In this mailing:
- Soeren Kern: Muslim Child-Rape Gangs in Britain
- Michael Curtis: Apartheid: The Big Lie
Muslim Child-Rape Gangs in Britain
by Soeren Kern
May 21, 2012 at 5:00 am
May 21, 2012 at 5:00 am
|
Share:
 |
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
It recently
emerged that British police had known for more than a decade that Muslim rape
gangs were targeting young girls, but they ignored the evidence of rapes
because "they were petrified of being called racist." Rather than
acknowledge that there is a problem, Muslim groups have decided to play the
victim card instead. They are working overtime trying to silence public
discussion about Muslim sex crimes by branding critics as "far-right racists"
and "Islamophobic." Several of the men on trial in Liverpool
apparently told their victims that it was all right for the girls to be passed
around for sex with dozens of men "because it's what we do in our
country."
Nine Muslim men belonging to a child-rape gang
in northwestern England have received hefty prison sentences for trafficking
and raping young British girls.
The three-month sexual grooming trial
at a court in Liverpool, which ended on May 9, has drawn nationwide attention
to the sexual abuse of children and women by Muslim immigrants, and British
police are currently investigating at least 40 other cases of child rapes
perpetrated by Muslims in northern England.
While Muslim groups have sought to discredit
the police investigations by accusing British authorities of "racism"
and "Islamophobia," it recently emerged that British police had known
for more than a decade that Muslim rape gangs were targeting young girls in
England, but they ignored evidence of the rapes and failed to act because they
were afraid of being accused of racism.
The Liverpool Crown Court heard
horrific testimony from five victims -- the youngest was 13 when the abuse
began -- who were plied with alcohol, drugs and gifts so they could be
"passed around" among a group of men aged between 24 and 59 for sex
in apartments, houses, cars, taxis and kebab shops.
The nine defendants -- eight are from Pakistan
and one is from Afghanistan -- were sentenced to a total of 77 years in prison
after being convicted of rape, aiding and abetting rape, conspiracy to engage
in sexual activity with a child, sexual assault and trafficking for the purpose
of sexual exploitation.
All of the Muslims live in Rochdale, a grimy
suburb of Greater Manchester in northwestern England. Some of the men were
regarded as pillars of their community.
One of the men, Abdul Rauf, 43, is a married
father-of-five and an Islamic studies teacher at a local mosque. According to
court testimony, Rauf asked a 15-year-victim if she had any younger friends and
he drove some of the girls to other men who would use them for sex, even though
he knew the girls were minors. He was sentenced to six years in prison.
Another man, Adil Khan, 42, who is married with
one child, fathered the child of a 13-year-old victim; he received an
eight-year sentence. Hamid Safi, 22, an illegal immigrant with no fixed
address, will be deported to Afghanistan at the end of his four-year sentence.
Mohammed Sajid, 35, was sentenced to 12 years
for rape, six years for conspiracy, one year for trafficking and six years for
sexual activity with a child. Known as "Saj," he would regularly ply
victims with alcohol before having sex with them at his apartment, where groups
of men would gather and "pass around" the girls.
Judge Gerald Clifton said:
"One of the factors leading to that [rape] was the fact that they [the
victims] were not part of your community [Pakistani] or religion [Muslim]. Some
of you, when arrested, said it [the prosecution] was triggered by race. That is
nonsense. What triggered this prosecution was your lust and greed."
Clifton said that in some cases, the girls had
been raped "callously, viciously and violently" at a time when they
were going through difficult periods in their lives. "One had left her
parents' home, another had been in [foster] care for many years. You attracted
them to your company by flattery, free food, and alcohol. Some of you acted to
satiate your lust, some to make money out of them. All of you treated them as
though they were worthless and beyond all respect."
The guardians of British multiculturalism have
been quick to argue that it is merely coincidental that the rapists in the
Rochdale case are Muslims and that sex abuse also occurs in white gangs. Some
in British have also sought to portray the Muslims as the true victims in this
case.
Defense attorney Simon Nichol told the BBC that his client
"has objected from the start for being tried by an all-white jury, and
subsequent events have confirmed his fears. He believes his convictions have
nothing to do with justice but result from the faith and the race of the
defendants. He further believes that society failed the girls in this case
before the girls even met them and now that failure is being blamed on a weak
minority group."
But Simon Danczuk, Labour Party MP for
Rochdale, said
in an interview that "it would be daft not to believe that race plays
a part." He added: "There is a subculture of a small group of males
that are Asian, that are collaborating to abuse young white girls who are
vulnerable. The subculture is under the radar. Some people in communities are
in denial about it but we need some home truths if we are going to address
this."
According to experts interviewed by The
Telegraph, while white pedophiles generally operate in isolation, the
Muslim-led grooming is being done mostly by large numbers of men acting as a
group. Several of the men on trial in Liverpool apparently told their victims
that it was all right for them to be passed around for sex with dozens of men
"because it's what we do in our country."
Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Britain's most senior
Muslim politician, told the London
Evening Standard that there are "Pakistani men who believe that
white girls are fair game. And we have to be prepared to say that. You can only
start solving a problem if you acknowledge it first."
Warsi said the color of the victims' skin, as
well as their vulnerability, helped to make them a target. She also said that
some Pakistani men "see women as second class citizens and white women
probably as third class citizens" and that these men "are to be
spoken out against."
Warsi called on British authorities to stop
being squeamish about investigating allegations involving Muslims.
"Cultural sensitivity should never be a bar to applying the law," she
said.
Greater Manchester Police and the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] have
apologized for failing to protect the first victim -- a 15-year-old known as
Girl A -- following her plea for help in August 2008.
Girl A told police that she had been raped and provided
DNA evidence from her attacker, but the CPS twice decided not to prosecute him.
Girl A's abuse intensified and she was being
driven to apartments and houses to be raped by up to five men a night, four or
five days a week. She was singled out because she was white, vulnerable and
under-age. Her ordeal only ended when her teachers forced social workers to
intervene after she became pregnant and they became concerned by the number of
Muslim men picking her up from school.
Girl A said that in a six-hour interview she
gave police details about her abusers and where the attacks took place. She
said: "I hoped they were going to do something and it would stop. But it
just carried on. It just started again with different men and more men this
time, and that's when it started becoming up to five men a day."
When the Greater Manchester Police finally
forwarded a file on Girls A's rape to the CPS in 2009, a government lawyer
decided not to charge anyone because he said she would not be a sufficiently
credible witness to put before a jury. A second CPS lawyer backed that opinion.
It was only after social workers noticed an
upsurge in cases of "child grooming" – pretending to befriend
children with attention and gifts to gain their trust, and eventually lead them
to think that underage sexual activity is "normal" -- that police
reinvestigated and made a series of arrests which led to the convictions on May
9.
According to Ann
Cryer, a former Labour MP for the town of Keighley, who has campaigned to
draw public attention to the issue of Muslim sex gangs, complaints to social
workers and the police were ignored because they were "petrified of being
called racist."
Cryer said: "This is an absolute scandal.
They were petrified of being called racist and so reverted to the default of
political correctness. They had a greater fear of being perceived in that light
than in dealing with the issues in front of them."
Rather than acknowledge that there is a
problem, Muslim groups in Britain have decided to play the victim card instead.
They are also working overtime to try to silence public discussion about Muslim
sex crimes in Britain by branding critics as "far right racists" and
"Islamophobic."
The Muslim
Council of Britain has complained about a "climate of hate"
against Muslims and it has warned Muslims to brace themselves for
"Islamophobic" attacks on Muslims and mosques.
Faith
Matters, a pro-Muslim "inter-faith think tank" which established
a helpline called Tell Mama to monitor
"Islamophobia" when the Liverpool trial began in February, said the
"Islamophobic hatred" prompted by the case has added to the
"poison" against Muslims.
Fiyaz
Mughal, a spokesman for Faith Matters, said: "This is dangerous for
community relations. There's lots of discussion about 'Muslim paedos,' like
saying the prophet Mohammed married a young girl. All of this disgusting talk
is adding to the poison against Muslims."
