We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Politically correct evasiveness fails on its own terms

Do an internet search today of any British newspaper for the word “Rotherham” and you will find accounts of how, to quote the Daily Mail’s headline, a “[d]amning report reveals 1,400 girls were abused by sex gangs because social workers and police feared racism claims – so did nothing”.

Nothing new here. There have been similar instances of organised and long-term child abuse by groups of Muslims going unpunished due to fear of claims of racism in Rochdale, Oxford, Derby, Telford and Keighley.

What is changing is the level of fury expressed not just about the rape and enslavement of the victims, nor just about the dereliction of duty on the part of social workers and police, but also about the efforts of the media to downplay that the perpetrators were Muslim. I picked the three links above because all three stories allowed comments. It is remarkable how similar the comments in the left-wing Guardian are to those in the right-wing Mail. Sarcastic, sad, jeering, hesitant or spitting righteous anger; the tone varied but outrage over that particular type of dishonesty was expressed again and again. The usual media procedure is to substitute “Asian” for “Muslim”, or for “Pakistani”, which would give the game away to anyone with a basic knowledge of the Indian subcontinent. I should say that given the relatively low numbers of orientals in Britain it is normal in British casual speech to say “Asian” when one really means “South Asian”, but British Sikhs and Hindus greatly resent the literal racism of the use of the term “Asian” in the context of this series of distinctly Muslim crimes. In some of their stories the BBC has gone further, from blurring relevant details to excising them. These BBC stories simply speak of events “in Rotherham” – even though the independent inquiry that started this firestorm of comment specifically says that fear of being denounced as racist (religious and racial prejudice are deliberately lumped together) was what kept the social workers silent. Instead Rotherham social workers devoted their child protection efforts to taking away their foster-children from a respectable couple on the grounds that they were members of UKIP.

Probably no one who who has ever had a hand in censoring mention of Islam from news reports will ever read this. But on the off-chance that someone relevant does, or in the faint hope that the general idea if not my particular words might reach such a person by indirect means, I would like to ask you, Ms or Mr Media Person, a question. Apart from the question of honest reporting, how do you think the strategy of silence and euphemism is working? Is the British public more or less likely to distinguish between the criminals of Rotherham and the next random “Asian” they see because the press has for so long refused to distinguish? Has it been successfully concealed that a common factor in these abuse rings has been that some Muslim men see non-Muslim girls as “white trash” and unworthy of respect? Not that the politically correct would care about this, but have the brave efforts of some Muslims to confront these warped attitudes been helped or hindered by the evasion?

32 comments to Politically correct evasiveness fails on its own terms

  • I have never… ever… heard a person of Pakistani or Arab origins called ‘Asian’ in the UK other than in the mainstream media. Never. Not even once.

    It is a measure of how disconnected the media is from the society it ‘serves’. Come to think of it, that was precisely why I started blogging in November 2001.

    Note: interestingly the Guardian removed the above comment when I posted it there. I think many people have noticed what Natalie is pointing at and ‘they’ do not like it one bit.

  • Mr Ed

    This is the same council that took foster children away from a couple because of concerns that the couple supported UKIP.

  • Mr Ed

    Sorry, early return, so it is not as if they are afraid to act if it in the ‘best interests’ of a child, is it?

    So better a child is left to be raped than lives in a UKIP home is the logical deduction of the priorities of this lot.

    This should be used to argue against Social Services as being worse than useless, they are positively dangerous. Get the State out of childcare.

  • llamas

    I was more that halfway through a parody lyric to the tune of ‘Shaun the Sheep’ before I stopped to think that there’s really no way to make this funny.

    I’m now firmly convinced, based on this story and prior experience, that ‘social workers’ in the UK could perform ritual Mayan child sacrifices on the steps of Westminster Abbey, twice weekly with a matinee on Bank Holidays, and not have to fear for their jobs, or indeed, for any consequences whatever. They have successfully made themselves immune from any sanction, whether it be legal or social. The Kafka-esque outer limits of their incompetence, whether by overt act or craven omission, are apparently beyond the boundaries of the known universe.

    Whatever happened to the legal duty-of-care, and the concept of mandated reporting? Or do those only apply to non-State actors anymore?

    llater,

    llamas

  • I think it was the chap who runs the Inspector Gadget blog who once said he had never come across a situation so desperate, so depraved, and so appalling that it could not be made worse by the involvement of a social worker.

