Cameron McKenzie
Note: Direct links to references are only provided where the reference includes a comment.
Multiculturalism is an unsound political theory, advocated by liberals,
academics, media personnel, social theorists, government officials, and
politicians. While it is supported by a majority of those people, it is actually
opposed by the overall majority of Australians.
It is a deliberate policy to actively maintain, support and
build(1) foreign cultures in
Australia, to the direct detriment of the Australian identity, culture and
way of life.
Instead of allowing immigrants, and their native-born offspring, to naturally
assimilate into the Australian culture, governments are knowingly creating
bases of foreign culture in this country. These deliberately divisive policies
are carried out in two areas.
First, through the multicultural policies themselves, whereby foreign cultures
are sustained and encouraged. Large sums of money are granted to "ethnic"
organisations, which boosts the abilities of such organisations to service
and perpetuate their "ethnic culture". In schools,
multicultural policies are actively pursued, whereby children are encouraged
to identify with their "ethnicity", rather than to become "fully" Australian.
Many, if not all, aspects of public life are touched in a myriad of ways
by official multicultural policies, all of which actually encourage a "them
and us" attitude between "new Australians" and "old Australians".
Secondly, immigration policies are based upon continuing mass immigration,
which gives foreign cultures in Australia the ability to self-sustain their
separate
development.
These deliberately divisive policies are turning Australians against each
other, and are creating a country populated by a collection of separate
communities, instead of a nation populated by a nationally unified society.
Multicultural Australia has thus become a breeding ground for a whole range
of "micro-nations", each with their own political and cultural agendas. Indeed,
Geoffrey Blainey has warned that "multiculturalism ... is a new form of
colonialism, in which we are the colony of every nation on earth".(2) As
Australia struggles to encompass the many little Chinas, little Japans, little
Italys, and little Croatias, all determined to preserve their own national,
cultural and ethnic peculiarities (including not only "lovely" dancing and
foods, but sometimes strange, if not barbaric, customs; as well as some extremely
strong ethnic hatreds), it is very easy to see the disunity created among
these ethnic communities; as well as between them and those who see themselves
as "Australians", foremost loyal to Australia.
Large-scale immigration programmes run the risk that ethnic enclaves will
develop, a risk that is heightened by multicultural policies which give
immigrants "little incentive to learn English and become socially and
economically integrated with those outside their group". Such ethnic ghettos
can provide a stimulus to the creation of "ethnic gangs that prey on their
own community". Another dark side of this situation is that such enclaves
"provide ideal bases for groups to engage in politically motivated violence.
Indeed, the conflict over the former Yugoslavia has in Australia resulted
in several incidents, including 11 unsolved fire bombings". The ethnic and
political rivalry witnessed between the Greek and Macedonian communities
in Australia involved "a demonstration outside Parliament House by 60,000
Greeks, a brawl at a soccer match and firebombings and vandalism", but such
incidents are minor - compared with the potential for widespread inter-ethnic
rivalry and violence. Such a situation is indicative of what multiculturalism
can bring about.(3)
As Professor Blainey has stated: "Recent governments emphasize the merits
of a multicultural society and ignore the dangers. And yet the evidence is
clear that many multicultural societies have failed and that the human cost
of the failure has been high. Many of our refugees actually come from
multicultural societies that are faltering or in disarray". Also, Professor
Loring Danforth has admitted that "Ironically, Australia's own commitment
to multiculturalism may also encourage immigrants to involve themselves in
the national conflicts of their homelands. This policy of multiculturalism
... defines people in ethnic categories and makes it possible for them to
maintain their identities as Italians, Greeks, or Macedonians. Multiculturalism,
with its emphasis on community languages and ethnic media, promotes the
development of these ethnic identities and impedes the development of a strong
Australian national identity."(4)
We do not need a crystal ball to see where multiculturalism will lead us.
The future will bring a vast amount of inter-ethnic rivalry and resultant
clashes, even leading to race riots reminiscent of those clashes in the UK
and USA. Australia faces the spectre of being another disunified "multicultural"
society like Sri Lanka, South Africa, Northern Ireland, Lebanon, the former
Yugoslavia, Fiji, etc.; not to mention the USA and the UK, with their continually
strained communities, and occasional race riots. The prospects of such a
disunified nation are appalling.
Disunity will also be shown in a lack of loyalty and patriotism, where ethnic
groups owe allegiance to the country of their ethnic background, rather than
to Australia. There are many examples of this question of multicultural
allegiances, for instance, when Italy won the international soccer World
Cup in July 1982, thousands took part
in a huge celebration in the heart of Carlton (a suburb in Melbourne, Victoria,
which for many years has been a strong base for ethnic Italians). This did
not happen in Carlton when other countries won the World Cup in previous
years; it was not a celebration for whomever would win the Cup: it was an
Italian victory celebration; it was not a celebration by Italian tourists
either, it was a celebration by ethnic Italians of multicultural
Australia.(5)
When there was a furore in February 1994 over whether or not to recognise
the name of the new Republic of Macedonia, 60,000 people took to the streets
of Melbourne to demonstrate in support of Greece (the matter being in dispute
because Greece contains an area already named Macedonia) and to demand the
non-recognition of the name of the new Republic. These were not Greek tourists,
who could be expected to owe allegiance to Greece, but were ethnic Greeks
of multicultural Australia.(6)
In 1997 the British government "handed over Hong Kong" to China. This event
was celebrated by thousands of ethnic Chinese in Australia. The celebration
involved mixed feelings, because although Hong Kong was being returned to
its motherland, it was being put under communist domination. It could only
be assumed that if China was no longer under communist rule, and Hong Kong
was being joined to China, that the ethnic Chinese of multicultural Australia
would be celebrating in their droves. So, how is such "Chinese patriotic
fervour" explained, unless these people are "Aussies of convenience", and
actually owe their allegiance to their ethnic homeland, not Australia?(7)
Such questionable loyalties are inevitable in such a situation where the
Australian establishment actually encourage immigrants (and their offspring)
to be "ethnics", rather than Australians. This is reflected in the low take-up
rate of Australian citizenship (as found by the FitzGerald Committee of Inquiry),
as well as the retention of "dual nationality" by many of these "new citizens".
Of special concern are those immigrants who maintain "a close interest in
the problems of their former countries", especially where such interest involves
close links with foreign governments.(8)
There will be times when the interests of Australia will clash with the interests
of other countries, whether it be in the fields of trade, politics, or even
in that rare danger of war. When that time comes, when Australian multicultural
ethnics have to choose between Australia and their country of ethnicity,
many will find it easy to make their decision, and Australia will be the
loser. Multiculturalism can therefore be justly seen as a threat to our national
security.(9)
Multiculturalists oppose the idea of assimilation (whereby immigrants would
be encouraged to become Australian) as they want immigrants to retain their
own cultures and pass those cultures onto successive generations. While it
is understandable that immigrants would have an attachment to their place
of birth and native culture, assimilation does not demand that immigrants
should forget their origins; but asks that they, and their offspring, become
part of Australia and adapt to the Australian culture and way of life; rather
than give impetus to ghettos and ethnic divisions within the country.
Multiculturalism, however, demands that immigrants remain attached to their
place of birth and native culture. In fact, this demand even extends to the
offspring of immigrants: people born in Australia, of immigrant parentage,
are told not to join "mainstream" Australian culture, but to become multicultural
"ethnics".
Multiculturalism is a political policy to actively encourage the strengthening,
building, and promotion of separate cultural units within Australia.
Multiculturalism is a political device to discourage immigrants,
and their offspring, from becoming Australians.
The aim of internationalist-thinking liberals, academics, and "lefties" is
- in effect - to destroy the Australian national and cultural identity. This
"aim" is not the design of some well-organised conspiracy, but is rather
the "logical" outcome of the thought-processes of liberal-internationalists,
whose actions will cause such devastation; however, since these "trendies"
are, or should be, well aware of the effects their policies will have on
our national culture, their actions can only be regarded as deliberate. This
intended destruction of the Australian identity is being carried out by a
two pronged attack:
Firstly, the Australian identity is denied. Many academics, trendies and
"lefties" maintain that Australia does not have its own national and cultural
identity. They argue that Australian culture is either "British", or a
multicultural mish-mash; they tell us that Australia has no culture of its
own.
Ignored are the poets like Henry Lawson, Banjo Paterson, Rex Ingamells, and
Mary Gilmore; painters like Arthur Streeton, Frederick McCubbin, Sydney Nolan,
and Russell Drysdale; architecture such as the Federation style; music from
Waltzing Matilda, to the Seekers, to the Bushwhackers, to Skyhooks; our heroes
and heroines, for instance, Ned Kelly, Nellie Melba, Don Bradman, the ANZACs,
and the men of the Kokoda Track; the Australian way of life, including the
bush barbeque, Australian Rules Football, and games of Two-Up; Australian
icons such as Vegemite, Goanna Oil, Hills Hoists, and Akubra hats; our
entertainers and characters like Ginger Meggs, Chips Rafferty, Paul Hogan,
Dame Edna Everage and Sir Les Patterson; our distinctive language, accent,
and colloquialisms; the Australian character, styled as easy-going, fair
and democratic, having a healthy disrespect for authority, and with a laconic
humour; all shaped and influenced by the distinctive Australian landscape
and our unique history.(10)
Secondly, the destruction of our identity is being carried out by
multiculturalism itself. From politicians and academics comes the cry "we
are all ethnics", no-one is an actual Australian - everyone is an "ethnic".
The origin of your parents or forebears dictates what type of "ethnic" you
are: if you have English parents then you're an English "ethnic", if you
have Irish parents then you're an Irish "ethnic", German parentage produces
a German "ethnic", and so on. If one parent is French, and the other Russian,
then it could be assumed that you have to pick just one ethnicity, or perhaps
you could become a multicultural schizophrenic? Australia's culture is being
undermined by the effects of the continual push for multiculturalism (especially
in our educational institutions); we are now being taught to see ourselves
as "ethnics", rather than Australians, and this cannot help but to adversely
affect our national cultural output and development.
The aim of this two-pronged attack is simple: no more Australians! Everyone
becomes an "ethnic"; and the Australian identity and culture becomes treated
as worthless and second-class, or gets twisted around to take on a multicultural
slant. This destructive "aim" is the consequence of the actions of liberalistic
internationalists of various shades; and, even if such destruction is not
their actual intent, their ideology certainly manifests itself as an assault
on our national well-being.(11)
As Loring M. Danforth, a Professor of Anthropology, has stated,
"Multiculturalism, with its emphasis on community languages and ethnic media,
promotes the development of these ethnic identities and impedes the development
of a strong Australian national identity."(12) However, rather than being
just an impediment, the long term results are actually destructive of the
Australian national identity.
If this attack on Australia's heritage was being carried out by liberals,
academics, and "lefties" only in their capacity as private individuals or
groups, then we would not have too much to worry about as they are a minority
opinion on the subject. But this is not how these people operate. They lobby
and push their ideas through academia, the media, and the political machines;
their ideas are then shoved into official acceptance, until they finally
become "official policy". Once the "official policy" stage is reached, these
lobbyists go into "overdrive"; "official policy" becomes the rationale to
enable them to force their ideas onto the community: the public service is
retrained and restructured to accommodate the new ideas; a veritable public
service "industry" is created to build, promote, and propagate their ideology,
encroaching as far as possible into other public service areas, as well as
into private enterprise, and even affecting private individuals, becoming
a self-serving, self-sustaining industry hell-bent on pushing its new ideology
and justifying itself (they begin to wonder how we ever got along without
them). In tandem with all this is the creation of new laws (enacted by
self-serving politicians, assisted by the new "Multicultural Industry" and
their allies) which sets up the new ideology as "right" and "respectable",
whilst painting any opposing views as "wrong", "unworthy" and, in certain
circumstances, "illegal". The new policy has now become "politically correct";
and with the media, academia, and the parliamentary political parties being
full of small "l" liberals, the public receives the impression that such
views are not only "correct", but are held by the majority of the people
(when, in fact, these ideas are held only by the majority of journalists,
academics, and politicians). In such a climate, it then becomes "politically
incorrect" to hold opposing views, with active opponents being effectively
labelled as cranks, if not downright criminals ("racial vilification" laws
will see some opponents jailed and/or scared off). Opponents in prominent
positions are harassed; while those in the public service, self-employment,
or any other assailable position, stand to lose their job or livelihood if
they speak out.
The most serious aspect of all this is that of education. It is during the
formative years of our young children that they are heavily indoctrinated
by the education system into believing in multiculturalism (such indoctrination
being made by both subtle means and overt means). No opposing viewpoints
are given any credible airing (if given any "airing" at all), and
multiculturalism is presented as a fact, rather than as a particular biased
political viewpoint. As in the days of Galileo Galilei, our school children
now believe that "the sun revolves around the earth", and that it is "dangerous
heresy" to believe otherwise; in our modern context, that "multiculturalism
is good for us", and that to oppose it is "dangerous" and "wrong", perhaps
even "illegal".
The ultimate aim of the internationalist liberals is to destroy the Australian
national and cultural identity (whether this aim be deliberate or incidental).
The general idea is that Australia will have no national identity of its
own; that all of the population will be "ethnics" who owe their cultural
allegiance to cultures all over the world; creating a situation where, en
masse, the people will be loyal to all nations and, paradoxically, will therefore
be collectively loyal to none; that Australia will become an internationalist
state (maybe even a building block, or a springboard, for an internationalist
world). It would seem that Australia has become a multiculturalist experiment,
as the place to create the United Nations' vision of the "brown man": a human
creature belonging to no identifiable race, nation, or culture; the new citizen
of the cosmopolitan internationalist multicultural world.
That most, if not all, multiculturalists are actually internationalists is
beyond doubt. As an example, the government-sponsored document, Australia
as a Multicultural Society, saw fit to propagate the belief that Australia's
interests may have to be overridden by so-called international interests:
"we also wish to emphasise that questions of immigration policy (like many
other questions) are embedded in a much wider concept of social cohesion
than this: namely, the `social good' of humanity as a whole. From this point
of view, Australia may be a sectional group in a wider international system
and the good of the wider system may override the well-being of
Australia considered in isolation" (emphasis added).(13)
What began as a trendy liberalistic idea, and was picked up and carried along
as a
"migrant vote winner" for politicians, has become a huge menace to Australia's
society and culture.
The birth of the concept of multiculturalism can be traced back to the writings
of Horace Kallen, who advocated a policy of "cultural pluralism". Kallen,
a German-born Jewish-American philosopher, first published his ideas in 1915.
He attacked assimilation and the melting-pot theory, and instead proposed
that America should become a "commonwealth of... nationalities". Ignoring
the potential threats to the ideal of a unified society, Kallen encouraged
a philosophy of ethnic separatism, despite warnings that cultural pluralism
would "result in the Balkanisation of the United States".(14)
In his critique of the "cult of ethnicity", The Disuniting of America,
Arthur Schlesinger relates how "The gospel of cultural pluralism was at first
largely confined to academics, intellectuals, and artists" but that, after
the Second World War "The civil rights revolution provoked new expressions
of ethnic identity by the now long-resident `new migration' from southern
and eastern Europe". He notes that the pressure for the new cult of ethnicity
came not from the ethnic minorities en masse (who saw themselves as Americans),
but "from their often self-appointed spokesmen". Schlesinger says that the
ethnic upsurge "began as a gesture of protest against the Anglocentric culture",
but became a "cult", and now threatens the unity of America.(15)
The fatally flawed concept of cultural pluralism eventually took hold in
other countries. The term "multiculturalism" was coined in Canada in the
1960s, and was used by the Trudeau Government to try to promote harmony between
the predominant French-Canadian and British-Canadian cultures, as well as
with the various minority cultures.(16)
Largely made possible by "nearly three decades of large-scale heterogenous
immigration", the ideology of multiculturalism took root in Australia during
the late 1960s, where it became the rallying cry of various academics , liberals,
and "lefties". One of the prime movers of this "cult of ethnicity" was the
Polish-born Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki, who has been described as the "architect
of multiculturalism in Australia". Of Zubrzycki, it was reported that "He
was one of the first Australian academics in the late 1960s to put forward
multiculturalism as an alternative to the then social policy of assimilation.
He says nobody took the proposal seriously until 1973, when he pursued the
policy as chairman of the Social Issues Committee of the Immigration Advisory
Council to the Whitlam Government. The committee argued Australia had to
move towards a recognition of cultural pluralism". Later, as Chairman of
the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council, and then as Chairman of the Ethnic
Affairs Task Force, he had a guiding hand in presenting two "landmark" reports
to Malcolm Fraser's Liberal Government: Australia as a Multicultural
Society (1977) and Multiculturalism for all Australians (1982).
It has been said that the commitment of successive governments to the
multicultural ideal was due "thanks principally to Jerzy Zubrzycki".(17)
However, the rise of multiculturalism in Australia was due to the operations
and lobbying of an entire movement and network of people (many now part of
the "Multicultural Industry") who pushed for the adoption of multiculturalism
as official government policy. James Jupp has admitted that "There is, then,
no doubt that a small, mainly politically-involved minority ushered in
multiculturalism as public policy". Zubrzycki claimed that "the major
breakthrough" came in 1972 when Jean Martin (who largely wrote the 1977 report)
gave her Meredith Memorial Lecture on the subject, followed by Grassby's
"much publicised address" on multiculturalism in 1973. Indeed, "Australia's
public debate about `multiculturalism' really developed during 1973 with
the then Minister of Immigration, Al Grassby".(18)
The advent of the Whitlam Labor Government (December 1972 to November 1975)
was the vehicle via which multiculturalism "exploded onto the political scene".
It was Grassby who, with the backing of the new government, pushed
multiculturalism as far as it could go. It was a concept popular with the
liberalistic academia and "migrant intellectuals ... [who] found the idea
of multiculturalism attractive". Not only was the concept "a popular idea
with the new intelligentsia, but more important, it had clearly struck a
responsive chord with many immigrant communities, particularly those from
southern Europe".(19)
Multiculturalism was one of the few Whitlam programmes not jettisoned by
Malcolm Fraser's incoming Liberal Government in 1975. Voting pattens had
by then emerged which showed that "while voters from northern Europe had
a similar voting pattern to the Australian-born and the eastern Europeans
tended to support the conservative parties, southern Europeans were supporting
the ALP". The Fraser government decided that a "commitment to multiculturalism
... could offer something to the southern European electorate". Support for
multiculturalism came to be seen as a way of "buying the ethnic vote". As
part of this political strategy, "Organised ethnic groups were recognised,
funded and listened to. Politicians hoped that sections of the electorate
could be reached if ethnic leaders were cultivated, and cultivation and funding
helped to strengthen the position of ethnic leaders". Indeed, in 1976, the
then Minister for Immigration, Michael MacKellar, admitted "that his Government
intended to pursue multicultural policies because the Liberal/National Country
Party coalition appeared to be unpopular with migrant voters".(20)
Raymond Sestito has revealed the vote-chasing nature of multiculturalism;
how the political parties introduced such policies, not "responding to organised
pressure but rather as the initiators of the new policy". He explained that
"By the early seventies a great deal of Italian and Greek migrants who had
arrived from the mid-1950s onwards had become citizens and so gained the
vote. Between January 1965 and June 1979, 188,640 Italians and 150,208 Greeks
were granted Australian citizenship. This was too large a group of votes
to be ignored by the major political parties. The migrant vote would become
especially important to the Victorian ALP since there was a heavy concentration
of Greek and Italian votes in the inner suburban area of Melbourne; attracting
the migrant vote would be a way of keeping these seats ... Multiculturalism
is so appealing to the parties because there are votes to be gained by promoting
it. In this case we can say that Australia's political parties have been
the initiators of multiculturalism, rather than responding to group
pressure."(21)
Sestito further explained the political dilemma of multiculturalism: "Once
an issue is established, the bargaining process begins. This is where the
parties are caught in a political bind. Once they have articulated the needs
of groups, then it becomes hard for them to pull back. Groups which were
previously unorganised become stronger and make increasing demands which
the parties cannot ignore if they are to gain their vote. Political parties
become locked into a situation where one tries to outbid the other in the
promises each makes. Thus while in the 1960s one would be mistaken in thinking
that migrants hardly existed, we now have a situation where parties compete
to see who can promise the most to migrants."(22)
"The first move to buy into the ethnic vote was made by the Federal ALP
Government and its Minister for Immigration, Mr Al Grassby", whereby Whitlam's
ALP Government (1972-1975) set up various migrant and ethnic services and
infrastructures. "If the ALP was first off the mark, the Federal LCP coalition
[Liberal Party and the Country Party] was quick to follow. In August of 1975
the coalition issued a detailed policy on immigration and ethnic affairs
which was not only an extension of the ALP policy, but was radically different
from previous coalition policies in this field. Introducing the policy, the
shadow Minister for Immigration, Mr Michael MacKellar, said he `did not believe
that Gough [Whitlam] had the migrant vote all tied up' ... Whereas in the
1960s there was a bi-partisan policy of ethnic assimilation and integration,
it seems that multiculturalism has now become the policy of both major
parties."(23)
Thus, multiculturalism came to be "endorsed in various ways in the policy
statements of both major political parties", due to political agitation,
misguided idealism, ethnic lobbying, and especially because of political
dishonesty and "vote-grabbing".(24)
It is interesting to note the results of a 1994 survey of voting support,
by voters' country of birth: (25)
Voter support (% by country of birth):
Other New North
Total Australia Greece Italy Europe Asia Zealand America Other
Aust. Labor Party 41 40 52 61 44.5 60.5 33.5 28.5 51
Liberal-National 45 46 36.5 33 44.5 33 52 54.5 31
Democrats 6 6 1.5 4 5 1.5 5 5 8.5
Green 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 2 2 4 7 5
Independent/Other 4.5 4.5 6.5 0.5 4 3 5.5 5 4.5
This Time Morgan survey was based on face-to -face interviews with 14,712
electors throughout Australia, January 1994 to mid-April 1994.
In light of information given in the preceding paragraphs, it would be
interesting to see this survey with Europe broken up into North, East, West,
and South.
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:(26)
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:(27)
"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:(28)
"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."(29)
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).(30)
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'".(31)
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.(32)
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).
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".(33)
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".(34)
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."(35)
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."(36)
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'."(37)
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.
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.".(38)
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.(39)
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.(40)
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."(41)
But, like Demographic Multiculturalism, Holistic Multiculturalism is irrelevant
without the mechanics of 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."(42)
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).(43)
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.
Many multiculturalists promote the idea of cultural relativism, i.e. "that
each culture is of equal value, and should not be judged from the cultural
perspectives of others". This actually means that no-one can pass judgement
on another culture as that person's "value judgement" will be made on the
basis of their own cultural values. In this manner of thinking, all cultures
are therefore equal; and its adherents maintain that it cannot be said that
other cultures, or certain cultural customs, are "wrong" or "inferior", as
to do so would be to act as "culturally superior" or, at worst, even
"racist".(44)
This half-baked notion would have us believe that the culture of a tribe
of New Guinea cannibals is equal to the culture of the Ancient Egyptians.
The "good" multiculturalist would maintain that this is so, while the rest
of us may laugh at this ridiculous idea, pointing out the Ancient Egyptians'
advances in mathematics, astronomy, transport, irrigation, architecture,
etc., etc., etc. It would then be pointed out that, in our ignorance, we
would've been making a "value judgement" based on our own culture, which
is the "wrong" thing to do, and "politically incorrect" to say the least.
Maybe we should never hold any opinions, nor judge any matter, ever again?
But, of course, if we were ever to point out that it is part of
our culture to hold such opinions, and form "value
judgements", then wouldn't that be a great dilemma for the multiculturalists?
You know the answer already: our cultural values are to be ignored; because,
despite their ever-ready claims of cultural equality, multiculturalists place
Australian culture a distant second to any other "ethnic" culture.
The absurdity of the argument of cultural relativism is also self-evident
to anyone who thinks it through in its practical
context. For instance, there will be times when the cultural practices of
some ethnic minorities in Australia will be held to be against the law, which
itself has been basically produced by, and is usually reflective of, the
mainstream Australian culture. Cultural relativism is thus shown to be
contradictory and unworkable.
In terms of the law, there are two matters to be pointed out. One, that a
multiculturalist who says cultures can be maintained, but only subject to
the law, has accepted a basic principle of assimilationism. Two, that there
are multiculturalists who advocate that there should be "respect for cultural
diversity reflected in the operation of the law by granting some multicultural
minorities special consideration in the legal treatment of their otherwise
illegal cultural and religious practices". In fact, legal decisions based
on cultural considerations are already being enacted, from lighter sentences
in some cases, to the allowing of Aboriginal law to operate instead of Australian
law (such as the Northern Territory court which released an Aboriginal man,
found guilty of a "stabbing manslaughter", on a good behaviour bond, partly
in recognition that "under customary law ... [he] ... could expect to be
speared through his thighs as a pay-back for the killing").(45)
Jan Pettman, an "anti-racist" lecturer, has pointed out some questions that
cultural relativism avoids: "if values or interests conflict, whose should
prevail? What happens if there are some values and practices we do not want
in Australia? What is it that will ultimately hold us all together?".(46)
Cultural relativism is not only sheer folly, it is plain idiocy.
It is also interesting to note the words of Rush Limbaugh (publicised as
"America's #1 radio talk-show host"): "One of the main vehicles used by liberals
to attempt to de-legitimize "all that remains of national culture" for America
is multiculturalism. By its very nature, multiculturalism holds that no
civilization, no moral code, no way of living, is better than another. In
general, it finds fault with little in most cultures - the exception being
the actual nation of America, which is usually portrayed as an oppressive,
racist, sexist, homophobic nation with few redeeming qualities."(47)
Much the same can be said for Australia: Multiculturalists continuously denigrate
and attack Australia's way of life - our culture - (as well as attacking
that of other Westernised countries, in particular those of the English-speaking
world) but rarely do they attack the cultures of foreign peoples (especially
those of the Third World). Most multiculturalists seem to view criticism
of such foreign cultures as "politically incorrect", or even "racist"; but
have no such qualms over attacking the Australian way of life. They fail
to realise that this double standard shows them to be fools and hypocrites.
What they also fail to realise is that such double standards help to reveal
the actual mentality evident behind the ideology of multiculturalism in this
country, that of being anti-Australian, if not a form of anti-White racism
(for many multiculturalists, this seems to be some sort of perverse
self-hatred).
To further explain about their mentality being anti-Australian: For many
multiculturalists, rather than their main driving force being to seek some
form of "equality" for other cultures, their main driving force is to attack
the Australian nation, its culture, way of life, institutions, its
British/European population, and - most telling of all - its wealth. The
fact that Australia is a wealthy nation, while many Third World countries
are very poor, produces a style of thinking evident within the mentality
of multiculturalism; a form of what has been termed "the White guilt
complex".
It should be realised from this that multiculturalism is not pro-culture
(foreign or otherwise) as it purports to be, but is actually anti-culture.
Multiculturalists advocate the right for other cultures to practice their
own cultural traditions and "unique" ways of life, and feel that this
liberalistic view is a fair and just position to take. How ironic, therefore,
that we find that some of the cultural ways and traditions subsequently practiced
are considered to be far from "liberal", "just", or "fair".
Professor Lauchlan Chipman has exposed multiculturalism as containing a wide
spectrum; from "soft" multiculturalism (the "food and dances" justification,
used so often) to the realities of "hard" multiculturalism: "It is imperative
that we realise that this is what hard multi-culturalism is about. It is
not about folk dancing, interesting food, and free-flowing wine. Nor is it
about experiments in living and the open-minded and sensitive quest for improved
or alternative life-styles. It is not just about reinforcing the `nice' or
the `cute' or the `exotic' aspects of these cultures as perceived by widely
read, widely travelled middle-class Australians. Rather, it is about the
preservation of `ethnic integrity', the reinforcement and imposition on the
new-born of sets of traditions, beliefs, and values which include, as well
as those which are noble and enlightened, some which are at least as inhuman,
as grotesquely ignorant, and as racist, as sexist, and as bigoted as any
that can be squeezed from even the most appalling of ockers." Also looking
at the consequences of multiculturalism, Dr. Frank Knopfelmacher warned that
"It entails permanent class war with an ethnic dimension -- the worst kind
of class-war, and in the end, terrorism and civil war."(48)
The reality of the multicultural ideology (despite what any of its promoters
might claim) is that it actually encourages and supports various distasteful
ethnic customs:
- Treatment of women as second class citizens, including a "sheltered, separate,
limited and thoroughly sexist upbringing for daughters" that exists among
fundamentalist Muslims.(49)
- Female genital mutilation (also known as female circumcision) by
Africans.(50)
- Girls raised in strict Muslim or Mediterranean households, not being allowed
to associate socially with Australian classmates.(51)
- Extremely rigid, and almost blindly obedient, patriarchal family
structures.(52)
- Arranged marriages, whereby brides (and sometimes grooms - depending on
which culture is involved) have no say in the choosing of their partner.
Indian and Australian Aboriginal arranged marriages can involve girls as
young as eleven to fourteen being married to middle-aged men.(53)
- The notion of the duty to kill to preserve family or blood honour.(54)
- Aborigines being speared in the leg by other Aborigines, as tribal punishment
for crimes, in line with their customary law (other types of punishment also
occur).(55)
- Ethnic hatreds, and traditional anti-Semitism.(56)
To try to encompass all cultures (and their various aspects and realiies)
within one nation is blatantly ridiculous; but to try to change, or to try
to ban, certain cultural traditions is to "discriminate", to act "culturally
superior", and to be "racist". Of course, some cultural demands cannot coexist
in the same country; for instance, some cultures demand that monogamy be
the only legal marriage, while some want polygamy to be legal. It is a direct
contradiction: You can't have it both ways.
It also needs to be asked as to whether most Australians have thought about
the implications of a "truly multi-cultural society"? At the moment many
Australian traditions are based upon our Christian heritage; but in a truly
non-discriminatory multicultural society these traditions will lose their
official standing so as not to discriminate against, or offend, other religions;
especially when the population base for other non-Christian religions, such
as Islam, grow enormously. For instance, it is "discriminatory" for Australian
governments to recognise, and allow public holidays for, Christian religious
festivals, such as Christmas and Easter. It is a "logical" demand of
multiculturalism to demand that such "discriminatory" practices cease. In
such an event, there are two basic "non-discriminatory" options: 1) to recognise,
and declare public holidays for, all religious festivals
(a political and economic nightmare), or 2) to ban official support for
all religious festivals (this latter scenario being
the more likely choice). Do Australians really want government recognition
of, and public holidays for, Christian festivals (such as Christmas and Easter)
banned?
Some multiculturalists may deny this scenario; but, giving us a taste of
things to come, appeared this news item in The Age: "The English city
of Birmingham has banned Christmas symbols such as Santa Claus, church bells,
angels, nativity scenes and `Merry Christmas' messages from its street lighting
decorations in case they upset non-Christians". There should be no doubt
in our minds that this is only the start of such
matters.(57)
Since the first edition of this publication, the point being made above has
been borne out. Newspaper reports revealed that "Nativity plays and overly
religious activities have been scrapped in many Melbourne kindergartens concerned
about their culturally diverse proteges". The reality of multiculturalism
brings forth a situation where Australian children are denied part of their
traditional upbringing simply because a minority within their midst belong
to other cultures. One kindergarten teacher ignored such "political correctness",
and made a statement of common sense: "If we went to Japan or China, would
they stop their shinto festivals, or moon festivals because of one or two
children? Of course they wouldn't".(58)
The reality of multiculturalism is that elements of Australian culture will
slowly be forced from the public sphere, leading to the destruction of our
national culture and identity.
The point made previously bears repeating:
"There should be no doubt in our minds that this is only the
start of such matters."
Another reality of multiculturalism is the cost to the Australian community,
not only in social terms, but also in economic terms. Stephen Rimmer, an
economist and author, has made a estimate of the monetary effects of
multicultural policies as being "more than $7.2 billion a year ... in addition
to the $7 billion or $8 billion a year which immigration is estimated to
add to the annual deficit on the current account of the balance of payments"
and that "The gross cost of multiculturalism amounts to about 2% of Australia's
Gross Domestic Product of $369 billion", while stating that these "estimates
are conservative ... The real economic cost of multiculturalism is likely
to be higher".(59)
The costs involved with multiculturalism are astounding. Some selected quotes
from Rimmer's writings give a broad outline:(60)
- "Costs associated with multiculturalism are caused primarily by its impact
on Australia's substantial immigration program. Costs are increased through
the importation of large numbers of migrants who cannot speak English and
through the covert use of ethnicity and country of origin as important criteria
for choosing migrants".
- "According to government reports, the lack of English language skills is
costing Australia over $4.8 billion annually. The OMA says additional
communication time in the workplace costs $3.2 billion. Lost output due to
unemployment, caused by the lack of language skills, costs $1.6 billion.
Migrants have more workplace accidents which cost $13 million, while the
costs of higher welfare expenditure is at least $25 million".
- "The taxpayer pays for multiculturalism in the form of greater expenditure
on multicultural programs, welfare and crime prevention. Commerce and industry
pays in the form of reduced productivity and output, lost markets, greater
industrial disputation and increased expenditure on language training. Migrants
lose out themselves, because of their lack of English, in workplace accidents
and lower productivity".
- "Governments spend about $2 billion dollars each year on multicultural
programs, most of these are left unidentified in larger government programs".
"Funds go to English language courses; assistance for disadvantaged schools
and students; language and multicultural studies; employment education for
the disadvantaged; settlement and ethnic affairs; the Office of Multicultural
Affairs; the Special Broadcasting Service and the arts". "The Federal Government
alone spends more than $200 million annually on English language training".
John Mohajer, an economist and social researcher, has pointed out how
multiculturalism created Australia's current problem of a large non-English
speaking population: "During the 1950s and 1960s a modest proportion of migrants
arriving in Australia did not have good language skills ... during the late
1970s and early 1980s the multicultural lobby claimed that requirements that
migrants speak English were `discriminatory' ... Consequently, the weight
attached to English language skills in immigrant selection was significantly
downgraded by the Federal Government in the early 1980s. English language
testing was partially reintroduced in the late 1980s and early 1990s, as
the economic costs imposed by this policy became apparent to governments
and policy makers. However, since 1979 large numbers of migrants have entered
Australia with little or no language skills ... Thus, in 1991 over 410,000
Australians could not speak English effectively. It is important to note
that many workers who could not speak English effectively and who had arrived
in Australia in the 1950s and 1960s were leaving the labour force by the
1980s and early 1990s, often due to retirement. Thus, if large numbers of
migrants with poor English language skills had not been allowed into Australia
in the 1980s, the problem of lack of English language skills could have been
stabilised and even diminished over the last decade".(61)
Rimmer has clearly stated the unavoidable facts: "There is a growing body
of evidence which suggests that multiculturalism is the key cause of Australia's
relative economic decline. Despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars
each year, the multicultural lobby has been unable to show even one economic
benefit for Australia. Australia's poorly run immigration program is clearly
contrary to the interests of all Australians. While English language training
should be retained, the policy of multiculturalism should be abandoned
immediately. There should be a public inquiry, possibly a royal commission,
into the costs and benefits of multiculturalism."(62)
Yet another reality of multiculturalism has been cited by Stephen Rimmer,
that of the eventual Asianisation of Australia: "Multiculturalism serves
as a cloak for the undeclared policy of Asianisation which involves linking
Australia economically, ethnically and culturally with the nations of North-East
Asia. As part of Asianisation, Australia's non-discriminatory immigration
policy has been abandoned. Migrants and refugees are now selected on the
basis of ethnicity ... Resources are spread unevenly and migration applications
from North-East Asia are dealt with more quickly than applications from
Europe."(63)
Following Rimmer's arguments, it is all too easy to see a definite bias towards
Asia from politicians, government officials, and various people in prominent
public positions (especially in the business sector). Many of these people,
such as Bob Hawke (then Prime Minister), have told us (contrary to geographical
realities) that "Australia is a part of Asia"; as well as asserting, like
Al Grassby, "that Australia's destiny lies in Asia and the Pacific".(64)
In 1983, Bill Hayden (then the ALP's Foreign Minister) gave a remarkable
speech alluding to Australia's future: "Australia is changing. We're an anomaly
as a European country in this part of the world. There's already a large
and growing Asian population in Australia and it is inevitable in my view
that Australia will become a Eurasian country ... I happen to think that's
desirable. That means we are becoming part of the mainstream of this region".
He also said: "[we] should welcome the process of gradually becoming a
Eurasian-type society ... we will not just become a multicultural society
- which seems to me to be a soft sort of terminology anyway - we will become
a Eurasian society and we will be the better for it". Even though his views
were widely reported, no politician or government official condemned his
comments, leading many to believe that the government generally concurred
with his views. Hayden further compounded his statements the following year,
when he revealed his "vision" that Australia should have a population of
50 million, predicting an upsurge in migration from "the obvious Asian
populations around us ... [and the] ... large Polynesian and Melanesian
population in our near region".(65)
Several big-business executives have called for a large increase in Australia's
population, as they perceive such a rise as beneficial to the economic prospects
of large companies; for instance, Hugh Morgan (Chief Executive of Western
Mining) has proposed a figure of "about half a million migrants annually".
Also, many people have come to realise that there is a political side to
Australia's immigration policies; indeed, Ralph L. Harry (then Director of
the Australian Institute of International Affairs) has noted that immigration
has been described as a "concrete way of developing relations between
governments"; and Alan Renouf (former Secretary of the Department of Foreign
Affairs) has said that "immigration can be a useful diplomatic tool" and
has advocated "a larger flow of Asian peoples" on the basis that such an
action "could cement materially Australia's ties with such countries".(66)
The Australian Population and Immigration Council has stated that "The Asian
region has immense potential as a source of migrants for Australia". It would
seem that it is Asia that both politicians and businessmen are looking towards
to provide the "future" for Australia. Some observers have commented that
it would seem that there is an implicit "trade-off" involved: in return for
being enabled to economically enmesh Australia with the growing Asian economies,
Australia will in turn demographically enmesh itself with Asia's populations.
As one government Minister is reported to have said, "we are part of Asia
and our economic development, our future is inextricably intertwined with
Asia - tourism, trade and economic development".(67)
Australia's most respected demographic expert, Charles Price, has already
published his projections: "the year 2020 would see some 2.7 million persons
of unmixed Asian origin and about 3.9 million persons of part Asian ancestry;
a Total Descent figure of 6.6 million persons of whole or part Asian origin;
that is, 26.7% of the total Australian population". Phillip Ruthven, Director
of Ibis Business Information, has forecast a "neo-Eurasian nation" by 2010,
turning "Eurasian" by mid-century, and becoming "Asian" at the end of the
next century (only three to four generations away).(68)
It would appear that our cultural future may be determined by the levels
of Asian immigration we are likely to receive over the next few generations;
that Australia may well end up with an "Asian Future", which ironically may
preclude the "Truly Multicultural Future" envisioned by some.
Australia has a large and growing Muslim population. Continuing mass immigration
from those countries with large Islamic populations is building up the numbers
of Muslims already here. Indonesia, our closest Asian neighbour, has one
of the world's biggest Muslim communities.
The fundamentalist Muslim countries raise the spectre of:(69)
- Crimes punishable by whippings.
- Thieves having their hands chopped off.
- Adulterers being stoned to death.
- Fatyahs (death sentences) for those who say, or write, anything construed
as anti-Muslim (e.g. Ayatollah Khomeini's fatyah upon Salman Rushdie for
writing the Satanic Verses novel).
- Women grabbed from the streets and re-clothed (to cover up any "unseemly"
exposed flesh) by the roving patrols of hardline Muslim women.
- In law courts: Two women witnesses being required to counter the evidence
of one Muslim man; rape victims only being able to prove their cases if they
can produce four male Muslim witnesses.
- Females being barred from higher education and from most occupations.
- Teenage girls being given up to 70 lashes for not covering their hair in
public.
- Jail for drinking alcohol.
With the already sizeable Muslim presence in Australia; with continued mass
immigration; with Muslim recruitment of their fellow "ethnics": it is not
hard to picture a scenario where a future Australia has become a Muslim country.
In such a scenario, where Islamic fundamentalism reigns, the "liberalistic"
practices of multiculturalism would disappear (by natural and enforced means),
to be replaced by the unbending, autocratic, and sometimes barbaric practices
of the fundamentalist Islamic state.
Although this terrible scenario may seem a remote prospect, it is one that
multiculturalism could help bring about.
Multiculturalism is not just a theory/experiment confined to Australia and
North America; in many Western-style democracies, multiculturalism (in numerous
variant styles) is being forced upon the people of the host nations. Its
advocates see it as eventually covering the entire globe.
The long term consequences that are inherent in such a world-wide ideology
are frightening. The foreseeable scenario would appear to be, spread over
the next millennium, something like this: Australia, Canada, and North America
become fully multicultural, followed soon after by the other Western democracies,
then over a longer span of time all of the remaining countries of the world
are slowly pushed into the multicultural abyss:
- Ethnic integration eventually becomes total integration. With no ethnic
base to support cultural traditions, all cultures merge; this means that
while many cultural traits survive, in a conglomerate style, most cultural
traditions totally vanish.
- Just as has happened with cultural mergers in the past: unique cultures
and languages are lost forever, existing only in the records and archives
of academia.(70)
- Thanks to centuries of modern travel technology, ever-flowing very easy
mass migration, and world-wide communications systems, the entire planet
becomes the domain of the modern technological consumer society miracle:
the teeming masses of the United Nations' stylised "brown man".
There would be no point in travelling to Paris to experience a lively, vibrant,
French culture; or to the Congo to see the exotic unusual cultures of the
dark jungles of Africa; because everywhere is the same:
- Multicultural restaurants: a poor mix of several styles. Lots of the cheap
plastic-like food variety; some "classy" venues, but none are distinct.
- Multicultural language: Esperanto. All the old languages died out years
ago, everyone now speaks the same. However, some universities offer courses
about the old obsolete languages.
- Multicultural dancing: the "techno age" version of "disco". No-one actually
does any of the old dances, but they can be viewed on CD-video units in the
cobweb covered archives of academia.
- The same multicultural culture: an American-style cosmopolitan, media-based
culture.
That is the logical long-term result of multiculturalism: a world-wide American
TV-style culture (presumably administered by a global government).
In 1992, Australia's then Governor-General, Bill Hayden, said "Indeed, I
sometimes speculate whether there might not come a time - not too many
generations hence - when we may be talking about a truly international culture,
with local variations on a common theme".(71)
It is people like Bill Hayden that are trying, not only to destroy Australia's
culture (in the name of multiculturalism), but who are also trying to destroy
the culture of every nation on earth.
It is time that everyone realises that "Multiculturalism Means No Culture".
To call Australia "multicultural" is a misnomer. To illustrate the point
we can compare culture with language. Australia's language is English, both
in the official sense and in the practical sense. There are, however, some
people in Australia who speak another language as their "first" language,
so in a pedantic sense the country could be termed "multilingual" (but which
would infer that most Australians are everyday speakers of foreign languages).
Yet, only an idiot would seriously describe Australia as "multilingual":
it is an "English speaking country" which happens to have a small minority
of people who speak other languages (with only an extremely small minority
who can't speak English at all). So it is with culture: the vast majority
of Australians adhere to the Australian culture (even fewer are those who
adhere solely to another culture).
Don't be misled by statistics of "ethnic background": the vast majority of
the Australian-born (second generation, third generation, or whatever) are
Australians, who are part of the Australian culture; some may be raised in
such a way as to be imbued with aspects of another culture, but that does
not change the overall picture: we share (broadly) the same way of life;
speak the same language; relate to the same national icons; operate under
the same cultural mode of everyday behaviour; and we live in, and enjoy,
the same country. Culturally, most Australians are just that: Australian.
A survey conducted for the Office of Multicultural Affairs revealed some
interesting results: that only 9% of Australians considered themselves to
belong to a non-Australian ethnic or cultural group (2% of which were "British"),
with only 3% actually being members of "an organised group with ethnic
affiliations". It was also shown that "only a quarter of the second generation
sample saw themselves as belonging to an ethnic group as did just under a
third of the first-generation group. The only sub-sample where more than
half identified with an ethnic group was the recent arrivals."(72)
Thus, most migrants can be viewed in a different light to that being shown
by the multicultural lobbyists, that despite being statistically classified
as being of "ethnic background", many have adopted the Australian culture
as their own and often have become virtually indistinguishable from the
native-born. Of course, many are unable to assimilate so easily, either because
they come from a culture that cannot adapt readily to ours, or because they
have fallen into the clutches of Political Multiculturalism which demands
that they don't assimilate.(73)
The fact is that Australia is not a multicultural country. To use an analogy,
it can readily be seen that a white dog, with a pink tongue and black paws,
would only seriously be described as "multicoloured" by an idiot, or someone
with an ulterior motive; so it is with multiculturalism: there is an ulterior
motive behind the push to call Australia "multicultural". The reasoning is
that if Australia is called "multicultural" (which would imply that most
Australians are everyday practitioners of foreign cultures), that the entire
country will be perceived to be, as a whole, "multicultural" (no matter what
the reality is); that, if this country is "multicultural", we therefore need
"multicultural policies", that therefore we need "multiculturalism", which
will then be used to turn Australia "on its head" to produce a multiculturalist,
internationalist society.
The phase so often used by multiculturalists, that "Australia is a multicultural
society" is a cleverly constructed political phrase
that is used to justify Political Multiculturalism.
Despite its pretensions to moral grandeur; multiculturalism is simply a
political ideology, pushed by internationalists and
small "l" liberals, that is dangerous and destructive, and promises only
one end for our country: the death of the Australian culture and our national
identity.
Australia is not a "multicultural society", it is a monocultural society
with some ethnic minority cultures at its edges, or to be more succinct,
Australia is a "core-culture society". The term "multicultural society" implies
that the entirety of our society is multicultural, which is far from the
truth, and is a term used in support of a political ideology. The term
"core-cultural society" is a far more accurate and truthful description of
the Australian nation.
As Brian Bullivant has warned, "We have become so accustomed to the regularly
parroted assertion, `Australia is a multicultural society', that there is
a considerable risk of assuming that such a society exists."(74)
Multiculturalism is not just a concept whereby first generation immigrants
can keep their culture (they could've kept it anyway), but one which wants
to ensure that immigrant cultures are passed from generation to generation,
rather than anyone becoming "Australian".
Multiculturalism means:
- The destruction of the Australian culture and national identity.
- The internationalisation of all cultures.
Therefore, multiculturalism means no culture.
All in all, multiculturalism is:
- Costly
- Contradictory
- Dangerous
- Divisive
Multiculturalism is not a "fact": it is a liberalistic political ideology,
which is being forced upon Australians by politicians, "politically correct"
academics, "lefties", and other "social engineers".
It is a destructive concept, posing as a "nice" cosmopolitan idea, that needs
to be vigorously opposed by all thinking Australians, until it is eventually
defeated.
Multiculturalism is not just the stupid folly of today, it is the disastrous
mistake of tomorrow.
1. For example: "The Objectives of Multiculturalism and
the Existing Broadcasting System" made a recommendation "to assist Australian
residents from all ethnic groups to maintain their language and
develop their cultures, to pass them on to their descendants"
(emphasis added).
Ethnic Television Review Panel, Programming for the Multicultural/Multilingual
Television Service -Objectives and Policies, AGPS, Canberra, 1980; cited
in: Stephen Alomes; Catherine Jones, AustralianNationalism: A Documentary
History, Angus and Robertson, North Ryde, NSW, 1991, p. 371.
2. Blainey, Geoffrey. Blainey: Eye on Australia: Speeches and Essays of
Geoffrey Blainey, Schwartz &Wilkinson, Melbourne, c1991, p. 193.
3. Daly, Martin. "Canberra Bows to Greeks in Macedonia Name Row", The
Age, 12 March 1994, pp. 1, 6.
Daly, Martin. "Cultures Clash in the Name Of Macedonia", The Age,
12 March 1994, pp. 15, 20.
Daly, Martin. "My Enemy, My Brother", The Age, 12 March 1994, pp.
15, 20.
Mohajer, John. "Counting the Cost of Multiculturalism", The Record,
Spring 1995, p. 8.
"The Problem of Hates in a New World" (editorial), The Age, 12 March
1994, p. 23.
Willox, Innes. "Labor Faces a Battle For Votes Over Macedonia Row", The
Age, 5 March 1994, p. 28.
4. Blainey, Geoffrey. All For Australia, Methuen Haynes, North Ryde,
N.S.W., 1984, pp. 170-171.
Danforth, Loring. "A New Tack Needed to Resolve Old Conflicts", The Age,
5 March 1994, p. 28.
5. Haley, Ken. "A Day Later and They're Still Dancing", The Age, 13
July 1982, p. 3.
6. Hutchings, Ben; Taylor, Lenore. "Kennett Blasts Macedonia Move, The
Australian, 28 February 1994, p. 2.
Phelan, Matthew. "Greek Vote Blow To ALP", Herald Sun, 28 February
1994, p. 5.
"The New Republic of Macedonia" (editorial), The Australian, 28 February
1994, p. 8.
7. Hickman, Belinda; Honeysett, Stuart. "Nation Shares Historic Moment",
The Australian, 1 July 1997, p.2.
Miller, Claire; Jackson, Andra. "Generations Show Mixed Feelings", The
Age, 1 July 1997, p. 5.
"Patriotism Misplaced" (letter), Herald Sun, 8 July 1997, p. 20.
8. Mohajer, John. "Counting the Cost of Multiculturalism", The Record,
Spring 1995, p. 8.
Harry, Ralph L. "Ethnic Minorities in Australia and Foreign Policy", World
Review, April 1982, p. 57-74.
9. For example:
"The age-old and cliched test of patriotism, "Would you fight for your country?",
justmight bring out some surprising answers, not because of the pacifist
beliefs of theseadolescents, but because of their choice of country. These
young adults, although holdingAustralian citizenship, all seem to prefer
their country of origin, even though some havenever even stepped on its
soil."
Maksimovic, Andrea. "The Legacy of Lingering Hatreds", in: Healey, Kaye (ed.)
AnAustralian Identity, The Spinney Press, Balmain, NSW, c1995, pp.
31-32.
"But hard as I've tried, I've never been able to forget the country of my
birth, where wewere taught and encouraged never to forget our nationality.
I've realised after muchconfusion in my mind that no-one can belong to two
countries, I asked myself the questionthat if ever they called and needed
me to support either, I believe I wouldn't know whichof the two to choose".
Sophocleous, M.A. (ed.) The Endless Journey of Stefanos Kastamonitis,
Elikia Books, BoxHill, Victoria, 1988; cited in: Alomes; Jones. Australian
Nationalism: A DocumentaryHistory, p. 371.
10. For those interested in some broad reading on the
Australian national and cultural
identity, the following books may prove useful:
Baker, Sidney. The Australian Language, Currawong, Milsons Point,
NSW, 1978.
Cozzolino, Mimmo (ed.) Symbols of Australia, Penguin, Ringwood, 1987.
Fearn-Wannan, W. (Wannan, Bill) (ed.) Australian Folklore: A Dictionary
of Lore, Legendsand Popular Allusions, Lansdowne Press, Melbourne, 1970.
Gard, Stephen. Inventive Australians, Jacaranda, Milton, Qld., 1990.
Gard, Stephen. Our Bright Ideas, Jacaranda, Milton, Qld., 1990.
Lindesay, Vance. Aussie-Osities, Greenhouse Publications, Richmond,
Vic., 1988.
Meredith, John; Anderson, Hugh (eds.) Folk Songs of Australia: And the
Men and WomenWho Sang Them, Ure Smith, Sydney, 1979.
Meredith, John; Covell; Roger; Brown, Patricia (eds.) Folk Songs of Australia:
And theMen and Women Who Sang Them: Volume Two, New South Wales University
Press,Kensington, NSW, 1987.
Scott, Bill (ed.) Complete Book of Australian Folk Lore, Ure Smith,
Sydney, 1976.
Towle, Alexandra (ed.) Made in Australia: A Sourcebook of All Things
Australian,William Heinemann Australia, Richmond, Vic., 1986.
Wannan, Bill (ed.) The Australian: Yarns, Ballads, Legends and Traditions
of theAustralian People, Australasian Book Society, Melbourne, 1954.
Ward, Russel. The Australian Legend, Oxford University Press, Melbourne,
1966.
Wilkes, G.A. (ed.) A Dictionary of Australian Colloquialisms, Sydney
University Press,Sydney, 1978.
11. "The Ethnic Communities and the ALP", Australian Labor Party: National
Committeeof Inquiry: Discussion Papers (APSA Monograph No. 23), Australian
Political StudiesAssociation, p. 93.
Quirk, Tricia. "Aussie Mix "Has Too Much British"", The Sun, 19 October
1983.
12. Danforth, Loring M. "A New Tack Needed To Resolve Old Conflicts", The
Age, 5 March1994, p. 28.
13. Australian Ethnic Affairs Council. Australia as a Multicultural
Society, AGPS,Canberra, 1978, pp. 4, 14.
14. Devine, Frank. "Take It From the Irish, Assimilate Or Perish", The
Australian, 31 March1994, p. 11.
Gordon, Milton M. "Assimilation in America: Theory and Reality", in: Meister,
Richard J. (ed.) Race and Ethnicity in Modern America, D.C. Heath,
Lexington, Massachusetts, c1974,pp. 90-91.
Kallen, Horace M. "Democracy Versus the Melting Pot", The Nation,
18 and 25 February1915 (reprinted in: Race and Ethnicity in Modern
America, pp. 53-61).
Meister, Richard J. "Introduction", in: Race and Ethnicity in Modern
America, p. XIII.
Schlesinger, Jr., Arthur M. The Disuniting of America, W.W. Norton,
New York, 1992, p.36-37.
15. Schlesinger. The Disuniting of America, pp. 36-43.
16. Bostock, William W. "Ethnicity, an Issue of the Eighties and Beyond",
in: Sherwood, John(ed.). Multicultural Education: Issues and
Innovations, Creative Research, North Perth, WA,1981, p. 32.
The Penguin Australian Encyclopedia, Viking, Ringwood, Victoria, 1990,
p. 344.
17. Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs. Multiculturalism
For All Australians: Our Developing Nationhood, AGPS, Canberra, 1982.
(Produced by the EthnicAffairs Task Force of the ACPEA).
Australian Ethnic Affairs Council. Australia as a Multicultural Society,
AGPS, Canberra,1978.
Foster, Lois; Stockley, David S. Multiculturalism: The Changing Australian
Paradigm,Multicultural Matters, Clevedon, England, c1984, p. 49.
Lipski, Sam. "Somehow, Our Melting Pot Seems To Be Working", in: An
AustralianIdentity, p. 24.
Mcphee, Ian. "The Benefits of Cultural Diversity", in: Goodman, David; O'Hearn,
D.J.;Wallace-Crabbe, Chris (eds) Multicultural Australia: The Challenges
of Change, Scribe,Newham, Victoria, 1991, p. 95.
Milburn, Caroline. "Father of Ethnic Mix Queries the Result", The Age,
19 March 1994,p. 1.
Milburn, Caroline. "The Fraying of Multiculturalism", The Age, 19
March 1994, p. 15.
Zubrzycki, Jerry. "Address by Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki AO, CBE, FASSA",
in:Proceedings of the First National Congress, Sixth National Conference
and Annual GeneralMeeting of the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils
of Australia Inc.: 3 -9December 1984, FECCAI, (Melbourne?), (1984?),
pp. 133-135.
18. Jupp, James. "Upwards, Downwards or Just Round and Round: Multicultural
PublicPolicy in Australia", in: Hocking, Brian (ed.) Australia Towards
2000, Macmillan, London,1990, p. 125.
Stefanou-Haag, Soulla; Lumb, Peter. Culture in Teaching: Perspectives
and Alternatives,Clearing House on Migration Issues, Richmond, (1983),
p. 1.
Zubrzycki, Jerzy. "Address by Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki AO, CBE, FASSA",
pp. 134-135.
19. Betts, Katharine. Ideology and Immigration: Australia 1976 to 1987,
MelbourneUniversity Press, Carlton, 1988, pp. 84, 141.
Foster, Lois; Stockley, David. Multiculturalism: The Changing Australian
Paradigm, pp.56-57, 61.
Martin, Jeanie. "Multiculturalism and Its Critics", in: Roger Bell (ed.)
MulticulturalSocieties: A Comparative Reader, Sable, Sydney, 1987,
p. 125.
20. Betts. Ideology and Immigration: Australia 1976 to 1987, p. 141.
Betts, Katharine. "Australia's Distorted Immigration Policy", in:
Multicultural Australia:The Challenges of Change, pp. 160, 175 (note
40).
