Tracking Refugees vs. Rapes in Sweden

Feel free to share this wherever you’d like:


2 responses to “Tracking Refugees vs. Rapes in Sweden

  1. Jonathan Gress December 27, 2016 at 9:13 pm

    So I think the objection to this would be that Sweden has expanded its definition of rape over this period, making the correlated rises purely coincidental.


    • Aedon Cassiel December 28, 2016 at 5:16 am

      Sweden expanded the definition of rape in 2005 — and in 2013, but that’s after the cut–off point of these charts anyway [Source]. So the entire point of the chart is to test this very thesis. While you do in fact see a jump in reported rapes after 2003, it pales in comparison to the consistent correlation between cumulative immigration and reported rapes shown in the second chart. Since this chart involves no comparison between states, everything following the fourth header is irrelevant. So with the “definition of rape” explanation out of the way, there are three arguments left.

      First argument: “Reported rapes” are not “actual rapes.” Their data source for “reported rapes” are rapes that people report to the police. But their data source for the so–called category of “actual rapes” are nothing more than surveys sent out to the public asking them if they’ve been raped. One gets the impression from the phrase “actual rape” that we would be looking at a more thorough method of determining the total number of rapes physically taking place in the country, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. I’m therefore left feeling manipulated by the source. What we’re comparing here is not “reported rape” versus “actual rape,” it’s “rapes reported to the police during the fact” and “rapes checked off on surveys after the fact.”

      If the source wants us to accept that we should discount the former figure as a proxy measurement for actual rapes while literally labeling the latter figure “actual rapes,” to say the very least, we’re owed a very thorough explanation of why we should consider people reporting rapes to the police to be a less reasonable basis for estimating the actual number of rapes that take place than how many people check “I’ve been raped” on a survey. The former would involve a victim pursuing justice in response to what was done to them—the latter involves the victim turning their experience into numbers on a chart for statisticians and promises nothing to concretely help them as a victim of degradation at all. I’m biased by the fact that I’ve known many victims of rape, and I know for a fact that none of them would waste time sending in a survey asking them to check–mark a box that says that they have been. In fact, precisely because it would offer no lead towards achieving any sort of justice, doing so would – for nearly all of them – be an inherently humiliating experience they would fervently avoid for that very reason. Making a report to the police in pursuit of action can, for those who don’t freeze and go numb altogether, be an act of attempting to take some of the power back that was violently taken away from them. Checking “I was raped” on a survey is precisely the opposite of that. It’s an admission of defeat that offers no hope of solution, which is inherently humiliating, and would cause all of the rape victims I’ve known to throw the paper in the trash almost as soon as they saw the question.

      Second argument: People are just telling the police about it when they’re raped more often. But the main explanation for this is increased trust in the police, and “The percentage with a high degree of trust has increased in respect of the police as well, from 55 per cent in 2006 to 65 per cent in 2015.” [Source.] That’s an 18% increase in confidence over that period of time. Whether that’s enough to explain the amount of increased reporting we see is an open question, but not one that looks very promising, particularly because the article’s claim that victims went from reporting 10% of rapes in 2005 to 20% in 2011 is dishonest: that’s comparing rapes reported to the police to rapes admitted on surveys, not rapes reported to the police to some definitively known number of total acts of rape, and to take rapes reported to police as mere “reported rapes” while taking rapes admitted to on surveys as “actual rapes” and then accept the claim that what we’re seeing is an increase in people reporting rapes given the same constant number of rapes, you’d have to believe that the very people who aren’t reporting acts of rape to the police when it would matter are the ones consistently checking these acts of rape off on surveys long after the fact, with no promise of the possibility of justice to come by turning in the survey. Hence, this argument also falls apart if the premise that we can totally rely on people who send government surveys in after the fact, but not on people who report crimes during the fact in order to actually pursue a response, can’t be thoroughly justified. (Frankly, what I really think is that, given they didn’t present some argument that one form of reporting was reliable while the other wasn’t, they simply pretended that one was by definition the “real number of rapes” while the other wasn’t, even giving them the chance to “justify” that after the dishonest tactic failed is too kind. But I’m being nice.)

      Final argument: “Swedish police has made a stronger conscious effort at registering all potential rapes…” This one is demonstrably, without question, untrue, to the point of being an outright lie. In this case we actually can compare the physical evidence rapes have occurred with what was written in the reports: “These are so-called refugee youths, specifically from Afghanistan. Several of the gang were arrested for sexual molestation,” one police memo said. Yet the official police report on the five-day festival attended by 170,000 young people aged mainly 13-19 made no mention of sexual harassment or assaults.” [Source.] Some supposed increase in police vigilance in reporting any possible rapes categorically can not be relied on to explain away increases, and we do in fact have concrete evidence of the opposite. DD calls this a “conspiracy theory.” By putting that label on something that is in fact demonstrably true, they just went from ‘wrong’ to ‘offensively idiotic.’ They just went from being wrong about a factual detail, which is perhaps forgivable, to slandering people over something they are wrong about, which to my mind calls for giving them exactly the same shame and contempt they’re attempting to lay on the so–called “conspiracy theorists.”

      Incidentally, Bra’s own data elsewhere also directly shows that the crime rate among the foreign–born is higher than among native–born citizens—including for acts of rape. [Source]

      A number of right–wing sites you’d likely discount on principle have published that in Sweden, “77% of rapes committed by 2% Muslim male population.” Using a basic translation from Swedish on the BRA page, “the share of foreign born registered as suspects for rape was 4.5 times higher than the percentage of registered among them with svenskfödda parents. When it came to assault against unknown man was their share is 4 times higher.” This closely approximates the 77% figure those sources give (100 / 4.5 = 22.2)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: