Why are governments putting women and girls at higher risk of sex crimes?

[Absentmindedsmile]

Fact: Hundreds of thousands of men are entering Europe (as in the continent), from countries where women and girls are second class citizens.
**
Fact: The sex crime rate statistics associated with different nationalities living in the UK have been published. An example is provided below.
**
**Facts:
….the [sex crime] rates, based on convictions per 10,000 of the population put Afghans, with 77 convictions, at the top with a rate of 59 per 10,000 – 22.3 times that of Britons.
**
They were followed by Eritreans, who accounted for 59 convictions at a rate of 53.6 per 10,000 of their population.
**
Britons accounted for 12,619 sex offence convictions, representing a rate of 2.66 per per 10,000 of their population in England and Wales.
**
https://archive.md/6AXAy Archive version
**
Fact: This example data blows up any erroneous claims from people suggesting that British men commit more sex crimes when numbers in the population are accounted for / are more likely to commit a sex crime.
**
There’s above is factual data. It is not racist to provide it. To claim this, is quite simply, wrong. Perhaps it’s projection, the mind boggles.

To want ‘no debate’ and bleet on with incorrectly placed accusations of racism, is to shut down people’s valid concerns.

Tin hat on for the people who want no debate on this issue, and instead of protecting women and girls, insist on protecting men from countries where women and girls are treated as second class citizens.

More data has been promised.
**
**

And we can see why, from this thread.

Although I don’t know enough detail about it. Not wanting to appear to incite racial tensions was definitely one aspect.

Though another seems to be that some (how many?) of the officers were in fact abusing girls as well. I’ve only read that online without a source - I don’t know if this factually correct.

The common theme being men of course. Why on earth are we accepting men without question, without documentation, from countries were women and girls are viewed and treated as second class citizens? We have enough issues as it is.

"Why on earth are we accepting men without question"

I would say the Home Office asks a fair few questions OP. In fact they're very hostile towards asylum seekers so you cannot say we accept without question.

To my knowledge, there has been one accusation, by a grooming gang victim, of sexual abuse by South Yorkshire Police officers.

For clarity

Plus of course the fact we are upholding one of the basic human rights that applies to ALL people globally.

I think it’s actually a lot of women and girls speaking up and saying, ‘no it’s not okay’.

Intersectional feminism is a joke. You literally want women to put the needs of refugee males ahead of local women and girls. Why?

(and, why couldn’t you discriminate against male refugees in favor of female refugees? Who says you can’t?)

Or they can tackle the misogyny and violence of ALL the men who are currently residing in the country at the same time. I’d much rather they did that than ignore the raping and violence from one demographic for politeness sake, until they solved it in an alternative demographic.

We should not accept anyone without documentation.

But we are not accepting men “without question” are we? There’s a process to go through for asylum seekers. The real issue is that it is too slow with too much of a backlog.
There is a real danger here that all refugees are vilified without good reason.

Did you bother reading any of the thread.

All that has already been posted, most of it is in the OP. Also see the fact checks on it and the IPSO ruling on the Telegraph's articles.

I understand and accept that MN don't allow personal attacks. I'm questioning whether calling someone "racist" is a personal attack.

I don't think it is, personally. "Racist" is a descriptive word rather than a term of abuse. Admittedly, I think it's a bad thing to be, but if people are openly expressing racist sentiments I presume that they don't think there is anything wrong with it.

It's remarkable that people are so sensitive to the use of the word "racist" when there appears to be such a free-for-all when we're talking about migrants.

Mind-boggling.

Ah Amnesty International. That bastion of women’s rights. Not.

Amnesty International think men can be women. And welcome men appropriating women, as women.

So no. No it’s not for me. And shouldn’t before anyone that cares about women’s rights.

"You literally want women to put the needs of refugee males ahead of local women and girls. Why?" This has been explained - often refugee males are creating a safer way for women and girls to escape very unsafe conditions in their country of origin.

"Why couldn’t you discriminate against male refugees in favor of female refugees? Who says you can’t"

Because the right to seek asylum is a basic human right applied to all people.

