PC Euphemism Drives People to the Right Wing

The right-wing Alternative for Germany party is now polling at a righteous 15% (g) making it the third-largest party in Germany. And a recent polls shows why: even though most Germans don't think the AfD has any real answers to Germany's political problems, half of Germans approve of the tendency of AfD politicians to 'tell it like it is'.

This is something I've been pointing to for months now: the tendency of functionaries from the mainstream German political parties to muffle controversial subjects in layers of gutless waffle irritates many voters.

  • When people see Arab clans staging massive, bloody brawls on the streets of German cities, they hear politicians speak of 'neighborhoods where the challenges of integration are particularly difficult'.
  • When they read of women being stripped, robbed, beaten and/or gang-raped, they hear politicians speak of 'deeply tragic isolated incidents of severe misconduct which the justice system must take seriously'.
  • When they think to themselves that any migrant who commits a serious crime in Germany should be deported by force to wherever they came from within days, they hear baffling, condescending lectures about 'the constitutional right to an individual determination of asylum status during which only crimes above a certain level of intensity can be taken into account...etc. etc.'
  • When they hear of foreigners groping children's genitals while masturbating in public baths, they hear of 'persons being investigated for improper touching' and the ever-present warning not to 'overgeneralize on the basis of one case'. As if the politician were more concerned about the potential reaction of his fellow citizens than the fact that a child was molested.

A chunk of the electorate -- 50% in Germany now -- becomes convinced that politicians either don't know or don't care about reality. And feel an instinctive affinity for any politician who actually uses straightforward, plain, active sentences to describe what he or she sees. They don't necessarily know about or even care about the party's policies -- they just finally hear someone in a position of responsibility using the sort of language normal humans do.

Over to Orwell:

Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

‘While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.’

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

Now of course this preference is selective: the AfD is currently riding high on the preferences of certain voters to hear blunt talk about immigration, not about other subjects. But the tragic flaw or genius of democracy, depending on your viewpoint, is that voters get to decide what's important to them.

This is hardly just an issue of diction. Donald Trump is now the Republican nominee in the US, and one main reason why is his blunt talk. The AfD has now permanently changed the German political landscape for the same reason. Something which starts out as a matter of tone can quickly change how countries are governed. Only people who've never read Orwell should be surprised by this.

Germany Has Already Imported an Inevitable Increase in Violent Crime

It's good to be smart, for a lot of reasons. One of them is that higher intelligence is associated with a lower lifetime risk of being the victim of a crime:


The abstract:

Intelligence has been linked to antisocial, violent, and criminal behaviors. Surprisingly, however, there is a lack of research examining whether intelligence differentially affects the risk for personal victimization. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by examining whether adolescent levels of verbal intelligence are related to the odds of personal victimization in adolescence and adulthood. This study analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). The results revealed a statistically significant and consistent association between intelligence and victimization. Persons with lower intelligence were more likely to report being victimized even after controlling for the effects of violent criminal behavior. Future research would benefit by examining more closely the association between IQ score and the risk for victimization over the life course.

Note the first sentence: "Intelligence has been linked to antisocial, violent, and criminal behaviors." More to the point, lack of intelligence has been linked to higher levels of antisocial, violent, and criminal behaviors. Hundreds of studies establish this correlation, in dozens of different cultures.

This is why cognitive ability is important in the German immigration debate. If you decide to let 800,000 young males into your country in a single year, it is extremely important to know what their level of cognitive ability is, for a very simple reason: the lower the level of cognitive ability, the higher the propensity, on average, to commit violent and antisocial acts.

Let me insert the necessary qualifications: this does not mean that every low-IQ immigrant will commit a violent crime, or even that most will. Nor does this mean that you can predict what any one individual immigrant will do on the basis of broad studies.

What this does mean, though, is that if (1) a group of young male immigrants have a profile of low cognitive ability; and (2) you let very large numbers of them into your country -- you will then have a marked increase in antisocial behavior and violent crime.

This is inevitable.

It is baked-in.

There is no way to avoid it.

