Inspired by Mark Steyn in the Spectator, and derivatively quoted in the Oz this morning ...

Sip every time multiculturalism is blamed for the random ills of the world ...

Quaff every time multiculturalism is conflated with problems of governance, in this case an all too familiar and tragic welfare paternalism ...

And the upshot of Canadian taxpayers' generosity? Two years after the new town opened, the former Mushuau chief and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police both agreed that there were more drugs, alcoholism, gas-sniffing etc., than ever before. Also higher suicide rates.

Drain your glass every time a public figure happily throws out the innovations of the Enlightenment.

All Men Are Not Equal (free reg reqd).

Andrew Bartlett sent a letter to the President of the Senate expressing support for multiculturalism.

It contained;

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:

"That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate and all political leaders to express strong support for multiculturalism in Australia as playing a key role in the battle against extremism, in light of the increased public vilification and antagonism towards Muslims and other ethnic communities in Australia."

Several Senators weighed in on the issue. Senator Ronaldson;

As I said in my maiden speech, terrorism and extremism are the greatest threats to our region and to democratic nations throughout the world. Quite simply, we must work together to address this threat. The challenge is enormous. Everyone in this chamber would agree that it is not a short-term challenge; it is a short-term, medium-term and long-term challenge.

What is important is an acknowledgment by all of us that the Muslim community in this country is under threat from within. Radical clerics and spokespeople are undermining the genuine endeavours and the commitment of the moderate majority as they try to deal with extremism and negative perceptions.

Ronaldson quoted a 60 Minutes interview where the US Government was blamed for September 11th. It is interesting to note that Ronaldson is supporting the "National Security State" by claiming it is a long-term issue.

Ronaldson does not address the issue of multi-culturalism either - just the concern that muslims are not discriminated against, and that extremist muslims are ruining it, not only for moderate muslims; but through implication, for all of us.

Senator Ludwig replied to Senator Ronaldson. He included some references to the government wondering why their departments didnt support multiculturalism (as a kind of equity - equal oppurtunities?). I am not sure this is neccessary though. Multiculturalism is about being who you want to be, not what the state or the society demands you be. It is about liberty. Ludwig later mentions the social cohesion aspect of multiculturalism;

Let me put it in this way. There are Muslims who live here and many are Australian citizens. They are not going to depart Australia. They are not going to leave if we end multiculturalism tomorrow. They are here to stay. The question we need to ask is: do we have a system which ensures social cohesion and respect for the law and Australian values, or do we turn our back on multiculturalism as a means of achieving this? The Muslim community in Australia participates and must continue to participate in the fight against terrorism, as does every other religious order, group and part of our community. It is about ensuring that all of our community recognises that terrorism is against the community, our social cohesion and the fabric of our society. It is not wanted, is not needed and should be rooted out.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells spoke next, tracing her ethnic roots through Australian culture and stating;

Over the years I have observed firsthand that Australia is a place where all of us, despite our differences, have shown that we are willing to listen, discuss and consider. Australia is a tolerant and compassionate society founded on understanding and respecting differences. With this tolerance has come the responsibility of integration in the Australian way of life and a respect for Australian customs and usages. In a globalised world this openness of approach has proved to be a great asset. It is also our strength against terrorism and extremism.

But that isn't multiculturalism, that is assimilation into monoculturalism. I am a classic example of how ignorant this notion is, I live in the US, work in the US, have an American wife, and half my family is American - but i never, ever can be American. I am Australian.

America makes no demands on me to fly the American flag off my house, in fact I would be in serious trouble if it did as Boxing Matilda is the flag that most commonly is flying proudly to the street.

Senator Nettle was next to speak. His reply was short and in support of multiculturalism. It was also high on the attack scale, euqating Senator Stone's comments as being near racism. Probably a Senate form of Godwining yourself.

