Multiculturalism and the Persistence of Old Hatreds
The third anniversary of the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 has revived an uncomfortable question about immigration, multiculturalism and the capacity of Western societies to maintain social cohesion. Writing in The Spectator Australia, Rowan Dean argues that Australia has failed to appreciate the extent to which deeply entrenched ideological hatreds can survive migration and become established within otherwise peaceful democratic societies. The anniversary coincided with renewed debate over Coalition immigration policy, giving particular force to his argument that the selection of migrants cannot be reduced to economic qualifications, employment skills and numerical targets. The fundamental question is whether those entering Australia are willing to accept the principles of a liberal democratic society, including religious freedom, equality before the law and the peaceful resolution of political disagreements. These are not incidental cultural preferences, but essential conditions of a functioning democracy.
The atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October demonstrated the destructive consequences of an ideology that legitimises violence against civilians. The attacks and the reactions they provoked internationally raised serious questions about the persistence of antisemitism and the willingness of some extremist movements and their sympathisers to justify violence. Dean's concern is that Western immigration and integration policies have sometimes underestimated the durability of such beliefs, assuming that residence in a prosperous democratic country will gradually dissolve ideological commitments acquired elsewhere.
That assumption was central to much of the optimistic multicultural thinking that emerged during the latter twentieth century. The famous 1971 Coca-Cola advertisement featuring young people from different backgrounds singing together on a hillside captured the prevailing ideal of harmonious diversity. Differences of nationality, religion and culture were presented as enriching rather than threatening, while shared prosperity and mutual goodwill supposedly provided the foundations for peaceful coexistence. Yet goodwill is not a substitute for common civic obligations. A multicultural society requires more than the physical proximity of different communities. It requires agreement upon the basic rules governing their relationships, including the rejection of political violence, religious intimidation and collective hostility towards other citizens.
The difficulty arises when cultural tolerance is interpreted as an obligation to avoid criticism of beliefs or practices incompatible with those rules. Not every inherited tradition deserves equal moral approval simply because it forms part of someone's cultural background. Religious persecution, sectarian violence and the subordination of individuals to coercive communal authority cannot be justified by appeals to cultural authenticity. The same principle applies to extremist ideologies originating within Western societies themselves. A free society must be capable of distinguishing legitimate cultural difference from conduct that threatens the freedom and security of others. That distinction does not require hostility towards migrants or minority religions. It requires a willingness to judge beliefs and behaviour according to standards that apply equally to everyone.
Dean's argument concerning lived experience is particularly revealing. Contemporary political discussion frequently treats lived experience as a source of authority, especially when describing discrimination, exclusion or disadvantage. Yet personal experience can also transmit prejudice. Someone raised within an environment where religious hostility or political violence are normalised may carry those attitudes into a new country. Migration does not automatically erase deeply established convictions. Equally, upbringing does not determine an individual's beliefs permanently, and many migrants reject the prejudices of their societies of origin. The practical challenge is therefore to identify genuinely extremist commitments without assuming that every person from a particular country, ethnicity or religion shares them. The distinction is essential both to fairness and to effective national security policy.
European experience illustrates the complexity of the problem. France has experienced repeated episodes of urban unrest, sometimes involving young people from immigrant backgrounds, alongside persistent disputes over secularism, religious identity and integration. These disturbances cannot all be explained by imported religious ideology. Unemployment, social exclusion, policing controversies and domestic political conditions have also played important roles. Nevertheless, the broader European debate demonstrates that successful integration cannot simply be assumed to follow from the passage of time or the extension of citizenship. Governments must consider how educational institutions, community organisations and public policy can reinforce shared democratic obligations while protecting legitimate cultural and religious freedom. Neither compulsory cultural uniformity nor indifference to extremist ideology provides an adequate answer.
The Australian controversy over visas granted to Palestinians fleeing Gaza following 7 October raises related questions about humanitarian obligations and security screening. The Albanese government has faced criticism concerning the number of visas granted and the procedures used to assess applicants. Any serious evaluation must distinguish between visas issued, actual arrivals, security assessments and the circumstances of individuals seeking refuge from war. It would be unjustified to presume that people fleeing Gaza support Hamas merely because of their place of origin. Indeed, some may have suffered directly under its rule. Nevertheless, governments have a responsibility to ensure that immigration decisions incorporate appropriate security checks and that humanitarian considerations do not eliminate scrutiny of credible extremist affiliations. These responsibilities are compatible rather than mutually exclusive.
