Australia isn't being swamped by Muslims

[Guest The Pom Queen]

In her maiden speech to the Senate, One Nation senator Pauline Hanson said that:

 

Now we are in danger of being swamped by Muslims…

 

Her statement provides a useful opportunity to revisit the statistics on the number of Muslims migrating to and living in Australia.

 

The data show the number of Muslims in Australia is growing gradually in line with other non-Christian religions. And the number of migrants from majority Muslim countries remains a small proportion of Australia's overall migrant intake.

 

How big is Australia's Muslim population?

 

According to the 2011 census, Muslims make up just 2.2% of the Australian population. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, which runs the Census, says the 2011 Census data show that:

 

Christianity remained the most commonly reported religion in Australia with 61.1% of the population reporting affiliation with a Christian religion - a decline from 63.9% in 2006.

 

There was an increase in the number of people not reporting a Christian faith from 36.1% of the population in 2006 to 38.9% in 2011.

 

The number of people reporting 'No religion' increased significantly, from 18.7% of the population in 2006 to 22.3% in 2011.

 

The most common non-Christian religions in 2011 were Buddhism (accounting for 2.5% of the population), Islam (2.2%) and Hinduism (1.3%). Of these, Hinduism had experienced the fastest growth since 2006.

 

According to Census data, Islam is growing at a similar rate to that of other non-Christian religions.

 

Given that Australia's immigration policy does not discriminate on the grounds of ethnic origin or religion, it is not surprising to see a rise in non-Christian religions as a proportion of the total population. However, the numbers are still small compared with those identifying as Christian or of no religion.

 

What about migrants from majority Muslim countries?

 

In 2014-15 there were 189,097 places in the skilled and family migration streams of Australia's migration program.

 

The largest source countries of migrants in this program for 2014-15 were:

 

India (18.4% of migrants in this stream for 2014-15, down from 20.5% for 2013-14);

China (14.7% of migrants in this stream, up from 14.1% for 2013-14); and

United Kingdom (11.1% of migrants in this stream, down from 12.2% in 2013-14).

This chart, from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, shows the top ten citizenship countries of migrants, excluding New Zealand citizens (as New Zealand citizens are not counted as part of the migration program):

 

 

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

Among the top ten source countries of permanent migrants (excluding New Zealand), in this group, there were two countries with predominantly Muslim populations: Pakistan with 8,281 (4.4%) and Malaysia with 3,977 (2.1%).

 

So the number of migrants to Australia from majority Muslim countries was dwarfed by the number of from India 34,874 (18.4%), China 27,872 (14.7%) and the United Kingdom 21,078 (11.1%).

 

The same two Muslim countries were represented in the top ten countries of origin in the figures for permanent migration in 2013-14 in roughly the same proportions.

 

However, Pakistan was not in the top ten for 2012-13. So in recent years, there has been an increase in skilled migration from Pakistan.

 

What about refugees resettled in Australia through its humanitarian program?

 

In the humanitarian program - the program through which refugees are resettled in Australia - there is a greater proportion of migrants from majority Muslim countries.

 

In 2014-15, of the total of 13,756 humanitarian migrants:

 

2,335 were from Iraq

2,232 were from Syria

1,813 were from Afghanistan and

331 were from Iraq.

These four majority Muslim countries made up 48.8% of the humanitarian intake.

 

Many of these migrants were fleeing persecution from oppressive regimes in their countries of origin, and were either not Muslims themselves, or rejected a fundamentalist version of Islam.

 

And although there is a greater proportion of migrants from traditionally Muslim countries in the humanitarian program, the humanitarian program made up only 6.7% of the total permanent migrant intake into Australia in 2014-15.

 

'Danger of being swamped'

 

The implication in Hanson's statement is that there is a number of Muslims that would "overwhelm" the Australian people. There is obviously no precise number of people or proportion of the population that can be determined to have achieved a "swamping" of the country. For some, a very small number of Muslims might be sufficient to engender a fear of being swamped. For others, "swamping" is simply an inflammatory term for issues of integration.

