27 January 2009

Time to comment on the Draft Multicultural Strategy 2009 - 2012

| johnboy
Join the conversation
65

John Hargreaves is announcing the start of public consultation on the Draft Multicultural Strategy 2009 – 2012.

Apparently it is the fruit of the Multicultural Summit 2008. At just 23 pages (and one of them a novel “Acknowledgement of country”) it won’t take that long to wade through.

The principles outlined are interesting, particularly the responsibilities they plan to lump on you in the name of human rights, which some could view as restricting your own rights to freedom of thought and expression:

    — All individuals in the ACT have the right to maintain, practise and promote their culture and language.

    — All individuals have the right to cultural expression and understanding (regardless of the adequacy of their English language skills).

    — All individuals have the right to practise their religious and spiritual beliefs.

    — All individuals have the right to equitable access to government services and programs.

    — All individuals have the right to participate in, and to contribute to, the social, cultural and economic life of the community.

    — All individuals have a responsibility to respect the culture, language and religion of others, within the legal and
    constitutional framework set by the laws of the ACT and Australia.

    — All individuals have a responsibility to treat everyone in a fair and respectful manner.

    — All individuals have a responsibility to recognise and accept the linguistic and cultural assets of the ACT.

Feedback on the draft Strategy 2009-2012 should be directed to Rebecca Glasgow at the Office of Multicultural Affairs by 20 March 2009. Rebecca can be contacted on (02) 6205 5302 or rebecca.glasgow@act.gov.au .

Join the conversation

65
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The opt out of culture clause. Could we add that to the strategy?

The individual right not to participate in culture.

This thread could go on forever so I’m out.

Interesting comments and pretty long bow you’re drawing farnarkler (pardon the long bow reference to British culture). As far as i can see, the strategy says that the rights of ALL individuals are protected,not just migrants (and I’m assuming it’s taken to mean within the laws of the land; ie your fears of FGM sweeping the land will be eased as will the fears of Muslim Australians of being stereotyped as practitioners of terror simply by being Muslim), and BTW am really curious as to a definition of your term ‘Australian people’. Please explain.

VY I was speaking a collective we.

“Also, do the original inhabitants respect MY culture?”
Sure they do.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy3:55 pm 29 Jan 09

This continent already has a diverse culture that is thousands of years old. One we do not respect or understand.

What makes you think I don’t respect their culture?

Also, do the original inhabitants respect MY culture?

farnarkler said :

I am all for multiculturalism as long as those who move from other cultures and religions are prepared to accept that they must not try and impose their beliefs on the Australian people.

I’m sure there are plenty of beliefs held by Australian people that could actually be improved. You appear to be assuming that the beliefs held by Australian people are perfect and that no other culture can influence them positively. Surely this is not what you mean!

really, these principles outline a mono-cultural australia: one in which all practices by individuals are tolerated (presumably it is simply moot to have to add ‘within the boundaries of the law’).

what, really, is ‘multi’cultural? isn’t ‘our culture’ one where differences are tolerated – or at least, isn’t this what this document is purporting to achieve?

and re: If it hadn’t been the British, it would have been the French or the Dutch. Let’s be very clear about that.

i have always regretted it wasn’t the spanish who invaded us – that way we’d have decent food and sensible siestas as part of our culture! (notwithstanding that english black pudding is superior to the morcilla common in spain…)

David Koresh was an extremist – I dont see anyone wanting to ban people/religions who DO NOT cover their faces.

farnarkler… “I am all for multiculturalism as long as those who move from other cultures and religions are prepared to accept that they must not try and impose their beliefs on the Australian people.”

This continent already has a diverse culture that is thousands of years old. One we do not respect or understand. One, we as a people still impose our western/foreign beliefs on. Yet we expect new arrivals to respect the white/English culture, that in this country is only 200 years old.

JB I think I’m making a point that is on topic. As far as a multi-cultural strategy goes this one is just words coming from the wrong place.

This document seek only to guide individuals within the legal and constitutional framework set by the laws of the ACT and Australia. My lawyer advisors that we already have that.

Its fair to argue that Australia is a different land with its own culture. When you come here you should respect that. This document has at least acknowledged our culture in its “novel, Acknowledgement of country”. That is the culture evolved from this land. Not one imposed from a foreign land.

VYBerlina there were two normal muslims here in the UK. Normal that is until they tried to drive a Jeep loaded with gas tanks into Glasgow airport. The survivor was a doctor. So much for the hippocratic oath.

Deadmandrinking you are not in the UK so you can’t understand what a toilet this place is turning into. Like Australia, the only way to get real culture of the country is to go out to the country. In the cities, the British culture barely exists.

If you tried to introduce our culture into Syria or Burma you would be arrested. I am all for multiculturalism as long as those who move from other cultures and religions are prepared to accept that they must not try and impose their beliefs on the Australian people.

Deadmandrinking4:01 pm 28 Jan 09

It would not surprise me if this generalization really did apply to 99.9% of muslims Australia-wide.

It’s really only a handful that are extremists or criminals. Kind of like Anglo-celtic australians.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy3:52 pm 28 Jan 09

Warning: generalisation below.

ALL of the Muslims I know are normal Aussies, who want a stable job, a nice house in a peaceful neighbourhood, good education for their kids and a holiday occasionally. I don’t think any of them would be what the media calls extremists.

Deadmandrinking2:57 pm 28 Jan 09

I should stress there is a difference between a woman choosing to wear a Burkha and beating the said women. The latter doesn’t happen as much as the former in most Muslim households. If a woman is forced to do something she does not want to do, or is assaulted, it is up to us as a society to provide refuge and justice for these women, not try to vilify a culture as a whole or to ban burkhas.

Also, I think our perceptions of Muslim cultures are greatly skewed by the tabloid media (lookin’ at you 9 and 7), who seem obsessed with airing the views of extremist, obscure clerics. All it does is give them publicity. Think of it this way; Extremist rants about something reprehensible, media vilifies the extremist’s entire cultural background, people from similar cultural background are alienated from society and see that the few among them who are especially targeted and especially resistant to such persecution are the extremists, which in turn draws more sympathy and eventually more followers.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy2:09 pm 28 Jan 09

I guess the hard part is for people to work out which of their cultural beliefs will need to change. Perhaps culture is like quantum mechanics – where observing an event changes the outcome.

Deadmandrinking2:08 pm 28 Jan 09

How exactly is the UK in the poo?

Last I heard, we’re pretty much similar; same crime-rate, similar demographics. In fact, Sydney is more multicultural than London.

The problem here is that people are too quick to identify extremism with a cultural group as a whole. Last year, I went to a wedding at a Pentecostal (or whatever) church and seriously, some of the sh-t they say there made me wonder which awful time-period these people were stuck in. It was all ‘the woman should submit to her husband’ and so on and so forth. Is this representative of our anglo-celtic population as a whole? I don’t think so.

And what about Alan Jones? Should he be thrown out?

Victimization of women and racial discrimination are banned by law in this country, no matter what culture the victim or the offender hails from. You do not have the right to beat women or discriminate against others if you think it’s a spiritual belief. Offenders are individually prosecuted for such offenses. This is how a multicultural society should work.

Peter, Dexi,

Grownups are trying to talk about something serious here. You are polluting this thread with offtopic ranting. I am sorely tempted to keep you both in moderation forever to avoid this re-occuring.

Go and re-fight the culture wars somewhere else.

dexi said :

“dexi, from history, the English invaded australia. The indigenous peoples here at the time put up a good fight, but they lost. Over. Move on. we as a people, not being english, indigenous or an immigrant from the rest of the world, but Australians, need to work to a common belief”

They lost did they. Is that your common belief? So where is the treaty?

How can you discuss cultural understanding and step around or on indigenous culture?

If we weren’t all one people now, we would still be engaging in skirmishes with rebel indigenous bands, and there would be far worse atrocities being committed against the indigenous peoples here. I wasn’t here to see what the english did. But, they certainly didn’t try very hard to make the local tribes their friends.

regardless of what happened in the past, I now have many friends that are indigenous, in the NT. I have great respect for the cultures of others, and count many people of very diverse backgrounds from an ethnicity perspective as my friends. I don’t care where you come from, if you and i have a rapport, you are counted amongst my friends. If we don’t hit it off, so be it.

I am not going to argue with you over the lack of a treaty. I understand that one was probably never created between the English and the indigenous peoples. We now have to ensure that the type of nation and state that we have is tempered with understanding, and equality.

