"I thought she was Australian".... "I can see this coming to another disaster, they just need to look at her Kenyan passport, from what I've heard." and "Dual Citizenship and not born in Australia, out".

This is despite Kenya's High Commissioner to Australia saying Senator Lucy Gichuhi automatically lost her Kenyan citizenship when she became an Australian citizen.

Major political parties, like Labor and Liberal generally do not select candidates from countries like Kenya, particularly in the lower house of Federal Parliament, as they know the majority of Australians are Anglo-Saxon and simply will not vote for people of other cultural backgrounds during an election.

As for the Labor Party, questioning this matter further by going to court, what a disgrace.

Family First was dumb to put this woman on their ticket. She is a bridge to far, no matter what she is like personally. Given the disgust for the major parties and cross-bench idiots, Family First stood a good chance of gaining some ground. They have blown it.

No, ttbn, they haven't blown it - they've still got a senator, and they never realistically had much chance of getting more than one senator at a time.

The ALP challenged her eligibility because they had a remote chance of getting her seat. Given what was at stake, I'd've done the same if I were in their position, but it's not in the least bit surprising that the court declared the challenge to be baseless.

Her race and background are a non issue; she represents SA, not Victoria!

ttbn,

Is your main concern that as a senator she "stands out from the crowd?"

The rest of your post seems filled with comments about someone you know very little about.

Nathan,

If by “standing out from the crowd” you mean a non-Australian-born person with barely intelligible English – yes. I do not believe that non-Australian born people should be in Parliament. I know that there is no law against it, but I will not vote for them. I feel exactly the same way about Coalition member, Mathias Cormann.

What do you mean by “The rest of your post seems filled with comments about someone you know very little about”. Do you know something about this woman that I and others do not? Do you feel that you have some insight into what I know and what I don't know? What should I know to qualify for commenting, in your view?

Aidan,

They have an unelected senator who probably won't be returned when the voters have a say.

As you will see from above, I believe her background, not race, is definitely an issue.

I am totally at a loss as to what your “she represents SA, not Victoria!” means. I realise that she will represent SA, not Victoria!

If the constitution stated that candidates cannot be elected if they have a pimple on their bum, then surely any competing politician would try to gain the upper hand by asking the high-court to check what other candidates have under their pants. Such is and always been the nature of politicians - they always care for their own position alone, never for the voters.

Anyway, I can only be glad that the number of dinosaurs in parliament will not increase as a result of Bob's demise and in defiance of the will of the people who elected him.

ttbn,
The "not Victoria" comment was because Croweaters tend to regard Vapour Rubbers as racist.

Your comment about her being an "unelected senator" are a vicious lie: the recent recount of last year's election shows she was elected, despite the electoral system having been changed to favour major parties.

And if you think she has "barely intelligible English" then I think you need to get your ears tested!

Why would her background be an issue?

And why do you think we should restrict our parliamentary candidates to those who were born in Australia? Did you hold that view when the mad monk was PM?

There are quite a few politicians who were not born in Australia.
Penny Wong, Mathias Cormann, Julia Gilard, Tony Abbott, Don Dunstan,
to name just a few. As for the Senator who was born in Kenya -
so what. We'll have to wait and see what the future holds for her.

Ttbn,

Sometimes you're an idiot. Senator Gichuhi ceased being a Kenyan citizen in 1999 when she became an Australian citizen. Whatever the Kenyan parliament and constitution declared after that date has no more bearing on her than on you or me, since all three of us are Australian citizens. End of.

People vote for party blocks for their choice of senate candidates. Family First gained enough votes to elect one of their candidates. Senator Gichuhi was properly at the head of their list of candidates after Bob Day was disqualified. End of.

Senator Gichuhi is a qualified lawyer, and is fully articulate, with a charming African accent. She is precisely the sort of Australian that we need, someone who can overcome initial disadvantage to graduate (twice, at least) from university. End of.

Although she represents a party that I normally wouldn't vote for, merely as a reaction to such unfounded slurs, I'm tempted to vote for her, in five years' time. Luckily, as a migrant from NSW to SA, I can.

Joe

"yes. I do not believe that non-Australian born people should be in Parliament."

ttbn Looks like you and Malcolm Turnbull agree one one thing. The Mad Monk you like to hero worship and heap praise on and according to you should not be in parliament, was born Tony Abbott 4th November 1957 London England. Egg on face award
Maybe you drank too much snupps yesterday celebrating the Fuhrer's birthday. If you missed that one, you can spend today celebrating your Queen of Australia's birthday, Born Elizabeth Windsor 21st April 1926 London England.

Don't be silly, Aidan. Bob Day was elected. This woman was next on the list, but she was not elected. Further, I understand that Family First wanted to replace Bob Day with someone other than the foreign woman, but they couldn't do it.

As for your insult about my disability, yes, I am hard of hearing, and I do wear hearing aids. Am I not entitled to be 'represented' by someone I can understand? It's a bit like trying to understand thick accents when dealing with overseas call centres.

My hearing is adequate when I deal with people with Australian accents. You clearly do not have trouble with your hearing, and obviously don't care about people who do. What a fine fellow you are. It's a pity that you are too thick to understand why 'background is an issue'. And,yes, what I think about non-Australian politicians stands in all cases.

Aunty Foxy,

“So what” about your list? I remain against non-Australians in Parliament, and I will not vote for them.

Joe,

I have often wondered what it would take for you to drop your oh-so-reasonable attitude and start calling people names. Now I know.

I don't care whether the woman is/was a dual Kenyan citizen or not; she is not Australian-born, and should not be an Australian politician – in my opinion. I will not vote for her when she comes up for election, and I doubt that she has what it takes to last the 6 years, or whatever it is that the 'unrepresentative swill' get these days. I doubt very much that I am the only one who thinks that way, and Family First is on pretty rocky ground to start with.

I of course disagree with the 'charming African accent' sentimentality, and say that she is not 'the sort of Australian we need' because she is not any sort of Australian at all. Artificial citizenship is just a convenience, which changes nothing.

Ttbn,

Senator Gichuhi is Australian. Get used to it.

As for her accent, I have much less trouble understanding her than I do the average Scotsman. I had a good friend from Glasgow, but I have to admit I never really understood a thing he said, I used to just nod and smile and laugh at what I astutely discerned were his jokes. Another friend, who arrived in the mid-fifties from Glasgow, went for his English-language component of his driving test seventeen times (he said), but failed each time. It must have been sheer hell for someone with a hearing aid trying to decipher what those blokes were saying.

In sum, Senator Gichuhi his a role model for all Australians, regardless of her political stance.

Joe

Well, that's your opinion, Joe, not mine.

Dear ttbn,

I don't believe that you didn't vote for Tony Abbott.

I totally agree that no one who was not here at a very young age, grew up here, & was educated here should be allowed to be a member of any level of government here. I don't care what their ethnic background, as long as their experience from early childhood is Australian.

It is only by growing up in Australia that anyone can really understand Australians, our aspirations, dreams & needs fully enough to govern.

Unfortunately we may soon have to excise some suburbs from this, where with English no longer spoken, neither the experience of growing, or the education bears any resemblance to anything Australian.

Joe, you are going way too far on this one. Swearing on a bit of paper has never made anyone an Australian, or a Callithumpian for that matter, it simply gives them an unearned cut of our wealth.

Hi Foxy, ttbn might claim "technicality" that as he does not live in the seat of Warringah he didn't actually vote for the Mad Monk. just loves him to death. I like that leak. Abbott owes his political existence to Money Bags Malcolm, so says some mysterious party leaker, which hole in sieve could that be.

A good friend of mine Mehreen Faruqi, who like this lady from Africa filled a casual vacancy in the NSW Legislative Council, and then was elected in her own right. Mehreen is one of our best representatives in the parliament. Maybe you can read her bio, she has had a remarkable career since arriving from Pakistan I think about 20 years ago. A shining example of what can be achieved by people coming to Australia as migrants. People who some fool thinks should not have the same rights as the rest of us.

Foxy,

There is no way that I could vote for Tony Abbott, as I do not live in his electorate. In fact, I cannot remember when I last voted for the Liberal Party. I am a Conservative, remember.

Hasbeen,

Good to read you comments. Joe seems to have lost the plot in this area.

Paul,

Well, yes, I did get technical on Abbott, but what about the fact that I haven't voted Liberal for I don't know how long?

I do not love Abbott “to death”. I have said in the past, and I will say it again, he let down Conservatives very badly by doing nothing about Section 18c, and waffling along about 'Team Australia', when a quarter of the population is not Australian, and not part of any team. The only Australians are those born here.

While I approve of what Abbott is currently saying about Turnbull and the Coalition, I think that he is a hypocrite who could have done what he now wants others to do when he had the chance as PM. I never want to see him in any serious political position again. He is yesterday's man.

While I'm in the mood to engage your silliness, I saw in passing your comment about Hitler. The only thing I have in common with Hitler is I don't drink alcohol, and I haven't smoked for 23 years. Apart from that, there is nothing. The man was a Socialist, a lunatic and an anti-Semite who used Muslims to help him get rid of Jews.

