The El Dorado of welfare

When the Soviet regime allowed some of its Jewish citizens to join close relatives in Israel, 85% of those allowed to leave were (according to Israel’s Prime Minister in the early 1980s) deflected to the El Dorado of the USA (and to less-attractive nations such as Australia). This is the power of economic opportunity.

In recent decades, beardless Middle Eastern men and niqab-free women paid large sums of money to ‘snake-heads’ to deliver them to the (no reciprocity of payment required) welfare regime of the El Dorado of Australia.

The extent of support for welfare (and attempts to widen its scope in Australia) is most impressive. While ‘other people’s money’ is a natural drawcard, what motivates those who recommend (even demand) widening and deepening welfare eligibility for others? Paying students to study maths at school is the latest thought-bubble of a poobah in education policy.

And, until recently, there was a strident demand from a sector of the community that Australia should take in more economic migrants claiming asylum – without regard to the UN Convention defining a refugee. Is it not curious that their wish to offer charity is circumscribed by the availability of taxpayer money?

A concealed form of welfare takes the form of tax subsidies to the well-off. The most interesting one is described as ‘wealth creation’ by Conservative politicians. The most flagrant form is through ‘negative gearing’ of investments in property. Costs – actual or staged – are deductible against income from any source; a most generous unintended gift by other taxpayers, who have to make up the deficit in government revenue, and who are unable to reduce their tax burden honestly.

Interestingly, an article by Jessica Irvine in the Sydney Morning Herald of 9 Feb. 2018, about a report by the Grattan Institute on Australia’s compulsory contribution by workers, suggests increasing rent assistance to vulnerable retirees.

What was the objective in establishing the ‘superannuation guarantee charge’? Was it not intended to progressively replace the age pension, which is now popularly regarded as a right, and which is a very heavy budgetary burden?

Advertisement

Corruption galore

Corruption seems to be a very human attribute, evident all over the globe. Yet, is it not strange that the majority of people I have met are not in the least interested in taking advantage of their position to acquire wealth or possessions? Against that, those who are corrupt include (everywhere) very rich or very powerful people enjoying a high lifestyle. If that does not indicate extraordinary greed, what does?

The latest corrupt behaviour in Australia I have read about involves some unlawful arrivals claiming asylum because they are gay, that is, homosexual. Migration agents are reportedly involved; how so? Are pro bono lawyers involved too? Media reports are somewhat opaque about such matters. It is, however, interesting to read about the preparations made by some asylum seekers to convince decision makers that they are practising homosexuals.

Since these applicants are already in Australia, but are not allowed to work for a living, who feeds and houses them? Australian charities? Do members of their tribal community provide material support? Do their supporters among the host-nation population who are not tribally-linked provide necessary sustenance?

How did these applicants get into the country? Unlawfully? Or, by not being honest when applying for a visitor-visa?

Corruption in Australia is petty compared to the grand larceny reportedly to be found in many countries. Yet, would it not be sensible to attempt to close the holes now available through faulty policies or lax administration? The financial cost to the nation now must be ridiculously high.

Back-door entry to Australia

One cannot obviously be a puritan in the administration of humanitarian entry (HE) policy. … …  .  This is also where back door entry policy, the admission of asylum seekers, also comes in.

Equipped with a passport from one’s country of nationality, a return airline ticket, enough money to cover the nominated period of the visit, a visa and other documentation identifying one as a businessman, visitor, student, etc., one can, after arrival, convert to asylum seeker.  The applicant cannot be thrown out as an over-stayer while awaiting a decision.  Then the repeated access to appeal courts, presumably at taxpayer expense, an access not so readily available to, or affordable by, an ordinary Australian citizen!

But, who feeds, accommodates, and pays the medical bills for these asylum seekers while they await this back door entry?  A Singhalese person claiming a fear of persecution in Singhalese Sri Lanka, or a Malaysian Chinese making a similar claim about Chinese-dominated Malaysia, indicate the waste of investigatory resources arising from such asylum claims, and the opportunism of applicants and their very vocal supporters.

The public has little to no information about what happens to those legal arrivals, the ones who arrive by air with an appropriate entry document.  These represent the greater part of these asylum seekers.  Reportedly, most of these applicants are allowed to remain.  On what basis?  Surely all those accepted could not have produced evidence of persecution or discrimination.  Were they also assessed as capable of earning a living in Australia?  Are the rejects only those who have failed security checks?  Who provides the necessary information?  The authorities from whom the applicant claims to be fleeing?  Since there seems to be no shortage of local supporters for these applicants, is this form of entry a variation of family reunion?

  On the other hand, we are flooded with information about unlawful boat arrivals.  Their very vocal Anglo-Australian supporters present them as a form of sacred cow.  For instance, we are not allowed to describe them as illegal arrivals!  Australia is not to be allowed to reject any, in spite of a seemingly unlimited right of access to appeal courts at taxpayer expense.  No reject can be sent home.  Indeed, there was that incredible claim that there should be a separate entry category for rejected asylum seekers!

Asylum seekers should also not be kept in detention where they are provided with full board, education, health and welfare services, we are told.  But we are not told who will house, feed, and medicate them were they to be free to roam all over the country while they await a decision.  Will their supporters accept that responsibility?  Or, is the poor taxpayer expected to provide accommodation in the community (in spite of the thousands of Australian homeless people needing a warm bed), with cash support from Centrelink (the welfare agency) and medical services through Medicare?  Officialdom is apparently already required to provide public housing to those accepted as refugees.  Welfare benefits and Medicare automatically flow from acceptance.  Presumably, family reunion is then available.  Who wouldn’t want to be an asylum seeker!

The Anglo-Australian supporters of the boat arrivals claim that all asylum seekers are genuine refugees (how would they know that?) and that they have all suffered trauma and torture (anyone with any evidence?).  They seek speedy decisions in spite of the reality that almost all arrivals have torn up their identity papers and other documentation which got them to Indonesia.  What does that behaviour suggest?  That there is an intent not to be honest?  Why?  Could some of them be al-Queda or Taliban, or are members of drug or other criminal cartels?  How are our authorities to know?  We are told that detention has caused mental health problems;  but, were those with such problems sent by their families?

There is another moral problem.  How could anyone risk the life of a child or one’s womenfolk on one of the asylum seeker boats?  Is it then the case that the journey is not as dangerous as it is said to be?  In a comparable past experience, were the Vietnamese boat people arriving in Thailand and Malaysia as exposed to the sea and piracy as was claimed by their vocal supporters?  How believable is an economic migrant seeking entry by the back door?

 

(The above is an extract from my book ‘Musings at Death’s Door: an ancient bicultural Asian-Australian ponders about Australian society,’ published in 2012. Since then, much has changed. Initially, a more open door to illegal entry led to a large number of arrivals. With a change of government, Australia’s borders became more tightly protected against arrivals by sea. What of legal arrivals claiming asylum?

There are claimants yet to be assessed, reportedly living in Australia. Then, there are those placed overseas. It is indeed a somewhat murky situation. I am not aware of supporters of asylum seekers willing to take them into their homes, finding jobs, and generally looking after them; except to assist them with their applications and review appeals; and to make loud public protests.

The taxpayer cost of supporting accepted asylum seekers seems high. 91% unemployment after 5 years is a very heavy load for those who cannot minimise their tax burden.

Back-door entry obviously needs to be denied; or the nation loses control of its borders. An integrated populace needs to decide who joins them.

    

 

 

“The boat people” – extracts

This is the first short, story from ‘Pithy Perspectives,’ a bicultural series of wacky, or weird, or uplifting or intriguing or imaginative thought-bubbles of mine.

“Go and ask that miserable-looking Asiatic who calls himself captain. Tell him that we need at least two porters.”

“Yes, dear.”

A little later, quite a little later, Rueben returns, looking mystified. “There’s no one in the uniform of a ship’s officer to be seen” he tells Miriam.

“Nonsense,” responds Miriam. “Look more carefully below deck. The officers are probably hiding in their cabins.”

“Why would they do that, dear?”

