Multiculturism, what is it?

[Paul Sheehan]

AUSTRALIA accepted 87,000 immigrants in 1994-95, the last financial year before the Howard Government was elected. Immigration was also a hot topic.



Move forward 10 years. Last financial year, 2004-05, Australia accepted 123,000 new settlers. "Yes, that's a 40 per cent increase over the past 10 years," confirmed Senator Amanda Vanstone, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, who is busy upgrading her own multiculturalism by learning Italian.

So the Howard Government has increased the immigration intake by 40 per cent, with a 10 per cent jump in the past year, it has admitted more Asian immigrants than any previous government, and more Muslim immigrants than any previous government, and more Muslim refugees - and yet legal immigration is not a hot topic, and immigration is a winning issue for the government. This has to count as a significant political achievement for John Howard.

It's also going to keep housing prices high in Sydney because, as usual, the largest number of immigrants move to Sydney. Forty thousand last year. The majority came from Asia, led by China and India. Add the growth in student numbers from Asia, and the continued high numbers of tourists from Asia, and Sydney has become a city integrated into the East Asian region. It certainly felt that way on New Year's Eve.

In and around the Sydney Opera House on Saturday night - where the traditional New Year's Eve gala put on by Opera Australia is one of the jewels in the crown of Sydney's culture - the crush of people was more Asian than anything else, from the elegant Japanese women in evening gowns, some even in traditional yukata, to the large numbers of Asian families camped around Bennelong Point, to the squadrons of Chinese students.

Many are visitors, and many have made their home here. Add the usual English and European contingents and the Anglo-Aussie species was a minority in the heart of this huge public celebration.

And it was a great night. The $4 million spent on those 10,000 shooting comets and 11,000 exploding shells was money well spent, given that about a million people watched it live, and it is the first major global celebration of the New Year, an image broadcast around the world.


The exploding cascade off the Sydney Harbour Bridge always delivers. It is a brilliant image for Sydney and a brilliant advertisement for Australia, which is why there were so many foreign visitors there on Saturday night.

[Keith]

Paul wrote that item in the SMH

Notable was his remark about the fireworks

He said Many were visitors, and many have made their home here. Add the usual English and European contingents and the Anglo-Aussie species was a minority in the heart of this huge public celebration.

[Ralph]

>John Winston Howard is a dirty little ratty snake bastard sociopath!



pfft ... no wonder Howard-haters can't get him voted out . Multiculturism is their policy...

Of those who oppose it Half of them are racist trolls l, who hate the fact
that the Coalition has maintained a high, non-racially based
immigration policy


The other half are left-leaning liars who accuse his government of
being racist despite those immigration stats providing clear evidence
to the contrary

[Flash]

"ferdie"





Multiculturalism is a slippery ideology, in that there is a myriad of
variations to the concept. This wealth of definitions is actually a great
advantage to the supporters of multiculturalism, as it is easy for them to
deflect any attacks upon their viewpoint, by saying "Oh no, that's not the
kind of multiculturalism that I'm talking about"; they can swap, merge, and
confuse definitions, and therefore dodge valid arguments by avoiding "being
pinned down" to one definition. Various commentators have spoken on the
issue of the various definitions of multiculturalism:


Lois Foster and David Stockley, in their study of the multicultural concept,
talk of
"the various ideologies of multiculturalism which have competed for
official acceptance and dominance in Australia", and have said that "there
has been a growing body of theoretical criticism of the ambiguity and
confusion surrounding the use of the term 'multiculturalism'."
An Ethnic Affairs Council report admitted that
"There are many kinds of multiculturalism and some are grossly
incompatible with Australia's political and social system."
Dr. Franco Schiavoni (of the Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission) said that
"In the Australian context the term 'multiculturalism' has been used to
refer to a variety of policies and theoretical perspectives".
Dr. Ralph Pervan (then Chairman of the Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs
Commission of WA) prophesied that
"in the 21st Century ... we will still be debating the meaning of
multiculturalism."
Paolo Totaro (of the Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW) said
"Multiculturalism - notwithstanding the widespread use of the word - is
still a very imprecise, albeit very useful concept."
The Ethnic Affairs Task Force has told us that
"the concept of multiculturalism has lacked precise formulation and wide
public acceptance."
As Professor Lauchlan Chipman said,
"years ago when the term 'multi-cultural' had not been long in vogue, I
was inclined to dismiss multiculturalism as, at best, an irritatingly
muddled way of trying to represent the whole range of life-styles to be
found among Australian residents ... In terms of the spectrum to which I
earlier referred, ranging from Millian liberal pluralism ('soft'
multi-culturalism) through to anti-assimilationism, ethnic separatism, and
non-hierarchical apartheid ('hard' multi-culturalism), I was inclined to
interpret it at the soft end. Today it is clear that advocates of
multi-culturalism are operating in the middle and harder divisions of the
spectrum; the soft end - which has no essential connection, in origin or in
justification, with ethnicity - is reserved simply for astounding the
shallower critics who, in expressing doubts about multi-culturalism, are
made to look like racists, or illiberal and intolerant bigots. Fast footwork
through the spectrum is frequently necessary in debates with
multi-culturalists."
In summing up this "trendy" ideology, Chipman was later to describe
multiculturalism as an
"intellectually degenerate and practically corrupt social philosophy".
Government officials, and other multiculturalists, have even been apparently
contradictory as to whether Australia actually is multicultural (supposedly)
or not.


On some occasions, we're told that Australia isn't multicultural:
"The major recurring themes of the position most clearly associated with
the Fraser government can be summarized as: 1) Multiculturalism was an
attitude to be encouraged, not a present reality ..." (This says that we're
not multicultural).
"Australia has been developing towards a multicultural society for nearly
200 years". Prime Minister Bob Hawke, 1984. ("Developing towards" infers
that we're not multicultural).
"... the widely shared goal of a multicultural Australia". Dr. Andrew
Theophanous, MHR for Burke, 1982. ("Goal" infers that we're not
multicultural).
"Thanks to migration our Australia today is a multicultural nation in the
making." Bishop of Bathurst, A.E. Thomas, 1978. ("In the making" infers that
we're not multicultural).
"Government assistance is a necessary factor in achieving a multicultural
society." Ethnic Affairs Task Force, 1982. ("Achieving" infers that we're
not multicultural).
On other occasions, we're told that Australia is multicultural:
"Australia has been multicultural in nature throughout its history, both
before and after European colonization". The New South Wales Department of
Education's Multicultural Education Policy, 1983.
"The crux of our argument is that Australia is already a society of
multiple cultural identities, or a multicultural society". The Australian
Ethnic Affairs Council, 1977.
"In a descriptive sense multicultural is simply a term which describes the
cultural and ethnic diversity of contemporary Australia. We are, and will
remain, a multicultural society. As a public policy multiculturalism
encompasses government measures designed to respond to that diversity. It
plays no part in migrant selection. It is a policy for managing the
consequences of cultural diversity in the interests of the individual and
society as a whole." Office of Multicultural Affairs, 1989.
"In a descriptive sense Australia is likely to remain multicultural well
into the twenty-first century." Office of Multicultural Affairs. 1988.
The apparent contradiction lies in the use of two differing assertions of
multiculturalism. First, that of Descriptive Multiculturalism, whereby a
claim is made "about the pluralistic nature of society" (i.e. that Australia
consists of many different cultures). Secondly, that of Prescriptive
Multiculturalism, whereby an assertion is made "about an ideal type of
society to be achieved some time in the future." The way that many
multiculturalists can so easily swap between these two differing assertions
of their ideology can make their arguments "as slippery as an eel" to pin
down. As has been noted by Anne Seitz, "The descriptive and prescriptive
definitions of multiculturalism are seldom used consistently and accurately.
Very often there is a confusion or a 'sliding' between the two concepts.
Frequently this 'slippage' is deliberate -- a convenient tactic to confuse
the issue under debate."


