Multiculturalism Causes Rape

As part of blogging, I try to have a few topics for posts I want to write in the near future. Sometimes I work on them a bit here and there in advance, and other times I just keep them in mind until the day I feel I'm ready to write about them. But, sometimes, I just see something crazy and have to write about it. Like today:

Yes, you heard it here folks. Multiculturalism is causing "European women and girls [to be] sexually assaulted in record numbers." Simply acknowledging people can have different views of morality is causing rape.

Seriously, that's what that tweet says. The "thinking" it blames a massive number of sexual assaults on is nothing more than:

“There’s no single cultural code to say what is good or bad behaviour because we want a free society.

“There has to be tolerance for attitudes that may be seen as immoral by some traditional or religious norms.”

I like cheeseburgers. To some people, eating them is immoral because their meat comes from pigs. You see, their religious views prohibit eating pig meat. To other people, eating hamburgers is immoral because their meat is meat. You see, some vegetarians think eating animals is immoral. To other people, eating hamburgers is immoral because their meat and cheese comes from animals. You see, some vegans think eating any product derived from animals (cheese comes from milk gotten from cows) is immoral.

There are all sorts of people who think it is wrong and immoral for me to eat cheeseburgers. I'll still eat cheeseburgers though. That's because it's okay to have different views on morality. A free society has to tolerate these differences in views. It's what makes a free society free.

Now I thought I must be missing something. I figured maybe the person who tweeted that forgot to include some context. Maybe the speaker had said more things that made her comment horrible. Naturally, I did a search for the quote. When I did, I found a variety of articles. Some made the tweeter look crazy.

That's jumping ahead though. The first article I came across was a news article about the rape of a three year old child at a asylum center in Norway. This is obviously a horrific crime, with the police explaining:

We have no suspects yet,' police superintendent Bjørn Kåre Dahl told local newspaper Stavanger Aftenblad, as reported by The Local.

'We are investigating the case as if the worst thing has happened and that we are talking about the rape of a child'.
Dahl did not rule out that there could be several perpetrators.

'We will investigate further to find out what happened. If it is what we fear – a rape – then this is very serious. But we do not know for certain yet,' he said.

Given this context, I was starting to understand why a person might be upset about the quote in the tweet. Since the article says:

The alleged incident took place after Norway announced it was offering non-European asylum-seekers classes in Western sexual norms, in an attempt to prevent violence against women.
Linda Hagen of Hero, a private company that runs 40 percent of Norway's reception centres for refugees, explained that the aim is to help asylum-seekers 'avoid mistakes as they discover Norwegian culture'.
'There's no single cultural code to say what is good or bad behaviour because we want a free society,' she said.
'There has to be tolerance for attitudes that may be seen as immoral by some traditional or religious norms.'

The immediate impression is this Linda Hagen was somehow trying to excuse the rape of children as stemming from a difference in moral codes, and that the solution is to teach immigrants classes on how not to rape people. That would be terrible and outlandish.

In fact, it would be so outlandish it seems difficult to believe. And by difficult, I mean impossible. Even if Hagen was somehow delusional or evil enough to try to excuse raping a three year old child, the idea she would be stupid enough to give an interview saying so is... practically unbelievable.

Naturally, I looked at other articles. When I did, I immediately came across this piece linking back to the one I had just read and carrying the title, "3-year-old gang raped at Norway refugee center." The piece begins:

DAILYKENN.com -- A three-year-old boy was raped by multiple people at a center for Muslims seeking asylum in Norway

This kind of shows what we're dealing with here. The article this piece links to merely says the police superintendant "did not rule out that there could be several perpetrators." Somehow, this simple statement that they were early in the investigation and hadn't ruled out the possibility more than one person was involved got twisted into a statement of absolute certainty the child had been "gang raped."

Moreover, the asylum center in Denmark was for people from anywhere in the world of any religion at all who might be seeking asylum. The underlying article made no claim about the ethnicity of anyone involved. Yet while linking to it, this new piece twists an asylum center for all people into a "Muslim" place, meaning it must have been a group of Muslims who gang raped the child.

After a bit of work, I managed to find fuller context for Hagel's remarks in this piece. It was written about the classes her organization is teaching, and it gives this fuller context:

Questions are also being raised about how to integrate men from patriarchal societies into Europe, where emancipated women dress skimpily, go out, and drink and party.

"Our aim is to help asylum seekers avoid mistakes as they discover Norwegian culture," explained Linda Hagen of Hero, a private company that runs 40 percent of Norway's reception centres for asylum seekers.

"There's no single cultural code to say what is good or bad behaviour because we want a free society," she said.

"There has to be tolerance for attitudes that may be seen as immoral by some traditional or religious norms."

They obviously had nothing to do with child rape. The classes aren't for men who are going to forcibly assault women with the intention of raping or robbing them in obvious criminal acts. The article goes on to talk about how there are stereotypes regarding women in Muslim culture that are a problem, and the classes are designed to help change those.

Is that a problem? Sure. Is it a fair thing to criticize Muslim culture for? To whatever extent it is true, of course. But what Hagel said is perfectly reasonable. A free society has to accept there will be different views of morality. That holds true for the Muslims in the free society, who must accept that when they move to a new country, the society they find themselves in will likely have its own moral norms which different from their own.

It's disgusting people are twisting this into a some form of liberal insanity which causes rape to further their anti-Muslim bigotry. And yes, this is largely caused by close-minded bigotry. Anyone who actually looked at the quote and thought about what it said would find it unremarkable. It's only by taking the quote out of context then placing it in an entirely different, false context, that one can manage to portray this quote as evil.

Now, I don't know the details of how it happens. I assume there is some explanation for how people's preconceived biases cause them to distort things they read, and as they repeat what they hear, other people with similar biases further distort it to further fit their preconceived beliefs. I'm not worried about that. You see, even the most basic of details to these narratives seem to be empty. The recent uproar about the surge in sexual assaults would have you believe there's been tons of women who've complained about such. Yet, when you dig into it, you start seeing things like this:

Germany has been shocked by the apparently coordinated crime wave, in which Cologne police received more than 100 criminal complaints from women who said they had been sexually assaulted or robbed by gangs of men of Arab or North African appearance in the city center during New Year's Eve festivities. Cologne police would not elaborate Wednesday on the total number of crimes reported, as the figure continued to rise.

Police have said that about a quarter of the complaints related to sexual assaults, including a rape, and that they believed the assaults were probably intended to distract the victims, allowing attackers to steal mobile phones and other devices.

This was from a few days ago so let's not worry about the exact numbers as they may have been updated. Let's just focus on the key detail: While over a hundred women filed complaints like the narrative would have us believe, those complaints were that they had been "sexually assaulted or robbed."

Being robbed is not a trivial thing. Gangs organizing a wave of robberies would be a serious problem. People shouldn't have to worry they might get mugged when out and about. Still, being robbed is not the same as being sexually assaulted, much less being raped.

This does a huge disservice to all real victims of sexual assault by trivializing their experiences and treating them as the same as simple robberies. Even worse, this false narrative helps the criminals get away with their crimes by helping hide what they've actually done. Spreading false information like this makes it harder to catch and prosecute criminals. And it encourages nutjobs to write things like:

One example is how Norway offers courses to migrants that teach them that they should not rape Norwegian women.

A real head start on preventing rape in Norway would be to actually punish rapists. The “final solution” is of course zero Muslims.

No Muslims. Just right.

Well, okay, this blogger is clearly crazy, but maybe he isn't really calling for anything horrendous, right? I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't put it past his commenters who write things like this gem (expletives censored):

As always the NWO sets up Nordic women as whores, whether it being through the huge porn industry that cranks out oodles of flicks with blondified women with lip injections and fake racks that are getting pounded by nogs (blacks on blonde) or by actually bringing in hordes of rapists to Nordic countries with the express purpose of FORCING RACE MIXING VIA RAPE.

Let us just say what it is. These men have been brought in by the Globalists to rape Nordic women to FORCE race mixing. The NWO needs to go.

Porn imitates the sick NWO agenda and wishes to bring it to life. And as always, as with the story of Persephone who is taken to the underworld and raped by Pluto, women stand by such as the character Hectate (in our times, Hectate is Merkle and this Jew looking ***** up in the picture) and tacitly agree with it out of racial envy and a latent wish to genocide.

Truly sick these *****es are.

And:

Dr Wikan needs to run the rape gauntlet in her granny glasses and old lady shoes to see how she likes getting groped, etc. Typical assness blaming native women for provoking these dirty sand niggers.

Which the blogger responded to without seeming bothered in the slightest at one of his readers calling for someone to be raped.

You might think it unfair of me to highlight deranged writings like these as there are nutjobs of all sorts, and they don't need help from anyone to come to crazy conclusions. I somewhat agree. The problem is, where do you draw the line? When does a person become so delusional they fall into the "nutjob" category groups don't deserve any responsibility for?

I don't know the answer to that. What I do know is on a factual level, the paranoid rantings of that crowd seem about as accurate as many of the anti-Muslims creating this narrative of Muslim rape culture causing a massive surge in sexual assaults.

They're certainly no worse than the people portraying the innocuous observation free socities must tolerate many different views on morality as a form of thinking which leads to rapes.

74 comments

  1. "Is that a problem? Sure. Is it a fair thing to criticize Muslim culture for? To whatever extent it is true, of course."

    Why don't you look into it? Migrants from Middle Eastern and North African countries (where abhorrent attitudes towards women are widespread) account for a disproportionate amount of rapes and sexual assaults in Nordic countries. You don't see a connection?

    There are very real cultural problems that have nothing to do with skin color. I think a lot of well-meaning people gloss over these issues because they don't want to 'play into the hands' of racists.

  2. You eat pork cheeseburgers?

    I think you are leaving steps out of the logic of the tweet. The liberal thinking, assuming it was properly understood here, leads to not acting to combat the crimes in question, thus leading to the rapes.

    A commenter at Lubos Motl's site has said they frequently wear veils in certain parts of Paris for safety reasons. The classes may help if it is a small minority, but when the minority is large enough, the classes go the other way around.

  3. JamesNV, I'm not going to look into it because I don't want to waste even more hours of my day wading through grossly distorted narratives which often have no connection to reality. If there is an issue worth looking at, the unhinged rhetoric that's constantly being spewed is drowning it out.

    Look at how people use the quote leading this post. It's obscene. It's not just taking words out of context, it's then inserting them into a completely false context to fabricate claims out of nothing. And rather than call out this ridiculous nonsense, the people leading this cause encourage it.

    People acting disreputably may still be right, but as long as they keep acting direputably, why would I take the time to try to find out if they are?

  4. MikeN, I always mix up pork and beef for some reason, but I do actually love bacon cheeseburgers.

    As for the logic of the tweet, there was none. The person who wrote the tweet may have had all sorts of thoughts and logic in mind when he wrote it, but he didn't put any of that into the tweet. The tweet he wroteis just idiotic. There is absolutely nothing about the quote in that tweet which is remarkable much less problematic. As for your claim about what the liberal thinking does... even if that were corect, the quote in that tweet doesn't indicate anything of the sort.

    Acting as though the gross distortions of this quote are anything other than absurd is lame. Anyone who can't acknowledge that quote has been distorted isn't a person who can have a fair discussion on the subject. They might as well just stick to throwing around idiotic rhetoric like this gem from a recent piece by Mark Steyn, which I just saw in my Twitter feed:

    Occam's Razor would suggest that Mohamed and Mohamed shot up that bar for the same reason as their fellow Mohameds turned a Paris rock concert into a bloodbath and the German New Year into an auld lang rapefest - because the infidels (rockers, boozers, women) have to be intimidated into accepting the supremacy of Islam.

    That's right. Two men named Mohamed shot up a bar, and Steyn says Occam's Razor would suggest the explanation is they're terrorists. Absent rampant bigotry, that claim couldn't possibly make sense. But hey, we actually had a supposedly skeptic blogger say the media not labeling these men terrorists suggests it is "deeply compromised."

    Nevermind there was nothing to the story to suggest terrorism was a factor. The men were both named Mohamed. They were Muslim. Clearly, that means they were terrorists... or that people are acting really stupid about this subject.

  5. Huh. I didn't realize using the Reply feature on that part of my admin section would pin my comments like that. I'll probably have to stop using it. I don't think it's fair for me to be able to have my comments appear out of chronological order since nobody else's can. (Well, they actually probably could, but they'd have to go well out of their way to do it. I'd be kind of impressed if someone knew how to do it.)

    Anyway, as for that guy's claims, I generally think anyone who says they have a new, amazing system way better than anything anyone else has but you can't see it or hear any details about it is either deluding themselves or a fraud. I can't think of a time I've seen it actually turn out to be true. And this guy says all sorts of things that make his claim unbelievable. My favorite was this one:

    I do have some concerns about the method and what else it can be used for. It’s uses are not limited to spam but can be used by any system to identify almost anything.

    That made me laugh out loud. Especially since he said it took him all of a day to code it. A single day, and he can have any system identifying almost anything. If this were remotely true, it'd be the biggest breakthrough in anything ever. There are entire fields and industries which would jump ahead 20 years if something like that could be found.

  6. I didn't see where he said it took him a day to code it. I've read his stuff for years, and he tends to get excitable, idolizing Elon Musk for example. However, I think he knows what he is doing here. He quantified it as 99.9% accurate in identifying spam, 99.999% in identifying non-spam, from actual work filtering e-mails.

    His concerns for the method likely have something to do with NSA snooping.

  7. Sorry, it was a couple days, not one day:

    And – although the method isn’t obvious the implementation is trivial. I had it working in a couple days and my programming skills are good – but not outstanding.

    But the difference is iimmaterial. He claims his new invention is worth well over a billion dollars. It's absurd. The quote I laughed at above, claiming this approach could be used to identify almost anything, is even more absurd, as such a thing would be worth hindreds of billions of dollars.

    I don't know what this guy's posts are normally likre, but this one is completely bogus. The guy did not just invent something worth over a billion dollars. Maybe he found some approach that happens to work really well for him in some particular situation and got massively over-excited because of it. I don't know. Maybe he's just trolling people. Whatever the reason, that guy has said a bunch of wildly untrue things on the page you linked.

    I'd be willing to be he'll never put forth anything remotely living up to his claims. I mean that literally. I'd even give good odds.

  8. Steyn didn't say terrorists, and linked it with the attacks in Germany which is not a terrorist attack along with Paris.
    He said intimidated into accepting the supremacy of Islam.

  9. The most commonly used definition of terrorism is something along the lines of the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. I suppose one could try to argue forcing Europeans to accept the supremacy of Islam. I wouldn't recommend it though because even if you could make that argument fly, the idea of religious terrorism is well-accepted and well-known, being a relatively common phrase.

  10. I don't want to argue on his behalf, especially since in the thread I'm skeptical, but I think he has a level of expertise in the area, and is probably just overexcited. I certainly believe that he has his idea implemented and is working effectively, though perhaps just guessing at the numbers. I was more interested in the other aspects, such as the likelihood of being able to cash in on such an easily implemented item.

  11. That's actually what does the most to make his whole post so unbelievable. A person might be able to come up with a really good spam filter that's better than any out there and market it, but it wouldn't be a simple or easy thing like he acts. The people who make software that becomes huge and get tons of money put a lot of work into it. Even if they manage to get a really good product made, it still won't change an industry overnight like he suggests his filter will. It takes hard work to get people to adopt new products. And even if you can get people to like your product, you still have to convince them your product is good enough to merit switching to. Him acting like it would be simple and easy to implement his filter so people would just switch over in no time at all does not reflect how products actually get out there.

    Sometimes something new does come along and cause a huge shift in a market like he claims his product would. It doesn't happen quickly or easily though. It takes a lot of hard work and effort on many different tasks. That's why it hasn't happened already.

    Now if he were talking about something less revolutionary, maybe making a quicker buck would be possible. There are plenty of things that get made in less than a year and sold. They don't make anyone a billion dollars, but if you can make a good product that there's enough demand for, you might make a tidy profit.

  12. "Look at how people use the quote leading this post. It’s obscene."

    More obscene than... rape and sexual assault? I agree there is a ton of unhinged rhetoric. But people are refusing to face a very real problem because the facts will be used by racists. So they resort to hiding facts.

    "Gangs of boys and young men have harassed girls at a youth festival in Stockholm for two years in a row, and police dealt with the matter, but stated in external communication that the festival had gone smoothly... "Some times we do not really say how things are because we believe it may play into the hands of the Sweden Democrats," Ågren told Dagens Nyheter, referring to the anti-immigration party in Parliament."

    https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6342236

  13. JamesNV:

    More obscene than… rape and sexual assault? I agree there is a ton of unhinged rhetoric. But people are refusing to face a very real problem because the facts will be used by racists. So they resort to hiding facts.

    You can claim this, but at this point, the only people I've seen hiding facts are the ones who've distorted and fabricated things while trying to create this narrative you yourself are helping create. You may think what you say is self-evident or that everyone should already know it to be true for whatever reason, but at this point, I'm hesitant to believe anything I hear at all because I've yet to come across a single person talking about this narrative who I feel I can trust not to get things horribly wrong.

    So with that sort of skepticism in mind, look at the quote you just provided. It first says police communicated externally things went smoothly then after an ellipsis quotes a man saying the police there don't always say how things are. That doesn't make senses to me. If the police said things went smoothly when there were serious problems, then the police didn't hide things, the police actively lied about things. That's far worse than simply hiding things.

    So why isn't that what the discussion is about? Are we saying the police didn't lie when they said things went smoothly? What would that mean, that things went smoothly but the police hid the fact there were serious problems with sexual assaults? I honestly don't understand. I could read the article and try to figure it out for myself, but I've already spent enough time trying to track down facts for these sorts of things. I'm afraid if I read another article I'll waste another 45 minutes trying to confirm/disconfirm what it says.

  14. For clarity's sake, this happened two years running yet police "stated in external communication that the festival had gone smoothly".

    "These cases are very particular. There are groups of guys who are deliberately focusing on surrounding and molesting girls"... said Roger Ticoalu, head of events at Stockholm City council....

    According to Peter Ågren, who was heading the police operation this summer, one explanation as to why they did not talk more openly about this may be because the young men who were accused of harassing the girls, were mainly said to have foreign backgrounds...."

  15. So the attitudes the woman is discussing, that are immoral by traditional religious norms, are they held by the Muslims, or by the natives?

    "The classes aren’t for men who are going to forcibly assault women with the intention of raping or robbing... "

    So who are they for, and what do they seek to achieve?
    I think it is basically to teach men not to rape. The first thing I thought of was a PSA with David Schwimmer telling guys not to commit date rape.

  16. JamesNV, the fuller quotes just emphasize the problem I highlighted. I tried reading the article to see if maybe I was missing something, but when I did, all I found was the claim:

    “stated in external communication that the festival had gone smoothly”

    Never receives any attention despite it being a rather key claim. If the police had merely failed to notify people of a problem, that's one thing. If the police actively covered it up by saying there was no problem, that's an entirely different thing. The article begins by portraying the police as having done the latter yet it only tries to support the idea it did the former. That baffles me. Either the police lied like the article claims and the article completely fails to demonstrate it, or the article falsely accused police of lying. Either way, it's a significant problem. You can't tell people police actively lied about something then expect them to care about you merely discussing the police not notifying people of it.

    As for the Pew survey, I'll note that in addition to having simply cherry-picked an extreme result for your comment, you've managed to misrepresent that result as well. What your link actually shows is 22% of Iraqi Muslims said honor killings are never justified when a woman is accused. The rate increased to 33% when the question dealt with males being accused.

    Cherry-picking results and then misrepresenting those results in response to a person explaining the reason they don't trust the narrative you're pushing is due to the constant misrepresentations they see is... probably unwise.

  17. MikeN:

    So the attitudes the woman is discussing, that are immoral by traditional religious norms, are they held by the Muslims, or by the natives?

    You're the one who spoke in defense of the idea the tweet's quote showed some terrible thing. Not even being able to tell what the quote is in reference to is a pretty strorng argument the tweet was wrong in its accusation. I'm content to leave it at that, though I'd wager if you asked her, she would say her remark holds true for all sorts of moral views and all sorts of traditional religious norms. Because she seems to understand what multiculturalism is.

    So who are they for, and what do they seek to achieve?
    I think it is basically to teach men not to rape. The first thing I thought of was a PSA with David Schwimmer telling guys not to commit date rape.

    They're for, amongst other things, people who are from areas where certain behaviors we're used to in public is practically unheard of and thus may misinterpret the intent behind things they've never encountered before. This is discussed in the article I linked to regarding the classes. You may choose to believe the class is "basically to teach men not to rape" based on absolutely no evidence if you'd like, but all that will do is demonstrate your biases.

  18. I'm open to the guy having misinterpreted the quote, that it was referring to the wrong group and not what he thought. As for the tweet missing the full logical argument, didn't you post something awhile back about how you can't explain everything on Twitter? If he interpreted the quote properly, then I think the logic is OK. If he has totally missed the quote, then nope.

    As for the article you link to, it opens with "In a bid to prevent violence against women"; later there is
    "After what she called a "wave of rapes" committed mostly by foreigners in the southwestern town of Stavanger between 2009 and 2011, Hero launched a course at some of its centres that touches on cultural differences regarding women."

    and "We turn the roles around a bit because there are rapists in all ethnic groups,"

  19. As for my biases, I'd never heard of this rape tendency until sometime last year. My issue was with both direct terrorism as well as the religious terrorism you describe. Already Comedy Central censored South Park and refused to show Mohammed in the cartoon.

  20. The police said the festival had gone smoothly when it clearly did not. People assumed it was safe to send their daughters to the festival the following year where it happened again. The person heading the police operation said the police were silent for political reasons. What don't you understand?

    In Cologne police initially released a statement saying New Years eve celebrations were "largely peaceful".

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/media-under-scrutiny-over-slow-response-to-cologne-attacks-1.2491711

    As for "misrepresenting", from everything I've read the vast majority of victims of honor killings are women. And we are talking about assaults against women. Regardless, a significant number of muslims hold extreme views. Whether the number is 31%, 45% or 51% doesn't change that.

    You nitpick my one-liner comment meanwhile your numbers are WAY off. How hard is it to perform a simple google search?

  21. Sorry for the slow responses. The weekend was crazy busy. JamesNV, you ask:

    The police said the festival had gone smoothly when it clearly did not. People assumed it was safe to send their daughters to the festival the following year where it happened again. The person heading the police operation said the police were silent for political reasons. What don’t you understand?

    I think if you actually tried quoting the things I said and responding to them in a direct manner, you'd know the answer to this already. Instead, you just repeat the same thing the article did - you say the police actively lied (by claiming the festival went smoothly) yet point only to a person saying the police remained silent. The two are not the same thing. If the police said nothing at all, they didn't lie. If the police said the festival went smoothly, they did lie. Distinguishing between those two possibilities is important.

    I haven't taken a position on which of the two scenarios is accurate. All I've said is if you want people to listen to your accusations, you need to make it clear what those accusations are. You can't accuse the police of doing one thing then cite evidence they did something else and expect people to take you seriously. That you find this difficult to understand baffles me. What baffles me more, however, is you say:

    As for “misrepresenting”, from everything I’ve read the vast majority of victims of honor killings are women. And we are talking about assaults against women. Regardless, a significant number of muslims hold extreme views. Whether the number is 31%, 45% or 51% doesn’t change that.

    You cherry-picked a single country whose results were practically the most extreme (only one country beat it out) and then exaggerated the results for it. You defending that is ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous, however, is you're now trying to conflate the results you cited for a single country with results for all Muslims despite the fact you know fully well the results you cited are radically different from those gotten for Muslims as a whole. That's flat-out dishonest. Even worse, you say:

    You nitpick my one-liner comment meanwhile your numbers are WAY off. How hard is it to perform a simple google search?

    WIthout having pointed to a single number I've provided that is remotely accurate. That means you're grossly misrepresenting the results you cite while hand-wavingly accusing me of having been "WAY off" on some... unstated and unknowable issue.

    This sort of behavior is why I don't trust the narrative you're espousing.

  22. MikeN:

    I’m open to the guy having misinterpreted the quote, that it was referring to the wrong group and not what he thought. As for the tweet missing the full logical argument, didn’t you post something awhile back about how you can’t explain everything on Twitter? If he interpreted the quote properly, then I think the logic is OK. If he has totally missed the quote, then nope.

    But he clearly didn't interpret the quote properly, as has already been demonstrated. He took a quote completely out of context and then claimed it was an example of why these rapes happen even though it is clearly not anything of the sort.

    As for the article you link to, it opens with “In a bid to prevent violence against women”; later there is
    “After what she called a “wave of rapes” committed mostly by foreigners in the southwestern town of Stavanger between 2009 and 2011, Hero launched a course at some of its centres that touches on cultural differences regarding women.”

    Yes, and it also says things like:

    "It could be an 18-year-old guy who says he's surprised by the interest some Norwegian girls are showing in him. He assumes they want to sleep with him," Hagen said.

    Which you fail to mention, for some reason. I don't get that as someone mistakenly believing a person wants to sleep with responding in a sexual manner can obviously result in things like unwanted groping, which would be correctly classified as a sexual assault. Nothing about that suggests anyone wants to rape anyone. Things like this:

    "So the group leader will ask him: Who are these girls? Where do you meet them? How do you know it is sex they want? Not all women in Norway are the same," she added.

    Make it clear the class isn't just about saying, "Don't rape people." It's about trying to get the newcomers to better understand when sexual advances are and are not welcome. I'm sure the class teaches its students rape is wrong, but that's clearly not the sole focus of it like you suggest:

    I think it is basically to teach men not to rape.

    In fact, if its sole focus were to "teach men not to rape," it wouldn't be relevant to the cases at hand where almost nobody was raped. The narrative at hand is discussing reports of robberies, sexual assaults and rape, with rape making up a miniscule proportion of the reported incidents. Most of the incidents are just robberies with a meaningful number of incidents also involving sexual assaults where women were groped and otherwise molested. I would imagine the class is about dealing with the things that might lead to those sort of incidents, and any use of the word "rape" is just a reflection of the same sort of lack of clarity that gets all these cases labeled sexual assaults/rape even though most are not. If not, why even bring the class up in relation to these incidents?

    Incidentally, while people like to spread a narrative of a "wave of rapes" and the current narrative over what happened in Cologne, you'll almost never see any real analysis underlying them. For instance, how many women were robbed, molested or raped in Cologne during this festival five years ago? I bet you have no idea. I certainly don't. None of these articles bother to say. It's a big festival, and as far as I know, 100+ incidents during it might be relatively normal. I'm sure 100+ rapes wouldn't be, but when you include things like robberies, 100+ isn't that big of a number.

    And as for the identities of the attackers, this sort of sensationalistic journalism always paints a simpler picture than there really is. It would hardly be surprising if assailants were mis-identified as Muslims (or North Africans, or anything else) after there being years of sensationalistic reporting portraying Muslims as rapists. And we don't even know how many of the incidents actually involved reports of foreigners in the first place, so many assailants may not have even been identified as foreigners by their victims. For all we know, it may be only 10% of these incidents that involved Muslims.

    Anyone who is used to how sensationalistic journalism creates unfair stereotypes will recognize the same patterns here. Without actual facts or evidence, all people are basing their trust in this narrative off is their own biases and sensationalistic reporting. Neither of those is reliable. If the problem people claim exists truly does exist, nobody has done much of anything to prove it.

  23. “In a bid to prevent violence against women”, suggests that this is the reason they started the class. The primary purpose of the class is "to prevent violence against women"
    Now as this is not a rape-aggression defense class teaching women, men are the students. So they have started this class to teach men. And I wonder what they are planning to teach
    “In a bid to prevent violence against women”?

