Weasel Straw strikes again (Pakistani men in Britain see white girls as "easy meat")

[Pickman's model]

No need to thank me.

that's good

 

[ericjarvis]

Oh good. A study from 1993 that has no relevance whatsoever to the figures quoted by Rohde, especially since the manner in which data collected has changed significantly in the 18 years since that paper was published. This neither proves nor disproves anything.

The fucking figures collected by Rohde are simply three bloody numbers with no definitions, no context, and with no official document quoted as a source. My question is do you have any reason to believe that the proportion of rapes that involve violence, and the proportion of rapes by strangers has changed significantly since 1993. If it hasn't we then come to the second point.

Oh look, again you throw up an 18 page document, an annual report of a crisis centre. Do you even read your own links?
I can't see anything in there that disproves Rohde's figures. Citing the number of enquiries, mostly via telephone, is a ridiculous way to try to form a definitive figure of actual "assault rapes" committed.

Yes. It is an 18 page document. It has all the information on the organisation that collected the statistics, and shows references so that you can go and check the methodology and the raw data. That's how it is supposed to be done. Not a short article in a tabloid newspaper describing a TV interview, but properly validated data.

So. Do you question the figure of over 1,400 referrals to the rape crisis centre from Oslo alone? If so on what basis? If not, then how can you square a figure of 41 rapes by strangers involving violence with the data from the two reports I have linked to. It makes no sense. Either things changed astoundingly since 1993 and in comparison to then only a tiny proportion of rapes involve violence, and the proportion of rapes by partners and acquaintances has increased astronomically, or there are one hell of a lot more than 41 assault rapes in Oslo over any three year period.

This is not good enough. Show me where this annual report contradicts Rohde.

Can your tiny mind not deal with combining two separate pieces of data?

I already provided links that explain quite clearly the criteria for a case to be defined as "assault rape" as opposed to the more common attacks that take place between spouses or date rape attacks.

Yes, and that's why I posted evidence that shows:

A: In 1993 more than 2/3 of rapes reported to the rape trauma centre were by an unknown assailant. A quarter were by more than one assailant.

B: Nearly a third of those rapes involved the use of weapons.

C: Over half involved visible physical injuries.

and

D: The DIXI centre had over 1400 referrals of rape victims in 2004.

So explain how it's possible for Rohde's statistics to be accurate and complete. They don't tally with the evidence from victims and those treating them medically and psychologically. So what are they based on?

Your habit of slinging up irrelevant documents and then claiming you've proven Rohde's figures are dodgy is as laughable as your attempts to prove that the Oslo police are racist because of a complaint about a push-bike.

Do this properly or not at all.

I'm doing this properly. It's hardly my fault if you are too stupid or lazy to make any effort to read anything longer than a paragraph or that has more than four or five numbers in it. Basically your argument appears to consist of saying nobody has posted a sensationalist tabloid article about Norwegian police trying to spin their way out of accusations of racism and therefore nobody has contradicted you.

 

[ericjarvis]

No need to thank me.

Thanks. I hadn't seen the ECRI document until you posted it. Only press reports of concerns about racial profiling by the Norwegian police and an Amnesty International report on racism and human rights in Norway.

 

[DrRingDing]

you what?

I only heard the meaning of the term Friday.

 

[IMR]

How can anyone not be serious when we are in the midst of a sexual jihad. I want to know where these imans are. If they are preaching sexual jihad all over the country they shouldn't be too hard to find. I say we send out pk as a roving reporter.

There was one imam in Australia who came out with stuff along the lines of 'women are asking for it if they go around immodestly dressed':

Australia's top Muslim cleric rationalized a series of gang rapes by Arab men, blaming women who "sway suggestively," wear make-up and don't cover themselves in the tradition of Islam.

Sheik Taj el-Dene Elhilaly's comments in a Ramadan sermon in a Sydney mosque have stirred a furor in the country with even Prime Minister John Howard weighing in with condemnation.

The cleric also said the judge in the case, who sentenced the rapists, had "no mercy."

"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women victims – whom he said were "weapons used by Satan."

