Explanation of Statements Below
Thank you to all who have responded positively towards my essay. It actually didnt take that long, because once I get into a subject, I regurgitate it at such a rapid rate that I can usually prepare a piece like that within an hour or so! As I said before, I am a journalist disguised as a lawyer.
A few readers have raised some fair points and I wish to respond to them:
"what do you mean by saying "Kids are being taught mutliculturalism, but are questioning why there are particular groups of immigrants (or of non-European descent) that are not abiding by Australia's idea of multiculturalism.Isn't the point of multiculturlism that they may follow, and express, their own ideas of culture?" Anonomouse
I wholeheartedly agree, Anonomouse. I agree that the point of multiculturalism is to embrace each and every culture in the world, and for each culture, no matter what its differences are, to coexist in the same environment. However, I believe that in order for multiculturalism to be successful, it needs to operate in conjunction with the country's basic foundations and principles. In particular, all citizens regardless of race, gender, age, or cultural background must obey the rule of law of that country.
When I made the comment that "kids were being taught multiculturalism.... [but] there are particular groups of immigrants...that are not abiding by Australia's idea of multiculturalism", I meant that they are taught as above - that different cultures should happily co-exist so long as they obey the rule of law of that country. I believe that young adults in Australia readily accept this but get confused when they see people of different cultures deliberately disobeying the rule of law - and the police and government not doing anything in fear of being labelled "racists".
This is why I believe that to address this awful problem, we need to begin focusing on doing something about EVERYONE that disobeys the law, rather than particular groups that do so. And by doing so, we can go back to what multiculturalism really is all about.
"you point out the latant racism hang over in Australia, but you claim that the policy of ignoring the human rights of the economic migrants is unrelated to racism. Can't follow you here....I would argue that lack of respect for human dignity and racism are highly correlated" Anonomouse
What I said was that "I believe that the Australian Government is guilty of running a strict economic policy and strict national security policy which is treated as being more important that human rights. Again, this isnt an issue of race. It is an issue of economics and foreign affairs." In my own opinion, I do not agree with your statement that "lack of respect for human dignity and racism are highly correlated."
Dictionary.com defines racism as: "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. " I think that it is easy to link the two, because a lack of respect for human dignity is often a byproduct of racism - those who believe they are superior generally hold a lack of respect for the dignity of those who they believe are substandard. However, it doesnt work the other way around. Those who hold a lack of respect for the dignity of illegal immigrants are not automatically racist.
I am in no way defending the Australian Government's actions, but I truly believe that their lack of respect for the dignity of illegal immigrants is a result of their strict economic policy rather than their honest belief that Australians are of a superior race. I remind you that Australia has a continual flow of legal migrants entering Australia, taking up residency and even being made citizens. Infact, Australia promotes the entry of migrants so long as they do it legally.
Australia's policy on illegal immigration is a "blanket policy". It is not directed at any one particular race, and no one race is treated more favourably than others in the same circumstances. If it cannot be found that the person is a refugee, then they are deemed "illegal immigrants". Once again, this is not fuelled by the idea tha Australia believes they are a superior race. Its the Government's strict economic policy that says "hey, we need to restrict entry to australia because we risk the influx of people, which will inevitably place pressure on our resources."
The lack of respect of human dignity arises from Australia's mismanagement of the administrative process of detaining illegal immigrants mandatorily. This isnt because the Government are racist. It is because the Federal Government place economic prosperity of those legally in the country above the dignity of those who arent. The Federal Government believes that to place the dignity of illegal immigrants, they would need to allow the illegal immigrants to stay. And this isnt in line with their economic policy.
"I do however think that latent racism is at work in the current federal government, because their constituency of hard core voters, is more racist. Witness the foot stamping adulation for Ruddock at the height of the so called 'boat people' crisis. Witness too the deliberate dog whistling over Australian Muslims following September 11." Mikey_capital
Mikey, this opens up a whole new can of worms. Again, the policy of the Liberal Party is, and always has been, that economic prosperity will always be paramount. I dont think their policy is based on a belief that Australia is a superior race. I think we are getting mixed up with racism and having the wrong order of priorities.
Was the Federal Government really voted in because of its constituency of hard core voters who you believe are more racist? Or was it voted in by the ordinary Australian who at that particular time, who had to vote at a time where security on home soil was at risk, and uncertainty as to our economy reigned. It was a case of "better the devil you know rather than the devil that you dont" - Australia wasnt ready to change its Government because it was going into a time of uncertainty. Again, this is a whole new topic...
