Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

You're quite right about the West being amazingly self-centered. One of the things that amazed me most when I was traveling in Morocco sometime around 2000 was the selection of currently playing films in the cinema of one small town I was staying: A hollywood blockbuster, a Hong-Kong film, a French/Algerian arthouse production, an Egyptian romantic movie, and if I remember correctly a Bollywood production.

You don't see non-Western movies in Western small town cinemas.

Does that mean the Moroccans are self centred if they watch Arab (Egyptian an Algerian) movies?
There are plenty of Bollywood cinemas in London.

London is an example of a successful multi-cultural society IMHO. We all should strive to be more like London. I also think that this is one of the reasons London is still Europes financial centre and power-house even half a century after their empire collapsed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I happen to agree with the sentiment of Barbara L. Spectre. But I don't think what you think she's saying means what you think she means. White privilege is about an unhelpful attitude. For example it's about the fact that Asians and Africans can sing along our music hits, know our films, know our cultural expressions, and know, sort of, how our societies work, and we don't know how their work, and don't care about their culture. It's unhelpful for several reasons. But the most serious will be that we risk making Europe and USA irrelevant, in a future where median incomes, between nations will be, more or less, equal all across the globe. It will happen. It's just a matter of time. We simply have to give more of a shit about other cultures. We can't afford to be as ethnocentric as we're used to. Since the 17'th century we've been given an edge because the industrial revolution happened in this part of the world. I don't know if you've noticed, but that edge is eroding. We have to stop pretending like we're superior in every way. We're superior in some ways. Inferior in others. Just like every other culture and society. Society and culture evolves as well.

The economist Richard Florida has managed to show how the degree of cultural openness and liberalism is directly linked to economic progress. More gives more. This is what is at stake here. We have to transform Europe to stay relevant in the future. Ethnocentric Islamic culture is also doomed to die for the same reason. But the good news is that we need to do nothing. It'll destroy itself in time. As any reactionary society always does.

I am in essential agreement with the highlighted statement. The problem is that while it destroys itself, it also destroys a lot of lives of people not involved or guilty of the crime of Islamism. The same is true of Christianity, Judaism, also some forms of Buddhism. Definitely the degree of multiculturalism can be a helpful factor in introducing people to tolerance. But for real peace, these religions and ethnic identities need to be abandoned by and large in favor of a more inclusive humanism.

I didn't say it wouldn't be messy along the way. It will. I also didn't say we should do nothing. I'm just saying that the demise of ISIS is inevitable even if we do nothing.

PS: I'm a big fan of doing something, ie military action against ISIS.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, what I'm saying is that the neofacism in Sweden is a byproduct of Swedish political culture that feeds these groups. A bit part of it have been the Swedish immigration policies. But capitulating to their demands unconditionally is not a solution; changing the culture so that people's concerns are heard and addressed is what would remove the major appeal of these fringe groups.

If everyone who criticizes unchecked immigration is labeled a neo-nazi racist, don't be surprised if actual neo-nazi racists gain popularity.

Here's my analysis of the rising neo-faschism of Sweden. Sweden has a liberal elite and a liberal establishment. But Swedes in general are like Europeans in general, small minded, red-neck fascistoid idiots living in constant fear of some vague and undefined unknown. What make Swedes different is our traditional subservience to anybody in a position of power or authority.

So what has changed now? I think it's the Internet. The top down communication from the elites to the "unwashed masses" has eroded. Now people get informed using social media. This has created a profound shift in attitudes. We no longer blindly obey and respect figures of authority.

I think all that has happened is that Sweden's rosy and liberal veneer has been shattered. And now we see Sweden for what it is, and for what it always has been; just another country in Europe. We're just like the rest. Neither better or worse. All the same levels of idiocy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In the fourth century AD the Romans allowed large numbers of Goths to enter their territory as refugees.
The result was the sacking of Rome and the end to a 1000 year empire. History has a bad habit of repeating itself for those who fail to learn from it!

ha ha. It wasn't out of the goodness or Roman hearts. The Roman empire was on the brink of collapse. They allowed the Goths because they had to. The Goths would have come regardless and when they came it was obvious just how weak the Roman empire was, and they exploited it. In reality it was just an invasion and the Roman's tried calling it something else to avoid alarming the Roman citizens.

