"In response to my point that high Black crime rates indicate the authorities aren’t more lenient with “victim groups”, several people suggested there is a pro-Black bias in the criminal justice system and the true Black crime rate is even higher."
See, logic can be fun.
The UK, like the United States, would be much better off without Muslims or blacks.
My original article began by pointing out that Muslims commit a lot of crime in Europe. The fact that this appears not to be true of British Muslims is interesting.
As I said in the previous comment thread, nothing about the UK criminal justice system can be taken at face value. In the case of the police it's 'dimwitted meets politically correct'. And "Victimisation surveys show that crime in Britain has fallen massively since the 1990s." I doubt if those surveys are worth the paper they are printed on. The thing is that fear of Islamophobia permeates every corner of UK establishment culture and has done for decades. I can't prove it but I think it's plain as day that the UK is in a league of its own for total capitulation to political correctness.
The Crime Survey of England and Wales has a large sample size and a high response rate. It provides a far more reliable gauge of trends in crime than either police-recorded crime data or one's subjective impression based on media coverage.
The fact that blacks are massively overrepresented in the crime statistics (despite having substantially higher IQs than US blacks) indicates the police have not totally capitulated to political correctness. As I noted in one of the footnotes, this may change following the Casey Review.
Although the police are under growing pressure from higher-ups and politicians to be politically correct, I suspect that it remains one of the most right-wing professions.
You must be joking. The UK police arrest hundreds of right wingers per year for speech online. Why aren't they arresting people on the left for speech? If they are actually right wing, that demonstrates they're so cucked that political orientation doesn't matter because their leadership decides their actions.
You’re taking an American approach to our police system. We are not polarised here in the uk, it’s not just a “we are right wing therefore we must subtly overlook what the crime that we are meant to be enforcing” approach and for good reason. The whole point of any legal system is to minimise subjectivity once laws have been made. Also what evidence do you have to suggest far right wing opinions are being penalised at higher rates of far left wing opinions. You’re completely blinded by your intrinsic nature to hold distain for those who aren’t like you
I like this magazine for completely not giving a fuck about anyone who thinks they should keep their thoughts to themselves. Note, I don't agree with Noah here. But he is pretty based for just pursuing truth for truths sake.
Being anti-muslim is what low status not-so-bright conservatives do, so simping for Islam is how you present as sophisticated. Problem is: Islam sucks.
don't, ban them, if push comes to shove take in east asians and maybe (()). no south asians whatsoever. unless you want your country to look like india.
I have an especially strong aversion to south asian migration, hindus in particular. Remember, India has those high IQ hindus and it looks like what it looks like. They should work on developing their own people instead of begging to come over to the west. Already canada is getting ruined by their presence and keep in mind there is regression to the mean.
Is there really no distinction in your mind between outsiders that can and can’t be assimilated in the local culture? Usually the benefit of having cultural and ethnic outsiders in your country, provided that they are limited in numbers and that they are not hostile, is to keep your native culture from ossifying and stagnating.
"Is there really no distinction in your mind between outsiders that can and can’t be assimilated in the local culture?"
Great question. Yes, there is a distinction. Any immigrant would have to have a very valuable talent that would significantly benefit our civilization. That does not involve mowing lawns or any other menial work. I would require a psychological profile and IQ test.
I can definitely get behind a screening like that, it would be a positive sum scenario. But then of course the elites in wealthy countries(or more likely, the people that cheated their way to the top) would feel threatened by the extra competition.
"I can definitely get behind a screening like that, it would be a positive sum scenario. But then of course the elites in wealthy countries(or more likely, the people that cheated their way to the top) would feel threatened by the extra competition."
Yes, most likely, you are correct in many cases. My perspective is from the United States. We can always use smart, hard-working people of integrity. I believe meritocracy is the best policy.
"As an aside, it’s interesting that the two criticisms are mutually exclusive. If Muslims were massively overrepresented in prison because they committed a lot of crimes, there’d be no need to invoke a pro-Muslim bias in the criminal justice system. And if there were a pro-Muslim bias in the criminal justice system, you wouldn’t expect Muslims to be massively overrepresented in prison in the first place."