The fact that you know when his birthday is could say something about you, though

ttbn,
Bob Day was initially elected, but his election was subsequently found to be invalid because he was constitutionally ineligible. FWIW I'd be in favour of changing the constitution to loosen the restrictions that prevented Bob Day from being eligible, and also to change eligibility requirements to conditions for taking up the seat rather than for standing for election. But these changes have not been made, and the constitution is important and should be strictly enforced.

The AEC reran the count without Bob Day, and Lucy Gichuhi was elected. FF wanted to replace Bob Day with someone other than her, but they couldn't do it BECAUSE LUCY GICHUHI WAS ELECTED!

It being a double dissolution election, she was elected for a three year term (now closer to 2). She probably won't get reelected after that because her party's popularity seem stop be waning. But if she does well in parliament, she may well defy expectations.

As for your hearing problems, your sense of arrogant entitlement is astounding! Disabled people have a right for reasonable steps to be taken to ensure they can fully participate in society without too much inconvenience, but nobody has a right for society to be completely rearranged the way they want it. It certainly wouldn't be reasonable for someone who's completely deaf to demand that all our MPs be fluent in sign language!

A lot of waffle here. So here is some more.
I do not think it is reasonable to ban someone from politics because
they were born in another country.
If they have been here and were naturalised, say 10 years previously,
are a taxpayer then they have an investment in the country.
They have invested their life in the country.
I see the point Hasbeen has made about those that commit to a ghetto.
I do not know how to handle them.
If it is agreed that those people have aims that are not compatible
with the laws and customs of the country then I suppose they will not be elected.
However that has not been confirmed here or in other countries.

if she believes in promoting the family first as the party was originally set up I suspect she will attrack every racial and sexual slur possible from the leftist/homosexual/feminist mob. The only difference is she won't be able to go off crying through the abc as they will despise her promotion of family first (ie kids entitled to dad and mum wherever possible).

Hi Has Been,

Senator Gichuhi has been here nearly twenty years. How long does someone have to be here before they can gain citizenship, and therefore stand for parliament ? Some of our early prime ministers, Watson and Fisher and Hughes, were born overseas but still served as PMs. Fisher I especially liked, mainly because my mum knew his son rather well.

Senator Gichuhi is not a Muslim, by the way, in case that caused some problems for you. Many Kenyans are not Muslims.

If you wanted to actually create ghettoes, I don't think you could do it better than by denying a particular group equal rights. That seems to have happened in Germany and France. Are you suggesting that we follow their example ?

Of course, migrants should have to undergo rigorous citizenship tests, and also especially language learning. We would want them to become Australians as quickly as possible. Otherwise, why would we invite people here ? Surely the last thing we want is the creation of ghettoes, occupied by people with social and political grievances and plagued by permanent disadvantage ? What would be the point ?

Joe

Joe writes: "If you wanted to actually create ghettoes, I don't think you could do it better than by denying a particular group equal rights."

Spot on.

And that, folks, is how marginalisation occurs. Stripping immigrants of opportunity and a voice is a great way to create ghettoes and increase crime rates.

compared with the white hating sam dastyari I know who is going to be of more value for the general population and it ain't slippery Sam.

Some of you people make lemmings look sensible, rational creatures.

Ah, the ad hominem. It’s always a last resort for you, isn’t it ttbn? When you’ve got nothing left, just hurl insults.

You have no evidence at all to support for your assertion that some here make lemmings look rational. But having your position made to look ignorant made you feel uncomfortable, and, well, it just sounded good.

Or is it all that non-scholarly, inevitably-out-of-date, hard copy material you tell us you read?

I suspect ttbn you were ignorant of the fact Abbott was born in England. Simply shootingt your mouth off with a rant about anyone not born in Australia being in Parliament, or does that not apply to white Anglo-Saxons like Abbott? Would you also like to exclude aliens from being employed in any government position, aliens having authority over a dinky-di like yourself hardly seems fair, imagine you getting a speeding ticket from heaven forbid, a wop, it just not on, how Un-Australian! In fact ttbn would you like to organize a boycott of alien owned businesses putting Australia First rather than Family First. If you walk the walk and talk the talk, and that's what you do, you are what you are, so its not so silly.
Are you a supporter of Jim Saleam? He would agree with much of what you say on this forum.

ttbn, when you base your opinions on the facts rather than the stereotype, lemmings do indeed look like sensible, rational creatures.

ttbn,

In terms of my point as a senator she "stands out from the crowd", it was because of her skin colour and you know that, and as a result you can easily single her out for that.

Your assumption is also that people of her cultural background, don't exist in Australia, or that they simply don't vote. Some people of a Kenyan background in Australia may have actually voted for Lucy Gichuhi - and yes she was elected, despite the Labor Party's last minute grab for another seat in parliament!

Your assumption is that every person living in Australia understands the words of all politicians, just because a political party candidate may happen to be of an Anglo-Saxon background. The facts are they do not!

The 2011 Census also noted there were 13,832 Kenya-born people in Australia. Some of these individuals will be voting at elections and all Australian citizens are simply that, citizens, regardless of whether they were born in Australia or elsewhere.

Surely you would want to vote for someone based on the quality of the individual, who will represent Australia in parliament, not simplistically make voting decisions based on one's skin colour, country of origin, religious status or on things like man vs women or young vs old?

The sad thing is, comments like yours are all over the internet now. I also don't want race brought into election campaigns either, but I think that will only get worse. To be fair, you are entitled to take the stance you have, but you also may like to realise that Lucy Gichuhi (a Senator) is also a person, with people to represent and a lot of work to take on.

We are supposed to be a country of a "fair go,"
and our values promote equality amongst other
things. Surely we need to practice what we preach.
We can rant and rave about people forming ghettos
and not integrating into our communities, but by
treating them differently and pushing people aside
we create the very situations that we're complaining
about. As the old adage says - "You can't keep doing
what you're doing and expect different results..."
That's insane.

"It is only by growing up in Australia that anyone can really understand Australians, our aspirations, dreams & needs fully enough to govern."

Hassy, can you please explain that statement. The fact is Australia is a multicultural society, with a hugely diverse population. No matter how much a crusty old conservative wants to fight a rearguard action to protect a rapidly diminishing pseudo Anglo/Australian culture, which may well only have existed in the poems of Banjo Patterson. Good luck, fight the good fight. History is important, but we should not try and live in the past, but embrace with confidence a new and exciting future.

Aidan,

You rarely make much sense, and this latest effort is no exception. You of course will blame me for not understanding what you are trying to say, so there is not much point in engaging with you any longer on this matter.

Nathan,

Of course I know your were referring to the fact that she is black. And yes, even I can distinguish a black person from a white person. You are a master of stating the bleeding obvious. Well done!

You have no business assuming what I assume. Of course people of this woman's 'background' exist in Australia!

“Your assumption is that every person living in Australia understands the words of all politicians, just because a political party candidate may happen to be of an Anglo-Saxon background. The facts are they do not!”


What a ridiculous statement! This is an Anglo-Saxon country. If non-Anglo-Saxons cannot understand the language, that's their bad luck; they shouldn't be here. It is perverse to the point of madness to say that it's alright for a local not to understand an interloper who presumes to take part in local politics.

What is the significance of 13,000 Kenyans living in Australia? Are you saying that they need a Kenyan politician? If they do, why didn't they stay in Kenya where the politicians are probably all Kenyan.

I “surely want to vote” to vote for people of my own culture. I have nothing in common with a black African; nor do any other Celtic/Anglo-Saxon Australians who made this country what it is.

“The sad thing is, comments like yours are all over the internet now.” Yes! But it isn't sad. The sad bit for you is you cannot gag me or anyone else. If you think that It is only me who thinks the way I do because you limit yourself to OLO, you are a bigger fool than you appear to be.

Paul,

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or does it come naturally?

I have already answered your irritating comments about Abbott. My attitude includes all non-Australians. Aliens in government departments? Not very concerned about that. Your other remarks are merely designed to provoke and are not worth responding to. You are just like your Left crowd mates, yelling into bull horns and banging saucepan lids to drown out stuff you don't want to here. Your really do not matter.

Foxy,

The old 'fair go' logo has been done to death. You really need to go a bit deeper than that. Start by asking, what does fair go mean? Like most mantras, it doesn't mean much at all. Best left to politicians and other posers.

Dear ttbn,

I find it rather disturbing that you brush aside the many
contributions that people from various backgrounds have
made to this country, which includes my parents who fled
Lithuania - from the Soviet regime during World War II.
Both my parents
worked very hard, educated their children, and made a life for
themselves, and contributed to the community. As did so many
other immigrants.

Your premise that only the Celtic/Anglo-Saxons contributed
to this country is false and very sad. Why should your opinion
be more important than mine? And that of the contribution
of my family? Why do they not matter in your eyes?
And there are so many
immigrants who would feel the same way. Your statements offend
me deeply.

Outside Australia's indigenous people, we are all immigrants or
descendants of immigrants - some earlier than others - but all
with an experience of immigration during the foundation of
the modern Australia of today.