Europe is not at a place of imminent collapse. We're allowing in the immigrants from a place of strength. We also have a stable and robust economy and a democratic system of government that's very flexible.

So there's no comparison at all.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Does that mean the Moroccans are self centred if they watch Arab (Egyptian an Algerian) movies?
There are plenty of Bollywood cinemas in London.

London is an example of a successful multi-cultural society IMHO. We all should strive to be more like London. I also think that this is one of the reasons London is still Europes financial centre and power-house even half a century after their empire collapsed.

It has been successful but with the huge influx of people coming in when we are not looking after our own pensioners and poorer people it does create problems. Further there are security risks given that a person can legally stay in the UK if he or she has no ID.

By the way quite a few immigrants are wary also of the rate in which people are pouring in.

 

[Jokodo]

Since mass moslem migration to Sweden, rape has gone up by a staggering 1.200%. Enough said!

This is a bullshit statistics.
First of all, the number appears to be made up in the first place. Even if you take the raw number of reports as recorded by police as indicative of anything, the actual increase is more like 400% between 1977 and 2006. Look at page 20 of this pdf.

Second of all, the number itself is useless for comparisons across countries, and across times within a country, for several reasons:

a) legal definitions of rape vary, and change over time. Specifically in Sweden, the definition has been substantially broadened in 2005, so comparing the numbers before and after is a useless exercise.
b) rates of reporting vary. Specifically, when victims feel that the police won't help them, or when the culture attaches shame to being the victim of a rape, they're reluctant to report rapes. Obviously, that's also a factor that changes over time as a country becomes more egalitarian.
c) simply the way police count reports vary. If a woman reports that she's been raped three times by her boyfriend, or that she has been gang-raped by three people, some countries will count that as one offense and others as three offenses. Sweden falls into the latter category.

A much more valid measure are victimisation surveys such as this. Here Sweden turns out to be pretty average.

 

[Jokodo]

In the fourth century AD the Romans allowed large numbers of Goths to enter their territory as refugees.
The result was the sacking of Rome and the end to a 1000 year empire. History has a bad habit of repeating itself for those who fail to learn from it!

If you want to learn from history, there's no need to go back 1600 years.

80 years will do.

 

[Jokodo]

Their concers are heard. People just don't agree with them. Among 24 countries polled in a poll conducted earlier in 2015, Sweden has the highest number of people who explicitly disagree with the statement that "Immigration is causing my country to change in ways that I don’t like" (46%), and the lowest number who agree (36%) among countries with significant immigrant populations, the remainder being undecided.

http://ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=14710

Addressing the concerns of a minority out of fear that their fringes will resort to terrorism is yielding to terrorists' threats.

And even if the numbers were different - even if "concerned citizens" had a plurality - that still wouldn't change the fact that Europe is under threat from "concerned citizens", not from immigrants.

The poll numbers of how many disagree or agree isn't reflective of the problem, as much as polarization of those opinions. In the particular question, "Immigration is changing my country in ways I don't like", you'll see that the number of middle answers ("Neither agree nor disagree") for Sweden is the second smallest (14%), only beaten by Turkey where only 9% are undecided.

When a minority feels that they are being screwed over by a majority, they tend to feed extremism. You can see the same phenomenon in violence perpetrated by muslim minorities. You have a few actual terrorists, but a much larger disenfranchised group that tacitly supports some of the same ideas.

"We need to halt mass immigration because a minority feels uncomfortable with the ways the country is changing due to immigrants."

"We need to impose Roman Catholicism on everyone under threat of losing their citizenships because a minority feels uncomfortable with living in a multiconfessional and secularising society."

"We need to impose Sharia law because a minority feels uncomfortable with living under secular rules."

The logical structure of those three statements is equal. If you think one of them is a sound argument and the others aren't, you're going to have to do some explaining.

 

[angelo]

Since mass moslem migration to Sweden, rape has gone up by a staggering 1.200%. Enough said!

This is a bullshit statistics.
First of all, the number appears to be made up in the first place. Even if you take the raw number of reports as recorded by police as indicative of anything, the actual increase is more like 400% between 1977 and 2006. Look at page 20 of this pdf.

