THE Grand Mufti of Australia and Islamic leaders have united to reject the fatwa issued against Australia

by veya_victaous Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:22 am

First topic message reminder :

THE Grand Mufti of Australia and other Islamic leaders have united to reject the fatwa issued by against Australia by members of the terrorist group IS.

The Grand Mufti of Australia Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohamed made his comments in Sydney at a press conference today, saying: “The sanctity of life is of paramount importance to all people of faith and to all people of goodwill.”

Lebanese Muslim Association president Samier Dandan also revealed that four Australian mosques in Sydney had received threats in the wake of recent incidents.

He condemned the IS threats, saying: “We do not stand for our faith to be hijacked by any minority group whatsoever.”

“God forbid something happens here and it only takes one person, who would pay the price the most? That’s my biggest fear.”

“We all play a role, we all need to come together as one family making sure the notion of family is very strong.”

“We don’t want our youth to be instructed by Imam YouTube or Sheikh Google and this is the dilemma.”

http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/Muslim-man-shot-dead-in-melbourne-was-known-terror-suspect/story-fnii5sms-1227068663096

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:15 am

veya_victaous wrote:
would you like me to burn your Lord of the Rings collection?
not the same, the question should be how would he like you to buy the lord of the rings books and burn you're own copies... I don't think Victor is saying he should be allowed to take someone else's book and light it on fire.

exactly veya...but thats the problem with didge.....he twists everyting to suit his agenda....and invents false equivalences

DO Church bells still ring in England????? Isn't that annoying?
they generally don't here maybe on Christmas or Easter but that's pretty much it. definitely not in a time keeping capacity?

fewre and fewer are ringing out the time, due to the costs of maintaining them....some in the cities do

HOWEVER...there is a law here that says IF you have a clock on a public building IT MUST either be stopped and the hands set to 12.00 OR it must be accurate and there are (though not usually exacted) penalties for non compliance.

besides, the noise from the church clok ringing out the time is insignificant and doesnt compare even to the bells used to call to service (a full peal of bells in some cases) and neither of them compare to the earth shattering nerve jarring howl that emanates from a mosque calling the failthful in......didge is trying that old hack of comparing apples to bananas (not that the monkey can actually peel either but still.....)

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:21 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
not the same, the question should be how would he like you to buy the lord of the rings books and burn you're own copies... I don't think Victor is saying he should be allowed to take someone else's book and light it on fire.

exactly veya...but thats the problem with didge.....he twists everyting to suit his agenda....and invents false equivalences

DO Church bells still ring in England????? Isn't that annoying?
they generally don't here maybe on Christmas or Easter but that's pretty much it. definitely not in a time keeping capacity?

fewre and fewer are ringing out the time, due to the costs of maintaining them....some in the cities do

HOWEVER...there is a law here that says IF you have a clock on a public building IT MUST either be stopped and the hands set to 12.00 OR it must be accurate and there are (though not usually exacted) penalties for non compliance.

besides, the noise from the church clok ringing out the time is insignificant and doesnt compare even to the bells used to call to service (a full peal of bells in some cases) and neither of them compare to the earth shattering nerve jarring howl that emanates from a mosque calling the failthful in......didge is trying that old hack of comparing apples to bananas (not that the monkey can actually peel either but still.....)

Utter babble again, our church bells go off all the time and when they do you cannot fail to notice them, but we have got used to them.
The fact you use some lame reason to justify your hatred towards Muslims is quite pathetic really, as I bet if this was any other faith you would not bat an eyelid and this is where your counters fall apart, you look for reasons to excuse hating people and again the Nazis did the same to the Jews, which is no surprise being you are a self confessed national socialist, about the most daftest political view poit you can have

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:26 am

The reality is multiculturalism does work, and you have no valid argument to claim otherwise, because people can and do generally live in peace.

while true, we do have to accept it doesn't work everywhere and Look at why it doesn't work... Now it would be easy to say "well Englishmen as wankers so that's why it is struggling in England" but that would be simplifying the issue.

Victor May have a point about the way multiculturalism is being instituted in England, the amount of support EDL and others get highlights there is some issues. Looking at numbers things that stand out are;
UK has gone from very little to reasonable levels of immigration in quite a small space of time.
there has not been the 'variety of immigrants' nations like Australia and the USA have gotten.
there hasn't been effective integration encouragement or community unity projects which is highlighted by the ethnic ghettos.

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:30 am

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

fewre and fewer are ringing out the time, due to the costs of maintaining them....some in the cities do

HOWEVER...there is a law here that says IF you have a clock on a public building IT MUST either be stopped and the hands set to 12.00 OR it must be accurate and there are (though not usually exacted) penalties for non compliance.

besides, the noise from the church clok ringing out the time is insignificant and doesnt compare even to the bells used to call to service (a full peal of bells in some cases) and neither of them compare to the earth shattering nerve jarring howl that emanates from a mosque calling the failthful in......didge is trying that old hack of comparing apples to bananas (not that the monkey can actually peel either but still.....)

Utter babble again, our church bells go off all the time and when they do you cannot fail to notice them, but we have got used to them.
The fact you use some lame reason to justify your hatred towards Muslims is quite pathetic really, as I bet if this was any other faith you would not bat an eyelid and this is where your counters fall apart, you look for reasons to excuse hating people and again the Nazis did the same to the Jews, which is no surprise being you are a self confessed national socialist, about the most daftest political view poit you can have

fact 1 ...you are conflating national socialism with "hitlerism"...would you consider all socialists as "stalinsts"? you have no real understanding of the so called 3rd position do you....
fact 2 more "invention and distortion" because you cant find facts to argue with.....(highlighted in red)
fact 3 you have lied and twisted...but nowhere shown evidence of hatered towards Muslims in any of this evenings discourse.....
fact 4...I would be quite happy with a mosque "up the road" on a few conditions....one they restrict their noise level to the exact same level as the church bells are to my location....and secondly if there is ANY eveidence of "hate preaching or terrorist activity found to be going on in its walls it will immediately be closed down permanently......

