Living in Harmony Australia

Living in Harmony - now Diverse Australia Program

2010-06-01T12:20:00.002+10:00

The Living in Harmony initiative is now called the Diverse Australia Program.

Newcomers Network continues to support this initiative.

See further information online at http://www.newcomersnetwork.com/advertise/diverse_australia_program_everyone_belongs_harmony_day.php

What does the ‘Harmony Day’ mean to me?

2009-03-19T16:48:00.000+11:00

What does the ‘Harmony Day’ mean to me?

After growing up in conservative, ‘big country town’ Adelaide, I loved visiting my family on Kangaroo Island and mixing with the international guests staying at Ellson’s Seaview Motel. They told interesting stories, looked different, sounded different and seemed so much more fascinating than the ‘twin set and pearls’ brigade that was more familiar to me.

I remember in high school how children with Italian parents could not go out with children of Greek parents. How Catholics were not allowed to marry Protestants. Worse still, that awful comment ‘spot the Aussie’ when there were many people of a non-Caucasian background in the one location. Or the insulting, he couldn’t get an Aussie woman so he married an Asian.

So you can imagine how excited I was to come to Multicultural Melbourne in 1994. Despite not recognizing anyone for months (until I spotted a well known television actor), feeling as though everyone was staring at me and being struck by the overwhelming presence of black clothing, I felt more at home here than I ever did in Adelaide.

Six years later, I had a surprise birthday party and I looked around the room at all of my multicultural friends and I burst into tears – these people were my second family and I loved them just as much as my own family.

So I continue to support diversity in Australia in everything that I do. Moving to a new country and changing your life is the ‘last frontier’ left to us as human beings. So many things have been achieved and added to the record books, but choosing to live in a new country requires guts, courage and the ability to face constant challenges and rejection.

But what got me through my own transition was a woman who had also moved (albeit another Australian from Queensland via Canberra to Melbourne). She knew how hard it was to relocate and after 10 years of research, service and stories, I know that the most critical ingredient to success in a new location is friends. They make you feel as if you belong.

Our civilized, western, mostly secular and democratic culture understands the need for all people to belong and for everyone to get along. In Australia, we really are the lucky country and this constant mixing of cultures enables us all to see new perspectives, challenge our thinking and strive for a better life for our children. For me, it is peace on earth. That is the beauty and charm of diversity. Long may it continue.

But on our journey ahead, let us celebrate the successes but also seek new ways to capitalize on our strengths. The media still has an important role to play. Our society is shaped by thought and opinion leaders who get ‘air time.’ Labels are something that have been placed on people for way too long.

It is hard to believe that 100 years ago, people with disabilities were hidden from society. Now buses carry wheelchairs. People of different faiths have fought wars against each other – and yet Australia will host the World Parliament of Religions. The first migrants to Australia killed many Indigenous Australians and more recent migrants have instigated programs of respect and care for the original custodians of our land.

I believe that the increased diversity in Australia has helped remove labels from many people. The only label I want is that of my own name. I proudly declare that I am a Victorian, Australian, from South Australia and thanks to my education and technology, I am a citizen of the world.

All of us have the right to be who we are (within the laws of the country we live in). I don’t want labels. I want friends. I want harmony and peace. I want respect and dignity. And lastly, I want everyone to feel that they really do belong.

What can you do for yourself and for your neighbour to ensure that ‘everyone belongs’? Once you get the idea, DO something about it. And enjoy Harmony Day on Saturday 21 March 2009.

(686) words

Sue Ellson BBus AIMM MAHRI
Founder and Director, Newcomers Network http://www.newcomersnetwork.com

Supporter of Diverse Australia Program http://www.newcomersnetwork.com/advertise/diverse_australia_program_everyone_belongs_harmony_day.php

Sue Ellson first started supporting the Australian Government’s Living in Harmony initiative back in 2003. With the change of government, it has been changed to the ‘Diverse Australia Program.’

With humble beginnings 10 years ago, these programs have had a focus on reducing racism – and Sue is pleased to see the new direction towards the key message of ‘Everyone Belongs' and celebrating Harmony Day on Saturday 21 March 2009.

Letter to the Editor - unknown source - a different view

2007-02-07T11:01:00.000+11:00

I found this post on the Aussie-expats Yahoo Group and thought I would post it here as an alternative view to the nature of other posts on this blog. Comments appreciated. Cheers, Sue Ellson, Founder, Newcomers Network.

Fw: Letter to Editor

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people why today's Australian is not willing to accept the new kind of immigrant any longer.

Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to Australia, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in Sydney and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground.
They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new Australian households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labour laws to protect them. All they had were the skills, craftsmanship and desire they had brought with them to trade for a future of
prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. Australians fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Sweden, and so many other places.

None of these first generation Australians ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from.
They were Australians fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan.
They were defending the Freedom as one people. When we liberated France, no one in those villages was looking for the people of France, they saw only Australians. And we carried one flag that represented our country.

Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be a Australian.

And here we are in 2007 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes an Australian passport and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.

I'm sorry, that's not what being a Australian is all about. Australians have been very open hearted and open minded regarding migrants, whether they were fleeing poverty, dictatorship, persecution, or whatever else makes a person adopt a foreign country. And I suppose when we say adopt, we think of those aforementioned immigrants who truly did ADOPT our country, and our flag and our morals and our customs, and left their wars, hatred, and divisions behind.
I believe that the immigrants who landed in Australia in the early 1900s deserve better than that for the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags,
fighting foreign battles on our soil, making Australians change to suit their religions and cultures, and wanting to change our country's fabric by claiming discrimination when we do not give in to their demands.

P.S. KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING!! I hope it gets read by millions of people all across the nation

National identity in spotlight - Lachlan Heywood, The Courier Mail

2006-11-29T12:18:00.000+11:00

It seems as though our 'jargon' is about to change again, this time to 'shared identity' - both Lachlan's article and the copy of the Hon Andrew Robb AO MP's speech is below. Sue Ellson, Founder, Newcomers Network

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20832674-953,00.html

National identity in spotlight

By Lachlan Heywood

November 27, 2006 11:00pm

THE term "multiculturalism" is out and "shared identity" is in under a new framework for Australian society.

The Federal Government yesterday moved to redefine what it means to be a nation that accommodates people from many ethnic backgrounds and different parts of the world.

In an address to the Australian National University, parliamentary secretary for immigration Andrew Robb said the term "multiculturalism" which had loosely defined Australia's ethnic policy for the past 30 years was vague and open to misinterpretation and abuse.

"Some Australians worry that progressively the term multicultural has been transformed by some interest groups into a philosophy, a philosophy which puts allegiances to original culture ahead of national loyalty, a philosophy which fosters separate development, a federation of ethnic cultures, not one community," he said.

The Howard Government has long been a critic of so-called "mushy" multiculturalism.

But this is the first time an alternative doctrine has been articulated. It is part of wider debate on Australian values and the failure of some Muslim immigrants to integrate, including a proposal by Opposition Leader Kim Beazley to make all new arrivals in Australia sign a values pledge.
Fuelling the debate was the universally condemned statement last month by Australia's leading Muslim cleric, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, comparing immodestly dressed women to uncovered meat.

Mr Robb said shared values – not a shared homeland – should be the "glue that binds" Australians. "A shared identity is not about imposing uniformity. It is about a strong identification with a set of core values, whilst permitting a large measure of personal freedom and 'give and take'."
Mr Robb said said simply "co-habitating a space" was not a strong basis for a cohesive, trusting society.

"A community of separate cultures fosters a rights mentality, rather than a responsibilities mentality. It is divisive. It works against quick and effective integration," he said.

"Those who come here should unite behind a core set of values, a shared identity."

Labor's citizenship spokeswoman Annette Hurley said changing a word would not improve a sense of shared identity. "I think the public is looking for some action," she said.

--
http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=179

‘The Importance of a Shared National Identity’ Email this page Back

Monday, 27 November 2006 Printer Friendly Version

Address to the Transformations Conference
Plenary Address

27 November 2006
Australian National University, Canberra

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
E&OE…

Australia has been good for migrants, and migrants have been good for Australia.

To continue this success in a developed world which is getting rapidly older, and a third world whose people are on the move, means dealing with some confronting issues.

These issues all concern the imperative of our community being “one community”.

It is about promoting a shared national identity. It is about making citizens.

At many citizenship ceremonies there is a 1987 song, ‘I am Australian’, written by Bruce Woodley and Dobe Newton, which invariably steals the show.

For me, the first line of the chorus says it all – “we are one, but we are many”. It tells the story of a nation of immigrants, a strong community built around a large measure of give and take.
It shows how Australia has prospered with an intake of migrants that sees one quarter of our 20 million population born overseas.
It conveys how each wave of new settlers has broadened and deepened our culture and character, helping to mould new attitudes and traditions.

Yet it powerfully illustrates that the fruits of this diversity can only be realised if taken within the framework of the common values that unite us as one community – respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, a commitment to democracy and the rule of law, the equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, fair play and compassion for those in need.

Importantly, the verses of the song speak with pride of the values, traditions and accomplishments of the Australia of old, including our proud indigenous history.

This sense of shared values is the glue that binds our nation together.

It involves the maintenance of a shared national identity. It is about how we define ourselves as Australian.

A shared identity is not about imposing uniformity. It is about a strong identification with a set of core values, whilst permitting a large measure of personal freedom and “give and take.”
A shared identity is about commitment and avoiding the emergence of a community of communities. But within this framework of core values it is also about an openness and respect for the “dignity of difference” that has so enriched our cultural and economic life in Australia.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, it is my responsibility to help forge this sense of shared values and national identity so that we are in a position to draw on one of the enduring strengths of our nation, our ethnic diversity.

It is a vague term multiculturalism. Clearly it means different things to different people.

To the Government multiculturalism has meant capturing the benefits of a culturally diverse community around core institutions and core values. For the Government Australian multiculturalism was something unique – an expression of inclusiveness, an opportunity for everyone to be part of a cohesive whole.

The ‘I am Australian’ song which goes – “we are one, but we are many” can be seen as an expression of cultural inclusion. However, some interpretations of multiculturalism reminds many Australians of the “we are many” at the expense of “we are one”.

We are a nation incorporating many cultures, and as a community we are the stronger for it. The concept of Australian multiculturalism is intended to reflect this reality.
However, some Australians worry that progressively the term multicultural has been transformed by some interest groups into a philosophy, a philosophy which puts allegiances to original culture ahead of national loyalty, a philosophy which fosters separate development, a federation of ethnic cultures, not one community.

And there is no question that there is a live debate on just what is implied by the term multiculturalism.

In the recent Discussion Paper looking at the merits of introducing a formal citizenship test, I stated in the foreword that Australia, in the main, has embraced and drawn from the wealth of diversity of peoples from over 200 countries, and that we are all the richer for it.

I went on to say that this has been achieved because “Australia has successfully combined people into one family with one overriding culture, based on a common set of values”. I believe this overwhelmingly to be so.

In responding to the Discussion Paper, the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria said it does not support the underlying premise of the Discussion Paper that Australia has “one overriding culture”, based on a common set of values. The Council says it believes that Australia is a multicultural society where people unite around democracy, the rule of law and our shared homeland.

This particular interpretation of multiculturalism assumes that communities with separate identities can live together peacefully, united only by the rule of law and common geography, rather than a shared understanding of nationality, a shared identity.

Simply sharing the streets we walk and drive in, sharing public transport, sharing the shops, and jobs and schools and sharing in democratic choices – a mere sense of simply “co-habiting” a space - is not a strong basis for a cohesive, trusting society.

All these acts of sharing take on meaning, and build one community, only if we share and unite behind a core set of values, a shared identity.

When a group as prominent as the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria rejects, in the name of multiculturalism, the notion of an overriding Australian culture based around a core set of values we have a problem because this is essentially a separatist view.

In particular, new and emerging communities, who increasingly come from cultures far different to our Australian culture, are effectively being told that they have no obligation to do their best to become “Australian”.

Advocating the equality of cultures, or a community of separate cultures, fosters a rights mentality, rather than a responsibilities mentality. It is divisive. It works against quick and effective integration.

The one point on which there must be universal agreement is that those who come here should unite behind a core set of values, a shared identity.

This ‘shared identity’ imperative for effective integration is driven by significant emerging challenges.

The combination of globalisation and an ageing population is creating labour and skills shortages across the wealthy OECD countries, and will increasingly do so to a remarkable degree.
In the last two decades of the 20th century 120 million people entered the working age category across OECD countries. This is a figure which will fall to just five million people reaching working age during the first two decades of this new century.

This is also prompting a continuing increase in the numbers of people coming to Australia from countries whose cultures are quite different from our own culture.

Our migration mix is changing.

Overall the largest migrant intake continues to be from the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Yet, last year the third biggest group of migrants came from China, at over 10% of the total intake.

Over the last 10 years, around 200,000 people have come from Africa and the Middle East.

By way of example, last year (2005/06) African migration represented 55% of our offshore humanitarian intake, with more than 30,000 arrivals over the last four years.

These changing migration patterns reflect a changing world, and in cultural terms represent the arrival of many from cultures which are far more removed from the Australian culture than were the cultures of those earlier waves of largely European migrants.

At the same time as the makeup of our migration intake is changing, the nature of our economy continues to shift.

Not only are the people coming to our shores not of the same, predominantly European cultural mix, as those that came previously but the Australia that accepted immigrants in the 1950’s is not the Australia that accepts migrants today.
Back then, we were a far more industrialised nation, rather than the services based economy of today.

A services economy relies heavily on a good grasp of English and the ability to interact with fellow Australians.

Furthermore, our industrial sector was low skilled and labour intensive.

Migrants walked off the ships at Melbourne or Newcastle or other ports, and typically within days could be working in low skilled jobs on assembly lines at the Ford factory, or at the BHP steelworks in Newcastle. They acquired progressively their English language skills ‘on the job’.

Visit the Ford factory today, as I have done recently, and you still see assembly lines, and you still see migrants, but the sophistication of the manufacturing process is breathtaking, the skill levels of the workers remarkable, the training programmes challenging and continuous.

Outside of our traditional resources sector, the extraordinary emergence of China and India as major growth countries further highlights Australia’s future role as a high value services provider, as well as a very high value, highly skilled manufacturer, with a need for increasing flexibility to capture niche, and changing opportunities.

All of this presents opportunities – and on the migration front the reality of introducing new perspectives, new experiences, new talents into the Australian family – but it also presents challenges.

There is no sense putting our heads in the sand, and hoping for the best.

As we have done in the past, we have to ensure that the new arrivals develop the English language skills and a general understanding of our community, so that they might integrate quickly and make the most of the opportunities available in Australia.

But the greater cultural differences creates an even stronger imperative, and bigger challenge.

The recent discussion paper canvassing a formal citizenship test as a means of prospective citizens demonstrating their knowledge of the English language and of Australia seeks to complement the whole-of-government measures being explored to improve settlement outcomes for humanitarian entrants, and the National Action Plan to address extremism and intolerance in Australia.

I see a citizenship test providing aspiring citizens with more incentive to learn English, understand our way of life and the commitment they are required to make to become Australian citizens.

Encouraging people to obtain these skills will help migrants maximise their ability to get a job and participate in the economy as fully as possible, and as soon as possible.

With the impact of the ageing of the population across the rich OECD countries, the greater movement of peoples around the world and the changing mix of migration it is critical to maintain broad community based support for Australia’s large migration and humanitarian programme.

Requiring people to pass a formal test before applying for citizenship, and receiving greater undertakings from applicants for permanent and long term temporary visas, sends a clear signal to the broader community that new citizens have the skills and the knowledge to participate as full members of our society.

Against the background of all the matters I have just spoken about, I have been reviewing the advisory structures for this portfolio, in particular the Council for Multicultural Australia and the Muslim Community Reference Group.

These two bodies have had a project rather than a strategic focus, and they have performed these tasks well. I thank them sincerely for their valuable contributions.

However, it is important to review the operation of such bodies to ensure that they reflect current community expectation and are continuing to enhance out culture of inclusiveness and integration.

In this regard I note that, many Muslims have expressed to me a concern that the Muslim Community Reference Group only serves to highlight the Muslim communities as separate, rather than part of our broader community. I agree.

As well, with a new century and these major new challenges, there is a growing need for strong strategic advice.

These are issues I want to ensure are addressed as I currently consider the future structure and role of such advisory bodies.

Conclusion

The Australian culture of “having a go” has stood us in good stead for over 200 years but we have always sought as a nation to do things better. In fact, it can be argued that some of the reasons why our migration program of the last sixty years has been so successful are that firstly, we have had a deliberate programme of migration, a deliberate program of border control and a deliberate program of settlement measures, and secondly, we have always kept adapting, fine tuning and improving these programs.

This approach is even more important today as we are living through a time of great change in the world, especially in regard to migration matters.

I don’t underestimate how confronting and tough the debate is on some of these issues. But we must not follow the path of least resistance for fear of offending. We must continue to seek to manage effective integration of new arrivals so that we continue to build one Australian family which draws on the diversity within our midst.

Media Contact: Kathryn Hodges 0409 132 567

Surf Life Saving On The Same Wave With Australia’s Multicultural Communities

2006-11-24T19:56:00.000+11:00

This is great news - Sue Ellson, Founder, Newcomers Network

23/11/2006
Fifteen students from Oatley Senior School in Sydney's south west hit the beach at Wanda today as part of 'On the Same Wave', a partnership between Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA), the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) and Sutherland Shire Council.

In one of the most important initiatives in almost a century of surf lifesaving, On the Same Wave aims to attract members of Australia’s culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities into the surf lifesaving movement and to share the love of the beach. The program was made possible due to a $600,000 grant from the Australian Government in March 2006.

Brett at On The Same Wave launch
Caption:
SLSA's CEO, Brett Williamson OAM, speaking at Wanda Beach today.
SLSA Chief Executive Officer, Brett Williamson OAM, said that over the course of summer, it was hoped that hundreds of members of Sydney’s CALD communities would have the opportunity to learn basic surf safety, with some going on to become active surf lifesavers.

“At the end of its first 75 years of existence, SLSA’s predominantly mono-cultural, male-dominated organisation was at risk of becoming irrelevant to the broader Australian community,” he said. “In 1980, females were finally admitted as full members of SLSA, and quickly moved into the ranks to now make up more than 41 per cent of the organisation. Now, as we stand on the threshold of our second century of service, we are embarking on another program of recruitment – and we hope that members of Australia’s multicultural communities will be a big part of that.”

Oatley Senior College
Caption:
Students from Georges River Campus, Oatley Senior College about to get into their surf training.
The program with Oatley Senior School is just one of dozens of programs which SLSA has been rolling out recently and will continue to do so throughout the course of the summer. The programs have been developed after consultation with more than 100 people from CALD backgrounds, discussing their perceptions of and interest in surf lifesaving, particularly in the wake of last December's Cronulla riots.

The result has been surf education presentations to youth from CALD backgrounds in south western Sydney, women-only CPR courses for Muslim women, cultural awareness training at the four Cronulla surf life saving clubs and surf awareness courses for school students. There is even a Bronze Medallion squad in training with 22 young people of Muslim background taking part with the aim of qualifying as volunteer surf lifesavers.

Over the course of the summer, hundreds more people from CALD backgrounds will take part in surf survival and surf awareness courses, ten young people will be put through a five-day accredited Surf Survival Certificate course, CPR courses will be conducted with the Lebanese Community Council and Arab Council of Australia, and Sydney-based international university students will attend surf education seminars. Plans are also in place to expand the program outside of Sydney and integrate surf education into English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching.

"On the Same Wave proves just what can be achieved when cultures come together in such a positive manner," said Tom Zreika, President of the Lebanese Moslems Association. "The beaches and surf lifesavers of this great country are as iconic as its multiculturalism, and it is wonderful to see these two elements combined in such a constructive way. If just one life is saved through the surf education, awareness, safety and CPR courses which people from CALD communities are gaining access to through On the Same Wave, then this has been a thoroughly worthwhile project and one which I hope will continue to receive backing into the future."
On The Same Wave - tube
Caption:
The 'On The Same Wave' program is part of an integrated program to promote surf safety and surf lifesaving to Australia's culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

Kate McRae, Head Teacher of VET (Vocational Education and Training) at Georges River College, Oatley Senior Campus, said that basic surf safety skills were important for anyone growing up in Australia, which is the main reason the surf lifesaving module is compulsory for students at Oatley studying Certificate II in Sports Coaching. “We have students from many different backgrounds and to include surf lifesaving as part of the core curriculum was a good way to get them to the beach and to learn to enjoy it,” she said.

Surf Life Saving will also be conducting two FREE surf awareness courses at Elouera (13 January 2007) and North Bondi (20 January 2007), specifically for 13-year-olds and over from CALD backgrounds, and their families. Elouera SLSC will also be conducting a low-cost week-long surf awareness course in January for all children aged 12 and under. For more information on these courses, please contact Surf Life Saving NSW on 02 9981 8636.

For further information:

Sean O’Connell
SLSA Communications Manager
M - 0407 286 619
E - soconnell@slsa.asn.au

Brett Moore
SLSNSW Media and Communications Officer
M – 0409 394 889
E – bmoore@surflifesaving.com.au

Letter From Australia: Learning to talk and live as one - K.C.Boey - New Straits Times

2006-10-16T10:15:00.000+10:00

This article highlights a number of studies on race and the media that may be worth investigating further if you are interested in this topic. As always, cross cultural training is encouraged - in this case, with people in the media, so that the 'elites' of society don't enforce their own views on the public...
Sue Ellson, Founder, Newcomers Network

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Sunday/Columns/20061015074811/Article/index_html

Letter From Australia: Learning to talk and live as one
15 Oct 2006
K.C. Boey

Academics are critical of the shallowness of the media with regards to its treatment of migrants and race relations.

A COUNTRY with a racist history, trying not to have a racist future, is how sociologist Andrew Jakubowicz describes the country of his parents’ adoption.

Against this backdrop, institutions are put in place to curb discrimination. Laws abound at state and national levels. Statutory bodies safeguard opportunity for all — against all manner of discrimination.

By most measures, Australia has been exemplary in facilitating one of the most successful migration processes in modern history. Yet race so often gets drawn in on every form of social conflict.

Anger over the violence on the surf beach in Cronulla, outside Sydney, last December simmers 10 months on.

Over the week, a proposal to have a "MEA" (Middle Eastern appearance) youth march on Anzac Day carrying the Australian flag met with such outrage, it was withdrawn the following day.

The scars are deep from Cronulla. Whether the ugliness is as cut and dry as raw racism, Jakubowicz is not so sure.

The professor of sociology at the University of Technology, Sydney, suggests the clash of white Anglo and Middle Eastern youth may have as much to do with "male tribalisms".

Yet race, in an atmosphere of inter-group tensions and stereotyping, adds a volatile dimension to the competition for public space. Cronulla has come to be analysed as a case study on race relations, and what government and community organisations can learn from it.

Central to the analysis has been the media and its performance in a multicultural setting.

Academics are critical of the shallowness of the media.

"The role of the media in communicating and reinforcing ideas about folk devils, through the creation of moral panics, is well documented," Jakubowicz said at a Sydney conference on ‘Everyday Multiculturalism’, examining Cronulla.

"Amplification of apprehension on all sides, polarisation of views, and mobilisation of action required active media involvement."

At a community forum in Melbourne, journalism educator Lynette Sheridan-Burns wondered if she should reverse the title of her presentation on ‘The Mob, the Media & Multiculturalism’.

A case might be made to put the media before the mob in Cronulla, the way sections of the fourth estate became makers of the news, she suggested.

In the broader scheme, participants at an academic workshop in Melbourne explored the possibilities of academics and the media collaborating to enhance understanding in a multicultural Australia. The workshop sought to bring together concepts of Islamic culture(s), nation-building and the media.

Contrasting understanding of the role of the media is well documented in a book from a 1996 conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia,‘Communicating with/in Asia’. Papers from that conference have been compiled into a book, Foreign devils and other journalists.

The conclusion is of a gulf in understanding between media practice in Western perspectives, and the "development journalism" in developing countries.

As the editors of Foreign devils note, the traditionally accepted role of the Western media is that they act as a watchdog over public affairs — to scrutinise governments and official institutions, and to offer a voice to the public.

A more critical view is that of media in a free market that essentially reflects the views of controlling elites.

The development view is that of the media having a role in the enhancement of the lives of people.

Stances in the first two are adversarial, and the third consensual. Can the opposing stances find accommodation in a changing Australia? Is there a need for adjustments to be made?

A report being finalised for a ’Living in Harmony’ project funded by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs suggests a media needing encouragement in the reporting of multicultural affairs, and in the training of journalism students.

A more controversial study has been Race for the headlines: Racism and media discourse, which the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board undertook in 2003, in the wake of Sept 11 (2001).

Respected journalist Peter Manning, now professor of media studies at the University of Technology in Sydney, is critical of how the media demonises Arabs and Muslims in his book Us And Them, released last month.

The newsworthiness of ethnic minorities was no different from how other news events were evaluated, journalism lecturer Eric Loo tells the New Sunday Times of his PhD study in the mid-1990s.

"Ethnic minorities have to compete with other news events for equal space in the daily news operations. The consciousness that journalists have a moral obligation to help improve race relations at the community level, or ‘nation building’ is somewhat ambiguous, if not completely dismissed.

"Nation building is a term alien to Australian journalists, unlike ... in Malaysia," says Loo, co-editor of Foreign devils, now senior lecturer in the School of Journalism and Creative Writing at the University of Wollongong. Loo has worked as a journalist in Malaysia.

Media coverage of cultural diversity has improved in the 20 years Loo has been in Australia. But he would like his students more sensitised to the cross-cultural dimensions of issues, to give them the confidence and ability to live and work with people of other countries and other cultures.

Ethnic diversity 'breeds mistrust' - Peter Wilson, The Australian

2006-10-10T12:51:00.000+10:00

It seems that there has never been a better time to get involved in your local community...Sue Ellson, Founder, Newcomers Network

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20552784-5006003,00.html

Ethnic diversity 'breeds mistrust'

By Peter Wilson

October 10, 2006 12:00
Article from: The Australian

ETHNIC diversity seriously undermines the trust and social bonds within a community, according to important new research that casts a gloomy shadow over optimistic theories about the benefits of the social melting pot in immigrant societies such as Australia.
The worrying findings about the effects of ethnic diversity were developed by Robert Putnam, a Harvard University political scientist whose previous research on community dynamics has been highly influential among policymakers in the US and cited by Australian prime ministerial aspirants Peter Costello and Mark Latham.

Professor Putnam has delayed releasing the results of his research for fear of the impact it could have on politicians and other policymakers, but he revealed its thrust yesterday in an interview with London's Financial Times newspaper.

His extensive research found that the more diverse a community, the less likely were its inhabitants to trust anyone, from their next-door neighbour to their local government.

The loss of trust was even felt within ethnic communities - people were more wary of members of their own ethnic groups, as well as people from different backgrounds.

The impact of the research will be amplified because of the status of Professor Putnam, whose book Bowling Alone was closely studied by governments and academics around the world after its publication in 2000.

Bowling Alone spelled out the extent to which "social capital" has fallen away in recent decades as fewer people join the volunteer and community groups that have long played a role in social cohesion.

The title referred to Professor Putnam's finding that many people were dropping out of groups such as bowling clubs and spending time alone, rather than in social networks.

Both the federal Treasurer and the former federal Labor leader Mr Latham borrowed concepts from the book in speeches on social capital.

Professor Putnam, who is now working in Britain, told the Financial Times that, after several years of research, he had held off publishing his results until he could develop suggestions that might help compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it "would have been irresponsible to publish without that".

His most important finding was that "in the presence of diversity, we hunker down".

"We act like turtles," he said. "The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined.

"And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us."

His research was conducted in the US but he believes its findings are likely to be mirrored in other countries.

It will be studied closely in Australia and most European countries, where governments are increasingly struggling with the political and social fallout of immigration and ethnic and religious diversity.

Professor Putnam found that trust was lowest in Los Angeles, "the most diverse human habitation in human history", but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where "diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians' picnic".

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust.

"They don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust institutions," he said.

Apparently fearing that his research would be used to justify clamping down on immigration and ethnic diversity, Professor Putnam stressed that immigration benefited the "importing" and "exporting" societies, and that trends "have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed".

"I think we can do a lot to push change along more rapidly," he said.

An American at a Foreign Students' Party - David Kessel, American Chronicle

2006-10-02T12:09:00.000+10:00

I hope this never happens in Australia - unfortunately, I suspect that it does...Sue Ellson, Founder, Newcomers Network

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=14166

An American at a Foreign Students' Party
David Kessel

September 30, 2006

It was early in the evening on a beautiful campus of a mid-sized university in Upstate New York. The time was the first week of October, the season of foliage and balmy post-Indian summer weather, with just a crisp hint of the approaching winter.

The University housed some 5,000 students among which you could encounter every major, minor and also, every professional and non-professional interest and human race imaginable. The place where students would congregate the most was the large Hasbrouck Dining Hall located not far from the Sports Hall, a large structure in the very center of the Campus. Upon entering the cafeteria, one would be drowned in the clangor of dishes and hundreds of conversation going on at the same time- your typical restaurant noises, that is, but magnified manifold by the huge number of people present.

The University, in addition to its large multi-cultural American student body, also catered to a small minority of foreign students, who, for a few years now were being called “International Students”; the word “foreign” now being considered “politically incorrect”.

The foreign (oops, international) students, who have been saving money for a long time to experience life in America, were, after the initial excitement of being there, a bit disappointed by the social segregation that they were witnessing all around them. In the dining hall, for example, black students would sit with other blacks, Spanish speakers (or those who looked like Spanish speakers) would sit with other Spanish speakers, Asian people would sit in their own groups, and the “real” Americans, meaning, “white” people would also sit at a table with other white people. The groups did not seem to interact with each other, but coexisted in matter-of-fact, peaceful, separate, and parallel avenues of development with very little meaningful interaction among the groups. The groupings were polite to each other, but seemed to be living independently of one another, as if there were several different Americas happening at the same time: the white one, the black one, the Asian one and the Hispanic one.

This was not how many of these foreign (oops, international) students had been imagining America to be. They learned about it from the movies, and one thing they knew was that while there were some bad white people in the US who hated Blacks, most white people were very noble and kind, and extremely friendly and sociable. However, the young Americans that they met at the university seemed to them to be extremely stuck up; very much into their little groups who did not pay any attention to anything that was going outside of their little cliques.

Incidentally, it was also big news to these students that there were actually so many people in the US who had non-white and non-Black features. Are these immigrants? Why are they sitting around and speaking English? They sure can’t be Americans! They don’t look like Americans! And all these brown-looking people! They had never seen them in the American movies before. Were these Americans, too? They later learned that brown people were called “Hispanics” but could not quiet understand what the word meant. Did it mean “Spanish”? Many of them had faces like they were South East Asians, but they spoke English to each other, and, sometimes, they would hear Spanish voices. Were these Americans? They sure did not look like the Americans they saw in Hollywood movies back on the subtitled TV programs in their home countries.

And then, there were many black people but they looked quite happy and confident. They would sit in a group of their own and none would have the suffering expression that so many Blacks had in all those American movies they saw back home; like they were martyrs or something.

The students in the international program have also found out that making friends with young Americans was not that easy. If your English was not fluent, some people would frown at you and give you dirty looks. If you were not American, some young Americans would give you the cold shoulder. And they also became aware of all these associations and clubs that were all over the place- Asian American Student Union, Hispanic American Student Association, and African –American Student Organization, etc. It was as if Americans liked to pull themselves apart from each other. Now which one could you join as an international student? None, as far as they knew. They did not fit the parameters.

You could join some other clubs, such as the Fencing Club and all, but many of the foreign students were too shy or simply did not know how to go about joining such groups. They were also afraid that they would be treated badly because of their accent. So, they just followed suit and created their own group- the International Students’ Association. They had parties, plenums, committees and other goings-on, but there were no American students ever present at any of those activities. The only Americans that they had met were the faculty and staff and these were very kind and friendly people. Meeting young Americans, on the other hand, proved to be very difficult, because of social obstacles on both sides. American students appeared to be too independent and arrogant; plus, foreign students were too shy and too scared to integrate. So, such segregation was accepted as something normal, and the students proceeded with their studies while creating all the social life they needed among themselves. They weren’t going to stay in the US forever, anyway, so why even bother? Many did have a hope of making friends with young Americans, maybe being invited to their homes and just forming friendships but these were not easy to form, unless you paid for a home stay, and many did not choose that route. Plus, a lot of young Americans were also too busy to have time for faltering International Students.

However, one day, something extraordinary happened. On a balmy early October evening, one American student, Bob Hines, stumbled by mistake into an international student party which was held at Hasbrouck Dining Hall, one floor up from Rathskellar Bar in the basement. He was visibly inebriated and was going to attend a dance which he had heard was being held on the second floor, but, instead, he inadvertently crashed the International party at which he was met with friendly curiosity and sincere surprise:

“An American!” “A real young American of our age!” exclaimed the foreign students in unison. “Finally! We are going to meet one of our hosts, our contemporary from the United States. So far, we have not had any chance to make friends with even one of them. Finally, we do. Come in, what is your name?”

“Bob” said Bob in a slurring, drunken voice.

“Hi Bob, I am Kumiko”

“Kumiko? “ What kind of name is that? Chinese?”

“It’s Japanese; I am from Japan”.

“That’s great! Welcome to the United States! Hey, where in Japan are you from? Hong Kong? I mean, the capital?”

“No, I am from Osaka, and the capital of Japan is Tokyo; not Hong Kong.”

“Gees, I always thought it was one and the same. You mean, it’s not?” Bob uttered in his still tipsy voice.” So, how long have you been here in the United States?”

“About one year?”

“That’s great, Kuniko, hey sorry about that Hiroshima and Nagasaki deal, and that recent tsunami. You know, it was all our government; I had nothing to do with it. And I am really sorry your capital city was taken over by them Reds in 1997 and you are now a communist country”.

Keiko giggled in embarrassment but pulled Bob by the hand and said: “Come’ on, I’ll introduce you to the rest of the international students. Here is Mohammed from Malaysia.”

“My-lay- what? What the hell is that?”

The Malaysian student lowered his gaze and shrank away in shame.

“And this is Sutti from Indonesia?”

“Nice to meet you, what was the name of the country you were from again? India?”

“Not, not India; Indonesia.”

“Where is that?” Bob asked in his innocent sincerity. Sutti lowered her gaze and slipped away ashamedly.

Kumiko continued her introductions: “And this is Jonas from Lithuania.”

“Where is that?” Jonas turned his eyes away and moved towards the table to the left pretending now to be nibbling at some snacks. He looked visibly upset and never again made eye contact with Bob.

“And this is Johnny Rodriguez, he is from the Philippines”. “Hi Bob”, said Johnny.

“Wow! You speak English very well, where did you learn it?” “In the Philippines, of course! You know, we are an English-speaking country, actually the third or the fourth largest in the world, and English is the medium of instruction in our schools.”

“Really? I didn’t know that.” “Hey, you know what they say- You live and learn.”

“And here is Somchai; he is from Thailand and that is Ponthip- his sister.” “Somchai, this is Bob, the first young American that came to our party”.

“Hi, Bob, welcome!”

“Cool, welcome to the United States! I’ve got a computer from your country made by what was the name again? The ” BenQ” company”, said Bob.

“No, Bob, BenQ is not Thai, it is Taiwanese. I am from Thailand, not from Tai-Wan”.

Bob scrunched up his features in a grimace of annoyance: “What’s the difference? Thailand, Taiwan? They are all the same to me. Say, so do you guys have big buildings in your country?”

“Yes, we do”, said Somchai, “actually, Bangkok, our capital has huge skyscrapers”.

“Get out of town? And how do you guys get around? Bicycles, mostly, and then you ride elephants to work, like the rich dudes in your country? “

Somchai was now visibly annoyed: “No, actually, we use cars and we have some of the worst traffic jams in the world. I am surprised you have not heard about them.”

“Well, I’ll be! I thought you guys were too poor to have cars there”, Bob said with an expression of sincere surprise. Somchai looked down and excused himself. Bobby hemmed and hawed and talked to Pontip- I think I am starting to remember something about Thailand now. You know, that Asian dude that has just walked away was right- it is a different country from Taiwan. Is that the place where there are many hookers? I saw a program on it once. Yeah, Bangkok, the Prostitution Capital of Asia. Hey, baby so, since you are from Thailand, why don’t we go to my place and you know… I can give you $20 bucks for one whole night.” Ponthip turned red, her eyes filled with tears and she ran towards the exit. Bobby herd the door slam.

“Hey, what’s the matter with all them Oriennuls?” “Can’t they take a joke?”, grumbled Bobby as he reached for yet another bottle of beer.

Kumiko again took Bob by the elbow: “Shall we continue the introductions? Here is Mbugua Mutilili, he is from Kenya, East Africa.”

“Hi, Booger, who gave you that funny name?” smiled Bobby.

“ It is Mbu-gu-a. It is a common Kenyan name.”

“ Africa, huh? Really? So, where did you buy your clothes? London? You dress like us. I thought you guys in Africa didn’t wear any clothes. And also, can I see your bow and arrows?”

“ No, we actually wear the same clothes as you, and I have never used bow and arrows in my life”. Said Mbugua with a frustrated smile.

“And do you guys live in houses there? Or ,like, in trees, with snakes around your necks? Bwahahahah!”

Mbugua straightened up and his eyes became glossed over with anger ” Bye, man. I’ve got stuff to do. Here, talk to my friend. This is Jan Van Buren from South Africa. Jan, this is Bob, the only American student that has ever come to our party”.

“Hi, Bob, nice to meet you!” Van Buren said with his clipped Afrikaans accent. “Nice to meet you, too. Where did you say you were from?” asked Bob.

“Pretoria, South Africa?” said Jan proudly.

“You come from Africa, too???” uttered Bob in complete amazement.

“Well, yes, why does that surprise you?” asked Jan.

“Africans are supposed to be black; how come you are white? And you’ve also got an American name- Van Buren; just like one of our presidents. You are from Africa and you are white, and not naked, and you are not carrying a spear. You are kidding me, aren’t you?”

“No, not at all,” Jan was now smiling with a condescending smile of an adult talking to a child. He fumbled in his pocket and pulled out a little green book. It said: “Republic of South Africa, Passport.”

“Get out of town! So, were you parents Americans; related to our President Van Buren?”

“No, actually, my parents and grandparents, and great-grandparents were all South Africans; but sometime in the seventeenth century one of my ancestors migrated to Africa from the Flanders, so, that’s why I‘ve got a Flemish name”.

“Incredible, a white African with an all American name. Just like Michael Jackson, Bwahahaha!” Bob roared with laughter that no one else shared. Jan gave him a half-hearted smile and walked away while Kumiko appeared again and asked him, “Enjoying the party, Bob? “ “Yeah, girl. Anyone else you want to introduce me to?” “Yes, as a matter of fact, there are some people that want to meet you. Here they are: this is Miklos; he is from Hungary”.

“Really? Wow, is everybody Hungry in Hungary? Don’t you love being in America, Mick-whatever your name is? Or is it Milksop? There is plenty of food here. Enjoy, Mick, ‘cause when you go back home, you’re gonna be hungry again”.

Miklos turned red and disappeared. “And here is Jimmy Smith; he is from Australia!”

“Australian? Yeah, I know; just like that action star; what’s his name? Arnold Swarthy- whatever. The one that says “I’ll be back” with that funny accent.”

Bobby thought he was being funny. Jimmy corrected him- “No, that’s Arnold Schwarzenegger, he is from Austria; I am from Australia”.

Isn’t it the same thing? And you speak good English, you sound like a Brit; where did you learn it, taking ESL classes here at the University? I know Arnold had to learn English here in the US, I saw a documentary on him; did you also learn English in Austria, I mean, Australia? From some British teacher? “

“Well, yes, Bob, I did. We, in Australia, speak English. As a matter of fact, one cannot immigrate to Australia if one does not speak the language . And our accent is not really British; it is Australian. If you listen well; you will hear the difference.

“Gee, really? I didn’t know that. I thought only Americans and well, Brits and Canadians spoke English; not the French Canadians, of course.” And you, hey, I am talking to you, man” Bobby was now trying to have a conversation with a lanky gentleman who was leaning over the salad bowl. “Where are you from? “ England”. “England? Cool, man; far out! Say, dude, what language do they speak in England?”

Jimmy and the Englishman excused themselves to ostensibly go to the men’s room, and Bob was left looking for another group of students to talk to. There were two students speaking Spanish, and Bob decided to introduce himself to them. “Hi, I am an American; my name is Bob.” “Hi, Bob, I am Ricardo Mueller from Argentina, South America, and this is Jose Gomez from Puerto Rico”.

“Hey, Ricardo-ooh, you don’t look Argentinean to me. I mean, like you are blond and you’ve got grey eyes. How come? You people down there are supposed to be brown with black hair; kind of like this dude here; what was your name again?” “ Jose”- whispered Jose full of embarrassment.

“Hoe-zay, yeah, man like this here Hoe-zay; hey, Hoe-zay; I am not racist; you know, but aren’t you the guy I see every day working in the cafeteria?” Bob looked at him with mock suspicion.

“Well, yes, I am; why?”

“I mean, like, you know, have you got the Green Card? I don’t mean to stick my nose where it don’t belong, but if you ain’t got no Green Card; you can’t work here in the US, you know that, right? I mean, like you are not an illegal alien, are you?”

“I am from Puerto Rico, Bob; we are American citizens!” exclaimed Jose with rising indignation in his voice,

“Really? “ Bob reeled with surprise. “How come you guys are US citizens? Why? Are you a state of the United States?”

“No, we are not, but we are a US Commonwealth. That makes us American citizens!” Jose was gnashing his teeth now, and his fists were clenched with helpless anger.

“Hey, Hoe-zay, let’s keep it friendly, OK, man? I didn’t mean anything bad; just checking, man; just checking. Don’t want you to get into trouble with the Immigration and get deported back to Costa Rica or wherever you came from”.

Jose bolted away mumbling something under his breath that sounded like: “Gringo Estupido”. Bob was left facing Ricardo Mueller from Argentina. “So, as I was asking you, Rick; how come you come from Argenta, or whatever the name of your country is, and you look like an American; I mean like you are one of us. I mean, like you people from down south of the border are all brown and stuff; we are the ones who are white; but you are blond and not like a Latino; how come? Were you parents, like; Americans?”

“No, actually, not at all. My grandparents were from Germany, but in Argentina and also, in Uruguay, in general, the population is mostly European. We pretty much look like the majority of you, guys”.

“Well, I’ll be darned! I thought you guys and that other country, you-rooh- whatever, all looked like them Mexicans that come to cut our lawn on Sundays, hahahaha.” Bobby again thought he was funny. Ricardo coughed and excused himself. Bobby was left alone.

Not far from him, another young, African-looking man was having a cake. “Hi, I am Bob, Bob approached the man with his hand outstretched, “ I am an American! Whereabouts are you from? Africa or the Harlem?”

“Oh, neither one. I am from Brazil, my name is Joao”.

“That’s cool. Nice to meet you, what was your name again? Chow? Sorry, Chow, I no hablo espanol”.

“Well, I don’t hablo espanol, either,” answered Joao,” in Brazil, we speak Portuguese; not Spanish.”

“Really? I didn’t know that. I thought all of you people spoke Spanish down there. And, also, you mean, like there are black people in Brazil, too?”

“Listen, Bob. I’ve gotta run”. Joao suddenly moved to the other end of the hall. Bobby shrugged his shoulders and approached two what he perceived to be “gay-looking” students. “ Hey, look, fellas, I kind of dig the Village People and some of my best friends are gay, but I am straight so, I just wanna let you know from the start that I am not trying to hit on you, you know what I mean? but I like soccer and you kinda look like a cross between soccer players and Freddy Mercury, so I thought I’d say:” Hi”. The two students looked at him with squeamish expressions on their faces and asked him: “ Where did you get the idea that we were gay?”

“Hey, guys, it’s written all over you, I mean the way you are dressed, for one- the colors- they are kind of bright and you know, then the hair cuts and the mannerism and all.”

“But this is how we Europeans dress and behave, especially we, the French people. We want to look good; we follow the latest fashions, we dress well and in different colors, not just denim and grey and solid colors. And we also wear shoes and not just sneakers, you know. And we do have mannerism when we talk, it shows that we are refined and educated; it does not mean that we are gay and we like to have sex with men”.

“ Yeah, I guess you are right; it is just that when I see a dude dressed like you, I kind of figure he is a homo, you know what I mean? But the fact that you may be a homo is nothing against you; I don’t mind, some of my best friends are gay, no problem with me”.

“But we are not gay!!! We are French! We are taught to be sophisticated and dress well, and we do it to attract women; not men. Francois, let’s get out of here!” And the two French friends made a hasty retreat.

All these people were starting to piss Bobby off. Like they were stuck up or something and did not want to stick around and talk to him. “A bunch of ingrates. America feeds them and helps them, and we teach them, and save their asses in all these wars, and look how they are treating us! I think I am gonna kick somebody’s ass tonight”.

He gulped down three more beers and as the alcohol rose to his brain, he felt brave. Actually, he felt so good, his urge to prove himself in a fight got bigger. Out of nowhere, Kumiko appeared again, and inquired if he was enjoying the party. She took him along to have him try some “international foods”. A tall blond guy with a round face and a pug nose was standing in front of a large dish housing big dumplings with sour cream poured all over them.

“What are these, raviolis? “ inquired Bob? “No, these are Russian pelmenis.” Answered the tall guy. Bobby voice took on sinister, suspicious tones. “ What are you..from ….Russia?”

“Yes, I am an exchange student here, my name is Yevsey Cherkov.”

Bob began frowning: “ And they allow you people in the country?”

“Yes, why not? Our countries have diplomatic relations; we are not enemies, or anything.”

“But aren’t you people all commies and bloodthirsty warmongers and pinko liberals and enemies of the United States and a bunch of faggots, KGB agents and spies?” Bobby was now drunk from the beers and starting to gather momentum for a fist fight; and other students, quickly realizing that something was wrong, came closer. “ Get out of my country, now, you Russkie commie bastard! “ Bob yelled at Yevsey.

Yevsey backed away: “Easy friend, easy, I am just an engineering student here, and I don’t want any trouble”. Another student walked up to Bob and grabbed him by the sleeve of his shirt. “And you, where the f--ck are you from?” “I am from Saudi Arabia?

Bobby was now turning livid- “A terrorist? What are you doing in my country! First a commie, now a terrorist” . Bob’s hand was beginning to form a fist and he raised it above the Saudi student’s face: “ You, Iranian; you goddamned terrorist! Get out!” “I am not an Iranian, I am a Saudi”, said the student. “Same f--king s-it!!!” shouted Bob.

The international students were now frozen in place, faces full of concern and budding fear. As two more students tried to restrain Bob, three security officers, attracted by the noise, made their way through the crowd, grabbed hold of Bob and lead him away. Both the Arab and the Russian students were looking at each other with relief mixed with genuine trepidation. If the security had not been called, who knows what a bloody fight could have ensued.

Bobby was given a reprimand and asked to take a class on “Diversity”. Kumiko found out what room he was staying at and bought him an Illustrated Atlas of the World, so that he, at age 22, could finally learn where at least some countries were located, know something about their basic history and what their cities, and the people in them, looked like.

The International Students continued having parties, but were now a bit more cautious about whom they would let in, and made their gatherings as private and exclusive, and as by-invitation-only as possible. And could you blame them after the unpleasant incident with Bob Hines?

Eventually, Bob graduated, passed the Foreign Service exam and became embassy staff in Papua New Guinea. He is still struggling with the map of the place and is perennially amazed that there are, in fact, black people living there even though it is not Africa or America.

The foreign students had graduated, too, and went back to their respective countries. They constantly tell stories about the incident with Bob on their TV, the radio and to all of their friends, and the American residents there have become laughing stocks of the local communities. The most popular joke that they have played on them is when people walk up to them and ask them: “Where are you from? America? Where is that?” and then loud guffaws follow as the American residents hurry on back to their apartments, red-faced with shame.

And local politicians, having learned about how their constituents were treated at that party, have no qualms now about buddying up to Iran, China, Belarus and North Korea. At least, when they travel to those countries to sign yet another oil, weapon or nuclear deal they know they will not be talking to a bunch of geographical ignoramuses; and when they get there, the general population there will not be asking them every five minutes: “Where is that?”. The hosts do have enough wisdom to know that the way guests are treated now will be the way they will be treated when they, too, become guests, and the former guests become their hosts.

The Australian Citizenship English Language Test Debate: Can we forget about terrorism for a moment? - Sue Ellson, Newcomers Network

2006-09-22T23:48:00.000+10:00

Online at http://www.newcomersnetwork.com/mediareleases/060922.php

The Australian Citizenship English Language Test Debate: Can we forget about terrorism for a moment?

22 September 2006 - 1265 words

by Sue Ellson BBus AIMM MAHRI Founder of Newcomers Network

Points raised in this article include:
. As an Australian, I would fail a basic Australian History Test
. Bring on the English Language Test for New Australian Citizens
. Life and living skills need to be learnt to live in First World Australia
. It is much harder to be extreme if you understand mainstream
. Everyone needs someone to say 'welcome' when they arrive

Have you been subconsciously groomed to be fearful and scared of someone who is different to you? Just because someone speaks with an accent, it doesn't mean that they think with an accent. Every religious group has its own share of extremists. Clothes worn in Melbourne are different from those worn in Brisbane - and not just because of the weather!

I am a born and bred Australian. Every day, I choose to work with people who have chosen to live here because I am inspired by their passion and commitment to a fresh start. I believe that one of the greatest blessings of living in Australia is our opportunity to participate in a democratic society where we can speak our mind. After all, you are reading this because it wasn't censored.

If I feel strongly enough about a proposed change in policy or procedure for the collective benefit of Australian society, I can rally people power, the media, the internet, lobby groups, my local Member of Parliament etc to help me get my message heard.

Despite an Australian education, I must admit that I do not have an extensive knowledge of Australian history and culture. Sorry about that. In fact unless I studied hard, I would probably fail a basic Australian History test. I was shocked by the graphic portrayal of what 'white' Australians did to indigenous Australians in the recently released Australian movie 'Kanyini.' I don't remember ever covering this topic in my Social Studies class at primary school.

Thanks to living in Adelaide for the first 28 years of my life, I have a subtle 'British' accent - quite well regarded really - far better in social situations than one that comes from America or New Zealand. I still talk far too fast and I find it difficult not to include all of the sayings and slang I heard in my youth.

Now, I am 41. I can tell you that the world we are living in is changing at an exponential rate in the 21st century, not an incremental rate as it has done over the last 2000 years.

When British migrants were encouraged to move to Australia between 1945 and 1972, can you imagine them hiring a migration agent to complete the visa application process? International students in some universities now outnumber local students. All levels of government are moving their information, resources and services online so that residents can have up to 24/7 access.

At the local level, people with busy lives are taking refugees for driving lessons, shopping expeditions and medical appointments. They are passing on information about the closest shop, bus or swimming pool to the new neighbour next door. How many times have we trumpeted to the world our commitment to volunteerism - and showcased it at the Olympics in Sydney and the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. This is not the Australia that Greek immigrants arrived in shortly after World War II. How many of these people still recoil at the phrase 'new Australian?'

But where does this leave us in 2006? How do we as a society remain welcoming yet safe in the context of global unrest? For a start, with so much change occurring every single day, we need to ensure that everyone who lives here has the opportunity to actively participate in their community and one of the most obvious common denominators is the ability to read, write, speak and understand the English language.

Every effort must be made to ensure that this happens - and in some cases, this will mean that the quality of English classes and the associated external support network will need to be improved so that people can reach a suitable standard within an agreed time allotment.

One way to increase a new arrival's ability to participate in Australian life is for them to have the necessary life and living skills for our first world country. A South African person told me how safe she felt in buildings in Australia simply because she knows that there are requirements on fire systems, occupational health and safety and so on.

One of the reasons we enjoy a safe and secure lifestyle in Australia is because of regulations - so if they are in the general interests of all residents - why do we fear their implementation?

Children educated in technology savvy Australia use a plethora of equipment far beyond a desktop computer. Information booths, automatic teller machines, EFTPOS facilities, forms, regulations, health records, street signs, tickets, mobile phones, MP3 players, EVERYTHING in writing is in ENGLISH. And one of the best ways to learn English is as a child does - through living. If our lifestyle in Australia does not provide people with that opportunity, how can new arrivals learn English quickly?

Here is a quick anecdote, just one of many I have heard. An international friend of mine asked a school mum to repeat something she had said because she did not understand it the first time. The mother told her 'don't worry.' Wrong. The woman wanted to know what she had said and all that she had asked her to do was repeat a sentence and this school mother refused. Is this a part of Australian culture that we would like to warn newcomers about? Do we need to inform all newcomers that there is every chance they will be treated differently in schools, shops, workplaces, etc?

The newcomer might be able to speak three languages and have multiple qualifications but because they have a thick accent when speaking English and the local person cannot understand it immediately, they can be treated as 'stupid.' Shame, shame, shame. What about how they will crave a meaningful friendship in their new country but they will be forced to endure conversations about sport and the weather to ensure that they have more than one meeting with a new acquaintance?

As far as I am concerned, bring on the English Language Assessment for new Australian Citizens. How many of us need a deadline or a test to make us do something? Would you want a driver on the road that didn't know the road rules? Then why would you expect a newcomer to be an active participant in Australian life if they cannot communicate and learn the everyday life skills they need to make the most of their new life in their new location? It is much harder to be extreme if you understand mainstream. For a start, you will have access to the same resources so many of us take for granted.

And if you are the person reading this because you DO have English skills, perhaps you could share a bit of your time with someone who needs to improve their skills. You might learn something new, perhaps just a few words in their language - like 'Hello, how are you today?' At the very least, you might be able to teach them something about Australia's fixation with sport and join them at a game. Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi. Everyone needs someone to say 'welcome' when they arrive - and if this format doesn't suit you, show them what 'Australia' means to you. After all, it is your destination of choice too.

--

Sue Ellson BBus AIMM MAHRI is the Melbourne based Founder of Newcomers Network, Australia's first independent online guide for people moving to and within Australia that started in 1999. Newcomers Network has been hosting Welcome to Melbourne and Welcome to Sydney events for up to 70 guests every month since January 2005 and provides around 1000 pages of website content free of charge to over 50,000 website visitors per month.
sueellson@newcomersnetwork.com or sueellson@yahoo.com.au
+ 61 (0)3 9812 7288 or +61 3 (0)402 243 271

You can submit your views on the proposed changes to Australian Citizenship online via http://www.citizenship.gov.au/news/discussion_paper.htm before 17/11/06.

The Questions to comment on are available in the Citizenship Discussion Paper and include:
Question 1
Should Australia introduce a formal citizenship test?
Question 2
How important is knowledge of Australia for Australian citizenship?
Question 3
What level of English is required to participate as an Australian citizen?
Question 4
How important is a commitment to Australia's way of life and values for prospective Australian citizens?
Question 5
What form should a commitment to Australian values take?
Question 6
What level of knowledge and understanding of the Australian way of life and English language skills should
people have to be approved for permanent residence in Australia?
Question 7
Should they be required to demonstrate this knowledge?
Question 8
If so, how could they demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of Australia and their English
language skills?
Question 9
Should the same be required of people to be approved for long term temporary residence in Australia, such
as for business or study?
Question 10
How important is a commitment to Australia's way of life and values for permanent residents and long term
temporary residents?
Question 11
What form should a commitment to Australian values take?
Question 12
What things do you think are important for prospective citizens to have an understanding of before taking
up Australian citizenship?
Question 13
Should prospective Australian citizens be formally tested for their level of English? If so, would it be
necessary to test oral, written, reading, and listening skills?
Question 14
Should the requirement be expanded beyond needing a knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of
Australian citizenship and an understanding of the nature of the application? Should it instead encompass
a broader knowledge of Australia?
Question 15
If knowledge of Australia is considered important for Australian citizenship, what elements do you think are
necessary? For example, should people choosing to become Australians know something about our history; our culture and traditions; our common values; national symbols; our laws; and our Australian system of democracy? What other things do you think are important?
Question 16
If a formal citizenship test were to be introduced, should certain groups (for example, older people or long term residents) be exempt?

Career paths to harmony - Klaas Woldring, New Matilda

2006-09-22T23:47:00.000+10:00

I agree, there does need to be a much stronger physical presence of migrants from many backgrounds in the senior roles within our communities. Sue Ellson, Newcomers Network

http://www.newmatilda.com/policytoolkit/policydetail.asp?PolicyID=507

Career paths to harmony By: Klaas Woldring
22 September 2006

Kim Beazley’s recent comments have suddenly focussed attention on what the ALP may want to offer on immigration and multiculturalism policy. Beazley suggested that immigrants, even tourists, should sign up to a whole range of glorified Australian values in writing if they are to make the grade. Several Labor MPs have publicly disassociated themselves with this appeal to the Hansonism which was so successfully hijacked by the Howard Government. The appeal to xenophobia from both sides of politics makes it clear that the time has come for a new generation of multicultural policies, to prevent further regression to assimilation and notions of cultural hierarchy and inequality.

Advertisement

Starting from 2000 and reinforced after the 2004 federal election, the Howard Government adopted a new direction in immigration policy: seeking out and encouraging skilled workers and professionals to migrate to Australia shores. There is little doubt that, with the severe skill shortages in the current labour market, this policy makes sense. It also makes sense given that the quality of Australian executive management, as the Karpin Inquiry into Management (1995) clearly demonstrated, leaves a lot to be desired. But what actually happens to the skilled immigrants themselves over time? If we look back to the Hawke years - the ‘clever country’ years - in the late 1980s, skilled immigrants often had difficulty finding appropriate jobs. Their unemployment rate was generally higher than average and they had to settle for jobs that were less suitable than expected. A high percentage returned to their country of origin. This was especially the case for engineers. The prejudices of prospective employers and their preference for locally educated workers were found to be major reasons for their departure (Hawthorne, 1994; Murphy, 1994; Smith, 1994).

From 1948 to 1980 Australian mass immigration was based on attracting unskilled and semi-skilled labour. Research in the early 1990s (Iredale, 1992; Woldring, 1996) indicated that non-English-speaking migrants (NESB1) were severely under-represented in managerial, executive and professional positions – comparable to the number of women in the workforce. This was particularly the case in the upper echelons of the public service, corporate boards in the private sector, the police, the judiciary, universities, parliaments, prisons and the professional sector. These elite groups were dominated by a near closed-shop of White Anglo-Australian Males (WAAM) and their old boy networks. Looking at the cohort of the second generation of non-English speaking migrants (NESB2) in the mid-1990s, the situation had only marginally improved. Better education has not significantly benefited them (Woldring, 1996). More recent assessments don’t seem to be available. Australian management received a scathing report card in the Barraclough study commissioned by the Karpin Inquiry into Management (1995), yet the remuneration of many of the modestly competent WAAM executives, or imported Americans, has gone through the roof in recent years.

In the meantime the deregulation of industrial relations has not helped ethnic immigrants either. Teicher et al (2002) found that, after the Workplace Relations Act of 1996, ‘the transition in the Australian industrial relation system from a centralized system of conciliation and arbitration to a deregulated industrial relations system of enterprise bargaining has compounded the disadvantage suffered by these workers’. This combination of trends does very little to favour multiculturalism and ethnic harmony but instead propagates class conflict and risks destroying what egalitarianism is left.

Thanks to Bill Leak

The encouragement of larger numbers of skilled and professional immigrants brings with it the need to accept that, after an initial period of settling-in and familiarisation, these people will seek access to elite positions in society. If these positions are made unavailable or very difficult to achieve on account of an ‘ethnic ceiling’, they may well leave again. Even if they do choose to stay in Australia and concede to work in jobs which they are overqualified for, their valuable contribution to society is likely to be diminished. Australia may waste the real skills of these people if their careers are thwarted and their contributions and ambitions frustrated.

This has happened before. In the past job offers were only likely when foreign skills were not in competition with local talent. This may be ‘human nature’ but Australia can hardly afford a repeat of this type of hidden discrimination.

Have the WAAM attitudes changed now? Has the establishment composition changed? Hardly. The skills of professional immigrants are still under-recognised and submitted to substantial questioning despite extensive official checks on their formal qualifications.

The role played by migrants in the political sphere is limited indeed apart from being used and abused for branch stacking purposes by major parties. As aspiring political activists they are often simply not accepted. This situation is in itself a major barrier in the renewal of a political system that even many Anglo Celtic Australians regard as ossified. The problem is that discrimination against skilled ethnic migrants is usually very subtle and hard to demonstrate. Of course, one can point to some highly successful ethnic migrants but these are mostly self-made entrepreneurs in the private sector. Like Anglo-Celtic women who have given up trying to break the glass ceiling and started their own businesses, many individual ethnic immigrants have made the most of their own talents and some have done very well. There is also a long tradition, particularly in the Italian, Greek, Lebanese and Vietnamese communities, of families who have banded together to form successful family businesses.

Australia’s latest search for highly qualified individual immigrants, from anywhere, is likely to be as opportunistic as it was in the late 1980s. It is focused on quickly filling gaps in the workforce of technical and professional skills which take considerable time to develop locally. Naturally, these newer migrants bring their own social, political, and lifestyle values that impact on the wider society. They also have views on political arrangements, not just as voters, but also as members of parties and advocates of change. Once integrated as part of the Australian community, they are not prepared to be treated as second class citizens or apprentice citizens who must learn the Anglo Celtic ways and behave accordingly.

The contribution of migrants beyond the immediate functional job context is often valuable and should be optimised, not ignored or merely tolerated. Australia must give them a voice at high levels of decision-making in mainstream public and private organisations, parliaments and educational institutions. Only then will multiculturalism progress to the next stage where it will mean more than food diversity, multicultural festivals and the SBS, however valuable these aspects are. However, if voter attitude surrounding the Tampa incident and the appalling, hypocritical legislation to prevent the boat people from reaching mainland Australia as refugees are any indication, one could well conclude that multiculturalism is no more than skin deep for a majority of Australians. The essentially ethnic conflict between Anglo Celtic and Lebanese communities at Cronulla in 2005 provided yet another failed test of multicultural values.

In the context of recent ethnic strife between the Anglo Celtic and Muslim and Lebanese communities in an environment where police, government institutions and the judiciary are heavily Anglo Celtic, the preservation of ethnic harmony in Australia is central. Band-aids won’t work. The key question that must be asked is how many ethnic representatives are actually in mainstream executive positions in Australia? Are they a substantial, visible segment of the ruling class? At present there are far too few high profile ethnic role models and therefore no adequate links for integration with mainstream society. While it may be correct that Australia has no ethnic ghettos, the absence of such role models is a distinct drawback. The mainstream leadership of this country must become visibly multicultural.

The time to fast-track ethnic minority individuals to the highest decision-making levels of mainstream society seems long overdue. That is what an alternative ALP Government should have as its policy. There are many ideas that come to mind: the very first would be to examine to what extent the much-glorified Australian values are actually practised in the society. There is great opportunity to boost multicultural values by improving ethnic representation at the very top. Why for instance are there no reserved seats in the Parliament for indigenous people? Why is there such limited cultural diversity in the Parliaments? Why is there no provision for enhancing and constitutionally protecting the multicultural character of our society? Stepan Kerkyasharian, the NSW Ethnic Affairs Chairman had this to say in 1998:

‘Multiculturalism is central to national identity – it is not and cannot be a fringe issue at the heart of any discussion of national identity and our national future – the 1998 Constitutional Convention affirmed the centrality of multiculturalism to our sense of national self – they recommended that our most important document – the Constitution – be amended to include recognition of Australia’s cultural diversity in the preamble’.

About the author
Dr. Klaas Woldring is a former Associate Professor in Management of Southern Cross University. He immigrated from the Netherlands in 1964, and was naturalised in 1969.

Letter from Australia: Silver lining in cloud of Cronulla - KC Boey, New Straits Times Malaysia

2006-09-06T11:06:00.000+10:00

This sounds like good news for the future - let's wait and see what the The Reporting Diversity project report says later this year! Sue Ellson, Founder, Newcomers Network http://www.newcomersnetwork.com

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Sunday/Columns/20060903091233/Article/index_html

Letter from Australia: Silver lining in cloud of Cronulla
03 Sep 2006
K.C. Boey

IF it were the case that behind every cloud is a silver lining, participants at the community forum in Melbourne would have left gratified for the lessons of Cronulla.

The more circumspect might conclude that the riotous behaviour on the surf beach south of Sydney last December was no aberration.

For all the protestations at the time of Prime Minister John Howard and New South Wales premier Morris Iemma to the contrary, Cronulla is symptomatic of a deeper malaise, the circumspect would argue.

It would be worrying enough if Cronulla were indicative of alcohol-fuelled and drug-induced misbehaviour taken to extremes. Or mere competition for leisure use of public space.

It would be devastating that after more than a century, the ghosts of racism of a white Australia had been resurrected in clashes between mobs of white and Middle Eastern youth.

It would be an indictment of the liberal democratic tradition — which Australians lay claim to championing — that sections of the media, a cornerstone of the institution, should stand accused of being party to inciting the impressionable to violence.

Which of the conditions comes closest to the truth? And what can Australians learn from the experience?

It is a massive undertaking for a one-day seminar of local government, community and non-government participants to come to a conclusion.
The organisers were realistic. A panacea for the social ills of community was far from the agenda.

The aim was to explore the events of Cronulla and see what local government could do to prevent such events from happening in the first place, Dalal Smiley, Darebin co-ordinator of multicultural affairs, tells the New Sunday Times.

China-born mayor Stanley Chiang posed the questions: Was Cronulla a law and order issue; was racism a main or a contributing factor; was it a one-off incident; could it happen elsewhere in Australia; why did it happen; what lessons should be learnt; to what extent was it a local issue?

The seminar title captured the issues and the objective: "Place, Power and Privilege: The Challenge for Local Government".

The seminar brought together academic theorists, the police, and the person caught in the crossfire of Cronulla — councillor Kevin Schreiber and mayor of Sutherland Shire, the semi-rural suburb Cronulla is in.

Anthropologist Ghassan Hage provided the theoretical backdrop against which participants grappled with the emotions of conflict, strategies for resolution, and the role of State Government, local government, and non-governmental organisations.

"The seminar provided an in-depth examination of the dynamics that led to Cronulla, and the relationships between the various players which contributed to it," says Smiley.

"It was terrific," says Christina Del Frate, multicultural liaison officer of a city suburb in Melbourne. "We definitely can learn from what happened (in Cronulla) and formulate strategies to prevent it from happening."

Off the Gladstone coast, 600km north of Brisbane, is the Great Barrier Reef. Like Del Frate’s City of Port Phillip, Gladstone would not be considered vulnerable to the racism that some quarters suggest underpinned the Cronulla violence.

Of the 25,000 people in Gladstone, only 10 per cent were born overseas. That’s below the national average of one in four Australians born overseas.

But Gladstone is one of those areas facing a severe shortage of skilled labour and is looking overseas for its workers. As a result, the council is arming itself for a change in its demographics.

For Associate Professor Lynette Sheridan Burns, sections of the media have much to answer for. "If they didn’t start the fire, they certainly poured accelerant on it," said the head of the School of Communication Arts in the University of Western Sydney.

Seminar participants might be encouraged that Canberra might be doing something about the deficiencies of the media in an increasingly plural Australia. Burns is on a national taskforce looking into the training of journalists in a now diverse Australia.

The Reporting Diversity project, funded by the Federal Government’s Living in Harmony programme, was started before Cronulla. Its report is still in draft form, but the recommendations promise to be enlightening.

The subject did not come up in Darebin and participants at the seminar were not to know.

So how should local government and community deal with complex issues at a local level?

Plenary speakers, workshop presenters and participants had some idea. For many, as the Chinese novelist — or comic book — will say, wait for the next chapter.

Renounce terror, Costello tells Muslims - AAP, The Age

2006-09-06T10:58:00.000+10:00

Peter Costello and John Howard are regularly quoted on the topic of integration into Australian life - here is the latest edition of their comments. Sue Ellson, Founder, Newcomers Network

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Renounce-terror-Costello-tells-Muslims/2006/09/03/1157221993531.html

Renounce terror, Costello tells Muslims

September 3, 2006 - 11:24AM

Treasurer Peter Costello has stepped up the government's bid to persuade a Muslim minority to endorse Australian values, learn English and renounce terrorism.

Mr Costello also backed comments by Prime Minister John Howard this week that a small section of Australia's Islamic community stubbornly refuse to integrate.

"I think the prime minister has a point that migrants who come to Australia are expected to speak English and endorse basic Australian values, and it's going to be a problem for future generations if they don't," Mr Costello told the Nine Network.

"We have very, very successfully integrated people from all over the world in this country because we have had the attitude that when you come to Australia, whatever arguments you might have had in the old country we start again, and we start again with a common set of values and a common language."

Mr Howard caused outrage in Australia's Islamic community this week when he said Muslims needed to properly integrate by speaking English and showing respect to women.

His remarks have not been opposed by Labor, although the opposition has called on the government to provide better facilities to teach migrants English.

But Mr Costello went further than Mr Howard, warning that Australian Muslim leaders needed to stand up and denounce terrorism in all forms around the world.

"This is where we really need the Islamic leadership of this country to stand up and contend unequivocally that terrorism, no matter who it is perpetrated by ... is never justified, under the cover of religion," he said.

Islamic leaders, he said, should also "make it clear to would-be converts that when you join this religion, you do not join a radical political ideology."

Australian Muslim leaders had to make it clear that terrorism had nothing to do with real Islam, he said.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer also said all migrants should speak English, in order to be able to integrate into Australian life.

"If you come to Australia as a migrant and you can't speak English then the fact is in those circumstances you're going to be enormously disadvantaged," Mr Downer said.

"You have seen under the cover of a radical form of Islam, terrorism being perpetrated," Mr Costello said.

However, Ali Roude, chairman of the Islamic Council of NSW, said the government needed to drop the unhelpful rhetoric and stop targeting Muslims.

"It's difficult to promote harmony and social calm when our politicians and leaders are constantly targeting the Muslim community," Mr Roude told AAP.

"The conduct and behaviour and the viciousness of the language that they have used can only lead to bigotry and hatred, this is not in the best interests of our nation."

© 2006 AAP

Multicultural Britain: What are we so scared of? - Ian Bell, Sunday Herald

2006-08-28T11:52:00.000+10:00

This is a fascinating piece with a variety of anecdotes. As Britain is similar to Australia in many 'cultural' ways, I thought this would be a good piece to add to the discussion here. Sue Ellson, Newcomers Network

http://www.sundayherald.com/57566

MULTICULTURAL BRITAIN: WHAT ARE WE SO SCARED OF?

Essay ... By Ian Bell

After a century and a half spent using and then abusing the emigrés of Victoria’s empire, we now have people from the former fiefdoms of Rome, Charlemagne and Stalin, otherwise known as the European Union, arriving on our doorstep. Scots of Irish descent know, or should know, all about this. Scots of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Iranian, Italian, Lithuanian or, indeed, Polish descent certainly know all about it. Refugees, political or economic, they came here to make new lives, often as the native-born were departing in their hordes, with no sense of irony, for sunnier climes. It was hard work.

I can only speak, a little, for the Irish. When they began arriving here in the second part of the 19th century, after the famine, they were given that famously warm Scottish welcome. Our modern tabloids invented nothing. Back then – stop me if this sounds familiar – they were stealing our jobs, importing an alien faith, undercutting our wages, and divided in their loyalties. They were not to be trusted and, of course, they bred like rabbits. Even in the 20th century they were still being denounced by elements within the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

The great writer and journalist Neal Ascherson once remarked that the map of Europe is an illusion. In his description, Europe could only be understood as an endless series of cartographies overlaid, like transparencies, one upon the other. You could say the same about the entire world. States and kingdoms and empires come and go but so, continually, do peoples. Nothing is fixed. Nothing, ultimately, is controllable.

The history of Britain is the history of waves of immigration stretching back over millennia, everyone knows it. Scotland takes its name, as even an elementary textbook explains, from an Irish tribe. Today, when the notion of Britishness is endlessly disputable, the social map of these islands is like a flamboyant quilt of many colours and shades of colour. Very attractive it is, too.

Yet here we have Ruth Kelly, communities secretary, launching a “Commission on Integration and Cohesion” (England only – the Scots might miss the point) in the apparent belief that multiculturalism hasn’t “worked”. Kelly is concerned that too many people still feel “separate”. No pressure on British Muslims there, then.

Here, too, we have the tabloids going bananas, as only British tabloids can, over Polish plumbers. Have you tried getting a plumber lately? That little difficulty matters little to The Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express. Newspapers of their persuasion have been playing a malevolent game for half a century. Their patron plaster saint is Margaret Thatcher, she who in January 1978 went on TV to sympathise with the white natives who believed they were being “swamped by people with a different culture”. I make that 28 years of swamping. Still the hysteria goes on.

After all, the simple point about multiculturalism is this: it cannot be abolished. Once begun, it cannot be halted or somehow corrected by a commission. It evolves as the daily relations between people evolve. Sometimes those relations leave a lot to be desired, but when the likes of Kelly talk of tensions, or a lack of integration, all that they really mean is that there are bigots, of every stripe, in our communities. Multiculturalism is a fact of British life with only two enemies: racism, and those who seek to pander to a racist press. The tabloids, in other words, and the target demographic they share with the two largest political parties in Britain. Readers and votes: the calculation is that both can be garnered if you kick an immigrant.

So what is it with the native white British? France has the biggest Muslim population in Europe, not Britain. France has its inter-communal problems, God knows, and went through its own fit of anxiety over the arrival of the Polish plumber last year. But unemployment in France easily outstrips unemployment in Britain. Here, joblessness, as opposed to “economic inactivity”, is at a historic low.

The point about the 427,000 registered workers who have come to Britain from former Soviet states – those states that joined the EU two years ago – is that they are working. Working hard, paying taxes, buying goods, and enjoying strictly limited benefits – though officially only 7% claim them.

After decades in which millions of so-called “illegals”, mainly Hispanic, have entered the country, the United States has been going through its own bout of soul-searching, mixed with bigotry, over immigration. Right-wingers have come up with schemes to fence off the entire border with Mexico, but even George Bush realises that Los Angeles would grind to a halt if he clamped down in the way some have demanded. For the American economy, still the most potent in the world, there is no alternative to hard-working immigrants.

The best guess is that much the same is true of Britain if conspicuous growth is to be maintained. One estimate last week put the east European migrants’ contribution to the British economy at £2.5 billion annually. According to the trade, the building boom – all those PFI hospitals and badly needed houses – would be unsustainable if a native skills gap was not being filled by the imported plumbers, carpenters, electricians and bricklayers. Farmers, meanwhile, allege that the harvest could not be brought in without 70,000 migrants. For the record, both industries insist they would hire locally, if they only could.

In the catering and hospitality business, meanwhile, another phenomenon seems to be at work: migrants are filling the jobs locals won’t touch. This perhaps says something about British attitudes to work, or about the behaviour of some British employers, but it tends to undermine the claim that wages are being undercut. If the money were enviable to begin with, there would be no vacancies to fill.

Then there are the facts, inconvenient to some. Of the east European immigrant workers registered, more than 90% had no dependents when they arrived, and only 3% brought their children. Those intent on swamping us seem content to leave the family behind. Possibly, instead, they view their time among us as limited: do the job and then go home.

Wages are rising in Poland, after all. Economic growth within the eurozone is now faster than growth in Britain. We will, very soon, cease to be an attractive first port of call for economic migrants. When the European countries which have placed quotas on inflows from the accession states see the error of their ways – Spain, Greece and Finland are already easing restrictions – the British economy will pay a heavy price.

Scotland is already paying. Of the 427,000 east Europeans decamping to Britain between May 2004, and the beginning of July this year, 32,000 came to Scotland. I make that a mere 7.5% of the total. If the migrants add economic value, and if Scotland has an underlying problem with population decline – Jack McConnell, for one, doesn’t doubt it – we are losing out already. Growth in the Scottish economy has been sluggish for years, but here we risk ceding a potential competitive advantage simply because London’s tabloids pander to racism, and because Ruth Kelly’s knee has a jerk attached. The First Minister would wish things otherwise, but the voice of the Daily Mail is more powerful in Downing Street than the voice of Bute House.

The population of Britain contains 155,000 Americans. There are 106,000 recent arrivals from Australia, 70,000 Canadians, 57,000 New Zealanders, and 140,000 South Africans. Whisper it if The Sun is listening, but there are also 254,000 Germans, 94,000 French, and 54,000 people recently from Spain. Nobody suggests that any of these cause “tensions”. Nobody alleges that they place a strain on services or local housing. Can you make a tabloid scare out of a Canadian? Can you tell a Yankee to go home?

Yet these people, welcome all, are also of the essence of the multiculturalism that has the government in its latest spin. Some 600,000 individuals have arrived in Britain legally over the last two years. Subtract those from eight formerly communist states and you find 179,000 “permitted to settle”. Most of the souls contributing to that figure have come from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. How do we differentiate between them, in both official and tabloid language, and hard-working people from New Zealand or Germany? Melanin, merely, the stuff that colours all our skins. There is no other reason for official attitudes towards immigration.

Britain’s latest populist “problem” has nothing to do with immigration, in fact, certainly not in any economic sense. Overwhelmingly, the Australians and Americans are white; the Indians and Pakistanis are not. However she chooses to disguise the subtext, Ruth Kelly is establishing a commission on “integration and cohesion” because she regards race as a cultural and political issue. In the process, she makes it an issue.

Like its newspaper patrons, our government clouds the distinctions between immigrants, migrants and refugees. The Polish migrants provoke demented headlines such “Poles Flood In” simply because they wish to work. Asylum seekers – doctors, lawyers and engineers among them – are denied the right to work. The immigrants who are white encounter precious few problems. The immigrants who fail to be white run the gauntlet of official suspicion. A rational policy is nowhere to be found.

The United States achieved greatness in the 20th century because it did not waste time worrying over the meaning of multiculturalism. The melting pot was a fact . America’s real agony came instead from the horrific legacy of slavery. Is Britain to be forever beset by its disputable colonial inheritance, and by its insular habits towards Europe? Probably so, if history is any guide and if xenophobia has become policy. The Polish plumber will get your sink fixed, nevertheless, and keep your economy ticking over for good measure. The Muslim Scot will demonstrate the meaning of multiculturalism by example. The part-Irish Scot will remember his history. Ruth Kelly and her kind will waste everyone’s time, and do more grievous harm than good.

27 August 2006

Blog on The Age website about racism

2006-08-12T11:35:00.000+10:00

This is quite a long blog but it includes many different views on Racism in Australia compared to the UK and the USA...good to browse through.

Sue Ellson, Founder, Newcomers Network
http://www.newcomersnetwork.com

Value-added citizenship on the agenda - Michelle Grattan, The Age

2006-07-25T11:05:00.000+10:00

A good summary of some of the issues related to Australian Citizenship - written in April. Sue Ellson

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/valueadded-citizenship-on-the-agenda/2006/04/29/1146198389941.html?page=fullpage

Value-added citizenship on the agenda

By Michelle Grattan
April 30, 2006

Illustration: Matt Davidson

Australians won't have to carry a personal ID card after cabinet last week decided only to proceed with the more limited fraud-busting "smartcard". But people wanting to become Australian citizens might soon find themselves examined on how well they understand the nation's ID.

The ID card came back on the political agenda after last year's London bombings. The dangers of a political row developing about it as the election approached, and the Liberals' opposition to Labor's proposed Australia Card in the 1980s, meant the odds were always stacked against it.

The odds should be better for Andrew Robb, the parliamentary secretary who looks after citizenship and multicultural affairs, getting up his idea for a compulsory test to ensure new citizens have a "functional level of English language skill, and a general knowledge of Australian values and customs".

Robb's Thursday speech to the Sydney Institute, outlining the plan, was submitted to the Prime Minister's office. While this doesn't guarantee the proposal will be adopted, it suggests good support for it being run up the flagpole.

Robb was one of two high- profile backbenchers (the other was Malcolm Turnbull) made parliamentary secretaries in Howard's reshuffle this year. The citizenship test, which Robb will look at over the next couple of months, is his first big initiative.

Wherever we turn these days, "values" are being elevated. They feature in the debate about the war on terrorism, because they're at the heart of that conflict. Values figure heavily in John Howard's history and culture wars. And values are being strongly woven into the discussion of immigration and multiculturalism.

While it has arisen against the background of the war on terrorism, Robb says the primary driving force for his citizenship test is the ageing of the population, both here and abroad.

As OECD countries face their own worker shortages, they will try to hang on to their people. Australia will be increasingly recruiting from places with cultures very different from our own, such as Africa and parts of Asia. This means "we have to be better at integration," he says.

In part the citizenship test would be simply taking further what's in place. There is already a "subjective test" of people's basic English when they are interviewed on applying for citizenship. (The points test for skilled migrants ensures at least these people usually have a good grasp.) And in the citizen pledge, a person commits to Australia's "democratic beliefs", rights, liberties and laws.

Robb thinks the test of a prospective citizen's English should be that it is up to what's needed to "function effectively in the workplace", whether it is filling in forms, reading safety signs or talking to colleagues. The values test would be all about " knowing what they are pledging to".

"This is not a radical idea," Robb says. "There are objective tests in most of the European countries, and in Canada and the United States." They vary in degree of difficulty.

The Canadian test, for example, is character forming, covering the right to vote and run for office, voting procedures, Canada's main historical and geographical features, the rights and responsibilities of a citizen, the structure of Canadian government and confederation. Candidates also have to answer questions about their region.

A study guide provides 105 general and nine regional questions. Study questions include: What are the three main groups of aboriginal peoples? Which was the last province to join Canada? What part of the constitution legally protects the basic rights and freedoms of all Canadians? Which province has the most bilingual Canadians? Where does the name "Canada" come from? What is a major river in Quebec? What country is Canada's largest trading partner? Explain how the levels of government are different. What do political parties do? What is the role of the opposition parties?

Robb, stressing his test would have to clear the "commonsense" hurdle, wouldn't go as far as Canada. Understanding our language and values doesn't require "knowing where the rivers run", Robb says. But he declines to say what questions he has in mind, not wanting to get embroiled in detail before he wins the general argument.

Although Robb's plan attracted some unfavourable reaction in the Muslim community, it is in the political mainstream. Labor's spokeswoman Annette Hurley says there should not be a "punitive test" but compulsory testing could be built into a program of education for citizenship.

"It is not unreasonable to expect people who become citizens to make the effort to know about how our Government works, basic aspects of the legal system, and some of the history of Australia." She says testing directly about knowledge of values is tricky but questions on these other matters would elicit this. Answering those questions would also test prospective citizens' English, she says.

Jim Jupp, director of the Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies at the Australian National University, sees little merit in the Robb plan, labelling it "punitive, assimilationist and functionless".

"It wouldn't distinguish between good and bad potential citizens," says Jupp, a former British migrant and an Australian citizen. "And it will discriminate against people whose native language is not English and who don't have a background in British-based culture."

Also, questions would need to be tested on the general population, many of whom don't know that we have a constitution or understand the difference between federal and state governments. Tongue-in-cheek, Jupp also points out that the simple question "Who is Australia's head of state?" is answered differently by warriors in the republican debate.

The pros and cons of a citizenship test can't be properly examined without knowing the detail. But certainly, if it was to avoid unfairness, a formal citizenship test would have to be accompanied by resources to reduce the disadvantages some people would have.

Much more radical than the citizenship test is the idea urged by prominent business figure Hugh Morgan in a speech in Melbourne the day before Robb's. Morgan says Australia should scrap dual citizenship. "A person who is a citizen of two countries has at the least the beginning of a bipolar disorder.

"And if the other country is, in cultural terms, many miles away from Australia, then the bipolarity will become increasingly acute," he said. He argued that "If a large number of Australian citizens have dual citizenship then their commitment to our future sovereignty and independence will always be qualified. And that is something that we in our strategic position cannot afford."

Robb points out that such a change would affect a huge number of people. It is estimated that between 4.5 and 5 million Australians are dual citizens. Of these, up to 1 million were born in Australia (this includes those who have gained citizenship of other countries either through family connections or by living and working in those countries).

Morgan's "bipolarity" fear is not likely to force itself onto the political agenda. It has not been an issue, Robb says, and he doesn't see it as a problem. "Many of these people came as long as 50 years ago. It would be grossly unfair to question their loyalty and contribution."

(The writers of the Australian constitution had their doubts about MPs, however. To sit in the Australian Parliament, a person must have renounced any other citizenships.)

Closer to the bone, Robb also rejects the idea floated by some Liberals that if people with dual citizenship are found guilty of offences related to terrorism, they should be deported.

Victorian Liberal Sophie Panopoulos has said a dual citizen abusing his or her Australian citizenship by preaching hatred or raising funds for terrorism should have citizenship of this country revoked.

But Robb believes that once people are accepted as citizens, they have the rights that go with that, and they are Australia's responsibility.

In the fight against local terrorists, the real challenge is prevention. Apart from the citizenship test, Robb's plans include initiatives to try to head off the alienation that could push young Muslims in Australia into extremism.

These have grown out of the summit the Government held with the Muslim community some months ago and Robb's talks with the reference group that was set up as a result.

They range from working with sporting and other organisations to promoting the establishment of a world-class institute of Islamic studies, attached to a major university, that would train imams. Robb has been talking to a number of universities. Melbourne University is one that would have the capacity to run an institute, which Robb wants to see set up quickly.

The institute would provide undergraduate and graduate studies, and ordinary degrees, as well as specialist theological training. Robb believes the institute could have a wider regional role in imam training.

For example, Indonesian students could do a basic degree in their own country and come to Australia for postgraduate studies. "Potentially it could attract imams from all our region" (making it a unique export industry!).

Such an institute, he believes, would foster moderate and mainstream values, Muslim style, among the local Islamic community, especially the young. More ambitiously, through it Australia could "provide a bridge between the West and many of those countries in the region with large Muslim populations".

Racicm is not simply black and white - Ghassan Hage, Online Opinion

2006-06-16T09:58:00.000+10:00

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4577

Racism is not simply black and white
By Ghassan Hage - posted Friday, 16 June 2006 Sign Up for free e-mail updates!Sign Up for free e-mail updates!

For some time now, there has been a divergence between the images of racism in research and those that lie behind much anti-racist policy and activism. Many opposed to racism see it in a very simplistic fashion: racists are always white and bad and their victims are always not so white and good. The limited nature of this stance clearly shows in the poverty of the reactions to the Cronulla violence.

Anti-racism in Australia needs to re-invent itself, whether it aims for the difficult goal of getting through to racists, to invite them to reflect on the negative effect of their actions, or the easier but just role of helping to formulate policy that limits the capacity of racists to hurt their victims.

Racists are not one-dimensional, evil people. They can be good people too, and often are. Not many people engaging in racism see themselves in the image of our dominant negative stereotypes of what a racist should be like: a sleazy white supremacist, a violent skinhead or a guard in a Nazi concentration camp.
Advertisement

Often the reverse is true: racists feel morally righteous and justified in having the attitude towards certain others that they have. But even when they don't, racists remain human beings and their weaknesses are the weaknesses of all of us as human beings.

They are not some breed apart as anti-racist moralisers make them out to be. Beside being incorrect, the portrayal of racists as villains is inefficient as an anti-racist strategy. It disallows, for example, the possibility of communication with people who simply do not feel themselves to be villains at all. Furthermore, such a conception of racists works to stop people from seeing racism in the most obvious places. This has been the case in some of the commentaries on the Cronulla events.

There are those who argue that, on the whole, the crowd that assembled on the beach was not racist because only a handful among them were genuine wog-haters. The others were just average young blokes who wanted to make a point.

So, to qualify as racist, a crowd should be full of very nasty people. This is used to pull out the trick of convincing us that the very obvious fact - that the Cronulla crowd looked and acted like any other racist crowd in history before it - is not obvious at all, since there were lots of good people on the beach that day who just wanted to make a point. Anti-racists should not be saying: "No, they weren't nice people - they were racists." They should be saying: "Yes, there were nice people among them, but this does not make the crowd any less racist."

Along with the division of people as good and bad lies a common anti-racist conception of racism as always white. This is also far from the truth: everybody can be racist. White people of a European background do not have a monopoly on racist beliefs and attitudes; it is a feature of all cultures.

But there is a difference between racism as a negative portrayal of people and racism as a power to do negative things. While everybody can have racist beliefs, not everybody has the power to act on their beliefs.

This is where white racism derives its historical importance. White people, historically speaking, have been in a position of power so that they have been able to act on their racism more so than others. If white racism has had the power to discriminate and shape society more than others, this does not mean that non-white racism has had no effect at all. Indeed, the victims of racism themselves are not necessarily good. Just because one is a victim of racism does not make one virtuous.

Victims of racism can be racists themselves. Anti-racists should recognise and be able to tackle cases where non-whites are discriminating against others. These could be minor cases where non-white owners of small firms discriminate against white job-seekers, or more important and violent cases, such as the Lebanese-background rapists targeting what they have classified as Australian girls. If they fail to tackle such cases, anti-racists, whether they are activists or legislators, will appear to be morally singling out white people who will feel treated as if they have a disease no one else has.

The non-recognition of racism by minority groups by anti-racists has left the way open for its strategic use by majority racists. In Australia, a number of media commentators and politicians, prejudiced against certain minority groups, are using the fact that such groups have racist tendencies and racist individuals among them to legitimise the racism of the majority towards them. We need to keep the racism of the minorities in check, because they can still hurt people, because minorities can become majorities, and because those who are minorities in one place can be a majority in another. Nevertheless, emphasising racism of minority groups cannot be done at the expense of ignoring the racism of the majority.

The idea of not seeing that there are Lebanese-Muslim forms of racism that exist in Australia and that need to be dealt with seriously is naive at best. But the idea of equalising between the Cronulla riots and Lebanese racism is equally ridiculous, when it is not simply mischievous. In terms of world history it is the racism of the majority, not that of the minorities, that has led to the most evil racist situations known to us: slavery, apartheid and the Holocaust.

One of the greatest political theorists who has worked on racism is the Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt. She emphasised that racists do not come to us clothed as monsters: she called this the banality of evil.

But what is particularly evil about racism is that its ordinariness and banality can transform very rapidly and before we know it into a Grand Evil, such as mass extermination. Our era is generating such lopsided logics, and the state of anti-Muslim animosity that is being legitimised and routinised is such that it is not far-fetched to imagine ourselves engaging in the racist mass incarceration or even extermination of Muslims on the grounds that they are racists. This is one, among many reasons, anti-racists need to sharpen their tools.

First published in the Sydney Morning Herald on June 12, 2006.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.

Comments
Comments Printable version
Printable version Subscribe
Subscribe Email a friend
Email a friend

Dr Ghassan Hage is associate professor of anthropology at the University of Sydney.

A tolerant society is more than just an attitude - Editor, The Age

2006-06-13T13:18:00.000+10:00

http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/tolerant-society-more-than-just-attitude/2006/06/12/1149964464095.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

A tolerant society is more than just an attitude
June 13, 2006

No man is an island entire of itself, as poet John Donne declared in Meditation XVII about 400 years ago. Donne, a preacher, was offering a theological and philosophical discourse on the relationship between men, women and God. He was not, it would be fair to say, thinking about immigration and its effect on a nation. Yet the sentiment behind the imagery goes to the heart of a country's philosophy towards its citizens and who it wants to be its citizens.

Donne goes on to say: "Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." So it is that every person is a piece of the country, whether their family has been here for generations or mere years. A survey published today in The Age reveals how Australians, who after all were all immigrants once, view the role of migrants in society. It is part of a survey conducted in May by Associated Press/Ipsos Poll, in which 7986 people in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Britain and the US were asked their views on immigrants.

The poll found that Canadians had the most positive regard to immigration. About 75 per cent said immigrants had a "somewhat good or very good influence". The US and Australia shared this opinion with 54 per cent and 52 per cent respectively. However, 39 per cent of the 1009 Australians polled thought immigrants were a "bad influence". An argument, however, could be mounted that this is a small sample of a country's population.

Other findings nationwide were: younger Australians, generally, were more likely to have a positive view on migrants; higher income and tertiary levels led to a greater positive perception of migrants; more than two-thirds of Australians did not see much likelihood in migrants being criminals; and most Australians thought migrants worked as hard, or harder, than those born in this country.

Victoria led the nation on its positive outlook towards immigrants: 63 per cent believed newcomers had a "very good or somewhat good" impact on the community. This figure is much more than that of other states. This is not surprising when it is considered that, according to the 2001 census, 43 per cent of Victorians had at least one parent born overseas. On a micro-level, this can be illustrated with the City of Greater Dandenong, which is home to people from more than 150 countries. Almost half its residents are from non-English-speaking backgrounds and more than 50 per cent were born overseas. The census also found that 23 per cent of Australians are born overseas. More than 200 languages are spoken.
This flood of diversity began as an Anglo-Celtic stream for the first half of last century. By the '60s and '70s, however, the stream had been diluted with people from other countries, such as Italy and Greece, to the present-day richness of cultures.

While this integration of people is something for which Australia should be proud, there are undercurrents that cannot be ignored. These are manifested in the term un-Australian, or in other words: not one of us. It is palpably absurd, given the composition of the nation in this present day, to invoke such an image. Immigration has become mixed in the past few years with other factors, such as asylum seekers, detention centres, terrorism, riots and jobs. Immigration has been one of the most contentious issues in public life in recent years. The immigration card has been played by both sides of politics, and it honours no one to do so. People's lives are at stake. A report, based on a Senate inquiry into new asylum laws that denies asylum seekers access to the Australian legal system, is to be tabled today. In recent days, it has also emerged that 26 Australian citizens had been wrongly held in detention centres. In addition, allegations have been raised of sexual assault in Villawood detention centre, which the Government is expected to confirm in a report this week.

While surveys such as the one published today can give some comfort that, by and large, Australians are a tolerant lot, the measure of our humanity is revealed not just in what we think, but in how we act to all on this island home.

Racial diversity leads in different directions - Iain MacWhirter, The Herald UK

2006-06-01T10:50:00.000+10:00

An interesting discussion and comparison of England and Scotland...Sue Ellson

http://www.theherald.co.uk/63024.shtml

Racial diversity leads in different directions
Iain MacWhirter

Progressive nationalism is the kind of thing you'd expect to hear debated at a Scottish National Party conference rather than in the salons of New Labour. But it is rapidly becoming one of the key issues on the metropolitan centre-left. It's the English variety, of course, and suddenly it has become respectable.
The editor of the journal, Prospect, David Goodhart, has published a series of articles and a Demos pamphlet calling for the left to embrace English identity politics. He thinks liberals should stop being so inclusive and, well, liberal about immigration and start defending the rights of indigenous English to own their culture. Goodhart says: "The language of liberal universalism that dominates public debate ignores the real affinities of place and people." He argues that the two waves of immigration, from the
Commonwealth in the 1950s, and by asylum seekers in the 1990s, have undermined the cohesion of English society and shattered the social consensus that underpins the welfare state.
"Lifestyle diversity and high immigration bring cultural and economic dynamism," he says, "but they can erode feelings of mutual obligation, reducing willingness to pay tax and even encouraging a retreat from the public domain."
According to Goodhart, you can't expect people to act as a community when they don't feel like a community. Working-class people have seen their neighbourhoods changed out of all recognition and have seen incomers get what the natives see as preferential treatment by the welfare state.
Of course, there is no evidence that white people are treated unfairly by the welfare state – but to Goodhart, that doesn't really matter. He believes, like Burke, that a sense of nationhood grows out of family and kinship; common history and common language. "To put it bluntly," he says, "most of us prefer our own kind."
Goodhart has been condemned as a liberal Enoch Powell. While he hasn't exactly warned of "rivers of blood", he does speak in increas-ingly apocalyptic terms. "The left's recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people it once championed."
He hasn't called for immigration to be halted, but Goodhart has proposed limits on citizenship. "Purely economic migrants or certain kinds of refugees could be allowed temporary residence and the right to work (but not to vote) and be given access to only limited parts of the welfare state, while permanent
welfare state – but to Goodhart, that doesn't really matter. He believes, like Burke, that a sense of nationhood grows out of family and kinship; common history and common language. "To put it bluntly," he says, "most of us prefer our own kind."
Goodhart has been condemned as a liberal Enoch Powell. While he hasn't exactly warned of "rivers of blood", he does speak in increas-ingly apocalyptic terms. "The left's recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people it once championed."
He hasn't called for immigration to be halted, but Goodhart has proposed limits on citizenship. "Purely economic migrants or certain kinds of refugees could be allowed temporary residence and the right to work (but not to vote) and be given access to only limited parts of the welfare state, while permanent migrants who make the effort to become citizens would get full access to welfare." Since this would appear to make immigrants second-class citizens, Goodhart has, not surprisingly, been accused of advocating racial discrimination.
Now, what has all this to do with us? Well, first of all, any significant developments in English thinking on immigrants cannot but be of interest, if only because we need more of them and, increasingly, England doesn't. Nor can the emergence of English nationalism as something more than a football phenomenon be ignored up here, lest we end up on the wrong side of it.
Even Gordon Brown has been influenced by Goodhart's ideas and has cited his views on citizenship in a recent speech to the British Council. "The recognition of the importance of and the need to celebrate and entrench a Britishness defined by shared values strong enough to overcome discordant claims of separatism and disintegration," he said. Brown is only too conscious of his own ethnicity, and has been wrapping himself in the Union Flag, backing Beckham and calling for citizenship to be promoted in schools.
Now, the Chancellor clearly has SNP separatism in mind. However, consciously or not, he has been contributing to the rising clamour south of the border for a more clearly-defined sense of English national identification. When David Goodhart calls for more citizenship and history lessons in schools, he isn't talking about Holyrood and Wallace.
The reassessment of citizenship, like Goodhart's progressive nationalism, is, of course, a response to the rise of the British National Party in the English
migrants who make the effort to become citizens would get full access to welfare." Since this would appear to make immigrants second-class citizens, Goodhart has, not surprisingly, been accused of advocating racial discrimination.
Now, what has all this to do with us? Well, first of all, any significant developments in English thinking on immigrants cannot but be of interest, if only because we need more of them and, increasingly, England doesn't. Nor can the emergence of English nationalism as something more than a football phenomenon be ignored up here, lest we end up on the wrong side of it.
Even Gordon Brown has been influenced by Goodhart's ideas and has cited his views on citizenship in a recent speech to the British Council. "The recognition of the importance of and the need to celebrate and entrench a Britishness defined by shared values strong enough to overcome discordant claims of separatism and disintegration," he said. Brown is only too conscious of his own ethnicity, and has been wrapping himself in the Union Flag, backing Beckham and calling for citizenship to be promoted in schools.
Now, the Chancellor clearly has SNP separatism in mind. However, consciously or not, he has been contributing to the rising clamour south of the border for a more clearly-defined sense of English national identification. When David Goodhart calls for more citizenship and history lessons in schools, he isn't talking about Holyrood and Wallace.
The reassessment of citizenship, like Goodhart's progressive nationalism, is, of course, a response to the rise of the British National Party in the English local elections, and the prevalence of the cross of St George – which used to be a BNP emblem – on the football terraces. It is also a response to the crisis of multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism was the policy, promoted by many English local authorities after the Scarman Report into the Brixton riots in 1981, of encouraging ethnic and cultural diversity in cities. It seemed like common sense. However, when it emerged that some of the London bombers had been born and brought up in England, and yet appeared to regard themselves as living in a different and hostile country, people began to question whether multiculturalism wasn't leading to ethnic separatism.
Yet, when people attack multiculturalism, they are inclined to forget the UK has been a multicultural country since long before the Empire Windrush began mass Commonwealth immigration. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland formed the original multicultural partnership. There is an obvious danger that Scots could become collateral damage if this confusion and anxiety about the disintegration of English civil society turns nasty. Some say it already has. There are laws against inciting racial hatred, but it remains quite acceptable for commentators in London to condemn the "bloody Scots", "the Scottish raj" and claim that Scots are draining the English Exchequer. We keep being told that a Scot shouldn't be allowed to enter No 10, and even liberal David Cameron has talked seriously of denying Scottish MPs full voting rights in the UK parliament.
This is all presented as some kind of constitutional response to devolution, but what they are really talking about is a kind of dual citizenship, at least in
ecognition of the importance of and the need to celebrate and entrench a Britishness defined by shared values strong enough to overcome discordant claims of separatism and disintegration," he said. Brown is only too conscious of his own ethnicity, and has been wrapping himself in the Union Flag, backing Beckham and calling for citizenship to be promoted in schools.
Now, the Chancellor clearly has SNP separatism in mind. However, consciously or not, he has been contributing to the rising clamour south of the border for a more clearly-defined sense of English national identification. When David Goodhart calls for more citizenship and history lessons in schools, he isn't talking about Holyrood and Wallace.
The reassessment of citizenship, like Goodhart's progressive nationalism, is, of course, a response to the rise of the British National Party in the English local
itish National Party in the English local elections, and the prevalence of the cross of St George – which used to be a BNP emblem – on the football terraces. It is also a response to the crisis of multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism was the policy, promoted by many English local authorities after the Scarman Report into the Brixton riots in 1981, of encouraging ethnic and cultural diversity in cities. It seemed like common sense. However, when it emerged that some of the London bombers had been born and brought up in England, and yet appeared to regard themselves as living in a different and hostile country, people began to question whether multiculturalism wasn't leading to ethnic separatism.
Yet, when people attack multiculturalism, they are inclined to forget the UK has been a multicultural country since long before the Empire
ountry since long before the Empire Windrush began mass Commonwealth immigration. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland formed the original multicultural partnership. There is an obvious danger that Scots could become collateral damage if this confusion and anxiety about the disintegration of English civil society turns nasty. Some say it already has. There are laws against inciting racial hatred, but it remains quite acceptable for commentators in London to condemn the "bloody Scots", "the Scottish raj" and claim that Scots are draining the English Exchequer. We keep being told that a Scot shouldn't be allowed to enter No 10, and even liberal David Cameron has talked seriously of denying Scottish MPs full voting rights in the UK parliament.
This is all presented as some kind of constitutional response to devolution, but what they are really talking about is a kind of dual citizenship, at least in
parliament. Unless or until there is an independent Scotland, Westminster remains the UK parliament.
What is being proposed is an ethnic criteria being introduced into democratic representation which could very easily extend to citizenship itself. But there is another, more disturbing, question posed by Goodhart's analysis. He argues that the welfare state is only possible in socially and ethnically homogeneous states with intensely shared values. That's the difference, he believes, between Nordic states such as Sweden, which have a strong welfare state, and the United States of America, which doesn't. It could also be the difference between Scotland and England.
Welfare institutions such as the NHS, which are under challenge in England, do, indeed, remain popular in Scotland, where there is a much firmer
commitment to collective provision. Could it be that Scots remain social democratic because Scotland remains much more white than England? Are we more like Sweden because mass immigration stopped at the border? It's a disturbing thought.
If Goodhart is right – and I hope sincerely he isn't – then Scotland and England may be heading in
very different directions, essentially because of relative racial diversity. Either way, it would be ironic if Scots were to become alienated from the UK because England is unable to cope with the consequences of mass immigration. Progressive nationalism needs watching.

Read Iain Macwhirter also in the Sunday Herald

Our Common Wealth - renewing our democracy and reclaiming our future - Jose Borghino, New Matilda

2006-06-01T10:32:00.000+10:00

It is initiatives like this that make me stand in awe of the vitality that is in Australia, Sue Ellson

http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=1598&HomepageID=143

Our Common Wealth – renewing our democracy and reclaiming our future
By: José Borghino
Wednesday 31 May 2006

New Matilda was launched in August 2004 to promote truth and accountability in government, provide independent media coverage and to help fill the vacuum that exists in policy development in Australia.

So far, New Matilda has concerned itself primarily with the first two of these goals — publishing the weekly Magazine and the Policy Portal that accompanies it.

With the launch on Tuesday 13 June of ‘Reclaiming Our Common Wealth — policies for a fair and sustainable future,’ we enter a new phase, in which filling the policy void becomes an important focus for New Matilda.

We believe that public policy should be built upon consistent principles and underpinned by coherent values. But in today’s Australia, this ideal is a long way from reality.

Public policy development in Australia is in a poor state. Policies tend to be ad hoc, inconsistent and thrown together in time for elections. They are informed not by values or principles, but by opinion polls, focus groups and talkback radio. Too often, this results in policies that are mired in short-termism and (content-free) managerialism.

At the moment, neither of our major political Parties has a vision for sustaining our environment over the long term, for investing in public goods like health and education, for increasing the diversity of our media sector, or for any kind of economic reform based on the notion that our economy is made up of humans rather than widgets.

This leaves those of us who have a different vision for Australia in a difficult position — where to direct our energies?

Good people will always work towards good outcomes. And sure enough, as governments replace social spending with tax cuts, we find charities picking up the slack. As our democratic rights are eroded, NGOs are forced to run Civics 101 classes for 20 million people at a time.

But this often forces us to take a defensive stance. A lot of time is spent saying ‘no’ — with no time or resources to explain what ‘yes’ might look like. And, in the absence of coherent, viable alternatives, it often appears that people simply want to turn back the clock. Nostalgia can be comforting but it's not a winning political strategy.

In all this, there is some good news.

One of the perils of being in power for a decade is that you run out of fresh ideas. Dog-whistle politics works in the short term but it doesn't cater to our need for hope, for trust, for something to believe in. The time is right for a change in direction.

"Beleaf in yourself"
Artwork by Gerhard Hillmann

Our Common Wealth is New Matilda’s response to the crisis in public policy development in Australia. It is the work of many in the New Matilda community, including the Board, the Policy Development Committee, our subscribers, contributors and others.

Our Common Wealth identifies five fundamental values: Freedom, Citizenship, Ethical Responsibility, Fairness, and Stewardship.

Freedom is the notion that we all have rights to the extent that they do not lessen the rights of others.

Citizenship acknowledges the complex network of social and political relationships we live in.

Ethical responsibility is the duty required of those responsible for our common wealth, our shared assets. It is the duty to act honestly.

Fairness is about the tradition of the ‘fair go’ — it is about equality of opportunity. We do not believe that it is inconsistent with economic progress; rather it is a precondition of that progress.

Stewardship speaks about the imperative for Australia to protect and invest in its bountiful stock of assets — physical, environmental, family, social, cultural and institutional capital. These, we refer to collectively as, Our Common Wealth.

Our Common Wealth explains where we currently fall short in expressing these values — the democratic and economic deficits that are growing with each year of cynical, managerial government.

In Our Common Wealth, we have also put forward strategies to remedy these deficits. You may agree with only some of them. We certainly don’t expect that all will agree with everything. It is meant to be a building block.

Building upon these five fundamental values, New Matilda, with the help of our readers and contributors, intends to produce policies in the fields of education, health, the media, the environment, and economics. We hope to influence policy makers at all levels, by providing well thought-out, economically viable, comprehensive blueprints for change. We want to make sure that neither of the major political Parties has an excuse for saying ‘there is no alternative.’

We hope you will be part of this.

For those of you who can attend the actual event, we invite you and your colleagues to the launch of Our Common Wealth. Please join the following speakers in calling for a change of direction in Australian public policy:

Wendy Harmer , as the MC,

Quentin Dempster , journalist

John Robertson , Unions NSW,

Virginia Young , The Wilderness Society,

Professor John Dwyer , UNSW,

Professor Denise Bradley , Vice Chancellor, UniSA,

and John Menadue AO, Chair, New Matilda,

Location : Jubilee Room, State Parliament House, Macquarie St, Sydney

Time : 12:00 – 1:00pm

Date : Tuesday, 13 June

RSVP by Thursday, 8 June:

p) 02 9211 1635

m) 0432 360 234

e) commonwealth@newmatilda.com

For those of you who can’t make it to the launch, we will release Our Common Wealth on-line in New Matilda after the launch and we will provide a forum on the site to gather your comments and suggestions.

Our Common Wealth is an exciting moment in the evolution of New Matilda. We welcome your participation and ask you to join us in making Our Common Wealth a great success.

José Borghino

Editor

Connected to the launch of Our Common Wealth, we will be making a small change to the publication cycle of the New Matilda. We will be sending out two separate emails each week: one for the Magazine and one for the Policy Portal. This split email strategy will allow us to better differentiate the two sides of the site, better direct our resources, and better cross-promote events and campaigns.

Before we make the change, however, we want to ask subscribers for your preferred option.

Consequently, this week’s Online Poll will be a closed one — only New Matilda subscribers will be able to vote.

I encourage you to go to the Poll and let us know which of the following options you would prefer:

Policy Portal email on Tuesday and Magazine email on Thursday

Policy Portal and Magazine as two separate emails, but both on Wednesday

Magazine on Wednesday and Policy Portal on Friday

060427 Morgan rates dual citizens as 'bipolar' - Adam Morton, The Age

2006-04-27T09:54:00.000+10:00

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/morgan-rates-dual-citizens-as-bipolar/2006/04/26/1145861420335.html

Morgan rates dual citizens as 'bipolar'

By Adam Morton
April 27, 2006

BUSINESS leader Hugh Morgan has called for dual citizenship to be outlawed, comparing it to having a mental illness.

In a speech at Deakin University last night, the prominent Liberal Party supporter and former Business Council chairman said a person with dual citizenship had "at least the beginning of a bipolar disorder".

Mr Morgan said citizenship was one of the most important elements of personal identity and would have a bearing on Australia's survival as a nation.

"I am convinced that if we took Australian citizenship seriously, we would not tolerate this bipolarity. If you are an Australian then that should be the end of the matter," he said.

"If your loyalties are to another country and Australian citizenship is merely a convenience, then you should hand in your Australian passport and feel content that your loyalties and your passport are in accord one with the other."

In a speech titled "Can Australia survive the 21st century?", Mr Morgan called for the word "rich" to be embraced as a positive, and called for immigration policy to be used to sustain Australian culture. Mr Morgan was giving the inaugural Wilfred Brookes Memorial Lecture, named after prime minister Alfred Deakin's grandson.

It comes amid an argument about what it means to be Australian. Treasurer Peter Costello in February singled out Muslims while calling for those who do not share Australian values to be stripped of citizenship. Prime Minister John Howard backed his stance.

Mr Morgan said Australians with dual citizenship had only qualified commitment to its future sovereignty and independence. "That is something that we in our strategic position cannot afford," he said.

He said most people would agree that national survival depended on wealth, population, social and political coherence and symbols of nationhood and citizenship.

Mr Morgan also weighed into the "culture wars", backing John Howard's criticism of the "dumbing down" of English teaching in Australian schools due to postmodernism and political correctness. He said post-modernism — which he defined as the belief that all versions of the truth were equally valid — threatened to cut the link between generations of Australians.

SANE Australia executive director Barbara Hocking said it was unfortunate that the speech could be seen to trivialise a serious mental illness.

Australians wrestle with cultural differences - Ben Arnoldy, The Christian Science Monitor

2006-03-16T10:50:00.000+11:00

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0315/p01s04-woap.html

Australians wrestle with cultural differences
By Ben Arnoldy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
CRONULLA, AUSTRALIA – From time to time, Sydney businessman Ahmed Kilani heads to this two-mile stretch of surf and sand. Sometimes he encourages friends to come, other times he walks alone - as a Muslim, as an Australian, and as a silent statement that he belongs here, too.

It's one small effort to keep beaches as central gathering spaces for all Australians. But there are larger ones, too: On Saturday, three months after riots at Cronulla beach focused national attention on race relations, the federal government announced a program to boost minority presence in the respected ranks of life savers.

Reporters on
the Job
The Monitor gives the story behind the story.

In the Monitor
Thursday, 03/16/06

Terror risks of nuclear fuel

A siege on the child-porn market
Once-Republican Rockies now a battleground
UN-Iran discussion mirrors Iraq debate
Editorial: Don't stop the presses yet
More stories...

In a few short decades, this country has shifted from a "White Australia" policy to one that supports a growing diversity. But the debate on multiculturalism following the Cronulla riots reveals uncertainty over whether that should require more assimilation or allow freedom within the boundaries of fundamental principles.

"A lot of people ask for assimilation. Assimilation means that you forget about your heritage," says Thu Nguyen, a director in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in Canberra.

Instead, she says, Australia seeks to give latitude to ethnic traditions as long as they don't conflict with certain basics. "All of us have to observe our democratic principles, the rule of law, equality of the sexes, English as the national language - the basic democratic values we have to put first. Within that framework, people are free to observe their own cultural practices."

But even members of her own government question this vision. Treasurer Peter Costello, who is positioning himself to challenge Prime Minister John Howard, recently criticized a "confused, mushy, misguided multiculturalism" and made reference to the Muslim community in particular.

A poll this month showed broad support for the comments. At the same time, nearly two-thirds of the respondents disagreed with Mr. Howard's assertion in the wake of the Cronulla riots that there was no underlying racism in Australia.

In many ways, the debate has moved far beyond the particulars of what happened on the beaches in and around Cronulla. Most agree that the violence was the handiwork of a few hooligans from both sides, building on fears spread in the media.

The early December attack on some off-duty lifesavers - allegedly by a handful of young men of Lebanese descent - crossed a line. Ethnic Anglo residents described years of frustration with antisocial behavior by some who frequented the beaches via the local train - including picking mismatched fights, playing ball in the middle of sunbathers, and aiming derogatory comments at women.

Scott Goold, a Cronulla native in his 20s, summed up the feeling: "They're volunteers, these people are just doing their job.... Now that it's happened to them, there's no way to say that we did anything to provoke it."

Story continues below
(Photograph)
CRUISERS: Police make their presence felt at Cronulla beach in Australia, where riots last December sparked an intense dialogue about multiculturalism in the country.
ANDY NELSON - STAFF

Mr. Goold, who was on the beach on Dec. 11, says a small protest gathering of local youths was soon overtaken by outsiders who had come to make trouble. In preceding days, the media - particularly talk-back radio - had hyped the attack and broadcast a text message going around calling in insulting terms on people to mark a day of bashing Middle Easterners.

The crowd swelled to 5,000 mostly white youths. A few of them then severely beat several ethnic Lebanese beachgoers. In retaliation, and in response to rumors, dozens of youths from Muslim areas in the southwestern suburbs drove in a convoy of cars down to nearby beaches and bashed in windows and attacked bystanders.

Lebanese have been immigrating to Australia for generations, with a big wave coming during the Lebanese civil war. They now number about 400,000, and in Sydney are concentrated around a diverse region in the southwest known as the Punchbowl. Employment among Lebanese-Australians lags behind the general population. And intermarriage is much lower than that of other immigrant groups, according to Bob Birrell of Monash University in Melbourne.

"Australia doesn't have a tradition of ghettos, and that has been a very good thing," says Keysar Trad, a leader among Australia's ethnic Lebanese community. But some young people of Middle Eastern origin found themselves ostracized from games and other activities on the beaches, he says. "The fact that they were not being invited to play by the other groups became an issue.... Some of them go into antisocial behavior because they want respect."

Not all young Muslims feel this way or have lashed out, of course.

"I don't think I've been pressured by Australians to be another way. By living in Australia, I haven't stopped being a Muslim," says Serag Mohamed, a twentysomething who lives in the suburb of Pananin. He listens to hip-hop, wears Nikes, follows the Sydney Kings basketball team, and attends Friday prayers at the Lakemba mosque.

But others mention a sense of not being considered "fully Australian" by Anglo peers. Fadi Rahman, a youth leader in Sydney, says this disconnect is felt by many young Muslims.

"I'm as much an Aussie as anyone can get," says Mr. Rahman, who was born in Australia and comes from an Lebanese background. "I eat meat pies like everybody - and with tomato sauce, I might add."

"[But] I don't feel that I'm allowed to still be attached to my parents' and grandparents' culture, and whatever I choose to take from it," he says.

Some young Muslims note that acceptance often does come over time - with interaction. This is the idea behind a number of outreach efforts to encourage socializing over sports, food, beach activities, or music, including a national Harmony Day, slated for March 21.

Story continues below
(Photograph)
BEACH TIME: Life-savers keep a watchful eye on swimmers at Cronulla Beach, where ethnic tensions flared in December.
ANDY NELSON - STAFF

The surf lifesaving initiative, which is being rolled out in Sydney with a $440,000 grant, will offer training courses in the inner suburbs for kids who don't feel comfortable or welcome in the clubs. These clubs lie at the cultural center of many of Australia's 11,000 beaches. The goal is to raise minority representation in surf lifesaving above the 5-percent level.

By 2001, 43 percent of the Australian population was born overseas or had one parent born abroad. Some 16 percent of Australians don't speak English at home.

But coming together over cultural activities doesn't mean accepting identical values.

"We can integrate about 80 percent of the Australian values, but there are some things we can't because they are sort of unlawful - alcohol, scantily clad women. I can't go to the beach wearing a Speedo," says Mohamad El-Chami, a young Australian born in Lebanon.

While dress codes may become an issue for the surf life-saving initiative, the group does promote values that are Australian in the most inclusive sense. For instance, community service and volunteering are required of all participants. Healthy lifestyles are also encouraged.

Indeed, some argue that finding values that can be shared - rather than cold legal frameworks - could be the best way to build an inclusive Australian identity.

"Pluralist nations like Australia, with no shared ethnicity and no deep historical traditions, need a strong sense of national identity to bind the people together," write the authors of "Imagining Australia," a book published in 2004 by four young Australians. The authors suggest building that identity around a set of shared values including egalitarianism, mateship, and giving everyone a "fair go." They also argue for removing the British stamp from national symbols such as the flag.

This ambitious proposal goes far beyond the current multicultural drive, begun in the 1970s. The government has loosened non-European immigration and changed school curriculums to include indigenous history and Asian languages. Affirmative action is not required, but the government promotes diverse workforces.

Multiculturalism has raised some hackles in the Anglo suburban heartland as a politically correct imposition by urban elites. The suburbs have absorbed most of the new immigrants, largely peacefully.

In the wake of the riots, Cronulla beach has lost some of its former diversity, despite visits by people like Mr. Kilani.

"You need to get [young Muslims] to feel they belong, and get the wider society to embrace them and to stop painting a whole community with a broad brush," says Kilani, who volunteers with Muslim youths.

Goold, the Cronulla native, has joined a small group working to put together a gathering on May 3 that will involve food, music, and personal reflections. He says it's a good if partial step. "People have to isolate the bad guys from the rest, and the police have to deal with the bad guys," he says. "The rest have to get together and integrate more."

Faith helps parish unite as migrant issues arise - Daniel Gonzalez - The Arizona Republic

2006-03-13T19:32:00.000+11:00

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0312tensions-main.html

Faith helps parish unite as migrant issues arise
Longtime members often at odds with newcomers

Daniel González
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 12, 2006 12:00 AM

A small plaster statue of the Virgin of Guadalupe, her brown face cloaked in a green scarf, sits on a shelf in a back room of a Catholic church in Mesa.

For certain weddings, religious celebrations and other special occasions, the statue is brought out of hiding and to the front altar for all to see.

Most Sundays, however, it remains in the back, a symbol of an inner struggle at Christ the King Church over how to accommodate a swell of Spanish-speaking immigrants that is rejuvenating the aging parish and still meet the needs and concerns of its mostly Anglo congregation.
advertisement

But Christ the King forges ahead, despite losing some unhappy worshippers, to get past the tensions and focus on faith and devotion.

In pews and under steeples across the Valley and the Southwest, the Catholic Church is coping with the stresses of an unprecedented wave of immigration, both legal and illegal, from Mexico and Central America. Latino immigrants overwhelmingly tend to be Catholic. The state gained more than 500,000 Latino immigrants in the 1990s, the census said, and more keep coming.

Just a few years ago, fewer than 50 Spanish-speaking immigrants regularly attended the sprawling modern church east of downtown Mesa in an older neighborhood of tidy ranch homes.

As the influx at Christ the King sparked hostility and charges of pulpit politics, the church struggled to strike a balance between the needs of mostly poor, Spanish-speaking immigrants, and the wishes of longtime parishioners, Hispanics and Anglos alike.

Arizona Catholic bishops, aware of parish tensions in the region, took the unusual step of writing a pastoral letter late last year reminding the state's 800,000 Catholics that welcoming immigrants is part of church teachings.

"Immigrants, both documented and undocumented, constitute a growing percentage of Arizona Catholics," the bishops wrote in the letter, released Dec. 12 to coincide with the Catholic celebration in honor of the Virgin of Guadalupe. "Finding new ways to welcome and integrate immigrants can only make us a stronger and more united Church in Arizona."

In Mesa, the surge inspired one parishioner to donate a statute of La Virgen, the patron saint adored by many Latino Catholics. Like the immigrant population itself, however, no one's been sure what to do with the statue.

A new congregation

At Christ the King, finding ways to welcome Latino immigrants has been challenging.

It started in 1999 when the church introduced a bilingual Spanish-English Mass, in addition to three Sunday morning English Masses.

Christ the King always has prided itself on being hospitable, and in general the congregation supported the bilingual Mass, said the Rev. Christopher Carpenter, the former pastor. But the bilingual Mass didn't sit well with many longtime parishioners, said Carpenter, who took a leave of absence in January, citing health and personal reasons.

Dozens wrote letters and e-mails or voiced objections in person, Carpenter said. The protests came from Anglos and English-speaking Latinos, Carpenter noted. Some complained the bilingual Mass divided the parish into two congregations. Others thought it discouraged immigrants from learning English or that it encouraged illegal immigration.

"I heard things like, 'These people coming here, they might be here illegally. They might be taking our jobs so why should we be helping them?' " Carpenter said.

But more so, Carpenter sensed a growing uneasiness over the changing congregation.

"Whenever you are introducing a significant number of newcomers into a parish, there is naturally going to be some tensions and fear on the part of the people who have been longtime members and when people speak another language, that raises the fears," Carpenter said.

Carpenter said parishioners weren't the only ones unsettled by the changes.

"I have to admit, I had some of those thoughts myself," said the pastor, who speaks little Spanish.

The creation of a bilingual Mass accelerated growth at Christ the King, drawing Latino immigrants who had been attending the Spanish Masses farther away at Queen of Peace Church in downtown Mesa.

Antonio Herrera came to Christ the King from Queen of Peace five years ago, along with his wife, Maria, 38, and their two children, Marco, 11, and Carina, 9.

"I felt comfortable here," said Herrera, 38, a Mexican immigrant from the state of Durango. "I was looking for a place where you could hear the word of God, a place to worship and feel comfortable. That's all (that) all of us are looking for."

In addition to the bilingual Mass, newcomers began requesting other sacraments in Spanish. They also wanted religious education classes in Spanish, and Quinceañeras, the rite-of-passage ceremonies popular in Latin America for 15-year-old daughters.

Rapidly, the church complied, creating more immigrant growth, and more tensions. The church also became more active in political issues, joining the East Valley Interfaith Network to fight anti- immigrant proposals in the state Legislature and push for immigration reform that would benefit undocumented immigrants.

Understanding tensions

Those actions inflamed tensions. Some longtime members were so upset, they left, accusing the church of promoting illegal immigration.

"I always responded, 'That's not the point,' " Carpenter said. "Church teaching is very clear. Church teaching and the Bible is that we have to welcome the stranger and meet them where they are at."

Longtime parishioner Jim Rael recalled some of the grumblings.

"Some of the old guard, they were not too keen on the Hispanic population coming in . . . and availing themselves of the services there," said Rael, 68, a member of Christ the King since 1969. "I would hear it at meetings, or when I would be counting money from the collection plate after church. They would say, 'It seems like we are being overrun by Mexican people.' Or they would say, 'Did you see that one Mexican family? They didn't look like they were dressed for church.' "

Another parishioner, Yazmin Cordoba, 46, heard other grumblings from parishioners who felt immigrants didn't contribute their fair share. Some griped that immigrants didn't register with the church or make pledge donations, or complained that when collection baskets passed through the pews, immigrants often just tossed in a few coins, Cordoba said.

To Cordoba, an immigrant from Mexico City, the complaints illustrated a growing rift between newcomers and longtime parishioners. They also showed a lack of understanding on both sides.

Many longtime parishioners don't understand that immigrants from Mexico and Latin America are typically poor and don't have good-paying, steady jobs, though some are professionals. So donating to the church is often hard for most, Cordoba said.

Or they may not realize that many immigrants are unfamiliar with the concept of tithing in this country because in Mexico the practice of pledging a percentage of your income each week to the church is left to the rich. On the other hand, immigrants may not always realize they can give in other ways, said Cordoba, who serves on the parish hospitality commission.

"They can commit with their time and talents," she said.

'Real devotion'

Over time, the tensions caused by immigration at Christ the King have dissipated, though not completely, said Carpenter, who still has not been replaced as pastor.

Fewer parishioners complained in 2004 when the church made the bilingual Mass totally Spanish, Carpenter said. The Spanish Mass is now one of the most well-attended services on Sunday, and the devotion immigrants often bring has been an inspiration to the rest of the church.

"Initially, when we said we were starting a (bilingual) Mass, there was more objection. But once it started people saw immigrants bring something good - real devotion to the faith and family," Carpenter said.

That devotion was on display one recent Sunday afternoon during the 1 p.m. Spanish Mass. The church was so full, it was nearly impossible to find an empty seat. Strollers blocked the aisles and during his homily Rev. Thomas Hallsten struggled to be heard above the din of crying babies and fussing children. During the Mass alone, Hallsten baptized four babies.

Juan Rodriguez Cornejo, 34, and his wife, Guillermina Rodriguez Romero, 28, sat near the rear among the families. They pulled down the padded bar behind the pew in front of them and knelt following communion, while their children - Juan, 11, Jesus, 9, and Erick, 5 - sat quietly.

Like many of the men, Juan Rodriguez, a construction worker, was dressed in jeans and work boots. He said that his family, originally from Michoacan, Mexico, had just moved into the neighborhood. They were attending Christ the King for the first time.

"I asked one of our neighbors if he knew where there was a Catholic church, and he gave me directions how to get here," Rodriguez said.

A home for 'La Virgen'

To help bring new immigrant families and longtime parishioners together, the church has organized several activities, including a bilingual retreat for men and a camping trip.

The Spanish-speaking congregation at Christ the King also makes an effort every year to invite everyone from the parish to the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe celebration on Dec. 12, when mariachis sing traditional Mexican songs and parishioners serve tamales, sweet bread and other traditional food in honor of Mexico's patron saint.

For years, only Latinos showed up. But last year, for the first time, several Anglos joined the celebration, said Rafael Diaz, 52, one of the Spanish-speaking parishioners.

In the meantime, the congregation has started to look for a permanent place of honor for the statue of the Virgen de Guadalupe donated by a parishioner three years ago.

The statue is only brought out for the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe or other special occasions. Some, however, would like to see the statue placed in the new chapel the church is building this year, instead of in a back room.

"I can foresee in the future Our Lady in a more prominent place," parishioner Rael said.

Catholic leaders reaching out to migrants

A couple of years ago, Tucson Bishop Gerald Kicanas wandered into the church in Altar, Sonora, looking for the parish priest.

He was startled by what he found instead: 18 young men in worn sweatshirts and work pants, kneeling or sitting by themselves in the pews, heads bowed. The migrants were about to set out on foot across the desert toward Arizona.

"We think of young people as not at all religious, " Kicanas said, "and here were young men, they were probably between 17 and 22, just fervent in prayer, putting their lives in the hands of God."

And, as far he was concerned, in the hands of the Catholic Church.

In the five years Kicanas has been in Arizona, he has made the plight of immigrants his battle cry. And he's hardly alone.

Catholic leaders here and across the Southwest are showing a growing willingness to weigh in on the side of immigrants in the acrimonious political debate over solving illegal immigration and securing the nation's borders.

In New Mexico, for example, Archbishop Michael Sheehan recently attacked a U.S. House proposal to build 700 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, calling it "a very hostile act."

Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony said he would instruct his priests to defy a federal proposal to require churches to check the legal status of parishioners before helping them. The Bishop of San Bernardino, which oversees a swath of metro LA and the desert around Palm Springs, reminded parishioners that immigrants have traditionally been welcomed in this country and asked for "solidarity" on the issue.

And here in Arizona, Kicanas and Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted were so alarmed by the growing hostility toward undocumented immigrants that they wrote a pastoral letter to parishes throughout the state in December reminding Catholics that welcoming immigrants is part of what it means to be a good Catholic.

But as Catholic leaders grow increasingly more outspoken on behalf of immigrants, they are running into resistance from a surprising source: Catholics. Parishes are proving to be just as divided on immigration as most of the country, and at least some members are letting their priests and bishops know they're opposed to the church's stance.

For the Catholic Church, however, immigration means gaining large numbers of Hispanic immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from Mexico and Latin America, and many parishes have blossomed because of the contributions of new immigrants and their families.

Also, bishops have been emboldened by a national campaign called "Justice for Immigrants" organized by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Pews and policy

The campaign is aimed at pushing Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would legalize many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States and create more legal channels for immigrants to come to this country to work.

Targeting lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and the nation's 65 million Catholics, including more than 800,000 in Arizona, the drive has gained momentum at a time when Congress is taking a hard look at immigration. The Senate Judiciary Committee began debating sweeping immigration and border security legislation this month. And in December, the House passed a proposal that emphasizes greater enforcement of immigration laws and fortification of the U.S.-Mexico border.

"The right of migrants to improve their economic status, through illegal entry into another country, cannot be found in Catholic moral teaching," said retired business planner George Garbell, 70, a parishioner at St. Joan of Arc Church in Phoenix. "The church does teach that persons have the right to survival, even if it means stealing to do so. However, there is no justification for violating the laws to improve one's standard of living."

Retired IBM manager Rob Haney, a parishioner at St. Thomas Catholic Church in Phoenix, also is strongly opposed to the bishops' stance on immigration. He feels the bishops are supporting "open borders" that would turn the United States into a "Third World country."

"They (bishops) have no respect for the sovereignty of the country," Haney said. "They want more welfare from the federal government to aid illegal immigration."

By supporting immigration reform that would legalize millions of Latino immigrants, the bishops are undercutting their own stance against abortion, because Latinos tend to vote Democratic, Haney added.

"It makes no sense, " Haney said.

Other Catholics privately hold similar views, expressing them in e-mails and letters to the bishop, or to the Catholic Sun, the diocesan newspaper, said Jose Robles, director of Hispanic Ministry for the Phoenix Diocese.

Church leaders say they realize their stance on immigration is controversial, and that not all Catholics agree.

"The church is not a majority rules society," Kicanas said. "The church tries to live out a tradition entrusted to it by Christ and sometimes what the church teaches is not popular. Sometimes what the church teaches is not what the people would vote for."

Church leaders don't condone illegal immigration and agree the nation's borders must be secured, said Bishop Olmsted of the Phoenix Diocese. But the current immigration system is broken, and out of sync with the nation's labor needs, he said. It forces immigrants to sneak into the country illegally, and results in hundreds of migrant deaths each year, Olmsted said.

"We aren't promoting illegal immigration," Olmsted said. "What we want to have is an immigration policy in this country that meets the real needs and it's not working."

The Catholic Church in the United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all over the world, he noted.

The Catholic dioceses in San Bernardino, Calif., Tucson, Phoenix and El Paso are among 70 of the country's 197 that have joined the Justice for Immigrants campaign, said Leo Anchondo, the national manager.

The campaign's goal is to build political will for immigration reform primarily by "changing the minds and hearts" of Catholics, Anchondo said.

The campaign relies on church social teachings in hopes of swaying Catholics.

"It is part of our Catholic faith to welcome strangers and our faith calls upon us to welcome the stranger who came into our country to seek a better life for themselves and their family," Anchondo said.

Maybe so. But not all Catholics see it that way.

"On one hand you feel compassionate for these people," said retired businessman Dick Bauer, a parishioner at St. Mary's Basilica in Phoenix. "On the other hand, we are a nation of laws."

Up to 40% No Longer Love thy Neighbor Because of Economic Theory - Editorial, eMediaWire

2006-03-09T11:41:00.000+11:00

This is a fascinating viewpoint, and very closely related to the monthly poll we are hosting on the Newcomers Network website this month - From a faith context, how would you describe Australia?...Sue Ellson

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/3/emw355373.htm

All Press Releases for March 8, 2006

Up to 40% No Longer Love thy Neighbor Because of Economic Theory

In a startling result, close to 40% of respondents to a new Internet survey no longer subscribe to key elements of traditional morality - the historical means of creating cohesive societies. The challenge for modern societies everywhere is how to re-establish the sense of traditional morality without negating the efficiency advantages of economic theory.

Sydney, Australia (PRWEB) March 8 2006 -- In a startling result, close to 40% of respondents to a new Internet survey no longer subscribe to key elements of traditional morality - the historical means of creating cohesive societies.

This is the key factor behind much of the social unrest globally, according to George Matafonov, author of a new book entitled Fire & Water: Market Morality & Civil Society, who is also conducting the survey at www.moralcompass.org.

"While the threat of terrorism and multiculturalism are often convenient and easy scapegoats, the root causes of social unrest globally lie in the experiment in trying to model the moral core of society on economic theory, rather than traditional human values," said Matafonov. "While economic theory results in efficiency in competitive markets, it has no place outside the market," he added.

As humans, we have been living in societies for tens of thousands of years and have developed values and our sense of morality to enable us to live in peace, harmony and prosperity.

In the space of less than 50 years, economic theory has turned all this upside down by insisting our chief value should be competitive self-interest.

Enthusiastically embraced by politicians of all persuasion and enforced through the market -- which is quickly becoming the central institution in terms of influence on our lives -- the morality of the market is spreading outside the confines of market at an alarming rate.

The challenge for modern societies everywhere is how to re-establish the sense of traditional morality without negating the efficiency advantages of economic theory.

According to the author, running an awareness campaign entitled, "Do Right by Others" is all that may be required to restore the key tenets of traditional morality, and hence social cohesion.

The survey is open to the public and the results to date and analysis are available on line at www.moralcompass.org.

Australia a racist country, poll says - Paul Colgan, News.com.au

2006-03-08T15:28:00.000+11:00

These survey results are dissimilar to what the recent poll on the Newcomers Network website showed:

Do you think most people living in Australia are racist?

No: 9 27.3%
Yes, but no more than other countries: 8 24.2%
Yes, but less than other countries: 4 12.1%
Yes, but only against some groups: 6 18.2%
Yes: 6 18.2%
Total votes: 33

Whilst I realise that the sample is not as great, I think it is important to reflect on WHO would be inclined to answer this poll via news.com.au....Sue Ellson
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18362839-421,00.html?from=rss

Australia a racist country, poll says

By Paul Colgan

March 06, 2006

Cronulla riots / AP
Race riots ... NEWS.com.au readers disagreed with the Prime Minister's statement that there was no underlying racism in Australia / AP

ALMOST two-thirds of Australians believe there is underlying racism in the country and four in 10 people believe it can be described as a racist nation, according to a NEWS.com.au poll.
Four out of every five respondents to the survey, conducted in the wake of recent controversial statements by the Howard Government, believed immigrants should be forced to adopt Australian values when they arrived.

Related story Beach violence: Race riot warnings 'ignored'
MP3 Download MP3: Listen to this story (powered by Audio Read)

While the survey showed broad community support for recent statements by Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello on racism and immigration, respondents overwhelmingly disagreed with Mr Howard's assertion - made in the wake of the Cronulla riots last December - that there was no underlying racism in Australia.

Respondents to the Coredata survey, commissioned by NEWS.com.au, also disagreed with the Prime Minister's claim last month that most Australians would prefer not to see Muslim women in full traditional dress.

There were more than 2550 respondents to the online survey conducted over two days last week, and the results reflect the opinions of those people who chose to take part.

A recent speech by Mr Costello in which he said new arrivals to Australia should be forced to live by the country's existing values drew widespread support, with 79 per cent of respondents backing his point of view.

Opinion was divided on the nature of Australian values. Mateship and fairness were seen as key values by 86 per cent of respondents, while only two-thirds agreed that respect for the law was a national value. The same amount - 66 per cent - believed larrikinism was an Australian value.

Given a number of options on what best described an Australian, the statement most favoured was "people who love Australia and love being in Australia" - 45 per cent of respondents backed the statement.

"People who have gained citizenship in Australia" (20 per cent), and "people with Australian values" (13 per cent) were also favoured.

Only 2.2 per cent of people surveyed selected "White Australians" as an option to describe nationals.

One in four respondents actively disagreed that multiculturalism was an Australian value. Around one in seven respondents - 14 per cent - believed extremist clerics should be allowed to preach here.

Asked if John Howard - who marked his 10th year in power last week - should remain as Prime Minister, 42 per cent of respondents agreed while 39 per cent disagreed.

Only 28 per cent of respondents believed Australian values had improved during Mr Howard's time in power.

A slight majority of Liberal voters believed values had improved, but less than 10 per cent of other voters, including Labor, believed values had improved in that time.

Multiculturalism debate stirs advocates - Michael Choi, The Courier Mail

2006-02-15T11:11:00.000+11:00

There are some lovely phrases in this piece describing Australian culture and how it is evolving...Sue Ellson

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18132454%255E27197,00.html

Multiculturalism debate stirs advocates
Michael Choi
14feb06

As I foretold in a meeting in State Parliament three days after the Cronulla incident, it won't be the thugs and hooligans who broke the law that will be on trial in coming days – but the notion of multiculturalism.

These trials will not take place in courtrooms but over kitchen tables, in the workplace and in the media. I was quietly hoping to be wrong.

The call for a review of multiculturalism is welcome: in fact, in the court of public opinion multiculturalism has always been subject to regular scrutiny of various degrees of intensity.

The debate reached a climax when Pauline Hanson successfully used it as her political platform.

As Australians, it is paramount that we have the freedom to debate and argue issues like multiculturalism without the risk of being branded racist. It is equally important for us to realise what multiculturalism is and, more importantly, what it is not.

Multiculturalism is not about a society where cultural groups keep very much to themselves . . . it is not about cultural ghettos.

Most gangs are formed not on ethnic origins but on the basis of common interest and lawbreakers – Muslim or Christian, white or otherwise – must face punishment from the full force of the law.

Multiculturalism is about sharing, not dominating; participating, not submitting; accepting and not simply tolerating. The culture and value system of any society is not a "thing" set in concrete but a living reflection of a people and the land they live in.

The culture or value we try to protect is different from the culture of our grandparents.

It is organic, evolving, living and is part of all those living in a collective environment.

Otherwise, Mr Smith would still have a black slave and Mr Wong as many concubines he could afford.

That is not to say that all cultures and values are good for our nation.

No one has the perfect culture and value system, whether imported or home-grown.

I will not pass on some of my heritage to my children because those parts have no place in a democratic and progressive Australia.

However, there are other parts of my parents' culture I want not just my children but all my fellow Australians to learn and embrace because they are good for nation building. I am not alone with this attitude.

Multiculturalism is about extracting the best from our very diverse mixture of peoples, languages and cultures. It is about being an integral part of a symphony in which the sound from any individual instrument, unique as it might be, falls very short of that wonderful harmony that produces the most beautiful music of all.

In my view, being Australian is about being environmentally conscious and we have learnt a great deal about that from the indigenous culture of this great land. We have a strong sense of justice, we have learnt from our Irish ancestors.

We have a thirst for adventure handed down from our Anglo-Saxon heritage. We have strong family values and we respect our elderly Australians because the Greeks told us this is a good thing and we believe them.

We are hard workers and great entrepreneurs, able to sell ice to Eskimos, getting repeat orders with a thank-you note and we have learnt that from the Chinese.

We dress and act as if we are worth a million dollars, thanks to the influence of our Italian settlers. We have a dry sense of humour, love long weekends, excel in sports, and have a healthy distrust of politicians which we have learnt for ourselves.

Our diversity is our strength. This is the multicultural Australia within our reach.

Anything worth doing has challenges but we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We must trust Australians to distinguish between values which are good for our nation and reject those which are not.

And this time, I quietly hope that I am right.

• Michael Choi is the State Labor MP for Capalaba, was born in Hong Kong to Chinese parents and is the first Asian-Australian elected to the Queensland Parliament

Multi-culturism: A Winner or Not in Australia? - Anthony Fountain, Blogcritics.org

2006-02-15T10:44:00.000+11:00

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/13/064150.php

Multi-culturism: A Winner or Not in Australia?
February 13, 2006
Anthony Fountain

Much debate is currently going on within Australian society about multi-culturism and whether or not it has worked. Before expressing my views and observations, let me explain where I am coming from.

As someone who conducts more real estate auctions than any other auctioneer in Sydney, Australia's largest city (where some 33.6% of the population were born overseas and have emigrated here), literally on a daily basis I am dealing very personally with people from most nations on earth, and who are my vendors or buyers.

Through this experience, allied with the fact that I see right inside their personal lives through inspecting their homes, I feel I have a rather unique insight into Australian society.

And my conclusion?

That multi-culturism has, on the main, been a great success here in Australia.

That it has can, I think, be put down to Australia's probably unique virtually classless society where all are treated as equals until shown otherwise (which is why the rat bag element, no matter what political angle they are coming from, are regarded as irrelevant) and that our tradition of "a fair go for all" is still pretty well intact although recent events may convey a different view.

Australia is still a country where someone can either arrive here, or be born here, with no material goods or possessions yet, through a combination of good luck and a solid work ethic (amazing how the luckiest in life always seem to be the hardest workers, eh?) can get a head in life a built a solid asset base for their family and themselves.

Add to that our wonderful climate and it is little wonder so many are looking at The Land Down Under with envy and here lies the coming problem.

Multi-culturism has worked here, where it hasn't in other countries (France being a prime example), because peoples of the same nationality or background just moved to the same area and the problems they lefty behind manifest themselves again there in that country.

In Australia, up until now, immigrants were absorbed into the community as a whole so a street could have native non-Australians being neighbours with people from Greece, Italy, Vietnam, wherever. Through this process, both the newcomers and those already here came to learn of each other and understand not only the differences, but also what Australian life entailed and what "our" expectations of our citizens were.

Because of the innate Australian "larrikin" makeup, no doubt due to the laconic sense of humour that likely can be traced back to our convict ancestry, many people who "got above themselves" with inflated egos and ostentatious behaviour were rapidly put back in their place and likewise, those who went about their work and achievements in a modest way, were, and still are, lauded.

Regrettably, mainly I guess due to the influence of television, many of our youth who are short on self-esteem (parents, how about you start getting involved here?) are copying the gum-chewing, backwards-sitting baseball cap rap style and then wondering why they arer alienating themsleves further within Australian society.

I am of an age that I can remember when "take away food" comprised fish and chips wrapped in newspaper and the arrival of the first hamburgers onto café menus.

If multi-culturism does not, or has not worked, how come then Australians ravish such feeds as kebabs, bok-choy, cappuccinos, sushi rolls, etc., etc?

Multi-culturism is giving, as it did America in its early days, the hybrid vigour to Australia to forge ahead and build a unique society. What we need is politicians to stop creating mayhem, let our larrikin mateship take hold in newcomers and as we say here in Australia, "she'll be right mate!"

Carpe diem.

Would you like to know if you are racist?

2006-02-14T17:39:00.000+11:00

Are you racist? Why not try the Harvard University Implicit Association Test to find out if you prefer people with white skin or black skin? This online assessment tool can also be used to measure your preference for a certain body weight, nationalism, gender abilities, sexuality and age and actually explores your unconscious thoughts. It is free and online at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/australia/

Tme for a cultural renaissance - David O'Sullivan, Articulate ABC News

2006-02-08T22:32:00.000+11:00

I have been suggesting that a clearer picture of 'Australian Culture' needs to be displayed for all people living in Australia for some time now...Sue Ellson

http://www.abc.net.au/news/arts/articulate/200602/s1565049.htm

Time for a cultural renaissance

By David O'Sullivan. Posted: Wednesday, February 8 2006 .

Throsby argues for a cultural review

Economist David Throsby is attempting to rattle a few cages with his latest paper Does Australia Need a Cultural Policy?

He says the title is asking a rhetorical question but it isn't really. When you listen to him speak it's obvious his answer to this question is a most definite yes.

The last one was the Keating government's Creative Nation more than a decade ago, and Throsby argues that since then a fair bit of water has gone under the bridge and Australia needs to re-assess what culture means.

All sort of government policies have some sort of cultural foundation, for example is it a fact that the way we treat refugees in detention mirrors the way we are as a people? We see ourselves as a tolerant and fair minded people who are interested in human rights and yet there may be some question marks raised about the way we treat refugees.

Throsby argues that culture has been left behind as Australia has concentrated on pursuing a vigorous economic agenda and that it's time to make it a higher priority.

It requires a certain sort of leadership from government to put the cultural agenda higher up the list of priorities. I think in the last 10 years we've had a very strong economic agenda in Australian life and that is something which the Government is still pursuing with a lot of vigour. The area of culture tends to be left aside. The Federal Government does support the arts, there's quite a lot that goes in in relation to the arts. The Government supports cultural heritage and so on but we haven't really sort of thought about what all of this adds up to in terms of representing ourselves.

A flourishing artistic life is something which feeds creativity which ought to be helping us to develop the content of the digital revolution. That's the sort of thing where some effort to develop the cultural industry could be to our economic advantage. There's a much broader agenda than that and that has to do with what are the aspirations of the people, what do we care about, do the material gains that we have lead us to the best happiness and welfare for the community.

I think the evidence suggests that material wealth doesn't always bring happiness and that there's something much broader going on that has to do with our sense of ourselves as a country and these are the sorts of things which we need to think about.

David Throsby's paper will be launched in Sydney tonight.

Most pupils see Muslims as terrorists - Chee Chee Leung, The Age

2006-02-07T15:26:00.000+11:00

After reading this article, I would suggest that a LOT more needs to be done to help people understand that everyone, regardless of their religious faith, has something to offer the community...Sue Ellson

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/most-pupils-see-muslims-as-terrorists/2006/02/05/1139074108609.html

Most pupils see Muslims as terrorists

By Chee Chee Leung
February 6, 2006
Page 1 of 2
Related coverage

* Cartoon rage spreads to NZ
* Protesters set fire to Danish Embassy in Beirut
* Islamic prayers could be illegal under new laws
* GALLERY Muslim cartoon row snowballs

MOST Victorian schoolchildren view Muslims as terrorists, and two out of five students agree that "Muslims are unclean".

Just over 50 per cent believe "Muslims behave strangely", and 45 per cent say Australians do not have "positive feelings about Muslims".

These are some of the preliminary findings from a statewide survey of student attitudes towards the Muslim community.

The research — conducted in the second half of last year — is based on responses from 551 year 10 and 11 students across public and private schools.

Almost half said they had learned "a little" about Muslims and Islam at school, but more than a third said they had learned nothing on these subjects. When asked if schools should teach more about Muslims, 29 per cent said no and 34 per cent said they did not care.

Researcher Abe Ata, of the Australian Catholic University, said the findings showed a need for educators to develop new ways of promoting multiculturalism among children.

"There are very strong signals that there is a chasm between mainstream students and Muslim students," said Dr Ata, a senior fellow at the university's Institute for the Advancement of Research.

"Educationalists and policymakers in education should take proactive steps … to help create more racial harmony in the classroom and outside it."

In the survey's other findings:

■62 per cent agreed Christians were smart, while 36 per cent agreed Muslims were smart.

■38 per cent agreed or strongly agreed Muslims were the most negatively stereotyped of all minorities, including Aborigines.

■34 per cent agreed most Australians were racist, while 46 per cent disagreed.

Islamic Council of Victoria board member Waleed Aly said the results were troubling.

"What it demonstrates is that Muslims are being viewed in a way that is really subhuman," he said. "The only way you can combat this kind of prejudice is on a personal level … it's much harder to hate people when you actually know someone in that social group."

The chairman of the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria, Phong Nguyen, described the findings as "a wake-up call".

"We cannot assume that our children who grow up in a multicultural setting will automatically be accepting of each other," he said.

"Adults need to do things to make sure that our impressionable young children have a growing, mature understanding of the world and other people."
By Chee Chee Leung
February 6, 2006
Page 2 of 2
Related coverage

* Cartoon rage spreads to NZ
* Protesters set fire to Danish Embassy in Beirut
* Islamic prayers could be illegal under new laws
* GALLERY Muslim cartoon row snowballs

AdvertisementAdvertisement

MOST Victorian schoolchildren view Muslims as terrorists, and two out of five students agree that "Muslims are unclean".

Just over 50 per cent believe "Muslims behave strangely", and 45 per cent say Australians do not have "positive feelings about Muslims".

These are some of the preliminary findings from a statewide survey of student attitudes towards the Muslim community.

The research — conducted in the second half of last year — is based on responses from 551 year 10 and 11 students across public and private schools.

Almost half said they had learned "a little" about Muslims and Islam at school, but more than a third said they had learned nothing on these subjects. When asked if schools should teach more about Muslims, 29 per cent said no and 34 per cent said they did not care.

Researcher Abe Ata, of the Australian Catholic University, said the findings showed a need for educators to develop new ways of promoting multiculturalism among children.

"There are very strong signals that there is a chasm between mainstream students and Muslim students," said Dr Ata, a senior fellow at the university's Institute for the Advancement of Research.

"Educationalists and policymakers in education should take proactive steps … to help create more racial harmony in the classroom and outside it."

In the survey's other findings:

■62 per cent agreed Christians were smart, while 36 per cent agreed Muslims were smart.

■38 per cent agreed or strongly agreed Muslims were the most negatively stereotyped of all minorities, including Aborigines.

■34 per cent agreed most Australians were racist, while 46 per cent disagreed.

Islamic Council of Victoria board member Waleed Aly said the results were troubling.

"What it demonstrates is that Muslims are being viewed in a way that is really subhuman," he said. "The only way you can combat this kind of prejudice is on a personal level … it's much harder to hate people when you actually know someone in that social group."

The chairman of the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria, Phong Nguyen, described the findings as "a wake-up call".

"We cannot assume that our children who grow up in a multicultural setting will automatically be accepting of each other," he said.

"Adults need to do things to make sure that our impressionable young children have a growing, mature understanding of the world and other people."

Mr Nguyen said learning about other faiths and cultures was just as important to a child's education as studying subjects like maths or physics.

The State Government's draft education laws explicitly permit teaching comparative religion in public schools and enshrine "openness and tolerance".

