We know that British attempts to appease radical Muslims have failed. Not only has the nation been attacked by home-grown Islamist terrorists but many of its Muslims have been migrating to the Middle East to join ISIS in its fight against civilization.
Last week we were forced to recognize that enlightened multicultural attitudes have fostered a “rape culture” in a small British city called Rotherham.
There British leftists created a culture where young white girls were sacrificed to the sexual depravity of Pakistani Muslim men. An idolatrous ideology has now brought back human sacrifice. And it did so with the connivance of feminists. Good feminists are so afraid of being called racists that they are covering up the depravity of Muslim men. As of now most of the stories about the “rape culture” in Rotherham come to us from conservative media outlets.
If, perchance, someone had, instead of the word multicultural, called it polycultural we would more quickly grasp the connection between this ideology and pagan polytheism.
The story broke last week in a report by social worker and Professor Alexis Jay.
The horrific details of the Rotherham “grooming” scandal were laid out in a report published by Professor Alexis Jay, a former senior social worker. Professor Jay wrote: “It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated.”
The report, published by Professor Jay, a former senior social worker, says staff at Rotherham Council “described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”
John O’Sullivan also offered details:
Since Tuesday afternoon, however, Britain has felt real shock and horror over the report that 1,400 young women in the South Yorkshire town of Rotherham had been groomed, raped, prostituted, trafficked, and brutally abused in almost every possible way by a criminal gang for the last 16 years. In addition, the authorities — which in this case are the local government authority, the police, and the child-protection services — had been repeatedly informed of these crimes but had dismissed the reports as false or exaggerated and taken no action to investigate, halt, and punish them.
Some of the examples of this depraved official indifference are barely believable. In one case, a girl was found drunk in the company of her exploiters and was arrested while the men were let free. In another, a father found his daughter, tried to rescue her, complained to the police, and was himself arrested while the authorities took no action on his complaint.
It is not as if this series of crimes was hidden or unknown. No fewer than three official investigations (prior to this one) looked into these crimes. They reported the broad truth that we now know and called for further investigations and arrests. The police and child-protection services did nothing whatever about them. Indeed, they quietly pigeonholed the findings with dismissive comments. The local councilors looked the other way or, on some occasions, intervened to discourage investigations by the police. Only the general public was innocently ignorant.
The 1,400 girls were all white and of Christian background and English ethnicity while all but one of their exploiters were Muslims of Pakistani heritage. (The report describes the men delicately as “Asians,” but so far no Hindus, Sikhs, or Hong Kong Chinese are among their number.) As in other recent cases, the men targeted the girls in large part because they were white Christians, culturally speaking, and thus “worthless.” They actually told the girls that this was so. Still worse, the police also treated the girls as worthless when they bravely ignored the physical threats against them (one man poured petrol over a girl and threatened to light it) and sought police help. As a result, some of the girls came to believe they were in fact worthless, which, of course, made them more tractable to the gang. Others committed suicide. Many of the survivors will experience, perhaps for the rest of their lives, prolonged bouts of depression, self-contempt, shame, and other psychological disorders.
To O’Sullivan, the official collusion with the “rape culture” manifested leftist political ideology:
But what explains the silence, the acquiescence, even the cooperation of the authorities? Their motives seem to derive from the rich stew of progressive absurdities that constitute official attitudes in modern Britain. The first is the fear of being suspected of racism. Again and again the police and the social workers shrank from intervening or responding to complaints because to do so would invite the accusation that they were “racist.” Most people in the Muslim community were unaware of this criminal conspiracy (and, shocked and horrified like everyone else, they now condemn it). But when it was brought to the attention of “community leaders,” they too played the race card to suppress further investigation. To uncover such scandal would be not only racist, it would commit a sin against the ideal of multiculturalism that now actuates much official policy.
One would be happy to entertain an alternative explanation. As of now, there is none.
As for the feminist response, Ian Tuttle offers his own explanation of their silence:
Feminists of the vocal, bathe-in-male-tears sort find proof of “rape culture” all about: in newspaper satire, in ’80s movies, in the verb “to force.” So one would think news that between 1997 and 2013 at least 1,400 children in Rotherham, England, were victims of sexual exploitation would confirm the feminist narrative and ignite their righteous fury.
Not so fast.
Tuttle summarizes the official response to the testimony of a girl named Emma Jackson. For now she is the face of the horror:
The U.K. Mirror, for instance, reports that “Emma,” a Rotherham-area girl, was raped once a week beginning when she was 13 years old. When she provided to police the names of 250 men she claimed had raped her, police ignored her. Hundreds, if not thousands, of girls in Rotherham and throughout England probably experienced the same.
When these acts were brought to the intention of authorities, they responded that these girls, 12 and 14 had engaged in consensual sexual relations.
Robert Stacy McCain summarized material provided in Prof. Jay’s report:
As early as 2000 (i.e., two years before Emma Jackson’s exploitation began), social workers and the CID (Criminal Investigation Department) were aware of the case of Child A, who had been “associating with a group of older Asian men” and had already had sexual intercourse with five adult men by age 12! Yet a criminal investigator argued against treating her case as criminal abuse because it was “100% consensual”? Insanity, I tell you!
The rape culture could not have continued for a dozen years without the connivance of authorities. One suspects that their ideological predilections contributed to their willingness to suppress the truth and to consign young girls to the rape culture.
If so, feminism has some explaining to do.
In Tuttle's words:
And we’re talking about not just one rape but thousands of them, committed against girls as young as eleven, over a period of many years, with the full knowledge of many social workers and other complicit authorities. When a glut of horrifying crimes against women is revealed, feminist talking heads do not have the moral seriousness required to confront it.
In Rotherham there is a real-life “rape culture.” But you will not learn anything new about it from Salon, the Daily Beast, Jezebel, or Slate. It has gone unmentioned at Feministing, Bitch Media, or the Feminist Majority Foundation. There have been no outraged op-eds from Jenny Kutner, Jessica Valenti, or Samantha Leigh Allen.
These are, apparently, not the rapes they are looking for.