This Islam hate site screams Norway: 90% of all violent rapes in Oslo committed by Muslims. Of course, if one reads the actual numbers, one discovers that the figure is based on six rapes with specific conditions and that the numbers for a broader examination of rape are not nearly so dire.
Then, there is a different approach to the topic, examined in the New York Times that notes that a lot of rape is simply not reported because spousal rape is hardly considered a crime and date rape is not treated seriously, leading to a lot of self-suppression of reporting by victims. It even notes that rape by foreigners has a better chance of being prosecuted. So the wild accusations in the first link are probably badly skewed in terms of real information.
Is it probable that violent/stranger rape occurs more often among the poorest segments of society, which often includes recent immigrants. (Especially since that society treats violent/acquaintance and violent/family rape as no rape, at all.) If a country wishes to institute a program to educate immigrants on customary respect for women in that country, I would think that that would be a worthwhile effort. (Of course, based on the NYT story, it would seem that if the stereotypical views of Muslim treatment of women is accurate, Muslim immigrants are going to fit right in with the current Norwegian population.)
I tend to view both linked reports as probably warped in perspective, but neither provides a reason to jump on the xenophobia wagon in regards to Muslim immigrants to Europe.
Updating this thread we now have the attack at the Paris headquarters of the satirical weekly paper Charlie Hebdo with 12 persons dead. I think this is going to strongly increase the anti-Islamic movement in Europe and substantially strengthen the anti-Islamic political parties.
There do seem to be some Muslim immigrants to Western Europe–which isn’t to say they’re the only ones, nor that this applies to most Muslim immigrants–who have little or no interest in taking on the cultural and social ideals of their adopted countries, like gender equality and a general stand for freedom of expression, even if individual Western countries do draw the lines differently in this regard. For this particular subset of immigrants, why do they want to move to Europe if they find its culture, morals, and press so repugnant? Obviously anywhere in France is peaceful and pleasant compared to places where civil wars between Sunnis and Shiites grind on, or where Jihadists flog musicians, condemn rape victims to death, and destroy monuments which may have religious significance not only to most Muslims but Jews and Christians as well. That’s the push factor. But shouldn’t France have a justifiable expectation that those who ask to be allowed to live there should try to be more…French?
It actually seems that it’s the children of immigrants, not the immigrants themselves, who are more apt to oppose the culture violently. And it kind of makes sense because the immigrant probably knows he’s never going to fully fit in, but the kids don’t know anything different and would be more prone to lashing out because they can’t fit in. Especially in places like France where just being born there doesn’t make one “French”.
But I don’t really see why someone fleeing shitty conditions in his country would necessarily want to shed the trappings of his culture.
Granted, I see there’s a problem there, one that may also involve familial inter-generational conflict. But not fitting in, in and of itself, doesn’t usually drive a person to violence.
But there’s a difference between continuing to honor one’s culture, and taking violent action against the institutions of your adopted country.
I have seen no indication that any of the terrorists or
earlier rioters were trying to honor anything.
The earlier rioters appeared to simply be reacting to what they perceived as their treatment as second class citizens.
The more recent terrorists have, for the most part, seemed to have been recruited. (This is true of the Kouachi brothers in France the other day, the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston, and the several thousand European (mostly) youth who have left Europe to join ISIS.) Aside from simplistic, (and often knee-jerk), responses that target Muslims, in general, it would seem that our best hope to quell this sort of thing would be to discover just why so many have been susceptible to such recruiting.
That, for example, is the goal of Major General Michael Nagata, who is seeking advice and criticism from a wide range of people with backgrounds in sociology, psychology, theology, and even entertainment, as well as counter-terrorism in order to discover exactly what is enticing these recent conversions of moderate and even secular youths to Fundamentalist Islam while looking for ways to short-circuit such recruitment.
As he notes, we do not yet understand what is going on and taking actions without that understand is liable to harm us.
