Facts about migration and crime in Sweden
government.se
government.se
Also the Swedish national council for crime prevention expected this rise over the last few years because in 2013(before there was a serious influx of migrants) Sweden broadened the definition of rape. A similar increase in crime was seen around 2006 because of 'legislative changes' about how things were recorded.
In the US research on the link between immigration and crime largely find no link between the two[2], and of the relative minority of studies that find a link, there are twice as many studies that find that increased migration reduces crime as the reverse.
In Germany, refugees are less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen[3]. From the publicly available information it is impossible to conclude with certainty that taking in refugees increases crime, especially considering that the vast majority of 'crimes' they do commit are non-violent things like not travelling with a ticket.[3]
What is rarely mentioned is the increasing crimes committed against refugees in refugee camps. In germany, there were 1,029 attacks against refugee residences in 2015, following 199 in 2014. Attacks on refugees increase the crime rate themselves.
[1]-https://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statist...
[2]-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#United_S...).
[3]-https://www.thelocal.de/20151113/police-refugees-commit-less...
There's also one particular thing that doesn't pass the smell test for me from your German article:
"Less than 1 percent of the total crimes committed by refugees are sex crimes, going against rumours spread on social media that these have become more common with the arrival of hundreds of thousands of refugees."
1% doesn't strike me as a very low percentage of sex crimes, but I googled around for some statistics, and found another article from the same source - https://www.thelocal.de/20160218/refugees-to-germany-commit-...
Here, the title is that "refugees commit less crime than Germans". However, the stats they quote show otherwise - despite refugees being anywhere from 0.8 to 2%, they committed at least 4% of the sex crimes in the country - a factor of at least 2. The article itself says that the sexual assaults reported during the New Year's Eve were not part of this number, so this is a conservative estimate. The article quotes a ratio of 2:1 men over women as a mitigating factor, however, doing the math most favorably towards refugees(100% of sexual assaults committed by men, 40/60 split in men/women in Germany) leaves you with an adjusted rate of ~2.6% of crimes, still significantly higher than their proportionate population.
From that article though I was able to acquire this statistic for 2015:
"The total number of this type of crime committed nationwide throughout 2015 was almost 47,000"
From here - https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=170... - I found that the total criminal offenses in germany were close to ~6mil. From this you can calculate the rate of sexual assault for the german population - 47k / 6mil ~ 0.8%. It's not as significantly different from the previous number, but still doesn't support the claim that, at 1%, refugees commit less sexual crimes than the german population.
EDIT: There is also a mitigating factor I just thought of that the newspaper didn't mention; refugees are likely to have a poor economic status in Germany, and are thus more likely to commit crimes for that factor alone. I don't know how to calculate for that as well.
That seems to mean something different than "less than 1 percent of total sex crimes are committed by refugees".
It does not in any way state the what chunk out of the total sex crimes were committed by refugees, indeed.
So, "less than 1%" of the "very low six figure" number of total crimes committed by refugees are sex crimes. Ok then, so let's conservatively say it's 100,000 * 0.009 = 900 sex crimes (not sure about what time range that even covers? 1 year? First 9 months in 2015 since the report was compiled in Oct 2016).
There have been 7022 sex crimes (reported) in 2015[1], total.
Using that, the conservative estimate for sex crimes committed by refugees of the total sex crimes committed is: 900 / 7022 = 12.8%
Let's assume (and grossly overestimate really) there were about 1.5 million refugees total in (the end of) 2015 and a total population of 81 million.
So 1.8% of the population was refugees, yet that cohort committed 12% of sex crimes.
But 900 / 1.5M refugees is a at most 0.06% of refugees (not even considering multiple offenders) who commit sex crimes, compared to the total population rate of 7022 / 81M = 0.009%
Downplaying the issue is not helpful. On the other hand, it's not helpful either but actually dangerous to rubberstamp all refugees as sex offenders when only at most 0.06% of them committed a sex crime in 2015.
As pointed out already, there are many mitigating factors to put this into context.
[1] http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/2...
Here's the BKA report on "Crime in the context of migrant influx 1st Quarter of 2016": https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Themen/Siche...
That report also puts the number of "sexual assaults", out of all the crimes committed by migrants, at 1.10%.
In fact, the report just reaffirmed what I've already heard elsewhere - the vast majority of crimes come not from "Syrian refugees", but migrants from countries without a crisis that would lead to them seeking asylum. This has been a very common criticism of the "floodgate" approach to accepting all immigrants regardless of their ability to justify their refugee status.
The report is the only thing that actually matters in this context because it's the actual data. All your sources are just news-outlets trying to interpret data from sources they don't even share with the reader.
>but migrants from countries without a crisis that would lead to them seeking asylum
And half these countries are not even "Muslim countries", yet they are overrepresented in the crime rates, while people from countries like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are proportionally lower with their crime rates. Which goes straight against the common misconception of "It's their Islamic culture that makes them so criminal and incompatible to our culture!".
> This has been a very common criticism of the "floodgate" approach to accepting all immigrants regardless of their ability to justify their refugee status.
You first have to accept them to check if they actually qualify for refugee status, those that don't qualify don't get the status and thus have to leave the country.
How else would you want to handle this? Leave them all outside the border so they create their own communities, without any infrastructure or law enforcement? Do you seriously think creating these kinds of "slums" would be beneficial to anybody?
Then what? THEN they go back to the border and they create their own communities? How can you __actually__ make that many people leave?
>Do you seriously think creating these kinds of "slums" would be beneficial to anybody?
No, but the fact is these refugees are not able to contribute to the societies they come to in a meaningful way. For instance, in Germany only 1 in 10,000 refugees that arrived last year are employed. Is accepting a large quantity of people, most of whom do not have the kind of formal education required to be successful in a highly developed economy, beneficial to anybody? What's the end-game for this?
I never claimed the system is perfect because there is no perfect system for such complex problems.
>No, but the fact is these refugees are not able to contribute to the societies they come to in a meaningful way. For instance, in Germany only 1 in 10,000 refugees that arrived last year are employed.
That's because they are legally not allowed to work until their status has been cleared. It's not a matter of them "not wanting to work", it's a matter of not having the right status to work.
The other alternative, one that many populist right-wingers are advocating for, is forcing them to work even when their refugee status is still not cleared up.
But that would actually wreck havoc on labor wages because then you'd suddenly have created a whole new class of people that would work far below average wages just to "justify" their stay in the country. Do I really need to spell out what that would mean for the average low-income worker in the country? Average wages would be pushed even lower than they already are, which has already been a growing problem in Germany for over a decade.
There are no easy solutions to any of this, people who claim there are easy solutions are simply deluding themselves about the long-term ramifications of their solutions.
And no: Just "not letting them in" also ain't no solution, these people won't simply "disappear" just because you hide them behind big fences and walls.
No matter how you frame it, "globalizations" and freedom of movement has it's advantages and brings a lot of positive changes. As somebody who crossed the "Iron curtain" several times, when it still existed, I hardly wish those times back. It would be a step back for Europe and humanity as a whole. Fences and walls don't solve problems, they only compartmentalize them.
Agreed. But my real problem here is that there doesn't seem to be any sort of plan. There are many questions that need to be answered, among these:
1. Should a country accept refugees? If yes, how many?
2. Are these refugees permanent residents? If not, what is the timeline of their departure?
3. How do we integrate thousands of people with very diverse backgrounds into our system?
>That's because they are legally not allowed to work until their status has been cleared.
Finding concrete numbers on this issue is surprisingly difficult. I have found from a few different sources that only 13% of in-status refugees have found work. Again, there are real challenges in integrating refugees, and there is no clear plan for how this is to be accomplished.
>these people won't simply "disappear" just because you hide them behind big fences and walls.
Agreed, and something should be done to help them. But I think that the default shouldn't be to let them in. That's foolhardy, especially when governments don't have clear policy answering the questions that I have asked.
In the absence of a clear plan regarding the status of refugees, I can't help but feel that it is irresponsible to accept all. It will require real, concentrated efforts by a government to make a refugee system work in the interests of both refugees and citizens, although I agree that it is an effort worth making.
I respect your experiences with free movement. We agree that we don't desire for "iron curtains" to be re-established. Coming up with an approach to these problems that works is beyond my skill set -- I only hope to see that those who come up with possible systems are able to clearly articulate their details, strengths and weaknesses, and allow the people to make a choice from a selection of systems.
EDIT: I am also going to add that I am aware that some of these questions have definite legal answers, but given that there is so much turbulence and desire to modify existing legal systems that predate the current refugees-crisis, there is a lack of certainty and dialog regarding policy designed to face today's issues.
Meanwhile in Sweden:
> According to the most recent study, people from foreign backgrounds are 2.5 times more likely to be suspected of crimes than people born in Sweden to Swedish-born parents.
http://www.government.se/articles/2017/02/facts-about-migrat...
Two completely different things.
We don't know who actually committed a crime. That should probably be either "arrested for" or "convicted of".
"Suspected of" probably means "arrested for", but there too, the author has chosen a word that's unclear.
commit: Convicted of
suspected of: Not convicted
These are as far as I (and the law) are concerned the only two things that matter. If you've been convicted you are guilty, if not you are not. If you're guilty we can say you've committed a crime, if not not.
> The documents note that while the number of refugees in the country has risen sharply throughout 2015, the crime rate has not gone up correspondingly, but has "merely risen steadily".
Of course it would not rise sharply even if refugees do commit more crimes. Refugees are a small portion of the population and will only have a small effect on overall crime rates.