One interesting quote from it was;

Multiculturalism in Australia is a fact. It is not a theory or an experiment, as some would have us believe. It is a fact and has been at least since European colonisation of the continent began. Those who contend that Australian culture has ever been homogenous are simply wrong, and there are generations of Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, Chinese, Jewish, Arab, Irish, Pacific Islander, German and so many other cultural groups living in Australia who are proof of this.

It is my belief that multiculturalism is a natural out-growth of liberty. Letting people be who they want to be is the mechanism to greater prosperity, social harmony and cultural advancement. Maximum liberty must be the goal of any society, and state.

Senator Hurley asks an interesting question of the media;

There are 200 languages spoken in Australia. We are a multicultural country and will continue to be. The fact is we cannot do away with multiculturalism in this country without proposing some sort of other practical way to address the diversity in our country. That is what a lot of the debate that has gone on in the media has not addressed. If multiculturalism is not the way of the future, if it no longer copes in our country, what do we replace it with?

Which is a fair summation of the op-ed media, it nothing more cerebral and useful than "multi-culturalism bad" and that it "causes terrorism". Hurley continues;

I do not think we have anything to fear from Muslim culture, and its differences, providing that the moderate force prevails in our society. Indeed, in Australia we have laws and regulations which ensure that Australian values are preserved. If there is any fear about the influx of people of different cultures and religion coming into Australia then we need to address it through an examination of our laws and regulations rather than tarring all people of that religion or ethnic group with the same brush.

I am reminded of Greg Egan's "Professional Australians" description. As if the rule of law and liberty are uniquely "Australian values". She, like Ludwing, concluded by attacking the government for not doing enough to ensure equal access for the "multicultural people".

The final speaker was Senator Brandis who concluded with a tip of the hat to Malcolm Fraser;

Malcolm Fraser, who is much criticised on my side of politics these days, will always have an honourable place as one of the Australian statesmen who ushered in the era of multiculturalism.

I was a bit disappointed, this could have been an interesting debate, but it appears party positions were maintained more than anything else. All of them caricatured themselves to an extent by sticking to party lines. Which was a shame.

cam

Geoffrey Blainey coined the term, "black armband history", which John Howard picked up in his 1996 election and used since as part of the longer campaign in the history wars. Blainey talks about democracy as being Australia's greatest and most difficult achievement, claiming that this majority based system is the defining component of our history. But Blainey is either ignorant, or rhetorically contemptuous in the understanding of minorities and rights in a political system. Modern Australians define themselves in the "Better Country"; failure to respect minorities, and to trample individual rights are directly the fault of our government and public institutions. Australians demand better.

Minorities

The greatest abuse of individual and political rights has been by the hands of government. Usually it is only the politically weak minorities that have copped it, but occasionally minorities do as well. Our politicians are sufficiently cowardly that they only pick on minorities. One area of our history that involved institutional failure to respect the individual, the family and the community was the stolen generations. This started in Western Australia in the 1890s, and ended in the 1950s after receiving sponsorship at the state and federal levels.

As Aboriginal children were kidnapped from their families by government officials and policeman based on the colour of their skin. If the skin colour was half-white and half-black, then the child was stolen from its mother and then fostered out to a white family. This was done for the reason of mono-culture - forcible assimilation of Aboriginal children into the then majority culture which was Anglo-Australian. This was known colloquially as the "fuck them white" policy.

In a 1993 speech, Geoffrey Blainey said;

The multi-cultural folk busily preached their message until they arrived much of Australian history was a disgrace. The past treatment of Aborigines, of Chinese, of Kanakas, of non-British migrants, of women, the very old, the very young and the poor was singled out, sometimes legitimately, sometimes not. These condemnations of Australia's past treatment of various categories of people were so sweeping, that at times close to 80 per cent of the population was on the hit list - a suspiciously high percentage, you must admit, when even this was really one of the world's most vigorous democracies.

This assumes that a minority is exclusive and cannot be a member of another minority at the same time. However and Aboriginal Australian can be elderly, female and poor - all at the same time. When America was founded as a Republic in 1787, the writers of the constitution were aware of the problems, not only of the tyranny of absolute rule, but also tyranny of the majority. Blainey is arguing that tyranny of the majority is a valid form of democracy. As long as tyranny against a majority, comes through a democratic system, it is excusable, and cannot be put in the bad ledger of history.

In the speech, Blainey mentions that he was raised on the "Three Cheers" view of history. Peter Botsman has called this the "Triumphalism of Federation" history. In that form of history, government wrote the narrative, excusing themselves of any past tyranny, inequity and failure. Yet we know that a Bill of Rights was excluded from the Australian Constitution as the "Bearded Men" wanted to be able to use the power of federal government to willfully discriminate against the Chinese in Australia.

The "Three Cheers" history is essentially bankrupt. Until Australian historians focus on the most destructive, and discriminate force in Australia - the federal and state governments, then Australian history will just be competing political agendas for government to write their own history. Howard's attack on the history and culture wars is to excuse the Australian government from past tyranny, so the government, does not have to face how destructive it has been to this country.

Australia must align itself with the principles of "The Better Country", where being better is a constant striving to improve; at the individual, family, community, social, economic and political levels. Obviously, the Better Country has no room for inferior politicians and government who would tyrannise their minorities in the name of majority rule.

Rights

Blainey also has a fundamental mis-undertanding of what constitutes political rights. The same speech in 1993 included;

In fact it [democracy] depends partly on a society which emphasises individual responsibility as much as individual rights. We became a rights-mad society in the 1970s and 1980s, forgetting that there will never be enough rights to go around. A firm right granted to one person or group is often a loss of right to another person or group.

The Australian system of responsible government is weak in protecting rights, often our judicial has jumped into this breach and made rulings that protect speech and other rights despite the constitution having no such mention. We get an activist judicial because the writers of the Australian Constitution were incompetent and myopic.

It is also often misunderstood that political rights are limitations on what government can do. The feel-good declarations that people have the right to dignity, or health care are not rights, they are opinions or positions of legislative or policy principle. A political right is a limitation on government, without which, a rational individual would not consent to be governed. Political rights are limitations on government's ability to act in an arbitrary manner. They are for the defeat of tyranny.

Prosperity Through The Better Country

Prosperity is impossible unless individuals are secure in their individual, social, economic and political rights. Otherwise individuals are forced to deal with the uncertainties of arbitrary an tyrannous government - whether democracy or not. Minorities need to be protected from government through a clear constitutional enunciation of rights which place restrictions on government - ensuring that minorities are treated under the law the same as the majority is. Multiculturalism is a natural outgrowth of liberty, where people can live how they choose to, and be who they want to. When government discriminates against minorities, often for political purposes, liberty and prosperity suffer to the detriment for all of us.

cam

During the Questions Without Notice in the Western Australian Assembly, Margaret Quirk, the ALP member of Girrawheen was asked by the ALP's Jaye Radisch; "I refer the minister to recent assertions in the media that political correctness has gone wild and that even Christmas celebrations are no longer politically correct. What is the minister's position on Christmas celebrations?"

Quirk gave an interesting answer.

The War On Christmas

Nothing gets the conservatives going like the strawman that some majority convention or celebration is under attack by the latte-left do-gooders. It is easy picking for the media to increase their eyeballs. Radisch threw Quirk a softball, but her answer asked the real question, which she in turn answered;

The member asked a very important question and it is one that a lot of Western Australians are grappling with. How do we embrace multiculturalism, which has made Australia, and Western Australia in particular, a thriving and cohesive place, while still making room for traditional Australian beliefs and values? Western Australia now has residents from more than 200 different countries who speak more than 170 different languages, making it a state with one of the world's broadest cultural compositions. We must acknowledge that without the hard work of migrants, often in jobs for which they are overqualified, and their contributions to the community, Western Australians would not be enjoying the unprecedented level of wealth and prosperity that they now are. Clearly, those migrants have earned their place in the community and they deserve our respect, and that includes respect for their values, beliefs and religions.

In recent years certain parts of the Australian media have highlighted and chided local governments for dropping nativity scenes as part of their Christmas decorations, and have also run stories about schools dropping nativity plays from their end-of-year concerts.

She continues;

his year we have heard reports that some Western Australian councils are not supporting carols by candlelight celebrations. These sections of the media hold these incidents up as evidence that we are becoming too politically correct by embracing multiculturalism, and they claim that these groups do not want to offend non-Christians. I suspect that the suggestions to ban such observances, although well-intentioned, are misplaced zeal by persons attempting to be inclusive. It is my firm belief that these attempts do more harm than good. In our diverse community, blanket bans and one-size-fits-all decisions rarely work. When we make decisions, we need to acknowledge the complexity and strength of our diversity, from our indigenous community to our newest arrivals.

Clearly, Australia is predominantly a Christian society and there should be no fetter on celebrating Christmas traditions. Nevertheless, I do not think anyone would deny that we are seeing less of Christ in Christmas in Western Australia these days. I do not think it hurts any of us to remember the basic Christian message that non-Christians would also endorse; that is, compassion for the suffering of others, tolerance, respect and the pursuit of peace through justice. All these values enhance and enrich our community. As the new Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests, my focus is rightly on ensuring that new Western Australians are given opportunities to be equal members of the community, alongside multigenerational Australians. This is an essential goal if we are to have a harmonious society. I know that we have support from non-Christian groups. Ramdas Sankaran from the Western Australian Ethnic Communities Council says that he wants to see more, not fewer, religious and cultural celebrations.

The final sentence is the key, multiculturalism is about liberty and inclusive through expression. Limiting, dropping or banning displays of celebration are as myopic as the monoculturalism inherent in Australian conservatism.

My message to any schools, local governments and shopping centre owners that are confused about whether to display nativity scenes or support Christmas carols is that they should go ahead with them. They will have the support of the Western Australian community. They will have even greater support, however, if they choose, when the opportunity arises, to also celebrate the religious and cultural festivals of some of the state's other 100 or so religions.

We know we are in the silly season and we know it has truly arrived when these annual, but routine, beat-ups from the media about the impending demise of the nativity play and Christmas carols begin to surface. It looks as though we have to accept such sensationalism as part of the collateral damage of the silly season. It is a bit like food poisoning from a dodgy smorgasbord, bad taste Santa ties, shattered office photocopier glass and hangovers. I take this opportunity to wish every member, even the member for Nedlands, a happy Christmas.

The member for Nedlands is Susan Walker (Lib) who interjected during Quirk's answer.

Chris Flynn writes how multiculturalism is a worn out policy who's time is past . Not once in the article does he define what multiculturalism is. Multiculturalism is the liberty to pursue your own cultural interests. As a policy it is a natural expression of liberty. The alternative is assimilation, which is by definition coercion.

Multiculturalism replaced the assimilationist policies around the world and for good reason. Some of the assimilationist polices were tyrannical and inhumane. Australia's own White Australia policy was a good example, which included in its policies the removal of half-white children from Aboriginal mothers. While that is an extreme example, it shows the lengths to which coercion will be used to assimilate individuals into the dominant culture.

Much has been written about how multiculturalism has failed with the Cronulla riots being the example. But I saw the biggest problems was kids choosing violence to pursue their goals. The Lebanese-Australian kids seem more immersed in the stereotype of American gangsta culture than Lebanese culture.

American gangsta culture is a pop phenomenon, pushed by multi-nationals like Disney to sell more product to willing, and impressionable youths. Australia is a western, consumerist society that allows international companies to run massive marketing campaigns to sell their wares. The highly saleable American gangsta culture wont go away with assimilationist or monoculturalist policies.

Maybe the assimilationists will hope that the Lebanese-Australian kids will give up their gold chains, WRX's and gangsta attitude for the beach and become surfers. But the multi-ethnic faultline was the beach - it is where the waxheads and highway-waxheads clashed. The Lebanese-Australians were at the beach, soaking in the sun, swimming and causing trouble. They are assimilated in that great Australian past-time already.

The Australian Conservatives have beat a constant drum on the dangers of multiculturalism, and how it has failed, is failing, or causing woe. The newspaper op-eds are filled with articles claiming these ills in our society. The Australian Conservatives seem to roll it out as the reason for everything bad in the world.

Yet, Australians are a people who understand and want liberty - not only for themselves, but for others too. ACNeilson's polling on the issue of multiculturalism found over-whelming support for it . Eighty percent support or strongly support the policy.

A common refrain of the Australian Conservative establishment is that the elites and latte-left are out of touch, and are pushing unpopular and unwanted policies on Australians. On the issue of multiculturalism it appears the Australian conservatives are the ones who have misjudged the Australian people. The Conservatives are out of touch and pushing an unpopular and unwanted policy. Are we seeing the rise of a Neo-Latte-Conservative movement?

It appears the Australian Conservatives do not understand the liberty Australian people demand.

cam

An article by Gary J. Bass, What really causes civil war? argues that a country's wealth is a better determinant of whether it will suffer civil war than internal differences such as race, ethnicity or sectarianism.

Bass writes that the general explanation for the civil wars in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan, Lebanon and now Iraq are that there are political splits along sectarian or ethnic lines which inevitably lead to civil strife.

He questions this premise;

... there is a growing body of work that suggests that multiethnic countries are actually no more prone to civil war than other countries.

A study conducted in 2003 found that the best determinant of probability of civil war lay in a country's wealth;

They [Fearon and Laitin] found that regardless of how ethnically mixed a country is, the likelihood of a civil war decreases as countries get richer. The richest states are almost impervious to civil strife, no matter how multiethnic they might be ...

And while the poorest countries have the most civil wars, Fearon and Laitin discovered that, oddly enough, it is actually the more homogeneous ones among them that are most likely to descend into violence.

That wealthy countries don't fracture into civil war makes intuitive sense. It is good that there is some empirical evidence to back it up. But why do more homogeneous societies appear more prone to falling into civil war when faced with poverty?

The article does not explain though there is the suggestion that the majority is more likely to exploit a very small minority. Which presumably take up arms against the government as rebels leading to civil strife.

The conclusions of Fearon and Laitin have been challenged by other researchers, and they also put caveats on the environment most prone to create civil war - which unsurprisingly includes a corrupt and weak central government.

It should be noted that the closest Australia ever came to civil war was during the depths of the depression in 1932 when NSW and the Commonwealth Government were hours away from open conflict.

One of the reasons I am getting annoyed with politics is that there isn't even any attempt to be empirical. It is a case of permanent 'why 911 means you must support my politics' . That link is to adequacy btw. Johann Hari has an article: How multiculturalism is betraying women .

From the article:

Do you believe in the rights of women, or do you believe in multiculturalism? A series of verdicts in the German courts in the past month, have shown with hot, hard logic that you can't back both. You have to choose.

Multiculturalism is the liberty to pursue your cultural interests without coercion from the state or the dominant culture. A liberal democratic republic is based upon the principle of the minority accepting the will of the majority, but doing so, knowing that as a minority they are secure in their rights. This means political and legal equality. Women are not necessarily a minority, however they have every expectation to be treated with legal and political equality.

The failure here is not cultural liberty, it is a failure of the state to conduct and adjudicate the law in a legal and just manner.

The choice that Hari gives us in his opening paragraph is a fallacy. The problem is arbitrary judicial decisions from judges who are not adhering to the principles of legal equality.