The Coalition's renewed emphasis upon immigration and Australian values reflects a wider political debate about what integration should mean. John Howard's famous declaration that Australia would decide who entered the country emphasised national sovereignty over immigration policy. The contemporary argument extends that principle to the civic commitments expected of newcomers. A values-based approach can be defended where it concerns demonstrable support for democratic institutions, religious liberty, equality before the law and rejection of violence. It becomes more problematic if national origin or religious identity is treated as conclusive evidence of an individual's political convictions. Country-specific security conditions may justify particular administrative scrutiny, but broad cultural assumptions are an unreliable substitute for individual assessment.
There is also an important distinction between immigration policy and the management of extremism among people already living in Australia. Immigration screening operates before entry, while the protection of social cohesion requires continuing efforts involving law enforcement, education, civic institutions and community leadership. Religious intimidation and advocacy of political violence must be confronted regardless of whether the individuals responsible were born overseas or in Australia. The same standard should apply to extremist movements of the far Left, far Right and religious fundamentalism. A society that condemns hatred selectively according to the political identity of its perpetrators undermines its own claim to defend universal principles. Consistency is therefore not merely a moral preference but a practical requirement for maintaining public confidence.
The distinction between criticism of a state and hostility towards an ethnic or religious community is fundamental. Where that distinction collapses, international conflicts can become sources of intimidation and division within Australian society. A successful multicultural system should reduce the likelihood of such conflicts being reproduced domestically, not provide ideological excuses for their continuation.
The deeper issue concerns the relationship between cultural diversity and national identity. Multiculturalism is often defended as though diversity itself were sufficient to produce a harmonious society. Yet diversity describes a social condition; it does not explain the principles by which competing interests and beliefs are reconciled. Those principles must come from somewhere. Australia's constitutional institutions, common-law inheritance, parliamentary traditions and expectations of individual liberty provide much of the framework within which different communities coexist. These institutions have been shaped by British political history, Christianity, Enlightenment thought and subsequent democratic reform. They are not beyond criticism, nor are they the exclusive property of any ethnic or religious group. But their preservation requires a common commitment to their fundamental principles. A society that ceases to defend its institutional foundations cannot assume that those foundations will maintain themselves indefinitely.
Christianity's historical contribution to Australian civic culture is particularly relevant. Its emphasis upon moral responsibility, charity, the dignity of persons and obligations extending beyond immediate personal advantage helped shape the ethical language of Western institutions. Other intellectual and religious traditions have also contributed to those institutions, and modern democratic principles are shared by citizens of many faiths and none. Nevertheless, the Christian conservative concern is that a society which progressively weakens its understanding of inherited moral obligations may find itself less capable of resisting ideologies that openly reject tolerance and peaceful coexistence. The answer cannot simply be to demand religious conformity, which would contradict the freedom of conscience that democratic societies are supposed to protect. It must involve a renewed confidence in the principles that permit people with different convictions to live together without coercion or intimidation.
Dean's editorial raises a legitimate challenge to the complacent assumption that economic opportunity and residence in a Western democracy will automatically produce social integration. Immigration policy involves questions of national sovereignty, public security and civic responsibility as well as humanitarian concern and economic benefit. The persistence of extremist ideologies demonstrates that deeply rooted prejudices can survive across generations and national borders. But the appropriate response must remain grounded in evidence, individual responsibility and consistent legal standards. The essential test of a successful multicultural society is not whether everyone shares the same ancestry, religion or cultural customs. It is whether citizens and newcomers alike accept the obligations necessary for peaceful coexistence.
Australia is entitled to expect that those admitted to the country respect its laws, democratic institutions and the rights of their fellow citizens. That expectation should be neither controversial nor selectively enforced. The lesson for Australia is not that entire populations should be judged by the actions of extremists, but that tolerance cannot require indifference towards intolerance. A democratic society must protect freedom of belief while refusing to accommodate intimidation or political violence. Multiculturalism can contribute to national life only when it operates within a common civic framework strong enough to protect the freedoms upon which peaceful diversity depends.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2026/10/third-anniversary-october-7/
