Mass sexual assault in Cologne, including rape cases

[cosmicalstorm]

Several of the molested girls identity in Stockholm has been released, quite a few of those assaulted were first or second generation immigrants.

As for the Geneva convention I would not be surprised if it is violated, even on a massive scale. Not that I welcome this potential.

Im a bit alarmist and believe what has happened so far with regards to the fuckup Euro debacle and immigration crisis might be enough to tie Europes next two decades of politics to right wing and HizbutTahir parties.

[Ralin]

Do you want to explain, clarify or rephrase that comment?

Because right now it seems like you are saying that such a number of MENA people were let into Europe specifically because they are supposedly disproportionately prone to criminal acts compared to the native population.

If that is the intent of your comment, I have absolutely no problem sending you to join cmdrjones in Parting Shots. I have no interest in trying to tamp down another troll tangent.

I'm guessing he was referring to ISIS/Assad's many atrocities that kicked off all this refugee migration and that the way he phrased it sounded wittier in his head than it does to us.

[Thanas]

As for the Geneva convention I would not be surprised if it is violated, even on a massive scale. Not that I welcome this potential.

There seems to be a confusion. This is not the Geneva convention on warfare. This is the Geneva convention on refugees.

[ray245]

You asked if I thought it was a good idea to keep a sizable chunk of non citizens in prison. If "sizable chunk" isn´t a synonym for "a lot" then please clarify what you are trying to say.

I used a significant amount precisely because it does not equate to a lot. Out of a population of a 1 million, there will be a considerable amount of people that will end up committing criminal acts, and given the status of the refugees, this will have a much greater impact on how people viewed the refugees as a whole compared to say an EU citizen committing such an act.

If "sizable chunk" does not mean "a lot" but means "a completely normal percentage of the population" then of course I think it´s a good idea. That´s what the prison system is there for. Locking up criminals. And regarding your other question on what to do when they are released: The same we do with any other prisoner who is released with the exception that the ones who are eligable for deportation should be deported.

The prison system is not something designed to spread positive impression of people or any community in general. Even throwing one additional refugee into jail for a crime that he or she did commit is still going to make large segment of the population fearful and being mistrustful of minorities.

A member of any minority is always judged more harshly by people in general because he or she is always seen as a representative of the minority population. Any wrongdoing by any member of a minority is only going to reinforce the negative stereotype of minorities.

So what? The law and the prison sysem is responsible for citizens as well as non citizens.

Because I don't think it is a good idea for a non-citizen to be in prison of a foreign country for 15 years? Especially if no one has a clue what is going to happen when they serve their time? Are you going to deport them to a country that might not exist by that time? Are you going to let them stay in Germany while being refused citizenship and asylum because they committed a massive crime in Europe?

There is also no perception that people of MENA have no problems with sexism. Where does this come from? I think everybody is aware that Arab nations are one of the most sexist societies on the planet.

Except everytime someone tries to talk about something like this, we see the word "racist" or "racism" being thrown around so often that we might not be having such a discussion in the first place. I'm being called a racist by you just because you assumed that I think MENA descent are somehow magically more prone to crime than other ethnic group.

If that's the attitude you want to take, good luck fostering any sensible discussion.

This doesn´t have any relevance regarding granting people refugee status, though, nor is it relevant when it comes to deporting people.

Err considering that people in this forum are debating about deportation, I think it does.

Eh? I can´t remember an incident where I´ve heard the words "North African men" so many times.
Where did you get that from? It is pure and utter nonsense.

Have you read all the news about how authorities was initially unwilling to talk about the ethnicity of the perpetrators until it can't really be avoided?

Are you saying that news articles like this are somehow wrong?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/j ... in-cologne

The government and local politicians have been at pains to point out there is no evidence that refugees were involved in the attacks. “There’s no evidence that we’re dealing here with people who are refugees,” said Reker, who was stabbed in October during her campaign to become Cologne’s mayor by a man who disliked her pro-refugee stance. She told reporters that any suggestions that the perpetrators might have been refugees were “absolutely impermissible”.

But many on the far right were just as keen to emphasise that there was no evidence as yet to suggest the contrary. Both left and right are aware of how politically combustible it could be if there were any indication that Germans’ willingness to welcome refugees has been abused.

Cologne’s police chief, Wolfgang Albers, has also said: “So far, we have no knowledge of who the perpetrators are.”

Sure. I don´t admit social problems. That´s why I never argue in favor of better integration programs and politics than we had in the past.

At the least you seem to ignore the difficulties of integrating them.

For the carrot: see better integration programs.

I find it hard to tell the difference when anything you proposed deals with the reality that this is a much bigger population we are talking about. It's funny to talk about better intergration programs when there's hardly enough houses to for the refugees. Not to mention the efforts to integrate them does not scale proportionally to the increase in the number of refugees.

The larger a minority population is, the less incentive there is for them to intergrate. Even simple things like food matters. Why bother with learning to eat a very different diet if there is enough people from my home country to recreate all the dishes I enjoyed back home?

[Grumman]

Do you want to explain, clarify or rephrase that comment?

Because right now it seems like you are saying that such a number of MENA people were let into Europe specifically because they are supposedly disproportionately prone to criminal acts compared to the native population.

If that is the intent of your comment, I have absolutely no problem sending you to join cmdrjones in Parting Shots. I have no interest in trying to tamp down another troll tangent.

I'm guessing he was referring to ISIS/Assad's many atrocities that kicked off all this refugee migration and that the way he phrased it sounded wittier in his head than it does to us.

Yes, I was referring to the likes of ISIL. This refugee crisis was caused by people, and you cannot offer refuge to the victims without making sure that the people who caused them to flee cannot follow.

[salm]

I used a significant amount precisely because it does not equate to a lot. Out of a population of a 1 million, there will be a considerable amount of people that will end up committing criminal acts, and given the status of the refugees, this will have a much greater impact on how people viewed the refugees as a whole compared to say an EU citizen committing such an act.

