Yes, we're talking about those little wristbands like the ones with the word "Livestrong" on them back before Lance Armstrong got kicked out of cycling.
The wristbands aren't meant to actually stop attacks, instead start conversations about how molesting women is wrong. Still, given that most of the groping spree in Europe is being done my middle-eastern migrants who don't read Swedish, this looks like it'll be as successful as that Starbucks "race together" campaign.
I hope it does start something positive. If I was raised in a culture that says single women a walking alone are open season, I'd go on a groping spree too.
But most of the attackers neither read nor speak Swedish so how does this help anyone? It seems like this is designed more to make Swedish women feel safer than it is to actually accomplish anything meaningful.
I don't think they necessarily are mostly foreigners, there just seems to be a world wide outcry at female molestation and abuse atm. The issue seem to be being raised all over the globe including South Americas, Asia and Europe.
However that being said there are certain differences in how women are viewed in certain cultures, England for example is full of mainstream crap about how women are objects. Also there is Certainly a difference between the cultures like some of the middle eastern countries, like Saudi Arabia. But also of course Syria, but also alot of it is misconception which the right wing media seeks to exaggerate in order to rear monger and gain support. There sicko's in any country and blaming it on minorities is never going to help.
Also how do you know they don't speak some of your languages?
So i think as said befor, anything that might open a dialog, give women a voice or the confidence to stand up for themselves is a good thing.
Breotan wrote: Yes, we're talking about those little wristbands like the ones with the word "Livestrong" on them back before Lance Armstrong got kicked out of cycling.
The wristbands aren't meant to actually stop attacks, instead start conversations about how molesting women is wrong. Still, given that most of the groping spree in Europe is being done my middle-eastern migrants who don't read Swedish, this looks like it'll be as successful as that Starbucks "race together" campaign.
A lot more people than middle easterners grope and otherwise sexually assault women but I guess thinking about that doesn't advance race war.
They're handing these out to young people at festivals and other such events since groping is particularly a problem in this demographic. This is not a call for eternal vigilance against the horrors of the foreign types, it's an attempt to get people to pay attention and consider their actions in any way at all.
I've got to say, it's very hard to find legitimate information on sexual assaults in Sweden. One site I read (definitely not an impartial one) claimed it was due to Sweden's government not gathering the data, their interpretation being that it casts a bad light on their liberal policies of Muslim immigrants.
Can anyone else find legitimate statistics on the rates over there?
djones520 wrote: I've got to say, it's very hard to find legitimate information on sexual assaults in Sweden. One site I read (definitely not an impartial one) claimed it was due to Sweden's government not gathering the data, their interpretation being that it casts a bad light on their liberal policies of Muslim immigrants.
Can anyone else find legitimate statistics on the rates over there?
The short story is that we already covered the whole "rape" think multiple times before, we pointed out that the huge jumps in rape reports happened whenever the legal definitions of rape were changed, and that there was just a very minor uptick relates to immigration. The whole "middle eastern men are raping their women" is a bs story based on bs data that has been debunked here multiple times, but it keeps on getting repeated.
Not sure of the article but the title says it is groping, not rape, and it is part of the conversation about inappropriate touching. Not sure where the idea that this was done because it would stop all rapes.
I was reading the other day that various Nordic countries run orientation classes for immigrants including refugees.
At these classes they explain the differences in Nordic society and also give help with learning the local language and things like that.
Apparently these classes are fairly popular since many immigrants are young men who want to meet women and realise they can't do it effectively without understanding how to interact with the local women.
Breotan wrote: Still, given that most of the groping spree in Europe is being done my middle-eastern migrants who don't read Swedish, this looks like it'll be as successful as that Starbucks "race together" campaign.
Citation very much needed on that.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: This sounds like a reasonable response to a sexual assault epidemic.
Same on this.
We've been through this absolute bollocks multiple times the last year already. I really don't feel like digging up the same blasted law texts over and over AND OVER AND OVER because a few of our posters refuse to read anything that dares suggest that immigrants aren't the Scum of the Earth.
d-usa summed it up nicely:
d-usa wrote: The short story is that we already covered the whole "rape" think multiple times before, we pointed out that the huge jumps in rape reports happened whenever the legal definitions of rape were changed, and that there was just a very minor uptick relates to immigration. The whole "middle eastern men are raping their women" is a bs story based on bs data that has been debunked here multiple times, but it keeps on getting repeated.
I'll just add that chap. 6 1§ of the Swedish penal code includes "threat of illegal action" as enough to convict for rape if that threat is used to coerce sex or sexual actions from someone. It's an amazingly wide definition.
Sweden's had a problem with sexual violence for a very long time now, predating the influx of refugees in recent years. Some folks might remember The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo a decade ago, and one of its biggest themes is Sweden's sexual violence epidemic.
Laughing Man wrote: Sweden's had a problem with sexual violence for a very long time now, predating the influx of refugees in recent years. Some folks might remember The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo a decade ago, and one of its biggest themes is Sweden's sexual violence epidemic.
And before our new rape laws, we were roughly on par with the rest of the developed world in statistics. We're thus looking at one of three scenarios:
a) Swedes are more prone to raping people than the citizens of other OECD nations
b) Immigrants that didn't start coming here until well after the laws were changed are responsible
c) Changing the definition of "rape" to a wider definition means more crimes will count as rape, which means the number of rapes reported will increase
I'm obviously arguing "c)", and I'd go so far as to say that if you implemented the same definition of rape elsewhere, that nation would seemingly have an "epidemic" too. The rapes are already happening, they're just not visible in the system.
Rape has gone up in the UK every time the policy or law has been changed to make it less woman-unfriendly to report or prosecute it.
To me this suggests that the earlier lower stats were the result of under-reporting caused by a stronger culture of social acceptability of rape and sexual violence.
Breotan wrote: Yes, we're talking about those little wristbands like the ones with the word "Livestrong" on them back before Lance Armstrong got kicked out of cycling.
The wristbands aren't meant to actually stop attacks, instead start conversations about how molesting women is wrong. Still, given that most of the groping spree in Europe is being done my middle-eastern migrants who don't read Swedish, this looks like it'll be as successful as that Starbucks "race together" campaign.
A lot more people than middle easterners grope and otherwise sexually assault women but I guess thinking about that doesn't advance race war.
I really think that the media is spinning this as race wars when in reality it is culture wars. I have seen first hand in Britain that when you have foregeiners who assimilate in to the culture there is no animosity and it really doesn't seem to be an issue but when you get a huge influx of people all at once they just stick together and make little effort for integration. Many Foreign cultures do not respect women like we do in the west and when in Rome...
Kilkrazy wrote: Rape has gone up in the UK every time the policy or law has been changed to make it less woman-unfriendly to report or prosecute it.
To me this suggests that the earlier lower stats were the result of under-reporting caused by a stronger culture of social acceptability of rape and sexual violence.
This. It's very convenient to just blame the Swedish statistics on immigrants, because it means not having to accept that there's a large segment of one's own population who are chauvinistic donkeycaves.
Kilkrazy wrote: Rape has gone up in the UK every time the policy or law has been changed to make it less woman-unfriendly to report or prosecute it.
To me this suggests that the earlier lower stats were the result of under-reporting caused by a stronger culture of social acceptability of rape and sexual violence.
This. It's very convenient to just blame the Swedish statistics on immigrants, because it means not having to accept that there's a large segment of one's own population who are chauvinistic donkeycaves.
But surely this is just as convenient a way to to blame the native population and absolve immigrants from any wrong doing. What we should be doing is looking at the actual statistics of who is committing the crimes, this information should be freely available and it would end this debate once and for all.
Kilkrazy wrote: Rape has gone up in the UK every time the policy or law has been changed to make it less woman-unfriendly to report or prosecute it.
To me this suggests that the earlier lower stats were the result of under-reporting caused by a stronger culture of social acceptability of rape and sexual violence.
This. It's very convenient to just blame the Swedish statistics on immigrants, because it means not having to accept that there's a large segment of one's own population who are chauvinistic donkeycaves.
But surely this is just as convenient a way to to blame the native population and absolve immigrants from any wrong doing. What we should be doing is looking at the actual statistics of who is committing the crimes, this information should be freely available and it would end this debate once and for all.
Statistically immigrants are overrepresented, but that does not explain he jump from 29 rapes per 100,000 in 2004 to 42 per 100,000 in 2005, when the new rape law was implemented.* In victimisation surveys Sweden's not significantly worse or better off than other OECD nations when it comes to sexual assault and rape.
Then there's a multitude of other issues, such as whether a foreigner is more likely to be sentenced for the same crime than a Swede, and how we're supposed to tell the ethnicity of someone who figures in a reported rape but isn't convicted.
*Going off of memory, I'll try to find a source when I'm not on my phone.
EDIT: I also don't think it's unrealistic to assume that Swedes rape at roughly the same rate as the citizens of other OECD members. Adopting a wiser definition of rape will lead to an increase in the number of rapes reported, but not to an increase in actual rapes. I'm simply assuming that we're roughly as awful as everyone else, and that the increase in reported rapes is due to a combination of legislation and an increased propensity to report sex crimes, caused in part by initiatives such as the one in the OP.
If groping is an issue, give each potential victim a can of pepper spray and/or a stun gun and allow them to use it.
The "Hey, your eyes are burning like the surface of the sun because you assaulted me" conversation ought to work better than the conversation started by the bracelets, and any language barrier won't get in the way of the lesson taught by pain.
Then there's a multitude of other issues, such as whether a foreigner is more likely to be sentenced for the same crime than a Swede, and how we're supposed to tell the ethnicity of someone who figures in a reported rape but isn't convicted.
