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".
This is not the first time that anxieties about the ethnic dimension of child sexual exploitation have been aired by the media. 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were grooming white girls as young as 11, sexually abusing them and passing them on to their friends, was initially withdrawn from the schedules after the BNP described it as "a party political broadcast", and the chief constable of West Yorkshire police warned that it could spark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. [Hear no Islamic evil. See no Islamic evil. Report on no Islamic evil. That way, Islamic evil is sure to disappear… if only. If anything, it makes the situation worse, as even some on the left are beginning to realise. As for ‘withdrawing' such broadcasts. This is a classic example of Dhimmi fear which amounts to believing that if you say X, then Muslims will kill or riot. Or if you say Z, Muslims will kill and riot. Perhaps the Guardian should focus on the killings and riots themselves rather than why infantile Muslims are aggrieved by this, that and the other. Why is Mr Whiteman always to blame in all these things?]
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 [nobody said that] and disproportionately involved in these crimes, nor that they are preying on white girls because [this implies that they ARE preying on them. Anyway, just read the Koran] they believe them to be legitimate sexual quarry, as is now being suggested. [That is exactly what it does show – that Pakistani Muslim ‘men are disproportionately', not uniquely, preying on white girls. We are not even asked to debate this because the author simply dismisses it as racism.]
The Times investigation is based around 56 men convicted in the Midlands and north of England since 1997, 50 from Muslim backgrounds. Granted, such prosecutions are notoriously difficult to sustain, but, nonetheless, this is a small sample used to evidence the "tidal wave" of offending referred to by unnamed police sources. [So she wants more evidence? I suggest she talks to non-Muslims in Bradford, Keighley, Rochdale, Blackburn, etc. But no! Why would she spend any away from London - amongst the uniquely culpable white working class? As the Guardian well knows, all working class people, except SWP or Guardian supporters, are deeply racist and even fascist. She would accept any evidence from people outside the cafes of Islington or wherever. Why should she dirty her hands at all with such ‘knuckle-dragging thugs’?]
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." [Not "just" - it is the ratio that is disturbing. Of course whites commit child abuse ‘all over the country’. But there is something general and perhaps unique about what’s happening within Muslim communities – or at least amongst their youths.]
While Narey acknowledges that "in the Midlands and north of England there does seem to be an over-representation of minority ethnic men [say the word, Martin: Muslim 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. (Keith Vaz, who chairs the Commons home affairs select committee called for such an inquiry today.) Narey also refutes [she means "rejects" - no evidence is offered, so how can he "refute"?] 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 [what proportion, though? Again, she denies the data outright, but systematically fails to go an further than that. No debate at all.]
Thus no official data exists on the ethnic or religious background of perpetrators of this form of child abuse, and local charities have stated publicly that they do not consider it a race issue. But it is worth noting that, when asked by the Times to collate its recent work according to ethnicity, Engage – based in Blackburn and one of the largest multi-agency organisations working on this issue – found that in the past year that 80% of offenders were white. [A meaningless statistic without mentioning what the percentage of white people was of the general population in the sample being discussed. And is this statistic for the whole country, or for northern England, or for Blackburn? And, does this figure refer to ALL cases of child sexual abuse, or to the specific issue of gang-rapists, which is what this article is about?]
There is an ignoble tradition of racialising criminality in this country, in particular sexual offences, from the moral panic [note the use of emotive words] about West Indian pimps in the 1960s to the statistically dubious coverage of African-Caribbean gang rape in the 90s.
Nevertheless, Muslim voices are now being lined up to attest that serial [a crafty get-out] child molestation is not actually sanctioned by the Qur'an [but, as is now well-known, child molestation IS sanctioned - by the example of the founder of the religion]. 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. The inevitable and distorting consequence of framing the debate around a "conspiracy of silence" is that it effectively shuts down or taints as mealy-mouthed any criticism. [But the Times article was about precisely such a shut-down. Is discussion only allowed when it does not imply criticism of (some) Muslims?]
The efforts of the Times to stand up this investigation are certainly considerable: selectively quoting or misquoting [how does she know?] 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. 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. [If something terrible is happening, then it is happening. First, she suggests that the accusations are untrue. Then she seems to imply that even if the accusations were true, they must/should be kept from public consumption because such knowledge would ‘provide ammunition to the violent racist extremists’. Thus we must ‘lie for Justice’, as Leftists sometimes dare to put it.]
Meanwhile, the sunlight of investigative inquiry has yet to shine on our legal system which, all agencies agree, fails to cater to the needs of children who – groomed into acquiescence by practised abusers of all creeds and colours – don't present as the perfect victims our limited version of justice demands. [That's in the mind of Libby Brooks - most of us would not have such a desire for "perfect victims". Where is HER evidence for this?]
[As one would expect from a Guardian journalist. Not a single mention of the Koran, Islam or Islamic culture can be found in this article. No. Because the Brown Exotic Oppressed can do no wrong. Wrong can only be done to them. They are never guilty, not even when they fly planes into skyscrapers. Such is the nature of the Guardian’s inverted racism, which allows Exotic Muslims to escape all moral judgement or reprimand.]
[The Guardian Journalist, Libby Brooks.]