Western Feminists silent on Muslim rape epidemics

[Int'l man of mystery]

More Muslims integrating with the west and being accepting of people who have dogs as pets. Just kidding. More Muslims stirring up shit thinking they have the right to tell British people what to do just because of...well religion. - When you see a Brit walking their dog, mind your own business and get the fuck out of the way. Stop screaming and yelling. - Drew J.

https://twitter.com/DefendEvropa/status ... 0713954305

From the video, it’s hard to tell what actually transpired beforehand to cause the incident. Most likely, it would seem to have involved the children in someway, given that you can clearly hear one of them crying. Does the alt-right just assume without evidence, that every Muslim-involved incident has something to do with Muslim culture or Islam?

Drew certainly seems to:

Dogs are unclean. Black dogs are devils.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Ha ... is_a_Devil

Those “black dogs” mentioned in those ahadith are NOT the domesticated companions people keep as pets, but are dangerous wild animals – including African wild dogs, jackals, coyotes or hyenas (called “devils” because of their ferocity) – that caused a lot of problems in Medina at the time, for both people and livestock. People don’t understand how general the term “dog” is in Arabic, so they incorrectly assume that it is exclusively in reference to everyone’s favorite pet.

As for the uncleanliness of dogs, it is typically associated only with their saliva, which may or may not be a general rule and may or may not have been related to the rabies epidemic in Medina at the time (which precipitated them being killed) or exclusively in reference to the wild “dogs”, and not the domesticated ones. Dog saliva in general has bacteria that are potentially harmful to humans, so it may also be in reference to that.

Animals in Islam

Fatwa regarding dogs being unclean

Analyzing Dogs Killed in Madinah

Islamic View on Dogs

Muslims and Dogs

Regardless of how unhygienic dogs are, the Islamic guideline is to not keep them inside the house, except for utilitarian purposes, which plenty of non-Muslim dog owners already do. One of the problems with polemical sites like wikiislam.net, is that they treat all authentic ahadith dogmatically with extreme literalism, when they don’t actually work that way in Islamic jurisprudence.

However, none of this is even relevant to the incident in the video, because there is nothing in Islam or even in Muslim culture against walking a domesticated pet dog outside in a public place, and there is no evidence that this incident has anything to do with the status of dogs in Islam to begin with.

The obsession of anti-Islam polemicists with trying to find an angle with every Muslim-involved incident (even when none exists) to bash Islam and Muslim culture with, only shows how pathetic their polemics really are. There are plenty of videos of women going hysterical against people all over the internet, and they are no less relevant than this one.

Once again, liberals have no clue about economics. Economics is a science. Crying 'racist' and 'bigot' is an emotional reaction these days. Multiculturalism must be a means to a good, healthy end. It can't be an end in itself. - Drew J

https://sputniknews.com/europe/20180601 ... on-losses/

Sweden Reportedly Losing Billions Annually Due to Massive Asylum Immigration

…

Mass unemployment in any economy that offers welfare for the unemployed is always going to be a financial burden, regardless if the unemployed are foreigners or natives. That is one of the many reasons why it is a good idea for any country to allow ALL of its residents to work and accumulate wealth and contribute to its economy as much as possible. Yet, the Swedish government has policies in place that actively prevent this from happening, while its ‘Migrant Agency’ is actually deporting its foreign professionals over agency errors with their paperwork. Sweden now has a ‘tougher than ever’ labor market, and with bad management decisions like those, it is no wonder why. The alt-right of course, wants to blame “multiculturalism” for everything, while ignoring the rampant nepotism that actually prevents it from working properly and which has no value in a developed, international-based economy.

Thanks again, feminism. You failed to protect little girls because you didn't want to be racist. Feminism now tolerates pedophilia and child molestation under the guise of religious tolerance and multiculturalism. - Drew J


https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/99 ... d-marriage

Sweden election FURORE over migrants 'taking child brides to secure EU passports'
GROWN men are ‘marrying’ terrified little girls in a bid to secure EU passports – and Sweden’s confused paedophilia and sexual abuse laws seem powerless to stop them.
By Carly Read
PUBLISHED: 12:32, Mon, Jul 23, 2018 | UPDATED: 18:46, Mon, Jul 23, 2018

…

Except “child brides” have nothing to do with “religious tolerance” since there is no religious mandate for it, and the motive for doing so in those particular cases according to the article, makes those marriages to older men a “marriage of convenience”, which is neither religious nor cultural.

Women’s getting married before the age of 18 is a global phenomenon that transcends nationality, culture, religion and ethnicity, occurring in virtually every region in the world, because non-bureaucratic, rural societies in virtually every region of the world, tend not to be ageists when it comes to adulthood and consent.

“Pedophilia” and “child molestation” are different issues entirely: the former being psychological, defined by having a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children and the latter being physical, involving the sexual exploitation of prepubescent children. Incidents of “child marriage” typically involve adolescents rather than prepubescent children, and therefore do not typically qualify as either. The difference in regards to terminology is that the terms “pedophilia” and “child molestation” both utilize the BIOLOGICAL definition of a “child” (i.e. between birth and puberty), while the term “child marriage” utilizes the LEGAL definition of a “child” (i.e. below the “age of majority”).

What convenience marriages represent are legal loopholes that foreigners are able to exploit to get easier, cheaper access to citizenship and/or residency than the conventional immigration processes offer.

Net migration worldwide:



Of course, more practical immigration policies might actually encourage people to pursue immigration conventionally and, at the very least, reduce the number of passport marriages like these.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08- ... s-multiple


Sweden Is Burning: Migrant Gangs Unleash Coordinated Fire-Bomb Rampage Across Multiple Cities
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 08/13/2018 - 20:37

…

This is just another example of the proverbial “chickens coming home to roost” with Sweden’s poor, disenfranchised, disillusioned, angry young, single men who clearly have way too much free time on their hands. It has nothing to do with “religion” or “culture” or with “immigration” and everything to do with riffraff being riffraff. Every country in the world has its riffraff, and importing them into an even more unwelcoming environment is only going to exacerbate their anti-social behavior. There is no correlation between crime and immigration, which even the article itself admits:

The Sweden Democrats have succeeded in linking the two in the minds of many voters, even though OFFICIAL STATISTIC SHOW NO CORRELATION BETWEEN OVERALL LEVELS OF CRIME AND IMMIGRATION. However, while the government denies it has lost control but Prime Minister Stefan Lofven has not ruled out sending the military into problem areas.

But that doesn’t stop the article from asserting that:

…Trump was right after all.

Despite the fact that the statistics themselves (or lack thereof) clearly imply that he wasn’t.

https://www.defendevropa.org/2018/migra ... -migrants/

Denmark: 10 out of 12 Rapes Committed By Migrants
By The D on July 1, 2018

…

Drew now refers back to the same article he linked to earlier, which was already addressed.

From that link it says:

“The countries of origin for the perpetrators were Macedonia, Somalia, Bulgaria, Iraq and Eritrea.”

However, nowhere in the article is the religious orientation of the perpetrators mentioned. In addition, Macedonia and Bulgaria are Christian-majority countries in Eastern Europe, while Eritrea is a Christian-majority country in Africa. Of those 5 countries of origin, only Iraq and Somalia are Muslim-majority.

Furthermore, Denmark has the same problem that Sweden has with rape statistics; the vast majority of rape goes unreported. Therefore, the reported rape stats are effectively useless in trying to ascertain which collective contributes more perpetrators. It is ultimately irrelevant anyway, because there is no collective where rape is acceptable.

…

Naturally, people have been looking for excuses for these immigrants and why they feel the need to sexually assault local women. Christian Diesen, from Stokholm University has studied similar problems in Sweden said:

“The reason for the over representation is the poor integration. They do not feel like part of society, quickly feel outside and feel contempt for society and for others. We also see in Sweden especially among the immigrant people who are accused of rape that they blame the woman – the victim – calling her a luder and saying she behaved in a way so she was guilty of it. She participated in it, and initially she had g-strings and was shaven at the bottom.”

…

…


See the bold text I made? That was IMOM's excuse for the poor behaviour of the immigrants. It's not their fault they rape people. They are poor and feel different because well, they are different being immigrants. So we need to take that into account when arresting and/or sentencing them. And liberals claims to stand for rape victims. It's a joke. - Drew J

The left and the right are in agreement that it is not the fault of the migrant rapist for raping people, but it’s the fault of their “culture” or “religion”. They only disagree with each other on the solution, not on the problem. In reality, the poor behavior of some of the immigrants is no different than the poor behavior of some of the locals and it is done for the same reasons. Their over-representation in crime stats in general can be attributed to their over-representation in poverty stats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHEAh0LYHSs[/youtube]

It is a little disingenuous to imply that Denmark was some xenophiliac utopia until the downside of multiculturalism became apparent. Racism and discrimination have always been there, even if they haven’t always been legal. Even though Denmark welcomed non-Western immigrants, it never really welcomed non-Western cultures. Therefore multiculturalism was never really embraced, and so it is impossible for it to have failed when it was never accepted in the first place. What did they think was going to happen with mass immigration? Were they hoping that the non-Western immigrants would come to see how superior Western culture is to their own and adopt it? Or at least respect it even though it functions discriminatorily against them? Humans don’t work that way.

The Hegelian dialectic method is always successful in getting controversial legislation passed that would not have been passed under normal circumstances. First, they turn immigration into a crisis, which then generates a nationalistic backlash that then allows for said controversial legislation to be passed – legislation that introduces not only the new, more restrictive immigration policies, but also the new draconian “ghetto” policies as well. The “crisis” of “migrant crime” is just a state-sponsored façade to facilitate fascist policies. The real motive is to remove “parallel societies” by 2030. However, this cannot be done without violating people’s rights. Thus, despite advertising “democracy”, “rights” and “equality”, Denmark is still plagued by nepotism, fascism and income inequality.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andr ... 63a358f497

FOURTH MUSLIM RAPE RING. BEYOND COINCIDENCE
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
March 28, 2018 2:54pm

First Rotherham: some 20 rapists, and 1200 victims. Then Rochdale, another nine men preying on underaged girls. Then Telford, dozens of abusers and hundreds of victims.

Now it's Oxford, and yet another Muslim rape ring:

Seven men have been found guilty of grooming and sexually abusing teenage girls "on a massive scale" in Oxford.

