There is a huge difference between multiculturalism and multinationalism/multiracism.
What we have had until recently is people of many different national or racial backgrounds who shared similar values.No one denies that previous intakes of migrants have caused alarm in some people but in the final analysis, previous migrants have shared similar cultural beliefs and have integrated well into Australian society. Even the smaller percentage who were non Christian came from non violent religious backgrounds and have settled in well, becoming contributors to our society.
Today is a totally different ballgame. We are importing a group who do not want to change those cultural beliefs that our society finds objectionable. Forget about food and restaurants, those are negligible issues. The fundamental issue is the integration of a group who has accepted the cultural beliefs of the host society.
People can argue the pros and cons of this till the cows come home but in the end it comes down to one simple question.
Can anyone name a majority Judeao/ Christian country that has a population of 10% or more Muslims that is safe, cohesive and economically sound?

Big Nana,

I can name one, "La-La Land".

No Big Nana, I do not think that anyone can name such a country.
As an Imman said once; "If the Koran did not proscribe the death
penalty for apostasy Islam would have died out centuries ago."

The Muslims invaded India around the 10th century and as Ismise said
they are still attacking Hindus a thousand years later.

With the pressure of the death penalty muslims will continue to enforce
their religious beliefs. If you think that is fanciful look up honor killings.
The police in the UK are programmed to always look "on the bright side"
and there are signs of the police here being programmed to take
similar attitudes. To conform that just listen to the Victorian Police.
Young British girls literally in their thousands were groomed for the
sex trade around the UK and the police and local authorities looked
the other way.
They even arrested one father who was trying to get into a house to
rescue his daughter.
Remember the Skase Gang, they were just starting up the same thing
here when one brave girl gave evidence against Bil Al and his cousin
and they are now residents of the Super Mosque at Goulburn.

The crux of the matter is that the Koran encourages the killing of
infidels if they refuse to submit or to be dhminnmnis and accept
second class citizenship including paying the Jizah tax.
If you think that is a middle ages tax well that is the reason they
give for cheating on welfare payments in western countries.
They consider it to be the jizah tax which ALL non believers MUST
pay to muslims.

It is a matter of percentage. There is a clear correlation between
the percentage of muslims and the way they behave to the host community.
The leader of the Freedom Party in Holland Geert Wilder has published
the scale of percentage in his book Marked for Death.
I will put it up later.

Lets take a look at Mr Fraser Anning's maiden speech and
the accuracy of his claims:

1) He claimed that the majority of Australians want to see
a reduction in the number of Muslim people allowed to immigrate.

Not true. Research by Monash University
has found that 80% of people favour immigration policies that
are non-discriminatory. The study found that negative attitudes
towards people of the Muslim faith was less than 25% and only
15.8% of people think religion or race should be a factor in
deciding an immigration application.

2) Mr Anning claimed that 457 visa classification allows
foreigners to "steal jobs from Australians."

That visa class was discontinued by the government last year.

3) Mr Anning claimed that Australia's immigration policies
were set "on a whim."

In reality governments carefully set the number of people
allowed to enter the country in various visa classes.

Almost two-thirds of those who immigrate to Australia are
skilled migrants.

4) Mr Anning made remarks about the Bourke Street incident in
January 2017, when six people were killed and others injured
after a car ploughed into pedestrians in Melbourne's CBD.
In referring to the incident Mr Anning called it an "Act of
terrorism," perpetrated by a Muslim.

The accused James Gargasoulas, is Australian-born, and of
Greek descent. He is not a Muslim, nor does he have any connection
to terrorism. Police do not consider the Bourke Street
incident an Act of terrorism.

5) Mr Anning made an extra-ordinary claim that Muslims in
Victoria and NSW are 3 times more likely to be convicted of
crimes.

No available crime data supports this assertion. Authorities in
both states don't publish statistics on the religions of
offenders. Reporters have pushed Mr Anning on the basis of this
claim, but he hasn't commented.

6) Mr Anning has also waded into the complex so-called
"African gang" issue in Melbourne. Mr Anning made the assertion
that most of the people referred to as being part of the
"African gangs" are Muslim.

cont'd ...

Foxy you must have a cast iron constitution, you stayed here day after day wallowing in some very lost very very far right mud while I retreated, *left* a word spat Trump like at any one who still has an active brain, the few, who seem content to claim to be thinking like the majority, continue to pile up the junk, yes I know some Muslims are a threat, but have they read the first testament? do they want to know about that? if it was my task to sit at that table, to try to bring both sides a little closer, SOME of my claims would cheer up our detractors, number one!Foxy will not like it! an end to the BURKA, out law it,based on togetherness, remember before condemning me,we could not walk on their streets dressed as we wish, in all things effort from both sides not one is needed to gain any thing

cont'd ...

7) On #AW Neil Mitchell - pointed out that most of the people
referred to as being part of the "African gangs," are
Australian born and that the offenders were not Muslim -
as most South Sudanese identify as Catholic.

8) Mr Anning called for the "White Australia" policy to
be re-instated which ran from 1949 to 1973.

The speech-writer said to have penned Mr Anning's speech,
Richard Howard denies being an extremist despite his
fascination with Nazi Germany - hence his reference to
"The Final Solution."

News Corp's - News.com.au - asked the question -

"Are lessons in history so obscured by time that any part of
Australian society - particularly some of those whom
Senator Anning presumably appealed to, whose forebears
fought and died to end Nazism - can't grasp the significance of
"The Final Solution" in this content for what it is?'

Finally the question that News Corp asks is -

"All Australians must ask themselves - do we want racially
based laws instigated by a politician who has ironically
landed himself in Parliament via a racially based law
(i.e. Section 44 of the Constitution)?"

The statement and title of this discussion - "Someone
Had to Say it!" Beggars the question - WHY?
There's surely enough mis-information
around as it is.