    These semantic games you are playing are pretty silly. I think it is fair to categorize it as 'teaching men not to rape.'

  24. So you question whether the police really did convey "in external communication that the festival had gone smoothly"? Do you have any reason or basis to believe the police "said nothing at all"?

    As for misrepresentation, a large potion of Swedish immigrants come from Iraq. In context of a discussion about attitudes towards women why would I include attitudes towards men? Especially when these attitudes are rarely 'enforced' against men? And I am not talking about muslims as a whole, I am talking about North African and Middle Eastern muslims. Must I continually qualify every statement ad nauseam so you don't lose context? From my first comment: "Migrants from Middle Eastern and North African countries (where abhorrent attitudes towards women are widespread) account for a disproportionate amount of rapes and sexual assaults in Nordic countries."

    Regardless, it was mainly an example to show that significant numbers of *North African and Middle Eastern* muslims hold extreme views. And you are stuck quibbling over ~6% like it makes a difference.

    "In only two countries in the region – Morocco (65%) and Tunisia (57%) – does a majority reject honor killings of accused women. "

    Wow. Where are the vast majority of moderates I keep hearing about??

    You quibble over ~6% in the comments section yet you can't be bothered to get a reasonably accurate number of sexual assaults that occurred on NYE. Hundreds of women get swarmed and sexually assaulted by gangs of men and you make an effort to point out that the perpetrators didn't always sexually assault their victims - sometimes they just robbed them. And that distinction is more important than getting the numbers of sexual assault victims even remotely right? Seems odd.

  25. MikeN, you're latest comment baffles me. You say:

    “In a bid to prevent violence against women”, suggests that this is the reason they started the class. The primary purpose of the class is “to prevent violence against women”

    Nobody has said otherwise. I've specifically laid out examples to acts of violence the class would hope to prevent. Despite this, you go on to say:

    These semantic games you are playing are pretty silly. I think it is fair to categorize it as ‘teaching men not to rape.’

    You can think it is fair to conflate all forms of sexual assault with full-fledged rape, but it is undeniable there is a large spectrum of behavior. It is not playing semantic games to point out things like fondling a woman you think is interested in you when she really isn't is not rape. That's true even if you think it's fair to conflate all such things. Personally, I'd think the only person playing semantic games would be the one intentionally conflating all forms of sexual assault with rape.

    Under your approach, if I were to grab a bartender's butt while at the bar this weekend, I'd have committed rape. That's pretty silly. I doubt many people would consider it playing semantic games to point out that isn't rape.

  26. JamesNV:

    So you question whether the police really did convey “in external communication that the festival had gone smoothly”? Do you have any reason or basis to believe the police “said nothing at all”?

    Please try to read what I write. I haven't said anything about what I believe regarding that particular situation. What I've said is the accusations you quoted are inconsistent with the evidence provided to support them. When people make one accusation but only try to provide evidence for a different, weaker accusation, it diminishes their credibility. That's a simple concept.

    As for misrepresentation, a large potion of Swedish immigrants come from Iraq. In context of a discussion about attitudes towards women why would I include attitudes towards men? Especially when these attitudes are rarely ‘enforced’ against men? And I am not talking about muslims as a whole, I am talking about North African and Middle Eastern muslims.

    You made a specific claim. Don't get upset with me for pointing out your claim was false. That you could have made some other, perhaps related, claim instead doesn't justify saying untrue things. Most people find it is relatively easy to not cherry-pick results and then exaggerate them. I'm not sure why you find it difficult. Heck, you just defended cherry-picking results for one country despite saying:

    Must I continually qualify every statement ad nauseam so you don’t lose context? From my first comment: “Migrants from Middle Eastern and North African countries (where abhorrent attitudes towards women are widespread) account for a disproportionate amount of rapes and sexual assaults in Nordic countries.”

    If the topic of discussion was meant to be about "Migrants from Middle Eastern and North African countries," cherry-picking a single country like you did was obviously inappropriate. You referred to many countries. The results of a single country, which are an extreme outlier, obviously do not accurately reflect what you say you were talking about. And this is just rich:

    Regardless, it was mainly an example to show that significant numbers of *North African and Middle Eastern* muslims hold extreme views. And you are stuck quibbling over ~6% like it makes a difference.

    I didn't quibble over anything, but I am curious just how large a misrepresentation would need to be for you to care about it. Personally, I feel when someone claims to provide a number for something but doesn't actually provide the correct number, that's bad. It's the sort of error people should acknowledge and correct. Or at least, it is on this site. As the person running this site, I will say a basic standard I expect all people to abide by is not to blatantly misrepresent the results you cite.

    But honestly, I think you're just deranged. You say:

    You quibble over ~6% in the comments section yet you can’t be bothered to get a reasonably accurate number of sexual assaults that occurred on NYE. Hundreds of women get swarmed and sexually assaulted by gangs of men and you make an effort to point out that the perpetrators didn’t always sexually assault their victims – sometimes they just robbed them. And that distinction is more important than getting the numbers of sexual assault victims even remotely right? Seems odd.

    Seriously, this is... bizarre. You claim hundreds of women got assaulted, but no news stories put the number over 200 so that claim is just wrong. I cited the number of reported incidents as given by news stories, pointing out the number would change over time as more reports came in (or were heard about) but were currently a bit over 100. You... don't cite any stories or numbers, but claim I am wrong based on... I have no idea what.

    But that's not the bizarre thing. I cited a breakdown of what proportion of these reported incidents involved sexual assault as opposed to simple robberies. The proportion was approximately 25% sexual assault, 75% robbery. Because I provided the estimated proportions, we could estimate the total number of reported sexual assaults as being somewhere between 25 and 50. Anyone who read this post could figure that out because I provided the information necessary to come up with a reasonable estimate of how many reported sexual assaults there were.

    So I looked at the available information and tried to get an idea of how many reported sexual assaults there actually were. As part of this, I tried to distinguish between cases where people were not sexually assaulted and ones where they were. You responded to this by saying it seems odd I would make such a distinction while, supposedly, not trying to get the numbers even remotely right. As in, because I tried to figure out what the numbers would actually be, you argue I didn't try to get the numbers even remotely right.

    That's bizarre. The reality is I have tried to figure out how many incidents there actually were while you haven't said a word trying to do the same.

  27. Sure they are covering other topics. But the article said
    “After what she called a “wave of rapes” committed mostly by foreigners in the southwestern town of Stavanger between 2009 and 2011, Hero launched a course...

    The trigger was 'a wave of rapes', the goal is 'to prevent violence against women.'

  28. Actually, it may not be the Muslim part that is driving the rapes, but rather that we have a large cohort of young males that has put the ratio out of balance.
    So it might have happened even if all the 'refugees' were from Mexico.

  29. MikeN:

    Sure they are covering other topics.

    So if you agree the class covers many topics, why would you say it is basically about teaching one of them? I wouldn't say Algebra is basically about teaching people how to factor quadratic equations. The so-called "wave of rapes" was probably an incident which drew focus to a more widespread issue which doesn't largely involve rapes, causing classes about the wider issues to be created. Portraying the class as ocusing solely on rapes in that case seems highly misleading.

    Actually, it may not be the Muslim part that is driving the rapes, but rather that we have a large cohort of young males that has put the ratio out of balance.
    So it might have happened even if all the ‘refugees’ were from Mexico.

    It's also possible many incidents which didn't involve foreigners have been misattributed to foreigners due to the sensationalistic reporting going on. Similarly, it is possible the incidents that are happening aren't as unheard of as people are portraying. Given people promoting this narrative almost never compare rates of these incidents to past rates, a reader can't even know for sure the rates have increased. Or even if they have, a reader might wonder about the reason. After all, none of them address things like this, which I quoted in the head post:

    Police have said that about a quarter of the complaints related to sexual assaults, including a rape, and that they believed the assaults were probably intended to distract the victims, allowing attackers to steal mobile phones and other devices.

    Even if we assume there has been a significant increase in these crimes, the fact the majority of them are robberies casts serious doubt on the idea this has anything to do with Muslim culture promoting rape. An perfectly valid alternative theory would be that the rise in crime stems from tensions caused by the increase in people (regardless of their culture), especially economic ones. One could reasonably assume that has led to an increase in things like gang activity, which could explain why there has been a rise in crime (assuming there has been one). It would especially explain why the rise in crime has a strong economic factor, with people committing robberies more than sexual assaults.

    Heck, the fact there were almost no rapes in this case makes the idea any Muslim view of women is the cause bizarre. When robberies and actions which enable robberies are the dominant form of crime, it's difficult to see views of sexuality as the cause.

  30. By the way, I should point out while I think this narrative trying to paint Muslims as rapists stems primarily from bigotry (enflamed by sensationalistic reporting) and say that is a terrible reason to prevent people from coming to these countries, I do think one could make a sensible argument from an economic standpoint. Many crimes are associated with lower income populations. If it turns people coming to these countries are largely ones with poor economic situations, then it could well be letting them in would cause an increase in crime.

    But that sort of discussion would have to be nuanced. For instance, refugees coming to the United States are generally of better economic status then the average person, meaning the argument wouldn't apply to them. Similarly, one might have to look at what sort of alternatives there are, perhaps designing programs to help newcomers improve their situation. And one might have to deal with the argument that any increase in crime would be offset by benefits caused by the increase in tax base.

    I'm not taking a position on any of that. There might be legitimate reasons for opposing the large number of people moving out of the Middle East. There are tons of points which can be brought up on either side of that debate. There just can't be a debate when one side does little more than say, "Muslims are rapists and terrorists!"