Although five girls testified at the trial in
Liverpool, British police are pursuing leads that the Rochdale gang exploited
at least 50 other girls.
On May 12, just three days after the nine
Muslims from Rochdale were sentenced to prison, Greater Manchester Police arrested
another nine Muslims, aged between 24 and 38, on suspicion of sexually
abusing a child. And on May 19, police arrested two more Muslims, both aged 33,
on suspicion of sexual assault and rape.
In January 2011, researchers at The Times newspaper
identified 17 prosecutions in Britain since 1997 -- 14 of them in the past
three years -- involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16.
The victims came from 13 towns and cities and
in each case two or more men were convicted of offenses. In total, 56 people,
with an average age of 28, were found guilty of crimes including rape, child
abduction, indecent assault and sex with a child. All but three of the men were
Muslim.
Soeren
Kern is Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based
Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.
Related Topics: United
Kingdom | Soeren Kern
Apartheid: The Big Lie
by Michael Curtis
May 21, 2012 at 4:00 am
May 21, 2012 at 4:00 am
|
Share:
|
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Unlike
Muslm countries, Israel has no state religion, but rather cntains some 15
recognized religions, There are no segregated roads as there are in Saudi
Arabia. If Jews and Arabs do live in different areas in the country it is not
through state-imposed segregation, enforced by legal means. Discrimination does
not exist on the basis of race, religion or sex, and all groups have equal
protection under the law.
The time is now long overdue to recognize that
Adolph Hitler's contribution to political wisdom -- the Big Lie -- has
reappeared in the Palestinian narrative of the state of Israel as an
"apartheid state." "[T]he broad masses of a nation," Hitler
wrote in Mein Kampf, "will more readily fall victim to the big lie
than to the small lie." The constant repetition of the Big Lie, he
explained, made it acceptable, especially when it could be manipulated to
appear to have a certain credibility. The world is all too familiar with the
success of Hitler's Big Lie narrative that the Jews were internationally powerful,
responsible for World War I -- and, in his view, for most of the problems of
the world.
This new Big Lie about Israel being an
"apartheid state" that has been trumpeted by the Palestinian
narrative of Middle Eastern history and politics has, in recent years, been
accepted not only been accepted by "the broad masses," but also by
more educated and supposedly politically sophisticated individuals in the
media, the churches, and academia.
The official definition of the crime of
"apartheid" was first formulated in the International Convention on
the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly on November 30, 1973. The definition was
"inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining
domination by one racial group…over another racial group…and systematically
oppressing them." A later version of the definition was included in the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, of July 17, 1998 which came
into force in July 2002. The definition became inhumane acts concerning an
identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious
grounds "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of
systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group
or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
The change in legal terminology is important
for political reasons. Israelis and Palestinians can be considered as
"identifiable groups" and therefore the provisions of international
law in the 1973 Convention and the 1998 Statute can be applied to them, thus
opening the opportunity for a legal charge of the crime of apartheid against
Israel.
Yet this legal issue has little to do with the
real life political attempt to bring the charge against Israel. That action
began in the 1970s when the Soviet Union, for its own political purposes,
organized a coalition with Arab states and other willing countries in what was
then considered the group of "non-aligned" countries of the world.
The greatest success of the coalition was to obtain an overwhelming majority,
72-35-32, for the infamous UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 of November 10,
1975 which defined Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination, and
years later repealed only after great efforts by American diplomats, including,
fnally, the US Ambassador to the Unted Nations, John Bolton.
Similar declarations followed. The most
forthright was the Declaration of the first Durban conference (The UN World
Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance) in September 2001 that "We declare Israel as a racist,
Apartheid state in which Israel's brand of Apartheid as a crime against
humanity has been characterized by separation and segregation, dispassion,
restricted land access, denationalization, 'bantustanization' and inhumane
acts." Since then an "Israel Apartheid Week" has become an
annual event on many college campuses in the United States and elsewhere.
