While what happened in Rotherham is horrible and inappropriate levels of sensitivity over religion were a significant factor, I’m having a hard time singling out Muslims as perpetrators of child abuse in an environment where covering up abuse of young people (sexual and otherwise) appears to have been rife for decades. Consider the recent and current investigations into the Catholic Church, the BBC (and everywhere else Jimmy Savile went including various parts of the NHS and prison system), Parliament (Commons AND Lords), military academies, youth football clubs, and that horrorshow of a care home in Jersey. It’s got to the point that I’m amazed anyone in the UK got through childhood without being molested.
Mostly the areas I try to avoid are “unfamiliar, extremely rundown areas at night” because I don’t want to get mugged. I can’t think of a single area of London I would avoid out of concern for the religious beliefs of the local residents.
It is not a real problem. There are no Muslim no-go areas in the UK (or the US), nor are they likely to develop. Muslims are not going to suddenly jump from 10% to 20% of the UK population (seriously, do the math on that one - they’d either have to convert 6.5 million current non-Muslim residents to Islam, or import/give birth to an additional 8.5 million Muslims while the rest of the population holds steady, or somehow have vast numbers of the current non-Muslim population die off or leave). Muslims are certainly not going to take over the country and impose some draconian mandatory version of Sharia law.
Oh, and Silver lining: Infowars? Really? You couldn’t find a more reputable news outlet like, say, a crazed hobo standing on a streetcorner shrieking at passersby?
Your cite doesn’t mention Islam. It discusses ethnicity, and the fear of being thought racist.
Your argument seems to be that there is something distinctive about Islam that means Western democracies are unwilling to confront genuine social problems committed by Muslims, whereas they would confront similar problems among BME communities of different religions. What your cite shows is an undue sensitivity towards accusations of racial bias. There is no indication that the situation would be any different had the perpetrators come from a predominately Sikh community, for example.
NB: It would also be a mistake to assume that this fear of being thought racist was the main driver of the appalling response of the authorities. The attitude of the police shows its own prejudices and frankly beggars belief:
I think we are determined to speak apples and oranges here. You hold a couple of misconceptions on the points I (perhaps poorly) attempted to make.
I did not use the Rotherham scandal in a way to suggest anything about the Islam except in one important respect. I mentioned the Rotherham scandal in a reply to a poster who claimed our constitution would protect us from Sharia Law. I pointed out that our laws and institutions do not always protect us. If our politicians wish to put their collective head in the sand then they will do so. If Sharia creep is viewed as the most convenient course of action for our political class to take then we will have Sharia creep. I also used FGM as an example of our authorities failure to act.
At no point did I link no go zones(a terrible term) with any Islamic beliefs of their residents. I again used these zones as an example of things gone awry in a state. Things that shouldn’t happen in various European states but are probably creeping in.
Neither did I claim the Muslim population would “suddenly” jump from 10% to 20%. However, the Muslims of Europe is increasing. We are currently going through a Muslim refugee crisis in Europe. Only two years ago there were calls to let as many of these refugees in as possible. We have no ideahow long the crisis will continue to last. However, another couple of summers of crisis, and a Muslim reproductive rate in excess of indigenous Europeans and its quite easy to imagine, say, the French Muslim population nearing 20% in a generation or two. I mean at some stage Frence’s Muslim population rate must have went from 5% to near 10%. If it can go from 5% to 10% in France whats to stop it doing so in the UK?
Finally, I would like to say that I would never underestimate the West’s ability to integrate outsiders. My posts may be more pessimistic then they should. However, im convinced those who are downplaying the dangers here are being overly optimistc.
I mentioned Rotherham specifically as a counter to someone claiming our various Western constitutions will prevent localised Sharia in Europe. I used Rotherham as an example of a political class being willing to put up with all types of nastiness probably for political considerations. I did not use Rotherham as a way of condemning Islam, or claiming that politicians treat Muslims differently from Sikhs or Hindus. However, I do think that the potential for politicians to treat a minority population of 5% differently to a minority population of 0.5% certainly exists.