  31. >There just can’t be a debate when one side does little more than say, “Muslims are rapists and terrorists!”

    Why not? That would be a legitimate reason to stop Muslim immigration.

    I don't know anything about rape in the Muslim world, other than pedophilia is pretty common.

    I was surprised to find out that for Mexicans, statutory rape is very common with very high numbers of pregnancies for girls under 12.
    Police don't even bother investigating because the parents tend to consider the child a blessing.

  32. MikeN:

    AFP also seems to agree with the summary.

    http://news.yahoo.com/no-means-no-norway-sends-migrants-anti-rape-212933003.html

    I have no idea why you think being able to find other people who mischaracterize things in the same way you do would tell us anything, but more importantly, I have no idea what you're talking about. The article you linked to makes it abundantly clear the class isn't basically to teach men not to rape. In fact, it's portrayal of the class is exactly like mine has been.

    >There just can’t be a debate when one side does little more than say, “Muslims are rapists and terrorists!”

    Why not? That would be a legitimate reason to stop Muslim immigration.

    Because that's complete and utter BS, and quite frankly, the only people who would believe that sort of narrative are bigots or idiots. Seriously. I hope you don't misunderstand the fact I have civil conversations with people of all sorts for meaning I think remarks like:

    I don’t know anything about rape in the Muslim world, other than pedophilia is pretty common.

    Are anything other than indications you're an idiotic bigot. Nobody in their right mind would believe such a stupid claim. I'm sure you can Google up some articles from people saying similar things because the internet is great at letting bigots get a platform, but that won't change the fact what you say flies in the face of all evidence or reason.

    Maybe next you can say Mohammed was a pedophile, one of the dumbest things ever said about any religion. You've already defended labeling Muslims rapists, terrorists and pedophiles. There's not much further for you to go. That would pretty much be the only way to seal the deal at this point.

  33. Nothing I've read suggests the police "said nothing at all" nor have I heard anybody make that assertion. If there is evidence to suggest the police “said nothing at all” please provide it. "If you want people to listen to your accusations, you need to make it clear what those accusations are."

    You say I should have specified that only 22% of Iraqi muslims say honor killing women is never justified? Context matters: when discussing attitudes towards women why would I cite attitudes towards men? a) It wouldn't be relevant and b) it could be misleading - assuming the difference were significant, which it isn't. So you are quibbling over 22% vs ~28%, when either makes little difference to the core argument: The fact that only ~28% of Iraqi muslims say honor killing is never justified is atrocious. You apparently disagree?

    The results of a single country, which are an extreme outlier, obviously do not accurately reflect what you say you were talking about.

    If it was an "extreme outlier" I would expect the majority of results from other countries to be vastly different. But they aren't. The average of the seven countries listed is 43%. If we go by population (if my math is right), only 38% of muslims in the region say honor killing women is never justified. Does that sound better to you? No, it's still atrocious.

    Iraq is currently the third largest source of refugees in the world, behind Afghanistan where only 24% of Afghanis say honor killing women is never justified, and Syria where roughly 300 women die each year from honor killings. Those three countries account for 78% of the refugees.

    So while I never claimed Iraq "accurately" represents the entire region, to say Iraq is an "extreme outlier" is extremely misleading.

    "...a basic standard I expect all people to abide by is not to blatantly misrepresent..."

    Meanwhile you continue to blatantly misrepresent the amount of robberies and sexual assaults that occurred on NYE, despite being told twice that your numbers are way off. Bizarre.

    "no news stories put the number over 200 so that claim is just wrong"

    According to Wikipedia, 561 incidents in Cologne (40% of which were sexual assaults), 153 in Hamburg and at least 50 elsewhere. Which is a far cry from 'somewhere between 25 and 50'. But hey, don't bother performing a quick google search if the facts don't fit your "narrative". Talk about misrepresentation!

    Jan 9th: "Cologne Police said that 379 offences were committed on that night, of which 150 were sexual assaults." Here as well.

    Jan 10th: "The number of complaints filed over assaults during New Year's Eve festivities in Cologne has reached 516, 40 per cent of which relate to sexual assault, German police say."

    Jan 11th: "More than 500 criminal complaints were filed, 40% alleging sexual assault."

  34. Mohammed had young girls, a cultural difference. No I don't think all Muslims are pedophiles, but it is more likely, or perhaps just not noticing it as much in other societies.
    More of an Arabic thing, not particularly Muslim, and perhaps just the Middle East, like the ancient Greeks. The stereotype has been there for a long time. The Taliban had put a stop to open displays, and some has returned. One soldier in Afghanistan was court-martialed after he put a stop to a local leader who was keeping a boy - apparently the army thought multiculturalism was more important or maybe just supporting the allies.

  35. Why not? That would be a legitimate reason to stop Muslim immigration.

    Because that’s complete and utter BS, and quite frankly, the only people who would believe that sort of narrative are bigots or idiots.

    Well that would be a reason to lose the debate, but not a reason not to have that debate.

  36. If I saw a bunch of people that couldn't factor equations, and decided to start a class in response that covered factoring equations and graphs and roots, some might say the purpose of the class is to teach people to factor equations.

  37. Maybe you're right. If I didn't know about the Afghan stuff, I would have found ORourke's statement crazy, but instead the joke reinforces so now I think it is common.

    You say it is "complete and utter BS" yet you already conceded that it might be true about rape on economic grounds.
    I would think the terrorist attacks opens up room for debate on that point as well, especially with the religious terrorism that I was not including under that term.

    Overall I find it strange that you try and declare what should not be debated, considering that you frequently write about subjects that people would say should not be debated, and even end up getting sued for it(if not threatened with prison).

  38. MikeN:

    Mohammed had young girls, a cultural difference. No I don’t think all Muslims are pedophiles, but it is more likely, or perhaps just not noticing it as much in other societies.

    I'd say that you don't even know if pedophilia is more common amongst Muslims or not is a pretty good reason not to say things like:

    I don’t know anything about rape in the Muslim world, other than pedophilia is pretty common.

    While the phrase "pretty common" is vague enough to allow many possible interpretations, I don't think anyone would read "pedophilia is pretty common" amongst Muslims and interpret it as, "Pedophilia is just as common amongst Muslims as almost any other group." Which by your own admission, might be the reality of things.

    Well that would be a reason to lose the debate, but not a reason not to have that debate.

    Uh... yeah, one side doing nothing but spewing bigotry is a pretty good reason not to have a debate. Because there isn't anything to debate. You can't disprove one's bigotry. You can't make people stop viewing others negatively purely because of their religion or ethnicity. There is nothing to argue over. Showing that bigots are completely wrong on the factual claims they make won't accomplish anything. The bigots won't care enough to listen, and the non-bigots will have already dismissed the bigotry as mindless bigotry.

    Maybe you’re right. If I didn’t know about the Afghan stuff, I would have found ORourke’s statement crazy, but instead the joke reinforces so now I think it is common.

    That would be a large part of how stereotypes work. People start to believe them, and then when they hear things they should dismiss as bigoted nonsense, it is instead taken as confirmation of the stereotype.

    You say it is “complete and utter BS” yet you already conceded that it might be true about rape on economic grounds.
    I would think the terrorist attacks opens up room for debate on that point as well, especially with the religious terrorism that I was not including under that term.

    I have never conceded it might be true Muslims are rapists on any ground. I said immigrants/refugees might be more prone to crime due to their lower economic standing, but that has nothing to do with Muslims as a group. Unless you're going to claim Muslims are inhererntly incapable of reaching the same economic level as other groups, this is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.

    As for terrorists, you can resort to sensationalistic reporting to label Muslims as terrorists. Or you can actually look at the facts of anything and find Muslims are not terrorists in any overwhelming or meaningful sense. If one were being fair and wanted to label Muslims terrorists, there are tons of other groups that'd have to be labeled terrorists as well. Which would be stupid. This is really nothing more than an example of stereotyping. Christians committing attacks are lone wolf criminals while Muslims are terrorists. There are other stereotypes for other groups as well.

    The same sort of thing is seen in all sorts of topics. For instance, with with gun violence even a small gang shoot-out is labeled a "mass shooting" and proof guns need to be banned. That approach to labeling is insane, with nobody who hears the phrase "mass shooting" thinking a few people from rival gangs shot at each other. It doesn't matter though. People love their stereotypes and will look for anything to confirm them.

    Overall I find it strange that you try and declare what should not be debated, considering that you frequently write about subjects that people would say should not be debated, and even end up getting sued for it(if not threatened with prison).

    A reason that might seem strange is because it's something I haven't done. I didn't say what should be debated; I said what can be debated. People can argue over whatever they want, but the simple reality is there are requirements to have a debate. The point of a debate is to have a structured discussion in which people can address one another's points. When a person's position amounts to nothing more than, "I hate X people," there's simply nothing to debate.

    A debate just won't work when one person makes arguments and offers reason, logic and evidence to support it while the other person just spews bigotry. When "one side does little more than say, 'Muslims are rapists and terrorists!'" they're not engaging in a debate; they're just hurling vileness. As long as it remains true they're not engaging in a debate, you can't have a debate with them.

  39. JamesNV:

    Nothing I’ve read suggests the police “said nothing at all” nor have I heard anybody make that assertion. If there is evidence to suggest the police “said nothing at all” please provide it. “If you want people to listen to your accusations, you need to make it clear what those accusations are.”

