 but it didn't work, however it was not Government policy before that, witness the German speaking people in their settlements in South Australia, German is still spoken in some towns.
There were also, as said by the OP, Cornish settlements in South Australia and these became the last Cornish speaking places on Earth, as the language had died out in Cornwall, until the relatively recent revival.

Lachlan Macquarrie in NSW intended, at one stage, to make Irish Gaelic the second official language of the colony because so many of the people didn't speak any other language.

Australia has been multicultural since 1788 and was colonized by a multicultural country.

Fox, "The problems that exist in the UK do not affect us in Australia"

You are in denial that similar risks apply.

You are careful not to mention the sex trafficking of minors that has continued in Rotherham and other centres for many years and the recent official confirmation of a minimum of 1400 girls trafficked and introduced to hard drugs in Rotherham alone.

Of course the political correctness of multiculturalism and the involvement and complicity of politicians (Labor in the UK) that allowed the Rotherham abuses to occur could lead to similar problems in Australia, that is if it isn't already occurring.

Any competent risk analysis of immigration policy and administration should identify the risk of importing toxic political systems, beliefs, traditions and culture, and what treatments, proactive is best, are required.

Such risk analyses and proposed control systems should be conducted independently by a university and published for public information and comment. However it appears that regular assessment of the risks and treatments is not performed, but why not, what is preventing it form being done and the results published for public comment?

Another thing, where is the regular comprehensive audit of immigration policy and administration? Why not?

British and Australian governments are failing in their duty of care to the public they are supposed to be serving (not the other way around) by consistently failing to satisfactorily identify risks and by giving in to ethnic lobbyists promising support in marginal seats, instead of installing effective, robust controls. Such deals for preferences threaten the safety and way of life of all of society and should be regarded as corruption, which is what it is and proved by the secrecy that surround such back-door deals.

Dear Is Mise,

I have given you the facts and the sources from which
they were obtained. Go back and check them. I have
dealt with the Australian population and the origins of
multiculturalism. I see no point in repeating things
again for you.

otb,

All you need to do is Google "Australian Multiculturalism:
the Roots of its success." by Dr Sev Ozdowski.
It will explain the differences between our country,
Europe, and the UK, and why we don't have the problems
that they have. It is always best to do some research
and not make assumptions about people who are presenting
evidence and facts simply because you happen to disagree
with them. Bad habit to have and discourages communication.

Fox,

There is nothing in Australia's immigration program and administration that could prevent similar problems in Australia. If there is one, by all means go right ahead and inform everyone.

There is nothing to say that our policing is any better. That is if you are hoping for some reactive solution - but once problems are imported, policing is only trying to put a lid on it, with political pressure and inadequate resourcing always against police.

otb,

You need to read Dr Sev Ozdowski's -
"Australian multiculturalism - the roots of its
success."

It should clarify things for you.

Foxy

We are all immigrants to Australia

Yes, but the original inhabitants, had achieved practically no
Advancement at all

It was the far superior European cultures at that time, that
Built the wonderful country we have today.

Not allowed to state that truth though are we.
Only the truth that we invaded .
Say it was all bush and scrub here when the Europeans arrived
And suddenly the truth isn't allowed to be stated.

It is the truth just as much as the invasion though.
The aboriginals only want the truth when it suits them.

Foxy,

"Multiculturalism refers to the evolution of cultural diversity within a jurisdiction, introduced by its selection policies and institutionalized by its settlement policies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

This fits British society pre and post 1788 and Colonial Australia from 1788 onwards.

I hope that you plug your ears before you bury your head in the sand.

Dear Is Mise,

Try this on for size:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism_in_Australia

I rest my case!

Cheers.

Foxy,

I tried it for size and it don't fit!!

The 1788 Colony was multicultural and no one can prove that it wasn't, because it was and proving otherwise is impossible.

Just try!

Dear Is Mise,

You obviously have a problem with comprehension.
Go back and re-read the website given from
Wikipedia on Multiculturalism in Australia
and the number of colonies that existed in
this country in the past.

In any case - believe whatever you like.
The facts will remain unchanged despite you.

I'm done here.

Foxy,

"I'm done here".

True, very true; just like the repast commonly known as 'a dinner'.

@Foxy, Sunday, 7 June 2015 5:11:26 PM

To repeat the obvious, there is nothing in Australia's immigration program and administration that could prevent similar problems in Australia.

If there is an immigration control in place that will effectively deter and proof against the risk of a Rotherham (child sex trafficking) in Australia, by all means go right ahead and inform everyone.

What has happened to immigration policy is that the diversity tail is wagging the immigration dog.

The endless 'diversity-Australians-are-obliged-to-have' has become the overarching goal and priority at least as far as Labor's leftist 'Progressives' are concerned. The Labor leadership has lost contact with the rank and file membership of the Labor Party.

Dear Is Mise,

It's very discouraging to try to penetrate a mind like
yours. Arguing with you is like administering medicine
to the dead.

otb,

Good on you.

You've got such a clear idea on
multiculturalism and for putting people (and things) in
their "right" place - especially those awful
"progressives," and the Labor Party.

Foxy,

A society that is made up of a number of different cultures is mulicultural, as Great Britain and it's 1788 Colony in NSW both fit that criteria then they were/are multicultural.

What's your problem?

The smug, sneering elitism of metropolitan liberals could never allow them to recognise their own bigotry against those 'whites' they irrationally hate and blame.

They are not the 'do gooders' they pretend to be. It is their own self-loathing and hatred of 'whites' that drives them to rub the noses of the mainstream population in the 'endless-diversity-Australia-has-to-have'. They are totalitarians, it is their way or the highway.

otb,

Unless you can provide us with some evidence
to substantiate your claims - your sweeping
generalisations don't amount to very much.
Just beating the same old Tired drum.

Fox,

You just keep on sticking those pins into those 'white' dolls and taking your lead from BS artists like Adams and alienated FIFOs like 'Bilger' (Pilger),

Phillip Adams on how to be a moral bullsh…er
http://tinyurl.com/lsohu8m

otb,

So you are unable to provide us with any evidence
to substantiate your earlier claims.

Well - all you can do is keep on beating the same old tired
drum.

BTW:

I grew out of playing with dolls - some time ago.
That might be your thing - especially the blow-up kind.
But be careful with the pin-sticking.
Also - you're the one who seems to have some sort of an obsession
with Adams and Pilger.
You do need to move on for your mental health.

Instead of worrying about how other people should lead
their lives - work on yourself instead.

It will do you a lot of good.
And give you more credibility on this forum.

Take it easy now.