Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (22)
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has stated on his official website: “Diversity is strength; tolerance is natural.” This is a nice message, but it is entirely questionable if this statement is supported by the historical evidence which teaches us that too much ‘cultural diversity’ may well lead to more intolerance, the loss of national identity nation and the fragmentation into enclaves defined by religion and/or ethnicity.
Robert A. Dahl, the late emeritus professor of political science at Yale, identified underlying cultural conditions that lead to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. “Where these conditions are weakly absent, democracy is unlikely to exist, or if it does, its existence is likely to be precarious”, he wrote in his 1998 book On Democracy. Among conditions that are “essential for the stability of democracy”, he identified “weak sub-cultural pluralism” and “democratic beliefs and political culture”. Thus, Professor Dahl concludes that “democratic political institutions are more likely to develop and endure in a country that is culturally fairly homogeneous”, Dahl concluded, “and less likely in a country with sharply differentiated and conflicting sub-cultures”. Worse, as he oldo observed, cultural diversity could actually “generate intractable social conflicts whereby democratic institutions would be simply impossible to be maintained”.
As with Albanese, former prime minister Scott Morrison buys into the notion that defining our differences brings us together: “What do Australia’s founding fathers and cultural diversity have in common? Both celebrate this country’s great multiculturalism”. He believes in the strength of Australia as a multicultural nation, where all cultures must be celebrated and promoted by the government.
Multiculturalism, an idea that started out in the Sixties and early Seventies, initially had the laudable goal of including ethnic minorities in Western societies. Nowadays, however, it is difficult to talk candidly about such an idea, since the multicultural project has now been used as an aggressive ideology against the once predominant moral, legal, and religious traditions of the West. According to the British historian, Paul Johnson,
Multiculturalism has been, and will be, exploited by a few social engineers to dismember the elements of existing societies, especially those of the West with their deep Christian underpinnings, and reconstruct them according to new blueprints – to provide legal accommodation, for example, to practices such as polygamy.
Multiculturalism is in essence an ideological movement opposed to the Western principles, culture, and identity. Indeed, multiculturalists look forward to a time when Australia may never again be culturally united in beliefs and practice, and to a time when Australians will be less a culturally definable group. Such a concept of “multiculturalism” denounces the idea of integration as “un-Australian” and it encourages immigrants to maintain the cultures and religion of their country of birth.
The combined effect of these efforts is to promote the deconstruction of the Australian cultural identity. This loss may cause our nation to fragment into enclaves of religion and/or ethnicity. Take for instance the “cultural” manifestation of the Islamic religion, sections of which are inimical to free speech and religious freedom. If a Muslim immigrant is told to “celebrate” certain aspects of the Islamic culture, then he may almost certainly revert to some form of religious intolerance that is hostile and antagonistic to the trad values of western democracy.
Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington argued in the 1990s that future wars would be fought not necessarily between nations but different cultures, and that Islamic extremism would eventually become one of the biggest threats to world peace. He also predicted, correctly, that if democratic elections were held in most Muslim-majority countries of the Middle East they would be most likely to bring religious extremists into power who, by appealing to their own religious loyalties, would be most willing to deny a broad range of fundamental human rights to religious minorities. His predictions have been fulfilled. The fact is that culture matters, and that culture is an important element for the protection of basic human rights.
In the United Kingdom, a study commissioned by the Policy Exchange reveals that, as a result of celebrating “cultural diversity”, four out of ten young British Muslims wish to live under Sharia law. In answer to the question, “Do you personally have any sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried out terrorist attacks?”, 24 per cent answered in the affirmative, with a further 13 per cent expressing ‘a lot’ of sympathy for the terrorists. In answer to the question, “How loyal would you say you personally feel towards Britain?”, 16 per cent of these young British Muslims felt ‘not at all loyal’ or ‘not very loyal’. According to Dr Munira Mirza, the academic who conducted that survey,
The emergence of a strong Muslim identity in Britain is, in part, a result of multicultural policies implemented since the 1980s which have emphasized difference at the expense of shared national identity, and divided people along ethnic, religious and cultural lines.
Australians gains very little from the amorphous atmosphere of multiculturalism apart from bewilderment and the loss of a sense of national identity. To make it worse, says Roger Scruton, “if people come from immigrant backgrounds that preserve the memory of a religious law, they will often revert to a religious experience of membership, and define themselves in opposition to the territorial jurisdiction by which they are ostensibly governed.”
According to John Gray, a retired politics professor at Oxford, no functional democracy can be truly multicultural since it “depends for its successful renewal across the generations on an undergirding culture that is held in common”. This common culture, Professor Gray continues, “need not encompass a shared religion and it certainly need not to presuppose ethnic homogeneity, but it does demand widespread acceptance of certain norms and conventions of behavior and, in our times, it typically expressed a shared sense of nationality.”
Of course, some may claim that immigrants would be the first to support state-sponsored “multiculturalism”. As an immigrant myself, I couldn’t disagree more. As a matter of fact, the main impetus for multicultural policies does not come from good immigrants but from the nation’s illiberal ruling classes who advocate group rights over individual rights that are absolutely essential to the survival of liberal democracy. As noted by political commentator Tammy Bruce,
By defining society not as an entity made up of individual people but as a collection of cultures – such as white culture, black culture, [Asian] culture – the Left effectively isolates us, whether we like it or not, into special-interest groups. The culture has the identity, eclipsing the individual. We’re no longer individuals with unique minds and talents; we’re defined instead by the color of our skin, by the country in which we were born, by the religion we practice.
In his June 2020 National Press Club address, then PM Scott Morrison spoke passionately about “celebrating diversity” and “the multicultural miracle of modern Australia”. Of course, in a certain way Morrison was entirely right: it was indeed a great miracle that Australia has survived such a deconstructionist postmodern project. As noted by French philosopher Pascal Bruchner:
The ambiguity of multiculturalism proceeds from the fact that it imprisons men, women, and children in ways of life and in traditions from which they often aspire to free themselves. The politics of identity in fact reaffirm difference at the very moment when we are trying to establish equality, and lead, in the name of antiracism, back to the old commitments connected with race or ethnicity.
Australia’s social fabric and legal-democratic institutions are therefore at the great risk of being obliterated by cultural/moral relativists who think they know what they are doing and who are absolutely ruthless in the doing of it. The artificial imposition of multiculturalism by an oppressive ruling class is never dissociated from a form of moral relativism that is always conducive to moral confusion, then social disintegration, and then national fragmentation into enclaves of religion and/or ethnicity. It’s time to resist such a dreadful concept before it is actually too late.
————
Augusto Zimmermann is professor and head of law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education and served as associate dean at Murdoch University. He is also a former commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. Zimmermann is the co-author of ‘The Unlucky Country’ (Locke Press, 2024), available at https://lockepress.com/product/the-unlucky-country/
How can anyone negotiate with this preacher / congregation at a Sydney mosque :
www (dot) memri.org/tv/friday-sermon-ausralia-imam-abdul-salam-zoud-prophet-muhammad-conquered-world-jihad-not-peaceful-means-infidels-palestine-islam
Islamic beliefs in Australia
www(dot)islamicbeliefsinaustralia.wordpress.com/
Professor Dahl concludes that “democratic political institutions are more likely to develop and endure in a country that is culturally fairly homogeneous”,
Like China, Russia and North Korea. Thank you Professor Dahl.
China and Russia are not homogeneous but ethno-hegemonic, with one ethnicity taking priority and dominating the others. North Korea is an exceptional country.
Multiculturalism, touted as a binding national principle, is utterly oxymoronic. As with many ill-conceived “nice idea at the time” notions, the no doubt leftist originators thought little of the potential for unintended consequences, as immature minds so often do.
I think it is safe to assume that even the most uncivil amongst us would agree, that without a SINGLE set of legal guiding principles, a cohesive and hence civilised society simply is not possible.
So, from where do our laws ultimately originate?
Is not culture a term for collective social behaviour? And, are not laws, at their most fundamental, just codified forms of acceptable social behaviour?
Putting this together, how could it ever be possible then to have a cohesive society that has multi-laws? i.e multi-cultures. It’s an impossibility, always has been.
For example: what say three people of vastly differing cultures together committed a crime. Without a single culturally derived set of legal principles would it be practical or indeed fair to apply three completely different sets of legal processes and no doubt three differing verdicts? Of course not.
There are no sensible hurdles multiculturalism can jump. In fairness, those whose thought-bubble multiculturalism was most probably meant multi-ethnicity and simply didn’t think it through sufficiently. It’s therefore not too much of a stretch to suggest a simple change in terminology might help in quelling the tensions a bit. After all, highly successful societies such as Singapore refer to themselves not as multicultural, but rather multi-ethnic and it is clear to all who reside and visit there, that there is one very clear set of laws that reflect a very homogeneous culture.
Words are power, and we do have the power to carefully alter our wording on this vexed issue. Australia is and needs to retain its largely successful society, by referring to itself as a multi-ethnic country NOT multicultural, blessed to have inherited the highly developed laws of a long and civilised British culture.
Is ethnicity not in part cultural?
I guess it could be said, but that’s not the point. Ethnicities certainly have their characteristic culture; rules, rituals, habits, laws and the like. No matter, to achieve a harmonious civilisation all cohabitating ethnicities have to at some point agree to a set of accepted, ever evolving rules, rituals, habits and laws which to abide. That is not to say any or all the involved ethnicities should forego their heritage; however, there has to be an all encompassing culture that binds the community into a civilised society. Is there an alternative? And whether anyone likes it or not, the foundational civilising culture Australia is blessed with, is what the First Fleet brought. If anyone believes that notion is so oppressive such that they cannot live their lives as they would wish, then I guess they ought seek somewhere more compatible with their cultural desires, knowing that since we all have come to this place by birth, boat or plane it has been thus.
Can’t please all the people all the time.
Has anyone, anywhere ever defined the clear demarcation points along the religion-culture-ethnicity-race spectrum? These terms are forever being confused and conflated. And hence often weaponised as a constant source of unnecessary confusion and conflict.
Can anyone doubt that Victoria’s finest boys & girls in blue & rainbow warriors have a Task Force hunting down and prosecuting the anti-Semitic hater in the photo? You don’t think so? Neither do I.
Keith Windschuttle wrote about this in 2015 and QoL published this analysis in 2016: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/01/multiculturalism-real-racism/
So, how far have we progressed in the past 8-9 years.? That’s easy! We have kept digging and are further down the path to national destruction than ever before.
Neither PM Albanese, nor his predecessor Morrison, could ever have been identified as “the sharpest pencil in the pack”, and both seem far removed from the real world. People presumably migrate to Australia to escape intolerable conditions elsewhere, and/or to enjoy a better lifestyle. Doesn’t that imply they wish to escape an unsatisfactory culture? Why on earth they’d want to bring with them their hatreds and other incompatible ideas, often the cause of dysfunction in the societies they’re escaping, is beyond my comprehension. Yet, we see growing imported conflicts here, amongst Islamic groups, between Hindus and Sikhs, and other incompatible groups (remember the Serb-Croation gangs of not so long ago?). The concept of “multiculturalism” can only promote and prolong such internecine warfare. Migrants should declare loyalty to one culture only: Australian.
If Scotty from marketing likes it be sure to stow it in the waste chute.
What we identify as “multi-culturalism” is more accurately described as tribalism, which is the most negative and destructive force in human relations. It’s vicious and self-perpetuating. Punish overt displays of it mercilessly to save the nation, or finish up like Papua New Guinea. But Australia is cursed with a political culture bereft of politicians capable of acting beyond their own short-sighted self-interest. It was ever thus and is unlikely to change.
For multiculturalism to succeed, it must be two way. However, Islam only respects islam and NO OTHER CULTURE. Islam is a closed, monoculture.
.
All islamists belong to a nation known as The Ummah. This islamic nation is at war with all other nations of the world. While hostilities may not be happening at a given moment, the peace is only temporary and is known as Hudna. Islam demands that infidels/kaffirs either convert to islam, become dhimmis (second class citizens) or they’re terrorised and murdered. Jihad is against all infidels. Jihad is the enemy of all Western democracies.
.
Islamists are taught their vile doctrine in the millions of mosques all over the world. Under sharia, there are NO individual human rights. Under sharia, ONLY the monoculture of islam exists which discriminates against women and all infidels and all other cultures.
.
Mosques are the organisational centres for all islamic terrorist activities. It is the imams, muftis and mullahs who are indoctrinating, brainwashing and radicalising all their followers to hate, rape, terrorise and kill the infidels, and work towards setting up their violent, murderous, sharia controlled, jihadi islamic caliphate.
.
Islamists have openly, repeatedly and forever, insisted that Democracy is unacceptable to them. They have been instructed and brainwashed in their mosques since birth to reject Democracy in all its traditions, cultures, freedoms and laws, and replace it with their brutal and barbaric islamic sharia law which spurns diversity, appeasement, inclusiveness and tolerance.
.
Islamists are using our Democratic freedoms and laws, to enter our country. But, once they have been given residency, they then set about destroying that very same Democracy that they used to enter the country. The ONLY people who should be allowed to migrate to Australia, are people who will appreciate and contribute to our free, democratic way of life. Time to wake up or suffer the consequences.
Good summary Margie.
Thank you Ceres.
Very good summary, Margie. Having rejected our underlying cultural Christian morals, we in the west have replaced it with a saccharine and stupid “compassion which leads to the gas chamber”. Terrorism makes cowards of us all now.
See ourselves as others see us: Burns had a salutary distilled warning.
Is there a successful multicultural country in the world? Its too early to say, but the signs are not looking good. Multiculturism (as opposed to a mono-culture composed of multiple ethnicities) is a relatively new social construct. It’s still in the experimental stage.
Diversity is strength like cancer is health
Augusto your analysis is much appreciated and the comments by lenton1 and Doubting Thomas are particularly appealing to me.
India is a multi-ethnic democracy of different tribes and languages. It has been left, after Partition, with a Muhammadan minority of approximately 200 million. The remnant laws of the Raj gave some exemption to this minority and it has been allowed to maintain some Sharia laws such as polygamy.
Interestingly, a recent announcement by Indian PM Narendra Modi indicates that this exemption is to be removed and all Indian citizens will be subject to the same laws supporting monogamy. Zindabad to Modi!
Any culture that moves into my neighbourhood, say into a recently deceased ladies’ 50-year long manicured property, who doesn’t mow their lawn or tend to their house, and throws litter onto the verge, has not strengthened my street but in fact weakened it.
Cultures who can’t (or refuse to) do basic maintenance or keep clean like every other Australian family in the street, are not enriching me, but in fact depleting me of morale. I don’t care what food they eat, or what God they worship, but for heaven’s sake, this basic civility in our culture is absolutely non-negotiable. On what planet do Albanese and Morrison live?
My wife’s hobby is gardening and we have a house in a garden, not a garden around a house. The lady across the street who came out in the Tienanmen Square wave courtesy of the lachrymose Mr Hawke. This lady cannot understand why someone would want to create a garden. She came from a poor village where all cultivation was for food. Work with soil is what she wanted to get away from as it symbolises low status. Her own block has now gone completely wild . Here is a micro example of culture clash.