Second of all, the number itself is useless for comparisons across countries, and across times within a country, for several reasons:

a) legal definitions of rape vary, and change over time. Specifically in Sweden, the definition has been substantially broadened in 2005, so comparing the numbers before and after is a useless exercise.
b) rates of reporting vary. Specifically, when victims feel that the police won't help them, or when the culture attaches shame to being the victim of a rape, they're reluctant to report rapes. Obviously, that's also a factor that changes over time as a country becomes more egalitarian.
c) simply the way police count reports vary. If a woman reports that she's been raped three times by her boyfriend, or that she has been gang-raped by three people, some countries will count that as one offense and others as three offenses. Sweden falls into the latter category.

A much more valid measure are victimisation surveys such as this. Here Sweden turns out to be pretty average.

Even if your figures are correct! Are you kidding me? A 400% rise in rapes since the mass immigration of moslems to Sweden is okay by you??

 

[Jokodo]

This is a bullshit statistics.
First of all, the number appears to be made up in the first place. Even if you take the raw number of reports as recorded by police as indicative of anything, the actual increase is more like 400% between 1977 and 2006. Look at page 20 of this pdf.

Second of all, the number itself is useless for comparisons across countries, and across times within a country, for several reasons:

a) legal definitions of rape vary, and change over time. Specifically in Sweden, the definition has been substantially broadened in 2005, so comparing the numbers before and after is a useless exercise.
b) rates of reporting vary. Specifically, when victims feel that the police won't help them, or when the culture attaches shame to being the victim of a rape, they're reluctant to report rapes. Obviously, that's also a factor that changes over time as a country becomes more egalitarian.
c) simply the way police count reports vary. If a woman reports that she's been raped three times by her boyfriend, or that she has been gang-raped by three people, some countries will count that as one offense and others as three offenses. Sweden falls into the latter category.

A much more valid measure are victimisation surveys such as this. Here Sweden turns out to be pretty average.

Even if your figures are correct! Are you kidding me? A 400% rise in rapes since the mass immigration of moslems to Sweden is okay by you??

Can you please make it a habit to read more than the first sentence and a half before replying to a post? This would greatly increase the quality of discussions.

A 400% increase in rape reports recorded by police does not equal a 400% increase in rapes.

There was a gradual increase in reports from 858 per year in the late 70s, to 1,303 in the late 80s, to 1,729 in the late 90s, which may or may not reflect an actual increase in rapes. Just as likely, it reports a decrease in the rate of underreporting as victims became more confident in the police being on their side. Then there was a leap to 4,208 reports in 2006, which is explained by a broadening of the legal definition of rape to include cases that would not have been counted earlier.

None of this suggests that the actual number of rapes has increased anywhere near 400%, or indeed at all.

 

[dystopian]

As I said, the only cinema in the small town of Azrou in the Atlas Moyen was screening 5 movies from four continents, in five different languages, when I was there in 2000.

You should know better than to argue based on anecdote.

Plus, you seem to be trying to force a particular explanation for this sort of thing that may not actually fit all that well. The main reason why cinemas in the west tend to show only western movies has relatively little to do with audience interest (beyond the obvious blockbusters having a bigger audience) and everything to do with licensing. Cinemas need to pay licensing fees in order to show a particular movie; and they only have so many screens and timeslots to show movies in. Any profit driven cinema will choose the blockbuster license over a non-american/non-local movie, because in most cases it will earn them the highest profits. If a cinema is doing well financially, you'll often find them putting on foreign films whenever there's a period during which there aren't enough blockbusters and local movies to fill all their screens and slots. In poorer countries and areas, cinema's might not be able to afford a full blockbuster lineup at any given time, and thus switch over to cheaper foreign licenses. This of course has the side-effect of exposing audiences there to foreign cinema, which then helps popularize them in a way that doesn't quite happen in the west; but blaming that on westerners being dismissive of the rest of the world or some such is nonsense.

I've also read that in Nigeria, you'll find a lot of Indian (and to a slightly lesser degree American) movies besides the output of a growing local industry.

That's for a number of reasons; not the least of which is the rampant piracy of pretty much everything in Nigeria. The popularity of Indian movies has also been explained as providing Nigerians (and other Africans) with a movie culture that produces lots of movies without the 'less appealing' aspects of western movies. Subsequently, Indian movies are now rapidly losing popularity in Nigeria (and the rest of Africa) because of the liberalization/sexualization of Bollywood movies.

It really isn't just that Hollywood is so strong that everyone has to follow it. Like it or not, people pretty much anywhere else are more cosmopolitan in their consumption of popular culture than Westerners.

Except they're not; and you base this idea on anecdotes and misplaced feelings of cultural cringe.

The idea that people outside of the west are somehow more cosmopolitan while westerners are closed off is nothing more than a modern variation of the Noble Savage. It is also a hugely ironic idea to push, since it requires one to either place westerners in the box of inferior people; while everyone else in the world are the 'normal' cosmopolitan people, which is ignorant racism. Or place everyone else in the world on a pedestal; lifting them up out of the normal behavior of human cultures (which is to generally not give a shit about the rest of the world beyond bits and pieces of it that happen to resonate), which yes, is also a kind of racism and not at all in the favor of the people put on the pedestal. Plus you know, there's also the whole bit where you group all westerners together as if they were a monolithic culture.

The reality is that people pretty much everywhere, in the west, in asia, in africa, wherever, generally don't really know a whole lot about stuff that goes down elsewhere, except for the bits and pieces of it that happen to achieve some mainstream popularity in their country. The average Dutch person probably knows what Game of Thrones is... he will not know who the fuck Jimmy Kimmel or whoever is. Similarly, the average Nigerian may (or may not) know who some big Indian movie star is because some of the movies he was in were popular in Nigeria... that doesn't mean the same Nigerian is going to know anything more about Indian popculture than the average Dutch person knows about American pop-culture.

You should not, when faced with facets of human behavior in a society that are less than desirable, make the mistake of thinking that surely it's because said society is just bad and all the other societies are much better about it. It's simplistic splitting and won't produce good results.

Just accept that people are shit everywhere.

 

[Jokodo]

In poorer countries and areas, cinema's might not be able to afford a full blockbuster lineup at any given time, and thus switch over to cheaper foreign licenses. This of course has the side-effect of exposing audiences there to foreign cinema, which then helps popularize them in a way that doesn't quite happen in the west;

That's an explanation for why people in poorer countries get to see a more cosmopolitan selection of films, but it doesn't change the fact that they do.

but blaming that on westerners being dismissive of the rest of the world or some such is nonsense.

Whether or not we are inherently dismissive of the rest of the world, the result is that we're comparably ignorant about it.

<snip>

Except they're not; and you base this idea on anecdotes and misplaced feelings of cultural cringe.

You don't want to start second-guessing my motivations. You really aren't good at it.

The idea that people outside of the west are somehow more cosmopolitan while westerners are closed off is nothing more than a modern variation of the Noble Savage. It is also a hugely ironic idea to push, since it requires one to either place westerners in the box of inferior people; while everyone else in the world are the 'normal' cosmopolitan people, which is ignorant racism. Or place everyone else in the world on a pedestal; lifting them up out of the normal behavior of human cultures (which is to generally not give a shit about the rest of the world beyond bits and pieces of it that happen to resonate), which yes, is also a kind of racism and not at all in the favor of the people put on the pedestal. Plus you know, there's also the whole bit where you group all westerners together as if they were a monolithic culture.

The reality is that people pretty much everywhere, in the west, in asia, in africa, wherever, generally don't really know a whole lot about stuff that goes down elsewhere, except for the bits and pieces of it that happen to achieve some mainstream popularity in their country. The average Dutch person probably knows what Game of Thrones is... he will not know who the fuck Jimmy Kimmel or whoever is. Similarly, the average Nigerian may (or may not) know who some big Indian movie star is because some of the movies he was in were popular in Nigeria... that doesn't mean the same Nigerian is going to know anything more about Indian popculture than the average Dutch person knows about American pop-culture.

You should not, when faced with facets of human behavior in a society that are less than desirable, make the mistake of thinking that surely it's because said society is just bad and all the other societies are much better about it. It's simplistic splitting and won't produce good results.

See above.

 

[DrZoidberg]

London is an example of a successful multi-cultural society IMHO. We all should strive to be more like London. I also think that this is one of the reasons London is still Europes financial centre and power-house even half a century after their empire collapsed.

It has been successful but with the huge influx of people coming in when we are not looking after our own pensioners and poorer people it does create problems.

That's an odd way to formulate it. Syria and Afghanistan is sending Europe adult free labour. The whole cost of raising them has been taken by someone else. These refugees will of course only add to Britains wealth helping them to look after the poor and elderly. Studies show that it isn't even a net cost short term. It's all on the plus side. Basically it's free money. This debate isn't about money. The debate is about culture. Ie, how threatened should we feel about kebab consumption skyrocketing and that new mosques are being built.

