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

[BernardBlacksMolluscs]

This thread is to replace the one that got deleted earlier today, and the TAATs that came after it.

As per MNHQ in site stuff, we're OK to have this conversatrion

www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/4687254-how-do-we-discuss-the-reality-of-parts-of-the-uk-absorbing-large-numbers-of-men-from-other-cultures?reply=121883255

ayaanhirsiali.com/articles/migrants-and-the-threat-to-womens-rights-in-europe

Good article here covering some of the points people have been trying to make and including some statistics. Quote from the last three paragraphs:

I don’t claim this problem is unique to Muslim migrants. Rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment seem to be universal. Nevertheless, the behavior of Muslim men in Europe is important for three reasons. First, the scale of the migration and its likely continuation. Second, its political salience. Sexual misconduct by some migrants provides the far right with a tool to demonize them all. Third, the lack of frank discussion also helps Islamists, who recognize the problem but propose a remedy that would set back all women.

Talking about violence by Muslim men against European women is at odds with identity politics and its matrix of victimhood. Politicians, journalists and academics have been reluctant to acknowledge that the migrant sex-crime wave even exists. This is as much an issue of class as religion or race. Much of the crime and misconduct against women takes place in low-income neighborhoods. Somehow in the era of #MeToo, their predicament arouses less sympathy than that of Hollywood actresses.

I have been encouraged by French President Emmanuel Macron’s condemnation of Islamist ideology in his country. But he and other leaders are still much too reluctant to talk about the sex-crime wave, which signifies an erosion of women’s rights. Rapes in France surged by 31% and other sexual “aggressions” by 32% from 2016 to 2018. Pretending the problem doesn’t exist is the surest way to empower not only the far right but also the Islamists, whose solution entails even greater restrictions on female freedom.

Nice try. I'm not stopping anyone posting their personal views.

I have merely asked for some data.

Someone has finally provided some data, which shows that 'Nearly 90% of those convicted of wider child abuse offences and on the sex offenders register are white men'. Yet for some reason, this thread isn't interested in that nearly 90% - only the 10%. People can draw their own conclusions from that - as to whether your interest is in the victims, or in using the issue to attack immigrants and asylum seekers.

It's pretty clear that you are the one trying to stop me from asking difficult questions, like asking for actual data as well as anecdotes - as the plural of anecdotes is not data.

I have been called a TRA for stating that the problem here is male violence. Which shows the logic of those posting on this thread!

See past posts by beastlyslumber

unherd.com/2021/04/swedens-migrant-rape-crisis/

In this article for Unherd, AHA talks about the difficulty of collecting data for her book and a Swedish study that has generated some robust data:

The researchers found that, within that time-frame, a total of 3,039 offenders were convicted of rape+ against a woman in Sweden — nearly all of whom (99.7%) were men. According to the researchers, Swedish-born offenders with Swedish-born parents accounted for 40.8% of the offenders. But, strikingly, almost half of the offenders were born outside of Sweden (47.7%). Of those foreign-born offenders, 34.5% were from the Middle East/North Africa, with 19.1% hailing from the rest of Africa. As a percentage of all convicted perpetrators, therefore, 16.4% were foreign-born individuals from the Middle East/North Africa, and 9.1% were foreign-born individuals from Africa (excluding North Africa).

She goes on to look at the data in a bit more detail and then talks about how such data needs to be handled sensitively, because of two risks she identifies:

The first, and perhaps most obvious, lies in condemning entire groups, with whole categories of persons deemed “guilty” based on the criminal behaviour of a few. I think that is a mistake, ethically and analytically, not least because the overwhelming majority of foreign-born men living in Sweden are not guilty of crimes. It goes without saying that the group as a whole cannot be condemned for the actions of a very small percentage.

The second risk, however, is to take the complete opposite approach; to dismiss the link from migration to sexual violence through excessive relativisation. [...] But such an approach is not only naïve; it also ignores the existence of a wider trend. The Swedish authors themselves state that their conclusions “are in line with previous Swedish studies… [and] are also in line with international studies from, among others, Switzerland, as well as Sweden’s neighbouring countries Norway, Finland and Denmark.”

I've never said any such thing. 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.

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.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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

WTF?

What weird shit is this?

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

You should be ashamed of yourself.

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? 😡

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.