Turn on thread page Beta

Australia: Multiculturalism or Assimilation? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    What's race supremacist about this policy relating to “Australian values” then? You're going to have to be more specific. Britain has or has considered implementing similar citizenship tests, is Britain a race supremacist state too? I still think you're just trying to invoke subconscious images of swastikas and the KKK because you know they work.
    What I'm saying is why are Muslim extremists critisized for not accepting Australian values, when those extremists who criticise racial immigration and relations are not?

    By “western, monocultural, and predominantly European” Australia, I was referring to it as it is now. One group of people fit into those three categories, and they are the vast majority.
    Essentially, yes. But monoculture has not been something that Australia policies have been aspiring to in recent years, and it isn't necessarily something you would always see.


    There are always many factors. White Australia policy was mainly trumpeted by the Labour party because Asian workers were undercutting Australians. I don't think Australians are worried about their children adopting a foreign culture any more than they were 100 years ago. It won't happen; unless they are forced. There are foreign cultural practices carried out by immigrants that I'm sure they do disapprove of, however. These lead to things like increased crime and disease and Islamic terrorism.
    Um, that was exactly what they were worried about. Newspapers now, and 100 years ago talk about these Asian barbarians who all worship and practise voodoo and the like. "Yellow Peril" is not a random phrase. It was EXACTLY what White Australians were, and still are, scared of. WAP was removed not for reasons to do with Asian workers at all, but by political relations, civil rights and the failure of Assimilation and Intergration policies. The first influxes of Asian immigrants were in the 1980s, the Vietnamese refugees after the Maoist ovethrow. These refugees were there because they were loyal to Australia in the Vietnam war.

    And what are you talking about when you speak of these "foreign cultural practises" that bring "crime and disease and Islamic terrorism"? I am one of those foreign Asian immigrants,and I can assure you that when I moved to Australia, I brought none of those. I don't see what they have to be scared of. Foreigners are not bad. You are sound extremely ignorant and Xenophobic. Anyway, what Australia really suffers from (in terms of poverty) is lack of attention to displaced Aboriginal people caught in the poverty trap and White dole-bludgers- not poverty created by immigrants. Do you even know how much Australia do to prevent poorer foreign immigrants from coming in? My parents both had Masters Degrees, but it took 6 months for them to approve of their visas. In UK, you can get a visa to move to Australia in a matter of 2 weeks.

    As for terrorism, there have been no terrorist attacks in Australia, and those who have spoken out for extremism- well, none of them have applied for citizenship, so it's futile.


    You probably would be terrified of them if you stood out like a sore thumb, were hugely richer than them, much smaller, and unprotected. Sure, Australia is safe while it's protected by its big brothers in Europe and America and the others can't afford weapons, but that's not something that can be guaranteed forever.
    I do stand out like a sore thumb in Aus. In one of the schools I went to, there was only one other South Asian person in my whole year! And, you know what, I am a hell of a lot smaller that most people anyway. And anyway NO Asian country has attacked Australia, apart from Japan (in WW2). As for attacking Australia, I don't think it's even part of their plan, because most Asian countries don't even give a damn about Australia. If anything, Australia is protected by its trade treaties (with China, for Natural Gas). South East Asia is not cold or waiting to attack Australia. So they have no need to fear Aus in the first place.


    The Soviet Union, Greece and Italy are not traditionally where Australian immigrants mainly came from. Of course first generation immigrants are going to have a harder time, especially when they don't speak the same language. I don't know why things should be made intentionally harder for their children, however. Which is what multiculturalism does.
    Post-war migration (the largest Immigration influx into Australia) consisted of those you mentioned above. Plus Australia encourages people who don't speak English properly to learn English by providing free English lessons to all new immigrants. Plus, they are very specific on the people they let in. Multiculturalism is celebration of all cultures- I don't see how that is a problem to their children? In fact its a way that we can understand other people better. And improve Australian/Asian links and co-operation.


    No matter the distance, cultures and ethnic groups occupying the same place can and will still clash. These can be as minor as every day racism, from racial preferences to playing the race card in a situation that involves different groups of people.
    No matter the distance, no matter that culture/ethnic groups, people always clash. Maybe we should all own one tiny piece of land build a large wall around it, and live of it for the rest of our lives. World peace- even through the segregation argumen you are arguing- doesn't exist. Don't try and prove it.

    Your point is invalid.

    How, exactly, do these immigrants keep the peace between nations then? Not only have countries long waged war with each other despite having large minorities of the other nation within their borders, many wars have been the result of those minorities. Hell, we could have witnessed such a thing a few weeks ago if Denmark was closer to the middle east. Looking at this, it seems a bit ludicrous to suggest immigration is a way to keep peace.
    Well, that what people have been doing for centuries. Immigration is a way of life. Often immigration (as it does now) encouraged understanding and a development of ideas amongst different peoples. You wouldn't be using these numbers of using many scientific components had the Christians not co-operated with the Arabs in Spain for a while. Intercultural relations have always encouraged development in many disciplines. Peace comes through co-operation and understanding, and immigration encourages that.


    Please give us some examples of modern Australian imperialism then.
    Ask those from Papua New Guinea. Or the Aboriginal peoples, who still haven't been apologised to by the government from being removed from their homes and families to be "intergrated" into the white population. Imperialism hasn't gone.