Then there might be a misunderstanding here. "Sizable chunk" doesn not mean "significant amount". The word "sizable" means "quite a lot" or "fairly large".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/sizable

The prison system is not something designed to spread positive impression of people or any community in general. Even throwing one additional refugee into jail for a crime that he or she did commit is still going to make large segment of the population fearful and being mistrustful of minorities.

A member of any minority is always judged more harshly by people in general because he or she is always seen as a representative of the minority population. Any wrongdoing by any member of a minority is only going to reinforce the negative stereotype of minorities.

Saying this makes no sense. Nobody has claimed anything of this. This seems like you´re setting up a really obvious and unnecessary straw man. Why would you do that?

Because I don't think it is a good idea for a non-citizen to be in prison of a foreign country for 15 years? Especially if no one has a clue what is going to happen when they serve their time? Are you going to deport them to a country that might not exist by that time? Are you going to let them stay in Germany while being refused citizenship and asylum because they committed a massive crime in Europe?

Can you give a reason why citizenship matters when it comes to locking someone up? You state that as if it was some sort of inherent truth but I see absolutely no reason not to lock up criminals in a country just because they´re foreign.

Regarding what happens after prision: That depends entirely on the specific case. Some might be deported and others might not be deported for some reason. The latter will obviously remain in Germany.

Except everytime someone tries to talk about something like this, we see the word "racist" or "racism" being thrown around so often that we might not be having such a discussion in the first place. I'm being called a racist by you just because you assumed that I think MENA descent are somehow magically more prone to crime than other ethnic group.

If that's the attitude you want to take, good luck fostering any sensible discussion.

This appears to be ralated to the misunderstanding regarding the meaning of "sizable chunk".

Err considering that people in this forum are debating about deportation, I think it does.

I don´t know what this is supposed to mean. Please elaborate.

Have you read all the news about how authorities was initially unwilling to talk about the ethnicity of the perpetrators until it can't really be avoided?

I live in this country. The authorities and the media was more than willing to point out that the criminals looked like "north african men" from the beginning. Here´s an example. An article of a local newspaper from Cologne. The date: 2.January.2016
http://www.ksta.de/koeln/-sexuelle-bela ... 47730.html

Opfer und Zeugen sprachen der Polizei gegenüber von Männern nordafrikanischen Aussehens.

Victims and wittnesses told the Police that it were men with North African appearance.

Are you saying that news articles like this are somehow wrong?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/j ... in-cologne

The government and local politicians have been at pains to point out there is no evidence that refugees were involved in the attacks. “There’s no evidence that we’re dealing here with people who are refugees,” said Reker, who was stabbed in October during her campaign to become Cologne’s mayor by a man who disliked her pro-refugee stance. She told reporters that any suggestions that the perpetrators might have been refugees were “absolutely impermissible”.

But many on the far right were just as keen to emphasise that there was no evidence as yet to suggest the contrary. Both left and right are aware of how politically combustible it could be if there were any indication that Germans’ willingness to welcome refugees has been abused.

Cologne’s police chief, Wolfgang Albers, has also said: “So far, we have no knowledge of who the perpetrators are.”

If the "absolutely impermissible" is from the same interview as I believe it is it is sloppily translated or willfullingly distorted. The cited Reker (Colognes Mayor) stated on the 5th of January that "we shouldn´t project criminal behavior on specific groups of people" and that "there is no evidence that the criminals were refugees". That was absolutely true at that time. In fact it is still true. We still don´t know who most of the criminals were. But a lot of prejudice and racist people have made up their mind and claim that it were "The Refugees". They want to "defend European values" but when it suits them right they throw these values (in this case due process and right of asylum) right out of the window.

It is true that "they have been at pains to point out that there is no evidence that refugees were involved". And that is good and apparently necessary because so many people will jump to conclusions otherwise. In fact they even jump to conclusions when this is explicitly pointed out.

At the least you seem to ignore the difficulties of integrating them.

Of course. I argue for better integration politics not because of the social problems bad integration brings with it but because I think that integration politics is a cute thing to have.

I find it hard to tell the difference when anything you proposed deals with the reality that this is a much bigger population we are talking about. It's funny to talk about better intergration programs when there's hardly enough houses to for the refugees. Not to mention the efforts to integrate them does not scale proportionally to the increase in the number of refugees.

The larger a minority population is, the less incentive there is for them to intergrate. Even simple things like food matters. Why bother with learning to eat a very different diet if there is enough people from my home country to recreate all the dishes I enjoyed back home?

Ok, for whom do want a stick and a carrot? I get that prisons and deprotation are a stick for the refugees but the "avenue to talk about the problems of middle eastern society" seem to be more like a carrot for the native population. Or something like that. Please clarify.

[ray245]

Then there might be a misunderstanding here. "Sizable chunk" doesn not mean "significant amount". The word "sizable" means "quite a lot" or "fairly large".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/sizable

I will admit using the term sizeable is probably not a good word. I was mainly saying that there will be more than enough refugees being thrown into prison for actual crimes they commit for people to be frightened. In a sense, refugees are being held to double standards because of their visibility.

The impact of one refugee being thrown into prison is going to be greater than a German being thrown into prison. ( Not sure if you understood the point I am making). Refugees are expected to be some sort of model minority for people to be comfortable with integrating them.

Saying this makes no sense. Nobody has claimed anything of this. This seems like you´re setting up a really obvious and unnecessary straw man. Why would you do that?

Because when I asked people how do you educate refugees about acceptable social behaviour in Europe, people seems quite eager to use imprisonment and deportation as a first and most obvious solution.

Can you give a reason why citizenship matters when it comes to locking someone up? You state that as if it was some sort of inherent truth but I see absolutely no reason not to lock up criminals in a country just because they´re foreign.

Because in this case, there's going to be quite a few people of that status in prison? We aren't talking about just a 1-2 non-European ending up in prision for a long period of time. We are going to have a community of people all sharing the same legal status.

Regarding what happens after prision: That depends entirely on the specific case. Some might be deported and others might not be deported for some reason. The latter will obviously remain in Germany.

What can they do in the event that they are staying in Germany and Europe? Assuming that Syria is gone as a state, won't they be effectively stateless and possibly have no legal right to work after they leave the prison?

I don´t know what this is supposed to mean. Please elaborate.

Are we not talking about deporting people who have committed criminal acts that reinforce the stereotype that people of MENA descent are more sexist?

I live in this country. The authorities and the media was more than willing to point out that the criminals looked like "north african men" from the beginning. Here´s an example. An article of a local newspaper from Cologne. The date: 2.January.2016
http://www.ksta.de/koeln/-sexuelle-bela ... 47730.html

If that is the case, then I concede that my sources might have misunderstood and mistranslated things.

If the "absolutely impermissible" is from the same interview as I believe it is it is sloppily translated or willfullingly distorted. The cited Reker (Colognes Mayor) stated on the 5th of January that "we shouldn´t project criminal behavior on specific groups of people" and that "there is no evidence that the criminals were refugees". That was absolutely true at that time. In fact it is still true. We still don´t know who most of the criminals were. But a lot of prejudice and racist people have made up their mind and claim that it were "The Refugees". They want to "defend European values" but when it suits them right they throw these values (in this case due process and right of asylum) right out of the window.

It is true that "they have been at pains to point out that there is no evidence that refugees were involved". And that is good and apparently necessary because so many people will jump to conclusions otherwise. In fact they even jump to conclusions when this is explicitly pointed out.

What happens if it turns out that most of the perpetrators are indeed refugees? This will only make everything look like a cover-up. Public perception and learning to manage it is far more important than simply telling the truth, especially in light of conflicting sources.

Like it or not, there is a strong perception that authorities are deliberately not reporting certain things for the sake of helping the refugees at the expense of the victims. Learning to manage public perception is crucial if you truly want to integrate the refugees. Right now, I think the authorities aren't exactly doing a good job at managing that.

Of course. I argue for better integration politics not because of the social problems bad integration brings with it but because I think that integration politics is a cute thing to have.

And what is wrong with admitting that the current integration policies might not be a useful in integrating 1 million refugees? It might work if the amount of refugees is smaller, but that might not be a right policy for a much bigger refugee population.

Ok, for whom do want a stick and a carrot? I get that prisons and deprotation are a stick for the refugees but the "avenue to talk about the problems of middle eastern society" seem to be more like a carrot for the native population. Or something like that. Please clarify.

The refugees? Would they see enough incentives to reject MANY of their past habits and try and be more "liberal"? Why should a population coming from a more conservative society be willing enough to change their ways of thinking when there seems to be little positive incentives to do so?

[salm]

I will admit using the term sizeable is probably not a good word. I was mainly saying that there will be more than enough refugees being thrown into prison for actual crimes they commit for people to be frightened. In a sense, refugees are being held to double standards because of their visibility.

The impact of one refugee being thrown into prison is going to be greater than a German being thrown into prison. ( Not sure if you understood the point I am making). Refugees are expected to be some sort of model minority for people to be comfortable with integrating them.
Yes, they´re held to double standards. That is bad. That´s my point.

Because when I asked people how do you educate refugees about acceptable social behaviour in Europe, people seems quite eager to use imprisonment and deportation as a first and most obvious solution.

Look. I have been arguing precicely AGAINST that. I´ve been saying that we should treat refugees like other people and NOT specifically harsh.

Because in this case, there's going to be quite a few people of that status in prison? We aren't talking about just a 1-2 non-European ending up in prision for a long period of time. We are going to have a community of people all sharing the same legal status.

No, there are not going to be quite a few people of that status in prison. At least not compared to other social groups.
And even if it was the case I can´t see how that would be a reason to not lock some body up.

What can they do in the event that they are staying in Germany and Europe? Assuming that Syria is gone as a state, won't they be effectively stateless and possibly have no legal right to work after they leave the prison?

That might be the case. But why would that influence anything?

Are we not talking about deporting people who have committed criminal acts that reinforce the stereotype that people of MENA descent are more sexist?

Well, I´ve been arguing for deporting people as long as it is in line with the law and that we actually have all the tools we need. Or at least that we should take a step back and think before we change the law instead of reaction form an emotional stand point.
This is not specicaly confinde to criminal acts that reinforce a stereotype.

What happens if it turns out that most of the perpetrators are indeed refugees? This will only make everything look like a cover-up. Public perception and learning to manage it is far more important than simply telling the truth, especially in light of conflicting sources.

If we claim that it were refugees or we claim that it were NOT refugees we will look like god damn biggot and morons.
If we claim that we don´t know who it was until we actually know who it was we will look reasonable.

Like it or not, there is a strong perception that authorities are deliberately not reporting certain things for the sake of helping the refugees at the expense of the victims. Learning to manage public perception is crucial if you truly want to integrate the refugees. Right now, I think the authorities aren't exactly doing a good job at managing that.

I now that this perception exitsts. It´s specifially strong among a group of idiots who call themselves PEGIDA. It exists among fucking morons who spout their bullshit without bothering to back it up.
There are, however, a lot of people who actually DO look things up and don´t spout ignorant nonsense.

And what is wrong with admitting that the current integration policies might not be a useful in integrating 1 million refugees? It might work if the amount of refugees is smaller, but that might not be a right policy for a much bigger refugee population.

Can you give specific examples of what you don´t like about the current policies.

The refugees? Would they see enough incentives to reject MANY of their past habits and try and be more "liberal"? Why should a population coming from a more conservative society be willing enough to change their ways of thinking when there seems to be little positive incentives to do so?

Well, measures are there. School classes specifically for refugees have been created in pretty short time for example. Language courses exist. Integration courses exist.
New teachers are being trained for even more classes, more civil servants are currently in training (wich is absurdly necessary) for faster processing.
It isn´t perfect yet. But something is happening.

[Thanas]

The problem is that police were ordered earlier this year to not list things like ethnicity on reports. This was taken by the right as a sign of a coverup, by the left as a step towards being rightfully blind towards ethnicity and by everybody else as just eliminating another checkbox on reports.