  • I think Natalie hit it perfectly: the story is as much the media’s role as enabler of this scandal as the scandal itself.

  • Orcadrvr

    If any additional evidence was needed to prove that compulsive leftism is a mental illness, this “PC” based scandal should suffice.
    The malfeasance of the authorities in these atrocious matters, borne in all probability from the fear of being labeled a “racist”, is conclusive evidence that Western society is rapidly losing its collective mind.
    I think the US is only a short distance behind the UK in this regard.

  • Dave Walker

    I assume the staffers who write these stories downplay the “Muslim” angle not only to avoid being pilloried in other parts of the media (which would latch on to the story when a Muslim complains), but also because they’d like their throats to remain intact. The Rushdie fatwa is still fresh in many writers’ memories, and this, along with events in the Middle East, is going to keep them very risk-averse.

  • AndrewZ

    The media lying is due to a combination of fears – fear of being called racist, fear of Muslim fanatics, and above all a fear of the public. The establishment sees the working class as ignorant racist morons so they’re afraid to say anything that might give the mob an excuse to go on the rampage. It’s not just the rape gangs that see British people as “white trash”.

  • Snorri Godhi

    PdH:

    I think Natalie hit it perfectly: the story is as much the media’s role as enabler of this scandal as the scandal itself.

    Allow me to agree and amplify: the story is at least as much about the sickness of modern British culture as it is about Muslim/Pakistani culture.

    In the Netherlands, girls are told in school to be wary of “loverboys”, and that loverboys are likely to be Moroccan. What does it say about British culture when even the Dutch, so close to the Brits in geography, history, and culture, have a much more realist attitude to social problems?

  • Paul Marks

    It is just horrible – incredibly horrible.

    These people (officialdom) would rather have little children raped and enslaved than be un P.C.

    And the general population are slowly going the same way.

    Gripped by the fear of the charge of “racism”.

    And “internalising” the ideology also.

    Even national independence (the only practical alterative to world statism – which would be the worst, the most inescapable, form of tyranny) is now criminalised as a “xenophobia”.

  • Stuck-Record

    My wife cannot understand why I don’t want to watch Newsnight’s ‘analysis’ of the Rotheram scandal.

    How can I explain that it is akin to watching the crowd who accused and burnt a witch wondering afterwards how a witch was somehow burnt.

  • Cynwulf

    And the general population are slowly going the same way.

    I see no indication of that at all outside the media/state citadel. Certainly no one I know would lower themselves wipe their arse on these people and i’ve noticed accusation of racism these days are no longer being replied to with “but I’m not” but rather with “go fuck yourself”.

  • The term favoured here is “the BBC/Guardian Bubble”, Cynwulf ;)

    As it happens I am pondering an article on the subject of inurement to endless accusation of racism and fascism in the not too distant future.

  • jdgalt

    The Mail, right wing? Not from here. Even the Telegraph is centrist at best.

  • jdgalt

    (Sorry for the double post; I hit send too soon.)

    The real question is, are any of these kidnappings really happening, or is this just another round of the attempt to gather public support for a crackdown on sex work by pretending that all sex workers are slaves?

  • I saw a blurb on this on Yahoon News. And I thought “Asians? Must be Chinese or something.” I’m going to have to alter my NewSpeak dictionary.

  • […] Evidently over 1,400 girls have been raped in Britain over the course of a few years. Why was nothing done about it by the authorities? They feared being called racist for singling out Asians. Which Asians Chinese? Burmese? Well no. Muslims. […]

  • Barry Sheridan

    Rotherham! Yorkshire Police! Umm. Wait a minute aren’t these areas inhabited by the folk who descended on Cliff Richard’s home early in the morning, accompanied by the self righteous BBC apparatchiks, to investigate some claim of child abuse supposed to have taken place about 30 years back? What does this say about this incident!

    The British hierarchy really get my back up nowadays. Are any of them any good?

  • […] that the national media outlets also looked away, for as long as they could. As commenter Andrew X, at this discussion thread explained: The media lying is due to a combination of fears – fear of being called racist, fear […]

  • Slartibartfarst

    but have the brave efforts of some Muslims to confront these warped attitudes been helped or hindered by the evasion?