The gang was convicted of more than 20 offences including rape and indecent assault between 1998 and 2005.

Prosecutor Oliver Saxby QC said they carried out the "routine, cynical and predatory sexual exploitation" of vulnerable girls who were groomed with alcohol and drugs.

The five victims were aged between 13 and 15 when the offences started.

The names of the guilty:

Assad Hussain, 37, of Iffley Road, Oxford, guilty of five counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault, not guilty of one count of indecent assault.
Kameer Iqbal, 39, of Dashwood Road, Oxford, guilty of three counts of rape.
Khalid Hussain, 38, of Ashhurst Way, Oxford, guilty of rape and indecent assault, not guilty of one count of rape.
Kamran Khan, 36, of Northfield Road, Bolton, guilty of indecent assault and false imprisonment, not guilty of rape.
Moinul Islam, 41, of Wykeham Crescent, Oxford, guilty of rape, two counts of indecent assault and supplying cannabis, not guilty of false imprisonment.
Raheem Ahmed, 40 of Starwort Path, Oxford, guilty of two counts of indecent assault and false imprisonment, not guilty of rape.
Alladitta Yousaf, 48, of Bodley Road, Oxford, guilty of indecent assault.

It is extraordinary that this phenomenon gets so little attention, at least in proportion to the evil.

What else is being withheld about the cost of Britain's immigration program?

Tim Blair:

They’re due for sentencing in June. Until then and beyond, left-wing feminists will continue their long campaign of total silence on these atrocities.

If they’ve already been arrested, tried and convicted, then, unless anyone wants to dispute their guilt, there really is nothing left to be said of any value – only the usual xenophobic politicking. People committed a crime – they get arrested for it – then tried and convicted for it – and now they are awaiting sentencing. If they’re actually guilty, then the legal system is working exactly how it is supposed to and if they’re not guilty, then clearly it isn’t.

Douglas Murray on the BBC's refusal to cover the Telford rape ring:



In fact, the mass gang-rape of underage girls in Shropshire didn’t even make it to the homepage of BBC Shropshire. Only after a fair amount of comment about this online did the BBC manage, this afternoon, to squeeze the rape of the area’s kids into their round-up of Shropshire news.

So now, finally, there is a headline story about the case. Though it may be said to fit jarringly with the ‘My Telford’ video also on their front-page in which the BBC has splashed out some money on a video in which students at Hadley Learning Community ‘Tell their Telford stories to BBC Radio Shropshire.’ I suppose we can just agree that it is to everyone’s regret that while the BBC was choosing to spend part of the license fee on this pointless piece of feel-good pabulum they forgot to make a video-story in which young women in Telford could have told about their very different Telford experience.

That ‘My Telford’ could have been a really interesting and important video. Or it would have been if every single arm of the state plus the official state broadcaster hadn’t already decided that the children of Telford being gang-raped on an industrial scale (Telford is a town of just 170,000 people) is one big yawn-fest. Or that they basically agree with the very basic Labour MP Naz Shah who last year revealed her own opinions about all this when she re-Tweeted a (satirical) Tweet suggesting that the victims of the Rotherham sex abuse scandal should ‘shut their mouths. For the good of #diversity.’

UPDATE

Reader Dracon says I missed a few other such rape rings: in Derby, Oxford (again), Bristol, Banbury, Aylesbury, and Keighley

This is quite extraordinary.

It really isn’t that extraordinary, since child sexual abuse has been reported about in the UK throughout its history, and hasn’t been confined to a particular ethnic or religious group. Needless to say, most of it goes unreported.

tl;dr would be the understatement of the century.

Drew, this thread is fine, ignore him.

Yes Drew. Listen to Raoul. Ignore me. You don’t really know how, or care, to participate in a discussion with conflicting points of view anyway. So you can continue with your post dumps, and I shall continue with my responses.

He doesn't accept any of the overwhelming data and stats, says they're not credible for xyz reasons then pivots to "well the host nation's people probably rape more and get away with it because it's not reported as much".

Actually, the issue with the data and stats isn’t so much with their credibility, as it is with their interpretation. Drew posts data and stats regarding “rape” and jumps to conclusions that cannot be supported by them and goes off on his tangent of shaming religion and culture – both of which have nothing to with any of the data or stats to begin with.

then pivots to "well the host nation's people probably rape more and get away with it because it's not reported as much".

Actually, the contention is that rape is more often committed by someone who the victim already knows, but it is more often reported when it is committed by someone the victim does not know. This is only ever shown to be true in all the available studies on the subject, and it’s not exclusive to any one country. All the data and stats Drew pools from are of the reported variety, where unknowns perpetrate most of the rapes. He then showcases it as reflecting both the reported and the unreported, which then gives a false impression of reality.

Drew, these poor innocent muzlims are victims of bigoted racist reporting and data collecting and whites do it more and it's not reported as much.......... Here is a link to a George Soros funded website to explain why you're wrong .. he did this on a similar thread I made when the muzies started their raping. The bigger issue is that >> THEY'RE RAPING THE WOMEN OF THE HOST NATION THAT TAKES THEM IN.

Under the principle of EQUALITY, which these “host nations” claim to support, all rapists are equal. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what dirt they were born on top of, what face they wear, what language they speak, or what their cultural/religious preferences are; they all get arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced equally when they get busted for rape under the same circumstances.

So ZERO is the acceptable amount of muzlim rapes

Zero is the acceptable amount of rapes from EVERYONE. The identity of the rapist is irrelevant, because they’re all fundamentally the same; criminals who willingly violate the rights of others to get what they want. Countries are social constructs, not organisms, and their respective womenfolk are not some national public property where it is somehow less wrong for them to be raped by someone who is indigenous than by someone who is foreign. They are both equally wrong.

and shut the fuck up about the host nations domestic problems you parasite. Basically.

Why, when they are completely relevant public issues that everyone has to deal with?

Yep. He did try to fuck with your topic.
viewtopic.php?f=114&t=34343

Actually, it’s called disagreeing and providing a counter-argument, which is how open discussions are supposed to function.

Remember, folks: This is not their fault. British society wouldn't let them integrate. So they had no choice but to lash out at white supremacy and act like this. The new feminism is intertwined with multiculturalism at all costs. The safety of women and girls can be negotiated when it comes to foreign men. White rape is bad. Muslim/Sikh rape is acceptable. - Drew J

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-45918845

Huddersfield grooming: Twenty guilty of campaign of rape and abuse

…

While for the alt-right, white rape is bad, but rape by non-white foreigners is somehow magically worse, yet they’ll say it has nothing to do with racism.

Their ethnic, cultural and religious identities are red herrings as they have only one identity that matters; “criminal”. With the legal system once again functioning exactly how it is supposed to, there really isn’t anything more to address of any significance. The article also puts these recent sex scandals in the UK into perspective quite nicely:

…..

The sexual abuse of vulnerable children in English towns by groups of men, often from immigrant communities, is AN INCARNATION OF A WIDER SCANDAL that is dominating our news and overwhelming our police and our courts.

It is a crime that UNTIL RECENTLY was RARELY discussed in public. Child sexual abuse was OFTEN IGNORED or COVERED UP: the protection of institutional reputation or community cohesion put before the protection of children.

The grooming gangs of provincial England tend to operate where the disinfectant of public scrutiny struggles to reach - POORER neighbourhoods on the edge of town, around the mini-cab ranks and fast food joints, the twilight zones of urban life.

….

So, rather than being symptomatic of an immigration problem, it is actually symptomatic of a deeper issue that transcends ethnic, cultural and religious identities as well as social and economic status. Also, as it was mentioned before, it is also something that has plagued the UK throughout its history. Then, as usual, when it comes to child sexual abuse between strangers, those most at risk are those who live in poor neighborhoods. The trends are the same everywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_gWhhY8GPw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLstIvP8EBY&t=28s

Indeed, the only reason the alt-right even cares about these rapes at all is because of the race/culture/religion of the perpetrators. This is especially obvious when they literally have nothing else to say about them. They have the same regard for the victims that the perpetrators did; as nothing but a means to an end. The perpetrators have all been arrested, tried and convicted in accordance with the UK’s criminal justice system, and are in the process of being sentenced, so there isn’t anything left to be done about these rapes, aside from helping the victims recover. But the alt-right doesn’t care about that. They just want something to bash Muslims collectively with. In reality, as long as vulnerability and those willing to take advantage of of it exist, this is always going to be a problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gOvT9dmpA4

Again, as long as vulnerability and those willing to take advantage of it exist, then these types of incidents are always going to be a problem. The solution is not in more punishment for criminals, because no one who commits a crime does so with the intention of being busted for it. Therefore, as long as they aren’t caught, the penal system means nothing to them.

Deporting the foreign criminals neither addresses the problem nor does it even punish the criminals. It’s just a “feel good” solution for the nepotistic alt-right.

The real solution lies in reducing vulnerability. Doing so would help to protect the victims more and would make it easier for these predators to be caught, thus reducing the number of victims substantially.

Remember how I said that IMOM's argument of "most rapes are committed by an attacker who knows the victim" is bullshit and projects American and UK things onto Scandanavia? WELL HERE IS THE PROOF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0sK8f48x4#t=8m30s

The argument is that in most rapes, the rapist and the victim know each other. This isn’t something confined to the US and the UK, but is a global reality that includes Scandinavia, and that even the “Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention” acknowledges as being PARTICULARLY UNDERREPRESENTED in its surveys. Drew cites a video using reported rape stats as proof that this isn’t the case. However, reported rape stats are really only proof of what rapes are more likely to be reported, not what rapes are more likely to occur.

[Drew J]

Remember this from me:

Remember how I said that IMOM's argument of "most rapes are committed by an attacker who knows the victim" is bullshit and projects American and UK things onto Scandanavia? WELL HERE IS THE PROOF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0sK8f48x4#t=8m30s

His response?

The argument is that in most rapes, the rapist and the victim know each other. This isn’t something confined to the US and the UK, but is a global reality that includes Scandinavia

He uses American and UK stats, projects it on to Scandanavia without any proof and then uses THAT to prove that Muslims are NOT committing more rapes compared to their population. In other words, he commits the fallacy of begging the question.

However, reported rape stats are really only proof of what rapes are more likely to be reported, not what rapes are more likely to occur.

