News Riots put Sweden's open-door immigration policy in spotlight

[Tosh5457]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/27/us-sweden-riots-idUSBRE94Q0E620130527

I think the immigration debate should extend to every European country, since they're all taking non-European immigrants like Sweden is.

 

[wukunlin]

Being an immigrant myself, things like this make me feel nervous about what will happen to people's views on immigrants in general

 

[lisab]

Being an immigrant myself, things like this make me feel nervous about what will happen to people's views on immigrants in general

Public opinion of immigrants is highly correlated to the economy, IMO. Here in the US most people are very welcoming, but there was a slight backlash during this last recession. Still, since most people are only one or two generations away from being "fresh off the boat", most Americans are quite tolerant -- as long as the immigrants integrates into the culture.

I know nothing about how quickly Sweden integrates its immigrants. That's the key. If grandchildren of immigrants are not fully integrated, that's an issue.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The European view on immigration and assimilation is different than the American one. In America, being born there is enough. In Europe, things are different: until very recently, you could be born in Switzwerland of parents born in Switzerland of grandparents born in Switzerland and still not be a Swiss citizen. In France you will read about 2nd generation immigrants (immigrés de deuxième génération) regularly, while in the US a second-generation immigrant is more likely to be called simply a natural born citizen. Indeed, the word deuxième, as opposed to seconde, implies a series going beyond two.

I've lived in France but not Sweden, but it would not surprise me if neither the immigrants nor the rest of the population thinks of them as completely Swedish.

 

[Zarqon]

As a swedish citizen, I can give some input. I think one of the main problems with the integration in Sweden, is that they have not forced the immigrants to distribute more equally around the country. Right now, all immigrants have ended up in in very few places, some suburbs in Stockholm and Malmö are infamous for being low quality neighborhoods with very high immigrant count. One of those is the one that now has riots.

From living a few years also in Germany, it seems that the problems there are very similar. The immigrants often come from the same part of the world, and thus have the same previous culture. When they all go live in another country, they just gather so many at one place that they can basically form a complete subcommunity, where they never have any incitament to try to integrate into the new culture.

 

[russ_watters]

Why should they integrate -- much less be forced to?

 

[boomtrain]

Why should they integrate -- much less be forced to?

To convince Swedes that letting them in was a good idea. It's too late not to let them in now, but public opinion will have an effect on future immigration policy

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Why should they integrate -- much less be forced to?

I think the fears in europe are that certain ethnic groups in the near future will be numerous enough to start affecting policy and general culture. Countries will start to lose their identity. France and Italy have both been in the news lately regarding their illegal immigrants from North Africa.

I believe the Boston Marathon bombers did not integrate. They didn't like American culture and had no American friends.

 

[aquitaine]

Why should they integrate -- much less be forced to?

Because if they don't you'll get things like sharia micro-courts and acts of terrorism. The reason there is so much controversy and so many problems surrounding Islamic immigration into Europe is because such huge numbers refuse integration and actively despise Western society.

 

[Zarqon]

Why should they integrate -- much less be forced to?

Hmm, not integrate, I acutally have not considered that. This is also not discussed in the media or by the politicians at all. Can you think of any example throughout history were two vastly different cultures have lived side-by-side on the same space, peacefully? Remeber, the Islamic culture is completely opposite to that of Sweden in general, see http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_54 for instance. Also note that the foreign/islamic population in Sweden is very large, Sweden has the largest amount of non-EU immigrants per capita in all of europe (source).

I can see several problems with not integrating, the biggest being that they have several cultural/law behaviors that is directly forbidden by Swedish law, for example the honor culture. In addition to direct law violations there are also a number of other cultural and economic problems, such as, if they are not contributing members of the society, how can we pay for all the welfare/education/healthcare etc that they would be entitled to, living in sweden?

In the end, I would say that some form of integration is really necessary to be able to handle the situation at all.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think the fears in europe are that certain ethnic groups in the near future will be numerous enough to start affecting policy and general culture.

I've always found this argument nonsense for two reasons.

1) It ignores that integration doesn't have to be total. We're meant to be liberal democracies after all so there should be scope for groups of people to have different opinions that affect policy. The idea that we need to protect culture in some form of stasis implies that we should ditch our ideas about liberalism and keep Europe static.

2) It ignores the reality that whilst immigration occurs and many immigrant families have more children than non-immigrants the growth rate of these minorities isn't anything like as high to believe that said migrant families will suddenly wield huge democratic power (and by the time they do culture would have inevitably changed anyway). It also ignores that the same reasons birth rates are low elsewhere in Europe (later pregnancies due to career options, lower infant mortality, lower need for children to take care of parents in old age, contraception etc) apply to migrants.

Because if they don't you'll get things like sharia micro-courts and acts of terrorism. The reason there is so much controversy and so many problems surrounding Islamic immigration into Europe is because such huge numbers refuse integration and actively despise Western society.

You missed a massive IMO in this collection of uninformed nonsense. Did you get it from the EDL by any chance for starters the vast majority of muslim communities in Europe get along just fine and peacefully, secondly if you're going to point to extreme religion and how it causes opposition to western society why not include the far greater number of catholics whose teachings contravene much of western societies values with regards to women and LGBT matters.

 

[Tosh5457]

I think the fears in europe are that certain ethnic groups in the near future will be numerous enough to start affecting policy and general culture. Countries will start to lose their identity. France and Italy have both been in the news lately regarding their illegal immigrants from North Africa.

I believe the Boston Marathon bombers did not integrate. They didn't like American culture and had no American friends.

Exactly, immigrants from other European countries are tolerated since they're from the same ethnicity, while Africans and Arabs aren't. Although this isn't the only factor, since East and South Asians are usually also very well tolerated, because they integrate very easily.
Another factor is religion, Islamism will never be tolerated in Europe and IMO it shouldn't be.

These immigration policies would already have been reversed if the anti-immigrant parties weren't associated with violence, which most are. For example, in the UK, according to a poll, almost half of voters would vote for a nationalist party if they gave up the violence: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ain-vote-far-Right-parties-gave-violence.html

I've always found this argument nonsense for two reasons.

1) It ignores that integration doesn't have to be total. We're meant to be liberal democracies after all so there should be scope for groups of people to have different opinions that affect policy. The idea that we need to protect culture in some form of stasis implies that we should ditch our ideas about liberalism and keep Europe static.

2) It ignores the reality that whilst immigration occurs and many immigrant families have more children than non-immigrants the growth rate of these minorities isn't anything like as high to believe that said migrant families will suddenly wield huge democratic power (and by the time they do culture would have inevitably changed anyway). It also ignores that the same reasons birth rates are low elsewhere in Europe (later pregnancies due to career options, lower infant mortality, lower need for children to take care of parents in old age, contraception etc) apply to migrants.

In regard to 1, we're democracies so we get to choose who we want in our country. Integration has to be total if the people decide so.

They may not suddenly have a huge democratic power, but if nothing changes in some years they will.

 

[boomtrain]

I've always found this argument nonsense for two reasons...

but ethnic block voting is real, and can influence general elections. For better or worse, didn't the hispanic vote help the democrats with the last American presidential election?

secondly if you're going to point to extreme religion and how it causes opposition to western society why not include the far greater number of catholics whose teachings contravene much of western societies values with regards to women and LGBT matters

but this thread isn't about extreme religion. it's about immigrants integrating (or not), specifically referencing the recent lot of un-integrated immigrants rioting in sweden. If catholic immigrants were burning cars en masse, I'm sure there'd be some backlash against catholic immigration too.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

but ethnic block voting is real, and can influence general elections. For better or worse, didn't the hispanic vote help the democrats with the last American presidential election?

Do you think that if an ethnic block grew beyond a minority it would still be mostly uniform in political beliefs (assuming they are now)? It's a key point because it addresses the assumption that immigrants will just vote along one line rather than being as diverse and open to persuasion as anyone else.

but this thread isn't about extreme religion. it's about immigrants integrating (or not), specifically referencing the recent lot of un-integrated immigrants rioting in sweden. If catholic immigrants were burning cars en masse, I'm sure there'd be some backlash against catholic immigration too.

Aquitaines post was conflating the issue with religion by implying that the values of muslims are incompatible with European values. Regarding the riots why do you think it is a lot of un-integrated immigrants? Why don't you consider this a minority of a minority rather than automatically representative?

 

[boomtrain]

Do you think that if an ethnic block grew beyond a minority it would still be mostly uniform in political beliefs (assuming they are now)? It's a key point because it addresses the assumption that immigrants will just vote along one line rather than being as diverse and open to persuasion as anyone else.

I don't think immigrants will just "vote along one line rather than being as diverse and open to persuasion as anyone else"... if they assimilate! It seems that I'm not the only one who thinks so:

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~bgrofman/36 Landa-Copeland-Grofman-Ethnic voting patterns Toronto.pdf

1. Voters belonging to a particular ethnic group are more likely to vote for candidates
belonging to the same ethnic group, especially if the ethnic group is small relative to
other ethnic groups, than other voters. (All voters belong to ethnic groups.)
2. The greater the proportion of the ethnic population which is of recent immigrant
status, the greater the ethnic voting homogeneity.
3. More generally, we may postulate that, as the degree of assimilation’ increases, the
degree of ethnic voting homogeneity decreases. In particular, since, as ethnic members
assimilate, they often move outside those areas of greatest ethnic concentration, in
comparisons across ethnic groups

Aquitaines post was conflating the issue with religion by implying that the values of muslims are incompatible with European values. Regarding the riots why do you think it is a lot of un-integrated immigrants? Why don't you consider this a minority of a minority rather than automatically representative?

The values of everyone other than europeans are incompatible with european values. actually, values are quite different in different regions of europe. People manage to get along by adopting the values of their host country. To answer your question: no, I don't think the rioters were particularly well integrated (am I wrong? is rioting a big thing among ethnic swedes?). I'd guess that the rioters themselves are a minority of a minority, but that's besides the point. Do well integrated immigrant communities produce lots of riots?

Also, the attempts to introduce Sharia courts and acts of terrorism that aquitaine mentioned are both real events that you addressed by rolling your eyes.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The values of everyone other than europeans are incompatible with european values. actually, values are quite different in different regions of europe. People manage to get along by adopting the values of their host country.

You miss my point: political and cultural diversity are European values. You can't simultaneously argue that people must significantly integrate yet support diversity. I'm British and my political and cultural beliefs differ greatly on a lot of the status quo. Should I be made to "integrate"? Why is it acceptable for me to be different but not for immigrants and the children of immigrants?

To answer your question: no, I don't think the rioters were particularly well integrated (am I wrong? is rioting a big thing among ethnic swedes?). I'd guess that the rioters themselves are a minority of a minority, but that's besides the point. Do well integrated immigrant communities produce lots of riots?

The assumption here being that rioting is because they haven't integrated. Would a Swedish national who rioted be judged to not be integrated into Swedish culture? Probably not.

Also, the attempts to introduce Sharia courts and acts of terrorism that aquitaine mentioned are both real events that you addressed by rolling your eyes.

I role my eyes at his hyperbole that radical Islam is such a big threat, especially as it relates to immigrant muslims and descendants of immigrant muslims.

 

[mheslep]

...

I role my eyes at his hyperbole that radical Islam is such a big threat, especially as it relates to immigrant muslims and descendants of immigrant muslims.

How is that consistent with recent events in London, about which you started a thread, and before that the Exeter bombing, the Glasgow Airport attack, and 7/7 attacks, all of which were perpetrated by Islamist extremists.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

but ethnic block voting is real, and can influence general elections. For better or worse, didn't the hispanic vote help the democrats with the last American presidential election?

It did. But we don't consider the Hispanic population of our country to be mere half-citizens. So their votes, however they choose to cast them, are as valid as anyone's.

To me the general European attitude toward immigration is absurd.

 

[boomtrain]

It did. But we don't consider the Hispanic population of our country to be mere half-citizens. So their votes, however they choose to cast them, are as valid as anyone's.

To me the general European attitude toward immigration is absurd.

that will be a fantastic rebuttal if anyone ever makes the argument that their votes aren't valid for some reason.

 

[Cthugha]

How is that consistent with recent events in London, about which you started a thread, and before that the Exeter bombing, the Glasgow Airport attack, and 7/7 attacks, all of which were perpetrated by Islamist extremists.

In 2011, the number of religiously motivated acts of terrorism in europe amounted to an impressive number of 0 according to europol (https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/europoltsat.pdf) out of 174 total. In 2012 it was 3 out of 249. About two thirds of these terror attacks come from separatist groups like ETA. So radical islamists are indeed not the huge problem out there.

In the US, the situation is not much different. Due to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum), islamists were responsible for roughly 6% of terror acts in the USA between 1980 and 2005 (yes I know - not the most up-to-date data). 42% were committed by latinos, 24% by the extreme left and 7% by jewish extremists.

Although I kind of understand the focus on islamists due to the dimension of 9/11, I think the media coverage on radical islamist terror acts is way larger compared to similar acts performed with a different motivation, thereby making it seem like a bigger threat than it actually is.

 

[mheslep]

...thereby making it seem like a bigger threat than it actually is.

In terms of the actual threat, that particular take is baffling to me. The vast majority of those incidents are reported as http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/image/Terrorism11.jpg, or were lone actors having no connection to any other group (e.g. Oklahoma City) that might continue with other attacks in the future. The number of deaths and injuries committed by Al-Qa’ida in 2001 and 1993, and McVey/Nichols in 1995 constitute more than 99% of all deaths and more than 98% of all injuries in the US from all terror attacks categorized by the FBI over that period.

 

[Mute]

Canadians like to think of Canada as a "cultural mosaic" wherein everyone adds their culture to build an overall multi-ethnic Canadian culture, rather than an America-style "melting pot" wherein newcomers are expected to assimiliate into a pre-existing culture. To extent that's an accurate picture, I'm not sure - I suspect both countries exhibit both styles, though perhaps Canada leans more towards a mosaic while the US leans more towards a melting pot. I like to think that Canada is indeed somewhat of a cultural mosaic, and we've somehow managed to coexist peacefully. Even if that's not quite true, I wouldn't say immigrants in Canada are completely "assimilated", and yet the biggest riot in recent memory wasn't because of immigration issues, but because Vancouver's hockey team lost the Stanley Cup.

 

[Cthugha]

In terms of the actual threat, that particular take is baffling to me. The vast majority of those incidents are reported as http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/image/Terrorism11.jpg, or were lone actors having no connection to any other group (e.g. Oklahoma City) that might continue with other attacks in the future. The number of deaths and injuries committed by Al-Qa’ida in 2001 and 1993, and McVey/Nichols in 1995 constitute more than 99% of all deaths and more than 98% of all injuries in the US from all terror attacks categorized by the FBI over that period.

What is so baffling about that? Indeed a lot of the deaths arise from Al-Qaida attacks. Most of them from a singular event. This is why I said that I can understand part of it due to the dimension of 9/11. However, that is still one singular large event. I do not think that the percentages have much meaning. Would radical islamists become a smaller threat if, say, far right wing extremists committed a terror act tomorrow, lowering the islamist percentage to 50%? I do not think so. The total number of civil Al Qaida victims in the west is around 5000 over roughly 20 years. Sure, every single of these deaths is one too many, but the number is not that large that it is the biggest threat out there. It puts them roughly into one category with bees or lightning.