The victims of the vicious gang rapes are leading the national outcry – with some calling for deportation of the sheik. In a Sydney Daily Telegraph online poll, 84 percent of people said the Egyptian-born sheik should be deported.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?" the sheik said in his sermon. "The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

From here: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=38561

A senior member of the Muslim Council of Britain defended Sheik Taj el-Dene Elhilaly's comments:

ONE of Britain’s most senior Muslims has defended as “a great scholar” the Australian imam who likened scantily clad women to uncovered meat that draws predators.
Abduljalil Sajid, a senior figure in the Muslim Council of Britain, offered support for Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali’s views, saying that “loose women like prostitutes” encouraged men to be immoral. Dr Sajid, visiting Australia, said that Sheikh al-Hilali was attacking immodesty and loose dress, or “standing in the streets, inviting men to do these bad acts”.

From here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article616185.ece

Those examples aren't of imams actively urging rape campaigns for sure, but they are non-productive God-crazed parasites making excuses for rapists nonetheless.

 

[phildwyer]

No, some others know. Some even on this thread.

I do!

 

[TruXta]

There was one imam in Australia who came out with stuff along the lines of 'women are asking for it if they go around immodestly dressed':



From here: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=38561

A senior member of the Muslim Council of Britain defended Sheik Taj el-Dene Elhilaly's comments:



From here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article616185.ece

Those examples aren't of imams actively urging rape campaigns for sure, but they are non-productive God-crazed parasites making excuses for rapists nonetheless.

It's not like ethnic Europeans don't espouse the very same "she deserved it" crap, so what's your point? His was a particularly odious example (meat, cats?? WTF), but the sentiment is the same.

 

[phildwyer]

So how do you change the attitudes of the sexual jihad?

There is of course no "sexual jihad." It is a fantasy produced by weird imaginations. I think you know this, so maybe use quote marks around the term?

 

[IMR]

It's not like ethnic Europeans don't espouse the very same "she deserved it" crap, so what's your point? His was a particularly odious example (meat, cats?? WTF), but the sentiment is the same.

You find people with reactionary attitudes to women everywhere. But I think they're probably less common among Europeans because of the longer existence of things like women's rights and Christianity no longer being treated with such awe-struck deference as in earlier times. There are big reputational penalties for coming out with crap like that.

 

[TruXta]

That's simply not true for pretty damned large proportions of the population. To continue with the Norway-bashing (I'm allowed, being a Weegie'n all), about 1/3 of respondents in a survey from last year(?? recent anyway) thought that girls who dressed in a certain way or were in the wrong place at the wrong time or combinations thereof were at least partly to blame for being sexually assaulted. This in a country which is putatively one of the most gender-egalitarian in the world.

 

[IMR]

That's simply not true for pretty damned large proportions of the population. To continue with the Norway-bashing (I'm allowed, being a Weegie'n all), about 1/3 of respondents in a survey from last year(?? recent anyway) thought that girls who dressed in a certain way or were in the wrong place at the wrong time or combinations thereof were at least partly to blame for being sexually assaulted. This in a country which is putatively one of the most gender-egalitarian in the world.

Might you have been thinking of this survey? http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1786827.ece

The survey took place among male high school students in Sor-Trøndelag County - what's it like there?

 

[TruXta]

I'd say that county's pretty average for Norway, it has the 3rd biggest city within its boundaries as well as rural and coastal areas. The same guy did a survey of adults in the same area in 2005 and said that it showed the same tendencies.

There was another survey by Amnesty and TNS Gallup where over a fourth blamed women for rape if she "dressed provocatively". One in four thought that if she was in a desolate stretch she was also to blame, one fifth thought that a woman with multiple partners (real or imagined) was partly or fully to blame for rape. Fully 48% believed the woman was partly or fully responsible if she was flirting prior to the sexual assault. Source

It has to be said that there's a great deal of cognitive dissonance on display here. Three of four in this survey also opined that violence against a female partner (relevant because most rapes happen in relationships or friendships) can never be justified, while 2/3rds said they would intervene to stop violence against women. Still, fairly scary attitudes on display there.

 

[IMR]

I wonder how similar those results would be to Britain. It's a shame to see those attitudes, but at least they're in the minority. And despite them Norway comes top of this worldwide index for equality between the sexes in terms of health, earning power, education and other factors:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/24565

So it's not all bad news.