What a mess. I still think that the only answer is complete transparency and if immigrants or anybody for that matter are being let off if really needs to be scrutinized without cries of political correctness sabotaging the facts. The problem is the facts are being lost in a fog of war between the blatant lies of the mainstream media and the overbearing narrative of the state, everyone has an agenda and it seems almost impossible to get a true bearing on the reality of the situation.
Statistically immigrants are overrepresented in rape numbers because they are overrepresented in the population of young men who are the most common committers of rape..
Kilkrazy wrote: Statistically immigrants are overrepresented in rape numbers because they are overrepresented in the population of young men who are the most common committers of rape..
I find this kind of talk misleading, you are stating this as fact when in reality all you can say at best is perhaps this is a factor and in which case I would agree with you, perhaps it is.
CptJake wrote: If groping is an issue, give each potential victim a can of pepper spray and/or a stun gun and allow them to use it.
The "Hey, your eyes are burning like the surface of the sun because you assaulted me" conversation ought to work better than the conversation started by the bracelets, and any language barrier won't get in the way of the lesson taught by pain.
Handing out weapons at a festival strikes me as unwise. I understand the impulse but there would absolutely be other consequences even beyond the fact that every weapon you carry can potentially be turned against you. "Each potential victim" means every woman and that is a lot of stun guns. It would be very difficult to keep track of where they go and which uses they are put to.
Respectfully, pepper spray can in no sense be considered a weapon. It is a simple nonharmful temporary deterrence system, like an airhorn.
A Glock 9mm is a weapon, it imparts permanent damage to the target.
Of course I advocate giving the women both spray AND Glocks. My Wife is armed thusly and the daughter has half of that combi with the rest coming as soon as she is legally able, by her own wish-not mine.
CptJake wrote: If groping is an issue, give each potential victim a can of pepper spray and/or a stun gun and allow them to use it.
The "Hey, your eyes are burning like the surface of the sun because you assaulted me" conversation ought to work better than the conversation started by the bracelets, and any language barrier won't get in the way of the lesson taught by pain.
Handing out weapons at a festival strikes me as unwise. I understand the impulse but there would absolutely be other consequences even beyond the fact that every weapon you carry can potentially be turned against you. "Each potential victim" means every woman and that is a lot of stun guns. It would be very difficult to keep track of where they go and which uses they are put to.
I live in a place considered relatively free so am jaded by that. I could care less about 'keeping track of where they go'. Give the ladies the tool, let them figure out if/when to use it. As for being 'turned against you', if the other option is show off your bracelet then submit to the resulting groping, I prefer my wife and daughter at least have the option/chance to fight back/deter the gak bag before he harms them. Again, I'm jaded by where and how I live. I want the women in my life to not rely on reporting an assault after the fact.
Kilkrazy wrote: Rape has gone up in the UK every time the policy or law has been changed to make it less woman-unfriendly to report or prosecute it.
To me this suggests that the earlier lower stats were the result of under-reporting caused by a stronger culture of social acceptability of rape and sexual violence.
This. It's very convenient to just blame the Swedish statistics on immigrants, because it means not having to accept that there's a large segment of one's own population who are chauvinistic donkeycaves.
How recent and drastic are the changes to the sexual assault laws in Sweden? Everybody has a right to be secure in their own person and nobody should have to tolerate unwanted advances or assaults and society should discourage people from be donkeycaves. If it's just a matter of the laws being broader in scope then you should see a temporary rise in sex crimes and then it will go down as people adjust to the new laws. If behavior that was previously considered innocuous for generations becomes criminalized then it's going to take some amount of time for people to adapt to the new laws even if they're not deliberately trying to be chauvinistic donkeycaves.
Frazzled wrote: Respectfully, pepper spray can in no sense be considered a weapon. It is a simple nonharmful temporary deterrence system, like an airhorn.
An air horn can cause permanent hearing loss. Pepper spray is not safe to use on a general population. Handing out guns creates more problems than it solves. *shrug* Sure, if you want to talk about militant feminism, I might be up for that but I'm sceptical of simply giving people more ways of hurting eachother. Okay, self-defence, have fun with that, but we live in a society and should have access to far more effective means of changing men's behaviour.
Frazzled wrote: Respectfully, pepper spray can in no sense be considered a weapon. It is a simple nonharmful temporary deterrence system, like an airhorn.
Mostly unharmful, sure. It's also not exactly a thing you should use in a crowded place unless you truly fear for your life. Defending yourself at the cost of spraying up a festival crowd could turn ugly fast if people panic.
As for blaming only immigrants we've seen that here too. Last year's influx gave rise to something called Soldiers of Odin, street patrols claiming they're defending our women against the foreigners. The problem is they've managed about zero defense, though that shouldn't come as a surprise seeing as the core is purely neonazis that already have it in for subhuman scum. As some feminist politicians asked - where were these patrols when it was just ordinary Finnish guys groping women? Nowhere to be seen that's where. It's just an excuse to go out looking for a fight.
Frazzled wrote: Respectfully, pepper spray can in no sense be considered a weapon. It is a simple nonharmful temporary deterrence system, like an airhorn.
An air horn can cause permanent hearing loss.
Fair point. That means pepper spray is even safer.
Pepper spray is not safe to use on a general population.
Please support your statement with facts on why. Also, you assume the risk by committing an illegal act. Thats settled law in English common law countries.
Handing out guns creates more problems than it solves.
Your opinion not supported by facts. If every adult woman had a firearm and was trained in its use, there would be less assaults.
*shrug* Sure, if you want to talk about militant feminism, I might be up for that but I'm sceptical of simply giving people more ways of hurting eachother.
but you seem to have no problem with leaving women at the mercy of men.
Okay, self-defence, have fun with that, but we live in a society and should have access to far more effective means of changing men's behaviour.
So you resort to bracelets. Whats next, public pep rallies. In the words of the immortal bard: sucker please.
Kilkrazy wrote: Statistically immigrants are overrepresented in rape numbers because they are overrepresented in the population of young men who are the most common committers of rape..
I find this kind of talk misleading, you are stating this as fact when in reality all you can say at best is perhaps this is a factor and in which case I would agree with you, perhaps it is.
Here is an academic paper from the USA, which analyzes the statistics on the situations in Sweden and Germany.
The New Year's Eve attacks upon women in Cologne, Germany and the subsequent allegations against male migrants across Europe brings to light an important question. Are European women in danger from an influx of Middle Eastern men with different social, religious and legal values? Using available data on rates of immigration and sexual violence, and focusing specifically on Germany and Sweden, we show that there is no direct correlation between foreign migrant influx and national rape statistics in the two identified case studies.
To be fair to your point, this paper doesn't support my point, however it does support the argument that immigrants aren't causing an increase in rape.
CptJake wrote: If groping is an issue, give each potential victim a can of pepper spray and/or a stun gun and allow them to use it.
What, no one has suggested handing out pistols yet? Pfft. Is the OT even trying anymore?
Hey what am I chopped liver? Sanctity of OT...maintained!
Pistols? This is Sweden, they should just tuck a bearded axe into their belts whenever they leave the house. Remember, an axe wielding society is a polite society.
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop a bad groper, a good guy with a bearded axe!
When seconds count and the police are minutes away!
Viking time!
Axes. Hand axes are for all. Light and portable.
Now this is whatI think of for Sweden, axes and bikini teams. Why aren't all the Swedes already armed ? I am saddened at the lack of battleaxes and bearshirts in this thread.
Okay, this is definitely not a good way to combat rape... Do they really think molesters will be deterred by bracelets?
Also, almost everything I read on it says that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe. It also makes it sound like Sweden has some very serious problems with out of control PC lefties. Is it really that bad or just typical internet dramatisation?
I watched this recently, and I thought it was really funny:
But please tell me this video is not correct and Sweden is not actually this bad.
I miss the old days when rapists / criminals were punished, instead now we distribute wristband...
Something is soooo wrong with the 21st century and Europe.
I'm very sad for Europe.
godardc wrote: I miss the old days when rapists / criminals were punished, instead now we distribute wristband...
Something is soooo wrong with the 21st century and Europe.
I'm very sad for Europe.
They're barely bothering to punish them on this side of the pond, too. It's all about the rehabilitate/hug it out approach to crime.
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop a bad groper, a good guy with a bearded axe!
When seconds count and the police are minutes away!
Viking time!
Axes. Hand axes are for all. Light and portable.
Yeah, when the Swede on the board is appalled at the idea of potential victims having and then using pepper spray and/or stun guns, I strongly suspect any weapon that can actually hurt someone is out of the question.
Kilkrazy wrote: Statistically immigrants are overrepresented in rape numbers because they are overrepresented in the population of young men who are the most common committers of rape..
I find this kind of talk misleading, you are stating this as fact when in reality all you can say at best is perhaps this is a factor and in which case I would agree with you, perhaps it is.
Here is an academic paper from the USA, which analyzes the statistics on the situations in Sweden and Germany.
The New Year's Eve attacks upon women in Cologne, Germany and the subsequent allegations against
male migrants across Europe brings to light an important question. Are European women in danger from
an influx of Middle Eastern men with different social, religious and legal values? Using available data on
rates of immigration and sexual violence, and focusing specifically on Germany and Sweden, we show
that there is no direct correlation between foreign migrant influx and national rape statistics in the two
identified case studies.
To be fair to your point, this paper doesn't support my point, however it does support the argument that immigrants aren't causing an increase in rape.
No it doesn't it is incredibly misleading. I'm not going to pick it all apart here I do not have the time but I will show you something glaringly obvious.
To determine the viability of the proposed correlations between migrants and sexual assault rates,
the Eurostat immigration data set for Sweden and rape rate data from the Swedish National Council for
Crime Prevention (Brå) was consulted. Figure 4 below indicates the number of non-
EU immigrants
entering Sweden per year and the annual number of rapes from 2008 to 2013.
