Political dilemma

I read a new article this morning that troubles me, mainly because I cannot say for sure where I stand in this issue, which is quite unusual for me. I can state right now that I tend towards the liberal camp in politics, but not the far-left kind. I'm a free thinker, "spirtual but not religious".

The article was about the comments made by the Australian treasurer (the man who is suppose to succeed the prime minister) about how, if Muslim migrants cannot accept Australian laws and views, they should leave and go to live in countries that apply Muslim laws.

One thing for sure is that the statements are definitely antagonistic and in-your-face--there's nothing ambiguous about them.

I was somewhat surprised that they came from an Aussie because they're always so laid-back and accomodating. They sound like the sort of things that even Donald Rumsfield and Dick Cheney would not dare to utter in public, because it would be political suicide.

It was reported that the Australian prime minister refused to censure the treasurer because what he said were "fundamentally accurate". Minority ethnic groups were, of course, pissed.

They said that the comments were divisive and would encourage fear and hatred. One said: Isn't Australia supposed to embrace multi-culturalism?

My first, knee-jerk response was to disagree with the treasurer. I never liked hawkish, hardline politics and this sure seems like that kind. But after reading about Australian values and what they entail, I think I may have to agree with the PM that the treasurer is "fundamentally accurate".

This is because Australian values are about "enjoy(ing) equal rights and respect, regardless of race, colour, religion, and gender", among other things. Isn't this all about multi-culturalism? If a citizen cannot accept the civil laws of a country based on the above principles, then can you expect the country to bend the laws to acommodate you? Bear in mind that I'm not talking about Muslim (or other ethnic groups) migrants as a whole, but only those who refuse to adopt the values and to abide by the civil laws.

However, I think it was a mistake of the treasurer to pinpoint the Muslims in his comments; this should apply to all, even white Australians. So I agree with the core message--that you have to agree to be governed by the laws of the country--but not the way it was conveyed, especially in the current tense climate, with the furore over the Danish cartoons and all. Let me say also that I think the press was just plain stupid to publish those cartoons. What were they trying to prove? That the press cannot be trusted with the freedom of speech and expression because when given that, they'll just go all out to prove that they're incapable of exercising those rights reasonably?