> Interior Minsiter Thomas de Maizière responded to the news by saying: "The current trend shows that refugees are just as unlikely to commit crimes as comparable groups among the current population. The majority of them don't commit crimes, they are seeking protection and and peace in Germany."
Note: "just as" and "comparable groups", rather than the whole population.
> The rate of crime in refugee reception centres has gone up most quickly.
It sounds like thelocal.de took some liberties.
Generally, the most valid data from crime apparently comes from 'victimization surveys' - as opposed to actual police data, which is politicized.
So, from victimization surveys - people can only necessarily be 'suspected' of a crime i.e. 'were you robbed in the last year'? Well, if the person answered 'yes' - then the language may only imply that a specific individual was 'suspected' of a crime. Also, it's pretty difficult to determine ethnicity.
So this may not simply be a case of 'police suspects' vs 'police arrests' etc.. It's complicated. Better to have the references.
What do you imply exactly? So Swedish police are more likely to suspect you if you are a foreigner, how unexpected.
I wish the authors had included a link to that study so we could see what "suspected of" means exactly.
It means someone was suspected (e.g. were at any time a suspect during the investigation), regardless of whether they actually committed anything or not.
Ok then.
I'd be surprised if it was different in Sweden, or any other country with similar problems, as it's easy to distinguish the looks of most immigrants and the local population.
It's not. To take Germany as an example, the largest group of foreigners are Turks, followed by Poles and Italians. More than half of foreigner's in Germany are from European countries. On the other hand, many people from that groups are now German citizens and have grand-children that are in Germany in the third generation. A large number of German citizens have foreign born parents and many foreigners are born in Germany. If you can reliably distinguish between immigrants and the rest of the population by the looks your skills would be in high demand.
See https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/SocietyState/Populat... for detailed statistics.
However the majority of Syrian refugees - about 70%[1][2][3] are women and children. Again, something that is rarely mentioned in certain parts of the internet.
[1]- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/...
[2]-https://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php
[3]-http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/...
However the majority of all 2015 refugees aren't Syrian?
Edit: I misread this chart... a lot. Syrians are the largest group but not the majority. Never mind!
> I was pretty sure they were actually (link to BBC)
Your link has 1.32 million asylum claims, around 360 thousand Syrians, then roughly one fourth are Syrians, three fourths aren't, that is, the majority of all aren't.
70% is thus a very unclear number unless you can split out the number of children, or if one do not include how big the "men and children" group is.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/great-moments-in-real-news-tm-from...
If you incentivize people to say they're "children", and don't bother to verify claims of being a "child", you get a lot of "children", but that statistic won't mean much.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeAnarchy/comments/47ri8u/this_...
Claimed ages are accepted without question. To question the age is considered racist. There is an incentive to lie: minors get instant citizenship and lots of help.
So really, it isn't children. It's men.
Would you want a 30-year-old dude in your daughter's 7th grade class?
Why are you so afraid to see that immigrants are over represented in this category of crimes?
> People from foreign backgrounds are suspected of crimes more often than people from a Swedish background [...] In a later study, researchers at Stockholm University showed that the main difference in terms of criminal activity between immigrants and others in the population was due to differences in the socioeconomic conditions in which they grew up in Sweden.
So it seems that whilst immigrants are suspected of more crimes than average, they commit the same amount of crime as poor deprived members of indigenous populations.
* Stop immigration.
OR
* Integrate poor people into society, the workforce, etc.
Immigration of more poor people from a different culture makes the already difficult task of integrating poor people even more difficult.
This is reasonable, unless the theory is that when an immigrant arrives in Sweden, a person already in poverty gets 'promoted' and the immigrant takes their poverty space, thus keeping poverty levels constant.
People have a hard time believing that because the current migration does not bring in more but less working people - the migrants have a worse dependency ratio than native population, i.e. the proportion of migrants who have a job is lower than proportion of people already in country. Among OECD countries, migrants in Sweden have the largest difference in dependency ratio to native population.
Thougt many argue both in favor and against further immigration for various reasons.
The discussion is not about what should be done, only about Sweden's claim that there is no problem. If they say "yes there are criminals, but only because they are poor", they are dodging the issue.
-----
edit: Hacker News doesn't let me post more comments. So here is the comment I wrote, but I'll probably refrain from further ones:
"poor swedes could be deported and rich immigrants could take their place"
This is already happening in a way - it is called gentrification (not replacement with rich immigrants, but in general rich people will cluster together).
But Swedes formed a "state" and endowed some people with citizenship, but also giving them responsibility for their own people. So their responsibility should be to their own people first. Of course you can argue that forming such a state is immoral, but I think there are some practical arguments in favor of it.
As history has shown, states are very well capable of deporting significant fractions of their citizens, though. But presumably atm Swedes rate the ensurance to not be deported higher than the inconvenience of living with poor people.
The gender angle: yes, that is a popular argument in Germany, "but the refugees are only criminal because they are all men". But it should be possible to take that into account statistically. And even if the higher proportion of males would be the only issue, it still wouldn't change the fact that immigrants are causing problems. After all, they have a higher proportion of males.
This could be achieved in a number of ways. For example, poor swedes could be deported and rich immigrants could take their place - this would actually be more effective than halting immigration altogether.
Another form of issue dodging is when people suggest that immigrants are the issue without admitting that the situation is a complex combination of factors. One of the best predictors of criminality from a statistical viewpoint is gender. Of course, excluding all men from immigrating into our countries probably strikes most as inhumane :) To say the immigrant status of a person is to be specially focused on seems particularly convenient, but not humane.
edit: Its funny you're willing to accept taking gender into account statistically, but not the wealth of most immigrants.
So why not take being an immigrant "into account statistically"?
It seems like the anti-PC folk have some things they think we should be PC about and take into account (like being a man) while being an immigrant is fair game. It doesn't make any sense to blame crime on one demographic factor, and ignore the others.
Its a matter of anti-PC folk selectively ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their worldview.
As for male criminal citizens, they should be sent to jail. In any case, as I mentioned before, they are already citizens, so the state has a special obligation towards them.
The point is also not to consider every immigrant a criminal just because some of them are, but to deal with life in one's country. If for example you could devise a test that would tell with 100% certainty if an immigrant will become a good, law-abiding citizen, a lot of immigration discussions would become a lot easier.
Btw suppose your suggestion would be followed, and male citizens would be deported because they are such a high risk for crime. Who would do the deporting? The world feminist army? Or should men just pack up and leave by themselves, admitting their own tendency to become criminals?
It should be possible to statistically distinguish the factors of being poor and being poor+immigrant. Or education level+immigrant or degree choice+immigrant. Point is, focusing on immigrants demographically makes no sense when there are plenty of other demographic factors that are better indicators of criminality.
"Commit the same level of crime as the subset of the population who commit the highest level of crime" does not sound very reassuring.
"In a later study, researchers at Stockholm University showed that the main difference in terms of criminal activity between immigrants and others in the population was due to differences in the socioeconomic conditions in which they grew up in Sweden."
That means that the most important factor in terms of criminal activity is that immigrants are largely poor and poor commit more crimes. Not that rich immigrants perform as much crimes as the poorest of non-immigrants.
Or do you disagree with that assesment of what the study said?
This is when your biases are walking uninvited into a discussion about data.
Pointing us to "per-country religious belief surveys" is incredibly simplistic.
Which facts? What do you base this belief on? Any sources to any studies?
Swedens tiny population of 10 million can't handle immigration of tens of thousands? That's laughabale, it's been doing exactly that for decades now. Iraq, Iran, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Ukraine, Syria. Only recently has a resistance to these policies been seriously challenged...
Upwards mobility will happen, even during the worst conditions, like the slavery in US, did they manage to break free. This is not about when but how, true solidarity or true civil war and tragedy..
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi...
You should think very carefully about why you had an incorrect model of these people. You may be making similar mistakes in other areas.
> Swedens tiny population of 10 million can't handle immigration of tens of thousands?
Depends how you define "handle". If by "handle" you mean "avoid cultural erasure", then maybe not.
I'd also like to point out that it's tens of thousands per year. There are almost 100,000 Syrians in Sweden.
> Upwards mobility will happen
On what do you base this claim? Has upward mobility happened in the countries from which these refugees originate?
This is a classic red-herring.
'They were poor therefore they have bad behaviours'.
The failure of the logic is the assumption of correlation/causation.
One might argue that 'bad behaviour will lead one to being poor'.
I have no doubt that immigrants from Somalia will have a harder time than 'Sven Swede' growing up. At the same time, there are some truly terrible behaviours among specific immigrant groups.
This is the hardest part: the pro and anti immigrant camps are speaking past each other.
Important note: For some reason, ethnic minorities in Europe are considerably more marginalized then they are in the US - it's completely different.
Europe has a 'strong social safety net' - and 'social policy' of welfare etc. - BUT - they have very strong sense of ethnic identity, and very close social circles. A young Somalian may have very few Swedish friends.
In the US - people are far more gregarious and open personally. It's nothing to see a table of people of different ethnic backgrounds - but the social safety net is usually much weaker, no health insurance etc..
I live in Montreal, we have a good chunk of Muslims. They don't look too 'out of place'. You can't tell they are Muslim by looking. They could be Indian, Southern Italian, Greek.
But go to Belgium - the various Muslim communities are distinct, and ethnic identity is obvious. I've never seen a Burqa in Montreal, and Hijab not too often. In Belgium they are all over. Muslims live in 'broad areas' in Montreal, but in Belgium very specific communities.
