The Australian government describes multiculturalism as a “.. term which recognizes and celebrates Australia’s cultural diversity. It accepts and respects the right of all Australians to express and share their individual cultural heritage…” (Jordan 142). This, however means that the government respects all opinions regardless of whether they are hurtful to the sentiments of any other race or community. Although this idea promotes social inclusion and acceptance of differences, it is highly politically influenced because it hides the fact that some ideas of different communities might inherently be wrong. According to Tim Jordan, author of Activism!: Direct Action, Hacktivism, and the Future of Society, this is the place where activism fails in a democracy, a form of government which promotes free flow of thought and opposition. According to Jordan, diversity of wealth is not a social difference, but rather a result of exploitation of the lower classes. A democracy accepts this social difference as a part of the society and seems to respect it undermining the activist movements which call out the exploitative nature of these wealthy groups.
It is really interesting to read such a fresh take on the relation between a democratic government and an activist group. Although a democracy might not be this liberal in accepting the differences that exist in a society, a lot of popular movements do seem to be discouraged by this acceptance by the government. But ultimately since movements as well as governing bodies are operated by the people of a community, if a certain opinion of a community is disrespectful to the another group in the same community, it would certainly be opposed by the people regardless of whether it is defined to be politically correct or not.