by Robert Henderson
Note: This is an alternative view of the Rochdale sexual predation case to the one we published the other day by Yamin Zakaria. Probably, our readers are more likely to agree with it. Indeed, I agree with a lot of it.
Where the meaning of the Koran is concerned, however, I am more cautious. We know that undoubtedly sincere Christians have adopted interpretations of the first five books of the Old Testament which are at variance with the natural meaning of the text. Even where the New Testament is concerned, something as apparently obvious as the condemnations of homosexuality depend on the meaning of words like malakos and arsenokoites – words that do not appear to have had clear meanings until about a century after they were used in their specific context.
Over the past 1,300 years, Moslems appear to have adopted interpretations of the Koran and Hadith that are equally at variance. Understanding the “meaning” of any religious text requires more than a reading of its words in their plain sense – especially when the text has been translated from a radically foreign language. All we can say is that some present interpretations of Islam by Pakistanis resident in England sanction sexual predation against natives.
This is something which imams and believers in places like Rochdale need to address. We cannot say that “true” Islam promotes any of the things that Robert says it does. SIG
Liberals in a multicultural denialfest
by Robert Henderson
Nine Muslim men living in Rochdale Lancashire – eight from Pakistan and one from Afghanistan – have been convicted of various offences arising from what is coyly described as “street grooming” , but whose honest description would be at best the forced prostitution of girls under the age of consent and at worst repeated gang-rape often accomplished when the girls were too drunk to know what was happening. . (The girls were all under the age of 16 -the British age of consent for intercourse – and abuse began when some were as young as 13).
Strikingly, every one of the 47 girls identified as being the subject of abuse by the gang were white. Cue for liberals to dash into a frenzy of terrified make-believe as they desperately tried to convince themselves and the public that vicious and sustained abuse of exclusively white girls by Asian men had no racial motivation. Thankfully there have been some honourable exceptions in the mainstream media to this wilful self-delusion, for example, Allison Pearson of the Telegraph pointed out the absurdity and dishonesty of the denial of racism in pithy fashion:
“Nine white men are found guilty of grooming young Asian girls, aged between 13 and 15, whom they picked up on the streets of London. The girls were lured with free fish and chips before being raped or pimped as prostitutes. One Asian girl from a children’s home was used for sex by 20 white men in one night. Police insist the crimes were not “racially motivated”.
Imagine if that story were true. Would you really believe that race was not a factor in those hateful crimes? Do you think that, despite conclusive DNA evidence from a girl raped by two men, the police would have hesitated to press charges because the suspects were white and it could make things a bit sensitive in the white community? Would the Crown Prosecution Service have refused to prosecute, allowing the child-sex ring to flourish for three more anguished years?’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/allison-pearson/9254651/Asian-sex-gang-young-girls-betrayed-by-our-fear-of-racism.html)
The tactics of liberal denial
Any normal human being would have no problem in seeing the very obvious racial element in the case, but white liberals have found no difficulty in calling black white. Some, such as the ineffable Asian MP Keith Vaz , opted for simple denial: “ Right at the start of this trial the BNP were outside demonstrating saying that this was a race issue. I do not believe it is a race issue.” ).
A real gem came from the lips of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester whose force investigated the case:
‘…following the trial at Liverpool Crown Court, Greater Manchester Police’s Assistant Chief Constable Steve Heywood, said: “It just happens that in this particular area and time, the demographics were that these were Asian men.
“However, in large parts of the country we are seeing on-street grooming, child sexual exploitation happening in each of our towns and it isn’t about a race issue.”’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9263050/Claiming-Rochdale-grooming-not-about-race-is-fatuous-Trevor-Phillips.html).
A more exquisite example of the religiously pc state senior police officers in Britain have reached would be difficult to find. I urge anyone who believes that there is nationwide “street grooming” proportionately undertaken by whites to try to find evidence for this. I should be very surprised if they can come up with such evidence. If it did occur one may be sure that it would be given massive prominence by the media and produce hordes of examples when the subject is Googled. When I tried Googling it drew a blank.