“Because that’s what these Asiatics are like. They are not comfortable in the presence of white people, are they?”

…………………………….

At the Customs barrier, he sees a bearded Sikh, resplendent in a most colorful turban, talking to a black man, as colleagues might. Approaching the latter, Rueben calls out “You! Come and give us a hand with our luggage. I will pay you well.”

“Pardon?” responds the black man, with the accent of a native of north England.

“I need a hand, man. Let’s go.”

“Excuse me, sir, I am the Immigration Officer on duty here.”

……………………………..

I need to examine your entry papers most carefully. We do not want any more illegal entrants,” says the public servant silkily, with suave satisfaction.

“And I will need to examine the contents of your luggage equally carefully,” interjects the Customs Officer, looking as bland as only an Oriental can, but with a broad Scottish accent. He is careful not to smile, although his turban seems to tremble slightly.

………………………………

Shocked out of her mind at seeing a white man, particularly her husband, doing the work of coolies, Miriam decides that she would compensate for the more brutish life of the future by buying a yacht, as her former compatriots now resident in coastal Sydney had done.

She is not to know that these new arrivals have already been described as the second-wave boat people. Where the first wave had arrived illegally by boat from East Asia in order to escape a ‘red’ regime, the second wave arrived legally to escape a ‘black’ regime, and promptly bought a boat.

 

 

 

 

‘Hidden Footprints of Unity’ – Excerpts

Chapter 1       Black Looks in Oz

“…the assumption that Australia not only has

a history worth bothering about, but that

all the history worth bothering about

happened in Australia”

— Clive James

“Be careful! Raj will give you a black look, if you don’t play well today.” When I first heard these words, I was mystified. There had been no reference to my colour for decades, certainly never in a stable social situation. Why now, in the mid 1990s? Anyway, it came to my notice that these strange words were being uttered somewhat frequently by Willy, a chatty old Aussie, in my presence. Yet, he never referred to any of the others — all white — as ever giving black looks.   Willy, typically self-confident, in spite of being relatively unlettered, and I were members of a group of elderly men (known as the ‘vets’) who played tennis three times a week.  Our ages ranged from a little under 60 to about 80. Most, like Willy, were ordinary folk, with no pretensions.

Chapter 2       The Power of Pigmentation

“It’s powerful,” he said.

“What?”

“That one drop of Negro blood

— because just one drop of black blood makes a man coloured.”

– Langton Hughes

Like most Asians, I do not take notice of variations in skin colour. When everyone around me sported a different colour, how could I be sensitive to such variations? This claim will no doubt surprise those with a need to detect, and possibly denigrate, anyone with any hint of colour. The way the mixed blood urban Aborigine is talked about is sufficiently illustrative. Since most parts of the world are multi-hued, differences in skin colour are generally not persuasive in human relations where whites are not involved. The exceptions are the caste-ridden, especially the Indians (eg ill-educated Hindu mums looking for ‘fair’ daughters-in-law); or those Euro-Asians who sought, generally by necessity, to identify themselves exclusively with their usually distant white progenitors.

Chapter 3      To Have a dream

“It is a great shock … to find

that, in a world of Gary Coopers,

you are the Indian”.

– James Baldwin

I can claim to know only one Aboriginal person. Indeed, I have met very few Aboriginal people over half a century in Australia. How am I to meet them? Our paths are so far apart. When a meeting does take place, there might be little of that communication that one might expect from people sharing the same stage. Are they keeping themselves apart, because they have been rejected by white society?

Chapter 4           Which  way  to  the  Cosmos?

“Now, my own suspicion is that

the universe is not only queerer

than we suppose, but queerer than

we can suppose.”

– J.B.S.Haldane

I well remember being taught, at about the age of eight, that the universe is without beginning or end. It was part of my acculturation. My mother, well read in our tribal language, and with a strong belief in our religion, started me on this path. She thus planted the seeds of a significant search — for understanding the meaning of life. This search was to stimulate and sustain me for the rest of my life.

Chapter 5        Peering  into  the  Void

“No matter how I probe and prod

I cannot quite believe in God.