Sure, you will say the difference is that Al Qaida has an agenda. True enough. Please note that I am not claiming they are no threat. It is just drastically overemphasized. I just do not get why one would give those people the illusion that their actions have a large impact, when that is actually not true. The damage done is tragic and disgusting, but not even close to really being a threat to the west. Part of the way radical islamist terror and especially recruitment works, is the illusion that terror acts can and will actually change something. Stating that islamistic terror is the largest problem at hand gives terrorists more attention than they deserve, gives them credit for more impact than there is and unnecessarily motivates further acts of terrorism.

This overemphasizing also shows up in this topic at hand. This discussion was about riots in a low quality neighborhood in Sweden in which immigrants played a major role. Jumping from that topic to assuming that not perfectly integrated immigrants breed terrorism seems quite like a stretch. It is helpful to be wary - but not to be paranoid.

 

[Zarqon]

First, I would say I agree with Cthugha, this is not at all organized terrorism, and I don't think anyone in sweden is treating it as such. This is more of a sudden unorganized outburst due to years of built up pressure in this suburb.

It did. But we don't consider the Hispanic population of our country to be mere half-citizens. So their votes, however they choose to cast them, are as valid as anyone's.

To me the general European attitude toward immigration is absurd.

I think it's not possible to make such a general statement. First of all because europe is not yet one country, and the laws of it's parts are quite different, especially the immigration laws. While some countries, like sweden, accept many immigrants every year, other countries take in almost noone, which clearly causes the problems to be focused on the countries that do.

Second, this is not a view towards immigration as a whole, because I'm pretty sure that immigrated germans or french people in sweden have no negative bias towards them, nor do they have a problem living here. The problems in sweden are specifically about muslim-ish people. I think the reason for this is as I stated in my earlier posts in this thread, they simply have a large problem integrating into the society. Their culture include things like honor murder and this goes heavily against not only our laws but also our core values about how people should behave towards one another. Honor murder is obviously an extreme example, but there are many smaller issues as well and this is why it's so hard to accept that they just live their own life rather than integrate into the swedish society.

 

[mheslep]

What is so baffling about that? ...

That in a response to the significance of a threat from Islamic radicals, or how such might be overblown, you would counter with statistics with attacks by non-Islamic radicals that killed or injured no one, and more importantly, I think, are largely parochial and thus unlikely to become systemic.

Now, if one defines "threat" on as the ability to destroy entire western societies, I agree of course that terror groups do not have that ability, and to continue the (extreme) interpretation, a defensive mobilization such as that realized in WWII would be ridiculously overblown as well as ineffective. On the other hand, suggesting that Islamic radicals, with world wide presence, lethal commitment, religious motivation, and nation-state funding don't rise above the threat from, say, the Animal Liberation Front is equally mistaken. Recall that the city of Boston was literally shut down by the actions of two Islamic terrorists.

"Stating that islamistic terror is the largest problem at hand..."

I think I probably agree that such would be a mistake. I think the current trend for policy for many western national governments however, even in light of recent attacks, is the opposite, towards a muddled, pretend-it-does-not-exist policy for the specific threat from Islamic radicals.

 

[Tosh5457]

Let's not make this topic about Islamism alone, there are many problems with African and Arab immigration to Europe aside from the problems brought by Islamism. The non-European immigrants are excessively over-represented in crime rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime

For example in Finland:

According to official statistics, 21.0% of rapes have been committed by foreigners in Finland.[7] Foreigners comprise 2.2% of the population.[7]

In Switzerland:

immigrants from Germany, France and Austria had a significantly lower crime rate than Swiss citizens (60% to 80%), while immigrants from Angola, Nigeria and Algeria had a crime rate of above 600% of that of Swiss population

In Sweden:

Immigrants are overrepresented in Sweden's crime statistics. In a study by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention in 1997-2001, 25% of the almost 1,520,000 offences were found to be committed by people born abroad, while almost 20% were committed by Swedish-born people with a foreign background. In the study, immigrants were found to be four times more likely to be investigated for lethal violence and robbery than ethnic Swedes. In addition, immigrants were three times more likely to be investigated for violent assault, and five times more likely to be investigated for sex crimes. Those from North Africa and Western Asia were overrepresented.