Australia's immigration experience is a broad one. Originally
it was Anglo-Celtic but after the war immigrants came
from Europe. In more recent times, Vietnamese and Chinese
immigrants have grown considerably in numbers and of course
now we have an even more varied mix. However all these
immigrant communities have made successful contributions to
Australian life and will continue to do so whether you care
to admit it or not.

cont'd ...

Dear ttbn,

A Fair Go means just that - for all.

It's meaning is obvious to most intelligent people.

Treating people fairly I would have thought was
something you would understand. It is not a "mantra"
but part of our Australian values.

Nathamj,
Your headline states 'racist comments', yet I'm damned if I can see any illustrated in your opening post.

Or are you one that sees racism in everything that is said.

I think it would be better if you showed just where the Senator has been subject to racism. Surely you just did not make it up or do you think that Aus is a racist country and does not have to be shown.

Still I do not live in SA, thank the Lord.

Foxy,

“Your premise that only the Celtic/Anglo-Saxons contributed to this country is false and very sad.”

Wrong. Your are overlooking the fact that Anglo-Saxons – British in particular – settled the country in the first place, long before Lithuanians or anyone else came here. I have nothing against Lithuanians, by the way, whose culture is not alien to ours - white Caucasian etc; same values. Don't try to put yourself in the same group as Africans and non-Western cultures. And don't asperse that I am anti people who's language is not English.

Most of all, don't play the 'victim' by by choosing to be 'offended'. Offence is self-inflicted.

“Outside Australia's indigenous people, we are all immigrants or descendants of immigrants”. No. Seventy five percent of us were born in Australia. I am not an immigrant, neither are you. Playing silly buggers with language does not change facts.

“Vietnamese and Chinese” immigrants have indeed settled in and assimilated. However, their “contributions” have been no more important than those of the native-born, and they have benefited out of all proportion to their 'contributions', which entail only working and paying taxes – nothing world shattering or unusual.

I don't suppose you wish to talk about the 'growing number' of immigrants who are not fitting in very well at all, and causing are problems!

Finally, I am not surprised that you cannot define 'fair go', but chose to suggest that anyone else who cannot is lacking intelligence.

Ttbn,

The funny thing about the notion of ' a fair go' in relation to democratic elections, is that it suggests that anybody, any citizen, can put their hand up and run for election, with the person, regardless of where they might have been born - or in the case of the Senate, their party ticket - who gains the most votes after preferences, wins the seat.

If Tony Abbott or Lucy Guchuhi or Susan Lea or Penny Wong want to contest the next election, let them go for it. No citizen should be barred from standing for election on racial or birth-place or ethnic grounds. And everybody who migrates to Australia should have a chance to become a citizen. That's what is meant by 'fair go' but you seem be temporarily unaware of that.

Joe

Dear ttbn,

The British may have settled the country but it was
thanks to the contribution of immigrants and refugees
that put an end to the fact that Australia was considered
a cultural "backwater" internationally.
For the best of the arts, sciences,
and just about everything else one had to go overseas.
It was the immigrants and refugees
that put an end to this state of
affairs - until no longer did most of the world think of
Australia as a place where 'kangaroos hopped around the
streets' and where the 'down under' label was a label
for backwardness. Australian culture won world recognition
thanks to immigration.

In the design arts Harry Seidler helped define modern
architecture in Australia. The Australian contemporary craft
movement in ceramics, textiles, and woodwork reflected the
work of Japanese, Chinese potters, Hungarian weavers, Danish
wood workers who migrated to Australia.

Modern Australian fashion has been defined by Chinese silks,
Italian suiting and tailoring, and Japanese design. We have
our Indonesian sarongs, Indian saris, Middle-Eastern kaftans,
I forgot to mention - Japanese thongs.

Australia's international standing in medicine and the sciences
reflects the outstanding contributions of its migrants and
refugees.

Our Olympic Australian successes, the fame of our artists, our
actors, singers, models, our music, our sportsmen and
women, all come from different backgrounds.

Edourd Boronovsky established the country's first ballet school
The Boronovsky Ballet Company which provided the foundation
for modern ballet in Australia and subsequently used as a basis
for the first National Australian Ballet Company - The
Australian Ballet established in 1962.

I could go on and on.

As for a "fair go?" It's meaning is obvious - a person
can expect to be taken just as they are - meaning everybody
is treated with equal respect. It means to give somebody a
reasonable chance at something - to treat them fairly.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand. I can't make
it any clearer for you.

ttbn you most likely have a distorted view of the reality of what was the origins of Australia as a country, and what it is today. True, in 1901 the small non Aboriginal population of around 4 million. of which about 680k (18%) were born in the "Mother Country", and of the colonial bred the majority identified with a high degree of Britishness, evident by Australia's fervent support for Britain in WWI, and later WWII. That is not to say that the 120K of other foreign place of birth Australians, at the time, did not make a significant contribution both culturally and economically to Australia. A large proportion of those who sat in the First National Parliament were born overseas. Interesting that four of the six men who served as Prime Minister from federation to WWI were born overseas, regardless, all made an equally significant contribution to Australia's early development as a nation.
Following WWII and the influx of a new breed of migrant from non British, and later non European backgrounds, there has been a shift away from the identification with Britain, and a stronger identification with other cultures. Today very few Australian would identify with any kind of Britishness and relate to a more multicultural society.

I would say it was the ideology/attitude of people that come here that made this country great rather than where they come from. Unlike many today they were and are extremely grateful for the opportunities. Many fled communism (a sister of secularism) or other dictatorships. They certainly were prepared to leave the putried aspects of where they came from unlike a percentage of some fleeing Islam today. Many today who have even been given great opportunity and have been successful now poop on the people who gave them the opportunity.

Dear runner,

Being forced to leave one's homeland due to the fear
of persecution or death is extremely difficult and
something that hopefully none of us will ever experience.

However, using arguments that many of "them"
who have been given great opportunities (really?),
and have been successful, now, as you
claim - "poop" on the people who gave them the opportunity
is divisive.

Please supply us with evidence as to who you are talking about
and how exactly did they succeed because of the opportunities
they were given and how exactly are they "pooping" today on
the people who gave them those opportunities.

cont'd ...

Dear runner,

BTW: "Being harassed on public transport, constantly being
asked "Where do you come from?" when you've lived here
for most of your life, (or have a foreign sounding name),
not getting a job interview because of your Middle-Eastern
sounding name, or missing out on a rental property because of
your skin colour ..." And the list goes on.

Taken from the link given below.

Perhaps some people have earned the right to "poop" as you put it.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/racism-on-the-rise-in-australia-migrants-report-cultural-shift-20140405-365a5.html

Dear Foxy,

It surely should be automatic that migrants are given every opportunity to improve their skills, especially their language skills, and become citizens, full citizens. In Australia, there should never be any different classes of citizenship - once someone is a citizen, every opportunity available should be open to them to stand for election in local, state and federal elections etc.

What seems to be happening in France and Germany, and other countries too probably, are systems of entrenched, lifelong inequality and limits on people's abilities, rights really, to become full citizens. Germany' system, for example, (and perhaps they have changed it) revolved around German ancestry: one had to have at least one parent who was already German, otherwise one could never become a citizen, nor have access to the full range of social benefits. I hope that we will never have anything like that here.

Migrants have always amply shown that they are prepared to work for Australia: we should always honour that 'contract' by welcoming them and offering full citizenship as soon as possible.

Love,

Joe

Foxy

' ' BTW: "Being harassed on public transport, constantly being
asked "Where do you come from?" when you've lived here
for most of your life, (or have a foreign sounding name),
not getting a job interview because of your Middle-Eastern
sounding name, or missing out on a rental property because of
your skin colour ..." And the list goes on.'

are you saying that multi- culturalism does not work all that well. For years you have been espousing its success.

btw white people with big ears, a stutter, being shot, being fat, being old, being skinny, having red hair also experience bullying, job exclusion etc. Most however have not joined the victim industry.

There are several white aussie haters on the abc that have been given jobs and privilege that many others have not had . They usually wear Islamic headgear. As women in their own country they would not have a say. Hear they poop on the county that gave them a privileged job and many opportunities. They play the victim card not seeing their own hypocrisy.

Waleed Aly as a muslim has achieved great success here in Austalia but still defends Islam. Go figure. How many Christians or secularist have achieved in Islamic nations?

I see nothing wrong with this.

Well, if were to take seriously the waffle about how good and important immigrants are, we Australians could decide to stay in bed and leave the immigrants to get on with things and keep us in the manner to which we are accustomed.

Dear Joe,

«In Australia, there should never be any different classes of citizenship»

Actually I would support that idea.

Each class of citizenship would combine more privileges with more obligations.

This can only be fair, for immigrants, Australian-born and aboriginal-Australians alike, where each person can choose their level of involvement and commitment.

The basic requirement is that we all respect each other's freedoms in a spirit of live-and-let-live. Any involvement beyond that should be voluntary, so that different people can choose between several weaker and stronger levels of mutual obligations.

Hi Yuyutsu,

No, I would not support the slightest difference in rights and obligations of any Australian citizen, except obviously such things as work obligations for pensioners, the disabled, etc.

As well there are all sorts of problems with the frankly racist notion of 'different' rights: for example, in the case of Indigenous Australians, would you impose similar or different privileges and obligations on the great majority who live in towns and cities, and on those living in remote communities ? Would recognition of Indigenous customary law interfere with the rights of Indigenous women in remote communities ? Would that be forcibly extended to urban Indigenous women ? Could people be speared for sorcery ? Should young girls 'marry' older men to whom their father has promised them ? And, of course, who and what would define 'Indigenous' and exclude those deemed 'non-Indigenous' ?

Probably not, you would surely agree. But I do not agree that people in different groups can statutorily 'choose their level of involvement and commitment.' Above statutory requirements, all Australians do, and should, have the right to set their own levels of involvement in civil society and in political life. I'm not sure how else it would work. Australia is not some dictatorship which can organise attendance at compulsory rallies. Nor does the Australian system stop people from freely assembling and organising their own political rallies and meetings.

Perhaps those are Australian values ? i.e. democracy, along with the rule of law and formal equality of men and women, imperfectly applied as they may be ? Younger people seem to be oblivious to those: I noticed that dippy Jan Fran on SBS' 'The Feed' throwing her hands up, mystified about what 'Australian values' might be. The schools have obviously let the next generations down badly.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Of course I agree with your post.

Most of us want to know
about ourselves, why we do the things we do. Sometimes
the reasons are clear and well within sight but sometimes
the actions of other people are puzzling. Most people are
interested in other people, and to understand them it can
be useful to know about their backgrounds and their past
experiences. This helps towards better understanding and
social cohesion - and in this country most of us are
trying to do precisely that. Negative attitudes and
prejudices that existed in the past, for many people today
are considered outmoded and no longer acceptable.

Dear ttbn,

So glad that you finally acknowledge the contributions
that people have made to Australia over the generations
and centuries.

Dear runner,

I don't claim to be an expert on "Multiculturalism,"
and I don't know the most effective way to deal with
the prejudices of some people. But I am pretty sure
that exclusion, misinformation, constant media attacks,
do not help.

We could all have one or two of these wonderful immigrants assigned to us - to do all the things that they are apparently so much better at than we are. Of course they would all have to learn to speak English properly so that they could communicate with us.

cont'd ...

Dear runner,

Yes Waleed Aly is a Muslim - but he's also an Australian.
He does not defend Islam - the way that ISIS, terrorists,
and fundamentalists practice it to suit their twisted
agendas. He explains the way that he and other Australian
Muslims live their lives. As for Aly's success? He achieved
that on his own. Not every person gets to win a Gold Logie.
Australians awarded that to him. Which speaks volumes.

You could take a page out of his book.
Try actually practicing your religion -
You could earn brownie points for the hereafter.

Foxy,

I said 'if' they are such wonderful people as you claim. When are you going to reveal how we benefited from the arrival of your Lithuanian parents? What particularly Lithuanian miracle did they bestow upon us? Apart from you, of course.

And there is something else that I'm sure you will have a theory on. How is it that Australia has been slowly sinking into the mire since multiculturalism was enforced on us, and growing numbers of immigrants have been non-European, non-English speaking non-Judeo-Christian valuers? Where we were once high on the lists in health, science,economy and education, we are now well down on those lists. In fact, the entire West has slipped back since it started rejecting its own mores and values.

I'm sure you will be able to help me out here.

And apropos of your 'twisted agendas' comment to runner, Foxy, ISIS does not have a twisted view of Islam; it has the correct view. Given your authoritative pronouncements on pretty much everything, I would have thought that you would have had more knowledge of the teachings of the Koran and Allah.

Dear ttbn,

Not a good idea. That would be lowering the bar quite
a bit. They already speak more than on language -
so learning another as history has shown has not been
a problem in the past. Migrants and refugees have
always excelled at institutions of learning and lead the
way in this country. However assigning them to people
such as yourself - Nah. what would they possibly learn
from you? Seeing the world in very rigid and stereotypical
terms? conformity, intolerance, and insecurity?
Not a good idea.

cont'd ...

Dear ttbn,

I don't agree with your dismal picture of this country.
I prefer Peter Costello's version. He writes in his
memoirs:

"...because we are a young country our greatest glories
are still in front of us. We have been served well as a
country. Although we have had failures and although we
have not on every occasion lived up to the best practice,
the Australian achievement - political, economic, and in
lifestyle - is one of the great successes of the world.
And there is still plenty more ... in the years which lie
ahead... I acknowledge the debt to all those that went
before that made this country what it has become. A
reminder to those who will take us into our future: there
are still many glories to be won in every sphere of life ..."

Hear, hear.

cont'd ...

Dear ttbn,

You asked about the contribution of my parents to
Australia? The following link explains in fuller
detail the contributions to Australia made by
Lithuanians and the Lithuanian communities of which
my parents were such a vital and important part.
There is an entire chapter there on the contributions
made. I hope this will suffice for you:

eprints.utas.edu.au/4286/1/4286.pdf

Dear Joe,

Well, I did not expect you to agree, given that you already objected to it in your initial post, but in the least I was hoping that you may understand the essence of my suggestion and I think you didn't. Two and a half classes of citizenship already exist in Australia today, these are citizens, permanent residents and New-Zealanders: My idea is to further expand and diversify those classes, in both directions - lesser commitment and greater commitment. To some extent, this only reflects and acknowledges the existing, yet informal Australian reality.

I never suggested that classes of citizenship should be divided along ethnic/aboriginality lines. The very question, "...would you impose similar or different privileges and obligations..." indicates that you failed to understand my suggestion: I will not impose anything on anyone. Rather, those who so wish will voluntarily accept a more comprehensive package of privileges and obligations; while others may only accept a minimal package.

Every Australian-born should be able to be admitted to all rungs of citizenship, including the innermost, while immigrants would only be admitted to some middle-rung, then they will have to prove themselves if they want to join the inner rungs (which would for example entitle them to vote, to stand for elections and to receive welfare). Also, everyone may elect to move to an outer rung, but cannot subsequently be automatically re-admitted into inner rungs and would then need to prove themselves if they so wish.

Relating to the examples you provided, EVERYONE, including even in the minimal outermost rung of citizenship, must respect the rights of women of the inner rungs, may not spear anyone of the inner rungs (regardless whether any of them is indigenous or otherwise) or marry a minor of the inner rungs. The only place where such things may occur, is exclusively among those who explicitly elected to belong to the outermost rung, with the least amount of obligations and the least amount of privileges.

I do not expect you to agree, but I do hope that now you understand what I am suggesting.

Foxy,

Sorry that I didn't put my comments into a single post. I seem to have caused you problems with keeping up.

For your first response starting “Not a good idea” I have say that I have never before met anybody who cannot identify sarcasm. You are the first. Comes with extreme naivety and innocence, I suppose.

Then we have your announcement that: “Migrants and refugees have always excelled at institutions of learning and lead the way in this country.” Pardon? Seriously? All migrants? If you had some migrants you might have had some credibility, but you have made a very wild, unsubstantiated statement about people, most of whom you would not know. The most useful, beneficial immigrants to Australia were those who worked on schemes like Snowy Mountains hydro etc. They struggled to learn English. Good people most of them; 'excelling in institutions and leading the way' – no way!

Perhaps your parents were geniuses we should all know about, and you think that all migrants are like them?

As for your remark about 'assignees' not learning anything from me: well that's the whole idea isn't; I need these migrants to teach me stuff? :)

And, your “I don't agree with (my) dismal picture of this country.” Surely, even an old Lefty like you would agree that your disagreement does not necessarily invalidate my statement. It would not be over-confident of me to think that most Australians (other than your idealogical mates, of course) would agree with me 100%. And, Peter Costello? You are getting desperate when you start looking to a Right winger to cover your back!

Honestly, I don't care what your parents did or didn't do. I hope they were good parents and decent people. But, fobbing me off with references to Lithuanian 'communities' is pretty weak. The very word 'communities' highlights division and isolation. Never mind. I see this thread is right on the bottom, and will probably be gone tomorrow, saving you from coming up with the goods yet again.

Yuyutsu,,

I'm not defending Joe, who has turned out to be a great disappointment to me, but there are no 'classes' of citizens in Australia. Permanent residents are not citizens, nor are New Zealanders unless they have been naturalised.

My objection to citizens not born in Australia becoming politicians is, I believe, perfectly reasonable, and is accepted partly in the U.S. Where no foreign born citizen can ever be president.

However, I find your idea repugnant. You often have ideas that are very, very strange to me, but you are well overboard on this one.

I will say this: there should be no such category as 'permanent resident'. If you are not good enough to be a citizen, or do not wish to be a citizen, you should piss off.

New Zealanders should piss off anyway. The have a very insulting outlook on Australia and Australians.

Dear me, why do people seem to deliberately misunderstand and over-state what Isn't the case ?

