Top Menu

Is Sweden Invaded by “Muslim Rapists?”

Pegida-Germany protest against refugees dubbed as “rapefugees.” It is a meme that has taken off on the right in Europe.

Is Sweden the “rape capital” of the world, as Breitbart and Islamophobes worldwide claim? What is the background to the high figures of reported rape in Sweden? Is it the so called “Muslim invasion of immigrants” that is responsible for it? Is “the Muslim rape culture” behind it? Or is it simply that Sweden has stronger laws against sexual offenses like rape, and that Swedish women are raised not to take shit!

I am from Sweden. When I went to school 30 years ago I heard about a case of two young white American exchange students who raped Swedish young girls. Many Swedes reacted with horror. Many blamed ALL Americans for the wrongdoings of these two. “All American white youngsters are like that, racists and rapists,” “USA is insane,” “Americans are rapists.” “Too much American TV-violence.”

Breitbart and Islamophobes worldwide do the same thing to Muslims. “Muslims rape women” they claim. “Muslims” are currently “raping” Europe, according to the Breitbart Senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos.

The so called “evidence” for this is the claim that the numbers of rapes allegedly is “skyrocketing” in Europe, and it is all blamed on Muslim immigrants.

It is worst in Sweden they claim. Sweden is a burning hell were “Muslims” rape, kill and burn down cars, they say.

Is Sweden the “Rape Capital of the Western World?”

Breitbart hates Sweden more than any other European country. Sweden is both a stronghold of feminism and a country that has accepted a lot of refugees, especially Muslims. And we all know that feminists, migrants and Muslims make Breitbart go bananas! Almost every time Breitbart talks about “Muslim rapeculture” in Europe they bring up Sweden as the worst case scenario. Sweden is the “rape capital of the Western world” it is claimed.

As “evidence” for this international statistics are cited. Indeed, according to those statistics a lot of rapes are reported in Sweden: 63,5  rape incidents per 100,000 citizens. The USA with 300 million people has 27. That would lead you to think that the numbers of rapes are skyrocketing but then you look at the figures. Sweden with ten million people has 5,960 rapes, Azerbaijan 16, India only 22,000, Lebanon 19, Mozambique 44! And Saudi Arabia claims that there is almost no rape, (and lash the raped women instead), Egypt has about 100 all in all, Canada 576.

So what is going on here?


Does this mean that Sweden is unsafe for women, and that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Mozambique are paradise for women?

Of course not, there are big differences between all countries. The first is that what is defined as rape in Mozambique and Saudi Arabia is not the same as in Sweden or Germany and what is legally defined as a rape in USA is not the same as in Sweden.

Mozambique still has the old colonial laws that stated rapists to go unpunished if they marry their victims and stay married for at least five years. Saudi Arabia, well… Lots of women are raped but the legal system doesn’t seem to care about that. Egyptian law is not protecting Egyptian women very well.

The Swedish law considers lots of acts as sexual assault and rape that other countries don’t. There has been a lot of discussion globally about the case of Julian Assange. If you agree to have sex with a woman in Sweden, using condom, and you take it off in the end of the sexual act, without the consent of the woman, it can be regarded as rape. Sweden has strong laws against marital rape, and rapists can be convicted even if the wife herself doesn’t report the rape by the husband. There are proposed laws that will make sexual harassment online a crime, like sending unsolicited pictures of a penis to women. Sexual bullying at work is regarded as a crime, and if it involves physical contact without consent it might be regarded as rape.

In the USA marital rape is still not entirely regarded a crime in 13 states.

The second difference is that different countries report rape statistically in different ways. If one person rapes a woman 100 times it can be regarded as ONE crime in some places. In Sweden it would be reported by the police as 100 rapes.

There has been some discussion about this online.

Imagine, for example, if your boss rubbed against you in an unwanted way at work once a week for a year. In Canada, this would potentially be a case of sexual assault. Under Germany’s more limited laws, it would be zero cases. In Sweden, it would be tallied as 52 separate cases of rape. If you engaged in a half-dozen sex acts with your spouse, then later you felt you had not given consent, in Sweden that would be classified as six cases of rape.

