I might also mention you will not find "that God helps only those who help themselves" in the bible however The Quran has some excellent advice for Mr Fraser "Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge" The family of Imran 3:66

Who are the academics /historians/ theoticians claimed here that ae apparently angry at Fraser?

I thinks its peculiar that people on this should point towards academics - but never name who they are and what they have written.

From where I stand I think most academics of any calibre have viewed Fraser's writings as substandard and intellectually shallow.

Its not that they are challenged by Fraser, they just don't think he's worth the time.

Read more broadly in these areas and disciplines and you will realize how far down the pecking order Fraser is.

Actually what he presents is personal opinion and the last time I looked academic discourse is still guided by notions of objectivity, excellence and peer review.

That Fraser was charged with the responsibility of marking the papers of students in a multicultural and multi-ethnic university is to say the least, scary.

No matter what your opinions, you should be able to back them up with proof. Fraser provides no proof of his assertions, just good old conjecture dressed up in academic language.

I give him 2 out of ten

The fact that the only evidence in the whole article that Fraser uses comes from the statement that "well experience practically everywhere else has shown us.." is laughable considering the apparent intelligence of the man.

As far as I can tell all this essay was meant to do was a rather shabby attempt to regain some credibility for his views expressed in his earlier comments and a rather bemusing attempt to show that his views on race are recognised.

Sadly one thinks that few academics will even bother to respond to this rubbish- and as Windschuttle wrote in The Australian today "Fraser's "racial realism" deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history, along with the ethnic separatist policies that underpin it". I could not have put it better myself.

Pericles,

(part 1)

I disagree that “anyone should be allowed to demonstrate their bigotry,” for there is no inconsistency in being intolerant of intolerance, which is what Fraser is doing insofar as we can see him as reacting to intolerance.

Such an attitude would leave you no ground upon which to mount an argument against, for instance, those desiring the imposition of sharia law and the abolition of democracy (e.g. Hizbut-tahrir, or sheik Abu Baka who said of the clash between sharia and Australian law: “there is big problem here”). Now there’s Intollerance!

Or take the multicultural legal dilemma surrounding the conference in 2002 held at UWS (Bankstown) entitled: “Islam & Homosexuality: an Islamic, scientific and logical approach”, where sheik Shady invoked sharia precepts regarding the stoning to death of homosexuals, and Keysar Trad and Hanan Dover (lecturer sacked over it) endorsed that anti-discrimination legislation be ignored in relation to homosexuals in the workplace: http://www.zipworld.com.au/~josken/multim~1.htm, http://www.zipworld.com.au/~josken/islamf~1.htm).

Trad actually defends Shady in reply emails at Green Left Weekly: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/520/520p8.htm, claiming the sheik could not have called for the stoning to death of homosexuals in Australia because in any case “such a penalty COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED by anyone other than an Islamic court and an Islamic court CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED unless through a Caliph. [And] As there was no such person [in Australia], such a penalty cannot be applied.”

Huh? So one shouldn’t condemn those who hold such views so long as they’re not manifest in concrete law? So we should never attack political viewpoints, for most of these are just proposals for the future? Sounds like Sheik Yassim’s more recent response to Jennie Brockie (Insight) about his alleged “sound bite” on 60 minutes, that he couldn’t have meant homosexuals should be killed because “under the present system it is not acceptable.” He never ruled out the future! Would any journalist let anybody else get away with such madness? (continued below…)

I don't think Andrew Fraser seriously believes what he is espousing.It is all too far fetched and generalised.He is either trying to make money out of noteriety or trying to balance the politically correct scales.I personally know people who were deeply offended by his statements and he needs to have a long look at himself, since when I think of people like Dr Victor Chang,he should hang his head in shame.

The very fact that Andrew Fraser calls for the re-establishment of our White Australia Policy makes one wonder how he hands the marks out to those who these days would have such a strong argument for not believing in such a re-introduction.

Indeed, because it is miles too late in our multi-cultural history to even think about bringing back such a law, makes one wonder how he has ever become a Professor? Well, at least we could say that our universities are truly democratic if anyone can write a good thesis on such a distasteful subject for these days, and still rise near the top of the ladder.

Not that one has to agree with him, however.