Islam…Institutionally Racist? ‘Did that mean that freedom of speech, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law or monogamy were no longer to be upheld as worthwhile?
Here was the very nihilism which, if unchallenged, threatened to destroy the West. If all common bonds of tradition, custom, culture and morality were destroyed, there would no social glue to keep society together. It would gradually fracture into disparate tribes with competing agendas, and eventually destroy itself.’
Robert Aitken, ex BBC, tells us that the BBC would have ignored the Asian grooming gangs in Rochdale.
The Guardian’s Joseph Harker tells us that organisations like the BBC are right to ignore the religion and race of these gangs despite the judge in the case saying:
“All of you treated your victims as though they were worthless and beyond any respect – they were not part of your community or religion.”
But evidence mounts that religion is of paramount importance in society and is the cause of much crime and violence, and needs addressing:
Pakistan election: the 4m votes no one wants Ahmadi religious minority vilified by extremists as heretic and shunned by mainstream politicians such as Imran Khan.
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, accused elders of the Pakistani community of “burying their heads in the sand” on the matter of sexual grooming.
We can’t ignore it Simon Danczuk, Labour MP for Rochdale.
‘Hindu and Sikh groups have objected to media use of “Asian” description saying that the culprits were “almost always of Pakistani origin”.
The Islamists were demonstrating in favour of an anti-blasphemy law and demanding punishment for “atheist” bloggers who they say have insulted Islam and its prophet.
Almost 300 Christian children abducted and forcibly converted to Islam in Bangladesh.
It is an irony that on the same day that Harker has his piece in the Guardian telling us that Islam does not discriminate against anyone ,the Guardian also publishes a report on the Ahmadis being persecuted by Muslims and reports of Islamists demanding pro-Islamic laws.
Harker demonstrates a mindset all too apparent at the BBC….look the other way when Muslims go bad……one look at Pakistan and you realise why it is important to address such issues…and openly question the rising influence and dominance of Islam in Britain today.
The BBC’s attitude condemns everyone to a future that is not a happy one, increasing ‘tribalism’, segregation and inter communal violence….and you are all being denied a say in that future by the likes of the BBC and the Guardian’s Joseph Harker….closing down debate with cries of islamophobia or racism.
This is the long version of the above, explaining it in depth:
The Guardian tells us that: ‘A former BBC current affairs journalist, Robert Aitken, has said the corporation’s failure to mount a campaign against Lord Justice Leveson’s press reform proposals “has done a great disservice” to the country.
“The Leveson Inquiry was tailor-made to reinforce the BBC’s sense of its own superiority….As a viewer or listener one got the impression that the corporation was rather enjoying itself.”
Aitken warned that a “press cowed by regulation” will make the nation more reliant on the BBC, but that if journalism is chilled at newspapers it will also be at the corporation.
“The BBC’s track record over the past few years does not instil great confidence,” he said. It would not have broken the MPs’ expenses scandal or the story on Asian gangs grooming young white girls for sexual abuse.’
Aitken is absolutely right about the BBC’s coverage of Leveson…its schadenfreude at the sight of Murdoch under the cosh was visible for everyone to see. He is also right that the BBC is one of the organisations that was responsible for the suppression of information about the sex abuse gangs in Rochdale which allowed the abuse to go on for years unchecked because of ‘cultural sensibilities’.
It is ironic then, and not a little worrying, that yesterday in the Guardian the same mindset that turned a blind eye to non-Muslim girls being abused in Rochdale was at work again telling us that we should look away, don’t investigate all the lines of inquiry that might help stop this in future, instead cover up the abuse and pretend it doesn’t happen….at least not in Muslim communities.
This mindset has its own bible, where ironically the ingrained prejudices and racism of our self appointed ‘anti-discrimination’ Stasi are set in out in black and white.
In 2004 Dr Richard Stone, one of the men responsible for deciding that the Met. Was ‘institutionally racist’ published a report into ‘Islamophobia’.
That title should give the game away instantly…it was more a witch hunt than a genuine investigation of criticism of the Islamic religion.
This gives a taste of what depths that report sinks to:
‘Racism is not in the minds of black people, nor is Islamophobia in the minds of Muslims, nor anti-Semitism in the minds of Jews.
‘Racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are in the minds of white people, in the institutions, organisations and cultures they mould and lead’.’
Here is a quote they use to illustrate how badly Muslims are treated in this country, quoting an unnamed Muslim journalist….