BBC wrote,

Official figures from the United Nations show that there were 17 kidnaps per 100,000 people in Australia in 2010 and 12.7 in Canada.

That compares with only 0.6 in Colombia and 1.1 in Mexico.

So why haven’t we heard any of these horror stories? Are people being grabbed off the street in Sydney and Toronto, while the world turns a blind eye?

No, the high numbers of kidnapping cases in these two countries are explained by the fact that parental disputes over child custody are included in the figures. If one parent takes a child for the weekend, and the other parent objects and calls the police, the incident will be recorded as a kidnapping, according to Enrico Bisogno, a statistician with the United Nations.

And the third factor is that the focus on the rights of women has led to an increase in reported rapes to the police. Swedish women are more conscious about their rights and are not afraid to report sexual assaults or rape.


Globe and Mail writes:

But aren’t refugees and immigrants responsible for a greater share of Sweden’s sexual assaults?

In a sense. Statistics show that the foreign-born in Sweden, as in most European countries, do have a higher rate of criminal charges than the native-born, in everything from shoplifting to murder (though not enough to affect the crime rate by more than a tiny margin). The opposite is true in North America, where immigrants have lower-than-average crime rates.

Yes, you read correct. Immigrants have higher rates of criminal charges than natives in most of Europe, but in the USA it is the opposite. (We´ll have to return to this fact some other day.)

Sweden doesn’t have statistics that cover the descent of convicted rapists. Denmark, the neighbouring country, has it.

Denmark is one of the countries that has “skyrocketing” rape figures according to Breitbart. Well there certainly is a statistic overrepresentation of immigrants in the rape statistics. The Danish paper BT reported some years ago that three times as many with immigrant background are sentenced for rapes than those with Danish background. That sounds scary, right?

Lets look at the statistics. This is from 2015. The first headline is about crimes that have to do with sexual assault (Sexualforbrydelser). The second headline deals with rape (Voldtaekt). The statistics show the number of convicted per year and their descent.

89.77% of Denmark’s population of over 5,580,516 was of Danish descent. That means that there are 10%, or about 560,000, with foreign descent. Of them something like 200,000 to 250,000 are Muslims. In 2015, 553 people were convicted for sexual offenses, 456 were of Danish descent. 49 were convicted of rape, 21 were of non Danish descent (statistikbanken). Bad, but hardly so alarming that you can claim that “Europe is collapsing” due to “foreigners” that “predominantly” are “Muslims.” (And some of the non-Danes are visitors to the country who do not live in Denmark.)

Below you have the figures for 2014. 425 with Danish descent were convicted of sexual assault in 2014, compared to 39 foreigners (less than 10%). 18 with danish descent were convicted for rape, 12 of foreign descent. (statistikbanken) Yes, immigrants and their children have higher rates of crime than native Danes, but it is hardly the disaster Breitbart talks about.

There are differences between Denmark and Sweden, but not big ones What is true for Denmark should be true for Sweden.

The irony is that Breitbart hates feminism and the concept of equal rights for women. Feminism makes women look ugly, they claim. They have written several articles ridiculing women that have reported about rape and sexual assault. Just search on Breitbart and you´ll see: Rape+hoax. Rape+fake. Rape+lie.

Breibart makes fun of rape victims, and claims there is an inflation in fake rape allegations. But still they claim to be concerned about so called “Muslim Rape.” Hypocrisy!

There are a lot of problems still in Sweden and Denmark with oppression of women, and with rape and sexual assault and some immigrants bring with them a view of women that is not acceptable to most Swedes. But that does NOT justify slanders against all immigrants or Muslims.

Not the first time

It should be emphasized that there are many similarities between the current hatred against Muslims and the way Jews today, and historically, have been slandered and hated,

The Nazis spread the same lies about Jews in the 30s, as Breitbart spreads about Muslims today. It was claimed that there was such a thing as “Jewish Rape Culture.” Especially the magazine Der Sturmer was famous for spreading these kinds of lies. 

In the picture below, from Der Sturmer,  you can see the satanic Jewish snake that is raping a woman, and in the background you can see the Jewish Talmud.

Antisemitism Germany 5

In the 1930s it was claimed that Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe were overrepresented in the criminal statistics of Germany. That might be true since they were socioeconomically poorer that native German Jews. In the same way as Breitbart does today, the nazis claimed that this was “evidence” of “Jewish criminality” and “Jewish rape culture.”

Sweden, and the Nordic countries are on the top of the list of countries where women have the most rights, where there is most equality between genders.  There are problems, but lets solve them without blaming all Muslims and without spreading lies.

, , , , , , , ,

  • Vigilant Skeptic

    I figured you might moderate the entire thread out of existence at one point so I figured I better cross link it to the site you are trying to discredit to create an organic site traffic link which you cannot undo. I want to keep this here as testimony to your over the top moderation of legitimate feedback for everyone to see. You cross linking the same content helps again. So thanks again once more.

  • How does this prove my concept of moderation is rubbish?

  • Vigilant Skeptic

    Nope. And yes, your concept of moderation is rubbish. As you have just proven. Thanks!

  • You wrote this one hour ago with a link to our site:

    The data does not lie but idiots will still not believe it. Just look at the rubbish moderation attempts on my comments here…..

    Changed your mind in the last half an hour?

  • Vigilant Skeptic

    No I genuinely appreciate how you have responded and reacted to a fair debate. Thank you.

  • Nice straw man. No, I didn’t NOT say “Sweden should stop feeling so threatened.” You simply made that up!

    Yes, you pointed to data, but SO WHAT?? It’s meaningless to just say, “a line in a report states foreign born citizens are 2.5 times as likely to be suspected of a crime.” Okay. We can READ that for ourselves. What is it that you believe that proves??? You STILL have not said.

    What response were you expecting? “WOW! Vigilant…you’re so brilliant! That line absolutely positively does prove…whatever it is is you think it proves! And of course is also a slam dunk against this entire article! Well played, my friend!”

    Your “assertion” stinks. It’s your opinion plus a line or two from the report. It really didn’t warrant a response, but I indulged you anyway, which obviously was not something you appreciated.

    I’m interested in seeing logic. If you have some logical argument, by all means, put it on display. I look forward to that.

  • Vigilant Skeptic

    Wait, that 2nd last paragraph. Are you seriously proposing that society in Sweden should stop feeling so threatened and immediately halt discourse about the disproportionate representation of immigrants in violent crime because of the actions of other organisations or factions in another part of the world? That is so unrealistic and unethical a claim that it beggars belief.

    Anyway, your digressions aside I stated my assertion and made my point in data. You replied with more data that only qualified my assertion and then produce walls of text as if quantity of response will add merit to your case.

    I am fairly convinced that you are not interested in seeing logic and that all you really want to do here is get the last word in and produce a kind of bizarre stalemate where you hope to obfuscate valid reasoning.

    Furthermore, and for your own sake, if *this* is what you call “moderation” of your site then I agree with you, I don’t think you will convince anyone of anything except those who are already in your fold. You will literally preach to the converted. I am sure you can do better. Good luck.

  • where did I say that? I did not.

    CORRECT. You did NOT make your assertions clear. You took two lines out of the report and left them there, as if that by itself IS your “argument.” I tried several times to get you to STATE YOUR ASSERTION and you failed and failed and failed. So in order to address your concerns AT ALL, I had to make assumptions about what it is you’re asserting.

    You either fail to construct your argument or do it poorly, and them blame me. I feel I was quite indulgent, given how vague you have been.

    You assertion remains? What that the article is a “poor rebuttal”? I will let the article stand on its own merit, along with my extensive comments. Your only other assertion that I can verify is the 2.5:1 ratio, which I have contextualized but not denied.

