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