“dexi, from history, the English invaded australia. The indigenous peoples here at the time put up a good fight, but they lost. Over. Move on. we as a people, not being english, indigenous or an immigrant from the rest of the world, but Australians, need to work to a common belief”

They lost did they. Is that your common belief? So where is the treaty?

How can you discuss cultural understanding and step around or on indigenous culture?

dexi said :

“All individuals have a responsibility to treat everyone in a fair and respectful manner”

Our indigenous population have the answers to cultural respect. If only we had treated them fairly and respected their knowledge.

dexi, from history, the English invaded australia. The indigenous peoples here at the time put up a good fight, but they lost. Over. Move on. we as a people, not being english, indigenous or an immigrant from the rest of the world, but Australians, need to work to a common belief. “All individuals have a responsibility to treat everyone in a fair and respectful manner” is a start, as is “All individuals in the ACT have the right to maintain, practise and promote their culture and language, All individuals have the right to cultural expression and understanding (regardless of the adequacy of their English language skills), – All individuals have the right to practise their religious and spiritual beliefs. the one that needs to be addressed by many members of our society is this one:

“All individuals have a responsibility to recognise and accept the linguistic and cultural assets of the ACT”. Linguistic assets include the ability to speak the native tongue as recognised by the government of this country. that would be english.

I don’t really care if you are a hindi, moslem, jew, christian, etc, etc. I don’t care whether you can speak french, indian, german, vietnamese, chinese, etc, etc. Colour of skin doesn’t phase me in the slightest. attire is up to you. I do care when you cannot speak clear and understandable english, or cannot read and write. This affects me daily. I want to understand what others are trying to communicate to me, but if I cannot make out what they are saying, it makes it very difficult. especially if i give you a pen, and you cannot write in english.

assimilation into the australian society does not mean that you must abandon your heritage. I just feel that you need to respect the society you have joined and make an attempt to be understood by others who aren’t of your ethnicity.

“All individuals have a responsibility to treat everyone in a fair and respectful manner”

Our indigenous population have the answers to cultural respect. If only we had treated them fairly and respected their knowledge.

All individuals have a responsibility to treat everyone in a fair and respectful manner

Note they only want individuals to do the respecting.

Let’s get the government to lead by example. Waiting, waiting….

[some time later] … still waiting…

I have put a fair bit of thought into the reconciling respect for cultural traditions with my own personal beliefs on certain practices I find distasteful. To put it in context, in that for the last 6 years around half the people I interact with every day at work and at home come from non-australian, usually non-english speaking backgrounds. Of the 10 people in my immediate workspace, only myself and one other speak english as a first language.

In the end, I have concluded: I firmly believe in the rights of people to maintain their cultural beliefs and practices, however I do think that there are a set of very basic human rights which take precedence if there is a conflict between cultural tradition and these human rights. Of course, my perception of what constitutes a inalienable human right is very much based on my western cultural background, but I think it is things like: the ability to live your life without fear of violence, the right to an education and voice in your society, and the right to control what happens to your own body. So, in some of the examples cited above, such as forced marriage, the human right of controlling what happens to your body takes precedence over the tradition.

dexi said :

“Still, I don’t know that I want polygamy legalised in Australia”

Why not?

Well I don’t know: that’s the point, really.

On this whole issue, I have to write a really, really big ‘I don’t know’, and it’s not because I don’t have an opinion or don’t care, but I can agree with just about everything on here except for the silly pommy who can’t see the politicians for the Westminster system.

What it boils down to is that I like multiculturalism. When you try to write it down, though, it starts to sound trite and condescending. I don’t mean to say that there shouldn’t be a policy, but I also acknowledge that a policy can’t account for the way multiple cultures can and should interact.

So let little Johnny have his policy, and we’ll ignore it and get on with making the world a better place.

Seems awfully hypocritical for the agist old git to be talking about equality, anyway!

Yes, I think that they’ve erred with that one. It’s pretty easy to demonstrate – I reckon there are few who would say that to have, for example, Christopher Hitchens speak here, or to sell his books, would contravene a social norm.

That’s what’s really rubbing me the wrong way caf.

A right to be respected is going to let some real bastard coated bastards continue on their wicked way some time or another.

Well I suppose the idea is that respecting the culture, language and religion of others ensures that your culture, language and religion is respected; and that treating everyone in a fair and respectful manner ensures that you are treated similarly.

