Fascist rise in europe

[Abatael]

I support this rise, and I hope it is successful.

[Abatael]

No it didn't. The fact is that if one percent of your population is foreigners and foreigners commit 20% of the crimes that's ridiculous.

Then do more than just dump immigrants in ghettos and then be surprised that they feel alienated and suffer from poverty, goddammit.

Yeah, deport them, don't let them in, and force them to leave.

[Abatael]

Yeah, deport them, don't let them in, and force them to leave.

Go hang out with your BNP pals.

What is that supposed to mean?

[Abatael]

Yeah, deport them, don't let them in, and force them to leave.

i'm not sure if you're even serious but could you expand more on "them"?

Immigrants.

[Abatael]

Immigrants.

Ergo, you are a BNP member. Have fun hanging out with your small-minded, equally racist, pathetic fellow Nazis.

Actually, even better: let's flood Abatael's country with immigrants, just to get his knickers in a twist!

We won't allow them in. We have a process, and don't just let everyone in.

[Abatael]

Immigrants.

all of them?

even the nice little ones from canada? ):

The bad ones.

[Abatael]

We won't allow them in. We have a process, and don't just let everyone in.

You live in North Korea!

What a juvenile statement.

Abatael is clearly 13 years old.

I'm not 13.

[Abatael]

I'm not 13.

Prove it by growing the fuck up and developing an adult, non-bigoted understanding of immigration.

Being an adult does not mean I have to be "non-bigoted."

[Abatael]

Being an adult does not mean I have to be "non-bigoted."

It does, perhaps, mean that there ought to be more informed opinions held.

Being bigoted isn't really considered to be part of being a well-rounded human being.

Simply because I have not explained thoroughly what I meant, does not mean I am uninformed.

And, being a well-rounded human being does is not necessarily being an adult.

[Abatael]

Being an adult does not mean I have to be "non-bigoted."

Not being a complete asshole to people is part of being a well-functioning, normal adult human.

That is not the definition of an adult. You can be bigoted, and be an adult.

Edit: I am well-functioning, and normal.

[Abatael]

Simply because I have not explained thoroughly what I meant, does not mean I am uninformed.

And, being a well-rounded human being does is not necessarily being an adult.

Well, you haven't proved you're either of those, so nyeah!

But if you're against immigration, you're by definition uninformed.

No, it means my beliefs were differently formed than those of yours.

[Abatael]

That is not the definition of an adult. You can be bigoted, and be an adult.

Edit: I am well-functioning, and normal.

Nope, you aren't. You're a bigot who advocates ethnic cleansing. On a Venn diagram, that never intersects with being "well-functioning and normal".

What ethnic cleansing have I advocated?

And, I am well-functioning, and I am normal in certain aspects.

[Abatael]

No, it means my beliefs were differently formed than those of yours.

Yeah, your beliefs were formed without exposure to reality or humans who were different from you.

"Without exposure to reality?" That is quite infuriating.

[Abatael]

"Without exposure to reality?" That is quite infuriating.

Have you ever met somebody who wasn't white?

Have you ever stepped out of the bubble of privilege that you certainly grew up in in order to get these kinds of psychotically stupid, bigoted views?

If you did, you wouldn't be a bigot.

There's frequently a correllation between bigotry and being geographically removed or otherwise not interacting with humans.

Shit, I can't imagine being bigoted in London. I love the diversity of it.

I have, in fact, met many people that are not "white."

[Abatael]

I have, in fact, met many people that are not "white."

And yet you still treat them like inhuman cattle or objects instead of acknowledging your shared humanity, without your conscience screaming at you.

I'm not convinced. I think you actually live in the most ridiculously white place on Earth.

Where do you think I live?

[Abatael]

so hey abatael are you bigoted ):

Yes I do! And Socialism has taken over Europe, and stop acting like you know your crap you don't.

oh please tell us more

I am not a bigot, if you consider the meaning a person, who treats the members of a group with hatred, or intolerance.

[Abatael]

I am not a bigot, if you consider the meaning a person, who treats the members of a group with hatred, or intolerance.

And you advocated that immigrants be rounded up and thrown out of whatever fuck-stained shithole pathetic country you live in.

I think you might actually live in Mississippi or somewhere similar.

I do not live in Mississippi.

[Aethelstania]

But is it really though, admittedly there has been a rise in support across Europe but has it really materialized? The only 'serious' fascist party in Europe is the National Front in France and that's not exactly a recent rise that's been an underlying issue in France for a while

[Aethyopea]

[list][*]Two-thirds of all Moroccan men in the Netherlands, and this is a group numbering more than 100,000 for those who will try to scream bloody murder about the sample size, have been arrested at least once by the time they're 22. Similar figures exist for Afro-Caribbeans (55%) and Turks (45%).

That could just as well be due to racial profiling (concious or not): police people are more likely to keep a close eye on immigrants non-immigrants. They may also be more likely to suspect them of committing a crime.
Also note that they were arrested, not that they were ever succesfully convicted of any crime. You can be arrested on suspicion of a crime and not be convicted of it.
That's not to say that immigrants might not be more likely to commit crimes than non-immigrants, but I do think that your claim makes it seem like they commit more crime than they actually do.

[*]Non-western immigrants in both the Netherlands and Finland, two countries known to have a great welfare system and virtually no real poverty, have crime rates and unemployment rates starting several times higher than those of the native population.
[*]Non-western immigrants throughout Europe have higher unemployment rates and crime rates.

Is the unemployment only the fault of the immigrants? I think that discrimination from the potential employers during the hiring process is also a big reason.
French sociologist Jean-François Amadieu once made a study about it that shows just how much employers discriminate without knowing it. He sent CV's from fake candidates to hirers all across the Paris region. Then he checked how many positive responses each candidate got.

A normal French male candidate got 82 positive responses (i.e. their application was accepted and they would be invited to job application talks). A candidate from the Antilles got 56, a female candidate from a Maghreb country got 25. Keep in mind that apart from the origin and gender the maghreb candidate was completely identical to the French one (same education in the same school, same age etc.) and this was just a CV application. The Maghreb candidate had over two thirds of his job opportunities pissed away just because of her name and genitalia. A study with job application meeting done afterwards had similar results, meaning that immigrants get shafted in not one, but two stages.

While there are some problems with the study (it was only done in the area around Paris, so the results could be different in other places in Europe), it still shows that discrimination might be a huge factor in the reasons why immigrants are more likely to be unemployed. Keep in mind that most of the employers probably didn't think they were being racist. It's not like all Parisian employers are secret members of the French KKK or something. So if the hiring rates for immigrants are already so low now, then what are they going to be when racism becomes the norm?
Source (in French, unfortunately): http://www.observatoiredesdiscriminations.fr/images/stories/Discriminationsenvoientretien.pdf?phpMyAdmin=6e32dcee8760039a64c94b6379294e26

[Aethyopea]

How much of that is inherent discrimination, like how black people are overrepresented in criminal statistics in the USA? You wouldn't suggest that black people are all criminals, would you?

The police has a policy of not even making anything seem like discrimination, or they're brought to trial themselves.

And how is a suspect going to prove that discrimination happened? There's very little difference between a suspect who got arrested because the cops genuinely though he might have committed a crime or (like that he was near an area where a crime was committed), and a suspect who got arrested because the police was discriminating. So unless it's blindingly obvious that the suspect was only arrested because of their background, it's going to be nearly impossible to actually prove the discrimination.
I believe I've already said that it's possible to subconciously discriminate against a group without conciously being racist. This idea is so well-established that it's recognised in courts in the US
(http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol40_2/lee.pdf) so a policeperson who arrested a suspect based on their race could truly believe that he/she never discriminated. Such people won't show any signs that they're lying because they don't believe that they're lying.

[Aethyopea]

And how is a suspect going to prove that discrimination happened?

Before we go there, how are you going to prove that this has anything to do with the fact that sixty-five per cent, or more than two-thirds, of Moroccan men in the Netherlands has been arrested on strong suspicion of a crime? I mean, don't forget - for the police to arrest anyone, they need 'strong evidence that a criminal fact with enough weight has taken place'.

