Writings and doings

Writings and doings
The asylum seeker debate is causing a lot of political and media flurry at the moment.  In one way that’s good, because it’s an important and complex issue with some crucial principles at stake.  But for years I have found it frustrating that an excessive focus on a very small number of people arriving here in boats takes up so much attention, while there is so little debate about the wider migration system.
Migration not only involves hundreds of thousands of people arriving in Australia each year, as well as quite a few Australians leaving.  How we manage those many short and long term settlers and what processes we use to determine the make up of those migrants have a huge impact on the future of Australia in a way that few other issues do. Yet we spend so little time debating those matters, while getting into a lather over the tiny proportion who arrive in boats – despite ample evidence which shows the vast majority of such people make good contributions to Australia.
Next week I’ll be at two conferences which will hopefully enable some of these issues to be given some of the extra thought and attention they merit.  In Brisbane, the Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland (ECCQ) are holding a two day summit on multiculturalism, present and future.  I do some work for ECCQ and will be participating in a few of the sessions.  Straight after that, I’ll be heading to Shepparton in Victoria to attend the national conference of FECCA – the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia.
I am only stating that issues relating to migration and multiculturalism merit a lot more attention that they get, not that people shouldn’t be talking about the asylum seeker issue. I could hardly complain about that, given how often I’ve written on the topic myself.   I wrote a couple more this week – an article for Crikey’s daily e-news, plus a blog post extending on it.
In other writing, I’ve been given the chance to write for a new website called Asian Correspondent which has just been launched.  It’s still in trial mode to some extent, but it features writers and bloggers from a range of countries in the south-east Asian region.  I’ve been interested in the impact of blogging on the politics and debates in other countries in our region for some time, as it seems to me to have much more of a direct impact than bloggers in Australia tend to.  I wrote previously about the impact they may have had on the significant result at the last Malaysian election, which included the election of someone who was well known as a blogger.
We’ll have to see how it goes, but increasing debate across national borders about issues in the many different countries in our region would be a good thing.  We’re all still very insular in our approach in many ways, and certainly Australians in general don’t focus much on what’s happening in the countries in our near neighbourhood. When we do look to what’s happening outside our borders, we still tend to stick predominantly to what’s sometimes called the Anglosphere.
There are issues where we do need better understandings and cooperation across national boundaries – and not just with asylum seekers!  Climate change is another obvious one, and I’ve made that a topic of one my initial posts, along with another about the new Indonesia Foreign Minister, who among other things gained a PhD from the Australian National University.  (In the interests of full disclosure, I suppose I should note that I do research work for ANU too)
Another long-time blogger from Brisbane, John Quiggin, is also writing some pieces for the Asian Correspondent website.  I’ll be interested to see if his insights on climate change and economic issues such as trade and development will draw attention from further afield.

The asylum seeker debate is causing a lot of political and media flurry at the moment.  In one way that’s good, because it’s an important and complex issue with some crucial principles at stake.  But for years I have found it frustrating that an excessive focus on a very small number of people arriving here in boats takes up so much attention, while there is so little debate about the wider migration system.

Migration not only involves hundreds of thousands of people arriving in Australia each year, as well as quite a few Australians leaving.  How we manage those many short and long term settlers and what processes we use to determine the make up of those migrants have a huge impact on the future of Australia in a way that few other issues do. Yet we spend so little time debating those matters, while getting into a lather over the tiny proportion who arrive in boats – despite ample evidence which shows the vast majority of such people make good contributions to Australia.

Next week I’ll be at two conferences which will hopefully enable some of these issues to be given some of the extra thought and attention they merit.  In Brisbane, the Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland (ECCQ) are holding a two day summit on multiculturalism, present and future.  I do some work for ECCQ and will be participating in a few of the sessions.  Straight after that, I’ll be heading to Shepparton in Victoria to attend the national conference of FECCA – the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia.

I am only stating that issues relating to migration and multiculturalism merit a lot more attention that they get, not that people shouldn’t be talking about the asylum seeker issue. I could hardly complain about that, given how often I’ve written on the topic myself.   I wrote a couple more this week – an article for Crikey’s daily e-news, plus a blog post extending on it.

In other writing, I’ve been given the chance to write for a new website called Asian Correspondent which has just been launched.  It’s still in trial mode to some extent, but it features writers and bloggers from a range of countries in the south-east Asian region.  I’ve been interested in the impact of blogging on the politics and debates in other countries in our region for some time, as it seems to me to have much more of a direct impact than bloggers in Australia tend to.  I wrote previously about the impact they may have had on the significant result at the last Malaysian election, which included the election of Jeff Ooi, who was well known as a blogger (and who is also now writing on Asian Correspondent.

