Freedom based on tolerance

The overturning of these discriminatory policies and attitudes didn't come without a fight and that is why some of the old hands of the multicultural movement are rightly disturbed by the political complacency and lack of historical imagination displayed by their critics.

Indeed, the critics of multiculturalism have never understood the social impact of the all too regular outbreaks of Australian nationalism, particularly for women and children in our migrant communities. It often meant abuse and nastiness to a degree and of an intensity those from the mainstream have little understood.

Australia is a good but not perfect country and racially motivated attacks do occur, as we saw in Western Australia, where my government responded with the nation's toughest racial vilification laws in 2004. We did not, however, proceed with religious vilification legislation on the grounds that it was likely to create more problems than it would solve. After all, one person's religion is often another's poison.

The question needs to be asked: If we are to oppose racism, discrimination and sectarianism, on what basis are we to do it? Aren't we asserting the inherent dignity of the human individual? Aren't we saying people should be judged on what they do rather than who they are? Isn't this just another way of saying we support multiculturalism?

This takes us to the issue of relativism and its connection to multiculturalism. Multiculturalism occupies that heavily contested territory at the intersection of a democratic polity and a pluralistic society. Unlike radical securalism it accepts that religion and cultural difference is a reality and that without a degree of negotiation and compromise democracy couldn't work.

For example, the mainstream Christian churches have successfully incorporated some exceptions into anti-discrimination legislation to accommodate their views. In a real rather than a theoretical democracy, there will always be accommodations of this sort. These claims for special consideration pose questions that need serious analysis but cannot be viewed as the beginning of the end of Western civilisation. Indeed, the way many of our institutions have made adjustments to allow people of different religions to practise their faith is not just good manners but a sign of our moral maturity in a world of difference.

A good society will draw a line in the sand when cultural or religious practices undermine civility and infringe rights. However, knowing where to draw that line is not easy, as we have found with our anti-discrimination laws and their potential impact on some Christian institutions. The values associated with different traditions are always battling for respect on the one hand and seeking privilege on the other. Politics is about managing this process.

However, once leaders ditch multiculturalism in the name of crude nationalism or untutored securalism, they lose the ability to speak to the community as a whole.

They also disarm themselves in the important battle with the extremist currents that exist in all the traditions.

They risk creating the very tensions they claim to reject. This is one of the many ironies of contemporary political practice in an age of terror and uncertainty.