Letter_-_Multiculturalism

Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing in regards to Duncan Waterson’s letter to the editor to your newspaper, outlining his opinions of Geoffrey Blainey’s recently released book – All for Australia. I strongly disagree with Waterson. Geoffrey Blainey’s new book one of the few pieces of quality literature of this time that manages to capture the bleak reality of the so-called ‘multiculturalism’ and its consequences. In actuality, the effects of the new Hawke Government multiculturalism policy will take a turn for the worse and create an unstable situation for the government in terms of dealing with society. Firstly, Waterson has no doubt misinterpreted Professor Blainey’s opinion, and provides no evidence to support his arguments. Waterson calls Blainey’s views ‘racist in character’. This particularly irritates me as the points Blainey has given do not even point a finger at any particular race and are purely based on factual information. In addition, Waterson also states that Blainey’s views are ‘socially destructive’. However, the consequences of multiculturalism would cause the most social disharmony. The introduction of a variety of groups will certainly stimulate racial behaviour, which may lead to riots, increased crime levels, and security risks as a consequence. This would have a negative impact on our police forces to control these crimes, and more government funding would need to be allocated to prisons instead of more urgent and important issues such as poverty and paying government debts. Allocation of funds towards these negative results of multiculturalism would be a waste of a tax-payer’s money. Secondly, Waterson also states that Blainey’s evidence ‘matches that of the old Bulletin’. This is a very invalid argument. The Bulletin may have contained ‘prejudices and hatreds’ but Blainey’s book is based on factual information, and unlike the Bulletin, states his views instead of inputting biased opinion and data. Blainey’s points against multiculturalism are valid, and can already be seen in society. Blainley states that the ‘recent governments emphasise the merits of a multicultural society and ignore the dangers’. The evidence in this is very clear. Governments introduce a variety of new laws to promote toleration to other races, obviously to avoid trouble between ethnic groups. What these governments fail to consider is that acceptance, not toleration, is the essential factor in helping people of different cultures to settle down together. The introduction of new immigrants can also cause problems for them. Alienation, family separation, language difficulties, unemployment and conflicting belief systems do not only cause problems to the nation but also emotional problems. Also, the welcoming of too many migrants can cause dilution of the Australian culture and may also cause the government to select and restrict migrants based on prejudicial judgements. In summary, Unless anti-discrimination laws are enforced properly, and government programs become sensitive to the need of all their new migrant Australians, multiculturalism would continue to have negative impact on not only the government, and the people, but also to the migrants themselves. I really do hope the Sydney Morning Herald will give serious consideration to my point of view.