Simon,

As far as the anti-vilification legislation goes, the Australian’s publication of (an edited version of) Fraser’s “White Australia� article may yet provide an interesting test case on the limits of the “genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest� exception (to what would otherwise be racial vilification).

However, I think that such an action, at least by the forces prompting the pulling of the article from the Deakin LR, is unlikely. In turn, this does raise issues of apparent inconsistency, aka selective prosecution, but these run long and deep within the media law area. For example, a few years ago, the editors of a university student newspaper “Rabelais� faced criminal charges (including possible jail) for publishing an article called “The Art of Shoplifting�. Their prosecution wasn’t totally malicious – the article seemed to have instructed in crime, which was all the offence required (there was no “genuine academic/public interest� exception to be argued) – but it was certainly highly selective: the article (had) run/ran in other media outlets, including mainstream, high-circulation ones, all without any charges resulting.

Regarding Fraser’s mooted breach of contract argument, here, he is plainly tilting at windmills/symbolism. Since law journal contributors don’t get paid, there is unlikely to be a contract in the first place, but even if Fraser successfully argued estoppel (which gives damages for a person’s detrimental reliance, even in the absence of a contract), the damages would be token, at most. Otherwise, Fraser would have to show how his earning power went backwards because of Deakin’s pulling his article – and I don’t see how he could do this, given that he is (i) 60-something http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/09/20/racism-and-censorship/#comment-33278 and (ii) (more to the point) he had already self-sabotaged his one-time presumed academic credibility, quite without Deakin’s help.

Hopefully someone can shed some light on the contract thing further though.

Of course, it is not possible to contract for something that is illegal. Deakin might therefore argue that the article’s (arguable) breach of the racial vilification laws was enough to make the contract void. It would certainly be an interesting case — though I imagine Fraser will use it as a racist soapbox and to play martyr for his friends at the American Rennaissance (I heard he intends to do a racist speaking tour of the US).

“American Renaissance has been informed that Australia’s racial vilification laws do not apply to statements in academic journals and that Prof. Fraser will attempt to sue Deakin University for breach of contract”.

As usual they cut and paste legislation from the HREOC website which include the exceptions to the law, but neglect to cut and paste how those exceptions can or cannot be made.

One of the more amusing posts from an Amren person named Ethnocentrist was as follows:
“Dear Professor Walker,

Regarding your decision not to publish Professor Fraser’s article in the Law Review. A perfect example of where policy and ideology trump facts and truth. Thank you for helping to usher in another “Dark Ages”, professor. You should feel quite proud of your accomplishment. Hiding behind threats of suit by a Sudanese lawyer (which is founded solely out of ethnic, self preservational, tribal interests) and previous legislated, unfounded “Acts” is cowardly; as you must be well aware though gladly embrace. The world IS watching you and you have failed to meet the standards of what a chancellor should be. Galileo was also muzzled and vilified in his day for speaking “heresy”. People will forever remember Galileo, however no one remembers the oppressors. Good day, professor”

I was wondering whether anyone can shed any further light on Fraser’s plans to sue, such as whether he will have a case or not. Perhaps Paul Watson can shed some light on this one and also discrimination legislation.

To Rob- thank you for your summary!

I thought you intended to make a living through your use of the English language? Thank goodness for Centrelink, eh?