    Oh for goodness’ sake, get a grip. They are categorically NOT “warped” attitudes. They are perfectly acceptable from an Islamic perspective, which is why one is unlikely to hear many/any Muslims loudly protesting Muslim gang rapes and grooming. It’s not Muslim girls/children that are being raped – it’s kaffirs (infidels – non-Muslims). Islam draws a clear distinction between the world of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and everybody else or “the world of heresy” (Dar al-Harb) – they are antithetical.

    As for the BBC, well, though I find the motivation for their twisted reporting incomprehensible, they have been at this game for a relatively very long time now, and presumably know full well why and what they have been doing and are apparently continuing to do.

    For example:
    1. The outright untruths are ubiquitous in the BBC: Islam – BBC proselytising for Islam in GCSE.jpg

    2. Selective bias/blindness: About a year or so ago, my then approx. 12 y/o daughter (who I have instructed in the reading of the Koran for her own education) was watching some YouTube documentaries about Muslim gang rapes in UK cities. She drew my attention to one by the BBC where the reporter was a Muslim and (I think) a Pakistani, who interviewed Islamists on the basis that they thus felt “safe” discussing things with him, or something. After 30 minutes this idiot reporter said “So what is it that makes some Muslim men rape English girls?”. It was apparently all a great mystery. My daughter nearly fell of her chair laughing at that. She said “Why is he saying that? Is it because the kaffirs are stupid?”

    The point of political correctness was well-made in an article in the Spectator: ‘I didn’t want to appear racist’ is the ‘I was only obeying orders’ of our age » Spectator Blogs, where they wrote:

    Of course it is right to be disgusted by racial hostility or aggression, but when the war on racism makes the subject such a taboo that child abuse is overlooked, then it is time to ask questions.

    In Britain, there appears to have been a pattern of sexual abuse by second-generation Pakistani men. If the people charged with protecting vulnerable children notice this pattern then they should not only be free to look into it, but they should feel a duty to do so, and to raise the point in public. (As it happens, visible minorities are not over-represented nationally in sexual offences against children in Britain as far as the 2012 figures go, although these date to before the recent grooming scandals.)

    Political correctness was supposed to make us nicer, but in reality it just makes people stupider. As anyone who has done any sort of online test will tell you, much of human intelligence comes down to pattern recognition; the whole purpose of political correctness is to stop us noticing patterns even when they stare us in the face.

    Of course, if you are a kaffir and cannot see the pattern, or refuse to see it, then you are, by definition, probably rather stupid. But that would be Allah’s wish to make them that way.
    These Shocka! reports from Rotherham that seem to have caused such a belated outrage regarding the understandable gang/child rapes, and which the authorities and inhabitants of Rotherham clearly knew full well had been going on for years, are, inshallah, just a small blip – a minor setback on the plan for the Islamisation of Rotherham, the introduction of Shariah law, and the progress to the Caliphate. Allah is all-knowing.
    Once the Islamisation is complete, the situation in Rotherham will be a lot better for everybody, because Muslims are generally devout people and are forbidden to do evil or commit crimes against other Muslims.
    It can’t happen soon enough for my liking. Rotherham evidently seems to be a godless hellhole for the kaffirs as it stands, so it couldn’t get much worse than it is. It’s upwards from hereon, and inshallah the Islamic faith will carry them there.
    All the obfuscation and bias from media such as the BBC and the Guardian, for example, could actually be impeding progress along those lines, because it confuses people – the kaffirs – who, being godless, clearly seem to have no proper moral compass to know what is right and what is wrong (QED).

  • […] Nothing new here. There have been similar instances of organised and long-term child abuse by groups of Muslims going unpunished due to fear of claims of racism in Rochdale, Oxford, Derby, Telford and Keighley. […]

  • Mr Black

    I think there is a moral right on the part of citizens to dispense justice in cases where their “protector”, in this case the government, has not just ignored them but has actively sided with evil against them. If the people in government who covered up these crimes and allowed them to keep happening were shot to death in the street or hung from lamp posts for all to see, I would give a quiet “well done, chaps” to anyone involved in it. If I were on a jury for any such person brought before the court, I would vote NOT GUILTY on principle.

    At some point, ordinary people are either going to have to surrender or take a stand. This seems like as good an opportunity as any for the latter.

