Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Sweden's Rape Culture - Part 2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 18, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

12:41

Sweden's Rape Culture - Part 2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I've decided to write a second part to the original video, Sweden's Rape Culture, to be more specific about a few certain points, to cover ground I left out whether intentionally or unintentionally, and to address a few key criticisms.
	Eric the Dred said, I tend to like Sargon's videos, but seeing the title of this video, I could already tell I dislike it.
	Why?
	It's not because I love Islam or am some confused SJW, certainly not.
	The reason I dislike it is because I believe Sargon hasn't actually researched the Swedish rape laws, and how rape reports are counted and treated.
	I live in Norway, which neighbours Sweden, and we get news from Sweden we even get their channels.
	Let me tell you there's no mass number of rapes in Sweden.
	It just doesn't exist.
	No, Swedish authorities simply A encourage people to report rapes, B people feel comfortable reporting, and C. Swedish authorities count rapes differently.
	If a woman gets raped by her spouse or partner and stays with him, being abused or raped, for one year, it can be counted as 365 separate cases of rape.
	Sargon is simply wrong on this one because he doesn't understand Swedish rape laws.
	And yes, he'd actually have a case for saying this is feminists redefining rape.
	At least, at the very least, he wouldn't be ignoring blatant facts.
	I appreciate Eric the Dread making this point, because I did essentially omit it in the first video, and it was my mistake.
	Frankly, it didn't occur to me to be specific about it, however I can remedy that here.
	And I do want to be specific that I do not think that this problem is caused by feminists redefining rape.
	Eric claims there is no rape epidemic in Sweden because A. The authorities encourage people to report rapes, b people feel comfortable reporting them, and c Swedish authorities count rape differently.
	The legal definition of rape is not any more broad, but also multiple instances of rape between two people are counted as separate occurrences.
	I don't want to sound overly cynical, but this is a narrative.
	Sweden is not in some way exceptional when it comes to encouraging rape victims to report crimes to the police.
	Every Western nation does this, with state funding in countries like Britain and Norway providing dozens of rape crisis centers at taxpayer expense staffed by feminist activists agitating on the subject.
	All across Scandinavia, the number of reported rapes has increased dramatically, according to Amnesty International.
	It would seem that people in Scandinavian countries are quite comfortable reporting rape to the authorities, as under-reporting in Sweden is comparable to under-reporting in Norway, with an estimated 10-20% of rapes reported in Sweden, compared to an estimated 20% of Norwegian rapes being reported.
	Most important to note, however, that despite all of these presumed reasons that rape reporting has increased, the report states, It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the increase in reporting may reflect an actual increase in the number of rapes in Finland, Norway and Sweden.
	The report does not refute the idea that more rapes occurring accounts for more rapes being reported.
	What is not accounted for by this report is why the number of rapes reported in Norway are almost half the number that are reported in Sweden.
	Of course, the attempt to explain this comes from the additional caveat that Sweden's rape laws are incredibly broad compared to other Western nations, and that explains the excessive number of reported rapes in Sweden.
	Again, this is a simplistic narrative.
	I am no expert in international rape laws, so I'm happy to be corrected on this issue if I'm wildly off on this analysis, but it would appear that rape laws for Norway and Sweden include all of the same crimes in their definition of rape.
	If we look at UK rape law, we can see that it's quite simple.
	Person A commits offence if he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis.
	if that person does not consent to the penetration and the person doing the penetrating does not reasonably believe that B consents.
	UK rape laws define rape only as penetration using a penis without the consent of the victim.
	This is a reasonably narrow definition of rape and specifically requires the victim to have refused consent or to be unable to provide it.
	Compared with Norwegian rape law, any person who engages in sexual activity by means of violence or threats, or engages in sexual activity with any person who is unconscious or incapable for any other reason of resisting the act, or by means of violence or threats compels any person to engage in sexual activity with another person or to carry out similar acts with himself or herself shall be guilty of rape.
	Norwegian law appears to be remarkably broad, including any sexual activity, not simply penetration with a penis, under the definition of rape, including by means of violence or threats against victims who are incapable of resisting.
	So this includes victims who could not resist because they are unconscious or incapable for any other reason of resisting.
	Swedish rape law states that a person who is assaulted or otherwise by violence or a threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, regarding the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape.
	This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting the person due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general is in a helpless state.
	Aside from being more verbose, this is almost identical to Norwegian rape laws and covers exactly the same circumstances.
	Any person who is unable to give informed consent to sexual intercourse or comparable sexual act or is incapable of resisting such a thing is treated as a victim of rape.
	It's also important to note that the figure cited as 69 cases of rape per 100,000 people does not include sexual assaults that fall into other categories.