Except that ultimately - but far too late - the right thing was done. There was outrage, and action, and rolling heads, and ultimately some pretty significant culture change among the council and police services. What happened in Rotherham was awful but it doesn’t support the idea that our constitution is incapable of preventing a permanent legal-cultural revolution. Indeed, even against the combination of overworked and badly managed front-line staff, political leadership afraid of (being accused of) stoking up racial conflict, *and *a prejudiced police service that refused to treat 11-year old girls as victims, the constitutional mechanisms eventually got into gear. The idea that Sharia law (whatever that means) will become a separate and permanent part of the UK’s legal framework without those same mechanisms being activated isn’t borne out by the example of Rotherham.
There are laws against FGM in Sweden, the UK, France, the USA, and probably most countries on the planet Earth. It’s not semi-officially tolerated in the UK, just as is any other incompatible practice an immigrating population might bring to its new country. You could argue the UK needs to enforce its laws. But again, we are getting into “attacking a problem directly” without all this “extra-sensitivity toward Muslims” that many in this thread want the conversation to be about.
You’re getting closer to the fact! Keep trying (the facts of the matter were already presented in this thread and are in many threads on this topic)!
I would spend more money on an information campaign as part of a preventative effort in Somali communities. Sure. I don’t see what criticizing the Somali community would gain other than mistrust, anger, the satisfaction of talking down to people you barely understand and fueling prejudice. It seems better to just discuss the negative effects of FGM, enforce the law vigorously, maybe criticize individuals from various communities that argue against the anti-FGM campaign, and criticize the individuals who will use the campaign to create more negative stereotypes of Somalis for their own social gain.
This is really confusing. I would not argue or criticize only in the abstract. I would make sure I am hitting my target. Unfortunately, I do not understand at all how you came to the conclusion you did here concerning the Pakistani, Indian, and Bangladeshi communities in the UK.
I will be satisfied when something is similarly done about arranged marriages and FGM, or when it is shown to me beyond doubt that the vast majority of 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims are successfully integrating. Once again folk are slightly misrepresenting my previous claim about the lessons of Rotherham and its link to the future of Sharia. My claim wasn’t that Rotherham proves we will permanently get Sharia. My claim was that unless dragged kicking and screaming there is a risk of the political class doing absolutely nothing when faced with evidence that Sharia law is gaining a foothold in the UK. If the conditions in Rotherham can go on for the best part of two decades then Sharia can flourish in parts of the UK for a similar period without politicians doing a damn thing about it. However, I agree that the final lessons of Rotherham are more positive than I admitted to.
Just as I know there are nasty right wing elements attempting to exaggerate the risks and fears over Islam, I know there are opposite elements(usually in various local authorities) who will be attempting to downplay any signs or evidence that Sharia is taking hold in the UK. You just know that is happening is some QUANGO or local authority office somewhere.
It’s a good thing that they’re entirely imaginary then.
“Probably”?
The actual numbers I cited. Even in a generation or two, it would take an unprecedented social change to achieve what you are suggesting.
No one is claiming that nothing bad will ever happen. Crazy people are out there, and some of them are violent. The problem is that the proposed solutions to the exaggerated claims being made about the “dangers” we face often result not only in the very real persecution of innocent people but also in facilitating the radicalisation the measures are purporting to prevent by marginalising that population.
There really isn’t, the odd government nitwit notwithstanding.
No, because the sad truth is that while there are a lot of people eagerly on the lookout for creeping Sharia law, and lots of votes to be won in standing against it, there was no-one looking out for poor young girls in care in Rotherham, and no votes in criticising the police or investing in social care. The invisibility of the victims* was a *huge *part of what made Rotherham happen, and that just doesn’t apply to the widely publicised issue of Sharia law and Muslim integration.
*It’s worth pointing out on the whole “invisibility of the victims” point that the report linked to upthread highlights that there was widespread abuse of Pakistani girls within the community the abusers came from as well, but this has not been much publicised. For some reason.
how do you run a campaign against FGM in the Somali community without it being specifically targeted at the Somali community? I thought you were against such things and only interested in criticising the practice in general?
Individuals from various communities? What if you find yourself having to criticise individuals from mainly one specific community, would you shy away from doing so?
Hang on, I got the impression that you would not try to target a specific community…so which is it?