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:32 am

veya_victaous wrote:
The reality is multiculturalism does work, and you have no valid argument to claim otherwise, because people can and do generally live in peace.

while true, we do have to accept it doesn't work everywhere and Look at why it doesn't work... Now it would be easy to say "well Englishmen as wankers so that's why it is struggling in England" but that would be simplifying the issue.

Victor May have a point about the way multiculturalism is being instituted in England, the amount of support EDL and others get highlights there is some issues. Looking at numbers things that stand out are;
UK has gone from very little to reasonable levels of immigration in quite a small space of time.
there has not been the 'variety of immigrants' nations like Australia and the USA have gotten.
there hasn't been effective integration encouragement or community unity projects which is highlighted by the ethnic ghettos.

That is an absurd outlook, if somewhere is not working at present does not mean it does not work, it just means people need to get by differences, though it certainly works in this country very well.,
Victor never has a point because he is going off a reason not to get on with people when others can. The EDL was formed as a hate group, not shared by the majority of a nation.
We have over 150 different nations of immigrants her, so we have no doubt far more than Australia does, so no idea where you get that perception from.
The reality is the US was the same when it first had mass migration, childish idiots who were against it, but over time this changed.
The reality is it does work here as again if it find not you were have mass unrest, of which there is none

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:32 am

veya_victaous wrote:
The reality is multiculturalism does work, and you have no valid argument to claim otherwise, because people can and do generally live in peace.

while true, we do have to accept it doesn't work everywhere and Look at why it doesn't work... Now it would be easy to say "well Englishmen as wankers so that's why it is struggling in England" but that would be simplifying the issue.

Victor May have a point about the way multiculturalism is being instituted in England, the amount of support EDL and others get highlights there is some issues. Looking at numbers things that stand out are;
UK has gone from very little to reasonable levels of immigration in quite a small space of time.
there has not been the 'variety of immigrants' nations like Australia and the USA have gotten.
there hasn't been effective integration encouragement or community unity projects which is highlighted by the ethnic ghettos.

christ on a bike Veya...dont say that....the next thing you know you will be joining the noble ranks of the "bigots and haters" club (you can see how much didges arbitrary rantings worry me ....)

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:34 am

Didge wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

while true, we do have to accept it doesn't work everywhere and Look at why it doesn't work... Now it would be easy to say "well Englishmen as wankers so that's why it is struggling in England" but that would be simplifying the issue.

Victor May have a point about the way multiculturalism is being instituted in England, the amount of support EDL and others get highlights there is some issues. Looking at numbers things that stand out are;
UK has gone from very little to reasonable levels of immigration in quite a small space of time.
there has not been the 'variety of immigrants' nations like Australia and the USA have gotten.
there hasn't been effective integration encouragement or community unity projects which is highlighted by the ethnic ghettos.

That is an absurd outlook, if somewhere is not working at present does not mean it does not work, it just means people need to get by differences, though it certainly works in this country very well.,
Victor never has a point because he is going off a reason not to get on with people when others can. The EDL was formed as a hate group, not shared by the majority of a nation.
We have over 150 different nations of immigrants her, so we have no doubt far more than Australia does, so no idea where you get that perception from.
The reality is the US was the same when it first had mass migration, childish idiots who were against it, but over time this changed.
The reality is it does work here as again if it find not you were have mass unrest, of which there is none

YET......

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:35 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
would you like me to burn your Lord of the Rings collection?
not the same, the question should be how would he like you to buy the lord of the rings books and burn you're own copies... I don't think Victor is saying he should be allowed to take someone else's book and light it on fire.

exactly veya...but thats the problem with didge.....he twists everyting to suit his agenda....and invents false equivalences

DO Church bells still ring in England????? Isn't that annoying?
they generally don't here maybe on Christmas or Easter but that's pretty much it. definitely not in a time keeping capacity?

fewre and fewer are ringing out the time, due to the costs of maintaining them....some in the cities do

HOWEVER...there is a law here that says IF you have a clock on a public building IT MUST either be stopped and the hands set to 12.00 OR it must be accurate and there are (though not usually exacted) penalties for non compliance.

besides, the noise from the church clok ringing out the time is insignificant and doesnt compare even to the bells used to call to service (a full peal of bells in some cases) and neither of them compare to the earth shattering nerve jarring howl that emanates from a mosque calling the failthful in......didge is trying that old hack of comparing apples to bananas (not that the monkey can actually peel either but still.....)

See here is the thing on the mosque calls (like any corporation religious or not) it should be held to the same noise pollution standards as anyone else. meaning limitations on decibel at certain hours, with higher levels allowed in Industrial zones than Residential. that's what we have here.
there are 3 mosques near me none of which do the call thing particularly as they are in residential areas, but there is a Big Sikh temple(largest religious building in area) and smaller Buddhist and Hindi temples in the Area, probably 3 Christian churches still operating although one is multi denominational and is basically just rented out like a community hall.

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:35 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

Utter babble again, our church bells go off all the time and when they do you cannot fail to notice them, but we have got used to them.
The fact you use some lame reason to justify your hatred towards Muslims is quite pathetic really, as I bet if this was any other faith you would not bat an eyelid and this is where your counters fall apart, you look for reasons to excuse hating people and again the Nazis did the same to the Jews, which is no surprise being you are a self confessed national socialist, about the most daftest political view poit you can have

fact 1 ...you are conflating national socialism with "hitlerism"...would you consider all socialists as "stalinsts"? you have no real understanding of the so called 3rd position do you....
fact 2 more "invention and distortion" because you cant find facts to argue with.....(highlighted in red)
fact 3 you have lied and twisted...but nowhere shown evidence of hatered towards Muslims in any of this evenings discourse.....
fact 4...I would be quite happy with a mosque "up the road" on a few conditions....one they restrict their noise level to the exact same level as the church bells are to my location....and secondly if there is ANY eveidence of "hate preaching or terrorist activity found to be going on in its walls it will immediately be closed down permanently......

Incorrect, I am not confusing Hitler with national socialism, I have studied this and know it to be absurd, hence why you follow stupidity.
You have no reason to justify wanting to burn a specific book based on hate, that is a fact, there is no reason unless your intent is to intend to offend others by doing so.
So by your reasoning if there is hate coming from your house of which is proven to be the case and you are in fact an extremist, we can close down your house then?

