Kathe- The Deakin Law Review's mission statement states it should accept only high scholarly work. Now a quick glance at some of the references available, such as the 'Color of Crime' quickly dispels the theory that this in fact is high scholarly work, merely a written piece of his earlier public comments.

Perhaps Deakin were wrong to reject it in terms of the legal action being propsed by Newhouse, but what is clear is that in scholarly circles this did not fit the bill. Even Fraser himself on the radio program 'Hack' told Steve Cannane's audience that the arguments supporting his evidence were in fact weak- and that 'weak' evidence finds itself into his essay.

See it can also be argued that Professor Fraser would not at all be unhappy with the current status quo. As a law professor he would have known that he would face opposition and legal challenges to the article, even more so considering he is currently facing pending legal action also. So he went about emailing all his friends in various right wing places such as AMREN asking them to email support to Professor Sally Walker at Deakin. Yet in the act of doing so, in the event that his article wasn't going to be published he then had ready made support for what we see happening now.

Arguably he may be better off with it not published. After all its now on the net, blogs, forums and the like are in overdrive on the matter. Seems that Fraser got his wish or so it seems- debate is off and running once again, and those free speech champions should have little to complain about now.

Kathe, anyone who chips away at the edifice of multiculturalism must be a racist and xenophobe; well that's how the modern mantra goes. A carapace has been placed around the 'sacred cow' known as multiculturalism and none may dare question the wisdom of bringing into our country racists, religious bigots, misogynists, misanthropes, anhedonic despots and others who will only guarantee the immiseration of our society. Any departure from the bien-pensant consensus that multiculturalism will 'enrichen the tapestry of the Australian way of life' signals a degree of independence which must be exposed and denounced.

In 1988, Fitzgerald was commissioned by the Hawke government to report on multiculturalism. Fitzgerald's report suggested that it should be made clear to people coming to live here that they had to accept institutions and principles such as parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of the individual as well as of speech, the press and religion, equality of women and universal education. Fitzgerald's report was tossed into the political Lethe.

As if to antagonise our politicians, Stephen Rimmer was asked to conduct a study on multiculturalism. "Rimmer asserts that it was costing the taxpayers more than AUD$7.2 billion each year. The costs were shared by direct spending on multicultural programs and indirectly through lost productivity and output, and social welfare and workers' compensation from perceived lack of English. Some 300,000 migrants have little or no English and of these, 170,000 are in the workforce. Claims for compensation that can be traced to migrant workers' inability to understand English total approximately AUD$13 million a year".

The government didn't like his report (1991) so it failed to publish it. Mr Rimmer published it himself.

Academics, pundits, the opinionated, the wise, bigots, racists, woolly thinkers, bleeding hearts, hard hearts, the foolish, the sensible and the outrageous should all be published, as long as what they write is readable.

However, the extraordinary smugness of Europeans (and I am one) who feel comfortable with theories that equate certain skills and abilities with race, terrifies me.

These are more than opinions, these are the tools used in the past to justify slavery, apartheid and mass murder. Let us proceed very, very carefully when we tread in this area.

As a woman, I know what it feels like to be told that things you cannot change about yourself impact on your perceived merit as a thinking human being. These charges should not be tossed about lightly, smugly or regarded as merely an intellectual exercise.

You may be streets ahead intellectually Kathy, but I wonder how your genes rate on compassion and, perhaps, wisdom?

A few quotes from the article: how can you suggest these
belong in a serious academic article?

which can and should be resisted by all patriotic Australians

strange alliance of Communists, Christian churches, ethnic lobbies ... set out deliberately to flood the Anglo-Australian homeland with a polyglot mass of Third World immigrants
[with no particulars, details, justification or citations]

Then, for a brief, shining moment, the patriotic instincts of the more "parochial," outer suburban, white Australians found a political voice

The easiest way for Fraser and Deakin Law Review to convince the public that they were entitled to the benefit of the 'academic debate' exemption under the racial vilification laws would be to release the referees' reports on the article. This would be an unusual step (one which would require the referees' consent), but it could help clear up any debate about the article's content and motivations.

If two reputable specialists in what Fraser calls 'racial reality' (who I suspect would need to be found outside Australian law schools, eg in genetics or psychology) recommended its publication, I say let them publish it. Then the rest of us can get to work either refuting it, or changing our minds about these issues. That's what journals should be for, whatever other functions they serve.

Well the problem now seems to be the fact that according to this article Fraser was invited to publlish his article by McConvill. Does this mean that perhaps after the initial rejection of the article as quoted in The Australian that McConvill sought out more suitable referees as to save face after inviting Fraser to publish?

Since Frasers racial realists come from America or so it seems, you would struggle to find someone here who is an expert in 'racial realism' to actually peer review him.