Let's add a few factors to indicate the German situation. The typical 2015 young male immigrant to Germany:

  1. Is now for the first time freed from the social constraints which strictly limit antisocial behavior back home (reputation in the community, threat of violent retribution from own/victims' kin).
  2. Speaks no German and has zero understanding of the host country's culture, customs, and history.
  3. Has nothing to do all day, since he cannot legally work until his immigration status is clarified, and likely has no relevant job skills in any case.
  4. Has, for the first time in his life, unrestricted access to cheap alcohol.

All these factors point in the same unpleasant direction: No matter what the German government does, no matter what policies it follows, no matter how many unpaid hours volunteers put in, Germany will see a significant rise in antisocial activity and violent crime in Germany in the coming years driven by migrants.

Any analysis of migration policy that tries to deny or ignore these fact is fundamentally dishonest.

To link back to the study above, the primary victims of this increase in violent crime will be Germans with lower cognitive ability and less education. That is, the ones who live in the lower-middle-class and working-class neighborhoods where migrant shelters are now being erected -- generally against the will of nearby residents. It is these people who will be most exposed to the increased dangers and risks of uncontrolled immigration.

And when they quite rationally react to this situation with anger and disgust, they will be insulted and mocked. By the very educated urbanites who created and supported the policy in the first place.

I Am Now a 'German Analyst'

Soeren Kern at the Gatestone Institute quotes the rantings of some obscure crank on his so-called 'weblog':

In an insightful essay, German analyst Andrew Hammel writes:

"Let's do the math. There are currently 16 million Turkish citizens of Kurdish descent in Turkey. There is a long history of discrimination by Turkish governments against this ethnic minority, including torture, forced displacement, and other repressive measures. The current conservative-nationalist Turkish government is fighting an open war against various Kurdish rebel groups, both inside and outside Turkey.

"This means that under German law as it is currently being applied by the ruling coalition in the real world (not German law on the books), there are probably something like 5-8 million Turkish Kurds who might have a plausible claim for asylum or subsidiary protection. That's just a guess, the real number could be higher, but probably not much lower.

"If visa requirements are lifted completely, each of these persons could buy a cheap plane ticket to any German airport, utter the word 'asylum,' and trigger a years-long judicial process with a good chance of ending in a residency permit."

Hammel continues:

"There are already 800,000 Kurds living in Germany. As migration researchers know, existing kin networks in a destination country massively increase the likelihood and scope of migration.... As Turkish Kurds are likely to arrive speaking no German and with limited job skills, just like current migrants, where is the extra 60-70 billion euros/year [10 billion euros/year for every one million migrants] going to come from to provide them all with housing, food, welfare, medical care, education and German courses?

And finally, "the most important, most fundamental, most urgent question of all":

"Why should a peaceful, stable, prosperous country like Germany import from some remote corner of some faraway land a violent ethnic conflict which has nothing whatsoever to do with Germany and which 98% Germans do not understand or care about?"

Turkish-Kurdish violence is now commonplace in Germany, which is home to around three million people of Turkish origin — roughly one in four of whom are Kurds. German intelligence officials estimate that about 14,000 of these Kurds are active supporters of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a militant group that has been fighting for Kurdish independence since 1974.

On April 10, hundreds of Kurds and Turks clashed in Munich and dozens fought in Cologne. Also on April 10, four people were injured when Kurds and Turks fought in Frankfurt. On March 27, nearly 40 people were arrested after Kurds attacked a demonstration of around 600 Turkish protesters in the Bavarian town of Aschaffenburg.

On September 11, 2015, dozens of Kurds and Turks clashed in Bielefeld. On September 10, more than a thousand Kurds and Turks fought in Berlin. Also on September 10, several hundred Kurds and Turks fought in Frankfurt.

On September 3, more than 100 Kurds and Turks clashed in Remscheid. On August 17, Kurds attacked a Turkish mosque in Berlin-Kreuzberg. In October 2014, hundreds of Kurds and Turks clashed at the main train station in Munich.

Just to clarify a few things for newcomers: I am an occasional analyst of events in Germany, but I'm an American citizen who lives here, not German.

I'm also not a neo-conservative, and disagree with many of the positions taken by the Gatestone Institute. But on the subject of European immigration, we see eye-to-eye. I have quoted their reports from time to time on this blog, because they're generally solidly researched and draw attention to aspects of European immigration policy which are most definitely downplayed by the mainstream European media, including state-funded broadcasters.

And I have yet to hear any answers to the obvious questions I posed back in my original blog post on March 1.

A Policy Critique is not 'Fear'

Die Welt headlines an article about Thilo Sarrazin's new book: 'Sarrazin's Fear of Masses of Uneducated Migrants (g)'. The first thing to note is now that Germany's signed a deal kicking them out of Europe, they're suddenly migrants, not refugees. I bet some pretty interesting things are happening in Greece right now, but you won't read about them in the German mainstream press, because they don't fit with the image of Germany as the last valiant guardian of European Values™.

The second thing to note is that Sarrazin's policy critique is here described as 'fear'. This goes along with calling the objections ordinary Germans have to Merkel's policy 'concerns and fears' (Sorgen und Ängste). Before Cologne, anyone who expressed misgivings about Merkel's policy could be labeled a racist.

After Cologne, even the most belligerently naive of German politicians realized they had to give permission to ordinary Germans to disapprove of the policy of letting hundreds of thousands of uneducated young males from the most unstable parts of the world into Germany with no background checks. So they now recite the phrase 'Of course, I take the concerns and fears of the population seriously', before doing whatever it was they were going to do anyway.

It's a more subtle dismissal, but that's still what it is. Any resident of Germany who disapproved of throwing open the borders and abandoning security checks must be motivated by fear, not by rational concern. (Unlike those who insisted Germany immediately cancel all existing nuclear plant contracts after Fukushima, at a cost of €7 trillion. That overnight flip-flop was motivated only by cool-headed policy analysis.)

I am not 'afraid' of migrants, nor is Sarrazin, nor are most of the people I speak to who disapprove of Merkel's Mistake. We simply find it an epochal policy mistake whose consequences will burden Germany for generations. And we have about a thousand quite rational reasons for thinking so, thank you very much.

Böhmermann is Guilty

There's only one way in which I care about the Erdogan thingy -- as a pretty interesting legal puzzle. As for all the self-righteous German bloviation about Freedom of Speech, The Whims of a Despot, etc. -- that's all a bunch of hooey nobody except a tiny journalistic elite cares about.

From a purely legal perspective, there's a good case Böhmi should be found guilty and fined. Just so nobody don't get the wrong idea, let me explain that I find the 'insulting foreign leaders' law silly, and believe Germany should have got rid of it a long time ago. I also have doubts about whether a modern legal order needs the category of 'abusive criticism' (Schmähkritik). I am talking here descriptively about German law as it is, not as I might wish it to be.

And under these laws, Böhmi's guilty. The 'insulting foreign leaders' law will obviously be interpreted in light of artistic and political freedom guaranteed by the German Basic Law. But here's the thing: artistic freedom, satire, etc. have limits. German magazines can be and have been punished for satire that 'goes too far' (I'm lookin' at you with admiration, Titanic). The key distinction is whether there is a 'Sachbezug' -- roughly, some relationship to a recognized political or social issue. It's a weighing test: the severity of the insults against the strength of the relationship to a legitimate subject of debate.

Böhmi's 'poem' fails. It wasn't a puppet-show, or a song, or a sketch, or even a straightforward political commentary. It is nothing more than a collection of racist insults that go far beyond what German law permits in any case. Goat-fucker, kiddie-porn devotee, carrier of gang-bang related sexual diseases, etc. All of these insults are illegal in Germany, even when used sarcastically and even when nobody could be expected to believe there was truth in them. That's how German law works. If Böhmi had said these things about a private persons on national television, it is 100% absolutely ironclad certain he would be convicted. There are literally hundreds of cases on exactly this subject. There was only a brief mention of political issues in the 'poem'. Böhmermann himself, as he read the poem, said that it was illegal. He even entitled it 'Schmähkritik' (abusive criticism). Böhmi consciously, knowingly, by his own admission engaged in conduct that is against the law in Germany. 