    I’m not trying AT ALL to defend the article. I didn’t write the article, nor do I feel it needs defending, nor do I view at cause for anyone to question our method (whatever that means). I don’t think you’ve done a stellar job of defending your own opinion here, with your two lines out of the report and no actual statement of just what it is you think those lines prove. You’ve repeated your opinion at least three times now, and it’s duly noted, for what it’s worth.

    Where are the ad hominem attacks on you? I said you did a poor job of constructing your argument, which I still believe is the case. I didn’t say anything personal and unrelated to the topic. If I had said, “I bet your smell funny and laugh like a hyena,” then that would qualify as an ad hominem attack. I said nothing of the sort, and if you think otherwise, please show me the evidence.

    I also doubt this article, or anything I say, is going to convince the hatemongers and outrage peddlers. They believe what they want to believe, and they don’t tend to let facts stand in the way. But even best case scenario, if we could convince you and every other person who reads our article that there is no “Muslims rape epidemic” or “Immigrant crime wave,” or whatever they’re claiming, it would be a very small win. It’s one strand of propaganda.

    The real problem is not the crime rate in Sweden, nor our treatment of that topic, nor my responses to you skepticism. The real problem is that many people in the West now feel threatened by Islam. And Muslims on the receiving end of American foreign policy don’t get the luxury of merely feeling “threatened” since they are actually being bombed, droned, starve, poisoned, robbed, displaced, etc.

    It would be interesting to see how Western people would react if they were on the receiving end of what the Western imperial powers dish out to others. An small uptick in crime would be the least of their worries.

  • Vigilant Skeptic

    OK, so you have to understand as a statistician that selecting relevant data and “cherry picking” data can be construed as one another and vice versa. The cherry pick trump card often comes out when one side can’t explain an element of the data correctly. I can understand the frustration you have on this topic as it is probably very important to you personally motivation wise. But when it comes to data analysis, you cannot let your own biases cloud the data.

    I never claimed there was a substantial spike in crime in Sweden. In fact I have said the opposite, their crime incidence rates are more or less comparable to most of Europe. You are still not reading what I am saying and instead you are making up an assertion on my behalf and then proceeding to argue against it. Your second claim of my assertion (“The spike was caused by Muslim immigration.”) is also wrong, where did I say that? I did not. Again you are proceeding from a false premise and I see no need to contemplate that further.

    For that reason a lot of what you go into following that is actually not relevant to my original post. The ratios of the crime types mentioned committed by immigrants is statistically much higher than naturally born Swedish citizens and that ratio has changed to this state significantly from 2005 in the other report you cite. Thus, the facts as I state them remain. These ratios I highlighted BTW are in the BRE report. You should read it again, though I understand you may not have had the time to do so.

    The thesis research you cite from Stockholm University is interesting reading. Now I know you just lifted the paraphrased section from the BRE report but in the original study, if you did not have time to read it, it does not contest the official statistics. It simply attempts to ascribe reasons for the immigrant crime reason. Again, this does not refute my point. All it does is qualifies the figures. We all know that immigrants are more likely to commit crime due to reduced opportunities and so forth. That is not new nor is it somehow unique to Sweden.

    It is true that Sweden has a large immigrant population and for a significant time the majority of immigrants were from fellow Scandivian countries or former Yugoslavian states. Obviously you have read the Wikipedia basic data on that. You will however see that based on the immigrant to natural citizen crime ratios that have evolved in the last 5 years combined with changing immigration patterns in that time (look at the number one source country of immigration for the last year for example) you will again see correlation.

    Unfortunately Sweden does not publish the religious background of immigrants in the data. We really have no idea whether the majority of immmigrants are Muslism, or indeed they could be a majority of persecuted minorities such as Christians living in Muslim governed countries. All we can go on is the current religious diaspora of the countries they emmigrate from. So whilst that IS an assumption, it is currently the only practicable one that the public can make and what we are dealing with here is an issue of public perception. Until Sweden published such data, that can be the only realistic breakdown of immigration religious background.

    I’m not going to even comment on the Trump article. So much of what that man says is ridiculous that anyone with any sense of intelligence can’t listen to him without crying.

    In summary, my assertion still remains and the data still verifies that assertion. I know you are trying your best to defend this article to the grave but is still needs to be better researched. It is not a strong counter argument against commonly held views on the right. More needs to be done and unless you can admit that, I can’t help you and your readers will start to question your method. Please stop interpreting feedback as call for a fight and a justification for ad hominem attacks on the commenter. Thanks for the lively debate.

  • I really don’t need to “dance around” anything. I don’t owe you any explanation at all, so I don’t feel your leverage over me, so that I would squirm or dance or whatever metaphor you prefer.

    Your assertion remains weak, because it is based on two cherry-picked lines and also because you don’t say what it is you these lines prove. I’ll expand up and address this anyway, starting with speculation about what it is you think this proves.

    (1) There is a substantial spike in crime in Sweden.
    (2) The spike was caused by Muslim immigration.

    Whether or not that’s the exact wording you would choose but this is the accusation we see on various sites distilled.

    So we’ll start with the first, but before we get to the specifics, I will repeat a previous example of how easy it is to skew statistics, especially when working with a low number of incidents.

    Let’s say there is some hypothetical context where there are 2 instances of a crime one year, and the next year there are 8. That means the number of instances has increased 400%, and would possibly make good fodder for an alarming headline. Yet the number is really quite low. I’ve exaggerated here to make a point, but the reality is that crime in Sweden is relatively low, and this has to be taken into account.

    That said, in 2014, crime was down a bit in every category, as shown in the graph here:

    Not all of the immigrants arrived in 2015. The survey shows an increase in 2015, and notes:

    This is an increase as compared with the preceding year (in 2014 the percentage was 11.3%), but is approximately the same level as in 2005. When compared with 2014, the increase was greatest for threats, sexual offences, and harassment.

    So what was going on in 2005? Were immigrants to blame for crime during that period?

    The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention has conducted two studies into the representation of people from foreign backgrounds among crime suspects, the most recent in 2005. The studies show that the majority of those suspected of crimes were born in Sweden to two Swedish-born parents. The studies also show that the vast majority of people from foreign backgrounds are not suspected of any crimes.

    What about the increase in 2015, where more foreign-born are two and half times more likely to be *suspected* of a crime? From the same report:

    According to the most recent study, people from foreign backgrounds are 2.5 times more likely to be suspected of crimes than people born in Sweden to Swedish-born parents. In a later study, researchers at Stockholm University showed that the main difference in terms of criminal activity between immigrants and others in the population was due to differences in the socioeconomic conditions in which they grew up in Sweden. This means factors such as parents’ incomes, and the social circumstances in the area in which an individual grew up.

    Where are you getting the 4:1 ratio? You should LINK to the EXACT report where you are getting this information. It’s your assertion, so it’s your responsibility to provide sources, not my responsibility to go digging, trying to figure out exactly what you’re referring to. I don’t have hours upon hours to spend addressing one person in comments.

    Please have the courtesy to LINK to specific sources associated with your assertions.

    In any case, even if this is true, how many incidents occurred? How many of these suspects were actually convicted? How do we know that “foreign born” necessarily equates to “Muslim”?

    Here are the top five countries from the “30 largest immigrant populations by country of origin 2016”:

    Finland 153,620
    Syria 149,418
    Iraq 135,129
    Poland 88,704
    Iran 70,637

    We can see that a large portion of the people coming in are from Muslim-majority countries, but certainly not ALL of them, so the assumption that any reference to “foreign born” is precisely the same as “Muslim” is faulty.

    Furthermore, coming from a Muslim-majority country does not in itself mean someone in a Muslim. Some are Christians, for example. So there is no reason to conclude “foreign born” = “Muslim.”

    My computer is giving me problems so I’m not able to take a screen shot of this graph (Offences against individual persons), but look at and see if you can see this huge crime spike:

    There is a slight uptick, not an alarming crime wave warranting hysteria. Here is an article from Vox, one among many, that explains further:

    What President Trump gets wrong about immigrants and crime in Sweden

    The article does use an older graph that only goes up to 2014, so it doesn’t show the increase in 2015. But it does address this propaganda effort with facts:

    ….there’s no evidence of a massive crime wave. Here is an official Swedish government tally of the rates of six different types of crime directed at persons — fraud, assault, threats, harassment, sexual violence, and mugging. (Homicide is excluded because the rate is tiny; in 2014, there were 87 murders in the entire country of roughly 10 million.)


    The most recent official report available in English, covering 2015, is not incorporated into that chart — but it concludes that the rates of these crimes are at “approximately the same level as in 2005.” That’s a slight increase over the 2014 rate, but hardly evidence of a crime wave — let alone one committed by migrants or refugees.

    Let’s look at the assertions again:

    (1) There is a substantial spike in crime in Sweden.
    (2) The spike was caused by Muslim immigration.

    In my view, the burden of proof is on the party making an assertion. It is the responsibility of Breitbart or whatever news outlet is broadcasting this to back their claim. Fortunately for them, most readers will accept very flimsy evidence, such as a few lines of cherry-picked data or even just a screaming headline which in their minds is sufficient evidence in an of itself.

    You’re the THIRD person here I’ve discussed this with at length, and if you haven’t already read those discussions, you should.

    If you still believe the two above-mentioned assertions are proven, then so bet it. You can go on believing that. I’m not going to spend hours trying to convince you otherwise.

  • That is NOT a clear assertion. The BRA report itself explains there is in increase in rape due to HOW IT IS REPORTED, and provides an example, stating if a wife says her husband raped her for a year, they will count that as 365 counts of rape. Did you actually read the report? By what means will you, in your assertion, should you ever actually formulate one, prove that isn’t the reason for the increase? Or if it accounts only partly, how will you prove what portion of the increase is really due to refugees?

    If your assertion is that rape has gone up in absolute numbers and that is directly due to the influx of refugees, THEN SAY THAT, and show me the SPECIFIC evidence that supports that claim. You can’t just say, “you’re wrong because the data says so.” What data? Wrong about what??? It’s too vague for anyone to address, apart from replying with, a “nuh uh” level reply in return, and I don’t bother with that level of reply since it’s pointless.

    Your failure to formulate an actual assertion is your failure, not mine. You have yet to many your case.

  • Unless and until you make a SPECIFIC assertion I can address, you are simply stating a vague opinion and nothing more. If you don’t understand that, then I can’t help you.

    My career is centered around statistics, and I know very well how they can be manipulated. I like parsing these assertions, so don’t make it sound as if I lack the skills to respond. I can and have and anyone who has been here for a while has witnessed that. The evidence is still in existence.

    Yes, a lot of content is agenda-driven and that’s not even a problem, unless someone is not honest about exactly what that agenda is. Hyping threats well out of proportion with reality and attempting to spread fear and hatred is an agenda of some sites that is not openly stated. One hint at an unstated agenda is deception.

  • Vigilant Skeptic

    You can’t fall back on the “that’s just your opinion” argument in every moderation surely though? That only weakens an argument slightly less than saying “Oh, oh yeah?!”

    Your statement “That’s what it really comes down to, because there simply is no “rape epidemic” or massive crime wave in Sweden.” is simply wrong as it is the same claim made in the story and the data submitted as evidence does not back up that claim, so why continue to ascertain that? Is there more data excluded? What are we missing? You are asking readers to make a false interpolation rather than a clear extrapolation.

    Furthermore, making the implication that you are “wasting time” answering meaningful and fair replies (or indeed equating them to “nuh uh”) is ad hominem and does not equate to valued moderation.

    Most content produced on the internet is driven by an agenda. This piece and your “moderation” does nothing to descern you from that.

  • Restating your opinion doesn’t make it make it anything more than your opinion, stated twice. You haven’t even made a clear assertion that one could reasonably refute. It’s on the level of “nuh uh” so far.

    I’ve already gone over this with two other “skeptics,” who at least made actual assertions I could (and did) address. I’m not going to keep wasting time on those of you who believe what you believe because you want to believe it.