Further there are security risks given that a person can legally stay in the UK if he or she has no ID.

Hardly a major problem. A nuisance at the most.

By the way quite a few immigrants are wary also of the rate in which people are pouring in.

This is an interesting quirk in human psychology. Foreigners can also be xenophobic of other foreigners. Even from their own home country. Culture and identity is fluid. Immigrants pretty quickly turn into a new category of identity as a blend of the two cultures. What's the most bizarre is that the further down a person is on the social ladder, the more xenophobic they tend to be. And since immigrants always take up the bottom rung on the social ladder in any country, means that the most xenophobic are the same type of people as the ones they're xenophic about. It's bizarre. But just the way people are. If you rank homophobia in a society, those at the very bottom of society are always the most homophobic, even though that's the one group who better than any other should realise how unfair and damaging xenophobia can be.

So basically... doesn't mean anything. It just means that these immigrants are behaving like people do generally.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So children, while many here have fiddled playing us childish tunes of the rosy future of Western Europe, even for Sweden and Germany, the future has arrived, and every week and month it mocks the board's would be Neros...when will this embarrassing and shameless denial end?

Just in the last week, these news stories:

Refugees refusing to leave bus in 'too cold' Swedish village to be removed
The Guardian‎ - 6 hours ago

A man checks a map of Sweden after arriving at Malmo train station in Sweden in ...

The Latest: 2 more migrants dead on Greek island of Lesbos
Yahoo News‎ - 2 hours ago

The Latest: After more than 20 blazes, Sweden to keep location of refugee housing secret
Fox News‎ - 2 days ago

An Attack and an Identity Crisis in Sweden
The New Yorker-Oct 23, 2015

A racially motivated attack at a school in Sweden has shaken a country already experiencing a clash of ideals over immigration.

Swedish killer sought victims by skin color at school
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette-Oct 23, 2015

Deadly school stabbing highlights racial tensions in Sweden
Yahoo News-Oct 24, 2015

Sweden school attack: killer Anton Lundin Pettersson glorified Nazis ...
South China Morning Post (subscription)-Oct 23, 2015

Teacher killed, pupils hurt in sword attack on Sweden school
Opinion-The Express Tribune-Oct 22, 2015

Swedish police say school attack was racist, as refugee rules ...
In-Depth-The Guardian-Oct 23, 2015

Since mass moslem migration to Sweden, rape has gone up by a staggering 1.200%. Enough said!

Ok... this debate again. I'm bored with posting the links so I won't... but to sum it up... rapes are so underreported that it's questionable what rape statistics measure. In most (all?) countries there's such a stigma against being a rape victim that rape reporting only occurs in pretty rare and extreme circumstances. All of which has zero relation to how much it was a real rape. How high this stigma is, is on a sliding scale yada yada yada. Bottom line, we can't compare rape statistics between countries.

Especially in Sweden rape statistics are dodgy because Sweden has what is called "allmänt åtal". Rape cases do not need the cooperation of the "victim", nor any evidence. This breaks the statistics completely. Somebody can report a rape they had nothing to do with, nor know anything about, and then this gets treated as a real rape, no matter if the victim agrees it was a rape or not. This always gets added to the statistic and is mixed in with the statistic of a genuine report (with an actual victim). This statistic is super easy to manipulate. People can just randomly make police reports on anyone they fancy and this statistic will go up. This is a broken system and is widely abused. The very serious side effect of this is that Swedish rape statistics are completely meaningless.

For some reason there's zero political will to fix this. So I'll have to continue to explain why a 1200% increase of Swedish rape probably doesn't mean that rapes have increased. There have been studies where the ethnicity of a name of people convicted of rape has been analysed. Conviction rates almost exactly match the proportions of the ethnic make-up of Sweden. Only with a slightly higher rate for immigrants (no immigrant group being overly represented). This can be explained sociologically with that immigrants have less of an understanding of our legal system, and are less good at lying to get themselves off. So even with the higher rate of conviction rates among immigrant rapes doesn't necessarily have to mean they commit more rapes.

 

[TacticalLoco]

I predict a sharp rise of nationalism and right wing extremism in Europe.

