Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today....

[Frank Bunn]

Funny that the people who shout loudest about Catholic abuse are silent when it's Muslims, even though the problem is current rather than historic - and the scale of the abuse is on another level.

More than 18,700 suspected victims of child sexual exploitation were identified by local authorities in 2018-19, up from 3,300 five years before.​

​

Campaigners say the true figure is far higher and accused the government of failing to tackle child sexual exploitation, despite promises made after high-profile cases in Rotherham and Rochdale.​

​

Sajid Javid promised a review into the characteristics of grooming gangs in 2018, saying high-profile cases included a “high proportion of men of Pakistani heritage” and that “cultural reasons” could be at play.​

Almost 19,000 children sexually groomed in England in year, official figures suggest

Exclusive: Campaigners call for action as Sajid Javid’s promised review of grooming gang ‘characteristics’ absent from Queen's Speech

www.independent.co.uk

This case is still before the courts and it's possibly an isolated incident - but it follows the same MO, the same victim profile and same offender profile as the child abuse cases in the UK.

Three men sexually assaulted two young girls – one aged 11 and the other 12 – after picking them up in a car and giving them alcohol and cannabis, a trial has heard. Noor Hason, 30, Rahamutullah Rahamutullah, 24, and Mohammed Nuramin, 22, are each accused of committing sexual offences at a Werribee property in early December 2018. The three men deny the allegations and have each pleaded not guilty to 14 charges.​

​

The County Court heard on Tuesday that Mr Rahamutullah phoned one of the girls on December 2, 2018 and then drove to pick the pair up from Melbourne's northern suburbs, not far from the Department of Health and Human Services unit where the children were staying. The girls were given Jim Beam and beer and driven to Werribee, where they were taken to a shed behind a house and given cannabis to smoke, prosecutor Sarah Thomas told a jury in an opening address.​

​

Ms Thomas said the three men each sexually abused both girls. One girl told Mr Hason she was only 11 and he replied, "That's OK," police allege. Mr Hason is accused of continuing to sexually assault the girl. The alleged victim said her friend was screaming when two of the men were on top of her.​

Three men deny sexually assaulting girls aged 11 and 12

Trial told the trio sexually assaulted two young girls – one aged 11 and the other 12 – after picking them up in a car and giving them alcohol and cannabis.

www.theage.com.au

 

[PCSY]

This case is still before the courts and it's possibly an isolated incident - but it follows the same MO, the same victim profile and same offender profile as the child abuse cases in the UK.

Three men sexually assaulted two young girls – one aged 11 and the other 12 – after picking them up in a car and giving them alcohol and cannabis, a trial has heard. Noor Hason, 30, Rahamutullah Rahamutullah, 24, and Mohammed Nuramin, 22, are each accused of committing sexual offences at a Werribee property in early December 2018. The three men deny the allegations and have each pleaded not guilty to 14 charges.​

​

The County Court heard on Tuesday that Mr Rahamutullah phoned one of the girls on December 2, 2018 and then drove to pick the pair up from Melbourne's northern suburbs, not far from the Department of Health and Human Services unit where the children were staying. The girls were given Jim Beam and beer and driven to Werribee, where they were taken to a shed behind a house and given cannabis to smoke, prosecutor Sarah Thomas told a jury in an opening address.​

​

Ms Thomas said the three men each sexually abused both girls. One girl told Mr Hason she was only 11 and he replied, "That's OK," police allege. Mr Hason is accused of continuing to sexually assault the girl. The alleged victim said her friend was screaming when two of the men were on top of her.​

Three men deny sexually assaulting girls aged 11 and 12

Trial told the trio sexually assaulted two young girls – one aged 11 and the other 12 – after picking them up in a car and giving them alcohol and cannabis.

www.theage.com.au

Is this guy better because he marries a 12 year old?

 

[Les Malone]

This case is still before the courts and it's possibly an isolated incident - but it follows the same MO, the same victim profile and same offender profile as the child abuse cases in the UK.