‘Today, Britain’s 1.6 million Muslims are living on a diet of death, hypocrisy and neglect that is traumatising and radicalising an entire generation.’
So you get an idea of the hysterical, bigoted thinking that is being used. It is ironic that a report about discrimination should tarbrush all white people as anti-Semitic, Islamophobic (whatever that means) and racist.
So what did the Guardian, in the form of its deputy comments editor, Joseph Harker, say?
From what he says it is apparent that Harker obviously agrees with the leader of the Rochdale sex abuse ring, Shabir Ahmed, when he claimed the girls were “prostitutes” who had been running a “business empire” and it was all “white lies”.
And no doubt Harker also agrees with him that the judge is a ‘racist bastard’ when the judge said this:
“All of you treated your victims as though they were worthless and beyond any respect – they were not part of your community or religion.”
The judge branded the 59-year-old an “unpleasant and hypocritical bully”.
So what is Harker’s take on all of this ? He tries his hand at parody to explain his own conclusions….as he compares the crimes of white abusers like Savile with those of Muslims:
‘Every day across Britain, it seems, there’s a new and horrific revelation of sexual abuse…..after the shock has subsided and we have time to reflect on these revolting crimes, the main question in most reasonable people’s minds must surely be: what is it about white people that makes them do this?
I’m beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and I know most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that their whole community is getting a bad name.’
He explains his little joke:
‘All of the above arguments were made within various parts of our print and broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be grooming young girls for sex. If you think the claims about white people are wrong, then so is the stereotyping of Britain’s Muslims, and the widespread questioning of their culture and their religion, because of the perverted actions of a few.
If you object to this article, then you should understand how it feels to be a Muslim reading similar pieces pandering to Islamophobia day after day – and you should object to those too.’
Immediately you can see the problem with his ‘argument’ such as it is.
He compares white men abusing any child they can lay their hands on regardless of race, colour or creed with an abuse gang that selected its victims because they were not Muslim.
That is clearly a wrongheaded way of looking at this…if Savile and Co had only been abusing Muslim girls then you could make the comparison…but they weren’t.
Harker goes on to say that no one then projects the blame of Savile et al onto the white community as a whole….well no…because as explained their victims were not picked because they were of a particular type.
Even when this is pointed out to Harker in the comments section to his article he can’t understand the point, saying:
‘Why should we talk about cultural values, or people “from that community”? It’s no more relevant than in North Wales or the BBC. Despite it being over 6 months since revelations about Savile and the conspiracies which kept his crimes secret, I’ve not seen one article making a subculture point about white people.’
That’s because ‘whiteness’ of his victims wasn’t the issue for Savile…..the cultural and religious values of the Muslims in Rochdale were relevant as they defined which victims would be abused.
This isn’t a question of Islam making men into perverts, it is an issue about Islam creating a mindset that allows Muslims to demonise and dehumanise non-Muslims which then enables them to abuse them free of conscience if that is what they are inclined to do…religiously sanctioned discrimination.
So why would anyone make a point about ‘white people’?
Is it true as Harker says that only the Muslim community is being stigmatised by having their culture brought into question?
No….The fact is certain groups have been blamed for the abuse by Savile et al.
The Catholic Church has been severely criticised, not because Catholicism encouraged abuse but because the culture of the Church covered up the abuse and allowed it to continue.
It was the BBC culture which allowed its ‘stars’ to get away with abuse because they were so famous, so ‘useful’ to the BBC that they were ‘untouchable’.
Greg Dykes admitted as much recently: ‘In television, presenters and stars have always been protected in a way that the rest of us never are, in terms of the way organisations work. They would always protect them. But it’s difficult to establish the truth.’
It was the culture of the BBC and the unique status of Savile et al that made them ‘untouchable’, that was the issue.
So in fact a ‘group’ of people has been identified and ‘broad brushed’ by association……the ‘Superstars in the TV industry are all being given a bad name by association, and the culture that allowed some of them to get away with abuse has been identified….and action taken to remedy that.
The BBC has carried out numerous inquiries, with another one likely for Stuart Hall’s activities….into the culture, practices and customs that allowed abuse to go on…and actions taken to prevent it happening again.
Where are the inquiries into the culture and practices of Muslims in Rochdale that gave sanction to their behaviour? Is it right to deny the role of religion and culture, to sweep that under the carpet and blame their actions solely on some ‘perversion’…that’s just too easy, allowing the Authorities to escape the need for any action.
