Which is no surprise, god forbid people would connect criminality with ethnicity/religion of perpetrator and ultimately with immigration into country. That's against agenda, isn't?
Yeah, God forbid, because it has nothing to do with ethnicity and religion. The participation rates are generally higher in groups of immigrants, but not when it comes to immigrant's children.
There is something about immigration alone that makes the participation rates go up, it is not the religion and it is not the ethnicity, because if it were then the participation rates would be high with immigrant's children as well, and it's not. The report also found that new immigrants had higher participation rates than immigrants who had stayed in the country a long time, which further debunks the assumed correlation with ethnicity and religion.
But you don't know any of that that because you can't read Swedish so you have no idea what the report says. Yet you claim that the findings of the blogger are correct, even though all you have read are the blogger's lies, a blogger who doesn't even know what a participation rate is:
Racist blogger
I 1996-rapporten redovisas att invandrare stod för 38 procent av våldtäkterna i undersökningspopulationen (Tabell 23 sid. 73). Samtidigt redovisas att invandrares överrepresentation för våldtäkt ligger på 4.5 (Tabell 8 sid. 41). Det kan inte stämma. För att komma upp till 38 procent i andel måste överrepresentationen vara mycket högre. Jag utgår från att de 38 procenten är det korrekta eftersom siffran både nämns i texten samt har återgetts av Brå i andra sammanhang.
- and yet you trust that guy to be able to handle statistics in a correct way. It's either dishonest or dumb, you can pick whatever is the most appropriate in your case.
And the key question remains: How can he tell who is a muslim and who isn't based on figures that doesn't contain religious information? Do tell me how he does that. By assuming that all Iraqi immigrants are muslims? By assuming that all African immigrants are muslims?
you should read it again, author is not hiding how he get to these figures ... but you should ask why your government is hiding real numbers, that's the whole point.
Point me to the specific place where he accounts for how he obtained the figures, because I've read the page several times and found no account for it.
As for the title, the blogger claims that the 2% of the population that he believes are muslim males accounts for 77% of rapes, implying that all or at least a lot of muslim males are rapists. No participation rates in the report are higher than 0.33%, and that is for Italians. Sure, Italians can be muslims as well, but it's rather far fetched to assume that all immigrants from Italy are muslims and even if they were it would be a long way from 100%.
He also counts temporary visitors, such as tourists, as immigrants, and add their crimes to the muslim pile.
He assumes that children of immigrants have the same participation rates as immigrants, although the report says the opposite.
Statistically, there is nothing correct about the claims that are being made by the blogger.
He takes a small sample and extrapolates it by a factor of almost one thousand. It's as if you throw a dice five times, get an outcome of 6, 4, 4, 2, 5, and based on that sample draw the conclusion that when you throw a dice, you've got 40% chance to get a 4.
There is no way you can defend statistics like that. It's fraud from beginning to end. The blogger may believe he is correct, so I'm not saying it's an intentional lie, but given the fact that he's writing an anti-islamic blog he's most likely so biased that there is no way he could even begin to comprehend the meaning of objectivity.
