Based on the treatment of others in similar positions Jensen, Rushton, Murray, Hernstein, Lynn, Vanhannen, et alia et alia he may face arrest and will risk physical assault, book burning, a ruined reputation, etc

BUT

He won't be scientifically refuted and the problems that could be solved via genetic engineering won't be (at least not as soon as they could be).
I hope that the other side here enjoy the feeling of moral superiority while they watch the avoidable misery of their fellow humans

Is James Watson a racist?

Define "racist." He's certainly a blasphemer against liberal dogma on race.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full".

So the EHRC is a scientific body? No, it's an ideological enforcer backed up with illiberal laws. The ideology and laws go back to one particular high-g ethnic group who have been trying to close down debate on racial differences for decades. Remember: There's Gould in them thar ills!

Gora,

People who try to shut down the debate on racial differences annoy me as much as they do any race realist. And I agree, a lot of them are Jews. But would it kill people like you to admit that Jews might have good reasons for having an aversion to this particular discussion? We (non-Jewish Europeans) did try to wipe them out in the name of racial purity a mere 60 years ago. You can't expect something like the Holocaust to not have an effect on how the survivors and their descendants approach race-related issues.

Last statement I will make about the Jews, promise!

But would it kill people like you to admit that Jews might have good reasons for having an aversion to this particular discussion?

And homosexuals, and the Rom, and people living in Poland, and the Irish... y'know, we could list every group that would have reason to beat around the bush on this topic, and it would include every single human being on the face of the Earth.

Doesn't mean we don't have to address it.

Well said, Razza. I despair of the fools who argue that legal rights should be dependent on some supposed biological fact.

Caledonian,

I'm not saying don't address the issue of race and intelligence. I'm just saying, when people freak out, we should take a second to understand where they are coming from and make the appropriate assurances. We have a much better chance of reaching people that way.

If you decide to broach one of the most sensitive topics of the past few centuries, and discuss it from a perspective that has been used to justify a great deal of human suffering (by people who beleive "is" = "ought"), then you should carefully consider the way you present your ideas, to ensure there is no misunderstanding and that your views consider all possible objectios, both rational and otherwise.

In other words, Watson may be a Nobel prize Winner, but he is also a first class moron.

I see all of the typically shallow responses are included in the article. The notion that a scientific assertion would be deemed "offensive" tells you where we are here. Of course, Mr. Vaz buried the lead by mentioning that objection last.

Fromf the original interview/article in The Sunday Times:

He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.

link

See, this is exactly the big problem you'd have if you treat the literature/language graduates as "intellectuals". They just love to talk and spin lies and then print them into history books.

Whoever is the we - first world, does that include the old civilizations that this "special" race destroyed.

Dont even reach into history before year 1980. I believe the bombing of Baghdad just happened recently?

We (non-Jewish Europeans) did try to wipe them out in the name of racial purity a mere 60 years ago.

Acually "we" (non-Jewish, non-Nazi Europeans) did quite the opposite. ("We" being my parents, who were shot at and bombed).

bandying about anecdotes about black employees really won't cut it.

His statement struck me the same way at first, but perhaps he was trying to appeal to people's perceptions since information on the issue is suppressed and distorted in the general media.

However, contrast Watson's blunt but reasonable (apologetic, even) statements with the lies, threats and insults from...a criminal, apparently.