Progressives Fight A Rearguard Action...

Libby Brooks is the first of the progressives to hit back against the ‘Times’ investigation into sexual exploitation of white girls by organised Muslim gangs.

And the result is… well, let’s just say that they haven’t exactly brought their best hitter to the game:

The British National party's website, its logo still sporting a seasonal sprig of holly, is understandably triumphalist as it proclaims that the "controlled media" has admitted this week that "Nick Griffin has been right all along about Muslim paedophile gangs".

The particular branch of the controlled media the BNP refers to is the Times, which has been running the results of a lengthy investigation into the sexual exploitation and internal trafficking of girls in the north of England. Specifically, the Times has marshalled evidence suggesting that these organised crimes are carried out almost exclusively by gangs of Pakistani Muslim origin who target white youngsters; and it quotes both police and agency sources who refer to a "conspiracy of silence" around the open investigation of such cases, amid fears of being branded racist or inflaming ethnic tensions in already precarious local environments.

This, remember, is the theory that Libby is determined to rubbish.

In 2004 the Channel 4 documentary Edge of the City, which explored claims that Asian men in Bradford were grooming white girls as young as 11, sexually abusing them and passing them on to their friends, was initially withdrawn from the schedules after the BNP described it as "a party political broadcast", and the chief constable of West Yorkshire police warned that it could spark disorder.

Hmmm. That does seem to bear out the 'Times' report, Libby. Why mention it, then?

Anecdotally, as far back as the mid-90s, local agencies have been aware of the participation of ethnic minority men in some cases of serial abuse. But what has not emerged is any consistent evidence to suggest that Pakistani Muslim men are uniquely and disproportionately involved in these crimes, nor that they are preying on white girls because they believe them to be legitimate sexual quarry, as is now being suggested.

OK, so they are not, as the 'Times' claimed, over-represented in the area among sex offence statistics? So what are the real figures that...

Oh:

The Times investigation is based around 56 men convicted in the Midlands and north of England since 1997, 50 from Muslim backgrounds.

Now, my maths isn't all that hot, but 50 out of 56 seems pretty overwhelming to me...

Martin Narey, the chief executive of Barnardo's, which has run projects in the areas concerned for many years, tells me that, while he is pleased to see open discussion of child sexual exploitation, he worries that "decent Pakistani men will now be looked at as potential child abusers". He insists: "This is not just about Pakistani men, and not just about Asian men. And it is happening all over the country."

Yes, indeed Libby. It's terrible to tar a whole community or group with the same brush, isn't it?

And I remember Martin Narey's concern that 'decent Catholic priests will now be looked at as potential child abusers' back when...

Oh. Wait. I don't, actually. Odd that, eh?

While Narey acknowledges that "in the Midlands and north of England there does seem to be an over-representation of minority ethnic men in [offending] groups", he argues strongly that no useful conclusions can be drawn until the government undertakes a serious piece of research into what is a nationwide problem.

Hmmm. Wonder which almost-fakecharity would be in the running to pick up some State moolah for that? Eh, Martin?

And since when did we decide that an abnormal cluster (of anything) was nothing to worry about because overall, it didn't reflect the whole picture? I mean, in AGW 'science', it's de rigeur, isn't it?

Narey also refutes the allegation that Muslim men are grooming white girls because of cultural assumptions about their sexual availability, as girls from minority backgrounds have been similarly abused.

Which minority backgrounds, though?

… Muslim voices are now being lined up to attest that serial child molestation is not actually sanctioned by the Qur'an. By building an apparent consensus of voices "bravely" speaking out in the face of accusations of racism, it becomes that much harder for a figure from within the Muslim community to offer a more nuanced perspective or indeed state that these allegations are simply not true.

Hmmm, turn that around, shall we?

"Muslim voices are now being lined up to attest that terrorism is not actually sanctioned by the Qur'an. By building an apparent consensus of voices "bravely" speaking out, it becomes that much harder for a figure from within the Muslim community to offer a more nuanced perspective or indeed state that these allegations of terrorist leanings are simply not true."

I look forward to seeing you use that argument sometime, Libby!

The efforts of the Times to stand up this investigation are certainly considerable: selectively quoting or misquoting some groups, and inventing a category of "on-street grooming" that does not exist in law and was not recognised by any of the agencies I spoke to.

Which is something that progressives do all the time, when it suits them - remember 'second-hand smoke' becoming 'third-hand smoke'?

It is also worth asking how responsible it is to provide ammunition to the violent racist extremists already active in these areas on such flawed evidence.

So, Libby closes her 'argument' with exactly the same point the 'Times' says has lead to this state of affairs: "Shut up, you're allowing people to be racist and you risk inflaming ethnic tensions!"

Nice job, Libby, nice job!

As Ross from 'Unenlightened Commentary' points out, drawing a parallel with little Joanie's bizarre column the other day,

"When men commit crimes all men are partly responsible, however if they are MONAs then there is no reason to draw any conclusions at all."