Harker is saying that we should ignore that so that the Muslim community doesn’t feel that it is somehow under attack.
Why shouldn’t that culture and religion be brought into question? The Catholic Church has been vilified, the BBC has been vilified…and rightly so….what’s so special about Islam?
Harker ignores the fact that the girls were selected by religion, he ignores the fact that the Muslim ‘community’ knew what was going on and ignored it. He ignores the fact that covering up the abuse led to years more abuse for the girls and many more victims.
Harker is in effect condemning more girls to abuse…because future perpetrators know that people like Harker are working to hide their crimes and keep them off the pages of the newspapers….the police and social services once again cowed into not tackling the issues for fear of being labelled ‘racist’.
Harker claims that Islam has nothing to do with discrimination or abuse….it is ironic that on the same day the Guardian printed his piece it also printed the below…showing that it isn‘t just a small group of ‘extremists‘ in Pakistan who are discriminating against other religions it is the mainstream…with laws even passed in the Pakistani Parliament to enable such discrimination:
Pakistan election: the 4m votes no one wants
Ahmadi religious minority vilified by extremists as heretic and shunned by mainstream politicians such as Imran Khan
‘Last week, Khan, the leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party (PTI), vigorously denied he had ever asked members of Pakistan’s roughly 4 million-strong Ahmadiyya community to vote for him.
In an impassioned video statement, Khan promised to protect anti-Ahmadi laws and articles of Pakistan’s constitution that human rights groups have long criticised as deeply discriminatory.
The laws ban Ahmadis from “posing as a Muslim”, meaning almost any public act of devotion is a criminal offence, potentially punishable by death under the country’s notorious blasphemy laws.
In a statement, Khan said the “PTI totally subscribes to the articles of the constitution concerning Qadianis”, using a term most Ahmadis find deeply offensive.’
Harker clearly hasn’t done any research into what went on in Rochdale. If he had he would know that it is accepted that religion and culture played a major role in the abuse:
A 2012 report by the Deputy children’s commissioner said that 33% of child sex abuse was committed by Asians in Britain, where Asians are 7% of the population, but concluded that it was “irresponsible” to dwell on the data.
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadan Foundation, accused elders of the Pakistani community of “burying their heads in the sand” on the matter of sexual grooming. He said that of 68 recent convictions involving child sexual exploitation, 59 were of British Pakistani men and it was a significant problem for that community. He said the actions of criminals who thought “white teenage girls are worthless and can be abused” were “bringing shame on our community.”
They claim that by highlighting the scandal, I am doing the dirty work of Right-wing extremists such as the BNP —helping to taint Pakistanis with the smear of criminality.
But this is nonsense. The damage has been done by the criminal activity of the gangs themselves.
The truth is that we will win far more respect by challenging abuse, rather than colluding with its cover-up.
Simon Danczuk, Labour MP for Rochdale says ‘We can’t ignore it’:
‘For a while now, I’ve had concerns about disturbing attitudes towards women shown by some of Rochdale’s Asian residents. It goes way beyond casual chauvinism to something far worse. In the two years I have been an MP, I’ve had to throw people out of my surgery because of their violent views on women.
If even Asian councillors were writing letters of support for people now found guilty of horrific sex crimes, it is clear we have a culture of denial.’
Harker is extraordinarily wide of the mark when he tries to equate ‘whiteness’ or race with abuse in his parody.
The issue was clearly religion as this BBC report illustrates….it was not ‘Asians’ abusing the girls, it was Muslims:
‘Hindu and Sikh groups have objected to media use of “Asian” description saying that the culprits were “almost always of Pakistani origin”. They contend that clouding the issue by calling them “Asians” is unfair towards other Asians and is detrimental to a frank discussion.
It says the reluctance of the media and the government to discuss the “disproportionate representation of Muslims in such cases” and the fact victims are “almost always non-Muslim girls” is adding to the cause of far-right groups such as the BNP.
The groups say sex gangs have targeted Hindu and Sikh girls but the cases are rarely reported as they seldom reach the courts.
The statement says: “We believe that political correctness stifles debate and will not facilitate a frank and mature discussion or solutions to get to the root of why the above pattern is emerging in these crimes and how to help find a solution to the problem.’
Harker’s attitude is dangerous…he knows what happened, he knows the causes, he knows the consequences for victims, and yet he seeks to bury the evidence in some misguided attempt to protect the guilty in order to protect the ‘good name’ of a community…a community that itself has some explaining to do….and a religion that encourages the belief that non-Muslims are a lower order of life.