    BTW, you know what really amuses me, all you pro-segregation, and pro-racial discrimination people all have the same argument line... I have to agree with you on one thing though- the whole positive discrimination thing is rather annoying and should not be practised. However, that does not mean segregation is a way of the future, because as much as you argue it, it not going to happen in a growing globalised world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nysh)
    "I stand by those comments that there is a small section of the Islamic population in Australia that, because of its remarks about jihad, remarks which indicate an extremist view, that is a problem," he said.

    "It is not a problem that we have ever faced with other immigrant communities who become easily absorbed by Australia's mainstream.

    "We want people, when they come to Australia, to adopt Australian ways.

    "We don't ask them to forget the countries of their birth, we respect all religious points of views and people are entitled to practise them but there are certainly things that are not part of the Australian mainstream."

    I was asking why only them, and not those, like Professor Fraser, who said that non-white immigrants will basically destroy Australia...
    I dont see anything that suggests these "tests" are being limited to Muslims, although clearly Australia has a greater problem integrating its Muslim population.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fear and Loathing in Stoke (David))
    All the whites should be thrown out and the land returned to the indigenous citizens.
    Why only whites?

    What about the other immigrants, like Chinese, Leabanese, africans etc :rolleyes:

    BTW The Aboriginals are not natives as they are immigranst themselves and they killed off the real native people (Tazmanoid people i think)

    (Original post by Nysh)
    Australia sees itself as a White, western nation that's going to be attacked by 'heathen' and 'savage' populations of Asia.
    Why would they allow Asian immigrants into OZ in the first place then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What I'm saying is why are Muslim extremists critisized for not accepting Australian values, when those extremists who criticise racial immigration and relations are not?
    Usually Muslim extremists are criticised because when they wish harm to people, those people instinctively don't like them.

    Essentially, yes. But monoculture has not been something that Australia policies have been aspiring to in recent years, and it isn't necessarily something you would always see.
    No matter, I think most Australians would think your dream of an Australia that wasn't western, monocultural and predominantly European as quite horrific. Also, a dominant ethnic majority doesn't mean the suppression of minorities.

    Um, that was exactly what they were worried about. Newspapers now, and 100 years ago talk about these Asian barbarians who all worship and practise voodoo and the like. "Yellow Peril" is not a random phrase. It was EXACTLY what White Australians were, and still are, scared of. WAP was removed not for reasons to do with Asian workers at all, but by political relations, civil rights and the failure of Assimilation and Intergration policies. The first influxes of Asian immigrants were in the 1980s, the Vietnamese refugees after the Maoist ovethrow. These refugees were there because they were loyal to Australia in the Vietnam war.
    They weren't really worried about foreign culture then, since they regarded it as inferior. They were worried about getting overrun by foreign peoples. Such anxieties would exist now if there were no border controls (as then). Of course, there probably was some truth in the tales.. most East Asian immigrants probably never lived in a house that wasn't made of mud; used their fingers instead of knives and forks; didn't bathe as often as westerners, and of course, couldn't say more than two words of English. Things that the Australians probably didn't like that much.

    You should really please provide me a few modern newspaper articles that lie about Asian workers practicing “voodoo” (etc) to prove your point.

    And what are you talking about when you speak of these "foreign cultural practises" that bring "crime and disease and Islamic terrorism"? I am one of those foreign Asian immigrants,and I can assure you that when I moved to Australia, I brought none of those. I don't see what they have to be scared of. Foreigners are not bad. You are sound extremely ignorant and Xenophobic. Anyway, what Australia really suffers from (in terms of poverty) is lack of attention to displaced Aboriginal people caught in the poverty trap and White dole-bludgers- not poverty created by immigrants. Do you even know how much Australia do to prevent poorer foreign immigrants from coming in? My parents both had Masters Degrees, but it took 6 months for them to approve of their visas. In UK, you can get a visa to move to Australia in a matter of 2 weeks.
    Your parents both had Masters so were/are probably quite well off, you're hardly representative of the whole of the third world are you? Here's one example from the top of my head: Immigrants in Britain are the main source of HIV. Immigration brings problems and anxieties which undoubtedly effect opinions and policy making.

    As for terrorism, there have been no terrorist attacks in Australia, and those who have spoken out for extremism- well, none of them have applied for citizenship, so it's futile.
    Australians have been identified as legitimate targets by terrorists and have been victims of attacks on several occasions. Not only that, but the recent change in proportions of new immigrants show an increasingly Muslim bias. If the people of Australia decide they don't want the risk of having their own home-grown intifada, I can't really see how you can argue against it. How can protecting your country through stricter border control be immoral? The Australians don't owe these foreigners anything.


    I do stand out like a sore thumb in Aus. In one of the schools I went to, there was only one other South Asian person in my whole year! And, you know what, I am a hell of a lot smaller that most people anyway. And anyway NO Asian country has attacked Australia, apart from Japan (in WW2). As for attacking Australia, I don't think it's even part of their plan, because most Asian countries don't even give a damn about Australia. If anything, Australia is protected by its trade treaties (with China, for Natural Gas). South East Asia is not cold or waiting to attack Australia. So they have no need to fear Aus in the first place.
    Australia has only been attacked once, therefore it will never get attacked again? That's faulty logic if ever I've seen it.