The more sophisticated amongst the liberal deniers have turned to the well tried and tested liberal left ploys of claiming that the perpetrators were not true Muslims and putting up a smokescreen through the creation of a false equivalence between white and non-white sex offenders. Here is Aljazeera playing the “not true Muslims” card:
“These men convicted in Rochdale may have been nominally Muslim, but they were clearly not practising the true essence of their faith. Many so-called “Muslim criminals” (as identified by the media) are in fact people who might drink, take drugs or engage in other practices considered haram ["forbidden"]. Individuals who commit abuse are abusers, full stop.” ().
Compare the Rochdale offences with the sex offences committed by Roman Catholic priests. Would anyone want to argue the priests were only nominally Catholic? I rather doubt it.
Not to be outdone the Guardian sternly advised that “The defendants in question are at most nominally Muslim. Practising Muslims certainly aren’t supposed to have sex with children.” ()
The Guardian managed to be both dishonest in its refusal to address the fact that not only the Rochdale case, but the large majority of this type of group abuse in Britain is conducted by Muslims, and profoundly wrong when it claims “Practising Muslims certainly aren’t supposed to have sex with children.” Girls
of the age used by the Rochdale groups and younger are taken as wives – not merely betrothed – in the Muslim world and Mohammed himself did took wives at a very young age, the latter being especially important because Mohammed is the model of the Muslim man.
The false equivalence ploy consists of comparing apples with oranges and ignoring the widely differing numbers of whites – and Asians – especially in this context Muslims Asians – in Britain. Here is an example:
“Martin Narey, former chief executive of children’s charity Barnardo’s, said there was “troubling evidence” that Asians were “overwhelmingly represented” in prosecutions for street grooming and trafficking of girls in towns such as Derby, Leeds, Blackpool, Blackburn, Oldham and Rochdale.
He told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme: “That is not to condemn a whole community, most Asians would absolutely abhor what we have seen in the last few days in the Rochdale trial, and I don’t think this is about white girls.
“It’s sadly because vulnerable girls on the street at night are generally white rather than more strictly-parented Asian girls, but there is a real problem here.”
Mr Narey, who is [also] a former head of the prison service, added however that sex offenders were “overwhelmingly white” and that there was evidence that those guilty of online grooming were “disproportionately white”. ().
Narey begins by comparing the apples of the girls repeatedly gang-raped by the Rochdale group with the oranges of sex offenders in general, an utterly meaningless comparison because sex offences in Britain can be anything from someone downloading anything deemed to be sexual images of a 17 year old girl to the rape and murder of a toddler. He goes on to state ‘that there was evidence that those guilty of online grooming were “disproportionately white”’. This is a claim made by quite a few people commenting on the case in the media, for example, by Jane Martinson in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/09/rochdale-grooming-trial-race). She cites her source as the CPS’ Violence against Women and Girls 2010/11 report (http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/CPS_VAW_report_2011.pdf).
What the report actually says is this:
In 2010-11, 75% of VAWG [Violence against
Women and Girls] crime defendants were identified as belonging to the White British category and 79% were categorised as White (as in the previous year). 6% of defendants were identified as Asian, and a further 6% were identified as Black, similar figures to the previous year . Over half of victim ethnicity was not recorded, so is not reported on within this report. “
As the population of the UK is around 90% white, the representation of whites is certainly disproportionate, disproportionately small that is. It is also interesting to note that the ethnicity of the victims was not routinely recorded and consequently no figures are given in the report for this aspect of the crimes. Could it be that the percentage of white victims is disproportionately large because blacks and Asians concentrate on white women and girls?
