I don't follow Union but I've never heard a part Maori playing for the Springboks, and I've never heard of Tatu Van Hanen.

Is he one of Jack Van Tongeren's mates?

The problem with truth as a defence, what he has instead is arguably, as a good many of Rushton's peers are concerned, pseudo-science. The HREOC aren't in the business of judging on highly contentious academic issues, and George Newhouse can point to the dubious and contended nature of Frasers comments. Here's the statement that's landed him in the shit:

This is a highly generalized and contentious claim to truth, it is not merely "promoting a view" as you put it. I'm pretty sure someone of George Newman's intelligence could have found enough historical examples out of Africa and elsewere where Black populations had expanded without a marked increase in crime, violence and other social problems, to swamp the HREOC tribunal with.

Also, given the highly generalized nature of the claim this isn't a quote Fraser can point out from an early 20th century text or whatever, which makes the following statement by his buddies:

..seem like a crock of shit too. Academic hypotheses, or ones worth their weeight, are rarely as generalized as the comments Fraser has dug his hole with, conversely they are almost always marked by conservatism, and hesitancy. The offending statement is nothing of the sort, and I'm sure George Newman had a variety of examples to choose from in disproving Frasers massively over-generalized claim.

In other words, if you are going to make statements that are going to offend some group of people, you better make sure you know what you are talking about, be relatively objective, and preferably back yourself up with credible research, not contentious, dubious ones. Alternatively, you should make it clear that you are merely promoting your personal view, not something "experience practically everywhere in the world" is telling us.

So sorry Frank, I must admit in further reflection of Frasers statement, I'm actually less surprised by the HREOC ruling, and less concerned with its ramifications for free speech in Australia.

Given the number of critiques I came across, that must have taken you a fucking long time, more than I will ever give.

You're putting the cart before the horse. These issues should be debated in academia with some form of consensus reached before academics go public with claims to truth, not dickhead academics making outlandish generalized statements with media dickheads demanding impromptu public debates in innapropriate forums to decide the matter to save their dumb asses and sell a few more newspapers.

Well, he's most likely presenting it in good faith. Unfortunately what he has done is make a wildly generalised, historically misleading, and racially offensive public statement on a controversial topic, while failing to check it as merely his personal view.

There are precious few resources available for many areas of the social sciences, psychology, pro-multiculturalist projects included, and buckets of internal politics involved, he's hardly the only one. And the palatability of research findings has always presented complications for funding. Admittedly, controversial race research probably doesn't attract much of what is out there, but given that Rushton's methodology, lack of fieldwork and interpretation of other's work have been roundly critiqued by his peers, I'm not surprised.

Merely pointed it out? Read between the lines Frank, the implied criticism of the usual suspects for not entering the debate is clear as daylight, he signs off calling for "less moralising, more facts" after imploring that Fraser critics failed to "argue the facts with him" when it is naive to think they could have, should have, or would have. He's a newspaper salesman.

Yesterdays events are always viewed in the flavour of the day, and yes the inconsistencies and are glossed over. What can be said though is a lot of Australian immigrants from New Guinea, Singapore, Malaysia, China, the Philippines, South Korea etc. are as thankful for the allied effort as us whites are. Because we helped these people be rid of their Japanese imperialist masters. We did more than just protect our white dominion, we directly helped our non-white brothers.

It won't be the militant WN herd who bring about the changes, it will be ordinary Australians. What I don't get is why your lot assume the many Australians who are not concerned with non-Causasian rates approaching a comfortable and colourful 10% will feel the same way as they approach the 25-33% range. Relax, because barring a massive, unstoppable influx from Indonesia in the millions it will never even approach becoming the majority you so fear it will.

Jerry