And the list goes on and on... Looking at the facts, IMO it's pretty hard to say Europe's open borders policy is being successful.

The argument that it's because they're immigrants and poor needs to be dropped IMO, this was never recorded with European immigrants (like Eastern Europeans, Portuguese and Italians who were very poor at the time) that immigrated to France, Germany and UK a few decades ago. Moreover European governments don't have the funds or conditions to receive more immigrants that will be unfit to our society. The Eastern European immigrants crime rate in UK for example is the same as the English nationals:

It was reported in 2007 that more than one-fifth of solved crimes in London was committed by immigrants. Around a third of all solved, reported sex offences and a half of all solved, reported frauds in the capital were carried out by non-British citizens.[38] A 2008 study found that the crime rate of Eastern European immigrants was the same as that of the indigenous population

 

[Cthugha]

That in a response to the significance of a threat from Islamic radicals, or how such might be overblown, you would counter with statistics with attacks by non-Islamic radicals that killed or injured no one, and more importantly, I think, are largely parochial and thus unlikely to become systemic.

Well, most of the attacks did not kill or injure anybody, regardless of whether radical-islamistic or not. The major part of killings came from few singular events like 9/11 or Oklahoma City. Therefore, I assume the number of terroristic acts committed by some group as roughly proportional to the probability that this group will give rise to someone commiting such a huge terror act. Also, radical-islamistic terrorism is not as well organized as is often implied. I do not see any reason for overemphasizing the threat from islamists. Common terrorism countermeasures should aim at keeping these singular events from happening - regardless of the origin of the terrorists. In my opinion, unorganized small groups or single terrorists are even more dangerous in terms of this special kind of terrorism act compared to organized large-scale terror cells as the latter will rarely go unnoticed by national authorities. Suspects of organized terrorism should of course also be closely monitored. I think that goes without saying.

Let's not make this topic about Islamism alone, there are many problems with African and Arab immigration to Europe aside from the problems brought by Islamism. The violence and sexual violence is increasing all over Europe in countries with open borders with Africa and Arab countries, and the non-European immigrants are excessively over-represented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime

For example in Finland:
According to official statistics, 21.0% of rapes have been committed by foreigners in Finland.[7] Foreigners comprise 2.2% of the population.[7]

You could have also quoted the following part, which says "In contrast, the rape support helpline Tukinainen reports that 6% of all callers and 11% of 10–20-year-old callers say that the rapist was a foreigner.[8] Additionally, Finnish rapists are more likely to be known personally by the victim, increasing the threshold to report. Furthermore, there are great asymmetries between nationalities of rapists."

After removing bias from the statistics (just including legally present foreigners and subtracting crimes that can only be committe dby foreigners), the overrepresentation of foreigners in such statistics in europe is approximately a factor of 2. Actually the overrepresentation correlates rather closely with the status of the immigrants, rather than their origin. Refugees are usually more likely to commit crimes, while immigrants that entered a country for working are usually not. However, it is correct that in the past and present most refugees are from African and Arab countries.

The argument that it's because they're immigrants and poor needs to be dropped IMO, this was never recorded with European immigrants (like Eastern Europeans, Portuguese and Italians who were very poor at the time) that immigrated to France, Germany and UK a few decades ago.

Being poor is never an excuse for a crime, but this comparison does not really hold. The Portuguese and Italians entered other countries because there was more work available than workers available. They were poor at home, but directly earned reasonable amounts abroad. This is obviously not the case for refugees. Also, although the first generation immigrants from that time showed no increased crime rates, the second and third generation immigrants descending from that generation do (see my link at the end of my comment). These rates are similar for immigrants from Spain, Italy and Turkey.

Moreover European governments don't have the funds or conditions to receive more immigrants that will be unfit to our society. The Eastern European immigrants crime rate in UK for example is the same as the English nationals:

Wow, that probably makes the UK the only country in Europe where that is the case - besides eastern European countries. In Germany for example, immigrants from Eastern Europe, especially former Yugoslavia, show an increased crime rate by a factor of roughly 2.5 compared to German citizens http://www.rsf.uni-greifswald.de/fileadmin/mediapool/lehrstuehle/duenkel/Germany_youngMig.pdf. Immigrants from Southern Europe show pretty much the same crime rate. Immigrants from African countries are usually even below that rate. However, African immigrants are only a minor group in Germany which makes it a bit complicated to rely on statistics.

In my opinion, the crime rate will always be high for groups with few qualifications and those, who will have problems to find a job. These will often be refugees and those who seek asylum. Is it better to only allow as many refugees in as can be offered a good perspective and force the others to stay at home in questionable political conditions or is it better to do this the other way round? I am not sure and I suppose, that the situation is a bit different in every European country, but as soon as the numbers get so large that subcultures or countercultures build up, things become complicated.

 

[Tosh5457]

The over representation of 2nd and 3rd generation Southern Europeans immigrants in crime rates is 2 to 1, but 6-10 to 1 in African immigrants is just too much. African-American crime rate in US is brutal and there aren't a significant number of refugees to explain it. Even for the same social factors of other ethnic groups, their crime rate is much higher:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~roos/Courses/grstat502/phillipssp802.pdf
http://www.personal.psu.edu/exs44/597b-Comm&Crime/Krivo&Peterson-Homicide.pdf

Unfortunately this study field is full of myths and lies that is misleading the public, caused by using faulty reasoning and wrong interpretations of the data. The complete rejection of the population ethnicity's role in society doesn't have any foundation, and there is much evidence that counters it; in other words, it's unscientific. I have no doubt that people who defend that (wrong) idea have noble intentions, but in politics even good intentions may turn out to have negative consequences.

 

[aquitaine]

Aquitaines post was conflating the issue with religion by implying that the values of muslims are incompatible with European values. Regarding the riots why do you think it is a lot of un-integrated immigrants? Why don't you consider this a minority of a minority rather than automatically representative?

Muslim values in general are essentially based on Levitical law. I would like for you to explain to me how such values as the following are compatible with modern Western values:

“Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” (Sura 4, verse 34)

For one thing, I do consider them representative because this isn't some tiny minority but a very significant portion. 40% of UK Muslims want Sharia law to be implemented and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06, which is more than enough to indicate that you have a big problem that no amount of denial and wishful thinking can change.

And what about those Muslims who do want to adopt our values? You do realize that they are subjected to death threats and other nonsense, right?

In 2011, the number of religiously motivated acts of terrorism in europe amounted to an impressive number of 0 according to europol (https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/...uropoltsat.pdf) out of 174 total. In 2012 it was 3 out of 249. About two thirds of these terror attacks come from separatist groups like ETA. So radical islamists are indeed not the huge problem out there.

http://www.ejpress.org/article/50284

 

[Cthugha]

Muslim values in general are essentially based on Levitical law. I would like for you to explain to me how such values as the following are compatible with modern Western values:
[...]
And what about those Muslims who do want to adopt our values? You do realize that they are subjected to death threats and other nonsense, right?

The bible tells us:

Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

So are Christians incompatible with modern western values?
Atheists also get regular death threats from the christian right ( http://www.examiner.com/article/christians-issue-death-threats-over-twitter-hash-tag).

A non-negligible part of tea party supporters thinks that gay people can and should be 'cured' and homosexuality is an illness.

Do not get me wrong: Extremist muslim positions are a problem. But homing in on muslims in general, while closing eyes towards the extremist positions already present in western countries seems like applying double standards to me.

and 78% of UK Muslims supported punishment for the publishers of those Danish Mohammed cartoons

There is nothing about that in the link. Did you link the wrong article? It would be interesting to know what kind of punishment they had in mind.

http://www.ejpress.org/article/50284

Anymore? Cases like this one have never been considered terrorism. Hate crimes are not the same as terrorism.

 

[aquitaine]

So are Christians incompatible with modern western values?

Well, actually yes. You will find no such double standards with me, especially since liberalism has spent 500 years pushing back against them. The only difference is that they are not given the kind of political cover to do their nonsense that Islam gets. Criticism and satire of Christianity is (rightly) looked as something normal while criticism and satire of Islam is frowned upon as "Islamophobia" and whomever engages in it is labeled a racist and/or being intolerant. Surely you can see the hypocrisy here.

There is nothing about that in the link. Did you link the wrong article? It would be interesting to know what kind of punishment they had in mind.

Yes there is. Here is the exact paragraph:

The news is no less alarming on the question of freedom of speech. Seventy-eight percent support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who "insult Islam." When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not.

Bolded by me. As you can see the problem isn't just with the terrorism itself but the sympathy for their cause.

Anymore? Cases like this one have never been considered terrorism. Hate crimes are not the same as terrorism.

Really? Well in any case it was still motivated by religious intolerance.

 

[Cthugha]

Well, actually yes. You will find no such double standards with me, especially since liberalism has spent 500 years pushing back against them. The only difference is that they are not given the kind of political cover to do their nonsense that Islam gets.

Political cover? That sounds quite odd.

Criticism and satire of Christianity is (rightly) looked as something normal while criticism and satire of Islam is frowned upon as "Islamophobia" and whomever engages in it is labeled a racist and/or being intolerant. Surely you can see the hypocrisy here.

Is it really? I do not see that, but that might be different in different countries, though. However, it is obvious that real racists often join in the chant of criticism and take this as a starting point for their racist agenda. Therefore, I think it is important to make criticism concerning islam detailed. There is a huge span between ultraorthodox salafists and movements like the Ankara school. There are large differences between Sunni und Shia islam. If you discuss with, say, turkish people, you will note a huge difference between people from the countryside and people from rather liberal places like Istanbul. General, undetailed criticism is like calling Americans gun-loving, neurotic war hawks. Sure, these do exist, but all the others who are not will feel even more annoyed when they hear that.

Yes there is. Here is the exact paragraph:

Argh, I looked in the wrong one of your links. I am getting old.

Really? Well in any case it was still motivated by religious intolerance.

Yes, it was. However, common definitions of terrorism include a large scale political moment and the desire of "high visibility" of the terror act. I do not think that applies here.

 

[Tosh5457]

For one thing, I do consider them representative because this isn't some tiny minority but a very significant portion. 40% of UK Muslims want Sharia law to be implemented and 78% of UK Muslims supported punishment for the publishers of those Danish Mohammed cartoons, which is more than enough to indicate that you have a big problem that no amount of denial and wishful thinking can change.

That is brutal, and there is no possible comparison with Christians. Even though the Christian Bible is incompatible with European society, the worst you'll find many Christians defending is prohibiting gay marriage and adoption by gays. You won't find 40% of Christians defending a sinister and arbitrary set of laws like Sharia. Besides there is another fundamental difference: the Christians are already in Europe and they always were, whereas the Muslims are here only because we let them enter. In one case you can't do anything about, in the second case you can close the borders with Muslim countries.

Political cover? That sounds quite odd.

I've never heard anyone say "We should be tolerant with the Christians, it's called religious tolerance". Yet I'm always hearing that about the Muslims in Europe and US.