Apart from the misrepresentation of the statistics, there is the ignoring of the degree of the offence. It is one thing to be sexually abused by a single person , quite another to be gang-raped regularly. The Rochdale abusers were engaged in the most serious category of sex offences. Try as I might, I cannot find a case of white men acting in a conspiracy to persistently abuse under-age girls in that fashion. Nor, perhaps most tellingly, can I find any example of white men gang-raping non-white under-age girls or of individual white men abusing non-white under-age girls. I can also vouch for the fact that, at least as it is reported in the mainstream media, sexual abuse of non-whites by whites in Britain is extremely rare. For nearly two years I wrote a column entitled The joy of diversity for the magazine Right Now! now sadly defunct. The column dealt with the ever growing ethnic minority criminal mayhem being wreaked on Britain. To do this I kept a cuttings file which included all the serious sexual crimes committed by blacks and Asians. I also kept a cuttings file of all the similar crimes committed by whites. There was a steady stream of sexual offences by blacks (particularly) and Asians , many of them committed against whites. I only once came across a case involving a white attacker and a non-white victim.
In the days following the claims that there was no racial element to the crimes was increasingly challenged, although what people thought constituted the racial element was almost invariably a cultural explanation rather than a true racial one. Trevor Phillips, the black chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, eventually joined this new bandwagon after remaining silent for a week:
“Anybody who says that the fact that most of the men are Asian and most of the children are white is not relevant – that’s just fatuous.
‘“These are closed communities essentially and I worry that in these communities there are people who knew what was going on and didn’t say anything, either because they’re frightened or because they’re so separated from the rest of the communities they think ‘Oh, that’s just how white people let their children carry on, we don’t need to do anything’.”
He said it was important also that the role played by the authorities in the area was properly investigated.
“If anybody in any of the agencies that are supposed to be caring for these children – schools, social services and so on – took the view that being aggressively interventionalist to save these children would lead to the demonisation of some group because of the ethnicity … then it is a national scandal and something that would need to be dealt with urgently,” he said. ().
Phillips’ intervention is especially interesting because he has a habit of playing what might be described as the liberal’s controlling non-pc card when the absurdities of political correctness become dangerously glaring. He never becomes honestly non-pc, just non-pc enough to distract from whatever pc absurdity is threatening to become a focus for serious dissent amongst native Britons. Had Phillips been unambiguously honest in this case he would not have waffled on about “closed communities” or attributed their general silence on the subject to a contemptuous “Oh, that’s just how white people let their children carry on”. Instead he would have asked why the “communities” were closed or questioned exactly how those in these “communities” could have honestly believed that the sexual exploitation of under-age girls, some as young as 13, was acceptable. He would have asked why all the girls were white rather than being drawn from vulnerable girls of all races. If Phillips had been really daring he would have raised the most difficult question of all, namely, in what sense are ethnic minority groups meaningfully British if they see themselves as so culturally separate from the British mainstream that they will happily accept the abuse of young girls drawn from the native white population?
The crimes were objectively racist
The objective facts of the case say the Rochdale crimes were racially motivated. It was white girls who were exclusively chosen. If the choice of girls had not been decided by race, ethnicity or religion, a mixture of races and ethnicities amongst the victims would be expected. The culprits could have chosen Asian girls, including Muslims from their own ethnic group . If they had decided they would not use Muslims – although making that choice would have fallen within the definition of racism that is presently used – but everyone else was fair game, they could have gone after non-Muslim Asians from the Subcontinent such as Sikhs and Hindus, Asians of far Eastern ancestry and black as well as white girls.
The claim commonly made by Asians that Muslim girls or Asian girls generally are strictly controlled by their families whereas white girls are not and consequently white girls are targeted for abuse simply because they are available and Asian girls are not on offer will not stand up to scrutiny. Most, possibly all, of the white girls abused in the Rochdale case were in local authority care or from seriously troubled homes . These were girls who had effectively been left without any adult guidance or supervision. There are substantial numbers of black and Asian girls in the same position Moreover, because ethnic minorities in Britain are overwhelmingly concentrated in the large urban areas rather than distributed throughout the country as is the case with whites, the likelihood of vulnerable black or Asian girls being available in or close to the areas where Asian abusers live is high. This is the case with the Rochdale abusers, Rochdale being part of Greater Manchester which has both a large and variegated non-white population.
There is also the contemptuous attitude Muslim men often have towards white women to bring into the equation. Here is Allison Pearson again:
“I spoke to Mr Danczuk [the local MP] yesterday, and he strenuously disputes claims that this is a one-off case, or even a recent phenomenon. The grooming of white girls by a small sub-section of the Pakistani community was being discussed in Blackburn council 15 years ago. Recently, the MP was outraged when male relatives of the accused in a similar child-sex case came to his constituency surgery to ask for support. “They spoke about white women in an exceptionally derogatory way. I nearly threw them out.”
Danczuk’s reported comments also demonstrate the most shameful aspect of this affair: the persistent refusal of the authorities – everyone from the local politicians and the council care workers to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) – to honestly address the complaints of sexual abuse because of a fear of being thought racist and most probably a fear , at least at the political level, of having such an incendiary topic – immigrants targeting white British girls for forced sex – brought before a public who are already deeply concerned with the effects of mass post-war immigration. Tellingly, the CPS prosecutor who overturned the original CPS decision not to prosecute was a Muslim Nazir Afzal, whose race and ethnicity protected him from charges of racism.
Complaints have been heard from non-Muslim Asians whose origins lie in the Indian subcontinent – primarily Sikhs and Hindus – that media description of the Rochdale gang as Asian is misleading because it tars all Asians with the same brush when it is only Muslims who were involved and are rumoured to be involved in other similar instances of abuse. They may have a point. Despite assiduous use of search engines I cannot find any instances of Sikh or Hindu gang grooming of girls. Interestingly, in my searches I came across Hindu and Sikh complaints from 2011 that Sikh and Hindu girls are being targeted by Muslims:
“January 11, 2011
Poush Shukla Saptami, Kaliyug Varsha 5112
Amritsar (Punjab): A day after UKs’ former home secretary Jack Straw blamed some Pakistani Muslim men for targeting “vulnerable” White girls sexually, UK’s Hindu and Sikh organizations also publicly accused Muslim groups of the same offence.
Straw, in an interview to the BBC recently, had said, “…there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men…who target vulnerable young white girls…they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care … who they think are easy meat.”
Feeling emboldened by Straw’s statement, UK’s Hindu and Sikh organizations have also come in open and accused some Pakistani men of specifically targeting Hindu and Sikh girls. “This has been a serious concern for the last decade,” said Hardeep Singh of Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO) while talking to TOI on Monday.
Sikhs and Hindus are annoyed that Straw had shown concern for White girls and not the Hindu and the Sikh teenage girls who have been coaxed by some Pakistani men for sex and religious conversion.
“Straw does other communities a disservice by suggesting that only white girls were targets of this predatory behaviour. We raised the issue of our girls with the previous government and the police on several occasions over the last decade. This phenomenon has been there because a minority of Islamic extremists view all ‘non believers’ as legitimate targets,” said director NSO Inderjit Singh.
Targeted sexual offences and forced conversions of Hindu and Sikh girls was not a new phenomenon in the UK, said Ashish Joshio from Media Monitoring group.
“This has been going on for decades in the UK . Young Muslim men have been boasting about seducing the Kaffir (unbeliever) women. The Hindu and the Sikh communities must be commended for showing both restraint and maturity under such provocation,” he added.
Hardeep said that in 2007, The Hindu Forum of Britain claimed that hundreds of Hindu and Sikh girls had been first romantically coaxed and later intimidated and converted by Muslim men. (http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/11088.html).
This strikes me as differing in type from the abuse of white girls described in the Rochdale trial, because the Sikh and Hindu girls seem to have been recruited for conversion with sex used a tool to achieve this rather than simply using the girls as sexual vessels. Nonetheless, if the report is true –I say if because of the considerable animosity between Muslims and Sikhs and Hindus and the general appetite amongst ethnic minorities for parading their victimhood means it is best to be cautious about the veracity of the claims – the reported behaviour does display the same contemptuous mentality towards women shown in the abuse of the white victims in the Rochdale case.
