Hundreds of women assaulted in German NYE celebrations

[Thora]

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?

I can't answer a question about doing something when you have no idea if or how it could work, no. It's meaningless

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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

I was trying to show how stupid your question was by reversing the hypothetical stats, which is just as valid as your framing of it.

 

[DotCommunist]

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?

a permanently besieged zone hated by every faction in the region? Defended by flaky blue helmets? what could possibly go wrong?

you wouldn't even be able to change the bins without airlifts.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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?

Because Mandatory territories don't have a very good history of actually working, sadly.

 

[irf520]

a permanently besieged zone hated by every faction in the region? Defended by flaky blue helmets? what could possibly go wrong?

Serbian Krajina

 

[emanymton]

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

I think both cultures are misogynistic in different ways. And will I am wary of ranking these sorts of things the middle East is generally worse*, but it is also worse in human rights terms generally. I think the two probably go hand in hand, better human tights generally probably results in better conditions for women in general as well. This is way I maintain that western imperialism has a lot if responsibility for this. It's not so much about bombing counties as it is spending decades supporting and funding dicatetships that repressed any fight for human rights including fights for women's rights.


*it's not always so clear cut, Algeria and Tunisia have a higher percentage of female mps than the UK, for whatever that is worth.

 

[Spymaster]

Because Mandatory territories don't have a very good history of actually working, sadly.

How about doing it the other way round then. Set aside existing areas here (like Milton Keynes or Bracknell) for the sole purpose of housing displaced people and surround it with troops to keep them in?

 

[treelover]

totally agree.

TINA

According to the UN, of the refugees leaving Syria, there are slightly more total females (50.7 %) than males (49.3%), and slightly more adult women (23.9% aged 18-60, 1.6% older) than men (21.4% aged 18-60, 1.3% older). 51.8% of refugees are under 18 (thats 26.6% boys and 25.2% girls), and 30.1% are aged 11 and under.

For obvious reasons its youngish men and older boys who are more likely to pay people traffickers, make the dangerous sea crossing, walk for hundreds of miles, camp out, jump over fences, and run and get themselves into trucks to get to Germany/Sweden/UK etc. This has in the past suited European governments as they get to show that they are making immigration very difficult (fortress Europe) while also increasing their future labour pool without taking on too many children or elderly people.

Taking whole families from camps in Turkey/Jordan etc is a better way - but it needs to be in large numbers, not the pitiful number that Cameron has agreed to take. That will slow the flow of people, but won't stop it: for understandable reasons many young men don't want to be bored and skint in a refugee camp for ever - and I don't think there's much anyone can do to stop them coming tbh.

TINA

 

[treelover]

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.

This thread is not about open borders which you clearly support, but about the abonimal behaviour of a subsection of migrants, refugees, etc who have arrived in Germany, and maybe some German citizens [/QUOTE]

 

[Athos]

I was trying to show how stupid your question was by reversing the hypothetical stats, which is just as valid as your framing of it.

Yes, I understand that. But I disagree it demonstrated that mine was stupid. I answered yours. Will/can you answer mine?

 

[treelover]

Thora, what happened in Germany, the scale and nature of it is on a different scale than the day to day abuse, however appalling: hundreds of women across the country were beaten, had their clothing ripped off, fondled in every way, by hundreds, maybe thousands of very brutal and aggressive men in one evening, and the state and media ignored it for days. I am a male and maybe should defer to you on this , but i will not.

 

[Athos]

I can't answer a question about doing something when you have no idea if or how it could work, no. It's meaningless

You can't answer a hypothetical question? The fact that it doesn't turn on the pragmatic considerations is rather the point of a hypothetical question!

I accept we don't know if doing x would result in y; that doesn't mean we cant ask: would you do x if it would result in y?

I think that's a bit of a cop-out on your part, to be honest. I can understand why you don't want to answer, becasue it puts two beliefs into opposition. But, if we don't answer, who will? The question of whether closing borders to prevent rape is at the forefront of people's minds, and it has two dimensions: the ethical and the practical. We don't have the figures to assess the practical impact of such measures, but we might at least try to come to an ethical position.

 

[Thora]

Thora, what happened in Germany, the scale and nature of it is on a different scale than the day to day abuse, however appalling: hundreds of women across the country were beaten, had their clothing ripped off, fondled in every way, by hundreds, maybe thousands of very brutal and aggressive men in one evening, and the state and media ignored it for days. I am a male and maybe should defer to you on this , but i will not.

A different scale, but not a different nature. I don't doubt that there are plenty of European, American, Australian etc men who would have been more than willing to join in.

The police, state, media and society in generals' privileging of men over women is a huge issue, yes. Not a new one though.

 

[Thora]

You can't answer a hypothetical question? The fact that it doesn't turn on the pragmatic considerations is rather the point of a hypothetical question!

