I have found a lot of information on the internet about crimes commuted by Arab and Negro immigrants in Europe - especially Arab and Negro rape of white women. I am waiting for permission from the mods to post this information.

Gun sales are surging in Austria because Austrians want to defend their country against those who have nothing of value to contribute to European civilization, and who burden the welfare and criminal justice systems there.

Racial problems are not caused by people like me. They are caused by dangerous and inferior races. All we do is draw attention to the crimes committed by those subhumans.

 

NO LINKS CAN BE POSTED THAT INCLUDE UNDERAGED INDIVIDUALS, but then you seem so desperate to show ANY violence that is done by NON-Whites so you had better make sure that there are NO photos in the information or you will get REPORTED.
Also typical dumbass that you are, WHAT part of NO FORUM INTERACTION do you NOT understand, your contact should be to ILMJ.

Who gives a fuck about your so-called figures anyway, THEY WILL NOT BE ACCURATE and therefore CANNOT be used as any sort of comparison with OTHER countries.
You have NO idea as to the laws governing asylum seekers in Europe, and you have NO idea as to the situation in Austria.

Austria is tightening it's border controls with Slovenia and also taking ANY migrants that enter the country straight to their border with Germany, or returning them to the border with Hungary and other countries.
This action is because Austria has NOT suspended the Dublin Regulation which states that asylum must be sought in the FIRST European country encountered.

 

Remember to list WHICH European country your so-called figures relate to, WHICH year and also WHICH method of crime data recording was used. As Europe is a collection of FIFTY independent sovereign states, and SIX limited states

Also the figures relating to SWEDEN is OLD news and has already been shown as UNRELIABLE and INACCURATE data for comparison purposes due to the different crime recording methods used.

 

As long as there are sanctions against compiling and publishing data pertaining to different racial crime rates, I shall have to get my information from right wing websites.

It ought to be easy for me to link to websites that provide accurate data compiled by European governments, the European Union, and the United Nations about racial differences in crime in Europe. Unfortunately it is not.

This resembles the policies of many newspapers in the United States not to report the race of criminal suspects. They may think they are contributing to racial harmony. In truth, they are not fooling anyone. When a newspaper reports a violent crime that requires no intelligence, only sub human barbarism, we have a pretty good idea of the complexion of the perpetrators.

 

So to your warped brain; privacy protection laws are sanctions?

Europe is NOTHING like the United States in it's laws, so WHY the fuck should you ASSUME that you have the right to access personal data?

Like I have already told you: Feel free to reference each and every individual sovereign state that lies within the borders, FIFTY of them, and find out IF they have national laws pertaining to personal data collection in reference to crime.

But also remember that EVERY individual sovereign state will have it's own methods and terminology for crime data collection, thereby making ANY comparison whether with other sovereign states or countries further afield INACCURATE and UNRELIABLE.
So you are trying to debate a moot point.

I have repeated this many times yet it still fails to sink into your stupid and dense brain.

 

You seem to assume that because European governments inhibit accurate data about different racial crime rates, any criticism of that policy is somehow unacceptable. As a citizen of a democratic government that allows a reasonable degree of open political debate I am used to criticizing existing laws, and to advocating changes in the laws. I hope citizens of European countries are equally prone to criticize existing laws, and to recommend changes.

I believe strongly that there should be no sanctions and no taboos against disseminating facts.

If the influx of hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Negroes benefits European citizens, that ought to be easy to demonstrate in tangible ways without demonizing those who think otherwise that that is true.

If, as I believe, the influx of hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Negroes depresses the wages of European citizens, while burdening the criminal justice and welfare systems, this should be discussed because it has legitimate policy indications. Immigration policy should not be decided by wealthy and powerful elites who can shield themselves from the harmful effects of immigration. It should be decided by voters after extensive public discussion in which all opinions are allowed, and no facts forbidden.

Your resort to insults says nothing about me or the quality of my arguments. It reveals your limitations, not mine.

 

How many times does this need to be said: It is LAW, like it or not. If any European disagrees with it then they are free to fuck off.
There have been many changes of governments in European countries, YET this law stays unchanged so therefore Europeans WANT personal data protection which is what this law gives them. It allows a person to have control over how his personal data is used, something you have yet to grasp or understand.

So why should Europe change it's laws that protect personal data just because you CANNOT get access to data that does not concern you.
Please explain what the fuck it has to do with you, sat there behind your monitor in The United States?

Are you somehow personally involved in this migrant crisis, are you somehow suffering because of some European countries have either closed their borders, or introduced border controls?

Get it through your thick skull:
Each European country has it's own national law regarding personal data protection pertaining to crime data recording.
Each European country has it's own method and terminology pertaining to crime data recording.

Therefore ANY individual country comparison with either other European countries or countries further afield will be INACCURATE and UNRELIABLE.
Example being Sweden where for example; IF a man raped his wife every day for ONE year, this would be recorded as individual rape charges against the man (365) NOT, as in some countries, ONE charge of multiple rape.

So your continous whining and whinging is IRRELEVANT.

You have NO quality of argument because you are simply too thick to understand the very simple points that have been put before you.

 

Excuse me. If Europeans disagree with the laws they have the right to agitate for changes. That is what is happening. Anti immigration political parties are gaining in support throughout Europe. I could easily post several websites that document this, but they have or may have photos of children.

I can post this:

-----------

Pew Research Center APRIL 24, 2015

When Pew Research Center asked people in seven EU countries about immigrants in spring 2014, very few people wanted to see an increase in the flow. In fact, in Greece and Italy, eight-in-ten or more wanted fewer immigrants to cross their border...

But half or more in France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, the UK and Germany are also worried. People in Poland and Sweden are less concerned about immigration from outside the EU, but they are also relatively far from the Mediterranean coast.

European leaders are now trying to address the humanitarian crisis, but if sentiment captured in last year’s German Marshall survey still holds true, they face public opinion obstacles. Across 10 EU countries, six-in-ten Europeans (60%) disapprove of their government’s handling of immigration, including around three-quarters in Spain (77%), Greece (75%) and the UK (73%).
*not_secure_link*www.pewresearch.or...e-where-they-are-not-welcomed-with-open-arms/

 

What about the growing opposition in Europe to third world immigration? You seem to have the attitude that it does not matter if ordinary Europeans want to keep out Arabs and Negroes. The elites have made the decision to open Europe to third world immigration. The canaille should stop whining, and accept the decision of their betters.

 

This is old news and and has nothing of value, mainly because out of the FOUR countries that are complaining the most, TWO of them are NOT first European countries encountered for asylum seekers (The U.K. and France) also the U.K. has for a long time had lax immigration laws compared with the rest of Europe.
You also have to consider that EACH European country has it's own laws for those who want to claim residency.

You make this sound like something important, yet there are FIFTY sovereign states within Europe and EACH one of those has it's say in what goes on.

It is nothing new that some Europeans are disapproving as to the way THIS crisis is being handled, and to understand the root of the displeasure you only need to look at Angelika Merkel's decisions. It would not surprise many Europeans if there is a change in Germany's leadership next time round, which is why Austria is taking a much firmer stance regarding migrants who have found their way into the country.
These migrants, when found. are either being transported directly to the German border, or to the respective countries border from where they entered Austria, which has caused displeasure from the Hungarians, Italians and others BUT Austria has NOT stated that it is suspending The Dublin Regulation so therefore ANY migrant found in Austria is there ILLEGALLY.

When a country, who is NOT the first country to be encountered by immigrants seeking asylum, openly and publicly states that they will take 800,000 migrants without first consulting with other European leaders, and thereby suspending The Dublin Regulation to which each European country has agreed upon, this crisis was inevitable.
Add to that the increased numbers of NON-Arab Syrians fleeing from a conflict that has lasted up to now FOUR years, the smaller European countries could NOT cope with such an exodus, which is why Europeans are now seeing the re-introduction of border controls.
These border controls were too late on being introduced and failing because they should have been across ALL of Europes borders, so while they should be a deterrent, they are in fact nothing more than just a visual indication to show which European countries are reaching maximum capacity on their allocated migrant numbers.