As shown by the data, Sweden has been admitting a consistent number of refugees since 2008, with slight
periods of variation. Unlike Germany’s case, it is more difficult to determine if the Swedish rape rate is
correlated with the number of admitted immigrants. However, the 95% confidence interval shown in
Figure 5 indicates that the rape rates for the years 2011 and 2012 exceeded the range in which the true
average of rap
e rate lies from 2008 to 2013.
Yet, the increases in rape rates do not follow increases in the numbers of refugees admitted. The initial
spike in rapes in 2011 was also a year in which the number of immigrants admitted decreased from the
previous year. Relatedly, in 2012, the number of migrants admitted grew, but the rape rate decreased from
the 2011 figure of 6,532 rapes to the 2012 figure
of 6,324 rapes. In other words, the expected correlations
between the rise and fall of rape and immigrants entered are not evident in the data.
This is a complete red herring they are trying to trick the reader by showing the increase in yearly immigration has no correlation with increasing rape figures but note they do not show any data from 2007 prior to when the refugee influx started en mass, now look at the graph I have added from Wikipedia which includes data from prior years and you can clearly see why they have omitted it, because it doesn't support the "facts" that they are pushing
Please don't attach nonwargaming images to Dakka. If you wish to share any such images you need to use image tags and an offsite host.
Reds8n .
Tank_Dweller wrote: This is a complete red herring they are trying to trick the reader by showing the increase in yearly immigration has no correlation with increasing rape figures but note they do not show any data from 2007 prior to when the refugee influx started en mass, now look at the graph I have added from Wikipedia which includes data from prior years and you can clearly see why they have omitted it, because it doesn't support the "facts" that they are pushing.
Omitting data prior to 2007 shouldn't matter. If immigrants are more likely to commit rapes then there should be an increase in rapes every year since 2007. The increase from the first year of "en mass" immigrants should be repeated every year that a similar number of immigrants enters the country. If you add ~150,000 new immigrants between 2011 and 2013 while the number of rapes goes down then one of three things must be true: the ~150,000 new immigrants must be countered by an equal or greater amount of former immigrants leaving the country, new immigrants only commit a higher number of rapes over the first year they are in the country and then stop, or new immigrants are no more likely to commit rapes than anyone else. And either of the second two options rather conclusively disprove the idea that immigrants are somehow inherently worse than the existing residents.
Also, I'd like to point out that this is not a question of ideology here. Like it or not, the math simply does not support your argument.
Do you content that the data within the ranges covered does actually show a statistically significant correlation between the number of immigrants and the increase in rapes?
Or, do you claim that there was a massive increase in rapes correlated with increased immigration but it happened earlier than the years covered?
Iron_Captain wrote: Okay, this is definitely not a good way to combat rape... Do they really think molesters will be deterred by bracelets?
Also, almost everything I read on it says that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe. It also makes it sound like Sweden has some very serious problems with out of control PC lefties. Is it really that bad or just typical internet dramatisation?
Internet hyperbole. As an example, take the debate in Sweden about the so-called "negerboll", a small chocolate pastry literally translated as "[see forum posting rules] ball". Lately there's been calls to call it chockladboll, or "chocolate ball", instead, seeing as "neger" has been used in a derogatory sense for ages. Cue the anti-PC brigade with 0 sense of appropriateness or common decency. There's seriously a bunch of people fighting tooth and nail for their right to keep calling the pastry "negerboll", as if the fate of the world hung in the balance. To these people, any attempt to consider the point-of-view of anyone who's not in the majority (i.e. a white Swede) is cultural Marxism and PC. These people also tend to dislike homosexuals and feminists, so they're thoroughly displeased with the current situation and are thus doing everything they can to change it.
I'll also confidently say that anyone that's describing Sweden as "the rape capital of Europe" with a straight face either has an agenda or does not understand statistical comparisons at all.
godardc wrote: Do we have any Swedish here ? Is it really an outbreak ?
Have you tried reading the thread you're responding to?
godardc wrote: Do we have any Swedish here ? Is it really an outbreak ?
No.
I feel safe going out at night and I am a 19 year old in the middle of the danger zone.
So as a resident Swede, how would you describe the situation?
Exaggerated beyond belief by desperate sensationalists with no idea of what they are actually talking about.
It is honestly getting a bit patronising that people keep telling us of the woeful chaos in our country while the reality of life here has nothing to do with the political agendas people are nervously pushing.
Tank_Dweller wrote: This is a complete red herring they are trying to trick the reader by showing the increase in yearly immigration has no correlation with increasing rape figures but note they do not show any data from 2007 prior to when the refugee influx started en mass, now look at the graph I have added from Wikipedia which includes data from prior years and you can clearly see why they have omitted it, because it doesn't support the "facts" that they are pushing.
Omitting data prior to 2007 shouldn't matter. If immigrants are more likely to commit rapes then there should be an increase in rapes every year since 2007. The increase from the first year of "en mass" immigrants should be repeated every year that a similar number of immigrants enters the country. If you add ~150,000 new immigrants between 2011 and 2013 while the number of rapes goes down then one of three things must be true: the ~150,000 new immigrants must be countered by an equal or greater amount of former immigrants leaving the country, new immigrants only commit a higher number of rapes over the first year they are in the country and then stop, or new immigrants are no more likely to commit rapes than anyone else. And either of the second two options rather conclusively disprove the idea that immigrants are somehow inherently worse than the existing residents.
Also, I'd like to point out that this is not a question of ideology here. Like it or not, the math simply does not support your argument.
You are suggesting that all the offenders have been allowed to continue on a yearly basis after they have been reported. This is not how it works as criminals are taken out of circulation. So the somewhat consistent figures with a consistent rate of immigration makes sense. Do you simply dismiss the spike in sex crimes reported from 2007 -2008 and if so why?
Tank_Dweller wrote: You are suggesting that all the offenders have been allowed to continue on a yearly basis after they have been reported. This is not how it works as criminals are taken out of circulation.
But of all crime types reported the different sex crimes are quite low on the number of sentences vs reports, aren't they? It's often literally word against word which rarely leads anywhere. It has to be a pretty clear case before someone is even sentenced, and also pretty brutal before that sentence means he's actually put away for any significant time.
Tank_Dweller wrote: This is a complete red herring they are trying to trick the reader by showing the increase in yearly immigration has no correlation with increasing rape figures but note they do not show any data from 2007 prior to when the refugee influx started en mass, now look at the graph I have added from Wikipedia which includes data from prior years and you can clearly see why they have omitted it, because it doesn't support the "facts" that they are pushing.
Omitting data prior to 2007 shouldn't matter. If immigrants are more likely to commit rapes then there should be an increase in rapes every year since 2007. The increase from the first year of "en mass" immigrants should be repeated every year that a similar number of immigrants enters the country. If you add ~150,000 new immigrants between 2011 and 2013 while the number of rapes goes down then one of three things must be true: the ~150,000 new immigrants must be countered by an equal or greater amount of former immigrants leaving the country, new immigrants only commit a higher number of rapes over the first year they are in the country and then stop, or new immigrants are no more likely to commit rapes than anyone else. And either of the second two options rather conclusively disprove the idea that immigrants are somehow inherently worse than the existing residents.
Also, I'd like to point out that this is not a question of ideology here. Like it or not, the math simply does not support your argument.
You are suggesting that all the offenders have been allowed to continue on a yearly basis after they have been reported. This is not how it works as criminals are taken out of circulation. So the somewhat consistent figures with a consistent rate of immigration makes sense. Do you simply dismiss the spike in sex crimes reported from 2007 -2008 and if so why?
Dismiss is not the right word but it was noted that a change in Swedish sex crime law in 2005 caused an increase in reporting and this may have something to do with the increased numbers of reports.
If there's a major increase in actual, as opposed to nominal, rapes in Sweden this should show up in the national victimization studies("Nationella trygghetsundersökningen", link in Swedish). As can be seen on page 47 ("Utsatta för sexualbrott 2005–2012. Andel för respektive kön. (Tabell 3B)", figure 17), that is not the case; the number of people who respond that they've been the victims of a sexual crime ("utsatta för sexualbrott") have remained more or less constant since the measurements begain in 2005. Ergo, the nominal increase in rapes is much more likely to be due to a widened definition of rape than dem dirty furriners.
I'd also like to note that we've had three threads on rape in Sweden since New Year, in which immigrants are immediately blamed for the increase. I've posted the same statistical explanations in each one of them, but the threads keep coming. I'd posit that at this point there is no genuine interest in discussing the topic, but that the threads rather exist so that some posters can spew their xenophobic BS somewhere and leaving the rest of us to clean up their mess. It's getting really old.
godardc wrote: I miss the old days when rapists / criminals were punished, instead now we distribute wristband...
Something is soooo wrong with the 21st century and Europe.
I'm very sad for Europe.
I'm very sad that you don't understand the difference between "groping"(what the topic is about--Swedish Police issuing wristbands to start conversations that groping women is wrong) and "rape".
In both cases, it's not something that should be happening--but groping doesn't necessarily get discussed/charged in the same manner as rape outside of Sweden(as from what Swedish posters in this thread have said, Sweden has altered their laws regarding sexual assault to include groping).
Tank_Dweller wrote: You are suggesting that all the offenders have been allowed to continue on a yearly basis after they have been reported. This is not how it works as criminals are taken out of circulation.
But of all crime types reported the different sex crimes are quite low on the number of sentences vs reports, aren't they? It's often literally word against word which rarely leads anywhere. It has to be a pretty clear case before someone is even sentenced, and also pretty brutal before that sentence means he's actually put away for any significant time.
The report does not even try to explain away the vast increase of sex crime reports, it purely concentrates on the rape figures which are convictions otherwise they would not be counted as such.
Tank_Dweller wrote: This is a complete red herring they are trying to trick the reader by showing the increase in yearly immigration has no correlation with increasing rape figures but note they do not show any data from 2007 prior to when the refugee influx started en mass, now look at the graph I have added from Wikipedia which includes data from prior years and you can clearly see why they have omitted it, because it doesn't support the "facts" that they are pushing.
Omitting data prior to 2007 shouldn't matter. If immigrants are more likely to commit rapes then there should be an increase in rapes every year since 2007. The increase from the first year of "en mass" immigrants should be repeated every year that a similar number of immigrants enters the country. If you add ~150,000 new immigrants between 2011 and 2013 while the number of rapes goes down then one of three things must be true: the ~150,000 new immigrants must be countered by an equal or greater amount of former immigrants leaving the country, new immigrants only commit a higher number of rapes over the first year they are in the country and then stop, or new immigrants are no more likely to commit rapes than anyone else. And either of the second two options rather conclusively disprove the idea that immigrants are somehow inherently worse than the existing residents.
Also, I'd like to point out that this is not a question of ideology here. Like it or not, the math simply does not support your argument.
You are suggesting that all the offenders have been allowed to continue on a yearly basis after they have been reported. This is not how it works as criminals are taken out of circulation. So the somewhat consistent figures with a consistent rate of immigration makes sense. Do you simply dismiss the spike in sex crimes reported from 2007 -2008 and if so why?
Dismiss is not the right word but it was noted that a change in Swedish sex crime law in 2005 caused an increase in reporting and this may have something to do with the increased numbers of reports.
Double standards much? Your report that "proves" immigration has no connection to rape tries to do so by showing a few years of consistent rape activity while a few years of consistent activity of sexual crime reports that would hinder your point is dismissed because of a change of reporting techniques that happened years prior. What ever happened to Occam's razor? why is it more likely that it's because of a change of laws that happened years prior versus a sudden influx of immigration that correlates exactly with a big increase in sexual crime reports? Can you not even entertain the possibility?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If there's a major increase in actual, as opposed to nominal, rapes in Sweden this should show up in the national victimization studies("Nationella trygghetsundersökningen", link in Swedish). As can be seen on page 47 ("Utsatta för sexualbrott 2005–2012. Andel för respektive kön. (Tabell 3B)", figure 17), that is not the case; the number of people who respond that they've been the victims of a sexual crime ("utsatta för sexualbrott") have remained more or less constant since the measurements begain in 2005. Ergo, the nominal increase in rapes is much more likely to be due to a widened definition of rape than dem dirty furriners.
I'd also like to note that we've had three threads on rape in Sweden since New Year, in which immigrants are immediately blamed for the increase. I've posted the same statistical explanations in each one of them, but the threads keep coming. I'd posit that at this point there is no genuine interest in discussing the topic, but that the threads rather exist so that some posters can spew their xenophobic BS somewhere and leaving the rest of us to clean up their mess. It's getting really old.
I have already posted these figures they are on the chart but I can't for the life of me understand how a survey that can easily be manipulated or is usually not accurate by its nature (Brexit anyone?) some how trumps the official figures?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would like to add I am not xenophobic I am a minority myself, I am neither liberal or conservative, I do not allow myself to be swayed by ideals, I go where the facts present themselves and I amend my opinion from new information and by having discussions such as these. I find it sad that people need defend their positions with name calling rather than participating in actual open debate.
It is honestly getting a bit patronising that people keep telling us of the woeful chaos in our country while the reality of life here has nothing to do with the political agendas people are nervously pushing.
Now you know how many Americans feel in shooting threads.
I have already posted these figures they are on the chart but I can't for the life of me understand how a survey that can easily be manipulated or is usually not accurate by its nature (Brexit anyone?) some how trumps the official figures?
Because
a) This is an official survey
b) They're not at odds
They only "trump" official figures in your mind because you've already decided that it must be the immigrants that are behind the nominal increase. The two fit together without having to make any unfounded assumptions. You speak of Occam's Razor yourself. Considering the number of people reporting that they've been victims of sex crimes remains more or less constant and that the amout of reported crimes have increased, it stands to reason that this increase is due primarily to the changes in definitions.
What reason do you have for presuming that the increase is due to immigration, beyond a correlation?
Iron_Captain wrote: Okay, this is definitely not a good way to combat rape... Do they really think molesters will be deterred by bracelets?
Also, almost everything I read on it says that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe. It also makes it sound like Sweden has some very serious problems with out of control PC lefties. Is it really that bad or just typical internet dramatisation?
Internet hyperbole. As an example, take the debate in Sweden about the so-called "negerboll", a small chocolate pastry literally translated as "niggerball". Lately there's been calls to call it chockladboll, or "chocolate ball", instead, seeing as "neger" has been used in a derogatory sense for ages. Cue the anti-PC brigade with 0 sense of appropriateness or common decency. There's seriously a bunch of people fighting tooth and nail for their right to keep calling the pastry "negerboll", as if the fate of the world hung in the balance. To these people, any attempt to consider the point-of-view of anyone who's not in the majority (i.e. a white Swede) is cultural Marxism and PC. These people also tend to dislike homosexuals and feminists, so they're thoroughly displeased with the current situation and are thus doing everything they can to change it.
I'll also confidently say that anyone that's describing Sweden as "the rape capital of Europe" with a straight face either has an agenda or does not understand statistical comparisons at all.
Funny, there was virtually the same discussion in the Netherlands. We had a chocolate treat named "negerzoen" or "[see forum posting rules]'s kiss" which was changed, causing much outrage. Everyone still calls it a "negerzoen" though.
I had no idea the left vs right fight was so radicalised in Sweden. I've always thought of Sweden as a very leftist, liberal country. Is that correct or is there a lot of conservatism? And is the perception that Sweden has a lot of problems with immigration and integration correct or is that internet nonsense too? Here in the Netherlands we never seem to get any news at all about Sweden, only the crazy stuff on the internet.
godardc wrote: Do we have any Swedish here ? Is it really an outbreak ?
No.
I feel safe going out at night and I am a 19 year old in the middle of the danger zone.
So as a resident Swede, how would you describe the situation?
Exaggerated beyond belief by desperate sensationalists with no idea of what they are actually talking about.
It is honestly getting a bit patronising that people keep telling us of the woeful chaos in our country while the reality of life here has nothing to do with the political agendas people are nervously pushing.
That is really comforting to hear. But you can't really blame people when everything you read on the internet about Sweden makes it seem like a horrible place.
It is honestly getting a bit patronising that people keep telling us of the woeful chaos in our country while the reality of life here has nothing to do with the political agendas people are nervously pushing.
Now you know how many Americans feel in shooting threads.
It is honestly getting a bit patronising that people keep telling us of the woeful chaos in our country while the reality of life here has nothing to do with the political agendas people are nervously pushing.
Now you know how many Americans feel in shooting threads.
Iron_Captain wrote: Okay, this is definitely not a good way to combat rape... Do they really think molesters will be deterred by bracelets?
Also, almost everything I read on it says that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe. It also makes it sound like Sweden has some very serious problems with out of control PC lefties. Is it really that bad or just typical internet dramatisation?
Internet hyperbole. As an example, take the debate in Sweden about the so-called "negerboll", a small chocolate pastry literally translated as "niggerball". Lately there's been calls to call it chockladboll, or "chocolate ball", instead, seeing as "neger" has been used in a derogatory sense for ages. Cue the anti-PC brigade with 0 sense of appropriateness or common decency. There's seriously a bunch of people fighting tooth and nail for their right to keep calling the pastry "negerboll", as if the fate of the world hung in the balance. To these people, any attempt to consider the point-of-view of anyone who's not in the majority (i.e. a white Swede) is cultural Marxism and PC. These people also tend to dislike homosexuals and feminists, so they're thoroughly displeased with the current situation and are thus doing everything they can to change it.
I'll also confidently say that anyone that's describing Sweden as "the rape capital of Europe" with a straight face either has an agenda or does not understand statistical comparisons at all.
Funny, there was virtually the same discussion in the Netherlands. We had a chocolate treat named "negerzoen" or "[see forum posting rules]'s kiss" which was changed, causing much outrage. Everyone still calls it a "negerzoen" though.
I had no idea the left vs right fight was so radicalised in Sweden. I've always thought of Sweden as a very leftist, liberal country. Is that correct or is there a lot of conservatism? And is the perception that Sweden has a lot of problems with immigration and integration correct or is that internet nonsense too? Here in the Netherlands we never seem to get any news at all about Sweden, only the crazy stuff on the internet.
From an international point-of-view our politics aren't that polarized. There was a major kerfluffle when an MP for the Left Party refused to call the second vice Speaker of the Riksdag "Mr. Speaker" as a protest against the Sweden Democrats (to which the second vice speaker belongs). If you'd place someone like Nigel Farage in the Swedish Riksdag he'd get thrown out for being far too rude.
If immigration was going to break Sweden it should already have happened during the wars in the Balkans, when we took a load of refugees in from there. Today they've integrated reasonably well in society (there's obviously always room for improvement).
Think of it this way: internationally no one really gave a rat's ass about the rape statistics in Sweden, despite the fact that the jump from 2004 to 2005 happened. It only became interesting once people realized they could use it to bludgeon immigration with.
I found this article in the Globe and Mail that sums up the situation rather well. Just don't ever try to bring up socioeconomic status as a stronger correlation than immigrant status or you're a commienazi.
I have no interest in making this a gun thread, but what usually happens in those - people calmly discussing the drawbacks and advantages of firearms (well, until the thread inevitably breaks down) - is the exact opposite of what I am objecting against.
You are free to do the same with immigration. But that is not what is happening. People are spreading the idea that Sweden is a rape-infested wild west where immigrant criminals are running rampant, which is simply false.
I have already posted these figures they are on the chart but I can't for the life of me understand how a survey that can easily be manipulated or is usually not accurate by its nature (Brexit anyone?) some how trumps the official figures?
Because
a) This is an official survey
b) They're not at odds
They only "trump" official figures in your mind because you've already decided that it must be the immigrants that are behind the nominal increase. The two fit together without having to make any unfounded assumptions. You speak of Occam's Razor yourself. Considering the number of people reporting that they've been victims of sex crimes remains more or less constant and that the amout of reported crimes have increased, it stands to reason that this increase is due primarily to the changes in definitions.
What reason do you have for presuming that the increase is due to immigration, beyond a correlation?
The survey does not trump official figures and here is why. First of all it is only open to 16-79 year olds. Secondly, please read this excerpt from the 2015 study.
This report presents the overall results of the 2015 Swedish Crime Survey (Swedish abbreviation: NTU). Approximately 12,400 persons responded to the questions; this was a 63 per cent response rate to the survey. Most participated through telephone interviews, but a smaller percentage participated through posted questionnaires or Internet questionnaires. The results of the report are summarised below, divided into the following areas of enquiry: exposure to crime, insecurity, trust in the criminal justice system, and victims’ contacts with the justice system.
It is not even mandatory. Since you can't even be bothered to check your own evidence for something as simple as this I really don't want to waste my time explaining to you the concept of Occam's Razor and how it applies to my example, it is simple and straightforward please look at it again.
This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.
I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.
Daemonhammer wrote: This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.
I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.
Daemonhammer wrote: This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.
I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.
Yes the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
Golden mean fallacy.
You still haven't explained why you'd assume that immigration is behind the increases rather than changing attitudes and changing legislation, nor have you explained why the results of the victimization survey is not valid. Yes, it's not mandatory. Almost no survey is, and they're still used in statistical analysis all the time.
Do you have ANYTHING at all that actually proves causation between increase in immigrants and the rape rate? Anything?
Let's put it this way: if muslim immigrants (because let's face it, those are the ones that are being discussed) are so much more likely to rape people, why are the rape statistics from predominantly muslim countries so low? Qatar hasn't had a single rape! They must be amazing at rape prevention! If the answer is "because comparisons across countries on these issues are tricky and the nominal reports may not match the real number of rapes" then good job, you're one step closer to realizing why this whole "argument" is silly.
As for the Occam's razor part:
"Change in definition of rape leads to changed number of reported rapes" is a LOT les complex than "change in definition of rape doesn't explain anything, the real reason, despite statistical evidence to the contrary, is immigrants".
Daemonhammer wrote: This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.
I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.
Yes the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
Golden mean fallacy.
You still haven't explained why you'd assume that immigration is behind the increases rather than changing attitudes and changing legislation, nor have you explained why the results of the victimization survey is not valid. Yes, it's not mandatory. Almost no survey is, and they're still used in statistical analysis all the time.
Do you have ANYTHING at all that actually proves causation between increase in immigrants and the rape rate? Anything?
I just said that I am more inclined to believe that Muslim immigrants are to blame atleast partially to blame because of how women get treated in Muslim countries. Im not saying its a fact and that its true, Its merely an observation that I made, it seems to make some sense to me.
Daemonhammer wrote: This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.
I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.
Yes the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
Golden mean fallacy.
You still haven't explained why you'd assume that immigration is behind the increases rather than changing attitudes and changing legislation, nor have you explained why the results of the victimization survey is not valid. Yes, it's not mandatory. Almost no survey is, and they're still used in statistical analysis all the time.
Do you have ANYTHING at all that actually proves causation between increase in immigrants and the rape rate? Anything?
I'll debate you on it if you can concede on your laziness with regards to fact checking. I have no interest in debating someone who willfully ignores new facts proven to them as I may as well be debating a tape recording and I have better things to do.
Daemonhammer wrote: This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.
I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.
Yes the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
Golden mean fallacy.
You still haven't explained why you'd assume that immigration is behind the increases rather than changing attitudes and changing legislation, nor have you explained why the results of the victimization survey is not valid. Yes, it's not mandatory. Almost no survey is, and they're still used in statistical analysis all the time.
Do you have ANYTHING at all that actually proves causation between increase in immigrants and the rape rate? Anything?
I'll debate you on it if you can concede on your laziness with regards to fact checking. I have no interest in debating someone who willfully ignores new facts proven to them as I may as well be debating a tape recording and I have better things to do.
Sure, I didn't mention that it ran in an age span or that it wasn't mandatory because it doesn't matter. Do you have a reason to distrust the results of the victimization study?
I don't get stuff like this. Normal people wouldn't grope a random woman on the street, and those who would wouldn't be stopped by some friggin bracelet. Either take meaningful action or no action at all.
Daemonhammer wrote: This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.
I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.
Yes the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
Golden mean fallacy.
You still haven't explained why you'd assume that immigration is behind the increases rather than changing attitudes and changing legislation, nor have you explained why the results of the victimization survey is not valid. Yes, it's not mandatory. Almost no survey is, and they're still used in statistical analysis all the time.
Do you have ANYTHING at all that actually proves causation between increase in immigrants and the rape rate? Anything?
I'll debate you on it if you can concede on your laziness with regards to fact checking. I have no interest in debating someone who willfully ignores new facts proven to them as I may as well be debating a tape recording and I have better things to do.
Sure, I didn't mention that it ran in an age span or that it wasn't mandatory because it doesn't matter. Do you have a reason to distrust the results of the victimization study?
Seriously? are you trolling me. If you are being serious than the reason it does matter is because it doesn't paint the whole picture, it is missing huge swathes of data.
Let's put it this way: if muslim immigrants (because let's face it, those are the ones that are being discussed) are so much more likely to rape people, why are the rape statistics from predominantly muslim countries so low? Qatar hasn't had a single rape! They must be amazing at rape prevention! If the answer is "because comparisons across countries on these issues are tricky and the nominal reports may not match the real number of rapes" then good job, you're one step closer to realizing why this whole "argument" is silly.
As for the Occam's razor part:
"Change in definition of rape leads to changed number of reported rapes" is a LOT les complex than "change in definition of rape doesn't explain anything, the real reason, despite statistical evidence to the contrary, is immigrants".
You may want to look up what constitutes 'rape' in Qatar and other nations with Sharia as the basis for their legal system, and what witnesses are allowed/the difference between male and female witnesses and so on.
You really are looking at two things that are not easily comparable.
Qatar is a destination country for men and women from South and Southeast Asia who migrate willingly, but are subsequently forced into involuntary servitude as domestic workers and laborers, and, to a lesser extent, commercial sexual exploitation. The most common offense was forcing workers to accept worse contract terms than those under which they were recruited. Other conditions include bonded labor, withholding of pay, restrictions on movement, arbitrary detention, and physical, mental, and sexual abuse. Qatar is in Tier 3 rank; it failed to enforce criminal laws against traffickers, or to provide an effective mechanism to identify and protect victims. The nation detain and deport victims rather than providing them protection. The Government of Qatar made little progress to increase prosecutions for trafficking effectively in 2007.
I am willing to go out on a limb and state that a woman, especially one not from Qatar, has zero chance of being treated in anyway which would be considered 'just' in a western system. Even Qatari women are not treated as equal to men in their justice system.
Let's put it this way: if muslim immigrants (because let's face it, those are the ones that are being discussed) are so much more likely to rape people, why are the rape statistics from predominantly muslim countries so low? Qatar hasn't had a single rape! They must be amazing at rape prevention! If the answer is "because comparisons across countries on these issues are tricky and the nominal reports may not match the real number of rapes" then good job, you're one step closer to realizing why this whole "argument" is silly.
As for the Occam's razor part:
"Change in definition of rape leads to changed number of reported rapes" is a LOT les complex than "change in definition of rape doesn't explain anything, the real reason, despite statistical evidence to the contrary, is immigrants".
You may want to look up what constitutes 'rape' in Qatar and other nations with Sharia as the basis for their legal system, and what witnesses are allowed/the difference between male and female witnesses and so on.
You really are looking at two things that are not easily comparable.
Qatar is a destination country for men and women from South and Southeast Asia who migrate willingly, but are subsequently forced into involuntary servitude as domestic workers and laborers, and, to a lesser extent, commercial sexual exploitation. The most common offense was forcing workers to accept worse contract terms than those under which they were recruited. Other conditions include bonded labor, withholding of pay, restrictions on movement, arbitrary detention, and physical, mental, and sexual abuse. Qatar is in Tier 3 rank; it failed to enforce criminal laws against traffickers, or to provide an effective mechanism to identify and protect victims. The nation detain and deport victims rather than providing them protection. The Government of Qatar made little progress to increase prosecutions for trafficking effectively in 2007.
I am willing to go out on a limb and state that a woman, especially one not from Qatar, has zero chance of being treated in anyway which would be considered 'just' in a western system. Even Qatari women are not treated as equal to men in their justice system.
Yes, thank you, I know the definition of "rape" is different from one country to another and that this makes comparisons difficult; that was my point.
Daemonhammer wrote: This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.
I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.
Yes the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
Golden mean fallacy.
You still haven't explained why you'd assume that immigration is behind the increases rather than changing attitudes and changing legislation, nor have you explained why the results of the victimization survey is not valid. Yes, it's not mandatory. Almost no survey is, and they're still used in statistical analysis all the time.
Do you have ANYTHING at all that actually proves causation between increase in immigrants and the rape rate? Anything?
I'll debate you on it if you can concede on your laziness with regards to fact checking. I have no interest in debating someone who willfully ignores new facts proven to them as I may as well be debating a tape recording and I have better things to do.
Sure, I didn't mention that it ran in an age span or that it wasn't mandatory because it doesn't matter. Do you have a reason to distrust the results of the victimization study?
Seriously? are you trolling me. If you are being serious than the reason it does matter is because it doesn't paint the whole picture, it is missing huge swathes of data.
There's still over 13,000 respondents. With a properly randomised sample that's more than enough to be representative of the (adult) population. Yes, you're missing young children and the elderly over 79 years of age, but it's not like scientific surveys ever query the entire population of a country.
You know what would also be an interesting number to dig up and look for correlations? The number of people who earn a living from studying sex crimes, caring for sex crime victims, making sex rime awareness wristbands or otherwise have a vested interest in convincing us there is a sex crime epidemic.
There's still over 13,000 respondents. With a properly randomised sample that's more than enough to be representative of the (adult) population. Yes, you're missing young children and the elderly over 79 years of age, but it's not like scientific surveys ever query the entire population of a country.
Dude you are telling me to dismiss the actual official figures of people convicted of rape and reported sex crimes in favour of your "Official Survey" which is missing so much Data for reasons I have explained. If you can't get your head around why the Official figures are more valid than an optional survey for 16-79 year olds then honestly you should not be here stating "facts" because respectfully you do not know what you are talking about.
There's still over 13,000 respondents. With a properly randomised sample that's more than enough to be representative of the (adult) population. Yes, you're missing young children and the elderly over 79 years of age, but it's not like scientific surveys ever query the entire population of a country.
Dude you are telling me to dismiss the actual official figures of people convicted of rape and reported sex crimes in favour of your "Official Survey" which is missing so much Data for reasons I have explained. If you can't get your head around why the Official figures are more valid than an optional survey for 16-79 year olds then honestly you should not be here stating "facts" because respectfully you do not know what you are talking about.
Respectfully, NO U.
13,000 respondents with a 63% response rate is well over the levels needed in order to generalize to the rest of the population. Further, I'm not telling you to ignore the reported rapes, I'm telling you that they don't mean what you think they do. The two are not in opposition.
Let's try this from the start, because I'm not sure if I follow anymore: What are the issues with the survey, and why are they a problem?
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: I don't get stuff like this. Normal people wouldn't grope a random woman on the street, and those who would wouldn't be stopped by some friggin bracelet. Either take meaningful action or no action at all.
I was surprised in college at how many men I met who didn't have "common sense", and thought groping was a normal, valid way to interact with women. For example, one of my roommates kept asking me for dating advice, and his questions painted a picture of a man who does not realize women have their own thoughts and desires--it was creepy as hell. Later on, many of my coworkers had similar outlooks. I suspect that you are part of a local culture that is fairly progressive, a culture that might be over represented on the Internet and in the media. There are a lot of people out there who have different community standards of "normal", and the bracelet campaign might actually reach someone who belongs to one of those communities. It's a conversation starter, not a cure.
There's still over 13,000 respondents. With a properly randomised sample that's more than enough to be representative of the (adult) population. Yes, you're missing young children and the elderly over 79 years of age, but it's not like scientific surveys ever query the entire population of a country.
Dude you are telling me to dismiss the actual official figures of people convicted of rape and reported sex crimes in favour of your "Official Survey" which is missing so much Data for reasons I have explained. If you can't get your head around why the Official figures are more valid than an optional survey for 16-79 year olds then honestly you should not be here stating "facts" because respectfully you do not know what you are talking about.
Respectfully, NO U.
13,000 respondents with a 63% response rate is well over the levels needed in order to generalize to the rest of the population. Further, I'm not telling you to ignore the reported rapes, I'm telling you that they don't mean what you think they do. The two are not in opposition.
Let's try this from the start, because I'm not sure if I follow anymore: What are the issues with the survey, and why are they a problem?
owww. Ok sorry I have had a long day and this just seems beyond obvious to me.
Ok here is an example before an election we can get an idea of the support for a specific candidate and we can estimate the said candidates possibility for election but what we can not do is rely on those figures with 100% certainty and after the election has been won you can not say the results of the election do not matter because the survey said the other guy or gal was going to win. I hope you can see the parallels in your reasoning, the results are in and you are trying to bypass them with a survey that isn't even inclusive of all age groups or people in general for that matter as it is just a survey.
lord_blackfang wrote: You know what would also be an interesting number to dig up and look for correlations? The number of people who earn a living from studying sex crimes, caring for sex crime victims, making sex rime awareness wristbands or otherwise have a vested interest in convincing us there is a sex crime epidemic.
There is no Big Sex Crime. People who study it or treat survivors are often paid by the state or universities and wouldn't be given bigger paychecks if the state decided to do more about sexual assault. There would just be more people providing these services and/or they would be funded to handle a larger amount of patients. They wouldn't get richer. This is on the same level as suggesting that scientists who study global warming are somehow suspect because they have to apply for funding in order to do so.
There's still over 13,000 respondents. With a properly randomised sample that's more than enough to be representative of the (adult) population. Yes, you're missing young children and the elderly over 79 years of age, but it's not like scientific surveys ever query the entire population of a country.
Dude you are telling me to dismiss the actual official figures of people convicted of rape and reported sex crimes in favour of your "Official Survey" which is missing so much Data for reasons I have explained. If you can't get your head around why the Official figures are more valid than an optional survey for 16-79 year olds then honestly you should not be here stating "facts" because respectfully you do not know what you are talking about.
Respectfully, NO U.
13,000 respondents with a 63% response rate is well over the levels needed in order to generalize to the rest of the population. Further, I'm not telling you to ignore the reported rapes, I'm telling you that they don't mean what you think they do. The two are not in opposition.
Let's try this from the start, because I'm not sure if I follow anymore: What are the issues with the survey, and why are they a problem?
owww. Ok sorry I have had a long day and this just seems beyond obvious to me.
Ok here is an example before an election we can get an idea of the support for a specific candidate and we can estimate the said candidates possibility for election but what we can not do is rely on those figures with 100% certainty and after the election has been won you can not say the results of the election do not matter because the survey said the other guy or gal was going to win. I hope you can see the parallels in your reasoning, the results are in and you are trying to bypass them with a survey that isn't even inclusive of all age groups or people in general for that matter as it is just a survey.
I hope that makes sense to you?
I see where you're coming from, but you're assuming that the reported number of rapes and the actual number of rapes are the same, when rape and sexual assaults are notoriously underreported crimes. The victimization survey would seem to contest this. Further, the survey has taken into account that it's not running across all age groups (see page 17). Considering the survey's been run consecutively for a number of years, if there were a massive spike in actual rapes (as opposed to nominal increases) there should be some sort of indication of this in the survey; 15-79 covers the vast majority of the population, after all.
Sorry if I've been a bit harsh, my point of view is as obvious to me as I assume yours is to you, after all.
Daemonhammer wrote: This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.
I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.
If you read up on the issues you will find that it's a bit of both.
Was there rape before immigrants arrived in Sweden? Of course. It happens everywhere.
Is there more rape now, and does it match the rise in immigration? Yes, though only to the extent that adding 1% to the population might be expected to add 1% to rape. In other words, immigrants don't statistically rape more people than native Swedish people, as far as we can tell.
Do immigrants come from different cultures with different attitudes to women? Yes.
Do immigrants try to fit into the Swedish culture? Yes, because they know without that their chance of getting a girl friend is massively reduced. They do this partly by attending "Swedish culture" classes.
This pattern of blaming foreigners and immigrants for crime is common to many cultures. It is seen in Japan, South Korea, the USA, Sweden and the UK, for instance.
It is always associated with racist groups, and makes use of a different incoming group to blame for crimes against the purity of our women and thereby consolidate nationalist and racial group identity. For example in South Korea white US English teachers are a major concern.
It diffuses to the general population by disinformation, in other words lies that are accepted by people who don't check the facts.
There's still over 13,000 respondents. With a properly randomised sample that's more than enough to be representative of the (adult) population. Yes, you're missing young children and the elderly over 79 years of age, but it's not like scientific surveys ever query the entire population of a country.
Dude you are telling me to dismiss the actual official figures of people convicted of rape and reported sex crimes in favour of your "Official Survey" which is missing so much Data for reasons I have explained. If you can't get your head around why the Official figures are more valid than an optional survey for 16-79 year olds then honestly you should not be here stating "facts" because respectfully you do not know what you are talking about.
Respectfully, NO U.
13,000 respondents with a 63% response rate is well over the levels needed in order to generalize to the rest of the population. Further, I'm not telling you to ignore the reported rapes, I'm telling you that they don't mean what you think they do. The two are not in opposition.
Let's try this from the start, because I'm not sure if I follow anymore: What are the issues with the survey, and why are they a problem?
owww. Ok sorry I have had a long day and this just seems beyond obvious to me.
Ok here is an example before an election we can get an idea of the support for a specific candidate and we can estimate the said candidates possibility for election but what we can not do is rely on those figures with 100% certainty and after the election has been won you can not say the results of the election do not matter because the survey said the other guy or gal was going to win. I hope you can see the parallels in your reasoning, the results are in and you are trying to bypass them with a survey that isn't even inclusive of all age groups or people in general for that matter as it is just a survey.
I hope that makes sense to you?
I see where you're coming from, but you're assuming that the reported number of rapes and the actual number of rapes are the same, when rape and sexual assaults are notoriously underreported crimes. The victimization survey would seem to contest this. Further, the survey has taken into account that it's not running across all age groups (see page 17). Considering the survey's been run consecutively for a number of years, if there were a massive spike in actual rapes (as opposed to nominal increases) there should be some sort of indication of this in the survey; 15-79 covers the vast majority of the population, after all.
Sorry if I've been a bit harsh, my point of view is as obvious to me as I assume yours is to you, after all.
Of course rapes slip through the gap and some people are wrongly accused but at least those are the numbers that have been collated and vetted through the legal system. Rapists have not been let off the hook to conform with your survey results at least I would hope not lol.... this whole concept is crazy to me but you are free to believe what you want.
There's still over 13,000 respondents. With a properly randomised sample that's more than enough to be representative of the (adult) population. Yes, you're missing young children and the elderly over 79 years of age, but it's not like scientific surveys ever query the entire population of a country.
Dude you are telling me to dismiss the actual official figures of people convicted of rape and reported sex crimes in favour of your "Official Survey" which is missing so much Data for reasons I have explained. If you can't get your head around why the Official figures are more valid than an optional survey for 16-79 year olds then honestly you should not be here stating "facts" because respectfully you do not know what you are talking about.
Respectfully, NO U.
13,000 respondents with a 63% response rate is well over the levels needed in order to generalize to the rest of the population. Further, I'm not telling you to ignore the reported rapes, I'm telling you that they don't mean what you think they do. The two are not in opposition.
Let's try this from the start, because I'm not sure if I follow anymore: What are the issues with the survey, and why are they a problem?
owww. Ok sorry I have had a long day and this just seems beyond obvious to me.
Ok here is an example before an election we can get an idea of the support for a specific candidate and we can estimate the said candidates possibility for election but what we can not do is rely on those figures with 100% certainty and after the election has been won you can not say the results of the election do not matter because the survey said the other guy or gal was going to win. I hope you can see the parallels in your reasoning, the results are in and you are trying to bypass them with a survey that isn't even inclusive of all age groups or people in general for that matter as it is just a survey.
I hope that makes sense to you?
I see where you're coming from, but you're assuming that the reported number of rapes and the actual number of rapes are the same, when rape and sexual assaults are notoriously underreported crimes. The victimization survey would seem to contest this. Further, the survey has taken into account that it's not running across all age groups (see page 17). Considering the survey's been run consecutively for a number of years, if there were a massive spike in actual rapes (as opposed to nominal increases) there should be some sort of indication of this in the survey; 15-79 covers the vast majority of the population, after all.
Sorry if I've been a bit harsh, my point of view is as obvious to me as I assume yours is to you, after all.
Of course rapes slip through the gap and some people are wrongly accused but at least those are the numbers that have been collated and vetted through the legal system. Rapists have not been let off the hook to conform with your survey results at least I would hope not lol.... this whole concept is crazy to me but you are free to believe what you want.
No, my point is that these rapes have always existed. In essence, our "true" rape statistic has always been higher than the one being reported, and through changing the definition of what constitutes rape we have been given a clearer picture of the number of rapes that take place every year. Thus, the people who anonymously respond to the victimization survey remain fairly static, while the people reporting rapes have increased due to awareness campaigns and stricter laws against rape. Hence why I don't believe the two charts are at odds with eachother; the "reported rape" chart is simply settling in to a picture that is more true to real life than before.
Tank_Dweller wrote: You are suggesting that all the offenders have been allowed to continue on a yearly basis after they have been reported. This is not how it works as criminals are taken out of circulation. So the somewhat consistent figures with a consistent rate of immigration makes sense. Do you simply dismiss the spike in sex crimes reported from 2007 -2008 and if so why?
This argument only works if you assume that all (or at least almost all) of the "extra" rapists in each year's immigrants are convicted and put into prison within a year of arriving. Given that rape is often under-reported and often fails to end in a criminal conviction I do not think that this is a plausible argument. And I am especially skeptical of the claim given how the anti-immigrant side tries to present Sweden as some kind of borderline anarchy with gangs of immigrants going around raping whoever they want, not a civilized country where rape is consistently and harshly punished with all rapist immigrants being neatly convicted and put into prison as soon as they commit a crime.
As for the spike, no, I don't dismiss it, I just believe the explanation that people who actually live in Sweden have told you over and over again. The rules for what defines "rape" changed just before 2007-2008 to include more acts, an immediately after that change there was a steady increase in reported rapes as you would expect from people getting used to the new law and realizing "I can report this now!". Given the problems I've mentioned with your "the immigrants did it" theory this is a much more convincing explanation of a one-time increase in reported rapes.
Daemonhammer wrote: Either way, it does seem like a pretty big issue for Sweden at the moment
No it's not. People who are not Sweden are trying to make it one because it suits their agenda but that does not mean it has anything to do with reality, kind of like how I do not say 'you should vote Trump because otherwise robot hitler will take all your children'.
If I see that insanely stupid 'sweden yes' meme one more time...
Daemonhammer wrote: This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.
I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.
... ...
This pattern of blaming foreigners and immigrants for crime is common to many cultures. It is seen in Japan, South Korea, the USA, Sweden and the UK, for instance.
It is always associated with racist groups, and makes use of a different incoming group to blame for crimes against the purity of our women and thereby consolidate nationalist and racial group identity. For example in South Korea white US English teachers are a major concern.
It diffuses to the general population by disinformation, in other words lies that are accepted by people who don't check the facts.
Here is an example from the UK. It is not sex related but it shows the same pattern of propaganda.
Sherwood Forest is where the semi-legendary Robin Hood lived in the 13th century. It is a relatively wild area of forest.
Britain First, a far-right group, found a treehouse that had been built by teenagers in 2010. They took a picture of this and wrote up a story that gangs of armed and dangerous illegal immigrants had set up camps in Sherwood Forest. These prompted 700 complaints from local people.
The story is a lie. There are no camps. But a lot of people believed it anyway.
Kilkrazy wrote: Britain First, a far-right group, found a treehouse that had been built by teenagers in 2010. They took a picture of this and wrote up a story that gangs of armed and dangerous illegal immigrants had set up camps in Sherwood Forest. These prompted 700 complaints from local people.
It is the constant repetition of these kind of false "facts" that helps to grow fear, resentment and unfair discrimination.
Something people might also not know is that a lot of these groups communicate with each other and exchange these "facts" as the truth the evil guv'ment is suppressing. Our neonazis are tightly connected with the Swedish and select members make trips to see how things are done abroad, in places like the UK, USA and Russia to mention a few.
To be fair though as much as I hate the "Britain first" and other cancers similar to them, the left wing media is just as bad with the way they present the news.
There is a lot of examples of this, in general though while the right wing people will blame most of their problems on immigrants, the left outright refuses to criticise or even mention the word "Muslim" when a Muslim does anything wrong.
This is a bit off topic but the reactions to the Orlando shooting are a good example to how biased people and the media are, the right wing people suddenly become the protectors of gay people from the terrorist menace while the left went straight to blaming guns.
Daemonhammer wrote: This whole thing is really confusing, on one side you have people who try to blame most of the problems that exist on refugees and migrants while on the other side you have people who refuse to admit there is anything wrong with the behaviours of these refugees and migrants.
I am more inclined to think that the Muslim immigrants are to blame for atleast some (or even a lot) of whats going on, considering how they treat women back in their own countries but I could be wrong, Its hard to get a good feeling about whats going on as everyone is pushing some political agenda.
... ...
This pattern of blaming foreigners and immigrants for crime is common to many cultures. It is seen in Japan, South Korea, the USA, Sweden and the UK, for instance.
It is always associated with racist groups, and makes use of a different incoming group to blame for crimes against the purity of our women and thereby consolidate nationalist and racial group identity. For example in South Korea white US English teachers are a major concern.
It diffuses to the general population by disinformation, in other words lies that are accepted by people who don't check the facts.
Here is an example from the UK. It is not sex related but it shows the same pattern of propaganda.
Sherwood Forest is where the semi-legendary Robin Hood lived in the 13th century. It is a relatively wild area of forest.
Britain First, a far-right group, found a treehouse that had been built by teenagers in 2010. They took a picture of this and wrote up a story that gangs of armed and dangerous illegal immigrants had set up camps in Sherwood Forest. These prompted 700 complaints from local people.
The story is a lie. There are no camps. But a lot of people believed it anyway.
Daemonhammer wrote: the left outright refuses to criticise or even mention the word "Muslim" when a Muslim does anything wrong.
Because it isn't actually relevant. The only people complaining about the nasty lefty media not cataloguing the skin colour of every last person who so much as frowns at anyone are nazis who are mad that they don't have articles they can selectively quote to support their pre-formed conclusion that the West needs a racial purge.
Kilkrazy wrote: What left-wing media? IDK about Sweden but there's a lot more right-wing media in the UK than left-wing.
Right Wing: The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Times, The Daily Telegraph,
Left Wing: The Guardian, Daily Mirror.
This is going full circle.
Do you believe that Muslims commit more rapes in Sweden than white Swedish men?
I refer you to the previous four pages of thread, which show that they don't. So why should the media say they do?
They're overrepresented in criminality, the question is why? Swedes are overrepresented in crime in Norway compared to their numbers, and Norwegians in Sweden, so it seems to be more a case of immigrants in general rather than anything to do with culture.
The answer also has a lot more to do with socio-economic factors than the amount of melanin in their skin (c.f. the Globe and Mail article I posted quoting Prof. Sarnecki who's a professor in criminology at Stockholm University). If socioeconomic factors are more important, however, we have to ask a lot of uncomfortable questions about class and distribution of wealth, so it's simpler to just blame it on the immigrants.
Let's put it this way: if muslim immigrants (because let's face it, those are the ones that are being discussed) are so much more likely to rape people, why are the rape statistics from predominantly muslim countries so low? Qatar hasn't had a single rape! They must be amazing at rape prevention! If the answer is "because comparisons across countries on these issues are tricky and the nominal reports may not match the real number of rapes" then good job, you're one step closer to realizing why this whole "argument" is silly.
As for the Occam's razor part:
"Change in definition of rape leads to changed number of reported rapes" is a LOT les complex than "change in definition of rape doesn't explain anything, the real reason, despite statistical evidence to the contrary, is immigrants".
You may want to look up what constitutes 'rape' in Qatar and other nations with Sharia as the basis for their legal system, and what witnesses are allowed/the difference between male and female witnesses and so on.
You really are looking at two things that are not easily comparable.
Qatar is a destination country for men and women from South and Southeast Asia who migrate willingly, but are subsequently forced into involuntary servitude as domestic workers and laborers, and, to a lesser extent, commercial sexual exploitation. The most common offense was forcing workers to accept worse contract terms than those under which they were recruited. Other conditions include bonded labor, withholding of pay, restrictions on movement, arbitrary detention, and physical, mental, and sexual abuse. Qatar is in Tier 3 rank; it failed to enforce criminal laws against traffickers, or to provide an effective mechanism to identify and protect victims. The nation detain and deport victims rather than providing them protection. The Government of Qatar made little progress to increase prosecutions for trafficking effectively in 2007.
I am willing to go out on a limb and state that a woman, especially one not from Qatar, has zero chance of being treated in anyway which would be considered 'just' in a western system. Even Qatari women are not treated as equal to men in their justice system.
Besides rattling the sabers and stoking Islamophobia, what is the purpose of this, in the context of the conversation. Are you under the impression that large amount of muslim refugees across Europe are coming from Qatar? Seems unlikely. Do you think that social mores distribute uniformly across 1.6 billion individuals, simply because they share a religious book? What counts as a "Western system"? Does Mexico count as a "Western system"? Does Italy?
Attitudes toward women vary widely even throughout western societies. Feminist issues that have been dealt with decades ago in French-Canadian (and Canadian, and, to an extent, throughout North-America) society still barely register in France, a country which is very often lauded for its progressiveness.
Qatar sounds like a proper gakhole. And for more than it's attitude toward women. Being a poor man, or even just not being a rich man seems like enough for you to be exploited by everyone else. Sounds less like a "Islam" issue, and more a "New to capitalism, default to savage mode" issue. I'm fairly sure that there is a large number of Muslim communities that would be driven to revolution if their authorities tried to impose the qatari standards.
Kilkrazy wrote: [...]
Do you believe that Muslims commit more rapes in Sweden than white Swedish men?
I refer you to the previous four pages of thread, which show that they don't. So why should the media say they do?
Im not actually saying that they do. And considering how there is so much less Muslims in Sweden than actual Swedes it would be hard to prove anything like that. And even if it was true, I doubt the media would admit it.
However if I had to make a bet I would say that Muslims are more prone to such behaviours considering what cultures they come from. Im sure we can all agree on that there isnt much equality between genders in Muslim nations.
Daemonhammer wrote: the left outright refuses to criticise or even mention the word "Muslim" when a Muslim does anything wrong.
Because it isn't actually relevant. The only people complaining about the nasty lefty media not cataloguing the skin colour of every last person who so much as frowns at anyone are nazis who are mad that they don't have articles they can selectively quote to support their pre-formed conclusion that the West needs a racial purge.
When ISIS, or even some random angry Muslim decides to be a terrorist, how often do you see the left wing media say that he was a Muslim? Thats pretty relevant.
skyth wrote: How often are Christians who commit terrorist acts or rape women referred to as Christians?
Are you trying to make a point?
Because if you look at actual instances in recent years where we've had religiously motivated attacks on abortion clinics, they get labeled as anything BUT Christians.
If you know a terrorist or mass shooter or whatever you want to call someone has ISIS links - and, these days, that's the first thing any media outlet wants to speculate on - does it really matter if someone uses the exact words 'radical Islam'?
We already know why they did it. They're not magic words.
Well... those are certainly some interesting articles.
How did Swedish sexual assaults end up here though?
There was discussion about the massive amounts of incorrect information being peddled to the outside world regarding immigrants/Muslims being responsible for the spike in sexual assaults.
Fair enough. When I was reading a few news articles about it at the time none of them would mention how he was a "born again Christian", it was usually some form of mental illness that was blamed.
We are all subject to cognitive biases that mean we tend to seek out and remember "facts" that agree with our currently held views, and ignore and forget "facts" that disagree. I don't mean this is relevant to you personally. It happens to everyone. At any rate it's possible that US based papers reported in terms that you have forgotten.
Another possible factor is that The Guardian is a UK based site and doesn't have the same angle of subjectivity in its reporting that US based news does, and reports things differently
The great advantage that we English speaking countries have is that we can access news and opinion from a wide number of separate countries, who all report on major issues affecting other English speaking countries. For example, newspapers and web sites in the USA, Eire and India have commented on the UK Brexit scenario and offered a greater variety of opinion than you would get from reading only the UK papers.
Kilkrazy wrote: We are all subject to cognitive biases that mean we tend to seek out and remember "facts" that agree with our currently held views, and ignore and forget "facts" that disagree. I don't mean this is relevant to you personally. It happens to everyone. At any rate it's possible that US based papers reported in terms that you have forgotten.
Another possible factor is that The Guardian is a UK based site and doesn't have the same angle of subjectivity in its reporting that US based news does, and reports things differently
The great advantage that we English speaking countries have is that we can access news and opinion from a wide number of separate countries, who all report on major issues affecting other English speaking countries. For example, newspapers and web sites in the USA, Eire and India have commented on the UK Brexit scenario and offered a greater variety of opinion than you would get from reading only the UK papers.
Yeah that is true, English is a really useful language to know in general, im pretty glad I learned it.
Swedish Police Investigate Over 40 Reports of Rape and Groping at 2 Music Festivals
One of the acts, Mumford & Sons had this to say...
“We’re gutted by these hideous reports,” the British rock band Mumford & Sons, one of the headline acts at the Bravalla Festival, said in a Facebook post. “We won’t play at this festival again until we’ve had assurances from the police and organizers that they’re doing something to combat what appears to be a disgustingly high rate of reported sexual violence.”
It's a shame that it has taken so long for police to act on behalf of their citizens' safety. It's more a shame that some people don't care enough to respect others or behave as guests in a country that took them in during their time of need.
I still don't see the issue with having such a high report rate. Isn't that good? There are so many more crimes that go unreported in other countries and thus are treated as non-existent.
Is it happening at a high rate? Does anyone know the average rate of sexual assaults at rock festivals? For all we know, 40 is a very low figure.
It was established earlier in the thread that in Sweden lots of crimes are reported as rape that in the UK for example would be reported as sexual assault.
Again we run into the problem of the differences between crime reporting in different countries.
As also established earlier in the thread, there's no evidence that it's muslims or immigrants doing it in particular.
I think we'd both probably agree anything over 0 is unacceptable*, but as for a "high" metric I don't know. To the band this was apparently a high number. I just found the suggestion that their issue was the fact they're reported versus the fact they happened, to be pretty much absurd.
*I understand we live in the real world where achieving this will most likely never happen.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is it happening at a high rate? Does anyone know the average rate of sexual assaults at rock festivals? For all we know, 40 is a very low figure.
I don't think it's tracked in the US, though it definitely happens. If I recall there were dozens of sexual assaults and a bunch of rapes at Woodstock in 1999, though that was awhile back.
Swedish Police Investigate Over 40 Reports of Rape and Groping at 2 Music Festivals
One of the acts, Mumford & Sons had this to say...
“We’re gutted by these hideous reports,” the British rock band Mumford & Sons, one of the headline acts at the Bravalla Festival, said in a Facebook post. “We won’t play at this festival again until we’ve had assurances from the police and organizers that they’re doing something to combat what appears to be a disgustingly high rate of reported sexual violence.”
It's a shame that it has taken so long for police to act on behalf of their citizens' safety. It's more a shame that some people don't care enough to respect others or behave as guests in a country that took them in during their time of need.
As a Mumford and Sons fan, good on them.
I don't know if 40 is a lot or not, but it certainly seems high. I also recall a few instances where chicks were "crowd surfing" and were groped, and the performer spotted it and had the groper(s) removed from the concert. Good on them, too.
I got groped at GenCon one time by an older chick while I was taking a picture with her hot friend in costume. I grabbed a handful of ass in return. Nice lady. She likes knitting, red lingerie, and grabbing strangers cocks at conventions.
I got groped at GenCon one time by an older chick while I was taking a picture with her hot friend in costume. I grabbed a handful of ass in return. Nice lady. She likes knitting, red lingerie, and grabbing strangers cocks at conventions.
Well, to be fair to her, you were in full Mad Max villain attire complete with enormous cod-piece
I got groped at GenCon one time by an older chick while I was taking a picture with her hot friend in costume. I grabbed a handful of ass in return. Nice lady. She likes knitting, red lingerie, and grabbing strangers cocks at conventions.
Well, to be fair to her, you were in full Mad Max villain attire complete with enormous cod-piece
Captain Kirk, actually, but that's really the same thing.
I got groped at GenCon one time by an older chick while I was taking a picture with her hot friend in costume. I grabbed a handful of ass in return. Nice lady. She likes knitting, red lingerie, and grabbing strangers cocks at conventions.
Well, to be fair to her, you were in full Mad Max villain attire complete with enormous cod-piece
Captain Kirk, actually, but that's really the same thing.
Kirk getting grabbed in the crotch really is more along the lines of authentic cosplay than it is sexual harassment.
Kirk getting grabbed in the crotch really is more along the lines of authentic cosplay than it is sexual harassment.
Ehh. Yes, I do see this a lot. When someone gropes a woman it's sexual assault, if a woman gropes a man it's harmless. She's just being nice. But ofc a real man is just fine with being groped, at least if the perpetrator has tits.
I really hope you're not referring to people like Trump. They're just (not so) closet homophobes, xenophobes, and racists.