But oh! I hope to God that he

Unswervingly believes in me”

–   E.Y. Harburg

On this fragment of the Cosmos known as Earth, there are those who seem to know what creation and existence are all about. Then there are those who claim to know, surrounded by that multitude who just want to know. Amongst the Hindus, there is that belief (expressed in the Upanishads) that, through meditation, one can realise Reality. Although this Reality cannot be described, one can come to know it by identifying with it (ie by realising it). It follows that, as stated by J. Krishnamurti, those who know cannot tell.  Those who claim to tell apparently do not — cannot — know. This unitary awareness, being experienced, is uniquely personal. It is non-transmissible, beyond words, beyond thought (so we are told).

Chapter 6        The  end  of  Tribalism?

 

“How can you govern a country

which has 246 varieties of cheese?”

— Charles de Gaulle

PART ONE — Foreigners Everywhere

• The whitening of terra Australis

 Australia went from monochromatic to multicoloured; from mono-cultural to multicultural, and from monolingual to multilingual, all within 2 hundred years. This is quite an achievement for any nation, if one could only ignore the poor Aborigines, with their original diversity of tribes and tongues. This tri-level transformation of the country was, however, only the secondary change which the indigenes of the nation have had to contend with progressively. The most tragic impact upon the original black inhabitants and their abode was caused by their white conqueror, camouflaged as a seeker of discovery.

PART  TWO – The Merging

• Rejecting the new unwanted

Australia’s infamous dictation test allowed officials to throw out anyone they (or their political masters) did not want, for any or no reason. This was achieved simply by finding a language which the applicant for immigration entry could not possibly know. This approach was clearly reflective of the utter ignorance and insensitivity of leading Australian politicians then. It was all so fatuous, contrasting with the currently impossible task of ridding the nation of queue-jumping economic migrants seeking asylum, especially the ‘boat people’.

Quaint interpretations of international commitments; the assertion of unlimited rights for illegal entrants to avail themselves of unending publicly-funded legal services and appeals; an unbalanced emphasis on the use of lawyers to present the unlawful immigrant’s case for admission to Australia (when he has carefully destroyed the documentation which authorised him to enter his port of departure to Australia); a reliance on the adversarial court process, with the lawyers not required to assist the nation by objectively searching for the truth; a claimed right for asylum applicants to live freely in the community (presumably at the Australian taxpayers’ expense) whilst their refugee status is being assessed; or, alternatively, to have community standards of comfort whilst in detention,  with education, welfare and social worker support thrown in; all these highlight the distance administrative and legal processes have traversed since the days of the dictation test and its policy parameters.

Those who landed on Australia’s shores by boat, in the 1990s, travelling in a highly calculated manner, can claim (through their Aussie advocates) more entitlements to legal aid, access to the courts and other services than are available to us taxpaying citizens.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To conclude:

Adapting an Ethiopian proverb: when the spider webs of a nationalism based on a shared humanity unite, they can tie up the lion of tribal diversity. What Australians of all origins should now work towards is the evolution of a new national identity. In this objective, is there scope for each cultural strand of Aussie humanity to articulate what it contributes to this evolving national image? Could this possibly be done on the basis of what the collective soul says? In so doing, all past contributions of value to the human spirit would be recognised.

The new identity would thereby rely less  on highwaymen, failed excursions overseas, cross-dressing ‘wannabe’ humorists, caste, gender and religious wars, and the ‘deputy sheriff’ role (with its implications of a smug superiority on the surface, and a sub-surface insecurity).

The new identity would re-focus on communitarian aspects of society. Both individualism and tribalism would give way to community cohesion as the Aussie Family of Man.

 

 

Who decides on who can enter Australia?

After the invasion and occupation of terra australis (not nullius), and the indigenes had been driven out, shot or poisoned, an attempt was made to create a white enclave in the Pacific in which no white man would disdain any kind of work. But the squattocracy (which a clever writer described as behaving “as if they had begotten themselves”) sought coolies from China and Japan.

It took the ruling class some time to realise that the stress of coping with a difficult land and climate could be alleviated by utilising the cheap labour under their societal feet.

Finding themselves on a good wicket, Australia’s rulers closed the door on all coloured entrants. By the end of the 20^th century, the entry door having been widened progressively, the door was fully open. Yet, sensibly, immigration officials permitted entry only after a face-to-face assessment of applicants for immigrant and refugee entry as to their ability to settle successfully (ie. integrate) into Australian society. No ‘ghettos’ were formed. Any attempt to introduce the ethno-religio-political problems of countries of origin were squashed.

The 2002 Census data showed, however, that most of the Asians in Australia were East Asians, the majority of whom had declared themselves to be Christians. Yet, I read in a recently published book that the highest-income Asian communities came from the Indian sub-continent, with the lowest from East Asia!

Soon, Australia’s immigrants ranged from the post-1948 Europeans, to post-1960s Levantines, then to Asians of all colours, to humanitarian entrants (HE) from East Asia, to immigrants and selected refugees from all over the globe. We were truly cosmopolitan.

Then came the sharia seekers, asking Australia to change its institutions to suit them. Their predecessors in Australia’s brief history included the Roman Catholics who had to have a separate education system – a right now available to any ethno-religious community. Division did commence early. It was sustained in the 1970s and 1980s by 2 faulty policies – multiculturalism policy, which involved the government telling us how to relate to one another (beware Big Brother!); and permitting, at a very high cost, a dual migrant settlement service managed according to ethnicity!

However, thanks to Australia’s equal opportunity processes (the old ‘fair-go’ ethos), and to our teachers, the Aussie children of immigrants demonstrated the cohesive pull of an open society. As my grandchildren, with their admixture of Anglo-Celt, German, Italian and Asian genes, have demonstrated, Australia is well on the way to joining the Family of Man. (Refer my books ‘The Karma of Culture’ and ‘Hidden Footprints of Unity’

Then the asylum-seeking ‘boat people’ demanded unlawful ‘back door’ entry to the country (our non-reciprocal and open-ended welfare system is known to be a great attraction). Opportunistic politicians, strategic lawyers, and well-meaning people with no understanding of the politico-economic issues, and the predictable ‘rent-a-crowd’ activists, now bang their respective drums with great vigour.

I haven’t read of anyone of these people offering accommodation, sustenance, and help with finding jobs to the asylum seekers. They expect ‘other peoples’ money to be spent by the government.

Welfare is not a ‘magic pudding.’ Surely personal charity has to be demonstrated by those claiming to be caring. We are now well on the way from ‘my entitlement,’ to ‘their entitlements,’ to ‘your responsibility! What about joining the real world, Guys! Put your hands into your own pockets; and open your doors!!

An issue of sovereignty: The ‘gang-bang’ of China

The following is a list of former foreign enclaves in China.

International

• Shanghai International Settlement (merger of British and American concessions; 1863-1945)
• Beijing Legation Quarter (1861-1945)
• Gulangyu Island (1903-45)

Austro-Hungarian

• Austro-Hungarian concession in Tianjin (1902-17)

Belgian

• Belgian concession in Tianjin (1902-31)

British

• Hong Kong colony (1841-1997)
• Weihaiwei leased territory (1898-1930)
• British concession in Tianjin (1860-1943)
• British concession in Hankou (1861-1927)
• British concession in Jiujiang (1861-1927)
• British concession in Zhenjiang (1861-1929)
• British concession in Shamian Island, Guangzhou (1861-1945)
• British concession in Amoy (1852-1930)
• British concession in Shanghai (1846-63; merged to form Shanghai International Settlement)

French

• Kwang-Chou-Wan leased territory (1898-1946)
• French Concession in Shanghai (1849-1946)
• French Concession in Shamian Island, Guangzhou (1861-1946)
• French Concession in Hankou (1896-1946)
• French concession in Tianjin (1861-1946)
• French Railway, Kunming (1904-1940)

German

• Kiautschou Bay leased territory (1898-1914)
• German concession in Hankou (1895-1917)
• German concession in Tianjin (1895-1917)

Italian

• Italian concession in Tianjin (1901-47)

Japanese

• Taiwan colony (1895-1945)
• Kwantung Leased Territory/South Manchuria Railway Zone (1905-45; obtained from Russia)
• Kiautschou Bay leased territory (1914-22; obtained from Germany)
• Japanese concession in Tianjin (1898-1943)
• Japanese concession in Hankou (1898-1943)
• Japanese concession in Chongqing (1901-31)
• Japanese concession in Suzhou (1897-1943)
• Japanese concession in Hangzhou (1897-1943)

Portuguese

• Macau colony (1557-1999)

Russian

• Russian Dalian (1898-1905)
• Russian concession in Tianjin (1900-24)
• Russian concession in Hankou (1896-1924)
• Chinese Eastern Railway, Harbin (1896-1952)

United States

• American concession in Shanghai (1848-63; merged to form Shanghai International Settlement)
• American concession in Tianjin (1860-1902; merged to form British concession in Tianjin)

See also

• Concessions in China
• Europe Street

(Is it now ‘pay-back’ time for China?)

 

 

An interesting aspect of European colonialism

It was in France where Ho Chi Minh, a Vietnamese, learned about revolution. Like so many other colonial subjects from territories controlled by European nations, he had been sent to obtain qualifications necessary to build and maintain the infrastructure – both social and technical – in his birthplace.

While in France he would have discovered that France is not a large nation; how shameful to have been dominated by such people was a thought expressed later. He would have noted too that the people in France did not, in general, behave in an ‘uppity’ manner. Only colonial rulers and their minions could behave like that.

Digressing a little – when Australia had taken control of formerly-German Papua New Guinea after WW1, its Patrol Officers seemed to have empathetic relations with the ‘natives’; yet, a few lowly clerks in Australia administering PNG expressed racist attitudes publicly. I write from personal experience, to note that this pattern of relationships was the reverse of that observed with British people. Perhaps it was the White Australia policy which allowed mere ‘nobodies’ to express their assumed superiority. And they were dreadful people.

Indeed, as I progressed through my career, I experienced quite a few ordinary fellows seeking to put me down. Indeed, only a few years ago, I had the phrase “You people … … “ thrown at me, long after I had lived a highly interactive and contributory life, and held leadership positions, in my adopted nation over more than half a century.

Anyway, Ho was a clever learner. He and his fellow-communists drove out the French from Indo-China, as well as the self-chosen protectors of freedom in South-east Asia – by fighting in an unorthodox manner. Regrettably, these well-meaning protectors of other peoples’ freedoms tended to cause great damage to the property of those others, and to their own morality.

There was no risk of a communist takeover of South-east Asia, as my extended family could testify. I write as an avowed anti-communist. The Domino Theory was probably was a facet of neo-colonialism.

Today, one of the invaders of Vietnam seeks to continue to commemorate a rare win in battle against the Vietnamese – but to do so on Vietnamese territory! Did we not lose the war? A Vietnam veteran agreed with me recently that the idea is preposterous. The commemoration, on Turkish soil, of the defeat of Allied soldiers by the Turks in WW1 is surely different.

Other peoples’ money – hallelujah!

After the regular meeting of Wolf Cubs at our school, a fellow-Cub and I, on our long walk home, would steal a piece of fruit each from a particular backyard. To do that, we had to slide through a gap in the fence. It was all good fun, until one late afternoon, when 2 large Chinese ladies came out through the back door and said cheerfully ‘Help yourselves, boys’! That spoilt our joy. We did not visit that backyard again. Mini-theft had been fun.

Theft is quite common when the very poor are juxtaposed with others better off, generally a reflection of need. In a modern nation, however, theft would reflect (mainly) greed, not need. In Australia today, greed is manifest in: tax evasion (illegal); tax minimisation (exploiting loopholes created or discovered by professional advisers, seemingly lawfully); the abuse of welfare by those not in need of succour, stimulated by the government’s pork-barrelling vote-catching policies; and tax subsidies being provided to the relatively well-off (up to the very rich) through official policies allegedly geared to ‘wealth creation’ (a lovely euphemism used by politicians to justify giving hard-earned ‘other peoples’ money to their party supporters).

Reportedly, some churches and church communities now want the government (which will not be able to balance its annual budget for a decade or more) to increase the nation’s yearly intake of recognised (UNHCR) refugees as well as opportunistic asylum seekers (all of the latter having allegedly ‘suffered torture and trauma’ – ask the ‘talking heads’ on tv).

I have not, however, heard of any private offers to house, feed, teach English, educate the children, and generally look after any refugees (real or otherwise). Surprise! Surprise! The government (using other peoples’ money) is expected to fund these heart-warming bubble-thoughts. Charity is limited to kind thoughts. And a bit of marching on the streets.

Since only 9% of the accepted Afghan asylum seekers are apparently employed after 5 years, ‘other peoples’ should prepare themselves to be fleeced more heavily, and for ever.

Is it not wonderful to be so caring when someone else will pay the cost? Could this be a new form of theft? Of course not! Then what is it? Who cares for those who work hard to earn an income, only to find increasing demands that the government should take a rising share of that income for challengeable, if not irresponsible, purposes?

There seem to be a lot if irresponsible vocal people about.

Over-sensitive to foreign faiths?

Aware of the strong sectarian religious divide then clearly evident, I have stressed that I am a Hindu since my arrival in Australia in the late 1940s; and a formerly devout temple-attending one. I am pleased that no one has ever denigrated Hinduism (or Buddhism or the other ‘forest’ religions) to me.

There were, however, a few comments which were quaint. ‘Why do Hindus pray to stones and trees’? ‘If God had wanted us to eat spices, he would have built them into our food.’ ‘Would you like to join my church –  for your salvation’?

Such ignorance did not surprise me. I had already read that Indians, fearing the water, were not seafarers; Alexander (the Macedonian) had allegedly conquered all of India; the Japanese, being short and myopic, could not defeat Britain, although Japan had colonised Korea, established the state of Manchukuo (in Manchuria), occupied chunks of China, and driven the French from Indo-China.

Since ignorance, especially chosen ignorance, is very much a normal human attribute, one puts up with it, or ignores it as best as possible. My father’s favourite saying was ‘The dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on.’ Before social media encouraged the public display of one’s proclivities, side-stepping ignorance was quite easy. For example, all of us seek the same God, but travel by necessity on different tracks, although some will claim possession of a sole path.

However, there is a strong antipathy, in my assessment, against Muslims. This prevails in spite of ambitious Muslim asylum-seeking economic-migrants being supported by opportunistic single-issue politicians; hip-pocket sensitive lawyers; heart-on-sleeve individuals, and the rent-a-crowd crew, all of whom are presumably unaffected by the resulting long-term taxpayer burden.

The underlying prejudice began, I believe, when the white man’s paradise was set ‘in coloured seas filled with foreign faiths.’ A collage of causes can be identified.

An initial fear of non-survival in a harsh terrain, unprotected, so far from home; a consequent un-articulated fear of coloured foreigners; possible subconscious guilt arising from the killing of the Aborigines; and the arrogance of the colonial supremacist and his priesthood; these would all have contributed to the antipathy. More recently, to expand the Catholic vote, the Australian government set out to free Christian East Timor from Muslim Indonesia.

Then, through what must have been a faulty immigration selection process, Australia acquired immigrants who seek to change their new home according to their understanding of Islam, but obviously without an adequate understanding of the intellectual and artistic depth of their religion; so we have home-grown jihadists. It will not be possible to encourage unhappy new Australians to move to countries where the lifestyle is more in keeping with their view of their cultural needs; not while Western neo-colonials are busy constructing a ’New Jerusalem.’

In the meanwhile, almost all of our Muslim settlers, like all other settlers, go about enjoying the Aussie lifestyle; and contributing to it as well. We have all blended into one nation peacefully. There is really no basis for religious prejudice.

What we need is more maturity of spirit, recognising that, at the of an Earthly life, we will (lacking form and substance) not be different from one another. As well, in a new Earthly life, a different cloak of religious faith will probably cover us from birth.