Three men sexually assaulted two young girls – one aged 11 and the other 12 – after picking them up in a car and giving them alcohol and cannabis, a trial has heard. Noor Hason, 30, Rahamutullah Rahamutullah, 24, and Mohammed Nuramin, 22, are each accused of committing sexual offences at a Werribee property in early December 2018. The three men deny the allegations and have each pleaded not guilty to 14 charges.​

​

The County Court heard on Tuesday that Mr Rahamutullah phoned one of the girls on December 2, 2018 and then drove to pick the pair up from Melbourne's northern suburbs, not far from the Department of Health and Human Services unit where the children were staying. The girls were given Jim Beam and beer and driven to Werribee, where they were taken to a shed behind a house and given cannabis to smoke, prosecutor Sarah Thomas told a jury in an opening address.​

​

Ms Thomas said the three men each sexually abused both girls. One girl told Mr Hason she was only 11 and he replied, "That's OK," police allege. Mr Hason is accused of continuing to sexually assault the girl. The alleged victim said her friend was screaming when two of the men were on top of her.​

Three men deny sexually assaulting girls aged 11 and 12

Trial told the trio sexually assaulted two young girls – one aged 11 and the other 12 – after picking them up in a car and giving them alcohol and cannabis.

www.theage.com.au

Gee, i wonder if it possible that Islam or many within it look down upon the kaffir and this type of behavior is not frowned upon by many.

I guess we could look at the UK for example for similar types of behavior.

Well blow me down ..........

Rotherham again.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Provocative...

Prey: Immigration, Islam and the Erosion of Women’s Rights by Ayaan Hirsi Ali review

In her new book , the Somali-born critic of Islam appears more concerned with defending the criminalisation of migration than finding solutions to end the rise in sexual violence against women in the UK and Europe, says Maryam Namazie

www.standard.co.uk

‘Prey’ Review: A Forbidden Conversation

As migration rates increase, Ayaan Hirsi Ali takes European governments to task for failing to protect women.

www.wsj.com

 

[Malifice]

Provocative...

And baseless.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

And baseless.

What specifically? Every word?

 

[Malifice]

What specifically? Every word?

I haven't read the book, but the criticisms are pretty clear from the reviews. She infers correlation is causation, without looking at any other correlating circumstances (for example in Sweden they opened up the laws on what is defined as 'rape' leading to rape stats increasing).

Stricter policing (and more policing) and greater community awareness leads to increased rates of crime. It's like if I diverted all WAPOL officers to target and police DUI's twice as much, and police other crimes half as much. The rates of DUI offences recorded increase (because we catch more people) and the rates of other crimes decrease (because we miss more crimes).

The more political it gets, the more law and order gets tossed out and it gets policed. The more we police it, the more offenders we catch, and the higher the rates of reported and recorded crimes. Crime rates go up, not down.

It wouldn't hold up to any peer reviewed criminology study.

AFAIK there has been no credible criminological or sociological study that supports her allegations. Not one. And studies that have been done tend to post numerous other theories or explanations for variations in offence numbers (which she omits).

She clearly (and expressly) has an agenda, trying to justify her hypothesis with one sided statistics, instead of looking at it from all angles, and digging into it with any depth.

The fact she uses provocative language in the entire book, classifies Muslim men into 4 groups (all of them insidious) and even calls the book 'Prey' says all you need about her biases.

Ironically, all she's doing is feeding anti-immigrant sentiment. As a black woman, I wouldnt exactly want to be aligning myself with the Neo-Nazis and others who would have her back to the wall when the revolution comes, but hey. It's her call.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I haven't read the book, but the criticisms are pretty clear from the reviews. She infers correlation is causation, without looking at any other correlating circumstances (for example in Sweden they opened up the laws on what is defined as 'rape' leading to rape stats increasing).

Stricter policing (and more policing) and greater community awareness leads to increased rates of crime. It's like if I diverted all WAPOL officers to target and police DUI's twice as much, and police other crimes half as much. The rates of DUI offences recorded increase (because we catch more people) and the rates of other crimes decrease (because we miss more crimes).

The more political it gets, the more law and order gets tossed out and it gets policed. The more we police it, the more offenders we catch, and the higher the rates of reported and recorded crimes. Crime rates go up, not down.

It wouldn't hold up to any peer reviewed criminology study.

AFAIK there has been no credible criminological or sociological study that supports her allegations. Not one. And studies that have been done tend to post numerous other theories or explanations for variations in offence numbers (which she omits).

That's quite a detailed critique of something you haven't read.

For the record, I make no judgement either way because I also have not read the book, although I'm familiar with her other work and her positions generally.

She clearly (and expressly) has an agenda, trying to justify her hypothesis with one sided statistics, instead of looking at it from all angles, and digging into it with any depth.

The fact she uses provocative language in the entire book, classifies Muslim men into 4 groups (all of them insidious) and even calls the book 'Prey' says all you need about her biases.

