After ruling that a planned Muslim school should not be allowed to go ahead in their community, Camden Council is now asking the Federal Government to give them some money to run, of all things, programs to promote “multiculturalism”.
Camden Council wants federal funding
May 30th, 2008 | Austrolabe | Uncategorized
37 comments ↓
If the council wanted to promote tolerance, they should have approved the school and let the Muslims come in. The best way for us to get along is to mix with one another and to understand each other.
The planning argument is just a cop out. The council received a flood of anti-muslim school emails and they couldn’t possibly go against it because they are after all meant to represent the views of the people.
Not a lot of logic so far … If in fact the council decided to not allow it because their constituents didn’t want it (and there is no shred of evidence that that is the case), why WOULDN’T they want to run multicultural programmes to prevent that sort of thing happening in the future?
Absolutely they should receive funding to run programs to increase acceptance of cultural and religious diversity! How else do you think racist attitudes are going to be seriously challenged in Camden.
If they wanted to challenge racist attitudes, they should have approved the school. I have read their reasons and there is nothing there that couldn’t have been easily resolved.
It would be a great idea for the council to start these programs, and for the different communities of Camden to get involved in them.
Though the mayor of Camden’s statement was a little confusing. Last paragraph of the Australian article.
“How else do you think racist attitudes are going to be seriously challenged in Camden.”
No wonder their kids don’t speak Islam. Turns out it’s a race!
This whole “it’s not racism because Islam isn’t a race” angle is tiresome. Ethnocentric would be the more appropriate term but its just playing semantics. Whatever terminology is correct it is ugly xenophobic hatred that we are discussing and whether it is based on race, culture, gender or even religion it is all pretty much the and hairsplitting like this just privileges race over culture or religion or whatever other factor under the guise of intellectual rigour.
I beg to differ. I have no problem with anyone objecting to some one else’s cultural behaviour or religious practices - female genital mutilation, honour killings, bride napping, forced marriages… All cultural practices, none of which is comparable to an immutable state of being like race.
There is a world of difference between objecting to cultural or religious practices and using those cultural or religious practices it as a cloak for xenophobia.
Absolutely, but that doesn’t change the fact that race, culture and religious practice are not the same thing.
Oh FFS. Just what we need, more fricking multiculti. This crap has brought us to this tedious place in the first place. No, they can not have any money for multiculti. Time to ban the vapid word from all government documents. Replace it with “Australian.” Given the clear Skippification and infidelising of the Salam Cafe crowd, it is clear assimilation is much cheaper and more effective.
Islam is like Communism. It is a political ideology and can therefore be celebrated and pursued or reviled as such.
There is only one alternative to multiculturalism - monoculturalism. And there are only 2 ways to get that. Either you don’t allow different cultures into the country or you make people assimialte once they are here.
Having visited south Africa prior to the end of apartheid I really, really don’t like monoculturalism. It’s BORING.
Multiculturalism does bring its own problems but it is the only realistic policy.
Multiculturalism is good but where it becomes problematic is when it’s something that is managed/dictated by the state. It should be natural and organic.
“Islam is like Communism. It is a political ideology and can therefore be celebrated and pursued or reviled as such.”
Another kaffir expert.
Interesting that G-man brought up the topic of FGM, despite Muslim lies, FGM is an authentic Islamic tradition, see Tabari II:72.
I also particularly like Allah’s seniors program, see Tabari VIII:96, ah yes, Islam provides hours of amusement.
“Multiculturalism is good but where it becomes problematic is when it’s something that is managed/dictated by the state. It should be natural and organic.”
Possibly, but be specific. Surely the Camden experience is a result of ‘natural and organic’ xenophobia.
Its really rather simple.
A goodly portion of society is already enamoured with our multicultural society to some extent. They like the food, culture and art that it brings to their lives that they would not ordinarily experience in a monocultural society. This is a good thing, in my view. The work is already done.
There are those portions of our society that are not in anyway enamoured with our multicultural society. They may feel this way for a number of reasons; a dislike of difference, annoyance with differing and difficult cultural mores, a fear that their cultural heritage and traditions are under threat and/or a fear that their way of life are under thread. Let them like or hate, fear or be annoyed as they wish.
The Camden experience may be a result of ‘natural and organic’ xenophobia. It remains then for individual responsibility and voluntary community interaction to bring about whatever ‘natural and organic’ understanding it may come to. If there is never an understanding formed, then so be it. As long as no one person or group employs aggression against any other person or group including their property, then there is no reason why society cannot function.
The market will take care of those who handicap themselves with xenophobia, while at the same time, preventing cynical politicians from using societal fault lines for their advantage.
Why would ‘the market’ sort it out? Your contention implies that ‘the market’ has ethical concerns - which it doesn’t. Or you’re implying that xenophobia is a wrong because it is ‘against nature’ or something, which will automatically disappear if people do what they like. i see no evidence of this.
Education is about changing the way people think. Propaganda if you like. Nothing to do with ‘the market’.
It’s all very well to say that multiculturalism becomes a problem only when government tries to manage or dictate it, but who else but is going to manage issues like, for example, the demand for a call to prayer in Oxford, all to cater to 700 people who simply can’t live without it, or the insistence that public swimming pools must be closed to men to allow Muslim women to bathe. This type of cultural imperialism is guaranteed to generate xenophobia, and little wonder.
The fact that half the blame should be directed at Left wing social engineers is lost on most of the people who are affected by this sort of thing and start to resent it. So, who gets to make decisions about these sorts of matters, and who is to blame for the resulting xenophobia?
In a better world, most of the issues you have mentioned would be resolved through property rights and freedom of contract. For example, a pool owner could decide who they wanted to allow to use it and when.
Right. Like the pools in Queensland used to ban Aborigines on the grounds of their race.
Well it would resolve the swimming pool issue I guess, although I’m not sure it would be a better world given the resentment of any group that was excluded for one reason or another. But what about the call to prayer issue? It’s not like you could have the sound waves stop at the border of your property, and even if you could that would defeat the purpose. From the perspective of the locals it was a case of “this is Britain not Pakistan”, while the mosque spokesperson insisted that “we are a people and you must take the whole package when we move here”. I can’t see how that can be resolved by any notions of private property.
“or the insistence that public swimming pools must be closed to men to allow Muslim women to bathe.”
This is the sort of hogwash you guys just love to spew forth. Show me a single example of INSISTENCE as opposed to the many requests. How is it cultural imperialism to ask for an accomodation? No one is being made to conform and the request only applies to a portion of the whole time the facility is available.
Is it some form of Imperialism when a pool is closed or its use is seriously restricted because of a swimming carnival, or is that OK because it is already an accepted part of the Australian way? Making a comparison with the racism directed against Aborigines is hardly relevant and smacks of hyperbole and hysteria.
Interesting topic,maybe we could ask the guys attending The Islamic Unity Conference for some answers :)?
Abdul Rahman, Amir suggests that pool owners be allowed to exclude who they want, when they want. Presumably he imagines that the Aborigines so excluded will use their market muscle to open pools that will let them in. It IS a very silly idea, I agree.
I suggest that people should have sovereignty over their private property and that means they should be able to provide access to whoever they want and exclude access to whoever they want.
In the case of a swimming pool, then I suppose if someone bought some land and built a swimming pool on it, he or she might decide to exclude certain groups of people from using it. However, there would be several social and economic consequences for the pool owner: he would likely be exposed as a racist and bigot and experience social sanction as a result; he would miss out on not just the potential swimmers he excludes but those who would boycott his pool in solidarity with the excluded; and so on.
Unfortunately, part of accepting people’s property rights is accepting their right to also behave stupidly and offensively.
In the case of a public pool (as most are), then obviously it’s a completely different issue and given they are funded by taxpayers, they have to provide the service to all taxpayers regardless of race, religion, colour, etc.
For once, you are right Antish. The market does not have any ethical conscience. It is not a living thing. Human beings, however, do have an ethical conscience. Most human beings of conscience will not stand for open prejudice the likes of the pool aboriginals in this era.
Those who would punish themselves by turning away potential customers for no good reason will be out competed by those who would not handicap themselves in that manner. The latter businesses could even mount an advertising blitz highlighting the racism of the former, winning over customers sickened by the idea of patronizing a bunch of racists.
One could organise boycotts, pickets and a number of other economic measures that do not violate the aggression to apply pressure to those racists. Pretty soon, the only customers of the former business will be those like minded people who will pay an extra premium for service with a side of racism.
Eudie, I don’t think so. There are plenty of white enclaves up and down Australia’s east coast which would be very happy to have the freedom to ban wogs, slopes and darkies.
Also, why aren’t you lauding the Camden community’s self-determination in deciding that they don’t want Muslims? The worst they’re going to suffer if an onslaught of bureaucrats running multicultural programmes. Surely Kate Wossername’s vision of Australia (locals deciding who their neighbours will be) is exactly the same as yours
What I find amusing when you try to put your ideas into a real context is that you end up having to imagine larger and larger activities to mitigate the damage - advertisng blitzes, huge protests - when it is far more EFFICIENT to accept the market’s decision to run things via elected representatives making laws.
The issue with Camden is that the “Camden community” tried to usurp the property rights of the school (who owned the land they wanted to build on). I don’t agree with that.
People don’t have a right to decide who their neighbours are but they do have a right to decide who they sell their properties to, how their property is used and who may access/enjoy their property. Meanwhile, the rest of us have the right to ridicule and mock people who decide to exercise these property rights in an irresponsible or stupid way.
Yes, they should have passed a law forbidding the sale of land to Muslims. Silly them.
Well, no, because I’d still say that property rights trump any law that the local council or government wishes to pass. And by passing such a law, they are interfering with the property rights of all those Camdenese who might not mind selling their property to Muslims.
ANY law? So if a Tasmanian tiger turn up on my land I can kill it?
You’re under Eudie’s delusion that with a bit of tweaking ‘property rights’ is a great way to run things. Newsflash - when all the tweaks are in place you end up with a system nearly indistinguishable from the system currently in place - you can do whatever you like with your own property as long as it doesn’t adversley affect anyone else.
If you find a tiger wandering around your property, you can kill it. What’s wrong with that?
IM … IM … You have an odd worldview.
How about if you find a Jew wandering around your property?
Leave a Comment