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:40 am

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

fact 1 ...you are conflating national socialism with "hitlerism"...would you consider all socialists as "stalinsts"? you have no real understanding of the so called 3rd position do you....
fact 2 more "invention and distortion" because you cant find facts to argue with.....(highlighted in red)
fact 3 you have lied and twisted...but nowhere shown evidence of hatered towards Muslims in any of this evenings discourse.....
fact 4...I would be quite happy with a mosque "up the road" on a few conditions....one they restrict their noise level to the exact same level as the church bells are to my location....and secondly if there is ANY eveidence of "hate preaching or terrorist activity found to be going on in its walls it will immediately be closed down permanently......

Incorrect, I am not confusing Hitler with national socialism, I have studied this and know it to be absurd, hence why you follow stupidity.
You have no reason to justify wanting to burn a specific book based on hate, that is a fact, there is no reason unless your intent is to intend to offend others by doing so.

YOU see didge ...here is the lie.......and proof you are a liar and confectioner of distortions......I say once again SHOW ...quote the exact text....that shows where I have said I would do it out of hate...

you have latched on to this like a starving child to a tit, in order to feed your fantasy of "didge the righteous of the church of multiculturalism" and you are totaly risibly wrong...I said NO such thing...indeed YOU are the one who introduced the concept that it would be done out of hate

further you simplistic serpent....you fail to understand the concept of "why cant i as opposed to why would i want to" the one has nothing to do with the other (except in your foetid little amoebic mind)

So by your reasoning if there is hate coming from your house of which is proven to be the case and you are in fact an extremist, we can close down your house then?

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:43 am

I do not need to because you are arguing for a reason to burn a book you know would offend others, so what valid reason do you have to burn the book?
None, thus the intent is one of hate, which is why you cannot argue otherwise when you pick out a specific book.
Multiculturalism is not a church you unhinged loon, it is people getting along with each other, something it seems you are incapable of.
It does not need any works written to make it work or any laws, which is why your view that it is a religion is absurd and shows why you are a dickhead

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:48 am

Didge wrote:I do not need to because you are arguing for a reason to burn a book you know would offend others, so what valid reason do you have to burn the book?
None, thus the intent is one of hate, which is why you cannot argue otherwise when you pick out a specific book.
Multiculturalism is not a church you unhinged loon, it is people getting along with each other, something it seems you are incapable of.
It does not need any works written to make it work or any laws, which is why your view that it is a religion is absurd and shows why you are a dickhead

splutter.....

seriously????

::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

Oh and re read the above ...i added a bit....where you fail to see the difference between ...why cant I as opposed to why should I

if you cant see the difference then you realy are as thick as pig shit.....

so I offer you another POV.....

why (if I should so choose to do, which I dont because its not right) I was to burn that book out of hate...why should I be subject to a greater penalty than those who choose to burn desecrate symbols of remembrance...well...

I notice you dodge answering this as well as the one about drawings and artwork (not as YOU invented and made the lie of disrepectful "cartoons)

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:50 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:I do not need to because you are arguing for a reason to burn a book you know would offend others, so what valid reason do you have to burn the book?
None, thus the intent is one of hate, which is why you cannot argue otherwise when you pick out a specific book.
Multiculturalism is not a church you unhinged loon, it is people getting along with each other, something it seems you are incapable of.
It does not need any works written to make it work or any laws, which is why your view that it is a religion is absurd and shows why you are a dickhead

splutter..... seriously????

::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

Yes seriously, what law do I need to get along with people?

None

Poor child

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:51 am

Didge wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
The reality is multiculturalism does work, and you have no valid argument to claim otherwise, because people can and do generally live in peace.

while true, we do have to accept it doesn't work everywhere and Look at why it doesn't work... Now it would be easy to say "well Englishmen as wankers so that's why it is struggling in England" but that would be simplifying the issue.

Victor May have a point about the way multiculturalism is being instituted in England, the amount of support EDL and others get highlights there is some issues. Looking at numbers things that stand out are;
UK has gone from very little to reasonable levels of immigration in quite a small space of time.
there has not been the 'variety of immigrants' nations like Australia and the USA have gotten.
there hasn't been effective integration encouragement or community unity projects which is highlighted by the ethnic ghettos.

That is an absurd outlook, if somewhere is not working at present does not mean it does not work, it just means people need to get by differences, though it certainly works in this country very well.,
Victor never has a point because he is going off a reason not to get on with people when others can. The EDL was formed as a hate group, not shared by the majority of a nation.
We have over 150 different nations of immigrants her, so we have no doubt far more than Australia does, so no idea where you get that perception from.
The reality is the US was the same when it first had mass migration, childish idiots who were against it, but over time this changed.
The reality is it does work here as again if it find not you were have mass unrest, of which there is none

didge, the NSW education system can teaches children in over 200 languages, we have far more than 150 ethnicities. we literally have enough where Public education caters to over 200 ethnicities.
We are Miles past the UK and the USA in our level of Multiculturalism and you will find only a very small minority here that don't think it is great.

You're not offering a solution besides 'force them'
I am saying the issues need to analysed and resolved as the UK will not be the last, so the lessons can be learnt and applied to other nations that go through that in the future. Unfortunately it is so successful in Australia that it is hard to make suggestions because 'we just did' and it worked. :asdrnkbudsas: :asdrnkbudsas: :asdrnkbudsas: :asdrnkbudsas: many of these issues didn't arise in part because of the short history of our nation and differing attitudes towards change.

Since Multiculturalism in the Right path we should be able to convince them with logical arguments, to deny that there is some difficulty is a lie BUT it is ultimately worth it even if it is just because it changes your perspective on humanity and the national/tribal mindset.

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:54 am

You have far more than 200?
Do you?
There are only 196 countries in the world, so I doubt you do have over 200 different groups of migrants

Our country is leading the way, Australia is not when it sends back boat full of people and in now way is a haven for migrants, in fact it has strict laws on immigration, so your argument is unfounded and very wrong. This country is ope to people and leads the way on diversity

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:57 am

Didge wrote:

Yes seriously, what law do I need to get along with people?