 

[TruXta]

As I said, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance, with both "you reap what you sow" type of thinking as well as "it's never right to sexually assualt" around this topic.

 

[pk]

eric jarvis - your "referral" numbers are not relevant.

If you are trying to say that the only "assault rapes" that were investigated by police were those suspected to have been carried out by men not from Norway then say so. That is a pretty alarming conclusion, especially if you are effectively saying the cops ignored over a thousand "assault rapes" by Norwegian men.

It is worth pointing out at this stage that Rohde's cause celebre appears to be ensuring that asylum seekers who are jailed remain under lock and key until they can be deported.

If manipulation of rape statistics is really just a wedge to secure an act of Norway's parliament to make the above happen, then that is a matter for further investigation.

I have no doubt the police in every country use racial profiling, we do it here, IC1, IC2, IC3 indexing.

But if you are suggesting that Rohde's department only bothers with non-Norwegian cases, we should all be asking why, then proving it, then taking them to task over it in a very public way.

Agreed?

 

[ernestolynch]

Why has the tag changed on this thread?

 

[pk]

As I said, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance

Dissonance maketh the heart grow fonder. Or is it fungus, I can never remember

 

[Treacle Toes]

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring...09-004-eng.pdf

Here is a 2008 report on Norway by the The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.

Reposted for the selective readers of the thread.

 

[_angel_]

Why has the tag changed on this thread?

There were no tags before? Where do they come from and who puts them there?

 

[pk]

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring...09-004-eng.pdf

Here is a 2008 report on Norway by the The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.

Reposted for the selective readers of the thread.

utter fail

Page not found.

We cannot locate the page you are looking for.
Maybe it is an outdated link.

Click following link to go to the home page of the Council of Europe:
http://www.coe.int/

Try another directory level :

http:// www.coe.int / t / dghl /

 

[Crispy]

There were no tags before? Where do they come from and who puts them there?

Thread creator, or editor (cos he's the only mod who cares about them )

 

[belboid]

utter fail

you're not very good at using the internet are you? this is why you are making such a pisspoor 'case'

http: //hudoc.ecri.coe.int/XMLEcri/ENGLISH/Cycle_04/04_CbC_eng/NOR-CbC-IV-2009-004-ENG. pdf - took me two seconds to find.

It's pretty fuicking pathetic isn't it, you are desperately trying to hang on to your one cherry picked example, trying to get people to distinguish between good rape and rape to defend yourself. How many pages on such a non-issue? Truly you have drunk deeply from the well of jazzzzzz

 

[nino_savatte]

Where's Thomsy?

 

[Treacle Toes]

utter fail

Yes, you failed to read/address any of the quotes already made from the 2009 report...or take a couple of seconds to find it yourself when the link failed for you today (it was working fine yesterday).

You have built an argument that has gone on for many pages now around what may or may not be going on in Norway. I found some relevant literature and you can't be asked to read it. I wonder why that is....

ECRI....

First report 1998:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/50546917/Report-on-Norway

Second report 2000:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/50546610/SECOND-REPORT-ON-NORWAY

Third report 2003:

http://hudoc.ecri.coe.int/XMLEcri/ENGLISH/Cycle_03/03_CbC_eng/NOR-CbC-III-2004-3-ENG.pdf

Fourth report: 2009:

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Norway/NOR-CbC-IV-2009-004-ENG.pdf


From a press release for the 2009 report:

In Norway, the legal and institutional framework against racism and discrimination has been strengthened and the vast majority of the measures foreseen in the National Plan of Action to Combat Racism and Discrimination (2002-2006) have been implemented. However, the situation of persons of immigrant background remains worrying in sectors such as employment and school education, as well as the situation of Roma and Romani/Taters. Political discourse sometimes takes on racist and xenophobic overtones, and the police still have important challenges to take up, including in the field of addressing racial profiling.

