Thread to discuss the reality of parts of the UK absorbing large numbers of men from other cultures

You're the one trying to shut down any alternate viewpoints.

I've answered pages back about AHA. She writes about France, not the UK. France, like Germany, is a very different country, with a very different culture and immigrant profile to the UK.

We don't have lots of Algerian immigrants here - did that escape you? Or are all foreigners the same, in your book? Do you think French and English culture and criminal justice systems are identical?

It's down to the parents to remember where they are now living and make sure their kids are brought up with Western values. That sounds colonial but maybe Shamima Begum would be now in a nice graduate job in the UK if her parents had kept a closer eye and let her be a normal Western kid? This isn't just about men from other countries deciding all Western women are "up for it". It is about making sure immigrants assimilate to some level and don't bring their out of date customs with them.

I don't see an issue with telling young male immigrants to this country that attitudes to women differ here and treating women as whores won't be acceptable. It doesn't matter if they've never done anything wrong, we all get treated in certain ways because some people do things wrong from getting tickets checked to make sure we've paid on a train to having to show ID to show we're old enough to buy alcohol. If they want to live here, tough luck, they'll have to out up with "being educated". They want something from us, not the other way round, so if they come here they have to abide by our rules, such as they are (point about Wayne Couzens definitely taken).

In short, I don't believe that this discussion is in good faith.

So fucking what? If you told us you believed the sky was blue, I'd pop my head out of the window to check. Your beliefs are of zero import.

Here's one of the articles that this thread has brought to mind.

Germaine Aziz was sold to a brothel when she was 17 years old. A young Jewish girl in Algeria in the 1950s, she was brought to Oran by a Spanish woman, Madame Fernande, for the promise of a job with another Spaniard, Madame Carmen. Crossing the threshold of that brothel, which she believed to be a bar, changed Aziz’s life forever.

Ensnared in a complex system of debt with the brothel owner, Aziz was forced to work from ten in the morning to midnight every day. She saw 80 to 100 clients a day for years to pay off the charges of her initial travel to Oran, as well as the extortionate fees for laundry, food and day-to-day essentials that Madame Carmen charged her. Germaine Aziz shared these experiences in her memoire Les chambres closes: histoire d’une prostituée juive d’Algérie, written in 2007.

In La prostitution coloniale, historian Christelle Taraud describes the French imperial system of prostitution in North Africa as a “carceral and coercive system”. Prostitution was legal in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco during the 19th and 20th century and heavily controlled by the French state to protect French citizens from venereal disease at the expense of the freedom of sex workers.

Having been formally registered with the colonial authorities as a prostitute, Aziz was unable to find a new job outside of sex work or travel without permission of her brothel manager or the police. One failed escape attempt led to being trapped by an angry crowd before being returned to the brothel “like a thief” by the police. Aziz’s experience of sex work mirrors that of thousands of women within the French Empire in North Africa. Women, particularly colonised women, were reduced to vectors of disease.

The most famous quartier réservé (red-light district) in North Africa was Bousbir in Casablanca. Home to hundreds of sex workers and located a few miles from the city, Bousbir was surrounded by high stone walls. Armed guards manned its only gate to keep the women contained within. According to a Maury and Mathieu’s study of Bousbir, 71% of the more than 640 women worked in the roughly 44 brothels. These mostly employed Moroccan women, although one was solely European.

continues at https://socialhistory.org.uk/shs_exchange/colonialism-and-sex-work-in-french-north-africa/ social history

An equivalent today might be european men's behaviour in Thailand, which I mentioned earlier. I'm sorry, but not all the single men who travel there for holidays are picking it as a destination because they're interested in "temple architecture". Some, yes. But not in those numbers. If we were willing to condemn our own men's behavioir abroad, maybe we'd have the gumption to confront the same phenomenon (of men who treat women from other cultural/racial/religious backgrounds as lesser) when we see it from the other end of the equation.

Reposting as for some reason, beastlyslumber is lying again about what she posted.

You can read her own words - she clearly stated that what she wants is the following: 'unaccompanied males cannot be given asylum in the uk except under certain conditions.'

In short, I don't believe that this discussion is in good faith.

Well I don't think you are contributing to this discussion in good faith.

making it pretty obvious that an evidence-based approach is the last thing they want - and issue endless ad hominem attacks against anyone calling for evidence, nuance or data

No one on here has said data wouldn't be useful, we have just said that in the absence of it we shouldn't be told to STFU and that we are racist.

You are the person attacking not others. You are calling several of us racist without being able to point to anything that we have said that is racist.

You are exaggerating and engaging hyperbole in order to shut us up.

You are trying to stifle discussion and you are trying to derail the entire thread, ignoring the excellent posts from beastlyslumber citing AHA with arguments along the line of NAIMALT the I being 'immigrant'.

We know that, of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to talk about it.

Yeuch. I'm not your 'darling'.

Are you usually this creepy?

Feel free not to 'bother to interact with me ever again'. I can assure you I will be entirely happy with that state of affairs. Replying to my posts isn't obligatory, you know.