    That’s what it really comes down to, because there simply is no “rape epidemic” or massive crime wave in Sweden. If you look at the overall picture, it’s clear these alarmist headlines are driven by an agenda, not reality.

  • Vigilant Skeptic

    Well, it IS a poor rebuttal in that it doesn’t address the data presented adequately and makes some disingenious counter arguments. It doesn’t debunk what Breitbart are fundamentally saying. Therein lies the issue. To claim something is propaganda and not argue that claim effectively, just swings minds to the view that it isn’t actually propaganda as you wish to make it out to be. The challenge to the assertion on the data given is not strong enough.

    Also, to respond to critical feedback from anyone who has taken the time to formulate a balanced and fair response regarding your work as “well, that’s just your opinion” does a disservice to your reader base. Trust me, you WANT this kind of feedback – it only strengthens your approach and analysis.

    And it is a topic certainly worth analysing and I agree, it definitely matters to people.

  • That this article is a “poor rebuttal” is nothing more than your opinion.

    I do agree with you that most people make up their mind ahead of time, and are undeterred by facts. If we let that stop us from debunking propaganda, we’d just shutter the site and go do something else.

    We do what we do, and it does matter to some people. That’s enough incentive.

  • Vigilant Skeptic

    Interesting counter article though there are issues which cause it to stumble.

    1. The official statistics from the study you cite are
    – The ratio of persons born
    abroad to be registered as crime suspects as it is for Swedish born
    persons with both parents born in Sweden is 2.5 to 1.

    – The ratio for foreign-born persons to be suspected of LETHAL violence and robbery as it is for persons born in Sweden to Swedish born parents is 4 to 1.

    These are statistically significant differences which support Breitbart’s claim. So you can understand why they are making it. These figures of course do not take into account unreported crimes, but there is no empirical way to account for that due to the nature of that concept. You would have to reasonable assume that crimes unreported involve a person or persons known to the victim and are likely to be of a consistent ratio regardless of background.

    2. The statement “There are differences between Denmark and Sweden, but not big ones What is true for Denmark should be true for Sweden.”

    That’s a big assumption and ultimately it negates that entire section to follow. You only need to look at the differences in crime rates, unemployment, immigrant population (as % of national population) and refugee intake (as % of national population) to see that to use Denmark as a basis for Sweden’s socio-ecenomic issues is interpolation and in of that, interpolation of the wrong data.

    3. “It should be emphasized that there are many similarities between the current hatred against Muslims and the way Jews today, and historically, have been slandered and hated”

    The old Nazi comparison. This is imappropriately used here as a defence for statistics that do not bear out your counter argument. It’s used in summary to leave the reader with a biased assessment of the data.

    This article is a poor rebuttal and won’t do anything to change the mind of people in the centre which is where idealogical battlegrounds are fought and won. You need much better counters than this and no amount of comments and back patting from those who had already made their mind up before reading the article will achieve anything.

  • I directed you to my replied to IsaacNewton, which referenced other current reports on the BRA site. Those comments are relevant.

    You are talking now about a survey of 11,900 people, who self reported crimes, not a tally kept by law enforcement. You are very heavily focused on % changes based on number of incidents, but the other component is % of persons and that’s not irrelevant. If for example we had 2 incidents of a crime and it went up to 8 incidents, that’s a 400% increase, but there are still very few people impacted–as in a maximum of 8. It would be mislead scream, “CRIME INCREASED 400%!!!,” even though that is factually accurate in my example. It’s misleading because it makes 8 incidents sound like a terrifying crime wave, when it really isn’t.

    Now, let’s look at the actual numbers, which I put in a spreadsheet. Not all of the numbers from 2015 and 2014 are available for each category. I’m have limited time to check over this, so it may not be perfect but it’s a good faith effort.

    Notice the negligible % change relative to the number of people surveyed. Then take a look at BRA’s other reports, where the numbers are discussed in more detail, and there are explanations for some of the changes, and graphs visualizing, which so not show the kind of sharp increases we’d expect based on all the hoopla being made of this.