‘Hindu and Sikh groups have objected to media use of “Asian” description saying that the culprits were “almost always of Pakistani origin”.
Here again we see that even Hindu and Sikh groups cannot state the unvarnished truth – that the men were Muslims, and their behaviour accords with the teachings of the Koran. They were NOT for instance Pakistani Christians or Hindus.
Jihad Watch has a series of articles on this. One of the latest is here
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/bangladesh-140-christian-girls-rescued-from-islamic-madrassas-sex-slavery.html
Moslem grooming of Hindu and Sikh children –
http://undhimmi.com/2011/01/11/muslims-also-targeting-hindu-and-sikh-girls-in-sexual-grooming-cases/
In fairness, it looks like the Hindu and Sikh groups made two sets of statements (based on the quotes in the article):
i. Asian was being used rather than Pakistani, with Pakistani obviously being much more geographically specific
ii. Mainstream media is reluctant to use the word ‘muslim’ when describing these rapists
I suspect even where ‘unvarnished’ statements are made to journalists, the journalists report those statements through an obfuscating filter of euphemisms (such as the ubiquitous ‘islamist’ when the writer means ‘muslim’).
…but they work on the premise that “Pakistan” and Muslim are almost synonymous: they presume that everyone knows that most of Pakistan is Muslim (97 – 98%).
In a settled society with a common culture, rape is a direct assault on the home culture, and thus does not happen too often, as the rapist is punished, both legally and socially. In a multicultural society, and particularly one in which Islam is in the mix, rape is not just of an individual woman, but an assault on the honour and pride of another tribe. That is how Muslims see it, and we know this as they do engage in “honour” killings.
In a genuine tribal society, such an assault would be avenged fairly quickly by violence and retaliatory rapes. Thus, to achieve some degree of stability in a multi-tribal (read multicultural) society, it requires that men of the tribe take direct action to protect their tribe by violence against an offending tribe.
What we have now in the UK is the worst of all possible scenarios. We have Muslim immigrants who view women with contempt. Muslims also view rapes as an act of contempt on Infidel society (tribe). The rapist may be punished with a derisory sentence, but is held in respect within his own “tribe”. Meanwhile “Men of the West” have been neutered by decades of feminist and socialist propaganda, thus making any retaliatory action well nigh impossible. Thus all impediments to rape have been removed.
What our elite have created is not just a rapist’s paradise, but is leading to the rape of the nation.
“Thus, to achieve some degree of stability in a multi-tribal (read multicultural) society, it requires that men of the tribe take direct action to protect their tribe by violence against an offending tribe.”
Just to be clear, are you and your many “likers” advocating some sort of whites-only “rape gang” to restore the correct amount of fear amongst Muslims?
Oh come on – there must be hundreds of white men grooming and raping young coloured girls already – according to the article. (Which to my mind was a load of b*llsh*t)
The unholy alliance of forces which brings about this shocking situation reveals the inevitable confusion regarding ‘victim hierarchy’ on the Left. Let’s suppose the BNP were to organise a march to protest against Muslim grooming of White girls. Feminists (and indeed many others) might for once feel they could make common cause with the BNP to oppose this horrible crime. But would the UAF boys (or even the police) let the BNP marchers assemble? Or would they feel that to be seen to be anti-Muslim was worse than tackling those who are violently anti-White female? Women like Harriet Harman and BBC regulars Jenni Murray & Jane Garvey should rightly be enraged by the grooming culture against the so-called “kuffar slags”, as much or more than by the very serious revelations about J Savile, S Hall et al; but methinks they protest too little. The BBC really needs to raise its game on this issue: is it or is it not truly against the horrible crime of rape of girls and women, even when committed by what it regards as victim groups?
Islam always wins in discrimination Top Trumps. If they were grooming woman from other minorities, the BBC would still enter full damage control mode.
The majority of Muslims do not integrate in my experience, and the BBC have done their utmost in avoiding this fact. The Pakistani shops in my local town are dwelling or hanging out places for other Muslims, dressing in their different clothes and speaking in their native tongue – they look at you when you enter their shop as if you were a foreigner! They send their money back home, they follow their own religion and cultural practices by and large and make no effort to integrate. It’s a different matter when we go to a Muslim country.
Because of the weak, spineless jellyfish Lefties and their mouthpiece, the BBC, we are being suffocated and overrun by an oppressive regime that will stop at nothing in its subtle encroachment of our culture.
Coming from Bradford, this is only too familiar.
Bradford had a good record or tolerating immigrants but this wasn’t good enough, apparently.
Correction – I should have said that Bradford accepted previous immigrants. It did not need to tolerate them.
There is no doubt in my mind that we are on the road to another holocaust again, only this time the victims are different.
Way back 200 years ago anti Semitic feelings which had been present for hundreds of years previous were bent by people on the left to their own ends. The Jews became symbols of capitalism and vilified.
That same hatred is today being whipped up against anyone that can be labelled with an ‘ism’ or ‘phobia’. There have already been calls by prominent left wing activists on the BBC for the murder of political opponents, and anyone failing to follow the prescripts of the fascists (lets not forget Hitler’s bunch were far left wing) , will today come under ever increasing oppression, with jobs denied to them, and possible criminal proceedings. All it takes is a denunciation from a modern fascist, little evidence is required.
Most of Hitler’s ranting about the Jews work just as well when the ‘Jew’ is removed, and replaced with ‘racist’. This should scare people to death! It certainly scares me, because ordinary good folk are now – just as in 1937 too scared to speak out against the tyranny.
First they came for the Racists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Racist.
Then they came for the Homophobes,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Homophobes.
Then they came for those with right wing views,
and I didn’t speak out because I have those views.
Then they came for the Christians,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Christian.
Then they came for the Freemasons,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Freemason.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
“…the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Racist.” (Hitler Mein Kampf)
We are the joyous Socialist youth,
We do not need any Christian virtue
Our leader is our savior
The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone
We want to be religion free once again.”
– Song sung by Hitler youth and not needing much alteration !
“The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a reactionary invention, it is a blemish like circumcision.”
Rauschning
“. . . the discovery of the Racism virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Racism virus! … We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Racist.”
It is so easy just to remove the hate figure of the socialist in 1937 and insert the fashionable hate figure of todays socialist.
Have a try, it’s frightening just how plausible and real these quotations might be heard from todays fascists.
Where are the inquiries into the culture and practices of Muslims in Rochdale that gave sanction to their behaviour?
That would be the one by our Deputy Commissioner for Children who rushed out a report concluding that most abuse of children was being carried out by the majority population.
There is none so blind as those who will not see.
A political decision seems to have been taken at the highest level of the BBC to provide special, preferential political treatment for Islam in Britain, and globally.
I can’t get my head round this! The BBC claims to stand for diversity, secularism and the rights of minorities, homosexuals and women. OK, as far as this goes. But how DO they square that with Islam? One might even, as a non-Muslim, share some of the Muslims’ disgust with aspects of modern permissive western Europe. But how on earth can the BBC do this? Explanations:
(1) They’re too stupid to see the contradiction (unlikely);
(2) They’re appeasers, frightened of riots, bombs, etc;
(3) They’re part of a conspiracy to ferment social unrest so that some group can take over to keep order.
They simply follow their chosen pecking order of “isms” . In their list the top trump is Islam. Other issues like gay rights, feminism etc come below Islam, therefore Islam trumps everything.
This has been true of other mainstream media too.
Their treatment of poltical protest groups has been so far to demonise and isolate them. First it was the BNP then the EDL, but as you will have noticed, the smears have not worked this time with the growth of UKIP still holding up.
The truth is, enough of the British voting public is now waking up to what our spineless, lying politicians are doing to this country.
And I couldn’t give a toss whether anyone else accepts that the BNP is deserving of any sympathy here, or that they perhaps brought it upon themselves, but Griffin was the first to flag up the peado grooming gangs years ago. Many innocent kids could have been protected if the liberal arseholes hadn’t been allowed to cover things up.
They did a lot more than cover things up. Under BLiars nutters, they had an unwritten moratorium on prosecutions of Pakistani & Bangladeshi Moslems for all kinds of crimes including child rape, drug dealing, and money laundering. It would also appear that they turned a blind eye to terrorism in the early days on the proviso that the terrorism was not carried out here.
We now see Harriet Harperson attempting to relax the laws on Paedophilia and incest any one under any illusion as to why she might want to do this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html
Thoughtful, she joined the NCCL ( niw known as Liberty) in 1978. Even Harperson wouldn’t attempt to pull off such a stunt today.
However, I long for her to be challenged about it in a Tv interview.
Jack Dromey, Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Hormone – partners in paedophilia promoting crime.
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/labour-figures-bizarre-link-to-paedophile-groups/
Totally, utterly agree!