Nothing changes with this clown. After the last SIX CHALLENGES I made for him to FINALLY prove whites are raping more or equal to Muslims, he still can't. All he has is circular reasoning and a conspiracy theory backed by no evidence; except for ANOTHER FALLACY. Reversing the burden of proof.

What I’m actually saying is that THE STATS NEED TO BE PROVEN THAT THEY REFLECT REALITY. You have NOT proven that to be the case, and until you do, there is no reason to accept your conclusions about them; much less your solutions in regards to them. Beyond your stats, you have nothing besides probability to utilize.

Um, stats usually DO reflect reality. That's why they are called statistics. Stats show Muslims are raping more. It is up to IMOM to prove what the "real" stats are. I have already done my homework for my thesis and he admits they have stats. It's up to him to find better stats that reflect reality other than conspiracy theories backed by the fallacies of begging the question and argument from ignorance. Until he finds more accurate statistics, all he has is conspiracy theories that white rape is underreported and/or Muslim rape is over-reported thus distorting the actual reality.

reported rape stats are really only proof of what rapes are more likely to be reported...

No, reported rape stats don't show what is likely to be reported. It reflects WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN REPORTED. Him saying that reported stats only reflect what is likely to be reported (in the future of course) is him just saying in different words ONCE AGAIN that reported rapes don't reflect reality. REPEATING YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY IN DIFFERENT WORDS IS NOT THE SAME AS ACTUALLY PROVING IT. WHEN I ASK FOR PROOF I DON'T WANT REPETITIOUS, SYNONYMOUS LANGUAGE!

...not what rapes are more likely to occur.

Cry me a river.

The solution is not in more punishment for criminals

I don't know what you mean by solution. The language is too vague. I would hope that you would agree that any rapist who is caught and convicted needs to be put in prison or at least deported so that HE INDIVIDUALLY can be for his INDIVIDUAL CRIME or CRIMES.

because no one who commits a crime does so with the intention of being busted for it. Therefore, as long as they aren’t caught, the penal system means nothing to them.

Um, point? Relevance? I hope you're not arguing that just because criminals don't want to get caught that we should therefore stop putting arrested, tried and convicted rapists in jail.

Deporting the foreign criminals neither addresses the problem

I don't know what you mean by "problem." So I will repeat myself. I would hope that you would agree that any rapist who is caught and convicted needs to be put in prison or at least deported so that HE INDIVIDUALLY can be for his INDIVIDUAL CRIME or CRIMES.

nor does it even punish the criminals.

Locking criminals away DOES punish them. It TAKES AWAY THEIR LIBERTY and their freedom to live in peaceful society. Are you stupid?

It’s just a “feel good” solution for the nepotistic alt-right.

Are you admitting that leftists want to open the jails and make streets less safer? Where are you going with this?
Wanting to put criminals in jail makes you a racist. I guess that means by putting white criminals in jail I'm a self hating white person. This whole debate is fucking insane.

The real solution lies in reducing vulnerability.

The idea of putting an individual person in jail for their individual crime is in most places never been a belief that doing so will stop others in the future from doing it. That's why more and more people are against the death penalty for example and also because wrongfully convicted people have been killed by the state or just narrowly escaped. But that's a whole side issue. The REASON to put INDIVIDUAL CRIMINALS in jail for their INDIVIDUAL CRIMES idea was to stop THEM IN PARTICULAR from doing it again and also to punish them for breaking the law! Since many if not all rapists have the potential to be repeat offenders PUTTING THEM IN JAIL IS INDEED HOW YOU REDUCE VULNERABILITY YOU FUCKING MORON!!!

Is IMOM either one step away from arguing...or actually arguing...that he doesn't want Muslim rapists put in jail or deported?

It is a little disingenuous to imply that Denmark was some xenophiliac utopia until the downside of multiculturalism became apparent. Racism and discrimination have always been there, even if they haven’t always been legal. Even though Denmark welcomed non-Western immigrants, it never really welcomed non-Western cultures. Therefore multiculturalism was never really embraced, and so it is impossible for it to have failed when it was never accepted in the first place. What did they think was going to happen with mass immigration?

Wow. Is IMOM excusing the Muslim criminals because of old European racist attitudes? You hate us and you stand by while Israel and America fund ISIS and kill us, so I'm going to rape your women. That is akin to, "how do you call my prophet a terrorist. I'm going to blow you up or kill you some other way."

MEN DON'T ALWAYS RAPE FOR POLITICAL REASONS. SOMETIMES THEIR RELIGION AND CULTURE IS BACKWARDS.

The western GOVERNMENTS are among the worst if not THE WORST in history in terms of all the wars and the people they have murdered.

The western SOCIETIES which are basically the PEOPLE and NEIGHBOURHOODS who have at least managed to grow up in a country with wonderful things as freedom of speech, gun rights, women's right to abortion, divorce, atheism, choice of clothing, careers and education ARE IN FACT THE BEST!!! So in this one PARTICULAR sense in terms of SOCIETIES (distinct from government bodies), then YES. THE WEST IS THE BEST!!! Any society that works to liberate women and create things like rape shield laws and all the other good things women have IS MORALLY THE BEST!

[Int'l man of mystery]

Remember this from me:

Remember how I said that IMOM's argument of "most rapes are committed by an attacker who knows the victim" is bullshit and projects American and UK things onto Scandanavia? WELL HERE IS THE PROOF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0sK8f48x4#t=8m30s

His response?

The argument is that in most rapes, the rapist and the victim know each other. This isn’t something confined to the US and the UK, but is a global reality that includes Scandinavia

He uses American and UK stats, projects it on to Scandanavia without any proof and then uses THAT to prove that Muslims are NOT committing more rapes compared to their population. In other words, he commits the fallacy of begging the question.

In fact the actual response was:

The argument is that in most rapes, the rapist and the victim know each other. This isn’t something confined to the US and the UK, but is a global reality that includes Scandinavia, and that even the “Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention” acknowledges as being PARTICULARLY UNDERREPRESENTED in its surveys. Drew cites a video using reported rape stats as proof that this isn’t the case. However, reported rape stats are really only proof of what rapes are more likely to be reported, not what rapes are more likely to occur.

The “Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention” even acknowledges that the stats of the reported rapes do not accurately reflect the stats of the unreported rapes. Notice how carefully Drew avoids addressing that point, but insists on his straw-man argument about US and UK stats not applying to Scandinavia. Unfortunately for Drew’s argument, global rape statistics do not exclude Scandinavia, and the SNCCP is specifically referencing Sweden when it talks about rape committed by friends, acquaintances and family members being underrepresented in the reported rape stats.

However, reported rape stats are really only proof of what rapes are more likely to be reported, not what rapes are more likely to occur.

Nothing changes with this clown.

Why exactly would anything change when Drew has presented nothing new and everything that he has already presented has already been addressed?

After the last SIX CHALLENGES I made for him to FINALLY prove whites are raping more or equal to Muslims, he still can't. All he has is circular reasoning and a conspiracy theory backed by no evidence; except for ANOTHER FALLACY. Reversing the burden of proof.

Drew likes to go back to his already-refuted points, insisting on their validity, despite the fact that they have already been demonstrated to have none.

Being “white” has nothing to do with anything, despite Drew’s continued insistence that it does. The actual challenge is to prove that unreported rape stats are different from reported rape stats, which all available data on the subject suggests that it is.

So where is the contrary evidence that the reported rape stats accurately reflect the unreported rape stats? Drew has presented none. In fact, Drew avoids the question entirely:

“WHY DO MOST RAPES GO UNREPORTED IN SWEDEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?”

Drew knows the answer. But because the answer doesn’t support his argument, he won’t admit to it. All he talks about are non-existent conspiracy theories, demanding proof to the contrary while he has presented none of his own, claiming he doesn’t have to.

What I’m actually saying is that THE STATS NEED TO BE PROVEN THAT THEY REFLECT REALITY. You have NOT proven that to be the case, and until you do, there is no reason to accept your conclusions about them; much less your solutions in regards to them. Beyond your stats, you have nothing besides probability to utilize.

Um, stats usually DO reflect reality. That's why they are called statistics.

Statistics tries to measure reality by sampling, while utilizing calculus and the probability theory to try and estimate the reality of the much larger, unsampled population, when full census data is unavailable. This latter method only works if it’s the same population that is being sampled from. Taking a random sample of reported rapes can be utilized to make an estimate about the other reported rapes, while taking a random sample of unreported rapes can be used to make an estimate of the rest of the unreported rapes. However, you cannot use the census data on reported rape to estimate the unreported rapes, when the reasons for the rapes being unreported and reported are not accounted for. Making such an assumption can only result in faulty conclusions about the rape population.

Stats show Muslims are raping more.

Correction: Stats show that individuals with a Muslim background commit a disproportionate number of the REPORTED rapes in Sweden. They also show that unknowns commit most of the reported rapes. However, those stats say nothing about the other 4/5 of rapes in Sweden that go unreported. Surveys of unreported rapes do, which all show that most times it is a family member, a friend or an acquaintance of the victim, that commits rape against them. They also show that these types of relationships between the victim and the perpetrator are one of the reasons why the rape isn’t reported. That is the reality of rape in Sweden. It is also the reality of rape virtually everywhere else in the world.

It is up to IMOM to prove what the "real" stats are.

There are no “real” stats. There is only the official census data of the reported rapes and survey data of the unreported rapes, in which stats only reflect the latter, not the former. There are no official stats for the latter and there are no official stats for a consolidation of both. There is the soft data from surveys, which is insufficient for making an official statistical analysis, but provides enough information to utilize the probability theory to make the conclusion that its proportions are different from those of the reported rape stats.

I have already done my homework for my thesis and he admits they have stats. It's up to him to find better stats that reflect reality other than conspiracy theories backed by the fallacies of begging the question and argument from ignorance. Until he finds more accurate statistics, all he has is conspiracy theories that white rape is underreported and/or Muslim rape is over-reported thus distorting the actual reality.

So, basically, Drew thinks that unreported rapes are a conspiracy theory and “Bra” – (The “Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention”), because there is no hard data for its stats, and he just can’t be bothered with the soft data.