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/library/pressreleases/54-24_02_2009_en.asp

Oh look, there's more:

[For the Norwegian case, the emphasis on a number of important steps to improve the legal framework against racism and racial discrimination and its implementation has also been made by the ECRI report. The prosecuting authorities and the police, despite much work still to do, are the ones are in progress in monitoring incidence. The negativities mentioned in the Report begin with the immigrants, as usual, lagging behind in vital areas. The unemployment rate among young people of an immigrant background is reported to be twice that registered among the rest of the same age group, and a disproportionately high drop-out rate from secondary education is registered among students of an immigrant background. The main cause of the mentioned imbalances is also reported as racial discrimination. In relation with racial discrimination, more data seems to be required to find out positions of minority groups in a number of fields. What is more, the ECRI emphasizes on the public sector’s piecemeal approach. Such an approach is harmful to combat racial discrimination on a common ground and is an obstacle to promoting equal opportunities at the same time. Once more, the ECRI points out a better awareness and acknowledgement among the public sector of the different forms of racial discrimination.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/column...ts-lack-of-awareness-is-a-common-concern.html

Happy reading.

 

[DrRingDing]

Thread creator, or editor (cos he's the only mod who cares about them )

hhhmm... I didn't edit them to start off with and some wind up merchant stuck 'asian' in there. I suspect that wasn't editor.

 

[Treacle Toes]

It has gone really quiet on this thread.....

 

[pk]

Yes, you failed to read/address any of the quotes already made from the 2009 report...or take a couple of seconds to find it yourself when the link failed for you today (it was working fine yesterday).

You have built an argument that has gone on for many pages now around what may or may not be going on in Norway. I found some relevant literature and you can't be asked to read it. I wonder why that is....

ECRI....

First report 1998:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/50546917/Report-on-Norway

Second report 2000:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/50546610/SECOND-REPORT-ON-NORWAY

Third report 2003:

http://hudoc.ecri.coe.int/XMLEcri/ENGLISH/Cycle_03/03_CbC_eng/NOR-CbC-III-2004-3-ENG.pdf

Fourth report: 2009:

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Norway/NOR-CbC-IV-2009-004-ENG.pdf


From a press release for the 2009 report:



http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/library/pressreleases/54-24_02_2009_en.asp

Oh look, there's more:



http://www.turkishweekly.net/column...ts-lack-of-awareness-is-a-common-concern.html

Happy reading.

Read the entire lot. Good to see you are capable of posting a link that actually works.

All that you have provided is a load of huge pdf. files that are ECRI recommendations.

In fact they show significant progress in all parameters in the efforts to reduce racism and xenophobia in Norwegian life.

The data shows that Norway suffers no more or no less instances of institutional racism than any other comparable country.

It is also interesting to note that no mention appears of Rohde's statement, odd given the wide distribution of these figures and the manner in which they are often cited.

What conclusions do YOU draw from these studies, if any, and how are they useful in highlighting your point?

If anything - the studies contradict themselves - they frown upon police identifying and publishing the ethnic identity of criminals, yet they also state that :

more data seems to be required to find out positions of minority groups in a number of fields. What is more, the ECRI emphasizes on the public sector’s piecemeal approach. Such an approach is harmful to combat racial discrimination on a common ground and is an obstacle to promoting equal opportunities at the same time.

If I didn't know better I'd say you were just posting up links to huge documents without really understanding them, in an effort to dilute the issue.

After all, there is nothing whatsoever in these reports that appears to address the inherent intolerance that certain religious groups manifest toward those who do not share their beliefs.

One might even say you are posting up these huge documents in an attempt to shut down the debate by claiming something simplistic and false as the entirety of Norwegian society is in fact racist, which none of your documentation actually proves at all. It's not like you've ever tried to win an argument by crying "racist" before now is it? Oh wait...

 

[pk]

I notice with interest that Proper Tidy STILL hasn't managed to give an example of a religion that is "more barbaric" than islam.

And nobody else has either.

It's an interesting word, "barbaric".

Stemming from the Greeks, the verb βαρβαρίζειν (barbarízein) in ancient Greek meant imitating the linguistic sounds non-Greeks made or making grammatical errors in Greek.

The Berbers of North Africa were among the many peoples called "Barbarian" by the Romans, in their case the name remained in use, having been adopted by the Arabs (see Berber) and is still in use as the name for the non-Arabs in North Africa (though not by themselves).

The geographical term Barbary or Barbary Coast, and the name of the Barbary pirates based on that coast (and who were not necessarily Berbers) were also derived from it.

The term has also been used to refer to people from Barbary, a region encompassing most of North Africa. The name of the region, Barbary, comes from the Arabic word Barbar, possibly from the Latin word barbaricum, meaning "land of the barbarians".

Which brings us to a very interesting point in British history.

Did you know that there once flew an islamic flag over UK territory?

Neither did I until last summer, sailing back from Ireland I was puzzled by the large granite island between the Welsh and Cornish coastlines, which turned out to be Lundy Island.

And upon that island once did indeed fly the islamic standard.

In the 17th century Barbary Pirates from the Republic of Salé occupied Lundy, around 1645.

The North African invaders, under the command of Dutch renegade Jan Janszoon, flew an Ottoman flag over the island.

Captured Europeans, including English, Scottish and Irish men women and children, were held on Lundy - before being sent to Algiers as slaves.

The Barbary Slave Trade refers to the slave markets which flourished on the Barbary Coast, or modern day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Western Libya between the 16th and 19th centuries.

Their notoriety as white slavers reached a crescendo in the mid 17th century England when a series of daring slave raids seized captives from St Micheal's Mount in Cornwall and from the little fishing village of Baltimore in County Cork, Ireland as well as intercepting the cod fishing fleet off Iceland, as well as raids reported as far north as Scotland.

The boasting verses in Rule Britannia about Britons never shall be slaves could certainly not have been written in those years.

It has been calculated that in this period that there were more Britons labouring away as slaves and concubines in North Africa than as settlers in all of the colonies of North America put together.

In the summer of 1625, the mayor of Plymouth estimated that a thousand people had been taken as slaves from his area by the Barbary Corsairs.

On June 20, 1631, they captured 108 English settlers, who worked a pilchard industry in the village, and some local Irish people.

The attack was focused on the area of the village known to this day as the Cove.

The villagers were put in irons and taken to a life of slavery in North Africa.

Some prisoners were destined to live out their days as galley slaves, while others would spend long years in the seclusion of the Sultan's harem or within the walls of the Sultan's palace as laborers. At most three of them ever saw Ireland again.

The incident inspired Thomas Osborne Davis to write his famous poem, The Sack of Baltimore.

This went on for virtually two centuries.

For almost 200 years the British state either sat on its hands or wrung them impotently while the Islamic jihad seized, enslaved and butchered its people. And then it appears, this staggering onslaught was all but airbrushed out of our history.

I'm sure that the Corsairs of the time certainly saw white girls as easy meat.

And in answer to the earlier posed question asked by Proper Tidy "Do you see Islam as more barbaric than other religions?" - my answer is still unequivocally "yes". Especially given the "barbaric" nature in this context.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/jun/27/historybooks.features

http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/haf-general.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/jun/27/historybooks.features

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml

 

[Pickman's model]

For almost 200 years the British state either sat on its hands or wrung them impotently while the Islamic jihad seized, enslaved and butchered its people. And then it appears, this staggering onslaught was all but airbrushed out of our history.

you ignorant fucker. you've clearly never heard of ship money, the tax levied by charles i in the 1630s specifically to raise money to build ships to combat the slavers. you witter of baltimore, but ignore the rather greater number of irish people who were sent to barbados and other places by, er, the english. and of course not only irish people felt the bitter lash of the slave master's whip - many of monmouth's (english) army were dispatched to the west indies as slaves following the failure of his 1685 rebellion. as for barbary slavers being air-brushed out of history, i think you rather mean out of the history you recall. as you indicate from your links at the bottom of the page, they are by no means obscure. the internet resources you mention are complemented by a wide range of other sources, both printed and virtual, such as those listed here on copac:

http://copac.ac.uk/search?&ti=barbary+corsairs&sort-order=rank
http://copac.ac.uk/search?&ti=barbary+slaves&sort-order=rank

and these in google scholar:

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=barbary+slavers&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=1

incidentally, the principal threat from islam in the seventeenth century came not from the abstraction of slaves from the atlantic archipelago, but from the rather more well-known ottoman empire and its periodic irruptions into central europe, most notably the famous 1683 siege of vienna.