Evidence that a criminal evidence has taken place =/= evidence that you've done it. In order to be arrested, you only have to be suspect of a crime, you don't have to actually have committed a crime.
And you only need a reasonable cause to arrest someone who you think might have committed a crime. That's not a very high bar to pass. Especially since there's no clear fits-all definition of what constitutes a reasonable cause.
http://www.strafrechtsite.nl/00000098c70cfbf1f/index.html

Er moet een objectieve aanleiding zijn om u te voorzien van het etiket verdachte. Het zijn van verdachte is vervolgens weer een voorwaarde om U te onderwerpen aan dwangmiddelen zoals U aanhouden en U vast zetten.
...
Het criterium is dat er een objectief gezien op het moment van Uw aanhouding sprake moet zijn van een redelijk vermoeden dat U zich schuldig heeft gemaakt aan een strafbaar feit. Het gaat om een licht criterium maar wel een zeer belangrijk criterium omdat het de deur opent naar tal van bevoegdheden aan de zijde van justitie maar biedt U ook rechten:

And that's not even getting into the other possibilities that artificially pump up the number of immigrant arrests (maybe immigrants just spend more time near poorer areas where crime is more likely to be committed? Maybe their larger family sizes mean they're more likely to be connected to the victim/perpertrator? Maybe crimes done by immigrants are just more obvious than the more white-collar crimes done by non-immigrants? Maybe an immigrant committing a crime is just more likely to be recognised doing it because he/she looks different from the average Dutch person?). These reasons might not all be true or valid, but the point is: it is possible that the number of arrests does not completely represent the amount of crimes that have actually been committed.

Looking at the number of arrests for immigrants is stupid, since arrest is something that's done to a suspect and a suspect =/= a criminal. It would be far better (though not perfect) to look at the number of immigrants who were actually convicted.

[Aethyopea]

http://www.strafrechtsite.nl/00000098c70cfbf1f/index.html

Have you any idea what that says at all? What it says, word by word, is that they need an objectively-determined immediate motivation to arrest you. They need a very credible reason to suspect you have committed a crime if they want to be allowed to arrest you. That's all it says. It says absolutely nothing about discrimination, and is not at all relevant to that matter. Or, for that matter, to the fact that more than two-thirds of Moroccan men in this country have been arrested at least once before the age of 22.

Have you even read my post? I specifically said that there was no objective way of measuring what an objectively-determined immediate motivation actually is. That's mostly something that gets decided on a case-by-case basis. And since these decisions on a case-by-case basis are made by humans with all their biases, you could still get cases where the police arrested a suspect that wouldn't have been arrested if he were a different person in the same conditions.

And that's not even getting into the other possibilities that artificially pump up the number of immigrant arrests (maybe immigrants just spend more time near poorer areas where crime is more likely to be committed? Maybe their larger family sizes mean they're more likely to be connected to the victim/perpertrator? Maybe crimes done by immigrants are just more obvious than the more white-collar crimes done by non-immigrants? Maybe an immigrant committing a crime is just more likely to be recognised doing it because he/she looks different from the average Dutch person?). These reasons might not all be true or valid, but the point is: it is possible that the number of arrests does not completely represent the amount of crimes that have actually been committed.

Once more, this is just speculation. I've provided you with facts. There is a crucial difference between speculation and facts. And at the moment, facts indicate that, whatever reason there might be for that, there is an immense gap in crime rates between non-western immigrants, especially muslims, and another group that consists of native Dutch people, East Asians and western immigrants. That's why I blame this on culture - even in similar socioeconomic situations, there is a vast gap between those groups.

You don't have to tell me the difference between speculation and facts. In fact, I specifically said in my post that these reasons might not be true or valid. I just wanted to point out that there are a number of factors that could possibly infuence the rate of arrests. Any researcher worth his salt will tell you that if you want to prove something with statistics, you have to make sure that you eliminate factors that could artificially influence said statistics. Arrest rates are dominated by hundreds of factors that will almost always skew it (eyewitness testemony, whether or not the crime was reported...)
I wanted to point out that saying "arrests = crime rate" is not necessarily true because there are a lot of factors that can influence the rate of arrests. The rate of convictions is far less arbitrary because you need to go through the entire legal system with all its checks and balances before you get convicted.

Looking at the number of arrests for immigrants is stupid, since arrest is something that's done to a suspect and a suspect =/= a criminal. It would be far better (though not perfect) to look at the number of immigrants who were actually convicted.

As I said before, convictions are relatively rare. Many can just strike a settlement with public prosecution, meaning they pay a small sum and charges are dropped. Our incarceration rates are low for a reason, you know. We fine, we hand out community service, but it takes a lot of guts to convict anyone - even if it's for rape or robbery.^

You could still figure out how criminal immigrant groups are by comparing the conviction rates in percentage to those of non-immigrants. The amount of convictions in general
You could still say that immigrants are convicted of X% of crimes that don't get settled while non-immigrants get convicted of Y% of crimes that don't get settled. Then you could work out the relative crime rates of these two groups regardless of the amount of crimes that get settled out of court.

[Aethyopea]

You don't have to tell me the difference between speculation and facts. In fact, I specifically said in my post that these reasons might not be true or valid. I just wanted to point out that there are a number of factors that could possibly infuence the rate of arrests. Any researcher worth his salt will tell you that if you want to prove something with statistics, you have to make sure that you eliminate factors that could artificially influence said statistics. Arrest rates are dominated by hundreds of factors that will almost always skew it (eyewitness testemony, whether or not the crime was reported...)

No. These are solid figures. You can try to talk yourself out of it, but fact is, two-thirds of Moroccan men in this country have been arrested at least once.
And in the rare case of a wrongful arrest, they're disciplined for arresting someone who wasn't guilty. These are simply facts.

Are you blind or something? Show me where I said that your figures weren't facts. You seem to be combatting points I never raised.
I always accepted your numbers. I was simply pointing out that basing the amount of crimes committed on the amount of arrests is completely idiotic because there are a lot of factors that can influence whether or not someone gets arrested.

I wanted to point out that saying "arrests = crime rate" is not necessarily true because there are a lot of factors that can influence the rate of arrests. The rate of convictions is far less arbitrary because you need to go through the entire legal system with all its checks and balances before you get convicted.

Problem is, the entire legal system is a joke in this country. For almost anything up to violent rape, you can get a settlement.
That means you pay money to public prosecution in a settlement, you don't get a criminal record and you don't have to appear before a judge.

Then the problem is with the legal system, not the immigrants. Go reform your justice system before you start blaming immigrants.

You could still figure out how criminal immigrant groups are by comparing the conviction rates in percentage to those of non-immigrants. The amount of convictions in general. You could still say that immigrants are convicted of X% of crimes that don't get settled while non-immigrants get convicted of Y% of crimes that don't get settled. Then you could work out the relative crime rates of these two groups regardless of the amount of crimes that get settled out of court.

Those, too, see them over-represented. In 2007, the figure was as follows: 45% native Dutch, 55% foreign, mostly Moroccan.

There, that's much better. The Dutch government said that around 55% all the foreigners who were arrested for a crime actually did it, were responsible for it, and got punished for it (supposing the rates are actually the same with the cases thrown out of court). That number actually has some context to it.

I might do the other claims later.

[Aethyopea]

Are you blind or something? Show me where I said that your figures weren't facts.

Where did I say you said that? No - you tried to nuance the fact that two-thirds of all Moroccan men in this country - a total of several tens of thousands - had been arrested by the time they turned 22.

You said:

No. These are solid figures. You can try to talk yourself out of it, but fact is, two-thirds of Moroccan men in this country have been arrested at least once.

That means that you said that I was trying to talk myself out of the figure of two-third of Moroccan men being arrested which I never did.

There, that's much better. The Dutch government said that around 55% all the foreigners who were arrested for a crime actually did it, were responsible for it, and got punished for it (supposing the rates are actually the same with the cases thrown out of court). That number actually has some context to it.

Actually, that's you reading a non-existent context into it because it suits your point. It's clear you have not a single clue what you're talking about. Oh lordy lordy, here we go.
Those were prison inmate populations. 55% were foreign, mainly Moroccan, and 45% were Dutch.[/quote]
Waaaitwaitwaitwait. You put ratio of the the PRISON POPULATION there?
I clealy said:

You could still figure out how criminal immigrant groups are by comparing the conviction rates in percentage to those of non-immigrants. You could still say that immigrants are convicted of X% of crimes that don't get settled while non-immigrants get convicted of Y% of crimes that don't get settled. Then you could work out the relative crime rates of these two groups regardless of the amount of crimes that get settled out of court.

That means I was looking for the percentage of immigrants who were convicted of crimes compared to the amount of non-immigrants who were convicted. It was very clear what I was looking for. There was absolutely no way anyone could have mistaken that for "could you please give me the prison population" Not only that, but you never said you put up prison population there. You flat out lied to me. I accepted your numbers because I trusted you to be an honest debater. It seems like my trust in you was misplaced. I won't continue debating someone who has just shown himself to be a liar. Goodbye.

[Agritum]

DOWN WITH FASCISM!

Indeed.
And if things get too much serious, we need a drastic revival of the partisans.