Refugees to be given lessons in 'Western sexual norms' in Norway

First topic message reminder :

Norway is offering non-European asylum seekers classes in Western sexual norms, in a bid to prevent violence against women. The question of integration has become more urgent throughout northern Europe after New Year’s Eve, where more than 100 women were reportedly sexually assaulted or robbed in Cologne, Germany. Federal authorities have identified 18 asylum seekers within the 31 suspects linked to the attacks. With more than a million asylum seekers arriving in Europe this year, a growing number of European politicians have leaned towards offering coaching in social mores. Many were previously reluctant to suggest that men from more conservative societies would misinterpret women’s behaviour, for fear of stigmatising migrants as potential rapists and playing into the hands of anti-immigrant politicians.
Norway, who first introduced the controversial classes, has now seen its model followed in countries across Europe.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-refugees-given-classes-on-sexual-norms-a6803666.html


Wow, talk about admitting there is a massive problem.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:Next question, would you employ a male that has a criminal record of child abuse to work with children?

Is that discrmination?

Yes, of course it it - you're assuming that he will engage in child abuse again.

So you are saying you would allow a person of known higher risk to work with children with a history of child abuse?

Can we have you on recorde as stating that?

Do you not see my point Didge? Discrimination happens, and you always speak out against it, but then you say that in certain circumstances discrimination is fair, even when a person hasn't done anything wrong, or when you have no proof that they will do something wrong. Why then do you berate Slovakia for discriminating against Muslims when they consider them all to be a risk to security or to the cultural makeup of Slovakia?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, of course it it - you're assuming that he will engage in child abuse again.

So you are saying you would allow a person of known higher risk to work with children with a history of child abuse?

Can we have you on recorde as stating that?

I didn't say that, I said it would be discrimination. It's you who constantly rants on about how discrimination is a bad thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you are saying you would allow a person of known higher risk to work with children with a history of child abuse?

Can we have you on recorde as stating that?

I didn't say that, I said it would be discrimination. It's you who constantly rants on about how discrimination is a bad thing.

No it would not be discrmination, because what you are doing by allowing someone to work with children with a known history of child abuse, is placing those children at risk. You would in fact be discrminating against the children. Their safety and protection is placed that much higher than that of an adult. So this is why you fail to understand risk factors and how you fail to understand the risk you place on others, namely the victims, where you actively then end up discrminating against them

Didge, are you now saying that these background checks on single, heterosexual male refugees should only be done to see if they have a history of molesting women? That's different to saying that they should be checked merely because they are single and heterosexual.

Do you not agree that men with families should not be excluded from such checks, or that gay men should not be excluded because they might have molested a man?

Furthermore, how do you propose to verify if they have such a history? It's no good just asking them because they're bound to say no.

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, are you now saying that these background checks on single, heterosexual male refugees should only be done to see if they have a history of molesting women? That's different to saying that they should be checked merely because they are single and heterosexual.

Do you not agree that men with families should not be excluded from such checks, or that gay men should not be excluded because they might have molested a man?

Furthermore, how do you propose to verify if they have such a history? It's no good just asking them because they're bound to say no.

1) Never made such a claim

2) Again this is on who is more of a risk based on the many areas of crime

3) Checks can be made with many countries, who will have a history of criminal activity

4) Again what did I say about then allowing people in and what happens next

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, are you now saying that these background checks on single, heterosexual male refugees should only be done to see if they have a history of molesting women? That's different to saying that they should be checked merely because they are single and heterosexual.

Do you not agree that men with families should not be excluded from such checks, or that gay men should not be excluded because they might have molested a man?

Furthermore, how do you propose to verify if they have such a history? It's no good just asking them because they're bound to say no.

1) Never made such a claim

2) Again this is on who is more of a risk based on the many areas of crime

3) Checks can be made with many countries, who will have a history of criminal activity

4) Again what did I say about then allowing people in and what happens next

That didn't answer the question. The question is - are you proposing that discrimination should happen based on someone's history or merely on their gender and marital status?

Besides, if molesting women is a criminal offence in the countries they come from, how on earth would they need "educating" that it's not OK to do it in European countries?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


1) Never made such a claim

2) Again this is on who is more of a risk based on the many areas of crime

3) Checks can be made with many countries, who will have a history of criminal activity

4) Again what did I say about then allowing people in and what happens next

That didn't answer the question. The question is - are you proposing that discrimination should happen based on someone's history or merely on their gender and marital status?

What have I already said about allowing in and then what happens next?
You see this is why I get bored because you fail to read what I have said.
I am utterly bored as this is going around in a full circle
So its become pointless

Ta

Linda Hagen of Hero, the company that runs 40 per cent of Norway's reception centres for refugees, said the emphasis of the classes had been placed on group discussion and the exchange of ideas, rather than on a teacher instructing students. “Our aim is to help asylum seekers avoid mistakes as they discover Norwegian culture," she explained to AFP.

"There's no single cultural code to say what is good or bad behaviour because we want a free society," she said. "There has to be tolerance for attitudes that may be seen as immoral by some traditional or religious norms."

What does this mean? That raping a woman is a "mistake"? Is she suggesting that refugees should not be told that attacking a woman is neither a good thing or a bad thing?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That didn't answer the question. The question is - are you proposing that discrimination should happen based on someone's history or merely on their gender and marital status?

What have I already said about allowing in and then what happens next?
You see this is why I get bored because you fail to read what I have said.
I am utterly bored as this is going around in a full circle
So its become pointless

Ta

You said that those who were considered a higher risk - ie, single, heterosexual men - should be vetted more than others simply because of their gender, family status, and sexual orientation. Stop wasting my time. You know that you're suggesting discrimination, but you keep on denying it.

They turn up with no documents or false documents and make up a story that is impossible to check.


They are given the benefit of the doubt always.


And many of the men claim that they are 15 etc...