  • Tarrou

    The social contract is, in essence, that the citizens renounce their natural right to exact revenge for wrongs done to them in return for the government overseeing justice. In instances like this, where the government not only fails in that duty, but engages in a conspiracy to victimize children and cover it up, the population is freed from its duty to abide the law. The contract is broken, the old ways are sometimes best.

  • George Atkisson

    From across the pond, the most horrifying aspect of these ongoing abuses is the silence of officialdom. Parliament, silent. The royal family, silent. The press, silent. The public, silent.

    Have there been street protests? Have Crown Prosecutors been investigating? Is there any legal action ongoing against the criminals or those who abetted their actions?

    Has the general population become so passive that they will not even defend and protect their own children? Not understanding.

  • Alex Bensky

    A social worker has been defined as someone who comes across a man lying in the gutter, beaten, broken, bleeding, robbed, kicked, moaning in pain, and says to herself: “I must find the person who did this to him. That person needs help.”

    Over here in the US it is not uncommon, apparently, for social work schools to exclude otherwise well-performing students who take stands on political issues that do not toe the party line.

    You’d think that feminists across Britain in great droves would rise up to protest this systematic abuse of women and girls…I mean, talk about a “rape culture.” But they don’t. Here it’s a war on women if a woman has to pay ten bucks a month for her contraceptive pills, but little is said about, say, countries where it’s a capital offense to be the victim of a rape.

    For leftists generally, and feminists in particular, could it be clearer that their claimed values are not what motivates them?

  • Natalie Solent (Essex)

    George Atkisson,

    The press and the public are not silent. There have been literally hundreds of stories about it. You can see the tone of the comments in the three links in the first line of my post. The Times was the leading paper in exposing the prevalence of this sort of crime. What is interesting is that whereas the Guardian “above the line” opinion pieces take much the self-exculpating line you would expect, the comments from the public, as I indicated in my post, are almost indistinguishable from the comments in the right wing papers.

    It is also true that there have been numerous prosecutions of the abusers. Note that what prompted the present media storm was the release of a report written some years after the events it describes. Nonetheless I would not conclude from that that similar crimes are not happening even now – far from it. It’s symptomatic of the problem that the Crown Prosecution Service dithered until the Chief Crown Prosecutor for North West England, Nazir Afzal, as the name suggests of Pakistani ethnic origin himself, very creditably became proactive on the subject.

  • Jaded Voluntaryist

    Guardian …comments from the public, as I indicated in my post, are almost indistinguishable from the comments in the right wing papers.

    Or rather, you most of the ones you can see are thus. About 4/5ths of the comments on any such article “fail to abide by their community standards” ;)

  • I’ve been following this story, and checking Google for it—and as far as I can tell, the American news media are treating it like the proverbial dead skunk. Nothing to see here, folks, move along. The Canadian and Australian press have started to take notice, but then, one of the child welfare bureaucrats from Rotherham is now protecting children in one of the Australian states.

    The big asymmetry that strikes me in this is that when Americans talk about “rape culture,” they characteristically convey the message that individualistic questions of guilt are irrelevant, and that all men (at least) are collectively guilty of participating in a culture that enables and excuses rape. But here, where you have a totally literal rape culture, I’m getting the sense that the official message is that Pakistani men must be judged guilty or not guilty as individuals, and that there must be no attributing of guilt to the entire culture or community. Collectivist justice for men in an individualist culture, but strict individualist justice for men in a much more collectivist culture?

  • Mr Ed

    I’m getting the sense that the official message is that Pakistani men must be judged guilty or not guilty as individuals,

    The official plan was

    Pakistani men must NOT be judged

    Until it became obvious that the public would find out what some men had been up to, and then officialese must conflate the Pakistani heritage of most of these men with Asian heritage, in the interest of ‘community relations’.

    And no one should be deemed responsible for anything, although the same police force found time to raid Sir Cliff Richard’s house some 180 miles away from their force area on the basis of an alleged incident some 30 years before. Sir Cliff is, of course, of Asian origin, but is now a Bajan citizen as well as British.

  • Paul Marks

    The new head of the BBC is the ex head of the Financial Times organisation (that weird mixture of business news and leftist politics).

    The establishment have learned nothing – they do not care.

    The BBC-Guardian will carry on reporting in the same PC way.

  • richard40

    If they must use Asians, at least narrow it down by saying Asian Muslims, since I don’t know of many Asian Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc, who are involved in this child rape mess.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>