Yuyutsu, you appear to agree with me 100 %, that all citizens should have similar rights etc. Of course, recent immigrants, tourists, visitors, overseas students, New Zealnd citizens, visiting Martians, foetuses, non-humans, etc., do not have the full rights of Australian citizens, but once they ARE citizens, then of course they should have the full rights of citizens. There should thus be NO 'classes' of citizens. How do our views differ on that ?

Ttbn, dear Foxy did NOT suggest that 'All' migrants and refugees etc., but only that ' ' migrants and refugees etc; i.e. some/most/many rather than All. You can see the difference ?

Why do people think they are clever by describing straw mans/men, and then proceed to demolish their own creations ?

Joe

Joe,

You seem to have lost the ability to read, along with your manners. The two are exactly the same.

Hi Ttbn,

Not really: 'There are people in South Australia who were born and bred in South Australia' does not mean that all people in South Australia were born etc. although Australians would like to have been, of course. That is, most Australians.

A general statement probably always assumes exceptions to itself: 'politicians are hard-working'; 'Subarus are reliable cars'; 'kids like pavlova'; 'Trump is a bit of a dill'. Okay, that last one is pretty absolute, I'll admit, but I live in hope of an exception, perhaps in the second hundred days. If we're still here.

As for manners, you can take the boy out of Bankstown .......

Joe

Dear Joe,

Thank you for your comments.
They came at the right time.
Clearly responding here has been a total
waste of my time. Its obvious that
I should not have continued to try to talk
to a person who's only interested in negative
statements that feeds his existing hostility.
Still he's not alone in that.

See you on another discussion.

Dear Ttbn,

At the moment Australia has permanent residents.

In accordance with our differing systems of values, you would like to change this in one way and I would like to change this in another way.

Interestingly, if any of our proposals succeeds, then either way there will no longer be permanent residents.

---

Dear Joe,

The name of a legal status is not worth arguing over (wouldn't it become somewhat like the long-bearded argument on whether or not homosexuals may call their relationship a 'marriage'?). If you prefer to only call the innermost rung 'citizenship' and find/invent new names for the other rungs, then so be it.

If you agree with me that Australia should offer different concentric packages of privileges+obligations and allow the people who live here to choose between them (based on the general guidelines which I outlined), then the title "citizen" should not stand in the way of our agreement.

ttbn, you are still at it? Now I see you are attacking the Kiwi's. The notion that you have to come up with the goods is ridiculous, all you seem to be doing is rehashing old ideas as propagated by the likes of Hitler, and giving them an Aussie flavor. You offer nothing new, just the same old, same old, extremists nonsense. When you have a decent idea please post it, it will make for interesting reading for a change.

//It would not be over-confident of me to think that most Australians (other than your idealogical mates, of course) would agree with me 100%.//

No, over-confident would be an understatement. Hubris springs to mind. Also mania; in particular, megalomania.

//Honestly, I don't care what your parents did or didn't do.//

As long as they weren't darkies.

//Where no foreign born citizen can ever be president.//

But where they can become Governor of the world's eighth (8th) largest economy, just by pumping iron and acting poorly in successful movies.

//The have a very insulting outlook on Australia and Australians.//

Et tu, ttbn.

Foxy,

Of course you are wasting your time, you dear old thing. Like most people of your political persuasion you think that keeping on and on will make others change their minds. I believe that you honestly think that you are totally right and anyone who disagrees with you is totally wrong. Newsflash: we think the same thing about you.

There is no point in telling people you disagree with to 'shut up'. You have to persuade them. I've said it before: I think that I would like you if I knew you. But, boy oh boy, do you have a naïve view of the world and your ability to convince people to believe absolute bulldust that you have picked up from the internet or your Leftist heroes. People like you are the people in the U.S. who still can't come to terms with the fact that the game is up for Left in that country. Something similar is going to have to happen here soon, if there is not to be a massive blowup.

Further, my statements – all statements and beliefs contrary to yours – are NOT negative. They are POSITIVE from the opposing point of view.

I don't think there is much point in us discussing anything in the future. No hard feelings.

Yes, ttbn.

<<I believe that you honestly think that you are totally right and anyone who disagrees with you is totally wrong. Newsflash: we think the same thing about you.>>

But one will be closer to the truth than the other, and evidence can determine who that is.

Your total lack of links backing your assertions, and frequent resorting to ad hominems, suggests that you, ttbn, are usually wrong. Indeed, you are always wrong. I don’t know how you manage it!

<<There is no point in telling people you disagree with to 'shut up'. You have to persuade them.>>

Correct, but as you demonstrate continuously, and even allude to in the case of yourself, some are beyond persuasion as they are unwilling to view any evidence that contradicts their dearly-held beliefs. When one refers to science as “blah”, as you do, they have lost all hope of ever being persuaded of anything that may conflict with what they want to believe. It’s how some avoid cognitive dissonance, and we see a grand display of that in you.

<<Further, my statements – all statements and beliefs contrary to yours – are NOT negative. They are POSITIVE from the opposing point of view.>>

This is the Equivocation fallacy. Unless you actually thought that’s what Foxy meant by ‘negative’? I thought it was pretty obvious what she meant.

AJ Philips links are merely an appeal to authority by those who do not, or can not, think for themselves.

It appears that is all that is left in academia, the left, [same thing these days] & green bulldust.

Please keep up with the arrogance, it tells everyone what you are.

There’s nothing wrong with appeals to authority, Hasbeen.

<<… links are merely an appeal to authority …>>

So long as they’re not the fallacious kind. Here's how to tell the difference: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

<<It appears that is all that is left in academia, the left, [same thing these days] & green bulldust.>>

Funny, most of what I see coming from academia is evidence-based research. You’re just stroppy that none of it agrees with your ignorant views.

<<Please keep up with the arrogance, it tells everyone what you are.>>

And you keep up with your ignorance and ad hominems, I can assure you it reveals a lot more.

Anyway, to get back to topic: obviously what Senator Gichuhi will find herself in the middle of constantly, is a debate about what multiculturalism means. It seems there is 'exclusivist multiculturalism', and 'inclusive multiculturalism', both of which can be distorted.

I don't know if these are terms in use, but they do it for me: one puts 'culture' first, the other puts 'Australian values' first.

'Exclusivist MC' suggests that:

* people can come from anywhere and keep all their cultural, religious and social practices intact and unchanging.

* people from different groups are permitted, even encouraged, to form 'communities' or ghettoes where they can practise their customs, religion, social relations, etc. without interference from the encompassing State; more extreme forms of this sort of MC would allow, even encourage, different groups to impose different legal and social systems on their 'members', but not of course on other Australians, only their own 'members'.

* a slogan for this approach, and its pseudo-left Anglo supporters, would be 'Each group to its own'.

'Inclusive MC' suggests that people coming here from elsewhere:

* can make use of all of those practices provide that they do not conflict with Australian values - and that governments encourage people to integrate into the Australian community as soon as practicable:

* In this model of MC, the concern is that Australians of non-Anglo/Celtic background are not excluded from participating in Australian society to the fullest, on the grounds that they are different, or have different 'needs'.

* this approach welcomes migrants and refugees as future Australians, on the assumption that, with all our relatively minor differences, we are all Australians together.

Clearly, I'm an inclusivist multiculturalist. Equally clearly, the pseudo-Left these days is more drawn to exclusivist MC, which is perhaps why they attempt to shield Islam from any analysis and are so quick to label anybody who does as Islamophobic.

And of course, stricter citizenship tests favour one approach over the other.

Just trying to understand.

Joe

You can't 'interpret' multiculturalism, Joe. There is only one version, and it creates divisiveness. Multiculturalism is a particularly nasty piece of social engineering, invented by cynical politicians looking for votes (that's all they are interested in). Multiculturalism is an abomination which has blighted all countries where it as been enforced. It is noteworthy that it occurs only in white, Western countries.

Nobody believes that one culture is as good as the next because they have seen too many examples proving that this is completely untrue.

I suppose should state for the benefit of those who can't tell the difference between culture and race that I am not talking about culture, not race.

Darwin certainly thought one culture was above another

'"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (1874, p. 178).

Its no wonder Darwinist come up with the wrong conclusion often.

btw Loudmouth I think you summed up the different takes on multiculuralism extremly well. We certainly have been blessed and cursed by mulitculuralism. The left in their pig headedness have used it as a tool to destroy much of what is great about this nation. Proper screened immigration has enriched us with good food and diversity. Strangley enough also many of our grateful migrants can't believe the stupidity of the lefts lunacy. African and asian friends of my can't believe a Government could be so stupid. They came here for freedom from Islam among other things.

Ttbn,

Of course you can. Clearly you perceive only 'exclusivist' or group-rights-oriented multiculturalism, but it's not the only option, I fervently hope. 'Inclusivist' MC focusses on the integration of individuals into Australian society as soon as possible, while allowing people to hold onto all those customs and preferences, their languages and social links, which do not conflict with Australian value - i.e. recognition of democracy, the rule of law, equality of all before the law, equal opportunity, protection of the most vulnerable, etc.

