Hundreds of women assaulted in German NYE celebrations

[Pickman's model]

Well, seeing as I've not seen any research on this yet might anecdotes have some validity to illuminate a tendency when lots of them show similar things?

being as you didn't even describe your friend as left-wing i don't see how anyone can place any weight on your anecdote, in addition to which you did not mention anyone else's reaction. not to mention that left-wing covers a broad spectrum from e.g. diane abbott to ian bone.

 

[Pickman's model]

And on a personal level, the best of luck to them. Yes, there are those who want to create a new pool of cheap labour, but let's focus attention on them, not the people who they want to employ. The refugees are not the enemy here. And not just refugees - economic migrants are not the enemy either.

not even phildwyer

 

[LDC]

being as you didn't even describe your friend as left-wing i don't see how anyone can place any weight on your anecdote, in addition to which you did not mention anyone else's reaction. not to mention that left-wing covers a broad spectrum from e.g. diane abbott to ian bone.

OK, it was a useless lazy coffee fueled Sunday morning anecdote. Suitably chastised.

 

[crossthebreeze]

It wasn't refugees that attacked women, it was men. We already had a pretty major men problem in Europe (how many millions of women are attacked, raped and murdered by men every year?) and now we have more men, many with even worse attitudes towards women, so even more of a problem. It's the same problem that there was last year and the year before and every other year though. I don't see it as a reason to close borders.

THIS ^^^

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not an expert but it seems to be the even at its best the whole Arab world is a very extreme and some might say unpleasant place. Tribal war, religious war, corruption, cruelty and fanaticism. In my opinion men take the rights from women when they can. If they can get away with controlling women they will. Just look at the fight women had to get the vote in this country. The whole situation is deeply unsettling and I'm not too keen on this white man's burden approach of it being our duty to taking dangerous and damaged people.

Because, of course, there's no pressure in the west to deprive women of rights, or to deny them rights.

It's a good and wonderful thing to help others but it must be done in a way which doesn't cause innocent women to be harmed. But I find it very difficult to know what to do. And the scary awful part is, all this is 1,000,000 miles away from the kindness and good will that is needed between different cultures. Take the Polish Romanian migrants to the UK, on the whole they are so charming and winning it's hard not to be very fond of them. One can only hope that things work out somehow with the situation in Germany.

The reason you "find it difficult to know what to do" is because rather than trying to analyse the issues as neutrally as possible, many of your "arguments" on this thread have proceeded from a perception that white skin = okay, brown skin = cunts.

 

[bimble]

rather than trying to analyse the issues as neutrally as possible, many of your "arguments" on this thread have proceeded from a perception that white skin = okay, brown skin = cunts.

Apart from "the polish romanians" who are "on the whole so charming and winning its hard not to be very fond of them"

 

[ViolentPanda]

I actually don't believe that it would be possible to get 1000 geezers together in one place, at the same time, ALL of whom were prepared to sexually assault or rape women. How many people do you know that would do it? I don't know ANY man (and have no historical acquaintances that I'm aware of) who would do it.

What's likely happened here is that there were around 1000 people present in total (the videos seem to support this), a couple of small groups were going around noncing without the knowledge of the others, and everyone's been tarred with the same shitty brush.

One thousand blokes .... ALL sex-cases?

Do me favour.

But never mind that. Let's shoot into the crowd.

TBF, you're taking it as "only sex cases would do this", whereas often sexual assault is also about opportunity, i.e. "can I do this, and get away with it?". Add to that the ingredient of "pack behaviour", and I suspect you could, at a stretch, muster a thousand scumbags in half a dozen cities.

 

[DownwardDog]

How are they going to stop the boats coming in then short of erecting a huge donald trump style wall around the mediterranean?

If they politicians had the balls they could use the Australian Navy method: put them in a lifeboat, sink the piece of shit boat they turned up in, tow the lifeboat to just outside the 12 mile limit of some other country and wave them off.

 

[Athos]

It wasn't refugees that attacked women, it was men. We already had a pretty major men problem in Europe (how many millions of women are attacked, raped and murdered by men every year?) and now we have more men, many with even worse attitudes towards women, so even more of a problem. It's the same problem that there was last year and the year before and every other year though. I don't see it as a reason to close borders.

Purely hypothetically, but, if it could be demonstrated that closing borders would reduce the number of rapes taking place in Europe, would you consider it a reason to do so? What about if it reduced the total number of rapes per se (i.e. didn't just displace them to outside Europe's borders), would you then? Or is there a tipping point i.e. a number of rapes that is a reasonable trade off against the positive benefits/moral imperative of allowing such immigration? In a way, it sounds a facaetious question, but it's not. Equally, it would be an easy one to duck, by refusing to engage on the basis that it is purely hypothetical; but I'd be interested in your thoughts, and those of others here.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I had a chat with a good political friend the other day and she suggested the whole thing might be a set-up by 'right wing women' to create tensions. I did pull her up on it, and very quickly she recanted that idea, but it does show the initial first reaction from lots of lefties is pretty fucked up.

While a set-up is possible, it's not probable unless there's a lot more coordination between immigrants in different cities than has so far been noted.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How are they going to stop the boats coming in then short of erecting a huge donald trump style wall around the mediterranean?

Didn't Greece start building a wall on their borders with Bulgaria and Macedonia (to stop migrants who were crossing into Turkey, then into Bulgaria etc), back before SYRIZA took power?

 

[bimble]

What about if it reduced the total number of rapes per se (i.e. didn't just displace them to outside Europe's borders), would you then?

That's just so hypothetical as to be.. a nonsense question, isn't it? Much worse than the 'would you eat dogpoo for £30,000 one.

 

[Athos]

That's just so hypothetical as to be.. a nonsense question, isn't it? Much worse than the 'would you eat dogpoo for £30,000 one.

No. Whilst we don't know the figures, it's not impossible that a reasonable estimate could be made by someone who does.

Anyone else?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No. Whilst we don't know the figures, it's not impossible that a reasonable estimate could be made by someone who does.

Anyone else?

I agree with bimble.

 

[Brainaddict]

Purely hypothetically, but, if it could be demonstrated that closing borders would reduce the number of rapes taking place in Europe, would you consider it a reason to do so? What about if it reduced the total number of rapes per se (i.e. didn't just displace them to outside Europe's borders), would you then? Or is there a tipping point i.e. a number of rapes that is a reasonable trade off against the positive benefits/moral imperative of allowing such immigration? In a way, it sounds a facaetious question, but it's not. Equally, it would be an easy one to duck, by refusing to engage on the basis that it is purely hypothetical; but I'd be interested in your thoughts, and those of others here.

I think a utilitarian approach is rarely appropriate in complex ethical situations. You end up trading off things that should not be traded. This may sound like evasion to you but I don't think it is. There are other ways to approach such problems, such as to pursue what you believe is the right ethos in all situations. If you believe in compassion and solidarity and that leads to large numbers of very patriarchally raised men coming to Europe, you can react to that not by questioning your initial compassion and solidarity, but by pursuing a further commitment to fight patriarchy and abuse wherever it happens.

It's sad that this thread has been shat all over by Casually Red, because these are the interesting/difficult things to discuss, rather than people having to deal with Casually Red, his hatred barely contained beneath the surface, seeing himself as a one-man army of righteousness washing the scum off the streets. I suggest people stop responding to him so the adults can have a conversation.

 

[stethoscope]

The what?! Athos.

 

[DotCommunist]

If they politicians had the balls they could use the Australian Navy method: put them in a lifeboat, sink the piece of shit boat they turned up in, tow the lifeboat to just outside the 12 mile limit of some other country and wave them off.

hows that going to work in a european context, genius?

 

[Thora]

Why do you think that closing borders would reduce the number of rapes taking place rather than displacing them Athos?

 

[Athos]

Why do you think that closing borders would reduce the number of rapes taking place rather than displacing them Athos?

I don't. Absent any reliable statistics, I couldn't assess the liklihood of that, I explained it was purely hypothetical. But, if it could be demonstrated, what would you think?

