Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

"They can't speak the language so that justifies them raping people"?

Best excuse I've heard so far, was from an Iraqi man in 20s who raped a 13 or 14 year old (IIRC) in public baths. He claimed to have had a "sexual emergency" where he couldn't control himself.

The raped boy was 10, I believe.

And the 'sexual emergency' defence worked. His conviction was overturned.

You have to laugh, really. And then cry.

Except for the part where his conviction wasn't overturned because of that defense but because of some procedural stuff in the way the verdict was phrased. He was re-tried and actually got a sentence six years longer the second time.

But yeah, I guess going for meme instead of fact makes for a better case.

[scriver]

The police shouldn't be the ones who are dealing with immigrants. Does Sweden not have an immigration service to keep track of immigrants?

In saying that, I once knew someone who overstayed a visa in the UK. The immigration service came to his door and asked where he was. Given he didn't particularly want to leave at that point, he told them "he doesn't live here anymore" and they left.

As for people not liking what the police were doing as per your story, I would imagine that people don't particularly like it when there is going to be some racial targeting element in the activities of the police, particularly when what they're looking for is someone whose only crime is not having the right pieces of paper.

Lots of crimes can be reduced to not having the correct piece of paper, if that's how you want to look at it. Fact remains that people do not have a right to live wherever they want and require a reason to be allowed to stay here. "Life would be easier for me" is not a valid reason.

As for the "racial targeting": If police is looking for illegal immigrants then it makes sense for them to target people who look, sound, or act foreign. It's just common sense. I feel that getting asked to provide an ID despite being wrongly targeted isn't too much to ask of people anyway. The world doesn't revolve around them.

[Frumple]

... problem being that catches a lot more people than immigrants, and there's kinda' consequences to treating entire ethnicities as suspected criminals. When you consider that most governments that have reached the point of casually allowing racial profiling either aren't exactly going to make IDs easy to get (or replace, should it come to that) even for citizens or will end up that way in relatively short order, then what you consider "not too much to ask" very rapidly actually does start becoming too much to ask for a fair number of your population* -- and on the heels of that you're going to have a lovely thing called selective enforcement start flapping its wings around, with a nice side order of the occasional "lost" papers that somehow never make it from whoever you give them to, to the courts. Add on that's about the fastest way to nuke the possibility of collaboration between even legal immigrant populations (who are going to be constantly and persistently harassed in the face of legal support for the power being considered) and your law enforcement agencies, and you get to toss a substantial spike in much, much more impactful crime on top of it, too. Along with a fair chunk of other junk. Usually just... not something you want to court allowing. Whatever gains you may make,** your country is going to be paying for in ways that either outweigh them immediately or pretty much inevitably will. Shit's just kinda' heavily abusable, and really, really not something you want your country to let fly.

Basically one of those issues where common sense is just sorta' wrong. On a single, isolated case it might look like it pans out, but in aggregate the effects of allowing that sort of blanket "just pull them over and demand ID" behavior start undermining the goal. Sometimes even if the goal is just less foreigners, since it kneecaps a number of the possible means of identifying and approaching ones undesired for whatever reason. And all that isn't getting into the problems related to giving police forces the ability to abuse the power and just say, "Well, they looked/sounded/whatever foreign" to justify harassing people and the host of other abuses a maliciously inclined officer can indulge in, or gods know what else I'm forgetting. Bad juju all around.

* You can see it in the US, if you want an example pretty close in nature, that just so happens to also have a tendency of being directed at minority populations. Part of the way voter disenfranchisement efforts play out is mandating ID that certain demographics are either less likely to have (drivers license for urban folks in areas with decent public transportation, as a very much non-exhaustive example), or face disproportionate expense (when targeted demographics often enough are already in rough times financially) to obtain or replace.
** And they're very much not guaranteed, because again, check the above -- cooperation with immigrant populations legal and not helps quite a bit with catching folks who are doing stuff of significantly more substantial note than not being here with papers. You turn every single member of the population into a suspected criminal and that cooperation both stops and often enough turns into active resistance.

[Silverthrone]

Yes, well, I do find it rather doubtful that the process of getting an indentification document will be made more difficult simply because of this. Further, since a valid ID is necessary for many every day tasks, it is very uncommon that someone does not have any sort of indentification whatsoever.

However, you are right, it is not a particularly good method, and it was clumsy of me to imply that it is such things that I want to see more in use. No, I think it is far too wide a net to catch a handful, at the very best. Targeted operations, based on careful observation and investigation, is better in every way. Observing them, finding their residence and inquiring there, for instance, or only sweep certain hot-spots where they are very likely to be at a given time. Also, there are some venues (such as car washes, building sites, kitchens) where unlicensed labour is common, and where illegal residents tend to be employed (for tuppence, long hours and no insurance, naturally, unlicensed labour is a rather exploitative world). Observing and examining them would be a better method.