Foster; Stockley. Multiculturalism: The Changing Australian Paradigm,
p. 68.
Garcia, Luis M. "How Parties Are Chasing the Ethnic Vote", The Sydney
Morning Herald,15 February 1983, p. 14.
King, Madonna. "Cabinet Split On Migrant Reunions", The Sun, 19 November
1988, p. 4.
Kyriakopoulos, Vicki. "Chasing the Multicultural Rainbow", The Bulletin,
17 October1995, pp. 14-16.
Sestito, Raymond. The Politics of Multiculturalism, The Centre for
Independent Studies,St. Leonards, NSW, 1982, pp. 2, 14-15, 16-22, 23.
21. Sestito. The Politics of Multiculturalism, pp. 2, 14.
22. Sestito. The Politics of Multiculturalism, p. 15.
23. Sestito. The Politics of Multiculturalism, pp. 17-18, 22.
24. MacKellar, M.J.R. "Foreword", in: Multiculturalism and Its Implications
for ImmigrationPolicy, AGPS, Canberra, 1979, (p.III).
25. "Migrating to the Poll", Time, 2 May 1994, p. 8.
26. Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs. Multiculturalism
For AllAustralians, p. 12.
Australian Ethnic Affairs Council. Australia as a Multicultural Society
, p. 5.
Chipman, Lauchlan. "The Children of Cynicism", in: Robert Manne (ed.) The
NewConservatism in Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1982,
p. 26.
Chipman, Lauchlan. "The Menace of Multi-Culturalism", Quadrant, September
1980, p.4.
Foster; Stockley. Multiculturalism: The Changing Australian Paradigm,
pp. 1, 3.
Pervan, Dr. Ralph. "Opening Address By Dr. Ralph Pervan, Chairman of
theMulticultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission of Western Australia Given
at the 7 December1984 Session of the FECCA National Congress", in:
Proceedings of the First NationalCongress, Sixth National Conference and
Annual General Meeting of the Federation ofEthnic Communities' Councils of
Australia Inc.: 3 -9 December, 1984, p. 138.
Schiavoni, Franco. "The Case for Linguistic Pluralism", in: Multicultural
Australia: TheChallenges of Change, p. 38.
Totaro, Paolo. "Multiculturalism for Some Australians: A Personal View",
Meanjin, March1983, p. 68.
27. Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs. Multiculturalism
For AllAustralians, p. 24
(Ethnic Affairs Task Force quote).
Catholic Leader, 26 February 1978 (A. E. Thomas quote), cited in:
Dique, Dr. J.C.A.Immigration -A Policy of Perfidy, The Australian
League of Rights, (Brisbane?), (1988?),p. 62.
Hawke, Bob. "Immigration and Multiculturalism", in: John Cook (ed.).
NationalReconciliation: The Speeches of Bob Hawke, Prime Minister of
Australia, Fontana, Sydney,1984, p. 154.
Foster, Lois; Stockley, David. Australian Multiculturalism: A Documentary
History andCritique, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, England, c1988,
p.31 (quote re. Frasergovernment), 34-35 (Bob Hawke quote).
Theophanous, Dr. Andrew. "A Multicultural Prejudice", The Age, 23
November 1982.
28. Australian Ethnic Affairs Council. Australia as a Multicultural
Society, p. 4.
Foster; Stockley. Australian Multiculturalism: A Documentary History and
Critique, p.60 (N.S.W. Department of Education quote).
Office of Multicultural Affairs. Multiculturalism and Immigration,
AGPS, Canberra,c1988, p. 11.
Office of Multicultural Affairs. National Agenda for a Multicultural
Australia: ...Sharing Our Future, AGPS, Canberra, 1989, p. vii.
29. Bullivant, Brian. "Australia's Pluralist Dilemma: An Age-Old Problem
in Disguise",Australian Quarterly, Winter 1983, pp. 137-139.
Seitz, Anne. "A Hitchhiker's Guide", in: Multicultural Australia: The
Challenges ofChange, op. cit., p.106-107.
30. Office of Multicultural Affairs. National Agenda for a Multicultural
Australia ...Sharing Our Future, AGPS, Canberra, 1989.
31. Australian Ethnic Affairs Council. Australia as a Multicultural
Society, p. 7.
Betts. Ideology and Immigration: Australia 1976 to 1987, p. 207-208.
32. Betts. "Australia's Distorted Immigration Policy", pp. 157-159.
Bullivant. "Australia's Pluralist Dilemma: An Age-Old Problem in Disguise",
p. 138-139.
Foster; Stockley. Multiculturalism: The Changing Australian Paradigm,
p. 66.
Lippman, Lorna. "Multiculturalism and Its Implications for Education", in:
The Teachingof Human Rights, AGPS, Canberra, 1984, pp. 125-126.
Pettman, Jan. "Racism in Australia", in: Anti-Racism: A Handbook for Adult
Educators,AGPS, Canberra, 1986, pp. 16-18.
Seitz, Anne. "A Hitchhiker's Guide", pp. 106-109.
33. Bullivant. "Australia's Pluralist Dilemma: An Age-Old Problem in Disguise",
p. 137.
Jayasuriya, Laksiri. "The Facts, Policies and Rhetoric of Multiculturalism",
AustralianSociety, 1 July 1983, p. 27.
34. Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs. Multiculturalism
For AllAustralians, p.19.
Georgiou, Petro. "Speech on Multiculturalism by Mr. Petro Georgiou: Director,
Australian
Institute of Multicultural Affairs: 6 December 1984", in: Proceedings
of the First NationalCongress, Sixth National Conference and Annual General
Meeting of the Federation ofEthnic Communities' Councils of Australia Inc.:
3 -9 December 1984, op. cit., pp. 133-135.
35. Lippman. "Multiculturalism and Its Implications for Education", p. 113.
36. Australian Ethnic Affairs Council. Australia as a Multicultural
Society, pp. 4-5.
Menadue, J.L. "Towards Multicultural Australia", German Times, 1 September
1981, pp.1, 11.
Warneke, Ross. "Do We Really Want a Multi-Culture?", The Age, 2 October
1981, p. 13.
37. Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs. Multiculturalism
For AllAustralians, p. 12.
Bullivant. "Australia's Pluralist Dilemma: An Age-Old Problem in Disguise",
pp. 137-138,146.
38. Jayasuriya. "The Facts, Policies and Rhetoric of Multiculturalism", p.
25.
Pettman. "Racism in Australia", p. 16.
39. Lippman. "The Multicultural Society and Its Implications for Education",
p. 21.
40. Pettman, Jan. Racism and Education: Lessons From Britain, Clearing
House on MigrationIssues, Richmond, Victoria, (1984), pp. 6, 8.
41. Seitz. "A Hitchhiker's Guide", p. 109.
42. Betts. "Australia's Distorted Immigration Policy", pp. 158-159.
Jayasuriya. "The Facts, Policies and Rhetoric of Multiculturalism", p. 25.
Lippman. "The Multicultural Society and Its Implications for Education",
p. 22.
Kefala, Antigone (ed.) Multiculturalism and the Arts, Australia Council,
North Sydney,c1986, p. 7.
43. Cigler, M.J. "Multiculturalism", in: The Australian Encyclopaedia,
AustralianGeographic, Terrey Hills, NSW, 1988, Vol. 6, p. 2027. AGM:23146.
Lippman. "The Multicultural Society and Its Implications for Education",
pp. 22-23.
Stefanou-Haag; Lumb. Culture in Teaching: Perspectives and Alternatives,
p. 5.
44. Pettman, Jan. "Anti-Racist Teaching", in: The Teaching of Human Rights:
Proceedingsof the Conference Held by the Human Rights Commission and UNESCO
in Adelaide, 25-27August 1983, AGPS, Canberra, 1984, p. 26.
Pettman. "Racism in Australia", pp. 16-18.
45. "Crime and Culture", The Independent Monthly, September 1993,
p. 45.
McLean, Lisa. "Law Plan Embraces Black Customs", The Australian, 3
November 1994,pp. 1-2.
Pettman. "Racism in Australia", p. 17.
Polman, Dick. "Murder Isn't So Bad In America If You're Foreign", The
Herald, 20 July1989, p. 13.
Rodell, Susanna. "Coming to Terms With Other Laws", Australian Society,
22 October1982, pp. 15-16.
Seitz. "A Hitchhiker's Guide", pp. 111-112.
46. Pettman. Racism and Education: Lessons From Britain, pp. 6, 8.
Pettman. "Racism in Australia", p. 17.
47. Limbaugh, Rush. See, I Told You So, Pocket Books (Simon &
Schuster), New York, 1994,p. 309.
48. Chipman. "The Menace of Multi-Culturalism", pp. 4-5.
Warneke. "Do We Really Want a Multi-Culture?", p. 13.
49. Bone, Pamela. "Multicultural Home Truths", The Age, 2 September
1988, p. 20.
Bordewich, Fergus. "A Holy War Heads Our Way", Reader's Digest, January
1995, p. 21.
Chipman. "The Menace of Multi-Culturalism", pp. 3-6.
Legge, Kate. "Living Two Lives", The Australian, 3-4 September 1994,
magazinesupplement pp. 20-23, 26-27.
"The Most Beautiful Women in the World", Cleo, October 1993, pp. 32-36.
Seitz. "A Hitchhiker's Guide", pp. 111-112.
Smolowe, Jill. "All For One?", Time, 11 September 1995, pp. 48-52.
Srinath, M.G. "Vicious Dowry System Leads to Slavery and Death", The
Bulletin, 28 April1981, pp. 85-86.
Walsh, James. "Born To Be Second Class", Time, 11 September 1995,
pp. 52-55.
"Women May Become Half the Worth of a Man in Pakistan", The Australian,
9 August1984.
50. Beyer, Lisa. "Thou Shalt Not Mutilate", Time, 16 October 1989,
p. 57.
"Female Circumcision: The Unkindest Cut of All", Cosmopolitan, January
1993, p. 124.
Scott Gregory, Sophfronia. "At Risk Of Mutilation", Time, 21 March
1994, pp. 60-61.
Magazanik, Michael. "Wade May Place Ban on Female Circumcision", The
Age, 17February 1994, p. 6.
"The Most Beautiful Women in the World", Cleo, October 1993, pp. 32-36.
West, Rosemary. "Education Better Than Bans, Say African Women", The
Age, 17February 1994, p. 6.
51. Chipman. "The Menace of Multi-Culturalism", pp. 3-6.
Legge. "Living Two Lives", p. 22.
52. Bone, Pamela. "Multicultural Home Truths", The Age, 2 September
1988, p. 20.
Chipman. "The Menace of Multi-Culturalism", pp. 3-6.
Haley, Ken. "Multi-Cultural Mix a Myth, Seminar Told", The Age, 26
October 1981.
Legge. "Living Two Lives", pp. 20-23, 26-27.
Ranstead, Donald D. "Ethnic Confusions in Australia", Quadrant, February
1980, pp. 44-47.
53. "Blacks Beaten If They Oppose Marriages: Claim", The Age, 8 February
1982.
"English Sisters "Sold As Slaves"", The West Australian, 22 December
1987, p. 4.
Legge. "Living Two Lives", pp. 22.
"Of Marriage and Money", Asiaweek, 20 September 1991, p. 36.
Robinson, Peter. "Father Spares the Runaway Child Bride", The Sun,
30 January 1982.
Rudolph, Barbara. "Wives Before Their Time: An Indian Debate About Child
BridesTurns Ugly As Muslim Immunity From Certain Civil Laws Is Challenged",
Time, 7 October1991, p. 59.
Sturgess, Garry. "Inquiry To Start On Blacks and the Law", The Age,
16 March 1981.
"Tribe Will Scar Girl", The Sunday Press, 24 January 1982.
Wilson, Bruce. "Trapped In Cultural Bondage", The Advertiser, 29 December
1987, p. 19.
54. Chipman. "The Menace of Multi-Culturalism", pp. 3-6.
Legge. "Living Two Lives", p. 22.
Rodell, Susanna. "The Shock of the New Society", Australian Society,
22 October 1982,p. 17.
Seitz. "A Hitchhiker's Guide", pp. 111-112.
55. "Blacks Want To Keep Tribal Spearing Law", The Age, 14 May 1981.
Brouwer, G.E. "Aboriginal Justice is a Complex Issue", The Age, 18
December 1980.
Foster, David. "Bloody Justice", The Independent Monthly, May 1994,
pp. 30-36.
Hughes, Peter. "Report of Spearing Punishment", The Age, 23 June 1990,
p. 13.
Jamrozik, Wanda. "White Law, Black Lore", The Independent Monthly,
May 1994, pp. 37-38.
Legge. "Living Two Lives", pp. 22.
McLean. "Law Plan Embraces Black Customs", pp. 1-2.
Raffaele, Paul. "Tribal Punishment: The Brutal Truth", Reader's Digest,
July 1994, pp.17-22.
Rickard, Maurice. "Multiculturalism, Minorities and the Law", Current
Affairs Bulletin,November 1991, pp. 27-29.
Rodell. "Coming to Terms With Other Laws", pp. 15-16.
Ryan, Chris. "Aboriginal Elders in Push to Punish Own", The Age, 21
June 1997, p. 2.
Seitz. p. 111.
Sturgess, Garry. "Inquiry To Start On Blacks and the Law", The Age,
16 March 1981.
"Tribal Beating, Now Man Faces Jail Term", The Age, 7 November 1981.
Zdenkowski, George. "Violent Justice", The Bulletin, 29 March 1994,
p. 46.
56. Chipman. "The Menace of Multi-Culturalism", pp. 3-6.
Ranstead, Donald D. "Ethnic Confusions in Australia", Quadrant, February
1980, pp. 44-47.
Warneke. "Do We Really Want a Multi-Culture?", p. 13.
57. "Odd Spot", The Age, 9 December 1993, p. 1.
58. Brady, Nicole. "Away From the Manger in an Inclusive, Kinder Christmas",
The Age, 28November 1996, p. C1.
Coslovich, Gabriella. "Religion Kicked Out of the Kindergarten", Herald
Sun, 20December 1996, p. 15.
59. Rimmer, Stephen. The Cost of Multiculturalism, S.J. Rimmer, Belconnen,
ACT, c1991.
Rimmer, Stephen. "The High Cost of Migration", The Bulletin, 28 May
1991, p. 78.
60. Rimmer, Stephen. "Counting the $7 Billion Cost of Multiculturalism",
The Age, 30 June1991, p. 15.
Rimmer. "The High Cost of Migration", p. 78.
61. Mohajer. "Counting the Cost of Multiculturalism", p. 5.
62. Rimmer. "Counting the $7 Billion Cost of Multiculturalism", p. 15.
63. Rimmer. "Counting the $7 Billion Cost of Multiculturalism", p. 15.
64. Blainey, Geoffrey. "The Immigration Debate: Blainey vs Business",
Australian BusinessMonthly, July 1992, p. 31.
Grassby, A.J. Australian Ethnic Affairs Policy for the 80's, Clearing
House on MigrationIssues, Richmond, Victoria, (1982?), p. 27.
The Sunday Mail, 23 June 1985 (Bob Hawke quote), cited in: Dique,
Dr. J.C.A.Immigration -A Policy of Perfidy, The Australian League
of Rights, (Brisbane?), (1988?),p. 61.
65. "For Australia, a "Eurasian" Role", Asiaweek, 19 August 1983,
p. 7.
McClusky, Leigh; Merrigan, Ken. "50 Million Aussies: Hayden's Aim", The
Sun, 24 March1984, pp. 1-2.
Smark, Peter. "Hayden Hope for a Eurasian Australia", The Age, 11
May 1983.
66. Blainey. "The Immigration Debate: Blainey vs Business", p. 32.
Renouf, Alan. The Frightened Country, Macmillan, Melbourne, 1979,
p. 538.
Harry, Ralph L. "Ethnic Minorities in Australia and Foreign Policy", World
Review, April1982, p. 57.
67. Australian Population and Immigration Council. Immigration Policies
and Australia'sPopulation: A Green Paper, AGPS, Canberra, 1977, p. 47.
Pervan. "Opening Address By Dr. Ralph Pervan, Chairman of the Multicultural
andEthnic Affairs Commission of Western Australia Given at the 7 December
1984 Session ofthe FECCA National Congress", p. 139.
68. The Macquarie Dictionary, Second Revision, The Macquarie Library,
MacquarieUniversity, NSW, 1987, p. 733.
Maslen, Geoffrey. "Prophet of Gloom", The Age Good Weekend Magazine,
3 September1994, pp. 15-16.
Price, Charles A. "Australia As Intermediary With Asia: A Demographic View",
Journalof Intercultural Studies, Volume 14, Number 1, 1993, p. 31.
69. Aznam, Suhaini. "Spouses and Suitors: States Differ On Approach To Polygamy",
The FarEastern Economic Review, 22 August 1991, p. 18.
Bordewich, Fergus. "A Holy War Heads Our Way", Reader's Digest, January
1995, p. 21.
Burns, John. "Afghanistan Buckles Under Islamic Iron Fist", The Age,
22 February 1996,p. 8.
Dowell, William. "Life in the Slow Lane: By Formally Banning Saudi Women
FromDriving Cars, Conservatives Hope To Brake Any Further Efforts At
Liberalization", Time,26 November 1990, p. 35.
Emerson, Tony; Le Vine, Steve. "Bhutto Vs. the Mullahs: Pakistan Faces a
Bitter DebateOver Islamic Law", The Bulletin, 7 August 1990, p. 58.
"Islamic Rape Laws", Signs of the Times, Vol. 107, No. 6, June 1992,
p. 3.
"Khomeiny's Little Green Book of Living", The Age, 5 March 1980.
"Pre-Marital Sex", The Age, 18 April 1980.
Rodell. "The Shock of the New", p. 17.
Smolowe, Jill. "All For One?", Time, 11 September 1995, pp. 48-52.
"Women May Become Half the Worth of a Man in Pakistan", The Australian,
9 August1984.
70. Dorian, Nancy C. "Tradition's End: A Threatened Language and Culture",
PhilologicalQuarterly, Summer 1979, pp. 249-262.
"Catalans & Castilians", Encounter, July 1981, p. 14.
Pedersen, Daniel. "The Cornish Comeback", The Bulletin, 30 October
1990, p. 80.
Vines, Gail. "Death of a Mother Tongue, New Scientist, 6 January 1996,
pp. 24-27.
71. Hartcher, Peter. "Hayden Backs Asian Ties", The Sydney Morning
Herald, 5 March 1992,p. 3.
72. Betts. "Australia's Distorted Immigration Policy", pp. 165-168.
73. Wakefield, Kerry. "Many Migrants Do Not Favour Cultural Pluralism: Report",
The Age,27 June 1983.
Cooray, L.J.M. "Multiculturalism In Australia: Who Needs It?",
Quadrant, April 1986, pp.27-29.
74. Bullivant. "Australia's Pluralist Dilemma: An Age-Old Problem in Disguise",
p. 137.
Second edition
December 1997
(HTML - 2 March 1998)
Home Page -- Nationalist Publications -- Links to Political Internet Sites