Australian government flies their ‘racist flag’
February 2, 2007 by thinking girl
I received this in my email inbox yesterday. I thought I’d share it with you all.
*Note: I have no idea where this came from, there was no source cited at the end of the email. If anyone can enlighten me, I’d be happy to give credit where credit is due.*
Excerpts from an on going debate in Australia .
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to
Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John
Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a
crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. “If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you”, he said on National Television.“I’d be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia; the Australian law and the Islamic law, that is false. If you can’t agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that’s a better option”, Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said
those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other
country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that
Muslims who did not want to accept local values should “clear off. Basically people who don’t want to be Australians, and who don’t want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off”, he said.Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques.
Quote: “IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.”
“However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the ‘politically correct’ crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia.” “However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.” “This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.”
“This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom”
“We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society… Learn the language!”
“Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing,
political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian
principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is
certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God
offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.”“We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that
you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.”“If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don’t like “A Fair Go”, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don’t care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.
“This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.”
“If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.”
Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, Canadian citizens will find
the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths!If you agree please SEND THIS TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW!
Well, obviously I don’t agree, but I think it’s jsut as important to circulate this to point out how frightening and hypocritical this is.
So, people who don’t speak the language, believe in the christian god, and don’t hold the same cultural values aren’t welcome in Australia. So says the government. My friend who lives in AU told me a while ago that Australia is not accepting refugees - if someone comes to Australia and claims they are a refugee, they are imprisoned. I can just imagine she is horrified with this stuff.
I don’t know, maybe someone should remind these asshats that Australia is a country founded on the principles of colonization and genocide. The great ‘Australian way of life’ has evolved over a couple centuries of oppressing aboriginal people - just like the great Canadian and american ways of life have done to its indiginous people, its black people, its immmigrants.
Don’t you just LOVE the part about “don’t force your culture on others”? I mean, that is just amazing, considering the concentration camps set up for aboriginal children in Australia to ‘educate’ them in the early part of the last century - and here in Canada the concentration camps called ‘residential schools’ that decimated the indigenous culture and languages and abused so many native children here. Yeah, that’s nothing like what immigrants are doing right now all over the world - trying to carve out a piece of a life in a country they thought would give them more opportunities, while still trying to maintain some of what they are familiar with from their home country and the way they were brought up. It’s a wonder anyone wants to immigrate to countries with such brutal histories toward people of colour.
Obviously, the Australian government (and Canadian, and american) is not ready to face its roots, face that they were not the first people here, face that they have stolen their land and imposed their white values on people who have lived happily for generations in Australia (and Canada and america) before they ever got there. And now they have the nerve to refuse entry to others? To refuse to allow immigrants to practice their way of life, that is so ‘radically different’ from the Australian way of life - which is not the original way of life on that land? So hypocritical! And so very racist.
This is disgusting. How can we voice our objections to this bullshit? Shame on Australia.
“Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation.” I thought it started out as a penal colony.
It’s like the good old freedom-of-speech-as-long-as-you-agree-with-me principle.
What many don’t seem to understand either is that many people don’t so much immigrate than emigrate. Many are actually running away from the home they knew and trying to find some sense of normality in a foreign land.
Using the phrase concentration camp is a loaded and offensive phrase to Jews Poles and Russians who were exterminated by the Nazi regime in Germany.
I have lived in Australia and have enjoyed its’ culture. Australians have a strong group or professional culture. They will not pry into personal areas unless it is put in their face. Most of what is said in this article refers to the attempted overthrow of native Australian culture. All cultures are constantly being challanged and defended. What we are seeing is a process of cultural natural selection.
As you state your opinions and criticisms so others will do the same. Australians are fighting for a cultural identity. They will either keep it or lose it, but make no mistake this is a battle for cultural supremacy. If you wish think of culture as a virus. You can either accept infection or fight it. One form is attempting to supplant the other.
I will include some links to “The Australian” a newspaper in Australia. “The Age” is a more left wing newspaper and may be more to your tastes but will not be as informative.
Main Link to the Austrailian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
Opinion Link to the Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/index/0,,7583,00.html
Of the Columnists Phillip Adams & Emma Tom would have the closest to your opinions.
Here is a link to ” The Age” the Melbourne Newspaper
http://www.theage.com.au/
I’ve always been supportive of immigrants and immigration, I think Canada is a diverse country because there are people from many countries who live in relative peace in once place and under one flag. That’s something to be proud of.
However, another part of me gets frustrated when I see the “effects of a multicultural society”, where political correctness is taken to an extreme in a bid to appease everyone who is moving to our country.
Laws are also important to maintain. There is a reason why our country is peaceful — I would like to keep it that way. I’ve noticed that in Calgary, sometimes people from other cultures come to Canada and don’t know or understand our laws, whether minor or major. Sometimes it’s also frustrating to see how even things such as social etiquette fall by the wayside frequently in what would be normal social circumstances.