I have already given you a very simple and easy to understand analogy to explain this migrant crisis, it is not my problem that you are so fixated on matters of NON-white crime that you fail to see what is in front of you.

Strange how you leave out this piece of information
=================================================================

By contrast, people in the UK and Germany are more likely to say immigrants make their country stronger because of their hard work and talents. People in these seven EU countries are less concerned about a possible uptick in crime due to immigration. But 51% of Greeks say immigrants are more to blame for crime than other groups, as do 48% of Germans and 45% of Italians.

==========================================================

 

The growing opposition in SOME European countries to third world immigration is a matter for the people in those countries alone to express.
They will do so by either forcing a leadership change in their country, or by debating some favourable concessions in exchange for tighter European immigration regulations.

 

chris4sylvia,

I have two questions for you.

Do you believe that accurate data comparing the crime rates of different demographics in Europe should be compiled and published?

Do you believe that the electorates in countries have the right to decide who can immigrate to their countries, and who can not?

 

You have asked TWO questions which by the very nature of European law cannot be answered with simple yes or no.

Your first question deals with only a small part of the personal data protection laws, and in fact does have a clause dealing with law enforcement and criminal matters.
In these matters then European Law is superceded by the respective country national law, but other matters where personal data is gathered then this data CANNOT be used for other purposes UNLESS consent has been given.
Which is why I told you that for the information you desire, you would have to research WHICH European country has a national law that allows crime data demographics to be published, and even then your figures would NOT be accurate or reliable because of those European countries that DO NOT allow crime data demographics to be published.

Your second question dealing with a country's electorate having the right to decide who, or in your case WHICH RACE, can claim asylum is again part of a European law pertaining to discrimination.
Each European country elects it's leader which then gives that country a voice on what European laws are passed or need reforming. Each European country has it's own national laws on discrimination and then because of the wide spectrum of race that some European countries encompass, there is a European law on discrimination.
Each country also has it's own national laws as to who can enter and seek residency, BUT European law also allows for ANY European citizen, regardless of race or colour, to move freely and unmolested between each European country.

If the electorate of a European country wants to see their country limit the number of migrants that enter, then they simply vote for a change of leadership and the new leader then debates for a reduction in numbers at the European parliment, or the encumbent leader simply debates for favourable concessions until a more agreeable level is reached.

 

Shooter went looking for the survey cited by the dog.
He couldn't find it, but he did find this one, which is interesting ........
*not_secure_link*www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/10/FT_15.10.04_immigrationEducation.png

 

I asked for your opinions, not for what the law says. In democracies citizens have the right to criticize existing laws, and to change them.

If the European Union has precedence over what national electorates can decide about issues that are important to them, that is a good reason to change or end the European Union.

 

I put it straight to you that you CANNOT take out of law the bits you want or dislike. I explained this yet you are too thick to understand, not my problem if the explaination was NOT what you wanted or that it went OVER your head.
I made a choice to leave England and live on mainland Europe, I accept the European laws that hold precedence over Austrian national law, the same way I accepted the European laws that held precedence over English law as I am not just a British citizen, but also a citizen of Europe.

The law is there to protect everyone, and people accept the parts they dislike so they can benefit from the parts they do like.
What is important to Europeans is their personal data privacy so WHY should they want to change that law.

People should NEVER be judged on the colour of their skin, and there are laws written to prevent this from happening.
But you want to end these laws just so you can keep spouting off your racially prejudiced and discriminating views.

You DO NOT live in Europe so WHY should Europeans change their laws just to suit you?

 

I guess old white US conservatives don't have the market cornered when it comes to fear of the other.

 

Indeed no.

Fear gets short shrift these days. Fear is rational and immensely advantageous to survival.

 

"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger . Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
- yoda

 

LOL may the force be with you!