The declaration of Durban 1, which reads as an
indictment, was certainly applicable to the old, unlamented South Africa where
blacks were indeed segregated in many ways by legal and other restrictions, and
were treated as inferior human beings; but it has no application to the
state and society of Israel. Within the state of Israel, Israeli Arabs, 20% of
the population, have equal political and social rights as Jews; full
citizenship; members of the Israeli Parliament, called the Knesset; a seat on
the Supreme Court; diplomatic representation at the most senior levels, a free
press in Arabic, which is, along with Hebrew, an official language; the
capacity to move freely; equal opportunity to enter universities, to be
employed, and to enter freely into marital relations with fellow Arabs or with
Jews. If Jews and Arabs do live in different areas of the country it is not
through a state-imposed segregation, enforced by legal means, but by choice.
There are no segregated roads, as there are in Saudi Arabia, and there are no
segregated schools, housing, drinking fountains, buses or any officially
imposed limits whatsoever. Discrimination does not exist on the basis of race,
religion, or sex; and all groups have legal protection of the law. Unlike
Muslim countries Israel has no state religion, but rather contains some 15
recognized religions. Israel, unlike the old South Africa, is a multiracial
society.
In the absence of a peace settlement between
the parties that will determine the boundaries of territories currently
dispute, both the Palestinian Authority and Israel control parts of the West
Bank. Measures such as roadblocks, checkpoints and a fence have been imposed
not for the purposes of segregation, but for security and for self-defense.
Although it is true that these security measures cause inconveniences and some
hardship, they have been created to prevent terrorist attacks, not to impose
discrimination by an oppressive regime. It is a tribute to the nature of
democracy in Israel that its Supreme Court on a number of occasions has ordered
the state to make changes in the fence route, often by a small amount, when the
fence seemed to be imposing hardship on the Palestinians.
The world is all too well aware of the disputes
between Israel and Palestinians, especially on the complex issues of
settlements, refugees, and Jerusalem, but to accuse Israel of being
"apartheid" is not only false, it is unhelpful and counterproductive
for any hope for a peaceful settlement .
The unjustifiable, misguided, and extensively
expressed "moral outrage" over the Big Lie directed against Israel
can partly be explained by ignorance of the reality of political and social
conditions in Israel and in the territories. For all the problems encountered
by a state created by Jews, and with 21 Arab and Muslim neighbors openly
threatening to destroy it -- sometimes, as with Iran, to the illegal point of
publicly advocating genocide -- it is a remarkable success story -- unlike the
failures of every surrounding Arab and Muslim state except those benefitting
from enormous oil resources.
One must conclude that the enemies of Israel,
or inflexibly biased critics, are maliciously demonizing it with repetition of
the word "apartheid" in the hope of goading the international
community into denying Israel's legitimacy as a state, in an effort to destroy
it. Regrettably, one must also conclude that the perceptions of Israel have
been colored for many people, now including Muslims, by an antisemitism which
has become increasingly conspicuous both by rhetoric and physical assaults on
Jews and Jewish institutions.
Critics of Israel may understandingly claim the
mantle of compassion and express empathy for the Palestinians whom they
consider the weaker party in the enduring conflict with Israel. They may argue
the case against what they consider oppressive behavior by Israeli authorities,
and point to instances of injustice. Yet at the same time they ignore not only
the repressive and corrupt governance of the Palestinian Authority to its own
citizens, but also the principles of liberty and equality inherent in the state
of Israel, and above all the need for all nations to take appropriate measures
to defend themselves against those in hostile environments who are eager to
destroy them.
Those individuals, groups, and organizations
making use of the word "apartheid" are appealing to the emotions of
those who rightfully find the concept deplorable, but by doing so they are
polarizing political positions and unjustly oversimplifying a complex
situation, in which one side, Israel's, has so often offered reasonable
compromises for peace, and the other side, the Palestinians, backed by many of
the 21 Arab and Muslim countries has refused to enter into any real meaningful
negotiations.
Michael Curtis is Distinguished Professor
Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University and author of Should
Israel Exist? A Sovereign Nation under attack by the International Community.
Related Topics: Michael Curtis
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment