Listening to Radio Nationals Program (below) on Tibet by Phillip Adams I had to question the consistency of cultural policy in the world. One view is that cultures have a right to the ownership of their territories- but this seems to be applied inconsistently in the world. In Australia both major political parties favour high rates of immigration those that are against this policy are labelled racist.

How does this compare to Radio National's segment below?

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/tibet-climate-change/10118376

But Tibet is facing twin challenges; as climate change melts its glaciers and its grassland turns to desert, the Chinese government which controls the semi-autonomous region has increased mining and migration into the region.

Both are threatening the very existence of Tibet’s traditional nomads.

//In Australia both major political parties favour high rates of immigration those that are against this policy are labelled racist.//

No, not necessarily. Just the racist ones.

I heard Bob Carr speaking on this subject a while ago (episode date Tuesday 24/7, interview starts at 13:20):

http://iview.abc.net.au/show/tonightly-with-tom-ballard/series/0/video/LE1691H143S00

He's in favour of cutting immigration numbers in half. But he approaches the argument from the point of view that Australia simply can't support too large a population, and is quick to point out that he's only concern is the numbers, not where immigrants are coming from. He doesn't come across as being the slightest bit racist, so he doesn't get labelled accordingly. And it really is that simple: if you don't want to be labelled racist, just follow Bob's example and don't act like one.

But if it looks like a racist, swims like a racist and quacks like a racist, then people are going to call it a racist. Which seems fair enough to me: avoiding calling people racist even when they're being overtly racist, because that might hurt their poor widdle feewings, seems to me like a particularly dodgy sort of political correctness.

Stay away from the ABC, CM, particularly RN and the really awful Philip Adams. China is a dreadful nation that wants to spread Chinamen all over the world - they are like the Muslims in that respect - colonising to conquer. They have done it by force in Tibet, but our dirtbag politicians are encouraging them to do the same in Australia. They are buying Australia, but the result will be the same as their viciously aggressive method in Tibet

Canem,
China seems to be trying to replace the indigenous Tibetan culture with another. AIUI the migrants are overwhelmingly Han Chinese.

Australia did similar things decades ago. But nowadays we're accepting migrants from all over the world, The culture of those already here isn't being replaced by another.

Not many people are aware that before China took over Tibet they did not have a single school, hospital or paved road in the country and the former rulers fled with much of the national wealth.

Also, the Dalai Lama is keen to regain power in Tibet but negotiations with China are not progressing smoothly.

One of the ways a people who are desperately in need (or hope) of external unearned assistance, make their claims, is to blame their problems on that catch-all culprit, climate change.

The Pacific Islands deserve help, we are told, because of AGW. They're all sinking don't ya know.

Except they aren't.

Ditto Tibet.

Climate change is reeking havoc we are told. Except, when you look at the data, it's not so obvious.

http://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/b0bdfb00-efc8-4d65-99f9-b1d80e625581/mfig007.jpg

Article the graph comes from and associated data is here...

http://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.1956

Sure temperatures have risen from the recent colder past. But they've merely gone back to levels that have occurred regularly over the past four centuries.

But as we know, climate change is now a religion. The facts are entirely immaterial.