Optophobia said:
Why Sweden? Doesn't it occur to you that its something to do with this society and how it collects statistics which makes it appear disproportionate? What applies in Sweden, obviously doesn't apply in Australia, otherwise you would have given the statistics for Australia (which you didn't). You're not looking at it globally, you're picking one example (which is likely to be rubbish in some way) to justify your prejudice.
You've made a few assumptions with no apparent reason for them:
1. I have a prejudice (I don't)
2. The statistic isn't correct (it is)
3. I could not have just as easily picked another example of a disproportionate amount of a certain crime by a particular group in a society. I chose this one because it tends to have the most impact.
In my post I stated that the reason for looking at statistics and attitudes from the communities/groups they concern is to identify the problems they have in the society they have, in this case, migrated to. I then provided three examples of action one might take to reduce the problem (which might hopefully reduce the disproportionate nature of the statistics in future), two of which you ignored completely and one of which you used to construct the straw man that I had a racist agenda.
Do you seriously think immigration is ever going to be restricted? It's impossible to do, especially due to global trading. And what grounds do we use to refuse them entry? That 2% of them are rapists? What about Asians, do we reject them because 5% of them can't drive on the roads?
A sovereign nation shouldn't have to provide any justification for controlling who can enter it. Clearly there's something wrong with you if you can't understand the difference between gang rape and the stereotype (which makes you implicitly "racist", by the way) about Asian drivers. In fact you appear to have invented those two numbers out of thin air. I propose that this makes it impossible for me to "discredit" what you have said in light of it not having any credibility to begin with.
They might not be calling for exterminations (as racism in this era tends to be economically based, rather than scientifically or religiously based) but they sure aren't pointing out anything useful. You can point out disproportions all you like.
If there is no use in pointing out disproportions then, for example, all forms of Aboriginal affairs organisations ought to be abolished. They, for example, exist due to the disproportionately high level of poverty and unemployment among Indigenous people in this country. The existence of this problem was presumably identified on the basis of statistics concerning the living standards of these people. The organisations that exist are (ideally) a response to the issues identified. Should we not also attempt to address, where they exist, high levels of crime of a certain nature within particular communities? The statistic that 8 out of 10 black males in the USA will be convicted in their lifetime is often cited as an instance of institutionalised racism in that country, because the lower living standards in general of blacks is a factor in their increased rate of offenses. Logically you would think that the country would be considered less racist if that rate could be reduced. No different here, albeit on a smaller scale.
But what are you going to do about it? Point out statistics and shove them in the face of minorities and tell them that they are all criminals? It creates marginalization and gets no where. All it does is serve to get people like you worried and concerned (over nothing), yet you are dis empowered to do anything.
I've already given examples of what to "do about it", and furthermore if the issues get worse with time, as they appear to have done with the Lebanese Muslim community in Sydney, then it is perfectly valid to ask:
- Was it a good idea to bring them here in the first place?
- Why are we so 'dis empowered'?
- Isn't it just because Morris Iemma is in the seat of Lakemba? (probably)
It creates a hostile environment filled with hate (which, i might add, some people might thrive in, because they are sick puppies) but it's not the kind of society a normal person would want to live in.
Well that's the whole central idea behind political correctness and censorship isn't it? The idea that facts should be kept secret because they'll make some people feel bad, and it's better to pretend problems don't exist because if you talk about them they might upset people.
Yeh, so all men who might possibly be in a gang of armed men, should be deported from Australia immediately. This includes all men 18 - 30. In fact, everyone except little old ladies (who are assumed to be incapable of committing crimes due to their age) are banned from Australia. But then little old Mrs Smith decides to lie to Centrelink and gets $50 a week on her pension in stead of $48. Holy shit, she's a criminal as well. Deportation it is. Australia, according to you, must exist as some blank landscape filled with no humans at all.
Once again we have you taking things I didn't really say and making assumptions:
1. I called for deportations (I did not)
2. I called for deportations for any type of crime in general (I did not)
3. I called for equal punishments, profiling, etc. for all types of crimes and across all means of identification (age, gender, etc.)
4. All crime is such that anyone who breaks the law is not fit to live in this country
Well, no, I never said anything like that, you're the only one who claimed in your previous post that "everyone is criminal in some way". I think this demonstrates some sort of sick moral equivalence on your part. Surely you must understand the reasons why different convictions carry different punishments.
)