Derec is moving to Europe?

 

[dystopian]

That's an explanation for why people in poorer countries get to see a more cosmopolitan selection of films, but it doesn't change the fact that they do.

Fair enough (up to a point, since it isn't actually explicitly clear that this is generally true and we've yet to see more than anecdotes to support the notion). however, it does dispel any notion of westerners somehow being inherently more dismissive.

Whether or not we are inherently dismissive of the rest of the world, the result is that we're comparably ignorant about it.

But we're not, though. It's somewhat true when you look at *specific* western countries; but not on the whole. When you honestly and objectively look at the situation, you'll find the stereotype you're propagating simply doesn't hold.

Do not confuse "Indian movies are more popular in Nigeria" with "Nigerians are more knowledgeable about the world than Europeans". It is silly and it hurts other, more logically sound arguments, you might make by association.

You don't want to start second-guessing my motivations. You really aren't good at it.

Just because you don't recognize cultural cringe in yourself when you express sentiments that either derive from or feed it, doesn't mean it isn't obvious to others. We rarely recognize such things in ourselves.

 

[TSwizzle]

Sweden is starting to feel the strain as reality sets in;

In the long run our system will collapse in Sweden

 

[whichphilosophy]

Sweden is starting to feel the strain as reality sets in;

In the long run our system will collapse in Sweden

European politicians only talk problems and not solutions. Not all of course pouring in are refugees.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It has been successful but with the huge influx of people coming in when we are not looking after our own pensioners and poorer people it does create problems.

That's an odd way to formulate it. Syria and Afghanistan is sending Europe adult free labour. The whole cost of raising them has been taken by someone else. These refugees will of course only add to Britains wealth helping them to look after the poor and elderly. Studies show that it isn't even a net cost short term. It's all on the plus side. Basically it's free money. This debate isn't about money. The debate is about culture. Ie, how threatened should we feel about kebab consumption skyrocketing and that new mosques are being built.

Further there are security risks given that a person can legally stay in the UK if he or she has no ID.

Hardly a major problem. A nuisance at the most.

By the way quite a few immigrants are wary also of the rate in which people are pouring in.

This is an interesting quirk in human psychology. Foreigners can also be xenophobic of other foreigners. Even from their own home country. Culture and identity is fluid. Immigrants pretty quickly turn into a new category of identity as a blend of the two cultures. What's the most bizarre is that the further down a person is on the social ladder, the more xenophobic they tend to be. And since immigrants always take up the bottom rung on the social ladder in any country, means that the most xenophobic are the same type of people as the ones they're xenophic about. It's bizarre. But just the way people are. If you rank homophobia in a society, those at the very bottom of society are always the most homophobic, even though that's the one group who better than any other should realise how unfair and damaging xenophobia can be.

So basically... doesn't mean anything. It just means that these immigrants are behaving like people do generally.

Immigration from inside Europe is showing surplus Immigration from outside Europei is running into several billions of pounds.
If someone is on the dole who pays for his kebab consumption?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ion-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html
Britain is living in a deficit of hundreds of billions generated from within the UK and from outside.

So to boom the economy all you need to do is import one million immigrants or so a to look after the old
Guess what Immigrants get old too.It's an amazing point but absolutely true. So I guess we can import another million to look after that million plus more to look after the rest.
Pay more for such jobs, and use local people who earn more then they do if they are unemployed. Then we can import labour only as necessary.

 

[angelo]

Even if your figures are correct! Are you kidding me? A 400% rise in rapes since the mass immigration of moslems to Sweden is okay by you??

Can you please make it a habit to read more than the first sentence and a half before replying to a post? This would greatly increase the quality of discussions.

A 400% increase in rape reports recorded by police does not equal a 400% increase in rapes.

There was a gradual increase in reports from 858 per year in the late 70s, to 1,303 in the late 80s, to 1,729 in the late 90s, which may or may not reflect an actual increase in rapes. Just as likely, it reports a decrease in the rate of underreporting as victims became more confident in the police being on their side. Then there was a leap to 4,208 reports in 2006, which is explained by a broadening of the legal definition of rape to include cases that would not have been counted earlier.

None of this suggests that the actual number of rapes has increased anywhere near 400%, or indeed at all.

I suppose this is just islamphobia!
https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/a-look-at-statistics-sweden-a-raped-country/