EDIT: Last year.

[Ralin]

The problem is that police were ordered earlier this year to not list things like ethnicity on reports. This was taken by the right as a sign of a coverup, by the left as a step towards being rightfully blind towards ethnicity and by everybody else as just eliminating another checkbox on reports.

Seems like that would be relevant in terms of making people that much easier to identify, give some warning about potential cultural issues, etc.

[Wild Zontargs]

Seems like that would be relevant in terms of making people that much easier to identify, give some warning about potential cultural issues, etc.

Hence the conspiracy theories. The wingnuts on the right shout "see, the left is covering up for immigrants from degenerate cultures, deport them all", and the moonbats on the left shout "all cultures are equal, the right just wants to racially profile, you white-supremacists!"

You can't win.

[Grumman]

Because when I asked people how do you educate refugees about acceptable social behaviour in Europe, people seems quite eager to use imprisonment and deportation as a first and most obvious solution.

Look. I have been arguing precicely AGAINST that. I´ve been saying that we should treat refugees like other people and NOT specifically harsh.

Revoking a non-citizen's visa and deporting them after they've committed a serious crime is not abnormally harsh treatment. It is only because they are being treated like refugees that that's even in dispute.

[salm]

Because when I asked people how do you educate refugees about acceptable social behaviour in Europe, people seems quite eager to use imprisonment and deportation as a first and most obvious solution.

Look. I have been arguing precicely AGAINST that. I´ve been saying that we should treat refugees like other people and NOT specifically harsh.

Revoking a non-citizen's visa and deporting them after they've committed a serious crime is not abnormally harsh treatment. It is only because they are being treated like refugees that that's even in dispute.

Are you implying that I said otherwise or have we reached consensus?

[ray245]

Look. I have been arguing precicely AGAINST that. I´ve been saying that we should treat refugees like other people and NOT specifically harsh.

I'm saying you should treat them less harshly and not over rely on legal punishment ( such as jailing and deportations) as a means of education.

No, there are not going to be quite a few people of that status in prison. At least not compared to other social groups.

I'm talking about them having a higher profile than non-refugees if they are thrown into prison. Say one white guy is thrown into prison in Singapore. That is going to fuel the negative perception of whites in Singapore even though they are not any more likely to commit crime than any other social group. One white guy is suddenly the representative of an entire social group just because whites are in a minority over here.

And even if it was the case I can´t see how that would be a reason to not lock some body up.

See above.

That might be the case. But why would that influence anything?

Because rehabilitation is part of the prision system, and you don't want people who served their term to be stuck in a situation where they can't do anything useful again?

Well, I´ve been arguing for deporting people as long as it is in line with the law and that we actually have all the tools we need. Or at least that we should take a step back and think before we change the law instead of reaction form an emotional stand point.
This is not specicaly confinde to criminal acts that reinforce a stereotype.

My opposition is not directed at throwing people into prision or deporting them. My opposition is directed at people in this thread that seems to think that those approaches are good at educating the refugees about what's right and wrong in Germany.

I'm not even sure if the law is an effective tool of communication about what's socially right or wrong to a large group of newcomers, especially if they come from an area rife with corruption. How they perceived the effectiveness of the law would not be the same as people in Europe.

If we claim that it were refugees or we claim that it were NOT refugees we will look like god damn biggot and morons.
If we claim that we don´t know who it was until we actually know who it was we will look reasonable.

See Thanas's point.

I now that this perception exitsts. It´s specifially strong among a group of idiots who call themselves PEGIDA. It exists among fucking morons who spout their bullshit without bothering to back it up.
There are, however, a lot of people who actually DO look things up and don´t spout ignorant nonsense.

I don't think this is limited to PEGIDA. There are many moderates and non-racist that have this perception as well. Denying the spread of this perception is undermining any integration effort. Saying it's a minor concern means you aren't dealing with the spread of this perception.

Can you give specific examples of what you don´t like about the current policies.

The more people there are from a foreign community, the less incentive there are for them to integrate and abandon many aspects of their previous culture?

Well, measures are there. School classes specifically for refugees have been created in pretty short time for example. Language courses exist. Integration courses exist.
New teachers are being trained for even more classes, more civil servants are currently in training (wich is absurdly necessary) for faster processing.
It isn´t perfect yet. But something is happening.

And those are still done in the assumption that every refugees want to integrate as opposed to recreating their hometowns in Germany. You are assuming that integration itself is a carrot for the refugees.

Integrating into a different society is not something everyone is comfortable with, even if they have a pressing reason to be somewhere else. When we have expats communities around the world not bothering to interact with the locals, expecting that refugees would do the same is just insane. There are going to be people who find the way of life in Germany and Europe too strange for their taste.

[madd0ct0r]

Thing is Ray, there's a bunch of us who'd argue that the perpetrators would have been well aware what was right or wrong. It's more about punishment and deterrence than teach people not to stick fingers in other people

[Simon_Jester]

To chime in on what maddoc said, prison and legal systems serve multiple functions at the same time.

Basically, the goal of a legal system is to have justice. However, before you can have justice you have to have law and order.

The basic reality of "there are rules, people follow them, the people who fail to follow them are an ostracized micro-minority" is a minimum necessary condition for justice to exist in society. Because no possible just condition of things can exist, without a governing system of law.

As long as there is no danger of law and order breaking down, it is right and proper for us to ask "should we be using prisons for anything other than rehabilitating the specific criminals?"

If there is danger of law and order breaking down, it becomes unfortunately necessary to ALSO say "We should be using prisons to prevent law and order from breaking down, by providing a 'stick' to go with the 'carrot and stick' approach."
_________________________

To illustrate this by referring to an extreme limiting case, think about riots.

A condition of riot is a total breakdown of law and order- it represents a condition where people behave in disorderly ways, doing exactly as they please, and obeying no laws. People break whichever laws they see fit, once a riot gets bad enough.

Basically, there is no way to treat the people fairly and well in the middle of a riot. Can't be done. Either you're cruel and unkind to the rioters, or you allow the rioters to be cruel and unkind to everybody else. Whatever else is going on, whatever else needs to happen, it really does not matter until you have ended the riot.