	In 2014 there were 20,300 sexual offences reported, with only 6,700 of them being classified as rape.
	And it's important to note that this includes all three categories of rape under Swedish law, minor, ordinary or gross.
	Rapes are not being conflated with less severe sexual crimes that are being committed.
	They are distinct categories.
	The idea that Swedish rape laws are particularly draconian has been roundly criticised when convenient.
	For example, when Julian Assange was placed under allegation of rape, the myth of Sweden's excessively liberal rape laws caused people to simply hand-wave it by saying in Sweden, everything is rape.
	Numerous progressive Swedes decided to write pieces on whichever outlets would host them, complaining that Sweden's definition of rape does not encapsulate every rape that occurs, as it does not even include the concept of consent, or, according to the prosecuting lawyer in the Assange case, Swedish criminal laws regarding sex offences are not necessarily all that much stricter than the laws in many other European countries.
	It seems that the narrative of whether Sweden's rape laws are too broad or too narrow changes with the political wind, and which way they are being critiqued.
	Given that they are no more broad than Norway, a country with half the number of reported rapes, I see no reason to say that they are exceptional.
	The easiest way to solve the conundrum of why Sweden's reported incidents of rape are so high would simply be by looking at the breakdown of the data to discover the culprits.
	Unfortunately, no such breakdown exists.
	In the previous video, I showed statistics from the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, which is abbreviated to BRA, which I will use in the rest of this video, that 77% of rapes were committed by non-native immigrants.
	This was true in 1996, the year when BRA simply stopped releasing the breakdown of the data.
	It's hard not to assume that this was to obfuscate the fact that such a disproportionate number of rapes in Sweden were being committed by a then tiny immigrant minority.
	But since we no longer have the ethnic breakdown of who is committing these crimes, we must look either elsewhere or to the remaining data that we do have.
	The most obvious point of comparison is Norway.
	In 2009, it was reported that immigrant men were responsible for 100% of all violent rapes in the Norwegian capital of Oslo, and that 90% of the victims were native Norwegian women.
	In the third largest city of Stavanger, in 2012, 90% of all men sentenced for rape were non-native.
	According to a different report by Amnesty International, the number of reported rapes in Norway increased by 30% from 2003 to 2008.
	Needless to say, this is very unusual and not for the reasons you might expect.
	If we look at Rain's statistics for the United States, 80% of rapes and 82% of sexual assaults were committed by someone the victim knows personally.
	In the UK, 90% of the most serious sexual offences are committed by someone the victim knows.
	Only 10% of sexual offences that include rape were committed by someone the victim did not know.
	This has led to the prevalence of the feminist meme that you are more likely to be raped by someone you know, because in the US and the UK, you are.
	However, this is not the case in Scandinavia.
	In Sweden specifically, the situation is completely reversed.
	63% of all rapes in Sweden were committed by a total stranger.
	This is a particularly unusual situation, and I do not have any concrete figures on why this is, because the Swedish authorities no longer either compile or release them.
	But it's very difficult not to come to the conclusion that this is being caused by a high number of incidents of Muslim men, who are often not shy about professing their contempt for Western women, committing violent rapes against them.
	And what's worse is that Sweden has a terrible rate of conviction for rape.
	Despite having the highest per capita reports of rape in Europe, Swedish convictions have been steadily declining.
	How is this explained by Amnesty International?
	In the most loopy, politically correct, self-hating way imaginable.
	Despite gender equality being one of the cornerstones of Swedish life, according to the official website of Sweden, which I am sure is correct, the Amnesty International report decided to claim that the cause of gender-based violence is unequal-powered relations.
	The unequal power relations between men and women continue to be fueled by deeply rooted patriarchal gender norms that are reproduced within the so-called private spheres of family life and sexual relationships.
	This does, of course, explain nothing about Sweden's rape problem, because we already know that most rapes in Sweden occur by people who have no relationship whatsoever to their victims.
	This is self-evidently nonsense.
	Sweden enjoys one of the highest levels of gender equality out of anywhere in the world.
	All of Scandinavia does.
	To claim that deeply rooted patriarchal gender norms are responsible for this is a flat denial of reality.
	Just as with the UK, there are Swedish Islamic preachers that are encouraging their flocks to segregate themselves from the local population to create enclaves.
	And I think it is these enclaves that are causing the problems in the UK, and I suspect they may well be causing the same issues in Sweden as well.
	the worst excesses of these enclaves are simply not seen by the average person.
	I live in Swindon, which has a small Muslim population and so there are very few crimes committed by Muslims.
	Given how little the media wants to report on the issues, Google the Trojan horse scandal for an important story you've never heard of, it would be easy for me to simply look around and think all of this is wildly overblown.
	That doesn't mean that it is.
	It simply means it is localised in areas I personally don't visit or know anyone in, and outlets like the BBC will specifically omit the names or religion of the known perpetrators of crimes, deliberately omitting the word Muslim in favour of the word Asians, as if the perpetrators had an equal chance of being Hindus, Buddhists or Taoists.
	Scandinavia has a problem.
	And frankly, Sweden is the canary in the coal mine.

▲