The Countess - Womens rights group in Ireland - Report on Immigration Effects on Women & Girls

[KnottyAuty]

Irish people are being forced to accept policy that transgresses fundamental boundaries and treats nature, identity, culture, family, and nationality as negotiable when in fact, the family unit, community, and inherited culture are the scaffolding of a stable society. We at The Countess are unafraid of analysing policy through the lens of womens’ rights and child safeguarding.

thecountess.ie/a-new-campaign-a-new-direction-a-new-mission/

Report: Through a Safeguarding lens, darkly: a thematic report into the International Protection Provision in Ireland

The report has identified significant shifts in the nature of sexual violence across Europe, highlighting emergent trends in opportunistic street attacks and group-based sexual assaults. The findings raise urgent questions for Irish policymakers as the State continues to accommodate over 33,000 individuals in the International Protection system without screening them against European Crime databases.

Drawing on official statistics from multiple EU member states including Austria, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Italy, and France, the report outlines clear evidence that foreign-born individuals are over-represented in sexual offence data, often by a factor of three to four, with even higher rates in specific subcategories such as gang rape.

Sounds like a brilliant piece of work. And I suddenly feel as though I now need to think more deeply/critically about news coverage which portrays those protesting about immigration hotels as right wing racists… all sounding awfully familiar…

Does anyone know if UK immigration stats are disaggregated to allow a similar comparison?

So the idea that 'woman' has a specific meaning, based on biological fact, and that women are entitled to women's rights is 'petty'?

People are entitled to say what they like, it's legislating on the basis of the kind of irrational and unscientific things that people say about gender and sex that's the problem.

What you're saying is very stupid when you make the difference between legal or illegal immigration in this instance. If you're going to just assume that men from the middle east are sex offenders, then what difference does legal status make? Why would you want them here legally if you're going to make such massive generalizations and ignore people's right to....not be accused of crimes they didn't commit based on nothing?

Yes, you could choose any of those categories. I'm sure a decent research team would be able to analyse the concerns and select suitable categories. It might be necessary to get the police to start recording those categories in the first place. There is, of course, lots of nuance involved in any categorisation (other than sex!) but, just because it is difficult, doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it.

You can do both, Trans people can have their legal recognition while people also recognize that biological differences matter sometimes. The problem is that people of your mindset seem to want sex to matter literally all the time. People who are obsessed with making sex, race, sexuality etc, relevant all the time usually have some authoritarian agenda in mind.

It's not okay to assume guilt based on race, that's what racial profiling is.

I don't think there's anything wrong with males being called 'she', even legally, if there's no fall out. The only issues I see are women's prisons and children taking hormone blockers. The rest seems petty and pearl clutching. And like I said, I don't understand why same sex assaults in prisons are treated as unimportant.

Well, you know there is a movement for zero immigration and massive remigration...

You're making the same argument that actual white supremacists make when they argue that Jewish people or Black people are inherently more violent/unintelligent/inferior in some way or another. And considering that we already know that men commit more sex crimes, then this is all pointless. Because that fact doesn't justify dictating where people can or can't travel to.

Yes, which is authoritarian and stupid. People have always travelled, and always will. But at least people are admitting that it was never actually about legality.

I guess gay men at risk of execution shouldn't be allowed to leave their homophobic countries either. After all, they MIGHT be a rapist.

You are, rightly, unhappy about the idea of assuming a man is guilty of a sexual crime based simply on some characteristic he holds, without any other evidence.

That is different to investigating whether there are population level correlations between various male demographics and types of sexual crime.

I don't think there's anything wrong with condemning cultures that are heavily bigoted to the point of imprisoning/executing people. I don't think it's justification to deny brown people travel to other countries. Simple.

Interesting. You have already dismissed my concerns about people with a penis being allowed in to women's sports, refuges/hostels, showers etc

So under what circumstances exactly do you think biology matters?

It would only be pointless if the knowledge that men commit more sex crimes had led to society significantly reducing those crimes towards zero. I'm sure you agree that has not happened.
So we need a more granular set of data. I do agree that just looking at colour (white/black/brown etc) would be racist and pointless. There is nothing about the amount of melanin in a person's skin that is going to make them more prone to certain crimes.

You're conflating that with saying I support zero migration or remigration. I don't.
I'm just answering the person who was saying I shouldn't differentiate migration as legal v illegal when it comes to rates of offending.
Because plenty of Brits want serious numbers sent away, and none coming in. That's their easy answer to Afghans and Iraqis offending seriously many many more times than the indigenous population.
Look at the Mirpuri clan running of grooming gangs, they offend many more times than even other Pakistanis. Yet polite society has forced no open discussion of this.
Re stopping people fleeing persecution, I don't see 40k illegals annually, closer to double that when you include other routes plus those illegally overstaying their scam college degrees, I don't believe the vast majority are persecuted, meaning they're economic migrants.
But even when they do stay, and the liberal order insists on asylum hotels and now building council accomodation just for them, there's no way you can take the reasonable mass of moderate opinion with you on this policy.

I missed this when I was asking what circumstances you considered biology to be relevant.

Can you explain to me why you feel it's OK to have a trans identifying male in a women's refuge/hostel but not in a prison, bearing in mind that the women prisoners are probably at less risk due to the supervision in prisons?

Could you also tell me why you think it is petty to be concerned about girls and women competing against people who have gone through male puberty in contract sports such as boxing and rugby?

No, you look at countries and their rates of serious offending, sexual crimes, attitudes to women, children, gays.
And you rank those countries.
If in a decade, Canadian men suddenly became 20x more rapey and paedophilic than Brutish men, there would be serious Qs to answer as to the favourability of allowing Canadians in.
If we found this was the case only after forcing previously hidden data to be revealed, well I guess we'd have no confidence in our govt in this matter.
Just has actually been happening for decades regarding zero transparency of data on nationality based serious/sex offending.

I don;t think most people talking about this subject are reasonable or moderate.

But you would want to make sure that it isn't the imprisoners and executers who are travelling to and being allowed to stay in your country, simply because your country is ignorant through never having collected and analysed the data.

Which is exactly why those of us who do consider ourselves to be reasonable and moderate need to get involved in this debate, and for that to happen the reasonable and moderate person needs data and evidence.

No, I don't think theoretical levels of raising crime is justification to discriminate against individual people based on sex, or to assume guilt. And the fact that you use the word attitude makes you sound utterly unhinged. You want to deny people access to travelling based on their opinions? That is pretty fucking wild.

Why not deport criminals in that case? In fact, why not deport our population of people who have offensive and cruel attitudes toward certain demographics? I;m not sure where you draw the line when you start thought policing.

People already have data. Racists use it as a way to accuse black/brown/Jewish people of being more violent and neanderthal.

I'm focusing on sexual crime here, which is what is mostly discussed in relation to immigration. Look at rape for example - I've had a look at the sources and they're pretty muddled and you have to patch together information from different sources. But roughly 72,000 RAPES are recorded by police in a year. That seems a lot, but apparently 5 out of 6 women and 7 out of 8 men who experience rape (their interpretation, obviously) do NOT report it. .Out of the alleged rapes that are recorded by police, fewer than 3,000 ADULT rape cases reach the "completed prosecution" stage (on a yearly basis). The conviction rate is then roughly 50%.
This doesn't look like a great outcome to me.
And people charged with a crime aren't necessarily innocent, they're DEEMED innocent.

I don;t have a problem with people who have committed crimes going to other countries, if they have served their sentence and paid for whatever the crime was.

Can you define "same sex" in regards to the Irish Prison Service?

How would you work out the sex of the sex offender?

How would you work out the sex of the victim?