However, that isn’t reality. It is a fact that most rape goes unreported, so unreported rape exists, and all available data on the subject shows that most rape is perpetrated by knowns, and that is one of the reasons it goes unreported.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume that the reported rapes accurately reflect the unreported rapes without utilizing any data from the latter.

reported rape stats are really only proof of what rapes are more likely to be reported...

No, reported rape stats don't show what is likely to be reported. It reflects WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN REPORTED. Him saying that reported stats only reflect what is likely to be reported (in the future of course) is him just saying in different words ONCE AGAIN that reported rapes don't reflect reality. REPEATING YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY IN DIFFERENT WORDS IS NOT THE SAME AS ACTUALLY PROVING IT. WHEN I ASK FOR PROOF I DON'T WANT REPETITIOUS, SYNONYMOUS LANGUAGE!

When Drew talks about present and future tense (“Muslims are RAPING more”), it is a matter of probability, because the stats are in regard to what has already happened. He likes to utilize it for his argument, but objects to it being used as a counter-argument against his. Saying that census data on reported rapes only reflects the reported rapes is a matter of fact. If Drew wants to claim that they reflect the unreported rapes as well, then he needs data from the unreported rapes to prove it. The default assumption is always negative until proven otherwise. Given the survey data, it is more probable that the unreported rapes have different figures than the reported rapes.

...not what rapes are more likely to occur.

Cry me a river.

Cry yourself a river. I have no tears for you or your daft arguments.

The solution is not in more punishment for criminals

I don't know what you mean by solution. The language is too vague. I would hope that you would agree that any rapist who is caught and convicted needs to be put in prison or at least deported so that HE INDIVIDUALLY can be for his INDIVIDUAL CRIME or CRIMES.

I think that goes without saying. I was addressing the potential prospect of increasing the already established legal penalties for the crime – that it won’t be an effective deterrent, if the already-established penalties are not.

because no one who commits a crime does so with the intention of being busted for it. Therefore, as long as they aren’t caught, the penal system means nothing to them.

Um, point? Relevance? I hope you're not arguing that just because criminals don't want to get caught that we should therefore stop putting arrested, tried and convicted rapists in jail.

No. I am arguing that increasing the penalties of the already-established ones would not be more of a deterrent for the reason that no one who commits the crime intends to be caught.

Deporting the foreign criminals neither addresses the problem

I don't know what you mean by "problem." So I will repeat myself. I would hope that you would agree that any rapist who is caught and convicted needs to be put in prison or at least deported so that HE INDIVIDUALLY can be for his INDIVIDUAL CRIME or CRIMES.

The “problem” is the crime itself, and how best to deter it from happening in the first place. Taking a criminal out of one society, only to put him into another one isn’t a solution. It’s just making the matter of actually punishing him someone else’s problem, which they may or may not even do. How is deportation even supposed to be a punishment exactly?

nor does it even punish the criminals.

Locking criminals away DOES punish them. It TAKES AWAY THEIR LIBERTY and their freedom to live in peaceful society. Are you stupid?

Do you not know how to read properly? I said:

DEPORTING the foreign criminals neither addresses the problem nor does it even punish the criminals. It’s just a “feel good” solution for the nepotistic alt-right.

I’m not sure how you managed to conflate what was being said about deportation vs. what was being said about imprisonment, when I clearly separated the two. How abysmal are your reading comprehension skills exactly?

It’s just a “feel good” solution for the nepotistic alt-right.

Are you admitting that leftists want to open the jails and make streets less safer? Where are you going with this?
Wanting to put criminals in jail makes you a racist. I guess that means by putting white criminals in jail I'm a self hating white person. This whole debate is fucking insane.

Again, I was referring to deportation, not imprisonment. Try to read more carefully.

The real solution lies in reducing vulnerability.

The idea of putting an individual person in jail for their individual crime is in most places never been a belief that doing so will stop others in the future from doing it. That's why more and more people are against the death penalty for example and also because wrongfully convicted people have been killed by the state or just narrowly escaped. But that's a whole side issue. The REASON to put INDIVIDUAL CRIMINALS in jail for their INDIVIDUAL CRIMES idea was to stop THEM IN PARTICULAR from doing it again and also to punish them for breaking the law! Since many if not all rapists have the potential to be repeat offenders PUTTING THEM IN JAIL IS INDEED HOW YOU REDUCE VULNERABILITY YOU FUCKING MORON!!!

Imprisonment only stops those IMPRISONED from committing the crime again while they are imprisoned. It doesn’t stop those NOT imprisoned from committing the crime in the first place, you nitwit. You think you’re reducing the numbers of rapists on the streets by imprisoning them, and therefore reducing vulnerability. However, their numbers on the streets remain a constant, because there are always new rapists entering the streets to replace the old ones who are imprisoned. Therefore reducing vulnerability is not in imprisonment.

Is IMOM either one step away from arguing...or actually arguing...that he doesn't want Muslim rapists put in jail or deported?

All rapists should be put in jail, at the very least. Deportation, however, is like reverse extradition; rather than bring a criminal who fled to another country back to face justice, you send him away to another country where he inevitably escapes justice. Also, if he retains his freedom then there is still the risk that he may return (albeit illegally) and commit the same crime again. You don’t get rid of garbage in your yard by throwing it in someone else’s yard, you get rid of it by dumping it in its proper receptacle.

It is a little disingenuous to imply that Denmark was some xenophiliac utopia until the downside of multiculturalism became apparent. Racism and discrimination have always been there, even if they haven’t always been legal. Even though Denmark welcomed non-Western immigrants, it never really welcomed non-Western cultures. Therefore multiculturalism was never really embraced, and so it is impossible for it to have failed when it was never accepted in the first place. What did they think was going to happen with mass immigration?

Wow. Is IMOM excusing the Muslim criminals because of old European racist attitudes? You hate us and you stand by while Israel and America fund ISIS and kill us, so I'm going to rape your women. That is akin to, "how do you call my prophet a terrorist. I'm going to blow you up or kill you some other way."

Basically, Drew can’t provide a counter-argument to what I actually said, but he has to address it somehow, so he conjures up a straw man argument. Thus he incoherently jumps to the conclusion that pointing out the fact that multiculturalism cannot really be said to have failed when it was never accepted in the first place, somehow means to support criminals from alternative cultural backgrounds.

It is possible to accept other people, other cultures, other languages and other religions while NOT accepting criminal behavior from its individual members and punishing them when they commit it the same way everyone else who commits it is punished.

MEN DON'T ALWAYS RAPE FOR POLITICAL REASONS. SOMETIMES THEIR RELIGION AND CULTURE IS BACKWARDS.

Actually, MOST men don’t rape for political reasons, and rape is not acceptable in any religion or culture either. So it isn’t politics, it isn’t religion and it isn’t culture. Thus, the only external factors left to blame are class and environment.

The western GOVERNMENTS are among the worst if not THE WORST in history in terms of all the wars and the people they have murdered.

The western SOCIETIES which are basically the PEOPLE and NEIGHBOURHOODS who have at least managed to grow up in a country with wonderful things as freedom of speech, gun rights, women's right to abortion, divorce, atheism, choice of clothing, careers and education ARE IN FACT THE BEST!!! So in this one PARTICULAR sense in terms of SOCIETIES (distinct from government bodies), then YES. THE WEST IS THE BEST!!! Any society that works to liberate women and create things like rape shield laws and all the other good things women have IS MORALLY THE BEST!

There isn’t a single society in the world where rape is acceptable. Laws don’t protect women from rape. They only, at most, make it easier to arrest and punish the rapist with harsher penalties. The rape itself and all ensuing trauma for the victim remain.

[Drew J]

The “Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention” even acknowledges that the stats of the reported rapes do not accurately reflect the stats of the unreported rapes.

Yep. He is holding steadfast to his conspiracy theory that whites rape more or equal to the Muslim immigrants despite all stats showing otherwise.

What's funny is that this works against him. I could just as easily say that given the trend of reported rapes showing Muslims doing it disproportionately, they could still be doing it in the unreported numbers. But that would again tie into how he FURTHER has to believe in other conspiracy theories backed by no evidence.

Roughly translated, the overall population of European women are getting raped by white men at a percentage of population rate equal or greater. Which can LOGICALLY MEAN ONLY TWO POSSIBLE THINGS:

1. White women are not reporting white rape for whatever reason
or
2. police are covering up white rape that is equal in proportion to Muslims raping white women.

We have already done this dance. He has no proof. He can't accept what the statistics show, so he makes ad hoc fallacies. How does he justify it? WITH MORE FALLACIES.

it is not reasonable to assume that the reported rapes accurately reflect the unreported rapes without utilizing any data from the latter.

And why?

all available data on the subject shows that most rape is perpetrated by knowns,

THAT'S THE SAME CIRCULAR LOGIC I JUST REFUTED. He is ONCE AGAIN falsely projecting stats from OTHER COUNTRIES about where victims DO know their attacker most of the time, on to countries where that IS NOT THE CASE!

Remember how I said that IMOM's argument of "most rapes are committed by an attacker who knows the victim" is bullshit and projects American and UK things onto Scandanavia? WELL HERE IS THE PROOF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0sK8f48x4#t=8m30s

IMOM ignores facts and repeats the same circular arguments.

The “problem” is the crime itself, and how best to deter it from happening in the first place. Taking a criminal out of one society, only to put him into another one isn’t a solution.

You're proving my point that closing the borders to mass amounts of immigrants and deporting the criminals is the best choice. Thanks for agreeing that Europe has the right remain white majority.

The idea of putting an individual person in jail for their individual crime is in most places never been a belief that doing so will stop others in the future from doing it. That's why more and more people are against the death penalty for example and also because wrongfully convicted people have been killed by the state or just narrowly escaped. But that's a whole side issue. The REASON to put INDIVIDUAL CRIMINALS in jail for their INDIVIDUAL CRIMES idea was to stop THEM IN PARTICULAR from doing it again and also to punish them for breaking the law! Since many if not all rapists have the potential to be repeat offenders PUTTING THEM IN JAIL IS INDEED HOW YOU REDUCE VULNERABILITY YOU FUCKING MORON!!!

Imprisonment only stops those IMPRISONED from committing the crime again while they are imprisoned. It doesn’t stop those NOT imprisoned from committing the crime in the first place, you nitwit.

IMOM can't read.