It's a little bit of a mystery to me but I think it has everything to do with 'very traditional and conservative' social culture in Europe - even though paradoxically they are 'intellectually liberal'. Example: if you drink with a nice, well educated, open minded and kind Belgian - you may hear an 'African joke'. It's not considered as racist as it would be in America. Yet the Belgian will likely be more supportive of giving refuge and social services to the Africans than the average American. It's weird.
Sweden has a notorious degree of censorship in their press - they self-censor to control information in terms of what they 'deem is best for Sweden'. They will absolutely suppress information if it may cause some populist sentiment. It's just part of their culture.
The problem, of course, is that by suppressing real dialogue, then the loudest and craziest right-wing voices are the one's that get hard, and they cause a fuss, which is bad, and it may come to a breaking point.
I suggest that more transparency on the issues would be better for all involved.
I lost friends for dating outside my own percieved race. Folks seperate based on the color of their skin and background quite often. It isn't that folks don't break from the molds, but they are definitely there.
The little town didn't have many Muslims, so that wasn't as common, but it did have a fair amount of Mennonite communities in the area. Women with heads covered and conservative, long-sleeve dresses even during the hot summer months and men with beards. They generally kept to themselves, most likely due to cultural similarities. Some areas in the US have some section of Jewish coursts that handle some things and conservative Jews have a network within their communities (friend of mine, American, nearly went through an arranged marriage through them). These are probably much like many of the conservative Muslim communities you spotted - they are simply a different sort of conservative religion.
On the other hand, the majority of immigrant Muslims went to language class with are fairly progressive women. Lawyers and nurses and such. They stand out about as much as I do here in Norway.
I totally agree. America is a big place, so is Europe. It's varied.
But I would say, on the whole that EU is far more 'enclave-ish' than the US.
In fact, Europe is a big patchwork of ethnic enclaves.
America is not. People identify a lot less with their identity.
And yes, for sure, some people, i.e. Orthodox Jews, Mennonites etc. are different.
Can I just share my belief that this is polite fiction? It's certainly the view of America that we Americans have for ourselves, but can you honestly say you see evidence of it in day-to-day-life - and can you compare it to western Europe?
In my personal experience no, EU migrants are no more marginalized than they are here, and no, American migrants are no more "integrated". Vast swaths of SoCal and Texas is basically Mexico. Huge parts of Florida are basically Cuba. The Somali influx in Minnesota is real and highly separated from the rest of white society there. You don't need to look for ghettos to find large areas of extremely insular immigrants, often 2nd or 3rd generation still with no intention of or interest in immigrating in any sense other than physical location.
I'm not even commenting on if it's a good or bad thing, but ultimately I don't think we've EVER been the melting pot we claim to be, certainly the evidence around us doesn't suggest we are.
Had the melting pot not grown cold, we'd have a lot less internal conflict today.
I sense a similar difficulty in my native Germany, where so much of the current national identity is defined by feeling bad for something your grandparents maybe did (or by violently refusing to do so), that the absence of it in non-descendants of that generation is causing a noticeable "identity gap" even generations after immigration. This kind of stuff causes zero problems for those who have goals and education and achievement, but everybody else occasionally leans on group identity and will take whatever fits best.
P.S. I've actually come tho think that whatever ridiculous (from the German perspective, yes, totally ridiculous, if not outright scary) business Americans do with flags does serve a purpose after all. It gives both established and new Americans confidence that the new ones can belong, easing the process for everyone involved.
I live in Montreal and immigrants have the same problem: English or French? There is a 3rd category here (we use linguistic categories) - called 'Allophone' - meaning essentially neither English nor French, but 'multi' or 'something else'.
Despite the self-loathing of the past few generations - Germans are generally very German. A flag is a national symbol, not an ethnic one. Even the Nazis didn't use the flag of Germany - totally unnecessary!
'American' is not an ethnicity. All Americans have is the 'idea' of America. Which is represented by the flag.
In a way - 'nationalism' is more essential and necessary in a place like America.
Germany would be German with or without even the state of Germany.
America would disintegrate without national symbols.
In Canada - we are less nationalist because we are a British colony. Canadians had British passports up until very recently, just before I was born!
Mass migration is a new issue for Germany though - if it were just a few immigrants, it would be a non-issue. But the sheer scale of it makes it an existential issue, one that is akin to changing the Constitution - in fact - even stronger. A constitution can always be re-written. A nation can be rebuilt. But once a people decide that they are a 'nation' but not an ethnicity - and 'go multicultural' - there is no going back. I think that's a decision that should require a 'supermajority' vote type thing, not a decision made, de-facto in a 'crisis' policy by Merkel & Co. - obvious humanitarian issues notwithstanding.
That's probably why people want to stop importing them en masse.
That depends. If you are looking for excuses for racism, it obviously is not relevant. But if you claim that the Swedish society has turned dangerous because of the immigrant crimes, it should be highly relevant for the discussion.
Why is the conclusion that immigrants dominate the statistics of violence against women racist? I don't think there are many people who believe the cause of this statistic is genetic.
I thought women should be safe regardless the perpetrator but there is this weird dual standard where the whole company Uber (correctly!) gets the blame because of it's douchebag culture even when some of it's key executives don't directly partake in denigrating women, yet when migrants dominate negative statistics in far worse crimes against women all of a sudden imagined racism is the worst crime instead of actually abuse of women.
I think the problem with that particular violent subset of the Muslim subset of immigrants is exactly what you try to blame other people for: right-wing asshole mysogonist gay jew or "soft men" (i.e. respectful mostly left wing so yes you) hating retards. With absolutely no ground for respect let alone a chance of a better life in a modern society. And you should fight them with the same energy you fight "native" right wing hate groups.
People fleeing from that kind of violent and oppressive people should not go to Sweden only to be confronted by exactly the same people they were trying to get away of.
First, if the very first sentence of wikipedia article of racism[1] tells that racism can be against a race or ethnic group, it should be accepted that the word "racism" is used not only to genetically different groups, but also against ethnic groups.
Second, your claim that immigrants dominate the statistics is wrong. They are over-represented. But even if we take that as your claim, no, the conclusion in itself is not racist. However, if you read what I wrote more carefully, that conclusion can be used as an excuse for racism.
Because it appears to be a made up conclusion for the purpose of stoking anti-immigrant sentiment. You have yet to provide a source. OP has sources. GP has sources. You have fear mongering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#Sweden
If you don't think WikiPedia is correct feel free to change the lemma, I bet they can use a certified statistician like you with all kinds of sources to prove them wrong. But until then:
Five times as much
And now I need to believe that I'm the one that needs to be corrected?
And another thing: once you split it up to region there's a bigger difference. East Asian and Western immigrants generally have lower or similar statistics compared to natives, meaning there are also groups that exceed the five times average.
Your original claim was:
> immigrants dominate the statistics of violence against women
Let's see what "dominate" means [1]:
to be predominant in
And further, predominant [2]:
being most frequent or common
There is simply nothing to discuss here. Your original claim was wrong, even using your own statistics. (Of course, you may have tried to say or you meant that immigrants are over represented, which would be correct. But you did not say that. Thus you are the one to be corrected.)
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dominate [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predominant
That is again another discussion where it may be relevant.
I took a quite specific discussion ("Sweden has turned dangerous because of crimes by immigrants") and in that discussion the fact(?) that total crime numbers have not increased is very relevant.
Not necessarily the case because demographics are never homogeneously distributed across territory. If the rape/crime numbers didn't fall uniformly across the whole population, then you could have scenarios where crime fell by 20% in some regions and increased 25% in others, and overall it would be constant. I'm making up the numbers to illustrate.
More data would make your point much more convincing.
Segregation of areas is however becoming stronger, as many minorities like to live in their own ethnic enclaves.
It's possible that Sweden became safer because Swedes commit fewer crimes, and this decrease outweighed a crime increase caused by immigrants. Crime-by-nationality data would help resolve this question. Why is the Swedish government hiding it?
Source please? Because the available data, at least for Germany, does not support this claim at all.
Latest BKA report from first quarter of 2016 puts the amount of "offenses against sexual self-determination" for migrants at 1.10%. [1]
As somebody who's lived over 10 years right next to Bavaria's biggest initial reception center, in Zirndorf, I'm always amazed by all those claims as to how insanely criminal these people supposedly are. I've never witnessed anything like that, Zirndorf is actually quite peaceful town with barely anything ever happening.
[1]- https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Themen/Siche...
In contrast, Syrian refugees seem to be among the most law-abiding foreigners you can find (followed by Iraqi refugees, as I recall).
"Immigrants" is a fairly useless category for criminological purposes, as it combines several other categories with vastly different profiles, some with outsized crime rates, some below that of natives.
Leif GW Persson is famous for writing books and being on tv shows - not for being a crime professor (and he is no longer a professor of criminology). There's a reason googling his name comes up with breitbart first, and goodreads second.
On the other hand this guy was in a relevant position. Is being a former professor of criminology different to currently being a professor?
This claim is false,
> (as confirmed by Sweden's most famous crime professor GW a couple of days ago)
and this attribution is also false.
He says that "if you look across the board on all convicted crimes it's half-half between natives and immigrants. But if you look at the more 'sensitive' crimes there is a significant over representation of immigrants"
This makes you a "right wing thug" for many people in Europe. Europe is lost. They lost their immunity for enemies of their open society. Uneducated immigrants from violent tribal societies will first make the social system implode, then the society.
Sweden: Rape Capital of the West https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
Everything is factual in that statement but seems to burst some peoples bubble.
"Please note that when using the figures, any cross-national comparisons should be conducted with caution because of the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in countries, or the different methods of offence counting and recording."
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/...
The problems with what you are doing are:
1. You are citing a right-wing think tank. I know that all sources have bias, but this is not even pretending to be an objective one. It's a poor source for data.
2. That think tank bases it's analysis on UN data which explicitly points out that it is not suitable for direct international comparison.
I do not personally know if an increase in immigration in Sweden's resulted in more sexual violence, but I am absolutely certain that we will not figure that out using the sort of facile "why do you love rapists so much" shit that you are spewing.
> if a person comes to the police and reports being raped by a partner or husband every day for the past year, the police will record each of these events. In many other countries these incidents would be recorded just once: one victim, one type of crime and one record.
For example, if you have 100 "native" Germans and 10 refugees, and there were 3 German criminals and 1 refugee criminal, 10% of refugees would be criminals, but only 3% of Germans, even though more Germans than refugees would be criminals.
Based on your link, it seems clear that the rates went up in 2015 (unless I am grossly misreading that graph).
For 2014 it was a little less than 2%. For 2015 it is more than 3%.
"In 2015, a total of 18,100 sex offences were reported; this is an 11 per cent decrease as compared with 2014. The number of rapes reported to police decreased by 12 per cent to 5,920 between 2014 and 2015. Reported offences regarding sexual molestation and sexual coercion, exploitation etc. also decreased to 8,840 (-8 %) and 1,430 (-6 %) respectively. "
Why picking the period 2005 to 2014? Immigration started 1960s and increased a lot 2014-2016. It would make a lot more sense to look at the sexual violence rate 1960-2016. Do you dare?
Never trust any statistics that you didn't... - Believe this or go with the anecdotal real-world experience from a cop, linked below, Peter Springare, see e.g. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/764574/Political-Sweden-.... Never read about it in 'good' newspaper before. So who knows? The politic is under much pressure to tell the 'right' things now.
I just wish they would just tell the delicate numbers, e.g. ethnical, religious, economic, <whatever> background of inmates, terror, crime. And allow to talk about it freely. We now are a data driven society, why not here? Why afraid?
Why not give (collect) the full data? (I browsed around a bit, but I think I would need more detailed raw data to say something)
>> People from foreign backgrounds are suspected of crimes more often than people from a Swedish background. According to the most recent study, people from foreign backgrounds are 2.5 times more likely to be suspected of crimes than people born in Sweden to Swedish-born parents.
And even this isn't really what we're looking for because accusations != convictions. One can easily postulate that foreigners would have higher chances of being falsely accused, and factors like this have to be accounted for in the analysis.
The only factual evidence that we have to go on so far is otalp's reference to a study that showed German refugees are less likely to commit crimes than the average citizen.
Sadly, in this kind of argument, facts rarely matter and will likely not change erroneous views.
2014 is a funny time to end the analysis... We are in 2017.
Claim: "In Sweden there are a number of 'no-go zones' where criminality and gangs have taken over and where the emergency services do not dare to go."
Facts: No. In a report published in February 2016, the Swedish Police Authority identified 53 residential areas around the country that have become increasingly marred by crime, social unrest and insecurity. These places have been incorrectly labelled 'no-go zones'. What is true, however, is that in several of these areas the police have experienced difficulties fulfilling their duties; but it is not the case that the police do not go to them or that Swedish law does not apply there
And I don't know if it is the same in Sweden, but you are not really politically allowed to say what kind of people live in those neighborhoods. So again, nothing to worry about.
I mean, who cares if there are 30 gernade attacks in Malmo [0] as long as overall deaths in Stockholm habe gone down by more than 30?
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_S...
does anyone else find it strange how they keep jumping around in (what feels like arbitrary) years?
Yes it's true: there are pockets where Ambulances are stoned by local kids and need police escorts. That's not a vicious rumor. It's a tiny area (few blocks) of the country though. I'm sure many countries have terrible areas.
How our areas somehow turned on ambulance and firefighters is a complete mystery to me though.
I wouldn't be surprised if every country has areas people claim are like that.
England: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3647355/Firefighters... Scotland: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/bonfire-nigh... Wales: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/youths-attacked... USA: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/12/01/at... Ireland: http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/watch-sickening-mo...
Those links are only to illustrate what people claim happen. They're not necessarily representative of what things are actually like. Talking to people who live in these places is just about the only way to get a good idea.
The youths are never charged from what I can tell, the police just disperse them. I assume this means the incidents don't go in to crime statistics.
That's one way of "bringing down violent crime", don't arrest the perps; that may be over-cynical.
> That's one way of "bringing down violent crime", don't arrest the perps
It is overly cynical.
The UK has two sets of crime statistics: police recorded crime and the annual crime survey.
Even the police recorded crime stats (which aren't regarded as statistically reliable) don't only rely on arrests, but include all reported crimes. So police arresting or not wouldn't affect the numbers.
But the annual crime survey (which is statistically reliable) doesn't rely on police recording.
Who reports that people do that? Tabloid newspapers? They've been lying about that for decades.
After the 1989 Hillsbourogh disaster (where people died due to health & safety issues, and negligence from the police), tabloid newspaper The Sun wrote a full page headline accusing Liverpool fans of attacking police who were trying to save people. It was a complete fabrication.
"Those people" attacking our police/first responders is a common lie that sells tabloid newspapers.
E.g. Svenska Dagbladet (no fringe publication, a major newspaper): https://www.svd.se/ambulanspersonal-far-skyddsvastar
Of course, this is not unique. Plenty of American cities have the same: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime-and-courts/madi...
I live in Finland, where our criminal code actually has a separate crime called "infringement of freedom to political activity", for threat of violence or endangering well-being of others who express their opinion, participate a demonstration or set up an association for peaceful political activity. So attacking someone at a political rally is a worse crime than a random violent attack.
Of course it depends on the opinion, but I see nothing wrong with it in principle.
Lies are rampant. Especially racist anti-immigrant lies:
Sure you could blame Muslims for those no-go areas. But you need to demonstrate it. And demonstrate absent other factors like socioeconomic status, unemployment rate etc.
Who said there is nothing to worry?
> but you are not really politically allowed to say what kind of people live in those neighborhoods.
First, source for not allowed to say. Second, what do you want to say?
I've stayed on that friend's house for the whole of January, daily living there and haven't heard about a single crime happening. Asked my friend's flatmates just now and they laughed about it.
Same thing for a friend that lives inside what some maps label as "no-go zone" in Kista, nothing happened there at all for the past year.
So seriously, the alarmism here is very extrapolated compared to the actual risk. Compare to Belgium as you want but be a bit more honest about your utter ignorance instead of just a "And I don't know about Sweden"-trumpesque discourse.
Luckily there seems to be less attacks in the last half a year.
I think there's been more attacks, but here's a summary of some of them: http://yle.fi/uutiset/3-8517586 (Dec 2015, in finnish)
Look, I'm fully aware you need to panic, and I'm fully aware this need is being satisfied by a bunch of cronies standing to make heaps of money on your panic. Just know your fear is not justified and should not be the reason for aiding the raise of fascism in europe.
What I know is that these grenades came from the Balkans after the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, now why is it so common for it to happen in Sweden of all countries I honestly don't know.
One theory is that due to a quirk in the way the law is worded, grenades where not considered weapons, but rather a controlled explosive[0]. What this means in practice is that the punishment for smuggling hand grenades into the country is much much lower than the punishment for smuggling in guns. As the law is written, if you are first time offender caught with a hand grenade you're likely to get away with a fine.
[0] https://www.svd.se/fritt-fram-ta-in-handgranater-i-sverige
Semi-related: A significant amount of illegal firearms in Europe (including the firearms used in recent attacks) were sold legally in Slovakia as "deactivated acoustic expansion weapons" and then "reactivated".
It's kinda ridiculous when I see a map where they mark "Enskede" as a no-go zone.
The google results were mostly commentary, the only useful report I could get out of them was this one:
http://ciwnews.com/2017/02/16/2-africans-sentenced-for-assau...
"Aftonbladet" provided much more results, I stopped after the first two pages, which seemed to encompass Jan-Feb 2017:
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/A1e8r/smash-and-grab-mot...
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/kgErL/inbrott-i-telebuti...
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/bP5Jk/pistolman-trangde-...
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/GRowx/god-morgon-det-har...
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/x2non/oppnade-for-hemtja...
(most of these are from january and february 2017).
Same thing in August last year in Husby (a suburb in northern Stockholm), 47 cars torched. Same suburb that saw the same violent riots and more than 100 cars torched in May 2013.
Was there a single riot like that in Sweden that does not involve immigrants? Were there any honor killings that don't involve immigrants from specific part of the world?
Simmilar pattern can be observed in France too.
> not really politically
> allowed to say what kind
> of people live in those
> neighborhoods
Wonder what America would be like today if they'd cleared out all Italian and Irish immigrants 100 years ago because of immigrant ghettos?
And you don't think that certainly more than half a billion africans would deserve to live a much better live than what is possible where they live now? Solution imho only can be to 'fix' those countries and 'fix' the birthrates.
Globalization also means that certain customs no longer are tolerable...
There are certainly places in Dublin where you might be more likely to get yourself robbed in, but beaten up for drinking alcohol or walking as a white person with a Muslim girl? Nowhere.
And where are you suggesting such a place does exist? In Sweden? If you have any links to reports of incidents like you're describing I'd love to see them.