"And as Crikey have pointed out this week, the Cronulla rioters that urged violence via mobile phones can potentially be charged under these new anti terror laws." Mikey_capital
Well, lets sit down and do the calculations:
Subsection 80.2 of the new Anti Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 that a person is breaking the law if:
(a) the person urges a group or groups (whether distinguished by race, religion, nationality or political opinion) to use force or violence against another group or other groups (as so distinguished); and
(b) the use of the force or violence would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. "
Persons: Those who sent around the text message, those who publicised Sunday's events in advance, ie. talk back radio hosts and journalists, plus anyone who sent on the text message....
Urges a Group or Groups: The text message requested that people come to Cronulla....
To use force or violence: The text message was directed at seeking revenge through the use of force and violence...
Against another group or groups: The text message requested that such violence be directed at people of Lebanese, or generally, Middle Eastern background.
The verdict? I think that persons who acted in the above manner may have potentially fallen foul of the new anti-terror laws. I agree. In fact, any person, of any race, who has incited violence against a particular group (whether of race, religion, country of origin etc) and urged people to join them in doing so, would fall foul of anti-terrorism laws.
Will anything be done by the Federal Government? I strongly doubt it. The Federal Government would lose the next election.
Thanks to everyone that has participated in this discussion. While I try to avoid making this blog political, it is definately an issue which I believe is important for all of us to consider!
So, who's got an idea for the next essay topic?! *grin* I'm eager....
K
A few readers have raised some fair points and I wish to respond to them:
"what do you mean by saying "Kids are being taught mutliculturalism, but are questioning why there are particular groups of immigrants (or of non-European descent) that are not abiding by Australia's idea of multiculturalism.Isn't the point of multiculturlism that they may follow, and express, their own ideas of culture?" Anonomouse
I wholeheartedly agree, Anonomouse. I agree that the point of multiculturalism is to embrace each and every culture in the world, and for each culture, no matter what its differences are, to coexist in the same environment. However, I believe that in order for multiculturalism to be successful, it needs to operate in conjunction with the country's basic foundations and principles. In particular, all citizens regardless of race, gender, age, or cultural background must obey the rule of law of that country.
When I made the comment that "kids were being taught multiculturalism.... [but] there are particular groups of immigrants...that are not abiding by Australia's idea of multiculturalism", I meant that they are taught as above - that different cultures should happily co-exist so long as they obey the rule of law of that country. I believe that young adults in Australia readily accept this but get confused when they see people of different cultures deliberately disobeying the rule of law - and the police and government not doing anything in fear of being labelled "racists".
This is why I believe that to address this awful problem, we need to begin focusing on doing something about EVERYONE that disobeys the law, rather than particular groups that do so. And by doing so, we can go back to what multiculturalism really is all about.
"you point out the latant racism hang over in Australia, but you claim that the policy of ignoring the human rights of the economic migrants is unrelated to racism. Can't follow you here....I would argue that lack of respect for human dignity and racism are highly correlated" Anonomouse
What I said was that "I believe that the Australian Government is guilty of running a strict economic policy and strict national security policy which is treated as being more important that human rights. Again, this isnt an issue of race. It is an issue of economics and foreign affairs." In my own opinion, I do not agree with your statement that "lack of respect for human dignity and racism are highly correlated."
Dictionary.com defines racism as: "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. " I think that it is easy to link the two, because a lack of respect for human dignity is often a byproduct of racism - those who believe they are superior generally hold a lack of respect for the dignity of those who they believe are substandard. However, it doesnt work the other way around. Those who hold a lack of respect for the dignity of illegal immigrants are not automatically racist.
I am in no way defending the Australian Government's actions, but I truly believe that their lack of respect for the dignity of illegal immigrants is a result of their strict economic policy rather than their honest belief that Australians are of a superior race. I remind you that Australia has a continual flow of legal migrants entering Australia, taking up residency and even being made citizens. Infact, Australia promotes the entry of migrants so long as they do it legally.
Australia's policy on illegal immigration is a "blanket policy". It is not directed at any one particular race, and no one race is treated more favourably than others in the same circumstances. If it cannot be found that the person is a refugee, then they are deemed "illegal immigrants". Once again, this is not fuelled by the idea tha Australia believes they are a superior race. Its the Government's strict economic policy that says "hey, we need to restrict entry to australia because we risk the influx of people, which will inevitably place pressure on our resources."
The lack of respect of human dignity arises from Australia's mismanagement of the administrative process of detaining illegal immigrants mandatorily. This isnt because the Government are racist. It is because the Federal Government place economic prosperity of those legally in the country above the dignity of those who arent. The Federal Government believes that to place the dignity of illegal immigrants, they would need to allow the illegal immigrants to stay. And this isnt in line with their economic policy.
"I do however think that latent racism is at work in the current federal government, because their constituency of hard core voters, is more racist. Witness the foot stamping adulation for Ruddock at the height of the so called 'boat people' crisis. Witness too the deliberate dog whistling over Australian Muslims following September 11." Mikey_capital
Mikey, this opens up a whole new can of worms. Again, the policy of the Liberal Party is, and always has been, that economic prosperity will always be paramount. I dont think their policy is based on a belief that Australia is a superior race. I think we are getting mixed up with racism and having the wrong order of priorities.
Was the Federal Government really voted in because of its constituency of hard core voters who you believe are more racist? Or was it voted in by the ordinary Australian who at that particular time, who had to vote at a time where security on home soil was at risk, and uncertainty as to our economy reigned. It was a case of "better the devil you know rather than the devil that you dont" - Australia wasnt ready to change its Government because it was going into a time of uncertainty. Again, this is a whole new topic...
"And as Crikey have pointed out this week, the Cronulla rioters that urged violence via mobile phones can potentially be charged under these new anti terror laws." Mikey_capital
Well, lets sit down and do the calculations:
Subsection 80.2 of the new Anti Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 that a person is breaking the law if:
(a) the person urges a group or groups (whether distinguished by race, religion, nationality or political opinion) to use force or violence against another group or other groups (as so distinguished); and
(b) the use of the force or violence would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. "
Persons: Those who sent around the text message, those who publicised Sunday's events in advance, ie. talk back radio hosts and journalists, plus anyone who sent on the text message....
Urges a Group or Groups: The text message requested that people come to Cronulla....
To use force or violence: The text message was directed at seeking revenge through the use of force and violence...
Against another group or groups: The text message requested that such violence be directed at people of Lebanese, or generally, Middle Eastern background.
The verdict? I think that persons who acted in the above manner may have potentially fallen foul of the new anti-terror laws. I agree. In fact, any person, of any race, who has incited violence against a particular group (whether of race, religion, country of origin etc) and urged people to join them in doing so, would fall foul of anti-terrorism laws.
Will anything be done by the Federal Government? I strongly doubt it. The Federal Government would lose the next election.
Thanks to everyone that has participated in this discussion. While I try to avoid making this blog political, it is definately an issue which I believe is important for all of us to consider!
So, who's got an idea for the next essay topic?! *grin* I'm eager....
K
posted by KateOnTheGo at
9:43 PM
4 Comments:
Hiya Kate,
Just to let you know that I am still around, in real life, and things will be okay, with or without the boat[if I sell, great, if I don't sell, great] but I just got sick of splattering my stupid life for all to see.
I'll pop in here now and again to educate myself and will let you know how Turkey went.
Bye for now, time for a green tea.
M
Thanks for responding Kate, much obliged.
In the matter of the Libs - I think that they have made political decisions, as opposed to policy decisions, that they know have support from their core constituency based on that constituencies' opinion on race and immigration.
The 2001 election was characterised not by 'sound economic policy' but 'keeping the bastards out'. It was all Tampa, all the time. It was blatantly stating that parents of a different cultural background were willing to through their children into the sea when they were not.
Remember when Howard sent the SAS in to take the Tampa? That exercise cost the tax paper millions of dollars. When in fact a naval patrol boat could have done the exact same job - cheap as chips. Howard used the SAS because it was a 'anti terror message'. Despite the fact that those onboard were sickly and weak.
National Security by all means. But one tinged with racism and glorification of the military being used for its unitended purpose. The SAS are very good at their job. But they resent being used as a dot point in a Liberal party political play book. As do I.
Witness too Bishop and that other idiot and their comment on Burkas. It took Cobb, a decent member of the Nats, to stand up and say that was stupid and ignorant. Not Howard. No way.
Look too at the rise of Hansonism on his watch and his 'everyone is too politically correct' reaction. She called for three year protection visas for refugees. A move that was shouted down for the filth that it was. And, later, the Howard government did bring in those rules - at two years. Because that's what the angry cross armed whiteys that were their true voters asked for.
I can admire what Menzies tried to do when he helped create the party. But it bares little or no resemblance to that vision. If you go look at the founding statement you'll see how twisted and reprehenisble it has become.
It is a party that encourages fear. Fea of interest rates, and of difference to you in whatever form, and of terror. Do they magnify these fears for political as opposed to policy purposes? You bet you sweet bum they do.
The Libs play past and loose with the truth and they play dirty. So they have to wear some of the blame for creating a culture in Australia where drunken yobs wearing a flag as a cape like some sort of demented superhero think it's acceptable to chase down a headscarf wearing woman and assault her.
I am interested to hear the opinion of someone in the legal profession that the people who advocated that violence last Sunday were terrorists. I was actually wondering the same thing as I was driving home today. So many thanks for that. Your blog is a very interesting read!
The decision about whether to try a person against those laws is still (unless they changed that too, lol) up to the law and order types, not the politicians, so theoretically the fact that it would be political suicide for the Libs shouldn't matter, Mikey. :P
Best regards from NY! » » »
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home