New Sisyphus has the transcipt. Here’s a taste:

Let me give a small example of the wrong way of looking at things. It’s not life threatening, but if you don’t understand the philosophy that underpins it, it can become life threatening. In your nation and in mine, many people have acknowledged, and indeed even boasted, that immigration changes our country. For example, in Australia, and to a lesser extent in Canada, there are a lot of people who wish to replace the monarchy with a republic and there are respectable arguments for and against the monarchy. But the dangerous argument is the lazy line pedalled by too many politicians that in an Australia or a Canada of evolving immigration patterns, an immigrant from Moldova or China or Brazil or Saudi Arabia can’t be expected to relate to the Queen, to the existing constitutional system. Now try this line the next time you’re in Saudi Arabia: if you immigrate to Saudi Arabia and say ‘hey man, I just can’t relate to the House of Saud, and what’s with this Wahhabism, can’t we get a couple of sports bars with wet t-shirt nights every Thursday’? The Saudis would have a grand old laugh about it and then behead you. So when we accept that argument, in essence we’re explicitly promoting the principle of reverse assimilation; that immigration imposes not the obligation that the immigrant assimilate to his new land, but that his new land assimilate to him. And thereby lies great peril, not for the Queen, she’ll get by, but for a whole bunch of the rest of us. Multiculturalism makes a nation no more than a holding pen, its whole merely the sum of its parts.

Infidel Bloggers Alliance notes that Australian Federal Ministers are quite forthright in defending Australian values:

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. ”If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you”, he said on National Television.

Would that Bush and company would be so forthright. All is not well in Australia, however. In the state of Victoria, two Christian pastors are in trouble for critisizing Islam in what looks like a nasty attack on free speech hidden behind the sanctity of political correctness:

A Christian pastor ordered to apologise for vilifying Muslims says he will go to jail before he says sorry for his comments.

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) deputy president Michael Higgins ordered the evangelical order, Catch the Fire, to apologise over statements made in a speech, comments on a website and in a newsletter.

In a landmark ruling by the tribunal, it found in favour of the Islamic Council of Victoria, which took the action against Catch the Fire and two of its pastors.

The comments made by members of the evangelical movement included that Muslims were liars and demons, they were planning to take over Australia and that Islam was inherently a violent religion.

The case was the first to be heard by VCAT since the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act took effect in Victoria at the start of 2002.

Outside the tribunal, the church leader and unsuccessful senate candidate for the Family First party in last year’s federal election, Danny Nalliah, described his group as martyrs and said he would go to jail before apologising.

“Right from the inception, we have said that this law is a foul law, this law is not a law which brings unity,” Pastor Nalliah said about Victoria’s vilification laws.

“It causes disunity and as far as we are concerned right from the beginning we have stated we will not apologise. We will go to prison for standing for the truth and not sacrifice our freedom and freedom to speak.”