And if this argument doesn't convince you, let's do a Gedankenexperiment: Böhmi reads a poem about the Israeli President Reuven Rivlin calling him a 'dirty Jew', 'child-murderer', a 'racist warmonger', and a 'fat, malodorous pig'. That is the level of rhetoric directed at Erdogan. Would German politicos and journos be whining about freedom of expression and kowtowing to foreigners? Of course not. Any judge worth his salt, however, will see that these two cases must be treated equally, if the idea of a principle-driven legal system is to have any meaning at all. The issue isn't which foreign leader was targeted, it's what was said.

So he should be found guilty, and I think he will. This is not a case about freedom of expression. This is a case about whether a person who publicly announces he is going to break the law and then does so should be punished. The answer is, and should be 'yes'. The best analogy here is to Joseph Gibbons:

Artist and former MIT professor Joseph Gibbons learned this week that robbing banks, even in the name of art, will still land you in jail. He pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree this week in a Manhattan court.

Gibbons was arrested in January for a heist staged on December 31 at a Capital One bank in New York's Chinatown. According to court documents, he made his demands for cash in the form of a polite note asking the teller for a donation for his church, and then took $1,000 (see Artist and Former MIT Professor Robs Banks Claiming It's His Art).

In November, Gibbons held up a bank in Rhode Island using the same method, and made off with $3,000.

Both times, Gibbons videotaped the theft. “He was doing research for a film," his cell-mate, Kaylan Sherrard, told the New York Post. “It's not a crime; it's artwork…He's an intellectual."

Gibbons went to jail because freedom of expression does not cover illegal activity. That's just as true in Germany as it is in the U.S. Whether you agree with Germany's restrictive freedom-of-expression laws or not, Böhmi broke them.


How to Save the SPD: Universal Basic Income

Here's the problem:

1.     Anyone who's paying attention can see that 95% of the migrants who came to Germany in 2015 are going to integrate into the German social welfare system, and probably 50% will never leave it.

2.    This is going to piss off working- and lower-middle class Germans, who will still have to work 40 hours a week to make a wage only 20% higher than welfare. Uwe says: 'Why do I have to I bust my ass working in some shitty supermarket for an asshole boss while Firduz hangs out on the street corner getting free money from the government for doing nothing?'

The answer: Universal Basic Income. Abolish Germany's ludicrously complex welfare system, and just give everyone, say, € 900 per month. Enough to subsist on, but not much more. 

This plan will have some side-effects, of course, but it won't be such a huge change, since everyone in Germany is already entitled to a basic income -- they just have to prove they're unemployed and have no more assets. Under the new plan, everyone gets it. 95% of the useless welfare bureaucracy will vanish, providing huge savings to the German state.

Most importantly, UBI will remove, or at least greatly reduce the envy factor. Uwe will probably continue to work, since the UBI won't pay enough for any luxuries, such as a private washing machine, cars, or vacations. But since he is also getting what Firduz is getting, he will feel much less resentment.

If the SPD had any sense at all, it would stop futzing around with idiotic nanny-state schemes nobody cares about (sexist advertising) and come out loud and defiant in favor of UBI. 

A Course in Reality for Germans, Vol. IX: Educated People Commit Less Crime

Hey look, it's a new post on this blog!

As most of you now know, Facebook is now the center of my online world. But it turns out that for longer formats with more citations, a blog can still be a useful outlet. So I will be still posting a few things here once in a while.

And now to today's topic: The belligerent naivete of some left-leaning Germans. Specifically, the link between education level and violent crime. I posted on Facebook the following summary of an article (g) about an upcoming rape trial:

A Senegalese asylum-seeker accosts a 19-year-old woman in the small Bavarian town of Mühldorf, Germany (pop. 18,000), steals her smartphone, asks her to kiss him, and calls her a 'racist' when she refuses. He then drags her into the bushes and brutally rapes her four times, leaving her bruised and bleeding. Her DNA was found on his penis, his under her fingernails. He kept her smartphone, the police found him with it. The rape made headlines all over the part of rural Bavaria where it took place.

This is yet another in an ever-growing list of serious sexual assaults committed by asylum-seekers. I posted this because I consider these assaults to be a security issue which should be openly discussed in Germany. Many Germans, however, are still deathly afraid to even mention the issue, lest they be accused of being not nice.

Of course, I was immediately engaged in a debate. I pointed out that Senegal is a stable, democratic country at peace, considered one of the best-governed in Africa. Therefore that this asylum-seeker was almost certainly an economic migrant who should never have been let into Germany. And that if he had been properly excluded, this vicious, life-altering crime would never have taken place.

One of the arguments put forward by left-leaning Germans in the lively, interesting comments thread was: how do I know the rapist wasn't a legitimate asylum-seeker? I then pointed out that the typical profile of a successful asylum-seeker from a place like Senegal would be an artist, writer, activist, professor, or perhaps human-rights lawyer who had angered the regime. And then came the surprising reply: Well, who's to say those people don't commit rapes? I answered, patiently, that of course it's remotely possible, but statistically, violent sexual assaults of strangers are typically committed by people with low cognitive ability, little education, and poor impulse control. 

At this I was accused of spewing hateful, harmful generalizations. As if educated people are more law-abiding than uneducated people! What snobbery!

At this point, you always have to ask yourself whether your interlocutor is serious. Can anyone really doubt that educated people commit fewer violent crimes? But they apparently really meant what they were saying. They had their rigid, ideologically-determined views about human nature, and they were sticking to them, like a creationist stubbornly insisting that mankind lived alongside dinosaurs.

But belligerently naive Germans go beyond creationists: not only did they insist on their ludicrous views, they denounce anyone who doesn't share them as a snob, racist, or both. One of the Germans on the thread actually declared that my views 'made her sick'! 

So I here provide just a few random hits from the 411,000 Google results for the search "crime rate educational attainment." First, a handy summary

A few recent statistics from Europe and the United States highlight the strong connection between education and crime. In 1997, 75 percent of state and 59 percent of federal prison inmates in the US did not have a high school diploma (Harlow 2003).1 In 2001, more than 75 percent of convicted persons in Italy had not completed high school (Buonanno and Leonida 2006), while incarceration rates among men ages 21-25 in the United Kingdom were more than eight times higher for those without an education qualification (i.e. dropouts) relative to those with a qualification (Machin, Marie and Vujic 2011). Finally, among Swedes born between 1943 and 1955, men with at least one criminal conviction had completed 0.7 years less schooling, on average, than men without a conviction; the difference for women was roughly half this size (Hjalmarsson, Holmlund and Lindquist 2011).

Now, a handy chart:

SJI_chart_1a_feb2012 (2)I could go on, and on, and on. But I imagine the readers of this blog hardly need more proof of this obvious constant of human societies.

Only certain Germans do.



Migrants Are Literally Impoverishing Germany

In 2015, thousands of Georgians joined the throngs streaming unchecked into Germany and filed claims for political asylum. The skeptical among us asked the simple question: "Why Georgians?" Georgia is a stable, peaceful, representative democracy. It has close ties to the West, and its level of economic development and human-rights record are much better than most of the countries in the region.

So were these thousands of Georgians all journalists, activists, and ethnic minorities fleeing oppression? Whenever skeptics like me asked the question, belligerently naive Germans typically responded in the same simple-minded way they did when asked about all the Pakistanis, Indians, Moroccans, Algerians, and Nigerians: they pointed to reports about scattered human-rights abuses in these countries, and immediately jumped to the conclusion that everyone claiming asylum from these countries must be among the groups facing oppression.

After all, everyone who entered Germany in 2015 was a refugee. And refugees are fleeing war and oppression. Therefore everyone who entered Germany in 2015 was fleeing war and oppression. Anyone who points out the flaw in this syllogism is a neo-Nazi.

Now, of course, we know that the majority of people who entered Germany in 2015 just wanted to relocate to a country with higher living standards. And some had even more sinister motives. Like the Georgians. As Die Welt reports (g) most of the Georgians who claimed asylum are professional burglars operating in organized gangs. They are sent into Germany with a mission: file a bogus asylum claim, and while you wait 8-12 months for it to be decided -- all the while being housed and fed by the German taxpayer -- steal as much stuff as you can from the hapless, naive, clueless Germans. 