    Post-war migration (the largest Immigration influx into Australia) consisted of those you mentioned above. Plus Australia encourages people who don't speak English properly to learn English by providing free English lessons to all new immigrants. Plus, they are very specific on the people they let in. Multiculturalism is celebration of all cultures- I don't see how that is a problem to their children? In fact its a way that we can understand other people better. And improve Australian/Asian links and co-operation.
    I can't recall myself saying that. I did say “traditional”, however. In other words, most Australians today are decended from people from the British isles and Ireland. To this day (well, some time last year), most Australian immigrants are from there too. As I said, these blend in incredibly well and always have had – there wouldn't be any such thing as an Australian otherwise.

    No matter the distance, no matter that culture/ethnic groups, people always clash. Maybe we should all own one tiny piece of land build a large wall around it, and live of it for the rest of our lives. World peace- even through the segregation argumen you are arguing- doesn't exist. Don't try and prove it.

    Your point is invalid.
    I don't need to try and prove it, the truth is obvious. i.e. There would be less racially motivated assault if there were less ethnic minorities. How is that invalid? With foresight, you could take advantage of this truth (or ones like it) to maintain a happier country by taking it into account when selecting immigrants.

    Well, that what people have been doing for centuries. Immigration is a way of life. Often immigration (as it does now) encouraged understanding and a development of ideas amongst different peoples. You wouldn't be using these numbers of using many scientific components had the Christians not co-operated with the Arabs in Spain for a while. Intercultural relations have always encouraged development in many disciplines. Peace comes through co-operation and understanding, and immigration encourages that.
    Nobody ever mentioned anything about isolation. Christian and Muslim intellectuals will always be able to visit each other and trade ideas (though I'm sure they'd largely prefer to use the internet nowadays). In future you need to chose better example though, since Iberia really doesn't help you. The once multicultural region was plagued with with massive instability, warfare and ethnic cleansing near to that time.

    Ask those from Papua New Guinea. Or the Aboriginal peoples, who still haven't been apologised to by the government from being removed from their homes and families to be "intergrated" into the white population. Imperialism hasn't gone.
    I thought Papua New Guinea was given independence in the 1970's, has Australia reconquered it during it's recent subtle imperialist rampage? Not providing an apology for something decades ago does not equal imperialism. More data please.

    BTW, you know what really amuses me, all you pro-segregation, and pro-racial discrimination people all have the same argument line... I have to agree with you on one thing though- the whole positive discrimination thing is rather annoying and should not be practised. However, that does not mean segregation is a way of the future, because as much as you argue it, it not going to happen in a growing globalised world.
    Pro-segregation? Pro-racial discrimination? You're going to have to substantiate these allegations. Nothing annoys me more than over-pampered immigrants who would rather turn against the people that have given them such hospitality than show them some loyalty or understanding.

    Globalisation? The world economy was very globalised 100 years ago. That ended. Its legacy included the rise of some of the most evil regimes and the most disturbing conflicts we've ever seen. I hope this age of peace doesn't have the same aftermath, but I just know it'll be worse we go the route you want to take us.

    Good debate, shame it's over the place. I can't keep track. I'm off to bed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    I dont see anything that suggests these "tests" are being limited to Muslims, although clearly Australia has a greater problem integrating its Muslim population.
    No, they are not "limited" to Muslims, they are to anyone of dual nationality, but the fact is they were instigated by Islamic "issues" (per se), and not by racism of people like Professor Andrew Fraser.

    The later arguments were instigated by referrences to Sharia laws. Also this has been an on-going debate (in the direction of Muslim peoples), which was only vocalised through the major Politicians recently. But by them vocalising it, they essentailly made it official. The undercurrents were anti-Islamic. (Stemming from 9/11 and July UK attacks, and media reactions to the latter).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dave777)
    Why only whites?

    What about the other immigrants, like Chinese, Leabanese, africans etc

    BTW The Aboriginals are not natives as they are immigranst themselves and they killed off the real native people (Tazmanoid people i think)
    Yup, just like we are all descended from aliens who left us here years ago on a fluffy pink flying saucer.

    Why would they allow Asian immigrants into OZ in the first place then?
    Read the other arguments in this discussion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    Usually Muslim extremists are criticised because when they wish harm to people, those people instinctively don't like them.
    So does racist and fascist elements in Australian politics (which are not attacked). One Nation, Family First (in Christian fanaticism- that all Hindu temples, mosques, pubs are the places of Satan, and with whom the Libs made a deal with for the elections)


    No matter, I think most Australians would think your dream of an Australia that wasn't western, monocultural and predominantly European as quite horrific. Also, a dominant ethnic majority doesn't mean the suppression of minorities.
    Then why did they adopt Multiculturalism? And why did they instigate such a Revolution in the 1960s/1970s? Because this world is globalising, and that is just the way it is. Australia, due to its insular views, has not accepted that. But the movement is moving in that way.

    They weren't really worried about foreign culture then, since they regarded it as inferior. They were worried about getting overrun by foreign peoples. Such anxieties would exist now if there were no border controls (as then). Of course, there probably was some truth in the tales.. most East Asian immigrants probably never lived in a house that wasn't made of mud; used their fingers instead of knives and forks; didn't bathe as often as westerners, and of course, couldn't say more than two words of English. Things that the Australians probably didn't like that much.
    The culture would undermine their entire so-called superior values- of which they were insecure in the first place. About the East Asian peoples- you don't know anything about their culture. Do you know that the Japanese are so hygienically concerned that they never use their fingers of hands to eat food? As for mud houses- ironically that was exactly what was being used in Australia by white immigrants, so that they could work on the mines. As for the East Asians, a lot of them used bamboo housing, or wooden structures, which on the most part are a lot cleaner than houses in the 1900s in Australia (particularly during the Depression, where most people in the cities were living on the streets). Get a drip on history please, before you make anymore racist/social Darwinistic comments.

    You should really please provide me a few modern newspaper articles that lie about Asian workers practicing “voodoo” (etc) to prove your point.
    It isn't a modern concept, mate. It's a concept ingrained in the system. I don't have my modern history files/textbooks with me (they're in Aus), but there is an amazing cartoon about this octopus-like Chinaman that proves this Xenophobic attitude.

    Your parents both had Masters so were/are probably quite well off, you're hardly representative of the whole of the third world are you? Here's one example from the top of my head: Immigrants in Britain are the main source of HIV. Immigration brings problems and anxieties which undoubtedly effect opinions and policy making.
    So, your society would be perfect without immigrants? You forget that immigration is the thing that Britain has survived on for so long. I mean without South Asian technical and IT expertise, Britain wouldn't be the power it is today. That's why USA is finally succumbing to building India an ally (read this week's Economist).

    Another point: Australia's immigrations processes aren't as lenient as Britain's. There's a whole list of criteria you have to have passed, and if you are over 45, and *not* from the UK (or any Western nation) your chances are basically blown. I know someone who didn't get in simply because their son suffers from down-syndrome (forget the fact that he won a Silver in a swimming event in the Special Olympics).

    I can tell you this much, without Britain in 1972, taking in Asians (like my father, my aunt and her husband's family, etc), so many people would have been displaced and suffered at the hands of Idi Amin, and other Black fascist, cannibalistic dictators. Britain's immigration policies have saved so many lives, and is probably the most integrated society in the world- which IS saying somethings.

    With or without immigration, Britain would still have problems, and immigration DEFINITELY does not cause them all. So don't give me that BNP rubbish.


    Australians have been identified as legitimate targets by terrorists and have been victims of attacks on several occasions. Not only that, but the recent change in proportions of new immigrants show an increasingly Muslim bias. If the people of Australia decide they don't want the risk of having their own home-grown intifada, I can't really see how you can argue against it. How can protecting your country through stricter border control be immoral? The Australians don't owe these foreigners anything.
    Um, maybe that's because they are surrounded by Islamic nations??? And what's wrong with allowing Islamic people in? That's what I don't understand. You wouldn't even be using a computer without the influence of Indo-Arabic numeral systems. Binary can't exist without the "zero".

    As for their own home-grown intifada, I have no clue what you are raving about simply because, if Islamic people are allowed in, that has nothing to intifada in the first place. Get over the anti-Islamic rant, and actually get to know some Islamic people.

    As for this "stricter border control" issue you are talking about, it's not border control, it's flipping RACIAL PROFILING!

    And Australians do owe a lot to foreigners, specifically those from Singapore, as in WW2, they took in refugees and used them in the labour force, before, after the end of the war, sent them back to Singapore to face the wrath of Japanese troops there. Similarly they have used Asian countries around them a lot. And as most of the population is 'foreign' I would say that these are essential issues.


    Australia has only been attacked once, therefore it will never get attacked again? That's faulty logic if ever I've seen it.
    Yup, just as your logic is in the case of the chances of it being attacked by these other Asian nations (that apparently so badly want Australia). Australia has treaties like ANZAC and ANZUS to protect it. You know, at the current state, warfare isn't done about where you are in the world, but by using satellites, nuclear weapons, bio-hazards, etc, which can be sent from anywhere in the world. They have a defence system in places (best SAS in the world, apparently), so they don't have to worry about these so-called hostile nations. You know, if you're that worried, you should propose that idea to the current British government- because Britain is just as likely to be hit)


    I can't recall myself saying that. I did say “traditional”, however. In other words, most Australians today are descended from people from the British isles and Ireland. To this day (well, some time last year), most Australian immigrants are from there too. As I said, these blend in incredibly well and always have had – there wouldn't be any such thing as an Australian otherwise.
    And the story of Ned Kelly (he was Irish *shock, horror*) means nothing to you. Blending in is exactly what so many non-white Australians have done.

    And in relation to your link, you would realise that if you look down the page, TODAY, there are more non-British Isles-born people than you suggest. As for the 1960s-1970s- the idea of the ten-pound-pom situation made people move to the "sunny side of Britain" (as it was called). There is no evidence provided on how many of those people moved back to the UK.

    The main point here is, though, that what difference does this have to do with anything? The fact is, with the British and Europeans going out to conquer the world and impose their ideals on it, why shouldn't non-white people, in this phase past postcolonialism in their own countries, want to move to Australia (as much as any non-white person). They aren't coming to impose their cultural values down the throats of Aussies, but because they think they have the opportunity to prosper and help a growing economy, whilst not having to compromise their own ideals and values. That's the difference between Assimilation and this medium between Multiculturalism and Integration that is required. Where, if the Aussies actually respected international cultural values as simply different, and did not see them as awful, dirty things- but rather as one way of life that they do not necessarily have to accept or decline, then this could actually work. But because Howard is pushing for this racist protectionist ideology, these divisions are being blown out of proportion.