[Frumple]

Probably would get more difficult, though, or allowed ID chosen in part because of the relative difficulties to obtain (if not at first, then as time goes on and people pay less attention). It's fairly common when it's possible to leverage that sort of thing towards whatever goal the people managing the leverage has (and it can be all sorts, mind you -- politicians, corporations, criminal organizations that manage to obtain influence, looking to make sure they have good recruiting grounds, extremists looking to prey on the desperate or have something to point to for propaganda purposes, etc., etc., etc.).

Though yeah, it is uncommon* that someone does not have any sort of identification whatsoever. Which is why when you see stuff like that go through -- if it doesn't start that way outright -- the sorts of identification that are accepted don't fall particularly comfortably under that "whatsoever" label

Mostly ends up being one of those things that, in an ideal world without all the first and second+ order problems involved, it might actually manage to be a useful tool for identifying a targeted group. Obvious thing being obvious, this isn't an ideal world. It's something that's ripe for corruption and abuse, even when it does manage any gains toward that identification process.

* Mind, uncommon isn't even remotely unknown, still. You'd have to weigh that in consideration, too, whether hitting the groups where it does happen (if not commonly, then at least enough to be notable -- and don't forget to tally up the consequences beyond the immediate effect on said groups) is actually worth whatever you're getting out of it and/or isn't going to just make things worse on the net, however little.

[Silverthrone]

But surely, it is not a natural law that the difficulty of obtaining an identification card will increase with a tightened domestic policy? What purpose would it serve? Those are all entities that might influence the process, and that might have an interest in doing so, but it is not certain that they will. At present, it is not particularly difficult to obtain one, and it is handled by the police authority. Indeed, most other authorities and services strongly suggest that you get one.
Further, there is a similar 'identity card-light', as it were, available for registered asylum applicants. It is not a full ID, and cannot be used in banks, et cetera, but it works as a proof that the holder is allowed to remain in the country while their case is being tested. It is mostly used during contact with the authorities, and can also be used for lower costs on some medicine and healthcare. Of course, it is considered void if the application is denied.

In brief, I do not think that it is such a terrible, terrible bother to get hold of an identification document that it is unreasonable to expect it of the public. Further, if you are 'caught' in an ID-check, and cannot identify yourself with documents or to a satisfying degree without, they are not going to haul you off to a black-site, or throw you on the first outbound plane they find at the airport. At the very worst, you will be checked over in the police station. Not a very pleasant thing to have happen to you, but unless they have real reason to believe that you are an illegal resident (which is not very difficult to disprove, even without proper documents), it is not likely to happen.
With law and security at risk, I do, indeed, believe it is worth hitting those groups, shall we say. More people might need to take the plunge and apply for proper documents, which will be a light to moderate hassle, at worst. That weighs rather light against the alternative. Particularly for a small country that relies heavily on internal order and its bureaucracy.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

When you consider that most governments that have reached the point of casually allowing racial profiling

This reminds me of a case in London I read about from the late 90s / early 00s.

There was a series of REALLY vicious combined burglary / rapes (guy was breaking in, raping and beating the shit out of whoever lived there and then running with goods he collected). There was no discretion on the targets, either. Children, the elderly, men, women. The person doing it was not picky at all.

People were getting really agitated because these were REALLY bad crimes back in the day.

Out of nowhere, the police started sending letters to and interrogating black men. The rights groups kicked off, saying the police were "racially profiling black people" and that anyone could've committed the crime.

A week later they caught the person that had been eluding them for ages.

Is this racial profiling?

Spoiler: How It Worked (click to show/hide)

This was back when DNA wasn't well understood by the public. No one really knew much about it, since it was before the advent of the CSI programs.

They took the criminal's semen from one of the victims and matched it to a series of genetic markers only present in black people. They knew the criminal had to be a man because they had semen (obviously). This allowed them to save a lot of money and limit the search to only black men.

They were doing mass DNA testing on the men they were interrogating and they eventually found a partial match (with a very rare DNA marker).

After doing some searching, they found the guy they were looking for, who was the partial match's first cousin.

And people were almost rioting about racial profiling about a system they didn't understand.

[Sheb]

“This intention was not sufficiently established, so the Supreme Court quashed the rape conviction,” Austria’s national ORF broadcaster reported.'

'Procedural stuff', okay. He was TEN. How the fuck could a grown man not know whether a ten year old boy can consent? You can cite cultural differences all you like, but if this refugee is coming from a culture where ten year olds 'can' and apparently 'do' consent, that's an even bigger deal for the countries that are now importing those kind of attitudes.

Well, yeah, which is why it wasn't hard to re-sentence him. It's just that you have to justify it explicitely in the verdict, even if it's evident.

