I would think that there is a important oversight in Voltaire’s assertion that ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’. That is:- someone can say something but eventually they would have to substantiate it or prove it. Quite often, that will then take the matter out of philosophy or politics, and into areas such as science or objective research.

However there can be a loophole that is often exploited by people in the media (including academics), which is humour. Someone can make a discriminatory statement, (but not be required to verify or prove it), by saying that it was a “tongue in cheek” or a humorous statement.

However if someone repeatedly makes those “humorous” type discriminatory statements, then it becomes gratuitous, and would now constitute discrimination, and I’m particularly thinking of an academic Dr Susan Maushart, who repeatedly makes the most discriminatory statements about the male gender in the media, but then tries to disguises it as humour.

It does appear that there are rules for certain accademics, but not others.

Attagirl Helen! Ecrasez l'infame!

But seriously, even if we ignore the unforgiveable laziness of those who insist on continuing the false attribution, what do we as a society want as a yardstick for freedom of speech? I cannot happily accept that properly researched information cannot be put into the public domain for fear of reprisals from folk who don't like the results.

I am in no way supporting Andrew Fraser here, as I am unaware of the context of his remarks and disinclined to check them out. But should we be kept in the dark on any honestly conducted research on this issue, simply because it involves colour? Lynn and Vanhanen in the UK did some fairly useful work on national IQ and its correlation with per capita GDP, which might conceivably find use in setting national education agendas - is this taboo as well?

I don't have any answers in a global sense, but I know I'd be concerned that information is being supressed simply because it might upset someone.

I can't think anybody should be refused the right of FOS, including Fraser - but if I said something like that about an african work colleague, I'd prolly get the sack (after couselling from HR dep't). With Fraser as an "academic" from a Sydney University, there could be the perception that he represents a significant part of the population and then it falls into an issue of damage control so that the rest of the world doesn't think we're a bunch of mis-informed rednecks. But there I go exercising my right to FOS so sorry if I've offended any rednecks out there.

I'm more interested in where Fraser got his info from re africans/IQ. I thought these ideas had been thrown out years ago??

Helen,

At first sight, in a democracy, free thought, so much implied by Voltaire’s so-called quote - though I do not agree with what you say - I agree that you should have every right to say it - does have its dangers, as it is believed that Voltaire’s associates or of those who knew of him, such as John Locke and Montesquie, would agree that it is not so dangerous an underling saying such things, but one in leadership or in public respect, has to be much more careful what they say.

For example, Professor Fraser, in his apparent outright support of keeping non-whites out of a so-called democracy like Australia, even if his argument does hold some ground about a nation keeping its culture pure as we would in a breedstock stud situation, also as Hitler attempted to do with Germany, and as Japan has had some success in achieving, it must be remembered that one of the weaknesses of a democracy, and no doubt one of the strengths, concerns the mixing of cultures.

Consider being a boss or manager, for example, one might think certain things, but has to be careful about opinions, as respected leaders such as George Bush or John Howard must be careful much much more.

And if they do become loose in suggestions, as certain members of the White House have during these dangerous times, truly studious persons will wipe them right off. Also the expression not so long ago by our Federal Opposition leader Mr Beasley which could be an intimation that all terrorists are scum, is not very nice from any democratic leader, especially one with an Oxford education.

Furthermore, Mr Bush, when he said that Mike Moore had the right to publish all the slurs he liked considering America was a democracy, must have to be watched that he does not take liberties in expression like Moore has been allowed to.

George C, WA - Bushbred

• This article is a good reminder of what the Murdoch Press will never print lest people become more informed and intellectually challenged. And we couldn’t have this kind of heresy now could we!

Helen

As usual, thank you for a great article. You surely do know how to get my brain ticking and re-thinking issues.

Cheers
Kay

I support Voltaires stand.

I sincerely believe the fool will damn himself by the stupidity of his expression and he needs no one to protect him from that stupidity. Hence characters like David Irvine, the denier of the holocaust and Hitler apologist should have been free to come to Australia and espouse his rubbish, just like rabid clerics (of any faith) should be free to espouse theirs.

The line can be drawn however, at responsibility.

Whilst I support an absolute right of free speech, with "freedom" comes responsibility. Responsibility for what one says and the consequences of its utterance needs to be as equally and vigorously "accounted for" as the right to express.