Ironically, all she's doing is feeding anti-immigrant sentiment. As a black woman, I wouldnt exactly want to be aligning myself with the Neo-Nazis and others who would have her back to the wall when the revolution comes, but hey. It's her call.

You might say that folks who seek to discredit/misrepresent her by bracketing her with neo-Nazis also have an agenda?

I'm fascinated by how this woman - ostensibly a liberal feminist with a remarkable personal story - has become such a lightning rod for a certain kind of reflexive backlash. You criticise her for using provocative language but then accuse her of seeking common cause with neo-Nazis? You don't see a problem with that?

Her "lived experience" informs her views about a particular strand of Islam and its attitudes towards women. Is that a bad thing? I thought "lived experience" was something worth considering when discussing oppressed minorities? The lived experience of minorities when discusisng racism is paramount but suddenly in Hirsi Ali's case, it becomes proof of an agenda. It turns on a dime. Would you dismiss Grace Tame for "having an agenda" as easily?

And big surprise, some expressions of Islam are repressive, particularly where women are concerned. And to that extent, such expressions of Islam are at odds with the values of secular, 21st-century Western societies. Is that in itself a controversial critique? Does that mean she's in league with neo-Nazis?

It's weird how we hear so much about the pathologies of toxic masculinity when it's white males but if you connect it to a specific belief system associated with brown people suddenly that becomes taboo. The ideological commitments shift.

 

[Malifice]

That's quite a detailed critique of something you haven't read.

I base it off the critiques I have read, and the excerpts they show.

She's clearly got an agenda, and is attempting to paint people as literal rapists without the facts to back it up (only correlation and deliberately sloppy and self evidently biased research)

You might say that folks who seek to discredit/misrepresent her by bracketing her with neo-Nazis also have an agenda?

Her views on this topic align with those of the alt and far right. It does not discredit or misrepresent her to assert as much.

Her "lived experience" informs her views about a particular strand of Islam and its attitudes towards women.

Lived experience is anecdotal, and produces bias (especially conformation bias, which is what her 'research' is a clear example of).

And big surprise, some expressions of Islam are repressive, particularly where women are concerned. And to that extent, such expressions of Islam are at odds with the values of secular, 21st-century Western societies. Is that in itself a controversial critique?

No, that's a perfectly legit critique.

But she goes a massive step further and then asserts that increased Muslim migration is responsible for an alleged increase in the number of sexual assaults in Europe, without proving that they are, or that the increase in fact even occurred.

It's weird how we hear so much about the pathologies of toxic masculinity when it's white males but if you connect it to a specific belief system associated with brown people suddenly that becomes taboo. The ideological commitments shift.

No bullshit. Im more than happy to talk about sexism inherent in Islam. It's when the argument shifts to 'and that's why the brown people are a menace and raping everyone' I actually want some kind of proof, and not just a book by a woman that doesnt like Muslims very much and opposes Islamic migration.

I wouldn't trust a book by Hitler seeking to allude to why Jews are 'dangerous rapists who must be kept out of Europe' either.

 

[Taylor]

I haven't read the book, but the criticisms are pretty clear from the reviews. She infers correlation is causation, without looking at any other correlating circumstances (for example in Sweden they opened up the laws on what is defined as 'rape' leading to rape stats increasing).

Stricter policing (and more policing) and greater community awareness leads to increased rates of crime. It's like if I diverted all WAPOL officers to target and police DUI's twice as much, and police other crimes half as much. The rates of DUI offences recorded increase (because we catch more people) and the rates of other crimes decrease (because we miss more crimes).

It sounds like we need a victim tally, because determinations and legal involvement are able to be manipulated like you say but turning unwanted digital penetration into a rape and the rape figures increasing because of it doesn't mean there wasn't the same number of people assaulted. If that makes sense.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I base it off the critiques I have read, and the excerpts they show.

She's clearly got an agenda, and is attempting to paint people as literal rapists without the facts to back it up (only correlation and deliberately sloppy and self evidently biased research)

What do you mean by "has an agenda"? Sure, she has a point of view. Most writers with a point of view could be said to "have an agenda". Does Richard Dawkins "have an agenda"?

The question is not whether she has a point of view but whether she pursues that point of view honestly and accurately.

Who is she painting as "literal rapists"? If it's people who've done raping then is that a problem? Or are you suggesting she claims all Muslim immigrants are rapists?

Her views on this topic align with those of the alt and far right. It does not discredit or misrepresent her to assert as much.

Of course it is an attempt to discredit her. And it misrepresents her to bracket her with neo-Nazis. You're seeking to tarnish her by associations she doesn't pursue.

Lived experience is anecdotal, and produces bias (especially conformation bias, which is what her 'research' is a clear example of).

If you're talking specifically about the book, I won't defend it specifically as I haven't read it. For the same reasons, I'm sceptical of your certainty.

No, that's a perfectly legit critique.

But she goes a massive step further and then asserts that increased Muslim migration is responsible for an alleged increase in the number of sexual assaults in Europe, without proving that they are, or that the increase in fact even occurred.

No bullshit. Im more than happy to talk about sexism inherent in Islam. It's when the argument shifts to 'and that's why the brown people are a menace and raping everyone' I actually want some kind of proof, and not just a book by a woman that doesnt like Muslims very much and opposes Islamic migration.

I wouldn't trust a book by Hitler seeking to allude to why Jews are 'dangerous rapists who must be kept out of Europe' either.

That sounds like a reasonable critique, Hitler analogy aside. As I say, I can't defend the book itself without having read it.

I suppose my overarching concern is with the reflexive backlash Hirsi Ali encounters when critiquing Islam. And clearly this book is going to piss off a lot of people.

 

[Malifice]

Does Richard Dawkins "have an agenda"?

Of course he does!

If I'm reading a book by Dawkins that purports to investigate the role of the Church in society, Im expecting the conclusion to be 'and that's why Churches suck'.

Who is she painting as "literal rapists"? If it's people who've done raping then is that a problem? Or are you suggesting she claims all Muslim immigrants are rapists?

The entire point of her book is that the increase in sexual assault and rapes in some European countries is down to Muslim migration, and that Muslims are 'more likely' than non Muslims to be rapists, and 'thats why Muslim immigration is bad'.

She literally categorizes Muslims into 4 categories: Effectively they're either rape enablers, rapists, supporters of rape, or silent about rape.

Of course it is an attempt to discredit her. And it misrepresents her to bracket her with neo-Nazis. You're seeking to tarnish her by associations she doesn't pursue.

I didnt say she associates with Neo Nazis. Only that her views on this point align with them.

I suppose my overarching concern is with the reflexive backlash Hirsi Ali encounters when critiquing Islam.

The reason she gets backlash is she goes beyond criticism of Islam, and advocates persecution of Muslims (specifically in this book even, she advocates for harsh anti Muslim laws re migration, deportation and policing) based on nothing other than a flimsy argument that would not hold up to the slightest of peer reviews, sensationalized demagoguery, and her own bias.

 

[Malifice]

It sounds like we need a victim tally, because determinations and legal involvement are able to be manipulated like you say but turning unwanted digital penetration into a rape and the rape figures increasing because of it doesn't mean there wasn't the same number of people assaulted. If that makes sense.

In 2018, Sweden passed a new law that criminalizes sex without consent as rape, even when there are no threats, coercion or violence involved, and no longer requiring prosecutors to prove the use or threat of violence or coercion.

After the definition of 'rape' was broadened, and reporting encouraged, and prosecutions increased accordingly, we saw an understandable increase in the rates of rape in the country.

It's not a case that 17 percent more Swedes were raped in 2018 - it's a case the definition changed, more people reported rapes, and more matters were investigated and prosecuted.

Any honest analysis of an increase in Rape in Sweden over that period must take the above into account (with the Author here does not, simply pointing the finger at 'Muslims').

Christ, her 'investigation' spans the time period of the 'Me-too' movement which was a social phenomenon that encouraged victims of sexual assaults to come forward, and put pressure on States to act in the area of sexual violence. That's another phenomenon that would lead to an increase in reported rapes, that she conveniently also ignores.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Of course he does!

If I'm reading a book by Dawkins that purports to investigate the role of the Church in society, Im expecting the conclusion to be 'and that's why Churches suck'.

Sure, but you don't disregard the contents simply because the writer has a point of view. Simply saying "this writer has an agenda" doesn't invalidate everything they produce. We still have to assess the claims on their merits.

The entire point of her book is that the increase in sexual assault and rapes in some European countries is down to Muslim migration, and that Muslims are 'more likely' than non Muslims to be rapists, and 'thats why Muslim immigration is bad'.

She literally categorizes Muslims into 4 categories: Effectively they're either rape enablers, rapists, supporters of rape, or silent about rape.

You can disagree with her conclusions, such as you've paraphrased them, but that's not the same as accusing innocent people of being rapists.

I didnt say she associates with Neo Nazis. Only that her views on this point align with them.

No, you tarnished her by association (meaning in connection with) i.e. some neo-Nazis might agree with her so therefore she must be bad.

The reason she gets backlash is she goes beyond criticism of Islam, and advocates persecution of Muslims (specifically in this book even, she advocates for harsh anti Muslim laws re migration, deportation and policing) based on nothing other than a flimsy argument that would not hold up to the slightest of peer reviews, sensationalized demagoguery, and her own bias.

What specifically does she advocate?

Do you consider the laws passed this month in France to be "persecution"?

During her recent appearance on Joe Rogan, Hirsi Ali stopped well short of endorsing these laws, expressing concern about how they'd be enforced. So I'd be curious to know specifically what she's advocating and whether it does indeed rise to the level of persecution.

For the record, she discusses her book here... I'm not sure it supports your characterisations of her claims. She seems to explicitly disavow some of them.

 

[james Dean]

I base it off the critiques I have read, and the excerpts they show.

She's clearly got an agenda, and is attempting to paint people as literal rapists without the facts to back it up (only correlation and deliberately sloppy and self evidently biased research)



Her views on this topic align with those of the alt and far right. It does not discredit or misrepresent her to assert as much.



Lived experience is anecdotal, and produces bias (especially conformation bias, which is what her 'research' is a clear example of).



No, that's a perfectly legit critique.

But she goes a massive step further and then asserts that increased Muslim migration is responsible for an alleged increase in the number of sexual assaults in Europe, without proving that they are, or that the increase in fact even occurred.



No bullshit. Im more than happy to talk about sexism inherent in Islam. It's when the argument shifts to 'and that's why the brown people are a menace and raping everyone' I actually want some kind of proof, and not just a book by a woman that doesnt like Muslims very much and opposes Islamic migration.

I wouldn't trust a book by Hitler seeking to allude to why Jews are 'dangerous rapists who must be kept out of Europe' either.

The critics of Ayaan have a bigger agenda than she does

 

[Malifice]

The critics of Ayaan have a bigger agenda than she does

And what is that agenda? Please explain it to me.

 

[Malifice]

Sure, but you don't disregard the contents simply because the writer has a point of view.

I wasnt 'disregarding' the contents based on her bias. I was critiquing the methodology and the conclusions based on the authors obvious (and stated) bias.

What specifically does she advocate?

Draconian policing measures targeting Muslims, banning Islamic migration, and deportation of Muslims for even minor offences.

Do you consider the laws passed this month in France to be "persecution"?

Populist, but not persecution (broadly, the law covers a lot of s**t).

Salaffi Jihadis need to be stopped, and radicalisation is a major issue in France that has seen a number of terror attacks by radicalized Muslims.

That's legitimate criticism. Trying to tar all Muslims as 'more likely to rape people' based on spurious anecdotal evidence and a magical rock that keeps Tigers at bay, is not.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

And what is that agenda? Please explain it to me.

Reflexive and ideological backlash against any criticism of Islam that suggests there is something baked into the religion that complicates integration with secular, 21st-century Western societies.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I wasnt 'disregarding' the contents based on her bias. I was critiquing the methodology and the conclusions based on the authors obvious (and stated) bias.

Like I said, I think you should still consider the claims on their merits.

Draconian policing measures targeting Muslims, banning Islamic migration, and deportation of Muslims for even minor offences.

Yeah, what specifically?

https://apnews.com/article/polygamy...tions-france-cbee2c916aa8c35380562277f0025c2b

Populist, but not persecution (broadly, the law covers a lot of sh*t).

Salaffi Jihadis need to be stopped, and radicalisation is a major issue in France that has seen a number of terror attacks by radicalized Muslims.

That's legitimate criticism. Trying to tar all Muslims as 'more likely to rape people' based on spurious anecdotal evidence and a magical rock that keeps Tigers at bay, is not.

I don't think Hirsi Ali claims what you say she claims. I think her criticisms of Islam emanate from a similar place as the French laws. She specifically says she is not talking about all Muslims but a subset of Muslim men.

 

[Malifice]

Reflexive and ideological backlash against any criticism of Islam that suggests there is something baked into the religion that complicates integration with secular, 21st-century Western societies.

Which is utter bullshit and jumping at shadows.

Show me a leftie that supports Daesh, Charlie Hebdo, the Paris attacks or anything of the sort.

Lefties get arced up about idiots like this woman, when they overstep legitimate criticism and start to demonize a whole subset of the community based on nothing more than ethnicity and/or religion.

 

[Malifice]

Like I said, I think you should still consider the claims on their merits.

And I did!

I reject them based on her flimsy anecdotal and corollary evidence (that is easily explained by a number of other explanations which she ignores) massive holes in her argument, and the fact it would not hold up to any kind of peer review.

Her clear stated bias (and the provocative title and wording of the book) just give me a lens to see the book for what it is.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Which is utter bullshit and jumping at shadows.

Show me a leftie that supports Daesh, Charlie Hebdo, the Paris attacks or anything of the sort.

That's not the same thing. I didn't claim that. Nowhere have I suggested that people are IS sympathisers. Please don't mischaracterise me like that.

The claim that upsets some folks on the left is that there is something baked into certain expressions of Islam that places it at odds with secular Western values, and that this complicates integration. It is an examination of certain doctrines of Islam, the way they're taught, lived and expressed. And ultimately, are these good ideas? If not, where does religious tolerance give way to a defence of our own Western liberal values?

The reflexive backlash to these critiques is that it's racist/xenophobic and tarnishes all Muslims, which it doesn't. I think it arises from an admirable concern for minority rights and to protect minorities from persecution. But it should not prevent us from examining doctrinal ideas and questioning whether they are compatible with our societies in 2021.

And I did!

I reject them based on her flimsy anecdotal and corollary evidence (that is easily explained by a number of other explanations which she ignores) massive holes in her argument, and the fact it would not hold up to any kind of peer review.

Her clear stated bias (and the provocative title and wording of the book) just give me a lens to see the book for what it is.

Like I said, you are welcome to disagree with her conclusions, although I'm not sure you've characterised them fairly. To simply say "she's got an agenda" is neither here nor there.

 

[Taylor]

In 2018, Sweden passed a new law that criminalizes sex without consent as rape, even when there are no threats, coercion or violence involved, and no longer requiring prosecutors to prove the use or threat of violence or coercion.

After the definition of 'rape' was broadened, and reporting encouraged, and prosecutions increased accordingly, we saw an understandable increase in the rates of rape in the country.

It's not a case that 17 percent more Swedes were raped in 2018 - it's a case the definition changed, more people reported rapes, and more matters were investigated and prosecuted.

Any honest analysis of an increase in Rape in Sweden over that period must take the above into account (with the Author here does not, simply pointing the finger at 'Muslims').

Christ, her 'investigation' spans the time period of the 'Me-too' movement which was a social phenomenon that encouraged victims of sexual assaults to come forward, and put pressure on States to act in the area of sexual violence. That's another phenomenon that would lead to an increase in reported rapes, that she conveniently also ignores.

I'm glad we agree, we would need a victim count more than a crime account or prosecution number.

The only way I can think to make the argument that immigrants were responsible for an increase in sexual assault would be to look at the percentage of immigrants convicted of sexual assault across the years and see if they correlate to the number of immigrants entering the nation.

Please tear this idea to bits, but I think if you could show that sexual assault rose by 20% in a year and the increase in perpetrators happened to be the same number of non immigrants with the 20% increase being the sizable increase in immigrant offenders then you would be able to make a claim that the immigration has lead to higher sexual assault.

Unless you were suggesting that the justice system was weighted against them, potentially for language or representative access issues - so let's exclude all that aren't featuring DNA evidence.

Would that be suitable measures taken to back up a hypothesis?

 

[Malifice]

The only way I can think to make the argument that immigrants were responsible for an increase in sexual assault

The reality is (of course) that 'immigrants' are not responsible for sexual assaults and rapes.

'Men' are.

If she was serious about sexual assaults and rapes, then write that book.

 

[Taylor]

The reality is (of course) that 'immigrants' are not responsible for sexual assaults and rapes.

'Men' are.

If she was serious about sexual assaults and rapes, then write that book.

What did you think of my qualifications for the data analysis? Were they suitable for you to be satisfied with the conclusion they draw?

*Watching Malifice's brain start churning wondering what she is up to and how he is being cornered here, wondering what he can say to not allow anything that she might have prepared to hoist him by his own pettard*

There is no gotchya coming.