I would have to agree that two laws of the land would create immense problems (Sharia Law vs. Austrialian law). Cultures aside, laws of the particular country you go to should be respected.
I think we need to support people who arrive in Canada, but we also need to ensure that we protect the communal standards, social standarts of living as well.
er, standards…
Whew! That was a whole lot of comments (on various posts) I just responded to. I guess that’s what you get for taking a couple days off.
Marc Andre - good point. I think of my next door neighbours growing up - they were Vietnamese. Their country had changed so much in the wake of the war there that they felt it was no longer their home. So they made a new one in Canada.
Steve - that’s like saying the word ‘genocide’ can’t be used to describe other violent mass murders aimed at wiping out an ethnic group because of the Holocaust. Concentration camps existed in other contexts than Europe in WWII. Like here in Canada, when we imprisoned thousands of Japanese-Canadians. I wouldn’t hesitate to call what the Australian government ran concentration camps that held aboriginals. There was violence, there were fences, there were killings, there were kidnappings, there were rapes, there were guards. For god sake, the way some refugee camps are run in the world right now are more like concentration camps than places meant as a safe haven for people fleeing violence in their communities!
Thanks for the links. I’ll check them out.
All of this brings me back to relativism - who’s to say what ‘culture’ should or shouldn’t be, what is right or wrong, or who should be included or excluded? Perhaps Australians could learn something from immigrants who come to live there - it’s not like Australia has all the answers to everything!
Dave - have you read much about Indonesia? There, Sharia and secular laws exist side-by-side quite peacefully and their system works really well. Not at all mass chaos.
I understand your point. Personally, if I was going to go and live in another country, I would try to find out as much about that country as I could before I went, including cultural practices and customs and laws. However, I think sometimes there is a barrier for people to learn this kind of information - language plays a big part. And I don’t think that in order to immigrate one should have to speak the language of the country in question. Also, people who are born Canadians don’t all respect the laws of the land - our prisons are full of them! The laws of our lands aren’t exactly objective, right? They are completely situated, the context of our legal systems are completely reliant on who made them. And we all know, those in power make the rules. Why should I follow those rules when they aren’t meant for me?
I’m being a brat now, but you get my point I’m sure.
When I hear about muslim immigrants stoning, setting on fire, throwing acid, etc, on muslim women’s faces because the women refuse to uphold sharia law in their new country; then yes, telling these people to either accept the values of their new country or go back where they came from sounds just peachy to me.
Some customs are beneign, but only an arrogant moron would move to a new country and keep customs which are deeply *offensive* to your new hosts. Treating women like cattle is (hopefully) deeply offensive to most westerners.
I wish I had saved the link I saw yesterday about how some immigrants were setting on fire their women for not upholding sharia law, but I’m sure you’ve read similar articles, since it’s not uncommon.
TG> I’ll have to read up on Indonesia and Sharia Law, don’t know a whole lot about both…
Of course, I’d have to disagree about laws of the land not being objective. The laws are objective, but sometimes their interpretation becomes quite subjective….especially in the hands of a defence lawyer.
Australia has all the answers to things Australian. I have kept track of what is being said in australia as time has gone past and I see this as a takeover attempt of the Australian culture. Australians are a much more in your face type people than Americans or Canadians. They are blunt and clear. P.C. speech has had less success penetrating that country.
If you think Australians are soft and nice and fluffy you should read the military history of Australias involvment in WWI & WWII. New Guinea and Gallipoli come to mind. Australians have willingly endured some of the highest casualty per capita rates in most of these combat situations.
Have you been to a middle-eastern country? You are not allowed to own a bible in many. Australia remains one of the most tolerant countries on earth. You are given years to learn english if you come here; language is the most important tool for communication and without communication you have isolation. We dont want ghettoes in Australia. Australian law is the result of centuries of European societal evolution that encompasses cultures from all over the world not purely western ones. Its just about keeping some semblance of identity.
phfiew.
I’m from New Zealand and read about Australia a lot; after all, we are too obsessed with Aussies! I’ve been there to attend a political discussion forum as well, and I feel Australia is indeed a conservative country compared to us. Especially the current Howard government is staunchly right-wing, and my Aussie friend told me that Canberra is called ‘Bush Capital’, traditionally because it is surrounded by native bush, but recently because of John Howard’s policies!
What are ‘Australian values’ and ‘Australian lifestyles’? If these mean to believe in God, to eat Vegemite or to support the Aussie cricket team against the Kiwi one, those who don’t accept these ‘values/lifestyles’ shouldn’t be told to leave the country; everyone has freedom of religion and freedom not to eat what they don’t like, based on liberal principles. (And obviously, some Australians are agnostics, atheists or hate Vegemite or Ned Kelly.) And I suspect that the right-wing politician making these remarks can have xenophobic, bigoted or racist mindset in them. But if these terms mean individual liberty, gender equality and tolerance, promoting these values to immigrants is surely beneficial to the society. As feminists you would probably have heard of the outrageous comments made by Sheikh Al-Hilali in Sydney last year. He used an analogy to compare rape victims to ‘uncovered meat’ and called women Satan’s weapons. He said that it was victim’s fault if she was raped when she didn’t cover herself up. These values are the threats to women’s rights and gender equality. Obviously Australian-born people can be sexist as well, and only targeting immigrants is discriminatory, but at least there is a legitimate concern.