We have clearer delineage now than before 9/11 and since WWII to define "responsibility" (Times of war and civil unrest make the "greys of interpreted intention and insinuation" fall more clearly between black and white). Thus issues to slander, or incitement and treason are more clearly defined, can be more readily accounted for / prosecuted against and should be "enforced" against the "free speaker".

What an interesting read - thank you Helen.

Helen says, "But their expression (Fraser's views about Africans) in a public context is a malign denigration of the civil standing of already vulnerable groups." Agreed!

Helen asserts Fraser focussed on their IQ and testosterone levels. I'm not sure whether Fraser has got these two factors right (and he may have?), but from my close personal involvement in a church with a large number of very black Africans I could possibly mention some other negative things but I would also find it necessary to point out some very attractive qualities, and I am jolly glad that the Australian Government offered them escape from a disasterous situation in Africa under its humanitarian programme.

In fact, they are not, it seems to me, all that different in attractiveness/lack of attractiveness from other Australians, just a different set of characteristics/qualities to get used to.

It hardly matters who it gets misattributed to. As Joe Average once said, "I may not agree with what you say..." rings just as true. A cornerstone of democracy? I'd agree with that too, it's a nice paraphrasing of the concept of free speech.

As for Fraser's findings, I'd treat them with the same scepticism as I would the findings of any expert that didn't suit my prejudices. I expect his theories will be debunked with facts & figures, not rant, in the appropriate fora. All I find here is lots of gut reaction & self-righteousness & anecdotes. Hardly the way to refute an argument.

'Ah, this guy agrees with Fraser!' you're thinking. Not really. I haven't read his full report, nor have I read any opposing studies, so I'm as underinformed and presumably open-minded as the rest of you

Fraser did not enter into the usual forums of academic debate where his views could be discussed with any rigor.

Instead, he decided to go to the media with a 300 word statement to a local newspaper. One could hardly call this scholarly or rigorous. Its intent was sensationalism for sensationalist outcomes and he hit the bullseye.

What we witnessed (from this little black ducks perspective) in the Fraser issue was a conflict between liberal social values – freedom of opportunity, freedom of speech/thought/action etc and conservative values of tradition, order and authority.

Tradition = Australians have the right to say anything about people of color and people of color should be polite when responding otherwise we'll contest their credentials as real Australians.

Order = The above debate must be carried out in the way that the dominate racial group decides is appropriate, anything less is political correctness and anti-democratic.

Authority = tradition and order combine to create an apparently ‘natural and common sense' approach to public debate about racism. As John Howard said 'We decide who comes to this country etcetera...

Liberal economic values dominated in this debate (was it really a debate?)BUT conservative social values also dominate, but it appears many punters here have a preference to calling this conservatism 'freedom of speech'.

And I always thought freedom of speech was the end result of two or three opposing perspectives participating equally in public debate? Not a precondition of dominance.

So how many African voices did we hear in this debate? [Or would this have been too politically correct and an imposition on the freedom of speech.]

Don't get upset now, its just a simple question.

Rainier “Fraser did not enter into the usual forums of academic debate where his views could be discussed with any rigor.”

“Freedom of Speech” would not be “freedom of speech” if only some channels or outlets were “prescribed” whilst others were “proscribed”!

The rarefied atmosphere of “academia” does not guarantee any greater “rigor” when compared to the hurly-burly of “real life” (where the vast majority of “thinking-minds” exist to test and challenge beyond the security of “coma inducing tenure”).

Your comments regarding Tradition, Order or Authority… and the conflict of “liberal social values” and “conservative social values”.

In an “English” context, “Freedom of expression” is a value common to both philosophies. As your “little black ducks values” stand, you obviously lack the rigor of debate or experience in English to equip you to understand that. I, therefore, interpret your statements to be nothing more than ignorant or self serving rant. However, I will remind myself, Voltaire himself would suggest you are entitled to express all the “rant” you can muster.

As for “So how many African voices did we hear in this debate? [Or would this have been too politically correct and an imposition on the freedom of speech.]”

I was unaware the “debate is over” – or have you decided, unilaterally, that it is?

