Sweden 30 % Muslim by 2050

[Alyrium Denryle]

I teach community college in a part of the SF Bay Area that has large Muslim populations and enclaves, and I have a substantial number of Muslim students. The majority of them are drastically westernized compared even to their parents. It really doesn't take much in the way of media and peer group influence to move people susceptible to such influence (young, in other words) from strongly to weakly religious.

Same here, though at a university in texas. Aside from the young women wearing headscarves and maybe having an accent, my muslim students were indistinguishable from any western student. Hell, I had a neighbor who was fresh off the plane from fucking Pakistan. He was the only straight person (by sheer happenstance) in the apartment row. He went from not being sure if he wanted to run or commit a hate crime, to thinking we should be able to get married, and we became drinking buddies. I get nervous around american born southern baptists. Muslims--even those fresh off the boat--have never once given me cause for concern.

This is actually ONE thing the US does better than most european countries (Canada is the same way). We are better at integrating culturally diverse immigrants (as much as the GOP tries to torpedo that). Before anyone gets on my case, there isn't a whole lot of cultural difference between a Brit and Pole. The languages are different, the history is different, but there is still some shared history to draw on and everyone was still part of Christendom for centuries and shares a lot of the same values. We've managed to integrate everyone from Swedes to Vietnamese and (voluntary) Sudanese.

If you have a BIG wave of immigration, there might be some problems because you've got adults who are set in their ways. Some will integrate and adopt westernized values, some won't. You may have some issues with outside context problems with new immigrants too (for example, attitudes toward women). But their kids? Their kids are going to western schools, they have western friends; and peer group influence is far far more powerful than parental group influence. So, second generation, the kids are fully westernized though they may feel some parental pressure to tick off certain cultural checkboxes (the parents might try to pressure an arranged marriage, doesn't usually work. More often they will simply discourage marriage to westerners). By the third generation the grandkids are lucky if they speak arabic.

The other key to this though is cultural and civic buy-in. The children and grandchildren of immigrants have to be permitted to think of themselves as Swedes, or Canadians, or Germans. That part is going to be the largest hurdle to overcome in Europe on account of the lack of Jus Soli citizenship. It's possible for the grandchildren of immigrants to not be citizens in IIRC all of Europe. If there is ONE thing that will solve a lot of problems with European immigration, fixing that is probably it.

[The Romulan Republic]

This is only alarming if you find the idea of Muslims inherently threatening.

If, in other words, you are a bigot.

"Oh no, less than a third of the country might be comprised of people who don't look/think like me! The horror!"

[Batman]

Part (how large a part I don't feel qualified to comment on) is they often don't want to be Swedes, or Canadians, or Germans. They want to be Turks, or Syrians, or Greek, just with better healthcare and social security. They want the benefits of secular society but don't want to play by its rules.

[The Romulan Republic]

Part (how large a part I don't feel qualified to comment on) is they often don't want to be Swedes, or Canadians, or Germans. They want to be Turks, or Syrians, or Greek, just with better healthcare and social security. They want the benefits of secular society but don't want to play by its rules.

There are always going to be some people like that. Hell, their are lots of white Christians who don't want to be part of Western society or follow its rules and laws. Quite a few of them currently control the government of the United States.

I would mandate that all new arrivals take an introductory course in law (I'd also like that to be a mandatory part of the high school curriculum, and if I made enough money these days to pay taxes, I'd gladly pay more for both). Then, if any of them break the law, arrest them and put them through the court system just like anyone else. Otherwise, let them live their lives however they want. Just like anyone else.

Its not really that complicated.

[Napoleon the Clown]

As an atheist I find this awful.

You misspelled asshole.

My experiences with Muslims have been, as far as I can recall, purely positive. They don't want to kill non-believers, they don't want to blow up buildings, they don't want any of that. They want to live their lives, be treated with respect, and treat others with respect. It's fucks like you that contribute to radicalized, violent assholes. Your ilk are living, breathing examples of "dangerous infidels" that want to wipe out their way of life. Most people just wanna live their lives, and they're not going to get to killing without something pushing them into it. And an ancient holy book generally isn't gonna be that thing. Having a shit life, being constantly attacked, is more likely to do it.

[mr friendly guy]

We can talk intelligently about the maximum proportion of immigrants a society can accommodate without being its value system broken up by demographic shift. It is reasonable for us to think countries have a right to protect their value system by only taking this many immigrants.

The problem is when arguments like the above are replaced by random shrieks of fear, or by belligerently obtuse refusal to consider the issue.

Indeed. I have a feeling both sides are being drowned out by people who cry TEH MUSLIMs and the other side going ISLAMAPHOBIA.

Going on, in regards to integration there are a few issues

1. Its not just a matter of integration but radicalisation. When you have children born in the country who commit acts of terrorism but their parents were just average people, the issue isn't necessarily with belonging to a particular group. For example the killers of Lee Rigby were raised Christians, radicalised and converted to Islam before killing him.

2. But going back to integration, its obviously easier to integrate small numbers than large ones. Some of their values are quite different.
When Norway holds classes for asylum seekers on not to rape, that should ring alarm bells right there even if you aren't a raving right wing lunatic.

[ray245]

There are those that cling more to their religious identity, while there are others who are more willing to pay less attention to their religious identity. The only issue is when people talk about the Muslim community as if they are either one or the other.

As an atheist I find this awful.

You misspelled asshole.

My experiences with Muslims have been, as far as I can recall, purely positive. They don't want to kill non-believers, they don't want to blow up buildings, they don't want any of that. They want to live their lives, be treated with respect, and treat others with respect. It's fucks like you that contribute to radicalized, violent assholes. Your ilk are living, breathing examples of "dangerous infidels" that want to wipe out their way of life. Most people just wanna live their lives, and they're not going to get to killing without something pushing them into it. And an ancient holy book generally isn't gonna be that thing. Having a shit life, being constantly attacked, is more likely to do it.

While I do agree with what you said, I think you should avoid using anecdotes to describe an entire community. It just turn the entire discussion into pure mudslinging of personal examples/anecdotes.

[Simon_Jester]

This is only alarming if you find the idea of Muslims inherently threatening.

If, in other words, you are a bigot.

"Oh no, less than a third of the country might be comprised of people who don't look/think like me! The horror!"

In fairness, when you're talking about a third of the population, you may be genuinely worried about what will happen to your community.

Imagine if, say, the Netherlands were facing immigration not from Syria but from Texas. White Texans. About 70% of Texas's 27 million people are white, which means that they make up a total population roughly equal to that of the Netherlands. Most of them are Euroskeptic religious conservatives with (by Dutch standards) far-right social and economic values.

(amusingly, the center of population of Texas is in the town of Holland, Texas, I find from Wikipedia. )

Now, if a hundred thousand white Texans move to the Netherlands, there are few serious consequences. They found some evangelical churches, sure. And as they obtain citizenship, many of them vote for Geert Wilders' PVV and the currently fringe Christian-right Reformed Political Party, with most of the 'liberal' Texans voting for (what are by the standards of the Dutch) other center-right parties. This is not a big deal, because it's only a hundred thousand of them. Not enough to more than occasionally shift the balance of electoral power, right?

What if it's a million white Texans? A million people is a lot, and they slew far to the right by the standards of Dutch politics. The great majority of them reliably vote against things like drug legalization, gay marriage, and so on. In a surprise upset, a Texan manages to take over leadership of the Reformed Political Party and begins very effectively mobilizing the Texan minority vote, with advertisements and word-of-mouth campaigns that appeal to Texan cultural standards that seem rather alien to the Dutch, such as country music and cattle ranching. Some Texan bombs an abortion clinic. While some members of the Texan community condemn this violence, others... do not.

Three million white Texans? Texans are now roughly 15% of the population. The Reformed Political Party is now one of the larger political factions in the Netherlands, even though the Texans themselves are far from unanimous in supporting it. Many Texans are model citizens, broadly comfortable with, um... MOST of the Netherlands' liberal political agenda. They deride the sudden outbreak of violent gay-bashings, the several more abortion clinic bombings, the ghastly orange jackass that the Texans put in charge of the RPP because he reminds them of their favorite president...

Ten million white Texans? Texans are now 35% of the population. In common cause with native Dutch Euroskeptics they organize a "Nexit" vote... and win. The Netherlands pulls out of the European Union.

If all nineteen million white Texans move to the Netherlands, the Netherlands would be majority Texan in population. At this point, while Dutch politics isn't just a carbon copy of historical Texan politics, it's going to look a lot like what you'd get if you took the average of Dutch and Texan politics- in other words, about as bad a mess as American politics as a whole is now.

At what point should the Dutch have started worrying that continued immigration from Texas will disrupt the political and social fabric of their nation, to the point where they become, in effect, part of Texas? It's safe to say that a hundred thousand Texans is NOT too many. But it's also safe to say that nineteen million Texans is too many, if the Dutch want their nation to continue to be the quiet, left-leaning, tulip-and-windmill-and-legalized-weed-and-hookers nation it is today.

In all probability, the point at which they should start becoming alarmed is around the point where Texans make up between, oh... 10 and 30 percent of the population, in fact.

The Dutch would have no clear racist motive for opposing having the entire white population of Texas move to the Netherlands... but if that many Texans showed up on short notice, it would have drastic effects on the culture, politics, and economy of the Netherlands.

[The Romulan Republic]

Certainly, sudden and drastic change can cause problems. But change is also an inherent part of life. Arguably the only real constant in life. Not all changes to a society are for the worse, either, of course.

And I can never hold it against anyone whose trying to leave a place like Syria, or Libya, or Afghanistan and come to North America or Western Europe. Because if I was in their place, I'd probably be doing the same damn thing.

For that matter, I'd have a fair amount of sympathy for anyone who wanted to quit Texas for the Netherlands, even if their plight is less dire. Particularly if they were a member of a disadvantaged group.

And that's another point to keep in mind, which I'm sure you're aware of. How many of the Muslims emigrating here are the stereotypical fundamentalist who wants to keep his three wives veiled and in the house and implement Sharia, and how many are people who are leaving because they don't fit in and don't want to fit in that sort of theocratic, despotic society? Probably some of both, but I doubt that its a question most of the anti-immigrant people devote much thought to, because they tend to treat Muslims and refugees as a homogenous threatening "other", and Muslim in particular as essentially synonymous with "fundamentalist" or "terrorist".

The fact that a lot of these immigrants (even those who do not qualify as refugees) are leaving deeply shitty situations also demonstrates the futility of the "keep them out" mentality. They are going to try to keep coming, weather we welcome them with open arms or not, because in many cases they are fleeing a living hell. Refusing to let them in will simply mean that another country will have to deal with the problem. If everyone refuses to take them, then they get shuttled from country to country, many dying and being exploited along the way. So what will we do? We could pour trillions of dollars into improving the standard of living in every third world country, I suppose, albeit over many years and with no guarantee of success. Or we could build giant walls manned with machine gun-toting guards around every Western country, and turn ourselves into fortress states. In that case, we already would have abandoned our current culture of liberal democracy for the xenophobic police state, and the "solution" would be worse than the original "problem". To me, it doesn't much matter weather the oppressor has brown skin and a turban or white skin and a swastika- the point is, we're still being oppressed.

I suppose that there's a point where the number of new arrivals in a short span of time would be so large that it would simply overload a country's infrastructure. But that point is a lot higher than the anti-immigrant crowd usually makes it out to be, and we would be better able to acomadate a large influx of people if we started devoting more thought and resources to that problem, rather than how to keep them out.

[ray245]

Certainly, sudden and drastic change can cause problems. But change is also an inherent part of life. Arguably the only real constant in life. Not all changes to a society are for the worse, either, of course.

