[This is the fifth part in a ten-part series. To read more, please see parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 here.]

Caffè Italiano: The two meet again and over coffee and begin conversing. 

EU bureaucrat: My boss said we should approach issues relating to Muslims in Europe through statistics. 

Islamofactist: That’s great news. That means we agree that statistics are an essential tool for making, evaluating and improving public policy?

EU bureaucrat: My boss would agree, as would I. 

Islamofactist: In that case, does your 2017 survey on EU minorities have statistical information useful to policymakers to lessen discrimination against Muslims in Europe? 

EU bureaucrat: You bet! It’s a gold mine of information “on issues ranging from citizenship, trust and tolerance, through discrimination and police stops based on an individual’s ethnic background, to rights awareness.”

Islamofactist: And what purpose does the EU want the survey to serve?

EU bureaucrat: It’s very versatile as it provides a sound basis “to support the effectiveness of a wide range of measures in the areas of integration and non-discrimination, as well as internal security policy.” 

Islamofactist: I’m glad. And is it a fact that your survey sampled 10,527 Muslims who were first- and second-generation Muslims in the EU, and it claims to be “representative of selected groups of immigrants”?

EU bureaucrat: That’s correct. 

Islamofactist: Next, is it a fact that according to The World Economic Forum, “The oldest and simplest justification for government is as protector: protecting citizens from violence … including protecting citizens from each other”?

EU bureaucrat: Of course, that’s why we have referred to the issue of internal security policy in our survey. 

Islamofactist: Can you give me an example of the types of statistics your survey has on internal security policy?

EU bureaucrat: Sure. Our survey finds that of “all Muslim respondents, 16 % were stopped by the police in the 12 months preceding the survey and 7% say that this was because of their immigrant or ethnic minority background. Of those Muslim respondents, the police stopped in that period, 42 % believe this was because of their immigrant or ethnic minority background.”

Islamofactist: If I understand you correctly, you are concerned because Muslims are being targeted more than their percentage in the population?

EU bureaucrat: You understand me correctly. 

Islamofactist: Good. Next, is it a fact that on page 50, your survey found that 11% of Muslim respondents consider physical violence to be “sometimes or always acceptable” because “someone has insulted their religion”?

EU bureaucrat: Is that so?! You’ve really read our survey closely, haven’t you? 

Islamofactist: I have. Is it a fact that the total population of Europe is 727 million, of which about 49 million are Muslim?

EU bureaucrat: That sounds about right. Why? 

Islamofactist: Then let’s do a simple calculation. 11% of 49 million European Muslims works out to 5.39 million Muslims, who consider, based on your survey, that violence is “sometimes or always acceptable” because someone has insulted their religion – Islam, of course. That means, in the case of Paris, which has a population of around 2.1 million, the number of Muslims who sometimes or always approve of violence when their religion has been insulted would amount to more than a quarter of the city’s population. Would that fact be logically relevant while discussing the issue of public security policy? 

EU bureaucrat: (squirming) Damn number crunchers. What do they know about policy-making in any case? 

Islamofactist: Let’s dig deeper. Your survey also refers to police stops. It states: “Of all Muslim respondents, 16% were stopped by the police in the 12 months preceding the survey, and 7% said this was because of their immigrant or ethnic minority background.” Even more seriously, “in the five years preceding the survey, 29 % of all Muslim respondents were stopped by the police and 9 % say that this was because of their immigrant or ethnic minority background.” Do these percentages concern you?

EU bureaucrat: Very much. The percentage of Muslims stopped by the police is much higher than that of other populations. I’m concerned about the discrimination and victimization of Muslims in the EU. 

Islamofactist: Did your survey probe what effect it might have on Muslims?

EU bureaucrat: Thoroughly. Our survey did a multivariate regression analysis and found that there is a “negative association between experiences of discrimination, harassment and violence based on ethnic or immigrant background and respondents’ level of attachment to the [survey] country.” 

Islamofactist: In simple terms, those Muslims who felt badly treated felt worse about the European country they lived in. 

EU bureaucrat: Correct. That stands to reason. 

Islamofactist: The use of multivariate regression analysis, or the method of modeling multiple responses to one set of predictor variables, is interesting to find out the impact on Muslims, but the logical issue is its consistent use. 

EU bureaucrat: I don’t understand. 

Islamofactist: It’s obvious. Given the fact that 5.39 million Muslims in the EU think it is sometimes or always acceptable to use violence because someone has insulted Islam, has the EU ever tried to use regression analysis using the number of Muslims that approve of such violence as the independent variable and their involvement in crime or the number of terror attacks in Europe as the dependent variable? 

EU bureaucrat: Good heavens, no! That would be racial profiling. 

Islamofactist: I’m puzzled. If you can analyze crimes or harassment committed against Muslims as a group using multivariate analysis, why can’t you analyze violations of the law committed by Muslims? It’s the same group. Why not be consistent in the use of regression analysis? 

EU bureaucrat: Be realistic. Consistency and governance don’t go together. Besides, why should the EU be consistent? 

Islamofactist: Because it’s EU law. The fact is “the principle of consistency has a prominent place in EU law, which manifests itself within both horizontal and vertical levels of governance.” There are numerous references to consistency in the Treaty of Lisbon as a legal obligation assigned to EU institutions. What do you have to say about that? 

EU bureaucrat: Would you mind if I checked with my boss? 

Islamofactist: Sure.

EU bureaucrat: Let me see if I’ve understood you correctly today. I got two takeaways: First, your Islamofactist method shows us that 5.39 million European Muslims consider that ’violence is “sometimes or always acceptable” because someone has insulted their religion, which should be concerning to us. And second, for the sake of consistency, which is grounded in EU law, we ought to consider when Muslims are victims as well as aggressors. Correct?

Islamofactist: Correct. And remember, all I’ve done is use facts from your EU survey and laws. 

EU bureaucrat: Man. This is wild stuff. Let’s continue tomorrow.

Islamofactist: Sure. 

EU bureaucrat: (to the server) L’addition, s’il vous plaît. 

They tussle over who will pay the bill and decide to split it. Outside, each goes their way, melting into the crowds. 

[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.