In exclusivist MC, Australian values are de-valued, even ignored - in a sense, people, especially 'other' people, are over-culturalised. In inclusivist MC, those essential values are highlighted: people's individual rights are stressed. After all, if the values that we live by are good enough for 'us', then they should be available to all who come to Australia.

I guess we take them for granted so much that it's easy for bird-brains to say 'Australian values - what are they ? Why should they matter ?' But such an attitude can probably be found in rebellious gold-fish who wonder, 'Water - who needs it ?'

Perhaps students need courses in 'what-ifs' - what if a particular value, such as democracy or equality, or protection of the vulnerable, was absent in Australia ? What sort of society would that be ? Would you like to live in that sort of society ?

Cheers,

Joe

runner,

Thanks for another example of creationist quote-mining. That one's a classic.

The full quote can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html

Even if Darwin were endorsing eugenics, though, it would mean absolutely nothing given that evolution has discredited the notion of race. Attacking personalities is a classic tactic of denialists. We see it with climate change too.

You creationists certainly are a dishonest lot, aren't you?

'Lying for Jesus', as they say.

ttbn,

You should try and look at this matter in a wider perspective. Why would you want to deny someone the right to stand for parliament is something I find unbelievable, in a country like Australia that is very diverse, its people generally live a higher quality of life and Australia is based generally around freedom.

Senator Lucy Gichuhi has a diverse background which I felt you would appreciate. As a child she worked between school, gathering food for her family in the garden for the next meal because her family didn't go to shops or she would help milk the cows. There weren't a lot of options her family had living in a financially poor country.

The question then is what is country? It is a nation with its own government, a homeland, a broad landscape and environment with the chance to represent one's country in various ways. More in depth are the species of a nation, human or non human.... where the whole country can take to the streets, its people, general public, population, community, citizens, electors, voters, taxpayers and its grass roots.

In more depth than that with Australia, you have your leg bitten off by a Crocodile, see a Lizard running through the outback or see a baby Koala with its mother in an Australian forest.

The song by sung by the Seekers you would know, with one part says: "We are one, but we are many, and from all the lands on earth we come. We'll share a dream and sing with one voice, "I am, you are, we are Australian".

Putting it simply, when you are an Australian citizen, that can't be changed. Questioning commitment to a nation is not fair, with people having various commitments for differing reasons. Senator Lucy Gichuhi has taken on a huge challenge and I hope she may inspire others. Unfortunately ttbn, I can't see you doing that at all.

Hi Nathan,

I can't see how Australia could have two classes of citizens - one with full rights who have been born here; and another, with limited rights, who have been born elsewhere - and if were to be impossible for people to move from one class to the other. Surely that would be a most repulsive, inequitable society ?

Obviously, on the other hand, it would be difficult for any country to grant citizenship automatically to people arriving from elsewhere: but surely one obligation of any migration policy is to assist migrants to integrate as soon as possible, and be able to apply for citizenship as soon as possible ? Even so, nobody should be treated differently in law in the intervening period, which should be as short as possible, and they most certainly should have similar rights to Australians, except those accruing to citizenship such as the right to vote, and stand for election - which, of course, they would gain as soon as they become citizens.

Cheers,

Joe

Nathan,

I'm not the slightest bit interested in Goochwhoochi's background. She is a totally unnecessary addition to Australia's population, and should not be a politician. We now have to even pay the useless woman because she is now a politician. I should not, and will not, look at her from a 'wider' (your) perspective.

Legs bitten off! Crocodiles, Koalas and lizards! The Seekers. What on earth are you talking about.!

A huge challenge! The damn woman has had it handed to her on a plate, and she hasn't done a bloody thing to earn it.

AJ again display hypocrisy beyond belief. The number of times you have misrepresented Scripture would be difficult to keep count of.

Your High Priest Darwin was a bigoted racist. He fully believed that blacks were less evolved. Your denial can't change facts. Darwin's pseudo science (now known as a joke) led to much racism.

Ha! You are Leigh, ttbn. I knew it!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=19626

I told you I’d get it one day. A very belated welcome back, too, by the way.

Sheesh, and will ya look at all those [Deleted for abuse] posts towards the end there. It’s no wonder your new nom de plume stands for Try to be Nice.

You should start putting that into action some day.

--

That’s the Tu quoque fallacy, runner. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)

<<The number of times you have misrepresented Scripture would be difficult to keep count of.>>

Incidentally, could you give an example of this? No? That’s alright. I didn’t think you could.

Your actions were still dishonest, by the way.

<<Your High Priest Darwin was a bigoted racist.>>

This is the Association fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) Darwin's racism says absolutely nothing about the truth of evolution.

Two fallacies in a mere 53 words. That's some acheivement, runner, even for you!

' Darwin's racism says absolutely nothing about the truth of evolution.'

AJ's logic

the paedophile priest (usually homosexual) perversion says nothing about Catholicism.

btw AJ still waiting for the slightest proof for such a failed theory. Surely you god deniers can come up with something a little rational.

No, runner, that’s not analogous in any way to what I said about Darwin’s racism.

<<the paedophile priest (usually homosexual) perversion says nothing about Catholicism.>>

The truth status of a proposition is not analogous with the reputation of an oragnisation. Apples and oranges.

Also, Matthew 7:20.

<<btw AJ still waiting for the slightest proof for such a failed theory.>>

How can you still be waiting? You’ve never asked for evidence before. Despite that, however, I’ve still provided you with plenty. Unfortunately, though, you always disappear when I do. But if you want evidence now, then how about we start here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

I’d be fascinated to hear your response. I bet you can’t make it all the way through the video.

' No, runner, that’s not analogous in any way to what I said about Darwin’s racism.'

again wrong AJ. Very good analogy. Its amazing that a city could be named after such a racist bigot. He is still revered by god denies despite his pseudo science leading to much racism. Evolution is a fantasy. To deny your Creator you must walk around with your eyes shut. You simply use pseudo science as an excuse to deny the obvious.

Again, runner? When was I wrong before?

<<again wrong AJ.>>

You’re jumping all over the place here. Are you capable of just sticking to, and exploring, one accusation at a time here? Sheesh, you’re like a kid with ADHD.

<<Very good analogy.>>

Okay, this is where you were also supposed to explain why it was a good analogy. You don’t know why, do you? You’re just going to assert that it was, despite my explanation as to why it wasn’t.

I’m still waiting for your example of my “misrepresenting Scripture”, too, by the way. Or have you given up on that one already?

<<Its amazing that a city could be named after such a racist bigot.>>

Not really, given that virtually everyone those days was racist. However, not all racists discovered the mechanism by which life evolved.

<<He is still revered by god denies despite his pseudo science leading to much racism.>>

Again, racism is discredited by evolution. So is eugenics. This is the Association fallacy again.

<<Evolution is a fantasy.>>

Still waiting for your opinion on the video, too. Or have we given up on that one as well?

Attended the local 6 o'clock ANZAC Dawn Service this morning, as we do every year. Good to see lots of ethnic people there, along with the ttbn approved persons. Our Kiwi daughter makes a special effort to get the two grand kids up and drive the 10km to be there with us, and have a coffee later.
ttbn you show your ignorance about Kiwi's, like Muslims I suppose there are not that many at your aged care facility, for you to get to know them. What there is, is only good light heart'd rivalry between the two countries, particularly at sport, but we can always count on each others when needed. A Kiwi friend of ours, a Maori bloke, leaves home about 3am and makes the trip every year by public transport from his home in the western suburbs to the east for another lpcal dawn service, all he has to do is spend a few minutes as the singer of the two National Anthems. He finds it a great honor to be invited to do so, and well worth the trip.

In a multicultural, politically correct Australia, Anzac Day is now a sick joke and an insult those Australians who fought for what has been ripped off us by a nasty, Left elite, which stands for nothing.

Ttbn,

I don't use the term 'racist' often but I have to do so in relation to your comments about Senator Gichuhi. She has as much right, as an Australian citizen, to stand for election as Tony Abbott, Penny Wong, Sussan Ley, and half a dozen other current MPs. In SA, Lynn Arnold and Mike Rann - okay, they were Labor premiers - both served, and had the right to serve, as State premiers. Do you have any other grounds for disdaining Senator Gichuhi other than race ?

Inclusive MC: surely, if people are permitted to come to Australia they should have the right to become citizens. And if they become citizens, that they should be able and encouraged to participate in everything that makes 'us' Australian ? Surely we don't want a situation in which groups of people, who have been invited or permitted to live in Australia, are permanently shut out, or to feel shut out ? What the hell good does that do for anybody ?

As long as they agree to abide by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the separation of religion and State, the recognition of the freedom of expression and opinion, the equality of men and women - i.e. 'Australian values', then of course we should welcome them as full, equal, Australian citizens.

And of course, anybody should be able to speak whatever the hell language they like, to eat what they like, dress how they like as long as it's decent, mix with whomever they like, worship or not as they like ? I'm totally in support of inclusive MC, and totally opposed to exclusivist MC, for any 'cultural' or ethnic group. The trick is to manage that distinction.