The social contract evolves over time, and this document is more an expression of some of what those drafting it believe that it currently includes rather than an a proposal for change.

I think I agree about the “fair and respectful” one, but I’m pretty sure that religions and cultures are not self-evidently worthy of respect. Do we really feel obliged to accord respect to the fast-food, celebrity-worshipping culture?

Dexi why should the Westminster system put us in the poo? It allows the government to be dismissed as we saw in 75, it allows a multi party system and is democratic. Would you rather we had a government like Zimbabwe??

“Well I would really, really hate if Australia went on the downward spiral which the UK is in. Multiculturalism is fine as long as it doesn’t erode the foundations of our western society.”

If we are and have always been multicultural, and our society is based on the western, Westminster legal system adopted from the English, we should already be well in the poo? Im not sure of your political intentions. Lets blame multi cultures for something.

Is this why the pollies seem to think we need to set out rights?

If it hadn’t been the British, it would have been the French or the Dutch. Let’s be very clear about that.

“society is based partly on the principle that each individual has a responsibility to respect the property rights of others.”

Terra nullius being the part we don’t talk about.

If only we could all adopt that first sentence BerraBoy. Unfortunately there are people in this society who don’t want to live like that.

Dexi my definition of West is more political than geographical.

caf said :

I think we’ve always had a State philosophy. For example, our society is based partly on the principle that each individual has a responsibility to respect the property rights of others.

Sure, there’s an existing social contract, massively abused by short sighted but mostly well-meaning politicians in recent years.

But this is a pretty big expansion, and not much of a contract from the individual’s point of view.

Respecting the property rights of others protects my property.

I’m not feeling the personal upside on this one.

More importantly is anyone else seeing here a State philosophy?

I think we’ve always had a State philosophy. For example, our society is based partly on the principle that each individual has a responsibility to respect the property rights of others.

Can’t the whole framework be summed up the second last of the principles listed in teh OP, that is:

“All individuals have a responsibility to treat everyone in a fair and respectful manner”.

I don’t want to be told what to think or do in every aspect of my life but I do try to live by this one.

farnmrkler……Which won’t erode us as we are in the East, are already and have always been multicultural. You could argue that long before white settlement this land was multicultural.

“Still, I don’t know that I want polygamy legalised in Australia”

Why not?

neanderthalsis9:33 am 28 Jan 09

I think what is missing from the eight rights is “within the bounds of Australian and territorian law and socially accepted practice.”

It is good to have recognised cultural rights, but what happens when those cultural rights clash with what is deemed socailly acceptable here in Australia. Some cultural practices sit far outside of what any right thinking person would deem to be a socially accepted practice.

Female circumcision was mentioned earlier, some women are “forced” to wear Burkas, some cultures deny access to education depending on your caste or sex, it is acceptable in some cultures to stone rape victims to death for their role in the crime. Does this mean that we must accept these practices here?

I think they are way off the mark with the statement of “rights” Multicultural Strategy. Perhaps a declaration of the rights of the individual to practice their culture so long as it does not impede the right of another to do the same would have been a far better option.

Well I would really, really hate if Australia went on the downward spiral which the UK is in. Multiculturalism is fine as long as it doesn’t erode the foundations of our western society.

Why the Government mandates the number and composition of domestic relationships is a mystery and not something we should be blaming the poor old Sudanese for.

farnarkler said :

Thumper I think we do have the right to demand re your post #26 Otherwise our ‘western-ness’ can be questioned.

What’s wrong with questioning our western-ness? According to the west, we live in the east.

I worry about the Sudanese families who come here, having fathers with multiple wives and children from all of them. Australia only grants refugee status to the husband and one of his wives; so what happens to the others? Seems awfully discriminatory and unreasonable to me.

Still, I don’t know that I want polygamy legalised in Australia, or for specific laws to be made for one cultural group.

I agree with Thumper that there are far more questions than answers.

The true symbol of the Bogan would have to be the flanny or the side of slab carton. Topless boys draped in the flag are not bogans. Not unless they are wearing a flanny, have a VB, or are driving an old commodore.

But our flag has not gone the way of the swastika yet. It’s on that road,

Wow, that’s drawing a seriously long bow. I mean, a really seriously long bow.

I don’t think it’s that long. I’m not trying to equate boganism with Nazism, but a beign symbol (ie the swastika in 1930) with our flag, which is also benign. If you want that flag to be associated with boganism, it will stop being benign; but the point is that it is not bogans who are to blame, but non-bogans who surrender it.

The only reason I think it worth saying is that whatever symbol is used for the country should not be surrendered to one particular group. Like Dexi is saying, the use of a cultural symbol or custom within its cultural group is harmless enough, but in another context it can cause problems. This is why there is a tendency to associate the Australian flag-as-cape with Cronulla, and why I think people who aren’t associated with that mindset should adopt the same display; it would refuse to allow that particular symbolism to have any validity. The Australian flag should represent Australians of Middle Eastern origin as much as it represents Australians of Anglo-Celtic origin.

So I reassert that the status of the swastika in 1930 is much the same as what we’re saying about the Australian flag now. If the other political parties or indeed other organisations had adopted the swastika as a national symbol of Germany at that point, it would never have gained the emotive power it did.

Thumper I think we do have the right to demand re your post #26 Otherwise our ‘western-ness’ can be questioned.

Firstly, debates on the merits of the flag are seriously off topic.

More importantly is anyone else seeing here a State philosophy?

I might choose to adhere to all the points here, but that should be my choice, not a matter of government policy.

And while I can’t think of any cultural groups I disrespect I sure as hell reserve the right to judge them on their merits.

Actually I have a huge problem with government defining cultural groups rather than treating all people individually on their merits.

A couple of points; firstly the Cronulla rioters didn’t just appear out of nowhere thinking ‘hey we’re bored, let’s have a spontaneous riot’. There was cause, just or not, for their admittedly neanderthal behaviour. Secondly should all this allowance of cultural and religious expression go so far as to allow the various barbaric treatments of women ie not being allowed to drive, being circumcised, being forced to marry against their will and also to let islamic women into banks etc whilst wearing clothing which shields there faces.

Using a tree branch as a physical example, yes there needs to be some give in the branch but it should not be allowed to be broken. If it does, Australia will be just another UK.

It seems to become a problem with the kids. While the above example may not have a direct effect when expressed within its own cultural group. When the children start to express these ideas in the community (growing up), we seem to see problems.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy8:45 am 28 Jan 09

How about the right to kick any migrant out of the ACT if they start waffling on about the right to beat up ones own wife or accusing our women of dressing like prostitutes.

This raises what I think is an interesting issue. Should cultural groups be allowed to promote and espouse views that may offend the majority, but within their own culture? So if a religious group, at a religious event of theirs, espouses a view that is contrary to mainstream opinion, is this really a problem?

I don’t really have an answer to offer, but am curious as to what others think.

Since when are the bogans all things racist?

I remember the same sentiments as the “Go home” type, expressed strongly at my exclusive private school many years ago. Maybe it has something to do with age.

I mean, #16. Phark! First three nut post-bag of the year.

Oh, and #19 was directed at #17.

trevar said :

Overheard said :

It’s why I can’t stand the Australian flag-cape look. It’s not just a Cronulla riots thing; it’s just evocative of those with that mind-set, and any time I see anyone donning the cape, they seem to be that gormless ‘Aussie pride!’ kind of jingoists who are just half a slab of VB (yick) away from mindless violence.

That’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Should we dismiss every symbol we’ve ever had because someone has used it in a way we don’t agree with? We’d never have any symbols! Come to think of it, that may not be the worst thing in the world, but I refuse to allow the Cronulla rioters to just take our national symbols, regardless of whether I like the symbol or not.

Er, short answer, no. I was supporting a change in the flag a loooooooooong time before the Cronulla riots.

Have to add, I think there is a point when symbols become irretrievable: the swastika, which was a nice little pattern on the ceiling of a Munich beer hall in 1930, could not be separated from Nazism ten years later. But our flag has not gone the way of the swastika yet. It’s on that road, and if good people release it to the bogans, it will become their exclusive symbol.

Overheard said :

It’s why I can’t stand the Australian flag-cape look. It’s not just a Cronulla riots thing; it’s just evocative of those with that mind-set, and any time I see anyone donning the cape, they seem to be that gormless ‘Aussie pride!’ kind of jingoists who are just half a slab of VB (yick) away from mindless violence.

That’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Should we dismiss every symbol we’ve ever had because someone has used it in a way we don’t agree with? We’d never have any symbols! Come to think of it, that may not be the worst thing in the world, but I refuse to allow the Cronulla rioters to just take our national symbols, regardless of whether I like the symbol or not.

Seriously, bugger the bogans! I still like the flag, and while I might approve of a change, until that change happens, I am a proud non-bogan flying the flag with the little pommy cross in the corner so that it can’t be simply interpreted as a symbol of boganism.

Overheard said :

Ian said :

Overheard @ #5 – they were. The racist bogan culture.

True.

It’s why I can’t stand the Australian flag-cape look. It’s not just a Cronulla riots thing; it’s just evocative of those with that mind-set, and any time I see anyone donning the cape, they seem to be that gormless ‘Aussie pride!’ kind of jingoists who are just half a slab of VB (yick) away from mindless violence.

I’d like to think a well-meaning policy could help change that but I’m not overly hopeful.

I have such a negative connotation from this sort of behaviour, I have to say I was even turned off by all the Australian flags festooning the utes and other vehicles on Monday.

Then again, I’ve believed for years we should change the damn thing.

I was thinking the same thing on Australia day – I saw a teenagers draped in the flag and thought this guy is either a pan nationalist bully boy or just proud of their country. Those Cronulla “love it or leave” B#@@%&ds stole from us all.

Ian said :

Overheard @ #5 – they were. The racist bogan culture.

True.

It’s why I can’t stand the Australian flag-cape look. It’s not just a Cronulla riots thing; it’s just evocative of those with that mind-set, and any time I see anyone donning the cape, they seem to be that gormless ‘Aussie pride!’ kind of jingoists who are just half a slab of VB (yick) away from mindless violence.

I’d like to think a well-meaning policy could help change that but I’m not overly hopeful.

I have such a negative connotation from this sort of behaviour, I have to say I was even turned off by all the Australian flags festooning the utes and other vehicles on Monday.

Then again, I’ve believed for years we should change the damn thing.

These documents are very shallow – I am sick of feel good that do no good. No one would argue with the intent or spirit of these.

The use of the term “right” invokes some interesting absolutes in my mind for example Clearly not ALL individuals have the right access the ACT womens return to work grants program (in fact the largest gender minority group is specifically excluded).

Similarly – What is “fair”? Its a judgement not and absolute – some people think that it is unfair that someone works hard, misses their family and risks their assets to be taxed and have their toil redistributed. Does that mean that people that recieve this benefit should acknowledge that others miss out in order to ensure that they recieve. Maybe some community service for your public housing.

caf said :

Thumper: Actually, “practise” is the more usual UK English spelling of the verb, whereas “practice” is the noun. I believe the US use “practice” for both, though.

It’s good practice to practise your spelling.

Correct. Our American friends don’t concern themselves with such spelling as ‘defence’, ‘licence’, or ‘offence’ — as is evidenced by all the red lines under those words just typed, urging me to reconsider the spelling.

So thems rules means Australia Day has to be respected by the Aboriginal nations?

Thumper: Actually, “practise” is the more usual UK English spelling of the verb, whereas “practice” is the noun. I believe the US use “practice” for both, though.

It’s good practice to practise your spelling.

Overheard @ #5 – they were. The racist bogan culture.

“Equitable access to government services” could be interpreted to mean that every single publication put out by government would have to be translated into the language of any individual. Just picture the cost.
I prefer the American model – freedom to express your culture – but not at any cost to the taxpayer, or officially sanctioned in any way.

seekay said :

“All individuals in the ACT have the right to maintain, practise and promote their culture”

I wonder if the flag-caped morons in Manly yesterday were maintaining, practising and promoting their culture.

I hope people respect the right to dress like a prostitute, because its hot. I like the electric blue, hip hugging, sequin dresses with the low cut top.

It would be nice if people could just be nice to each other. All we need is….

– All individuals have a responsibility to treat everyone in a fair and respectful manner.

shauno said :

How about the right to kick any migrant out of the ACT if they start waffling on about the right to beat up ones own wife or accusing our women of dressing like prostitutes.

Well… it’s not like we ever had that one…

How about the right to kick any migrant out of the ACT if they start waffling on about the right to beat up ones own wife or accusing our women of dressing like prostitutes.

“All individuals in the ACT have the right to maintain, practise and promote their culture”

Right…. Does this mean we get female circumcision AND whale hunts?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.