Any one in Holland to comment on this? Is it true?

Ian Anderson

Lifetime Supporter
Jeff

which language did you read it in?

Why did the Australian government need to waste money geting it into all the other languages?

If you emigrate I believe every person (not just the bread winner) need to be able to communicate fully in the standard language of that country. If not by default the newcomers are forcing their culture / language etc on the lacal population.

In the UK for example every local government operation now has to have translation services available for Poles, Lithuanians, French, Germans etc so that they can avail themselves of things like the Free National Health service. Damn they even have the benefits you may be entitled to translated into all those languages too creating an influx of spongers.


Ian
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Well, I think there is some room between only having everything in English and a forced dual language system like in say Quebec.

I think giving immigrants a basic understanding of government policy in their language is fine. From there, I agree, they need to learn the national language of the country they choose to live in.

That doesn't happen overnight though and basic accomodations to help the transition make sense to me. Are they a problem for you, so long as the ultimate goal and requirement is fluency in the native tongue?

Does Australia have street signs and other things mandated by law to be in more than one language? I honestly don't know, just asking. If they did, that is a problem. But printing a brochure for immigrants so they can understand their rights while learning the native tongue? Seems reasonable to me.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Jeff, go back and read my first post, I think it is quite clear.
From memory"I think it has mostly worked with the exception of radical Muslims".
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I've read it several times. I am just trying to figure out exactly what the "enforced multiculturalism" really is. What is being "forced?"
 

Keith

Moderator
Rubbish. Those 'languages' form official components of UK languages and are mandated for use by the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales.

The Punjabi station signs are for people who can't or won't speak English and is not mandated by main Government.

You are just getting back to your original position of 'outing' us as racists so quit trying to appear 'reasonable'. It's not a discussion you want - you made up your mind years ago. You don't know how to discuss - you're a lawyer - you make statements and you only ask questions to attempt to confirm your already formulated opinion.

Ergo, we are not 'the defendants' and do not have to respond as such.

Try considering this for a future 'discussion'.

US Land Mass 3,500,000 square miles, 298,450,000 population equating to 86 persons per square mile.

UK Land Mass 93,276 square miles, 60,610,000 population equating to 650 persons per square mile.

Whatever you do to US immigration policy in the future, you will never equal the population densities of Europe and thus you will never understand the pressures these densities bring.

So, please give it a rest. You will never see our point of view because you don't want to you smug bugger.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
No, actually I am looking for a reasonable discussion and try to learn something about how multiculturalism is addressed in other countries.

I will be up front on this though: I do think SOME of the fear/scorn/whatever of multiculturalism is not really driven by anger at the government's role in it ("enforced multiculturalism") but rather just a simple distaste for change, and for foreigners and immigration. Certainly happened here in the US.

And, quite frankly, your population density point is a red herring. We have wide swaths of this country that have higher population density than the UK and areas of this country larger than the UK where very few people live at all.

More importantly, the UK is NINETY TWO PERCENT white, 4% South Asian, 2% Black, and the rest Chines or mixed. The US is 56% caucasian, 16% Latino, 20% Black, 5% Asian and the rest mixed. So, frankly, I think you and your country could learn quite a bit from our experience of dealing with immigrants and integrating them into a multicultural society that, for the most part, "works."

So back to my question. I agree Government policies that force separatism -- dual language requirements, etc. -- are a bad idea. But I've yet to see any evidence of that and thus any real Government "enforced multiculturalism." Thus:

1. Is what you/Pete/David are concerned about the Government forcing your society to accept the language and culture of immigrants, which I agree is a problem, or is it

2. Simply the normal pressure of immigration and the resulting change on your society that the "natives" have traditionally not liked.

P.S. My sign analogy is dead spot on. Those are prime examples of multiculturalism. I'd suggest it is alternative culture you are ok with, which makes it not a problem, versus an alternative culture you don't like which IS a problem
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I'm not being obtuse. What is the government forcing on you in terms of multicuturalism? Are you forced to speak another language? Are you forced to pariticpate in religious holidays of another culture?

I didn't see anything in the link you posted that suggested anything was being forced on you. It simply said that Australia respects the cultural heritage of its immigrants (since you are all immigrants, like us here in the US), and doesn't discriminate on the basis of origin.

Where is the "forcing?" Quite honestly, I think what is obtuse is claiming there is "enforced multiculturalism" when you can't give even a single example of what is being enforced by the Government agianst the will of the people.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
When a government does not include in its election platform Multiculturism
and after said election enacts laws that prosecute people for being "racist"
if they speak out against certain cultures or religions, I call that enforced.
But as usual we will never agree.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Looks to me like Australia has had anti-racial villification laws since the 80s. While those laws always are problematic in countries that have guarantees of free speech (in the US they would most likely be unconstitutional), the texts I read for Australia appear to try to outlaw "hate speech' directed at racial groups based on race.

Slippery slope and difficult to enforce without question.

BUT -- "enforced multiculturalism?" I don't see it. It's not forcing anyone to accept another's culture in any way; it is just preventing certain types of speech critical of that other culture.

So again -- where is the "enforced multiculturalism?" This is looking more and more like a made up term to me with no real meaning.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
But as usual we will Never agree. But one last try, multIculturism was introduced by the Whitlam government in 1973. It was not part of his pre election platform, therefore it was not put to the people. Therefore it was enforced introduced foisted upon us without a mandate. Clear enough?
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Unfortunately no, because I've still not seen how it is "enforced" on anyone, poorly thought out "racial villification" laws aside.

What is being enforced? I keep asking but I don't see any substance to it.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
None so blind as those that do not want to see. It is enforced because the fucking law says if you speak out against it you can be gaoled! got it? End of conversation!
 
But as usual we will Never agree. But one last try, multIculturism was introduced by the Whitlam government in 1973. It was not part of his pre election platform, therefore it was not put to the people. Therefore it was enforced introduced foisted upon us without a mandate. Clear enough?

Pete,

Surely it came before the 70's or have I missed something?

"As the world’s most ancient living culture, Australia’s indigenous people have occupied the country for at least 50,000 years.

By the time the Europeans started to settle there 200 years ago, there were up to a million Aboriginal people hunting and gathering across the continent in around 300 clans, speaking 250 different languages and 700 dialects. Each clan had a spiritual connection with the land of their region, but they did travel widely to trade, find water and food, and for ritual and totemic gatherings.

Their land and water resources were also appropriated by British settlers and turned into grazing land for cattle.

The 250-plus Aboriginal languages are now in danger of becoming obsolete, with only around 15 still in use. Each tribe, or settlement, had their own local language for thousands of years, but many Aborigines now speak a common tongue known as Australian Aboriginal English: a form of English littered with Aboriginal phrases and words.

From 1869 right up until the 1970s the Australian Government operated a policy of forced assimilation, now known as as ‘The Stolen Generations’. The Federal and State Governments, along with many Church agencies, were responsible for systematically removing children from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders families. It was official government policy to do so, the idea being that the children would be better off growing up as modern, white Australians.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
None so blind as those that do not want to see. It is enforced because the fucking law says if you speak out against it you can be gaoled! got it? End of conversation!

Nice.

I don't think you've read the law (or at least the ones I read). You don't go to prison for speaking out against "multiculturalism." You can be charged for engaging in essentially hate speech based on someone's race or ethnic background.

There's a difference there; an important one.

More and more this looks to me like a case of the "old immigrants" just not liking the new.
 

Keith

Moderator
According to location, having your children forced to learn languages and customs of immigrant cultures. Having the use of the word "Christmas" banned from many cities in case it offends 'other' cultures and religions. Positive discrimination in the workplace towards immigrants of less ability and no English language skills to 'balance' racial equality. Permitting racial abuse of indiginous population on a regular basis to avoid harming 'ethnic minorities'. Permitting racially hateful speeches and assemblies by ethnic minorities. Permitting and promoting the building of hundreds of mosques out of proportion to the needs of the local population. Permitting and promoting the development of immigrant only areas of business and domicile.

These acts are permitted and promoted by local government who are often dominated by the same ethnic groups who have no interest in the welfare of 'white' people.

There are many more examples, but I don't want to quote them and didn't want to quote these either, which is why you are not getting any detailed responses despite your badgering. The people who DO want to shout about it are facists.

Remember that under EEC rules we have to accept our 'quota' of asylum seekers. Remember also that under international rules asylum seekers are permitted only to cross 2 friendly borders. In some cases, they have crossed dozens to arrive at Sangatte and with a little help from the French there are almost 100,000 at any time from 30 different nations attempting to bust in across the border, and because of our benign and liberal ways, if they make it, they get clothed, housed, fed and watered and permitted to stay if they come from 'dangerous' regions, which also means their cousins brothers uncles aunts and second cousins twice removed.

These are a few examples of what I would call enforced multiculturism and just because it doesn't happen by Government decree doesn't mean it isn't enforced by virtue of 'force majeure'

It is a credit to the kindness and generosity of the British people that they accept that people suffering hardships should be taken care of from all nations, but we owe nothing to Somalis for example, and yet they are responsible for 90% of gun & knife crime in the capital which rises week on week. As Pete rightly says, because of the willingness of the people, things have mainly worked, although in the case of the UK, I sense the tipping point is close. In any event, I feel the United States deserves the Somlis because of your excellent Police work with the local crime lords there.

Thank you for dismissing the population density comment with an airy fairy wave of your hand, and remember that your own country is one of the most racist nations on earth. I lived in a town in the South of the USA for a few years where they used to hang a black man in the town square every Friday night on principle. The last one was in the early '60's. There was also a sign in another local town near me which read "Don't let the sun set on your black ass". When I was there, the racist symbol of the Stars and Bars flew above many City buildings.

There is no point to your continuing to 'try to understand' the problems of multiculturism in Europe because you cannot. There is also no point in us trying to understand the many ethnic problems you endure in the United States because we cannot either.

What we can do, is listen to another's point of view and accept what is said without attempting to impose our own, and foreign values on the status quo.

And yes, I am an old immigrant myself. Not Nordic, but Anglo Saxon possibly around the Dark Ages. That would be appropriate.

Nick, if we couldn't move on from previous mistakes then all of Germany should still be in chains.

Edit: And before anyone says it, yes, the British too.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Nick, from my history lessons it was the Brits that invaded Australia. As you might have noticed from my name I am of Irish stock. My predecessors were sent here by you lot in chains. For which I am most grateful by the way.:thumbsup:
 
Back
Top