 

In terms of integration, Australia does not have a national religion. Australia is culturally associated with a democratic tradition that has Christian origins. People of all religions pledge to uphold Australian values when they join the Australian community. It is subscription to these values which unites us in our diversity.

 

Fear of being overwhelmed is a fear of the unknown. The constitution of Australian society has changed dramatically in the last 40 years. For some people, this has been extremely challenging to their sense of identity.

 

It is important to allay these fears both by painting a clear picture of the way Australian society has transformed and the benefits of this transformation, while addressing fears and tensions that arise along the way.

[flag of convenience]

I don't think many would argue otherwise. Besides some staunch Muslim haters, that see angst, invasion and the end of Australian life, as we know it, as part and parcel of a conspiracy, even some the introduction of Sharia Law.

 

Being well under 3% of the population is laughable the reaction in some quarters not to say the ignorance and hatred expressed. Not to state to finer a point on the population living their lives to ' normal' conservative values as does the average Australian non Muslim family.

[Diane]

Heard on the news that somewhere there was a Taliban attack on a mosque that killed dozens of Muslims while they were praying. How sad it is that the media portray followers of this religion as perpetrators of terrorism and ignore the fact that more often or not they are just as much victims.

[Parley]

No they portray perpetrators of terrorism as Muslim extremists.

Which is invariably the case.

[flag of convenience]

I wonder how the people on the ground consider American/Russian/British/French bombs dropping out of aircraft? Be it in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria.

 

I have been to the war museum in the PDR of Laos. I know fully well there how the bombs were viewed. Some of the heaviest bombing in history. What should those that dropped those bombs be labelled I wonder?

Thankfully the Lao people are very friendly, polite and forgiving.

[flag of convenience]

Of course Hanson's cry for attention back in 96 was the Asian Invasion. Not hearing much about that now. Muslims being her latest call to arms against. I do agree with aspects of her immigration concerns though. But not a total ban on all immigration. Just a more sensible number that reflect present day realities.

[Parley]

If you think Pauline Hanson is an intolerant extremist though you should try reading the Koran.

[flag of convenience]

If you think Pauline Hanson is an intolerant extremist though you should try reading the Koran.

 

Have you read it then? I have from beginning to end. I shall reserve my judgement on a forum but not entirely in agreement nor opposing necessary, views aired on both sides. It does not need to concern me but recognise it is a very important work for a large section of humanity. I think Hanson remains an attention seeker.

[starlight7]

Well I guess Pauline is just working her way round the world- Asia to the Middle East and next , perhaps Eastern Europe- oh no, perhaps not,she is of Eastern European extraction herself. Now maybe that explains a few things.

[davlap]

What I really don't get - is the constant airtime they give to Hanson. What she is preaching is dangerous ground. Look at Europe and the upsurge in right wing nationalism in all countries.

Probably the reason for Brexit, where the 'popular' vote was largely to stop the immigrants.

 

Australia is on the conservative, xenophobic side of politics, despite the constant empty claims of being a laid back, lucky country for everybody.

Everybody is online now and there is a power there to motivate people who probably wouldn't bother, but because its on facebook and twitter, they take some interest.

 

By all means have a discussion about Hanson, but don't keep replaying her speeches and getting her on for interviews and airtime. Like most 'colourful' characters she pulls in viewers and readers, but constant reinforcing and hearing her message will get a bigger following for her.

 

I think we are entering dangerous times where the world is beginning to turn against Muslims. Terrorism used to be about 'freedom' or independence groups, IRA, Basque separatists etc Now the media would have us think it Muslims vs the rest of the world.

[Gbye grey sky]

What I really don't get - is the constant airtime they give to Hanson. What she is preaching is dangerous ground. Look at Europe and the upsurge in right wing nationalism in all countries.

Probably the reason for Brexit, where the 'popular' vote was largely to stop the immigrants.

 

Australia is on the conservative, xenophobic side of politics, despite the constant empty claims of being a laid back, lucky country for everybody.

Everybody is online now and there is a power there to motivate people who probably wouldn't bother, but because its on facebook and twitter, they take some interest.

 

By all means have a discussion about Hanson, but don't keep replaying her speeches and getting her on for interviews and airtime. Like most 'colourful' characters she pulls in viewers and readers, but constant reinforcing and hearing her message will get a bigger following for her.

 

I think we are entering dangerous times where the world is beginning to turn against Muslims. Terrorism used to be about 'freedom' or independence groups, IRA, Basque separatists etc Now the media would have us think it Muslims vs the rest of the world.

 

This is part of a distinctly worrying trend in Europe, USA, and across the world. Extreme and moronic speech is given precedence over any reasoned comment or facts. You only have to listen to Trump or any of the far right parties in France, Germany or the Netherlands. The Brexit campaign was littered with extreme and inaccurate comment from both sides with reasoned comment sidelined.

 

The more airtime that is given to extremists such as Hanson and Trump the greater credibility they receive. Negative reaction to their comments even elicits sympathy from a growing band of ill-informed, disenfranchised and angry supporters who simply want to be able to blame someone and have a group of people they can legitimately hate.

 

The terrorists are winning because traditional thinking is that a war is won by limiting casualties or gaining territory. This is not a war though; it is about spreading fear, hatred and division. It is working and the likes of Hanson are a key ally of the Muslim terrorist factions helping to spread their message across the globe.

[davlap]

This is part of a distinctly worrying trend in Europe, USA, and across the world. Extreme and moronic speech is given precedence over any reasoned comment or facts. You only have to listen to Trump or any of the far right parties in France, Germany or the Netherlands. The Brexit campaign was littered with extreme and inaccurate comment from both sides with reasoned comment sidelined.

 

The more airtime that is given to extremists such as Hanson and Trump the greater credibility they receive. Negative reaction to their comments even elicits sympathy from a growing band of ill-informed, disenfranchised and angry supporters who simply want to be able to blame someone and have a group of people they can legitimately hate.

 

The terrorists are winning because traditional thinking is that a war is won by limiting casualties or gaining territory. This is not a war though; it is about spreading fear, hatred and division. It is working and the likes of Hanson are a key ally of the Muslim terrorist factions helping to spread their message across the globe.

 

Spot on (in my opinion). Trump was laughed at in the beginning, but is now mainstream TV. Same with Palmer. It happened with Reagan, but he was just a puppet, an actor who eventually literally started to forget his lines. Trump has bought his way in and is a loose cannon. However, I think all politicians have to toe the line, most decisions are made elsewhere. War and booming defence budgets are controlled by the money men (my conspiracy theory).

 

One airstrike could be put to other much more useful things.

http://ilmfeed.com/how-much-will-each-airstrike-mission-in-syria-cost-britain/

 

And what do they achieve? ISIS could be wiped out if there was a real desire, but again Middle East is probably more about oil. Syria doesn't have enough !

[Gbye grey sky]

Spot on (in my opinion). Trump was laughed at in the beginning, but is now mainstream TV. Same with Palmer. It happened with Reagan, but he was just a puppet, an actor who eventually literally started to forget his lines. Trump has bought his way in and is a loose cannon. However, I think all politicians have to toe the line, most decisions are made elsewhere. War and booming defence budgets are controlled by the money men (my conspiracy theory).

 

One airstrike could be put to other much more useful things.

http://ilmfeed.com/how-much-will-each-airstrike-mission-in-syria-cost-britain/

 

And what do they achieve? ISIS could be wiped out if there was a real desire, but again Middle East is probably more about oil. Syria doesn't have enough !

 

That has traditionally been the case but this new strand of far-right politicians owe relatively little to many of these traditional vested interests which is a major part of their appeal. If they gain power it will have been the power of the angry mob that got them there and to keep that support they would have to appease them.

[Parley]

Pauline Hanson is an elected member of parliament.

Of course her views have to be given coverage in the media.

 

she is not a nutter she is the leader of a political party which won 4 senate seats and significant support in Qld and NSW.

[Parley]

I can't believe any sensible person would think that in a fair democracy that it is the media's role to decide which candidate should be given coverage and which should not.

 

Obviously the candidates should get equal coverage and then the people decide who they want.

[davlap]

Hey Parleycross, I think you just contradicted yourself.

Are you telling me Hanson gets equal coverage with other leaders? She is getting more than Shorten.

Are you trying to stir things up in you second statement about the media or just totally naiive (which I know you are not)?

As I mentioned, we don't just get comment about her speeches, we get them replayed over and over - as well as countless invites onto shows - does the media not control this?

Its more free air time for her views because it makes good TV

When did you last see the Greens give any coverage except negative reactions to walking out.

No she's not a nutter, but she promotes what is a common issue in Australia - racism and xenophobia.

[Skani]

I can't believe any sensible person would think that in a fair democracy that it is the media's role to decide which candidate should be given coverage and which should not.

 

Obviously the candidates should get equal coverage and then the people decide who they want.

 

But they never do. Hanson's maiden speech was one of 10 on that day. How many of the other 9 have we heard about? The media decide 24/7 who gets coverage ...and often it's for commercial considerations: the most outlandish/outrageous will attract the largest audience, therefore the attention of advertisers.

[Diane]

I've said before, I wonder who stands to gain from stirring up so much antagonism against a particular faith. I don't have any answers, but the fact that the owner of the main newspaper in France also makes his money from being an international Arms Dealer leads me to think he may have a vested interest in promoting unrest around the world.... Be interesting to know if Murdoch has any such monetary interests too...

 

Unfortunately the art of investigative journalism seems to be dying out, so we shall probably never know - but Follow The Money is usually a good start!

[Parley]

But they never do. Hanson's maiden speech was one of 10 on that day. How many of the other 9 have we heard about? The media decide 24/7 who gets coverage ...and often it's for commercial considerations: the most outlandish/outrageous will attract the largest audience, therefore the attention of advertisers.

 

Derryn Hinch got a lot of publicity.

[flag of convenience]

I can't believe any sensible person would think that in a fair democracy that it is the media's role to decide which candidate should be given coverage and which should not.

 

Obviously the candidates should get equal coverage and then the people decide who they want.

 

In an ideal world perhaps. But as most are aware journals and media outlets do express a bias.

[flag of convenience]

I've said before, I wonder who stands to gain from stirring up so much antagonism against a particular faith. I don't have any answers, but the fact that the owner of the main newspaper in France also makes his money from being an international Arms Dealer leads me to think he may have a vested interest in promoting unrest around the world.... Be interesting to know if Murdoch has any such monetary interests too...

 

Unfortunately the art of investigative journalism seems to be dying out, so we shall probably never know - but Follow The Money is usually a good start!

 

An enemy is of course required on many fronts. I recall not long after the Soviet/Iron Curtain demise the demonization of parts of the Islamic world began, only to increase in earnest over time.

[flag of convenience]

But they never do. Hanson's maiden speech was one of 10 on that day. How many of the other 9 have we heard about? The media decide 24/7 who gets coverage ...and often it's for commercial considerations: the most outlandish/outrageous will attract the largest audience, therefore the attention of advertisers.

 

Very fair point.

[Skani]

Derryn Hinch got a lot of publicity.

 

Yes, exactly....for its attention seeking value: many would consider it outlandish/outrageous. It still wasn't one of the 9 others on the same day as Hanson's which were completely overlooked by mainstream media.

[Skani]

I can't believe any sensible person would think that in a fair democracy that it is the media's role to decide which candidate should be given coverage and which should not.

 

 

 

It's also a fact of life that mainstream media are constrained by time limits/page limits so they have to apply some sort of filter as there is not the capacity to report on everything. Fortunately today we do have access to information outside MSM's filters...unlike earlier times when news was available only through newspapers or radio/TV.

[MARYROSE02]

But they never do. Hanson's maiden speech was one of 10 on that day. How many of the other 9 have we heard about? The media decide 24/7 who gets coverage ...and often it's for commercial considerations: the most outlandish/outrageous will attract the largest audience, therefore the attention of advertisers.

 

Blames those hypocrites in The Greens for that. They chose to walk out and give her extra publicity. I say hypocrites because The Greens are all anti-Semetic and hate Israel.