While immigrants have rights to retain their own culture, as a society promoting integration is nothing wrong, or rather beneficial. (As an immigrant myself I don’t wish to retain cultures of where I was born, but it’s an another matter…) Though I am not an Australian, the song ‘I am Australian’ inspires me so much. It encapsulates the ideals of the Aussie society; ‘We are one, but we are many, and from all the lands on Earth we come, we share a dream, and sing with one voice, I am, you are, we are Australian.’ It is desirable that immigrants integrate into the society and ‘sing with one voice’.
Australia’s treatment of its Aboriginal people was horrific and seems not to have improved much, and they used to have explicitly racist White Australia Policy, but now, it is one of the most diverse and multicultural countries in the world despite its government’s conservatism…
As an Australian I don’t propose to defend any of the sentiments expressed in the unsourced quote, nor Australia as an entirety.
But a few facts should be noted.
The quotation from Peter Costello is reasonably accurate and refers to a speech over six months ago.
The second and more inflammatory text purports to be a quote from the Prime Minister (known in some quarters as the Toad). I can assure all that even he would not express such thoughts and they are the product of the warped individual who put the text together.
Australia is currently suffering from the same sort of inflamed rhetoric as the US and from much the same source - right wingers who see the state of the world as enabling a severe attack on civil liberties of the citizen and who encourage the people in a mentality that seeks out “the other” to blame for our perceived woes. As in the US, persons of the Islamic faith are seen in these quarters as fair game and politically useful scapegoats.
In Australia, as in the US, this is a process by which these “leaders” hope to achieve continuation of their other and less discussed aims of favoring the top end of society. In Australia this has taken the form of high consumption taxation and reductions in progressive taxes on income, and an employment regime that favors individual contracting and virtually outlaws collective bargaining.
The current leaders would much rather have the populace inflamed about non-existent fears and terrors such as Isamic laws than looking at other more long lasting and disadvantageous events.
Having said that, some of us are disappointed that it took so little action by unscrupulous politicians to provoke fears and hatreds in the community. As a society we prided ourselves for many years on the general levels of tolerance and recognition of multiculturalism that were a feature of Australian life.
It should not be a surprise that in a diverse society there are racist and antisocial elements. That is also true, I suspect, of Canada (a country I have visited and both enjoyed and admired over the years). The tragedy is that opportunist politicians who should know better are prepared to pander to such people in the name of electoral support.
Our record of tolerance does not extend to our own indigenous peoples, much to our national shame.
But our prospects of doing better in this and all areas depend on making the public realise that immoral policies without conscience and the politicians who deal in them should be thrown out. I guess that the number of Australians who see this is rising and hopefully we may have a change of government.
Do not judge us all by the twisted views of the few.
I am glad someone from New Zealand Spoke up. As a national average New Zealand is seen as the most left wing of the English speaking countries.
I point this out only to say that some of the concerns with specific muslim immigration transcends ideology or should not be seen through an ideological lense.
I myself am a slight right of center Libertarian. I followed the controversial discussion over women being compared to meat and having all the personal rights of dead flesh. The sad part is that this is not an isolated incident.
It would be almost criminaly negligent to allow ideology or PC to cause you to defend these individuals or attack those trying to control the situation. After all the call for deportation is a call for the protection of women and womens right to thier own bodily autonomy.
If you set up a dual legal system you are ceding all legal control to muslim clerics without recourse.
This would be similar to saying cannon law superceded government law for catholics. For those who don’t follow what I do, recently, Sen John Kerry was called to the process of excommunication from the Catholic church for his views. If this had been successful it would have caused a minor problem with his political carreer. If on the other hand Cannon Law was respected as equal to government law, even the process of a cannon law trial would hav eproved a political death sentence.
Or from another Viewpoint if you allow Shria law how can you oppose cannon law, or Jewish orthodox law?
[...] Muslims on Wednesday by saying he … This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to … Obviously, the Australian government (and Canadian, and american) is not … – more – [...]
Well, this is quite a thread! Let me jump right in and respond to Marc: Yes, Australia started as a Penal Colony, it became a nation later, founded as stated.
Steve has some excellent points, and is quite correct that allowing Sharia begs the question of allowing Kosher laws, Catholic Canon, etc. What happens when you try to enforce contradictory sets of laws? Dumbwoman points to the danger of creating ghettos.
I also see that some are missing this line in the email: “We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that
you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.”
The non-muslims are generally quite willing to live next to anyone, except when they start doing things like this: A 24-year-old Islamic extremist known by the single name of Hasanuddin last year admitted planning the murders as a “gift” to celebrate Idul Fitri, a festival marking the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.
It seems that it is always the immigrant Muslim population that is trying to alter the culture of its new home. For example, trying to shut down a pub in England that has been there for 600 years as “offensive” to Islam. Or holding violent demonstrations in order to intimidate news publishers from printing cartoons of Mohammed.
Which is a good indicator of how well Sharia law and secular law go together. I would recommend checking out these two sites as well for more discussion of this topic:
http://alfin2200.blogspot.com/2006/09/role-playing-islam-in-schools-stop.html
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4295&l=1
http://shoulung.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/islam-versus-tribalism/
Stephen Browne is an anthropologist, and makes some observations on Arabic culture here:
http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2006/09/observations-on-arabs.html
Thanks again!
On a less academic level, more speaking from experience, it might be worth noting that the attitude “if you don’t like it, then bugger-off” is very australian, understood by all, used by most, and common in multiple contexts. Maybe a non-australian might respond differently upon hearing an Aussie politician being so ‘rude’ if they knew more about how we communicate. Truly, it almost makes me laugh (in an ironic way, not a mocking way) to find anyone take offense to it, because it is who we are through and through, in every corner. Australia has been saying this to everyone forever. Wether it’s right or wrong is beside the point to me.
Strangely, I think this attitude is partially why Australia-general is so tollerant. Odd, I know, but true to me.
For example. We are so many, from so many different places and races and when my family was told that ‘if we didnt like it then we could bloody well go back to where we came from’ it had the following effect. My parents as a result made our immigrant ties stronger in the home, created a public/private life split, which preservs the immigrant’s first home (in a way) but more importantly we didnt bow down and assimilate or adapt in a negative way, we learned that there are multiple ways of living and that there is a time and place for EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. The children of immigrants are, in my demographic at least, so flexible, tollerant, and able class/culture jumpers and when I’ve lived in other countries, it’s been the people of bi-tri-culture/immigrant parents who have thrived inside the dislocation of living in a new land and within a new people, put the difference aside and made the most of it. Really, I couldn’t be more serious about this.
I suppose my point is that being told to ‘bugger off if you don’t like it’, has merrit because it forces you to re-jig, reconstruct, reprioritise, pull rank, deepen belief, mark identity and respect all others who you know to be involved in the same plight and that plight is not assimilation it’s learning, expanding and becoming bold spirited.
When I’ve lived in other countries, if I didn’t like it, a learned it, and I didnt have to give up a cell of who I am in the process.
Australia is full of two types, people who drive hotted up Monaros and people who don’t, no I’m joking, there’s US and there’s THEM and fuck them because they know nothing. And John Howard is one of THEM, but if he were to make me live next to any religion’s law then, I’d bugger off. Australia says this to everyone, not just the crew who are in the bad-books. Why else do you explain why we are such prolific travellers/re-immigrants? We live here knowing that based on our history that we are prone to cultural take-over. Infact, I’d expect it some day. The only idiots who think it won’t ever happen are THEM.
This land doesnt and has never belonged to US or THEM, it belongs to no-one. Aboriginal peeps say I AM THIS LAND and the colony said I OWN THIS LAND. Here in lies our major cultural divide/crime, yes TG, another story entirely.
Great post of yours and all the comments.
I’ve really enjoyed it.
Now it’s time for me to lay my head to sleep.
Nighty-night.
HI all -
yes, this is a very interesting discussion - great job everyone!
J - yes, you make some excellent points. Some customs are indeed acts which westerners find deeply offensive - another good example is female genital cutting, which I’ve written on at length in my academic studies and a bit here as well.
Here’s my devil’s advocate argument. It has to do with western imperialism, and it’s three-fold. 1. No culture is perfect - within every culture, it seems, there are voices of dissent coming not only from the outside, but also from ‘cultural insiders’. There are muslim women around the world who are fighting against their culture’s treatment of women, just as there are Indian, African, Asian, European, Latina, Black, and North American (not to forget indigenous women from the all the former british colonies) women doing the same. And change is best to come from the inside or any culture. Anything else is too many shades of colonialism. 2. The west also has customs that are deeply offensive to some of its own people, as well as to outsiders and new immigrants - the west is steeped in a history of colonization and racism and sexism and slavery. So, on one level, how is the west in any better position to judge another culture’s practices? Western cultural practices are not, by any means, neautral or objective. 3. Finally, when any country simply imposes its own cultural practices onto new immigrants, something is lost. The immigrants feel alienated, and the country gains no new perspectives. I feel that cultures can only develop and evolve when the perspectives of all citizens are taken into account.
That’s where I’m coming from. Perhaps there is something to be learned from looking at the cultural and legal practices of other cultures, particularly when immigrants are in question. Because lord knows our cultural and legal practices aren’t exactly the cat’s ass.
Dave - so, the laws of our land are objective, but not the laws of non-western lands? The laws of our land, based on the christian bible, enacted by rich white men, long ago? I don’t think our laws are any more or less objective than those of any other country. Laws are steeped in history and culture and reflect the values of those in power in any society. Not exactly objective. Not really at all. (Then again, I don’t really believe in ‘objective’. I’m a post-modernist, mostly. No objective, just lots and lots of power and subjective rolled together.)
Steve - Australia has all the answers to all things Australian? I hardly think that’s true, any more than it’s true that the current political situation in the US serves perfectly all the people who live there - like all the kids who have been shipped off to the middle east and died over there, or all the women who can’t access emergency contraception or abortions in their states, or the 45 million people who have no health insurance, or the 30 million who live below the poverty line. There is dissent over just these types of policies and rhetoric right in Australia. John Howard is not exactly the most popular PM they’ve ever had down there. He’s ruffled a lot of feathers.
dumbwoman - I have not been to a middle eastern country, but would welcome the opportunity. It holds no weight with me that in some places it’s illegal to own a bible.
I think there’s a difference between ‘tolerance’ and ‘acceptance’. A culture may tolerate some other cultural influences and people without ever really accepting them. I’m just not a fan of assimilationism; I think there is a lot that is lost when we try to force assimilation into a dominant culture. Like here in Canada, we tried assimilation with our indigenous peoples, and it was a horrible mistake as children were torn from their families, imprisoned, and forced to give up their cultural practices and languages. I believe something similar happened in Australia? Not such a great idea there, either.
And the fact that legal system in AU is based on European societal and legal custom doesn’t mean it’s any better than anything else, either. Again, what is objective?
Hi D!
Liberallatte - Hi there! I hope you’re doing well. Thanks for your comments. I’m not really advocating the introduction of Sharia law into Australian legal code (by the way, there is significant debate within islamic communities about Sharia law and Hadith customs, so it’s not like we’re talking about a homogenous set of laws - or at least, not about something that all muslims agree with 100%) - just trying to point out that there might be something valuable to be learned from immigrant cultures, and that it’s possible to have two systems co-exist successfully, and that the west cannot claim perfect objectivism and we practice imperialism far too often, and that when we say things like the sentiments included in the article I quoted in the post it starts things down a dangerously slippery slope. Meh. I dunno what’s the right thing here - I certainly have no beef with promoting equality and freedom, I just don’t know if assimilationism is the best way to do that.
John - Welcome! Thanks for commenting - as I said, I don’t know about the sources, just commenting on the content of the piece in question. You’re the first to point out that it may not be fully accurate, so good on you, and thanks.
Yes, I am aware of the similarities between what’s happening in AU and what’s happening in the US. And it’s frightening to me, for much the same reasons you describe - it’s alarming how little inflammatory and distracting rhetoric is necessary to get folks up in arms and turning on one another in a xenophobic manner. It’s very disappointing, but not really surprising considering the cultural climate of megalomania gripping western nations.
don’t worry - I don’t have anything against the entire nation of AU and all the people in it. I draw a very large distinction between the policies of a nation and the people who live there.
Steve - again, I point to the example of Indonesia. Their legal system works out pretty well, as far as I have read. Of course there are problems in every legal system, and none are perfect, but even though there are complexities, it can work. (by the way, Indonesian law is based on 3 things: islamic law, custom, and roman-dutch law. It’s quite interesting.)
Yeah, I don’t know much about Orthodox or cannon law, but why not include a variety of ideas? I don’t see a problem with doing that, on principle. Why not also include some indigenous cultural practices, and some African practices too? I think there is a great deal we can learn from the way these people have run their societies for centuries before Plymouth landed on their asses.
Sholung - do you not see the hypocrisy in that line you quoted? That line does not at all mean that the plan is to accept and incorporate immigrant beliefs into Australian culture - it means “we’ll tolerate your little beliefs so long as you follow our rules.” And claiming non-muslims are content to live beside just about anyone is kind of ridiculous… look at how we’ve “ghettoized” the indigenous populations in our western countries, the way we’ve pushed our black communities into narrow communities surrounded by toxic environmental hazards in both rural and urban areas. Western governments are racist to the core - the faith in government and law with which white people navigate society is based in the fact that our governments and laws are formed by us, for us.
The example you raised about those inflammatory cartoon depictions of Mohammed: that was just a horrible example of exactly what I’m talking about. The west talks out of both sides of its neck - we claim we “accept” and “tolerate” other cultures, but we pull stunts like that which show just how completely we disrespect not just the beliefs of other people, but also the people who believe differently than we do. And we call it “freedom” of whatever in order to justify our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia, our homophobia. And we think we’re objective? Give me a break!
I’ll check out those links a bit later. Got some work to do.
thanks to all for participating - very interesting!
Hi Again,
Great to read your comments/responses TG, and all the visitors!
Just a quick note on your below comment
“3. Finally, when any country simply imposes its own cultural practices onto new immigrants, something is lost. The immigrants feel alienated, and the country gains no new perspectives. I feel that cultures can only develop and evolve when the perspectives of all citizens are taken into account.”
I couldnt’ fully disagree with this, but mostly I don’t agree. The ’something that is lost’ is lost in the act of leaving the known and coming to the unknown. I don’t believe there is anything any nation can do to make a new group feel unlost, other than to leave them be and give them time. I don’t think that most immigrants want to be accepted by their new country; I doubt they care too much. I think they’ve got bigger fish to fry. I don’t believe it’s at all possible for anyone or anything to patch the hurt from leaving home. All the new country can hope to do is to not pick the wound of the immigrant, who is exceptionally prone to irritation and discomfort simply because they are not in/with their ideal home. Immigrants feel alienated regardless of why they immigrated, where there new nation is and how its laws treat them. Nations impose their laws on everyone, some citizens are less sensitive to this than others, right?
Immigration is tough work (I might have to put that on a t-shirt and send it to John Howard and all leaders in our immigrant minority groups. It’d make a great picture standing them all together because no matter what side you are standing on, it’s hard work).
And Johnny H has ruffled feathers here mostly because he’s seen as being the man who wants to/or is being forced to turn us into Little America. Grrr. We are so not represended by our current policies.
thanks!
Hey D - thanks for both your comments - we must have bene posting at around the same time, because your comment popped up after I published mine. Weird.
Very interesting take on the ‘go back where you came from’ thing! Incidentally, when my friend moved to AU it took her a very long time to get used to the communication deal - she felt like everyone was being mean and making fun of her all the time. She thought she was sarcastic before she moved there - ha! She’s been there many years now and will never move back, but it did take her a while to get used to being joshed and prodded all the time.
Like I said, personally, I’d be the type to learn as much as possible about the culture I was moving into if I wanted to immigrate. I love new experiences, so I’d be apt to try out all the local cultural customs at least once (except meat-eating ones, of course). But I know among immigrants it’s important to many to keep a strong tie to their homeland in terms of a community of expats in their new country. And I get that - for god sake, when I’m in toronto and I hear someone with a cape breton accent, I perk right up!
I think there’s just as much lost to the ‘host’ country as to the immigrant when assimilation is the focus. Since I really think that no culture is perfect, and all cultures are just so situated in their own histories, more what I’m advocating for than anything is to allow immigrants to help infuse the dominant culture with bits of their own, and participate in the historical evolution of culture in their new country.
you’ve given me much to think on - thanks D!
“we’ll tolerate your little beliefs so long as you follow our rules.”
The home culture of a country is based on the precepts of the founders, and on subsequent changes/improvements by immigrants. Now for the first time the West is facing changes that are negative/derogatory to the home culture. I personally have no problem having a muslim neighbor, unless they were to start giving me a lecture on my eating of pork, my wife’s driving her own car, etc. That is part of America. And yes, if you do not like to see a Christian/Buddhist eating pork and letting his wife drive her Jeep (while wearing makeup and an outfit that reveals her figure), the STFU and get out. Go to Saudi where only one viewpoint is allowed. Freedom of speech means freedom to hate and offend, it’s not pretty but it is the truth. I will fight to the death for your right to say something that I do not believe in, and for my right to not associate with you nor listen to your complaints about my views. I can even accept someone burning an American flag in protest of womething or other, even though it makes me angry enough to consider violence as a response. But Idon’t commit an act of violence against that person. Because it is their right to be a a** and burn the flag. And it is my right to walk on past.
Having respect for another person’s beliefs is all well and good, but there will be times that someone says something that you just cannot agree with, in fact it may boil your blood and make you grind your teeth. But in a truly free society, people do have the right to disagree and even to hate.
The example you raised about those inflammatory cartoon depictions of Mohammed: that was just a horrible example of exactly what I’m talking about. The west talks out of both sides of its neck - we claim we “accept” and “tolerate” other cultures, but we pull stunts like that which show just how completely we disrespect not just the beliefs of other people, but also the people who believe differently than we do.
One thing that I would like to clear up is that “cartoon controversy”. We did not see Catholics rioting and burning down shops, etc. when the “artistic genius” started the whole Piss Christ controversy.
Episcopaleans are not killing each other over the gay agenda situation that that church faces.
And then you have Chris Rock and other black performers who use “the N-word” regularly in their acts, but when (white) Michael Richards does it, Watch Out!!
What I am trying to get at is: while any given home culture may have its flaws and quirks, gems and benefits, it is still the Home Culture. Do not go to Australia or America if you want to live in a place like Saudi Arabia or Somalia.
You certainly would not go to a restaurant like Kentucky Fried Chicken and expect to be able to order steamed lobster or Kung Pao Chicken…nor is it apropriate to protest against the existence of a pork BBQ establishment or fire someone from a job for eating pork.
Finally, regarding “Since I really think that no culture is perfect, and all cultures are just so situated in their own histories, more what I’m advocating for than anything is to allow immigrants to help infuse the dominant culture with bits of their own, and participate in the historical evolution of culture in their new country.”
I agree. I welcome the good bits of the immigrant’s culture, the helpful stuff, the colorful stuff, the bits that can help me grow as a person and the West as a culture.
What I do not welcome are the bad bits. Burkas, genital mutilation, oppression of women, slavery, dietary codes for non-believers, etc. When the immigrants are attempting to subdue the dominant culture with repressive ideas that have been previously relegated to history’s ash-heap, or that the dominant culture is working to eliminate, it seems foolish, if not self-destructive, to be ‘accomodating’ their whims.
Thank you.
australia is a strange country. a country that apparently only had white-only immigration in the 1960s yet its’ original inhabitants are left on the fringe of society. racist or what?
hi Aulelia,
Yep, we’re trying to clean up that old and enduring mess. Aboriginals weren’t considered citizens until the 70’s. We’ve inherited some of the British superiority, and we’ve got to clean up that mess well before we are even going to be able to right the wrongs. I have faith though.
My husband is Anglo-Trinidadian and when he came here it took him ages and ages to identify the racial vibe here. It tricked and played with him in a new way (he grew up in UK). I can’t speak for him on this topic because I don’t know what it felt like for him, but he found a way out of the weight that he originally felt. I guess that there was also a tollerance here, a safe house, if you like, that he had never found in the UK. And it’s not through assimilation that he found his feet … but my guess is that if he were Aboriginal, not African decended then he would have found no safe place, walked on no strong feet … especially here in Tasmania.
Thanks
D
Hi TG>
So when you coming over to visit your friend? Bring your armour!
In my experince, and in a very very general way, Canadians stick with the Aussie, silently and smiling, way until they get it and then they join in, with ease. There is always a place to laugh from with a Canadian. Americans are less likely to stick with it, wait to think Australian English/psychology out. English who don’t speak the Queen’s English are always up for thrashing it out with the Aussie position and vice versa … Kiwis are bloody brilliant at both joining in and putting us in our place, setting the softer and more clever example, and Scandinavians, in general, are total crackers when it comes to sliding into the Aussie sense of social place. They love swearing as much as us (I have a terrible potty mouth, if the truth be known!).
An Americal friend once told me that hanging out with a bunch of Australians was exhausting because they don’t ever give you a stage to talk upon, a moment of grace to have your say. He said it’s like a free for all, banter, rude, pisstaking and hardly serious, but high dry intellect. He admitted to finding it really hard, especially with groups of Aussie women, because he said that “you australians give me no chance to have a say”. He identified, from hanging out with Aussie women, that Americans, in his experience, conversation-style play clock-in-clock-out soap-boxing with lots of rules and simple vocabulary , and Australians play high contact conversation-tag with no rules and broad cryptic vocab. I agree, he was a shit conversationalist in groups but he had a keen eye/ear thing going on. He also said that often when Australians are explaining stuff you get the feeling that you have to work to find their meaning, whereas in America, it’s all served up for you.( I think it’s because we don’t repete the subject of the sentence and we often place it at the end of a whole bunch of gramatically incorrect relative clauses).
I love chewing the fat with other native english speakers, just to secretly play with how little we have in common. It’s such a mistake to think that we are simmilar. Chalk and cheese are both white, but they taste completely different, don’t they.
See Ya!
TG> Anyone would agree that they don’t want to be victims of fraud, theft, assault, murder. These are all objective laws… There’s no political orientation here, its standard…and as you might notice, you’d probably find these laws in almost every country in the world (if not all).
What is not entirely objective is how laws are interpreted when the process begins…how each judge, lawyer, police officer, criminal, interprets these laws in decisions, defences, punishments, etc. As a result, it’s the justice system that is subjective, not the laws of the land…
Dave> yes, those are pretty standard. But a lot of the criminal code, at least here in Canada, is not that “objective”. And I’m not talking about those wierd laws that are remnants of a forgotten past (like the one against witchcraft and fortune telling, although arguably that’s a way to protect against fraud). What about laws that forbid homosexuality or consensual anal intercourse (which is illegal in Canada if there’s a third person in the room)? Or against selling beer on a Sunday?
Shoulung> “Go to Saudi where only one viewpoint is allowed.” I LOVE this kind of argument. Is comparing a situation that is bad with a much worse suppose to make us think that the bad situation is all right?
“Do not go to Australia or America if you want to live in a place like Saudi Arabia or Somalia.” You say that like the person has much of a choice (see my earlier comment). When my best friend’s dad left Austria after the war, it was either Canada or Australia. When my girlfriend’s dad left Hungary in 1956, there wasn’t that much choice (the only country that actually did anything to help the refugees was Canada).
MA> The laws against sodomy are not repealed yet, but case law is allowing any two individuals over the age of 18 to engage in consenual acts…
As for the alcohol on sunday law, I believe that would be a provincial statute…
As for witchcraft, they do still have piracy on the books too…
Actually, sodomy law was partially repealed; it is now stated that it has to me in the privacy of their own home. But that’s Canada. In many states, it is still illegal (in some, so is oral sex).
(I think piracy laws are actually still enforced. There are cases, every year, of boats being pirated.)
Shoulung - The “home culture” you refer to is in fact a racist construct, considering the colonization and theft of land from indigenous populations. This is, I think, something that needs to be recognized in nationalistic discourse of the type you are engaging in.
I won’t get into the free speech debate again, but basically I believe there should be limits on speech in order to fully support equality and freedom of all groups in society. Here’s a post about that.
I agree with Marc Andre - pointing to a worse situation doesn’t actually make the one you’re defending better. There are lots of ways to do things that fall in between. And the issue of choice is one to consider - I don’t believe we all have just piles of freedom to do anything we want in this world; we live according to deterministic forces that impede complete freedom. (thanks MA!)
Pointing out how “tolerant” christians have been to images depicting christ is a completely different thing. Yes, a lot of muslims were upset about depictions of Mohammed in those cartoons. And I can think of some recent controversy that have gotten christians pretty upset as well (the piss christ thing was one of them, by the way) - for example the Da Vinci Code. Folks were and still are all twisted up about that. And by the way, christians have done some pretty violent things, and I’m not talking about the crusades - how about killing medical staff working at abortion clinics? waco texas? jim jones? oklahoma city? christians are pretty quick to distance themselves from nutbars like these folks, just like many muslims felt the reaction that some muslims had to the cartoon debacle was too extreme. Don’t lump ‘em all together.
and comparing what Chris Rock does to what Michael Richards did is not even nearly valid. White people don’t have the right to use the N word. If black folks want to use it, it’s up to them. Personally, I don’t think it should be used, but that’s just me. I’m not about to tell black folks what to do or say as they struggle against racism.
I’m all for eliminating harmful cultural practices from every culture - don’t get me wrong. But that’s not really what this is about - this is about not assimilating, about not being permitted to challenge the status quo, about not being heard enough to have your viewpoint even considered. It’s about saying that immigrants are not so much equal citizens who get to participate in the cultural evolution of their new country.
Aulelia and D - indigenous peoples need a voice so much in this world. We in the west have enslaved, forgotten, colonized, oppressed, thieved from, violated, raped, killed, suppressed, and decimated their cultures as much as we possibly could. It’s not over, either, not nearly. And mostly the west acts humble and chided about it all, but we continue to do it at home and abroad. We recognize the shame of it, but we don’t do anything to make it right. It’s disgusting.
D - I don’t have plans to visit my friend. It’s an expensive plane ticket to buy - maybe one day, since she’s not going anywhere! I can’t wait for the conversational olympics! sounds like a good bit of fun to me!
Dave - you’re confusing ‘objective’ with ‘universal’. Universality does not indicate objectivity. It just indicates mutual agreement of values. If laws were objective, they would be THE SAME across national and cultural borders - but they obviously are not. Unless, as I suggested earlier, what you mean to say is that the laws of THIS land are ‘objective’ and the laws of other lands are not. But I don’t think that’s your point.
I would also argue that there is extreme political motivation inherent in our laws - based on property rights, our laws do everything possible to protect private property in the face of indigenous cultural beliefs and practices that do not recognize the concept of property, but believe the land belongs to all. The laws of our land were made up by colonizers, based on british law - and the purpose was to protect what they saw as their rights, and make sure they got to keep on colonizing.
so really, what we have are a bunch of subjective laws, interpreted subjectively. no wonder the legal system is so screwed up!
Nevin - your comment did not adhere to the discussion policy outlined here, and was not approved. You kind of proved the point of this post with your racist comments.
15 yo girls shouldn’t write about such important subjects like migration, the reality of racial differences, why the mix of races is wrong, etc etc
Arturo I’m not sure what you mean. Was the original piece that I quoted written by a 15 year old girl? How do you know?
Or do you think that I am 15? maybe are you trying to infantilize me and my ideas?
or maybe you’re just confused? I certainly am. please clarify. you have one more chance, and be warned that if you try any kind of racist sexist commentary, you’ll be banned.
i cnt believe how they’re treating the muslims there ! am a muslim and i wantd 2 go 2 australia and all they’re doin nw is makin me feel quueasy bout goin !!!!!! i mean isnt religion a personal choice ? cnt we follow our beliefs anymore ???? how rude! austalians (nt aboriginals ofcourse) r desendants of criminal englishmen !!!!!! they shudnt speak at all realliii !!!