As another example of the selective use of the term; it could be asked why
some other "multi-ethnic" societies are not normally (if ever) called
"multicultural" (even in the "descriptive sense"). For example, Fiji, the
former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, Lebanon, and Sri Lanka; let alone
apartheid-era South Africa. The truth is, multiculturalists use the term as
it happens to suit them at the time.


The effects of the introduction of multiculturalism into Australia have been
enormous, with the results being mostly divisive and destructive. In 1989,
in what amounted to an expensive attempt to rehabilitate the general
public's view of "multiculturalism", the government produced a
widely-publicised document: The National Agenda for a Multicultural
Australia. This was the government's opportunity to give its version of
multiculturalism. However, to believe a pro-multicultural government's
public definition of multiculturalism would be as naive as believing Joseph
Stalin's public definition of communism, or Adolf Hitler's public definition
of nazism: their explanation would be a "whitewash", avoiding the real
disadvantages and negatives inherent in the system, and ignoring the
"reality" of their ideology (i.e. what it means in the "real world"). The
introduction of multiculturalism in the 1970s has given a "concrete" impetus
to, and a "moral" justification for, a wide range of pro-ethnic machinations
and anti-Australian practices from those multiculturalists in government,
the public service, various institutions, the education system, and in
general (whether such practices arose from ideology, group "needs", or
self-interest is immaterial).


So, what is this ideology called "multiculturalism" really all about?
The defining of multiculturalism can be fraught with difficulty, as there
are several aspects to this ideology, as well as a myriad of views and
perceptions concerning it. Even the advocates of this policy talk of the
"different concepts of multiculturalism" and admit to "difficulties in
defining ... 'multiculturalism'".


However, upon investigation, it can be seen that there are four basic
aspects to multiculturalism:


1.. Demographic Multiculturalism


2.. Prescriptive Multiculturalism


3.. Holistic Multiculturalism


4.. Political Multiculturalism
As each of these aspects are interrelated, it is therefore necessary that
each of these four strands should be looked at, to understand the overall
ideology.


1. Demographic Multiculturalism.


Also known as Descriptive Multiculturalism; this is an assertion that
because a society has people from different backgrounds that therefore such
a society, as a whole, should be described as multicultural; applicable
whether that society be a nation, a city, or even a small town.


On the surface, there would seem to be little to disagree with in this
concept. However, there are two angles to be considered.:


Firstly, to look at it as a matter of scale, or of proportion. For instance,
if a single German, and a single Russian were to take up residence in a far
flung, isolated, culturally homogeneous village in China, does that village
automatically become multicultural? Of course, one could become pedantic and
say that as that village now contains people of several cultural
backgrounds, that the village has now become "multicultural". It could then
be said that everywhere in the world is "multicultural" as in every place
you will usually find someone who belongs to a different culture, whether it
is a national culture, a regional culture, or even the "culture" of a
different family. The whole concept becomes nonsensical. Or, if it is a
matter of scale, at what stage does a society become "multicultural"?


Secondly, to look at it as a matter of cultural commitment. For example:
Should Norway be considered a "Norwegian" country; or should it, by reason
of recent migration, be considered a "multicultural" country? If one is
granted the privilege of migrating to Norway (and it is a privilege, not a
"right"; as no-one has the "right" to migrate to a foreign country),
shouldn't one make a commitment to learning the Norwegian language and
adapting to the Norwegian culture? Or does one say "Well, I'm here now, your
country had better start adapting to suit me"?


The point is, if a nation has a mainstream or predominant culture, that
"culture" can be a matter of commitment: from the nation to the immigrant,
and from the immigrant to the nation. When immigrants, and their second and
third generations, become part of a nation and its culture, demographic
statistics of "ethnic background" lose their relevance. Cultural
divisiveness (multiculturalism) arises when home-grown agitators (academics,
liberals,"lefties", etc.) and self-appointed migrant "representatives"
("Well, I'm here now, your country had better start adapting to suit me")
become active in the pursuit of their own political and social agendas.


Therefore it can be seen that a country which houses a minority of people
from different cultural backgrounds (i.e. "ethnic minorities"), and a
"multicultural country", are not the same thing. The difference lies in
Political Multiculturalism (defined later in this section).


2. Prescriptive Multiculturalism


This is the aspect most commonly, and often deliberately, confused with
Demographic Multiculturalism; that is, to confuse a descriptive phrase (a
demographic "what is") with a prescriptive phrase (an idealistic "what
should be"). Prescriptive Multiculturalism is the aspect of the ideology
which provides "prescriptive assertions about an ideal type of society to be
achieved some time in the future", hence the multiculturalist's talk of
"Australia is not yet a multicultural society", or their yearning to create
"a truly multicultural society".


Petro Georgiou (then Director of the Australian Institute of Multicultural
Affairs) believes that
"Multiculturalism in essence symbolises a determination to secure the
rights of individuals of all ethnic backgrounds to equal access to programs
and services - to economic, social and political opportunities, and - to
tolerance and understanding of diversity".
Others have claimed "that a truly multicultural society would make provision
for the use of all languages in everyday affairs, including official
transactions".


As Lorna Lippman commented,
"To contend that Australia is a multicultural society is a dubious
proposition, since this would assume that the different ethnic groups are
(according to the Commonwealth Education Portfolio definition) "equal in
their access to resources, services and political power" and this, though it
may be a social ideal, is not a reality in Australia today."
Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki has laid down the "three aims of
multiculturalism", namely "ethnic cultural identity", "a more socially
cohesive nation", and "equal access to social resources"; this opinion being
echoed by the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council's 1977 report, Australia as
a Multicultural Society. In reinforcement, John Menadue (then Secretary of
the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) said "These principles of
cultural identity, social cohesion and equal opportunity have become
generally accepted as pre-requisites for a multicultural society."


Brian Bullivant relates how these three "aims" have "dominated official
statements" about multiculturalism, to which he says is sometimes added a
fourth, "equal responsibility for, commitment to and participation in
society" (an addition which has been supported by the Australian Council on
Population and Ethnic Affairs), the exact meaning of which he has called
"obscure"; although, nonetheless, multiculturalism's supporters hope "that a
multicultural Australia will achieve all these features and more". Bullivant
then adds that "It is at this point that anyone with a sense of history and
philosophy must begin to doubt the rhetoric of multiculturalism. Can it
really be that the Australian version will solve the pluralist dilemma that
has resisted resolution by philosophers and politicians for centuries; will
the multicultural golden age dawn over antipodean skies?". Faced with such
"romantic" multiculturalism, Bullivant says that even "Jean Martin, the late
doyenne of Australian sociologists, has put an opposing view based on a more
accurate sense of history that such assumptions 'defy the weight of
historical experience'."


Prescriptive Multiculturalism can be seen to be a "fairy tale" that
supporters can easily cite as an argument for multiculturalism as, being an
"Utopian" ideal, it cannot be immediately disproved; yet it is often used to
support (and supposedly prove???) the multiculturalist ideology. In fact,
like all other aspects of multiculturalism, upon a closer examination, it
actually proves to be dangerous and divisive in its implementation.


3. Holistic Multiculturalism


This stresses the idea of cultural pluralism: that the maintenance of many,
or "plural", cultures housed within a nation's "ethnic groups" is valuable,
both to the ethnic group (to the ethnic group itself, as well as to its
individuals) and to the host nation (as a whole). It says that the nation
should value such cultural diversity; although these cultures should
co-exist "within an overall framework of unity" (paradoxically, this
"framework" is usually that of the predominant culture). This is how
multiculturalism is usually portrayed in the "current" or "operative" sense;
indeed, it has been said that "Multiculturalism has come to be a shorthand
term for a form of cultural pluralism.".


Cultural pluralism is said to be "a mode of living which enables everyone to
maintain his or her culture or whatever segments of it they may desire,
without prejudice or disadvantage". Of course, the practical difficulties of
such a theory are enormous, considering the many "weird and wonderful"
cultural practices that exist around the world, many of which would not be
welcome in a "Westernised" society.


Closely linked to the idea of cultural pluralism is that of cultural
relativism, i.e. "that each culture is of equal value, and should not be
judged from the cultural perspective of others". Again, in a practical
sense, this concept is so ridiculous that it can only be considered an
exercise in futility.


Also, it has been noted that "the full expression and the maintenance of
cultural pluralism would need to be supported through and by ethnic-specific
structures -- that is, by structural pluralism."


But, like Demographic Multiculturalism, Holistic Multiculturalism is
irrelevant without the mechanics of Political Multiculturalism.


4. Political Multiculturalism


This is the active promotion of cultural pluralism, so that rather than
encouraging migrants to adapt to the national culture, or even leaving them
to their own devices, the government will deliberately encourage migrants
(and their offspring) to remain within society as separate "ethnic" groups.
It actually opposes the assimilation of immigrants into the nation's
culture.


In the normal course of events, immigrants would've been able to adapt to
the national culture, and their children and grandchildren could become
fully part of the nation's mainstream culture. Instead, all of these people
are now being told not to adapt, but to retain a separate identity from that
of host nation, thus ensuring divisiveness.


An important tactic employed in this process, related to cultural pluralism,
is that of structural pluralism whereby it is believed that "rather than
leaving migrants to engage in their own cultural practices or not, as they
please, Governments should actually encourage migrant groups, by explicit
funding and other policies, to maintain their own institutions, their own
kind of ... languages, news media, clubs, societies, schools, sporting and
other recreational groups, and, possibly, economic institutions like shops
and professional services. This should be done, not to help provide a
stepping stone into the wider society, but because it is a good thing in its
own right and an end in itself". It is this "trend to institutionalise
cultural distinctiveness through organisations" that enables the government
to artificially "enable all cultures brought to Australia by migrants to be
maintained and developed". As one commentator noted, "In its extreme form,
structural pluralism entails an apartheid-like separatism and carries the
potential for dividing rather than unifying society."


An integral part of political multiculturalism is for the government, and
other pro-multiculturalists, to force their views upon the entire
population, thus making it the "official ideology" of Australia. For their
purposes, it is seen as imperative that multiculturalist ideas are forced
upon children in their formative years, so as to shape the views of the
coming generations. Thus, Lorna Lippman (then Director of the Victorian
Office of Community Relations) has demanded that "Social institutions and
particularly educational institutions, have to contribute to
multiculturalism" and that they "retain the term 'multicultural' as being an
official ideology in Australia with widespread adherence, particularly from
education authorities". It is seen that "the education system must play an
active role in bringing about ... a stable multicultural society". To this
end "General education at primary and secondary level now includes
multicultural study programmes", for which it has been recommended that
"general curriculum be re-examined and that Multicultural emphasis be
reflected in all subject areas" (emphasis added).


It is through political agitation and action, via the power of government
policies and resources - and supported by liberal-internationalists in the
media and the education system, that multiculturalism has become the
dominant ideology, which is now being forced upon modern Australia.


Multiculturalism needs to be recognised for what it is: a political
ideology.


----------------- Multi Cultural ism Awareness Centre.

[fasgnadh]

--


"There is a fundamental distinction between
multicultural and Multiculturalism, which racists
constantly and deliberately confuse.


A society is multicultural if it has more than one
culture being practiced within that society.


'Multicultural - A society which embraces a number
of minority cultures' - Macquarie Dictionary


Multiculturalism is two things, the -ISM indicates that it
is a set of beliefs or ideas about multiculture,
ie a recognition of multicultural REALITY, an acceptance of it,
a celebration of it.
But it is ALSO a set of government policies to
formalize that recognition, acceptance and celebration!
Thus the Howard government has a Department which documents
the positive economic social and foreign policy benefits from
having a successful, open, democratic multicultural society."


- fasgnadh

[Tommy]

Ethnic diversity and multiculturism somewhat works in America. It should
work everywhere including Australia. The Greek Left uses this argument to bring it to Greece.


The script of ethnic diversity is IDENTICAL in any country. Let's compare US
and Cyprus. Let's even add Serbia.


US Cyprus Serbia
Race Riots LA etc (1963) Kosovo
Ethnic Terrorism Black Panthers Denktash KLA
Foreign assistance
to ethnic minorities Never 1974 1999


So indeed there is one difference between Cyprus and US. In the US NO ONE
would EVER DARE assist the Blacks because America is too powerful. No one
would invade America and set up an area say 20% for Blacks. They did in
Serbia and Cyprus. Powerful nations can survive a large degree of ethnic
diversity, smaller nations cannot. Period.

[charlienogun]

Tommy,

I am not too sure at what you are trying to prove with your Cyprus and Serbia examples.

You have named two countries who have citizens who have the intolerance of other cultures and other religions and hate for others drilled into them from birth.

These two countries believe there is a future in Tribal mono cultures of the past and have learned nothing but intolerance and hate from their past.

In Australia the last thing we want is for immigrants to bring with them this irrational baggage of their past history.

There is no place for Lebanese, Chinese, English, French or "WHAT EVER" GANGS in Australia that have NO RESPECT for our laws and our Police Force.

It is up to those in these GANGS to understand this or be removed from our Society by force.

We have seen what and where these EVIL thinking GANGS are taking Australia and the people are now saying to their politicians "Please remove this EVIL from our Society"; and we mean ALL GANGS.

Since we have had our Multicultural policies in place we have had over 1.5 million immigrants accepted in Australia.


We now have a problem with less than 0.01% of these immigrants and many with this problem are also Australians (who want a white Australian policy) who were born here.

If only all our policies and laws worked as well as our Multicultural Policies have.

[Keith]

dougiedodo said:

Inter,

I never knew that Australian laws requires special consideration or leniency to immigrants.

Do you know of cases where this has been done?

It seems that special more severe laws were created just for the pack Rapists etc.

Best thing said on the boards so far dougie

[workingman]

Thank you Administrator. It has become clear that when people start talking about multiculturalism they are more often than not talking about different things. Consequently their talk is meaningless. Nuff said.

[charlienogun]

Workingman,

You are correct as most people I know have no idea that our multicultural policies and all its spending is defined on the net at the federal immigration site.

Many people I know make up their own definition and make up their own policies of what they think our multicultural society is and then go off half cocked on why they do not like their policies that they made up.

[Flash]

Multiculturalism In Australia

by Doctor Mark Cooray

" Multiculturalism" is a convenient catchword borrowed from Canadian politics to represent a vague set of ideas which purportedly promotes the cultural and economic interests of certain non-Anglomorph sections of the Australian community. If proponents of multiculturalism are asked to describe the concept it is likely that there will be as many descriptions as there are proponents.