I thought from your previous posts that you would not be pointing the finger at specific communities or cultures or religions where problematic beliefs or practices are most prevalent. So I assumed your criticism of FGM would be general in that it assumed it was prevalent to the same extent across all communities and so the Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi etc. communities would be unfairly lumped in together with your sweeping generalised criticism.
Are are now saying you would concentrate on the Somali community? great, so that last point no longer stands. You are targeting your criticism where it is most needed and that is exactly the point that I first made and you’ve spent many posts arguing against.
To me it looks as if a similar jump in Muslim population has already occurred in less than a generation. Your unprecedented social change is in fact recently precedented. In my lifetime alone the Muslim population in the UK has went from 0.46% to an estimated 5.4%. I predict by the time I kick the bucket the UK Muslim population will be at least 7% or more; in France it will be a percentage approaching the teens. Heck, even by the next census the UK figure is likely to be greater than 6%. It’s not then so far off respective figures of 10% for the UK and approaching 20% in France.
If you make any number of assumptions, including that the birthrate among British and French Muslims remains the same, and the level of immigration remains the same, sure.
Make a commercial that says “FGM is bad and illegal”. Run it where it will do the most good. Practice is criticized and it’s made clear it is illegal. If it will do the most good to run it on TVs where Somalis are watching then so be it.
Yes.
You got the wrong impression. There’s not the slightest bit of inconsistency in what I’ve said is effective or ineffective, or prone to stereotyping and prejudice versus targeting a specific problem with respect for all the stakeholders. If you don’t get it, then read my posts again after a few days rest.
There seems to be some inability on your part to understand there is a difference between criticizing somebody’s identity and making it clear some practice is illegal in the UK. I don’t know why a general add campaign concerning FGM would bother anyone who doesn’t practice FGM, including most or all Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis. Even if I did take the approach you describe, it shouldn’t bother a Turk anymore than a Scot.
In a world of finite resources, advertising campaigns identify target audiences, medical information and support services target high risk individuals. At some point, real interventions must be made and at that point the squeeze on resources is even greater.
What you seem to be saying is you would spread those resources across all communities to ensure that the “at-risk” group don’t feel victimised.
Your wording here is pretty agricultural but I think I get the gist of it. You are saying you are going to target the problem groups by not targeting the problem groups. By using a blanket approach that this practice is common across all communities, the real target groups will magically know that you really mean them, in some way.
At no point have I suggested criticising anyone’s identity. I have in fact said the opposite, that it is possible to criticise the practises and beliefs of specific groups without it being an attack on their identity.
You have totally lost me here. My approach would be to target specific communities, I don’t recommend an approach based on a general ad campaign only. That is your plan.
Gestalt - to answer your question, nothing happened about the teacher who taught in Bengali. I had other even more serious complaints about him that the school ignored because they only came to light after she had left. He wasn’t the only Bengali teacher there but he was the only one who acted like that.
I mentioned that I live in an area where the largest ethnicity is Bangladeshi. However, they have not voted Sharia law onto the local laws (and that’s on a council that was VERY corrupt and had to have outside monitoring), girls aren’t obliged to wear hijabs at school (they are included in uniform rules in order to specify the colour they should be, but they’re optional) and I’m not unsafe walking round here.
FWIW when you have a baby here (in my borough, not sure if it applies everywhere) you are asked about FGM, whether you’ve ever been subject to it. You’re asked that whether you’re Somali or not. There are posters up at all the clinics and leaflets out in various languages. All health professionals are obliged to report any instances of FGM they discover to the police. It’s not “sort of officially tolerated” in the slightest.
So even in a majority Muslim area - Sunni Muslim, too - all the things people are predicting seem not to be happening. Odd that isn’t it?
I live there too, and I back everything SciFiSam says. Every now and again there are stories of local teenage boys trying to chuck their weight about, only with a Muslim label on rather than the more generic kind of gang territory-building - and they get into the same sort of trouble with the law as anybody else would.
And just to amplify, local authorities in the UK are much more tightly bound by statute law than in the US - and anything any administrative or legislative body does can and often is challenged under anti-discrimination and human rights laws.