 

[emanymton]

It wasn't refugees that attacked women, it was men. We already had a pretty major men problem in Europe (how many millions of women are attacked, raped and murdered by men every year?) and now we have more men, many with even worse attitudes towards women, so even more of a problem. It's the same problem that there was last year and the year before and every other year though. I don't see it as a reason to close borders.

I totally agree, the response to this shouldn't be to attack anyone by to fight for the rights of women not to be sexually assaulted by anyone, regardless of where they come from. So much of the discussion on this is completely ignoring how deeply misogynistic western culture is and how many women face sexual haresment and assult on a daily basis. In a sane world this should trigger a struggle for women's rights, but sadly the world seems to be sliping ever further into insanity.

 

[frogwoman]

No. Whilst we don't know the figures, it's not impossible that a reasonable estimate could be made by someone who does.

Anyone else?

It's not an either or thing though is it? There's already an attack on women's rights in Europe and the West even without refugees coming in (see abortion bans in Spain and many parts of the US). And that attack is in some but not all cases being led by people that want to shut borders etc.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

TBF, you're taking it as "only sex cases would do this", whereas often sexual assault is also about opportunity, i.e. "can I do this, and get away with it?". Add to that the ingredient of "pack behaviour", and I suspect you could, at a stretch, muster a thousand scumbags in half a dozen cities.

Also, that kind of behaviour is very often as much about asserting dominance over a victim as anything else.

I think this is also true of most of the aggressive end of the spectrum of street crimes.

 

[Thora]

I don't. Absent any reliable statistics, I couldn't assess the liklihood of that, I explained it was purely hypothetical. But, if it could be demonstrated, what would you think?

So, we could say "hypothetically, gouging every man's left eye out will reduce rapes worldwide. Should we?"

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't. Absent any reliable statistics, I couldn't assess the liklihood of that, I explained it was purely hypothetical. But, if it could be demonstrated, what would you think?

It's a stupid question. What if it could be demonstrated that bringing Syrian men to Europe reduces the overall number of women who are raped? Do you think we should then be getting as many as possible in?

That's clearly not the criterion to use.

 

[Athos]

It's not an either or thing though is it? There's already an attack on women's rights in Europe and the West even without refugees coming in (see abortion bans in Spain and many parts of the US). And that attack is in some but not all cases being led by people that want to shut borders etc.

That's true enough. But, equally, it's not an either or in terms of the solution; if preventing immigration would prevent some rapes (not something I'm convinced of, of course, still speaking hypothetically), that doesn't mean you couldn't try to prevent others by other means, at the same time.

 

[Spymaster]

The government's policy of taking families directly from Syria has to be a better idea.

Why not just annex a fucking great chunk of Syria with a UN mandate, build a city with proper infrastructure, make it a safe zone for refugees and surround it with troops?

 

[frogwoman]

I totally agree, the response to this shouldn't be to attack anyone by to fight for the rights of women not to be sexually assaulted by anyone, regardless of where they come from. So much of the discussion on this is completely ignoring how deeply misogynistic western culture is and how many women face sexual haresment and assult on a daily basis. In a sane world this should trigger a struggle for women's rights, but sadly the world seems to be sliping ever further into insanity.

Western culture is deeply misogynistic but on the other hand women do at least in theory have nearly equal rights compared to somewhere like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia tbh. I'm not saying some men in European society don't have those attitudes but in some countries (I'm definitely not saying all the men there feel the same way btw) it's on a completely different scale

 

[Athos]

So, we could say "hypothetically, gouging every man's left eye out will reduce rapes worldwide. Should we?"

We could. But that's not a question anyone is asking, whereas many people are asking about the possibility of closing borders to reduce such rapes. Is it a question you can or will answer?

 

[Athos]

It's a stupid question. What if it could be demonstrated that bringing Syrian men to Europe reduces the overall number of women who are raped? Do you think we should then be getting as many as possible in?

That's clearly not the criterion to use.

Possibly, it'd be a balancing exercise, wouldn't it? What about my question?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why not just annex a fucking great chunk of Syria with a UN mandate, build a city with proper infrastructure, make it a safe zone for refugees and surround it with troops?

Ah the UN.