Multiculturalism in Canada is an historic compromise struck between the descendants of English-speaking settlers and their French-speaking counterparts. French Canadians were settled in Canada before the British; colonisations and have since remained a linguistically distinct community. They constitute the vast majority of the population of Quebec, one-third of New Brunswick and significant proportions of Ontario and Manitoba. In Canada, multiculturalism represents a formula for the a harmonious coexistence of the two major communities and serves to safeguard the unity and integrity of the nation. These considerations have no relevance in the Australian context, and hence multiculturalism in Australia must have some other justification. But one can make no headway in this direction without an adequate understanding of what the concept means.

At the least contentious level, multiculturalism entails the recognition that in Australia there exist different cultural groups. At this level the concept is a purely factual assertion which can have minimal effect on policy. At the opposite end are notions of multiculturalism which an. assert the right of each ethnic community to maintain its language and culture on Australian soil, if necessary with the assistance of public funded programmes. Somewhere in between stands Senator Gareth Evans who conceives multiculturalist policy in the supremely vague terms of "programmes, including those supported from the public purse, expressly designed to create a more open-textured and tolerant social environment" (Quadrant, May 1982,p.5).

The multicultural debate has also been confused by the inclusion in it of the rights and interests of the Aboriginal population. The position of Aborigines is historically and otherwise distinct from that of other ethnic groups. The Australian Aborigine is found only in Australia, and so are his language and culture. The centres of Italian, Greek or Chinese culture are elsewhere. Whatever happens in Australia will have no consequence for the survival of these cultures in their respective homelands. The survival of Aboriginal culture and language on the other hand depends solely on what happens in Australia. Therefore as regards the preservation of cultures themselves, there are considerations which apply uniquely to Aboriginal culture. The Aboriginal question is a separate debate and should not be confused with the questions regarding the cultural interests of other groups.

Multiculturalism of the type sought to be practised in Australia is fundamentally flawed by a retrogressive conception of culture itself. This conception regards culture as something static, to be preserved in its purity wherever the member of that cultural group reside. Culture is not static even in isolated communities. It is in constant evolution through interaction between human beings and between human beings and their environment. In isolated communities culture may evolve slowly and may even appear to be static. But in communities which interact with other communities, rapid cultural evolution is to be expected. When a small community interacts with a large community it is inevitable that the elements of the more prevalent culture will tend to predominate in the evolutionary outcome. Thus when a small group of Greeks or Italians translocate themselves into an Anglomorph environment, it is inevitable that they will become assimilated into the larger community if not in the first generation, in the generations to follow.

The reverse process has taken place where small groups of Anglomorphs migrated to non-Anglomorph societies as happened in countries such as Argentina. British Colonial administrators were somewhat of an exception as they isolated themselves in the colonial outposts. Even so, Englishmen who returned from the colonies showed distinct signs of exposure to foreign cultures. In Sri Lanka, the English and Scottish plantation managers became a distinct breed of Englishmen or Scotsmen under the local cultural influence. Many had problems of resettling in Britain and a few even returned to Sri Lanka to live out their retirement. This happened despite the isolation and aloofness of the European community on the island.

When the different cultural groups are exposed to one another's influence, it is unavoidable that the cultures will interact and that the culture of the numerically superior group will tend to assimilate the cultures of the others. However, this does not mean that the culture which is assimilated will not leave its marks on the predominant culture. Nor should it be so, for, as T.S. Eliot wrote:

'The country which receives culture from abroad without having anything to give in return, and the country which aims to impose its culture on another, without accepting anything in return, will both suffer from this lack of reciprocity'— (T.S. Eliot, Notes Towards the Definition of Culture,"Selected Prose of T.S. Eliot", ed Frank Kermode (Faber and Faber, London 1975) p.303.)

Despite the cliche "when in Rome, do as the Romans do", it is evident from history that Rome itself was transformed by its absorption of barbarian communities into its legal economic and social structure.

Multiculturalism, as currently conceived in Australia, seeks to retard (for it is impossible to arrest) this process of interaction and evolution. It involves the pouring of vast quantities of public money into an enterprise which must inevitably and eventually fail. To maintain for any length of time the cultural distinctiveness of different groups, much more than money is needed. It needs an iron clad system of apartheid or self-imposed inward looking communal traditions. As the unfolding events in South Africa show, even a system of apartheid cannot indefinitely withstand the pressures-of integration. Even if such an enterprise has a theoretical chance of success, its goal is unacceptable from the point of view of human development. The real chance is that multiculturalism will fail in its objective of keeping the cultures distinct but will ferment inter-communal disharmony.

The question is do we want an Australian culture or a collection of distinct ethnic cultures? Does the fact that Anglomorph features are likely to predominate in an Australian culture make the achievement of such a national culture any less desirable?

The next question is who needs multiculturalism? Certainly non-Anglomorph migrants will be initially disadvantaged by language and cultural factors. Yet the transitional problems of new immigrants can be addressed without State-sponsored programmes for the preservation of ethnic cultures. The goals of alleviating transitional hardship and of culture propagation have often been deliberately confused. The larger objectives of multiculturalism have been undertaken without an indication of support even from ethnic communities. They have the endorsement of organised interest groups within such communities but there is no evidence of enthusiasm for them in the communities themselves.

A Morgan Gallup poll of voter intentions between April 1981 and March 1982 disclosed that even among Australians born overseas, the distribution amongst parties were roughly similar to Australian-born voters (The Bulletin, August 10th, 1982). According to that poll, the "overseas-born" support for the ALP was 48.64% whereas its national proportion was 47.46%. The corresponding figures for the Coalition were 39.59% and 41.59%. Two significant facts emerged from the poll. One was that the distribution of "overseas-born" support for the parties did not significantly vary from the national distribution despite the fact that the ALP was more closely identified with multiculturalism whereas the Coalition has been traditionally portrayed as a party of Anglophiles. The second was that overseas-born Chinese Australians, who, in recent years, have attracted the greatest resentment gave the Coalition a greater proportion of its support than the Coalition received nationally (53.57% as against 39.59%).

The poll was also significant in that it did not indicate the preferences of Australian-born ethnics, or the second and third generation descendants of migrants. These are the Australians who have become assimilated into the mainstream of the cultural life and who are among the best qualified to pronounce judgement on the multicultural theories of patronising Anglomorphs.

For all its rhetoric, multiculturalist policies have been mainly directed at two objectives, namely language retention through class room teaching and the provision of cultural entertainment through publicly funded ethnic television and radio. As regards language teaching, no one can deny the edifying experience of learning Italian, Greek, French, German, Arabic or Chinese, not to mention many other rich languages spoken by migrants. But there is a difference between teaching language for its educational value and teaching it in pursuance of the illusory goals of multiculturalism. If education is the objective, then priorities must be determined rationally after talking account of resources, costs and benefits. In this regard it must not be forgotten that the urgent demand of both educationists and ethnic Australians is to increase facilities for teaching English to migrants disadvantaged by language.

The fallacy of the assumption that migrants want multiculturalism is clear from the performance of ethnic television. The McNair Anderson Survey revealed that in 1982 only 15% of the ethnic population watched the Melbourne broadcasts of SBS Television compared with 22, 27 and 32 per cent for the commercial channels. The channel had become a luxury catering to the "film festival set" or as Senator Button described, the "middle-class Australians too lazy to go to continental cinemas". (The Bulletin, August 10, 1982). The ethnic communities are not buying the multicultural products peddled by governments Yet the multicultural faith continues to be blindly preached and practised.

It might be possible to dismiss multiculturalism as another ineffectual exercise in social engineering if not for the fact that, even if it fails in its stated aims, it might still succeed in sowing the seeds of communal discord. Australia is among the fortunate countries of the world which has the capacity to culturally unify diverse peoples with minimum trauma. Many countries, for mainly historical and political reasons, have immense problems of resolving conflicts between competing cultures which resist integration. Sri Lanka, my own country of birth, is a prime example. Ever since the unifying element of a common language (English) was removed by chauvinistic politicians, the two minor lingual communities have treated one another with mistrust and hostility. Australia fortunately has no similar problem as yet. But the multicultural policy creates one where none exists. The violence that erupted at a recent soccer match between Sydney City and Sydney Olympic shocked our community. But few have been concerned enough to examine the relationship of that incident to the unsavoury tendency to organise soccer clubs on ethnic lines. That ugly episode has an important lesson for people who have created a virtue out of cultural separation.

Multiculturalism as conceived at present has no place in a democratic society. The democratic society is characterised by the absence of discrimination and the presence of individual freedom. In such a society there is cultural freedom and the freedom of conscience. An individual is free to engage in cultural activity by himself or in association with others. If one wishes to live in isolation, he may do so. But he also has the freedom to intermingle and interact. What is not permissible in a truly free society is the imposition of rules of behaviour or the state sponsorship of culture. Culture belongs to the people and its destiny must remain in their hands. A society based on the satisfaction of individual needs through voluntary exchange is fertile ground for cultural enrichment. Wave upon wave of immigrants have come to Australia not because of a state-guaranteed cultural environment but because of the expectation that Australia affords the freedom and opportunity for individual advancement. Far from discouraging migration, the Anglomorph culture of Australia, with its liberal political traditions, has served as a major attraction to immigrants.

The expectation of migrants that Australian society will afford opportunities for them to satisfy their material, spiritual and cultural needs has largely been realised by the liberal character of the Australian institutions and the deep conviction in the liberal way of life shared by the Australian community. Propagandists for multiculturalism obscure the fact that Australia without its patronising governments and do-gooders is one of the most tolerant societies on earth. This may not be apparent to propagandists of multiculturalism but it is abundantly clear to migrants, the majority of whom have left oppression of one sort or another. Australia is not free of bigotry and prejudice. But relative to other nations this country's tolerance of immigrants is second to none. Multiculturalism is yet another example of governments trying to cure the imperfections of society through condescending theories and short-sighted political actions. It is a part of the "constructivist fallacy" which F.A. Hayek so lucidly exposed in his book, "Law, Legislation and Liberty."

If the proponents of multiculturalism care to ascertain the views and perceptions of the silent majority they will surly find that what endears Australia to immigrants is not simply its abundant riches but its political traditions which, until recently, have enabled individuals to live heir personal lives without government interference. They will find that most immigrants would rather not see Australia acquire the traits and characteristics which made their own homelands inhospitable to them.

[N Emerton]

THE problems we are experiencing with Muslim males is cultural and has arisen in many places. People who have daily contact with Muslim males mostly talk about them in a negative manner.

There is little complaint regarding Muslim females.

Many Muslim males seem unwilling or unable to co-exist or integrate with non-Muslims.

These Muslim males have attitudes that suggest they have no respect for others, our laws, our courts, our police or Australia in general. Women in Western dress are frequently their targets for abuse and rudeness.

Many European countries are also having serious problems with Muslim males. We should take heed of events and abandon multiculturalism and promote integration.

We should review the information we give to prospective immigrants about our society, laws and standards.

If not, in time, the problems will worsen and there will be a distinct possibility of restrictions on Muslim immigration.

[lennie]

N Emerton

If Sydney is any example I think the problem is serious enough and time now for Muslim immigration to be seriously reduced and restricted. This has to happen if integration is to have any success at all. Your comment regarding the Muslim male disrespect for western females is right on the button. Remember that we rarely hear from the Muslim female due to Muslim Male oppression. If they talk they incur punishment from their Male sector. Bloody awful I think.

[rifleman]

The problem with Multiculturism began in 1788 when the locals had a mob of foreign migrants dumped in what became known as Sydney Cove. They never took to the local culture, religion, language or way of life.
They immediately imposed their own culture, such as in was, and in no time had antagonised the locals.
As well they formed a ghetto around the cCove and forced the locals out.

Rifleman.

[workingman]

Well said rifleman, and indeed very true. But that was a case (as has happened without history and all over the world) of a stronger more pervasive culture pushing out a weaker culture.

I must also make the point that this thread was not intended for this discussion but seems how you have put your post here I am replying to it.

We have a similar situation with the muslims in Australia. If we want our exsisting culture to survive this attack we must resist the muslim 'enemy' at every turn

[rifleman]

Workingman,
My pointis that the problem of multiculturalism has been with us at least since 1788.
There were,I believe, a calculated 56 different nationalities on the First Fleet, at least six of whom were Italians and two were Negroes. One of these lost his life whilst saving someone from drowning. In the early days of the Colony it was intended to make Irish the second official language and there was a problem because so many of the convicts from Britain could not speak English.
The problems of multiculturalism and its definitions are not new.
The solution? Who knows?

Rifleman.

[nyknyk]

Heres another gem from Usenet ;D

> Not this Multicultural bullshit again. I suppose if dimwits repeat it
> do often they actually believe the bullshit that is multiculturalism.


> But we've had this argument before and have found out that the
> Multiculturalists haven't the faintest idea (about anything).



Check that SHEP
You have been spanked twice so far on this issue.

Here is the reality. Again.
Civilisation is intrinsically Multi-cultural, ethnically, economically
and socially.
Multicultralism is an attempt to alleviate the worse problems of
predjudice, nepotism and the "natural" human fear of difference.
The ONLY way to go back always ends up being genocide.
Now you can run away saying "Enough! where does the stupidity stop"
You never once give a counter argument, to quote someone else
discussing your "debating skills",
you attempt to "play the man, not the ball."

[on Usenet]

Nyknyk,

Multiculturalism is a crock of shit.


Your mantra proves yet again you haven't the faintest idea of how
multicultuiralism is used and abused You confuse multiculturalism with
the tolerance of races.


Fucksticks like you want the country to tolerate groups that will not
tolerate us.


You reckon:



>you have been spanked twice so far on this issue'


Is that so Nyknyk? Get yourself a feather duster - that might be more
effectual than your 'spanking'.

I could ask you what multiculturalism is and give a few examples but
every time someone asks that question you multicultural ratbags reach
for the race card and round and round we go

[Greg]

rifleman said:

Workingman,
My pointis that the problem of multiculturalism has been with us at least since 1788.
There were,I believe, a calculated 56 different nationalities on the First Fleet, at least six of whom were Italians and two were Negroes. One of these lost his life whilst saving someone from drowning. In the early days of the Colony it was intended to make Irish the second official language and there was a problem because so many of the convicts from Britain could not speak English.
The problems of multiculturalism and its definitions are not new.
The solution? Who knows?

Rifleman.

Many people forget that terra australis or Australia is in fact a Italian word meaning great south land, the fifth continent, land of the holy spirit, before the dutch or the british ever ventured here venetian sailors came to Australia & met the local inhabitants being the aboriginals, this occured in 1450, the italian mariners ventured back to Italy & gave the news to Pope Alexander, because italy was often a ally to spain & spoke similar languages, Pope Alexander annexed terra australis as the property of Spain & one must wonder if the british & spainish wars was actually fought because Pope Alexander gave the fifth continent to Spain, after many years of fighting the spainish armada was badly disabled & the british would declare that the fifth continent would be be a british colony not a spainish colony, Pope Alexander was furious & one must wonder if the church of England broke away from their Roman catholic founders just about the same time as Australia was discovered by italian mariners

[rifleman]

Greg,

WOW.

Rifleman.

[Jamal]

Greg said:

rifleman said:

Workingman,
My pointis that the problem of multiculturalism has been with us at least since 1788.
There were,I believe, a calculated 56 different nationalities on the First Fleet, at least six of whom were Italians and two were Negroes. One of these lost his life whilst saving someone from drowning. In the early days of the Colony it was intended to make Irish the second official language and there was a problem because so many of the convicts from Britain could not speak English.
The problems of multiculturalism and its definitions are not new.
The solution? Who knows?

Rifleman.

Many people forget that terra australis or Australia is in fact a Italian word meaning great south land, the fifth continent, land of the holy spirit, before the dutch or the british ever ventured here venetian sailors came to Australia & met the local inhabitants being the aboriginals, this occured in 1450, the italian mariners ventured back to Italy & gave the news to Pope Alexander, because italy was often a ally to spain & spoke similar languages, Pope Alexander annexed terra australis as the property of Spain & one must wonder if the british & spainish wars was actually fought because Pope Alexander gave the fifth continent to Spain, after many years of fighting the spainish armada was badly disabled & the british would declare that the fifth continent would be be a british colony not a spainish colony, Pope Alexander was furious & one must wonder if the church of England broke away from their Roman catholic founders just about the same time as Australia was discovered by italian mariners

Seeing that Australia was discovered & named by the italians in 1450, we british have had it very tough here, we have suffered constant racial abuse by the many other cultures who live here, including the aboriginal peoples. many times I have been called dirty, slimy filthy anglosaxon dog, pig face anglo scum, porker & so forth, I walked down the street & had people throw their garbage refuse at me as I walked by, as they yelled go home porker, go back to your european getto slums, when my anglo teachers said that Captain Cook discovered Australia I was called lying, slimy anglo dog. When I said to a chinese person, that one day we have to migrate to China & he said rot in hell porker, go back to your european getto slum, the rest of the world regards us as being the scum of the earth, they call us the pig peoples because we have the same skin colour as pigs do, they blame us for all the problems in the world. Our politicians are laughed at & ridiculed, even our police are called pigs, because they genearlly are made up of anglos.

[Kindergarten cops]

Kindergarten cops?





The March 21 the Australian reported that 40 “specially trained” police officers will be given powers to enter class rooms and assemblies on a regular basis.







The purpose of the plan is to detect “troublemakers” and “potential criminals” – as the State’s children seem now to be known. Iemma denied that particular schools would be targeted, but this was contradicted by the Police Minister Carl Scully who said that some schools will receive more attention than others.







The teachers’ union has criticised the idea.







“When a student is displaying behavioural problems the first port of call should be to refer them to a trained professional, and that's a school counsellor," Teachers' Federation deputy president Angelo Gavrielatos said.







Also joining the criticism is the umbrella body for the Parents and Citizens Associations, saying that the program would stigmatise some schools, leaving the impression they contained criminals. We reject “the idea that public schools are breeding grounds for criminal behaviour," a spokesperson said

[lennie]

dougiedodo said:

inter,

A good and thoughtful post.

If those who come to live with us cannot respect us why should we respect them?

Why should we let them stay?

Why not send them back to where they think they can respect the system if that is their wish?

dougiedodo

Didn't your Mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right.

[Flash]

If a person cannot and/or will not learn to speak english they should leave. If their pride for their former country is so great, leave and go back. There should be no accomodations. I travel all over the world and know that there are often signs posted in english in non english speaking countries, which is done only because america and the english language are major players as it relates to world commerse. Outside of that, there are no provisions anywhere to accomodate those who do not speak the native tongue in any nation. I.E no Spanish is China, no french in mexico ect No Enhlish in Australia or US

DK
NY

[Chanticleer2]

I wonder if the Gun people will allow me to say something about something else other than guns here?

Please?

or at leasty join in

Live here, be Australian

"When you come to this country, you become Australian" … John Howard, celebrating 10 years as Prime Minister.
MIGRANTS are obliged to "be Australian" and social integration must be pushed harder, John Howard has declared.
In an interview marking his 10th anniversary as Prime Minister, Mr Howard also describes the burqa, the full head covering worn by some Muslim women, as "confronting".
Mr Howard yesterday defended as "fundamentally accurate" a controversial speech by his Treasurer, Peter Costello, on core Australian values.
But Mr Howard's interview with the Herald, conducted before the Costello speech, confirmed that the two men are singing from the same song sheet in expressing trepidation about a divide between some Muslims and mainstream Australia.
It also illustrates the futility of some Muslim leaders appealing to Mr Howard yesterday to censure Mr Costello for the speech on Thursday.
Mr Howard told the Herald, "when you come to this country, you become Australian". Similarly, Mr Costello had said: "Before becoming an Australian, you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values, don't come to Australia."
In the interview, Mr Howard said multiculturalism had become distorted and too often stupidly meant "a federation of cultures". And he said Muslims must work at avoiding their alienation. Mr Costello condemned "confused, mushy, misguided multiculturalism".
Initially, the Costello comments - including stripping citizenship from people who advocate Islamic law over Australian law - were judged to be at odds with Mr Howard. On the same day, Mr Howard had spoken of the contribution of "all of those who weren't born in this country" and extolled Australia as the least discriminatory country. In the interview, however, Mr Howard said integration was underdone, even though Australia was "very socially cohesive". Yesterday Mr Howard said Australia's core set of values flowed from its Anglo-Saxon identity and the Treasurer's essential point - that people should not migrate to countries they do not appreciate - was unexceptional.
Mr Howard said Australian Muslims overhwelmingly were committed to Australia, and terrorism was based "upon an evil, distorted interpretation of Islam … But that doesn't mean you can't identify areas of concern, and I think the reaction of some in the Islamic community … is quite unreasonable."
Costello backers said his remarks were intended to brand him as conservative enough for a legitimate shot at the Liberal leadership. Yesterday Mr Costello continued to promote the cause for a more demanding citizenship test. On Sydney radio he brushed aside the leadership question when asked if he was positioning himself by making remarks that some would consider to be racist.
Despite a chorus of protest at the Costello speech, NSW's Labor Premier, Morris Iemma, called it reasonable and practical and said immigrants should "leave the disputes, leave the extremism and leave the fights behind". This endorsement is a sure sign that Labor polling identifies the Muslim divide as a potent electoral issue.
Pauline Hanson, the former One Nation leader, said she was vindicated by Mr Costello. She added that "he needs to throw these people out of this country who do not embrace Australia".

[Flash]

Mitsoulis Guilty of Using a Carriage Service to Threaten, Menace,
Harass or Offend

A Shoalhaven man who threatened to hunt down a 2GB talkback radio host
became the first person to be sentenced for email crimes linked to the
Cronulla riots and perhaps the first person to be sentenced for using a
carriage service (internet connection) to harass, threaten, menace or
offend. Using names such as 'Street Criminal' and 'Instigator', Nick
Mitsoulis fired off emails after objecting to on-air comments about
people of Lebanese descent. He wrote "I am going to hunt you down after
your shift U better have eyes behind your head Nazi". A former computer
technician, Mitsoulis must have known his identity would be discovered
after sending the emails. A google search of the name 'Nick Mitsoulis'
reveals some interesting facts about him. This case, heard in Nowra
Local Court on 14th March, sets a precedent in the area of internet
crime in N.S.W. Contributors to All need to be aware of the case, which
resulted in Mitsoulis being fined $3000 for each offence.

----------------------------------------------------------------



Prominent Sydney Taxi Driver Loses Court Case against 2GB

Faruque Ahmed is a well known contributor to Sydney Indymedia, and
numerous other global IMC sites. He was recently involved in court
action against a leading news and talkback radio station and lost.