And I can anecdotally state that I've witnessed attacks first hand in Muslim areas in both Belgium and France due to ideological reasons (e.g. a girl in my party was assaulted because she touched a man's arm and apparently shouldn't have). I've lived in the worst parts of Dublin and yeah, problems can arise, but they're non-ideological ones. Which means that you can avoid them by using general street smarts.
They're not migrants, refugees or any kind of ethnic minority though. Just poor and bored.
The same is true about rape. In Sweden, the definition of rape and sexual abuse is incredibly broad. I know a person who got accused of sexual abuse by his wife because she said he had slipped up a finger in her vagina while asleep without her consent. Once. Several years ago. Can you imagine any other country where a case like this would ever be looked at even remotely seriously? Moreover, incidents involving sexual abuse are reported a lot more often, because everyone is a lot more informed about what consent means and what their rights are. It is highly unusual in the global context. So rape in Sweden is nothing like rape pretty much anywhere else in the world.
I could talk a lot more about these issues, but these two points are the most important to keep in mind when discussing crime in Sweden relative to crime everywhere else in the world.
As far as gun violence goes, the US almost turned into a no-go country as far as myself is concerned.
It would help because those things are mostly done by the youth born there. Most migrants in a small (2sq miles although some like to extrapolate it to the whole country) community like Molenbeek (where most of those problems originate) are second generation or more. We are way past the point where it's a migration problem or where a migration stop would help.
I don't know how closing our borders or my absolute favourite "sending them back to their country of origin" (which will result in an infinite loop) will really help.
But then again for some we are not allowed to point to socio-economic problems, they pretend that it simply doesn't exist or it's the complete fault of the other side. What I often see in Belgium is the argument that Mohammed should find a job or that most are lazy.
But from the moment we the see the name on his resume or he shows up to do our garage door installation, it's a big "no-go" also. It's a vicious circle that works both ways.
Taking about the vicious circle, I heard of a company that basically discards any resume with a male Arabic name in it, because they had lots of problems with that group in the past, but not for the women. Too bad for the Mohammed who wants to do a good job of course.
Very hard problem, but it all starts with being totally honest about the situation.
Most are forced to correlate crime and migration because they can't write online that the real thing bothering Westerners is the virulent growth of an anachronistic religion that makes both men and women subservient to an old book or wizard in the sky. Somehow we'll find a few fellows here defending the increasing percentage of women completely dressed as ninjas as something natural in modern societies. Neglecting the violence that happens to them when they don't dress that way.
HN, it's time to be honest. That's the real elephant in the room.
It's not the police who are labelling (or, more importantly, treating) these zones as "no go", that label has been applied by other parties, such as tabloid press.
Quite happy to see official sources at least trying to put the foot down regarding all this weirdness (I am Swedish).
They're not exactly no-go, more like "no-go without bulletproof vest, riot gear and a big set of cojones"
And that's nothing to do with immigrants just us Scots and our unfortunate propensity for violence (see: radge).
But instead people like to blame immigrants because it's easier. It's always that faceless person over there who is responsible for your problems.
But for quite many decades, there didn't use to be areas like that in Sweden.
The fact that this leads to massive segregation and thus integration problems is the downside we haven't figured out.
The Guadaloupe raccoon had been a common pet up to then -- and police began raiding neighborhoods with large teams to take people's pet raccoons into custody. These raids were often quite tense and dangerous.
I mention this to provide a case which demonstrates 'no go zones' that do not involve immigration. Its my guess that immigration is almost never the cause of a no-go-zone neighborhood -- I think such neighborhoods are almost always the result of real systemic social biases that cause socio-economic problems.
>and anti-racist groups that demolish your car, house, get you fired from job for liking wrong thing on Facebook.
Yea. It's your prerogative to hold controversial opinions. But you certainly don't have any right to be publicly racist and expect no retaliation.
To clarify, I meant legal retaliation using legal means like firing the racist person from their job. Burning down their car is of course, illegal.
First result from 4sec googling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1MYMVfyHi0
>But you certainly don't have any right to be publicly racist and expect no retaliation.
Seriously, demolishing someone's car/house is not worth mentioning in your comment, but have no right to be publicly racist? I also didn't say it was racist, where did you take this from?
Also, what's your address because I disagree and would like to put an axe on your front door.
Not sure about Sweden, but in my country being publicly racist[1] would be viewed as a crime[2]. I don't think anyone expects employers to continue employing active criminals.
>I also didn't say it was racist, where did you take this from?
>anti-racist groups ... get you fired from job for liking wrong thing on Facebook
Presumably, anti-racist group would take offense to people liking racist things on Facebook (otherwise, why describe them as anti-racist as opposed to anti-'whatever it is you like on Facebook that they have issues with')?
1 - defined as: "Who founds, supports or propagates a movement that provably aims to suppress freedoms and rights of man, or preaches racial, ethnic, national, religious or class hatred, or hatred against another group of people, will be punished by 1 to 5 years of prison."
2 - in reality you'd probably be sued for it only if you pissed off someone with the money/time to spend on the legal procedures
If your country is typical of the sort of Western nation with that kind of law, then "1 to 5 years of prison" is more than you'd get for rape. That's quite some fear of words.
Here in the USA, we mostly laugh at the actual hate groups. Your country has made them a forbidden fruit, all the more enticing. You also can't know people's true feelings... you might discover them abruptly someday, in a very bad way.
"That person said something I disagree with" doesn't imply that you have the right to demolish their property and their job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24PCOMi3QAQ&feature=youtu.be...
Straight from the horse's mouth (cops in this case). tl;dw they wear bulletproof vests and helmes in Malmö (BP vests are really rare on nordic police officers compared to the US)
https://www.nrk.no/urix/svensk-politi_-_-vi-er-i-ferd-med-a-...
That link includes video interviews with Stockholm police (not Malmö), with one police officer claiming they experience Police Fishing ("polis-fishing"), fake calls designed to bring the police to a specific location, where they are ambushed by locals who attack them by throwing stones at them ("steinkasting").
The report also mentions "no go-zones", but I can't find any mention of that specific phrase in the Swedish Police PDF that NRK link to and use as their reference.
There's a whole bunch of people who think Muslims are secretly taking over western nations, and being aided by Jews. As part of that they believe they are literally setting up whole cities under Islamic law.
This is why Obama not being born in Kenya can seem like political trivia to one person, but evidence of a wide ranging conspiracy to another.
"Sharia" and "Muslim brotherhood" are a couple of other terms that have resonances you're probably not aware of amongst the "counter-jihadi" movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra45nX9JmW4
There are parts of Sharia that are not compatible with Western liberal values.
And this conspiracy goes right to the top. The current president of the USA accused the previous president of the USA live on national television of helping to organise a terrorist shooting in a Florida nightclub. Hilarious right? What a wacky character. Not so funny when you realise large numbers of people literally believe this to be the case.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can you make commit atrocities" -- Voltaire.
Can we have a discussion of Sharia that is both critical and allowed? Can I be critical of it and not be a conspiracy theorist and not be a Trump supporter?
P.S. Where can I find the full list of topics not to be discussed?
Everyone else though, will be aware that words can have unexpected connotations, like the use of the word "thugs" or "religious freedom" or "globalist bankers" in modern american politics, and can adjust accordingly.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp
Yeah Dearborn, the HQ of Ford Motor Company. I've been to Dearborn, it sure is not a no-go zone or anything to be scared of. Beyond ridiculous.
Seriously, we need to get a sense of perspective.
Edit: see also, perspective from Latvia in this thread.
The difference here is that Sweden is creating new no-go zones. However that happens (in this case immigration) it is really bad. If a government policy would create new no-go zones, then that government policy is bad. Stop it!
Fixing the older no-go zones is a different problem. It is important, but a lower priority than not creating new no-go zones.
It's like... close the plug in the bottom of your boat before worrying about the water that is already there.
Especially when you consider that "53 residential areas" are way beyond what the Swedish government and law enforcement can control and contain. In a properly ran country, this would pose some kind of state emergency, but they keep ignoring it.
It's shocking to me that "grenade attacks" have virtually become an every day occurrence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_S...
Refugee centers have already been burned down in several instances, and anti-migrant sentiment is growing.
I really don't see how the large scale immigration going on in a Europe is going to result in a positive result, at least in short term over the next few generations.
I think it's incredibly irresponsible to encourage migration without being able provide productive meaningful lives to the migrants. People are not pets.
CTRL+F "device" and you'll find 16 occurrences.
These are IEDs. This is terrorism. Where did they learn to make them?
It's the same with the anti-tank mines (I'm not even joking.)
Homs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoRdCbDd50o
I'm pretty sure immigrants are better off in Sweden even with the anti-immigrant sentiment.
WikiLeaks @wikileaks Swedish media admits to censoring stories for the last five years on migrant crime
https://www.facebook.com/peter.springare/posts/1020830068234...
Translation: I'm so fucking tired. What I will write here below, is not politically correct. But I don't care. What I'm going to promote you all taxpayers is prohibited to peddle for us state employees. That tends to drive in a non-career and non-individual pay. Even though it's true. I don't care about all of this, will soon still retire after 47 years in this activity. I will now and every week to explain in detail what for employing me as investigators / investigator on coarse mcu police in örebro. It's not going to be good with the opinion or other leftist kriminologers perception in the general debate.
Our pensioners is on its knees, the school's a mess, healthcare is an inferno, the police have totalhavererat etc etc. We all know why but no one dare or wants to peddle the reason, due to the fact that Sweden always lived on the myth of prudes ultimate society who have osinnliga resources to be at the forefront when it comes to be the only politically correct option in a dysfunctional world that beats Knot on their own by destructive behavior in different name of. Here we go; this I've handled Monday-Friday this week: rape, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, rape-assault and rape, extortion, blackmail, off of, assault, violence against police, threats to police, drug crime, drugs, crime, felony, attempted murder, Rape again, extortion again and ill-treatment.