    There is no great crime wave happening in Sweden. As is noted even in the survey you referenced, many categories of crime are down since 2005, and even where they are back up in 2015, they don’t necessarily exceed 2005 levels.

    The people who are on and on about these statistics seem to be asserting:
    (1) Crime is up significantly in Sweden
    (2) There is a strong correlation between the increase in crime and the increase in refugees
    (3) The influx of refugees is the cause of the increase in crime.

    Even if you could show that crime really is up substantially in Sweden because there are literally many more incidents, that wouldn’t automatically prove the other assertions. People for some reason thing making some vague assertion is “proof” and thus it’s on us to preserve our credibility by “disproving” their vague assertion. Not really. If someone makes an assertion or set of assertions, the burden of proof is on him or her.

    I’m taking a considerable amount of time to do this anyway. But I’m by no means obliged, nor would our “credibility” be at stake because we didn’t write painstaking replies to every accusation posted here.

    Statistic are complex and while they can be useful, they can be highly misleading, as implied by the old adage about, “there are lies, d*mn lies, and statistics.”

  • The stats you’re quoting don’t appear to match what’s in the document you linked to. If you want me to address these stats, show me how you arrived at them.

    For example, you said Sexual Offenses increased 70%, but the report you actually linked to said this:

    Sexual offences
    • In 2015, 1.7 per cent of persons stated that they had been exposed to
    a sexual offence. This is an increase as compared with 2014, when 1.0
    per cent stated that they had been exposed. Sexual offences remained at
    a relatively stable level for the period 2005-2012 with approximately 1
    per cent exposure, and an increase occurred thereafter.

    You there was a whopping 250% increase in car theft, but the report says:

    Property offences
    The responses show that in 2015, 9.5 per cent of households were
    exposed to car theft, theft out of or from a vehicle, bicycle theft, or
    burglary (all referred to as property offences). Exposure to these crimes
    has declined since 2006 (when the percentage was 12.6%).
    The most
    common property offence is bicycle theft while burglary and car theft
    are the least common…

    And further down:

    Car Theft
    In 2015, 0.5 per cent of households were exposed to car theft. This is
    an increase as compared with 2014, when 0.2 per cent of households
    were exposed. However, since the survey was commenced in 2006, the
    percentage of households exposed to burglary has been almost halved
    (from 0.9% in 2006 to 0.5% in 2015).

    From what the report actually says, how is it possibly for you to derive 70% and 250% from the report? If for example it says that 5% of households experienced x two years ago, and 6% of households experienced x last year, you can’t determine from that the number of actual incidents increased by x% without additional information.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, but as my math teacher used to say, you need to “show your work” if you expect me to address your numbers.

  • Also, I just realized some important commentary on the subject was on another thread. In this thread, I specifically address similar points made by “IssacNewton.” Please see this thread as well for more details, and see if you had any points to add that were not already addressed:

  • I asked if you had read the article AND THE COMMENTS. Please read what has already been said about the BRA study and see if you have some specific additions. Pick up where they left off, please, rather than reintroducing something that has already been introduced.

  • Dave

    I am asking because the Bra study was missing from the article, and is arguably the most relevant data on the subject.

  • Did you read the article? And the comments? I think the question has been answered already.

  • Dave

    How do you reconcile the Bra Swedish Crime Study of 2016 which states the increase of sexual offenses from 2015 to 2016 grew by 70%?

  • Miyuki Yamamoto

    Sweden is in deed the rape capital of the world….. First, Swedish women have less tendency to report sexual abuse, rape and they never report minor cases that are covered by the law. One of the main reason for very low tendency to report is the Swedish police who have no time and scrap most reports which makes it meaningless to report sexual abuses and rape. The sexual abuse and rape situation in Sweden is thus much much worse than what the statistics may show. I am one of the victims of serious crime in Sweden but the police neglects to secure evidences, investigate and to interrogate whiteness. They scrap most of incoming reports.

Powered by Loon Watchers