Faruque Ahmed's posted material generally falls into one of two
categories, taxi driver advocacy and more frequently, anti-Israel
lobbying. The former stems from his occupation as a taxi driver. The
latter is his more controversial side, with his many posts also
including references to "Zionazis" (sic), the "Zionised (sic)
Judiciary" and so forth. These border on, and frequently cross over the


line into outright anti-Semitism, examples of which have frequently
been raised. Often, the two broad categories are intertwined, with
baseless claims by Mr Ahmed that the taxi industry and media reporting
thereof is being manipulated as part of some global Zionist conspiracy
(one such example here).


Faruque Ahmed sued Sydney radio station 2GB late last year. His public
statement, made on the old Sydney Indymedia site (and other
international IMCs) may be found here.


An excerpt follows (formatting corrected):


1. I was a long-standing and valued contributor of Radio 2GB. I used to


speak on average at least 6 times a week. Radio 2 GB's own records
will substantiate my claims contrary to the mean spirited and evasive
11th June 2002 letter of Ms. Merryn Vincent.


2. Things changed since the election of Arial (sic) Sharon, appointment


of a
New York Public Relations agent to spin for Israel and I went on to
expose Israeli war crimes and genocide's (sic) in 2GB.


3. Firstly Jim Ball and then other announcers of 2GB falsely started to


claim, "we can not put you on the air because of your poor English" yet


they did exactly that after 12 years of my contribution
with compliment rather than complaint. As I mentioned earlier, Jim Ball


and his "Jewish" wife praised me on air on many occasions. However,
2GB changed it's (sic) attitude and refused to give me air time
consistent
with reasons mentioned in point 2.


As noted by the Indymediawatch blog, it is unclear what announcer Jim
Ball's wife's Judaism has to do with anything, though it may be assumed


on past form, this formed part of Ahmed's motivation. It is also
unclear how Israel had perpetrated "genocides in 2GB" or on what basis
Mr Ahmed ''exposed this.


Faruque Ahmed took 2GB to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal's Equal


Opportunity Division suing them for their content on the basis of
alleged racial vilification and demanding he be allowed back on air.
This case has significant implications not only for Faruque Ahmed, but
others who would seek to use media broadcast to peddle their own views,


which are considered unsavoury by the media outlet in question. It is
assumed that Ahmed was blacklisted by 2GB for espousing similar views
to those he had hitherto expressed online. It is further assumed the
excuses given to Ahmed (and quoted by him) were merely that, and the
real reason was more simple, however they did not wish to engage in
further debate with him.


Faruque Ahmed lost the case and the application was dismissed. The
original judgement may be found on the ADT's website . It remains to be


seen whether 2GB will attempt to recover their costs from Mr Ahmed
however the Court granted them leave with which to do so.


As the ADT page will ultimately vanish into their archives, an
unaltered copy of the judgement is appended below. Mr Ahmed could not
be reached for a comment.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­-----


CITATION:Ahmed v Macquarie Radio Network (Radio Station 2GB) [2006]
NSWADT 89


DIVISION:Equal Opportunity Division


PARTIES:APPLICANT


Faruque Ahmed


RESPONDENT


Macquarie Radio Network (Radion Station 2GB)


FILE NUMBER:051058


HEARING DATES:5/09/2005 & 9/12/2005


SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:12/09/2005


DATE OF DECISION:


03/27/2006


BEFORE:Needham J SC - Judicial Member; Antonios Z - Non Judicial
Member; Weule B - Non Judicial Member


APPLICATION:Racial - Vilification


MATTER FOR DECISION:Principal matter


LEGISLATION CITED :Anti-Discrimination Act 1977


CASES CITED:Khan v. Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services &
anor [2002] NSWADT 131


Veloskey & anor v. Karagiannakis & ors [2002] NSWADTAP 18


Western Aboriginal Legal Service v. Jones & anor [2000] NSWWADT 102


REPRESENTATION:APPLICANT


In person


RESPONDENT


K Eastman, barrister


ORDERS:1.
The application is dismissed; 2. Liberty to the respondent to relist
the matter before the Tribunal on the question of costs


PUBLISHED DATE: 27/03/2006


REASONS FOR DECISION


The Complaint


1 The applicant lodged a complaint
with the Anti-Discrimination Board on 16 May 2002, alleging
discrimination on the grounds of racial discrimination by the
defendant, a radio broadcaster. Part of that complaint, which related
to a broadcast by Mr Jim Ball, on 12 September 2001, was not accepted
by the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board as it did not
indicate any contravention of the provisions of the Anti-Discrimination


Act,
1977 ("the Act"). The balance of the complaint, which related to a
broadcast in the early hours of 14 May 2002, was accepted as it
appeared to fall within s 20C(1) of the Act.


2 The President of the
Anti-Discrimination Board received a response to the complaint by the
broadcaster, including a tape of the broadcast, and declined the
complaint as "lacking in substance" pursuant to s 90(1) of the Act.
Specifically, the President said:-


"... to constitute unlawful vilification
under s 20C of the ... Act, the broadcast on 14 May 2002 would have to
have been such that a reasonable listener, to the broadcast, would have


been incited to hatred towards, serious contempt for or severe ridicule


of a person or group of persons on the ground of their race. ... The
information provided by Mr Ahmed was not ... sufficient to substantiate


his claims of unlawful vilification under the Act".
3 On 17 March 2005 the applicant requested
that the matter be referred to the Equal Opportunity Division of the
Administrative Decisions Tribunal pursuant to s 91(2) of the Act.


4 The matter was heard on 5 September
2005, when the applicant requested an adjournment. As the basis for the


adjournment was a matter which had been canvassed at previous
directions hearings, and the respondent would have been prejudiced by
the adjournment, it was refused. Documents were tendered and a witness
called for the respondent, there being no witnesses for the applicant
being required for cross-examination who were present to give such
evidence available on that day. The applicant then sought a further
adjournment, based on health reasons, which was granted. Unfortunately,


there was a delay of over three months before the matter could be
relisted, on 9 December 2005. The hearing proceeded and concluded on
that day.


5 The Tribunal accepted the tape
into evidence and listened to the tape. It was agreed at the hearing
that the transcription provided by the respondent was the more accurate


version. The caller was an unidentified woman and the tape reveals that


she spoke carefully, rather than heatedly. The relevant parts are as
follows:-


Caller: Its
so hypocritical actually to state that umm, it is such a pure society
because it is not, right, it is not at all, just the same as the
Christian isn't because, I've got a book there and the dictionary
of
politics. I used to read it in, ah, I think it was about in 1957
perhaps, a dictionary of the world anyway
Jim Ball: mmmm..


Caller: ...
and politics and the countries of the world and the Muslim societies,
now particularly Iran and where a lot of these people are coming from,
look two thirds of them are addicted to what they were growing, opium.
Do you know what I mean, it's so hypocritical to assume that ah for


Jim Ball: Well
that's right. I mean, you look at Afghanistan it's where the
biggest
producers of umm and growers, growers of poppy and producers of opium
in the world.


Caller: Exactly
and the lifestyle was such and still remains such that the majority of
people just peddle their goods ah, along with each other and people who


came to the ports or trade you know, this is a culture, way of life and


then just sitting down most of the day in groups smoking opium, heroine


or whatever derivatives of all those substances. Doing things in their
own time as they please, no law, no law at all. Answer to nobody
except, you know, whoever is a bit more powerful than the other.


Jim Ball: Mmm, mmm.


Caller: You
know, tribal type of situations, you know. But you do not, umm get in
there and say well look we're going to build the nation, we're
going to
start from scratch, we're going to become totally civilized and then
educate everybody, you see. Umm this is all very well to umm, portray
that the, the Muslim religion umm, is a culture and all the rest of it.