None

Poor child

Sort of need Secularism and separation of Church and state... but they are more safety nets than pre-requisites for getting along with a large variety of people.
anti discrimination laws help too Neutral

IT Would be nice if everyone just got along, but realistically we do need rules, to moderate those with more extreme opinions or tendencies.

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:58 am

Didge wrote:You have far more than 200?
Do you?
There are only 196 countries in the world, so I doubt you do have over 200 different groups of migrants

Our country is leading the way, Australia is not when it sends back boat full of people and in now way is a haven for migrants, in fact it has strict laws on immigration, so your argument is unfounded and very wrong. This country is ope to people and leads the way on diversity

which is why Australia's multiculturalism works....
didges way is to scrap all controls and allow anyone and anything in, our health service is collapsing under the strain, our pensions similarly, our housing is screwed, and out education system is staggering

but hey ho wave a magic wand and all will be well.....OR ...in didges fantasy world ...none of the above is true and all is going swimmingly...

but dont worry Veya...we have homes for the mentally feeble.....and I'll book didge a place tomorrow......

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:59 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Didge wrote:

Yes seriously, what law do I need to get along with people?

None

Poor child

Sort of need Secularism and separation of Church and state... but they are more safety nets than pre-requisites for getting along with a large variety of people.
anti discrimination laws help too

IT Would be nice if everyone just got along, but realistically we do need rules, to moderate those with more extreme opinions or tendencies.

Again do you need a law to get along with someone?

The answer is no, laws are there to protect people, they do not make people get along though, it is down to the individual to do that, thus no law is required to get along with people.
So you do not need rules to get along with people.

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:59 am

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

splutter..... seriously????

::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

Yes seriously, what law do I need to get along with people?

None

Poor child

dont talk out of your arse you cretinous crab, there are rucks of laws ENFORCING multiculturalism, even if its in the negative......

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:02 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:You have far more than 200?
Do you?
There are only 196 countries in the world, so I doubt you do have over 200 different groups of migrants

Our country is leading the way, Australia is not when it sends back boat full of people and in now way is a haven for migrants, in fact it has strict laws on immigration, so your argument is unfounded and very wrong. This country is ope to people and leads the way on diversity

which is why Australia's multiculturalism works....
didges way is to scrap all controls and allow anyone and anything in, our health service is collapsing under the strain, our pensions similarly, our housing is screwed, and out education system is staggering

but hey ho wave a magic wand and all will be well.....OR ...in didges fantasy world ...none of the above is true and all is going swimmingly...

but dont worry Veya...we have homes for the mentally feeble.....and I'll book didge a place tomorrow......

I never made any such claim and shows how easily you are upset.
It takes very little to get along with people, and anyone arguing against doing so bases their reasoning around hate as per usual.
You confuse a house with a right to live in the same country as you which is a failed argument and has no reasoning or logic to it, as again nobody is asking you to share your house are they, so your point as per usual is daft and stupid.
If people can coexist and get along there is no reason for others to not do the same, hence your views are very flawed

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:04 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

Yes seriously, what law do I need to get along with people?

None

Poor child

dont talk out of your arse you cretinous crab, there are rucks of laws ENFORCING multiculturalism, even if its in the negative......

Again utter babble, do I need a law to get along with you as a person?
No I do not which shows why you are a complete idiot.
Nobody needs a law to get along with people

Seriously stop smoking the ganja.

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:11 am

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

which is why Australia's multiculturalism works....
didges way is to scrap all controls and allow anyone and anything in, our health service is collapsing under the strain, our pensions similarly, our housing is screwed, and out education system is staggering

but hey ho wave a magic wand and all will be well.....OR ...in didges fantasy world ...none of the above is true and all is going swimmingly...

but dont worry Veya...we have homes for the mentally feeble.....and I'll book didge a place tomorrow......

I never made any such claim and shows how easily you are upset.
It takes very little to get along with people, and anyone arguing against doing so bases their reasoning around hate as per usual.
You confuse a house with a right to live in the same country as you which is a failed argument and has no reasoning or logic to it, as again nobody is asking you to share your house are they, so your point as per usual is daft and stupid.
If people can coexist and get along there is no reason for others to not do the same, hence your views are very flawed

:-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: Rolling Eyes

and not one bit of sense

what you mean is anyone arguing against YOUR way of doing things...etc etc ad infinitum

sorry but your church of the holy multiculturalist is busted and its arch bishop didge the dodgy is shown for the twister, falsifier and disingenious liar he is....

you ahve perhap missed other posts where I have said multiculturalism is ineviatable given the global reach these days.......what is wrong...is how its being done here.....your precious experiment is going to fall on your head.......and for reasons you cant even begin to imagine......even the "minority groups are getting pissed with your lot.....

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:12 am

Anyway I have heard enough babble for one night, and hope Victor has slept off his pot head when I return.

Night all

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:35 am

Didge wrote:You have far more than 200?
Do you?
There are only 196 countries in the world, so I doubt you do have over 200 different groups of migrants

Our country is leading the way, Australia is not when it sends back boat full of people and in now way is a haven for migrants, in fact it has strict laws on immigration, so your argument is unfounded and very wrong. This country is ope to people and leads the way on diversity

lolz
racist much didge

Example, a Kurd is an Iraqi they come from the nation of Iraq but are Clearly their own ethnic group.

there are almost 200 Aboriginal groups alone. (not all live in NSW)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indigenous_Australian_group_names

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:51 am

And that is 'Refugees arriving by boat' not migrants in general fool. their is some logic to the argument (But I personally do not agree) that pretty much all the refugees are coming through safe countries to get to Australia and they should have put their claims in there, and waited for the resettlement draw, they come here directly hoping to increase their chances of resettlement in Australia

According to the Refugee Council of Australia, Australia ranked second in 2012 for the resettlement of refugees per capita (0.267 refugees per 1,000 population) beaten only by Canada (0.283 per 1,000). In absolute terms the top three resettlement countries were America (66,300), Canada (9,600) and Australia (5,900).

On Migration in general
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate
we take over twice as many migrants per capita than the UK,
Australia is ranked 23rd highest in the world, UK is 38th.

Again you fail to see the fact it is not a simple issue but multifaceted
Like Victor said our system works but in part because we do have controls. The issue here is not race but having 'complied with the migration laws'. This is Why I am saying "what are the specific issue in the UK and can they be addressed?"

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:53 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Didge wrote:You have far more than 200?
Do you?
There are only 196 countries in the world, so I doubt you do have over 200 different groups of migrants

Our country is leading the way, Australia is not when it sends back boat full of people and in now way is a haven for migrants, in fact it has strict laws on immigration, so your argument is unfounded and very wrong. This country is ope to people and leads the way on diversity
lolz
racist much didge

Example, a Kurd is an Iraqi they come from the nation of Iraq but are Clearly their own ethnic group.

there are almost 200 Aboriginal groups alone. (not all live in NSW)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indigenous_Australian_group_names

Not racist what so ever you wally, a Kurd that lives in Iraq is an Iraqi Kurd, his nation is Iraq unless they gain independence, so not being racist at all, where people are defined by the nations they migrate from.
Do you even understand what racism is?
Humans are one race, skin colour does not make people into a different race.
There are more ethnic groups than nations and never denied this, but people are defined by the nation they come from and in your example the Kurd would have an Iraqi Passport, not a Kurdish one.

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:02 am

veya_victaous wrote:And that is 'Refugees arriving by boat' not migrants in general fool. their is some logic to the argument (But I personally do not agree) that pretty much all the refugees are coming through safe countries to get to Australia and they should have put their claims in there, and waited for the resettlement draw, they come here directly hoping to increase their chances of resettlement in Australia
According to the Refugee Council of Australia, Australia ranked second in 2012 for the resettlement of refugees per capita (0.267 refugees per 1,000 population) beaten only by Canada (0.283 per 1,000). In absolute terms the top three resettlement countries were America (66,300), Canada (9,600) and Australia (5,900).

On Migration in general
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate
we take over twice as many migrants per capita than the UK,
Australia is ranked 23rd highest in the world, UK is 38th.

Again you fail to see the fact it is not a simple issue but multifaceted
Like Victor said our system works but in part because we do have controls. The issue here is not race but having 'complied with the migration laws'. This is Why I am saying "what are the specific issue in the UK and can they be addressed?"

Never claimed it was a simple issue but multiculturalism has worked in the uk for over a 1000 years, it was built on multicultural.
The reality is the view here is on people themselves and if they can get along of which people do without any need of a law, that are just human and have no reason not to get along.

Asylum seekers are migrants you thick twat, and if they come in boats they are migrants, how fucking stupid can you get, sorry I really cannot be bothered to debate you anymore Veya, you really are a complete idiot.

“Asylum seekers who arrive by boat are illegals.”

It is not a crime to enter Australia without authorisation for the purpose of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation.

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention clearly states that refugees should not be penalised for arriving without valid travel documents. What may be considered an illegal action under normal circumstances (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not, according to the Convention, be considered illegal if a person is seeking asylum.

Australian and international law make these allowances because it is not always safe or even possible for asylum seekers to obtain travel documents or travel through authorised channels. Refugees are, by definition, people fleeing persecution and in most cases are being persecuted by their own governments. It is often too dangerous for refugees to apply for a passport or exit visa or approach an Australian Embassy for a visa, as this could put their lives, and the lives of their families, at risk. Refugees may also be forced to flee with little notice due to rapidly deteriorating situations and do not have time to apply for travel documents or arrange travel through authorised channels.

In other cases, refugees may be unable to obtain travel documents because they do not have identity documentation or because they cannot meet the necessary visa requirements. Australia has very restrictive policies which work to prevent citizens of countries where persecution is widespread from getting access to temporary visas of any kind. These policies leave many people seeking to flee to Australia with no way of entering in an authorised manner.

Permitting asylum seekers to entry a country without travel documents is similar to allowing ambulance drivers to exceed the speed limit in an emergency - the action may ordinarily be illegal but, in order to protect lives at risk, an exception is made.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php

Lters, enjoy talking yourself lol

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:09 am

you see didge MAYBE that is why Multiculturalism has such a hard time in the UK
even Pro Multiculturalist like you are sort of racist in your attitude. and don't even realise it.

Ethnicity is largely self determined, the Kurd does not call himself Iraqi, he has a different language and culture as such we Cater to his needs differently than a different Iraq from a different Ethnic group.

You are Racist Because You are telling people WHO THEY ARE, by what right do You think YOU get to tell them WHO THEY ARE? (Which is a typically British Attitude to the rest of the world)

So you're going to have the same classes and integration programs for a Catholic Lebanese and a Muslim Lebanese? that is pretty dumb as they are like Polar opposites even if they have the same passport.
Just one example and also an example of one nation with multiple ethnic groups, From Lebanon we have 3 ethnic groups here; Catholics, Muslims and Zoroastrians.