The reported behaviour of one of the Rochdale defendants, a 59-year-old man who was not named for legal reasons, most probably because naming him would have identified a minor involved in the case, during the court hearing gives a flavour of the mentality which both drove them to commit the crimes and to excuse themselves:
“The man seen as the ringleader, a 59-year-old who cannot be named for legal reasons, was jailed for a total of 19 years for conspiracy, two counts of rape, aiding and abetting a rape, sexual assault and a count of trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation.
The defendant was previously banned from court because of his threatening behaviour and for calling the judge a “racist bastard”.
Simon Nichol, defending, earlier said his client did not wish to attend the sentencing hearing and had ordered the barrister not to put any mitigation before the judge on his behalf.
“He has objected from the start for being tried by an all white jury and subsequent events have confirmed his fears,” Mr Nichol said.
“He does not take back any of the comments he has made to your honour, to the jury, or to anyone else in the court during the course of the trial.
“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.” (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/crime/arrogant-to-the-end-as-rochdale-child-sex-ring-leader-snubs-sentencing-of-racist-court-7727757.html).
So there you have it, in his mind it was not him but society which is to blame – and by implication white society and nothing to do with his part of the UK population – and the only reason he was being tried and convicted was racism on the part of ol’ whitey.
The nature of Islam
The predominance of sub continental Muslims in this type of crime raises a question, what is it that makes them and not non-Muslims from the same region commit this type of crime? It could be that this type of crime is committed by, for example, Sikhs and Hindus, but there does not appear to be any evidence for it). If that is the true situation it could be that Islam itself encourages the mentality displayed by the Rochdale offenders to develop.
The Koran makes no bones about the subordinate position of women by
1. Sanctioning polygamy – up to four wives for any Muslim man, although Mohammed was given a special dispensation to have an unlimited number and had a reported nine wives plus slave-girls :
“Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls whom Allah has given you as booty; the daughters of your paternal and maternal uncles and of your paternal and maternal aunts who fled with you; and the other women who gave themselves to you and whom you wished to take in marriage. This privilege is yours alone, being granted to no other believer. (Sura (chapter): The Confederate Tribes).
2. Explicitly saying women are subordinate to men:
“’Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. “(Sura ‘Women’).
3. Sanctioning the corporal punishment of wives by husbands:
“Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” (Sura ‘Women’).
4. Allotting a lesser portion of any inheritance to women than is allotted to their male relatives:
“A male shall inherit twice as much as a female…” (Sura ‘Women’).
5. Enforcing Islam onto non-Muslim women if they wish to marry a Muslim:
“’You shall not wed pagan women, unless they embrace the faith. A believing slave-girl is better than an idolatress…’ (Sura ‘The Cow’).
6. The idea of slave-girls as sexual toys given by Allah as rewards to the faithful as in the passage cited in 1 above: “the slave girls whom Allah has given you as booty…”
The general attitude towards women in the Koran is epitomised by the scorn poured on Arab pagans who worshipped female deities and Angels who were the daughters of Allah : “Would Allah choose daughters for himself and sons for you?” (Sura Ornaments of Gold).
The quotes are all taken from the Penguin English translation by N J Dawood, a native Arabic speaker.