And I can never hold it against anyone whose trying to leave a place like Syria, or Libya, or Afghanistan and come to North America or Western Europe. Because if I was in their place, I'd probably be doing the same damn thing.

For that matter, I'd have a fair amount of sympathy for anyone who wanted to quit Texas for the Netherlands, even if their plight is less dire. Particularly if they were a member of a disadvantaged group.

And that's another point to keep in mind, which I'm sure you're aware of. How many of the Muslims emigrating here are the stereotypical fundamentalist who wants to keep his three wives veiled and in the house and implement Sharia, and how many are people who are leaving because they don't fit in and don't want to fit in that sort of theocratic, despotic society? Probably some of both, but I doubt that its a question most of the anti-immigrant people devote much thought to, because they tend to treat Muslims and refugees as a homogenous threatening "other", and Muslim in particular as essentially synonymous with "fundamentalist" or "terrorist".

At the same time, there are also variation in the kind of secular country they want to live in. There's a massive variation between a secular country like Malaysia and a secular country like Norway. I think the bulk of societal tensions is between those very differing ideas of acceptable secularism, but it has been misrepresented by both the left and right into extreme caricature.

The fact that a lot of these immigrants (even those who do not qualify as refugees) are leaving deeply shitty situations also demonstrates the futility of the "keep them out" mentality. They are going to try to keep coming, weather we welcome them with open arms or not, because in many cases they are fleeing a living hell. Refusing to let them in will simply mean that another country will have to deal with the problem. If everyone refuses to take them, then they get shuttled from country to country, many dying and being exploited along the way. So what will we do? We could pour trillions of dollars into improving the standard of living in every third world country, I suppose, albeit over many years and with no guarantee of success. Or we could build giant walls manned with machine gun-toting guards around every Western country, and turn ourselves into fortress states. In that case, we already would have abandoned our current culture of liberal democracy for the xenophobic police state, and the "solution" would be worse than the original "problem". To me, it doesn't much matter weather the oppressor has brown skin and a turban or white skin and a swastika- the point is, we're still being oppressed.

I suppose that there's a point where the number of new arrivals in a short span of time would be so large that it would simply overload a country's infrastructure. But that point is a lot higher than the anti-immigrant crowd usually makes it out to be, and we would be better able to acomadate a large influx of people if we started devoting more thought and resources to that problem, rather than how to keep them out.

There are people perfectly willing to make life a living hell to deter refugees. The Manus Island, whether we hate it or not, has managed to reduced the number of refugees trying to get into Australia by boat. So we know that such policy does work in regards to bringing down the numbers, abit at a huge social and humanitarian cost.

The challenge is the issue of refugees is very much a game of who blinks first. No country wants to be the most welcoming to refugees because it creates the problem of that particular country being the most popular destination point, and like the case of Germany, it might reach a point where its resources to integrate refugees is stretched to its limits. The failure of the EU to handle the refugee crisis effectively as an international organization just shows the limits of what policy is possible.

Also, I will like to point out even places with a similar cultural background can face problems integrating refugees into society. Turkey, Lebanon, and other countries experience some amount of challenges in trying to manage the tensions between Syrian refugees and domestic population/leaders feeling overwhelmed.

[Dragon Angel]

And that's another point to keep in mind, which I'm sure you're aware of. How many of the Muslims emigrating here are the stereotypical fundamentalist who wants to keep his three wives veiled and in the house and implement Sharia, and how many are people who are leaving because they don't fit in and don't want to fit in that sort of theocratic, despotic society? Probably some of both, but I doubt that its a question most of the anti-immigrant people devote much thought to, because they tend to treat Muslims and refugees as a homogenous threatening "other", and Muslim in particular as essentially synonymous with "fundamentalist" or "terrorist".

Reminds me of a "question" alt-reichers like to throw around on occasion: "If you had a choice of letting 100,000 Swedes or 100,000 Somalis into the country, which would you choose?"

My answer would of course be "Uh, a 50/50 or as close to it as possible even mix of the best of both, I guess?"