We’ll have to see how it goes, but increasing debate across national borders about issues in the many different countries in our region would be a good thing.  We’re all still very insular in our approach in many ways, and certainly Australians in general don’t focus much on what’s happening in the countries in our near neighbourhood. When we do look to what’s happening outside our borders, we still tend to stick predominantly to what’s sometimes called the Anglosphere.

There are issues where we do need better understandings and cooperation across national boundaries – and not just with asylum seekers!  Climate change is another obvious one, and I’ve made that a topic of one my initial posts, along with another about the new Indonesia Foreign Minister, who among other things gained a PhD from the Australian National University.  (In the interests of full disclosure, I suppose I should note that I do research work for ANU too)

Another long-time blogger from Brisbane, John Quiggin, is also writing some pieces for the Asian Correspondent website.  I’ll be interested to see if his insights on climate change and economic issues such as trade and development will draw attention from further afield.

Please like & share:

42 Comments

  1. “Migration not only involves hundreds of thousands of people arriving in Australia each year, as well as quite a few Australians leaving.”

    The process of moving from one country to another is called “immigration.”

    “Migration” is what birds do.

    “I am only stating that issues relating to migration and multiculturalism merit a lot more attention that they get,”

    I agree.

    Probably the greatest irony of the debate over immigration is that there is no debate. With the majority of Australians wanting lower levels of immigration, most people have already made up their minds. As for the minority who favour high immigration, they’ve made up their minds too. Since the latter happen to control both political parties and most of the media, there is no debate.

    “It’s still in trial mode to some extent, but it features writers and bloggers from a range of countries in the south-east Asian region.”

    Last time I checked, Australia was not a south-east Asian country.

  2. “Straight after that, I’ll be heading to Shepparton in Victoria to attend the national conference of FECCA – the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia.”

    One of the most egregious aspects of modern multiculturalism is the way in which it accords different rights and privileges to different groups living in Australia today.

    Immigrant communities, for instance, are encouraged to promote their own ethnic identities and their own group interests. Ethnic minority organisations – cultural centres, business networks and political lobbies like FECCA – are accepted and treated with respect by politicians. The justifying story told to the majority is that we all benefit from cultural diversity. At the same time, majority ethnocentricism is held to be dangerous and regularly criticised in the media, education system and by the multicultural lobby. Any attempt by members of the Anglo-Celtic Australian majority to advance their own group interests is immediately condemned. Australians of Anglo-Celtic descent are expected to forgo group loyalties and are even punished for showing them in politics and business. How can something be so precious and notable for one section of society but worthless and disreputable for another?

    This flagrant double standard is most noticable in immigration matters. Apparently, it is acceptable, even noble, for immigrant communities to lobby for the importation of more of their own kind. Yet, it is “racist” for the Anglo-Celtic majority to prefer British or European immigrants over those from other backgrounds. Immigrant communities openly brag about their growing demographic strength, while Australians of Anglo-Celtic descent are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration policies are reducing their percentage of the population.

    How do advocates of multiculturalism justify this double standard?

  3. “How do advocates of multiculturalism justify this double standard?”

    I don’t ‘justify’ this so-called double standard because it doesn’t exist, except within your own head.

    Multiculturalism is equality of access and opportunity under a single set of laws and principle. This include the principles of equality and non-discrimination. The fact that you seem to find it a problem that ethnic minority organisations are “accepted and treated with respect by politicians”.

    I can’t stop you distorting it into some bizarre caricature if you wish, to don’t expect me to engage with it.

    In regards to your view about Australia not being a south-east Asian country, we are clearly located in that region. Australia is regularly identified as being in the Asia-Pacific region, and participates in the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Regional Forum (as does New Zealand).

    Personally, I thin it is highly desirable to strengthen communications and links with countries and people in our region.

  4. I thought we were a Jewish nation,the way the Palestinian matter is treated,and the rest of the culture then is Mickey Mouse.I hope the very decent Blogger Andrew Bartlett impresses those in ASIA,who for some unknown reasons don’t know much about Australia.But,without it being a racist but,more a Greenhouse Warming Hypothesis but,as nonsense.That is Australians seem to be so wrong to me now about AGW that it is a form or racism.The latest new about an Indonesian Earthquake,suggest much more than the uninspiring carbon emissions doing the dirty on the Planet.I don’t think there is much wrong with wanting lower expectations in numbers of immigration,because frankly,the process stinks,not the newly arrived.However, why isn’t there a plan to evacuate very large numbers of people from Indonesia because of increasing earthquake activity!? Get the hell out of there I say,if it continues,and just land.Agreement between the two Armed Forces would be easy.How long Indonesians could stay if in millions can only be tested,by acceptance of hardship on all citizens and earthquake refugees in those circumstances.Walking along built roads and essentialising an extremely low impact could mean a necessity for a Johnny Appleseed approach,and cardboard box toilets,as buried mulchings.The objections to these thoughts of mine will not be racist,because it is a very disturbing scenario.

  5. While I don’t disagree with your view entirely Andrew I think it dangerous to dismiss Edward as some sort of bizarre extremist.

    The reality is that there are lots of Edwards who genuinely believe and with some justification the views he expresses. Multicultural “leaders” sometinmes do themslevs a great disservice and the people they purpot to represent with some of the views they express and lectures they ‘appear” to give to everyday aussies, whoever they are.

    Whether out of fear and ignorance or whatever that doesnt diminsh the strength of the perception. Don’t forget the major parties ganged up against One Nation, not becasue of there views (many shared them) but becasue of the threat to their power.

  6. Edward:

    I think you must be more than a bit behind the times. About 30 years ago (perhaps someone knows exactly how many), politicians decided we needed to become part of the Asia-Pacific Region.

    Despite a huge public outcry over the prospect of reduced wages, and poor working and living conditions, the politicians went ahead with their plan regardless.

    Only a couple of weeks ago, Wayne Swan announced on national television that the 21st century would be the “Asian Century”.

    For decades, our workers, farmers and business people have been sold out to Asian countries using free trade agreements. At the same time, many of our best income producing assets have been sold off.

    While China in particular has become strong economically, Australia has amassed a gross foreign debt of $1.2 trillion. Our level of foreign debt has increased exponentially over the last 20 years.

    As you are no doubt aware, the Labor party is the umbilical brother of The Greens. No doubt they have heard a song by John Lennon in which the world is turned into one big melting pot of people in order to end war. I think the song was called: “Imagine.”

    The Greens have a plan to redistribute world populations, which has been in progress for decades. They also have a policy on Global Governance. These ideas have been supported by both Liberal and Labor governments.

    We have seen the amalgamation of councils, and the federal government is in the process of turning us all against State governments (does anyone actually like Anna Bligh??) in order to centralise power in Canberra.

    And who do we see endorsing and financing global agendas such as an Emissions Trading Scheme, from which Asian countries could be exempt? The people who are at the top of transnational companies, who wish to break the Western economies so they can rule the world.

  7. Ken:

    I think One Nation is okay. They are aligned with Save Australia Alliance. They were labelled racists because they stood in the way of the Green Communist = Global Capitalist agenda. Are you with me?

    In Queensland before the last State election, an electoral redistribution occurred on the Atherton Tablelands which put paid to a female MP from One Nation.

  8. Thanks Ken – always helpful to have someone to keep on the measured and reasonable path (not that there were ever any votes in it, but I don’t have to worry about that for now). I don’t think Edward’s an extremist, just mistaken. I agree some perceived “leaders” of some ethnic groups sometimes don’t do their case any good at all – I’d say the same of some religious spokesmen too. I am well aware of the perceptions that exist – I see enough of them on this blog, let alone through some of my other activities. I try to provide information that counters such misunderstandings, but finding the best tone, content and method for each occasion – especially in the context of a wider audience is always a test.

    But anyway, apparently Labor, Liberal and the Greens are all part of a global governance green communist capitalist alliance, so One Nation will probably be taking over soon no matter what I say.

  9. I have to be a bit snide here Andrew.I am certainly not One Nation,but ,sorry,History isn’t always written by losers,or even winners,but,may never existed in any written form.Am I to assume that,if one followed the actions over centuries of say the Rothschilds, and on into the U.S.A. with the Rockefellers and Warburgs and a host of intermarrying families that dominate American money and politics ,and financial arrangements in history recorded of Americans financing Bolsheviks,Lenin Stalin,and Churchill was aware of certain Patrons of politics Money Industry,and war financing that the feeling and evidence of not much difference does exist,between the International equivalents of LABOR, LIBERAL, GREENS,that the pretence that Australians of those types,simply by familiarity are not the same as the International!?I am personally bloody sick of AGW which has been worked up to be a election issue that crowds out any thought other than the proscribed political solutions of the Parties.Bob Brown has made so many moronic statements about some matters it is unbelievable he asserts them again in a different form.It is a con by those who want to winners.The fact these Partieswont go anywhere near wether the well known gas CO2 has got more uses than not and benignly wont exercise their decrepit minds.The same with immigration and refugees worked up to be election issues so no-one except smugglers makes money out of refugees!?

  10. Andrew:

    No, One Nation is not at all connected with The Greens, Labor, Liberals or any of the communist parties.

    One Nation is pro-Australia … not pro-Global Governance at all.

    Other pro-Australia parties (patriots) would include Save Australia Alliance (SAA), Citizens’ Electoral Council (CEC), Christian Democrats (CDP) and Democratic Labor Party (DLP).

    I would even vote for Family First (FF) before Labor/Libs/Greens.

    If everyone voted for smaller parties and independents, we might be able to break the dictatorial stranglehold currently gripping our nation.

    Skeptics of the Global Corporate Socialist agenda might also consider the demise of unions in this country and the gradual disappearance of the concept of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

    I think a large percentage of the population is well aware of the global grip on our economic purse strings.

    One day I think some people are going to be wearing large omelettes on their faces in relation to this issue.

  11. after reading kens comment ( three times ) i have to agree with him this time .

    as far as AGW bring it on we hope to have water front property soon .

  12. Andrew

    Andrew says: Multiculturalism is equality of access and opportunity under a single set of laws and principle. This include the principles of equality and non-discrimination

    I think that statement refers more to the equal opportunity act then to multiculturalism. Australia and the US for that matter are what are termed multi national countries and this belief has seen both our cultures grow and prosper of the last few hundred years.

    Edward Says: One of the most egregious aspects of modern multiculturalism is the way in which it accords different rights and privileges to different groups living in Australia today.

    Multiculturalism, in its raw form has always been a failure and one only has to have a look at history to see that. Yugoslavia was a prime example, IRAQ and now many countries in Europe are threatened with Sharia law becoming a reality there.

    People confuse multi national with multiculturalism and this is the problem. Prevously immigration from Europe and elsewhere adopted well to our culture (and we still have one) while retaining some of their customs and adding to and improving our culture. Multiculturalism would not have worked after the second world war and had governments defended this ideology who knows what sort of troubles we may have encountered.

    People wanting to come here must respect our laws, customs and culture and where possible integrate into our growing society. What we dont want to encourage is Multiculturalism whereby fights, beliefs, and unwanted or unworkable cultures are forced upon us while being protected by our legislators.

    I spoke to a member who recently returned from Europe and their future is not looking good, with cultures and races set to dissapear over the coming decades. Its something we need to keep an eye on here. Mulinational has worked well here and abroad. Multiculturalism has a proven unhealthy consequence.

  13. Here are the lyrics from the Beatles’ song “Imagine”. Perhaps we might all consider both the positive and negative consequences of John Lennon’s ideas. The song was written 38 years ago, in 1971.

    http://www.lyricskeeper.com/the_beatles-lyrics/99812-imagine-lyrics.htm

    Settler arrivals between July 2008-June 2009 totalled 158,021. Net permanent migration for the same period was 77,000, so I guess about half came to Australia on visas.

    Oceania and Antarctica

  14. Thanks Lorikeet:

    Following up from the other day when we learnt that MP’s werent allowed to print copies of Hansards(unless approved by the Socialist Senator Joe Ludwig’s team)we now get to read this.

    I’m sure you’d appreciate this article.

    Global Government

    We’ve all heard and read the greens policy and promotion of this, but perhaps we need to have a closer look at our current government a bit more.

    What is really going down in Copenhagen ?

  15. Here is a list of settler arrivals from various places for the period 01/07/08-30/06/09.

    Oceania and Antarctica 30,010
    Europe 29,294
    Nth Africa & Middle East 11,143
    Asia 69,616
    North America 2,254
    Sth&Cent. America/Caribbean 1,979
    Sub-Saharan Africa 13,025
    Misc. Others 700

    TOTAL 158,021

    New Zealand was not listed, so I guess they were included with Oceania and Antarctica.

    Tony:

    Oh well, think of it this way. The preliminary meeting in Bangkok was a fizzer.

    I think Malcolm Turnbull will allow enough of the Liberal Senators to vote the ETS down, and then there will be a double dissolution.

    In a federal election, I think Rudd can only lose seats. Bring it on.

  16. sounds to me if the govt is not carful there mite just be another case of the election that canot be lost . being lost

    the problem with a govt who belive s multi culturism works dose not have to live in the community with it they just forse it upon the ppl who are not consulted .

    every revolutionary change that has ever been was ignited buy the ppl in power not doing the will of the majority who put them there

    lorrikeet

    there is only one problem with lennons imagine

    he wore rose coloured glasses .

  17. Andrew, you really ought to read the following speech given by Mark O’Connor, co-author of the book “Overloading Australia”, to FECCA back in 1995. I think O’Connor sums up the views of the pro-immigration ‘new class’ quite effectively – views which you seem to share, Andrew.

    http://candobetter.org/node/1556

  18. Ken wrote: “Multicultural “leaders” sometinmes do themslevs a great disservice and the people they purpot to represent with some of the views they express and lectures they ‘appear” to give to everyday aussies, whoever they are.”

    I’ve noticed there is a belief held by many immigrant communities that supposes that Australia is just another Antarctica: not a real nation with a right to control who comes in, but just some sort of international treaty area like Antarctica that belongs to whoever wants to come.

    An extreme version of the “Antarctica argument”, one which could be called the “Bad Guest syndrome”, is the argument one hears frequently from “ethnic” leaders that the very generosity with which Australians have welcomed in excessive numbers of immigrants means that they no longer have a nation of their own and no longer have the right to decide who may enter Australia and live among them.

    According to this view, no one has the right to limit immigration to Australia, not even the Australian electorate (not that they’ve ever been consulted on immigration policy!). Nor do immigrants owe Australians any debt of gratitude for inviting them in, because you see they’re aren’t any Australians anymore, for they have been multiculturalised out of existence.

    Such views are usually disguised by vague talk about immigration being “natural” or “inevitable” or some kind of force of nature that we are unable to control.

  19. Reading the comments, interesting to watch how this long overdue debate has morphed over a fortnight or so, given the nature and thrust of some of the earlier comments.
    But taking the cake is the comment about Joe Ludwig a ‘socialist”.
    Tony, overreaching just a little here, eh?
    (tries to cope with smirk, just won’t stop rib- tickling..bwaa!! ).
    Next, he’ll be calling John Howard a Trot…

  20. As I noted above, I think some people who are at least perceived to be leaders of their ethinc group don’t do themselves of their community much help, including some perceived to be leadership figures amongst the Anglo oriented community. But the same could be said of some Indigenous leaders, church leaders, political leaders and environmental leaders.

    You’ve made very sweeping statements about a so-called “belief” held by “many” immigrant communities, RD. I’d to see some specific evidence of this, as I’ve never encountered that amongst the many migrant communities I’ve had contact with. I presume you don’t mean migrants who complain about being discriminated against on the basis of their race or religion – people have a perfect right to an equal go.

    I agree with you that people should read Mark O’Connor’s speech to FECCA. In fact I specifically drew attention to it and quoted from it in the presentation I gave at this year’s FECCA conference as an example of the extreme ignorance that underlies some who use the environment as an excuse to oppose almost all migration. It is a common device, especially amongst those who aren’t very well informed about a topic, to manufacture an artificial ‘category’ or ‘class’ that they apply to every single person who disagrees with them, so that they can then all be discounted in one go by applying some negative characteristics to the non-exitent ‘class’.

    Although to be fair, the things Mark O’Connor has said and written in more recent times are worse. Still, the more people that get to see some of the nonsense that he and some of his fellow travellers go on with, the more discredited their unworkable ‘solutions’ will be.

    Which isn’t at all to say that everyone who expresses concern about the impact of population growth on the environment is ignorant or extreme – I express those concerns myself. The impacts of population growth are a serious problem for the planet. That’s all the more reason why the response should be rational.

  21. RD:

    I think to compare Australia with Antarctica is far too great a stretch, even for me. If asylum seekers were told they could go south for an extremely frigid permanent winter, interest would probably be nil.

    Paul Walter:

    I don’t know much about Joe Ludwig, but calling him a “socialist” is not such a bad thing. Socialists care about people. It just depends on what kind of socialist they are. I think Tony might have meant “communist”. Remember that Information Control is the most powerful tool used by destructive cults.

    What you said about Howard and Trotsky is not quite as funny as you might think. Howard supported policies which would lead to communism in this country, by quite a number of means.

    Australian parliaments are loaded with people who are supporters of communism. They just deal us up a mixed bag of goods to keep us guessing, while they work up to it slowly.

    Members of all parties are also expected to “follow the leader” and do exactly what they are told.

    When Steve Fielding (FF) put up what sounded like a useful amendment in the Senate recently, to limit payouts to CEOs of big companies based on shareholder agreement, he and all 6 of The Greens voted for it, while all of the other politicians voted against it.

    Does that sound like the general attitude you’ve heard voiced on TV? I’m sure we’ve been told something quite the opposite.

    While you are busily chortling away, please try to remember it was me who reminded you how the country is run.

    BTW decades ago, people knew how to “make” decisions. But for at least the last 25 years, people have only known how to “take” decisions. Who are they taking them from?

    If you listen to Rudd, he “takes” decisions just about every day.

  22. “I think some people who are at least perceived to be leaders of their ethinc group don’t do themselves of their community much help, including some perceived to be leadership figures amongst the Anglo oriented community.”

    By the the “Anglo orientated community”, I think you mean the majority of Australians, most of whom see themselves as unhypenated Australians, not some self-interested, dual passport-wielding diasporic community that feels the need to play the divisive game of identity politics.

    Nor are there any spokespeople for the interests of the “Anglo orientated community”. We all know that they are excluded from the multicultural spoils system.

    To quote Greg Clancy in “The Conspiracies of Multiculturalism”:

    “Multiculturalism has divided the Australian population into two social groups – those who are predominantly of Christian descent and of generally Anglo-Saxon or Celtic ethnicity, and the multicultural group. Those belonging to the multicultural group have had a “special” status developed for them by multiculturalism. This status has accompanied the privilege of possessing cultural differences which, irrespective of their social suitability, are to be protected within the multicultural system.”

