And I totally agree that so many problems are caused by not agreeing to define the problem and the concepts involved clearly in the first place. Do we all have the same understanding of the words debate and argument which I used in the above paragraph ? So often, particularly in marital problems, the proponents are arguing/debating from what they think is the same premise (same rule book) but in fact they each have a different rule book. So we try to align the rule books, sometimes successfully but this is where Kathys point regarding colour comes in, sometimes we can’t be sure we have described the same thing.

The top two thirds of your analysis is absolutely spot on. I have, perhaps, some comment on the bottom third.

I think the definition issue is indeed very neatly wrapped up with “political correctness gone mad”.

My reading of it is that very multiculturalism fails, where immigrant populations do not integrate, it is the cultural relativism of “political correctness” that exacerbates the problem as it attempts to hide or deny that it exists.

On the loony Neo-Nazi end of the scale, to extrapolate from a failure of integration of one section of the population to “immigration is bad” (or should be stopped or everyone repatriated) is clearly bollocks, but the diametrically opposed view - the “political correctness gone mad” - does also exist.

Whilst not overtly racist, the cultural relativity is certainly patronising and probably actually does MORE damage as it stiffles the debate required to frame policy correctly and perpetuates the ghettoisation.

i.e. in the absence of the cultural relativism, the integration problem would (might?) be less severe.

this is where I differ from your view: “multiculturalism doesn’t work” is a perfectly fair criticism when used against the cultural relativist’s view of non-integrationist “multiculturalism”.

non-integrationist “multiculturalism” is indeed “political correctness” gone mad.

What I actually wish to argue against in this whole ‘multiculturalism’ debate, is the sneering attitude that it is an ideological failure. The fact that particular people within particular immigrant cultures (say, muslims in Europe, Lebanese in Sydney) fail to integrate, and in fact cause crime, somehow slips into an argument for no immigrants and no immigrant cultures, as if they are all out to undermine decent western civilisation. The old adage “multiculturalism doesn’t work” is a blunderbuss response to a very specific problem, yet people trot it out as a truism nonetheless - often, I might add, under the pretense that they are fighting Political Correctness Gone Mad.

In your post about Tim Priest, you say:

“The social problems faced by immigrant communties world-wide are real, but multiculturalism is the word I would use to describe the solution, not the cause of the problem.”

I completely agree. I think Tim Priest agrees as well.

Tim’s point is in fact, almost exactly the same as yours: that what is happening in/to/about the separate Lebanese-origin inhabitants of the Sydney suburbs is being called “multiculturalism” but it is not and no-one seems to be brave enough to say so.

Tim’s point is that no-one is prepared to point out that the situation is dangerous. I might add that this is a politically incorrect truth and is being smothered, but that might cause another set of definitional arguments….

Or did I read his article completely wrong?