But you know that they are expecting a completely different answer. Because what kind of mindset separates two groups as obvious as that? What kind of mindset tries to create that false dilemma on those nationalities?

[K. A. Pital]

Somali is a society where extreme violence of all kinds is endemic and continues for decades; Sweden is a society of extreme prosperity and low violence. The two societies are very different and therein lies the catch of the unfair comparison that works exactly as intended by provoking fear in the typical wealthy First Worlder.

A more fair question would be, faced with 100,000 Malays or 100,000 Poles, who would you choose? Both are relatively peaceful and wealthy, though not excessively so.

[wautd]

This is only alarming if you find the idea of Muslims inherently threatening.

If, in other words, you are a bigot.

"Oh no, less than a third of the country might be comprised of people who don't look/think like me! The horror!"

In fairness, when you're talking about a third of the population, you may be genuinely worried about what will happen to your community.

Indeed. A demographic shift from 5 to 30% in just a few decades will likely have a big impact on its society. If Sweden manages to effectively integrate this population it shouldn’t be much of a problem, but if integration fails it could be a potential powder keg.
Based on a recent docu about Islam in Scandinavia, Sweden needs to pick up the pace and fast. A worried Swedish-Afghan activist put it nicely by stating that Sweden is a country traumatized by 200 years of peace and that it’s government is being too lax in defending their values and too naïve in tolerating Islamism.

I teach community college in a part of the SF Bay Area that has large Muslim populations and enclaves, and I have a substantial number of Muslim students. The majority of them are drastically westernized compared even to their parents. It really doesn't take much in the way of media and peer group influence to move people susceptible to such influence (young, in other words) from strongly to weakly religious.

This is actually ONE thing the US does better than most european countries (Canada is the same way). We are better at integrating culturally diverse immigrants.

I think that's probably right because if anything, Islamic Salafism/fundamentalism appears to be on the rise among youths in Western Europe. I'd wager that the vast majority of imams in the US are born and raised in the US, view themselves Americans first and preach a tolerant version of Islam. Does the US allow foreign countries to sponsor mosques in the US?

Here in Belgium (although I guess in other EU countries too), we imported imams from countries with vastly different cultures, naively assuming they’d all preach a tolerant and compatible religion too. Off course, even a blind man should have seen that it doesn’t help integration by importing imams from Saudi-Arabia or Pakistan who think music is haram or that gender inequality/segregation is a given. And it certainly gets problematic if they preach values that are hostile to a secular democracy. Freedom of speech stops the moment you’re advocating murder of adulterers, blasphemers, apostates or gay people.
Not that I'm saying all mosques are guilty of this, but the popularity of Salafist conventions or the several undercover mosques documentaries in Britain or Scandinavia have shown there is an existing problem that should not be ignored.

Double nationality probably didn’t help integration either. For instance, there’s still 2nd or even 3rd generation immigrants born and raised in Belgium who view themselves as Turkish first, Belgian second. When Turkish Diyanet mosques become mouth pieces for the Erdogan regime, it can also be possible to influence elections both in Turkey and its host country. Naturally this can cause wariness.

In the case of failed immigration in Brussels, too much laissez faire by giving immigrants all the rights, none of the responsibilities out of sheer electoral gain by its politicians. Instead of multicultural districts you now have mono-cultural enclaves like Molenbeek* where radical Islam took a foothold. Turning a blind eye towards a problem, out of fear of losing votes or for being called an Islamophobe, seldom makes a problem go away.
A city like Malmö, or maybe Sweden as whole, seems to be repeating a lot of the same mistakes today as Brussels did during the last decades.

* That opinion piece was written by a Dutch war journalist who lived almost a decade there. I think he accurately summarised the problems that are going on up to this day.

[K. A. Pital]

If it wasn‘t only for the Western nations‘ blind eye towards Salafism, which they find useful as means of overthrowing unwanted rules or countering Iran or whatnot...

[Dragon Angel]

You also know what hurts integration? Policies that either explicitly or implicitly target Muslims, reinforcing their beliefs that they will never find a home in Europe. Such as France's utterly inane anti-religious symbols in public (read: anti-Islamic symbols in public) policies.

Let's not act as if the reaction of "ISLAMOPHOBIA!" came from a void here.

The issue is that policies the West tends to come up with to combat radicals are overwhelmingly painting innocents as well, and they tend to also become utterly self-defeating by further reinforcing the radicals' beliefs. If we can start coming up with policies that will not hurt innocent Muslims, then I can probably assure you reactions of "ISLAMOPHOBIA!" will start to decrease.

Oh, and the West getting the fuck out of the Middle East would be lovely for that too. After all, there is a reason these people are refugees.

[cosmicalstorm]

Promoting Secularism amongst arriving Muslims is unheard of in Sweden. It's probably a criminal offense.


Largest mosque in Scandinavia built by Qatar opens

https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/0 ... atar-opens

[K. A. Pital]

You also know what hurts integration? Policies that either explicitly or implicitly target Muslims, reinforcing their beliefs that they will never find a home in Europe. Such as France's utterly inane anti-religious symbols in public (read: anti-Islamic symbols in public) policies.

Molenbeek isn't in France, though, but in a more tolerant nation.

Let's not act as if the reaction of "ISLAMOPHOBIA!" came from a void here.

The issue is that policies the West tends to come up with to combat radicals are overwhelmingly painting innocents as well, and they tend to also become utterly self-defeating by further reinforcing the radicals' beliefs. If we can start coming up with policies that will not hurt innocent Muslims, then I can probably assure you reactions of "ISLAMOPHOBIA!" will start to decrease.

Oh, and the West getting the fuck out of the Middle East would be lovely for that too. After all, there is a reason these people are refugees

That is true, but the problem currently isn't that the "West" itself is deeply involved (that was in 2003). Rather that it lets its client states (Turkey, Saudi Arabia) do whatever the hell they like. With disastrous results.

But if you say that the West should stop selling weapons to Saudi Arabia & Qatar or even outright blockade these states, is this a policy that doesn't hurt innocents?

At what point can we proceed from doing nothing at all to doing something?

[Broomstick]

A more fair question would be, faced with 100,000 Malays or 100,000 Poles, who would you choose? Both are relatively peaceful and wealthy, though not excessively so.

We've got plenty of Poles, and their "cultural values" aren't always compatible with the US either. While there are exceptions all over the place, there are plenty of 2nd and 3rd generation Polish in the US who intolerant Catholics, racists, and anti-Jew.

The Malay have their faults, but they're different faults and I feel it's better for my nation if no one group predominates too strongly. If no one dominates then everyone has to accommodate everyone else. So bring on the Malay.

[Broomstick]

I think that's probably right because if anything, Islamic Salafism/fundamentalism appears to be on the rise among youths in Western Europe. I'd wager that the vast majority of imams in the US are born and raised in the US, view themselves Americans first and preach a tolerant version of Islam. Does the US allow foreign countries to sponsor mosques in the US?

Well... yeah. I mean, we let the church of Rome set up here, and Hindus, and everyone else. Yes, we have foreign influence in American Islam and I can't see a way to forbid that which doesn't violate the First Amendment.

On the other hand... we also demand all religions follow the same secular laws as the rest. People who preach in a manner that encourages criminal acts are subject to penalties from deportation to long term jail sentences.

The other thing is that we've been accepting immigrants of all types from the Middle East for a long time now, with less systematic prejudice than seems to be the case in Europe. So we probably have more native-born immans here than on the other side of the Atlantic, and lots of Muslims who grew up here exposed to other ideas and cultures who are going to look at the more radical guys and not buy what they're selling. We've got a lot of African-American Muslims who don't listen to Saudi Arabia's dictates (see Nation of Islam). And while a lot of the more whacko Christians are going to view Muslims with alarm the average more secular American really doesn't care, they're just one more type of variety. America doesn't have a history of Muslim invasion like parts of Europe do.

Among other things, while there is definitely still some friction between Jews and Middle Eastern Muslims here, it seems to me that Jews and Muslims tend to work together better in the US than in many other places, joining forces to work for mutual interests in a predominantly Christian culture.

So, lots of factors at work. It's a pretty complex picture, and I don't want to paint the situation at too rosy. There is definitely some anti-Islam sentient over here, which anyone watching current US Federal politics no doubt can see first hand.

ETA: Also, for decades quite a few of the Middle Eastern immigrants came to the US to GET AWAY from all the fighting in the Middle East. So we have a substantial number of Arabs and Arab-descent people of all religions who either are the ones who don't want to fight, or are their children. It makes selling violent jihad a bit harder.

[wautd]

You also know what hurts integration? Policies that either explicitly or implicitly target Muslims, reinforcing their beliefs that they will never find a home in Europe. Such as France's utterly inane anti-religious symbols in public (read: anti-Islamic symbols in public) policies.

Britain has completely opposite policies compared with France by giving virtually no restrictions at all to fundamentalists (eg. allowing sharia courts or allowing niqabs/burqas in public), yet I wouldn't say they have less problems with regards to integration compared with France

[Wild Zontargs]

Religion aside, Sweden appears to be having problems with foreign-born criminals. Apparently, some data was leaked from Sweden's Criminal Data System, and (assuming reports are accurate) foreign-born people are vastly over-represented in crime stats. English-language article, Google-translated Swedish article.

From 2004 - 2014:

45% of people sent to prison for crime were foreign born.

82% of people sent to prison for gangrape were foreign born.

70% of those sentenced to a 9 year prison sentence were foreign born.

Among [gang-rape] cases, 118 of the perpetrators, or 82 per cent, are immigrants, while 26 are Swedish. The overrepresentation for immigrants is stated to be 18.2.

If the current foreign-born population is 18 times more likely to gang-rape, it's reasonable to question whether more immigration from the same sources is a good idea until some significant efforts for solving the problem (better integration?) are made.

[Dragon Angel]

This thread is becoming an utter fucking trash heap. Not a surprise, I knew the most far right wing shit would be thrown in eventually. It tends to happen in these types of discussions.

Promoting Secularism amongst arriving Muslims is unheard of in Sweden. It's probably a criminal offense.


Largest mosque in Scandinavia built by Qatar opens

https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/0 ... atar-opens

Of course a piece of gutter filth like you would freak out merely over a mosque being built. Given your snowflake history, I can safely assume no more context is necessary.

Religion aside, Sweden appears to be having problems with foreign-born criminals. Apparently, some data was leaked from Sweden's Criminal Data System, and (assuming reports are accurate) foreign-born people are vastly over-represented in crime stats. English-language article, Google-translated Swedish article.

From 2004 - 2014:

45% of people sent to prison for crime were foreign born.

82% of people sent to prison for gangrape were foreign born.

70% of those sentenced to a 9 year prison sentence were foreign born.

Among [gang-rape] cases, 118 of the perpetrators, or 82 per cent, are immigrants, while 26 are Swedish. The overrepresentation for immigrants is stated to be 18.2.

If the current foreign-born population is 18 times more likely to gang-rape, it's reasonable to question whether more immigration from the same sources is a good idea until some significant efforts for solving the problem (better integration?) are made.

How is "foreign-born" defined? That could range between people from another part of Europe, to people from the Middle East, to people from Asia, to people from the other hemisphere, ...

Am I supposed to assume that "foreign-born" is just a euphemism for "them Mooslems"?

What are figures that are better subdivided by years? 2004-2014 is a very long period of time that includes multiple generations of people, with a lot of events happening in that decade and beyond. What are more recent figures? This smells like extreme fudging of numbers.

checks the source of this leak

> Nordfront
> fucking neo-Nazis

Seriously? I mean, seriously? Did you do any more checking on this issue or is this all that you have on the story?

Get the fuck out of here with this shit. If there is any source I will reject off-hand, it's one from fucking Nazis. It's not like Nazis have a long history of just totally fabricating news right?

I have reasons to believe the truth is far from being told accurately in this regard.

[Dragon Angel]

ETA: Also, for decades quite a few of the Middle Eastern immigrants came to the US to GET AWAY from all the fighting in the Middle East. So we have a substantial number of Arabs and Arab-descent people of all religions who either are the ones who don't want to fight, or are their children. It makes selling violent jihad a bit harder.

I don't have much to say in response to this, but I'm quoting it separately because I wanted to give it a +1 and highlight it for all the haters out there.

That is true, but the problem currently isn't that the "West" itself is deeply involved (that was in 2003). Rather that it lets its client states (Turkey, Saudi Arabia) do whatever the hell they like. With disastrous results.

But if you say that the West should stop selling weapons to Saudi Arabia & Qatar or even outright blockade these states, is this a policy that doesn't hurt innocents?

At what point can we proceed from doing nothing at all to doing something?

I don't honestly know. Ideally I think it is the West's responsibility to help clean up the mess it has left behind, but the courses of action that would lead to that would have to be something other than what we're doing now. Stopping the sale of weapons is one thing that needs to happen; they are just being abused for further human rights crimes and making us an accessory to them. Stopping drone attacks that have a very high "collateral damage" rate of innocents is another. Stopping other support for warlords who will probably turn against us as always is another. Also stopping creation of policies that will benefit corporate profits in "defense" over human lives.

I mean, this situation has been left carelessly maintained for so long and right now, it's become a massive onion to peel.

Would further military action of any kind be needed? I'm not sure. What I do know is every time we've intervened in such a way we have only managed to further fuck up the Middle East, either by ourselves or by proxy. Military action should be heavily discouraged since we have long proven that we cannot handle our power correctly.

Britain has completely opposite policies compared with France by giving virtually no restrictions at all to fundamentalists (eg. allowing sharia courts or allowing niqabs/burqas in public), yet I wouldn't say they have less problems with regards to integration compared with France

I can't say anything about the Sharia courts because I need to find more (unbiased, obviously not from Nazis) information about them, but banning niqabs and burqas sounds like a disaster that will resemble France's policy.

Going back to that family I saw in Penn Station, it's one thing if women are legally being forced to wear them. It's another entirely if they decide to wear them on their own volition. Banning them would certainly lead to overreach like banning other Islamic garb in the process, and would again, reinforce their beliefs that they and their religion are being unfairly prejudiced against.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Religion aside, Sweden appears to be having problems with foreign-born criminals. Apparently, some data was leaked from Sweden's Criminal Data System, and (assuming reports are accurate) foreign-born people are vastly over-represented in crime stats. English-language article, Google-translated Swedish article.

From 2004 - 2014:

45% of people sent to prison for crime were foreign born.

82% of people sent to prison for gangrape were foreign born.

70% of those sentenced to a 9 year prison sentence were foreign born.

Among [gang-rape] cases, 118 of the perpetrators, or 82 per cent, are immigrants, while 26 are Swedish. The overrepresentation for immigrants is stated to be 18.2.

If the current foreign-born population is 18 times more likely to gang-rape, it's reasonable to question whether more immigration from the same sources is a good idea until some significant efforts for solving the problem (better integration?) are made.

You need to provide better source material than what looks like what is at best a conspiracy theory site that is sourcing it's information from swedish neo-nazis. Do better, or GTFO.

[Zaune]

Of course a piece of gutter filth like you would freak out merely over a mosque being built. Given your snowflake history, I can safely assume no more context is necessary.

Actually, on this occasion he's touched on a legitimate concern. There's nothing wrong with any immigrant community soliciting donations from friends and family back in the old country to build their own place of worship, but it's very important that the relevant authorities pay close attention to who the larger donations are coming from and what conditions might be attached, lest some unscrupulous hardliners be planning to use it as a vector to stir up trouble.

Although I dare say most European Muslims would be about as happy to find out their mosque was build with Daesh funding as your average US Christian would be if they found out the local Ku Klux Klan dropped a few grand into their donation drive for a new church roof.