Come on, Noah, the situation could be that Muslims are massively overrepresented in prison, but they would be more so if not for pro-Muslim bias.
"Muslims are substantially underrepresented in the police force, especially at higher ranks. They comprise 7% of the population but only 3.8% of police officers. Muslims are also less likely to trust the police than the general population. In a 2020 poll, 71% of people said they trusted the police, compared to only 64% of Muslims."
So what? Police collusion to allow Muslims to operate rape gangs for decades with impunity is an established fact. You are arguing that something is a priori unlikely when we already know it happened. If you think that the police only go easy on Muslims for running rape gangs, but elsewhere treat them like everyone else, the onus is on you to explain why this should be.
" The two main Muslim groups, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, are more likely to be stopped and searched than White Britons."
This is actually good evidence that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis commit more crimes, which is what anyone who has been unfortunate to live near them will also tell you.
I think you are making a good faith attempt to understand things here. I’m not opposed to the idea that UK Muslims are relatively law-abiding, however contrary to experience it seems to your readers. In my own life, I’ve had cordial relations with Muslims, and have mostly experienced high moral probity from them.
Here are a few ideas you might consider.
1) It could be that UK Muslim communities largely police themselves. Maybe Muslims wronged by other Muslims look to their own community to invigilate and settle disputes, completely separate from the British state. We may already have an unofficial version of the old Ottoman Millet system operating in the UK. It would be intriguing if the reason for the lower criminality of UK Muslims compared with European Muslims is a product of their social non-integration.
2) Specific types of crime that might be high in the Muslim community may be under-reported. In particular, domestic crimes, from forced marriages to spousal abuse to FGM to domestic violence to honour killing may all be going on out of sight of the British state.
3) There are non-domestic forms of criminality we may not be picking up on. There’s a suspicion that Muslims are more likely to commit electoral fraud, because of their higher usage of postal voting; I have no idea if there’s any truth to this. It wouldn’t be surprising if they have a higher involvement in immigration fraud, because they are more likely to have relatives abroad who want to come to the UK. They might be more involved in local government corruption, because the relatively closed nature of Muslim communities, combined with their high geographic concentration, might make it easier to get away with such corruption.
Again, I’m not determined to believe that Muslims are more crime-prone. I’m just asking questions.
This channel is all anyone needs to know about how high the rape rate will skyrocket as a function of importing Hindus. Let no one be fooled into thinking women will be safe. It would be wiser to take in kenyans or something. Hindus are uniquely adept at having a high rape and discrimination rate back home, salivating over white women and bludgeoning everyone with the racism accusation when their romantic and sexual overtures are not returned. If someone wants to make the claim south asian muslims also do this to some extent I am open ears.
Taking in the upper classes of Muslims probably didn't hurt Americans. Muslims seem fairly fine there. The same goes for Hindus. They both get along with each other and the natives in north america. But expand that and you get the Muslim migrants of Europe or rapejeets.
So there is ONE SOLUTION and that is banning all south asians and banning all muslims and of course banning all blacks. If you don't, the upper classes INVITE THE LOWER CLASSES IN. Taking in europeans or east asians is valid. A low class jew or asian beats out a upper class african. Taking in apostates or persecuted minority groups like bahais or ahmadi muslims etc, liberals, feminists (not that I am a fan) should be fine and can be used as an argument for preventing the more religious types from coming over. Or just more of them from coming over in general. So it is efficient in that way. These groups behave reasonably. I am also kind of okay with taking in jews but keep in mind they do want to drag the nations resources into fighting Israel's wars.
"As an aside, it’s interesting that the two criticisms are mutually exclusive. If Muslims were massively overrepresented in prison because they commit a lot of crime, there’d be no need to invoke a pro-Muslim bias in the criminal justice system. And if there were a pro-Muslim bias in the criminal justice system, you wouldn’t expect Muslims to be massively overrepresented in prison in the first place."
I don't think this is true, you can have sky high rates of crime, the pro muslim/black bias dampening the convictions but the convictions still being high in spite of it.
Anyways kudos to your efforts, not sure I am convinced but it is something to chew on.
So the UK grooming gang scandal where 10s or hundreds of thousands of white girls were groomed and then raped just didn't happen? Most of those crimes were not prosecuted and in some cases white parents were punished for racially charged language used when they discovered their daughters being raped.
What in the world are these categories? Can someone explain how this makes any kind of sense?
You are comparing crime rates and drawing conclusions for a religious identity, lumping together all the different nationalities, races, and socioeconomic classes that that entails. Comparing it then to vague categories like “Asians”, or to different racial identities, or to specific nationalities. I get that there probably isn’t separate data available for each micro intersection of all of those ways of categorizing but the least you can do is compare religious groups with other religious groups.
As an aside, I notice that the underlying assumption here is that, “black people surely outrank Muslim people in the progressive stack”, and therefore they can’t be underreported *compared to the actual crime rate*, but the progressive stack ranking clearly changes from culture to culture.
Blacks probably do outrank Muslims pound for pound, but blacks also tend to do really dumb crimes that essentially make it impossible for the police not to arrest them. Pakistanis are somewhat brighter, but also much more cohesive because Islam is a very effective social technology whereas black ghetto culture is not. The parsimonious model is that Pakistanis do burglary and other crimes on the same model as they run rape gangs, and the police treat them the same way.
I don’t understand why but somehow both progressives and religious Christians think that Islam is friendly or compatible with their way of life, when it really couldn’t be further from the truth. Just look at how the people only attempting reform are treated by other Muslims.
And yet this same obscured data is used to claim that multiculturalism has failed and all immigrants are maligned.
But it really isn’t addressed is it? Your argument is that Muslims in Britain commit less crimes when compared with Muslims in European countries, but the comparisons you make in both articles don’t prove that when you’re not even looking at the European crime rates in detail.
The reason the category of Asians or south Asians even exists is because there is an attempt to hide the individual rates of crime for all the nationalities and religions lumped in there.
For example, you claimed that because Asians are underrepresented in crimes and because Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Arabs are in the Asian category, those three groups, which make up the majority of Muslims in Britain, must be committing few crimes compared to other Muslims. But you need to look at the population breakdown by nationalities or religions of the Asian category to make such a claim. This really seems like an example of the Baye’s theorem “paradox” otherwise. And I think that the lack of detail in the collected data is not accidental.
"When it comes to arrests, I was able to find a detailed ethnic breakdown. The White British arrest rate is 8.8 per 1,000. By comparison, the three main Muslim groups have arrest rates of 9.3 for Pakistanis, 8.8 for Bangladeshis and just 2.8 for Arabs. So Muslim groups’ arrest rates are similar to or less than the White British rate.
I was also able to find a detailed ethnic breakdown of individuals dealt with by the criminal justice system for indictable offences. The three Muslim groups were slightly underrepresented overall but were slightly overrepresented among those dealt with for the most serious (indictable only) offences."
I read both the articles from start to finish so you need not quote them here.
But you have inadvertently made my point for me by choosing those two sentences. Even within the three nationalities mentioned the differences are so large that it makes no sense to combine them into one category. The cultures and circumstances in all three countries are vastly different, and even their religious denominations within Islam are quite different. Do the differences in European vs British Muslim crime rates come from the differences in cultures between Europe and Britain or are they just because of the different ratios of the immigrant Muslim populations?
I will reiterate- if you want to look at the effect of religious belief and/or identity on crimes and conviction rates then the current categorization is not helpful at all. And there are clearly accounts of crime committed by Muslim immigrants being underreported or buried, like in the Rotherham case, but the extent to which it is happening is also impossible to say from the available data. Are you really willing to believe that it is all accidentally obscured in this way?
"In response to my point that high Black crime rates indicate the authorities aren’t more lenient with “victim groups”, several people suggested there is a pro-Black bias in the criminal justice system and the true Black crime rate is even higher."
See, logic can be fun.
The UK, like the United States, would be much better off without Muslims or blacks.
Yeah, but the food, the music, the vibrancy! Whitebread anyone?
LOL
Seems quite of lot of pro-islam thoughts since October at aporia. Keep them.
My original article began by pointing out that Muslims commit a lot of crime in Europe. The fact that this appears not to be true of British Muslims is interesting.
As I said in the previous comment thread, nothing about the UK criminal justice system can be taken at face value. In the case of the police it's 'dimwitted meets politically correct'. And "Victimisation surveys show that crime in Britain has fallen massively since the 1990s." I doubt if those surveys are worth the paper they are printed on. The thing is that fear of Islamophobia permeates every corner of UK establishment culture and has done for decades. I can't prove it but I think it's plain as day that the UK is in a league of its own for total capitulation to political correctness.
The Crime Survey of England and Wales has a large sample size and a high response rate. It provides a far more reliable gauge of trends in crime than either police-recorded crime data or one's subjective impression based on media coverage.
The fact that blacks are massively overrepresented in the crime statistics (despite having substantially higher IQs than US blacks) indicates the police have not totally capitulated to political correctness. As I noted in one of the footnotes, this may change following the Casey Review.
Although the police are under growing pressure from higher-ups and politicians to be politically correct, I suspect that it remains one of the most right-wing professions.
You must be joking. The UK police arrest hundreds of right wingers per year for speech online. Why aren't they arresting people on the left for speech? If they are actually right wing, that demonstrates they're so cucked that political orientation doesn't matter because their leadership decides their actions.
You’re taking an American approach to our police system. We are not polarised here in the uk, it’s not just a “we are right wing therefore we must subtly overlook what the crime that we are meant to be enforcing” approach and for good reason. The whole point of any legal system is to minimise subjectivity once laws have been made. Also what evidence do you have to suggest far right wing opinions are being penalised at higher rates of far left wing opinions. You’re completely blinded by your intrinsic nature to hold distain for those who aren’t like you
I like this magazine for completely not giving a fuck about anyone who thinks they should keep their thoughts to themselves. Note, I don't agree with Noah here. But he is pretty based for just pursuing truth for truths sake.
Being anti-muslim is what low status not-so-bright conservatives do, so simping for Islam is how you present as sophisticated. Problem is: Islam sucks.
The critical question is, why would you want cultural and ethnic outsiders in your country?
Aporia magazine seems to. The rest of us don't.
don't, ban them, if push comes to shove take in east asians and maybe (()). no south asians whatsoever. unless you want your country to look like india.
See my reply to Sai below.
I have an especially strong aversion to south asian migration, hindus in particular. Remember, India has those high IQ hindus and it looks like what it looks like. They should work on developing their own people instead of begging to come over to the west. Already canada is getting ruined by their presence and keep in mind there is regression to the mean.
https://t.me/indianhate
Is there really no distinction in your mind between outsiders that can and can’t be assimilated in the local culture? Usually the benefit of having cultural and ethnic outsiders in your country, provided that they are limited in numbers and that they are not hostile, is to keep your native culture from ossifying and stagnating.
"Is there really no distinction in your mind between outsiders that can and can’t be assimilated in the local culture?"
Great question. Yes, there is a distinction. Any immigrant would have to have a very valuable talent that would significantly benefit our civilization. That does not involve mowing lawns or any other menial work. I would require a psychological profile and IQ test.
I can definitely get behind a screening like that, it would be a positive sum scenario. But then of course the elites in wealthy countries(or more likely, the people that cheated their way to the top) would feel threatened by the extra competition.
"I can definitely get behind a screening like that, it would be a positive sum scenario. But then of course the elites in wealthy countries(or more likely, the people that cheated their way to the top) would feel threatened by the extra competition."
Yes, most likely, you are correct in many cases. My perspective is from the United States. We can always use smart, hard-working people of integrity. I believe meritocracy is the best policy.
"As an aside, it’s interesting that the two criticisms are mutually exclusive. If Muslims were massively overrepresented in prison because they committed a lot of crimes, there’d be no need to invoke a pro-Muslim bias in the criminal justice system. And if there were a pro-Muslim bias in the criminal justice system, you wouldn’t expect Muslims to be massively overrepresented in prison in the first place."
Come on, Noah, the situation could be that Muslims are massively overrepresented in prison, but they would be more so if not for pro-Muslim bias.
Agree with this.
"Muslims are substantially underrepresented in the police force, especially at higher ranks. They comprise 7% of the population but only 3.8% of police officers. Muslims are also less likely to trust the police than the general population. In a 2020 poll, 71% of people said they trusted the police, compared to only 64% of Muslims."
So what? Police collusion to allow Muslims to operate rape gangs for decades with impunity is an established fact. You are arguing that something is a priori unlikely when we already know it happened. If you think that the police only go easy on Muslims for running rape gangs, but elsewhere treat them like everyone else, the onus is on you to explain why this should be.
" The two main Muslim groups, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, are more likely to be stopped and searched than White Britons."
This is actually good evidence that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis commit more crimes, which is what anyone who has been unfortunate to live near them will also tell you.
The voiceover is the wrong one for this article.
Dear Noah
I think you are making a good faith attempt to understand things here. I’m not opposed to the idea that UK Muslims are relatively law-abiding, however contrary to experience it seems to your readers. In my own life, I’ve had cordial relations with Muslims, and have mostly experienced high moral probity from them.
Here are a few ideas you might consider.
1) It could be that UK Muslim communities largely police themselves. Maybe Muslims wronged by other Muslims look to their own community to invigilate and settle disputes, completely separate from the British state. We may already have an unofficial version of the old Ottoman Millet system operating in the UK. It would be intriguing if the reason for the lower criminality of UK Muslims compared with European Muslims is a product of their social non-integration.
2) Specific types of crime that might be high in the Muslim community may be under-reported. In particular, domestic crimes, from forced marriages to spousal abuse to FGM to domestic violence to honour killing may all be going on out of sight of the British state.
3) There are non-domestic forms of criminality we may not be picking up on. There’s a suspicion that Muslims are more likely to commit electoral fraud, because of their higher usage of postal voting; I have no idea if there’s any truth to this. It wouldn’t be surprising if they have a higher involvement in immigration fraud, because they are more likely to have relatives abroad who want to come to the UK. They might be more involved in local government corruption, because the relatively closed nature of Muslim communities, combined with their high geographic concentration, might make it easier to get away with such corruption.
Again, I’m not determined to believe that Muslims are more crime-prone. I’m just asking questions.
https://t.me/indianhate
This channel is all anyone needs to know about how high the rape rate will skyrocket as a function of importing Hindus. Let no one be fooled into thinking women will be safe. It would be wiser to take in kenyans or something. Hindus are uniquely adept at having a high rape and discrimination rate back home, salivating over white women and bludgeoning everyone with the racism accusation when their romantic and sexual overtures are not returned. If someone wants to make the claim south asian muslims also do this to some extent I am open ears.
Taking in the upper classes of Muslims probably didn't hurt Americans. Muslims seem fairly fine there. The same goes for Hindus. They both get along with each other and the natives in north america. But expand that and you get the Muslim migrants of Europe or rapejeets.
So there is ONE SOLUTION and that is banning all south asians and banning all muslims and of course banning all blacks. If you don't, the upper classes INVITE THE LOWER CLASSES IN. Taking in europeans or east asians is valid. A low class jew or asian beats out a upper class african. Taking in apostates or persecuted minority groups like bahais or ahmadi muslims etc, liberals, feminists (not that I am a fan) should be fine and can be used as an argument for preventing the more religious types from coming over. Or just more of them from coming over in general. So it is efficient in that way. These groups behave reasonably. I am also kind of okay with taking in jews but keep in mind they do want to drag the nations resources into fighting Israel's wars.
I respect your commitment to the truth but
"As an aside, it’s interesting that the two criticisms are mutually exclusive. If Muslims were massively overrepresented in prison because they commit a lot of crime, there’d be no need to invoke a pro-Muslim bias in the criminal justice system. And if there were a pro-Muslim bias in the criminal justice system, you wouldn’t expect Muslims to be massively overrepresented in prison in the first place."