And you say he received a sentence six years longer - that's incorrect. He originally received a sentence of six years, and that was increased to seven years. That's right there in the article you linked to, second and fifth paragraphs.

Oh, you're right about that detail, I misread, sorry. Still, my track record is much better than yours of thinking that his defense worked and he was set free.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Except for the part where his conviction wasn't overturned because of that defense but because of some procedural stuff in the way the verdict was phrased. He was re-tried and actually got a sentence six years longer the second time.

But yeah, I guess going for meme instead of fact makes for a better case.

'Supreme Court judges ruled that the first court should have established whether the attacker thought his victim agreed to a sexual act and intended to act against the boy’s will.

“This intention was not sufficiently established, so the Supreme Court quashed the rape conviction,” Austria’s national ORF broadcaster reported.'

'Procedural stuff', okay. He was TEN. How the fuck could a grown man not know whether a ten year old boy can consent? You can cite cultural differences all you like, but if this refugee is coming from a culture where ten year olds 'can' and apparently 'do' consent, that's an even bigger deal for the countries that are now importing those kind of attitudes.

And you say he received a sentence six years longer - that's incorrect. He originally received a sentence of six years, and that was increased to seven years. That's right there in the article you linked to, second and fifth paragraphs.

Also from your article: 'In its initial sentencing, the court heard how the 10-year-old victim had suffered both physical and mental injuries in the attack which amounted to serious bodily harm. The boy continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, his mother told the court.

But in mitigation, judges cited Amir’s own young age at just 20 when the crime was committed, his previous lack of convictions and his confession of responsibility.'

Seven years isn't enough. I'll be glad when we're out of the EU; I hope we bring back hanging for scum like this who sexually assault children.

The fact he still remains in Germany is unbelievable on it's own.

Still, my track record is much better than yours of thinking that his defense worked and he was set free.

Are you joking?

[Dorsidwarf]

But where do you actually deport someone like that to? His home government probbably won't take him back, high-profile vicious criminals arent exactly welcome in other countries, and human rights groups might get iffy if someone pushes him into the north sea and walks away whistling. I'd be much more pro-deportation if there was a clear place to dump these criminals.

or do you just sneak him into his home country on a diplomatic airplane illegally then take off before airport security notices?

[smjjames]

But where do you actually deport someone like that to? His home government probbably won't take him back, high-profile vicious criminals arent exactly welcome in other countries, and human rights groups might get iffy if someone pushes him into the north sea and walks away whistling. I'd be much more pro-deportation if there was a clear place to dump these criminals.

or do you just sneak him into his home country on a diplomatic airplane illegally then take off before airport security notices?

You could ask that about Trump and his plan for countries who refuse to take back deportees from their country and force them to accept said deportees.

Obviously you're not serious with the plane thing as they'd have to refuel and they'd have to get clearance from the Control Tower because otherwise they'd disrupt things to heck and risk colliding with an incoming plane.

[hector13]

The bombing of the Dortmund team bus was allegedly not performed by Islamic extremists.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

The bombing of the Dortmund team bus was allegedly not performed by Islamic extremists.

Man.

Why write it like that?

Even the article doesn't write it like that.

It says there are "doubts that there are Islamic links". The 25-year-old Iraqi they arrested is still being held as far as I can tell, so don't say "allegedly not performed".

EDIT: Shows the BBC bias in titles, though. Title is contradictory to the article itself.

[Dorsidwarf]

Unless they edited, it reads exactly along the line of what the say in the article . The title refers to the security experts who say the letters found at the scene do not match the MO of normal IS communications, and some of whom have drawn the conclusion that IS is not in fact responsible.


Personally I think it was IS and the germans are being obtuse like usual, but dont fault le beeb

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Unless they edited, it reads exactly along the line of what the say in the article . The title refers to the security experts who say the letters found at the scene do not match the MO of normal IS communications, and some of whom have drawn the conclusion that IS is not in fact responsible.

Personally I think it was IS and the germans are being obtuse like usual, but dont fault le beeb

The headline and the tagline are contradictory, though:

Borussia Dortmund bombs: Letters at scene 'not from Islamists'

This, to me, reads "we have significant evidence that it was not Islamists".

Investigators in Germany say there is "significant doubt" that Tuesday's attack on the Borussia Dortmund team bus was the work of radical Islamists.

And then the tagline reads, "Well, the evidence doesn't match up exactly to what we've seen in the past so it might not be but we still haven't released the Iraqi Islamist we arrested on Wednesday but forget about that".

I wonder if they'll change this like they changed the deliberately obtuse "Syrian Migrant Dies in German Blast", which got fixed without any noted retraction or wrongdoing on the page.

Then again, I don't know how anyone can trust the BBC again after they asked "What is the right punishment for blasphemy?"