    Say what? I haven't made an assertion so demanding I provide evidence for the accusation I've made is nonsensical. More importantly, however, what you claim nobody has asserted is exactly what the article you linked to said the police did. Once you get past the introduction to the article, there isn't a word indicating the police lied about anything; it's all about how the police kept quiet. This has been pointed out multiple times in this thread so it is just bizarre you portray it as an assertion I am making which I need to provide evidence for.

    You say I should have specified that only 22% of Iraqi muslims say honor killing women is never justified? Context matters: when discussing attitudes towards women why would I cite attitudes towards men? a) It wouldn’t be relevant and b) it could be misleading – assuming the difference were significant, which it isn’t. So you are quibbling over 22% vs ~28%, when either makes little difference to the core argument: The fact that only ~28% of Iraqi muslims say honor killing is never justified is atrocious. You apparently disagree?

    I'm going to ignore your decision to use an idiotic strawman and make this clear. You said 22% of Iraqi Muslims hold a particular view of honor killings. That was a massive cherry pick where you focused on the most extreme example you could find, but even then, it wasn't true. The number you referred to was in reference to views of a particular class of honor killings, not honor killings as a whole. That was wrong. There is nothing complicated or difficult to understand about that.

    Claiming the fact a person points out your mistakes means they must hold some particular view on things which is horrible is... pathetic and rude. If that's how you're going to behave, you'd be better off shutting up and going away. At this point I can't see any reason to talk to you as you're not engaging in anything I actually say. You're just taking whatever opportunities you can to paint people you disagree with in a negative light by falsely ascribing views to them even though you have reason to actually believe they hold those views. And then you say things like:

    Meanwhile you continue to blatantly misrepresent the amount of robberies and sexual assaults that occurred on NYE, despite being told twice that your numbers are way off. Bizarre.

    Look, I gave news reports of the events which provided estimates for how many incidents occurred. I pointed out those estimates had been rising as more reports were filed/heard about. You didn't refer to that at all. You didn't call the articles I cited wrong, you didn't say the numbers had been revised even further upward or just provide an actual source for what the numbers ultimately wound up being. Coming here and completely misreprenting what people say while misattributing beliefs and views to them while making vague claims they're numbers are off but refusing to provide any actual evidence or clarification of matters does not mean they are at fault.

    I have no problem acknowledging the sources I relied on underestimated the number of incidents due to information not being available at the time they were written. If you had simply said that was the case and provided some alternative sources, there wouldn't have been any issue. But you can't expect a person who has provided legitimate sources to assume those sources are wrong unless you do something to indicate they are wrong. You certainly can't (sensibly) fault them for believing only the sources that have been provided while refusing to provide any other sources yourself. So please, cut your ridiculous attitude.

    And stop the obvious misrepresentations:

    According to Wikipedia, 561 incidents in Cologne (40% of which were sexual assaults), 153 in Hamburg and at least 50 elsewhere. Which is a far cry from ‘somewhere between 25 and 50’.

    I never said there were "somewhere between 25 and 50" incidents like you portray here. That you continue to engage in such blatant misrepresentations is the exact reason people won't assume the things you say are true when you choose not to provide any evidence for them. It's a simple matter of credibility. While the numbers I relied upon may have been inaccurate, I provided explanations for how I came up with them complete with the sources which provided the data.

  40. “one side does little more than say, ‘Muslims are rapists and terrorists!'” they’re not engaging in a debate; they’re just hurling vileness.

    Yet I think if the other side were to be convinced on those two points, or even one, the other side would change it's mind.
    You are categorizing it as just hurling vileness mainly because you declare it to be wrong.

  41. MikeN, it's tiring to have to correct your misrepresentations again and again when you never acknowledge the corrections. For instance, I feel it might be worthless to point out your claim:

    Yet I think if the other side were to be convinced on those two points, or even one, the other side would change it’s mind.
    You are categorizing it as just hurling vileness mainly because you declare it to be wrong.

    Is not only wrong, but baseless. My initial remark which started this fork explicitly said:

    There just can’t be a debate when one side does little more than say, “Muslims are rapists and terrorists!”

    If a person sat down and crunched the numbers and found that Muslims had an extremely high rate of committing rape, that would be doing far more than just saying, "Muslims are rapists." That would be true if they did it for terrorism instead. That's not what's happening here. Nobody is making any sort of well-reasoned argument based on a thorough study of the data. What they're doing is jumping on any factoid, story or rumor that supports the narrative they want to tell and republishing it without question or verification.

    Whether or not the claim Muslims are rapists and terrorists is wrong isn't what determines things. What determines things is the basis people give for those claims. When there is no real basis for the claims, and people are doing "little more than" just saying Muslims are rapists and terrorists, while making no real effort to justify that claim, then there can be no debate. That would be true even if by some change their claim were correct.

    The reason I point out the claim is complete BS is twofold: 1) I think calling out bigotry is a good principle in general; 2) The claim is so glaringly wrong nobody could have put real effort into proving it and still believe it were true. Anyone who had actually looked at the evidence in any systematic or thorough way would find the claim is bogus. That indicates people who still believe the claim haven't done the work to actually verify the claim is true, much less prove it to others.

  42. stop the obvious misrepresentations...I never said there were “somewhere between 25 and 50” incidents

    I think you are having trouble with context again. Your words (emphasis mine):

    we could estimate the total number of reported sexual assaults as being somewhere between 25 and 50.

    I wrote in direct response:

    According to Wikipedia, 561 incidents in Cologne (40% of which were sexual assaults), 153 in Hamburg and at least 50 elsewhere. Which is a far cry from ‘somewhere between 25 and 50’.

    How could you possibly NOT know that I was referring to the total number of sexual assaults? YOU specified 'sexual assaults' in very the sentence I quoted!

    Using numbers available when you wrote your post: 40% of 516 = 206. 206 sexual assaults is a far cry from 'somewhere between 25 and 50'.

    "almost no rapes"

    Using your original numbers: One rape out of 25 sexual assaults is 4%. You characterize one RAPE out of 25 sexual assaults as almost "nothing", yet make a fuss over a 6% discrepency about attitudes. Where is your sense of perspective?

    If you had simply said that was the case and provided some alternative sources, there wouldn’t have been any issue.

    Likewise if you had said: "Just to clarify you are talking about attitudes towards honor killing women" there woudn't have been an issue there. But I told you your numbers were WAY off and suggested you perform a simple Google search to correct your error. You didn't. I had to look the numbers up for you.

    I have no problem acknowledging the sources I relied on underestimated the number of incidents due to information not being available at the time they were written."

    Then why are the old numbers still up? Why don't you correct your post? You said the report was a "few days" old. No, it was 7 days old. You used old, outdated sources. You seemed to know your numbers were likely off, yet you say "when you dig into it". No, you didn't dig into it at all! And why don't you remove the speculative nonsense suggesting the sexual assaults were mere "distractions"? How offensive is that!

    Since you apparently can't be bothered to look them up yourself, here are the latest numbers:

    "At least 3 alleged rapes and more than 1,300 sexual assaults and robberies reported: 821 complaints in Cologne, 218 in Hamburg, and more in other cities. 1650+ people victims of the alleged crimes."

    You say:

    If a person sat down and crunched the numbers and found that Muslims had an extremely high rate of committing rape, that would be doing far more than just saying, “Muslims are rapists.”

    I agree. And I suggested you look into this but you refused. Here is one example:

    "After controlling for age, sex and place of residence, the highest rates were for individuals born in North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia), Italy, and Iraq who were convicted of rape at rates of 17.5, 16.5 and 12.5 times the native Swedish rate respectively."

    It is no wonder right wing racists are gaining ground: well-meaning people are sticking their heads in the sand.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/ujjal-dosanjh-by-silencing-white-men-canada-cant-have-an-honest-debate-about-equality-race-and-culture

  43. More from Linda Hagen:

    Linda Hagen – who runs 34 asylum centers in Norway – said defended migrants, saying it's difficult for people who come from countries 'where women never go out'.

    'When you see a girl with a short skirt dancing at a party late in the evening, what kind of message will it give you?' she told Danish site Metroexpress.

    She added: 'It's important to tell them that this kind of behavior or clothing doesn't mean that it's allowed for you to go the whole way. If a girl says 'no', it's a 'no'.'

  44. - Last year it emerged 1,400 girls were exploited between 1997 and 2013
    - Figure is likely to be a conservative estimate of the true scale, report says
    - Victims terrorised with guns and doused in petrol and threatened with fire
    - Author of the report condemned 'blatant' failings by council's leadership
    - 'Almost all' of the abusers were found to be part of Pakistani sex gangs
    - Action blocked by political correctness as staff 'feared appearing racist'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939129/Two-local-councillors-corrupt-police-officer-accused-having-sex-victims-Rotherham-abuse-scandal.html

    Here's the report it references:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401119/46966_Rotherham_Report_PRINT.pdf

    "Staff perceived that there was only a small step between mentioning the ethnicity of perpetrators and being labelled a racist."...

    "The issue of race is contentious, with staff and Members lacking the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or upsetting community cohesion"

  45. JamesNV, I'm done. You can keep commenting if you want, but it's clear there's no point in me responding to you. Your latest comment defends your misrepresentation of what I said by saying:

    I think you are having trouble with context again. Your words (emphasis mine):

    we could estimate the total number of reported sexual assaults as being somewhere between 25 and 50.