I don't think this is true, you can have sky high rates of crime, the pro muslim/black bias dampening the convictions but the convictions still being high in spite of it.
Anyways kudos to your efforts, not sure I am convinced but it is something to chew on.
So the UK grooming gang scandal where 10s or hundreds of thousands of white girls were groomed and then raped just didn't happen? Most of those crimes were not prosecuted and in some cases white parents were punished for racially charged language used when they discovered their daughters being raped.
What in the world are these categories? Can someone explain how this makes any kind of sense?
You are comparing crime rates and drawing conclusions for a religious identity, lumping together all the different nationalities, races, and socioeconomic classes that that entails. Comparing it then to vague categories like “Asians”, or to different racial identities, or to specific nationalities. I get that there probably isn’t separate data available for each micro intersection of all of those ways of categorizing but the least you can do is compare religious groups with other religious groups.
As an aside, I notice that the underlying assumption here is that, “black people surely outrank Muslim people in the progressive stack”, and therefore they can’t be underreported *compared to the actual crime rate*, but the progressive stack ranking clearly changes from culture to culture.
Blacks probably do outrank Muslims pound for pound, but blacks also tend to do really dumb crimes that essentially make it impossible for the police not to arrest them. Pakistanis are somewhat brighter, but also much more cohesive because Islam is a very effective social technology whereas black ghetto culture is not. The parsimonious model is that Pakistanis do burglary and other crimes on the same model as they run rape gangs, and the police treat them the same way.
I don’t understand why but somehow both progressives and religious Christians think that Islam is friendly or compatible with their way of life, when it really couldn’t be further from the truth. Just look at how the people only attempting reform are treated by other Muslims.
And yet this same obscured data is used to claim that multiculturalism has failed and all immigrants are maligned.
I discussed this issue in the original article: https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/british-muslims-dont-commit-a-lot
But it really isn’t addressed is it? Your argument is that Muslims in Britain commit less crimes when compared with Muslims in European countries, but the comparisons you make in both articles don’t prove that when you’re not even looking at the European crime rates in detail.
The reason the category of Asians or south Asians even exists is because there is an attempt to hide the individual rates of crime for all the nationalities and religions lumped in there.
For example, you claimed that because Asians are underrepresented in crimes and because Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Arabs are in the Asian category, those three groups, which make up the majority of Muslims in Britain, must be committing few crimes compared to other Muslims. But you need to look at the population breakdown by nationalities or religions of the Asian category to make such a claim. This really seems like an example of the Baye’s theorem “paradox” otherwise. And I think that the lack of detail in the collected data is not accidental.
To quote the original article:
"When it comes to arrests, I was able to find a detailed ethnic breakdown. The White British arrest rate is 8.8 per 1,000. By comparison, the three main Muslim groups have arrest rates of 9.3 for Pakistanis, 8.8 for Bangladeshis and just 2.8 for Arabs. So Muslim groups’ arrest rates are similar to or less than the White British rate.
I was also able to find a detailed ethnic breakdown of individuals dealt with by the criminal justice system for indictable offences. The three Muslim groups were slightly underrepresented overall but were slightly overrepresented among those dealt with for the most serious (indictable only) offences."
I read both the articles from start to finish so you need not quote them here.
But you have inadvertently made my point for me by choosing those two sentences. Even within the three nationalities mentioned the differences are so large that it makes no sense to combine them into one category. The cultures and circumstances in all three countries are vastly different, and even their religious denominations within Islam are quite different. Do the differences in European vs British Muslim crime rates come from the differences in cultures between Europe and Britain or are they just because of the different ratios of the immigrant Muslim populations?
I will reiterate- if you want to look at the effect of religious belief and/or identity on crimes and conviction rates then the current categorization is not helpful at all. And there are clearly accounts of crime committed by Muslim immigrants being underreported or buried, like in the Rotherham case, but the extent to which it is happening is also impossible to say from the available data. Are you really willing to believe that it is all accidentally obscured in this way?
Presumably the determinants in all cases are comparative religiosity and comparative wealth.