    “It is a common device, especially amongst those who aren’t very well informed about a topic, to manufacture an artificial ‘category’ or ‘class’ that they apply to every single person who disagrees with them”

    Firstly, Mark O’Connor didn’t come up with the “new class” concept.

    Secondly, as Katherine Betts and others have shown, there is indeed a huge divide between those who support immigration, namely politicians, academics, journalists, business leaders and other members of the “intelligentsia”, and the rest of the Australian population. I don’t see the harm in pointing out that such a social phenemomen exists, and that there is a section of society, a powerful minority, comrprised of educated professionals that strongly favours immigration.

  23. [Continued…]

    Thirdly, your claim that O’Connor is “uninformed” is risible. Why is he “uninformed”? Simply because he doesn’t share your view that further immigration-driven population growth is good for Australia? (Out of interest, Andrew, why exactly do you support mass immigration? Surely you realise that it only has a negative impact on the environment, not to mention wages, unemployment levels, housing costs, social cohesion, urban congestion etc.)

    I’ve noticed that a common device employed by immigration enthusiasts is to dismiss their opponents as “uninformed”, no matter how valid and well-reasoned their arguments are. After reading O’Connor’s “Overloading Australia”, I can attest that he has an impressive grasp of population and immigration issues, unlike, say, Immigration minister Chris Evans who, as O’Connor points out, couldn’t even work out the correct net immigration numbers, or even yourself, Andrew, who onced claimed in an Online Opinion discussion that Australia’s population was actually stabilising!

    “The impacts of population growth are a serious problem for the planet. That’s all the more reason why the response should be rational.”

    And pumping an extra 200,000+ people every year – the world’s largest per capita immigration intake – into the world’s driest inhabited continent is rational? Trying to reduce our national carbon emissions while at the same time deliberately swelling the population by a staggering 60 percent in just 40 years through massive immigration is rational? Telling our existing citizens that they must live with draconian water restrictions just so that government can cram millions more into our cities is rational? Allowing our national immigration policies to be dictated by the housing/construction industries and those seeking access to cheap, compliant labor is rational? Pretending that Australia on its own can somehow ameliorate the global overpopulation problem by allowing itself to become overpopulated is rational?

  24. RD good blog

    sounds as thought i have been right all the time as i have always stated that racism is just a word invented to win an argument when some minority groupe is not getting its way .

  25. RD:

    I guess you will need to familiarise yourself with the new global rationale.

    First we must redistribute populations, before implementing a massive culling of excessive numbers.

    We must abolish religion, race, colour and national borders so we can become ONE GLOBAL VILLAGE.

    Australia must grow enough food to feed 60 million people (regardless of concerns about drought and rising sea levels) and then give almost the whole lot away, so our own people can pay huge prices or starve.

    Natural gas must be collected by Chinese workers for the benefit of China, while Australians go about searching for candles.

    When the television cameras are switched off, Rudd is probably rubbing his hands together with glee and rolling out an even bigger red carpet.

    In the future, if you are not a GLOBALIST, you will be labelled a COMMUNIST under a new definition.

    A GLOBALIST will care about all peoples, even when he is out of a job, starving and living on the streets.

    A COMMUNIST will care about his own country – currently known as a patriot.

    Patriotism will become the anti-thesis of Globalism.

  26. Lorikeet, your comments were quite remarkable. I think what you call “communism” is actually a a form of corporatism that has become the dominant global mode. Neolib jargon and ideas is as much a part of this as anything recalled from the days of active Communism.
    Heterogenising and homogenising, as the po-mos say.
    Whilst I agree with you that socialists are often motivated by the best of intentions, It therefore baffles me thus that so many then “can” socialists and socialism with so little investigation, on the basis of incessant commentary from idiots like Rupert Murdoch and Alan Jones.
    As to Tony’s comment , I do not, sincerely I do not, think he was trying to compliment the individual he was attacking.
    As for Alan Bartlett’s comment about being proud of being part of the nations brightest and best, as he would be if awarded a fellowship at ANU, I yet would still counsel that the so-called elites communicate more patiently and openly, with the rest.
    I noted the moderate tone of Burnside this morning in the press and hope others feel also like maintaining their patience and continue explaining their enthusiam for complex ideas and plans to those of less-endowed with intelligence and wit, who may also have been disrupted by “policy failure ” and the like.

  27. RD said:

    “By the the “Anglo orientated community”, I think you mean the majority of Australians, most of whom see themselves as unhypenated Australians, not some self-interested, dual passport-wielding diasporic community that feels the need to play the divisive game of identity politics.”

    Sounds like you’re the one trying to use divisive language RD. I suspect the largest group of dual citizens ni Australia are those who also have UK citizenship. It is certainly true that one of the largest groups who live here for prolonged periods of time as permanent residents without bothering to take out Australian citizenship are Britsh citizens. (Not that I oppose that – they’re perfectly entitled to live here without becoming citizens).

    RD says: “Nor are there any spokespeople for the interests of the “Anglo orientated community”. We all know that they are excluded from the multicultural spoils system.”

    More divisive distortions, as is your quote from Greg Clancy – you seem very keen to create and then highlight a divide, which of course is the exaact opposite of multiculturalism. There is no ‘multicultural spoils system’ – if you want to see which section of the community gets the largest per capita access to wealth and influence, it certainly wouldn’t be people from a non-English speaking background.

    I don’t really care who manufactured the false straw man of a ‘new class’. Mr O’Connor certainly presents his “theory” as though it;s his, but it makes no difference to the fact it’s nonsense.

    You seem to also be doing the same thing you accussed me of, in saying everyone who disagrees with you is misinformed. Mr O’Connor’s book is barely undergraduate level – error strewn and showing little knowledge of how our immigration system works, let alone the factors behind population growth. His public speeches are worse.

    It’s a pity, as there’s an important debate to be had about population and its impact on the planet’s ecosystems. But it has to be based around facts not myths and ignorance, let alone in a context where it is being run side by side with divisive rhetoric that seeks to marginalise particular groups of migrants or particular groups of Australians.

    Red Crab, when you say “that racism is just a word invented to win an argument when some minority groupe is not getting its way.” So what word do you suggest should be used to describe racist actions or racist language, if people aren’t allowed to use ‘racism’?

  28. RD also tried to reinforce the myth that there is some “huge divide between those who support immigration” (who supposedly are some illdefined minority group of “intelligensia”) and “the rest of the Australian population”

    It is worth noting the results from the Australian Election Study’s Trends in Political Opinion surveys over a number of years. They show that the percentage of people who say “the number of migrants allowed into Australia at the present time” is either “about right” or “not far enough” goes from over 56% in 1998 to 65% in 2001, 69% in 2004 to 60% in 2007. The percentage who say migrations numbers have “much too far” has been below 20% since 2001. This was over a time when Australia’s immigration intake was increasing significantly. The proportion of Australians who would support the sort of extremist zero-net migration proposed by Mr O’Connor and his boosters would undoubtedly in the minority, despite their continued suggestions they speak for some silent majority.

    As I said, it’s an important debate, so it’s a good idea to do everything possible to keep reality and evidence based.

  29. Paul Says: Lorikeet, your comments were quite remarkable. I think what you call “communism” is actually a a form of corporatism that has become the dominant global mode

    More like a Corporate Socialist state. The aim of the current crop or duoply of government in this country(and others) is just that. The rise of the Nanny state (or control of the population) is definetly being driven by the socialists while working in hand with the free marketeers driving the increasing drift towards corporatism.

    This will lead to the creation of a nation of good corporate citizens institutionalised from 4 to age 70. (exactly what we are seeing emerge)

    Socialism working hand in hand with corporatism is not unlike the era of Nazism, where the only missing element is nationalism. The corporate raiders have managed to steal most of our country’s assets with the help of our duoply and that seems to be continueing. The current government is looking once again to gain control and provide a trading currency for the corporates by the introduction of the CPRS.

    Government and big business will win out again at the expense of the poorest members of the community. Socialism (the control device) and corporatism are woking hand in hand to achieve a common goal.

    Multiculturalism and the promotion thereof is a great weapon for this goal as national culture is frowned upon and nationalism dies out. Remember for them to achieve a true global government each nation must be inter-dependent. No nation is to be independent. That way central control or centralism can be easily achieved.

    Both the ALP and Liberal party in this country are centralist in their ideals and policy makeup. Hence we all need to be looking at policy that pushes us in the direction of a mixed economy that will help stop this drive and rebuild our nation for the good of our future generations.

    As for Senator Ludwig. He should stick to being a Senator.

    Tony

  30. andrew fare comment but as iv sead before for the word to be truly recognized it has to be a two way street not just for some groups to use excusivley . mabe discrimination is a better word .

    example

    if a person of ethnic desent is called some inapropriet name relatind to there race its racest but if and person of none ethnic background is called something along the same lines then its not racest.

    this is what happens in the real world untill both sides are treated equilly the im afraid that the word racist means nothing.

  31. Paul Walter:

    Then I think you will understand that communism and corporatism (capitalism) are not only shaking hands, but are AT ONE with global governance.

    Red Crab:

    I think I know what you mean. Not long ago, a bus driver was speaking with 2 black African boys regarding fare evasion. Then a woman stepped in and started abusing the bus driver and calling him a racist.

    Since the same kids had been in trouble before for not having the correct ticket, I told the woman not to undermine authority, and just let the bus driver do his job.

    I didn’t have time to tell her the kids had been in trouble before, since my bus had arrived.

  32. Amazing what people come up with they sit down for a chat in good faith. Am actually start to regard people I’ve disagreed within the past as people quite worth a conversation with, after all.
    Whatever else, its obvious we concerned with the sense of a democratic deficit and and a gradual movement in favour of closed-door collusion at the expense of openess and accountability right across the three tiers of government; private and public, also the role of the fourth estate, (independent) public service, judiciary etc.
    So those of us still interested become a little like the remnants in Bradbury’s “Farenheit 451”, conducting a rear-guard action in favour of civil society as the best means devised yet to regulate vested interests, test ideological claims and hold executive figues to account.
    We all see this previous balance sidestepped by the US, China, oil states, Russia, and Europe as they seek to expand or maintain their slice of the pie a the expense of others.
    Watching Alan Kohler’s business show this morning, watched a fascinating story about an entrepreneur who had developed a marvellous gizmo for storing electrical power that can then be fed back into the grid when applicable. Unlike in certain countries, local authorities, however, still have not moved to structure contracts, etc, to allow this warehoused energy back into the system.
    It’s only circumstantial, but yes, you can begin interpret this as an example of a pattern of collusion of a constellation of corporate, government and civil service interests to block off changes to a given model, eg a conscious creation of a “situational bad” for the model, at the expense of maifestly obvious optimum utilisation of scarce resources.
    Because that amorphous mass we refer to as “the system”, largely now controlled by interests well offshore, has decided this is how the structures are to operate, ie, free trade agreements and intergovernmental alignings and harmonisings, NOT for an efficient use for all.

  33. Edward:

    The process of moving from one country to another is called “immigration.”
    “Migration” is what birds do.

    This is quite incorrect. “Immigration” refers to the activity of people moving into a country, or arriving at it. “Emigration” refers to people moving away from a country. “Migration” refers to the entire process, and is the proper term if you wish to refer to arrivals in the context of where they’ve come from.

    The use of “migratory” to describe behaviours in the animal world is entirely by analogy with the human world. Don’t confuse the order in which you learned about two things with the order in which they actually occurred.

  34. Don’t worry about Tony, Andrew, the DLP isn’t exactly your support base.

    Good luck with your new endeavour. If I were in Brisbane you’d have my vote.

  35. Now Anderw will be able to let us into the real secrets of the green globalist corporatist junta.

    Truth be known its all about power, alwasy has been and alwasy will be. through the dewy eyed paul dreaming of an engaged open transparent empowered citizens to lorikeet and Tony’s fear driven ostrich approach.

    Todays idealists aer tomorrows dictators, all systems eventually aim for and fall on the same premise. they start with grand intent and end in corruption and squabbling over power.

  36. Ken

    Ken Says: Truth be known its all about power, alwasy has been and alwasy will be. through the dewy eyed paul dreaming of an engaged open transparent empowered citizens to lorikeet and Tony’s fear driven ostrich approach

    What a load of rubbish Ken.

    Andrew was the one denying that the Dems had moved too far to the left. This just supports what everyone has been saying.
    That the Dems moved so far to the left they ended up in the greens lap.

    If the CPRS is not about Taxing and controlling people than what is it for. No one believes for one second that it will make any difference to
    climate change cycles.

    Tony

  37. Tony

    I didn’t realise I had to tell you first. I would note that neither of the links you provided say anything about me ‘moving to the left’. It’s very dishonest to label a link to a story as something completely diffrerent to what the story is about, but don’t let any blatant misrepresentation stop you.

    The Democrats didn’t move to the left – as any reasoned look at the statements and positions taken by that party over its history shows – and I haven’t gone anywhere. All me being a Green shows is that they are a party with an approach and policies which are suitable for the mainstream.

    Unless you’re one of those who believe the Greens are just patr of a Labor-Liberal-Green corproate communist one world government take over, in which case it’s not really worth trying to have a sensible conversation with you.

    (sorry, ‘pro-death’ corproate communist one world government take over)

  38. Well I hope everyone is going off to see the new movie that started on 5 November, especially Ken.

    “Capitalism: A Love Story”

    It is a documentary about the extremely negative effects of corporatism.

    Starting tomorrow 12 November is the movie which shows what the Climate God will do if you don’t pay your carbon tax, such as tear the world apart with massive earthquakes:

    “2012”

    BTW our federal government has just decided to allow global corporatists to continue to profit from our writing, publishing and printing industries.

    Ken and Andrew:

    I think both of you are deliberately feigning ignorance.

    Only a few weeks ago, when I mentioned The Greens’ policy on Global Governance, Andrew said he had never heard of it.

Comments are closed.