I just got the following email, and I was almost cheering in the office when I read it. It is just fanatastic, and a stance I wish that others would have the courage to take. (please note this is copied from the email and is not my own words)
Don't you just love this man......the views of the Austrailian PM
- Thread starter Disciple of Nagash
- Start date
-
The masquerade of murder returns! A new game of Vampires Amongst Us has begun. Unmask the killers, trust no one, and try to survive the night. Find out more and sign up now!
Wow, I've never heard a politician in a position of power who'd actually say something like that. I guess he wants Australia to remain how it is rather than change for others. At first I thought it was gonna be a silly topic considering the ridiculous amount of praise he was getting from that one person.
ChaosJedi666
Black Knight
Never thought I'd be applauding a politician, let alone a Prime Minister, but (using polite words) Hell Yes!!! Go Keving Rudd! This is, actually, similar to France? telling Muslim women to NOT wear their full body 'suits' in public. If they come to Australia, follow Australian customs/rules etc. Firmly support THIS action take be the PM, but not some of his other actions. Stolen Gen. comes to mind, but thats a whole 'nother matter and not for debate on this forum.
. Good find DoN.
. Good find DoN.
Kevin Rudd didn't say that, John Howard did (sorta; this email is completely out of context).
Those are definitely not his exact words... and he took that stance in 2007/2008.
Those are definitely not his exact words... and he took that stance in 2007/2008.
Uh huh. I should hope that's out of context. Seriously, "we're a land founded on freedom, so speak only our language and worship only our god or get out?" Not much freedom there. And wasn't Australia founded as a penal colony? On land stolen from non-christian native peoples? Maybe Australia wasn't founded so much on freedom after all.
Then again, "freedom" frequently seems to mean "freedom only to look, think, and talk as I do". For the colonizing Europeans the new nations meant freedom from the oppression of kings and bishops, but for the native people of those lands the new colonial nations frequently meant death on both a cultural and personal scale.
It's only when respect for personal freedom is expanded beyond tribal circles that it becomes a transcendent human virtue worthy of allegiance, protection, and promotion.
Am I objecting the enforcement of laws against horrific practices like 'honor killing'? Of course not. I don't object to government bodies keeping tabs on political or religious groups that seem to have the potential to become dangerous, either, whether they are radical Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, environmental extremists, organized criminal groups, or political associations of angry, gun-toting conservatives.
But the 'do it my way or get out' mentality hardly seems to fit with the virtue of personal freedom that Western countries are supposed to embrace.
Then again, "freedom" frequently seems to mean "freedom only to look, think, and talk as I do". For the colonizing Europeans the new nations meant freedom from the oppression of kings and bishops, but for the native people of those lands the new colonial nations frequently meant death on both a cultural and personal scale.
It's only when respect for personal freedom is expanded beyond tribal circles that it becomes a transcendent human virtue worthy of allegiance, protection, and promotion.
Am I objecting the enforcement of laws against horrific practices like 'honor killing'? Of course not. I don't object to government bodies keeping tabs on political or religious groups that seem to have the potential to become dangerous, either, whether they are radical Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, environmental extremists, organized criminal groups, or political associations of angry, gun-toting conservatives.
But the 'do it my way or get out' mentality hardly seems to fit with the virtue of personal freedom that Western countries are supposed to embrace.
No, Disciple of Nagash, I do not love him.
"Be the same as us" he says. Why would anyone want to be the same as another? I want to be the same as myself, not some didactic, dogmatic ideal. He does not promote individuality, but subservience to one system over another, which is, in essence, the same with a different shaped vector image. "Be the same as us or fuck off" he says. It worries me that the idea may catch on, as it has to catastrophic effect so many, many times in the past.
"Be the same as us" he says. Why would anyone want to be the same as another? I want to be the same as myself, not some didactic, dogmatic ideal. He does not promote individuality, but subservience to one system over another, which is, in essence, the same with a different shaped vector image. "Be the same as us or fuck off" he says. It worries me that the idea may catch on, as it has to catastrophic effect so many, many times in the past.
Well to be honest if they don't like living how Aussies live he's saying they should leave, he was talking about muslims who wanted to live under sharia law, which they can quite capably do in a muslim country rather than moving to Australia and then saying 'we want our laws, yours aren't good enough for us'
I like the policy he's saying which is 'adapt to our customs if you wanna live here, we aren't gonna adapt to yours just 'cus you move here, if you want your customs that badly live in your own country'
I like the policy he's saying which is 'adapt to our customs if you wanna live here, we aren't gonna adapt to yours just 'cus you move here, if you want your customs that badly live in your own country'
If he's saying one then he's saying the other, because no politician would dream of saying that one group of people deserve to be treated differently to another, right?
I don't know precisely how Sharia law would be seen to trump Australian civic law, but under a secular democracy no-one would be expected to answer to a religious law that had punitive powers the civil law did not. That is right and just (or at least as just as the laws of the state are), but I feel that they can co-exist provided the religious law is restricted to religious matters, and anyone who feels they should not be subject to religious laws should have the protection of the state against those laws. I would never advocate, for example, prison for breaking a religious law (the idea makes my stomach turn), but a voluntary penitence may be undertaken. Such has been a Christian tradition since, well, always. Naturally, I would much, much prefer that people give up this ridiculous metaphysical guff for the greater good of the world, but if people can peacefully co-exist then it may be so.
It seems to me that the specific mention of Sharia is a small part of a larger agenda, a narrow focus through a wider lens. Telescopes restrict peripheral vision. 'adapt to our customs if you wanna live here, we aren't gonna adapt to yours just 'cus you move here, if you want your customs that badly live in your own country' is a terribly narrow minded viewpoint, dependant on there only being one system of 'customs' to which everybody conforms, which is simply not the case. It isn't the case in Iran (though there are harsh punishments for deviating from the system), there shouldn't be in a country that's actually figured out that people actually matter, clearly there are some in Australia who haven't got as far as that yet.
I don't know precisely how Sharia law would be seen to trump Australian civic law, but under a secular democracy no-one would be expected to answer to a religious law that had punitive powers the civil law did not. That is right and just (or at least as just as the laws of the state are), but I feel that they can co-exist provided the religious law is restricted to religious matters, and anyone who feels they should not be subject to religious laws should have the protection of the state against those laws. I would never advocate, for example, prison for breaking a religious law (the idea makes my stomach turn), but a voluntary penitence may be undertaken. Such has been a Christian tradition since, well, always. Naturally, I would much, much prefer that people give up this ridiculous metaphysical guff for the greater good of the world, but if people can peacefully co-exist then it may be so.
It seems to me that the specific mention of Sharia is a small part of a larger agenda, a narrow focus through a wider lens. Telescopes restrict peripheral vision. 'adapt to our customs if you wanna live here, we aren't gonna adapt to yours just 'cus you move here, if you want your customs that badly live in your own country' is a terribly narrow minded viewpoint, dependant on there only being one system of 'customs' to which everybody conforms, which is simply not the case. It isn't the case in Iran (though there are harsh punishments for deviating from the system), there shouldn't be in a country that's actually figured out that people actually matter, clearly there are some in Australia who haven't got as far as that yet.
This reminds me of what Henry Ford said way back, "You can ask for any color but it must be black." Or something within that context. What I'm trying to say is that while one preaches about freedom and liberty, the minute that they see something different they'll go "Hey, you practice OUR type of freedom and liberty, not yours that is different and I'm ignorant about. And if you don't follow OUR way, get on the HIGHWAY!" It's really hypocritical and very sad to have such a great idea and practice getting lynched just because one fears the unknown.
I think a Canadian guy said this once, "Your right to swing your arms ends when you touch my nose with your fist." It's really saying that one person's right shouldn't impose on another person's right. Yes, I agree that immigrants need to learn English (Australian English if you're that particular) and follow the country's laws. But at the same time, the people and the government shouldn't go "Ho-Ah-Ah-Hoo-Let's-Get-Them-Before-They-Destroy-Us" over an issue that's so trivial and try to compromise with the immigrants within reason. And it's not like the immigrants is gonna suddenly turn Australian overnight. It will take a couple of generations for them to assimilate or adapt to Australian culture assuming that the Australians themselves don't suddenly do something to alienate the immigrants or proved some of bad things about Australians are true e.g. Australians are white-supremest racists.
If people don't like change, too bad; change is always happening whether you like it or not. And think about it; a century ago, African Americans were worse than 2nd class citizens, they were literally slaves. And when some people thought of giving them the basic rights to just vote, other people made a fuss over it claiming some day the "blacks" would take over and dominate the "whites" as well as change their culture and their way of life. Now, they're much more better off (though they are some disparities).
So, I couldn't understand why are people oppose to other race/religion/culture coming into their country as first generation immigrants and still practicing their religion/language/customs because that's what they're familiar and comfortable with and yet expect them to suddenly turn into the ideal citizen of the said country overnight other than you're being an irrational, scared bigot.
I think a Canadian guy said this once, "Your right to swing your arms ends when you touch my nose with your fist." It's really saying that one person's right shouldn't impose on another person's right. Yes, I agree that immigrants need to learn English (Australian English if you're that particular) and follow the country's laws. But at the same time, the people and the government shouldn't go "Ho-Ah-Ah-Hoo-Let's-Get-Them-Before-They-Destroy-Us" over an issue that's so trivial and try to compromise with the immigrants within reason. And it's not like the immigrants is gonna suddenly turn Australian overnight. It will take a couple of generations for them to assimilate or adapt to Australian culture assuming that the Australians themselves don't suddenly do something to alienate the immigrants or proved some of bad things about Australians are true e.g. Australians are white-supremest racists.
If people don't like change, too bad; change is always happening whether you like it or not. And think about it; a century ago, African Americans were worse than 2nd class citizens, they were literally slaves. And when some people thought of giving them the basic rights to just vote, other people made a fuss over it claiming some day the "blacks" would take over and dominate the "whites" as well as change their culture and their way of life. Now, they're much more better off (though they are some disparities).
So, I couldn't understand why are people oppose to other race/religion/culture coming into their country as first generation immigrants and still practicing their religion/language/customs because that's what they're familiar and comfortable with and yet expect them to suddenly turn into the ideal citizen of the said country overnight other than you're being an irrational, scared bigot.
Zen said:
On one side I agree, but on the other I don't. Black slaves were forced to go there, with no choice at all. Forced to enter a different country with different cultures, languages and rules.
Immigrants on the other hand choose to go somewhere and live there, choose to live in a different country with different customs and rules. I personally don't mind a little diversity, but if its the same culture clash there as it is here ( Holland ) then I can understand where the reaction comes from. Going from Holland to Norway for example is not a big culture difference.
Going from Holland to Sudan however is exactly the same effect as the other way around. The cultures are so fundamentally different that people feel threatened by the ''invaders''. Which is understandable since cultures are a shared heritage people of a country have, and brings up patriotic feelings in most. ( My observations from what I see around me ) We are in an age of constant, daily change right now, with generalization creeping into our homes and slowly devouring our cultures. Its something alot of people fail to see though.
Immigrants on the other hand are right in your nose. It gives it a name, a place and face to point at and blame. Any immigrant these days should know that by now on the other hand if you ask me. If you move to a country with a different culture, you should be prepared to start off as a 2nd class citizen. Because thats the age we live in. Trust is something earned after all. If people on the other hand show their willingness to be part of the country they CHOSE to live in, then they are quickly adopted into their neighborhoods, eventhough they go to the Mosque 5 times a day and don't eat pork, or only kosher meat, or have a sabbath, or have big family dinners if thats part of their culture. As long as it does not conflict with the culture in general.
Not shaking hands of women, not standing up for a judge. Unacceptable in alot of countries. So why not try to be part of the culture and blend in at a general level? Makes life so much easier for everyone, and still means you can keep a big part of your own culture at home if it does not conflict with the general rules.
Hope its all coherent.
Personally speaking, I'm not against others celebrating their cultural identities. But what I do disagree with is if people try to force others to change specifically to adapt to their culture, it should be even either way rather than one rule for one and another for someone else. Yes change happens, and is vital for the improvement of humanity, but changes that simply do little to improve humanity sound wrong in my view. If a muslim wants to have a mosque to worship at, and wants to worship at the five times in a day they worship normally then that's perfectly reasonable and I definitely wouldn't want someone trying to prevent that simply because they disagree with their views.
But if a muslim wants Sharia law in a country whose laws oppose this, then it seems unfair, especially considering how much we have moved away from having religion dominate our daily lives, if a religious law says something about praying for amends of mistakes, such as reconciliation, it's fine as it doesn't really contradict our laws (speaking in Britain) but if they then wanted someone burned at the stake for crimes against 'God' (like in the middle ages europe against 'heretics') then it wouldn't be right as our laws say that death is not a suitable punishment unless for plotting to kill the queen (yes our country thinks that plotting to kill the queen is more deserving of a harsh punishment than plotting to kill an ordinary citizen, in my view that's unfair but I suppose she's seen as an important symbol of Britain). As long as implementation of one's culture in one's daily life doesn't strongly affect the laws of the country unless they are just (such as removal of Jim Crow laws in the US) then in my view its completely reasonable to allow these actions/beliefs etc.
But if a muslim wants Sharia law in a country whose laws oppose this, then it seems unfair, especially considering how much we have moved away from having religion dominate our daily lives, if a religious law says something about praying for amends of mistakes, such as reconciliation, it's fine as it doesn't really contradict our laws (speaking in Britain) but if they then wanted someone burned at the stake for crimes against 'God' (like in the middle ages europe against 'heretics') then it wouldn't be right as our laws say that death is not a suitable punishment unless for plotting to kill the queen (yes our country thinks that plotting to kill the queen is more deserving of a harsh punishment than plotting to kill an ordinary citizen, in my view that's unfair but I suppose she's seen as an important symbol of Britain). As long as implementation of one's culture in one's daily life doesn't strongly affect the laws of the country unless they are just (such as removal of Jim Crow laws in the US) then in my view its completely reasonable to allow these actions/beliefs etc.
I can't find myself cheering for anyone. This is just a knee-jerk reaction brought on by a logical fallacy, namely, guilt by association. I do not support the sharia law, at all. I support the law, equally and for each and every one. No one has a right to challenge it based on believing in any particular religion.
I think stating "we're founded on christian values" and so on is an incredibly unimpressive way of arguing your point. It is just as ignorant and narrow-minded to say "Why? Because this is how we've always done it". It sounds even less impressive to me as I am an atheist.
In short I am not impressed by this, all I see is one religious person making the claim his religion is superior and if you don't like you can go to hell. If he'd have any common sense he'd realise that lumping muslims together like this and telling them to conform or get the F--- out only goes to show what he really is. He should have stated that the people of australia lives under one law and everyone is treated as equals. To my eyes he's just a fearful and ignorant person who projects the will of a few onto many.
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious", indeed.
I think stating "we're founded on christian values" and so on is an incredibly unimpressive way of arguing your point. It is just as ignorant and narrow-minded to say "Why? Because this is how we've always done it". It sounds even less impressive to me as I am an atheist.
In short I am not impressed by this, all I see is one religious person making the claim his religion is superior and if you don't like you can go to hell. If he'd have any common sense he'd realise that lumping muslims together like this and telling them to conform or get the F--- out only goes to show what he really is. He should have stated that the people of australia lives under one law and everyone is treated as equals. To my eyes he's just a fearful and ignorant person who projects the will of a few onto many.
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious", indeed.
Woohoo that makes me vicious, either that or patriotism is a flaw for those who aren't vicious maybe. I agree that saying sharia law would be wrong in AU because its a christian country is stupid and hypocritical, but at least he's standing up for his beliefs rather than submitting to others for their beliefs. You are correct Danceman in saying that it would have been better if he said 'we're not changing because most people agree we don't want it and hence democratically the people of Auustralia don't want this' but then it would be about whether they could have their law separate from others but then it would be unfair and unequal meaning a somewhat segregated society with people being born into one or the other based on their family, and last I heard most people have moved on from segregation so I agree with the guy in terms of not accepting religious law but his reasons for this do seem somewhat harsh and unjustified. :mad2:
ChaosJedi666
Black Knight
Zen said:
Australians are White-Supremasists? What claim do you have to support this? Aboriginals of Australia are dark-skinned. The baby bonus for them is $1000 more than the Bonus for white people. The stolen generation, in which the government took the young children off the alcoholic, poor, parents who couldn't afford to pay for their education, nor did they really care about it, expecting their children to grow up, and be the same as themselves. On the Unemployment benefit, several kids (you get more $$$), and bottle of grog in hand. The children who were forcibly placed into foster care went on to recieve proper education, went to University and made a career out of it. One man became a multi-millionaire by investing in mining, then he had the gall to oust the Government by saying that he never had a proper upbringing and being away from his parents had scarred him for life, etc. He got an education, for free, university education, for free, all this whilst someone who, by chance happens to be white, has to pay thousands of dollars a year. God forbit if you try studying here and are not a citizen. Then, the government APOLOGISED for the Stolen Gen. stating that they were out of line, it never should have happened, etc. So, Aussies are not racist. Citizens might be, most I know anyway, but the Government is not. They are the same as over here (NZ). If you're black, then you get heaps more benefits. Over here they get more on the dol, more subsidy for University, black only university/schools (if we did that, we'd be labelled as KKK), etc.
Zen said:
Thats not it. Hell, even Aussies aren't perfect citizens. What it means is, same as any other county, if you come here, be prepared to adopt our way of life. If you don't speak English, then probably best you don't come. Lol, as long as they are willing to take english lessons. All he's saying is you cannot come here and expect to be treated differently than another citizen. Therefore, anyone wanting to live under Islamic Sharia law should either change, or leave. Thats it. After the terrorist bombings happenings in Bali, Middle East, can you blame them for being on edge? Its also, in a way, for their (immigrants) safety. Australians are VERY patriotic. If a muslim said they were not changing, and going to live under it, then chances are their broken, mangled body will be found the following day floating down a river.
Australia, whilst founded on Christian views, is not a christian nation. Catholic have a pretty big presence, and its pretty well even between most of it. Spiritualism too, is increasing.
So, the our way or the highway approach is completely uderstandable, and most countries embrace this, in part. By that I mean parts of it. Move to another country, and you are expected to live by their own customs, rules/laws, and regulations. Don't want to write any more on this, 'cos my post is rather long-winded as it is.
Cheers,
Chaos
ChaosJedi666
Black Knight
Forgive me for the double post, BUT, Julia Gillard has overthrown Kevin Rudd as the Australian Prime Minister. Thus, making her the first female Australian PM. Same as NZ though, with Jenny Shiply, not the first Elected PM. Elections will be held later this year, so here's hoping that she won't get back in.
LINK for anyone interested in reading about it.
LINK for anyone interested in reading about it.
It was an example of an accusation. The "It's our way or the highway" stance and the KKK-reference to the Australian Police in a comic of an Indian newspaper didn't really help paint a better picture. It's probably not true but some Australian are showing that trait thus some immigrants especially the extremists will generalize and be bad against Australians who in turn be bad against immigrants and shit happens.ChaosJedi666 said:
Completely understandable? Yeah, if you're on the side that has the higher power and fear the incoming change. Btw, I said higher power, not higher moral or ethical ground. That stance is already imposing on another person's right. And it's not like every immigrant Muslim demands that their cultural/language/legal/social structure to be made as part of the country's constitution. Some are westernized e.g. educated in a very Western-orientated schools and colleges and don't mind being in a setting like Australia or even America. What you have to watch out for is the loonies, crazies and retards that you get in every religion. Those are the ones purposely causing trouble.
Depends on how stupid and/or stubborn the guy is. I know the Muslims I've met are not so insulting or insensitive to another culture. But then again, we're the Moderates and we don't get as much air time as our more violent stupid and/or stubborn extremist brethren. It's also that they might be a little ignorant about his own religion. I know a few Muslims that don't do something just because they think it's against their religion e.g. using alcohol-base hand sanitizers. So for those truly sincere and willing to learn, you have to forgive him if they offend. For those who think Islam is end-all and be-all religion, please...never mind. That idea is unethical. Just be on the high moral/ethical ground when you deal with them.
Now, onto this whole Sharia thing; it depends on what level you want to introduce it. Like Civil Laws (or Common English Laws for most of the Commonwealth countries), Sharia has different aspects; Family, Property, Marriage, Business, Criminal etc. In the South East Asia especially Malaysia and Indonesia, we practice both Sharia and Common Civic Law (Whatever the British and Dutch gave Malaysia and Indonesia respectively). On a daily basis, Common English Law is practiced and is applied to all situations except when Muslims have to deal with Familial and Martial issues. And that's about it; Sharia Law is limited to Muslims only when dealing with other Muslims. Never ever involving any non-Muslims. We don't go around chopping limbs off or stone people to death. But if you ask me, Sharia is redundant and Common Civil Law should be quite sufficient (if written by an unbiased person). And yes, I do Sharia very discriminative against women and I don't really the idea that we entirely adopt it. But it disturbs me that people oppose something just because it's different and/or they're ignorant about.
Woo hoo, I'm learning politics!
But, I'm just going to issue a general, gentle reminder here. Keep it civil, I'd ask that especially in this context to keep no swearing or inflammatory language. I've seen some really good potential in this conversation, so let's keep it to that.
/end friendly neighborhood mod address.
Alright, my comment still stands.
I agree with Danceman and others about how it's a 'Knee Jerk Reaction' and is totally unpolitically correct....but he's standing for his beliefs, and whether he said it or not the beliefs of the majority. I can speak from my own experience in America, Texas to be specific.
We have a large and always growing larger Spanish population. (They get offended, generally, if you call them Mexican....which I don't understand, but comply with...
) They bring across their own culture, ethics, traditions and lifestyle which is perfectly fine with me. The more the merrier right? This land was built on immigration, so it's only right that it continues. Hopefully legally, but that's another topic.
So, they come over and bring over their cultures; we get all kinds of wonderful things from Latino' cultures. Foods, music, ingenuity and a hard working ethos that many Americans should learn from and do their best to emulate. But, you also get the bad side as well.
You have many trying to segregate themselves from the community. The 'Barrio' (I.E 'Ghetto' for Spanish citizens....That wasn't intended to be offensive!) is where the Spanish populations live primarily. Or where they're most concentrated, rather. That's more correct I'd think. But, they live in certain sections of the city, and through that segregation they keep their own culture in a pocket of El Mexico they seem to bring along with them. This is both good and a bad thing. They keep what they want, how they want it, while enjoying the benefits of being in the United States. But, they also segregate themselves from their fellow citizens, and there are more statistical crimes in and around the Barrio/Ghetto's than in any other section of large cities. Wiki it, I'm not just making it up.
But, the fact remains that they find a way to acceptably keep their culture while amid a culture that's totally different than their own. I know admittedly nothing of Sharia or the Muslim World (Though I would dearly like to learn!) but why would it be so bad as for them, when choosing to immigrate, accept that they must make certain fundamental changes to live there? Learn the language, maybe drop a few of their cultural traditions (Female Bias, brutal punishments) and keep all of the rest? Any set of dual laws is going to cause envy and distrust, especially if one knows how to work both sides of both laws.
So, I applaud the man in the OP for standing on his ideals, and making that statement. It's something I've wanted to hear our wonderful TX governors say for a long, long time. But, also that comes with a bit of understanding that there are always ways for people to coexist, no matter the culture or mindset.
Why is this not possible
But, I'm just going to issue a general, gentle reminder here. Keep it civil, I'd ask that especially in this context to keep no swearing or inflammatory language. I've seen some really good potential in this conversation, so let's keep it to that.
/end friendly neighborhood mod address.
Alright, my comment still stands.
I agree with Danceman and others about how it's a 'Knee Jerk Reaction' and is totally unpolitically correct....but he's standing for his beliefs, and whether he said it or not the beliefs of the majority. I can speak from my own experience in America, Texas to be specific.
We have a large and always growing larger Spanish population. (They get offended, generally, if you call them Mexican....which I don't understand, but comply with...
) They bring across their own culture, ethics, traditions and lifestyle which is perfectly fine with me. The more the merrier right? This land was built on immigration, so it's only right that it continues. Hopefully legally, but that's another topic.So, they come over and bring over their cultures; we get all kinds of wonderful things from Latino' cultures. Foods, music, ingenuity and a hard working ethos that many Americans should learn from and do their best to emulate. But, you also get the bad side as well.
You have many trying to segregate themselves from the community. The 'Barrio' (I.E 'Ghetto' for Spanish citizens....That wasn't intended to be offensive!) is where the Spanish populations live primarily. Or where they're most concentrated, rather. That's more correct I'd think. But, they live in certain sections of the city, and through that segregation they keep their own culture in a pocket of El Mexico they seem to bring along with them. This is both good and a bad thing. They keep what they want, how they want it, while enjoying the benefits of being in the United States. But, they also segregate themselves from their fellow citizens, and there are more statistical crimes in and around the Barrio/Ghetto's than in any other section of large cities. Wiki it, I'm not just making it up.
But, the fact remains that they find a way to acceptably keep their culture while amid a culture that's totally different than their own. I know admittedly nothing of Sharia or the Muslim World (Though I would dearly like to learn!) but why would it be so bad as for them, when choosing to immigrate, accept that they must make certain fundamental changes to live there? Learn the language, maybe drop a few of their cultural traditions (Female Bias, brutal punishments) and keep all of the rest? Any set of dual laws is going to cause envy and distrust, especially if one knows how to work both sides of both laws.
So, I applaud the man in the OP for standing on his ideals, and making that statement. It's something I've wanted to hear our wonderful TX governors say for a long, long time. But, also that comes with a bit of understanding that there are always ways for people to coexist, no matter the culture or mindset.
Why is this not possible
ChaosJedi666
Black Knight
Australians are very patriotic of their country, they love their country, and they do not take lightly to anyone saying otherwise.
It's not targeting every Muslim, just stating that this is our way of doing things, so don't come here if you want it to change, or to change it. For the most part, we don't like, nor do we want, anything that alienates certain people from interacting with other people. You said Sharia Law is for Muslims dealing with other Muslims. This is discrimination. Granted, its up to debate, but like most things, not on this forum. Not using alcohol-based sand sanitisers etc as its against someones religion, fine do whatever. Provided it doesn't affect someone else in any which way, its fine, provided it doesn't break any laws. Discrimination against women, or any other persons, is not ethical. We oppose things, simply because we can. Not the best way of putting it. Yeah, I agree with you, we should be making an informed choice about it, but again, its one of those things you need to sit down with someone, who has a different viewpoint, and debate it.
On another note, will Julia Gillard completely screw up Australia?
It's not targeting every Muslim, just stating that this is our way of doing things, so don't come here if you want it to change, or to change it. For the most part, we don't like, nor do we want, anything that alienates certain people from interacting with other people. You said Sharia Law is for Muslims dealing with other Muslims. This is discrimination. Granted, its up to debate, but like most things, not on this forum. Not using alcohol-based sand sanitisers etc as its against someones religion, fine do whatever. Provided it doesn't affect someone else in any which way, its fine, provided it doesn't break any laws. Discrimination against women, or any other persons, is not ethical. We oppose things, simply because we can. Not the best way of putting it. Yeah, I agree with you, we should be making an informed choice about it, but again, its one of those things you need to sit down with someone, who has a different viewpoint, and debate it.
On another note, will Julia Gillard completely screw up Australia?
Some very interesting points of view in this thread – great to see we can have such a good discussion on CN.
However I would like to make some things clear from my own point of view, and maybe then some of you (such as Oph and Dancey) may understand why I liked what that guy said..
I am not racist, nor do I have problems with any other cultures. I would say actually I am quite open minded, and generally think that people should be able to live how they like, providing they follow the law, treat each other decently etc.
However what the above speech (by whoever made it), strikes for me is that for once someone in a high standing has the courage to actually stand up for the “native” (I use in a general sense as I am aware the Aborigines are the actual natives, but I am sure you all know what I mean) people of their country, for his beliefs. It is a bone of contention for many people in the UK that whilst politicians are always willing to stand up for the ethnic minorities, to make sure they are not persecuted, that they have their civil rights (which I entirely agree with), it does not always seem to work in the same way. It is not balanced.
I will be blunt, and some may not like this but better than mince my words. This country has its in inhabitants, many which are proud to be British. They have their customs, they have their laws, they may not be perfect but nothing is. They do allow other people to come in, they give them homes, hell they even give them benefits (money) if necessary, especially if they are refugees.
But what is angering many is that certain ethnic minorities sometimes then start complaining about the country they have chosen to move to. They say they are not allowed to practise certain things, that the laws are unfair, that their children should not see certain things in our schools, and they demand for it to be changed, and in some cases for fear of being branded “racist” certain institutions cave in. I know some schools last year that asked pupils not to say Merry Christmas, but instead Happy Holidays.
We have the right to enjoy and uphold our traditions and beliefs without being branded as racist. We do have the right to get upset when people start telling us that we shouldn’t do things we have done for years, incase we upset a minority who has chosen to move to this country.
I personally do not have a problem with people from different cultures coming here (within reason to be fair, as we do only have a limited amount of housing etc), providing they pay their way, and most importantly they respect and understand they are choosing to come to a country with different customs and laws. They can practise their own religion / beliefs / lifestyle, providing they follow our laws and do not try and force us to change to suit them.
If they honestly feel that they do not like our culture, they do not like our laws etc, then to be blunt they should choose not to move here.
However I would like to make some things clear from my own point of view, and maybe then some of you (such as Oph and Dancey) may understand why I liked what that guy said..
I am not racist, nor do I have problems with any other cultures. I would say actually I am quite open minded, and generally think that people should be able to live how they like, providing they follow the law, treat each other decently etc.
However what the above speech (by whoever made it), strikes for me is that for once someone in a high standing has the courage to actually stand up for the “native” (I use in a general sense as I am aware the Aborigines are the actual natives, but I am sure you all know what I mean) people of their country, for his beliefs. It is a bone of contention for many people in the UK that whilst politicians are always willing to stand up for the ethnic minorities, to make sure they are not persecuted, that they have their civil rights (which I entirely agree with), it does not always seem to work in the same way. It is not balanced.
I will be blunt, and some may not like this but better than mince my words. This country has its in inhabitants, many which are proud to be British. They have their customs, they have their laws, they may not be perfect but nothing is. They do allow other people to come in, they give them homes, hell they even give them benefits (money) if necessary, especially if they are refugees.
But what is angering many is that certain ethnic minorities sometimes then start complaining about the country they have chosen to move to. They say they are not allowed to practise certain things, that the laws are unfair, that their children should not see certain things in our schools, and they demand for it to be changed, and in some cases for fear of being branded “racist” certain institutions cave in. I know some schools last year that asked pupils not to say Merry Christmas, but instead Happy Holidays.
We have the right to enjoy and uphold our traditions and beliefs without being branded as racist. We do have the right to get upset when people start telling us that we shouldn’t do things we have done for years, incase we upset a minority who has chosen to move to this country.
I personally do not have a problem with people from different cultures coming here (within reason to be fair, as we do only have a limited amount of housing etc), providing they pay their way, and most importantly they respect and understand they are choosing to come to a country with different customs and laws. They can practise their own religion / beliefs / lifestyle, providing they follow our laws and do not try and force us to change to suit them.
If they honestly feel that they do not like our culture, they do not like our laws etc, then to be blunt they should choose not to move here.
Please understand I am not calling you racist but I know how infectious this kind of patriotic speech is. There was a time where I made several aggressive statements about Islam but I have since tried to temper my own vicious mind(for there is no doubt I've got a temper). Things can get very ugly when you start dividing people into groups and labelling them as this and that.
The laws in western society is evolved from both the values of the past and mostly, in recent times, through secular humanism. This has created a good base for human rights of which we enjoy, for the most part, today. We can do better and which is why I thouroughly dislike his attitude in this speech. Why shouldn't we hear people out, if their reasoning is sound then there is no problem but in the case of Sharia law, no this is no reasonable or viable because of the way we've arrived at where we are. We can hold this view without resorting to the good old chestnut "If you don't like it you can get out" approach. I mean if you say you're not racist and then follow up with something which very well can be understood as racist, then what are we, you, or us? If we cannot even tolerate people introducing new(or old) ideas without acting if they're out to inflinct a great wound on our nation, then what is freedom... Indeed, what is freedom of speech. What value does it even have?
Granted, I defend his right to say what he said even though I almost entirely disagree with his way of putting it. Just saying, it seems his temper got the best of him.
Also, a lot of people do not choose to leave their homeland, they do so because they have to. Ask yourself this question, when you move to another country then are you not also stealing a job, housing from the natives? if not, how is this different?
The laws in western society is evolved from both the values of the past and mostly, in recent times, through secular humanism. This has created a good base for human rights of which we enjoy, for the most part, today. We can do better and which is why I thouroughly dislike his attitude in this speech. Why shouldn't we hear people out, if their reasoning is sound then there is no problem but in the case of Sharia law, no this is no reasonable or viable because of the way we've arrived at where we are. We can hold this view without resorting to the good old chestnut "If you don't like it you can get out" approach. I mean if you say you're not racist and then follow up with something which very well can be understood as racist, then what are we, you, or us? If we cannot even tolerate people introducing new(or old) ideas without acting if they're out to inflinct a great wound on our nation, then what is freedom... Indeed, what is freedom of speech. What value does it even have?
Granted, I defend his right to say what he said even though I almost entirely disagree with his way of putting it. Just saying, it seems his temper got the best of him.
Also, a lot of people do not choose to leave their homeland, they do so because they have to. Ask yourself this question, when you move to another country then are you not also stealing a job, housing from the natives? if not, how is this different?
Firstly I should say something about racism. Whilst I do not class myself as racist (I have friends of all of different backgrounds, religion inc muslim etc), I believe people have the right to be racist if they so choose. If they have the opinion that they do not like someone because of their skin or religion, whilst I may disagree, they have the right to feel that way, and say so without persecution. However how they express their opinion is entirely different, if they do so violently for example I personally do not agree with that.
Now in regards to my statement – it is neither intended as aggressive nor infectious, I am merely stating my heartfelt opinion. If others choose to support what I say, then I take that as people agreeing with my point of view. To me, being blunt as I have above is entirely preferable to masking ones words so at the end of the statement it is unclear where the person actually stands. I should also note that have in no way vindicated for people to be aggressive or persecute those of a minority, all I have said is that they should respect the laws / customs of where they are moving to. I do not see that as being unreasonable.
This perhaps aggravates me more than anything else. All I have done is express an opinion, an opinion which does not say they have to leave, that I dislike them because of their religion, skin etc, that I think of them in any less way than my fellow countrymen. All that I have said is that I feel they should respect the country they have moved into, and not try to force the country to change for them, and the first reply I have has said the statement can be understood as racist. This is why so many people are afraid to express their points and opinions, because any comments which seem to “put down” those of an ethnic minority are labelled as racist.
One of my favourite statements I say to others is “I don’t give a crap about skin colour, people can be arseholes whatever they look like.” If this was a small group of British Citizens who had decided to try and force others to change, I would be saying the same thing about them. Would I be racist then, even though they are the same colour, religion as me? I do not think I would.
Do minorities have the right to express an opinion. Course they do. I believe every has the right to express their opinions, however distasteful they may be to others, providing they do it in a civil / peaceful way. What I dislike is some trying to force their opinions on others. That is entirely different.
In regards to you last statement, about me moving to another land – I don’t see how that applies. I have said I am happy for immigrants to come here, providing they get jobs and pay their way, so what is your point?
Now in regards to my statement – it is neither intended as aggressive nor infectious, I am merely stating my heartfelt opinion. If others choose to support what I say, then I take that as people agreeing with my point of view. To me, being blunt as I have above is entirely preferable to masking ones words so at the end of the statement it is unclear where the person actually stands. I should also note that have in no way vindicated for people to be aggressive or persecute those of a minority, all I have said is that they should respect the laws / customs of where they are moving to. I do not see that as being unreasonable.
This perhaps aggravates me more than anything else. All I have done is express an opinion, an opinion which does not say they have to leave, that I dislike them because of their religion, skin etc, that I think of them in any less way than my fellow countrymen. All that I have said is that I feel they should respect the country they have moved into, and not try to force the country to change for them, and the first reply I have has said the statement can be understood as racist. This is why so many people are afraid to express their points and opinions, because any comments which seem to “put down” those of an ethnic minority are labelled as racist.
One of my favourite statements I say to others is “I don’t give a crap about skin colour, people can be arseholes whatever they look like.” If this was a small group of British Citizens who had decided to try and force others to change, I would be saying the same thing about them. Would I be racist then, even though they are the same colour, religion as me? I do not think I would.
Do minorities have the right to express an opinion. Course they do. I believe every has the right to express their opinions, however distasteful they may be to others, providing they do it in a civil / peaceful way. What I dislike is some trying to force their opinions on others. That is entirely different.
In regards to you last statement, about me moving to another land – I don’t see how that applies. I have said I am happy for immigrants to come here, providing they get jobs and pay their way, so what is your point?
Well, K-rud is out of office now, the labour party ousted him today and Julia Gillard (his deputy PM) is now PM.
First of all, you guys are discussing an email that didn't even occur. This is a hoax containing elements of truth.
Kevin Rudd didn't say these things. Saying you find him distasteful etc. is silly; you're judging him on some email you came across, a chain letter, that isn't even connected with him.
Put up what John Howard said, then discuss...
I personally am all for Immigrants, provided they use the System and support the country they're joining. Too many skirt the system in UK and elsewhere, you can find many reports on men from Afghanistan, Sudan and elsewhere falsely claim asylum. They show up with no records of who they are or what age they are. As teenagers are treated better by the system (adults are expected to stand on their own more or less) they lie about their age to get in. Others pay people to sneak them into countries (US and Canada). My wife was offered, when she was younger, 50 000 to be a fake wife. Basically, marry someone, live together for a year, then get a divorce and he's in the country. This stuff happens all the time.
Some immigrants when they get here, love to use the system (welfare, free health care) but try to cheat taxes whenever possible. I know many in the Chinese community do. In Chinatown, most of it is Cash only, so they can cook their accounting books. With cash only, there's no paper trail. No paper trail, no taxes.
Abusing the system is what gets me. I pay 40% of my hard earned income to taxes. Any of you commenting, when you have 20k taken off your wages a year (20 000), you start to really hate people abusing the system, or not helping it. There's people that will always be leeches, and its your hard work propping them up. Before you say who should come and who should stay, remember its your personal money. So if you wouldn't shell out money to people to come to your country, don't be so pro-immigration. There's a reason old folks constantly complain about the government. It's because they dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into the system, only to have it be used up by people who don't deserve it. People who don't want jobs, who don't want to work, who don't want to pay taxes back to a system and country that saved their ass and gave them a better life. I am all for immigrants that can assist the country and be productive members, who will accept our way of life and laws. They can keep their own culture, but they must adapt to ours.
There is only so much money we have. There is not an endless supply, as a lot of American States and European countries are finding out. California is in deep trouble, Greece just had a bailout (otherwise, its debts would have pushed other countries like Spain into a tailspin as well) of 141 Billion Dollars. That is YOUR money to help a country that spent unwisely, that gave its people everything they asked for. You only have so much money; sometimes you must do without! It's your productive, hard work, bailing out people that wanted everything and couldn't support it themselves. The Euro dropped dramatically. That means, all imports rise in cost. People that do not help the system affect you, personally. Obviously, if you're the one being helped, then you have a different view.
For everyone that says laws are above religion... well, they're founded on religious views. The law you can only have one wife, you think that's some kind of higher view point? It's a cultural/religious view. There is nothing inherently wrong with say two wives, or two husbands, if they all enjoy the relationship. But it is illegal. There's many other examples in Canadian law, so anyone who thinks law does not have religious values in it is mistaken. We've had a bunch of cultural clashes in the last couple years. One is about wearing clothing that conceals your face; its part of their culture, but our law (based on our culture) says that to vote, you must clearly identify yourself. That means, no covering your face. Another, is no carrying knives to school, and some cultures have ceremonial knives they bring around. The last experience I personally had was when I was in school, students from India came. I was very welcoming as a good Canadian should be, and made friends with them as they were in a totally foreign place, had no friends, no idea what city they were in, what they needed for winter clothing, or where to go to get the food they wanted. I even once took them out with my friends to a local bar (pub). There, one of them went up to one of my friends that was a woman, and said "You want to come home with me tonight and cook me dinner?". Apparently, that's perfectly acceptable in their culture. But to my friend, who was a punk rock girl, she slapped him good, and it almost resulted in a brawl. From the law point of view, she's in the wrong. From my point of view, he is. Perhaps an innocent mistake, but I had already warned him twice about women, how they are equal and treat them as you would a man (sort of. Culture is tricky).
It's our culture that immigrants must get used to and accept. Our culture creates our laws. As the culture changes, the law changes. Examples: Abortion and Gay marriage.
So I am 100% saying that if coming to a country, they should be expected to be a part of that country. Including taxes, language, and way of life. Not to leave all their values, but when there's a conflict, cede to the country you're in. If it's not OK here, don't do it. If you don't like that it's not OK, than accept it, and try to change it by changing the culture. Don't just come out and expect another country to allow you to do whatever you want.
Oh, and just to show how some Muslim countries are, here's a link from the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company, a fairly non-biased source for news) http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2010/04/april-08-2010.html.
Gist of story if you don't want to read it: 24 year old woman goes with father to Saudi. Father can then, without her permission, become her guardian and she is then trapped in the country. Born in Canada, and not allowed to leave another country, because of it's Muslim laws. And people are saying following our laws are too much? Give me a break. That's unlawful detainment (for years, with physical beatings thrown in the mix). Accepting our laws and customs is not too much to ask, in return for relative freedom (there's no such thing as absolute freedom) and a better life.
/End of rant.
Kevin Rudd didn't say these things. Saying you find him distasteful etc. is silly; you're judging him on some email you came across, a chain letter, that isn't even connected with him.
Put up what John Howard said, then discuss...
I personally am all for Immigrants, provided they use the System and support the country they're joining. Too many skirt the system in UK and elsewhere, you can find many reports on men from Afghanistan, Sudan and elsewhere falsely claim asylum. They show up with no records of who they are or what age they are. As teenagers are treated better by the system (adults are expected to stand on their own more or less) they lie about their age to get in. Others pay people to sneak them into countries (US and Canada). My wife was offered, when she was younger, 50 000 to be a fake wife. Basically, marry someone, live together for a year, then get a divorce and he's in the country. This stuff happens all the time.
Some immigrants when they get here, love to use the system (welfare, free health care) but try to cheat taxes whenever possible. I know many in the Chinese community do. In Chinatown, most of it is Cash only, so they can cook their accounting books. With cash only, there's no paper trail. No paper trail, no taxes.
Abusing the system is what gets me. I pay 40% of my hard earned income to taxes. Any of you commenting, when you have 20k taken off your wages a year (20 000), you start to really hate people abusing the system, or not helping it. There's people that will always be leeches, and its your hard work propping them up. Before you say who should come and who should stay, remember its your personal money. So if you wouldn't shell out money to people to come to your country, don't be so pro-immigration. There's a reason old folks constantly complain about the government. It's because they dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into the system, only to have it be used up by people who don't deserve it. People who don't want jobs, who don't want to work, who don't want to pay taxes back to a system and country that saved their ass and gave them a better life. I am all for immigrants that can assist the country and be productive members, who will accept our way of life and laws. They can keep their own culture, but they must adapt to ours.
There is only so much money we have. There is not an endless supply, as a lot of American States and European countries are finding out. California is in deep trouble, Greece just had a bailout (otherwise, its debts would have pushed other countries like Spain into a tailspin as well) of 141 Billion Dollars. That is YOUR money to help a country that spent unwisely, that gave its people everything they asked for. You only have so much money; sometimes you must do without! It's your productive, hard work, bailing out people that wanted everything and couldn't support it themselves. The Euro dropped dramatically. That means, all imports rise in cost. People that do not help the system affect you, personally. Obviously, if you're the one being helped, then you have a different view.
For everyone that says laws are above religion... well, they're founded on religious views. The law you can only have one wife, you think that's some kind of higher view point? It's a cultural/religious view. There is nothing inherently wrong with say two wives, or two husbands, if they all enjoy the relationship. But it is illegal. There's many other examples in Canadian law, so anyone who thinks law does not have religious values in it is mistaken. We've had a bunch of cultural clashes in the last couple years. One is about wearing clothing that conceals your face; its part of their culture, but our law (based on our culture) says that to vote, you must clearly identify yourself. That means, no covering your face. Another, is no carrying knives to school, and some cultures have ceremonial knives they bring around. The last experience I personally had was when I was in school, students from India came. I was very welcoming as a good Canadian should be, and made friends with them as they were in a totally foreign place, had no friends, no idea what city they were in, what they needed for winter clothing, or where to go to get the food they wanted. I even once took them out with my friends to a local bar (pub). There, one of them went up to one of my friends that was a woman, and said "You want to come home with me tonight and cook me dinner?". Apparently, that's perfectly acceptable in their culture. But to my friend, who was a punk rock girl, she slapped him good, and it almost resulted in a brawl. From the law point of view, she's in the wrong. From my point of view, he is. Perhaps an innocent mistake, but I had already warned him twice about women, how they are equal and treat them as you would a man (sort of. Culture is tricky).
It's our culture that immigrants must get used to and accept. Our culture creates our laws. As the culture changes, the law changes. Examples: Abortion and Gay marriage.
So I am 100% saying that if coming to a country, they should be expected to be a part of that country. Including taxes, language, and way of life. Not to leave all their values, but when there's a conflict, cede to the country you're in. If it's not OK here, don't do it. If you don't like that it's not OK, than accept it, and try to change it by changing the culture. Don't just come out and expect another country to allow you to do whatever you want.
Oh, and just to show how some Muslim countries are, here's a link from the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company, a fairly non-biased source for news) http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2010/04/april-08-2010.html.
Gist of story if you don't want to read it: 24 year old woman goes with father to Saudi. Father can then, without her permission, become her guardian and she is then trapped in the country. Born in Canada, and not allowed to leave another country, because of it's Muslim laws. And people are saying following our laws are too much? Give me a break. That's unlawful detainment (for years, with physical beatings thrown in the mix). Accepting our laws and customs is not too much to ask, in return for relative freedom (there's no such thing as absolute freedom) and a better life.
/End of rant.
A long rant but a valid one Grish
I pretty much agree with everything you said there. The taxes, those that cheat the benefits (yes I know our own people do it as well) and so on.
In regards to the email, I didn't know it was fake and taken out of context. But still the premise it is based on still is something that I think is valid.
I pretty much agree with everything you said there. The taxes, those that cheat the benefits (yes I know our own people do it as well) and so on.
In regards to the email, I didn't know it was fake and taken out of context. But still the premise it is based on still is something that I think is valid.