Joe

Ttbn,

Wow. You should put that on a T-shirt and see how many people you can piss off in one go :)

Joe

ttbn,

My first (recent) comment, was in relation to things unique to Australia, my second, the wordings of a song that many connect to and to some, now deeply want this song as Australia's National Anthem.

If your comments on ANZAC Day are anything to go by, I am not trying to gag you or shut you up, I am simply asking you to put a case forward on this topic that has a sound base to it.

Also your recent words in relation to Senator Lucy Gichuhi are also nothing short of vile. If you truly believe in what you have said about the Senator (online), why not have the courage to send a letter to the Senator in the post with your real name and address attached to it?

You can read the response. It may encourage you to reconsider your position on this topic.

Finally, I did say in an earlier post: "To be fair, you are entitled to take the stance you have...." This time though, I think you have gone way too far and I take that all back.

Joe,

You can call me a racist if you like. It might give you some satisfaction, but it has no effect of me - so no harm done. I am also aware that your wife was an aboriginal lady, and that you might be hypersensitive in the area of race. However, I am unaware of any 'racist' remarks I have ever made with regard to aboriginal Australians.

Given the ignorance and lack of intellectual rigour of some OLO posters, I expected to be called a racist in due course. I regret that it is you who have resorted to the slur.

What you say about the African woman is all perfectly true. It's just a shame that you don't think that I have the right to object to it. I thought that we had a lot in common, Joe. I was clearly wrong.

ttbn,

Thanks for the example of the Moving the Goalposts fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts).

<<I am also aware that your wife was an aboriginal lady, and that you might be hypersensitive in the area of race. However, I am unaware of any 'racist' remarks I have ever made with regard to aboriginal Australians.>>

You have made some clearly racist remarks on this thread, so, in order to avoid the accusation and set a new standard for what constitutes 'racist', you suggest a sensitivity on Joe's behalf by bringing up his wife's aboriginality and then point out the fact that you have (supposedly) never said anything racists towards indigenous people.

You just keep stooping to new lows, don't you?

<<Given the ignorance and lack of intellectual rigour of some OLO posters, I expected to be called a racist in due course.>>

You can pull the wounded deer act all you like, but your are still, by definition, a racist.

Racist:
a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another. (http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define:racist)

Nathan,

Why did you feel the need to list things unique to Australia, and what is it you do not understand about my Anzac Day comments?

If you think that my language in relation to the woman in question was 'vile', you have led a sheltered life. 'Vile' in relation to what I said is massive overkill. Think of the death penalty for a parking offence, and you might understand what I mean.

I will not "reconsider" my position on this topic, if it's all the same to you; and I was amused by your withdrawal of my 'entitlement' to take the stance I have! You are good for a laugh on a dull Anzac Day, Nathan.

ttbn,

The reason I feel the need to write things unique to Australia, is that you don't seem to appreciate these. Many others take a more logical and very different stance.

Also your quote: <<In a multicultural, politically correct Australia, Anzac Day is now a sick joke and an insult those Australians who fought for what has been ripped off us by a nasty, Left elite, which stands for nothing.>>

All I am asking for you is to prove that! Alongside that, Anzac Day has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. So I honestly don't understand where the 'Anzac Day' element comes from. I mean we are talking about a Senator here, not Anzac Day - you can talk about that somewhere else on another post.

You also might like to pass that comment onto veterans or the RSL.

Also in relation to your 'vile' comment, various online dictionaries will provide details on that one. You can check these for yourself. One says: "of little worth or account" and this would easily apply to the Senator in regards to your comment where you say:

<<She is a totally unnecessary addition to Australia's population, and should not be a politician. We now have to even pay the useless woman because she is now a politician. I should not, and will not, look at her from a 'wider' (your) perspective.>>

I am not expecting you to reconsider your position on this topic and I totally agree with A.J Phillps that you are a racist. Your above comment proves that.

Finally, you still don't seem to have the courage to send the Senator a letter in the post do you? Why?

ttbn,

Your previous response to me on this thread indicates that you want to stay ignorant. Which prompts the question: why do you bother coming to this site? Is it that you're hoping to find a right wing echo chamber to reinforce your prejudices? You won't, because although the right dominate here, your racism is as abhorrent to them as it is to me.

As for the lemmings, their suicidal reputation is undeserved - it was the result of a Disney film crew chasing them off a cliff. Try going by facts instead of stereotypes!

There is only one GENUINE form of multiculturalism, and that involves everyone being free to determine their own culture. It is entirely a good thing.

However, there's a particularly insidious form of political correctness masquerading as multiculturalism, which has fooled many people (including, I think, most Europeans) into thinking it is multiculturalism (hence multiculturalism's unpopularity in Europe). This PC pseudomulticulturalism, which is even worse than monoculturalism, involves everyone keeping the culture they started with. Your comments about senator Gichuhi suggest you've also fallen for their lie.

Not being Muslims, neither of us is qualified to judge which of the interpretations of their (often self contradictory) scriptures is correct. But the fact that most Muslims condemn the ISIS view shows that they believe it to be twisted, and ultimately that's what counts.

As for your comments about Anzac Day, it was 1958 when The One Day of the Year was written. That's long before either multiculturalism or political correctness, and if a left elite existed in those days, it can't've been very effective!

Thanks AJ, I thought there was something dodgy about that comparison, so I'm glad it's got a name: 'Moving the Goalposts'.

Ttbn,

Senator Gichuhi is an Australian citizen. She is of Kenyan origin. Are you suggesting that someone with Kenyan origin cannot stand as a senator ? But someone of English origin (Tony Abbott, Mike Rann) or Welsh (Julia Gillard, Billy Hughes) or Nigerian (Sussan Ley) or Malaysian (Penny Wong) or Belgian (Matthias Cormann) or South African (Lynn Arnold) or Chilean (the early Prime Minister Chris Watson) or Scottish (Andrew Fisher) or Vietnamese (the current Governor of SA) can stand for any political office ?

If you say no to Senator Gichuhi, but yes to all the others, then your position is racist. There's really no two ways about it.

There are many Africans now in Australia: would you advocate that none of them can ever hold office, that they should forever stay 'out of' the system, that the political - and economic ? - systems should be limited for them ? Wouldn't it be far better to make much more effort to help them feel welcome and to speed their integration into Australian society as fellow-citizens and equal contributors ?

Joe

Nathan,

1. I do appreciate those things. What have they to do with your thread?

2. Many posters go 'off-topic', and it was one of those posters I was responding to. Did you not read the post above my comments on Anzac Day? 3.

3.Don't you people have even a hard copy dictionary in your homes? You don't seem sure whether it's my opinion that is of little worth", or whether I think the senator is of little worth. As I say, your communications skills are wanting.

4. Please explain how you could possibly know who I would "send a letter to in the post". Better still, please explain why I should want to send a letter to the senator;she is not the one talking rubbish - you are.

And, I don't care if you think I'm a racist anymore that you probably don't care that I think that you are an idiot.

Aidan,

1. Disagreement with your nonsense is not ignorance. It's smart.

2. Who from the Right abhors my "racism"?

3. Lemmings did not come from a Disney cartoon, you lemming.

4. Multiculturalism is multiculturalism - no something you made up.

5. I agree that you are not qualified. I am.

Joe,

A smart fellow like you, a person able to pick a 'racist' from a person just expressing an opinion like everyone else, doesn't need any help from me. Work it out for yourself; you will be right - won't you?

Oh gawd, ttbn!

<<Don't you people have even a hard copy dictionary in your homes?>>

So not only do you rely on some mysterious hard-copy books for your information, now you have a mysterious hard-copy dictionary that apparently contradicts more reliable, up-to-date, and Google-able dictionaries? Like I’ve said before, you can print soft copies out if it makes you feel better.

How does this old, dusty dictionary of yours define ‘racist’, I wonder? Apparently as someone who is unable to express an opinion, going by your false dilemma addressed to Joe.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

And, no, I haven’t had a hard-copy dictionary for years. What would be the point in cluttering one’s home with out-of-date resources when up-to-date versions are freely available online?

ttbn,
1. I never claimed disagreement with what I post was ignorance. But failing to understand it, and then announcing that you think there's no point even trying to understand it, is wilful ignorance. And far from being smart, your dismissing of it as nonsense proves you're not.

2. Joe. Also Foxy (though of course you're so far right that you regard her as left).

3. I never claimed they did. But the legend that lemmings commit mass suicide was the result of a Disney documentary (not a cartoon) where the film crew had chased them over a cliff.

4. Muticulturalism is where all the people, wherever they're from, have the right to determine their own culture. It's been a successful policy in Australia. Unfortunately the PC crowd have eroded its effectiveness while trying to hijack the term and twisted it to suit their agenda, and people like you are so dumb you can't tell the difference.

5. You're arrogant, not qualified. Please try to learn the difference.

Aidan,

Joe and Foxy of the Right! You would have to be joking! I don't think that they will thank you for that.

I can understand that a loser like you could see me as arrogant. But thanks to you and that other numb skull Nathan for keeping me amused on a dull day. I look forward to seeing what other rubbish you come up with.

*Sigh*

... and now the ad hominem. You're really on a roll here tonight, aren't you ttbn?

