Human Rights Commission Declares unlawful Assoc. Professor Fraser’s Letter to the Parramatta Sun

(Press release from Andrew Fraser, Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, AUSTRALIA. Email: )

In a stunning blow to freedom of expression in Australia, the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Mr John von Doussa, QC, today declared that a letter to the editor written by Associate Professor Andrew Fraser and published in the “Parramatta Sun” on 6 July 2005 was an unlawful breach of s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

In that letter Professor Fraser observed that “[e]xperience practically everywhere in the world tells us that an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems.”

The letter was the subject of a complaint submitted on behalf of Mr Safi Hareer, General Secretary of the Sudanese Darfurian Union, by George Newhouse of Newhouse Lawyers, with the assistance of David D Knoll, President of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and Ms Anna Katzmann, SC.

No complaint has been received by the HREOC in relation to the article by the editor of the “Parramatta Sun”, Charles Boag, also in the July 2005 issue. In that opinion piece, Mr Boag categorically asserted that “the violence in America’s deep south…was caused by whites.” To emphasize his anti-white message, Mr Boag went on to accuse “white settlers” of committing “murder and mayhem on a great scale in Australia.”

Apparently, in contemporary Australia, people of white, European ancestry can be identified routinely as the root of all evil while it is forbidden for whites ever to mention publicly the social pathologies associated with black Africans, even if they are well-known to any informed person and openly acknowledged by reasonable black people themselves.

The President of the HREOC has just endorsed that double standard. Along with his two submissions to the Commission, Professor Fraser provided, inter alia, an article by a black journalist thoroughly disgusted by the behaviour of African-Americans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans last year. Leighton Levy wrote that “I am beginning to believe that black people, no matter where in the world they are, are cursed with a genetic predisposition to steal, murder, and create mayhem.”

The President of the HREOC also disregarded the rest of the copious evidence provided by Professor Fraser detailing the nature and scope of the crime, violence and other social problems associated not just with the black African diaspora in the West but with the post-colonial societies of sub-Saharan Africa itself.

The upshot of the Human Rights Commission decision is clear. Whenever any person of black African ancestry declares that he has been “offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated’ by the public mention of such unsavoury truths, the freedom of white Australians to speak openly and freely about black African immigration in particular and non-white immigrants generally will be suppressed.

The Commission has also flatly rejected Professor Fraser’s submission that his Letter was not unlawful because, under s18D of the RDA, it was a “statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for [a] genuine academic …purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or…a fair comment on any…matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of genuine belief held by the person making the comment.”

For all practical purposes, the decision of the Commission has rendered nugatory, the assurances of the politicians who assured Australians that the passage of the racial vilification laws would not threaten our historic liberties.

Even before the Commission’s decision, Deakin University had refused to publish a peer-reviewed article by Professor Fraser on the subject of race and immigration while Macquarie University has forbidden him to teach in any subject area.

The freedom of academics to dissent from the official policy of transforming Australia into a colony of the Third World is now officially dead and buried—unless patriotic Australian rally to resist this blatant assault on their ancestral freedoms.

Indeed, on a personal level, the Commission’s decision is more worrying still to Professor Fraser. The Commission’s proposed resolution of this matter echoes the methodology employed during the show trials in Stalinist Russia where defendants were compelled to confess their thought crimes and beg public forgiveness.

Newhouse Lawyers demanded that Professor Fraser “should cause to be published at his expense an advertisement in the “Parramatta Sun” (of a size no smaller than the Letter and no less prominent) acknowledging that he engaged in unlawful conduct by means of the Letter and Comments, unreservedly apologising for the hurt thereby caused to the Sudanese people who live in the Parramatta-Blacktown area, promising not to repeat such conduct and retracting on the public record all of the imputations.”

Mr von Doussa has invited Professor Fraser to submit to this neo-Stalinist ritual of self-abasement.

Professor Fraser will not accept that invitation. But, in all likelihood, that will not be the end of the matter. It can be assumed that, if this “conciliation” proposal is rejected, Newhouse Lawyers will pursue Professor Fraser into the Federal Court, in an effort to ruin him financially by winning an order of costs against him.

Posted by jonjayray on Friday, March 31, 2006 at 12:29 PM in Free Speech
Comments (38) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by john on March 31, 2006, 03:03 PM | #

This is disturbing.

I can’t see how that s18D exception does not apply.

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 31, 2006, 05:01 PM | #

What’s the ethnic origin of Mr. Mr von Doussa?

Posted by Ben Tillman on March 31, 2006, 05:53 PM | #

Their opposition to genocide must not be a principled thing, but due only, in the case of the Nazis, to their being on the receiving end.

Coincidentally, just this morning I reread Deuteronomy chapters 7 & 20, which dictate the genocide of the Hivites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, Perizzites, and Canaanites by our special friends.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 31, 2006, 06:17 PM | #

What’s the ethnic origin of Mr. Mr von Doussa?

European Caucasian, with a touch of Transylvanian to judge by the teeth.

Posted by Ben Tillman on March 31, 2006, 06:19 PM | #

I can’t see how that s18D exception does not apply.

The HREOC is not in the business of applying laws; it is in the business of applying force.

Posted by Ben Tillman on March 31, 2006, 06:31 PM | #

What’s the ethnic origin of Mr. Mr von Doussa?

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news7661.html

Posted by Ben Tillman on March 31, 2006, 06:36 PM | #

Is there a right to appeal?

Posted by Ben Tillman on March 31, 2006, 06:40 PM | #

Oh, I see—the exception applies only if the statement is made “reasonably”:

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/47/0/PA000310.htm

Posted by Mark Richardson on March 31, 2006, 10:27 PM | #

This is from a book “The Jews in Australia” published in 2005 by Cambridge University Press.

Three main groups have been emigrating to Australia ... South Africans, Russians and Israelis ..

The group from South Africa has had the most significant impact on Australian Jewry. According to the 2001 Census, 10,473 Jews had been born in South Africa but, allowing for under-counting by 20 per cent, the figure is likely to be closer to 14,000 -15,000.

In the last five years of apartheid, to 1990, emigration again increased, and was maintained until 1995 ... many are still coming, largely because of high crime and a sense of insecurity.

As one new arrival commented, ‘I lost six friends and acquaintances in the period before emigration. Dad’s best friend was killed last year ... there is a sense of hopelessness in the future of the country because of the crime situation. Funeral after funeral wears you down.”

In 2001, South Africans constituted 12.5 per cent of all Jews living in Australia - 58% in Sydney ....

Doesn’t this information make David D Knoll’s involvement even more reprehensible? He represents Jews in a state (NSW) in which there has been a massive influx of Jews fleeing black crime in South Africa.

And yet he has chosen not to warn about problems associated with black crime, as someone in his position ought to do, but to assist in repressing this information.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 31, 2006, 10:37 PM | #

Mark,

Why does that surprise you? That’s the way Jews behave everywhere in all white nations.

I will venture to say that the majority of those Jews were also part of the anti-Apartheid cult (fully backed by legions of Anglo do-gooders) and they created the situation which then led to them having to flee South Africa.

This is old hat. And this is fundamentally why Jews will never be even remotely sympathetic to WN. It is not going to happen even if we bend over backwards to accommodate their every whim.

Posted by karlmagnus on March 31, 2006, 10:58 PM | #

My SA Jewish wife was always entirely aware of the attempts to demolish apartheid by elements of the SA Jewish community, and was loud in her condemnation of them (she knew Helen Suzman well, and HATED her.) Anyway, why get excited by a Jewish professional agitator with only peripheral involvment; the attempt to suppress free speech is being carried out by a German.

This is what is so foolish on this site; EVERYTHING is turned into an excuse to denounce Jews. Whether or not this is evil, it’s certainly cuckoo.

Posted by Mark Richardson on March 31, 2006, 11:08 PM | #

Karlmagnus, I don’t like the “jews as cosmic enemies” approach either.

Even so, it can’t be denied that in this case there is involvement not just by Jewish individuals but by representatives of Jewish organisations.

And it does seem significant to me that a Jewish organisation, many of whose members have fled black crime, should be persecuting a man for warning about the negative effects of black crime.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 31, 2006, 11:15 PM | #

Anyway, why get excited by a Jewish professional agitator with only peripheral involvment; the attempt to suppress free speech is being carried out by a German.

Martin,

I was responding to Mark’s point about how a Jewish professor is still pushing the same line even though Sydney now has thousands of Jews who are basically refugees from African barbarity.

There are two types of suicidal behaviour Martin: (1) Suicidal behaviour of a people who have lived in ethnically homogenous societies who then preach morality to the Earth - Swedes, for example starting with the odious Myrdal; (2) Suicidal behaviour of a people who should know better - the Jews running from SA fall into this category.

I have never said that Jews are the only ones doing it. One of my closest friends is an Anglo South African whose family is stuck forever in that hell hole. And he is a total racial liberal - he hates the Afrikaners, he keeps yapping about the evil of “racism” and has no qualms about Europe being turned into another version of Tunisia. And half his family had to flee “Zimbabwe” and Mugabe’s murderous mobs.

In other words, he is another insane Libertoid. His motivation is vanity. The Jewish motivation is a belief that it is in their self interest because it is supposedly “good for the Jews”.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 31, 2006, 11:23 PM | #

There are a small number of Jews who are like your ex-wife. I have no doubt that there are such Jews but they are marginal elements in the Jewish community. And not only that, “mainstream” Jewish behaviour means that they are then torn between two extremes: 1) the love of their own - which is natural and healthy and that’s what we are trying to preserve too and cannot object to for others; and 2) the obvious obnoxious behaviour of their own community which makes them sick but there is nothing they can do about it. Not only that, they then get unfairly tarred along with everyone else in their community as also being party to this (rightly or wrongly).

I don’t envy their predicament. Their position is not enviable. The best “solution” for them would be to convert to Christianity and assimilate completely into the white majority and forever break their ties with the Jewish community. But that is asking too much. We are all human and cannot forego our relatives and our families.

So there is no escaping their dilemma. It is sad. But their predicament is a natural consequence of the behaviour of their community.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 31, 2006, 11:32 PM | #

Martin,

One last point: I don’t particularly like pointing out Jewish political propensities either. The first girl I ever dated (and this is going back a very long way) was half-Jewish (and she was technically Jewish because her mother was Jewish).

The subject (JQ) made me sick when I first started thinking about it clearly. I didn’t want to think it but the conclusions were inescapable.

I understand fully that there are sound historical reasons why they think and behave the way they do. In fact, virtually any other community in their place would do the same. But that still doesn’t change the fact that they are doing this. And all we are doing is pointing it out.

Most of these people are in fact harming their own community and are certainly harming the nations they live in. But holding centuries old grudges seems more important to them. So there is nothing you or I can do to change it.

Posted by Al Ross on March 31, 2006, 11:42 PM | #

The Jewish push for abolition of apartheid came from both the the top economic stratum of South African society (eg,Helen Suzman, Tony Bloom, Donald Gordon and Harry Oppenheimer, the latter’s family conversion to nominal Anglicanism notwithstanding) and the Communist scum stratum, the White-hating Joe Slovo.

When apartheid was abolished, Oppenheimer’s son Nicky made plans to relocate both himself and his flagship company, Anglo American, to UK and Donnie Gordon followed suit with his Liberty International property business.

It is also true,of course, that the richest Afrikaaner, the late Anton Rupert, also re-incorporated his main business concern in Zug, whilst safeguarding his South African tobacco interests by selling them to London-based BAT and becoming the largest stockholder.

Posted by AD on March 31, 2006, 11:49 PM | #

It isn’t just ‘peripheral involvement’, it is the official policy of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies to agitate, fund and carry out “anti-racist” litigations via the illegitimate HREOC.

Posted by john on April 01, 2006, 12:18 AM | #

Complaining about whites denouncing jews is like critisising a child for crying for crying when he’s being beaten.

Posted by karlmagnus on April 01, 2006, 12:27 AM | #

I’m proud to say that my ex-father-in-law gave Anton Rupert his first job in the Johannesburg drug store he owned in the 1930s. My ex didn’t like the Oppenheimers much either. And apart from marrying “out” she changed her (Jewish) surname to mine then, after we split, joined the Johannesburg Country Club and blackballed her sister, who had kept the family name!

I suppose you can accuse her of being “Jewish” in figuring out that I was never going to be rich and dumping me, but I prefer to regard that as rational calculation!

Posted by AD on April 01, 2006, 12:35 AM | #

....i shouldn’t have said ‘litigation via the HREOC’, as the illegitimate HREOC has no legal power to enforce anything(though like all good bolsheviks,they had tried to in the past, but the Federal Court in 1995 ruled them assuming any judicial power unconstitutional).

Posted by Mark Richardson on April 01, 2006, 12:49 AM | #

I do agree with Karlmagnus, though, in a broader sense.

Even though the action in this case was facilitated by a Jewish organisation, the fact remains that it was a largely Anglo-Australian legislature which set up and which funds HREOC, it was a gentile judge who found against Professor Fraser, and it is a largely Anglo media which fails to condemn what has happened.

So there is more than enough work to do in changing attitudes within our own community, and much of our focus should be on this task.

Posted by l'Etat on April 01, 2006, 01:42 AM | #

I understand fully that there are sound historical reasons why they think and behave the way they do. In fact, virtually any other community in their place would do the same.

I disagree with that conclusion. Historically, Jews could’ve “choosen” any of two paths:

1) Assimilate into European society- Jews are (almost) phenotypically indistinguishable from EC after a generation or two of intermarriage.

“Anti-semitism” is a response to the result of Jews walking the other path, whereby they:

2) Maintain a separate racial identity, engage in ethnic nepotism for fellow Jews, and establish parallel and often stealth group structures promoting their interests, often in direct opposition to the host population’s welfare. The second path is dictated by the religion itself. For this reason there is absolutely zero possibly that organized Jewry shall ever morph into the a benign elite like the Parsis, as Steve Sailor wishes they would.

Posted by Alan on April 01, 2006, 03:28 PM | #

Have I been asleep for a year? It is now April 2006 how come the letter is yet to be written ?

Posted by JB on April 01, 2006, 04:54 PM | #

TJB

Multiculturalism not for Israel - Leibler
Herald Sun, September 27 2000
by John Masanauskas

http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/purejews.htm

Melbourne - Jewish leader Isi Leibler, a staunch defender of Australian multiculturalism, says the policy has no place in Israel.

“This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews,” he told a Jerusalem newspaper.

Mr. Leibler has previously said that multiculturalism in Australia was something that “we are all proud being part and parcel of.”

The founder of Jetset Travel moved to Israel two years ago as chairman of the World Jewish Congress. He recently published an essay arguing that Zionism, or Jewish nationalism, was under threat in Israel by “post-Zionists”.

“A post-Zionist is someone who actually looks positively towards the end of the Jewish people in ethnocentric terms, as a national group, and no longer sees the Jewish people as one united people,” he told the Jerusalem Post.

Mr. Leibler said post-Zionists were pushing a universalist agenda in schools aimed at eliminating Jewish nationalism and creating a multicultural state.

But Mr. Leibler, 65, has the opposite view of multiculturalism in Australia.

During the Pauline Hanson debate in 1993, he warned that multiculturalism was under threat by extremists.

“There is a need to sit together and establish a way in which Australians can recapture that spirit of multiculturalism which I think we are all proud being part and parcel of, and which is really under threat,” Mr. Leibler said.

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 01, 2006, 05:13 PM | #

Writing not about South Africa or Austrialia, but the United States, Professor Earl Raab of Brandeis University wrote:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.

“We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible....

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 01, 2006, 05:14 PM | #

For the slow among us, Raab is a Jew.

Posted by l'Etat on April 01, 2006, 05:47 PM | #

That climate has not yet been perfected

I wonder what is meant by that? “Perfected”? Perfect what? By whom? Surely Jews do not “conspire”??? And surely not by the means of interbreeding and immigration-replacing the would-be “Nazi-Aryans” out of existence?

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 01, 2006, 06:23 PM | #

They have it wrong of course. European genes aren’t essential or absolutely indispensable for Jew-hatred. The Arab world is mostly a racial mix and Jew hatred is greater there than anywhere else.

I think these people will soon learn a few tough lessons in France where one third of all births are already North African/African and overwhelmingly Muslim.

Posted by Matra on April 01, 2006, 06:54 PM | #

David Frum and a couple of other neocons at the American Enterprise Institute have come out against America’s suicidal immigration policies. However they are still a minority within the cabal and I’m pretty sure immigration is well down in their priority list. Arguably the most important neocon is Bill Kristol - he’s certainly more important than David Frum - who has written an article for the Weekly Standard called “Y is for Yahoo”. Kristol claims the pro-immigration side has won the debate (that’s news to me) and dismisses Tom Tancredo as a an “anti-immigration yahoo”. Needless to say Kristol is a die-hard supporter of Israel and I don’t expect any future articles in his Weekly Standard advocating open borders for the Jewish state.

Posted by Andrew on April 01, 2006, 06:56 PM | #

I think Fred, when the money they are paid comes from Tax payers Government looted laws, The upper etalons of Commissars have to compound the idiotic statements they make to further perpetuate a greater myth of the need for such Commissars to exist.( Solipsism) and Occhams Razor Dialog. The nothingness abyss statements.
Nauseating- irritating and an irrational waste of my and your money is good dialog and a closer truth to explain the relevance of such parasitic existence. And the list of Parasites grow bigger and your money grows smaller.

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 01, 2006, 07:34 PM | #

> Jewish neocon hypocrisy is worse than Irish stupidity.

Too bad the Irish don’t control our media, nor have the Irish hurled the US into foriegn wars, nor have the Irish ensconced themselves in our security apparati.

Posted by Matra on April 01, 2006, 07:41 PM | #

Speaking of the Irish (and Jews) John McCain (Scotch-Irish) is becoming quite a hero to Irish-Americans. Read this.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 01, 2006, 07:52 PM | #

“And committing murder (what the Jewish neocons are doing) is worse than committing suicide (what the Irish Catholics are doing).”

Amen brother!

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 01, 2006, 08:31 PM | #

McCain comes across as a war hero turned true slimeball. Being in a place like Washington DC for so many years can do that to a man.

I actually think that if McCain had won, he would have been much worse than Bush (if such a thing is even conceivable).

Posted by Don Miller on April 01, 2006, 08:46 PM | #

Why Not Reciprocate?

Fraser’s essay makes the point that another person (Boag) had an essay in the same publication out of which Fraser’s was selected as evidence of the charge against Fraser. The Boag essay was some serious white-bashing, apparently, on a racial level.

Why no mention of the importance of filing complaints against the Boags in the strange tribunal carrying so much weight in Australia?

If a intermittent, low intensity, high cost, guerrilla war is being carried out against European descendants in Australia, why has no one posted any suggestion in favor of reciprocity by us against them? Why not take the war to the adversaries and catch them with their own traps?

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 01, 2006, 09:09 PM | #

The Vietnam War was a global racket run by criminals and traitors, who had no strategy except for wholesale slaughter for its own sake. At no stage did they ever hold the objective of actually winning the war by fighting the true source of communism - it was all about prolonging the destruction in order to sell weapons. It’s not surprising that many who were called up for duty and subjected to this corruption would be morally ruined by their experiences.

McCain is a megalomaniac and a career warmonger who would have wreaked far more carnage across the planet than any other President in history. He believes in war for its own sake - never to defend America. He would never dream of deploying the army to the Mexican border where Mexican security forces have been carrying out armed incursions at the rate of twice a month.

Posted by Mark Richardson on April 01, 2006, 11:21 PM | #

Don Miller, it’s a good idea.

In fact, the Christian churches which were attacked under the religious vilification laws in the state of Victoria pursued exactly that tactic.

They placed observers in the back of mosques to record exactly what the imams said. The imams didn’t expect to be counter-scrutinized in this way and the laws were subsequently modified.

Anglo-Australians get attacked all the time in the media - it wouldn’t be hard to find cases to bring before the tribunal.

The problem? We’re not that well organised. It would take money and some kind of pressure group.

Posted by Shaun Bourke on April 02, 2006, 01:24 AM | #

Ouch.....

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/juif.htm

< http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Jews/Doc-Jews-Immigration&Multiculturalism/+++BOOK-
CriticalJewishRoleInNonwesternUSImmigration/+++BOOK-CriticalJewishRoleInNonwesternUSImmigration.htm >

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=6988

http://christianparty.net/jewsimmigration.htm