“Freedom of Speech” does not impose any “duty” of reply on anyone of any particular status, religion or race. Any more than it acknowledges your unilateral presumptions. Likewise, “Freedom of Speech” does not impose any “duty” on me to reply to your babble – but I do, from a sense of deep rooted and selfless humility.

Some American statistics from 2005:

-Blacks are just 13 percent of the population but they commit more than half the muggings and murders in the country. Hispanics commit violent crimes at about three times the white rate.

- The proportion of blacks and Hispanics in an area is the single best indicator of how dangerous it is. The racial mix is a much better predictor of crime rates than poverty, unemployment, and dropout rates combined.

-A black is about 39 times more likely to do violence to a white than the other way around, and no less than 130 times more likely to rob a white.

- Rape: Every year there are about 15,000 black-on-white rapes but fewer than 900 white-on-black rapes. There are more than 3,000 gang rapes of whites by blacks—but white-on-black gang rapes are so rare they do not even show up in the statistics.

http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050913_crime.htm
You can follow the links on that page(also see http://amren.com for much scientific data),to reports that verify all of Fraser's findings,all based on official US government data.

The statistics are similar in most of western Europe,if you replace 'African-American' with 'North-African' and 'Hispanic' with 'Arab'.Australia does not officially document crimes based on ethnicity so there is no way to ascertain if white Australians are the victims of interracial violence at similar levels.

No one has 'debunked' Andrew Fraser,because it is extremely hard to debunk statistics and scientific fact.His views are not new,unique or overly controversial except in the Hollywood educated english speaking world.The line that 'race is a social construct' has been disproven in recent years,especially with the advent of race specific medicines.The motivation for that concept was to kill the controversial science of eugenics.Along with alot of fictitious hollywood films about 'evil,racist,whites' it did the job.Since the 1960s,a portrait has been painted of anyone who questions multiculturalism as a a backward redneck.This has led many people who see themselves as 'progressives' to shout down anyone who raises the race question.They feel by overtly showing their moral outrage,they distance themselves from some perceived 'redneck rabble'.

PT 2

Note that most reactions to Andrew Fraser start with "i don't agree with him,but...".It is an unthinking reaction,like saying "i don't agree the earth is round,but...". I suppose such reactions are more intellectually honest than those that spout "but i know lots of nice,smart black people",as if Fraser's theory is on a micro,rather than macro level.

The only real room for debate is in fact his conclusion:that the costs of diversity outweigh the benefits.Therefore most people will respond only from personal experience,political loyalty or their own minority ethnic genetic interests.For example,see todays action by the Sudanese community http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16601391%255E1702,00.html .The truth is irrelevant as their ethnic interests are being compromised.

I assume a white Australian living in 'diverse' south-western Sydney would respond quite differently from a white Australian living on the homogenous North Shore.It has been said that the further one resides from the heart of multiracialism,the more one endorses it.Then again,we don't see many Japanese or Malaysian people arguing that their societies need more 'diversity' through immigration and refugee programs.We have an innate sense of needing to be overcome,and will shout down anyone in our midst who disagrees just to prove our superior aracial ways to the world.Perhaps sometime in the future,scientists will study us and find out why we,out of all the races in the world,have this tendency.It could possibly have something to do with our recessive genes.

steven_29_au

Well, what an interesting post. I will have to read it several times, follow your links and re-think my position before I can comment on your assertions.

Even so, you have not drawn the same conclusions about Indigenous Australians - and I trust that you will not go there!

Cheers
Kay

Is there some kind of secret stats society on this forum?? Is there some kind of kudos we get for dumping stats on the readers? we seem to be constantly bombarded with stats and links to more stats. Some of Stephen29's statements/stats include hispanics and some don't, so it's all a bit all over the place. I too noted the absence of aborigines from your post. And I won't even ask about the *scientific fact* for fear of being shoved in the direction of more links with stats stats stats.

What's happened in New Orleans has shown the world that blacks are treated like dirt and that's why they're sociologically and economically disadvantaged and inferior.

"....but white-on-black gang rapes are so rare they do not even show up in the statistics." Can you immediately discount that this is probably because white-on-black gang rapes aren't reported?

I also loved the bit about replacing african american with arab, etc, etc. What is that? poetic licence?

The bottom line is that until we individually take a real interest in learning about different races and cultures, racism and bigotry will never go away, more and more erroneous stats will be pushed in our faces and we'll all troddle off to our comfortable little safety zones, happy with our circular little arguments that we're smarter than the rest of em and therefore we should keep them out.

lisamaree "Is there some kind of secret stats society on this forum?"

Some of our posters enjoy reference to statistics.

Personally, I prefer quotations from Margaret Thatcher - they are, whilst as contentious, invariably more accurate and based on insight with which I experience a strong correlation.

Of course people of different political views would see that differently - example - Latham and his vilifying diaries - I would find his view representative of what is found 4+ standard deviations from my own, except (fortunately) their is nothing "standard" about Latham - he is clearly and obviously an abberition (of the sociopathic variety).

Still Voltaire would suggest, and I would agree, he has every right to express his "view" and from these diaries we find out why he should.

I have long held the belief that "Censorship" treats the Sage and the Idiot as equals; whilst "freedom of speech" allows the sage and the idiot to distinguish themselves by what they say.

Latham has certainly proved the wisdom of that belief.

Through his diaries, the Australian voting public can observe the crippled and manelvolent character (or substitute for) which resides within the body of an arm-breaking and bullying pustule.

How the idiot is exposed and how his own words will vilify his memory.

Voltaire was right.

As for statistics - their are lies, damn lies, statistics and now we can add a new catagory "the Lathams Diaries"

I see the publishers have doubled the print run - it was only 5000 to start with - I might go and get one - whern they aare being binned out at KMart - just for a belly laugh and as a prompt to remember - how close cynical labor voters went to look into the abyss.

Strange how folks are still repeating the error that Helen brought to our attention - with great style, I might add - two weeks ago.

Helen, 6th September: "Voltaire never said anything remotely like this."

Col Rouge, 21st September: "Voltaire was right."

Unless there is some postmodern ironic undertone to Col's statement, Helen's good deed to bring this common mistake to our attention (I certainly won't forget it, or all the fun I had checking it out) has gone entirely unnoticed.

You get my thanks and appreciation anyway, Helen, for what it's worth.

Yes my focus did drift away from Voltaire I know but I couldn't resist!

I took a different slant on Helen's article - yes it's interesting that Voltaire has been misquoted so often for so long...but let's face it, that in itself wouldn't excite much debate. And anyone visiting this forum would agree we have a right to "Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too". I saw the Voltaire mis-quote as a red herring, with Fraser's assertions used as a forum for our right to "defend discrimination to the death". Most of us would agree with this. (Interestingly though, Rainier has given us an example of how emotions can transcend this right. And yet he subscribes to this forum. Go figure). But from ColR : "....Censorship" treats the Sage and the Idiot as equals; whilst "freedom of speech" allows the sage and the idiot to distinguish themselves by what they say." That to me pretty much condenses the whole debate into one sentence.

A belated post from the author! Thank you for your comments, and thank you Pericles for emphasising once again that Voltaire has been misquoted. I was told by a kind reader that Voltaire had actually said SOMETHING like this in a letter to Monsieur le Riche in 1770, namely, "Monsieur l'Abbé I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write". Unfortunately, this too appears not to be authentic. I will double-check, but apparently the letter in which this sentence allegedly appears, is in full below. While the letter doesn't contain the sentence above, it does mention that G-d is always on the side of the big batallions...
A M. LE RICHE,
A AMIENS.
6 février [1770]
Vous avez quitté, monsieur, des Welches pour des Welches. Vous trouverez partout des barbares têtus. Le nombre des sages sera toujours petit. Il est vrai qu’il est augmenté ; mais ce n’est rien en comparaison des sots ; et, par malheur, on dit que Dieu est toujours pour les gros bataillons. Il faut que les honnêtes gens se tiennent serrés et couverts. Il n’y a pas moyen que leur petite troupe attaque le parti des fanatiques en rase campagne. J’ai été très malade, je suis à la mort tous les hivers ; c’est ce qui fait, monsieur, que je vous ai répondu si tard. Je n’en suis pas moins touché de votre souvenir. Continuez-moi votre amitié ; elle me console de mes maux et des sottises du genre humain. Recevez les assurances, etc.