Leadership - Politics - Vyoos Editorial

Vyoos

follow this blog

32 followers

276 daily readers

rank of 24

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Leadership Politics Vyoos Editorial - Vyoos

Australias multicultural tomorrow

October 22nd 2010 02:24

: Vyoos news

VYOOS EDITORIAL
I have lost interest in the multiculturalism debate which periodically consumes Australia.

The debate springs to life every so often, invariably with passion and earnest argument from all points, usually started by old politicians finding support waning or new politicians needing to build support.

IÂm sick of it.

Former conservative Australian Prime Minister John Howard made global headlines last month by claiming the English-speaking world had generally confused multiracialism and multiculturalism. Its Howard thats confusing, but I dont care.

Australian-based, British journalist Pallavi Jain said this week that multiculturalism is dead. If she really believes that, its her brain thats dead, but Im over it.

In a speech in the Australian parliament yesterday, the Federal Member for Calwell, Maria Vamvakinou, accused both major political parties of abandoning multiculturalism and leaving Âthe field open to its enemies.

Maria, I dont care any more, and neither should you.

The only concern I have is that Australia will change its immigration policy. The politicians can grandstand all they like, so long as they dont meddle with our current immigration mix.

I see the results of that policy when I walk through the Footscray pedestrian mall. Muslim head scarves. Jewish beards. African faces. Vietnamese shop signs. Indian supermarkets. Chinese restaurants full of Chinese-speaking people.

Not all urban malls are as colourful and diverse as this probably few in the world are. Im just lucky to live close by.

Thats where multiculturalism is alive and well. That is where we can see today the vibrant, rich and culturally diverse landscape which is the Australia of tomorrow.

They are building that tomorrow in the corridors of the Department of Immigration. Down there, away from the bright lights and glaring egos, they are getting on with the job.

They probably dont care any more about multiculturalism than I do. They dont need labels to describe what theyre achieving, because the labels just become political footballs.

No labels, no egos and precious little acknowledgement. Just achievement. And that I care about.

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Chris Champion - Category: Interracial relationships, Leadership, Politics, Vyoos Editorial

Email this Post to a Friend

No gay marriage. Forget the honeymoon

June 30th 2010 04:46

VYOOS EDITORIAL
Julia Gillards honeymoon period is over. For me at least.

Australias first female-atheist-single-redhead Prime Minister was asked during a radio talkback session this morning whether she would move to legalise same-sex marriage.

If she had answered, No, not right now, because I have promised a federal election within a few months and I want to be allowed to focus on big-ticket issues such as health and education, she would have had a point. Opposition leader Mad Monk Abbott, a former Catholic seminarian who has warned of the moral perils of sex before marriage, would love that issue to help him grab attention and headlines in the run-up to the election.

It would also have been an honest answer, and another first for Australian politics.

Unfortunately, honest responses have a habit of waking the masses dulled by ponderous proclamations, and Gillard, instead of treating the electorate as adults, offered just another dump-truckload of turgid political spin for the public to gag on.

We've got very clear Labor Party policy on this and it won't be changing,'' Gillard said. We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that it is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman.'' Gillard said the Government had taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples. The stance also reflected her personal view, she said.

Spin it as you like, Prime Minister, this is not equality. You either believe gays should be treated equally, or you do not. Make up your mind. Make up your party policys mind.

To help you do so, please consider that a policy based on the precept that marriage is for a man and a woman is outdated.

It suggests a moral obligation for anyone getting married to have children. There is no such moral obligation.

It suggests a social obligation to have children. There is no such social obligation, as you would know, Prime Minister.

Probably much to Mother Natures sadness, there is no longer even a natural imperative to have children. The world is overcrowded as it is, full of poverty and misery in slums created by the rapacity and corruption of politicians.

Marriage is for many things. Procreation, at the heart of the man and a woman school of thought, is just one of them.

Most of all, however, marriage is about a statement of commitment.

Does all this reflect majority community thinking? In terms of pure numbers something which a politician understands probably not. But that doesnt make it wrong.

As long as the government of the day continues to carry a policy which preaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, they will continue to foster community acceptance of inequality, and intolerance towards committed, loving gay couples.

Today the Prime Minister had the biggest chance yet to move towards the equality she spins, and she decided it would be politically inconvenient to take it.

This is where we are at as a community now and I think that it is appropriate for these very sensitive issues that we are reflecting community views,'' she spun.

On that basis, that radical Abe Lincoln should have left the very sensitive issue of slavery well alone.

245

Vote