Aidan,

Seriously, that hurt ! 'On the Right' ?! No, I haven't got there yet.

If we're talking about multiculturalism, I would have thought that exclusivist MC, involving segregation, different (and inferior) rights, and exclusion from opportunity, would have been hall-marks of a right-wing approach - while my preference for an inclusive MC would have met Left-wing criteria. Of course, many on the Left would support an exclusivist MC, believing in their charming and childish stupidity that it is somehow preferable, maybe because it is 'cultural' and therefore good. Poor dumb bastards.

It really is pointless these days to use terms like Right and Left. There are so many mixed stances - after all, in France, for example, it's possible that an extreme pseudo-Leftist, really a Trot, like Melenchon, is very likely to urge his first-round voters to vote for le Pen in the second round. i.e. Communists voting for a semi-Fascist. My mum reckoned once that that sort of thing happened sometimes in the 1930s, when she was a young communist: they worked with the New Guard to smash up Labor Party rallies, that sort of thing. Maybe I heard her wrong.

But it still smarts, Aidan :(

Joe

//You're really on a roll here tonight, aren't you ttbn?//

\\You're really a troll here tonight, aren't you ttbn?\\

Fixed.

Toni, I do believe it was monthly "waffle" night at the rest home, and the bingo did finished early. Unfortunately 'Nursey' didn't give ttbn his nightly sedative, just a double dose of laxative by mistake, we can now see the result!

Joe, we have talked about Left and Right previously, as I said then the French have a lot to answer for on that score. In the Australian political context I much prefer the terms Progressive and Conservative.

"in the 1930s, when she was a young communist: they worked with the New Guard to smash up Labor Party rallies, that sort of thing. Maybe I heard her wrong."

cont

cont

Joe, you did not hear wrong on that. I had many a long discussion with the 'Old Man' about the New Guard and particularly their hatred of Jack Lang the NSW Labor Premier, Dad was both a friend and strong supporter of Lang, Lang was also hated by the Communists, but for different reasons. He was in fact a vehement anti communists, but a socialists at the same time. There was a supposed New Guard plot to assassinate Lang as he drove himself home to Auburn late one night along the isolates Parramatta Road, the Primer drove himself around in his own car in those days, Lang had a unmistakable big black monster. There was also the famous incident when Francis De Groot of the New Guard slashed the ribbon before Lang could open the Sydney Harbor Bridge in 1932. The New Guard believed it was an insult to the King that the GG was overlooked by Lang to do the honors. The turbulent years of the 1930's seen the extremes of politics make strong inroads in Australia. Like for The British Fascists Party, events of 3rd September 1939 saw the New Guard evaporate. The New Guard had openly claimed Hitler was both a political messiqh, and social genius, and according to them, a man like Hitler was certainly what Australia needed at the time, to fix things up, as had been done in Germany! members spent a lot of time in working class pubs trying to sign up new recruits, and they had much success. If they had the internet in the 1930's I could see a few of the OLO forumites signing up and forming their own platoon.

Hi Paul,

Yes, I used to puzzle over how some intellectuals around 1920-1930 (like Sorel, G. B. Shaw, etc.) could praise both the Bolsheviks AND Mussolini's Fascists -I didn't realise that, from a certain perspective, they weren't all that different: they both stood for State power over-riding democracy (in the name of the people, of course), State control of production, they both had semi-mystical Utopian ideologies, they both crushed any dissent as 'against the people', i.e. against them, in the most brutal ways. In short, they were BOTH Fascist movements. One would think that all that might have occurred to Gramsci in his prison cell.

Senator Gichuhi is now an independent senator in her own right, and all legally above-board. I wish her well. Well, until she starts to go too 'conservative' - IF she does :)

We'll see: wouldn't be dead for quids !

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

"they weren't all that different" that is why I disagree with the terms Left and Right, it conveys the impression that Fascists and Communist thinking and philosophy is diametrically opposed when the reality is there is much commonality within the two.
If I was hosting a dinner party I would seat Hitler and Stalin together down one end of the table, reserved for the radicals, Roosevelt and Churchill up the other end where the moderates would sit. It would be a rather long table with lots of wacko's sitting in between. What made Hitler and Stalin such monsters was opportunity, they had both the means and the will to exercise the most horrific of acts. Given the same opportunity would Mussolini and Mao have been any different, I think not.

Hi Paul,

As a Maoist for twenty-odd years, I'll forever be privately questioning whether or not I'm really all that bright. Part of my disillusion was the realisation of Mao's callous brutality towards 'his' people mainly the peasantry, in multi-million deaths through the Great Leap Forward, famines and the Cultural Revolution. Comparing him to Mussolini, who certainly murdered thousands of the Left in Italy, invaded Abyssinia/Ethiopia and murdered hundreds of thousands there, invaded Albania and Greece. etc., is like comparing a grizzly with a koala.

As for the inappropriateness of using terms like Left-Right, Hayek suggests a triangle, with the three points held by 'Leftists', Liberals/mild Conservatives and Reactionaries/Fascists. He suggests that branches of each often collaborate with branches of the others.

Maybe these days, the polygon is many-sided. But it's still a very useful way to understand positions and alliances of various political parties. Incidentally, Hayek declares that he isn't/wasn't a conservative. I'm still puzzling over that one.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

In a cesspool of a society, only the crap floats to the top, the Lillywhites have no chance, they simply die long before they can reach the surface. The bigger the cesspool, the bigger the lumps of crap. Hitler and Stalin were like Mao floating on the top of very large and very putrid pools, Mussolini not quite so, but still the Il Duce, like the others, went to the extremes that he felt were necessary to form society into what he perceives as correct.
In a turbulent, bitter, extreme society, there is no room for moderates, only extremest. Hitler was definitely a fascists, Stalin was not a true Communists in my book, Trotsky was probably more the communist, we'll never know thanks to an ice pick complements of Comrade Stain, Stalin was a Stalinist, if he had Karl Marx under his control I am sure he would have had him shot for being the wrong kind of Communist, the right kind was one who had complete loyalty and faith in Comrade Stalin, and possibly that would not have been enough to avoid an early death.

p/s In my youthful days of mixing with the Trots, I was chasing this rather cute little trot, wanting to do a bit more than discuss the virtues of Marx and Engels with her. One thing I learnt from the Trotskyists was the only thing lower than a dirty rotten Capitalists was an even dirtier and even rottener Stalinist! Checking out the Stalinist babes at the time, I had to agree, they all looked like waterside workers but uglier.

Oops! Family First has merged with the Australian Conservatives, leaving the Kenyan senator an independent, as useless as that other SA independent, Nick Xenephon.

Just wondering of course, but could that have been a cunning move on the part of Family First to shake off an embarrassment they did not want?

Hi Ttbn,

Or could it be an even more cunning move by Senator Gichuhi to flirt with some of the small parties in the Senate, from One Nation across to the Xenophon Team ? After all, she's now a very free agent, duly elected, and in the cat-bird seat ?

Hey, crazy thought: what if she was persuaded to join the Lib/Nat Coalition ? On condition that she be put in the top four of the ticket for the next Coalition Senate team ? Or perhaps appointed as an under-study to one of the Ministers ? She's relatively young, there's time for her to be promoted in future Coalition governments.

Imagine an African Minister in the National Government, Ttbn: wouldn't that really get up your nose ?

Keep smiling,

Joe

Dear Joe,

From your mouth to the Coalition's ears.

Smiles all round.

//Family First has merged with the Australian Conservatives//

You know, I'm genuinely disappointed to hear that news :(

Because say what you will about Family First, they are responsible for the Best Political Advertisement Ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtlYVss-jbA

Let's see Cory's Tories top that sort of genius.

PS:

Oh, and don't forget to vote for Henry, of course.

Henry, Henry, let's all vote for Henry.

Toni, like ttbn I am shocked, was it not bad enough, dare I say it, this Family First had one of them on the payroll, now I learn from you they also have one of those on the payroll as well. Henry! what's his real name, most likely Wong! Said he was a business man, where is his business, his 'Two Dollar' Shop and Market Stall? I imagine, there are good decent white folk like ttbn who are duped into thinking they are voting for a clean cut Christian lad named Henry, when all along they are voting for a, dare I say it, a Wong, or a Fong, or even a Dong! What is the world coming to?

//I imagine, there are good decent white folk like ttbn who are duped into thinking they are voting for a clean cut Christian lad named Henry, when all along they are voting for a, dare I say it, a Wong, or a Fong, or even a Dong! What is the world coming to?//

Yeah, I'm not sure that ttbn is as opposed to Wangs in private as he pretends to be in public. I suspect ttbn probably loves as many Wangs as he can get his hands on.

Nnnnnng?

I suspect you're right, Toni.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lester_Wright_Jr/publication/14430824_Is_Homophobia_Associated_with_Homosexual_Arousal/links/54d4e9840cf25013d02a25fa/Is-Homophobia-Associated-with-Homosexual-Arousal.pdf

I hope that clears up any confusion, Foxy.

Dear AJ,

It certainly did.