The Times reporter, Andrew Norfolk, has said publicly his paper had previously downplayed sex attacks by Muslims gangs in Northern England because of the fear of being labelled racist or pandering to racists. It was Andrew Norfolk who repeatedly ran with the story. If The Times had downplayed such attacks you can be your bottom dollar that other media organisations did too. The link between such sex attacks and Islam is kinda murky. The attacks may be partly religous in nature partly cultural. However, there is little doubt to me that the media walk on eggshells when covering “Islamic issues”, or, rather the media *in the past *has walked on eggshells when covering such issues. I think the media are slightly more aggressive today but still far from perfect.
Again with the ‘openly Pakistani’, what is your deal?
Can someone be anything other than ‘openly’ Pakistani? Can one even be covertly Pakistani? Is that what the OP would prefer? Secret Pakistanis?
Your number one complaint about Pakistanis seems to be you think they are unattractive, and (in your imagination, at least), they benefit from some sort of reverse racism that only you perceive.
No one knows what you’re talking about, European culture? British culture? Indian culture? And you don’t seem the least interested in making yourself clear.
You just want to keep repeating, “they’re ugly, they get preferred coverage!”, with no evidence for either assertion.
You should see a therapist for your issues. That’s where the solution to all this really lies.
Except that is an out and out fallacy:
“WASHINGTON (RNS) More than 120 Muslim scholars from around the world joined an open letter to the “fighters and followers” of the Islamic State, denouncing them as un-Islamic…the 18-page letter released Wednesday (Sept. 24) picks apart the extremist ideology of the militants who have left a wake of brutal death and destruction in their bid to establish a transnational Islamic state in Iraq and Syria.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-security-imams-idUSKBN0JT0BC20141215
"The Australian National Imams Council, commenting on the siege at a Sydney cafe on Monday, said it “condemns this criminal act unequivocally”.
The joint statement with the Grand Mufti of Australia said that “such actions are denounced in part and in whole in Islam”, noting they awaited further information about the identity and motivations of the perpetrators."
"Hundreds of Muslims marched through central London at the weekend to call for peace and unity.
Yet the organisers of the annual procession said not one single mainstream media outlet covered it because it was not “juicy” enough."
"The American Muslim Political Coordination Council (AMPCC), today condemned the apparent terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and offered condolences to the families of those who were killed or injured.
The AMPCC statement read in part:
“American Muslims utterly condemn what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.”"
etc, etc, et-fucking-cetera…
But of course in your world, these things didn’t happen, and it’s the fault of all muslims that they haven’t been denouncey enough.
Cite? Because the articles I’ve seen don’t suggest that:
“his then editor James Harding, now director of BBC News, insisted that he work on the story full-time and continued to encourage him, as does the present Times editor John Witherow. The support was “unprecedented”, he says, especially now that “it’s unusual for a reporter to get three months for a story, especially one that doesn’t add to your sales””
What on earth are you talking about? I’m Indian.
You should come over to the U.S. for a visit. Go to one of our more backwater areas and see how you are treated. Nobody will give a shit that you’re Hindu instead of Muslim, or that you’re from the UK. To many, you’re a brown-skinned “sand nigger” like any other. Most will think you’re Muslim anyway. Suddenly you’ll know what the Muslims feel like.
Huh? Are you using “Pakistani” as a euphemism for Muslim, or what? “Pakistani” isn’t a religion, and there are Pakistani Hindus.
Funny story…the Muslim community of Dearborn, Michigan took the streets last year in a large anti-ISIS protest. Guess what happened? Assholes on the internet used the photos to spread the lie that it was a pro-ISIS rally.
There’s no money to be made from covering events like this, so the coverage doesn’t happen. There IS money to made from sowing fear and hatred, however.
This is true when the EDL were protesting against the lack of action by the police concerning attacks on underage girls the media were only interested in miss-reporting the EDL protest, they did not investigate the claims about the sexual abuse of under age girls. The times was one of the only papers willing to stand up and be counted at the time, I was on one London protest when I had a conversation with a Times reporter, he was the only one interested in what the protest was about. If the media had spent more time investigating the EDL’s claims and less time fabricating reports against the EDL there would have been earlier police investigation
I meant previous to him writing the initial story. In this video from around the 30 sec mark to the 4-5 min mark Norfolk talks of being unable to ignore the race issue any longer(suggesting that it had been ignored), that he had been wary of the narrative being right-wing & extremist, and that other outlets had ignored the race/religion aspect of the story. He cites the BBC in particular.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrUiHB5qJJ0
I think he talks more extensively of the “media blackout” in this video. However, I can’t remember where he does so exactly. It’s an hour long so I cannot be bothered watching it again.
Watched the first link, and it does nothing to backup your claim that “his paper had previously downplayed sex attacks by Muslims gangs”. I’ll pass on watching an hour long link to find a cite for you.
I personally would have marched with them and I know others who would have joined me
Pakistan is a country of many religions and a great deal of discord among them much of this caused by partition and the creation of Pakistan out of India. One of the main problems with some Pakistani’s is that they try to import customs into their new country that are illegal and completely unacceptable, While in some countries it is acceptable to marry a 9 year old girl and have sex with her, it cannot be expected to carry on that custom in the U.K. This is one of the problems that the Pakistani community must sort out
There are even Pakistani Latter-day Saints in Pakistan. I met two such in Singapore. They were two young ladies serving missions on the island and they returned to Pakistan when they finished their missions.
Am I the only one seeing the irony in the OP’s user name and his posts in this thread?
This isn’t a Muslim problem.
We in Minnesota (and the US) had the same issues in the 80’s and 90’s with the huge Hmong influx. It was ‘traditional’ to marry 12-14 year old girls to men in their mid-late 30’s. I remember the outcry at the time from some of their leaders, insisting that this was their CULTURE and it had to be respected. No, we said, this isn’t happening here, and we WILL prosecute you for it.
Agreed it is a problem when any group of immigrants want to import unacceptable customs into their new country
Exactly. People coming to live in another country are expected to adapt to the norms of that country.
But somehow, in Europe, Muslim immigrants have not been held to this standard.
Through fear of being called racist or fear of feeding the far-right, media and local politics have ignored and kept quiet transgressions that will not be tolerated from any other population group.
Otherwise criminal behaviour has been allowed to fester.
Several cities actually have no-go areas. I mean WTF! this would have been unthinkable 10-20 years ago.
The recent ‘rise of far-right sentiments’ is largely the outrage of people about having been lied to for decades.
That’s a mighty broad statement.
The U.S. does expect immigrants and visitors to accept some norms, but others are optional, and some they have a Constitutional right to ignore.
As pointed out above, that’s simply incorrect in regards to demonstrations, etc.
On a more individual level - I have a friend who was killed in the San Bernardino shooting. People from the local mosque - the one his killer attended - went to his memorial and prayed with us, wept with us, and grieved our friend with us. They took their lives in their hands doing so, honestly - if we were a different sort of people (people like the OP), I can see how it could have gotten ugly. But they took that risk and took the time to go to the funeral of a gay, Pagan stranger because they felt bad about what their co-religionist had done. 
Muslims are like anyone else - some good, some bad, some honest, some liars, some violent, some peaceful. Human. And given the option between judging all of them bad because some are bad and having to have individuals prove themselves otherwise or judging all of them good because some are good and having to have individuals prove themselves otherwise, well, I’d rather live in a world where people leaned more toward the latter.
I often wonder why Christians are considered hateful for wanting to ban same sex marriage, but Muslims are not concerned hateful for wanting to kill homosexuals and adulterers.
I don’t jump on the Christian or Muslim bandwagon. Religion isn’t my thing, but it appears one-sided when one religion votes to legally ban an act, but the other religious book talks about killing the same people. and the ones voting to ban are the hateful ones.
They are. There is not a single person who condemns anti-gay Christians who does not *also *condemn anti-gay Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or atheists.
The difference, of course, is that the Christian bigots are affecting my life directly, in my country, and so are a clearer and more direct target of my ire. That I take them to task for their actions does not mean I give anyone a pass.
Forming criminal youth gangs, rape and holding sharia courts outside the law of the country are optional norms in the US?