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:10 am

Passive tolerance is probably not a concept many people have yet heard of. Let's hope that changes, because "passive tolerance" is the most hopeful bit of academic social psychology research to emerge in a long time. It is the idea that simply living in an area of high diversity rubs off on you, making you more tolerant of ethnic diversity.
Think of all those tiny interactions between different ethnic groups on an average British city street: the newsagent, the corner shop, the delivery driver, the postman, friends laughing, children playing, a pair of lovers. This is what generates passive tolerance. You don't have to be part of the interaction yourself; just witnessing it is enough to have a significant impact – comparable to the effect passive smoking has on your health, hence the term passive tolerance.
This is the finding of seven studies carried out over 10 years in the United States, Europe and South Africa, led by a team of social psychologists at the University of Oxford and published in the journal of the United States National Academy of Sciences. They were careful to rule out the most obvious explanation for their finding, social psychologists Miles Hewstone and Katharina Schmid explain – namely, that the higher levels of tolerance in more diverse neighbourhoods are a result of more tolerant people choosing to live there. Two of the studies were conducted over several years and tracked the same individuals, showing how attitudes changed. Even prejudiced people showed a greater degree of tolerance over time if they lived in a mixed neighbourhood.
The study's positive message is reinforced by the finding of a separate study led by the same Oxford team – the biggest to date in England on diversity and trust. White British people were asked whether they felt ethnic minorities threatened their way of life, increased crime levels, or took their jobs; ethnic minority participants were asked the same questions. Both groups were then asked about how they interact with other groups in everyday situations, such as corner shops, and then about how much they trusted people from their own and other ethnic groups in their neighbourhood. What the study found was that distrust does rise in diverse communities, but day to day, direct contact cancels it out.
The two studies together point to a more optimistic reading of how diversity impacts on urban neighbourhoods.
The reason passive tolerance is politically so important is not hard to see. Sociology and social psychology have frequently been drafted in to the highly charged political debate about community, integration and multiculturalism. Key concepts and ideas take hold in the political sphere and become a rationale for policy. The danger is that oft-quoted ideas can become self-fulfilling. Perhaps the most influential in this area has been US sociologist Professor Robert Putnam, who said diversity has a negative impact on social capital, leading to people "hunkering down", and trust in strangers and neighbourhoods dropping significantly. "Hunkering down" has become a widely quoted phrase as a respectable way for liberals to articulate their growing concern in an increasingly toxic political debate on immigration.
The problematic issue for the left is that lower levels of trust have been linked to declining support for the welfare state. The theory is that if you are less likely to trust the people around you, you are less willing to have a sense of solidarity and so less likely to stump up the taxes to pay for other people's benefits.
The author David Goodhart, for instance, has seized upon Putnam's "hunkering down thesis as vindication of the controversial position he holds has long advanced. He routinely invokes Putnam to argue that the pace and scale of increasing diversity in the UK has been too great and, as he said in a recent interview, people "become less willing to share resources and do the things we require of people in a modern welfare state". The left faces a nasty conundrum as two of its most sacred shibboleths come into conflict: ethnic diversity and the solidarity necessary for a strong welfare state.
This new research throws these conclusions into question. Putnam's work may, after all, have been misleading. In fact, rather than hunkering down, living in a mixed neighbourhood helps you open up. In some ways this vindicates many people's anecdotal experience of their own enjoyment of diversity in their neighbourhoods, and the sense that the most pronounced fear and prejudice is found in exclusively white areas.
The research also vindicates the case for local initiatives to foster social exchange and build community relationships. From carnivals to coffee mornings, jumble sales to fun days in the park – all these are opportunities to generate passive tolerance. Sadly, however, many of these initiatives have fallen victim to local authority funding cuts. The impact of austerity has been compounded by a loss of confidence – in which Putnam's research played its part – about fostering strong diverse communities. Multiculturalism has fallen from favour, misunderstood and maligned as the set of ideas that guided community relations for a generation.
No one was more acutely aware of this danger than Putnam himself when he talked to me on the publication of his research in 2007, the timing made the danger all the more acute in the aftermath of 7/7 bombings. Since then the theme of integration has come to dominate – with its coercive and conformist overtones. The result has been a yawning gap with no positive narrative for the fast-changing diversity of Britain's urban life.
The hope is that this academic research will percolate into policy and public life, inspiring confidence again that strong diverse communities are not only possible, but can also work as beacons, converting residents and visitors alike to a possibility of rich exchange.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/16/passive-tolerance-beacon-hope-diverse-communities

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:12 am

This research reported here speaks to a contentious debate concerning the potential negative consequences of diversity for trust. We tested the relationship between neighborhood diversity and out-group, in-group, and neighborhood trust, taking into consideration previously untested indirect effects via intergroup contact and perceived intergroup threat. A large-scale national survey in England sampled White British majority (N = 868) and ethnic minority (N = 798) respondents from neighborhoods of varying degrees of diversity. Multilevel path analyses showed some negative direct effects of diversity for the majority group but also confirmed predictions that diversity was associated indirectly with increased trust via positive contact and lower threat. These indirect effects had positive implications for total effects of diversity, cancelling out most negative direct effects. Our findings have relevance for a growing body of research seeking to disentangle effects of diversity on trust that has so far largely ignored the key role of intergroup contact.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/3/665.abstract

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:18 am

I have been increasingly alarmed by what appears to be a backlash against multiculturalism. Eric Pickles recently criticised the "comfort blanket" of multiculturalism, promoting instead what he seems to regard as traditional British values. However, those who oppose multiculturalism are swimming against the tide. Mass migration has made our communities more culturally diverse than ever. Multiculturalism is not just a world view, it is a reality.

From racial attacks in London to the thousands of supporters of the BNP: opposition to diversity is not just a phenomenon of British politicians. A sustainable strategy for multiculturalism is required - not just domestically, but internationally, for globalisation is making the domestic/international distinction weaker by the day.

Many of the ingredients and symptoms of cultural conflict are already present. Few in the West speak Chinese, or understand Chinese ways of thinking and understanding the world. Islam is frequently demonised in the media, with a hugely disproportionate focus on a tiny minority of extremists and no attention given to the hundreds of millions of Muslims who wish to live in peace. Many in the developing world, meanwhile, regard 'Western values' as an extension of imperialism.

As the global economic climate changes dramatically, how can we avoid going down the route which humans almost always go down in times of economic crisis - that of insularity and exclusion? For it seems likely that Europe and North America is entering a period of long-term relative economic decline on an unprecedented scale.

The solution is not in extreme cultural relativism. There must always be a limit to tolerance: we cannot expect violent extremists, for example, to live peaceably in our societies. However, there is also great value in diversity: in meeting a diverse array of people, in breaking down barriers, even in experiencing a varied range of flavours. Diversity enriches life and eradicates prejudice.

However, many cultures incorporate profoundly intolerant values. This means that the way forward must be something between tolerance and order, because unless we can punish, dissuade or educate those who seek to attack cultural diversity, our tolerance becomes self-destructive.

This is the paradox of tolerance. Only by refusing to tolerate intolerance can tolerance prevail. By subjecting our tolerance of cultural values to limits, our very different cultures can thrive within those limits.

The limits to diversity I advocate allow for the greatest diversity possible. This limit is:

That my freedom to practice my cultural values ends where yours begins.

You can practice your religion, but as soon as you force it upon me, you are in the wrong. I can celebrate my culture, but as soon as that restricts another's ability to celebrate their culture - for example by forcing them to wear certain clothes - I am in the wrong.

This approach is quintessentially British. Cultural diversity has played a key role in forming the multicultural Britain of today, far more so than adherence to one set of 'national values' has.

The role of the state is to enforce this tolerance through laws and expose children to the true diversity of the world they are entering in the education system. This means ensuring that visits to different places of worship are part of every school's curriculum, and prohibiting the teaching of just one set of values in a school.

Societies, by this formula, can both protect and enjoy diversity. Globalisation demands the success of multiculturalism. By encouraging tolerance through our national education systems, the tolerance necessary for the global world will be exhibited by the next generation of citizens and policymakers. As long as my freedom ends where yours begins, there is no reason why we cannot take the necessary steps to a world that is at ease with itself. This is a recipe for a more peaceful, diverse and tolerant future.

[ltr]http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ben-g-jones/multiculturalism-can-work_b_2947774.html[/ltr]

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:19 am

Fuck you are thick Didge
CAN YOU NOT READ OR COUNT? (I Already know you can count)

Boat people are migrants but there are also OTHER MIGRANTS!!!!
Non-refugee regular migrants than come here on NORMAL student and working visas.
Refugees that come here for resettlement from UN refugee camps(via Plane) are fine no one complains about them (unlike the UK where TM and Victor Are complaining about Normal Migrants not just non-visa migrants)

the issue is ONLY with the Boat people (their argument is that they have not followed procedure) as in there is no negative media around migration in general JUST Boat people.

and yeah multicultural was going so great Catholic and Protestants virtually killed each other on regular basis. Let alone the treatment of Irish Celts or Scots. Fuck me didge do you rewrite history for a living?

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:21 am

People's racial prejudices are influenced by where they live, reports a new study led by Oxford University psychologists.

The researchers found that levels of racial prejudice among white people drop significantly when they live in ethnically mixed communities, even when they do not have direct contact with minorities. Simply seeing white strangers interacting positively with ethnic minorities is enough to reduce racial prejudice.

The researchers have called this positive effect 'passive tolerance', likening it to the negative effect of 'passive smoking' where a smoky environment can increase your risk of lung cancer, even if you do not smoke yourself.

Using survey data from seven studies conducted between 2002 and 2011 across England, Europe, the USA and South Africa, the team investigated people's attitudes towards different ethnic groups. The results, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that even prejudiced people who avoid contact with other groups become less prejudiced when they live in areas where different ethnicities mix.

'We have shown that positive contact between people belonging to different ethnic groups leads to more tolerant societies overall,' said Professor Miles Hewstone of Oxford University's Department of Experimental Psychology, senior author of the study and Director of the Oxford Centre for the Study of Intergroup Conflict. 'Astonishingly, we don't just see reduced prejudice among people who have direct contact with ethnic minorities. It isn't even confined to those whose friends have contact with minorities. Simply living in a neighbourhood where other people are mixing with minorities is enough to reduce racial prejudice.'

To rule out the possibility that more tolerant people simply choose to live in more diverse areas, two of the seven studies were conducted over several years to see how attitudes changed over time. They showed that even the most prejudiced people who did not mix at all with ethnic minorities became more tolerant over time when they lived in areas where others were mixing.

'If two white people with identical views went to live in different postcodes for a year, the person in the neighbourhood with more mixing between ethnic groups would likely leave more tolerant,' said Professor Hewstone, 'We would see this effect even if they never personally spoke to people from other ethnicities. The size of this "passive tolerance" effect on people's prejudice is of the same order as the effect of passive smoking on lung cancer risk.'

As part of the wider analysis, the team surveyed 1,056 German nationals from 50 districts in Germany, each with a different proportion of ethnic minority residents. These respondents all completed surveys in both spring 2010 and 2011 to monitor changes in attitude and behaviour. This work was led by Dr Oliver Christ of Philipps-University Marburg and the University of Hagen, lead author of the study.

German nationals taking part in the survey were asked how many of their friends were foreigners, how often they spoke to foreigners and how often foreigners helped them out. Prejudice was assessed by asking participants how much they agreed with statements suggesting that there are too many foreigners in Germany, that foreigners burden the social security system and that foreigners should be deported if jobs become scarce.

'Our results clearly show that districts with the most mixing between ethnic groups lead to the highest reductions in racial prejudice,' said Professor Hewstone. 'Although our recent longitudinal studies were conducted in Germany, there is no reason to believe that these effects would not be the same across the world. The cross-sectional studies conducted in England, the USA, and South Africa certainly support this idea.

'Governments should do more to encourage different groups to mix with each other, as we now know that this reduces prejudice not just in individuals but throughout entire neighbourhoods. Social interventions that aim to increase contact between groups will help to establish more tolerant social norms in society. In the long run, this should lead to more harmonious neighbourhoods.'

The research was funded by the Leverhulme Trust, the German Research Foundation, and the Max-Planck Society.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2014/140304.html

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:23 am

MAYBE the issue is that British People look down on everyone else (particularly in the past) so it was a case of Others having to Change for you and tolerate the British way.. Now that tolerance is a 2 way street some Brits don't like it.

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:24 am

There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker.Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
There is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach.
It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.(United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:33 am

Racism

1 The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:34 am

Didge wrote:

There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker.Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.

There is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach.

It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.(United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)

whoopty Fuck we just Got rid of an semblance of Complying with Human rights with the new wave of Terror laws you so vehemently supported, So Tony Abbott can openly Discriminate against Muslims... hypocrite or was I Right and you don't actually think about what your regurgitating you just argue for the sake of it Rolling Eyes

I never said Illegal but that is what the Media (mainly Rupert) Calls them, I called the non-visa migrants tongue

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:36 am

Didge wrote:Racism

1 The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism

So basically that shit you just tried saying that the Kurd Despite his self determined Identity is an Iraqi and he has no say in the matter.

IF you don't believe you are superior Why do you believe that YOU get to tell people WHO THEY ARE?????

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:37 am

The 2011 census revealed a country that is decreasingly white and British: England’s ethnic-minority population grew from 9% of the total in 2001 to 14%. But the biggest single increase was in the number of people claiming a mixed-ethnic background. This almost doubled, to around 1.2m. Among children under the age of five, 6% had a mixed background—more than belonged to any other minority group (see chart). Mixed-race children are now about as common in Britain as in America—a country with many more non-whites and a longer history of mass immigration.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21595908-rapid-rise-mixed-race-britain-changing-neighbourhoodsand-perplexing

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:48 am

in mid-2011 there were 6,018,180 residents who were born outside Australia, representing 27% of the total population.

That is a quarter of the population BORN overseas, cause if you are Born here you are Aussie.

The Australian Government does not release information on the ethnicities of marriage partners, but provide information on their countries of birth.

In 2009 there were 120,118 marriages recorded in Australia. About 42% involved at least one partner who was not Australian born.
15.% of Australian-born women, and 17.4% of Australian-born men, married somebody who was not Australian-born.
American (68%), Greek (62%) and Irish-born (62%) women were the most likely to marry an Australian-born man than a man born elsewhere.
Indian (12%), Chinese (16%) and 'other South and Central Asia'-born (16%) women were the least likely to marry an Australian-born man than a man born elsewhere.
American (63%), Lebanese (62%) and Irish-born (62%) men were the most likely to marry an Australian-born woman than a woman born elsewhere.
Chinese (2%), 'other North Asia' (7%) and Vietnamese-born (8%) men were the least likely to marry an Australian-born woman than a woman born elsewhere.
Chinese-born men were the most likely to marry a woman from the same country (91%).

Cause We are PAST your racist definitions

by Lone Wolf Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:41 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:....................................

You really are a said fucking Nazi

I claim Godwins law!!!!!!!!

you dopey turd of the month........................................

ah well laters you spineless echidna (waits for the uproar )

Q. WHAT do you get if you remove an Echidna's spine ?

A. A VERY cranky living pincushion, (and looking much like a sea anemone..).

Laughing

by Lone Wolf Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:35 am

Didge wrote:You have far more than 200?
Do you?
There are only 196 countries in the world, so I doubt you do have over 200 different groups of migrants

Our country is leading the way, Australia is not when it sends back boat full of people and in now way is a haven for migrants, in fact it has strict laws on immigration, so your argument is unfounded and very wrong. This country is ope to people and leads the way on diversity

THERE are over 220 countries, self governing/autonomous territories, "dependencies" and principalities in the world when they are all accounted for, Didgeridoo !

Some countries have several languages and dialects besides their "official" languages.
Canada and China both have two "official" languages, for example..

WHILE the NSW Dept. of Education covers over 200 languages, students wanting to do some of the more obscure dialects ~ which might only be taught at one Sydney high school ~ would have to elect to do it by correspondence.. study

AS FOR well over 150 nationalities, and over 100 ethnicities, that's not too hard to do, either ~ just have a look at how many different ethnic groups are native to places like China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil..

THERE were reportedly over 100 nationalities represented in the background of those transported out here in the First Fleet.

by Guest Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:51 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
Didge wrote:You have far more than 200?
Do you?
There are only 196 countries in the world, so I doubt you do have over 200 different groups of migrants

Our country is leading the way, Australia is not when it sends back boat full of people and in now way is a haven for migrants, in fact it has strict laws on immigration, so your argument is unfounded and very wrong. This country is ope to people and leads the way on diversity

THERE are over 220 countries, self governing/autonomous territories, "dependencies" and principalities in the world when they are all accounted for, Didgeridoo !

Some countries have several languages and dialects besides their "official" languages.
Canada and China both have two "official" languages, for example..

WHILE the NSW Dept. of Education covers over 200 languages, students wanting to do some of the more obscure dialects ~ which might only be taught at one Sydney high school ~ would have to elect to do it by correspondence..

AS FOR well over 150 nationalities, and over 100 ethnicities, that's not too hard to do, either ~ just have a look at how many different ethnic groups are native to places like China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil..

THERE were reportedly over 100 nationalities represented in the background of those transported out here in the First Fleet.

Fair point Bee, nice to have some rational replies on here, so cheers

by Tommy Monk Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:57 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:The benefits of immigration more than offset the costs. Simply put, most people who move hundreds or thousands of miles have plans beyond laying around in a grimy slum living off welfare. And of course, there are no stats that state that most the migrants to the UK do this -- there are only anecdotal scare stories published by the likes of the Daily Heil.
This site has certainly opened my eyes to the problem the UK has, though -- with rednecks!

Hardly.....

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/380

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:09 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
Didge wrote:You have far more than 200?
Do you?
There are only 196 countries in the world, so I doubt you do have over 200 different groups of migrants

Our country is leading the way, Australia is not when it sends back boat full of people and in now way is a haven for migrants, in fact it has strict laws on immigration, so your argument is unfounded and very wrong. This country is ope to people and leads the way on diversity

THERE are over 220 countries, self governing/autonomous territories, "dependencies" and principalities in the world when they are all accounted for, Didgeridoo !

Some countries have several languages and dialects besides their "official" languages.
Canada and China both have two "official" languages, for example..

WHILE the NSW Dept. of Education covers over 200 languages, students wanting to do some of the more obscure dialects ~ which might only be taught at one Sydney high school ~ would have to elect to do it by correspondence..

Actually that is 200 ethnicities we have 'Aussie Conversion' programs for which include language, cultural(tolerance a big part), law, safety and health. the specifics for each vary and the 'intensity and duration' vary, obviously ones from war torn areas with extreme ethnic tensions need more 'work' than the economic migrant from South East Asia.

Academic Language course are separate I think that is like 130 odd

AS FOR well over 150 nationalities, and over 100 ethnicities, that's not too hard to do, either ~ just have a look at how many different ethnic groups are native to places like China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil..

THERE were reportedly over 100 nationalities represented in the background of those transported out here in the First Fleet.

by Sponsored content