Poirot,

You intemperate reply does you no credit at all and serves to prove the very points I was making.

I don't resile from any part of my post. I don't need to because it is all spot on and relevant.

Foxy,

Your examples were mostly way off because none of them shewed a Muslim minority that had integrated into the mainstream culture and those that came close were suspect, especially the one that allowed communists who did not believe in Allah or the Koran to describe themselves as, and be officially recognized as Muslims.

So, I'm till waiting.

Any other takers?

otb,

"Poirot,

You intemperate reply does you no credit at all and serves to prove the very points I was making."

You post this type of thing to me:

"Shame, Poirot!

Elitist Poirot is highly judgemental and censorious where ordinary citizens exercising their right of free speech is concerned.

Poirot would have them know that it is the leftist elite who presume to always know what is best for everyone else, so they can bugger off."

And...

"Nasty types who would prevent the exercise of free speech should be be shown the door, or feel the hand of arresting police."

And then you shriek that I replied in an intemperate manner?

I merely served it right back at ya in the same manner to which you delivered it me.

If you don't wish to cop a serve, then curb your own intemperance.

Well Poirot, it is what it is.
The "right" can't explicitly attack Islam because of section 18c and the "left" can't explicitly support Islam because of political correctness, they've reached the limit of what they can do, hence the violence.
At one level OTB is correct, the White working class rightly see the organised Left as a middle class elite and the organised Right as some distant collective of religious nuts and patrician capitalists who sit atop ivory towers.
Is Mise' examples point out one of the problems with Australian multiculturalism, unlike in other societies it's never been properly defined much less explained to the White working class what their rights and responsiblities are under such a system. Because the original 1788-1948 population was never included in multiculturalism and has been scurrilously demonised in recent years it's now a widely held view that multiculturalism was something which was done TO us rather than for us.
The situation is beyond repair as far as I see it, we just have to live with ethnic enclaves, terrorism, immigrant crime and a continually declining standard of living, it's going to be a far poorer, uglier and more violent society than the one you and I grew up in because the civilised debate on multiculturalism and immigration that we should have had in the 1960's and '70's is no longer possible.

Poirot,

LOL, nice try but no bikkie for trying to put it back on me. It was you who spat the dummy.

Jay Of Melbourne, "The situation is beyond repair as far as I see it, we just have to live with ethnic enclaves, terrorism, immigrant crime and a continually declining standard of living, it's going to be a far poorer, uglier and more violent society than the one you and I grew up in because the civilised debate on multiculturalism and immigration that we should have had in the 1960's and '70's is no longer possible"

You are right. Successive federal governments have been very casual where the risks and claimed cost/benefit of immigration are concerned. There has been no public disclosure of any professional risk assessment conducted and little evidence of risk management. Instead it is all spin and optimism that the available laws and police can handle any unforeseen negative consequences. Economic 'Growthism' and left elitist idealism have driven policy. The public have been left out.