I disagree with the idea that the second-and-third generations are less likely to be radicalized. If anything, I think they are more likely to be radicalized. When they adopt all the western clothing styles and modes of behavior and realize that they are still regarded as outsiders, still regarded as inferior, then they will feel shut out. It seems to me that folks who are cut off from their ancestral culture, but not fully accepted by their adopted culture, the one in which they were raised, are prime targets for radicalization.
(There was a similar dynamic at work in the radicalization of Gandhi and his cohort. The movers behind India’s independence were the educated class of Indians, who had risen as far as they could in the British system before coming to realize that they were still regarded as an inferior "other.’)
In fact, since we’re talking about the slaughter of the cartoonists, it’s worth noting the two brothers who were the main suspects weren’t immigrants or even the children of immigrants but the grandchildren of immigrants.
For that matter, one movie I’d recommend for anyone is the British movie, My Son, the Fanatic, about an Indian immigrant and the conflict he runs into with his religious extremist son.
For that matter, while neither of us are religious, my father doesn’t react nearly as strongly towards perceived bigotry as I do and I’m sure that is largely due to him coming to US in his 30s while I came when I was 2.
Why should any particular group have the right to determine what constitutes Frenchness and determine whether any particular person is sufficiently French?
First, it would require mind reading.
Second, human society is intrinsically unstable. Frenchness is not today what it was yesterday and it won’t be what is is today when tomorrow comes. That’s a function of humanity.
Third, every current Frenchman is a descendant of migrants who likely did not seek or obtain the permission of anyone to migrate there.
Migration is an indispensable human characteristic and should be treated as an inherent right.
[QUOTE=tomndebb;]
it would seem that our best hope to quell this sort of thing would be to discover just why so many have been susceptible to such recruiting.
[/QUOTE]
No mystery … they are inadequates so fucked up by their religious brainwashing that they are unable to experience a normal meaningful relationship, and therefore cannot resist the once-in a-lifetime opportunity to inflict themselves forcibly on helpless women enslaved for their sexual gratification, with the full approval of the fundamentalist Muslim society to which they have gravitated.
Well, it appears to be a mystery to you, if you think you have explained anything with this post.
A significant number of the people in Europe, (and some from North America), who have moved to Syria explicitly to join ISIS have been young women. They are responding to a call that resonates with them. While I have some ideas regarding the source and content of that appeal, (certainly the feeling that they are alienated from their fellow citizens because of where their parents or grandparents were born plays a part), I will acknowledge that I do not have the whole story and will withhold grandiose declarations until we have more information.
I agree that some percentage of the ISIS volunteers, (along with a significant portion of the leadership), seem to fit your description, but we will fail to make any headway in cutting off new recruits if we try to pigeonhole all the volunteers and recruits into a single, simplistic claim that does not accurately describe their situation.
This is the whole story … easy enough to join the dots up.
I apologize for having limited my previous observation about “inadequates so fucked up by their religious brainwashing that they are unable to experience a normal meaningful relationship” to the male participants.
Actually, it is still not the whole story.
The number of women who have moved/are moving to Syria, lured by ISIS propaganda, is rather larger than the few dozens who have joined up in order to fight or inflict pain. And your crack about brainwashing falls short of the mark when applied to people, male or female, who are lured to Syria before anyone has had an opportunity to actually brainwash them–often in direct conflict with Muslim families who recognize the lies and twisted culture of ISIS.
Those who go to join with the fighters make good sensationalist headlines, but many have gone with no such expectations or desire and it would make sense to discover their motivations rather than simply accepting the most simplistic explanation, (and probably getting it wrong).
There is not the remotest possibility that ISIS is offering more power to women than is offered by Western society, noting first and foremost Western female heads of state with real power going back to the late Middle ages (viz. Margarethe I of Denmark-Norway-Sweden, Isabella of Castile/Spain, Mary and Elisabeth I of England, and others fast forwarding to Thatcher of the UK and Merkel of Germany).