Umm, you see its got so many flaws, you know, you go back over the
centuries and the flaws are there today, just the same as our flaws
have become entrenched, the last thirty years, particularly at this
particular moment, we've become, uh we've allowed this uncivilized
lifestyle


Jim Ball: mmm


Caller: to
come in and this is not on. That is not our culture you see now, I
mean, I'm swerving off the point about, when I'm looking another
thing
that was made today with Lois O'Donoghue, umm, stating everything in
their problems more or less, or well you know abuse of substances was
the white settlement. Now look my people were here with the white
settlement and none of them have ever abused, they don't even drink
alcohol, they might have wine once a year.


Jim Ball:
Well, Lois O'Donoghue, that's the last one that should be talking
because she, [Caller: That's right] she admits that the was umm,
removed as a child and she's done very nicely out of being removed as
a
child. So, she's done ...




More on

groups.google.com/group/hateradio

[lingus]

Multiculturalism - What is It?

FIRST - Question - Is that "Multiculturalism":
a) In theory
or
b) In practice?

People are both the greatest curse that has ever lived on the planet, or by human diversity the richest asset.

The essence is "CULTURE".

"Culture" is that which develops from historically small pockets of people who needed to adapt to their respective environments.

Cultures are not automatically assimilated, for identical reasons as to why religions do not assimilate.

To expect them to do so is a recipe for disaster.

Now then - Adaption by a human group to a regional environment coupled with fertile minds, campfires and spare time generates (in my humble opinion and lots of observation) things called "Religions". These range from localised "cults" to established bureaucracies and industries.

Lack of rapid communication amongst these groups of people developed different language 'accents' and regional languages.

RACE:
This is interesting, because "race" relates only to physical characteristics.

PEOPLE:
People associate with others of similar mindset. Ease of communication due to common interests is a main factor in the development of both Religions and Clubs.

NATIONS:
Comprise of geographically constrained people who share rasonably common CULTURES and resulting RELIGIONS.

WHERE ARE WE?
We have an 'engine', the components of which are people.
People develop beliefs for reasons briefly outlined above.
We are each the product of our respective environments - thus - our individual perspective has priority over others.

MULTI?
Multi means blending people together who have both different beliefs, standards and religions.

HUMAN NATURE:
"When in Rome - Do as Romans do"
"When a guest - honour the host>"

SADLY:
"Multiculture" has resulted in disaster. I say that specifically in the constraints where regressive and utterly intolerant and incompatible religions have been imposed on nations. This religion is Islam.

HOWEVER:
"Multiculture" has enriched Australia. I say that because people in the main with similar religious beliefs, who wanted to treat their host nation with respect as a new start in life - they brought with them their cultures and food to greatly enrich Australia.

It all boils down to these simple things:
a) Multiculture forced on a nation where the 'guests' are intolerant - will fail
b) Multiculture forced on a nation where the 'guests' are tolerant - will succeed.
c) Multiracialism is a different thing alltogether.

Regardless of race - most people don't care of the things that define 'race'. In reasonably developed societies, people in the main don't care about background and beliefs - they are concerned with whether the guest(s) want to assimilate and adopt the predominant culture (standards - values - beliefs) of the host nation.

However, this does not apply to primitive societies where geographical isloation and resulting beliefs thrive on utter intolerance and hatred. Bear this in mind, because on a Global scale, national intolerance and racial hatred it is precisely the same thing.

Multiculturalism is doomed to fail whilstever people are permitted enter who seek to live their lives as 'creatures of convenience' in a host nation.

Enclaves develop where for reasons of convenience and human nature, people flock together if only for ease of communication.

This is seen as separatism by the host nation - and things get worse from there on.

Given the coughs and farts of that which followed controlled post WW2 immigration - in the main it has been hugely successful and beneficial in so many ways for Australia.

It is amazing that all beliefs and religins have been accommodated and assimilated because people developed TOLERANCE.

Islam is another story alltogether.
UNcontrolled migration has seen all that undone, and a curse being inflicted on ALL countried in which Islam has been allowed to infect.

That is a gross generalisation, but until Islam behaves as it states - nothing will improve.

The simple fact of the matter is that Islam repeatedly proves it's unwillingness and entrenched inability to assimilate into ALL host nations, - and the reasons and ultimate justifications are written in the Koran.

To expect a nation that has proved it's tolerance, to be tolerant of the demonstrably intolerant, is a recipe for conflict.

Peter Cunningham
29 March 06

[aussie]

Both Howard and Costello are saying that if you migrate to Australia you have an obligation to respect Australian customs, laws
and social norms. Costello likened this to removing one's shoes when entering a mosque.
The problem is that we have a small number of radical Muslims who wish to live by the customs and religious laws of their home countries. They refuse to become part of the larger community and actively prevent their children integrating, particularly their daughters. The result is that the children find themselves in a "no man's land"
subject to parental discipline and yet alienated from the larger community. Is it any wonder that these young people do not feel part of the mainstream. Of course, the strictures of Islam are totally at odds with Australian culture. Is it a surprise that the recent racial troubles have taken place at Sydney's beaches where Australian girls "flaunt" their bikini clad bodies in violation of the customs of Islam where a woman's body should be totally covered. This practice is in total conflict with Islam and the perpetrators are regarded as nothing better than prostitutes, deserving no consideration or respect. Witness the gang rapes of Australian girls by Islamic youths which were remakable by their religious/racial overtones. The perpetrators are serving sentences of up to 55 years.
However, coming back to Costello's main point, the granting of Australian citizenship is neither a right or a formality. When one takes the citizenship oath, it is an under-
taking to respect and abide by the laws, customs and norms of Australian society. If one is not prepared to accept these obligations there are certainly other countries which would be more to one's liking.
Freedom of religion is not an issue here. Everyone is allowed to practice the religion of their choice. We even allow Scientology as witness Tom Cruise's welcome this week. We have radical Islamic imams resident here who are not Australian citizens. We do not deport them and will not do so unless they contravene Australian law. They can advocate strict observance of Islam and Sharia law as it applies to their faith but not as it applies to civil law. As Howard saidm, we do find some of their practices "confronting" as in women wearing the burqa as this is totally alien to our society and is seen as keeping women in subservience.
It is worth noting that our problems are not confined to our Muslim community. We have a large number of Serbs and Croats who migrated to Australia prior to the wars in Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and Kosovo. When the unrest broke out, a number returned to the region and fought with the various militia. As a result we have now introduced laws which make it illegal for Oz citizens to participate in foreign conflicts and permanent residents to be subject to withdrawl of their residency rights. The principle being that your primary loyalty is to Australia and if that is unacceptable you can just "bugger off!" to where you came from.

[lingus]

AUSSIE - We don't have a "small number of radicals" (muslims) - there are MANY, and their violent and intolerant presence is felt in many ways - crime is one.

YOu are right - the problem is not exclusively that of Islam.

Many decades ago and up to 'recent times' (20 years) people practiced their Islamic faith and there was no problem. Why the difference between those people and the new batch of imports?

This is why I say often - Islam is a cancer inflicted on this nation and other tolerant nations that have tried 'to do the right thing'.

Personally I wouldn't shed a tear if all instutionalised religions and their dogma was burnt in a huge pyre. The world would be better off - until people started dreaming up their own religions and establish dogma again - which might be for a month.

Peter Cunningham

[lennie]

:)And that's about it in a Nutshell Lingus. Religion is like a cancer in itself which is why I disbelieve in Religion. Doesn't mean to say I don't have a sense of a higher power however, I do.

Religion is for People who don't want to go to Hell.
Spirituality is for they who have been there.