Suspected perpetrators; Ali Mohammed, mahmod, Mohammed, Mohammed Ali, again, again, again Christopher... what is it true. Yes a Swedish name snuck on the outskirts of a drug crime, Mohammed, Mahmod Ali, again and again.
Countries representing the weekly all crimes: Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown, unknown country, Sweden. Half of the suspects, we can't be sure because they don't have any valid papers. Which in itself usually means that they're lying about your nationality and identity.
Now we're talking just örebro municipality. And these crimes occupies our utredningsförmåga to 100 %.
So it looks here and has been like for the past 10-15 years.
Return next Friday with a statement for the past week 🇸🇪
In the case of Islamic terrorism, I've heard it commented that recruits come from the children of migrants rather than the migrants themselves. This certainly seemed to borne out by the London 7/7 bombers and the Charlie Hebdo attackers to name two cases.
Prison populations in western countries also seem to have disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities.
I also heard that Canada refuses to break down crime figures by ethnicity/race as a matter of public policy. If that is true it seems that there is a fear that the figures might look bad for minorities.
In the interests of community harmony, authorities commonly seem to want to accentuate the positive and sweep any negativity under the rug.
But it is also a little racist to try to hide the problem, as if criminality is inherent to the ethnicity and cannot be solved, so may as well be ignored.
Finnish people were considered Asian in some American states in the early 20th century. Should they be included in crime statistics with Chinese?
Also, if police are required to collect this data, who else is? Should you be able to look up the registered ethnicity of a person similar to how anyone can look up tax returns in Sweden (and other Nordic countries)? If not, why not?
Ignore the data supporting one side of the debate, and of course the other side will seem more convincing.
Trump at the moment has a very low approval rating - maybe not everyone got what they read into him?
Polls also predicted him to have less than a 10% chance of winning the election. Not all data is good data.
If you rolled a ten sided dice once and it came up with a ten, would you feel repeated tests that showed there was a 10% chance of that outcome should be ignored in future?
The predictions were essentially right. Hillary Clinton had a better chance of winning the election, but Trump successfully rolled the dice with his 10% odds: he campaigned in some critical states that were expected to go blue and won them over by a narrow majority.
Polling was incapable of accurately determining what the odds really were. If that die was six-side, but I told you there was a consistent 10% chance of rolling a 1, then I'm providing you with a bad probability. The media and pollsters did the same (for whatever reason).
Nope.
If polling couldn't determine what the odds really were, the probabilities, which showed it was well within the realm of possibility that trump would win, aren't evidence the polls were out of alignment with reality.
Semantics at this point. I'll rephrase your comment with consistent terms:
If polling couldn't determine what the odds really were, the odds, which showed it was well within the realm of possibility that trump would win, aren't evidence the polls were out of alignment with reality.
The possibility of Trump winning does not exonerate the accuracy of the odds presented by polls. The odds were not correct, and the polling data was flawed.
If there are 10% odds of something happening and it happens after one event, that's absolutely not a reason to say the data points that generated the odds are flawed.
That is the reason you presented.
I'll clarify, to help.
The reason not to trust polling data presented today is that the probabilities presented in the past were not accurate.
Also worth noting that accurate national polls wouldn't have captured a Trump victory (since Clinton lead in the popular vote). You would need state polls, but they're not always accurate. Trump's win in Michigan was a big surprise, but so was Sanders' win in Michigan a few months earlier.
Your backswing is just the same old bigots getting a momentary upper hand because of the way the chips happened to fall in the last election. Whether they can leverage that into more lasting power remains to be seen.
Like the Trump administration, and the Hungarian government... No, wait, they do the exact opposite. I guess all authorities are not the same after all? And it's not just black and white either. Governments around the world consist of people with incredibly different backgrounds and political agendas. There is no single "authorities".
It is a common refrain these days that governments are trying to hide the facts to advance some kind of shadowy globalist agenda. It's good to be critical, but you need to be equally critical of sources that claim to be telling you the real truth.
Your comment contains three claims, and they're all either "I heard" or "seem to have". We should try to do better.
"Police in Ontario were forbidden to compile race-based crime statistics." https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/08/17/a-thorny-history...
"Charlie Hebdo attackers: born, raised and radicalised in Paris" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/-sp-charlie-he...
"The men responsible for the carnage [7/7 attacks] all grew up in Britain" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/77-bombings-l...
"According to the Young review, the disproportionate representation of young black and Muslim prisoners in the UK is now greater than that in the US." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/24/rise-proport...
If you want to see the government trying to hide things, just look at Sylvester in Cologne and how long it took officials and the german TV channels to report/acknowledge what happened. If this information hadn't spread on Facebook, who knows if we would have ever known.
I am Austrian and until the migration crisis I've never felt misinformed. (BTW: Austria took more refugees per capita in than Germany) But this crisis changed that. It seemed the public media didn't just report, they wanted to persuade people to the right course. This is also about subtle things and therefore hard to prove: According to statistic refugees were about 70% male, but who was almost exclusively on the frontpage? Only women and children.
I can handle dubious or stupid Twitter/Facebook comments and chit-cat about what refugees supposedly did. The shocking thing was that public media was so one-sided. It is no coincidence that the name "lying press" got popular at this time. IMHO this was a general feeling that people had. That they didn't get the full story.
So do you think the problem is likely to be greater in 20 years time?
As they say, past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
What's your opinion?
My feeling is that things will get worse. But by then we will have climate change starting to hit, and an unsustainable population. I guess I am pretty skeptical about the future overall.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/688999781193117696?lang...
There's a single mention of the word "immigration" in the article. It has absolutely no mentions of "migrant crime", as WikiLeaks claims in its tweet.
The only thing that the article says about immigration is that an anonymous journalist "can't be bothered" to talk about sensitive migration issues.
Calling that "Swedish media admitting to censoring stories" is as far fetched as it can be.
Trump Is Right: Sweden’s Embrace of Refugees Isn’t Working https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-is-right-swedens-embrace-...
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how-sweden-became-an-exam...
"How Sweden became an example of how not to handle immigration"
By Tove Lifvendahl, political editor-in-chief at Svenska Dagbladet.
(She gets away with saying these things since she is adopted from Korea.)
Out of the eight parties currently represented in the Swedish parliament they are currently the most popular party, polling at 26.9%.
Source:
http://nyheteridag.se/nytt-sd-rekord-i-sentio-pa-otroliga-26...
And Nyheter Idag is basically the Breitbart of Sweden.
[1] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinionsm%C3%A4tningar_inf%C3%... (In Swedish, but the stats don't need translating. SD denotes the Sweden Democrats)
Anyway, this is a good resource: http://status.st/
Those refugees are mostly good people. They escaped war. That must count as a glorious success?
Whether Sweden is better off or slightly worse off (yes we have more crime, more public expenses, etc) is secondary. Obviously there is a limit to what Swedes will accept - but even debating this issue without acknowledging the positive side of it (people being safe) is completely mental.
National economist Tino Sanandaji has been writing about how BRÅ (Brottsförebyggande rådet) has ceased to make statistics about immigration-rateld crime, for political reasons.
He published a book about this subject [1], and it's quite a success, but libraries are refusing to buy it because it is "inciting hatred". ("Mein Kampf" and very many extreme-left books are still available from the same libraries, they are not "inciting hatred".)
Tino Sanandaji and people like Hanif Bali are, however, able to write about the subject without much fear or prosecution, because they have a Middle-East immigrant background themselves.
[1] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massutmaning
[edit:typos]
And the fact that people from the Middle East would have more room to maneuver in discussions about racism without being accused of racism is hardly surprising.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445237/sweden-crime-ra...
I see the same rhetoric in NL and DE, and other parts of Europe. Officials keep denying the issues with manipulated statistics. People know better, and as long as "populists" are labelled a cause rather than an effect, the problem is not going away.
How about you stop lying to me?
There is also an Artikel in "Der Spiegel", now that I had a closer look[1]
Btw, I don't know on which page of the google search you found that link, but in my case it's not on the first two result pages. Well, that's the trouble with customized searches :)
[1] http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/schweden-polizei-verhe...
Regardless of the context in which we are discussing these counter-arguments, having raw statistics is always helpful:
https://apps.axibase.com/chartlab/013dc374#fullscreen
The data comes from the same agency, BRA, that is referenced in the report: https://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statist...
Doing a google image search of "Angela Merkel Family" or "Stefan Löfven family" (PM of Sweden) and its night and day compared to "Barack Obama family" or "Donald Trump Family".
Whether you are conservative or liberal, we all agree that we need leaders who are thinking about the future generations of the nation. Too much short-sightedness going on. Anyone who has raised kids knows that it changes you.
The left (S, V, mp) haven't touched much of these issues (ignorant or delusional), the right (C, L, KD, M) have chosen to ignore the problems for a long time until recently (swayed by the left?), and the extreme right (SD) has gotten very popular as they acknowledged problems but they seem to believe that it's an innate trait of the culture where these people are coming from and have extreme ideas about how to deal with it (rescind citizenship and deport). I don't think it's an innate trait, I myself is an immigrant and know many other immigrants from different backgrounds, and there's a huge difference between those that grew up in these neighborhoods and those that grew up in more areas which better represent the Swedish population. The one thing that is common to all successful immigrant (and immigrant children) is that they are confident and optimist, fast learners and choose to only hold on to parts of their original culture that fits within the Swedish norms.
