So does that mean it's easy to get in as long as we're not Zog?

Awesome.. I can refrain from holding my arm out and yelling HEIL!!! for awhile..

Although personally I just think Beazley was trying to sound like he's just as "fair dinkum" as Howard and fighting for "Australianness", his ideas do have some merit.

New immigrants coming to Australia could at least be made aware of the way society functions here. Making a test out of it though is just nonsense. Just give them some presentations,  and try to make it clear to them this society functions the way it does and that you need to learn how to adapt to it.

But in the end, people are free to believe pretty much what they like in Australia fd, and you can't  change that, no matter how much you'd like to.

You need to understand though that there's a very fine line between mandatory acceptance of Australian values, and denying people political freedom. Otherwise opposition parties could soon be banned because their policies are the opposite of the rulings party.

If anyone who wants to change laws/values etc. becomes anti-Australian and an affront to Australian values, then pretty much all opposition parties will be out. Because they all seek in some way or another to modify those things..

Quote:


Beazley, get rid of mateship you clown. No wonder no-one took this seriously. I think democracy is more important than respect for our laws. If someone doesn't think democracy is the best form of government, don't let them in.

The equal treatment of women is an important one.

Quote:


Another good suggestion. It needs to be more than signing on on a bit of paper.

Quote:


Strawman.

Quote:


Abu I'm not trying to change what Australians believe with this. I think we should change who we let into this country, that's all.

Quote:


This is about denying them Australian citizenship, which I think is totally reasonable. It is not about denying citizens political freedom.

Quote:


That's a bit of a stretch Abu. It is a citizenship test. Valuing democracy is all about valuing the right of people to form opposition parties.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 9:38am:



Freedom of conscience is not feedom of action. And there is a mile, rather than a fine line, between accepting Australia values and freedom of political action. It is called treason.

The fine line is, rather, between dislike of and opposition to political islam and islamophobia
Like this example from Al-Canada shows:

Which side of the war would you like to be on? 
Old-fashioned types might think that those Britons - okay, make that "Britons" - helping to manufacture bombs for the Taliban are engaged in an act of treason. But, as a current court case in Quebec helps clarify, giving support to the Queen's enemies in their attempts to kill your compatriots is now just another vibrant, colourful manifestation of cultural diversity.
As the International Free Press Society notes, Said Namouh is on trial up north for aiding and abetting terrorism. The Crown charges that Mr Namouh distributed jihadist snuff videos, offered advice on bomb-making, volunteered his expertise for a planned truck bombing, and threatened governments (including Canada's) with troops in Afghanistan. Defence counsel René Duvall doesn't deny any of this, but says his client's enthusiasm for violent jihad is protected on grounds of freedom of religion and (mirthless chuckle from your humble typist) Canadians' cherished right to freedom of expression. As Maître Duvall put it outside the court, "Where do you draw the line?"

In fact, the line seems to be pretty clear: If a jihadist says he wants to kill Canadian troops, he's just exercising his right to freedom of religion. If I quote what he said in Canada's biggest-selling news weekly, we'll be charged with "flagrant Islamophobia" and hauled up in court.
[Mark Steyn]

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2009 at 10:50pm:


Perhaps we should look to Britain for an example.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/world/multiculturalism-policies-in-britain-a-failure-says-pm-david-cameron/story-e6frea9c-1226000767482

PRIME Minister David Cameron has condemned Britain's long-standing policy of multiculturalism as a failure, calling for better integration of young Muslims to combat home-grown extremism.

In a speech to the Munich Security Conference, Mr Cameron signalled a marked change in policy towards Britain's ethnic and religious minorities, saying the "hands-off tolerance" of those who reject Western values has failed.

He urged a "more active, muscular liberalism" where equal rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and democracy are actively promoted to create a stronger national identity.

"If we are to defeat this threat, I believe it's time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past," he said.

It was Mr Cameron's first major speech on Islamist extremism, an issue of major concern for British governments ever since four home-grown suicide bombers attacked the London transport system in 2005, killing 52 people.

The Prime Minister, who took power last May, argued that "under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream".

He said this had resulted in a lack of national identity in Britain which had made some young Muslims turn to extremist ideology.

"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," Mr Cameron said.

"A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values.

"A genuinely liberal country does much more. It believes in certain values and actively promotes them.... It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society."

Mr Cameron clearly distinguished between Islam the religion and the political ideology of Islamist extremism, saying they "are not the same thing".

But he argued that non-violent organisations which present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community but are ambiguous on Western values should no longer receive state funding, and should be banned from university campuses.

His speech echoed controversial remarks made by German Chancellor Angela Merkel last year, when she also called multiculturalism a failure, saying Germany had not devoted enough attention to the integration of immigrants.

"What I mean to say is that for years, for decades, the approach was that integration was not something that needed to be addressed, that people would live side-by-side and that it would sort itself out," Ms Merkel said in November.

"This turned out to be false."

Abu you greasy toad if you don't want to live by our rules F**K off back to the slime hole you used to call home.

Ok, FD, now I'm sort of curious as to why you included Zionism with Nazism and Islamism??