I don’t think allowing young economic male migrants in per current numbers is a great idea. No. And I have real concerns about their backgrounds and the effects on local women. It hasn’t gone well in Germany.

Sorry, haven’t read the full thread, but what does the OP think about the levels of domestic violence amongst race rioters as compared to the general population?

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/uk-riots-how-many-reported-domestic-abuse-396063/

True to form, you don't understand what intersectional feminism is.

You are absolutely right. I think Labour has said they are going to get through the applications far quicker now and then hopefully we can start deporting those who aren’t eligible for asylum. I’m sure we won’t have any problems at all doing that.

Yes, exactly. A 16-year-old British girl of Indian heritage could be sexually assaulted by a (white) Albanian man. It isn’t a question of race. As soon as anyone argues intelligently against immigration, those on the other side throw a tantrum, claim that everyone who opposes them is a fascist and then, if they still don’t get their way, scream racism. It’s not a question of protecting a particular race. The government has a duty to protect the citizens of this country, simple as that.

People seem to think every immigrant is a poor, frightened little refugee with eyes like a Disney princess. I’ve no doubt some are genuinely fleeing war and persecution, but I’ll tell you another thing people flee - the police!! If you are wanted for a crime in Africa or the Middle East, the quickest escape is to sneak into Europe, throw away your passport and claim you are being persecuted back home. Take the case of Anicet Mayala, an illegal immigrant from the Congo. Activists fought against his deportation and won. He’s now in prison for raping a 15-year-old girl. So many of these young men are either criminals, economic migrants or rootless drifters.

I’m sick of the left always claiming the moral high ground. Time and again their beliefs and ideals lead to misery and suffering in the real world. Yet they never show any humility or contrition. They’re the goodies, and everyone else is a baddie, and that’s all that matters. So shut up and do what we say. A hundred million people died in the 20th-century when various lunatics tried to impose Marxism on them. I’m deeply suspicious of those on the left. I’m suspicious of their real motives. The left is a magnet for bitter, destructive, hate-filled people (just listen to Frankie Boyle for a few hours). Open borders is the new dream. But the left support it not because they care about the poor, but because it is a way of disrupting and de-stabilising western societies. It’s their substitute for a proletarian revolution.

So if a child arrives before you and their relative who had their documentation drowned on the way you'd say... no ta?

There's loads of very valid and logical reasons why someone seeking asylum wouldn't have documentation. I've worked with asylum seekers who were trafficked into forced labour camps and into sex work - first thing that traffickers do is remove your documents so it's harder for you to leave. I've also worked with asylum seekers who were from nomadic tribes who didn't have documentation the way people would coming from different communities. Its also really hard to protect yourself when you're sleeping rough or in a refugee camp and often documentation is stolen. Often women or girls are escaping forced marriage or young men (im talking age 10 and up) escaping being forcibly drafted for war, do you think they were allowed to keep documentation when they were being trained as child soldiers?

They all still have the right to seek asylum and personally I've no interest in watching the UK become a place where we have no compassion for people who have been through horrific trauma. We exist in a position of privilege and we should be prepared to use it. We take in one of the lowest percentages of asylum seekers in Europe.

@Absentmindedsmile

Listen to this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002h09g

It clarifies the “statistics” (sound bites) being trotted out on this issue.

Do some research and critical thinking before repeating them in an attempt to present them as fact and scaremongering.

Farage wants to detain women and children under his deportation plans and then return them to the Taliban

Shameful. Please God that he never gets the chance.

Ok. Thank you.

Well yes, of course! I meant I don’t want the right weaponising the welfare of women when in reality misogyny has been largely ignored by all political parties. Not sure where you’re getting intersectionality from what I said?

Interesting data isn’t it. I’m certainly interested to see what further data will be published.

I agree with op, this is a feminist issue. And maybe there could be a thread in the feminist section?
women's rights only exist because they were fought for. They arent a ' luxury '. Its a 'privilege' because people who came before us stood up and established new norms for women.
But lots of other countries aren't so safe for Women, some cultures pride themselves of macho ways and you'd warn your daughter of going solo traveling to some places.

You wouldn't pat her on the back and tell her goodluck.