Since the HREOC is not in the business of judging contentious academic issues how can they judge the motive behind Fraser's claims? If they did not examine the research how can they make such a determination? Answer? They cannot nor is it their mandate to do so because truth is no defence.

Could have but did not to the best of my knowledge! On the other hand! One could argue that blacks are more prone to criminal behaviour then whites and Asians hence could be and have been a crime risk wherever they go...I believe the following was included in Fraser's article if I am not mistaken...

I emphasize at the outset that enormous variability exists within each of the populations on many of the traits to be discussed. Because distributions substantially overlap, with average differences amounting to between 4 and 34 percent, it is highly problematic to generalize from a group average to a particvular individual.

Nonetheless, as I hope to show, significant racial variation exists, not only in crime but also in other traits that predispose to crime, including testosterone, brain size, temperament, and cognitive ability.The global nature of the racial pattern in crime is shown in data collated from INTERPOL using the 1984 and 1986 yearbooks. After analyzing information on nearly 100 countries, I reported, in the 1990 issue of the Canadian Journal of Criminology, that African and Caribbean countries had double the rate of violent crime (an aggregate of murder, rape, and serious assault) than did European countries, and three times more than did countries in the Pacific Rim. Averaging over the three crimes and two time periods, the figures per 100,000 population were, respectively, 142, 74, and 43.

I have corroborated these results using the most recent INTERPOL yearbook (1990). The rates of murder, rape, and serious assault per 100,000 population reported for 23 predominantly African countries, 41 Caucasian countries, and 12 Asian countries were: for murder, 13, 5, and 3; for rape, 17, 6, and 3; and for serious assault, 213, 63, and 27. Summing the crimes gave figures per 100,000, respectively, of 243, 74, and 33. The gradient remained robust over contrasts of racially homogeneous countries in northeast Asia, central Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa, or of racially mixed but predominantly black or white/Amerindian countries in the Caribbean and Central America. In short, a stubborn pattern exists worldwide that requires explanation.

-Dr. Philipe J. Rushton - Race and crime: an international dilemma. Rushton, J. Philippe - Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2

It should also be noted that black folks tend to be overrepresented in American crime statistics as well...

For example in 2000 blacks made up 12.32% of the United States population yet consisted of 43.91% of the prison population. The FBI Uniform Crime States showed that in 2001 blacks made up 12% of the population yet were responsible for 51.4% of the nations murders. In fact according to the American Sociological Association more black men in America have served jailed time then black men who have earned degrees or served in the military.

Prof. Fraser who is well versed in these statistics had fair reason to make the comment he did whether controversial or not. Now maybe the conclusions are worthy of debate and maybe the causation is worthy of debate but I would say that based on the above he had fair reason and good faith reasons to make the claim that he did.

Those generalised comments did seem to have some support as shown above? Maybe the issue should be debated? Oh and it is George Newhouse not Newman.

There is no law that academics must condult one another before going public with their conclusions. If that were the case most research long exposed would be secret today. I know of very few scientists who completely agree with the views of their colleagues. What they can do is critique the exposed works and even offer to debate the works in question.

Second, You can insult these people all you wish, tell me they dickheads and accuse them of every ethical misconduct that you wish. I merely defend a man's right to offer a view in good faith without being dragged before a tribunal.

Then if he made wildly incorrect comments in good faith he should be corrected instead of dragged to a tribunal. If done in good faith that would mean that he intended no harm but offered a conclusion based on his study.

Merely being critiqued by his peers does not make the man a fraud but if the man's views are so incorrect then Fraser should be easily vanquished in a debate.

However, it appears that Fraser's opposition are more interested in shutting him up then vanquishing him in such a debate. I am more then willing to see such a debate go forward...

I do not read between the lines I tend to stick with facts when possible and the facts as they stand support Duffy's claims...