A riot is the extreme limiting case, of course- but the point remains, once things like riots and mass sexual assaults and so on are on the horizon, you have to start equipping yourself and planning ahead for the possibility.

Which means, among other things, contemplating the use of prisons and the threat of prison purely to make sure that law and order are upheld. Even if justice is served less-than-perfectly, you really cannot give up law and order in a developed society, not without losing justice too.

[salm]

I'm saying you should treat them less harshly and not over rely on legal punishment ( such as jailing and deportations) as a means of education.

Seems we kind of agree then.

I'm talking about them having a higher profile than non-refugees if they are thrown into prison. Say one white guy is thrown into prison in Singapore. That is going to fuel the negative perception of whites in Singapore even though they are not any more likely to commit crime than any other social group. One white guy is suddenly the representative of an entire social group just because whites are in a minority over here.

That is how it is. It is unfortunate and should not be that way. And that is exactly the reason why politicians said from day one that we shouldn´t just assume that it were refugees before we actually know who it was.

Because rehabilitation is part of the prision system, and you don't want people who served their term to be stuck in a situation where they can't do anything useful again?

Making people stateless because their home country collapses is really nothing we can do about. I don´t think that has been a significant problem in the past, though. Feel free to show me examples.

My opposition is not directed at throwing people into prision or deporting them. My opposition is directed at people in this thread that seems to think that those approaches are good at educating the refugees about what's right and wrong in Germany.

I'm not even sure if the law is an effective tool of communication about what's socially right or wrong to a large group of newcomers, especially if they come from an area rife with corruption. How they perceived the effectiveness of the law would not be the same as people in Europe.

I agree. Deportaton is a measure that should be reserved the very last. If we find out that someone is absolutely not compatible due to very bad crimes we should deport him. Unless it is impossible to do due to the Geneva refugee conventions. In that case we can not deport.

I don't think this is limited to PEGIDA. There are many moderates and non-racist that have this perception as well. Denying the spread of this perception is undermining any integration effort. Saying it's a minor concern means you aren't dealing with the spread of this perception.

Do you have anything to back this up? In my experience this perception is, as mentioned before, specifically strong among right wing extremists.
Other groups might share the view that politicians are lying on a regular basis but this "cover up for refugees" seems rather confined to the right.

The more people there are from a foreign community, the less incentive there are for them to integrate and abandon many aspects of their previous culture?

So, if you are of the impression that the current integration policies don´t work for the current number of refugees there are three solutions for that.
1. Don´t change anything -> Leads to bad integration
2. Reduce numbers -> Leads to better integration and denies a lot of people to apply for asylum
3. Keep numbers but improve integration policies -> Leads to better integration but is expensive and there´s a risk of failing

I think we should go with 3. I assume you are for 2.

And those are still done in the assumption that every refugees want to integrate as opposed to recreating their hometowns in Germany. You are assuming that integration itself is a carrot for the refugees.

Integrating into a different society is not something everyone is comfortable with, even if they have a pressing reason to be somewhere else. When we have expats communities around the world not bothering to interact with the locals, expecting that refugees would do the same is just insane. There are going to be people who find the way of life in Germany and Europe too strange for their taste.

We don´t need to integrate everybody. We need to integrate a sufficient amount. We live with lots of badly integrated people, most of them, btw, are Germans. Societies are able to compensate for a certain amount of asses.

[ray245]

Thing is Ray, there's a bunch of us who'd argue that the perpetrators would have been well aware what was right or wrong. It's more about punishment and deterrence than teach people not to stick fingers in other people

I feel that in the absence of a decent teaching/intergration policy, the law will effectively be the main educational tool. I don't think we can talk about the law merely as a form of punishment. As a deterence, it is also an educating tool, abit a one that isn't well suited for such a job.

To chime in on what maddoc said, prison and legal systems serve multiple functions at the same time.

Basically, the goal of a legal system is to have justice. However, before you can have justice you have to have law and order.

The basic reality of "there are rules, people follow them, the people who fail to follow them are an ostracized micro-minority" is a minimum necessary condition for justice to exist in society. Because no possible just condition of things can exist, without a governing system of law.

As long as there is no danger of law and order breaking down, it is right and proper for us to ask "should we be using prisons for anything other than rehabilitating the specific criminals?"

If there is danger of law and order breaking down, it becomes unfortunately necessary to ALSO say "We should be using prisons to prevent law and order from breaking down, by providing a 'stick' to go with the 'carrot and stick' approach."
_________________________

To illustrate this by referring to an extreme limiting case, think about riots.

A condition of riot is a total breakdown of law and order- it represents a condition where people behave in disorderly ways, doing exactly as they please, and obeying no laws. People break whichever laws they see fit, once a riot gets bad enough.

Basically, there is no way to treat the people fairly and well in the middle of a riot. Can't be done. Either you're cruel and unkind to the rioters, or you allow the rioters to be cruel and unkind to everybody else. Whatever else is going on, whatever else needs to happen, it really does not matter until you have ended the riot.

A riot is the extreme limiting case, of course- but the point remains, once things like riots and mass sexual assaults and so on are on the horizon, you have to start equipping yourself and planning ahead for the possibility.

Which means, among other things, contemplating the use of prisons and the threat of prison purely to make sure that law and order are upheld. Even if justice is served less-than-perfectly, you really cannot give up law and order in a developed society, not without losing justice too.

I'm saying perception is key. A law suited to deter and punish a certain community cannot be easily applied to another community without facing some sort of backlash. It could create an environment whereby the new community could percieve this as a threat towards them.

That is how it is. It is unfortunate and should not be that way. And that is exactly the reason why politicians said from day one that we shouldn´t just assume that it were refugees before we actually know who it was.

How quickly the politicians or authorities is ready to accept the possibility that it was committed by refugees matters as well. If they admit it too slowly, it will cause even GREATER harm in the long run. Right now, it gives many people the impression that they aren't prepared to do so.

