"Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values, don't come to Australia."
Fair 'nuff. Sounds good, even to a leftie like me. However, on the same topic he criticised the view that "[attaining Australian] citizenship did not mean having to give up culture or language or religion or opinions or love of their native country" as "confused, mushy, misguided multiculturalism". Hmm.
When a migrant comes to a country - any country, not just Australia - it follows that they accept the laws of that country and the consequences that breaking those laws entail. A recent example is the objections over death sentences of Australian drug traffickers abroad the past few months that tend to skim over the fact that it is clearly stated (in English) on immigration cards and airport signage that there are harsh consequences for drug trafficking in countries like Singapore and Indonesia. Whether or not you believe in the death penalty is irrelevant to your understanding of what could happen if you committed certain crimes.
Culture is another thing altogether and is often closely linked to religion. I have a couple of friends from Hindu families who don't necessarily believe in the Hindu gods but attend ceremonies which are synonymous with Indian culture. Another is Muslim and doesn't eat pig or drink alcohol but doesn't wear a burqa either. My own family practises a lot of Chinese customs. At the recent Chinese New Year celebrations, Dixon Street played audience to the traditional lion dance which included firecrackers being let off in the open, which is not usually allowed so close to the public. Exception is made for Muslims and Sikhs who are allowed to wear headdresses at school and at work which might otherwise contravene dress codes. I would say that Australia is a pretty tolerant country with no reasonable cultural exception denied.
Religion is tolerated to the extent that it does not contravene law, for example, religious practices such as "an eye for an eye" cannot be enacted as it is illegal; Australia does not practice corporal punishment. In a country like Australia, where the law is separate from religion, every person is bound by the law. Whether or not you choose to be bound by a religion as well is up to you, but you must obey the laws of the country first and foremost - it is the agreement you intrinsically make for remaining free in this country.
Language is important. While I'd emphasise that migrants learn to speak English, it is also important that they retain their native tongue as being bilingual is a real skill in a country that doesn't actively encourage the acquisition of another language. This helps with trade, tourism and indirect linguistic education. Opinions, well in a country that supports free speech, everyone is entitled to those. Love of a native country is only natural for some people but it would be foolish to think that affinity with another country would diminish their dedication to Australia. It's like being able to love your parents and love your spouse at the same time.
So, for Costello to suggest that retaining culture, religion, language, opinions and love of a native country is "confused, mushy, misguided multiculturalism" is a unfortunate choice of words. Diversity is what makes a society dynamic, it's what educates us to other worlds. Meeting someone from another country is usually an interesting experience, especially if they've retained some of the customs of their country that enables us to see how things are done elsewhere. From that we have the opportunity to take on board methods and behaviour or observe how an Australian upbringing might just be the best way to go.
Yes, new migrants should observe Australian law and consider whether coming here suits their way of life. But they must also be encouraged to retain their culture so we can learn and become a richer society. Law is not culture, Mr Costello. Never get them confused again.
No comments:
Post a Comment