On the other hand, if you post shit on a public forum, you don't get to stop me or anyone else commenting, if we wish. Particularly where you post a whole bunch of frankly weird shit!

Again, what's with the imbecilic strawmanning.

No-one is suggesting that 'western men are no better in their attitudes to women than men in Northern Pakistan'. However, there's a massive, enormous leap from that theoretical (and somewhat vague) comparison to 'let's change policy to banning all unaccompanied male immigrants'.

You're right - and the OP is right - that there is scope for a genuinely constructive discussion, looking at data, evidence and considering alternative approaches in context, to consider how to address male attitudes and behaviour towards women in the UK, both across and within cultures.

What is sadly apparent, however, is that this thread is definitely not the right forum to do it in, and most of the participants have no interest in that discussion. They will shout down anyone who suggests looking at data - making it pretty obvious that an evidence-based approach is the last thing they want - and issue endless ad hominem attacks against anyone calling for evidence, nuance or data.

In short, I don't believe that this discussion is in good faith.

Darling. None of us get to choose how we're perceived. Not me, and certainly not you.

You perpetually argue in bad faith. Right now, you've just speculated that "assimilate" means something totally bizarre. If you actually believe a word of that paragraph you typed, none of us should ever bother to interact with you again. Disingenuousness is the more positive interpretation of your post and that is damning.

Yes, please go ahead and quote anything I've said you consider to be racist.

I don't recall you asking for my views on the Sarah Everard case but yes, I'd be in favour of deporting the policeman who killed her, if he was an immigrant to the UK.

I notice you have nothing to say in response to AHA's arguments and the statistics she's provided.

Too busy namecalling and trying to shut down women's speech.

She explicitly states she wants to limit immigration for unaccompanied males. Not unaccompanied males who have committed a crime. Just all unaccompanied males. She insists that immigrants must 'assimilate'. What does she mean by that? Every aspect of their culture and cultural heritage? Religion? What? She should make this clear.

So why don't you ask me, rather than telling lies about what I've said @xxyzz ?

I didn't say I want to 'limit immigration', I suggested that certain restrictions could be imposed on unaccompanied males - no, I'm not sure what those might be. Maybe some kind of 'fostering' system where they have to be attached to a family? Prevented from hanging around in male gangs? Some kind of education program? I'm not sure.

I've been totally clear by what I mean by assimilate. As I said in another post, yes you can go to the mosque, but no you can't have Sharia law. You have to abide by the rules and the cultural norms of a country. So accepting that women have the right to walk unaccompanied, not hassling or assaulting women etc etc. It's fairly obvious what I mean in the context of the thread discussion, but I've also clarified it at various points.

She explicitly states she wants to limit immigration for unaccompanied males. Not unaccompanied males who have committed a crime. Just all unaccompanied males.

Male immigrants don't come in with a 'rapist' sign on their heads FFS, how are we to know which ones will go on to attack?

Nice try at hiding evidence of your blatant racism on this thread.

Would you like me to repost it?

Going to defend it?

Still waiting to hear your views on banning and deporting white male policemen, given the example of Sarah Everard.

Or does it magically not work that way, when you can't score brownie points about deporting immigrants? 😡

WTF?

What weird shit is this?

As attempts at bizarre strawmanning go, this really takes the biscuit.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Am I getting the style of argument right?

Well, you need to add that you're wondering why on earth they're blaming French men when they could have been raped by any man, and there are far more rapists who aren't French so pointing the finger at the French is really poor form. And saying they wish the rapists could be deported makes them racist.

Here is beastlyslumber's post that I was referring to. Far from the only one - she's made similar points on other posts.

She explicitly states she wants to limit immigration for unaccompanied males. Not unaccompanied males who have committed a crime. Just all unaccompanied males. She insists that immigrants must 'assimilate'. What does she mean by that? Every aspect of their culture and cultural heritage? Religion? What? She should make this clear.

Ironic that it is precisely those who have consistently strawmanned throughout this thread who accuse others of doing it. I have repeatedly been accused of things I haven't done, said or thought.

I keep wondering whether @xxyzz would call Algerian women racist for posting about the sexual abuses perpetrated against them by French men, back when Algeria was colonised by France.

Should living survivors of it have statistics to hand before they speak of it? I mean it was only a small minority of women who were literally enslaved into forced prostitution. Suppose it wasn't a statistically significant number. Perhaps only 10% of rape victims were abused by French men in organised forced prostitution, in which case it isn't even worth bothering about until all the other victims' rapists have been convicted, yes?

Am I getting the style of argument right?

I have just caught up on all this thread since last night.

You consistently straw man. It was suggested that rapists get deported. Not all immigrants. If you think all male immigrants rape, that's on you.

Not sure why you think it breaks human rights legislation to deport rapists, as we already have the legislation to deport people if they are convicted of a crime. If you think it infringes human rights legislation to deport men after being convicted of sexual violence against people, I'm going to need citations on why it is unconscionable to take a rape conviction as seriously as other convictions that men have been deported for.

I remember the Lara Logan incident. If memory serves correctly, she was saved by a group of Egyptian students if I remember correctly, males trying to direct her to females at the side who then covered her with their veils.

The story demonstrates two things in my view: For one, that there are obviously decent people in every culture, the majority I am convinced. And then: that large groups of young males are a threat to women, and the threat is exacerbated when those women don’t conform to their cultural understanding of female ,decency‘. The veiled women with their male chaperons were not targeted.

Not sure what is controversial about that.

Because this is a thread specifically about large groups of men from misogynistic cultures coming to the UK and the effects they might have. Not VAWG in the round.

It's an issue. It's an issue in other European countries too. I'm an immigrant from a culture that also undervalues women. Every day I am thankful that I was brought up in the UK, got an education and was able to move away from my family and not follow the path that my older male relatives thought I should follow because I am a woman.

Western Europe is extraordinarily enlightened when it comes to womens rights to autonomy. It's not perfect but it's much better than wholes swathes of the rest of the world. We haven't had these rights for long and we could easily lose them.

Stop trying to trip people up btw, it's not as clever as you think it is. If you're not enjoying this thread then start another one about how western men are no better in their attitudes to women than men in Northern Pakistan.

Thank you @beastlyslumber for your recent posts with citations which demonstrate why nuance of debate is necessary.

What is striking on this thread is the (couple of ) posters who are determined to prove their own bias and are going so far as to lie about what we are saying on here to suit the narrative that any motive to even discuss issues must be racist.

It helps no one to shut these conversations down.

www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/15/womens-rights-have-been-sacrificed-at-the-altar-of-identity-politics/

This is a transcript of part of AHA's interview with Brendan O'Neill. In it, she sets out a key observation that triggered her to research and write her book:

In European countries and other liberal Western societies, the laws protect women. Some of these countries have accepted large numbers of men from countries where women are not viewed as equal human beings. They are seen as subordinate. There is an attitude which divides modest women on the one hand and immodest women on the other. And if you have that binary vision of women in general, it doesn’t matter that you end up in a country that sees things differently. Some of the men just continue to behave in the ways that they did back home.

In my book, I describe when I first came to Holland and I saw women dressing as they pleased, jumping on their bicycles, taking the bus, taking the train. They took their safety for granted. Now, I am struck by the sheer number of groups of young men on the streets or at train stations or in parks. They start with catcalling, making lewd and obscene remarks and go on to touching and groping and much worse. By law, these behaviours are all unacceptable. But in practice, it happens. It is really a case of the erosion of women’s rights. We are going backwards.

Brendan asks where the problem comes from - is it society failing to uphold women's rights or is it primarily the problem with the men's behaviour? AHA says it's both:

When you get a clash of values like we have now, what should host societies do about things like the treatment of women? Yes, they can pass laws. Harassment, for instance, is outlawed. But the laws are not properly enforced. These young men do not feel deterred. As long as that’s the case, they will display contempt not only for women, but also for the values of our society in general.

We can fling open the doors for refugees. But do we then have to sacrifice the rights of women? Can we not have a win-win, rational discussion, where we can openly acknowledge that some of the individuals coming in have religious values that suppress women’s rights? It would be great for us to have an open debate so that we can then socialise these young men into accepting the norms and values that protect women’s rights – but also lift them up from their poverty and backwardness. Why can’t we have that discussion?

Please demonstrate where I have said I want to ban immigrants and asylum seekers.

Please give direct quotes rather than your incorrect assumptions.

And please do stop lying .

www.hoover.org/research/prey-ayaan-hirsi-ali-relationship-between-immigration-and-sexual-assaults-europe-1

This is a transcript of a conversation with AHA and someone from the Hoover Institute, Peter Robinson, who shows that the book is a serious work of sociology with very rigorous research.

In this interview she also describes something called Taharrush in Egypt - the rape game - and compares to what happened in Cologne:

And it is, it's the encirclings that you'll find a victim or victims a number of men will encircle and then they will engage in, you know, trying to put their hands in every orifice of the victim of the woman that they have encircled. Now, if you're in Egypt for instance this thing has a name it's called Taharrush it's called The Rape Game. Men go out-

... and an incident like this actually happened to a journalist, an American journalist who was covering the Arab Spring when Mubarak, the former President of Egypt was being escorted out by these huge protests that were taking place in Tahrir Square in Cairo. She went to cover that with her colleagues and that exact same thing happened to her. She was encircled by a large number of men and she was incredibly fortunate to come out of that alive. And recover and tell the tale. So for Americans listening to this if you want the perfect description of what happens to the victim, just google Lara Logan and listen to that interview where she tells in detail exactly what it is that happened to her. And that's why I found it the most shocking incident in that, not only do we now have men with this terrible misogynistic attitude toward women coming from countries where they're used to doing that but they are behaving in that same way they are playing the rape game.

And then what follows is about 660 women go ahead and report what happened to them. And it's then, the way the institutions react the way the police react. Some of the women are saying, "We are appealing to the police "But they're looking away." And obviously it becomes this political scandal. And I don't know if you remember one of the statements that the men made about it's in the book, but something about the women not wearing high heels or in any case that same response that I was used to when I lived in those countries, where when things go wrong men misbehave it's the woman's fault.