Making people stateless because their home country collapses is really nothing we can do about. I don´t think that has been a significant problem in the past, though. Feel free to show me examples.

They would become very particularly vunlerable to exploitation. See the issue with the Rhongiya in Mymnar, and how some of the left-wing "progessives" in that country are more than happy to let the exploitation continue.

Also, it would allow the sense of alieniation between communities to continue. Didn't Germany had that problem when it comes to the Turks in Germany?

I agree. Deportaton is a measure that should be reserved the very last. If we find out that someone is absolutely not compatible due to very bad crimes we should deport him. Unless it is impossible to do due to the Geneva refugee conventions. In that case we can not deport.

At the same time, there needs to be more means punishment against those that have committed crimes because their previous cultural environment allows them to get away with. Basically the means of educating people shouldn't be a simple choice between attending cultural lessons and getting deported.

Do you have anything to back this up? In my experience this perception is, as mentioned before, specifically strong among right wing extremists.
Other groups might share the view that politicians are lying on a regular basis but this "cover up for refugees" seems rather confined to the right.

Haven't this view been expanding in popularity throughout Europe? Simply saying this is strong among the far right does not explain the increase in popularity of the far-right movement. Groups like PEGIDA only have such a massive international profile very recently. Then there's the rise of other right-wing groups throughout Europe, including France. Take the National Front in France for example.

So, if you are of the impression that the current integration policies don´t work for the current number of refugees there are three solutions for that.
1. Don´t change anything -> Leads to bad integration
2. Reduce numbers -> Leads to better integration and denies a lot of people to apply for asylum
3. Keep numbers but improve integration policies -> Leads to better integration but is expensive and there´s a risk of failing

I think we should go with 3. I assume you are for 2.

No, I am far number 3, but I don't agree that the current policies we are seeing are anywhere close to this. You are saying an expansion in the number of classes and additional recruitment of teachers is a form of improvement (at least that is what I am getting from you.) I disagree.

Throwing more money doesn't necessarily improve things by much, because the incentives for the refugees to intergrate does not scale porportionately. Improving accessibility to learn about a new environment have its limits if the newly arrived community is fairly large. Just because there is language classes does not mean the refugees feel obiligied to attend them. Wanting to work and live a fairly safe life does not mean the person would want to intergrate.

You are still not answering the question of what sort of carrot are you going to provide for the refugees to intergrate into Germany society, and merely just the country itself. Having more classes ISN'T a carrot. Why bother with learning about German cultural norms if I could spend the time to earn money instead? Intergration classes could be seen as a hassle that many do not want.

We don´t need to integrate everybody. We need to integrate a sufficient amount. We live with lots of badly integrated people, most of them, btw, are Germans. Societies are able to compensate for a certain amount of asses.

Not if they belong to a minority group. We humans always judge any minority group differently form a majority group. A member of a minority is almost expected to be judged as a representative of his community everywhere he or she goes. One bad apple of a minority group is going to have a much bigger impact than one bad apple in a majority community.

Minorities are either being judged extremely badly or overly positively. The only way to better intergrate the refugees is for them to portray themselves as some sort of model minoriy. They would have to be more liberal, more well educated, way less likely to commit crime than your average German/European in order to avoid the negative sterotypes. In fact, that seems to be what people are expecting of them anyway, although that tends to be generally unspoken.

[salm]

How quickly the politicians or authorities is ready to accept the possibility that it was committed by refugees matters as well. If they admit it too slowly, it will cause even GREATER harm in the long run. Right now, it gives many people the impression that they aren't prepared to do so.

I allready showed that from day one newspapers quoted authorites stating "North African men" as the criminals. What more do you want?

They would become very particularly vunlerable to exploitation. See the issue with the Rhongiya in Mymnar, and how some of the left-wing "progessives" in that country are more than happy to let the exploitation continue.

Also, it would allow the sense of alieniation between communities to continue. Didn't Germany had that problem when it comes to the Turks in Germany?

So what do you propose if someone turns stateless? Do we magic up a new state for him or something?

At the same time, there needs to be more means punishment against those that have committed crimes because their previous cultural environment allows them to get away with. Basically the means of educating people shouldn't be a simple choice between attending cultural lessons and getting deported.

Can you give an example?

Haven't this view been expanding in popularity throughout Europe? Simply saying this is strong among the far right does not explain the increase in popularity of the far-right movement. Groups like PEGIDA only have such a massive international profile very recently. Then there's the rise of other right-wing groups throughout Europe, including France. Take the National Front in France for example.

A growing far-right movement doesn´t make specific right wing views less right wing. Just because more people believe something doesn´t make it less extreme.

No, I am far number 3, but I don't agree that the current policies we are seeing are anywhere close to this. You are saying an expansion in the number of classes and additional recruitment of teachers is a form of improvement (at least that is what I am getting from you.) I disagree.

Throwing more money doesn't necessarily improve things by much, because the incentives for the refugees to intergrate does not scale porportionately. Improving accessibility to learn about a new environment have its limits if the newly arrived community is fairly large. Just because there is language classes does not mean the refugees feel obiligied to attend them. Wanting to work and live a fairly safe life does not mean the person would want to intergrate.

Thowing money at the problem does solve problems. Even if not all problems are solvable with money, money is part of the equation. Money pays teachers, civil servants, housing and a whole bunch of other necessary things.

You are still not answering the question of what sort of carrot are you going to provide for the refugees to intergrate into Germany society, and merely just the country itself. Having more classes ISN'T a carrot. Why bother with learning about German cultural norms if I could spend the time to earn money instead? Intergration classes could be seen as a hassle that many do not want.

Integration itself IS a huge carrot for a lot of people. The easier we make it the better.
Other carrots are better access to jobs, better housing and similar things.

What you are basically saying is we need to avoid large concentrations of refugees in one place. In other words ghettoisation.

Not if they belong to a minority group. We humans always judge any minority group differently form a majority group. A member of a minority is almost expected to be judged as a representative of his community everywhere he or she goes. One bad apple of a minority group is going to have a much bigger impact than one bad apple in a majority community.

Minorities are either being judged extremely badly or overly positively. The only way to better intergrate the refugees is for them to portray themselves as some sort of model minoriy. They would have to be more liberal, more well educated, way less likely to commit crime than your average German/European in order to avoid the negative sterotypes. In fact, that seems to be what people are expecting of them anyway, although that tends to be generally unspoken.

Expecting that minority groups "either behave like saints or else..." while all other groups are expected to behave normally is called opression.

[ray245]

I allready showed that from day one newspapers quoted authorites stating "North African men" as the criminals. What more do you want?

What about the point Thanas was making?

So what do you propose if someone turns stateless? Do we magic up a new state for him or something?

Be ready to grant them citizenship if you want them in?

Can you give an example?

See below.

A growing far-right movement doesn´t make specific right wing views less right wing. Just because more people believe something doesn´t make it less extreme.

Terms like right-wing and left-wing depends on the political spectrum within the country. If the country shifts collectively to the right, then continuing to treat this attitude merely as something that only extremist have is not a good idea.

Thowing money at the problem does solve problems. Even if not all problems are solvable with money, money is part of the equation. Money pays teachers, civil servants, housing and a whole bunch of other necessary things.

Throwing money helps, but it doesn't scale proportionately. An increase in funding does not mean you see an equivalent rise in your results.

Integration itself IS a huge carrot for a lot of people. The easier we make it the better.

No, it's fucking not.

Other carrots are better access to jobs, better housing and similar things.

Humans aren't fucking robots that only aims to have better jobs, better housing and etc. There are many things that poeple value that they would be willng to forsake better jobs and etc. Maintaining your old cultural traditions, and expecting your kids to adopt them matters massively to many people.

Would you be willing to give up speaking German almost entirely in your daily life, stop having the chance to enjoy German cusine and maintain all the interesting quirks of a German just for the sake of getting more well off materially? Or being expected to adopt a more conservative viewpoint of the world JUST because that gives people in your host country to discriminate against you?

Cultural transistion itself isn't an easy thing for people travelling within the developed world. Cultural intergration is something even harder to achieve.

What you are basically saying is we need to avoid large concentrations of refugees in one place. In other words ghettoisation.

Yes, but as long as there is no carrot to lure many people out of that hole, people would rather stay in a hellhole to avoid being discriminated against. Ghettos provides a form of comfort zone for people who feel safer within people of a similar background than some place where they are the odd one out.

Expecting that minority groups "either behave like saints or else..." while all other groups are expected to behave normally is called opression.

And that's what every society does because of human thinking. We aren't logical creatures that crunch numbers in our head all the time. We fail at doing that very badly, not matter how educated the population can be. Logical thinking have its limits.

[Purple]

Expecting that minority groups "either behave like saints or else..." while all other groups are expected to behave normally is called opression.

No it is not. It is completely fine to expect higher standards from someone begging you to be accepted into your home than from someone already there. This is because the person already there owes you nothing. Whilst the person begging to be let in has to repay your hospitality.

Think of it this way. If I was a guest in your home and urinated on your carpet you'd throw me out and newer invite me again. If I was a family member living with you would you do the same?

[salm]

What about the point Thanas was making?

How much earlier this year than on the first of January would you prefer?

Be ready to grant them citizenship if you want them in?

There are ways to gain citizenship for asylum seakers. We have that tool.
I personally know a couple of Eritreans who came to Germany in the 90s as asylum seakers. They are now fully integrated Germans and work as Prison wardens, Nurses and Chemists.

Terms like right-wing and left-wing depends on the political spectrum within the country. If the country shifts collectively to the right, then continuing to treat this attitude merely as something that only extremist have is not a good idea.

I disagree. Extremist views are extremist.

Throwing money helps, but it doesn't scale proportionately. An increase in funding does not mean you see an equivalent rise in your results.

So we agree. Throwing money at the problem is good.

No, it's fucking not.

Yes it is. A lot of people prefer to be integrated. Just not all.

Humans aren't fucking robots that only aims to have better jobs, better housing and etc. There are many things that poeple value that they would be willng to forsake better jobs and etc. Maintaining your old cultural traditions, and expecting your kids to adopt them matters massively to many people.

You´re thinking in black and white. Just because better jobs and housing are not the ONLY things that matter don´t mean that jobs and housing are not a carrot.

Would you be willing to give up speaking German almost entirely in your daily life, stop having the chance to enjoy German cusine and maintain all the interesting quirks of a German just for the sake of getting more well off materially?

No, and we shouldn´t expect that. It´s perfectly fine to do all of that if you live in a foreign country. In fact the country profits from these things. The only thing you have to do is also be able to speak the countries language in order to communicate efficiently with everybody else.

Or being expected to adopt a more conservative viewpoint of the world JUST because that gives people in your host country to discriminate against you?

Cultural transistion itself isn't an easy thing for people travelling within the developed world. Cultural intergration is something even harder to achieve.

Well, shifiting ones viewpoint is not something you can actively do. A viewpoint shifts or it doesn´t. Integration courses which explain WHY the countries general viewpoints are the way they are might help shipt that viewpoint.
However, I might not shift my viewpoint but if I go to another country I can learn the viewpoints and at least ACT acordingly.

What you are basically saying is we need to avoid large concentrations of refugees in one place. In other words ghettoisation.

Yes, but as long as there is no carrot to lure many people out of that hole, people would rather stay in a hellhole to avoid being discriminated against. Ghettos provides a form of comfort zone for people who feel safer within people of a similar background than some place where they are the odd one out.
[/quote]
That is strange because all the refugees seem to want to get out of the camps as fast as possible. There is a huge incentive to get ones own place to live in. It is our responsibility to create an infra structure in which the refugees do not all flock to one area. We fucked that up with the Turks. People and politicians are aware of that.

And that's what every society does because of human thinking. We aren't logical creatures that crunch numbers in our head all the time. We fail at doing that very badly, not matter how educated the population can be. Logical thinking have its limits.

Such expectations put a lot of preassure on the minority and can even be counter productive. If nothing you do is good enough and the other people allways get everything a lot easier can turn people frustrated, angry and agressive. It is our responsibility to lower these expectations.


I will have to drop out of this discussion now, as I am leaving for a month long holiday to Mexico.

[salm]

Expecting that minority groups "either behave like saints or else..." while all other groups are expected to behave normally is called opression.

No it is not. It is completely fine to expect higher standards from someone begging you to be accepted into your home than from someone already there. This is because the person already there owes you nothing. Whilst the person begging to be let in has to repay your hospitality.

Think of it this way. If I was a guest in your home and urinated on your carpet you'd throw me out and newer invite me again. If I was a family member living with you would you do the same?

This analogy is irrelevant because countries are a fundamentally different thing than a persons house or appartement.

Think of it this way: If you were a guest in my home and you didn´t pay the tax I imposed on you, would you be fine with me locking you up in my basement? Or if I locked you up because you refused to fight my war in a foreign country even though I drafted you into my army?

[ray245]

How much earlier this year than on the first of January would you prefer?

It doesn't seem like many people agree with this perception.

There are ways to gain citizenship for asylum seakers. We have that tool.
I personally know a couple of Eritreans who came to Germany in the 90s as asylum seakers. They are now fully integrated Germans and work as Prison wardens, Nurses and Chemists.

It's easy to give asylum seekers that are upright citizens that contribute to the German economy, but what about those that aren't?

I disagree. Extremist views are extremist.

And this kind of thinking is why extremism continues to grow in popularity. Continue sticking your head in the sand.

So we agree. Throwing money at the problem is good.

Good but not enough. And thinking that the current policy is good enough is only to make things worse.

Yes it is. A lot of people prefer to be integrated. Just not all.

No it is not, even for the people that chose to be integrated. Integration ITSELF isn't the carrot. The benefits that comes along with integration is the carrot. And if people can find ways to live their lives without being integrated, they will do so.

You´re thinking in black and white. Just because better jobs and housing are not the ONLY things that matter don´t mean that jobs and housing are not a carrot.

You are the one thinking in black and white. I've never said that better access to jobs and housings aren't carrots. I am saying that do not assume that those are sufficient carrots for people to integrate.

If integration is as simple as you think, we won't have problems with integration all over the world. There are many people who feels very strongly that there are limits to how integrated they can be. There are many reasons ( no matter how irrational they are) that make people think that getting access to better housing and better pay is not enough to give up their traditional ways.

There are people who are willing to fight for a world where they can have good housing and pay while retaining a very patriarchal society for example.

No, and we shouldn´t expect that. It´s perfectly fine to do all of that if you live in a foreign country. In fact the country profits from these things. The only thing you have to do is also be able to speak the countries language in order to communicate efficiently with everybody else.

Well good luck, many people seems to be expecting that. Simply speaking the same languages or being able to communicate effectively does not mean people are integrated, or there is any less social tension. Just look at how bad the tension can be in places like Singapore, or Hong Kong in their relationship with migrants from China.

Your kind of thinking is harmful to any integration effort.

Well, shifiting ones viewpoint is not something you can actively do. A viewpoint shifts or it doesn´t. Integration courses which explain WHY the countries general viewpoints are the way they are might help shipt that viewpoint.
However, I might not shift my viewpoint but if I go to another country I can learn the viewpoints and at least ACT acordingly.

Except in this case, it's more challenging to accept your idea that many of your old society's views are seen as morally wrong in a different society. Pride matters a great deal to many people.

That is strange because all the refugees seem to want to get out of the camps as fast as possible. There is a huge incentive to get ones own place to live in. It is our responsibility to create an infra structure in which the refugees do not all flock to one area. We fucked that up with the Turks. People and politicians are aware of that.

It's not just about creating an infrastructure to prevent a repeat of what happened with the Turks. People in general tend to congregate among the people they feel most comfortable with, and in many cases, ethnicity creates a sense of comfort.

Would Syrian refugees prefer to live among other Syrians in Germany? I think that is still quite likely. Unless the government have the powers to force Syrians not to congregate, it is going to be hard challenge.

Such expectations put a lot of preassure on the minority and can even be counter productive. If nothing you do is good enough and the other people allways get everything a lot easier can turn people frustrated, angry and agressive. It is our responsibility to lower these expectations.

This form of expectation arose because people are heavily investing effort and money into this project. It's human to expect some sort of return, even if it is not the most sensible thing to do. I would rather be more frank and honest to the Syrians that this is the pressure they are going to be under if they want to live in Germany. When have we ever lowered such expectations?

If they truly want to have a new life in a very different environment, this is something they must learn to deal with. Especially for many refugees who haven't been well exposed to life in Europe. If everyone is a lot more brutally honest about things, it would at the least make things clear. Is this entirely fair for the refugees? Not entirely, but this is the best approach if we wish to avoid any major social issues in the long run.

Call me cynical about the logical capabilities of human beings, but cynicism at the least can get something done.

I will have to drop out of this discussion now, as I am leaving for a month long holiday to Mexico.

Alright. Have a good trip.

[Flagg]

Expecting that minority groups "either behave like saints or else..." while all other groups are expected to behave normally is called opression.

No it is not. It is completely fine to expect higher standards from someone begging you to be accepted into your home than from someone already there. This is because the person already there owes you nothing. Whilst the person begging to be let in has to repay your hospitality.

Think of it this way. If I was a guest in your home and urinated on your carpet you'd throw me out and newer invite me again. If I was a family member living with you would you do the same?

If you were a guest in my home (you would never be, I don't let in scumbags like you) and pissed on the carpet and I had the option of teaching you to use the bathroom to change your ways, or throw you outside where a pack of starving wolves is waiting to tear you apart..? Well if it were you I'd enjoy the show and congratulate myself on feeding starving wildlife, but if it were someone who went through hell at home, went through more hell escaping home, and finally went through the darkest pits of hell just to get to my door where I invite him in? I think I'd let the wolves go hungry awhile.