Berkeley political science on islam

[American_Jihad]

Boy just leave it to leftwing science...
The “More Muslims, Less Homicides” Hoax
Islam provides Muslims with a license to kill.
January 26, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

“No, Islam Isn’t Inherently Violent, And The Math Proves It,” M. Steven Fish declared in the Daily Beast. Vox’s headline writers went one better, “This study obliterates the myth that Muslims are more violent”. Salon claimed that Richard Dawkins and Bill Mater were wrong about Islam. “Here’s how data proves it”.

The left is enamored with claiming that science proves something. It rarely however bothers looking at the actual data. That would spoil all the fun.

How did M. Steven Fish, a Berkeley political science professor, prove that Islam isn’t inherently violent? In the Washington Post’s fishwrap, Fish wrote, “Predominantly, Muslim countries average 2.4 murders per annum per 100,000 people, compared to 7.5 in non-Muslim countries.”

Fish concluded that, “More Muslims, less homicide.”

Is this really true? It’s as true as the data that Fish uses as the basis for his alternate version of reality. And this data claims that Sudan is much safer than Canada, that you’re as safe in Iraq as in America and that Egypt is one of the safest places on earth.

M. Steven Fish compares murder rates per 100,000 people between a select list of Muslim and Christian countries. The Christian countries include America, Canada, France and the UK. They also include the worst places on earth like South Africa and Colombia. The Muslim list includes Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Indonesia. All of these countries have committed genocide and yet they’re somehow not violent.

If you believe Fish, then Sudan, whose Muslim Brotherhood leader is wanted for genocide, is one of the most peaceful places on earth with a murder rate of a mere 0.3. That would make Sudan safer than Japan with a 0.5 murder rate and even safer than Luxembourg with a murder rate of 0.4.

You should, according to Fish’s “More Muslims, less homicide” study, be safer walking around Sudan than Luxembourg. And that would be a great way to get horribly murdered.

The World Health Organization’s estimated murder rate for Sudan was 28.6 during one of the years of Fish’s estimate. That’s a lot more than 0.3. Fish uses a blend of numbers dating back to the 90s, but it’s still wildly unlikely that Sudan was ever safer than Luxembourg.

“Anyone who is skeptical of these numbers is invited to walk through minaret-dotted Dakar and steeple-studded Johannesburg at night,” M. Steven Fish writes. Johannesburg has one of the worst murder rates in the world, but despite Fish’s claim of a 0.3 murder rate for Senegal, the State Department lists Dakar as a “high-crime city”. The Interpol data for Senegal was 1.1, the WHO estimate was 14.2.

“The homicide rate in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, is 1 per 100,000—one-fifth the rate of the world’s largest Christian country,” Fish claims. But the WHO estimate for Indonesia was 8.9.

He writes that, “Turks, Egyptians, Iranians, and Malaysians live with rates in the 2-4 range.” The WHO estimate for Turkey was 6.9 and 8.9 for Malaysia. His data places Niger at 0.9. WHO estimates it’s 20.2. Fish lists Algeria as 1.4, the WHO estimate is 9.6, he pegs Mali at 0.7, while the WHO estimate is 18.

Why the huge difference? More developed countries have more accurate murder rates than less developed ones. Countries that are dysfunctional, fighting a civil war or have no organized national law enforcement system that produces transparent statistics have no viable data worth bothering with.

Many Muslim countries have no law enforcement worth discussing outside of urban areas. Tribal territories in Pakistan have tribal justice. M. Steven Fish repeatedly holds up South Africa as a contrast to a supposedly peaceful Muslim world, but Peshawar’s murder rate is close to that of Johannesburg.

If we had complete data for Pakistan, it might be as bad as South Africa. We don’t and we won’t.

...

Islam provides a license for murder, robbery and rape in the eternal Jihad against non-Muslims. Is it surprising that some Muslims take this license and run with it?

The “More Muslims, Less Homicides” Hoax

 

[Unkotare]

Too many people who claim to be political scientists are mere political hacks and not scientists at all.

 

[American_Jihad]

Jew-Haters At Berkeley and UCLA Strike Back
The Freedom Center’s campaign against Hamas supporters at both schools has touched a nerve.
April 25, 2016
Sara Dogan

...

At Berkeley, the Daily Californian reported the appearance of the posters this way: “At least five hate speech posters — with at least two naming six current and former UC Berkeley students for their involvement in either the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement or Students for Justice in Palestine — were found plastered at various sites around campus Monday.” Berkeley’s chancellor, Nils Gilman, sent an email to the entire campus community in response to the posters, quoting the Daily Californian and affirming that the university “is committed to opposing all forms of discrimination.” All forms, except that against Jews.

Members of Students for Justice in Palestine and their supporters didn’t feel the Chancellor’s email went far enough. “They [the posters] are threatening; they are defamatory. And that kind of intimidation tactic should have no place at the University of California,” Palestine Legal attorney Liz Jackson is quoted as saying to the Daily Cal. “(The university) needs to provide protection for the students targeted.”

At UCLA, the Freedom Center’s posters inspired even more heated rhetoric and condemnation. The University’s Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Jerry Kang sent an email attacking David Horowitz – who officially claimed responsibility for the posters - to the entire UCLA community, which includes some 50,000 individuals, calling them “repulsive” and “personalized intimidation” and stating that they produce “chilling psychological harm” that “cannot be dismissed as over-sensitivity.” Piling on the epithets, Vice Chancellor Kang also pronounced them “hateful” and “thuggish” and claimed that they utilized the “tactic of guilt by association, of using blacklists, of ethnic slander, and sensationalized images engineered to trigger racially tinged fear”—in other words, that they were racist.

The Vice Chancellor began his attack with a defamatory falsehood, characterizing a similar campaign the Freedom Center had waged last year as “accusing two student organizations — the Muslim Student Association (MSA) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) — of being murderers and terrorists.” The Freedom Center had not accused student members of SJP and MSA of being terrorists, but of supporting terrorists, which is an easily established fact.

Freedom Center chairman David Horowitz responded immediately to both attacks. In an email to the UC-Berkeley Daily Californian, Horowitz questioned the paper’s journalistic ethics in failing to interview him before savaging his reputation for the crime of telling the truth.

Horowitz wrote:

How can you write a news column attacking me without interviewing me to get my side of the story? What kind of journalism is this? The BDS movement was inspired by Hamas and is funded by a Hamas network. Here is congressional testimony to that: http://docs.house.gov/meetings.... BDS has been characterized as an anti-Semitic campaign by such liberal figures as Alan Dershowitz, Larry Summers and Hillary Clinton. In other words, SJP supports a hate campaign against the Jews of Israel. What is offensive or intolerant or hateful about identifying the activist supporters of a hate campaign against the Jews? Why is the University of California funding a hate group like SJP and providing it with campus privileges? And why can't the Daily Cal report this story fairly, instead of loading it up in favor of the Jew haters?

...

In an ironic twist given the hate-filled and bigoted rhetoric they espouse, several of the campus BDS activists named on the Freedom Center’s posters plan to file an official “hate crime report” with UC-Berkeley. After years of plastering the campus in genocidal rhetoric and Hamas propaganda slogans targeting Jewish students, these BDS activists obviously can’t take the heat when the tables are turned.

Jew-Haters At Berkeley and UCLA Strike Back

 

[American_Jihad]

UC-BERKELEY: PROMOTING JEW-HATRED AND TERRORISM
“Let it be known that we here at Berkeley support the Intifada.”
May 3, 2017

Sara Dogan

...

The University of California-Berkeley has a well-deserved reputation for stigmatizing ideas which don’t fit the extreme left-wing, anti-Israel campus culture. Berkeley Associate Chancellor Nils Gilman has epitomized this double-standard by failing to condemn outright calls for terrorism and genocide against the Jews from campus anti-Israel groups while denouncing posters putting forth factual information about Students for Justice in Palestine and its links to Hamas.

In a letter sent to the entire campus community in April 2016, Gilman denounced anti-SJP posters hung on campus by the David Horowitz Freedom Center as “a tactic of harassment and intimidation.” He claimed that UC Berkeley “remains committed to combating all forms of bias and discrimination” and asked the campus community to “use this opportunity to reinforce our values as a campus, and to report any further incidents”—in other words, urging Berkeley’s students and faculty to report any speech that challenges the leftist thought control enforced at Berkeley.

When the Freedom Center again hung posters exposing the truth about SJP at Berkeley in October of 2016, Gilman issued another letter stating that the language in the posters “violates our Principles of Community” and ordered them to be taken down.

...

Such displays of brutal Hamas propaganda—like the hypocrisy of the school’s administrators— are commonplace on the Berkeley campus. Students for Justice in Palestine remains a student organization in good standing while Chancellor Gilman spends his energies condemning one of the only forms of campus speech to offer a different—and more accurate—account of SJP’s aims and alliances. For this reason, Chancellor Nils Gilman and Berkeley deserve their spot on the list of the university administrations “most friendly to terrorists and hostile to the First Amendment.”


UC-Berkeley: Promoting Jew-hatred and Terrorism