Political correctness helped cover up child sexual exploitation in Rotherham
Racial and religious targeting of white teenage girls — but investigators feared being labeled “racist,” according to independent report.
In Rotherham, England, a group of Pakistani immigrants and others of Pakistani descent deliberately targeted white teenage girls for sexual exploitation, with a religious angle to the targeting.
The authorities knew of the exploitation, but were fearful of talking about it or going public with it for fear of being called racist or Islamophobic.
So the abuse continued for over a decade, with approximately 1400 girls gang raped and otherwise sexually abused. It’s all detailed in The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, 1997 – 2013 (embedded at bottom of this post) released on August 21. From the report:
No one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1400 children were sexually exploited over the full Inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013….
It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators….
By far the majority of perpetrators were described as ‘Asian’ by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so…..
This has been in the British papers for days, with The Daily Mail leading the way:
The scandal made The New York Times yesterday:
A report released on Tuesday on accusations of widespread sexual abuse in the northern England city of Rotherham found that about 1,400 minors — some as young as 11 years old — were beaten, raped and trafficked from 1997 to 2013 as the local authorities ignored a series of red flags.
Some children were doused in gasoline and threatened with being set on fire if they reported their abusers, the report said, and others were forced to watch rapes and threatened with the same fate. In more than a third of the cases, the victims appear to have been known to child protection agencies, but the police and local government officials failed to act….
The vast majority of perpetrators have been identified as South Asian and most victims were young white girls, adding to the complexity of the case. Some officials appeared to believe that social workers pointing to a pattern of sexual exploitation were exaggerating, while others reportedly worried about being accused of racism if they spoke out. The report accused officials of ignoring “a politically inconvenient truth” in turning a blind eye to men of Pakistani heritage grooming vulnerable white girls for sex.
It was not just the racial angle that caused authorities to remain silent — the cover up extended to the religious angle, as The Telegraph reports:
Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, said race and religion were inextricably linked to the recent spate of grooming rings in which Muslim men have targeted under-age white girls….
Dr Hargey said that the case brought shame on the city and the community and is a set back for cross community harmony.
But worse still is the refusal to face up to its realities, he wrote in the Daily Mail.
Political correctness contributed to the perpetuation of these crimes.
And is contributing to whitewashed reporting of the scandal, BBC accused of censorship over Rotherham child abuse by failing to mention that gangs were Asian.
The facts are the facts.
There have been widespread child abuse problems in the Catholic Church and other religious groups. We should not be afraid to name names, so long as factually accurate.
And absolutely never should cover-up such crimes out of fear of being falsely accused of an “-ism” or a “-phobia”.
Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Instapundit pointed out that no council employees were going to be disciplined over this. He failed to point out that the reason was explicitly covered in the story: none of those responsible for these decisions are still working there. If that is the case, then who exactly should be disciplined?
Everybody. (See the period?)
And everybody against whom a criminal charge could be laid should be charged, tried, and punished according to law.
Then they should be sued. Every. One.
What has any of that got to do with the council? Even if there is anyone who can be charged with a crime, the council can’t do that. Nor can the council sue them. So why complain that it won’t be disciplining anyone?
And really, what crime could anyone at the council be prosecuted for? They screwed up, bad, but what actual crime did they commit? But if a crime can be identified and proven against someone beyond reasonable doubt, then I assume that person will in fact be prosecuted; what makes you think they won’t be?
Everybody?! Which everybody? Everybody in the world, including you, me, and Profs Reynolds and Jacobson?! Even if you could make a case for that, how could the council discipline us? Or do you mean everyone whom the council can discipline, i.e. everyone who currently works for it, even if they were only hired yesterday?! Why? They didn’t do anything wrong, so they could probably sue if any action were taken against them.
Just because they left THAT job doesn’t mean they aren’t still in gov’t service, and, therefore liable to censure.
Also – so what if they left – they KNOWINGLY covered up child sexual abuse. If you or I did that they’d not care one whit if I formerly was a taxi driver and was now a bartender – they’d prosecute me with “Obstruction of Justice” and other crimes and it would stick.