According to the Australian Education Union, some Victorian schools discuss issues involving Muslims in the curriculum, but others may be hesitant to do so.

"Sometimes schools do shy away from such controversial issues because of the sensitivities," Victorian president Mary Bluett said. "There's always the thought that you might fall foul of politicians or parents."

But Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals president Andrew Blair said schools had a social responsibility to discuss these sensitive issues with students. "Just because it's tough, you shouldn't turn your back on it," he said.

Mr Blair also said the task of helping young people learn about other cultures lay not only with schools but also with parents and families.

"If this is accurate, it's an indictment of what's actually taking place in schools, but also probably an indictment of conversations within families in Victoria," he said.

Howard's history lesson - Patricia and Don Edgar, The Age

2006-02-02T15:10:00.000+11:00

This article provides some fascinating discussion points and a reminder of the dynamic nature of Australian culture and how our history has shaped our nation....Sue Ellson

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/howards-history-lesson/2006/02/01/1138590559809.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Howard's history lesson

Illustration: John Spooner

By Patricia and Don Edgar

February 2, 2006

PRIME Minister John Howard correctly senses that "something is rotten in the state of Australia". But teaching his narrative history of Australia and cleaning up television is not the answer: these are diversionary tactics. Howard is a major architect of the very ills he senses in the national psyche.

He has an amazing ability to "dog whistle" - to sense the national mood and send out coded signals to reinforce his neo-conservative agenda. It is a theme Howard returns to regularly: a sensed lack of values, dissatisfaction with material rewards, a lack of community consensus. Yet he does not want (indeed actively discourages) discussion, dissent or argument from any perspective other than his own.

Our core values, sense of identity and vision for the future do arise from the past, but it is a conflicted past in which vigorous debate and dissent forged a complex culture, not a simple one based on myths of consensus, mateship, and comfortable democracy.

History teaches us that a nation evolves, it is not fixed. National identity changes over time, is different for each generation, and emerges only through critical discussion and debate about where we have been, what we are now, and where we want to go.

Howard is right about teaching history as a story; to show children how their lives have emerged from times and circumstances very different from today; to know their origins, the trials and tribulations of their forebears, and how Australia's identity was forged from hardship, hope and struggle. But Howard ignores the role of alternative narratives in forging an educated and purposeful nation.

Stories are not just about facts, events, times and places in finite reality. Our leaders on both sides of politics need to be reminded it is not just historical storytelling that needs reviving, it is cultural storytelling - spinning the universal yarns of life in terms particular to our own culture, in literature, drama, film and television, and this Government is starving us of the funds and motivation to do so. George Miller (the filmmaker who gave us Mad Max) calls storytellers "servants of the collective unconscious". And writer Tony Morphett is right when he says, "All cultures must retell these universal stories for themselves or cease to be cultures. If you do not tell your own tribal stories, you become detribalised. The tribe does not own its own dreams and dies as a tribe."

We usually think this applies only to our indigenous people - they have their Dreamtime stories and European settlement has damaged the fabric of their life. But Australia is now made up of people from every nation, each with its own history and culture, its own tribal stories, and the volatile mix that constitutes what we call "Australian history" has, in its own right, particular versions of the universal struggles and triumphs of human kind.

John Howard also misses the point that even stories based on factual events, the lives of real people, are subject to interpretation and depend on the viewpoint of the storyteller.

What if our leading historians had been Dutch rather than British; Chinese rather than European? How different would our celebration of Australia Day be if our history paid as much attention to the voyages of Dampier, Hartog, Leeuwin and early trade contacts in the north-west as it does to Captain Cook's east coast exploration and the origins of the First Fleet?

Would we still memorise the dates of voyages by Vasco da Gama, Magellan and Christopher Columbus if we had been taught about the early-15th-century Ming Dynasty's vast naval explorations in the Indian Ocean, along the African coast, perhaps even to America and around the world as now claimed? It helps put our European heritage into perspective if we know other nations were equally active.

Clearly, too, you cannot teach Australian history outside the context of world history. How to understand art without knowing how the Renaissance emerged from trade, religion, the new curiosity of spirit in Europe? How to understand our ethnic make-up without a knowledge of wars, famine, scientific and industrial innovation, the drive to find prosperity in new lands? How to understand the Anzacs without knowing of British imperialism, its elitist class system, our amazing "enemy" Ataturk, who became Turkish prime minister and led reforms in education, the place of women and democracy in a Muslim land? How to understand Iraq without knowing of long-term British oil interests, Lawrence of Arabia and arbitrary borders drawn by conquerors on a map?

For Howard and his Government, the dominant narrative is that of economic rationalism and free market liberalism. And it is underpinned by trust in the primacy of the individual, a belief that there is "no such thing as society", a blinkered denial of the limits placed on "free choice" by the circumstances of birth, sex, religion and social status. Any dissent from this market-driven philosophy is anathema, an elitist denial of simple truths, a threat to the ultimate elitist thrust - more power to the powerful.

Howard might do well to read (or re-read) the recent essay published by his favorite think-tank, the Centre for Independent Studies. Swedish conservative analyst Johan Norberg defends capitalism as the only system to have improved the quality of life for everyone (including the ungrateful disadvantaged and the struggling Third World). Like Howard, he senses an anomaly in that people under capitalism are not necessarily happy with their lot, they always complain and argue about how things could improve.

Unlike Howard, Norberg sees the central truth when he quotes 19th century liberal historian and politician Lord Macauley: "There is constant improvement precisely because there is constant discontent. If we were perfectly satisfied with the present, we should cease to contrive, to labour, and to save with a view to the future."

Progress only comes from dissatisfaction and dissent. Community consensus - and democracy itself - derives from competing interests and handling conflicts with civility. Stifle dissent, denigrate those who question the status quo, deny problems exist, and problem solving as an engine of progress withers away. Society stagnates, turns inward, builds a carapace against imagined external threats and dies. We need to imbue our children with questioning minds, to stimulate their imaginations with narratives of conflict, problem solving, exploration of the yet-to-be imagined, and to help them see that our national identity is an ongoing, ever changing project built on through a wider cultural debate, not stuck with past "truths".

Dr Don Edgar and Dr Patricia Edgar both began their careers as teachers of history, geography and English literature. Don Edgar established the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Patricia the Australian Children's Television Foundation.

Top talent finds increased opportunities abroad - David Daniel and Cheryl Hall, Dallas Morning News

2006-01-29T18:27:00.000+11:00

There are some interesting points raised here - helping expatriates to consider 'moving home' and making the most of the opportunities available in their previous location....but perhaps also the reminder that there are many forces influencing people's choice as to where they live in the global village affected by perceived threats...Sue Ellson

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/13735211.htm

Top talent finds increased opportunities abroad
David DanielBy Cheryl Hall
DALLAS MORNING NEWS

DALLAS - Worried about global outsourcing? Chances are you're focused on the wrong end of the job equation.

Every day, hundreds of trained workers leave the United States for opportunities abroad.

This talent outflow poses more long-term dangers to our economy than the migration of low-skill-level jobs to cheaper foreign labor markets.

Many are going home -- lured by improving homeland economies and highly targeted recruiting programs aimed at poaching America's brainpower.

"The United States used to have a monopoly on skilled immigration," said David Heenan, a former senior executive with Citigroup and author of the newly published "Flight Capital: The Alarming Exodus of America's Best and Brightest."

"Whether it was Alfred Hitchcock, I.M. Pei, Peter Drucker or Albert Einstein, this was the place where everyone wanted to be. Few other countries were even in the game. That's no longer the case."

Now we have people like Hong Kong-born Edison Lui, former director of clinical sciences at the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

He is moving to Singapore to head that country's impressive genome institute. When Heenan asked him why, Lui said, "It's a small city-state of 4.5 million people where I can get decisions out of the government in a week, not three months."

Heenan estimates that up to 1,000 legal immigrants -- many in leading-edge professions such as science, engineering, medicine and technology -- make U-turns home each day.

He gets that admittedly squishy number by taking the figures of returning expatriates in such countries as India, China, Singapore and Ireland and then working backward.

Ireland? Yes, Ireland.

The Emerald Isle has zeroed in on more than 1,000 Irish immigrants living here and working in life sciences and technology. It's holding massive recruiting fairs and pursuing them with gusto, he said.

"For many attendees, it's shock and awe," Heenan said. "Many have been out of the country for 10 or 20 years and aren't that knowledgeable about the dramatic improvement in Ireland's educational institutions, tax system, general economy and the depth of research money.

"Of course, there's also plenty of Guinness going down the tubes," he added with a laugh. "They've clearly turned some heads."

The United States can blame terrorism for part of the problem.

"For perfectly understandable reasons, we've tightened the borders and heightened constraints on potential recruits to the United States and also those who recently arrived," said Heenan. "The atmosphere for newcomers here post-9/11 is chilling and has renewed their sense of national roots."

We've removed the welcome mat while the Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders and Singaporeans are rolling out the red carpet.

For example, in the past year, Australia hosted skilled labor expos in London, Berlin, Amsterdam and various Indian cities, Heenan said. Americans who have become more adventurous about living and working abroad are taking the recruitment bait, too.

David Daniel, president of the University of Texas at Dallas, agrees that the talent flight poses a serious threat to our economic vitality. But he's even more troubled that many brilliant minds aren't coming here to begin with.

"They now have almost equal opportunities to attend world-class universities in their home countries that weren't even on the radar screen 20 years ago," Daniel said. "They don't perceive America as hospitable and welcoming. They see post-graduation business opportunities that are comparable to those in America.

"Why should they leave?"

Adding insult to injury: The rest of the world is using America's success as a blueprint, Daniel said.

"Ireland, Singapore, Beijing, Shanghai and Bangalore are white hot and the five most interesting places on the planet," Daniel said, then added as aside, "Remember when we used to say Palo Alto and Austin were white hot?

"Of those, Singapore is the most dynamic. It's clearly on a path to create a science, technology and university magnet that will make them the high ground of Asia."

The United States can't afford to wait for a cool-down, he contends. Competition for skilled labor will only get worse.

As much as Singapore has accomplished in the past 10 years, even it's worried, Daniel said. "They see the beast across the ocean: China."

G-G heralds arrival of our nation's new dawn - David McLennan, Unknown Source

2006-01-24T23:04:00.000+11:00

G-G heralds arrival of our nation's new dawn
David McLennan
Tuesday, 24 January 2006

The flare that broke the pre-dawn darkness yesterday was the sign
for more than 500 men, women and children to think about just what
it meant to be Australian.
Families began turning up at 3am, huddling together in the cool
morning on the dusty red plains, waving flags and excitedly pointing
out the famous faces in their midst. The crowd had gathered for the
National Australia Day Council's Kalgoorlie Dawn, an event which
follows on from last year's in Uluru.

It marks the beginning of a week of Australia Day celebrations,
which culminate in tomorrow's concert on the lawns of Parliament
House, where highlights of the dawn ceremony will be shown.

Governor-General Michael Jeffery - who is considered all-but a
local, having been born in nearby Wiluna, former gold-medal winning
swimmer and council chairwoman Lisa Curry Kenny, Australian of the
Year Fiona Wood, actor and event host Noni Hazelhurst and singer
James Blundell all turned heads, but it was Australian Idol winner
Casey Donovan who elicited the biggest cheer.

Her song Shine closed the ceremony, with the sun's rays bursting
through mid-verse as dawn turned into morning. Almost as popular was
the traditional sausage-sandwich breakfast.

Earlier, at 5am and still blanketed by darkness, Kalgoorlie Dawn
began. A miner lit a flare atop a derrick at the Kalgoorlie-Boulder
Miners' and Prospectors' Hall of Fame and a choir, accompanied by
clapping sticks and didgeridoo, began singing We Are Australian,
interchanging between English and Wongatha, the language of the
original owners of the land.

Local elders welcomed the guests and crowd, saying the event was a
positive one. "It's about a community coming together, sharing a
common history but also recognising that our people hold a unique
and proud place in Australia's history," one elder said.

"It's events like this that show how reconciliation can work in a
practical way - to bring Australians together and to promote
understanding, respect and friendship."

Ms Curry Kenny said the council held the event in Kalgoorlie because
it epitomised Australia's history of exploration and development -
and it reminded people of the environmental challenges being faced
by the nation.

A highlight of the event was Young Australian of the Year and
Vietnamese boatperson Khoa Do interviewing Major-General Jeffery, a
Vietnam veteran.

They discussed growing up in the bush and, despite technological
advances, how little had really changed about surviving in the
outback. They also spoke about the importance of preserving the
environment, in particular water, and linking indigenous and non-
indigenous Australians.

Major-General Jeffery used the occasion to push for all Australians
to take a little bit more care of the nation and each other, saying
to do so would ensure the country remained successful.

"My vision of Australia is to see Australia as the nation of
excellence, the global example. That whatever we do ... we do in the
best way, in a way that sets an example for every country in the
world," he said.

Dr Wood, a burns-treatment researcher whose spray-on skin came to
international attention after the first Bali bombings, said people
who experienced it understood why yesterday's ceremony was held.

She said it made people think about Australia and how they could
affect it. "I think just seeding that thought in anybody's mind is a
positive one. 'How can I actually make this a better place?' because
every drop in the ocean matters and we all have to realise we are in
this together," she said.

"For me, that's why these things are important, because we have got
to move towards a society dependent on the integrity of each and
every individual, not the intellect of a few and that is what this
morning was about for me."

Racism: who’s stirring it up? - Marce Cameron, Green Left Weekly

2006-01-23T23:09:00.000+11:00

A hopeful article that there are people willing to address the issues of racism despite the view that we are all 'inherently racist.' Sue Ellson

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/653/653p13.htm

Racism: who’s stirring it up?

Marce Cameron, Sydney

‘‘Alan, it's not just a few Middle Eastern bastards at the weekend, it's thousands. Cronulla is a very long beach and it's been taken over by this scum. It's not a few causing trouble, it's all of them'' - Sydney radio 2GB ‘‘shock jock'' Alan Jones reading out an email on air three days before the Cronulla race riots.

Last December 11, thousands of Anglo-Australian racists, some waving Australian flags and signs with racist slogans, converged on Cronulla beach in the south east. The racist mob, urged on by neo-Nazi white supremacists, verbally abused and assaulted beach-goers of Middle Eastern appearance. The following two nights, dozens of outraged youths of Arab descent drove to Cronulla looking to retaliate.

The Cronulla riots erupted after a week-long campaign of incitement by the corporate media, in particular the Murdoch-owned Daily Telegraph, 2GB and 2UE. The trigger for the race riot was a minor incident: an alleged altercation between two off-duty Cronulla lifeguards and some Middle Eastern youths.

NSW Labor Premier Morris Iemma responded by deploying 800 police to Sydney's eastern and southern beaches. Police used new powers, granted by an December 15 emergency sitting of the NSW parliament, to search people and cars, to confiscate cars and mobile phones (and check text messages) and to ‘‘lock down'' popular beaches with police checkpoints. Entire suburbs also became out of bounds for non-residents.

Following the Cronulla riots, the political establishment and the corporate media launched an intensive campaign to deny what was obvious to a majority of Australians - that the mob violence against people of Middle Eastern appearance reflects an underlying racism which, on occasion, can easily be brought to the surface.

Prime Minister John Howard summed up this official denial by declaring a few days after the riots: ‘‘I do not accept there is underlying racism in this country''. This was echoed by Iemma who, after first describing the riots as race-based, changed his view saying ‘‘I don't believe Australia is a racist country or Australians are racist''.

The majority of Australians, however, don't agree. In an opinion poll in the December 20 Age, 75% of Australians ‘‘agreed there is underlying racism in Australia''.

On December 18, with just a few days organising, some 3000 people took to the streets in Sydney in a vibrant ‘‘United Against Racism'' march called by the National Union of Students and supported by many groups and individuals. Anti-racism protests were also held in Melbourne, where 2000 people marched, and in Brisbane, Newcastle and Adelaide.

Little wonder then that the Murdoch-owned Australian felt it necessary to suggest that anti-racist activists and sympathisers are just one more threat, along with Islamic terrorists, to Australia's supposedly racially harmonious society. The paper's December 22 editorial argued that ‘‘for many baby-boomers finding themselves in a post-theological world, anti-racism has become the new religion. In fact, there is a degree of racism in every society, and in every human being: to make one's mission the eradication of this ingrained element is an exercise in fanaticism.''

The Australian would have us believe that progressive struggles to end racist oppression are nothing more than a futile ‘‘exercise in fanaticism''. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela should have known better because human beings are, apparently, inherently racist.

Contrary to the assertion that racism has always existed, the oppression of people based on the fetishisation of physical features, such as skin colour, is a relatively recent phenomenon, its origins in the capture of millions of black Africans to work as slaves on the sugar and cotton plantations of the Americas from the 16th century.

In Australia, racism thrives on the dispossession and the ongoing oppression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and Australia's existence as an island of wealth in a sea of Third World misery. From the theft of East Timor's oil to participation in the US-led plunder of Iraq, Australian corporations profit from exploiting the largely non-white peoples of the Third World.
Anti-racism

While fanned by the corporate media, the underlying cause of the outbreak of racist violence in Cronulla is the racist divide-and-rule political agenda of corporate Australia, its media mouthpieces and its two main political parties, the Liberal-National Coalition and the ALP. This corporate consensus is reflected in bipartisan support for the mandatory detention of refugees, the so-called ‘‘war on terror'' and new federal and state terror laws which are aimed, in large part, at criminalising dissent.

When One Nation Party leader Pauline Hanson's racist policies threatened to spark a mass anti-racist movement in the late 1990s, the powers-that-be thought better and they contrived to remove her from the spotlight while incorporating her racist policies on refugees and Indigenous people into their own platform.

From the Tampa and ‘‘children overboard'' fiascos, to the raids on the homes of alleged Muslim terror suspects in Sydney and Melbourne a month before the Cronulla riots, the Howard government and state Labor administrations have played the ‘‘race card'' whenever they could since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York. Racism is the ideological basis for the so-called ‘‘war on terror'', and the actual war of terror on Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is clear in NSW opposition leader Peter Debnam's strident criticism of the NSW police for not jailing more Middle-East background youths. Then, on January 20, Iemma caved in to Liberal Party pressure and announced the establishment of a permanent Middle-Eastern organised crime squad.

As Sydney Muslim community leader and Islamic Friendship Association president Keysar Trad told Green Left Weekly, the demonisation of Muslims in particular ‘‘has led to the marginalisation of the community in the workplace, in education and even in government services.

‘‘When the Howard government, with the help of the [NSW Labor] state government, carried out the raids and arrests of so-called terror suspects just before the Cronulla riots, it diverted attention away from Howard's industrial relations changes, and Howard also attacked our civil liberties.''

In this climate of fear and insecurity, the corporate elite's racist chickens are coming home to roost. But as Trad points out, ‘‘the anti-racism rallies were most heartening and most encouraging. People came to show their support for their fellow Australians. It must have made those who are playing the race card think twice.''

From Green Left Weekly, January 25, 2006.

Martin Luther King Day - Editorial, Nightly Business Report

2006-01-23T11:35:00.000+11:00

I happened to watch this program and have waited to add the transcript to the Living in Harmony Australia Blog as I feel that there are many excellent ideas here that could easily be implemented in Australia....Sue Ellson

http://www.nbr.com/transcript/2006/transcript011606.html

Program: Monday, January 16, 2006 -MLK Day: Open For Business

Denny's Recipe For Diversity
Nordstrom's Plan Of Action
Xerox's Blue Print For Diversity
Paul Kangas' Stocks In The News
Market Stats

01/16/06: Denny's Recipe For Diversity

PAUL KANGAS: We begin tonight with Denny`s. It took a big lawsuit for the restaurant chain to realize it had a diversity problem and a public relations one, as well. Since settling that suit back in 1994, the company has made a turnaround from a symbol of racial discrimination to one of the best companies for minorities. From Denny`s headquarters in South Carolina, Darren Gersh reports.

DARREN GERSH, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: This meeting is what makes corporate diversity different at Denny`s.

RAY HOOD, CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER, DENNY`S: This is the real deal. This is about a $1.4 million opportunity.

GERSH: This is Ray Hood, Denny`s chief diversity officer. And that`s Denny`s CEO Nelson Marchioli.

NELSON MARCHIOLI, CEO, DENNY`S: So, $150 more per store, for a grand total of how much?

GERSH: Ray is an officer of the company. She sits on the Denny`s management committee and is one of just seven people to report directly to the CEO. Many companies relegate diversity to a task force or give the job to a junior executive reporting to human resources. Not Denny`s.

HOOD: You don`t run finance by a council. You have a CFO. You have an SVP of human resources. Marketing is not run by a task force. So why would we do this? And actually, we felt that it was a bastardization of the business actually and that it would make diversity this appendage off to the side of the business and not integrated into the business. So we really broke the mold.

GERSH: Denny`s really had no choice. In the mid-`90s a Denny`s restaurant in Annapolis failed to serve six uniformed African American Secret Service agents in town to guard President Clinton. They sued and Denny`s became a punch line for late night comics.

HOOD: We became like an icon for corporate discrimination. And I read someplace where they called us the poster child.

GERSH: Since then, Denny`s has become the poster child for how to make diversity work. Surveys rank the company as one of the best workplaces in the country for minorities and women. Now other CEOs ask Marchioli for advice. When he offers it, he hears back doubts about the cost and extra work of hiring and managing a chief diversity officer.

MARCHIOLI: Well, what about a task force or I think this should report to HR? And I push back and advise them that it is really about your commitment as the CEO.

GERSH: It is certainly not cheap. Denny`s says it spends millions of dollars a year on diversity training.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We did have a couple that was a little grumpy negative, but once we got into it, they picked up and it was really fun.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very good. The fact is that maybe we might have seen them originally as grumpy or maybe difficult, but the fact is you worked through it, and that`s about appreciating others and diversity.

GERSH: Every new Denny`s employee is trained in the company`s core values, including appreciating others. Over the last decade, Denny`s estimates two million people have taken its diversity training and the company claims to be the largest diversity trainer in the country. Each of Denny`s 85,000 employees receives an hour and a half of diversity training, managers: nine and a half hours. Hood says the experience can be an eye- opener, helping some understand the kind of subtle and not-so-subtle discrimination minorities face everyday.

HOOD: If someone is walking through that day in and day out, perhaps by the time they come to you and the silverware is not clean, or you sit them back of the restaurant, then it`s like, it gives me a context to understand where this is coming from. Light bulb goes off.

GERSH: From a company with no top black executives or suppliers a decade ago, Denny`s now says half its board and senior leadership team are women or people of color and more than 12 percent of total purchasing contracts are with minority suppliers. Denny`s insists these are not quotas.

HOOD: We want to see women, we want to see white males, we want to see people of color and may the best person get the job.

GERSH: Denny`s can`t afford another mistake. The company faces fierce competition from Ihop and in the crowded family dining category, Denny`s can`t risk another hit to its reputation. But Hood is not worried. She believes the company has taken the diversity message to heart.

HOOD: If I were to get hit by a bus, heaven forbid, it could go on and on and on. So that everybody owns it. It`s who we are. That`s what it means for Denny`s at this very specific point in time. And that`s big for us.

GERSH: Darren Gersh, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT, Spartanburg, South Carolina.

GHARIB: Joining us now to talk more about the issues of diversity, we`re happy to have with us Bernard Anderson, professor of management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and David Thomas, professor of business administration at the Harvard Business School. Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us. Dr. Thomas, let me begin with you. You know, everybody talks about diversity, but if you had to come up with a short definition of what makes a diverse workforce, what would it be?

DAVID THOMAS, PHD, PROF. OF BUSINESS ADMIN., HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL: It would be a workforce that reflects the community that the business serves and the available labor markets, as well as reflecting diversity at all levels of the company and both in the company`s peripheral and core businesses or units.

GHARIB: Dr. Anderson, do you see it the same way?

BERNARD ANDERSON, PHD, PROF. OF MANAGEMENT, WHARTON SCHOOL: Yes. I would express it a little bit differently. I would say that a diverse workforce is one in which there is a nondiscriminatory environment for the management of human resources.

GHARIB: So how would you be able to tell, Dr. Anderson, if a company has been successful at creating a diverse workforce compared to one that`s been a failure?

ANDERSON: Look at the numbers. I`m a numbers man. I think that you have to look at who is s employed in that company and at what level they are employed. A diverse workforce is one that will reflect all of the population groups in this country, all of those who are in the labor market. It is not one in which you find an overwhelming majority of senior and management positions held by one population group, namely white males.

GHARIB: Dr. Thomas, is it all about numbers? Is that what success or failure is determined on?

THOMAS: I think it`s about numbers. I also think it`s about the culture, and I think it`s also about retention. There are many organizations that are able to keep their numbers looking perfect, but when you actually look at what`s going on, they`ve got a revolving door for talent and in particular, for female talent, talent of color.

GHARIB: So, Dr. Thomas, what would you say then are the real challenges or the stumbling blocks in terms of creating a diverse workforce and then keeping it that way?

THOMAS: I think the -- probably the major stumbling block is leadership accountability and having that leadership accountability run all the way through the organization, so that after initial success with the numbers, we don`t take our eye off the ball in terms of creating the kind of culture and environment that allows people to succeed and makes people want to be retained. So I really see today`s stumbling blocks lying primarily at the level of leadership.

GHARIB: I know, Dr. Anderson, you believe a lot that corporate leaders can play a big role in creating a diverse workforce. What would you say is the key thing that a corporate leader has to do?

ANDERSON: The first thing the corporate leader has to do in my view is understand the importance of workforce diversity for the performance of the company. I think if you look at the evidence, you will find that those companies that are high-performance work companies, are high-performance organizations, are organizations that have a diverse workforce.

GHARIB: Dr. Thomas, for companies that do not embrace diversity, what`s the biggest cost for not being diverse?

THOMAS: The biggest cost is that they will fail to adapt to the environment around them. There`s plenty of evidence that shows that companies that don`t have the diversity within, in order to track what`s going on in their markets and connect well to those markets, ultimately lose their position.

GHARIB: Gentlemen, let`s take a little break here and we`ll continue our conversation with Dr. Anderson and Dr. Thomas a little later in the program.

Nightly Business Report transcripts are available on-line post broadcast. The program is transcribed by eMediaMillWorks. Updates may be posted at a later date. The views of our guests and commentators are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Community Television Foundation of South Florida, Inc. Nightly Business Report, or WPBT. Information presented on Nightly Business Report is not and should not be considered as investment advice. Copyright
(c) 2005 Community Television Foundation of South Florida, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Terms of use.

01/16/06: Nordstrom's Plan Of Action

PAUL KANGAS:If you look at the management of fashion retailer Nordstrom, it`s obvious the company takes diversity seriously. More than 30 percent of the company`s managers are people of color; more than 71 percent are women. Those numbers are even higher when looking at the chain`s total employment. As Diane Eastabrook reports from the company`s headquarters in Seattle, Nordstrom takes pride in that.

DIANE EASTABROOK, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: Nordstrom is the department store chain known for its elegance, its attentive service -- So what I`m using on you is the long-wear gel liner.

EASTABROOK: ... and its shoes. Can I measure both feet for you?

EASTABROOK: But the Seattle-based retailer could be known for something else, as well: its commitment to diversity.

BLAKE NORDSTROM, PRESIDENT, NORDSTROM: As our country evolves, it`s a pretty diverse community out there, and so it`s important that we`re reflective of that.

EASTABROOK: Nordstrom launched its diversity program nearly 20 years ago when it began rapidly expanding outside of Washington to 26 other states. The retailer assesses every new market it enters and sets hiring benchmarks that reflect regional demographics. Today, 40 percent of Nordstrom`s 50,000 employees are minorities; 30 percent of its managers are women and people of color.

DELENA SUNDAY, EXEC. V.P., DIVERSITY AFFAIRS, NORDSTROM: We`re in the service industry and we want to service anybody. We want to service everyone. So in order to do that, we have to have, you know, someone for everyone. So when our customers shop with us, they need to see people who reflect themselves, whether that`s ethnicity, age, whatever.

EASTABROOK: The kinds of shoppers Nordstrom seeks to attract are reflected in its catalogs. It also reaches shoppers through advertisements in magazines such as "Latina," "Black Enterprise" and "Essence." Nordstrom also uses its clout as a retailer to back up its commitment to diversity. The company does business with nearly 6,000 minority-owned suppliers and vendors. Clothing from Asian designer Misook to African American designer Tracey Reese to Hispanic jewelry designer Liz Palacios appear in many Nordstrom stores. The company thinks it has benefited from those relationships as much as its suppliers have.

NORDSTROM: We`ve been able to have fresh product that maybe you can`t find somewhere else and so as merchants we`re always looking for new things.

EASTABROOK: Nordstrom`s commitment to diversity extends beyond what customers see in its more than 100 stores. The company often acts as a mentor of sorts to its many suppliers, helping them to expand and improve their businesses. Alliance Relocation, a division of the Affluence Group, is a prime example. Before it began doing business with Nordstrom seven years ago, Alliance helped other companies coordinate employee relocations by simply contracting with local moving companies. But Nordstrom wanted something more. It insisted Alliance also help relocated employees sell their homes and buy new ones. Herb Stokes, CEO of the Affluence Group, says Nordstrom`s faith in his company helped to transform it.

HERB STOKES, CEO, THE AFFLUENCE GROUP: Not many corporations would give us an opportunity to participate in that real estate component, because there is a lot of expertise required and a lot of financial investment and we couldn`t do that. Nordstrom, however, felt that we could if given the opportunity.

EASTABROOK: Nordstrom`s commitment to diversity seems almost ironic, considering it is headquartered in a city whose population is more than 70 percent white. Still, the company says its commitment is part of its heritage. Founder John W. Nordstrom was a poor Swedish immigrant who arrived in the U.S. in 1887. He opened his first shoe store in Seattle in 1901. Blake Nordstrom says, in a sense, the diversity program carries on his great grandfather`s business philosophy.

NORDSTROM: Taking care of every single person, giving them the courtesy and respect they deserve, that`s a key component of how this company was founded.

EASTABROOK: Experts say while diversity programs are very common in retailing, Nordstrom`s is a cut above the rest.

MARY ANN ODEGAARD, MANAGEMENT PROFESSOR, UNIV. OF WASHINGTON: And they practice what they say, which I think differentiates them some from some other companies that have a policy, but it isn`t necessarily embraced by everybody.

EASTABROOK: Nordstrom says it is always looking for ways to improve its diversity program, either in its stores or in its catalogs or through its suppliers.

SUNDAY: It`s not anything you ever reach the finish line. You never say, "oh, my gosh, you know, now we can take a deep breath," because our customers will continue to change. Their needs will continue to change, and we have to evolve with that. So we just continue to try to get better.

EASTABROOK: And that, says Nordstrom, has always been the key to its success. Diane Eastabrook, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT, Seattle.

GHARIB: Continuing now our discussion on diversity, we`re back again with Bernard Anderson of the Wharton School and David Thomas of the Harvard Business School. Dr. Anderson, let me begin with you this time about how can minorities move into the executive suite. What`s your best advice?

ANDERSON: My best advice is for boards of directors, senior executives, to seek out and as a matter of a specific goal, attract minorities and women into some of the senior positions. That is something that is rarely done in American industry today. Let me be clear. What I mean is seeking out minorities and women, preparing them, tutoring them, mentoring them, doing what is necessary to see that they rise to the highest levels of the corporation.

GHARIB: Let`s hear what Dr. Thomas has to say. What thoughts do you have on minority advancement in the executive suite?

THOMAS: Well, I wholeheartedly agree with what Dr. Anderson has said. I would add that the thinking about bringing minority executives into the executive suite has to start fairly early in the young executive`s career. My observation is that many of the minority senior managers, by the time they get to be considered for executive level, have missed key developmental experiences and opportunities that then don`t allow them to clear that bar. And so I think addressing that development very early in career is critical.

GHARIB: And let me ask you, Dr. Thomas, do you think that affirmative action has been a success or a failure?

THOMAS: I think that affirmative action has been a success in terms of creating access at the entry levels of organizations at lower levels in the professional ranks. I don`t think affirmative action has had a great influence on the movement of minorities into the executive level. And in part, that`s because of the focus on numbers, not also on position and access in companies.

GHARIB: Let me ask both of you. We`ve been talking a lot about diversity. Is there anything missing from the current debate and discussion on diversity in America? What should people be focusing on? Dr. Anderson?

ANDERSON: I think what`s missing is to connect affirmative action and diversity. Diversity is a major goal. It is part of the conversation. We hear very little today about affirmative action. But let me tell you, you can`t get to diversity without affirmative action. And so I will use that much maligned word, affirmative action, to say that businesses need to have policies and practices in place that seek out minorities and women.

GHARIB: Dr. Thomas, what do you think is missing in the debate and discussion?

THOMAS: What I think is missing in the debate and discussion is really how you connect, how we lead organizations to the desire to have diversity in an organization. And if those two things aren`t connected, I think we wind up with a numbers game that gets played at the bottom of the corporation and at the periphery of it and not at the core and not at the top.

GHARIB: All right. Just to wrap it up, it is, after all, Martin Luther King Day and much of Dr. King`s legacy has centered on racial inequality in America. Give us a progress report on where we stand on that today. What more still needs to be done? And Dr. Anderson and Dr. Thomas, real quickly, just in a few words.

ANDERSON: I think a great deal of progress has been made in expanding the doors of opportunity since Dr. King was on the scene. However, let me emphasize we still have a long way to go.

GHARIB: Dr. Thomas, last word.

THOMAS: I think that we need to focus more on class and education. There is a group of the African-American community who are essentially being put on a path to be locked out of the economy in the 21st century and it will be a major, cataclysmic problem I think for this nation, if we don`t begin to connect that and businesses begin to see that as being in their interests.

GHARIB: Gentlemen, thank you so much. We appreciate your time and your insights.

ANDERSON: Thank you.

THOMAS: Thank you.

GHARIB: And we`ve been speaking with Bernard Anderson, professor of management of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and David Thomas, the professor of business administration at the Harvard Business School.

Nightly Business Report transcripts are available on-line post broadcast. The program is transcribed by eMediaMillWorks. Updates may be posted at a later date. The views of our guests and commentators are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Community Television Foundation of South Florida, Inc. Nightly Business Report, or WPBT. Information presented on Nightly Business Report is not and should not be considered as investment advice. Copyright (c) 2005 Community Television Foundation of South Florida, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Terms of use.

1/16/06: Xerox's Blue Print For Diversity

PAUL KANGAS: Xerox is known as a pioneer in document processing, but it`s also a pioneer in workplace diversity. For over 40 years, the company has made it a priority to actively recruit and promote minorities and women. As Erika Miller reports, Xerox says the moves are designed to give it a competitive edge.

ERIKA MILLER, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: It`s 3:15 p.m. and Rita Sherman is home to greet her kids as they get off the bus. It`s something she looks forward to every school day, but Sherman is not a stay- at-home mom. She`s a senior manager at Xerox. She has arranged to work just 30 hours a week during the school year and full-time during the summer. Schedule flexibility is one reason Xerox has been successful in recruiting and retaining a diverse pool of workers.

RITA SHERMAN, TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT MANAGER, XEROX: Xerox has understood that in order to have the diversity that it wants, you have to be flexible -- I mean, not just for women, but for men, and whatever the different needs are of the different people.

MILLER: At Xerox, differences are not just tolerated; they are considered vital for business success. That belief starts at the top with Anne Mulcahy, the company`s first female chairman and CEO.

ANNE MULCAHY, CHAIRMAN & CEO, XEROX: When you have an environment that is diverse, really having it allowing people to make their full contribution and really develop and be a part of the development system of the company, I think, delivers incredible returns in terms of full employee productivity and a workplace that really does enable great work.

MILLER: Mulcahy started as a sales representative in 1976. Now she`s one of only seven women running a "Fortune" 500 company.

MULCAHY: At times during my career while I was, you know, having my children and trying to balance work and family, Xerox partnered with me to make sure that I didn`t get off track and that they helped insure that I stayed a part of Xerox and had some flexibilities at times that kept me with Xerox. There`s no question about it.

MILLER: From the corner office to the factory floors, diversity is evident throughout the organization. Xerox employees are roughly 15 percent African American, 8 percent Hispanic, 5 percent Asian and 1 percent Native American. More than 40 percent of senior executives are women, people of color or both. Xerox`s effort to promote diversity began here in Rochester in the early 1960s. At that time, race riots shook the city, prompting Xerox to mount an aggressive campaign to recruit and hire African Americans. Over time, the firm`s diversity efforts have extended to include other underrepresented groups. Currently, the company has active caucuses for Asians, Hispanics, blacks, black women, women and homosexuals. Each group has its own champion with clout.

PHILIP HARLOW, CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER, XEROX: We assign a senior- level corporate executive to each one of the caucus groups that are represented within the Xerox culture. And the purpose of that is to have someone that`s directly connected to the CEO of the company to allow for ongoing exchange of communications.

MILLER: For example, Xerox says the black employee caucus helped it develop a consistent performance evaluation format company-wide. The women`s organizations advocated family friendly policies like flextime, job sharing and telecommuting. Xerox says all the groups help with minority recruitment. They also foster informal mentoring and networking.

SHERMAN: I feel that, you know, being one of fewer, you know, female minorities in the company, I have something to offer. I`ve had a lot of experience, I`ve been in a lot of different groups and I can help people understand, you know, here are the possible opportunities.

MILLER: Another way Xerox promotes diversity is through community outreach programs. Willie Robinson started as an engineer there 13 years ago. Now he oversees a program that places company engineers in Rochester public schools to teach science.

WILLIE ROBINSON, MANAGER, COMMUNITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS: We go in, letting them know that there is different career opportunities that you might want to consider regardless of where you come from, whether or not you are a male or a female.

MILLER: Because diversity is seen as a business imperative, managers are evaluated on whether they achieve diversity targets. And when layoffs take place, the company strives to mirror balanced workforce goals. Still, Xerox says this commitment to diversity does not conflict with its goal of finding the best employees.

HARLOW: This is not about quotas. This is about trying to create an environment that`s inclusive and representative based on the markets that you operate in. Xerox is a company that has very high standards as it relates to the capabilities that we look for people to have to come in.

MILLER: Xerox says its effort to encourage diversity remains a top priority. The company hopes to recruit more Hispanics and female engineers. It also wants to see more women working for Xerox abroad. Erika Miller, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT, Rochester, New York.

Nightly Business Report transcripts are available on-line post broadcast. The program is transcribed by eMediaMillWorks. Updates may be posted at a later date. The views of our guests and commentators are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Community Television Foundation of South Florida, Inc. Nightly Business Report, or WPBT. Information presented on Nightly Business Report is not and should not be considered as investment advice. Copyright (c) 2005 Community Television Foundation of South Florida, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Terms of use.

Open for Business - Nordstrom - Story on Nightly Business Report Television Program

2006-01-17T13:13:00.000+11:00

Explaining how diversity can work for better business in America. This transcript is from 12/1 and I will follow up with more details from the program on Monday 16/1/06 when the transcript is available...Sue Ellson

http://www.nbr.com/transcript/2006/transcript011206.html

1/12/06: "Open For Business"-Nordstrom
JEFF YASTINE: FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES SAID TODAY IT WILL PUT ITS LORD & TAYLOR DIVISION UP FOR SALE AS IT FOCUSES ON ITS MACY'S AND BLOOMINGDALE'S BRANDS SEPARATELY. TONIGHT WE TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT FEDERATED RIVAL NORDSTROM. IT'S ONE OF AMERICA'S OLDEST RETAILERS, AND IT HAS ONE OF THE BEST TRACK RECORDS IN THE INDUSTRY WHEN IT COMES TO DIVERSITY IN THE WORKPLACE. AS WE CONTINUE OUR SERIES "OPEN FOR BUSINESS," DIANE EASTABROOK TAKES US TO SEATTLE, NORDSTROM'S HOME BASE.
DIANE EASTABROOK, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: NORDSTROM IS THE DEPARTMENT STORE CHAIN KNOWN FOR ITS ELEGANCE, ITS ATTENTIVE SERVICE...
MAKE UP ARTIST: SO WHAT I'M USING ON YOU IS THE LONG-WEAR GEL LINER.
DIANE EASTABROOK: AND ITS SHOES.
SHOE SALES PERSON: CAN I MEASURE BOTH FEET FOR YOU?
EASTABROOK: BUT THE SEATTLE- BASED RETAILER COULD BE KNOWN FOR SOMETHING ELSE AS WELL: ITS COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY.
BLAKE NORDSTROM, PRESIDENT, NORDSTROM INC.: AS OUR COUNTRY EVOLVES IT'S A PRETTY DIVERSE COMMUNITY OUT THERE, AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE REFLECTIVE OF THAT.
EASTABROOK: NORDSTROM LAUNCHED ITS DIVERSITY PROGRAM NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO WHEN IT BEGAN RAPIDLY EXPANDING OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON TO 26 OTHER STATES. THE RETAILER ASSESSES EVERY NEW MARKET IT ENTERS AND THEN SETS HIRING BENCHMARKS THAT REFLECT REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS. TODAY 40% OF NORDSTROM'S 50,000 EMPLOYEES ARE MINORITIES. 30% OF ITS MANAGERS ARE WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR.
DELENA SUNDAY, EXECUTIVE, VICE PRESIDENT OF DIVERSITY AFFAIRS, NORDSTROM: WE'RE IN THE SERVICE INDUSTRY AND WE WANT TO SERVICE ANYBODY. WE WANT TO SERVICE EVERYONE, SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE FOR EVERYONE. SO WHEN OUR CUSTOMERS SHOP WITH US THEY NEED TO SEE PEOPLE WHO REFLECT THEMSELVES-- WHETHER THAT'S ETHNICITY, AGE, WHATEVER.
EASTABROOK: THE KINDS OF SHOPPERS NORDSTROM SEEKS TO ATTRACT ARE REFLECTED IN ITS CATALOGS. IT ALSO REACHES SHOPPERS THROUGH ADVERTISEMENTS IN MAGAZINES SUCH AS "LATINA," "BLACK ENTERPRISE," AND "ESSENCE." NORDSTROM ALSO USES ITS CLOUT AS A RETAILER TO BACK UP ITS COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY. THE COMPANY DOES BUSINESS WITH NEARLY 6,000 MINORITY-OWNED SUPPLIERS AND VENDORS. CLOTHING FROM ASIAN DESIGNER MISOOK TO AFRICAN-AMERICAN DESIGNER TRACEY REESE TO HISPANIC JEWELRY DESIGNER LIZ PALACIOS APPEAR IN MANY NORDSTROM STORES. THE COMPANY THINKS IT HAS BENEFITED FROM THOSE RELATIONSHIPS AS MUCH AS ITS SUPPLIERS HAVE.
NORSDSTROM: WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE FRESH PRODUCT THAT MAYBE YOU CAN'T FIND SOMEPLACE ELSE, AND SO AS MERCHANTS WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR NEW THINGS.
EASTABROOK: BUT NORDSTROM'S COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY OFTEN EXTENDS BEYOND WHAT CUSTOMERS SEE IN ITS MORE THAN 100 STORES. THE COMPANY OFTEN ACTS AS A MENTOR OF SORTS TO ITS MANY SUPPLIERS, HELPING THEM TO IMPROVE AND EXPAND THEIR BUSINESSES.
PHONE OPERATOR: GOOD MORNING, CHRIS. HOW ARE YOU?
EASTABROOK: ALLIANCE RELOCATION, A DIVISION OF THE AFFLUENCE GROUP, IS A PRIME EXAMPLE. BEFORE IT BEGAN DOING BUSINESS WITH NORDSTROM SEVEN YEARS AGO, ALLIANCE HELPED OTHER COMPANIES COORDINATE EMPLOYEE RELOCATIONS BY SIMPLY CONTRACTING WITH LOCAL MOVING COMPANIES. BUT NORDSTROM WANTED SOMETHING MORE. IT INSISTED ALLIANCE ALSO HELP RELOCATED EMPLOYEES SELL THEIR HOMES AND BUY NEW ONES. HERB STOKES, C.E.O. OF THE AFFLUENCE GROUP, SAYS NORDSTROM'S FAITH IN HIS COMPANY HELPED TO TRANSFORM IT.
HERB STOKES, C.E.O. OF THE AFFLUENCE GROUP: NOT MANY CORPORATIONS WOULD GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT REAL ESTATE COMPONENT, BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF EXPERTISE REQUIRED AND A LOT OF FINANCIAL INVESTMENT, AND WE COULDN'T DO THAT. NORDSTROM, HOWEVER, FELT THAT WE COULD IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.
EASTABROOK: NORDSTROM'S COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY SEEMS ALMOST IRONIC, CONSIDERING IT IS HEADQUARTERED IN A CITY WHOSE POPULATION IS MORE THAN 70% WHITE. STILL, THE COMPANY SAYS ITS COMMITMENT IS PART OF ITS HERITAGE. FOUNDER JOHN W. NORDSTROM WAS A POOR SWEDISH IMMIGRANT WHO ARRIVED IN THE U.S. IN 1887. HE OPENED HIS FIRST SHOE STORE IN SEATTLE IN 1901. BLAKE NORDSTROM SAYS IN A SENSE THE DIVERSITY PROGRAM CARRIES ON HIS GREAT GRANDFATHER'S BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY.
NORDSTROM: TAKING CARE OF EVERY SINGLE PERSON, GIVING THEM THE CARE AND RESPECT THEY DESERVE, THAT IS A KEY COMPONENT OF HOW THIS COMPANY WAS FOUNDED.
EASTABROOK: EXPERTS SAY WHILE DIVERSITY PROGRAMS ARE VERY COMMON IN RETAILING, NORDSTROM'S IS A CUT ABOVE THE REST.
MARY ANN ODEGAARD, MANAGEMENT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: THEY PRACTICE WHAT THEY SAY, WHICH I THINK DIFFERENTIATES THEM SOME FROM SOME OTHER COMPANIES THAT HAVE A POLICY, BUT IT ISN'T NECESSARILY EMBRACED BY EVERYBODY.
EASTABROOK: NORDSTROM SAYS IT IS ALWAYS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE ITS DIVERSITY PROGRAM, EITHER IN ITS STORES, OR IN ITS CATALOGS OR THROUGH ITS SUPPLIERS.
SUNDAY: IT'S NOT ANYTHING WHERE YOU EVER REACH THE FINISH LINE. YOU NEVER SAY, "OH, MY GOSH, NOW WE CAN TAKE A DEEP BREATH" BECAUSE OUR CUSTOMERS WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE, THEIR NEEDS WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE, AND WE HAVE TO EVOLVE WITH THAT, AND SO WE'LL JUST CONTINUE TO TRY TO GET BETTER.
EASTABROOK: AND THAT, SAYS NORDSTROM, HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE KEY TO ITS SUCCESS. DIANE EASTABROOK, "NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT," SEATTLE.
Nightly Business Report transcripts are available on-line post broadcast. The program is transcribed by eMediaMillWorks. Updates may be posted at a later date. The views of our guests and commentators are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Community Television Foundation of South Florida, Inc. Nightly Business Report, or WPBT. Information presented on Nightly Business Report is not and should not be considered as investment advice. Copyright (c) 2005 Community Television Foundation of South Florida, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Terms of use

Migrating to a world with no borders - James Button, The Age

2006-01-16T15:37:00.000+11:00

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/migrating-to-a-world-with-no-borders/2006/01/15/1137259941215.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap3

Migrating to a world with no borders

By James Button
January 16, 2006

AdvertisementAdvertisement

You see them on the London Tube, groups of tall, fair men dressed in overalls and speaking their mysterious language. They - and their women compatriots - work machines, cook pizza, clean the homes of the middle class and fill countless other largely thankless but vital jobs. They are part of Britain's huge influx of eastern Europeans, predominantly Poles.

When eight eastern European countries joined the European Union in May 2004, the 15 old member states could choose either to allow the new countries' workers to join their workforce or to delay their entry for up to seven years. France, afraid of an invasion of low-wage workers when unemployment is 10 per cent, chose delay. The feared arrival of the mythical "Polish plumber" was a big subject in French politics last year. In Britain, on the other hand, the Polish plumber has landed - along with more than 200,000 eastern Europeans in the past 20 months - and hardly anyone has noticed.

There you have two pictures of modern migration. One is Fortress Europe, where in some countries immigration has dwindled to a trickle. The other is Britain, which is experiencing a huge human turnover. In 2004 nearly 500,000 non-British migrants arrived and more than 200,000 Britons left: both figures were records.

It isn't that Britain is suddenly a migrants' paradise: many newcomers work long hours for lousy pay. Nor has hostility to immigration disappeared.

But its mix of new settlers and temporary workers - the hundreds of thousands of mainly young people who help make London so lively - suggests Britain may be on the way to creating a new kind of economy, based on the free movement not only of goods but of people.

It sounds unthinkable and it is certainly far off. But if a report published in Britain late last year is right, immigration to the West is on the brink of profound change, and it is not in the direction of putting up more walls.

The report - Migration: A Welcome Opportunity, written by a group of economists, business people and academics who make up the Migration Commission of the Royal Society of the Arts - makes an economic and intellectual case for liberalising migration.

It seeks to address a set of connected problems. One, the West needs labour but governments are timid about supporting immigration for fear of a voter backlash. Two, illegal immigration seems unstoppable: despite all sorts of well-publicised crackdowns. Three, illegal migrants often face severe exploitation.

The commission's answer, put simply, is to legalise it. Allow people to move freely for work within some limits - but also require them to go home. What's more, make migration a tool of global policy, "to restructure the world economy in favour of the world's poor".

In recent years, many Western countries, including Australia, have geared their migration programs to skilled workers. Unskilled workers need not apply, it would seem.

But the commission says that situation cannot last. In four sectors of the British economy - agriculture, construction, hospitality and health - it is already an "entirely utopian" hope that unskilled jobs could be filled without migrant workers.

That is because of an apparent paradox: high-skilled economies generate a lot of low-skilled work. Think of the hospital orderlies, hotel staff, waiters, labourers and cleaners needed to run the modern, service economy.

These jobs have two significant characteristics: unlike factory work, they cannot be exported to China. And in Britain and elsewhere, the increasingly well-educated local-born no longer want to do them.

As populations age, worker shortages will only increase - so much so, the report argues, that Britain will soon have to look further afield than eastern Europe.

For poor countries, that is good and bad news. On the one hand, migrants send huge amounts of money home. On official figures, remittances from migrants in wealthy countries are worth $US150 billion ($A198 billion) a year to poor countries.

Yet emigration also has a downside for poor countries. In Ghana, where one in 10 children die before the age of five, about 80 per cent of trained nurses work in Britain. Tiny Swaziland, where one in five people has AIDS, trained 200 nurses last year; 150 of them work in Britain.

So, emigration can help and can hurt poor countries. Can the contradiction be solved? The report argues that it can, through new forms of temporary migration.

Under one scenario, workers could enter a country for two years then have to return home - for a year, say - before being allowed to apply for another work visa.

That doesn't necessarily mean that settlement programs, which have worked so well for Australia, would be abolished, but they would be part of an expanded migration scheme. The goal would be to create a circular flow of people.

Is this realistic? Wouldn't temporary migrants all want to stay in their new countries? Not necessarily. The report says that around the world temporary migration is the norm: millions of Asian workers move for seasonal labour each year, for example.

The report even argues that tougher immigration policies can have the perverse effect of stopping migrants returning home, for fear that if they do they will never get back to the country they migrated to. In the 1980s illegal Mexican workers only stayed an average of three years in the US. In the late 1990s, after the border had been fortified and crossing became much harder, they stayed an average of nine years. Numbers are up, from 4 million to 11 million illegal immigrants to the US in the past 20 years. Now Congress is considering building a wall along the Mexican frontier. But business says it needs labour and President George Bush is pushing for a program of temporary migration.

To the Migration Commission these are signs of what is to come. Some of its members even say governments will find it impossible to manage these flows and will have to "introduce externally the same migratory system that prevails internally: unhampered movement".

The idea raises many questions. To some it will sound like a recipe for chaos. But in the long run it may be inevitable, at least when seen from London, where old ideas of national workforces, citizens and foreigners, who's in and who's out, are already beginning to dissolve.

James Button is Europe correspondent.

AUSSIE ICONS: Are the symbols that make us feel `True Blue' changing? - Jim Kelly, The Sunday Times

2006-01-15T23:33:00.000+11:00

Some interesting points on including Aboriginal Studies in school curriculums but no clear definition on what symbols we could use to help us define 'Australian' - will it be more about relationships than icons?...Sue Ellson

http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,17825151%255E949,00.html

AUSSIE ICONS: Are the symbols that make us feel `True Blue' changing?
In the aftermath of Sydney's race riots, January 26, 2006 could be one of our most significant Australia Days. As we step into the 21st century, has our identity and what symbolises "being Aussie" changed that much? Jim Kelly analyses what it means to be Australian, and the icons that signify our patriotism
15jan06

AFTER a turbulent year for multiculturalism, many Australians are approaching our national day wondering what lies beyond beer and barbecues.

What defines being Australian is found in the icons that have become ingrained in our cultural identity. The Outback, slouch hats, beaches and surf lifesavers have all been adopted as symbols of who we are.

The sense of being Australian draws heavily from the land, but equally it can be found in attitudes and the belief in a fair go.

It's even found in a jar of Vegemite. What represents Australia is as varied as the people who call the country home.

But as more migrants come into the country, what it means to be Australian is changing – and as the Sydney race riots proved, some Aussies are feeling threatened.

The most recent head count, the 2001 census, showed we were increasingly becoming a multicultural mixing pot.

More than 30 per cent of our population was born overseas.

Curtin University head of cultural studies Jon Stratton said, like it or not, migration would change what it meant to be Australian.

"It is not about replacing cultural icons, it is about transforming them,` he said.

"The Aussie barbecue will never disappear, but maybe in future we might be having a kebab as well as sausages."

Prof Stratton compares Australia today with the US in the 1920s and '30s.

A huge influx of migrants to America caused what became known as "the salad-bowl effect", where people from differing backgrounds were tossed together to create a new blended culture.

He said the downside of multiculturalism in Australia was that it classified and often alienated minority ethnic groups.

The tensions that this creates were seen in Cronulla when a drunken mob turned on anyone of Middle- Eastern appearance in a backlash against the Lebanese community.

Most of those targeted by the youths, some carrying the national flag, were born in this country.

"Australia has an emphasis on Anglo-Celtic culture and tends to think of other cultures as add-ons," Prof Stratton said.

"We have to integrate and accept that the dominant Australian culture is going to be transformed.

"Some people are threatened by that, but we have reached a point in our migration history where we have children from all sorts of backgrounds who see themselves as unapologetically Australian.

Islamic Council of WA president Rahim Ghauri says his community is feeling the brunt of Australia's growing pains.

He said Muslims wanted to become part of the country's future, but felt they were not welcome.

"Some people equate all Muslims with terrorism," he said.

"But we want to get on with the work of building Australia, feel part of the community and celebrate Australia Day as Australians.

"We should be able to get together under the one flag and hold our heads high."

For the indigenous community, the challenge is to maintain a voice in an increasingly diverse society.

Aboriginal Legal Service chief executive Dennis Eggington said indigenous culture should be part of all Australians' national identity.

said the country should learn from the experience of Canada and New Zealand, where indigenous culture was part of everyday life.

Mr Eggington is a strong advocate of making Aboriginal language and cultural studies compulsory in schools.

"Aboriginal culture has been devalued for a long time," he said.

"It is going to be very difficult for some people, particularly older people, to be re-educated and realise that they are part of a rich indigenous culture.

"Aboriginal identity has to be an identity where Aboriginal culture has a significant point of expression.

"Our culture should be in your face."

Prof Stratton said the future of multiculturalism was already being seen in WA classrooms, where children from different backgrounds played together unaffected by their different backgrounds.

In an evolving society, they shared the same dream of being accepted as True Blue.

Naturalization - benefits and limitations - David Kessel, American Chronicle

2006-01-15T23:26:00.000+11:00

It is sad to think that people who become citizens can be somehow less of a citizen of a country than someone who is born there - legally no...but in terms of the society they live in...Sue Ellson

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=4818

Naturalization - benefits and limitations
David Kessel

January 14, 2006

I think naturalization is a great thing. It is wonderful if you can go to another country, live there, learn the language and then apply for citizenship. It is refreshing to stand in front of a new flag and give an oath of allegiance. Feel something new, patriotic, and say “ Now I am ( put the new nationality here)".

However, while the official "paper" naturalization is rather simple, the social one is much harder if sometimes not downright near impossible. Take your new compatriots, the “native” people, with their natural human inquisitiveness. They will ask you the same question no matter where you go- the "Where are you from?" question. Unless you are some linguistic genius and have a good musical ear, you will have an accent. Or, if you are of a different ethnic group, you will look different from the majority of people. Your name may also stand out. So, people, I mean people everywhere, will ask you the same thing over and over again: “Where are you from?” Sure, now you can tell them about your new residence in the country, the new town where you live. They will then probably grimace un-satisfied-ly and ask you a more direct , more insightful question that you simply cannot avoid now- “Where are you from, originally?”. Now, this is a tough one. Unless you want to lie, you will have to tell them the truth. So, in social situations, you often, if not always, remain a foreigner. In spite of the oath you took.

The US- Mexican border people usually ask you "What is your citizenship" before admitting you to the US. However, once a border guard there asked me "Where were you born"? After I told him, a mini-interrogation ensued. My family and I had to pull over, pull out our US passports, he had to examine them, asking how my family and I had acquired US citizenship, how long we had been in the US, all sorts of things. I understand the security concern, but for some reason this "born" thing is somehow so important to Americans. There was once a celebration in the news of "American-born" athletes. There are a proud song- "Born in the USA", and "Hello, America, how are you, don't you know that I'm your native son?" . It all shows that the nativist sentiment is quite strong in the US. Then, they wonder why some immigrants are not as patriotic as they should be. How can you be a full patriot if you are not really and truly seen as a 100% citizen because of this "not born here" thing? Something you had no control over but which is somehow often held against you.

The drive for diversity and political correctness in the US sometimes does more harm than good as far as "becoming an American" is concerned . There was once a company in the US that had a very international staff from many different countries. The top manager was so proud of the diversity of the workplace that he had a map on the wall with pins stuck in it indicating where every employee was born. His intentions were good, but if you are a naturalized US citizen, wouldn't you rather just think of yourself as an American now and not have a pin stuck somewhere that ,even with the best of intentions, still says-" He is from another country"?

In France I have heard, the complaint of a lot of people is that even after you become a citizen, they still treat you as a non-citizen. So, I guess, in some places, one should not harbor too many illusions about now belonging there.

In the US it is illegal to ask about birth place on job applications, but in some other countries it is not. When applying for a job you end up putting it. What next? You may be rejected for that job because of that - local people come first. You are not from there, you know. Not originally. And often, people will not ask you "What is your citizenship?" except in passport offices of foreign embassies. They will simply ask you the same "dooming" questions: "Where are you from?" or "Where were you born?"

If people get angry at you for any reason, they may even tell you to “Go back to ( put the name of the country here)!”. Or, in hard economic times, they will tell you that they have to hire ( put the name of your new nationality here) and not "foreigners". If you protest and say " I am not a foreigner, I am a citizen", an answer may come your way- "I mean, a foreigner- not born here!" Such is sometimes the reality of being a naturalized citizen. You may feel like a stepson, not a real native son. Especially if you deal with uneducated "native" people.

Now, it is nice to get a new passport and proclaim with pride: “I am a citizen of ( put the country here)”. However, somehow, not even one country in the world issues a passport that does not have your birthplace written in it. So, if you travel, people that check your passport may start asking you questions, sometimes innocent, but, sometimes, suspicious ones and treat you as a person of that old country, not the new one you are a citizen of. And God forbid if that country has a bad reputation in the one you are visiting. You can be called all sorts of names. Or even refused entry.

In newspapers also, or in any media, in articles about you, they will call you a “( put the name of a country + “ese” or “ian” here) immigrant”. They will call you like that before the naturalization, and after the naturalization. Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, you will remain an "immigrant". The US TV newscasters are very fond of that, for one.

I think this is a new item in the area of political correctness that liberals should work on eliminating. In the US, for one, there has once been a positive term " New American" in the press. It should gain more popularity as I have not been hearing it too often lately. The term "first generation American" too, often means "first generation 'born' in the US". This should also change. It should include first generation naturalized citizens, as well.

In the English-language press anywhere they love using the name of the country and the word “born” after it, i.e. Polish-born, German-born., etc. Regardless of your new US-, Canadian or whatever other citizenship. Why do they do that? Is it really that important? Why can't the say a "Canadian national", for one, and a "US national"? Why is this birth thing ( a result of the parents' feelings for one another on the territory of a country that you now owe no allegiance to) so crucial that it needs to be rubbed in all the time- for decades?

Sometimes, they will use something like “Australian-turned-American“, etc. They will also talk about your “homeland” -meaning your old country, not the new one, even though you have taken an oath to reject your old country thoroughly and completely.

Then, also, you hear things like “He is a second generation Iranian”. Meaning: "he is a child of Iranians who immigrated to country X". Let's say your parents are Iranians and you were born in the US. Your parents also became US citizens. Aren't you now a second-generation 'American'? Shouldn’t a “second generation Iranian” be a child of people who became naturalized 'Iranian' citizens in Iran? Another area that the PC people haven’t gotten to yet.

Lots of countries are like that in the way they talk about naturalized citizens. To one degree or another. And few if any of such citizens became presidents or prime ministers of their new country. That is another thing that needs to be changed. Particularly in the US, there is a law that prohibits foreign-born people from becoming President. Say, if someone came from Canada at age 1 and does not know any other country except the US, he cannot become President. However, if someone was born in the US, but left at age 1, and knows very little about it( such as a son of some tourists) he is eligible to become one. I think it is unfair. You have not done anything bad but it is as if people do not fully trust you. Can you ever become a full patriot? I do not think so.

What if there is a Civics class and children are asked what they would do if they were President or Prime-minister? Some kids will feel like they are second-class. Not completely second class, but slightly below the "true citizen", the "born-and-raised-here" one. This must change one day.

Then, there is another thing. In some countries they have censuses that talk about “foreign-born population”, meaning “immigrants“. So, they will dump illegal ones, legal non-citizens, and naturalized citizens into the same category. Makes you feel like you do not fully belong. Whenever a naturalized citizen reads publications that mentions such statistics, his feeling of patriotism for his country often suffers a bit of a setback. How come one is put into the same class with people who are not citizens yet? Didn’t one go through all the requirements for the citizenship tests and all? Didn’t one swear on the Bible his new allegiance rejecting every other country? Don't they trust me?

And did you ever wonder why it is that they call it "citi-zenship"? It is another misnomer, in my view. Shouldn't it be called "countryzenship", or just "nationality"? After all, we do not became members of a "city", but a nation. "Citizenship" is just anouther carry-over from the time of city-states, a very distant period in world history. We have nation-states now.

And is "naturalization" a good term? Like you were "unnatural" before and then became "natural"? Like you were a robot before and now you are a human being? One thing I like about Argentina and Uruguay is that they do not have the term "naturalization"- they call it "nacionalizacion". Immigrants are "nationalized", not "naturalized". Maybe, that is the word that should be used in all the other countries who are generous enough to admit new people as members of their society.

However, one should not discount the positive things of naturalization. In many countries non-citizens cannot own property. This is the reason many people become citizens to begin with. If you want to own land there, become one.

Also, you are legally what your new passport says no matter what people may say. You can vote and qualify for many government jobs; you can now travel abroad on the new passport and take employment in countries whose employers prefer citizens of your new country. So, benefits abound. It is important to concentrate on those, and try and minimize the lingering “Where are you from?" reality.

Lastly, naturalized citizens in the US and everywhere else should unite and work on changing societal attitudes towards them. Black people in America rallied hard to change all sorts of nasty words applied to them to a much more pleasant “African- American”. Maybe naturalized citizens should organize and do the same? But while things have not changed, one should really try and equip oneself with skills and money to counteract the possible discrimination against one. One will need to work harder, study harder. Try and drop that accent. That's just the way it is. Some things take a long time to change.

Above all, naturalization should be seen as a practical tool, not something that can fulfill your romantic aspirations.

The neo-liberal hijack - Allan Patience, The Age

2006-01-14T22:26:00.000+11:00

I felt that this article made some interesting observations about what may be perceived as the 'old Australian' way of life. I also feel that there is more of an individualistic nature creeping into Australian society...Sue Ellson

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-neoliberal-hijack/2006/01/13/1137118964513.html

The neo-liberal hijack

By Allan Patience
January 14, 2006
Page 1 of 2

Right-Wing forays into the intellectual arena of Australian politics are becoming particularly strident and nasty these days. There is little joy or generosity in the triumphalism that increasingly marks the approach of the radical right in the infamous culture wars. Their style is censorious, vindictive, and sour. They take no prisoners.

It seems that all critics of the Government, whatever their stripe, are now branded "Howard-haters" despite legitimate concerns about Government policies on Iraq, the US alliance, Asia, asylum seekers, Aborigines, industrial relations, voluntary student unionism, welfare, education, infrastructure decay and taxation. Meanwhile, the policy analyses from the pens of some senior commentators remain transfixed by a strangely stagnant realism and old-fashioned positivism. They are often intellectually out of date.

Is this because the media protagonists on the right are realising that the only roles they will ever be allowed to play will be as handmaidens to a power elite that is contemptuous of all men and women of ideas, no matter where they sit on the political spectrum? Can they ever be really satisfied to play the role of intellectual eunuchs in the neo-liberal harem that now runs the Liberal Party? They don't have much choice because the party long ago abandoned any pretence at real conservatism.

Indeed, one of the most egregious and frequent errors that the radical right now makes is to bestow the title of conservative on John Howard, on his Government, and upon themselves. Columnist after columnist of late has been crowing about the "conservative" successes of the Howard decade. Yet few of the alleged achievements, and even fewer of the columnists, appear to be in the slightest bit conservative. Overwhelmingly, they are neo-liberal.

Within English political history, conservatism is a philosophical tradition stretching back at least to 18th-century Irish Catholic philosopher and MP Edmund Burke. Other savants in this honourable line include poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge and, more recently, late political theorist Michael Oakeshott. Malcolm Fraser is an Australian heir to this British tradition.

Real conservatives know where they come from. They are deeply respectful of history. They admire the authenticity of different cultures. They are unruffled by human differences and eccentricities. They know the intrinsic value of learning and scholarship.

They may be affluent but they don't flaunt their affluence to the world. They much prefer restraint to extravagance, tolerance to bigotry, dignified subtlety to showing off. They know that affluence brings obligations, to others and to the community. Some of the greatest philanthropists are (or were) genuine conservatives.

The neo-liberal hijack

*
* Email
* Print
* Normal font
* Large font

AdvertisementAdvertisement
By Allan Patience
January 14, 2006
Page 2 of 2

Right-Wing forays into the intellectual arena of Australian politics are becoming particularly strident and nasty these days. There is little joy or generosity in the triumphalism that increasingly marks the approach of the radical right in the infamous culture wars. Their style is censorious, vindictive, and sour. They take no prisoners.

It seems that all critics of the Government, whatever their stripe, are now branded "Howard-haters" despite legitimate concerns about Government policies on Iraq, the US alliance, Asia, asylum seekers, Aborigines, industrial relations, voluntary student unionism, welfare, education, infrastructure decay and taxation. Meanwhile, the policy analyses from the pens of some senior commentators remain transfixed by a strangely stagnant realism and old-fashioned positivism. They are often intellectually out of date.

Is this because the media protagonists on the right are realising that the only roles they will ever be allowed to play will be as handmaidens to a power elite that is contemptuous of all men and women of ideas, no matter where they sit on the political spectrum? Can they ever be really satisfied to play the role of intellectual eunuchs in the neo-liberal harem that now runs the Liberal Party? They don't have much choice because the party long ago abandoned any pretence at real conservatism.

Indeed, one of the most egregious and frequent errors that the radical right now makes is to bestow the title of conservative on John Howard, on his Government, and upon themselves. Columnist after columnist of late has been crowing about the "conservative" successes of the Howard decade. Yet few of the alleged achievements, and even fewer of the columnists, appear to be in the slightest bit conservative. Overwhelmingly, they are neo-liberal.

Within English political history, conservatism is a philosophical tradition stretching back at least to 18th-century Irish Catholic philosopher and MP Edmund Burke. Other savants in this honourable line include poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge and, more recently, late political theorist Michael Oakeshott. Malcolm Fraser is an Australian heir to this British tradition.

Real conservatives know where they come from. They are deeply respectful of history. They admire the authenticity of different cultures. They are unruffled by human differences and eccentricities. They know the intrinsic value of learning and scholarship.

They may be affluent but they don't flaunt their affluence to the world. They much prefer restraint to extravagance, tolerance to bigotry, dignified subtlety to showing off. They know that affluence brings obligations, to others and to the community. Some of the greatest philanthropists are (or were) genuine conservatives.

They are aware that society is a fragile organism that needs to be treated with great care, to ensure its equilibrium and sustainability. They look for enduring friendships based on the richness of people's uncalculating or selfless love for each other, rather than on what use they may be for whatever instrumental ends are in vogue.

Conservatives are alert to the dangers of populism and mob politics. They know that progress has rarely been achieved by resentful ideologues. They favour compromise over confrontation, patient conversation over raucous sloganeering, poetry over propaganda. They are as bemused by glib secularism as they are by religious and political fundamentalism.

This is not to say that conservatives are perfect. In the past they have been guilty of complacency and lack of originality. Sometimes they are too hesitant when decisiveness is needed. On occasion they have failed to see that their adoration of what exists flies in the face of gross injustices crying out for reform. But conservatism has a finer public policy record than neo-liberalism will ever have. That may be why neo-liberals are anxious to grasp the conservative mantle for themselves.

Yet neo-liberals are deeply at odds with most mainstream conservative ideas. Their obsession with egoism and selfishness - which they mistake for individualism - is a clear sign that they belong to completely different value systems. Conservatives know that society has to be articulated in far more complicated ways than the simple-minded economism proposed by neo-liberal market fundamentalism.

Above all else, neo-liberals and conservatives are at odds over what constitutes society. For neo-liberals, society doesn't exist. They believe in the malevolent fiction of competitive individuals who co-operate reluctantly in order to achieve larger, ego-driven goals. For neo-liberals, life is all about possessive individualism. It has little to do with social harmony or social connectedness. In this "solitary, nasty and brutish" world, only the strongest (i.e. richest) can survive. Everyone else is inconsequential.

For conservatives, the individual is inconceivable outside the rich interplay of social networks that include families, friends, colleagues, associates, officials, churches, voluntary service organisations, neighbourhoods, trade unions, and all the other manifestations of society ("civil society") in all its complexity. Society might not make the individuals, but it does have a major formative role to play in this sacred task.

Conservatives are wedded to a sociality that leads them often to side with socialists in public policy debates about issues such as welfare, industrial relations, education, health and taxation. Genuine conservatives have nothing in common with the primitive selfishness and crude economism driving the radical right in Australia today. It's time for true conservatives to speak out against the prevailing narcissism and negativism, particularly among those in the media who are poisoning a once-decent society.

Professor Allan Patience is a visiting fellow in the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.

Aborigines can beat the statistics - George Megalogenis, The Weekend Australian

2006-01-14T21:21:00.000+11:00

This article highlights some interesting statistics and draws some interesting conclusions. I found it thought provoking....Sue Ellson

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17812998%255E28737,00.html

Aborigines can beat the statistics
George Megalogenis
January 14, 2006

LET'S play a little race game with numbers. Should the Minister for Indigenous Affairs shut down those settlements in which there are more residents on welfare than working in regular jobs?

Here's a clue. Barely 30 towns and suburbs of various ethnic hues out of a national list of more than 1300 postcodes match this profile.

If the answer is yes, pull the plug on all of them, then try explaining to the folk of Coolangatta why their slice of the Queensland coastline south of Brisbane is, "unviable", to borrow minister Amanda Vanstone's description of remote indigenous communities.

Coolangatta has 1653 workers and 1654 beneficiaries, comprising 977 on the dole or disability support and another 677 on the age pension. That's a ratio of the idle to the active of 100.1 per cent. Australia-wide, the average figure is 42.4 per cent. Inner Sydney has it down to just 5.9 per cent.

When you have finished telling Coolangatta where to go, drive a few hours north of Brisbane, to former One Nation territory at Hervey Bay. Here, the dependency ratio is 105.9 per cent, which is a fraction higher than Cape York Peninsula, where indigenous leader Noel Pearson wants to jolt his people off the welfare drip.

Imagine how Pauline Hanson would have responded to social engineering on this scale. Actually, she has told us already, in her maiden speech to parliament 10 years ago. "I am fed up with being told, 'This is our land.' Well, where the hell do I go? I was born here and so were my parents and children."

Obviously, Vanstone didn't have Coolangatta or Hervey Bay in mind last month when she questioned the viability of Aboriginal communities that are too small to be called towns.

"There are around 1000 communities with less than 100 people, and of those, more than 80 per cent have less than 50 people," she said in a speech titled Beyond Conspicuous Consumption. "Despite the higher rate of population growth of Aboriginal people, it is unlikely that many of these homelands will grow to become viable towns." She wondered whether governments should "explicitly draw a line on the level of service that can be provided to homeland settlements".

It was a sensible matter to raise. But her next line jarred a little. "Listening to indigenous Australians does not mean blindly accepting, for example, that services like education, health and housing can be delivered at equal levels and equally well in townships and the homelands for the same people. We have to be realistic and we have to be honest."

Imagine a government minister saying the same thing about National Party senator Barnaby Joyce's constituents in the Queensland bush during last year's negotiations on the Telstra privatisation.

"Listening to Queenslanders does not mean blindly accepting, for example, that telephone services can be delivered at equal levels and equally well ..." Doesn't seem right, does it?

Now let's tackle another data set, this one dealing with the number of immigrants in jail. By way of background, 1.66 in every 1000 Australian-born adults were prisoners in 2004, a small rise on the 1.59 recorded in 2001. What do you think happened to the Lebanese-born in that period? Their incarceration rate rose from 1.88 to 2.25 in every 1000.

Are you hissing yet? Before you do, bear in mind that there are five immigrant groups well above them on the ladder: Tongans (5.32), Romanians (4.67), Samoans (4.45), Vietnamese (3.96) and Laotians (3.28).

All of which proves precisely nothing. The lock-up rate for indigenous Australians was 15.6 per 1000 adults in 2005, according to more recent figures. "Indigenous persons [are] 12 times more likely than non-indigenous persons to be in prison," the Australian Bureau of Statistics said last month.

One of the many mind-numbing contradictions in the race debate is that elements of the media and academe are hoping to prove that Lebanese-Australians are somehow different from all other immigrant groups, as if this somehow justifies their stint at the wog whipping post. The problem is the statistics can tell any story you wish, if you close one eye hard enough, which is why the argument is so easily polarised.

Lebanese-Australians have higher levels of youth unemployment than the mainstream, and some experts have been zeroing in on this detail to explain last month's mob violence on Sydney's beaches. But Vietnamese-Australians also have higher youth unemployment rates than the norm. It was the same for the Greek and Italian-Australians before them.

The Australian-born children of non-English-speaking immigrants generally fall into two camps: over-achiever or misfit. They have a higher rate of participation at university than the Australian average. Yet those who don't make it to tertiary education are less likely to walk into a low-skilled job than an Australian under-achiever of the same age whose family are not recent immigrants.

The explanation for this U-shaped distribution is not hard to work out. Just pretend you are one of the bulk of employers. Without a trace of prejudice in your blood, if you are running a McDonald's franchise, which high-school drop-out would you be inclined to hire to flip burgers and pour cappuccinos: a blue-eyed Australian or a swarthy Lebanese? What if there were two jobs to fill, and the third applicant was an Aborigine?

Which brings us back to Vanstone. The problem she touches on has no obvious solution. She stopped short of saying "bring them to the big smoke", even though that was the implication of ending the "cultural museums" where they presently dwell.

A good life does not await all indigenous Australians who move to towns or cities. Those already there are, on average, well behind the white folk and the immigrants on the key measures of education, income and life expectancy. If you doubt this, look again at the imprisonment rates.

It's not the Lebanese-Australians who are alien to us. We happen to be treating them no differently from previous new arrivals. The only people who are marginalised at every level of society are those who were here all along. No other group is told, however obliquely by government, where and how they should live.

The paradox is that indigenous Australians may need to think more like wogs if they are to break the cycle. Immigration involves two tangible jumps in living standards. To the new arrival, Australia is better than the place they left behind. But it is the children of the immigrants who reshape Australia in their own image, because they prove to be the best the nation has in their peer group. Australia changes with each wave it accepts, because both sides are making an accommodation.

But the mistake white folk make is to assume that wogs submerge their identity, and are making merely a material journey: acquiring the degree, the career and freehold title to a block of flats. Wogs don't forget where they come from, which is why they start out by sending a fair chunk of the money they make back to the mother country. Greeks and Italians may not need to now, but Afghan and Iraqi refugees do. Why should anyone judge them for sticking up for their families?

Indigenous Australians conceivably have the best of both worlds. Their over-achievers can earn and learn in the big smoke, and then take some of the money back with them to their country. But telling their families they should pack up their meagre possessions, like John Steinbeck's white-trash Okies in The Grapes of Wrath, and head for the promised land misses the point.

The choice should be theirs to make, not ours to impose.

Migrants blamed for IT jobs cut - Jewel Topsfield, The Age

2006-01-10T22:09:00.000+11:00

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/migrants-blamed-for-it-jobs-cut/2006/01/09/1136771500496.html

Migrants blamed for IT jobs cut

By Jewel Topsfield, Canberra
January 10, 2006

AUSTRALIA'S intake of skilled migrants with information technology expertise should be reduced to improve the prospects of local IT graduates who are struggling to find jobs, says an immigration analyst.

Bob Kinnaird, of labour market consultants Kinnaird and Associates, said the Federal Government had brought in large numbers of IT workers over the past four years, even though there was a serious oversupply in the Australian labour market, particularly of graduates. He said the skilled migration program had effectively increased the IT graduate labour supply by nearly 80 per cent in recent years. During this time, 30 per cent of Australian IT graduates could not find full-time work.

The policy had been a "miserable failure", Mr Kinnaird said, leading to an oversupply of entry-level programmers, high graduate unemployment and lower wages.

In his paper, commissioned by the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University, Mr Kinnaird said that in the past four years the number of visas granted to overseas students graduating in IT from Australian universities had increased by 62 per cent.

The report said this had been accompanied by plummeting enrolments by Australian students in IT courses, which dropped by 36 per cent between 2001 and 2004.

Mr Kinnaird said migrants were also losing out.

"People lured to Australia on the promise of lucrative jobs in IT get here and find they don't have a hope of getting a job," he said.

"It's a human disaster for these people who, in many cases, uprooted themselves and their families, leaving behind reasonably paid jobs, and find they are worse off when they come here.There's a heck of a lot of people driving cabs and working as security guards who are IT graduates."

Mr Kinnaird called on the Government to "substantially reduce" the intake of IT graduates through the skilled migration program until the market could absorb Australian IT graduates.

He said entry-level programmers should be taken off the skilled occupation list.

He also said the Australian Computer Society, which accredits the IT qualifications of applicants for permanent residency, should introduce tougher English tests and insist that overseas students spend three years studying IT in Australia, rather than two.

But Australian Computer Society chief executive officer Dennis Furini said that while there was possibly an oversupply of entry-level programmers, there was a shortage of specialists in areas such as e-commerce and network security.

An Immigration Department spokesman said it relied on information from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to draw up the skilled occupation list.

"The Immigration Department has no information suggesting IT jobs should be taken off the skilled occupation list," he said.

With MEAGHAN SHAW

Mind Games - John Aglionby, The Guardian

2006-01-10T17:05:00.000+11:00

As many people have said in the past, education is important when looking at positive and proactive ways to overcome possible terrorist attacks....Sue Ellson

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1682610,00.html

Mind games

In the wake of terrorist attacks, the west is ploughing cash into education in Islamic countries. By John Aglionby

Tuesday January 10, 2006
The Guardian

The six teenage rugby players rush forward to protect their teammate, who is charging into the opposition with the ball tucked under his right arm. Within seconds they are all on the sodden ground, laughing. "No, no no," hollers their coach in a broad Yorkshire accent. "You've got to stay on your feet."

This training session is not at one of Jakarta's swanky international schools, and the players here are not the spoilt sons of expatriates. The 50-odd boys are all Indonesians and mostly from the Asshiddiquiyah Islamic boarding school on the outskirts of Indonesia's sprawling capital.

The aim of the organiser, Indonesian Rugby Development, is primarily to spread rugby across the archipelago but also to give boys in Islamic schools a chance to get some form of physical exercise. For, like the vast majority of Indonesia's 10,000-plus Islamic boarding schools, known as pesantren, sports facilities at Asshiddiquiyah are virtually non-existent.

"[An American educator] and I were talking about pesantren not really having any sports," explains Muhammed Syahadat, the teacher who accompanies the boys. "It's really a shame because if you don't have something to do, then ..."

He has no need to finish his sentence because we are speaking just days after the government released a video featuring the young men who detonated suicide bombs in Bali restaurants on October 1, killing 22 people. All three of the suicide bombers had been educated at pesantren

After the 9/11 attacks on America and a spate of other terrorist strikes around the globe, the world, it appears, has come to the same conclusion. If radicalism is going to be defeated, and mutual understanding bolstered, huge investment is needed in developing nations' education.

"Since 9/11 [radical Islam] has been a source of instability in the world and we should bring to bear what we can to make a difference," says Mike Hardy, the head of the British Council in Indonesia.

Other donor countries have similar views. Bruce Davis, director general of the Australian government aid agency, AusAid, made no secret in a recent speech of his country's motivation in massively expanding its aid programmes, including education. "The Australian government [now has] a greater openness to more sophisticated definitions of security, definitions that range beyond physical security to include concepts such as food security, livelihood security and security of access to resources such as water," he said. When contacted by Education Guardian, he said: "A lot of the ways you're going to make a difference on governance issues is to think long term and expose future generations to different ways of learning and different opportunities."

Focus on Indonesia

Indonesia has attracted particular attention. It is the world's most populous Muslim nation and is predominantly moderate. It has suffered a major bombing every year since 1992, and bore the brunt of the 2004 tsunami.

"It's not just a reaction to perceived Islamic threats," said William Ryan, an American working closely with many pesantren. "I think people in the development world are smartening up and realising that if there's crap education, nothing is going to change."

Senior Islamic educators, however, believe it is no coincidence that the level of foreign assistance has intensified significantly since 9/11. "Virtually every big donor is now active in the education sector here," says Dr Azumardi Azra, the head of Jakarta's State Islamic University and one of the country's leading moderate Islamic educators. "These programmes are important to strengthen and empower moderate and mainstream Muslim institutions. But they are also addressing the deeper weaknesses of the education system."

A spokesman for the United Nations' children's organisation, Unicef, said his organisation's programme is reaching 275,078 children in 1,419 schools in 42 districts, while another 323,000 pupils are benefiting from private-sector support.

There are plenty of weaknesses to address. Some 55% of the adult population has only a primary school education; millions of pupils are dropping out every year - in a recent spot check by the World Bank some 20% of teachers were absent.

"Kids are still learning by rote, but they need to be learning by doing," says Rozi Munir, senior member of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), a Muslim social organisation that claims some 40million members. "Children's creativity needs to be bolstered."

Average standards in pesantren and other Islamic schools are even lower than in the state sector, according to Azra. "Pesantren usually don't have the financing and take anyone as teachers," he said.

Accelerating globalisation is also driving the agenda, Hardy believes. "Never before has our world been such a small place - a world where what we do affects others and what others do affects us," he said. "Only when our education systems, the schools, teachers and the curricula become more outward-looking and confident in embracing the challenges out in a diverse world do we begin to equip our young people and adults for life in a global society and for work in a global economy."

Different donors take different approaches. Some strengthen school administration; others address poor teacher training. Some place teachers in schools and some focus on exchange programmes to address mutual misunderstandings.

All, however, insist they are not trying to impose anything, especially not western liberalism. "It's all about how Indonesians can be better prepared for their futures, their participation in democratic activities and being able to compete better in the wider world," says an American official.

"We're not bringing answers, we're bringing a toolkit," says Hardy. "What we're doing is getting alongside the debate and helping Indonesians to find solutions. It would be a waste of everyone's time if we dictated to them."

British initiatives include major programmes with both NU and Indonesia's other major moderate social Islamic organisation, Muhammadiyah. More than 50 deputy heads of NU-affiliated pesantren attend month-long courses on school management at a British university and then, on their return, have to disseminate what they've learned to deputy heads of 10 other schools.

A British diplomat said that the Indonesians also do subliminal educating while in Britain. "This is not a one-way street. We expect them to educate as much as being educated," the diplomat said. "It's a programme that aims to avoid the misunderstandings that have occurred between western culture and Islamic communities. People [in Indonesia] don't understand that the UK is a multicultural society."

Azra is not at all surprised Britain is pursuing such a policy. "There's a growing resentment towards England [for being] an ally of America," he said. "The English government realises it needs people to understand about 'real life' in England."

Meeting the enemy

Programmes placing foreign teachers in Indonesian schools generate particularly large benefits, says Ryan. "Many of these people have never met an American," he says. "If they have a professor living in their community who is a good guy, then it makes a big difference."

Syahadat doesn't mind what the donor nations' motivation is. "There's always an underlying motive, but since we want to be closer to the west and improve mutual understanding, we're happy to engage."

The rugby players say their horizons are being broadened by just engaging with westerners on the rugby pitch. "Before I played rugby, I had no interaction with westerners," said Dondy Ziksy, aged 17.

Indonesia's education minister, Bambang Sudibyo, declined to be interviewed. "There have been no major initiatives from the government," says Azra. "[The minister] has never invited university rectors for a brainstorming session on how to improve education in Indonesia or sought input from the public."

Despite this, and because of the huge influx of foreign aid, the education system is starting to improve, albeit slowly, Munir believes. "Children are now being taught how to discuss and debate," he says. "But we've got to wait several more years to see the true impact."

Making societies more civil - Eva Cox, Online Opinion

2006-01-10T11:19:00.000+11:00

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4031
Making societies more civil
By Eva Cox - posted Tuesday, 10 January 2006

Making a future requires us to solve, not just identify current problems. The recent official actions banning beaches and then advertising asking us to go, is indicative of our current lack of problem-solving ideas. The unwarranted and problematic levels of political and media hysteria, about some admittedly revolting behaviour by small groups of people, indicates that our capacity is at a low ebb. Moving into a new year, we need to find better ways of talking across divides that offers solutions rather than further name calling and fear mongering.

The reactions on this site to Greg Barns’ somewhat intemperate wail further illustrates the problems with all sides of this complex debate. As someone who is capable of using expletives and generalisations in debates, I am here offering myself and others a more temperate template for seeking solutions. There is nothing to be gained either by those who angrily oppose the status quo with blanket condemnation, or those who attack with similar vigour past policies or present policing. Both views seem equally locked into hyperbole so silence can often confuse those of goodwill who want to feel safer and more generous.

My following letter was published as First Word in the Sydney Morning Herald (27/12/05), and the responses to it further confirm my views on the problem:
Advertisement

“Racism tag merely muddies the wider debate: Racism is a bad word to use. It raises hackles, confuses arguments and creates discussion impasses as people stop listening and become defensive. We should return to the simpler concept of prejudice as it is a much better description of the actual tensions we are seeing. There is no Muslim race, no Lebanese race, but many are guilty of judging people who can be deemed to wear these labels. By acknowledging prejudices, misjudgements, assumptions and generalisations about particular groups, we can focus on how these can be overcome. It is easier to recognise prejudices as we all have them to some degree, so we can move to remedies rather than self-flagellation or abuse of others.

“Grand accusations about Australians being racist, or equally aggressive defences, do not contribute to solutions, as both sides tend to see the problem as too hard to solve. Using a less emotive framework should lead to sensible discussions on reducing misapprehensions and the anti-social incidents that fuel these on all sides. There are always flaws in our social fabric, areas of tension and conflict, which can fray if certain circumstances occur.

“My question is: How do we convince public figures to take responsibility for reducing the climate of fear and assuage public anxieties without encouraging a toxic form of tribalism? Racism is too ill-defined a concept, and inaccurate in the present circumstance. The yobbos on both sides do not represent their self-identified group origins, any more than soccer hooligans represent Britain. The bad behaviour on all sides illustrates the extremes of prejudice when uninvolved people are injured because they are assumed to share some form of group guilt. This is the ultimate proof of prejudice: blaming whole categories of people for the faults of some members, assuming that a named group is in itself homogenous and therefore culpable for any sins committed by any one member.

“The misbehaviour of any individual or group is the responsibility of those participants. The clear marker of a minority group is that others attribute guilt to the group for the behaviour of any presumed member. This may be on the basis of race, religion, sexuality, sole parenthood, suburb lived in or football team/code, for instance. If these prejudices become toxic, it is often because other pressures are creating the need for scapegoats, so we need to stop the behaviour and tackle the wider causes.”

The day it appeared, my assertion was confirmed by two mayors defending themselves against the previous day’s inept research, refuting claims that the constituents of their local government areas were “racists”. One said that Mosman had a good record on reconciliation, and the other, that many Jews lived in Woollahra. But both ignored the possibility that they presided over relatively conservative municipalities that kept out problem populations with the high cost of real estate. Similarly the responses of many to the Barns’ article focused on his tagging Australians as racist and not on his questions on whether media, commentariat and politicians did display unfounded prejudices against Muslims in general.

One response to my SMH piece was from someone who claimed it was legitimate to blame a group for the sins of some members, if their numbers were high. Is that how most people think? How many is high? How do we define “members”? Is this only applicable to those groups where “membership” is explicitly defined, beliefs are expressed, rules imposed, disciplined and acknowledged? Otherwise how do we sort out attribution of collective guilt or innocence? Who are we responsible for and to? How can we blame others?

Prejudice is something we all share. It allows us to short-hand conversations, generalise and comment. Most of it is fairly benign and of little importance. It becomes toxic if it is sufficiently widespread and hurtful to those who become the butt of such attention. When a particular group is targeted consistently with damaging generalisations that translate into forms of public insult and discrimination, the outcomes can be very painful for the recipients. The current scope of anti-Muslim prejudices is wide and there will be few Muslims who have not felt the pain of misinformation and generalisations. Those who are easily identifiable through appearance or dress are subject to public commentary and sometimes attack. It is not surprising therefore that the response of some will be forms of resentment, bravado and sometimes vulnerability to extreme politico-religious beliefs.

These experiences do not excuse violence, thuggery or crime, but they should make us all more aware of the origins of such behaviour. The response to prejudice may well be more prejudice as the recipients of bad behaviour respond in similar style. As the dominant group, and as more accepted locals, we need to recognise that further anger and resentment on both sides does not solve the problems. Responses that mirror their thuggery and violence exacerbate the problems. Discussing both the prejudices and responses may make it possible to explore alternatives and to lower tension levels.

There will always be differences so debate is important because it offers ways of solving rather than just suppressing problems. The problems arise when the interesting irregularities, flaws and tensions in our social fabric tear apart rather than manifest the necessary resilience to hold together.

Hannah Arendt writes of human potential for thinking and judgment as the core attributes for the renewal or rebirth of human society. She was very wary of the emotive ties that tied people too closely and in ways that made it impossible for individuals to think for themselves and decide what to do. Mindlessness on either side of the argument adds little to our capacity to make societies more civil.
By Eva Cox - posted Tuesday, 10 January 2006

Making a future requires us to solve, not just identify current problems. The recent official actions banning beaches and then advertising asking us to go, is indicative of our current lack of problem-solving ideas. The unwarranted and problematic levels of political and media hysteria, about some admittedly revolting behaviour by small groups of people, indicates that our capacity is at a low ebb. Moving into a new year, we need to find better ways of talking across divides that offers solutions rather than further name calling and fear mongering.

The reactions on this site to Greg Barns’ somewhat intemperate wail further illustrates the problems with all sides of this complex debate. As someone who is capable of using expletives and generalisations in debates, I am here offering myself and others a more temperate template for seeking solutions. There is nothing to be gained either by those who angrily oppose the status quo with blanket condemnation, or those who attack with similar vigour past policies or present policing. Both views seem equally locked into hyperbole so silence can often confuse those of goodwill who want to feel safer and more generous.

My following letter was published as First Word in the Sydney Morning Herald (27/12/05), and the responses to it further confirm my views on the problem:
Advertisement

“Racism tag merely muddies the wider debate: Racism is a bad word to use. It raises hackles, confuses arguments and creates discussion impasses as people stop listening and become defensive. We should return to the simpler concept of prejudice as it is a much better description of the actual tensions we are seeing. There is no Muslim race, no Lebanese race, but many are guilty of judging people who can be deemed to wear these labels. By acknowledging prejudices, misjudgements, assumptions and generalisations about particular groups, we can focus on how these can be overcome. It is easier to recognise prejudices as we all have them to some degree, so we can move to remedies rather than self-flagellation or abuse of others.

“Grand accusations about Australians being racist, or equally aggressive defences, do not contribute to solutions, as both sides tend to see the problem as too hard to solve. Using a less emotive framework should lead to sensible discussions on reducing misapprehensions and the anti-social incidents that fuel these on all sides. There are always flaws in our social fabric, areas of tension and conflict, which can fray if certain circumstances occur.

“My question is: How do we convince public figures to take responsibility for reducing the climate of fear and assuage public anxieties without encouraging a toxic form of tribalism? Racism is too ill-defined a concept, and inaccurate in the present circumstance. The yobbos on both sides do not represent their self-identified group origins, any more than soccer hooligans represent Britain. The bad behaviour on all sides illustrates the extremes of prejudice when uninvolved people are injured because they are assumed to share some form of group guilt. This is the ultimate proof of prejudice: blaming whole categories of people for the faults of some members, assuming that a named group is in itself homogenous and therefore culpable for any sins committed by any one member.

“The misbehaviour of any individual or group is the responsibility of those participants. The clear marker of a minority group is that others attribute guilt to the group for the behaviour of any presumed member. This may be on the basis of race, religion, sexuality, sole parenthood, suburb lived in or football team/code, for instance. If these prejudices become toxic, it is often because other pressures are creating the need for scapegoats, so we need to stop the behaviour and tackle the wider causes.”

The day it appeared, my assertion was confirmed by two mayors defending themselves against the previous day’s inept research, refuting claims that the constituents of their local government areas were “racists”. One said that Mosman had a good record on reconciliation, and the other, that many Jews lived in Woollahra. But both ignored the possibility that they presided over relatively conservative municipalities that kept out problem populations with the high cost of real estate. Similarly the responses of many to the Barns’ article focused on his tagging Australians as racist and not on his questions on whether media, commentariat and politicians did display unfounded prejudices against Muslims in general.

One response to my SMH piece was from someone who claimed it was legitimate to blame a group for the sins of some members, if their numbers were high. Is that how most people think? How many is high? How do we define “members”? Is this only applicable to those groups where “membership” is explicitly defined, beliefs are expressed, rules imposed, disciplined and acknowledged? Otherwise how do we sort out attribution of collective guilt or innocence? Who are we responsible for and to? How can we blame others?

Prejudice is something we all share. It allows us to short-hand conversations, generalise and comment. Most of it is fairly benign and of little importance. It becomes toxic if it is sufficiently widespread and hurtful to those who become the butt of such attention. When a particular group is targeted consistently with damaging generalisations that translate into forms of public insult and discrimination, the outcomes can be very painful for the recipients. The current scope of anti-Muslim prejudices is wide and there will be few Muslims who have not felt the pain of misinformation and generalisations. Those who are easily identifiable through appearance or dress are subject to public commentary and sometimes attack. It is not surprising therefore that the response of some will be forms of resentment, bravado and sometimes vulnerability to extreme politico-religious beliefs.

These experiences do not excuse violence, thuggery or crime, but they should make us all more aware of the origins of such behaviour. The response to prejudice may well be more prejudice as the recipients of bad behaviour respond in similar style. As the dominant group, and as more accepted locals, we need to recognise that further anger and resentment on both sides does not solve the problems. Responses that mirror their thuggery and violence exacerbate the problems. Discussing both the prejudices and responses may make it possible to explore alternatives and to lower tension levels.

There will always be differences so debate is important because it offers ways of solving rather than just suppressing problems. The problems arise when the interesting irregularities, flaws and tensions in our social fabric tear apart rather than manifest the necessary resilience to hold together.

Hannah Arendt writes of human potential for thinking and judgment as the core attributes for the renewal or rebirth of human society. She was very wary of the emotive ties that tied people too closely and in ways that made it impossible for individuals to think for themselves and decide what to do. Mindlessness on either side of the argument adds little to our capacity to make societies more civil.

Eva Cox is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences at UTS.

British 'positive on immigrants' - Sarah Womack, Expat Telegraph

2006-01-07T16:07:00.000+11:00

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2006/01/05/ntoler05.xml&DCMP=EMC-exp_06012006

British 'positive on immigrants'
By Sarah Womack
(Filed: 05/01/2006)

The British are more tolerant and positive about immigrants and their cultures than many other Europeans, according to new research.

Seventy per cent of British people say their everyday experience of immigrants is "positive", only slightly less than the European average of 73 per cent, says research conducted after last year's July terrorist attacks by four British-born Muslims.

But the proportion is much lower, at 54 per cent, in Spain, which saw 191 people killed in fundamentalist bomb attacks in Madrid in March 2004. A total of 7,820 people in eight countries across Europe were polled about their views on immigrants.

While 47 per cent of Europeans agreed that immigrants had made their country a better place to live, 51 per cent of Britons believed this to be true, compared with 29 per cent in Spain.

Only the Swedes and the Swiss responded more positively than the British.

More than six in 10 Britons polled believed that Muslim girls and women should be allowed to cover their head at school and work.

Britons showed themselves to be more tolerant on this issue than any other country surveyed.

The European average was 49 per cent; least tolerant were the Germans, with 37 per cent.

But Britons were aligned with other Europeans in agreeing that religious leaders who speak backing terrorism should be thrown out: 86 per cent supported this, while in Spain and Germany the figure rose to 93 per cent.

Reader's Digest interviewed people by telephone between Oct 12 and Nov 5 last year. The poll was conducted in Belgium, Britain, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

UnAustralian - Professor Mary Kalantzis, OzProspect Event on 8 November 2005

2006-01-05T17:26:00.000+11:00

Public Affairs Forum
UN-AUSTRALIAN
8 November, 2005, VIC State Library, 6.30pm – 8.30pm

To be ‘UnAustralian’

‘UnAustralian’ can be a measure of many things. During the US-Australia free trade negotiations, then Deputy Prime Minister and National Party leader John Anderson said it would be unAustralian to accept a trade deal that did not include sugar. Sugar communities were angry. National party seats were in danger. The term ‘unAustralian’ was a handy way to account for the depth of his commitment, the seriousness of the principle involved.

But alas, poor John ended up unAustralian, albeit through no fault of his own. And from this lamentable position he had recover his Australian-ness by other, compensatory means:

Well, look, plainly I'm very concerned about the sugar industry. I spent quite a bit of time up there with members, talking to people about the problems confronting the industry, which are very serious indeed, and I did make the comment that it would be unAustralian to leave them out of the loop. Now, we've not been able to secure a place in the Free Trade Agreement for sugar, however, we have done the Australian thing … we recognise the need now to step in and try and help directly, because sugar growers ... have to operate in the world's most corrupt trading environment in any industry that I know of. Ninety-three per cent of the world's sugar is sold at an artificial price well above, in most cases, the world market price.

If John Anderson had to find ways to recuperate from having allowed himself to fall into unAustralian-ness, Victorian Liberal member of the Federal Parliament, Sophie Panopoulos has had several brushes with this infamy. Of Greek descent, she made her name as a vociferous supporter of the English Monarchy in the 1999 referendum debate. Prime Minister John Howard sprung to the defence of her position. He was upset, he said, that some republicans seemed to be imply that it was ‘almost unAustralian not to want a republic’. Of course, there’s nothing unAustralian in a Greek-Australian woman wanting an unelected Englishwoman to be Australian head of state.

But Sophie definitely become unAustralian several months ago when she suggested that the head scarf be banned in schools. Mr Howard canned the idea. He said that preventing Muslim girls from wearing the scarf to school was ‘difficult and impractical’—which seemed like a coded way of saying that even if it were a half reasonable idea, he didn’t think we could get away with in contemporary Australia. But Multicultural Affairs Minister John Cobb made no bones about the reason such a move was unacceptable. He described the suggestion as ‘ignorant and unAustralian’ —strong terms of rebuke indeed from a man of fine conservative credentials, the National Party’s member for Parkes, no less.

‘The suggestion that head scarves be banned is preposterous. The government does not seek to impose cultural sameness on Australians,’ Mr Cobb said.

At a meeting in Adelaide today with local Muslim leaders, Mr Cobb said that calls to ban the wearing of head scarves were made in ignorance and are not the way Australians act.

‘Whether a Muslim woman choses to wear the headscarf in public or not does not diminish her identity as an Australian,’ the Minister said.

The discourse of nationalism—of who’s Australian and who’s unAustralian—may be puff. It may be glib. It may be overblown rhetoric. It may be cheap. But it is also telling. ‘UnAustralian’ draws lines of acceptability—delineating what is regarded as reasonable, proper and decent forms of public speech and behaviour. Over time, the territory around which these lines have been drawn, has changed.

Who were the unAustralians when we first became ‘Australian’? What was it to be unAustralian when we first defined ‘Australian’? If we take the moment of Federation, the unAustralians were coloured folks, non-British migrants, maybe at times even the Irish, or even those who so much as expressed a hint of disloyalty to the mother country and the British Empire. Aborigines were unAustralian—not citizens, nor even to be counted in the census, as the new Commonwealth Constitution would have it. Women were at best marginally Australians, having only just won the vote, but were still unfit to have jobs on the same basis as men and had not enjoyed the bonds of masculine mateship at the frontier and in war.

To be unAustralian in 1901 was to be excluded. And John Anderson, latter day prophet of free trade, would definitely have been excluded as unAustralian.

None of these lines of exclusion is acceptable today, for practical reasons as well as by virtue of a new set of civic principles. I’d like to keep the term ‘unAustralian’, if to remind us of who we are today, and where we draw the line in contemporary Australia on what’s acceptable civic behaviour and what is not.

I would like to suggest three contemporary principles of unAustralian-ness.

First, it is unAustralian to be too Australian, to be nationalistic in the old, exclusivist mode. Re-reading and reinterpreting Australian history, one of our accidental virtues is our weak sense of national identity. We were not founded in glorious revolution. Our Constitution is the matter-of-fact Act of a Parliament that no longer holds imperial sway. The battle that has most defined our character is tinged by the irony of loss. In a world were chauvinistic, atavistic, anachronistic nationalisms, our relative lack of nationalism is a strength. It is a strength that makes us open enough to take on the totally different strong identity all nations will need for this century: that of outward looking, globally engaged, locally pluralist, cultural democracy.

Second, it is unAustralian to call someone unAustralian. The next person’s apparent unAustralian ness may just be their difference. To be Australian is to be tolerant of that difference. The only thing that is truly unAustralian is to exclude people on the basis of their difference. This is what Mr Cobb meant when he accused Ms Panopoulos of being unAustralian. The only thing that is intolerable is intolerance. There’s no inconsistency here, and it puts quite a different spin on the old, exclusionary nationalism from which the Australian/unAustralian distinction originally arose. We are a country of high immigration, which has a proud history of welcoming refugees, and which has struggled to reconcile itself with its history of exclusion of Indigenous Australians. This is what it is to be Australian today. On this measure, Pauline Hanson, the Tampa incident, the failure to recognise Indigenous rights, mandatory detention and the proposed legislation against sedition, are all-unAustralian.

Third, it is unAustralian to consider ourselves a place and a culture apart. It’s unAustralian to be chauvinistic, to consider ourselves superior or to isolate ourselves in our superiority. We did that a century ago. We can’t do it today. Our national life is built upon the foundations of an export-oriented economy in which the growth industries are now highly culture-sensitive: tourism, education and human services. We welcome ever-increasing numbers of strangers into our midst. We support free trade and open markets. As we have become more and more comfortable with our place in Asia, we find ourselves taking responsibility in the region, from East Timor to the Tsunami relief. And we don’t just toe the US imperial line in our region—on China or North Korea, for instance.

Wishful thinking, you say? No, an optimistic view, I would say. I’m prepared to draw the ‘unAustralian’ line, but in very different ways the ways we did when we first became Australian; and for reasons that go beyond scoring a point or making someone feel the sting of not belonging.

Professor Mary Kalantzis is Chair of Education, Research and Innovation Portfolio; and Research Professor, Globalism Institute, at RMIT University, Melbourne. She was the Executive Dean of the Faculty of Education, Language and Community Services at RMIT University, Melbourne from 1997-2003, the President of the Australian Council of Deans of Education from 2000-2004.and an inaugral member of the National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership 2004 – 2005. She has also been a Commissioner of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Chair of the Queensland Ethnic Affairs Ministerial Advisory Committee and a member of the Australia Council’s Community Cultural Development Board. Her academic research and writing, crosses a number of disciplines, including history, linguistics, education and sociology; and examines themes as varied as Australian immigration, leadership and workplace change, professional learning, pedagogy and literacy learning. With Bill Cope, she is co-author of a number of books, including: The Powers of Literacy, Falmer Press, London, 1993, Productive Diversity, Pluto Press, Sydney, 1997; A Place in the Sun: Re-Creating the Australian Way of Life, Harper Collins, Sydney, 2000; and Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, Routledge, London, 2000

Is multiculturalism dead in Australia? - Greg Welsh, Macquarie University News

2006-01-03T20:40:00.000+11:00

http://www.pr.mq.edu.au/macnews/ShowItem.asp?ItemID=358

Is multiculturalism dead in Australia?

Whatever happened to the 1980s dream of a truly multicultural Australia? Research by Associate Professor Jim Forrest of Macquarie University’s Department of Human Geography and Dr Kevin Dunn of the University of New South Wales suggests that it’s advancing quite slowly at present.

The academics were expanding on part of their survey work on attitudes to racism in Australia, focusing on whether Australians believe that those of us with an Anglo-Celtic background enjoy a privileged position in society. Forrest believes these attitudes help to pinpoint the type of society that Australia has become in the two decades since the time of the pro-multicultural Hawke and Keating Governments.

“Until the 1980s, Australia was what we call an ‘ethnocultural’ nation, where migrants were expected to assimilate into the dominant Anglo-Celtic culture,” Forrest explains. “Then under the Hawke and Keating Governments we were multicultural and heading towards being a ‘civic’ nation, one of ‘difference blindness’. But with the Howard Government, Australia began to change back to being an ethnocultural nation with a re-emphasis on Anglo-Celtic privilege.

“Someone described ‘multiculturalism’ under the current Government as ‘assimilation in slow motion’ because essentially what the Government has done is create the conditions whereby immigrant groups could assimilate at their own pace, but the migrant groups would still be fitting into an Anglo-Celtic society.”

Forrest and Dunn’s analysis of Anglo-Celtic privilege uses data collected during their Racism Project survey of 2001. More than 5,000 Australians throughout Queensland and New South Wales were surveyed by telephone and asked 14 questions about racism, Anglo-Celtic privilege, multiculturalism and migrant groups.

“Amongst other things we asked them about how they saw this notion of Anglo-Celtic privilege and whether they thought it existed in Australia,” Forrest says. “The results were quite ambivalent – the majority of every group said that either they had no views on it, or that it didn’t exist. But 30 to 40 per cent of every group said ‘yes, it does exist’.”

Forrest and Dunn broke the survey results into demographic groups based on age, class and birthplace. Not surprisingly, a higher percentage of Indigenous Australians and those from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds believed Anglo-Celtic privilege existed. A somewhat unexpected finding, however, was the tertiary-educated group.

“The highest support group for the idea of Anglo-Celtic privilege in this country is among the tertiary educated,” says Forrest. “Over half of them believe that it exists. The reason for this appears to be that they are a very cosmopolitan group – managerial, professional, international. But while we would imagine them to be very multicultural, in fact they’re not – they’re cosmopolitan but not particularly multicultural.

“It appears that this new class group has taken on the mantle of Anglo-Celtic privilege by largely ignoring (multicultural groups). It is this group of educated elite, of course, who have influence with the Federal Government,” he adds.

Associate Professor Jim Forrest
Associate Professor Jim Forrest
But there is one other important group which influences Federal Government thinking. The surveyed group that least believes Anglo-Celtic privilege exists are the working class Australian-born – the group that Forrest believes feels ‘abandoned’ by the multiculturalism of the 1980s.

“This group, under the multiculturalism of the Hawke and Keating Governments, increasingly found that they were missing out, which is why so many of this group supported One Nation,” Forrest says. “In response, the Howard Government has absorbed One Nation thinking into their own policies – especially the revalorising of Anglo-Celtic identity. Prime Minister Howard has been very astute at this, he has recaptured this Anglo culture and the result has been that multiculturalism is tolerated rather than pushed.”

As part of a journal article submission, Forrest and Dunn compared the current-day society of Australia with three other new world immigration zones – the US, Canada and New Zealand.

“We found that everywhere is different,” Forrest says. “The US is multicultural, but not in our sense. They’re multicultural in the sense that they’re merging everybody into a new American identity, everybody except the black population. Hispanics and Asians are still with the black group, but arguably moving up into the ‘non-black’ multicultural society.

“Canada is probably the nearest to what we’d term a ‘civic’ nation, that is one of ‘difference blindness’, and it is enshrined in their legislation. However, they still have the problem of cultural pluralism, with the French and British elements. But when the French and British came together in the mid-60s, this opened the door for other groups, particularly the indigenous groups and new immigrants, who felt they were being left out of the system.”

And what of our trans-Tasman cousins? Forrest believes their society reflects ours in the 1960s.

“The White New Zealand policy was not abolished until the mid-1980s – it’s quite recent, and people are still quite resentful of Asian migrants,” he says. “In addition to that they’ve got a bi-national society of Pakehar and Maori – they haven’t worked out exactly what a ‘New Zealander’ is yet, and intermarriage between the two groups greatly changes the situation. The immigrant groups, particularly the Asians that have arrived since the late-80s have found themselves where Australia was back in the 80s and 90s. It is not surprising that they have the New Zealand First party with Winston Peters, which is their equivalent to our One Nation party, but more long lasting.”

Email the researcher: jim.forrest at mq.edu.au

Email the Media Manager: kathy.vozella at mq.edu.au

Story by Greg Welsh
Photo by Irena Conomos

High Support for Multiculturalism in Australia - Editorial, Angus Reid Global Scan

2006-01-03T20:35:00.000+11:00

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/10349

December 26, 2005
High Support for Multiculturalism in Australia

latest news and polls

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in Australia support the presence of different ethnic groups in their society, according to a Newspoll published in The Australian. 88 per cent of respondents think multiculturalism has been good for their country.

Earlier this month, a series of clashes—motivated by racial tension and involving mostly inebriated youths—took place at Sydney’s Cronulla Beach. The riots were allegedly sparked by an attack on two life guards by a group of men described as being of Lebanese descent.

On Dec. 20, Australian prime minister John Howard discussed the situation, saying, "Clearly there are some tensions that can be defined by racism, clearly there are some tensions of that type in these particular clashes but it is very important as we go through the difficulty of reacting to these events that we don’t overreact."

Opposition leader Kim Beazley referred to the event as well, declaring, "We must never ever in this country go down the path of segregation, we do not want a segregated society. We are a terrific country, and it glories in its multicultural character."

Polling Data

Thinking now about multiculturalism, do you personally think multiculturalism has been good or bad for Australia?

Very good

41%

Somewhat good

37%

Somewhat bad

10%

Very bad

6%

Uncommitted

6%

Source: Newspoll / The Australian
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,155 Australian voters, conducted from Dec. 16 to Dec. 18, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

Most still enjoy a culture cocktail - Dennis Shanahan, The Australian

2006-01-03T20:32:00.000+11:00

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17637344%255E2702,00.html

Most still enjoy a culture cocktail
Dennis Shanahan, Political editor
December 22, 2005

SUPPORT for multiculturalism has fallen over the years but most people still strongly back the concept and believe Australia is not a racist society.

After the widespread publicity and debate over the beachside race riots in Sydney, a Newspoll survey, taken exclusively for The Australian last weekend, has found support for multiculturalism has fallen from 78 per cent in 1997 to 70 per cent.

The biggest declines in support during the years of the Howard Government have been among Coalition supporters, down 13 points; those on incomes below $30,000, down 12 points; and those aged over 50, down 10 points.

Support for multiculturalism remains strongest among the young, down 4 points to 80 per cent, and those earning more than $70,000 a year, down 7points to 78 per cent.

There was even a fall in support among Labor supporters. They registered the highest level of support in 1997, at 85 per cent, but that had dropped by 10 points, to 75 per cent, by last weekend.

But there was still strong majority support in every group for multiculturalism, with the lowest being among those aged over 50.

Community views on the level of racism in Australia have remained unchanged over the nine years since January 1997, when 44 per cent of voters said they thought Australian society was racist.

In 2003 the racist figure was 43 per cent and last weekend it was 44 per cent.

But there has been a decline in how Australians view themselves on the question of tolerance.

In 1997, 56 per cent said Australians were tolerant. It rose to 59 per cent in 2003 and fell to 53 per cent last weekend.

Last week, John Howard was criticised for denying racism was a factor in the riot at Sydney's Cronulla beach, even though much of the violence was directed at Lebanese-Australian beachgoers.

The Prime Minister said he did not think Australians were inherently racist.

"I do not believe the average Australian is a racist. I do not believe that the majority of Australians are racist. I mean, why would we have accepted people so well? Why do we practise every day our tolerance and our respect for people?" he said.

Mr Howard said that strong support for multiculturalism was inconsistent with the notion of underlying racism.

"Multiculturalism means a lot of things, different things to different people, but in its lowest common denominator it means that people believe in diversity and are therefore tolerant of racial and ethnic difference," he said.

But on Tuesday Mr Howard conceded there was an element of racism in the beachside riots and gang fights over the past two weeks.

"Clearly there are some tensions which can be defined by race, clearly there are some tensions of that type in these particular clashes," he said.

The Newspoll survey asked voters whether they would agree or disagree that as a society Australians were racist, and 44 per cent agreed. On the same question in relation to tolerance, 53 per cent agreed.

An ACNielsen poll published in Fairfax newspapers The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on Tuesday found 75 per cent of those asked either strongly agreed or agreed that "there is an underlying racism in Australia".

When asked if they supported or opposed a policy of multiculturalism, 81 per cent either strongly supported or supported multiculturalism.

The Cronulla riots 10 days ago and subsequent violence elsewhere in Sydney's southwest suburbs have sharply focussed attention on race issues.

Young men and women of Middle Eastern appearance were singled out for attacks during the first day of rioting, leading to claims that the policy of multiculturalism had failed and that Australia was showing signs of becoming an intolerant and racist society that was no longer welcoming of migrants.

Fence a signal of insecurity - Bronwen Maddox, The Australian

2006-01-03T19:41:00.000+11:00

Perhaps a source of skilled migrants?....Sue Ellson

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17715168%255E7583,00.html

Bronwen Maddox: Fence a signal of insecurity

January 03, 2006

IF Republican Party leaders in the US Congress have their way, this year a 1120km security fence, topped with wire, lights and cameras and patrolled by police and troops, will begin to push its way along the US-Mexican border.

Mexican officials have called it the Berlin Wall; others have compared it with the security barrier Israel is building in the West Bank.

Many say that whatever you call it, the fence is no answer to the question of what the US should do about illegal immigration, with 20 years of failed crackdowns behind it.

That unanswered question has begun to dominate US politics to an extent easy for other countries to overlook. It crops up in schools, pensions, health care, big questions of national identity and, again and again, in the need for money.

The US population is expected to increase at a rate that a country like Australia would find unimaginable. In 1990 it was 249 million; now it is 298 million and by 2050 it is expected (by the US and the UN) to be 420 million.

That astounding jump of 70 per cent, or 170 million, in just 60 years will surely affect how the US handles itself in the world. At the very least it will make the US more introverted as it struggles to digest that social revolution.

Almost the last thing the US House of Representatives did before the Christmas break, after a furious two-day debate, was to pass a very tough version of a bill to fight illegal immigration. In a battle that split the Republicans, President GeorgeW. Bush put himself on the liberal side of his party, arguing that the US needs these workers more than it needs to shut them out.

He wanted a guest worker program to allow some to stay legally, a carrot-and-stick approach.

Republican leaders ignored him, a small sign of his weakness after a bruising northern autumn. But in choosing to wield just the stick, they have made a risky move. They will appeal to the border states, whose hospitals and schools are overcrowded with Mexican migrants. But they may alienate the Hispanic vote across the country in November's mid-term elections, as well as businesses, unions and churches.

The centrepiece of the legislation is the building of the wall along one-third of the border, through the deserts of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

The law would also make it a felony to live in the US illegally (at the moment it is a crime to enter illegally but only a civil offence to stay). It would hold businesses responsible for checking that employees are allowed to work. And it would place illegal migrants in detention centres until they are deported (at the moment, in a much-derided policy, they are told to turn up for hearings, which most of them ignore).

When the Senate sits again after the break, it will have to work on its own version, to be reconciled later with the lower house's. It is expected to be marginally more liberal, with the inclusion of a guest worker clause that would allow migrants to take mainly low-skilled jobs for six years before returning home.

But neither version will satisfy Democratic leaders, who say the bill is a sham, that it would fail to get rid of illegal workers or give them a chance to become legal.

Unsurprisingly, Mexico loathes the legislation. President Vicente Fox, who called the barrier scheme shameful, urged Americans to remember that many of their ancestors came to the US as immigrants.

He argues that it fails to recognise the contribution Mexicans make to the economy. So does Bush, who as governor of Texas was aware of the economy's need for low-skilled workers.

The heat of this row comes from the new pressures of those knocking on the door. A report last month by the Centre for Immigration Studies, an independent think tank, found that 7.9 million people moved to the US in the past five years. That is 2 1/2 times as many as the record 1910 wave of European immigration driven by Italians, Austrians, Hungarians and Russians.

The centre's report says there are 35.2 million foreign-born people living in the US. Between nine million and 13 million are there illegally, and more than half of those are thought to be Mexican.

About 1.2 million Mexicans and Central Americans were arrested this year trying to get into the US.

This is hardly the first crackdown, nor the first to try to hold employers responsible. The most recent was in 1996, and president Ronald Reagan tried energetically in 1986, offering amnesty to those who were already in the country and, again, employer sanctions. It didn't work. There was no will to enforce the sanctions, which would have crippled many businesses.

If the same proves true again, it will show that the changes taking hold of the US are too big to be held at bay by a wall. Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, Mexico's former ambassador to the US, told a University of California conference in the late 1990s that "Mexico is in the US ... It's not a question of labour markets any more. It's a question of two societies that are overlapping."

He is right. The superpower's attention is bound to be consumed by the huge challenge of remaking its society with a Hispanic character, and with many, many more people.

It does not yet know what to do. If the record of the past 20 years' crackdown is a guide, then a wall will look like a monument to anxiety, but it will not look like an answer to the biggest challenge the US has faced.

Bronwen Maddox is foreign editor of The Times.

Muslim Group in Australia Helps to Curb Extremism - Editorial, Iranian Quran News Agency

2006-01-03T19:09:00.000+11:00

This is a proactive outcome of discussions held in Australia....Sue Ellson

Iranian Quran News Agency

http://iqna.ir/NewsBodyDesc_en.asp?lang=en&ProdID=38364

Muslim Group in Australia Helps to Curb Extremism

12/29/2005

– Islamic imams and preachers in Australia will have to register their credentials and adhere to a strict code of conduct under proposals put forward by a government-backed group of moderate Muslims to curb "extremists".

The Muslim Advisory Council, created by Australian Prime Minister John Howard in the wake of July's London bombings, said a registration system would allow Muslims and the wider community to distinguish between responsible imams and "mavericks" on the fringes of society.

"Unlike Christianity, we don't have a hierarchy of Muslim clerics in Australia. Anyone can get up in the mosque and say they are an imam and give a sermon," council chairman Ameer Ali told Agence France-Presse (AFP).

"Then if they say something irresponsible or rash, it gets picked up in the media and the whole community is tarnished and we all get portrayed as extremists or terrorists or whatnot.

"The number of mavericks is tiny but they have created an image problem for the Muslim community in Australia."

Ali told The Australian newspaper that followers of "radical imams" would be "told these whom they are following are not telling the right interpretation of Islam, and that's not what Islam is all about".

He warned that imams who failed to comply with the guidelines, which will be thrashed out at a national meeting of Muslim leaders next month, would be publicly identified.

"If the majority of the imams and the leaders are moderates and have to turn to set guidelines, then those who want to stay in the periphery will be identified," said Dr. Ali.

Self-governing

Ali, who is also president of the Federation of Islamic Councils, said under the proposal, Muslim scholars and religious leaders would form a self-governing body to register imams and administer a voluntary code of conduct.

"No one has the power to enforce any of this, it would have to be voluntary," he said.

"But if clerics refuse to cooperate then the Muslim community and the wider community will know that they are extremists who do not represent mainstream Muslim beliefs."

Ali added the council could offer imams guidance on what was acceptable in Australia's multicultural society and help foreign-born clerics who struggle with the English language.

He said this month's racial attacks on youths of Lebanese origin in the Sydney beachside suburb of Cronulla showed the pressure being felt by the country's 300,000 Muslims, despite around half of the Lebanese community in Australia being Christian.

The Muslim community has also complained of being singled out by recent anti-terrorism laws.

Security forces arrested 18 Muslims in a series of raids in Sydney and Melbourne last month for allegedly plotting a major bombing in the country's largest city.

Howard convened the Muslim Advisory Council in August after the London bombings that killed more than 50 people, saying he was concerned at the prospect of Australia producing similar "home-grown" extremists.

Action

The guidelines are in response to suggestions by the community and imams as well, according to Soliman.

Howard has previously criticized Muslim leaders for not doing enough to isolate radical preachers but council member Yasser Soliman said the community was taking action.

"The guidelines are in response to suggestions by the community and clerics as well, that there are people who are pointing themselves as clerics when they are really just backyard clerics, and unqualified," Soliman told ABC radio this week.

Ali said it was particularly important to reach Muslim youths, many of whom felt alienated from both their own community and the wider Australian society, making them more susceptible to extremism.

"We've got to get out there and say 'this is not what Islam is about, we're a religion of peace'," Ali said.

"We need to bring the youth into the main fold and teach them the proper ways so they will not resort to hooliganism."

He said the council planned to hold a conference next year on ways to promote the moderate message.

Thousands of Australians in Sydney and Newcastle rallied Sunday, December 18, against racism after a week of violence against Arabs and Muslims.

Social experts have concluded that the Australian government policies of alienation and ignorance of ethnic minorities and Prime Minister John Howard's draconian anti-terror legislations are to blame for the country's racial violence.

Though Australia is a nation built on immigrants, there has been an underlying ignorance among ethnic minorities, especially between white and Arab groups.

Riots began in Australia when more than 5,000 people gathered at Sydney’s Cronulla beach on December 11, after e-mail and mobile phone messages called on local residents to beat-up "Lebs and wogs" -- racial slurs for people of Lebanese and Middle Eastern origin.

Howard's draconian anti-terror legislations have also been blamed for the country's racial violence.

Dis-United Kingdom - Leo McKinstry, soc.retirement newsgroup

2006-01-03T16:30:00.000+11:00

I found this piece very confronting....perhaps it is a reminder that part of
'living in harmony' is being able to strongly display what it is to be an
'Australian' in a global village....Sue Ellson

Dec 5, 2:25 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.retirement
From: Sordo - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:25:41 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 5 2005 2:25 pm
Subject: Dis-United Kingdom - Multiculturalism isn't working

Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Dec 12, 2:25 pm).

Dis-United Kingdom - Multiculturalism isn't working.

by Leo McKinstry
12/05/2005, Volume 011, Issue 12
http://www.weeklystandard.com

London
CONDESCENDING SUPERIORITY is a common British attitude towards the
French, whose Gallic bureaucracy, artistic pretensions, and recent
military record all serve as targets of ridicule. Now the recent wave
of rioting across France, largely perpetrated by Muslim youths, has
offered new scope to this smugness. Since the conflict began, the
British media have been full of sneers about racial problems in French
society, which supposedly has been far less successful than Britain in
integrating migrant communities.

But this complacency could hardly be less justified. As an Irish-born
writer who lives in both France and the United Kingdom, I believe that
the British approach to race relations has been disastrous, fostering
disunity, tension, and ethnic strife on a much greater scale than
anything that has occurred in France. While cars have been torched in
large numbers in French cities, Britain has experienced murderous
terrorist outrages committed by Muslim men who were born and bred in
England. Thankfully, there was only one fatality in the French
disturbances. In the London bombings in July, 52 people were killed
and over 700 injured.

Nor has Britain been free of serious race riots. Just before the
trouble began in Paris, there were several nights of street fighting
between Asian and African-Caribbean gangs in Birmingham, England's
second largest city. Two people were killed. And this incident
followed years of racial unrest in decaying industrial towns in the
north of England, such as Burnley and Bradford, where there are large,
radicalized Muslim populations, though the level of disorder is always
downplayed by the political establishment and media, anxious not to
undermine carefully manufactured images of multiethnic harmony.

In truth, Britain is now a deeply divided land, where suspicion,
intolerance, and aggression cast their shadow over urban areas. Only
the other day, the government revealed that, in the last twelve
months, the number of prosecutions for racial hate crimes had risen by
30 percent. In a courageous recent speech, Trevor Phillips, a black
broadcaster who now serves as the chairman of Britain's Commission for
Racial Equality, warned that the country is "sleepwalking towards
segregation," with society ever more fragmented by ethnicity and
religion. Using remarkably frank language, Phillips added that parts
of some cities will soon be "black holes into which no one goes
without fear."

This sorry situation has been created by a deliberate act of public
policy. For the last three decades, in response to waves of mass
immigration, the civic institutions of Britain have eagerly
implemented the ideology of multiculturalism. Instead of promoting a
cohesive British identity, they have encouraged immigrant communities
to cling to the customs, traditions, and language of their countries
of origin. The emphasis is on upholding ethnic and cultural
differences rather than achieving assimilation. This is in stark
contrast to France, which has taken a color-blind approach to
immigration, with newcomers expected to adapt to the culture of the
host nation. The recently imposed ban on Muslim girls' wearing the
hijab or headscarf in schools is a classic example of the French
model.

Britain has moved in exactly the opposite direction. Soon after the
French hijab ban was implemented, a British Muslim teenager brought a
successful legal action to win the right to wear in school full
Islamic dress from head to toe. She was represented in her court case
by Cherie Blair, the barrister wife of the prime minister. And Mrs.
Blair's action was typical of the spirit of the Labour-led British
ruling class, which has elevated dogmatic multiculturalism into a
principle of governance.

Racial segregation is woven into the fabric of British public
services. Indeed, under the latest race relations legislation, all
public authorities have a statutory duty to promote cultural
diversity. So inner city local councils and hospitals in urban areas
now print all their public documentation in ethnic minority languages,
including Kosovan, Hindi, Greek, Swahili, and Turkish, while many
provide extensive interpreting services. One doctor who works in east
London told me of her outrage at being sent to take a course in
Bengali so she could communicate more effectively with her patients.

Bilingualism is common in urban schools, given that almost 12 percent
of children have a first language other than English. London is now
the most linguistically diverse city in the world, with more than 300
languages spoken by pupils, ranging from Punjabi and Nigerian Yoruba
to Polish and Tamil. In addition, the government now provides funds to
Muslims to set up their own schools, in which there is a predominantly
Islamic ethos, imams are involved in teaching, and Arabic is learned
for the study of the Koran. At present there are just five such Muslim
state schools, but the government has announced plans to take the
number to 150, a move that smacks of appeasement towards Islamic
separatism. The police have also been infected with this spirit. In
recruitment in London, there is an open bias towards applicants who
speak "a community language." And in the Midlands city of Nottingham,
the July bombings prompted the chief constable to order his officers
to wear green ribbons "to show their solidarity with the Muslim
community."

Thanks to multiculturalism, the provision of public housing, the arts,
broadcasting, and community grants is now divided on racial lines. The
BBC, the main state broadcaster, has its own Asian network providing
news and features inside the U.K. in Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, and
Gujarati. There are now more than 140 housing associations in England
catering to ethnic minorities; one of them, the Aashyana in Bristol,
provides special apartments for Muslims with the toilets facing away
from Mecca. More than 10 percent of the bodies funded by the Arts
Council, such as theaters and dance companies, describe themselves as
black or Asian organizations. "British culture is not a single entity.
We should rightly speak of British cultures," says the Arts Council.

Yet the diversity enthusiasts want to celebrate every culture but
their own. In the self-flagellating climate of modern Britain, the
nation's traditions are increasingly regarded as reactionary and
prejudiced. Britishness has "systematic, largely unspoken racial
connotations," declared the government's Commission on the Future of
Multi-Ethnic Britain. The commission's report, published in 2000,
described the United Kingdom as "a community of communities" and
called for British history to be "revised, rethought or jettisoned."
The official mood of self-loathing, epitomized by the terror of giving
offense to any ethnic group, has become even more pervasive in the
last five years. In one typical instance, the English inspector of
prisons stated that wardens should not wear badges or tie pins with
the red cross of St. George, England's national flag, because this
could be "misinterpreted as a racist symbol."

Another extreme episode that was much discussed in the media five
years ago illustrates how multiculturalism can undermine the
management of social services. At Haringey Council in north London in
February 2000, an 8-year-old child from Ivory Coast, Victoria Climbie,
died after suffering a catalogue of cruelty, beatings, and neglect by
her great-aunt, Marie-Th�r�se Kouao, who claimed that Victoria was
possessed by the devil. Social workers and the police, alerted
repeatedly to Victoria's plight, were reluctant to intervene because
they did not want to appear culturally insensitive to Kouao's beliefs
or methods of discipline. Indeed, the prevailing mood in the Haringey
social work office was one of perverted antiracism, where the woefully
incompetent casework manager, Carole Baptiste, held meetings in the
dark to discuss African witchcraft and spent much of her time talking
about oppression of black women. "It is hard to say how mad it was,"
recalled one black social worker. "There were some black staff members
who would not speak to white people. Aggressive racial politics
permeated the office."

The English patriot and maverick socialist George Orwell wrote in
1941, "England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals
are ashamed of their nationality. In left-wing circles, it is always
felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an
Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English
institution." More than 60 years later, multiculturalism has provided
the ideal vehicle for the left, which now predominates in civic
Britain, to exercise its destructive influence. The neurotic official
obsession with the politics of racial identity has destroyed any
shared sense of national belonging. As the Asian writer Kenan Malik
has put it, "The problem is not that ethnic minorities are alienated
from a concept of Britishness but that there is today no source of
Britishness from which anyone--black or white--can draw inspiration."

Britain is fast replacing nationhood with a hierarchy of victimhood,
with different ethnic groups living in conflict, each trumpeting its
own sense of grievance. Age-old liberties, like freedom of speech, are
disappearing; a play in Birmingham was recently closed down because a
mob of Sikhs threatened to destroy the theater, claiming to be
offended by the content of the production. Meanwhile, the endless
British accommodation of Islamic extremism, in the name of racial
tolerance, has allowed terrorism to flourish in our midst. According
to one recent survey, 13 percent of British Muslims support home-grown
terrorism, a terrifying thought given that there are 1.6 million
Muslims in Britain.

Multiculturalism is not the road that France should go down.
Bomb-scarred Britain proves that integration is not achieved by
exacerbating racial division and institutional self-hatred.

Leo McKinstry writes regularly for the Daily Mail, Sunday Telegraph,
and Spectator. His biography of Lord Rosebery was published in Britain
earlier this year.

Labor's great black hope - Bruce Stannard, The Australian

2006-01-03T16:09:00.000+11:00

This is an interesting story that reflects on some Indigenous Statistics
that provide some context for all Australians to reflect on....Sue Ellson

Labor's great black hope

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17692940%255E28737,00.html

Warren Mundine took the road of education to rise above poverty and disadvantage. Preparing to become the Labor Party's national president, he tells Bruce Stannard of his wish to free the six out of 10 indigenous Australians still caught, like some whites, in welfare dependency
December 31, 2005

NEXT month, when Warren Mundine succeeds Barry Jones as national president of the Australian Labor Party, he will become the most prominent Aboriginal person in the country. But in the teeth of vehement Left opposition within the ALP and the Aboriginal community, Mundine has cut his controversial link with the Howard Government as a member of the National Indigenous Council, the advisory body that the Government set up last year to replace the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission abolished early this year.

The decision to quit the council, made public this week, has come late and under pressure. Earlier Mundine told Inquirer he "doesn't give a stuff" what his critics say about him and sees no conflict of interest in having the ear of government. At that point, he saw value in trying to influence the Coalition Government's agenda for change from the inside.

This week he told a reporter from The Australian: "I still stand by what I said previously, that I think it was the right decision to go on the National Indigenous Council and I support the members of the NIC for the work they're doing and what they are trying to achieve. [But] I've made the commitment now to work for the party, to get us to win the next election in 2007, and I want to do everything that's possible for that to happen. We've [also] got a big year next year [in state elections]."

Although Mundine sounds like an apostle of free enterprise in urging Aborigines to rid themselves of the shackles of welfare dependency, start their own businesses if they want and move to a native-title mix of community land and land leased long-term to Aborigines for private business or home ownership instead of sole communal native title, he has what mostwould regard as an impeccable Labor background.

It's worth examining those credentials because if his star continues in its ascendancy, the man who is now chief executive officer of NSW Native Title Services, which pursues native title claims, may one day have his hands on the levers of ministerial power in a Labor government. This year he was the party's senior vice-president, and replaces Jones on January 28.

Mundine came up the hard way. The ninth of 11 children, eight boys and three girls, he was born 49 years ago in Grafton on the NSW north coast. His father, Roy, a lanky 190cm and "gentle as a lamb", was a farm rouseabout and NSW government roads labourer. His mother, Dolly, 149cm and "a real firebrand", was the matriarch who ran her crowded house with all the iron discipline of a regimental sergeant-major. She commanded respect, admiration and not a little love from a clan that often included uncles and aunties, nieces, nephews and grandparents, all under the same tin roof, and all happy in the knowledge that they were Bundjalung -- a people whose culture and language remains largely intact.

Mundine goes to great lengths to underscore the importance of home ownership in his life. "After the war, in which my father worked hard building military roads, he wanted what every other Australian wanted, a roof over his head," he says. "A place of security for his wife and his family. He wanted a house. Trouble was he could not afford it on Aboriginal wages.

"In those days Aborigines earned 30 per cent of the wages paid to white Australians. My father joined the Australian Workers Union and it was the AWU that got him the full wage. That's when he was able to buy a house. If he hadn't had that union backing, god knows where we might be today. See, here was a man with a belief in himself and he's saying, 'I'm a worker. All I need is a fair go. Don't give me no handouts. Don't patronise me, just give me a chance to get on'. When he was given that chance he grabbed it with both hands and began to pull himself up and up and up. I admire my father and my mother for that. They worked bloody hard and they allowed all of us to see the possibilities that are out there for each and every one of us."

Roy Mundine, 87, is the only one of his eight brothers to live beyond 50. He worked on NSW north coast farms while his brothers went down the asbestos mines, their lungs laced with the fine white dust that eventually killed them. Dolly Mundine's parents were among the first Aborigines to own their own home. They had once lived in tin humpies built around the cattle yards at Yugilbar Station, resisting attempts to shunt them off to the mission stations that swallowed up so many other Aboriginal people at the time.

His mother's father was a timber-getter on the Nambucca River. They were proud and staunchly independent people who had no wish to answer to a master on the missions. Mundine's maternal great grandfather, William O'Donovan, a carpenter who emigrated from County Cork, Ireland, in the 1870s, left them his Catholic faith.

"We were staunch [Catholics]," Mundine says. "As kids it seemed we were always at mass. My mother would hunt us up. 'No breakfast till after mass', she'd say. So that was always a big incentive. We'd get up early for the six o'clock mass, then rush back home to get a feed. We walked several miles to St Patrick's in South Grafton and several miles home again. We never had a car."

Mundine maintains his faith. "I was brought up a Catholic and I'm still a Catholic," he says. 'I don't go to church as often as I should but I go to mass, I go to confession, and yes, I believe in God. I don't have a day where I don't say a prayer." What does he pray for? "Oh, guidance, help, forgiveness, all kinds of things," he says.

Mundine grew up in a two-bedroom weatherboard cottage in Kelly St, South Grafton which, he says, was always full of people. During 13 years he and three of his younger brothers slept head-to-toe in the same single bed. The other children, together with various relatives, bunked down in cots ranged around the enclosed veranda.

Although her sons were barefoot and generally in hand-me-downs, Dolly Mundine insisted that they would be educated at Grafton's St Mary's College. The redoubtable Dolly convinced the priest to change the girls-only rule and make the college co-educational. "My mother's success in winning that concession taught me a very important lesson," Mundine says. "If you have courage, if you have the strength of your convictions, you can make change. If you're determined, if you have faith, even the most insurmountable problems can be overcome. You don't give up. You have a go. That's the story of my life."

If there is one thing about his childhood that Mundine regrets it's the fact that although Bundjalung, the language of his people, was spoken at home, he somehow failed to pick it up. He's learning the language now. "Bundjalung is probably the only Aboriginal tongue regularly spoken in NSW these days," he says. "It's a source of pride to have that living link with our culture. I know a lot of Aboriginal people who are consumed with anger over the loss of their cultural identity but I'm not one of them. From a very early age I've known exactly who I am and I've always felt very comfortable about my Aboriginality. Knowing that we are Bundjalung has always been a source of particular pride for us."

Mundine says there was a time when he considered undergoing the Bundjalung initiation rites because he thought it would make him more Aboriginal. "I don't think that's true any more," he says. "Whether I go through the ceremonies or not, I'm still Aboriginal. I'm very strong in that belief."

In 1963 the Mundine family moved to Sydney and plunged into what was becoming a multicultural melting pot -- Auburn in the city's western suburbs. There they mixed with emigrant Italians, Croats, Lebanese, English, Scots and Irish. Muslims would later come in large numbers. "At the Marist Brothers high school there were 36 kids in the class and probably 36 different nationalities," he says. "That was my introduction to the wider world. For the first 12 months there was a fight every day as kids tried to sort themselves out. They had never met Aborigines before so they used to follow me and my brother to the toilets to make sure we did things the way they did them. I remember slipping over at the bubblers one day and gashing my knee on a jagged bolt. A great crowd of kids gathered round to look at the blood and one of them said in amazement, 'it's red'. Maybe they thought black kids had black blood. Who knows?"

Mundine has maintained close links with many of his schoolmates; friendships, he says, based on mutual respect. "Respect: that's one of the most important elements in the equation we call human dignity," he says. "I learned that the hard way, brawling in the back streets of Auburn. I grew up among kids whose parents had come from the four corners of the earth. We were all pitched into the same melting pot. We've all come from different backgrounds but we're all Australians. In the schoolyard you cop a bloody nose, you give a bloody nose, and when the dust settles you put your arms around each other and you celebrate your differences. That's the way I grew up and that's the way I approach life today."

Mundine says his vision for Aboriginal Australia is based on the simple proposition that all Australians, black, white or brindle, are entitled to a fair go. "I want Aboriginal people to enjoy the freedom that most people take for granted in this country," he says.

"Freedom to do the things we want to do; freedom to make the choices that will enrich our lives. Aboriginals are capable of making up their own minds, you know. They don't need the guiding hand of the white fella at every turn. For years we were regarded as primitives, creatures at the low end of the food chain, inferior in every way and you know, when you're whipped around the head with those sorts of attitudes they become ingrained; you begin to accept that's the way things are, better get used to it, no good fighting it, better go with the flow.

"I remember as a kid going into shops and standing at the back, waiting, waiting, waiting to be acknowledged, to be called up to the counter. You see, I'd learned my place and that place was at the back of the shop, at the back of the bus. I remember once in Armidale [in northern NSW] trying to raise money for an Aboriginal rugby league club. My wife, a friend and I went to hire the local church hall, so we knocked on the caretaker's door and asked politely, could we hire the hall for a function. 'No,' he said indignantly, 'you cannot'. Well, why? 'Because,' he said, 'we don't hire the hall to black people'.

"Oh, well, okay. We looked at each other sheepishly and walked away. We walked away! Can you believe that? We were adults and yet we were thrust back into the kind of acceptance that had been forced on us as kids: the white fella up there and the black fella down here. It wasn't until we walked down the road that it suddenly dawned on us: hang on a minute, he can't do that!

"So back we went back and stood up to him. We argued for about 40 minutes and eventually we got the hall. In fact we hired it on a regular basis after that. That experience taught me another very important lesson on racism. I don't accept that any person is better than any other person because of the colour of their skin. Black, white or brindle, I don't care who it is, people are people and you take them as you find them. Racism is not some peculiarly white characteristic. There are black racists who are every bit as dogged in their hatred as white racists. They're the people who perpetuate the old stereotypes, you know, 'white pricks' and 'lazy black bastards'. They're the ones who want to keep us permanently apart. My point is that racism, no matter what its colour, is absolutely unacceptable."

Warren Mundine is a can-do man. When he stood as an independent candidate for Dubbo City Council in central-west NSW, he says, people told him there's no way they're going to elect an Aborigine. "I got elected," he says. "Then those same people said, 'there's no way they're going to make an Aborigine deputy mayor'. When I was appointed deputy mayor they said 'there's no way an Aborigine will ever be mayor.' Well guess what? I did wear the mayoral chains. The point is that if you're prepared to have a go, all sorts of possibilities open up. I've learned one thing for sure: you can't make change by sitting on the sidelines."

For years, he says, he and his mates used to stand in a Dubbo pub talking about how wonderful it would be if Dubbo had its own Aboriginal dance company. "Nothing ever got done," he says. "It was all talk, talk, talk. One day I plonked $50 on the bar and said, 'right, let's do it. We'll put an ad in the paper and kick this thing off'. My mates go, 'Geez Warren, we're just a couple of drunks. We don't know nothing about Aboriginal dance.' Well, I said, we're about to find out.

"So the ad went in the paper and lo and behold on Monday night over 53 kids turned up at the community hall. I said, 'right, give us your names and addresses and we will start on Thursday night'. That gave me two days to find out about Aboriginal dance. I rang the Bangarra Dance Company in Sydney and told them I wanted some videos to help teach these kids. The answer was, 'well who the hell are you?' My name didn't mean a thing. I said 'look I'm just a bloke in Dubbo. I'm trying to get these kids off the streets and into Aboriginal dance'.

"They obviously thought I was a bloody idiot, especially when I told them I wanted to kick this off on the Thursday night. Their videos arrived in Dubbo on the Wednesday morning and I sat in front of the TV screen running those bloody things backwards and forwards until by midnight I knew all the steps off by heart. Come Thursday night I had enough knowledge to get us through the first lesson. It went on from there. No one has ever asked me to perform brain surgery but if they did, yeah, I'd have a go at that too, I suppose."

Mundine says the wonderful thing about that little dance company is that it gave Aboriginal children a reason not to hang out on street corners. It allowed them to take the first important step toward ownership of at least one aspect of their own culture. It also allowed them to feel good about themselves. "Now the same kids are into a Wiradjuri language program," he says, "so it's all part of a wonderful journey for them."

Mundine kicked off his working life as a factory fitter and machinist who walked to and from work in blue dungarees. Later he worked on sewerage pipelines for the Sydney Water Board. He went to a TAFE college at night and earned the Higher School Certificate. That allowed him to move up to a white-collar job as a clerk in the Taxation Office in Martin Place. He had a stint in Adelaide, where he attended the former South Australian institute of technology and earned a community development diploma, as part of Don Dunstan's Aboriginal task force.

He was among more than 2000 Aborigines who came from all over Australia to participate in the land rights protest at the 1982 Commonwealth Games in Brisbane. Arrested and charged with violating Queensland's notorious unlawful assembly laws of the Bjelke-Petersen era, he spent a couple of days locked up in the Brisbane Watch House. Back in Sydney he took a job with the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, moonlighted as a barman and waiter and earned the money for the deposit on his first home. He joined the ALP in 1995.

"Never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine I would be national president of the Labor Party," he says. "All I've ever wanted to be was Warren Mundine. When Eric Roosendaal [then the party's NSW secretary, now a NSW MP] first broached the matter with me I thought, 'is this bloke fair dinkum or what?' I said I'd think about it. In fact I took two weeks to mull it over. I must say I had some real reservations. I was well aware that when you enter the political arena you're fair game and you have people attacking you from all angles.

"If I was going to dish it out, I'd have to cop it as well. I didn't mind that for myself but I knew it would be one-in-all-in and my family and friends would be dragged in as well. It took me two weeks to decide to go ahead and offer myself as a candidate [in 2003]. I did it because I realised that my whole life has been about making change, about making things better for Aboriginal people and here was a golden opportunity to take that forward. I don't pretend that I can bring about revolutionary change in the way Australia operates during my time in office but I can have a little bit of a say. Change will happen when people begin to think for themselves. I'm going to be throwing out challenges for Aboriginal people and for ordinary Australians."

I ask Mundine why Aboriginal leaders no longer speak of sovereignty and a treaty with the Australian government. "I'm all for a treaty," he says. "But many Aboriginal people see the treaty concept as a huge and very expensive Pandora's box. We've seen what has happened to other indigenous peoples like the native north Americans, who signed treaties and ended up with nothing. We certainly don't want to end up in a banana republic situation like so many of the African countries which are plagued by corruption and violence.

"Aboriginal people took a long, hard look at their own leaders and rightly concluded that they were not the kind of people who ought to be the kingpins. We don't want to go down that track. No, a treaty is no longer on the radar. Aboriginal Australians these days are focused entirely on survival to the exclusion of just about everything else."

Mundine does not shrink from describing the immensity of the chronic health issues overwhelming so many indigenous communities. "Alcoholism, drug abuse, kava, marijuana, petrol-sniffing are all endemic in Aboriginal communities," he says. "These are the things that are devastating the young people in our communities. Extreme violence goes hand-in-hand with substance abuse and we see that reflected in the truly horrifying statistics on domestic violence.

"A recent survey of north Queensland communities found Aboriginal women were 24 times more likely to be raped than women in non-Aboriginal communities. The Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council report says the Aboriginal female prison population has grown by 800 per cent in the past 15 years. That's a devastating statistic because whether or not feminists like to admit it, Aboriginal women are still the ones who look after the kids and build the future for their families.

"Seventy per cent of those women had been sexually assaulted as a child. This is where there is a good deal of hypocrisy among those who go on and on and on about the protection of Aboriginal culture. They don't acknowledge that our most precious cultural resource, our children, face tremendous risks because of the sexual violence that they and their mothers have to endure. Go out to places in western NSW like Bourke and Brewarrina and in the courts you will find case after case where young Aboriginal men are charged with bashing the people they are supposed to care for. When they sober up they're very remorseful. They cop a fine and in six months' time the same thing happens again.

"Aboriginal men have to wake up to themselves. They have to realise it's not okay to bash your missus. It's amazing how accepted this is in some communities. I've been at gatherings out west where blokes will come straight out and laugh about it. 'Yeah,' they say, 'because I bash the missus. Gotta keep the bitch in line somehow.' They talk about like they talk about the weather. It's almost as though it's socially acceptable out there. With attitudes like that, is it any wonder that people look at us and shake their bloody heads?

"Violence is a huge issue and one we have to get on top of if we're to have any credibility at all when we talk about human rights. You can't cherry-pick human rights. You have to accept them across the board and of course, the human rights of the child have to be protected at all times."

Mundine believes much of the substance abuse and violence in Aboriginal communities is a direct result of childhood violence which has in turn grown out of the loss of cultural identity. "I'm not making excuses for violent behaviour, far from it," he says. "But I think a lot of it goes back to that profound sense of loss that many Aboriginal people feel about the loss of their identity. [After] Europeans colonised this country 217 years ago, they took absolutely everything we had: our land, our culture, our language, the lot. Aborigines were forced into missions and there they were told their society, their structures, their beliefs were all wrong.

"In those circumstances, you can understand why people might feel confused and disorientated. Unfortunately when human beings are placed under those kinds of pressures it often brings out the worst in them. That's not a uniquely Aboriginal problem. I'm afraid that's true of people all over the world."

In receiving the Bennelong Society's medal recently, Mundine hit out at the way in which he says white Australia sought to perpetuate the myth of the noble savage. "There seems to be buried in every government policy of every major political party this basic idea of preserving a mythical noble savage ideal of indigenous Australia," he says. "When these policies fail or indigenous Australians don't live up to these basic white man views of indigenous Australians, then it is the indigenous Australians who are blamed for the failures or are told they're not real indigenous people."

Mundine does not resile from those remarks. "Aboriginal people are not museum pieces," he says. "We are human beings. All we ask is that we receive the respect to which we're entitled as fellow human beings."

Under reformed party rules, rank-and-file Labor Party members voted in 2003 to choose three national presidents for the next three years. The front-finisher among the 11 candidates, Carmen Lawrence, served in 2004, to be followed by runner-up Barry Jones in 2005. Now it is No.3 finisher Mundine's turn.

Opposition leader Kim Beazley says he is immensely proud of Mundine. "He is being entrusted with a powerful position which is particularly important for Labor as we contemplate reconciliation," Beazley says. "His contribution to political life engages all the issues of state as well as reconciliation and issues across the Aboriginal agenda."

Jones, as outgoing president, describes Mundine as "a fine fellow and a thoroughly decent and humane character". Jones makes the point that the Labor presidency is the only bottom-up mechanism in the party for the expression of the views of branch members. "Most of the other decision-making processes are top-down," he says. "Its significance in Warren Mundine's case lies in the fact that although he won the endorsement of the [party's] Right [faction], his views are much more progressive than the standard line."

Mundine's life has been a journey of self-discovery. "Looking back, I can see myself climbing hill after hill, winding up and up and no one has been more surprised than me when I've reached those summits," he says. "One day, who knows, I may be the person who actually decides policy and makes legislation. If I can reach that point, I'll be in a position to help make a real difference not just for Aboriginal people but for all Australians."