re: #474 Hanoch

According to this article, Muslims make up about 3% of the population in the UK. However, they apparently commit a disproportionate number of the anti-semitic attacks there. Thus, the article states,

If this information is correct, it seems like this is a problem that should be taken seriously.

Not very conclusive. If that is correct in stating that the, “perpetrators, people of Asian and Arab appearance were 38 percent of the total in 2004, 30 percent in 2005, 34 percent in 2006, and 27 percent in 2007” that means it fell by 7% in 2007 which means a reduction. Later in those quotes they mix results including “black, Asian, or of Arab appearance” to create an even higher number of 50%. Yet preceding these two paragraphs they say:

“The Community Security Trust (CST), which provides security and defense services for the British Jewish community, has physical descriptions of some perpetrators. For instance, in 2007 we have recorded figures for 243 of the 547 physical attacks on Jews. In 129 cases the perpetrators were white British, 15 were East European, 27 were blacks, 52 were Asian, and 14 were of Arab appearance. The last two categories, in essence, are probably Muslims. Their share in the violence is far higher than their proportion of the population.

129/243 x 100 = 53.1% which were white and British.

But wait. They’re looking at 243 examples:

129 + 15 + 27 + 52 + 14 = 237. There are 6 samples missing.

Then they flippantly conclude “The last two categories, in essence, are probably Muslims.” So they’re adding Asians and Arab in appearance as Muslims? China, Japan, Korea, etc. are all Asian countries. What about black Muslims? If we only use the 14 of “Arab appearance” we find that it is 5.7% of the sample. The Mulsim population in the UK is 2.8%. However, we are still missing the 6 samples and the remaining balance of 547 - 243 or 304. “Arab appearance” is not a very accurate identifier.