If they’re no longer with the council, then what can the council do to them? It can’t prosecute them, even if they committed a crime (and I’m not sure what that could be). It can’t fire them, or dock their pay. So what could it possibly do?
If you think their current employers should discipline them, feel free to track down where they work, and contact those employers. (And do you really think that? Would you tolerate your employer disciplining you for screwing up at a previous job?!
Can’t they charge those who looked the other way as co-conspiracist? They chose to allow these criminals to commit felonies for some reason which means that they are responsible for these crimes.
First of all, there’s no such crime as “conspiracist”. A conspiracist is a nut, not a criminal.
If you mean “conspirators”, one can’t be a conspirator without, um, conspiring. Which there is no allegation that anyone at the council did. By your own admission they did not conspire with the criminals, but simply ignored them. So how can you want them charged with conspiracy?
In any event, even if your suggestion were correct instead of insane, WTF does that have to do with the council? How can the council prosecute them for anything? Why don’t you prosecute them, or why doesn’t Instapundit prosecute them? Your ability to do so is exactly the same as the council’s, i.e. none. So what exactly is your or Reynold’s objection to the council’s response?
PS: And no, failing to prevent a crime does not make you responsible for it. There is no duty to lift a finger to prevent any crime.
But was it rape-rape? Apparently, there is a nuanced difference, which may escape some people’s grasp.
Each culture has different criteria for classifying and responding to behaviors. Apparently, this culture, or subset, was willing to tolerate a behavior, which in most civilized societies is considered degenerate, and subject to immediate and extreme rejection.
If you like your culture, then the rate of immigration cannot exceed the rate of assimilation, and the alien cultures, if tolerable, are either integrated or isolated. The problem in Rotherham is an example of an extreme consequence of open (e.g. illegal) or liberal immigration policies.
It’s not as if every society does not already have a native subset of dysfunctional, unproductive, or degenerate people to cope with. Shifting the problem, or exploiting the problem for democratic or commercial leverage, without addressing the causes, will only geographically diversify the problem.
What on earth made them think that ignoring those crimes would make them go away? That’s not justice. Evil persists when good people do nothing to stop it. Nothing like being more afraid of being called a racist than being raped. I didn’t realize that the brits were this stupid!
Politically correct stupidity knows only the boundaries of islam.
Western republics are particularly prone to this disease, which may cause their untimely demise, and quite soon at that.
Sounds like a real “war on women.” But, of course, Leftists won’t touch the ideology of Submission with even a scintilla of criticism.
When I visited the mall in Tysons Corner, Virginia, a few months ago, I couldn’t believe how many women I saw wearing hijabs. This ideology is spreading, with predictably deleterious consequences for secular democracies, as Submissives inevitably attempt (and, often succeed) to impose their beliefs on various facets of the societies whose tolerance and freedom they have fully availed themselves of.
I felt that the contrast in the mall was stark — here were female Submissives, by their dress, openly adhering to an ideology of rigid, uncompromising conformity, which imposes a slew of behaviorial, sartorial and dietary strictures on its adherents (though, beheading infidels doesn’t seem to be among those restrictions), walking around, enjoying a site of American consumerism, a celebration of diversity and freedom in commerce, expression and culture.
I experienced a similar feeling when I saw a woman in a hijab on a bus, using an iPhone — the image was the perfect juxtaposition of the intellectual chasm between Submission and the West — a blind follower of a primitive ideology of scripture-sanctioned violence, intolerance and death, using a device representing the fruits of modern intellect, free expression and technology, which device could never (and, would never) have been invented in a Submissive society.
In Cairo I have seen women in the full niqab (face covering) attempting to eat lunch in coffee shops, lifting the veil carefully to put food in their mouths without ever showing their skin to the world. In Dubai I saw women wearing a bizarre metal face mask which covered the face, leaving eyes visible and a space below the protruding mask which allowed eating. I agree about the number of hijabs at Tysons. At least those women have faces! When you see women in the niqab you need to worry about where their extremist menfolk are.
When I see women in the Hajab I think KKK.
And very few reports or comments use the words Pakistani Muslim men to describe the perpetrators of these ghastly crimes. That is what they are: Pakistani Muslim men.
We are still being politically correct.
As long as authorities maintained political correctness, all is well.
There’s one major gap in this story: Parents are never mentioned. Did these children live with even one parent? How could this degree of abuse and exploitation happen if any parent was involved in the child’s life? Parents were either absent or complicit, but the story doesn’t address that.
Exactly what I was wondering. These are “white” girls – I’m assuming that means native to the country and of Anglo-Saxon heritage? Where are the parents?
Too many latchkey children, just as here.
If you’re going to have them, you should parent them. Daycare, or mommy’s boyfriend, isn’t adequate.
That said, I cannot recommend highly enough, that folks listen to Geert Wilders, Dutch MP, on video whereever you find him: Vimeo.com or youtube. He speaks English well.
I also recommend his book,”Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me.” He is very well-informed on Islam, having read most of its major texts, and having learned it’s history of origination and conquest.
Geert Wilders proposes eliminating immigration from Islamist countries, banning ragheads or imposing a raghead tax, and banning more mosques. He also believes that the American First Amendment should be adopted in Europe, so the politically correct rabid dogs of diversity can’t shut down citizens stating the obvious: Islam is not compatible with a free society.
I admire Geert Wilders!!!
Politely, nonsense.
http://theothermccain.com/2014/08/28/emma-jackson-victim-of-rotherham-rape-gangs-they-like-us-naive/
Geert Wilders’ book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Marked-Death-Islams-Against-West/dp/1596987960/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409159905&sr=8-1&keywords=geert+wilders
Showtime
“” Evil persists when good people do nothing to stop it. Nothing like being more afraid of being called a racist than being raped. I didn’t realize that the brits were this stupid!”
You missed the point. It wasn’t, for the ‘crats, a choice of being accused of racism or of being raped. It was a choice of a chance of being accused of racism versus somebody else being raped. The choice is clear.
IMO, we have to look at the bodies, the groups, the organizations which use accusations of racism as tools of social control. They are the ones the soulless, spineless ‘crats fear and they are the cause of this.
As pointed out elsewhere on LI:
“PC” now means “Punitive Conformity”, not “politically correct”.
Anyone who spoke up on this and pointed out that under-age white girls were systematically targeted by Pakistani Muslim men would have been punished and/or dismissed. The nail that stands up gets hammered back down (or replaced with a screw if it happens again).
Evil persists when good people do nothing, but it’s a tragedy when good people fear to acknowledge simple facts.
Something that doesn’t quite make sense to me is why it is “racist” to say they are Pakistani Muslims but not “racist” to label them “Asian.”
Some labels are more “racist” than others, I guess ~
Methinks the authorities have less fear of being called “racist” than they do of provoking the wrath of Muslims. Wringing their hands about “racism” is a way of evading the reality that the problem demographic is adherents to Islam.
Referring to “Asians” instead of “Muslims” or “Pakistani Muslims” probably seems safe because everyone knows there are many varieties of Asians so it’s obviously just a vague descriptor, like “tall men,” and not meant to single out any particular group. The evasiveness of the label serves a purpose.
I hear the BBC is censoring use of “Asian” to describe these gangs so to someone out there, it is indeed racist.
Sad thing all around, but my context and frame of reference is sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church in various countries spanning the globe. These things shouldn’t be covered up so that more children can be exploited, whether it’s “Asians” or whites or whoever.
the UK press and the UK report also suppressed that all the abusers were Muslims
Which is totally wrong. If these were Roman Catholic Priests, would this be whitewashed? Sadly, at one time it would have been in countries like Ireland, or Quebec and other French-speaking areas of Canada, or Brazil, France, so on and so forth…