but the questions you fail to answer - or even ask - include:

* to what extent was islam responsible for the slaving expeditions - that is, were the barbary corsairs slavers because they were moslem?
* was 'islamic slavery' more barbaric than the atlantic slave trade?
* how did christians justify their enslavement of other christians, let alone the enslavement of 'infidels' (a word, i need not remind you, from the latin)?

given what the english were doing to their own citizens at this time, i don't think you can say that islamic slavery was more barbaric, especially as you admit some of the people taken from baltimore did make it back to ireland. people taken by the corsairs could be ransomed. expeditions could be mounted to rescue them. i don't believe that many slaves taken from africa to america and the west indies were afforded the opportunity for ransom or rescue and the number who saw africa again as free men and women, before the nineteenth century, can probably be numbered on the fingers and toes of one person.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Read the entire lot. Good to see you are capable of posting a link that actually works.

I don't believe you.

All that you have provided is a load of huge pdf. files that are ECRI recommendations.

ECRI reports that provide greater context to the discussion you are insisting on having about Norway.

In fact they show significant progress in all parameters in the efforts to reduce racism and xenophobia in Norwegian life.

Progress eh? As compared to what exactly? Ah there is progress so there isn't a problem right?

The data shows that Norway suffers no more or no less instances of institutional racism than any other comparable country.

It is also interesting to note that no mention appears of Rohde's statement, odd given the wide distribution of these figures and the manner in which they are often cited.

Who is comparing Norway to other countries? Oh look, it's you who is holding Norway up as an example to prove something, as such you are the one doing the comparing.

From the 2009 report:

Civil society actors agree that Islamophobia has been on the rise since ECRI’s
third report. Political, and more generally public debate has been characterised by frequent associations made between Muslims on the one hand, and terrorism and violence on the other, and by generalisations and stereotypes concerning perceived cultural features of persons of Muslim background.
Although many have stressed that such a debate has had a negative impact on the general public’s perception of Muslims, generally speaking it does not seem that these perceptions have translated into acts of violence against this part of Norway’s population, at least not to any visible extent. Instances of discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived Muslim background have however been reported. For instance, there are reports of women wearing the Islamic headscarf having been refused employment or having been dismissed from their jobs. Persons with names revealing a possible Muslim background are also widely reported to experience difficulties in securing job interviews. Furthermore, plans to build Mosques have sometimes been met with unjustified resistance among the general population and local authorities.

Article:

In Norway, the legal and institutional framework against racism and discrimination has been strengthened and the vast majority of the measures foreseen in the National Plan of Action to Combat Racism and Discrimination (2002-2006) have been implemented. However, the situation of persons of immigrant background remains worrying in sectors such as employment and school education, as well as the situation of Roma and Romani/Taters. Political discourse sometimes takes on racist and xenophobic overtones, and the police still have important challenges to take up, including in the field of addressing racial profiling.

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring...02_2009_en.asp

What conclusions do YOU draw from these studies, if any, and how are they useful in highlighting your point?

My conclusion is, if you are going to hold Norway up as an example and to derail the thread you really should have thought it through a bit better.

The reports and articles I have posted give a much more detailed representation of the situation in Norway and the climate/context in which Rohdes gave her interview. More than you have been able/willing to offer BTW.

If I didn't know better I'd say you were just posting up links to huge documents without really understanding them, in an effort to dilute the issue.

...and if I didn't know better I would say you are ignoring the things that don't support your argument in an effort to keep it going.

After all, there is nothing whatsoever in these reports that appears to address the inherent intolerance that certain religious groups manifest toward those who do not share their beliefs.

One might even say you are posting up these huge documents in an attempt to shut down the debate by claiming something simplistic and false as the entirety of Norwegian society is in fact racist, which none of your documentation actually proves at all.

Oh yeah, where did I post any of that? You keep banging on about Norway and I have provided information that goes some way to represent the context of Rohdes' statement. Thats what you were asking for wasn't it?

Do this properly or not at all.

Oh see, yes it was.

It's not my fault you don't like it.

It's not like you've ever tried to win an argument by crying "racist" before now is it? Oh wait...

I'll tell you what, why not entertain us with more nigger jokes eh? That will help.