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'.