    I wrote in direct response:

    According to Wikipedia, 561 incidents in Cologne (40% of which were sexual assaults), 153 in Hamburg and at least 50 elsewhere. Which is a far cry from ‘somewhere between 25 and 50’.

    How could you possibly NOT know that I was referring to the total number of sexual assaults? YOU specified ‘sexual assaults’ in very the sentence I quoted!

    Either on some level you know what you're writing is BS, or you're so terrible at discussions you can't even begin to talk to people in a reasonable manner. I'm not sure which would be worse. Anyone who actually read the comment in question would have seen this:

    Meanwhile you continue to blatantly misrepresent the amount of robberies and sexual assaults that occurred on NYE, despite being told twice that your numbers are way off. Bizarre.

    “no news stories put the number over 200 so that claim is just wrong”

    According to Wikipedia, 561 incidents in Cologne (40% of which were sexual assaults), 153 in Hamburg and at least 50 elsewhere. Which is a far cry from ‘somewhere between 25 and 50’. But hey, don’t bother performing a quick google search if the facts don’t fit your “narrative”. Talk about misrepresentation!

    The text you claim to have written in direct response to is not found here. Due to your selective quotation, the text you provided from me makes no reference to sexual assaults. All there is is numbers, with no description of what those numbers refer to. Given you then wrote about incidents in general, not sexual assaults, anyone reading your comment would have been given the impression I was referring to incidents in general, not just sexual assaults.

    There was absolutely nothing in your comment to indicate I had referred to sexual assaults. You provided numbers then said my numbers were wrong, without once mentioning that the numbers were for different things. You didn't even provide numbers comparable to mine. That you now say:

    Using numbers available when you wrote your post: 40% of 516 = 206. 206 sexual assaults is a far cry from ‘somewhere between 25 and 50’.

    Is absurd as nobody reading your comment would have been able to realize you saying I was wrong to put the number "somewhere between 25 and 50" while providing the number 516 was meant not to compare those two numbers, but rather, to require the reader do calculations to figure out what the number comparable to mine might be.

    Similarly, your claim including the phrase "sexual assaults" in your comment would somehow indicate to readers my numbers were for sexual assaults, not incidents in general, is absurd. You only used that phrase in a parenthetical. Parentheticals, by definition, include non-necessary text that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence they're in. Anyone interpreting your sentence according to English grammar would have actually read your mention of "sexual assaults" in a parenthetical as indicating sexual assaults were not the subject being compared.

    So yeah, I'm done. I've seen this sort of behavior far too many times to think anything could come from it. When people constantly misrepresent things only to turn around and try to play idiotic semantic games to pretend they did nothing wrong, it's a sign having a discussion would be a waste of time. I'm certain if I hadn't said anything, you never would have clarified to undue the effect of your misrepresentation just like you never would have clarified the other misrepresentations you've posted in this thread, ones you continue to defend to this very day.

    You may genuinely believe your behavior has been appropriate, but that would only make things worse. Doing this sort of thing on purpose would at least show you understand what's going on. If it isn't intentional though, your view of things is so warped as to mean you're delusional.

  46. Similarly, your claim including the phrase “sexual assaults” in your comment would somehow indicate to readers my numbers were for sexual assaults, not incidents in general, is absurd.

    No, I think the phrase "sexual assaults" in YOUR comment would indicate to readers that your numbers were for sexual assaults and not incidents in general. If I reference numbers relating to sexual assaults why would you assume that I could possibly mean something else?

    You focus on grammar mistakes and ignore the content of my arguments. (I apologize if I used parenthesis improperly.)

    I think most people are able to infer meaning from context. Example: we're discussing abhorrent muslim attitudes towards women. I give an example of such attitudes. And you accuse me of misleading people because I didn't explicitly say the example was about women. ??! That's bizarre to me. I don't think ANYBODY would think the example was about muslim attitudes towards men. Obviously you are different. But hey, if I'm not being clear enough for you just say so. No need for accusations.

    Meanwhile you KNOW your main post is grossly inaccurate and misleading, was grossly inaccurate and misleading at the time you posted it, yet you have not made any corrections! Why is that?

    That is far, far more misleading than anything I have posted.

  47. I hadn't been following closely what James was saying, but now I went back and looked, and see that he is right. There is some confusion between incidents and assaults, but you write

    >“no news stories put the number over 200 so that claim is just wrong”
    ...
    >The text you claim to have written in direct response to is not found here. Due to your selective quotation, the text you provided from me makes no reference to sexual assaults. All there >is is numbers, with no description of what those numbers refer to. Given you then wrote about incidents in general, not sexual assaults, anyone reading your comment would have been >given the impression I was referring to incidents in general, not just sexual assaults.

    Some confusion as you quantified that assaults are 25%, putting the number at 25-50; this is 25% of 100-200. When I started this comment I posted that you originally referred to incidents and the impression is correct because of the 100-200 calculation, then noticed I got it wrong.
    You were saying hundreds of assaults is 'just plain wrong'. He then comes back and gives you numbers, albeit from Wikipedia, showing that it was hundreds. Now you chastise him for using parentheses(instead of comma?). I had done the calculation immediately when I first read it,(days ago) and compared 25-50 to 224 + some portion of the other locations . I thought it was straightforward, but you think it would confuse readers and is a misrepresentation.

  48. It's bizarre. He takes issue with me because I am supposedly misrepresenting exactly how wrong he is. Meanwhile he is not concerned that his numbers are really, really bad.

    So yeah, lets be super clear about how bad Brandon's numbers are (via Wikipedia):

    Current estimate of total alleged incidents: 1292+
    Brandon's number: 100

    Current estimate of sexual assaults: ~500
    Brandon's number: 25

    Current number of rapes: 3
    Brandon's number: 1

    To make matters worse he tries to downplay the sexual assaults, portraying them as mere distractions.

    Yet I get called deranged and delusional. He called Tonyb a "bigoted whore" for disagreeing with him on a previous post.

  49. MikeN and JamesNV, as you may have gathered from my silence, I've taken my leave from this discussion. However, I was in my admin page while working on a new post and saw the new comments, so I thought I'd point something out. JamesNV has been exhibiting a tendency whereby a person misrepresents things in ways where he can turn around and act all innocent if called out. Quite often, the person who calls him out will be accused of things like "playing semantics" or the like.

    The reality, however, is he writes his comments in a way which consistently misrepresents things to exaggerate his narrative. While he didn't explicitly misrepresent things with the number of cases above, he conveniently made it appear I said there were only 25 to 50 incidents, total, rather than 25 to 50 sexual assaults. Nobody reading his comment, on its own, could possibly realize the numbers he listed were not comparable to the numbers he quoted me as listing. Saying a person could go back and look at the context by looking at the material he chose not to quote, to figure out what he actually meant, does not make his behavior okay. He knows fully well most people would not do that. Most people, upon reading his comment, would read his comment and assume he had quoted the relevant text from my comment.

    It's similar to how he cited the views Muslims from one country hold about honor killings for women as though they were the views Muslims for that country hold for all people. Cherry-picking one country may be distasteful on its own, but he flat-out fabricated his claim as he conflated views of the issue regarding women as views for both genders. He has defended this, saying the issue at hand is views toward women so it doesn't matter that he conflated the two, but that's just... embracing dishonesty. Regardless of what the issue at hand may be, he said one thing, and it was wrong. He knows fully well it was wrong, and yet, he defends it. In fact, he attacks anyone who dares to point out it is wrong.

    That's the sort of behavior which makes me ignore people like him. Because if I don't ignore them, I'll stop being polite and call them out as the imbecilic frauds they are. I get people don't always write with precision. I have no problem with that. I wouldn't be upset with someone for simply failing to quote a portion of a comment even if doing so created some confusion or misrepresentation; I'd clarify what they wrote and move on.

    That's not what we have here though. What we have is JamesNV consistently misrepresenting everything to exaggerate his narrative in any way he can then turning around and acting as though anyone who corrects him is the "bad guy." He's a... something I'm not going to say because I'm not going to go off on a rant right now as I have much bigger fish to fry today.

    I will, however, point out his count of incidents is way low according to the official list of incidents I've since found online. A list which is sadly hilarious given what I can only assume is horrible translations (as the translation I've seen includes things like insulting women).

  50. So if someone read my comment in isolation they might think you were off by 714 incidents when you were really off by 664 incidents.

    It is hard to take you seriously.

    Why don't you correct your post in some way if you care so much about misleading people?

  51. Considering the pedantry on display, I guess I should correct my last post: If someone read my comment in isolation they might think you were off by 714-739 incidents when you were really off by 564-664 incidents.

    In this instance, being off by 564 incidents is no better than being off by 714 incidents. Either way your numbers are grossly inaccurate, far beyond any 'misrepresentation' you have accused me of, and you have done nothing to correct them!

    Instead you try to make mountains out of molehills. Your arguments are weak; you might as well be making a fuss over grammatical errors. (Oh, wait, you did that.)

  52. JamesNV has been exhibiting a tendency whereby a person misrepresents things in ways where he can turn around and act all innocent if called out."

    Isn't that a roundabout way of admitting your trivial criticisms are baseless?

    On the other hand you are minimizing sexual assaults. You wrongly portray them as mere distractions and your numbers are off by an order of magnitude. Apparently grossly misrepresenting the number of sexual assaults is OK in the fight against bigotry, but the pedantic trivial concerns you bring up are unforgivable and warrant personal attacks. Rank hypocrisy.