    I don't need to try and prove it, the truth is obvious. i.e. There would be less racially motivated assault if there were less ethnic minorities. How is that invalid? With foresight, you could take advantage of this truth (or ones like it) to maintain a happier country by taking it into account when selecting immigrants.
    But the intellectual advancements of this nation would not have been as high as without immigration. Racism is a product of fear not ethnic minorities (and immigration of them)- it is caused by fear and lack of understanding that has to be discouraged for Britain to progress. Racial purity, or segregation, would just make this fear turn elsewhere, and not solve this problems you discuss.

    Nobody ever mentioned anything about isolation. Christian and Muslim intellectuals will always be able to visit each other and trade ideas (though I'm sure they'd largely prefer to use the internet nowadays). In future you need to chose better example though, since Iberia really doesn't help you. The once multicultural region was plagued with with massive instability, warfare and ethnic cleansing near to that time.
    Inevitably these relations are inter-race relations. Should anything injure these relations, then there will be racial repercussions. You can't have it both ways. Plus unlike you segregation advocats, I believe in individuals as the cause of problems not general races or religions. (an Existential argument, which is European).


    I thought Papua New Guinea was given independence in the 1970's, has Australia reconquered it during it's recent subtle imperialist rampage? Not providing an apology for something decades ago does not equal imperialism. More data please.
    It was given independence in 1975, but that does not mean that Australia truly let it go. The PNG govt is still fundementally run (through economic patronism) by Australians, and the Australian govt still has certain 'ties', which many PNG people are NOT happy about. Truthfully I don't know much about it as when this was a big issue I was studying for my final exams, and therefore paying less attention to Current affairs.

    http://www.reportage.uts.edu.au/stor.../world/png.htm

    A good place to start.


    Pro-segregation? Pro-racial discrimination? You're going to have to substantiate these allegations. Nothing annoys me more than over-pampered immigrants who would rather turn against the people that have given them such hospitality than show them some loyalty or understanding.
    Hmmm, pampered immigrants who are living off less than the living wage? I agree with you that some just fail to accept that they are in Britain, and that sacrifices are being made, but at the same time, I wouldn't blame all immigrants for this. The majority are not.

    Even the 7/7 attacks were not done by immigrants, but by citizens, who I'm pretty sure could have passed any of these co-called citizenship tests. I mean, essentially their parents and community did not even know that they were going to attack and kill so many people.

    Globalisation? The world economy was very globalised 100 years ago. That ended. Its legacy included the rise of some of the most evil regimes and the most disturbing conflicts we've ever seen. I hope this age of peace doesn't have the same aftermath, but I just know it'll be worse we go the route you want to take us.
    Er, not really. I'm not only talking of economics either. Previously it was empires which controlled most of the world. Now it is independent nations who still have their own cultural identity (and are not being oppressed by Imperialistic values/ systems of government).

    Good debate, shame it's over the place. I can't keep track. I'm off to bed.
    I agree. Good debate, but definitely floating all over the place. Perhaps you will narrow it down?

    Night.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    It does. How can collectively reject the concept of immigration when it's so prominent in your history and make-up as a people?
    Easily. Things change.
    Where do you think most countries got their occupants from? Immigration. But there is a limit - once there is a certain amount of people, further immigration would be detrimental (in the long term. of course, in the short term, it can stimulate the economy through, eg, driving house prices up.) to the country, and may strain resources.
    Immigrants would pay "taxes" too, wouldn't they? Or you expect all immigrants to scrounge off the welfare system?
    Optimistically, i do not expect that. But inevitably, some will. And taxes are only one part of what funds things in a country - my ancestors have been paying taxes for decades, they paid for infrastructure like roads, they set up businesses and helped the economy, they - a very long time ago - had the courage to risk everything in a near wilderness.

    OTOH, of course, a well off, skilled, young immigrant would be welcome - they could only contribute - but we are under no obligation to let everyone in. Someone uneducated, with ten kids, would have to deal with being rejected.
    How is a Muslim living in Australia affecting your life? As for Muslims not respecting Western democracy, you cannot confuse radical Islamic opinion with moderate Muslim thought.
    Firstly, this isn't specific to muslims - and i was talking about immigrants en masse. (if you'd read everything I'd said). Added strain on resources, harder for me to buy my first house, more competition when finding a job, more pressure on things like road, health system, school system, extra pollution, higher cost of everyday living. Some of these are debatable but it is true that there is a limit to the amount of inhabitants australia can comfortably support - and that number is rapidly being approached.

    I don't know about this mythic 'moderate muslim thought' - i would like more muslims to speak out against these radicalists instead of expressing concerns that the host population will retaliate against them and cause them to suffer (showing how high an opinion they have of said population.)

    Muslim countries aren't the greatest examples of democracy in the world, their record on treatment of women is appalling - and why shouldn't i feel that if the body of muslims in australia increased, and was supplemented by immigrants, to become a majority, a significant minority, even - why shouldn't i worry that australia would revert to the chaos evident in the middle east?
    -- this is highly debatable, but why take that chance, when you patently don't have to?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nysh)
    And how many Muslim people do you know? I could tell you I know quite a few, who are completely able to accept so-called 'democratic' values. But then again, they have to take that vow already when they go for citizenship (I had to)! So why put stupid tests on the matter as well.
    No, I must confess that I know almost no muslim people. I have had one muslim friend, years ago, who was british and rather apostate, but that is all. And I do not think hearsay is the greatest way to gauge things. Also, why do you say ' "so-called" democratic values' and 'i had to'?
    I'm sorry, but you obviously don't know much about Muslim people, do you? Because, I'll bet you just listen to the right-wing news. I suppose SBS wouldn't be a channel you'd ever watch, would you? I'll bet that the Sydney Morning Herald is your favourite newspaper- which was critised by many international newspapers as being right-wing. Not surprising considering the most left-wing newspaper Australia has is "the Australian", which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and therefore Pro-Howard anyway. I guess, to equal it out, you shoudl occasionally watch ABC- they're elft-wing enough.
    Please refrain from making assumptions about me. I'm not doing it to you.
    SMH - right wing - I was always under the impression it leaned a little to the left?
    'The australian' the most left-wing? You mean right, no doubt?
    :confused:
    As for the treatment of women and human rights abuses, you do know that Christian countries were just as bad, and a lot of CHRISTIAN nations in Africa and Europe have had serious human rights abuses.
    Perhaps several hundred years ago. Keep to the issue at hand.
    such as Saudi Arabia (which the US or Aus will never say anything against because they provide oil),
    I agree. It's sadly true.
    there is that issue, but not all sects of Islam follow that law. I mean even under Saddam Hussein, women were allowed to work, etc.
    Work in what capacity? I do not think women have equal rights under Islam/in islamic societies.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milady)
    No, I must confess that I know almost no muslim people. I have had one muslim friend, years ago, who was british and rather apostate, but that is all. And I do not think hearsay is the greatest way to gauge things. Also, why do you say ' "so-called" democratic values' and 'i had to'?
    What I meant to say is perhaps that your prejudice against ALL muslim people stems from the fundemental fact that you have had only one Islamic friend. Therefore, you cannot judge the entire Muslim public on what the media choses to show you.

    For the second bit, I don't want to go into the details, but for one thing I don't believe in a democracy that forces you to vote or fines you. That is not part of the "choice to vote", that democracy should entail, especially when you have a bunch of people, completely uneducated in politics of political policies- and really don't give a damn who comes in- voting for crap like One Nation or Family First, or any party, really.

    Please refrain from making assumptions about me. I'm not doing it to you.
    No, you're just doing that to the entire Islamic public.

    SMH - right wing - I was always under the impression it leaned a little to the left?
    'The australian' the most left-wing? You mean right, no doubt?
    Yeah, the SMH is so left-wing that it published a completely anti-Greens article, for which it was publicly ashamed... Yes, so left-wing! (note the sarcasm)

    AS for 'The Australian'- that was exactly my point. It is right-wing, but it's probably the most left-wing accessible newspaper.

    :confused: Perhaps several hundred years ago. Keep to the issue at hand.
    Um, Guantanamo Bay for one, is the evidence of of Modern Christian countries having human rights abuses (BTW you can't argue that US is not Christian, when the President mentions "God" numerous times in every speech he makes). Also Australia's own treatment of Asylum Seekers. (Also Italy on that situation)

    Work in what capacity?
    Most jobs, except the army. They were allowed to attend university. Saddam Hussein did not repress women, like the Taliban, or like the current Iranian govt. You cannot judge all Islamic nations on a few fundementalist ones. Just like you can't judge all Christians by those priests in Australia who were sexually abusing children.

    I do not think women have equal rights under Islam/in islamic societies.
    And do women have equal rights in modern Christian communities? I think not. If so there would be a lot more of women in Australia politics. Just because women wear head scarves in some Islamic cultures, doesn't mean they are being repressed. A lot of women chose to wear one.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't have time to read the thread, got another physiology lecture in 10 mins :eek:

    But anyway, speaking of the topic of 'multiculturalism and assimilation', did anyone else hear about that racist comment Tony Abbott made about the Australian labour party? I am so appalled, if I ever saw him in real life I would just slap him. And then they (our goverment ) has the NERVE to try and establish anal retentive smoking-in-cars laws over here, so people like my poor but kind BF will probably be targeted, typical! Makes my blood boil!! :mad:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.metamute.org/en/Under-the...he-Barbed-Wire

    A relatively impressive article concerning racial problems apropos Australia.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinio...888743598.html

    Interesting article by Tony Abbott, until you get to the very end and realise that it is actually just diplomatic jargon.


    BTW, danni_bella what did Tony Abbott say about the ALP?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    **** MATE!!!
    (Original post by JonD)
    An interesting interpretation of the history and the present. Though, I think if I was Australian, I'd probably find you quite menacing.
    Yeah your right quite menacing, dude!
    I believe most Australian's (at least the ones i know) would be shocked to hear the things that you guys are saying. Yes we are ashamed at some of the things that have happened in our history but then are you? We cannot change our past but i believe that most australian's are proud of our multinationalality it is what makes us who we are i have close friends with hertitage form more than 60 countries in the world. Yes there are some pretty f**ked up ppl in oz to who believe that australia should be for whites only but there are those sorts of ppl in britian too and i believe that we should respect there views they may not be 'right' and 'ethical' in my or our view however that does not mean we should condem them for what they believe in as long as they dont cause any trouble (not sure how likely that is but..) they can kep their views.


    I for one am proud to be an australian and it sickens me to think that there are ppl out there who believe the things you guys hava said.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by citrus_punch)
    **** MATE!!!


    Yeah your right quite menacing, dude!
    I believe most Australian's (at least the ones i know) would be shocked to hear the things that you guys are saying. Yes we are ashamed at some of the things that have happened in our history but then are you? We cannot change our past but i believe that most australian's are proud of our multinationalality it is what makes us who we are i have close friends with hertitage form more than 60 countries in the world. Yes there are some pretty f**ked up ppl in oz to who believe that australia should be for whites only but there are those sorts of ppl in britian too and i believe that we should respect there views they may not be 'right' and 'ethical' in my or our view however that does not mean we should condem them for what they believe in as long as they dont cause any trouble (not sure how likely that is but..) they can kep their views.
    Yeah, you start being the one attacked, and you would know how that felt. I mean the fact that you exist in a country where people around you, and a Professor of a University, thinks you don't have the right to be there. And frankly they already cause the trouble when they look at you like you're a piece of worthless, "Asian" scum.

    As for the whole "proud to be Australian" rant here, who said anything about Anti-Australianisms? If anything I was criticising the Australian media and current government. I wasn't even criticising the entire Liberal Party. I think some of the things that Fraser did (except the whole GG and overthrow of Whitlam) were quite radical and good, but that the current Liberal party is going backwards 50 years, and re-establishing Assimilation. Even Fraser has criticised the current Howard govt as being racist.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nysh)
    BTW, danni_bella what did Tony Abbott say about the ALP?
    Don't worry about it I just realised I just posted about this in a UK-based forum, oops!

    Yeah Nysh or whatever, I'm sure you can find an article about it on the Australian (newspaper: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/) or Sydney Morning Herald websites, the topic'll crop up somewhere. Melbourne's Age also had a couple articles on it too.

    That and I'm sure there'd be more than a few threads on the Aussie TSR and Vogue forums.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nysh)
    What I meant to say is perhaps that your prejudice against ALL muslim people stems from the fundemental fact that you have had only one Islamic friend. Therefore, you cannot judge the entire Muslim public on what the media choses to show you.
    Perhaps I do have a prejudice against muslim people. I have read some of the koran, and from that, I would feel justified in being wary of anyone who claimed to be devout muslims.

    My argument was that, while some muslims might be great, peaceable citizens, there is a significant albeit small proportion who are absolute nutters. I don't see a problem with shutting out all muslim immigrants to avoid letting these people in (in so doing, running the risk of suicide attacks and so forth).

    I would be prepared to rethink this if the muslim people were more cooperative in giving over the more radical segment in their communities, rather than (seemingly) turning a blind eye.
    For the second bit, I don't want to go into the details, but for one thing I don't believe in a democracy that forces you to vote or fines you. That is not part of the "choice to vote", that democracy should entail, especially when you have a bunch of people, completely uneducated in politics of political policies- and really don't give a damn who comes in- voting for crap like One Nation or Family First, or any party, really.
    This is a typical leftist stance. People don't know what's good for them, they're uneducated, - we, otoh, as right-thinking people, know exactly what's good for them, and so should be allowed to vote. Arguments like this are how people avoided giving the vote to lower classes and to women in the past.
    No, you're just doing that to the entire Islamic public.
    No, not an assumption. A judgement based on evidence. I know next to nothing about you, or, eg, an individual muslim I might meet on the street - I'd wait and see what you/they were like as people -- there can be huge variation among individuals. But it is possible to look at the way a group of similarly cultured people act, what they believe, and form a general opinion based on this -- it might not apply to every single member, of course.
    I feel perfectly justified looking at something like this:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html and feeling slightly queasy in the stomach.
    Yeah, the SMH is so left-wing that it published a completely anti-Greens article, for which it was publicly ashamed... Yes, so left-wing! (note the sarcasm)
    Well, the greens (in australia) are far left wing, which makes smh comparatively right, I suppose.
    AS for 'The Australian'- that was exactly my point. It is right-wing, but it's probably the most left-wing accessible newspaper.
    Sorry, I must have rocks in my head, i still don't understand.:confused:
    Um, Guantanamo Bay for one, is the evidence of of Modern Christian countries having human rights abuses (BTW you can't argue that US is not Christian, when the President mentions "God" numerous times in every speech he makes). Also Australia's own treatment of Asylum Seekers. (Also Italy on that situation)
    Yeah, that's shameful. It is, however, nothing compared to human rights abuse in the middle east, and I would argue, there hasn't been compelling proof of torture (and I wouldn't count half-naked women as along those lines.) - But yes, this does not mitigate anything the west has done, either.
    Most jobs, except the army. They were allowed to attend university. Saddam Hussein did not repress women, like the Taliban, or like the current Iranian govt. You cannot judge all Islamic nations on a few fundementalist ones. Just like you can't judge all Christians by those priests in Australia who were sexually abusing children.
    You only have to read the koran to find that women are considered inferior.
    And do women have equal rights in modern Christian communities? I think not. If so there would be a lot more of women in Australia politics.
    I think so. The dearth of women in australian politics does not at all imply that. Women have different priorities, and different preferences to men. The two sexes are not equivalent, and arguing for equal representation in every profession would be stupid. This especially applies in parliament - any woman could run, she could sue for a ton of money if she was discriminated against (eg. by fellow members of her party) and if she didn't win the election... well, half the electorate is made up of women, anyway, so the argument falls down.
    There is a whole, probably several threads on this already, so I won't go on.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nysh)
    And frankly they already cause the trouble when they look at you like you're a piece of worthless, "Asian" scum.
    Oh, please don't get into the victim mindset. I can't imagine many australians feeling that way at all, and it is not good to assume they do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milady)
    Oh, please don't get into the victim mindset. I can't imagine many australians feeling that way at all, and it is not good to assume they do.
    I'm not getting into the mindset, I'm already there. You should have read the comments section of the West Australian after Professor Andrew Fraser came out with his racist opinions. Let me tell you that NONE were taking the plight of Asians (or Africans for that matter). If anything their letters (for a week) all agreed with the Professor's flawed racist ideology.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milady)
    Perhaps I do have a prejudice against muslim people. I have read some of the koran, and from that, I would feel justified in being wary of anyone who claimed to be devout muslims.

    My argument was that, while some muslims might be great, peaceable citizens, there is a significant albeit small proportion who are absolute nutters. I don't see a problem with shutting out all muslim immigrants to avoid letting these people in (in so doing, running the risk of suicide attacks and so forth).
    So, you are punishing a population of 1.6 BILLION people for the actions of a few thousand? Very intelligent. So informed we are. You do know that not ONLY Muslim people are terrorism. Not surprisingly, there are many other types of people who become terrorists. Perhaps we should outlaw all Jewish people, because the Israeli's attack people as well. Or perhaps we should outlaw all Germans because there have been numerous Neo-Nazi attacks in Germany, and outside Germany for that matter. Or Irish people (IRA), because some have attacked Britain before. Or all the Congolese, or the Colombians...

    As for the Quran, well, may I just ask what Translation did you read, because surely you came across passages explaining 'peace', right? All the Islamic people I know, because I've known quite a few, have been some of the most amazing people I know- caring and peaceful. I don't judge you by idiots like Prof. Fraser, so don't judge all Muslims by Osama Bin Laden.

    I would be prepared to rethink this if the muslim people were more cooperative in giving over the more radical segment in their communities, rather than (seemingly) turning a blind eye.
    Yeah, well some have tried. They're said in numerous media reports that they are "moderate" Muslims. And the Council in Aus have been saying this for ages. They haven't turned a blind eye. They have tried to seperate themselves from these 'extremist' sections, but if the Media puts them all in the same light, then what are they meant to do?

    This is a typical leftist stance. People don't know what's good for them, they're uneducated, - we, otoh, as right-thinking people, know exactly what's good for them, and so should be allowed to vote. Arguments like this are how people avoided giving the vote to lower classes and to women in the past.
    And the left was backing the right for women to vote in the past... Actually I was arguing for the right to chose. The right of choice has always been a democratic value. And frankly, let me ask you, have you ever read all the policies of the each of the Parties? Because if you haven't, you're not voting as an informed decision. It's like voting for John Howard because of the 'throwing children overboard' issue... Which was shown to be utter rubbish, as they were merely attempting to save their children, not drown them.


    No, not an assumption. A judgement based on evidence. I know next to nothing about you, or, eg, an individual muslim I might meet on the street - I'd wait and see what you/they were like as people -- there can be huge variation among individuals. But it is possible to look at the way a group of similarly cultured people act, what they believe, and form a general opinion based on this -- it might not apply to every single member, of course.
    I feel perfectly justified looking at something like this:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html and feeling slightly queasy in the stomach.
    As I said, you are only forming opinions on a biased press. And if you are going to follow a newspaper, then at least follow something better than the Telegraph, because that's just rubbish. Try the Independent, Times or the Guardian at least.


    Well, the greens (in australia) are far left wing, which makes smh comparatively right, I suppose.Sorry, I must have rocks in my head, i still don't understand.:confused:
    And the 4th largest party in Aus. And if you think the SMH is still "right", the reason they were publically ashamed was because what they wrote was a bunch of lies that had just erupted from out dear Howard's mouth.


    Yeah, that's shameful. It is, however, nothing compared to human rights abuse in the middle east, and I would argue, there hasn't been compelling proof of torture (and I wouldn't count half-naked women as along those lines.) - But yes, this does not mitigate anything the west has done, either.
    Have you not seen the Iraqi prison photos? Or heard about the UN report on Guantanamo Bay? Or the torture flights that the CIA carried out through-out Europe?

    You only have to read the koran to find that women are considered inferior.I think so. The dearth of women in australian politics does not at all imply that. Women have different priorities, and different preferences to men. The two sexes are not equivalent, and arguing for equal representation in every profession would be stupid. This especially applies in parliament - any woman could run, she could sue for a ton of money if she was discriminated against (eg. by fellow members of her party) and if she didn't win the election... well, half the electorate is made up of women, anyway, so the argument falls down.
    You know, your argument would have worked had you just left it on your first sentence. The rest destroyed it. I think you just proved that. And women don't just vote for women. In terms of your so-called equal representation argument, perhaps another argument is required:

    My course, has 80% women and 20% men. But in the professional world, the proportions are 70% men and 30% women. Explain that.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.