The simple premise of Andrew’s latest post is that when we have been born here our first loyalty should be to Australia. he further uses the piece to chide those second or third generation Australians of Italian or Croatian extraction for cheering for teams other than the Socceroos in the world Cup in preference to Australia.Not that Andrew says that this should be a hanging offence, which is how my learned friend seems to read it .
From his unequivocal support for multiculturalism Mr lefty uses this piece to say it is fine to support any team even those against Australia may be playing but apart from a couple of vaguely relevant attempts at rebutting Andrew’s polemic the whole piece is just an example of my learned friend trying to look ,well, learned.
Here is some of Andrew’s actual text that he quotes
Yet even here, in Lygon St, hundreds of “Italian-Australians” celebrated Italy’s win with cries of “Viva Italia”. Police on horseback struggled to keep dozens of the more aggressive away from belligerent Socceroos fans chanting “Bulls—“. (Andrew Bolt)
To which my learned friend responds.
Ah, yes… there was a bit of shabby behaviour by Socceroos supporters. But they were “non-multicultural” Australians! So I’ll bury that at the end of a paragraph in the middle of my piece, and move on very quickly. (Because condemning overly-patriotic Australians for being thugs doesn’t fit very well with what I’m trying to do here.)
Now long time readers will not be surprised that our Mr lefty holds Anglo Irish Australians in contempt, more self loathing I gather, given that the derivation of his actual name is Irish. What my learned friend is ignoring is the fact that the match was won on rather contentious terms and it is not only the Anglo’s who believe that we were robbed by way the referee awarded that penalty. Italy earns no credit winning the way that they did. None the less we find Mr lefty taking every opportunity to support any one who is from a fashionable minority.
Then he takes us through another cavort through an ad hominem attack upon Andrew. Somebody should explain to my learned friend that although Sarcasm is a form of wit that it is one best used on occasion rather than as the first tier of his polemic, especially as he tends to labour the point jut a bit too much. I would suggest that maybe he should read some Oscar Wilde to get some hints on how to do it.
More disturbing is the way he tries to make excuses for the terrible behaviour of second generation French Muslims .
But is it also a warning? Consider: A month after the September 11 terror attacks, thousands of French Muslims booed their national anthem at a soccer match between France and Algeria. Last year thousands of the country’s five million Muslims rioted for a week, burning thousands of cars.(Andrew Bolt)
I don’t think that had anything to do with the soccer – that was to do with institutionalised racism in France which has left a large segment of their population feeling that they are treated in their day-to-day lives as second-class citizens.
Their booing the French national anthem was a result of deeply-felt grievances against their new country, not a cause.(MrLefty)
This is the standard leftist line it is never the fault of the perpetrators it is always the wicked government. Personally I come from English stock and we English have no great love of the French but we do understand that they have this expectation that if you want to live in and be part of French society they expect you to make the running and adopt their language, culture and values. They have learned the hard way that when you accept a large number of immigrants into your country that will not become part of the mainstream then you are creating a rod for your own back . The thousands of burnt out cars are testament to that.
But back to the question of loyalties Andrew does have a point but I will concede that there is nothing wrong with having a bet each way some times, as long as it is Australia that you bet to win, anyone else just has to be a bet for a place. You know it makes sense.