    Can you explain why you think it is acceptable to leave your wildly inaccurate numbers up? Do you make special exceptions for muslims?

    Quite often, the person who calls him out will be accused of things like “playing semantics” or the like.

    Do you get that a lot? (Maybe it's you??)

    he conveniently made it appear I said there were only 25 to 50 incidents, total, rather than 25 to 50 sexual assaults.

    Do you think I NEED to exaggerate how wrong you are? You numbers are WAY, WAY off. That doesn't seem to concern you for some reason. BUT you are super concerned that I 'made it appear' you were off by 714-739 incidents when your post was really 'only' off by 664 incidents. Truly bizarre.

    It’s similar to how he cited the views Muslims from one country hold about honor killings for women as though they were the views Muslims for that country hold for all people.

    Well, now you are just making stuff up. Where did I say the views "hold for all people"? We were talking about muslims, specifically muslim migrants into Europe from N. Africa and the Middle East.

    I think the comment I made is relevant, and supports the view that the majority of muslims in the region do not hold moderate views towards women. Of the countries polled Iraq is the number one source of refugees from the region. Afghanistan is number 1, technically not in the region, but there is little difference either way. (24% vs 22%).

    If the numbers for the majority of refugees painted a much different picture then I would agree with your criticism. But they don't. Cherry pickers usually pick cherries because they wouldn't be able to get results that support their argument any other way. In this case it hardly matters what numbers I use. The average for the region supports my argument. The average for refugees supports my argument. I could have used Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon or Palestine. Same result. So once again you are being trivial and pedantic, using any excuse to distract from inconvenient facts.

    but he flat-out fabricated his claim as he conflated views of the issue regarding women as views for both genders.

    I didn't conflate or fabricate anything. You are making stuff up again. We were talking about attitudes towards women. The views I quoted were about women. Why that was not obvious to you is a mystery.

    I wouldn’t be upset with someone for simply failing to quote a portion of a comment even if doing so created some confusion or misrepresentation; I’d clarify what they wrote and move on.

    Nonsense. You are accusing me of misrepresenting, conflating and fabricating things. Now you are trying to change history.

    Just plain dishonest and unable to admit your mistakes.

  53. JamesNV, you are certainly entitled to believe what you want. And as is clear, I will even allow you to express those beliefs. That's about as much as I have to say about your delusional remarks, however.

  54. Well at least you are consistent there but I wouldn't be surprised if you dropped all your pretenses at this point.

  55. http://www.inquisitr.com/2713829/female-islamic-professor-says-allah-allows-muslims-to-rape-non-muslims-in-order-to-humiliate-them-video/

    Yeah, no rape problem here. Anybody who says different is a bigot. Move along...

    A female professor from the renowned Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, says that Muslim men are allowed by Allah to rape non-Muslim women in order to “humiliate” them. Professor Suad Saleh made the bold claims while being interviewed on Al-Hayat TV. The professor says that the rape is allowed during times of “legitimate war” between Muslims and their enemies.

  56. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/denmark-separate-child-bride-asylum-seekers-spouses-1543433

    https://www.rt.com/news/332282-child-brides-denmark-refugees/

    A high-profile imam has urged the Danish government to accept child brides, as the practice is part of the culture of many refugees arriving in the country....

    "We have to accept that it is a different culture..." he told Danish newspaper Metroxpress.

    This reminded me of the tweet you wrote about:

    “There has to be tolerance for attitudes that may be seen as immoral by some traditional or religious norms.”

    Sure doesn't sound like 'cheeseburgers' to me, Brandon.

    Where is the term 'multiculturalism' used? Did you just fabricate that?

  57. Radical group of the Islamic State (ISIS) has executed four women in the city of Mosul in Iraq’s northwestern Nineveh province, after accusing them of “committing adultery”, local sources reported on Thursday.
    ...
    “The four women were most likely exposed to sexual abuse at the hands of ISIS militants before being driven out of their homes and transferred to the Sharia Court.”

    http://aranews.net/2016/02/18246/

    Support for sharia as the official law of the land also is widespread among Muslims in the Middle East-North Africa region – especially in Iraq (91%) and the Palestinian territories (89%). Only in Lebanon does opinion lean in the opposite direction: 29% of Lebanese Muslims favor making sharia the law of the land, while 66% oppose it....

    Some of the highest support for stoning is found in South Asia and the Middle East-North Africa region. In Pakistan (89%) and Afghanistan (85%), more than eight-in-ten Muslims who want Islamic law as their country’s official law say adulterers should be stoned, while nearly as many say the same in the Palestinian territories (84%) and Egypt (81%). A majority also support stoning as a penalty for the unfaithful in Jordan (67%), Iraq (58%). However, support is significantly lower in Lebanon (46%) and Tunisia (44%), where less than half of those who support sharia as the official law of the land believe that adulterers should be stoned.

    http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

  58. You know, I've planned on not responding to JamesNV for the sake of not encouraging people like him, but I happened to be in my admin panel when I saw his comment above where he suggests I fabricated the term multiculturalism (because he apparently doesn't know what it means) and tried to paint as inexcusable:

    A high-profile imam has urged the Danish government to accept child brides, as the practice is part of the culture of many refugees arriving in the country….

    “We have to accept that it is a different culture…” he told Danish newspaper Metroxpress.

    And felt I should point out what he conveniently fails to mention, as noted by his own source:

    The Danish Integration Ministry revealed in January that there were 27 minors living as part of a married couple in the asylum system. An investigation by Metroxpress found brides as young as 14 living in refugee centers.

    I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't think of 14 year olds when hearing "child bride," especially not in discussions where the targets of smears have been painted as child molesters. Regardless, this is a pathetic argument on JamesNV's part as 14 years olds can marry in many states within the United States. They can also marry in many other countries.

    In fact, the term "child bride" includes any female under the age of 18. Females frequently have sexual relations prior to turning 18, and current demographics hold that something like ~2% of females in the United States within the ages of 15-17 would qualify as being in child marriages. That means JamesNV is trying to paint Muslims as horrible people for doing what is completely unremarkable within many countries. The only difference is how it is described when it comes to Muslims and the bigots who want to smear them.

    This is why people like JamesNV talking about the horrors of the refugee crisis get scoffed at by people like me. Because people like me rely on more than rhetoric and misrepresentations to form our opinions.

  59. "In May 2014, amid severe criticism from various quarters, the council had endorsed its earlier ruling that girls as young as nine years old were eligible to be married “if the signs of puberty are visible”. (emphasis added)

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/1027742/settled-matter-bill-aiming-to-ban-child-marriages-shot-down/

    First you minimize sexual assaults and now you are minimizing child marriage. What about publicly stoning rape victims to death? Just another cultural difference that we should make allowances for?

  60. JamesNV, the obviousness of your latest misrepresentation is such that anybody who reads this exchange should immediately spot it. Feel free to keep posting your nonsense, but nobody will find it convincing. I doubt anyone will even find it interesting.

  61. No comment on publicly stoning women? But hey, that tweet was just so "crazy" you had to say something about it?

    According to your dictionary multiculturalism == near indiscriminately letting in millions of refugees from cultures with unacceptable social norms?

    Do they integrate and westernize by magic?

  62. ...thousands of young girls in Lebanon, Syria and around the world who are forced into marriage with much older men every day.

    Nearly 15 million girls - some as young as eight or nine - are forced into marriage each year. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that an additional 1.2 billion girls will be forced into child marriage by 2050.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/video-of-child-bride-in-lebanon-shines-spotlight-on-37000-child-marriages-every-day-a6875326.html

    In the US, according to Wikipedia, people "under 16 generally require a court order in addition to parental consent" to marry. Meanwhile "there is a strong belief among most Muslims and scholars, based on Sharia, that marrying a girl less than 13 years old is an acceptable practice for Muslims."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

    Brandon I have no idea why you would minimize and downplay child marriage. To pretend that child marriage in the US is at all comparable is crazy.

  63. And felt I should point out what he conveniently fails to mention, as noted by his own source:

    "The Danish Integration Ministry revealed in January that there were 27 minors living as part of a married couple in the asylum system. An investigation by Metroxpress found brides as young as 14 living in refugee centers."

    I’m pretty sure most people wouldn’t think of 14 year olds when hearing “child bride,”

    And I should point out what you "conveniently fail to mention", a mere paragraph away:

    "Meanwhile, government data from Norway shows that at least 61 minors were married when they sought asylum in the country last year, several of whom were under the country's age of consent. The youngest was an 11-year-old girl."

  64. MikeN says:

    "I don’t know anything about rape in the Muslim world, other than pedophilia is pretty common."

    Brandon replies:

    Are anything other than indications you’re an idiotic bigot. Nobody in their right mind would believe such a stupid claim.

    Maybe he was talking about Afghanistan?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/21/world/kandahar-journal-shh-it-s-an-open-secret-warlords-and-pedophilia.html
    http://time.com/4045742/nato-afghanistan-boys-sexual-abuse/
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/10/28/bacha-bazi-an-afghan-tragedy/

    "Nobody in their right mind..." NY Times? Time Magazine?

    You have no clue what you are talking about yet you feel morally superior enough to verbally abuse your commenters. Turns out you're the "idiot".

  65. I watched the movie 'Spotlight' the other night. I can just imagine what you would say: "They're bigots trying to make Catholics look bad."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *