Saturday 8 January 2011

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were grooming white girls as young as 11, sexually abusing them and passing them on to their friends, was initially withdrawn from the schedules after the BNP described it as "a party political broadcast", and the chief constable of West Yorkshire police warned that it could spark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."

12 comments:

Quiet_Man said...

Just blogged on this case myself. I very much doubt that Sikh's, Hindu's or even Pakistani Christians are happy about the constant mainstream use of the words Pakistani or Asian. The problem is endemic in the Islamic world where women are seen as nothing more than cattle to punch out males and as second class citizens at best. Imagine how this world sees and treats non-Muslim women and you get an inkling into the mindset of these guys.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Fair play to her.

The BNP really should have taken down that sprig of Xmas holly a bit earlier. I de-hollyed my blog header on New Year's Eve.

Smoking Hot said...

Well well, even Jack Straw says there's a problem in the Pakistani community regarding these rings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12141603

but wait ... there's a politician saying he's wrong. Oh forget it, it's Keith Vaz.

Katabasis said...

As you allude, it really is like discussing "climate change" with these folks.

Take George Monbigot for example - as we've seen recently, even when he's wrong he's right, apparently.

And as much as I think the government massively exaggerates the "terrorist threat" (e.g. when it does things like making up ricin rings), it isn't Islamophobia when they really are trying to kill/rape/censor you.

Aisha dream said...

'Slim young women, out of reach until arranged marriage.

'Slim young men, desperate for responsibility-free bonking before arranged marriage.

So, could that be a potential problem?

WV= Mingly = any sort of low quality community get together.

Eckersalld said...

It's not a religious issue, but a cultural one. There are plenty of Muslims capable of behaving.

Problem is that some Pakistani families who moved over brought their village mores along with them for the ride, now in a truly multicultural society that would get stepped on pretty quickly - by all means retain some of your historic culture, but be prepared to snip the bits off that don't fit into your new nations culture.

It features in a number of problems, such as the family elders taking care of who you vote for, who you marry and who you can associate with - and in some cases which type of acid they'll toss in your face for not obeying them, or what kind of bin bag your white boyfriends body parts will be discarded in.

The 'progressives' - a misnomer since they're turning a blind eye to the kind of abuse they're usually dead against - find themselves in a tizz. They've spent so long conflating valid issues with outright racism, that when they find an issue they have find a big pile of denial to hide under as otherwise they'll have to pick between calling themselves a big, fat racist or admit there are genuine issues with integration that desperately need tackling.

It isn't unique to Pakistani men, nor is it universal, but the attitudes towards to white women is fairly endemic. The lesson to be learned is that if you import people from one-goat villages, without making it plain that you will not tolerate medieval beliefs in a modern society, you will get problems.

Woman on a Raft said...

Excellent post. Newsnight eventually tiptoed gingerly up to the suject.

Don't know if you saw it but there was an interesting conclusion to the "Padma Patil" case of actress Afshan Azad. She called the police when her father and brother threatened to kill her, having fled the house in the belief they might go through with it.

Azad then refused to appear in court, saying that she loved her father deeply but his strong accent made it difficult to understand what he was saying.

The prosecution went ahead anyway with a minimal sentence for the father. The brother will be sentenced this month and is on bail on conditions.

The story is either:
"actress makes things up about decent loving family who are then falsely convicted" or
"actress too afraid to testify and under pressure from her family to not-criminalize her kinfolk".

Daily Mail Daily Mail

More technical explanation; despite the alleged severity of the assault and death-threats, the prosecution struggled when the key witness could only be forced in to court, if at all, by threats of legal action against her. As the police and CPS didn't do that, we can assume they thought that either they couldn't protect her from reprisals, or else they didn't think it would help any other women to step forward if they penalized her. That would, in effect, have sent a signal to all Muslim women to shut up because the law would punish them for complaining.

From Manchester Evening News 20 Dec 2010

Richard Vardon QC, prosecuting, told the court: "The incident took place on Saturday 21st of May at the home address of the family on Beresford Road in Longsight, Manchester. The prosecution allegation in essence is she was the victim of a wholly unnecessary and unpleasant assault by her brother.

"The reason for the assault, apparently her association with a Hindu young man, that apparently being disapproved of by her family who are Muslim. Specifically she spoke not only of assault but also threats to kill, made jointly by her father and brother."

The prosecutor then gave details of the incident. "The father, having been awoken from his slumbers, with his son shouting: 'Sort out your daughter! She's a slag!' He continued to further assault her, in disputed Bengali, shouting, 'Just kill her!' The assault continued. There was a discussion where she was being called a prostitute."

The threats to kill her apparently continued, the witness told police in a statement.

Reading from the victim's statement, Mr Vardon added: "My father began saying he would do it, a reference to kill her, as he did not want his sons to have her blood on their hands and he would do time for it. Then she began to feel very scared."

Mr Grumpy said...

'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.'

Can you credit it, 27 years on from 1984 it is still possible for a newspaper to invent a category without state permission! High time to make the use of Newspeak compulsory.

Mr Grumpy said...

If I have one criticism of your post, it is that it may lead unsuspecting readers to suppose that Libby Brooks made her case without invoking the phrase "moral panic". That is a profoundly unfair suggestion which could seriously jeopardize her position at the Guardian.

Mark said...

Mr Grumpy- Ms Brooks' failure to deploy the 'moral panic' line is perhaps indicative of a realisation by the Guardianistas that
this trusty old trope is on its last legs.
If that is the case, she has a least shown herself to be one jump ahead of the odious Keith Vaz MP, who still thinks that yelling 'negative stereotyping' at the reports this week passes for reasoned argument.

JuliaM said...

" I very much doubt that Sikh's, Hindu's or even Pakistani Christians are happy about the constant mainstream use of the words Pakistani or Asian. "

They aren't. It's what leads to idiocies like Sikhs getting attacked after 9/11 due to morons confusing them with Muslims.

"Fair play to her.

The BNP really should have taken down that sprig of Xmas holly a bit earlier."


:D

"Well well, even Jack Straw says there's a problem in the Pakistani community regarding these rings."

A more cynical leap aboard a potentially vote-winning bandwagon I've yet to see...

"...it isn't Islamophobia when they really are trying to kill/rape/censor you."

It isn't, no indeed. It isn't...

"The lesson to be learned is that if you import people from one-goat villages, without making it plain that you will not tolerate medieval beliefs in a modern society, you will get problems."

Spot on!

"If I have one criticism of your post, it is that it may lead unsuspecting readers to suppose that Libby Brooks made her case without invoking the phrase "moral panic"."

Heh! :)

"...she has a least shown herself to be one jump ahead of the odious Keith Vaz MP, who still thinks that yelling 'negative stereotyping' at the reports this week passes for reasoned argument."

As Smoking Hot points out. who listens to Vaz anyway?

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

"As Smoking Hot points out. who listens to Vaz anyway?"

That would be the 'Vaz Deference' tendency!

/me gets his coat