From cuisine to separatist multiculturalism

It satisfied the vanity of the elites to be able to say they had “saved” immigrants from the brutality of the rank and file Australians. But as we have seen the term is ambiguous. And once you recognise a group by name, by separate institutions and worse, increased benefits, you separate its members from the rest of the Australian population.

Multiculturalism so defined is of course completely unacceptable to the rank and file and to our traditions and values. The endorsement of multiculturalism by the aristocratic consensus referred to above, rather than through public debate in an election campaign, gave its proponents the opportunity to move to the adoption of some of the features of the extreme form of multiculturalism.

In this extreme form, multiculturalism recognises the special rights of cultural communities, separating them and giving them a special role, financial benefits and other advantages in the nation’s affairs. This even extends to the toleration of exceptions from the law or of a different treatment under the law.

It is inconceivable, for example, that a publicly funded art gallery would exhibit material as upsetting to say Muslims as the infamous Piss Christ is to Christians. (This is a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine)

And while action under religious vilification law has been taken in Victoria against two Protestant pastors who say they did no more than point out certain aspects of Islamic law, no action has been taken against those who publish support for terrorism, including suicide bombing.

There was no public demand for the implementation of multiculturalism in Australia. When the major political parties were called on by the elites to implement this policy, they almost instinctively came to an understanding, however tacit, that multiculturalism, especially with its harsher aspects, should never be raised in party political debate, nor put on the electoral agenda. Why?

First, the survival of the particular political party demanded this. The parties try to limit inter-party conflict to the economic dimension. Moral and social issues are avoided because of the potential for division within the party and among its supporters. This is exemplified in the practice, more often of the Labor Party, to allow a conscience vote on morally divisive issues.

Second, the elites know that any policy tending towards separatist multiculturalism is unacceptable to the electorate, particularly to both traditional Labor and conservative voters.

Third the elites saw, and still see, separatist multiculturalism as an essential stage of their agenda to remove what they see as the stifling influence of monoculturalism from Australia, through for example, the principles of “access and equity”. Although this mantra, “access and equity” is repeated over and over in elite circles such as university academic boards, few Australians outside these rarefied circles have actually heard it. As a concept, access and equity is part of the armoury of the elites to engage in the surreptitious social re-engineering of the Australian population.

The implementation of a policy of multiculturalism has led to the widespread proclamation of Australia as a multicultural nation. It is certainly as a matter of fact a multiracial nation, and a successful one at that. But our history indicates that we know of one way to formally qualify the nation in such sweeping terms, and that is by democratic endorsement. The nation has been as qualified as an indissoluble federal commonwealth under the Crown and under the constitution - the people have not agreed that this federal commonwealth should also be declared to be multicultural.

Indeed, they have not been asked. Perhaps it is time that they were asked to give their consent to this change.