These gangs of criminals are certainly part of the reason for the staggering rise in break-ins in Germany -- 2015 saw a whopping 18.1% increase (g) in break-ins in my home state alone. The overwhelmed and undermanned police clear a whopping 15% of these cases. Half of the suspects which are identified are not German citizens. No word on how many of the ones who did have German citizenship also had a 'migration background', but we all know how that goes.

And in my neighborhood, the victims of the break-ins are usually the cool, interesting boutiques that make it so lively. Our new Georgian friends know that mall chain-stores have security out the wazoo, so they target small independent stores. A bespoke women's fashion shop near me was cleaned out a few weeks ago. They stole all the clothes. The next target was Unlicht, a store that sells Gothic and medieval clothes, candles, craft brews, incense, and other assorted oddments for your metal lifestyle. The break-in -- in which the professional thieves stole a 300-kg safe -- caused €12,000 in damages (g) and threatens the future existence of this quirky neighborhood fixture.

Now, it's at least possible that both of these break-ins (and the thousands of others) were committed by Germans. When German public television films a crime drama about them, you can be sure that will be the case. But they typical ethnic German burglar is a junkie looking for a fix, not an organized gang with a truck and the tools and equipment needed to break through locked doors and move 300-kilogram safes. I have a sneaking suspicion that our Caucasian -- or Balkan -- friends are behind these professional, organized crimes, and that all the money and gear is funding vulgar McMansions on the outskirts of Belgrade or Tbilisi.

These migrants aren't just passively impoverishing Germany by filing bogus asylum claims and living on state relief. They're actively stealing wealth from entrepreneurs and shipping it to other countries. Which means now even the smallest boutique can no longer rely on the social trust that makes (made?) Germany such a safe and pleasant place to live. Congratulations, Merkel!

The Unstoppable Decline of the SPD


Politico watches the German Social Democratic Party circle the drain (from 38% of the vote in 2002 to 22% today, with no end in sight):

“Questions of fair distribution of money and resources are no longer at the forefront of social democratic politics,” said Matthias Micus, a political scientist at the University of Göttingen.

“Being ‘left’ the way the SPD understands it today is no longer primarily about economic questions, but much more about cultural issues like gender politics, the protection of minorities, or when it comes to cultural diversity or immigration,” Micus said.

However, he added, the traditional SPD electorate — the working class — does not really care about those topics.

“This has led to an estrangement of the SPD from its traditional electorate,” Micus said.

You don't say.

Migrant Assaults Back on the Omertà List in Germany, But Not in Australia

After a brief period of honest discussion in January, the mainstream national press has returned to a policy of silence on sexual offenses committed by migrants. Those offenses haven't stopped, of course, but they are now reported on only in local newspapers and websites.

Nevertheless, sites which aggregate these reports point to what is clearly a significant public-safety issue in Germany. If we ever get reliable statistics on sex assaults in Germany in 2015-16 broken down by ethnicity of offender, we will certainly see a large increase driven by assaults and rapes committed by recent migrants. (Which is why those statistics will likely never be collected.)

Since the national German media are ignoring this public-safety issue, Australia has decided to step in. Here's a relatively balanced but critical story from the Australian NewsCorp website:

GERMANY, Sweden and other European countries are facing growing public unrest amid a wave of reports of sexual assaults since the Cologne attacks.

New York-based conservative think tank Gatestone Institute has compiled ashocking list of sexual assaults and rapes by migrants in Germany in just the first two months of the year.

Drawing only from German media reports, the list documents more than 160 instances of rape and sexual assault committed by migrants in train stations,swimming pools and other public places against victims as young as seven.

German police use terms such as “southerners” (südländer), men with “dark skin” (dunkelhäutig, dunklere gesichtsfarbe, dunklem hauttyp) or “southern skin colour” (südländische hautfarbe) to describe the alleged perpetrators.

Authorities across the country have been accused of downplaying the true extent of the problem by suppressing information about migrant-related crimes, ostensibly due to a “lack of public interest”.

Police are also wary of fuelling civil unrest amid a rising number of attacks on migrants and shelters by right-wing vigilante groups. In response, Germans are increasingly turning to social media to spread information.

A German Twitter account, @XYEinzelfall (“individual cases”), has created aGoogle map to track police reports of crimes allegedly committed by migrants across the region. “Cologne was just the tip of the iceberg,” the page says. “Cologne is every day.”...

However, refugee advocates have warned against tarring all migrants with the same brush, noting that the alleged crimes are rare incidents in the context of the enormous number of migrants who have come to Europe.

More than 1.1 million migrants flooded into Germany in 2015 and the country is expecting 3.6 million to arrive by 2020, according to internal government estimates.

UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women Dubravka Šimonović told Timethat “against this background, we are currently speaking about incidents that must be carefully studied to establish any patterns and links”....

The German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) announced that migrants committed crimes at the same rate as native Germans.

“It’s becoming clear that at bottom there is a higher absolute number of criminal cases only because of the increase in number of people living here with the arrival of the refugees,” German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière said at the time.

Mr de Maizière said he had ordered the report in order to provide proof to “dispel rumours about an increase in criminal acts in Germany”, DW reported.

“The majority [of migrants] do not come here with the intention of committing crimes,” he said. “They come to Germany to find protection and peace.”

The same report, which was based on crime statistics from January to the end of September 2015, noted a “marked spike” in crime at migrant centres, which it attributed to overcrowding.

According to BKA, the majority (67 per cent) of crimes committed by migrants consisted of theft, robbery and fraud, while sex crimes made up less than one per cent....

On Monday, police in the Swedish city of Östersund advised women not to go outdoors alone following a string of public assaults and sex attacks in the past three weeks.

Sweden, which has a population of just under 10 million, took in around 163,000 migrants in 2015, making it by far the most generous on a per capita basis.

National broadcaster SVT reports what police area manager Stephen Jerand described as a “worrying trend” of unprovoked violence on women in public places.

Speaking at a press conference, police said they had never experienced crime of this nature in the small city of Östersund, which has a population of just 44,000.

“This is serious,” Mr Jerand said. “We care about the protection of women and that is why we go out and talk about this.”

Police said there had been six reports of attacks since February 20, including a 10-year-old girl who was molested at a bus station in the centre of the city....

It comes after a poll conducted by Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet found nearly half of all women in the country are now scared to exercise alone at night.

According to the survey, 46 per cent of women aged over 16 felt either “very” or “somewhat” unsafe when they are alone in the dark, compared with 20 per cent of men.

Almost one third said if they were caught by sunset, that they would rather stay at a friend’s house than try to get home alone.

Speaking to the newspaper, 34-year-old Ellinor Andersson said she carried a bunch of keys in her hand at night, ready to strike out at any attacker.

“I would never go running by myself on a Friday or a Saturday night,” she told the paper. Another said she would never go out alone after 7pm.

Earlier this month, the Daily Mail reported of an all-female, bikini-clad group of ‘vigilantes’ called the ‘Groping Guards’, who patrol swimming pools in Sweden to prevent migrants molesting bathers.

“Swimming pools have become prime hunting grounds for gangs of men looking to prey on vulnerable women,” 24-year-old Siri Bernhardsson told the Daily Mail.

“Loads of women here say they have been touched. We are tired of men thinking they can come to Sweden and molest women. We want to teach these boys how to behave and be left in peace to swim without being felt up.

“It happens in train stations and in swimming pools. This should not be the case in 2016 in Sweden.”

In January, it emerged that Swedish authorities had covered up sexual assaults on teenage girls by mostly migrant youths at a music festival in Stockholm for fear of “[playing] into the hands” of the anti-immigration right-wing party the Sweden Democrats.

In an editorial for the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper at the time, Ivar Arpi wrote: “We Swedes pride ourselves on our unrivalled record on respecting women’s rights. But when women’s rights conflict with the goal of accommodating other cultures, it’s almost always women who are pushed to the side.”

It's almost as if the Australian news media trust their readers to be able to read balanced but direct reports about a sensitive subject without immediately rushing out of their houses to form mobs and hunt down foreigners.