I accept we don't know if doing x would result in y; that doesn't mean we cant ask: would you do x if it would result in y?

I think that's a bit of a cop-out on your part, to be honest. I can understand why you don't want to answer, becasue it puts two beliefs into opposition. But, if we don't answer, who will? The question of whether closing borders to prevent rape is at the forefront of people's minds, and it has two dimensions: the ethical and the practical. We don't have the figures to assess the practical impact of such measures, but we might at least try to come to an ethical position.

OK, so which borders are you proposing closing, to who? And by how much would this reduce rape? In which countries and against which people?

 

[Athos]

OK, so which borders are you proposing closing, to who? And by how much would this reduce rape? In which countries and against which people?

I'm not proposing closing any borders. I'm asking you if closing the borders of Europe to refugees would prevent rapes, would you do it? Then I asked you where the cut off point was i.e. would you do it if it prevented just one rape, 100, 1,000, 10,000? (Again, the figures are purely hypothetical.) I framed the question in two ways: first in terms of reducing the number of rapes of women in Europe; and, secondly, in reducing the numer of rapes of women per se i.e. worldwide - not merely moving them outside Europe.

 

[Thora]

I'm not proposing closing any borders. I'm asking you if closing the borders of Europe to refugees would prevent rapes, would you do it? Then I asked you where the cut off point was i.e. would you do it if it prevented just one rape, 100, 1,000, 10,000? (Again, the figures are purely hypothetical.) I framed the question in two ways: first in terms of reducing the number of rapes of women in Europe; and, secondly, in reducing the numer of rapes of women per se i.e. worldwide - not merely moving them outside Europe.

I would want to know by what mechanism rapes were prevented, and what effect closing borders would have on: maternal mortality, child mortality, women's access to education, gender based violence, child poverty and about a million other things.
What if closing borders prevents 100,000 rapes but 100,000 more women and children die from violence or preventable causes instead?

Or are you asking, hypothetically, if no ones life was made any worse by closing borders and it prevented x number of rapes, would it be worth it? Which is completely meaningless.

Basically it's a stupid question and I can't be bothered to engage with you any more on this.

 

[Athos]

I would want to know by what mechanism rapes were prevented, and what effect closing borders would have on: maternal mortality, child mortality, women's access to education, gender based violence, child poverty and about a million other things.
What if closing borders prevents 100,000 rapes but 100,000 more women and children die from violence or preventable causes instead?

Or are you asking, hypothetically, if no ones life was made any worse by closing borders and it prevented x number of rapes, would it be worth it? Which is completely meaningless.

Basically it's a stupid question and I can't be bothered to engage with you any more on this.

No, I'm explicitly not asking that; I appreciate, of course, that, in the hypothetical example, there's a cost and benefit of each approach. I'm trying establish what the tipping point would be.

Let's say, for argument's sake that, insofar as rapes in Europe are concerned, the mechanism of reduction is that there are fewer men with appalling attitudes to women in the region; insofar as worldwide, let's assume that that the mechanism is that these men have a slighlty less poor view of women form their home countries as they do of western women, and the restraining influence of being in part of an established community.

Again, for argument's sake, if closing the borders of Europe to all refugees had: a) a reduction of rapes in Eurpoe of, say, 10,000; or, b) a worldwide net reduction of, say, 5,000, what would be an acceptable price for acheiving that in terms of each of the variables you listed: maternal mortality, child mortality, women's access to education, gender based violence, and child poverty.

 

[LDC]

FFS, it's a pointless question and is cluttering up this thread with irrelevant ridiculousness. Can't we just move on?

 

[Athos]

No, I'm explicitly not asking that; I appreciate, of course, that, in the hypothetical example, there's a cost and benefit of each approach. I'm trying establish what the tipping point would be.

Let's say, for argument's sake that, insofar as rapes in Europe are concerned, the mechanism of reduction is that there are fewer men with appalling attitudes to women in the region; insofar as worldwide, let's assume that that the mechanism is that these men have a slighlty less poor view of women form their home countries as they do of western women, and the restraining influence of being in part of an established community.

Again, for argument's sake, if closing the borders of Europe to all refugees had: a) a reduction of rapes in Eurpoe of, say, 10,000; or, b) a worldwide net reduction of, say, 5,000, what would be an acceptable price for acheiving that in terms of each of the variables you listed: maternal mortality, child mortality, women's access to education, gender based violence, and child poverty.

The fact that it's ridiculous to you says more about you than it does about the question. Most people would make a simple cost/benefit analysis in respect of issues of this kind - we don't want to see toddlers drowning coming in on boats, but not at the cost of our women not being able to walk the streets. If we don't engage with them, and kick it around amongst ourselves, what will happen?

 

[LDC]

Of course this needs discussing, but asking completely hypothetical questions that have untold variables on a infinite number of levels about something we can't do and will never happen just seems like not the most productive way to be having these discussions to me, and obviously to others given the response it's had.

BTW, 'our women'? Nice.

 

[Athos]

Of course this needs discussing, but asking completely hypothetical questions that have untold variables on a infinite number of levels about something we can't do and will never happen just seems like not the most productive way to be having these discussions to me, and obviously to others given the response it's had.

BTW, 'our women'? Nice.

Demonstrably, many people don't accept that Europe can't try to close its borders to refugees. And, whether you like 'our women' or not (and I don't), that's the level of a lot of the discourse around this issue.

 

[Anudder Oik]

No, because, unlike you I see no need to indulge in histrionics.

Your line about all Arabs being "fuckers" who need to be shat in by tyrants, says so much more about you than those you clain to critique


The only thing that keeps fuckers like this in their box back in MENA is a strongman

Do you think that the ME is ready for western style democracy? What has happened once all the dictators have been removed, Sadam, Gaddafi, Mubarak and the unfinished job with Assad?

What fills the vacuum?

 

[not-bono-ever]

I'm not proposing closing any borders. I'm asking you if closing the borders of Europe to refugees would prevent rapes, would you do it? Then I asked you where the cut off point was i.e. would you do it if it prevented just one rape, 100, 1,000, 10,000? (Again, the figures are purely hypothetical.) I framed the question in two ways: first in terms of reducing the number of rapes of women in Europe; and, secondly, in reducing the numer of rapes of women per se i.e. worldwide - not merely moving them outside Europe.

your hypothetical would come down to cost and risk tolerance - how much would it cost to implement vs the cost of dealing with sexual assaults i am afraid. put in numerical terms, i fear that a significant level of sexual assault would be accepted . iykwim

 

[irf520]

Do you think that the ME is ready for western style democracy?

This guy doesn't:

Sic Semper Tyrannis : "I favor democracy in the ME." Pat Lang

What has happened once all the dictators have been removed, Sadam, Gaddafi, Mubarak and the unfinished job with Assad? What fills the vacuum?

Chaos or another dictatorship. But then removing the original dictators was never really about democracy. It was about getting a dictator in who will be more amenable to US/globalist interests.

 

[tim]

Do you think that the ME is ready for western style democracy?

Th Germans managed in 1945 as did the Italians and the Spanish after Franco andSouthAfrica afterApartheid andIndia in 1948.

Perhaps, you should sprnd more timewith people from the Middle East, rather than ocusing on the strawmen of racist stereotypes and your imagination.

 

[toggle]

Thora, what happened in Germany, the scale and nature of it is on a different scale than the day to day abuse, however appalling: hundreds of women across the country were beaten, had their clothing ripped off, fondled in every way, by hundreds, maybe thousands of very brutal and aggressive men in one evening, and the state and media ignored it for days. I am a male and maybe should defer to you on this , but i will not.

on average, there are approximately 10k sexual assaults happening every week, 11 rapes every hour.



from Rape statistics

you can go read some of this

Counting Dead Women



still want to tell me how much worse this one night was?

 

[toggle]

No, I'm explicitly not asking that; I appreciate, of course, that, in the hypothetical example, there's a cost and benefit of each approach. I'm trying establish what the tipping point would be.

Let's say, for argument's sake that, insofar as rapes in Europe are concerned, the mechanism of reduction is that there are fewer men with appalling attitudes to women in the region; insofar as worldwide, let's assume that that the mechanism is that these men have a slighlty less poor view of women form their home countries as they do of western women, and the restraining influence of being in part of an established community.

Again, for argument's sake, if closing the borders of Europe to all refugees had: a) a reduction of rapes in Eurpoe of, say, 10,000; or, b) a worldwide net reduction of, say, 5,000, what would be an acceptable price for acheiving that in terms of each of the variables you listed: maternal mortality, child mortality, women's access to education, gender based violence, and child poverty.

and how significant a reduction would your hypothetical figures be compared to the actual current levels of rape?

 

[Anudder Oik]

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.

To generalise like this is erroneous as it serves to avoid examining the consequences of what has happened on NYE and risks letting the perpetrators off by saying they somehow form part of a pattern already present in our society. Mass attacks like this do not form the norm in our society, if they did then you would see it at Glastonbury or anywhere else where men and women gather to celebrate and have fun.

Yes, there is sexism in society but nothing like this has happened before. Women in germany are now being forced to change their lifestyles over night, I repeat "over night", and are now (not before) afraid to go about their normal lives. Western sexism is not to blame for this precise consequence. A group of organized men with a somewhat extremer version of mysogony are.

 

[Sasaferrato]

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

Yes, but a few more would be nice.

 

[Sasaferrato]

How about doing it the other way round then. Set aside existing areas here (like Milton Keynes or Bracknell) for the sole purpose of housing displaced people and surround it with troops to keep them in?

What have the poor fuckers done, to deserve being settled in Milton Keynes or Bracknell?