This failure of integration, to build a modern, cohesive and beneficial culture for everyone, is common in the west, and particularly in Sweden who primarily takes in refugee immigrants from countries in war and not highly skilled immigrants from diverse backgrounds.
I hope these areas don't deteriorate even more and became like some ghettos of USA, where people die every other day because of gun violence as that's what I would call a no go zone.
That is because immigration from very different cultures is only common in the west. Other countries either don't attract immigrants from far off, or actively disallow their permanent residence (e.g. China and Japan).
The solution should be to stop creating conflicts in countries which the western world wants to destabilize or dominate because of geo-economical advantages to them, causing war and poverty and then forcing men, women and children to escape into the Western world where they get pushed into ghettos, which leaves them no option other than prostitution and crime.
The solution should not be to stop immigration, but to stop forcing people in other countries to emigrate.
Is this really a problem with the increasing levels of automation?
If it can't, then perhaps the community isn't that special after all.
[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...
Guess it depends on how you define terrorist attacks...
the level [of lethal violence] in 2015 – when a total of 112 cases of lethal violence were reported – was higher than for many years.
lethal violence using firearms has increased within the context of criminal conflicts. The number of confirmed or suspected shootings was 20 per cent higher in 2014 than in 2006. The statistics also show that 17 people were killed with firearms in 2011, while the corresponding figure in 2015 was 33.
The number of reported rapes in Sweden has risen.
some 13 per cent of the population were the victim of an offence against them personally in 2015. This is an increase on preceding years, although it is roughly the same level as in 2005.
In a report published in February 2016, the Swedish Police Authority identified 53 residential areas around the country that have become increasingly marred by crime, social unrest and insecurity.
This part atleast, as explained to me, is because rape has a much wider statistical definition. All sexual assault supposedly is classified under it, penetration not required.
And if the statistics are done like in France, they aren't even allowed to note which religion the suspect has, so some simple statistics that would give such a relation are by definition not possible to make.
On one side, it's true, the free society is not supposed to look in the people's heads. On another side, if the perpetrators explicitly tell you why they do what they do, it's really, really wrong discarding that information.
The policies that disallow the access to the non-biased facts are serious limitation in more than one land. As an example in the US, there's this 2001 "Guideline" for the "professional journalists":
> he statistics also show that 17 people were killed with firearms in 2011, while the corresponding figure in 2015 was 33.
This is the part that's ironic - if the US had the same per-capita lethal violence rate as Sweeden except for immigrants who we'll assume murder 100 times as often, it would still be a lot safer than the US is currently!
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/fake-sweden-expert-on-fox-n...
It starts here. I've scraped it with some regexs:
https://twitter.com/Jake_Hanrahan/status/834537369432911872
Thread: Both left and right are talking a lot of nonsense about the situation in #Malmo. I was there four weeks ago, reporting on the fatal shooting of 16-year-old Ahmed Obaid, an Iraqi-Swede immigrant with a bright future ahead of him. Here’s some actual info for anyone not interested in the shrieking leftist eye covering or racist right wing exaggeration that is surrounding #Malmo atm.
Ahmed (police, family & gang members all agree he was innocent & not affiliated with gangs) was one of three murders in Malmo in Jan 2017. In that month, there were 13 shootings, a small IED explosion and a hand grenade thrown into the lobby of a police station. Statistically this was a sharp increase in violence.
People pretending there's no problem with gang violence in #Malmo need to get real. The problems in #Malmo stem from many things. One big issue is how the Swedish government seems to have pushed its large migrant population in #Malmo into a corner and tried to forget about them.
This, coupled with the lack of employment and easy access to weapons across from Denmark and from the Balkans, has of course created a problem. The unemployment rate for foreign-born men between 16 and 64 in #Malmo is 30%. That compares with 8% nationally. (despite what the Trump lot with their half mast Pepe hard-ons and Wotsit fingers might claim).
A lack of skilled work, discrimination, housing issues, failed assimilation and ridiculously lenient laws toward violence (sorry lefties) all plays a role in the very real problems Malmo is facing. There’s also a huge lack of support for the police in #Malmo from the Swedish government. They don’t have enough officers, are under resourced & with Sweden's laws their power to lock up criminals they do catch, is diminished.
Police in #Malmo seized ~600 weapons in 2016. Some semi-auto rifles & hand grenades. From ’16 there’re also 13 currently unsolved murders. Whilst reporting in #Malmo, I spoke to the family of Ahmed Obaid, a gangster parading around the streets in a bullet proof vest and with a policeman about all of this. They all agreed, that yes, there IS a big problem in #Malmo and it is being largely ignored.
Unfortunately it’s now blown up (excuse the pun) in a way that isn’t currently shedding light on anything of substance. You have the right wing pretending there are no go zones (there’s aren’t, that’s bullshit), non-stop rape and daily explosions, and you have the left who’re pretending it’s all milk, honey and racist propaganda. Ignoring the situation in #Malmo doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, and exaggerating why doesn’t make it so.
TL;DR - #Malmo has a problem with gang related violence, but this cannot be blamed entirely on immigrants, it also cannot be ignored.
The refugee problem cannot be solved by "not accepting refugees". That's not a viable solution.
What should be done differently? Building huge internment camps? Would the human suffering really be smaller in those camps than it has been in society as a whole now through crime etc? I doubt it.
Those who argue that the wave of refugees caused so much problems rarely present any solutions.
Non-refugee immigration on the other hand (of which Sweden had had lots) thats a different matter. But somehow that's not the focus of this recent debate.
There is something demented about a country that puts the rest of the world first, destroying itself in a futile effort to save the world.
Further, there is a difference between permanent and temporary asylum. I think giving temporary asylum to people fleeing war is the least any country can do. I just don't understand what the option would be? Send more aid to build larger miserable camps in nearby countries? Not sure that's better to be honest.
The other option I suppose is what Israel does, meeting the minimum treaty obligation: Israel has a refugee camp. It turns out that many refugees are uninterested in going there. This suggests that they aren't really all that fearful.
"I know it's sensitive and controversial ... But for us it's really a no go because we have directives not to go into dangerous situations."
The interview video has English subtitles:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/video-head-of-ambulance-union-...
I guess it's interesting enough, but I just don't see the link. Why is it being upvoted so much?
OK, so you have statistics that show that you are right. What you going to do with them? Start discriminating against every single individual of that particular ethnic group?
Use them to guide immigration policy in order to protect your citizens.
Facts matter.
> "The number of reported rapes in Sweden has risen. But the definition of rape has broadened over time, which makes it difficult to compare the figures. It is also misleading to compare the figures with other countries, as many acts that are considered rape under Swedish law are not considered rape in many other countries."
and:
> "the main difference in terms of criminal activity between immigrants and others in the population was due to differences in the socioeconomic conditions in which they grew up in Sweden."
Firstly, "socioeconomic conditions" can not excuse away rape or murder. And even if they could, that's little solace to the victims of these crimes. Secondly the study they are referring to states that "socioeconomic conditions" can explain 50% to 75% of the difference. Even then, what about the other 25% to 50%?
As for the redefinition of rape, it was expanded in April 2005 to include acts perpetrated against victims in a ‘helpless state’, such as being intoxicated. So it's broader but much of what it captures still falls under the term rape in other countries' legislation too. New crimes weren't invented, they were simply shifted from the sexual assault column. Plus it keeps on rising, a decade after the redefinition.
But here's the thing. We can ignore the redefinition and the associated noise, and instead look at trends before 2005 as well as at aggravated rape (Grov våldtäkt) whose frequency is not affected by changing definitions. We can also just see what the crime reports tell us. Let's do that.
Here's the facts:
- Studies in 1996 and again in 2005 showed that foreign-born individuals were 4.7 times more likely to commit a crime of rape and 3.7 times more likely to commit the crime of murder.
- Multiplying each group's proportion of suspects by their absolute size gives us the absolute amount of those suspected of "Rape" for each group. Doing that we find that "Swedes" made up 43.5% of "Rape" suspects, "Half-Swedes" made up 14.6% of "Rape" suspects, and "Foreigners" made up 42% of "Rape" suspects. These are approximations.
- 2005's info is less informative as Sweden stopped publishing info on ethnicity but had this to say in a their report: "Immigrants’ risk of being registered for crime has not changed in any pronounced way since the previous study conducted by the National Council, which related to the situation at the end of the 1980s"
- Before the change to the penal code in 2005, rapes were rising rapidly. "The number of consummated rapes reported to the police has increased dramatically, more than tripling over the course of the past two decades. A total of 2,261 consummated rapes were reported to the police in the year 2004. It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the dramatic increase in reported rape offences may at least to some extent be the result of an increase in the propensity to report these crimes to the police. On the whole, however, no support was found for interpretations suggesting that this factor, even taken in combination with the effects of the legislative change referred to above, would be sufficient to explain any major part of the increase in the number of reported rapes. Thus it has not been established, but it does not appear unlikely, that the number of rapes committed has in fact increased."
- "Since 1990, the number of reported cases has increased by an average 400 per year. According to the National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå), people’s propensity to report has probably increased during this period, but a reasonable assumption is that actual violence against women in close relationships also increased in the 1990s."
- A 1996 BRA (Swedish Criminal statistics) study found that "there any indication that immigrants in Sweden are discriminated in the courts. Immigrant overrepresentation in registered crime is almost certainly real...nor is it caused by any generally lower social economic status (calculated as per SEI code) in Sweden."
- Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention determined that between 1985 and 1989 individuals born in Iraq, North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia),Africa (excluding Uganda and the North African countries), other Middle East (Jordan, Palestine, Syria), Iran and Eastern Europe (Romania, Bulgaria) were convicted of rape at rates 20, 23, 17, 9, 10 and 18 greater than individuals born in Sweden respectively."
- Eurostat use the ICCS (international classification of crime for statistical purposes) method which standardises types of crimes so that they mean the same thing in different countries. Their stats show rape in Sweden is rising both before and after 2005.
- Audited sentences for rape from 2009 shows an over-representation by as many as 48 percent of the rapists were born abroad. (This represents an increase compared data from 2005, which could point to the phenomenon is growing.) Within the category of aggravated rape, the figure was as much as 64 percent.
- Professor Sten Levander, a member of BRÅ:s scientific board, in an interview with tabloid Aftonbladet said "That the number of reported rapes has increased so significantly in a short time can not be explained by regulatory changes and increased willingness to report the crime. Scientists believe that certain types of rape may indeed have become more common."
So, yes. Sweden's real rape-rate is rising and, yes, migrants are disproportionately responsible. Often shockingly so.
Sources:
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/05/08/br-1996-2-invandrares... https://www.jstor.org/stable/1147632?seq=2#page_scan_tab_con... https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800025850/1... https://www.bra.se/download/18.779f51ff14b839896441cec/14278... https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800010674/1... https://www.bra.se/download/18.12305534131e173a7f180001557/1... https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/doc15/BG-ICCS-UNODC.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/crim_of... https://www.bra.se/download/18.31d7fffa1504bbffea0abf49/1450... http://www.bra.se/download/18.22a7170813a0d141d2180007794/20... http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/05/08/br-1996-2-invandrares-... https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:526664/FULLTEXT0...
In Sweden, as in other Western European countries, public debate about immigration, islamisation and its consequences to society is being smothered under a suffocating blanket of political correctness.
After the New Year's Eve attacks in Cologne - when on one square, during one night a total of about 1200 women were hemmed in individually and sexually assaulted by a mob of muslim men [1] - the German press and the government managed to keep the events under wraps for four days until the outrage on social media became too great to ignore.
In the slipstream of the press coverage that followed, the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter revealed that similar events had happened since a couple of years on the summer music festival "We Are Sthlm" in Stockholm [2]. When asked for reasons as to why nothing of this ever became public knowledge, Police chief Peter Ågren is quoted explaining how he performs self-censorship on these kinds of cases as to not play into the hands of the anti-immigration party Sverigedemokraterna [3][4].
I don't follow Swedish media because of the language barrier but if my experience with Flemish and Dutch media is any indication then this political party might very well be demonised beyond recognition in the Swedish press. People don't like to play into the hands of what they're told to consider as the Second Coming of Lucifer, even when the events turn out to be the very thing this party has been warning for for years.
It would be quite understandable if events like wat happened in Stockholm would lead to a moral panic [5], but as soon as it becomes clear that muslim immigrants are the perpetrators, the opposite happens. People will vent their outrage about what happened in a close circle of trusted friends but put on a mask of political correctness to anyone outside that circle. Not unlike the Soviet Union in its heyday. On the other hand, as soon as there is a hint of how racist the native population allegedly is, the press kicks into full moral panic mode.
A striking example of this double standard are the events of 2016 in Belgium. During the arrest of terrorist Salah Abdeslam in Brussels [6], the anti-terror units were pelted with stones and bottles by muslim youth from the Molenbeek neighbourhood where his hideout was. Quite the contradiction to the eternal story we keep hearing about "a few bad apples". So the public broadcaster VRT decided not to mention that pesky detail. Elsewhere it hardly got any coverage until a minister got angry over it [7]. When on the other hand a few racist comments made by native Belgians are found on Facebook among millions of non-racist ones, then this is reason enough for the newspaper "De Morgen" to appear with a entirely black front page [8].
The Swedish government's "fact" sheet puts on a brave face about having immigration-related violence under control. One look at the ever growing list of recent grenade attacks [9] (that they conveniently forget to mention in their factsheet) tells us there is a very serious problem [10]. No mention neither of the fact that of the 160.000+ asylum seekers that arrived in 2015 only, fewer than 500 landed a job [11]. On a total population of 10 million people hundreds of thousands of relative newcomers - many of them functionally illiterate - are living on benefits without any prospect of ever playing a role in the economy of Sweden where less than 5% of the jobs is low-skilled [12].
The "factsheet" lambasts its own citizens - who foot the bill for the benefits and the urban unrest - for being islamophobe, for harrassing muslims and for discriminating them on the job market. It misleadingly suggest a percentage of 1.5 muslims by only counting "muslim faith communities". While the real number is probably at least 6% [13]. Apparantly the Swedish government wants us to believe that the other 4.5% have become secular.
The findings of the Dutch scholar Ruud Koopmans, who does research at the Humboldt university in Berlin tell another story. By conducting surveys among the European muslim population he comes to the conclusion that 40 to 45% percent can be classified as fundamentalist [14][15]. There is also the British Channel 4 docu "What British Muslims Really Think" [16].
That many muslims in Sweden are quite fundamentalist is why the Jewish actor Kim Bodnia decided to quit the crime series "The Bridge" because he did no longer feel safe in Malmö with its growing antisemitism [17].
And if you think this will all blow over once the children of the first generation immigrants have finished school and are ready for the job market, think again. Second generation muslim immigrants are no better integrated, they are even worse integrated. If you want to look up some stats from Belgium on that topic you hit a stonewall. But the Dutch central bureau for statistics has some solid public data on that.
So one of the disturbing things they found was that for many non-Western minorities criminality rate increased with the second generation w.r.t. the first one. Take for instance Moroccans and Turks, as they are important minorities in both Belgium and the Netherlands.
Males with a Moroccan background are almost six times more likely to be a crime suspect than a native Dutchman. Males of Turkish descent more than three times. And when you split up by generation: second generation Moroccans in the Netherlands are almost three times more likely to be a crime suspect than the first generation. Second generation Turks more than two times [18].
So you have a generation of people who were born and spent their entire life in the Netherlands, went to the same schools and got the same education as Dutch kids, and yet they are more of a burden to society and are less well integrated than the first generation of immigrants.
I think you can extrapolate that to other European countries like Sweden and to immigrants with a background in other parts of the world, like the horn of Africa, Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan.
The share of muslims among the European population is also rapidly growing [19] because of a number of factors that amplify each other. First of all there is the continued influx. Then you have family reunification. Add to that the fact that many muslims of 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation prefer to look for a spouse in their country of origin. And there is the higher birthrate among muslims compared to the native population. And finally there are native people who feel alienated in their own country and go try their luck in North America, Australia or New Zealand.
So I think these "facts" are a desperate attempt by the Swedish government to shape perception towards their own interests, and you are better informed when reading the testimony of that courageous Swedish cop:
http://www.thelocal.se/20170208/swedish-police-officer-cause...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Are_Sthlm_sexual_assaults
[3] http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-not-only-germany-that...
[4] http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/assaults-at-the-stockholm-f...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_police_raids
[7] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...
[8] https://twitter.com/demorgen/status/760580553850621954
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Swe...
[10] http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-sweden-grenades-idUKKCN0QE0...
[11] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisi...
[12] http://www.economist.com/news/finance-economics/21709511-too...
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Sweden
[14] https://www.wzb.eu/en/press-release/islamic-fundamentalism-i...
[15] https://phys.org/news/2015-01-islamic-fundamentalism-margina...
[16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQcSvBsU-FM
[17] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/1216...
[18] https://www.cbs.nl/-/media/_pdf/2016/47/ji2016s_web.pdf, paragraph 1.7, "Proportion of crime suspects by background and background characteristics, 2015*"
[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth#Europ...
Let's go and convince all the victims of crimes in recent years that they're just imaginging things and they're safer then ever. And hand out more "don't grope me" bracelets for extra protection[1].
[1] http://www.thelocal.se/20160629/swedish-police-to-hand-out-a...
[edit] Classic HN, don't forget to upvote the guy who says physically assaulting people with different opinions is OK.[2] Sounds tolerant and progressive.
Ban my account, but the comments can stay for exposing your collective hypocrisy for the future. Goodbye.
No one has said crimes haven't happened. Your post is a giant straw man.
I do know that I won't support the same policy in my country though, because just avoiding the risk of such crimes is with a measure like this is worth enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1_viPSD-bY
Most of the tweets I see from this account are either rabble-rousing ("And that's because migrants are nothing but voter cattle for the Left"; "Share this video and help me reveal the immense hipocrisy of our "feminist" Swedish government.") or complaints about media in general (from the Trump style media conspiracy angle to thoughts on how Youtube is banning him because he didn't get as many watches as a Tucker Carson video.)
If you share the same world view as the Swedish Democrats, you'll probably agree with this person's viewpoint. If you don't, you probably won't.
Even using hand picked numbers to try and alleviate people's fears, they have to admit that the main assumptions about immigrant crime are correct and that many areas are in fact turning into "shitholes", for lack of a better term.
First, they want to make it look as though their policy choices have had positive outcomes.
Second, they want to retain support for the current leading political power groups. The top 3 parties are the Swedish Social Democrat Party, the Moderate Party, and the Sweden Democrats. The latter two support tougher immigration laws, but they are mostly outweighed by the first. The PM (who recently made comments denying any attacks) is a member of the social democrats.