There isn’t a single society in the world where rape is acceptable.

Just more dishonesty from this "assimilated" western Muslim.

Saudi women cannot vote, cannot drive, cannot be treated in a hospital or travel without the written permission of a male guardian. They cannot study the same things men do, and are barred from certain professions. Saudi women are denied many of the same rights that "Blacks" and "Coloreds" were denied in apartheid South Africa and yet the kingdom still belongs to the very same international community that kicked Pretoria out of its club.

To understand the heinous double standards at play, look no further than the case of a 19-year-old Saudi woman who was gang-raped last year.

Despite being abducted and raped by seven men, a court in Saudi Arabia sentenced her to 90 lashes because she was in a car with an unrelated man before she was abducted. Saudi Arabia's ultra-orthodox interpretation of Islamic law preaches a strict segregation of the sexes.

The young woman had the temerity to appeal - and publicize her story in the media. And so, earlier this month, the court increased her punishment to 200 lashes and six months in jail. Her lawyer, a prominent human rights defender, was suspended and faces a disciplinary hearing.

And the actual abductors and rapists? They got between two and nine years in jail. A rape conviction in the kingdom usually carries the death penalty, but the court said it did not impose it due to the "lack of witnesses" and the "absence of confessions."

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/opin ... 28543.html

Remember guys, this is what IMOM wants and will turn a blind eye to when it starts happening in the west due to more Muslims coming in and getting into government and injecting their religion into the law.

Also, consult this.
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2017/ ... he-victim/

Victims of Rape and Law: How the Laws of the Arab World Protect Rapists, Not Victims
May 9, 2017 11:20:12 pm
Mais Haddad
Edited by:

URIST Guest Columnist Mais Haddad, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, discusses laws in Arab countries that protect rapists and further oppress rape victims….

In the Arab world, women are under systematic discrimination socially, politically and economically. This discrimination is mirrored, deepened and embodied within the Arab countries’ legal systems. A quick study of these countries laws is enough to realize that male is the dominant gender and women fall at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Laws that deal with rape are one of many other examples on how women are treated as second class citizens. Even though rape’s punishment found in the Arab states criminal codes can be up to life imprisonment and death penalty. However, the problem lies not in the punishment of rape, rather in the burden of proof and the provision that a rapist shall not be prosecuted if he marries the victim. Consequently, these laws are further oppressive on women to come to light and report such crimes. Victims also face pressure and fear from their families and societies as the norms are to shame and stigmatize the victim of rape.

Criminal Codes of Iraq, Syria [Arabic] [pdf], Lebanon [Arabic] [pdf], Libya [Arabic] [pdf], Kuwait [Arabic] [pdf], Bahrain [pdf], Algeria [Arabic] [pdf], Tunisia [Arabic] [pdf] and the Palestinian Territories provide that if the offender of rape lawfully marries the victim, any action becomes void and any investigation or other procedure is discontinued and, if a sentence has already been passed in respect of such action, then the sentence will be repealed. A unique case is Saudi Arabia where Islamic Law is applied and there is no codified Penal Code and no clear definition of rape. Also, the criminal codes of Sudan and Mauritania have no definition of rape as a crime at all. Further, even though, this provision has been removed from the Criminal Code of Egypt since 1999, however, in practice this custom is still widely applied away from the court system. Morocco revoked the law in 2014 after a 16 year old girl committed suicide when she was forced to marry her rapist. Recently, Jordan succeeded quashing the law in 2017. As Jordan took steps towards abolishing Article 308, Lebanese activists were hanging wedding dresses along Beirut’s famous sea front, in protest against the Lebanese version of the law. Thus, Lebanon is on the same path with a lot of efforts and hope. Last month, Lebanon’s parliamentary committee for administration and justice announced a recommendation to repeal Article 522 of the country’s penal code, which allows for suspending the conviction of someone who has raped, kidnapped or committed statutory rape, if he marries the victim. The recommendation must now go through parliament, a process that could still take months.

The logic behind this law is to protect, though not the victim, rather the reputation of the victim in the society where she lives after her honor has been wounded. The honor of a woman is defined by her chastity, and when she is raped she is stigmatized and no longer marriageable. Hence, a marriage to her rapist is perceived as a solution to this problem and an exit from shame that is suitable to the society. This way her family needs not to feel dishonored or, in many cases, the need to seek vengeance-honor crime. Therefore, better than leaving girls shamed, unmarriageable and dishonored or to be killed by their families or relatives the law protects the girls by forcing attackers to marry them. As a result, such legal system legitimizes rape if it was followed by marriage, rewards the rapist and, in fact, allows him to continue his act. Also, the law ignores any redress for the victim, which should be the aim of the law at the first place. Further, it gets its legitimacy from the concept of shame, and prioritizes wrongful social customs over principles of protecting women and their right, as citizens and humans, to live safely with the protection of law and society.

Further judicial drawback to already troubling laws regarding rape is the burden of proof. For a rape conviction to actually be handed down, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Qatar and Mauritania laws mandate either a confession from the rapist or a witness account from four adult males. One must pause here and imagine the circumstances of which a woman is being raped and four adult male are witnessing this crime. In all cases, with neither of those things readily available, along with laws that make extramarital sex illegal, women reporting rape are likely to find themselves as the subject of criminal investigation and often, actually, sentenced. The result is the victims often don’t report rape, fearing they will be tried for adultery. In the UAE in many cases, foreign women who are in a tourism vacation in Dubai, not knowing of these laws ended up being arrested after they went to the police to report they had been raped. In Saudi Arabia a victim known as ‘Girl of Qatif‘ was gang-raped by seven men. At her 2006 Trial, she was sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married. The rape was not established in the trial and it could not be proved. There were no witnesses and the men had recanted confessions they made during interrogation, and the verdict cannot be appealed.

Accordingly, the burden of proof in rape cases before the court and the provision of solving the problem of rape by marring the victim to her rapist among many other violations of women’s rights found in the Arab states’ legal systems, such as honor killing, child marriage and martial rape, reveal the level of cultural, social, political and legal failure these states have. A small success here and there of changing or revoking a certain articles and provisions is far away from what needs to be achieved. The amount of work to be done in order to revolutionize the way society and law perceives women and end the highest levels of female objectification are tremendous. Unfortunately, the Arab states do not seem to be on the right track at the first place. In fact, the recent unfortunate developments even show set back of what has been already little for women rights, especially with the ongoing instability and armed conflicts in the region and the clear rise of extremism over modernity.

Mais Haddad is an S.J.D candidate at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. She received her Master’s Degree in international politics from City University London, and her LL.M. from Damascus University. She practiced law in Damascus for eight years and was active in human and women rights.

Suggested citation: Mais Haddad, Victims of Rape and Law: How the Arab World Laws protect the Rapist not the Victim, JURIST – Dateline, May. 9, 2017, http://jurist.org/dateline/2017/05/vict ... victim.php

Islam is very backwards in how it treats women. They're only figuring out NOW in the 21st century that you can't mistreat and blame and punish rape victims BY LAW? At least in the west such horrible treatment wasn't LEGALLY CODIFIED!!!! These people really are stuck in the middle ages.

[Drew J]

IMOM gets another spanking. The unreported rape and assault crimes DO INCLUDE MORE MIGRANTS!!!

https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/02/germa ... vil-peace/

German police is hiding facts about migrant crime statistics “to preserve civil peace”
By Emma R. 16 February 2019

The German newspaper Hannoversche Allgemeine recently raised the question if violent crime statistics are tweaked in the country.
A state police officer is quoted saying: “There is no lying, nothing is hushed, but things are deliberately left out.”
“There are orders to use our latitude of interpretation to preserve civil peace.”
The journalist Dieter Wonka met with the police officer, and now he knows specifically how the statistics are tweaked.
In a short video clip he states the following: “There is no written instruction to falsify the statistics. There are certain terms, for instance honour killings or sexual offenses, that if possible should not appear in reports.”
“In the case these terms do appear in police reports, from what I have understood, the police chief will make a written note on the report which says: ‘Please review this’.”
This is a signal to alert the police officer who wrote the report to remove certain terms which are provocative and could have a negative influence on the statistics.
In these statistics you will find the term assault instead of sexual assault without any further specification.
This means that the statistical accumulations are differently weighed and presented differently as what the clear insights in detail would reveal.”
You can watch the video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gamhRlfaEqo[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gamhRlfaEqo

[Int'l man of mystery]

The “Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention” even acknowledges that the stats of the reported rapes do not accurately reflect the stats of the unreported rapes.

Yep. He is holding steadfast to his conspiracy theory that whites rape more or equal to the Muslim immigrants despite all stats showing otherwise.

While Drew continues harping on non-existent conspiracy theories about white rape vs. Muslim rape, he once again avoids addressing the question entirely:

“WHY DO MOST RAPES GO UNREPORTED IN SWEDEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?”

All the stats and videos that he has presented don’t address this question, or even the unreported rapes for that matter, and neither does he. Yet he continues to misuse the reported rape stats to represent what they do not; the unreported rapes in Sweden.

When it comes to the unreported rapes in Sweden, Bra is a far more reliable reference than Drew’s inept opinions can ever hope to be, and according to Bra, rape by knowns are underrepresented in the reported rape stats.

Drew can cite the reported rape stats as much as he wants to and it won’t change the fact that they have not been proven to accurately reflect the unreported rapes. Bra certainly says that they don’t, and until Drew has contradictory evidence to show otherwise, his continued misuse of the reported rape stats only proves his statistical illiteracy.

What's funny is that this works against him. I could just as easily say that given the trend of reported rapes showing Muslims doing it disproportionately, they could still be doing it in the unreported numbers.

However, given Bra’s acknowledgment to the contrary, that is unlikely. Thus, given how “particularly underrepresented” rape by knowns is in Sweden’s reported rape stats according to Bra, we come to the inevitable conclusion that Scandinavia’s rape culture is the same as it is virtually everywhere else in the world.

But that would again tie into how he FURTHER has to believe in other conspiracy theories backed by no evidence.

Roughly translated, the overall population of European women are getting raped by white men at a percentage of population rate equal or greater. Which can LOGICALLY MEAN ONLY TWO POSSIBLE THINGS:

1. White women are not reporting white rape for whatever reason
or
2. police are covering up white rape that is equal in proportion to Muslims raping white women.

We have already done this dance. He has no proof. He can't accept what the statistics show, so he makes ad hoc fallacies. How does he justify it? WITH MORE FALLACIES.

it is not reasonable to assume that the reported rapes accurately reflect the unreported rapes without utilizing any data from the latter.

And why?

all available data on the subject shows that most rape is perpetrated by knowns,

THAT'S THE SAME CIRCULAR LOGIC I JUST REFUTED. He is ONCE AGAIN falsely projecting stats from OTHER COUNTRIES about where victims DO know their attacker most of the time, on to countries where that IS NOT THE CASE!

To the contrary, that is indeed the case since Bra admits that rape by knowns is “particularly underrepresented” in the reported rape stats in Sweden.
Bra is able to admit this, even though Sweden doesn’t collect data on unreported rapes like those other countries do. Drew fails to explain why Bra would admit this. In fact, he doesn’t even address it. Rather, Drew harps on the reported rape stats in Sweden, as if Scandinavia exists in a vacuum with no connection to the rest of the world, where somehow, unlike the rest of the world, the stats on reported rape can be assumed to accurately reflect the unreported rape without any supporting evidence, and where Bra’s admission to the contrary doesn’t exist, even though it clearly does.

It is indeed “not reasonable to assume that the reported rapes accurately reflect the unreported rapes without utilizing any data from the latter.”

Why?

Because, ultimately, THERE IS NO REASON TO DO SO – there is:

- no supporting evidence,
- Bra’s admission to the contrary, and
- global rape culture itself, which makes no exception to Scandinavia.

All of this, WHEN TAKEN TOGETHER, makes assuming the reported rape stats are the same as the unreported rape stats, UNREASONABLE.

Remember how I said that IMOM's argument of "most rapes are committed by an attacker who knows the victim" is bullshit and projects American and UK things onto Scandanavia? WELL HERE IS THE PROOF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0sK8f48x4#t=8m30s

IMOM ignores facts and repeats the same circular arguments.

Ironically, Drew manages to do exactly what he makes accusations about: “Ignoring facts and repeating the same circular arguments”. Of course the response is still the same:

The argument is that in most rapes, the rapist and the victim know each other. This isn’t something confined to the US and the UK, but is a global reality that includes Scandinavia, and that even the “Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention” acknowledges as being PARTICULARLY UNDERREPRESENTED in its surveys. Drew cites a video using reported rape stats as proof that this isn’t the case. However, reported rape stats are really only proof of what rapes are more likely to be reported, not what rapes are more likely to occur.

Drew has still not refuted anything that has been posted, and yet he continues in a feeble effort to argue that the stats on reported rape in Sweden signifies more than they actually do.

The “problem” is the crime itself, and how best to deter it from happening in the first place. Taking a criminal out of one society, only to put him into another one isn’t a solution.

You're proving my point that closing the borders to mass amounts of immigrants and deporting the criminals is the best choice. Thanks for agreeing that Europe has the right remain white majority.

Basically, Drew is trying to read what isn’t there to justify the unjustifiable: forcefully maintaining a white majority in Europe and deporting immigrant criminals instead of punishing them.

What was actually said was:

The “problem” is the crime itself, and how best to deter it from happening in the first place. Taking a criminal out of one society, only to put him into another one isn’t a solution. It’s just making the matter of actually punishing him someone else’s problem, which they may or may not even do. How is deportation even supposed to be a punishment exactly?

Indeed, how is deportation even supposed to be a punishment exactly?

The idea of putting an individual person in jail for their individual crime is in most places never been a belief that doing so will stop others in the future from doing it. That's why more and more people are against the death penalty for example and also because wrongfully convicted people have been killed by the state or just narrowly escaped. But that's a whole side issue. The REASON to put INDIVIDUAL CRIMINALS in jail for their INDIVIDUAL CRIMES idea was to stop THEM IN PARTICULAR from doing it again and also to punish them for breaking the law! Since many if not all rapists have the potential to be repeat offenders PUTTING THEM IN JAIL IS INDEED HOW YOU REDUCE VULNERABILITY YOU FUCKING MORON!!!

Imprisonment only stops those IMPRISONED from committing the crime again while they are imprisoned. It doesn’t stop those NOT imprisoned from committing the crime in the first place, you nitwit.

IMOM can't read.

Drew likes to partially quote contrary arguments. Here:

The real solution lies in reducing vulnerability.

The idea of putting an individual person in jail for their individual crime is in most places never been a belief that doing so will stop others in the future from doing it. That's why more and more people are against the death penalty for example and also because wrongfully convicted people have been killed by the state or just narrowly escaped. But that's a whole side issue. The REASON to put INDIVIDUAL CRIMINALS in jail for their INDIVIDUAL CRIMES idea was to stop THEM IN PARTICULAR from doing it again and also to punish them for breaking the law! Since many if not all rapists have the potential to be repeat offenders PUTTING THEM IN JAIL IS INDEED HOW YOU REDUCE VULNERABILITY YOU FUCKING MORON!!!

Imprisonment only stops those IMPRISONED from committing the crime again while they are imprisoned. It doesn’t stop those NOT imprisoned from committing the crime in the first place, you nitwit. You think you’re reducing the numbers of rapists on the streets by imprisoning them, and therefore reducing vulnerability. However, their numbers on the streets remain a constant, because there are always new rapists entering the streets to replace the old ones who are imprisoned. Therefore reducing vulnerability is not in imprisonment.

Drew takes an argument about reducing vulnerability and conflates it with the reason why criminals are imprisoned for their crimes. Indeed, imprisonment isn’t a deterrent, and therefore increasing it isn’t going to reduce vulnerability.

There isn’t a single society in the world where rape is acceptable.

Just more dishonesty from this "assimilated" western Muslim.

Saudi women cannot vote, cannot drive, cannot be treated in a hospital or travel without the written permission of a male guardian. They cannot study the same things men do, and are barred from certain professions. Saudi women are denied many of the same rights that "Blacks" and "Coloreds" were denied in apartheid South Africa and yet the kingdom still belongs to the very same international community that kicked Pretoria out of its club.

To understand the heinous double standards at play, look no further than the case of a 19-year-old Saudi woman who was gang-raped last year.

Despite being abducted and raped by seven men, a court in Saudi Arabia sentenced her to 90 lashes because she was in a car with an unrelated man before she was abducted. Saudi Arabia's ultra-orthodox interpretation of Islamic law preaches a strict segregation of the sexes.

The young woman had the temerity to appeal - and publicize her story in the media. And so, earlier this month, the court increased her punishment to 200 lashes and six months in jail. Her lawyer, a prominent human rights defender, was suspended and faces a disciplinary hearing.

And the actual abductors and rapists? They got between two and nine years in jail. A rape conviction in the kingdom usually carries the death penalty, but the court said it did not impose it due to the "lack of witnesses" and the "absence of confessions."

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/opin ... 28543.html

Drew apparently doesn’t know what it means when something is not acceptable. If a rape conviction in Saudi Arabia carries the death penalty for the rapist, then clearly “rape” is unacceptable in Saudi Arabia. If it were acceptable in Saudi Arabia, there would be no penalty at all for it and no one would have a problem with it at all over there.

Remember guys, this is what IMOM wants and will turn a blind eye to when it starts happening in the west due to more Muslims coming in and getting into government and injecting their religion into the law.

Drew just can’t help himself with his paranoid conspiracy theories about Muslims, all of which are farcical. He thinks Muslim rapists being regarded the same as non-Muslim rapists, or foreign rapists being regarded the same as native rapists, is somehow turning a “blind eye” to the former in both cases. In reality, it’s just not politicizing crime for the benefit of some political agenda.

Also, consult this.
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2017/ ... he-victim/

Victims of Rape and Law: How the Laws of the Arab World Protect Rapists, Not Victims
May 9, 2017 11:20:12 pm
Mais Haddad
Edited by:

URIST Guest Columnist Mais Haddad, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, discusses laws in Arab countries that protect rapists and further oppress rape victims….

In the Arab world, women are under systematic discrimination socially, politically and economically. This discrimination is mirrored, deepened and embodied within the Arab countries’ legal systems. A quick study of these countries laws is enough to realize that male is the dominant gender and women fall at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Laws that deal with rape are one of many other examples on how women are treated as second class citizens. Even though rape’s punishment found in the Arab states criminal codes can be up to life imprisonment and death penalty. However, the problem lies not in the punishment of rape, rather in the burden of proof and the provision that a rapist shall not be prosecuted if he marries the victim. Consequently, these laws are further oppressive on women to come to light and report such crimes. Victims also face pressure and fear from their families and societies as the norms are to shame and stigmatize the victim of rape.

Criminal Codes of Iraq, Syria [Arabic] [pdf], Lebanon [Arabic] [pdf], Libya [Arabic] [pdf], Kuwait [Arabic] [pdf], Bahrain [pdf], Algeria [Arabic] [pdf], Tunisia [Arabic] [pdf] and the Palestinian Territories provide that if the offender of rape lawfully marries the victim, any action becomes void and any investigation or other procedure is discontinued and, if a sentence has already been passed in respect of such action, then the sentence will be repealed. A unique case is Saudi Arabia where Islamic Law is applied and there is no codified Penal Code and no clear definition of rape. Also, the criminal codes of Sudan and Mauritania have no definition of rape as a crime at all. Further, even though, this provision has been removed from the Criminal Code of Egypt since 1999, however, in practice this custom is still widely applied away from the court system. Morocco revoked the law in 2014 after a 16 year old girl committed suicide when she was forced to marry her rapist. Recently, Jordan succeeded quashing the law in 2017. As Jordan took steps towards abolishing Article 308, Lebanese activists were hanging wedding dresses along Beirut’s famous sea front, in protest against the Lebanese version of the law. Thus, Lebanon is on the same path with a lot of efforts and hope. Last month, Lebanon’s parliamentary committee for administration and justice announced a recommendation to repeal Article 522 of the country’s penal code, which allows for suspending the conviction of someone who has raped, kidnapped or committed statutory rape, if he marries the victim. The recommendation must now go through parliament, a process that could still take months.

The logic behind this law is to protect, though not the victim, rather the reputation of the victim in the society where she lives after her honor has been wounded. The honor of a woman is defined by her chastity, and when she is raped she is stigmatized and no longer marriageable. Hence, a marriage to her rapist is perceived as a solution to this problem and an exit from shame that is suitable to the society. This way her family needs not to feel dishonored or, in many cases, the need to seek vengeance-honor crime. Therefore, better than leaving girls shamed, unmarriageable and dishonored or to be killed by their families or relatives the law protects the girls by forcing attackers to marry them. As a result, such legal system legitimizes rape if it was followed by marriage, rewards the rapist and, in fact, allows him to continue his act. Also, the law ignores any redress for the victim, which should be the aim of the law at the first place. Further, it gets its legitimacy from the concept of shame, and prioritizes wrongful social customs over principles of protecting women and their right, as citizens and humans, to live safely with the protection of law and society.

Further judicial drawback to already troubling laws regarding rape is the burden of proof. For a rape conviction to actually be handed down, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Qatar and Mauritania laws mandate either a confession from the rapist or a witness account from four adult males. One must pause here and imagine the circumstances of which a woman is being raped and four adult male are witnessing this crime. In all cases, with neither of those things readily available, along with laws that make extramarital sex illegal, women reporting rape are likely to find themselves as the subject of criminal investigation and often, actually, sentenced. The result is the victims often don’t report rape, fearing they will be tried for adultery. In the UAE in many cases, foreign women who are in a tourism vacation in Dubai, not knowing of these laws ended up being arrested after they went to the police to report they had been raped. In Saudi Arabia a victim known as ‘Girl of Qatif‘ was gang-raped by seven men. At her 2006 Trial, she was sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married. The rape was not established in the trial and it could not be proved. There were no witnesses and the men had recanted confessions they made during interrogation, and the verdict cannot be appealed.

Accordingly, the burden of proof in rape cases before the court and the provision of solving the problem of rape by marring the victim to her rapist among many other violations of women’s rights found in the Arab states’ legal systems, such as honor killing, child marriage and martial rape, reveal the level of cultural, social, political and legal failure these states have. A small success here and there of changing or revoking a certain articles and provisions is far away from what needs to be achieved. The amount of work to be done in order to revolutionize the way society and law perceives women and end the highest levels of female objectification are tremendous. Unfortunately, the Arab states do not seem to be on the right track at the first place. In fact, the recent unfortunate developments even show set back of what has been already little for women rights, especially with the ongoing instability and armed conflicts in the region and the clear rise of extremism over modernity.

Mais Haddad is an S.J.D candidate at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. She received her Master’s Degree in international politics from City University London, and her LL.M. from Damascus University. She practiced law in Damascus for eight years and was active in human and women rights.

Suggested citation: Mais Haddad, Victims of Rape and Law: How the Arab World Laws protect the Rapist not the Victim, JURIST – Dateline, May. 9, 2017, http://jurist.org/dateline/2017/05/vict ... victim.php

Islam is very backwards in how it treats women. They're only figuring out NOW in the 21st century that you can't mistreat and blame and punish rape victims BY LAW? At least in the west such horrible treatment wasn't LEGALLY CODIFIED!!!! These people really are stuck in the middle ages.

“Marry-your-rapist” laws have nothing to do with Islam. They predate Islam, and, up until the 1970s, were common throughout the world. There is no Islamic mandate for forcing the rapist to marry his victim to preserve her “honor”, and there is no Islamic law that prescribes any punishment for the rape victim. These are all cultural practices that are slowly but surely disappearing as they become more and more unacceptable throughout the world. In the end, rape is still unacceptable as this article demonstrates. The problem isn’t its acceptability, it’s what is done about it.

IMOM gets another spanking. The unreported rape and assault crimes DO INCLUDE MORE MIGRANTS!!!

https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/02/germa ... vil-peace/
…

You can watch the video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gamhRlfaEqo[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gamhRlfaEqo

“Unreported rapes” are rapes where, for whatever reason, the rape victim chooses not to report it to the police. It cannot possibly factor into the rape statistics if it isn’t reported to the police in the first place. Police tweaking the available rape statistics has nothing to do with unreported rape, only the reported rapes. Drew fails once again.

[Drew J]

“WHY DO MOST RAPES GO UNREPORTED IN SWEDEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?”

Same as any other place. Many women feel ashamed, feel they won't be believed, are afraid cops will mock them and try to get them to drop the case because they don't take sexual crimes seriously enough. Ask any feminist from a western country that at least has the privilege of being in a better position to get justice for rape than in Muslim run countries in the east...

All the stats and videos that he has presented don’t address this question

Instead they refute your stupid proposition that these European countries who have taken in so many Muslims still aren't having a disproportionate rape problem because according to you, in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN EUROPE, the majority of rape victims know their strangers. You think that because that's how it is in America, Canada, Australia, that's how it is in places like Norway and Finland. You are falsely projecting American society onto places like Norway and Finland. I have already quoted a youtube video from Sargon of Akkad which starting at 8:30 PROVES that in these European countries with mass Muslim immigration in few years, Muslims are disproportionately raping AND the majority of victims DO NOT know their attackers. So that refutes one of your propositions.

This causes you to panic, be upset, so you falsely accuse me of being a racist, a bigot, a liar, etc. And then you pull out your so called debate ending, nuclear option, trump card. Which is to argue from ignorance - which is a fallacy. You say, "That's only reported rapes, we don't know about the unreported rapes."

This isn't proof that Muslims are raping less to their population percentage, but it is a technique with which you inject skepticism into your debate to justify your faith that if we only had every rape reported, it would show whites are raping equal or more to Muslims in relation to their own populations. You can't prove it. That's why you argue from ignorance. Well I already showed you many articles of police covering up Muslim rape in Sweden or pressuring women not to come forward and press charges. So your sneaky, underlying pretension that only white rape is covered up and Muslim rape is not, falls to the ground. Hence you have no philosophical justification for pretending that oh if we only had the real stats it would show whitey is raping more.

The argument is that in most rapes, the rapist and the victim know each other. This isn’t something confined to the US and the UK, but is a global reality that includes Scandinavia, and that even the “Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention” acknowledges as being PARTICULARLY UNDERREPRESENTED in its surveys.

This is a straight up fucking lie and IMOM knows it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0sK8f48x4#t=8m30s

Saudi women cannot vote, cannot drive, cannot be treated in a hospital or travel without the written permission of a male guardian. They cannot study the same things men do, and are barred from certain professions. Saudi women are denied many of the same rights that "Blacks" and "Coloreds" were denied in apartheid South Africa and yet the kingdom still belongs to the very same international community that kicked Pretoria out of its club.

To understand the heinous double standards at play, look no further than the case of a 19-year-old Saudi woman who was gang-raped last year.

Despite being abducted and raped by seven men, a court in Saudi Arabia sentenced her to 90 lashes because she was in a car with an unrelated man before she was abducted. Saudi Arabia's ultra-orthodox interpretation of Islamic law preaches a strict segregation of the sexes.

The young woman had the temerity to appeal - and publicize her story in the media. And so, earlier this month, the court increased her punishment to 200 lashes and six months in jail. Her lawyer, a prominent human rights defender, was suspended and faces a disciplinary hearing.

And the actual abductors and rapists? They got between two and nine years in jail. A rape conviction in the kingdom usually carries the death penalty, but the court said it did not impose it due to the "lack of witnesses" and the "absence of confessions."

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/opin ... 28543.html

Drew apparently doesn’t know what it means when something is not acceptable. If a rape conviction in Saudi Arabia carries the death penalty for the rapist, then clearly “rape” is unacceptable in Saudi Arabia. If it were acceptable in Saudi Arabia, there would be no penalty at all for it and no one would have a problem with it at all over there.

What IMOM is being clearly obtuse about is that while a death sentence is apparently on the books for rape, it is never carried out. Judges intentionally give lenient sentences. I await IMOM's evidence that any liberal western country has given rape victims 10s and 10s of lashes. Until then, he can quit pretending that the west is just as good as the east for how it treats rape victims.

“Marry-your-rapist” laws have nothing to do with Islam...There is no Islamic mandate for forcing the rapist to marry his victim to preserve her “honor”, and there is no Islamic law that prescribes any punishment for the rape victim.

While I may disagree with you on what is actually in the Koran, THE FACT IS THAT MANY MUSLIM COUNTRIES ACT LIKE THIS. So we shouldn't be taking people from these cultures into the west. Either respect liberalism and equality for women or get the FUCK out of the west! We have too many white trash assholes that are getting away with rape and assault. We don't need to compound the small but persistent white rape culture with a foreign brown rape culture.

[Int'l man of mystery]

“WHY DO MOST RAPES GO UNREPORTED IN SWEDEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?”

Same as any other place. Many women feel ashamed, feel they won't be believed, are afraid cops will mock them and try to get them to drop the case because they don't take sexual crimes seriously enough.

How much do you suppose those feelings are effected when the rapist is a friend, family member or spouse of the victim? Do you suppose the willingness to report the rape increases, stays the same, or decreases?

Ask any feminist from a western country that at least has the privilege of being in a better position to get justice for rape than in Muslim run countries in the east...

Muslim-majority countries are beside the point, since most of them are poor countries, run by foreign-backed despots, and a lot of their laws have no basis in Islam. That being said, rapists are still punished in those countries. The problem is what happens to the rape victim.

All the stats and videos that he has presented don’t address this question

Instead they refute your stupid proposition that these European countries who have taken in so many Muslims still aren't having a disproportionate rape problem because according to you, in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN EUROPE, the majority of rape victims know their strangers. You think that because that's how it is in America, Canada, Australia, that's how it is in places like Norway and Finland. You are falsely projecting American society onto places like Norway and Finland. I have already quoted a youtube video from Sargon of Akkad which starting at 8:30 PROVES that in these European countries with mass Muslim immigration in few years, Muslims are disproportionately raping AND the majority of victims DO NOT know their attackers. So that refutes one of your propositions.

This causes you to panic, be upset, so you falsely accuse me of being a racist, a bigot, a liar, etc. And then you pull out your so called debate ending, nuclear option, trump card. Which is to argue from ignorance - which is a fallacy. You say, "That's only reported rapes, we don't know about the unreported rapes."

This isn't proof that Muslims are raping less to their population percentage, but it is a technique with which you inject skepticism into your debate to justify your faith that if we only had every rape reported, it would show whites are raping equal or more to Muslims in relation to their own populations. You can't prove it. That's why you argue from ignorance. Well I already showed you many articles of police covering up Muslim rape in Sweden or pressuring women not to come forward and press charges. So your sneaky, underlying pretension that only white rape is covered up and Muslim rape is not, falls to the ground. Hence you have no philosophical justification for pretending that oh if we only had the real stats it would show whitey is raping more.

Simply saying “but the stats on reported rapes in Sweden don’t say that” isn’t a refutation of an argument regarding rapes that are unreported. The argument regarding unreported rapes actually stems from “rape culture” itself, where “protecting the rapist” and/or the rape being regarded as a “personal matter” constitutes actual reasons for not reporting it.

In Scandinavia:

- The reasons for not reporting rape are the same as they are virtually everywhere else in the world.
- The percentages of unreported rapes are estimated to outnumber the reported rapes by a factor of 4 to 1, which is again the same as it is virtually everywhere else in the world.
- The percentages of reported rapes, showing a higher number of rape by unknowns is also the same as it is virtually everywhere else in the world, which gives some the misconception that most rapes are committed by unknowns.

Yet, only with Scandinavia are the reported stats regarded, without any supplementary evidence, to be a reliable indicator of the actual percentages of rape. Unsurprisingly, the only ones who seem to do that are those from the alt-right who don’t really understand statistics.

The argument is that in most rapes, the rapist and the victim know each other. This isn’t something confined to the US and the UK, but is a global reality that includes Scandinavia, and that even the “Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention” acknowledges as being PARTICULARLY UNDERREPRESENTED in its surveys.

This is a straight up fucking lie and IMOM knows it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0sK8f48x4#t=8m30s

To the contrary, it is in fact almost a direct quote from Bra itself, which was posted on this thread over 2 months ago:

Even “The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention” admits that rape by knowns are “particularly underrepresented” in their survey:

In 65 per cent of the cases, the perpetrator was completely unknown to the victim, in 24 per cent of the cases the perpetrator was an acquaintance, and in 11 per cent of the cases the perpetrator was a closely-related person. The breakdown in respect of the relationship to the perpetrator in conjunction with sex offences has varied somewhat over the years since the survey began, and it is not possible to discern any clear trend in the results. One should be aware that just as is the case with threat and assault offences, there is reason to believe that incidents where persons have been exposed to sex offences by a closely-related person, or in the home, are PARTICULARLY UNDERREPRESENTED in the survey. This type of exposure may be experienced as particularly sensitive and it thus may be difficult to gain information about it through a questionnaire.

The video skipped that part when referencing Bra’s study for some reason.

Saudi women cannot vote, cannot drive, cannot be treated in a hospital or travel without the written permission of a male guardian. They cannot study the same things men do, and are barred from certain professions. Saudi women are denied many of the same rights that "Blacks" and "Coloreds" were denied in apartheid South Africa and yet the kingdom still belongs to the very same international community that kicked Pretoria out of its club.

To understand the heinous double standards at play, look no further than the case of a 19-year-old Saudi woman who was gang-raped last year.

Despite being abducted and raped by seven men, a court in Saudi Arabia sentenced her to 90 lashes because she was in a car with an unrelated man before she was abducted. Saudi Arabia's ultra-orthodox interpretation of Islamic law preaches a strict segregation of the sexes.

The young woman had the temerity to appeal - and publicize her story in the media. And so, earlier this month, the court increased her punishment to 200 lashes and six months in jail. Her lawyer, a prominent human rights defender, was suspended and faces a disciplinary hearing.

And the actual abductors and rapists? They got between two and nine years in jail. A rape conviction in the kingdom usually carries the death penalty, but the court said it did not impose it due to the "lack of witnesses" and the "absence of confessions."

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/opin ... 28543.html

Drew apparently doesn’t know what it means when something is not acceptable. If a rape conviction in Saudi Arabia carries the death penalty for the rapist, then clearly “rape” is unacceptable in Saudi Arabia. If it were acceptable in Saudi Arabia, there would be no penalty at all for it and no one would have a problem with it at all over there.

What IMOM is being clearly obtuse about is that while a death sentence is apparently on the books for rape, it is never carried out. Judges intentionally give lenient sentences. I await IMOM's evidence that any liberal western country has given rape victims 10s and 10s of lashes. Until then, he can quit pretending that the west is just as good as the east for how it treats rape victims.

How rape victims are treated in those countries is another “strawman argument” from Drew. The question is on the acceptability of rape in those countries, not on corrupt judges giving lenient sentences to rapists or on rape victims getting screwed by the courts.

At the end of the day, RAPE IS STILL ILLEGAL and THE RAPIST STILL PUNISHED. Therefore RAPE IS UNACCEPTABLE in those countries, which only confirms what was said originally:

There isn’t a single society in the world where rape is acceptable.

While attempting to debunk that statement, Drew has managed to miss the point entirely.

“Marry-your-rapist” laws have nothing to do with Islam...There is no Islamic mandate for forcing the rapist to marry his victim to preserve her “honor”, and there is no Islamic law that prescribes any punishment for the rape victim.

While I may disagree with you on what is actually in the Koran,

It’s not really a matter of “agree” or “disagree” with what’s in the Qur’an. What’s there, is there, and what isn’t, isn’t.

THE FACT IS THAT MANY MUSLIM COUNTRIES ACT LIKE THIS. So we shouldn't be taking people from these cultures into the west.

“People” and “laws” don’t necessarily follow each other.

Either respect liberalism and equality for women or get the FUCK out of the west! We have too many white trash assholes that are getting away with rape and assault. We don't need to compound the small but persistent white rape culture with a foreign brown rape culture.

It should actually be, “abide by the law or face the consequences”. Nothing else is relevant.

[Drew J]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0sK8f48x4#t=8m30s

The notion that the majority of the time the victim knows the rapist holding true in America, Canada, Australia, etc, DOESN'T PROVE IT'S THE SAME IN EUROPE. That is what IMOM and other Muslim apologists have to argue in order to sweep the problem of Muslim crime under the rug and make it look like it's over-reporting of one thing and/or under reporting of another. The fact that out of most reported rapes, they were committed by immigrant strangers doesn't sit well with IMOM. He hates when countries like Norway expose that the majority of the rapes are committed by the immigrant minorities.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130128022 ... y-muslims/

IMOM is free anytime to contest these stats
http://human-stupidity.com/equality4/di ... ing-part-1
www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/a ... bile=false
https://web.archive.org/web/20160119165 ... rape-gangs
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2014/01/ ... o-rapists/
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/mu ... n-and.html

He can't handle reality.

Either respect liberalism and equality for women or get the FUCK out of the west!

It should actually be, “abide by the law or face the consequences”. Nothing else is relevant.

See that? He didn't agree with me. IMOM is actually contesting the need to respect equality for women. Spoken like a true Muslim.

[Int'l man of mystery]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0sK8f48x4#t=8m30s

The notion that the majority of the time the victim knows the rapist holding true in America, Canada, Australia, etc, DOESN'T PROVE IT'S THE SAME IN EUROPE. That is what IMOM and other Muslim apologists have to argue in order to sweep the problem of Muslim crime under the rug and make it look like it's over-reporting of one thing and/or under reporting of another.

Here Drew and his youtube reference, “Sargon of Akkad”, compare the results of surveys of unreported rapes in the US and the UK with the reported rape stats of Scandinavia, to draw their erroneous conclusion that rape culture is somehow different between the two.

However, once the different types of data sets are understood properly, the only thing they are really proving is that the proportions of unreported rapes are different (even completely reversed) from the proportions of reported rapes. Indeed, “Bra” has already suggested as much. “Muslim crime” is no different from “non-Muslim crime”.

The fact that out of most reported rapes, they were committed by immigrant strangers doesn't sit well with IMOM. He hates when countries like Norway expose that the majority of the rapes are committed by the immigrant minorities.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130128022 ... y-muslims/

As long as the unreported rapes outnumber the reported rapes by a factor of 4 to 1 with different statistical proportions than the reported rape stats, then Drew’s oft-cited stats on reported rape “expose” nothing, except the fact that Scandinavia’s rape culture is the same as it is virtually everywhere else in the world.

IMOM is free anytime to contest these stats
http://human-stupidity.com/equality4/di ... ing-part-1
www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/a ... bile=false
https://web.archive.org/web/20160119165 ... rape-gangs
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2014/01/ ... o-rapists/
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/mu ... n-and.html

He can't handle reality.

Since all reported rape stats are entirely subject to what the rape victims are willing to report (with the statistical proportions being different in comparison to what they choose not to report) there really isn’t anything to contest about them. It is Drew’s conclusions about the reported rape stats, not the reported rape stats themselves, which are contested. This is something Drew still hasn’t understood fully, which is why he continues to reference the reported rape stats despite this.

Drew is free contest what Bra has said as well:

Even “The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention” admits that rape by knowns are “particularly underrepresented” in their survey:

In 65 per cent of the cases, the perpetrator was completely unknown to the victim, in 24 per cent of the cases the perpetrator was an acquaintance, and in 11 per cent of the cases the perpetrator was a closely-related person. The breakdown in respect of the relationship to the perpetrator in conjunction with sex offences has varied somewhat over the years since the survey began, and it is not possible to discern any clear trend in the results. One should be aware that just as is the case with threat and assault offences, there is reason to believe that incidents where persons have been exposed to sex offences by a closely-related person, or in the home, are PARTICULARLY UNDERREPRESENTED in the survey. This type of exposure may be experienced as particularly sensitive and it thus may be difficult to gain information about it through a questionnaire.

Although, given that he hasn’t in over 2 months of posts, it seems doubtful that he will.

Either respect liberalism and equality for women or get the FUCK out of the west!

It should actually be, “abide by the law or face the consequences”. Nothing else is relevant.

See that? He didn't agree with me. IMOM is actually contesting the need to respect equality for women. Spoken like a true Muslim.

What is actually being contested is the double standard for immigrants vs. natives that Drew is advocating. But as usual, he completely misses the point. Either immigrants should be held to the same standards as natives or natives should be held to the same standards as immigrants.

It would be interesting to see if Drew advocates for certain Western conservatives who don’t respect “liberalism” or “equality for women” to get out of their own country.