It is easy to see how any Muslim, even a white western convert, would have difficulty in subscribing to the idea of sexual equality if they were sincere in their faith. There is not for the Muslim the luxury of re-interpreting the Koran at will as modern Christians do with the Bible, because it is the literal word of God transmitted to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel. There are disputes within Islam about how the Koran and supporting texts such as the Hadith should be interpreted, but this is generally interpretation of what a particular passage or practice means in literal terms – a good example would be the punishment for adultery which is given at different points in the Koran as stoning to death and flogging: the interpreter of the Koran has to decide which is the correct punishment not whether there should be a physical or indeed any punishment for adultery. Consequently, unlike mainstream Christianity in Britain, there can be no convenient shrugging off of passages in the Koran incompatible with modern Western society because they are deemed to be either unimportant expressions of the social state of former times rather than the core beliefs of the religion or, more fancifully, by claiming that they were not meant as literal instructions to the faithful. It is also a fact that the Koran gives much less scope for plausible “fudging” of inconvenient passages (for liberals) than the Bible, because it is both much shorter with fewer contradictions and is, for Muslims, a transmission from God through a single man rather than being a collection of writings -drawn from many sources, times , places and people – working out a religious destiny, as is the case with the Bible.
Any Muslim man would be faced with a dilemma if he wished to adhere strictly to the Koran whilst living in a Western society because the Koran instructs him to behave in ways which run strictly counter to the values of Western society, including the position of women. It is true that there is Islamic tradition which require Muslims in countries which are not Islamic to abide by the laws of the society in which they live, but there is no central Islamic authority which gives such traditions the force of universal application such as exists with the Catholic church. Alternative interpretations are handed down by different Islamic authorities. A Muslim could quite reasonably choose an interpretation which suited strict Islamic observance in a non-Islamic country , arguing that it was what the Koran required and to do any other would be the act of a poorly observant Muslim.
That would the case of a sincere devout Muslim. But the fact that the Koran gives specific authority to behave in ways, including the physical chastisement of women , which are incompatible with a secular society such as modern Britain means it also gives a green light to less honest or sincere Muslim men to do what they will with women simply because it suits their purposes and carnal desires.
It might be objected that men who are not Muslims in many societies have similar ideas on the condition of women. Most dramatically, the existence of “honour killings” of women who do not conform to patriarchal customs is widespread amongst Sikhs and Hindus and the casual treatment of women by black men is legendary. But what these non-Muslim men do not have is a religious sanction for such behaviour. There is a good deal of difference between custom, powerful as that can be, and explicit permission from God, which is the most potent of emotional intoxicants and sanctions. There is also a qualitative difference between “honour killings” where a female member of the family goes against the cultural norms of the ethnic group by , for example, forming a relationship with someone who is not a member of the group or refusing to accept an arranged marriage, and taking young girls who are outside the group for sexual abuse. In the case of the “honour killing”, the act is directed against someone within the group and is intended to preserve the cultural norms of the group. The taking of girls from outside the group is simply the satisfying of sexual desire.
The age of the girls abused may also have something to do with Islam. As mentioned previously, girls of the age of those abused by the Rochdale defendants are frequently married in the Muslim world. In addition, the Koran’s sanctioning of slavegirls as sexual toys given by Allah “as booty” to deserving Muslim men may also come into play. It would not be that massive an emotional stretch for a Muslim man to see white girls as a modern version of slavegirl booty.
There is something else in Islam which may have contributed to the crimes. The Koran is extremely aggressive towards non-Muslims and makes no bones about the fact that Muslims are the chosen people of Allah. Here are a few example quotes:
‘As for the unbelievers, the fire of Hell awaits them. Death shall not deliver them, nor shall its torment be ever lightened for them. Thus shall the thankless be rewarded.’ (Sura ‘The Creator’).
‘Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal vigorously with them. Hell is their home. (Sura ‘Repentance’).
‘When the sacred months are over slay the idolators wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.’ (Sura ‘’Repentance’).
’Because of their iniquity, we forbade the Jews the good things which were formerly allowed them; because time after time they debarred others from the path of Allah; because they practice usury – although they were forbidden it – and cheat others of their possessions.’ (Sura ‘Women’).
The final quote is especially telling because the Jews are one of the peoples of the book who are supposedly given special protection under Islam.
As with the subordination of women, the fact that the Koran – which is the literal word of God for Muslims – explicitly and repeatedly states that Islam and its adherents are above the rest of humanity will feed the idea that Muslims in non-Islamic countries should both remain separate from the majority population and have the right to use members of the population who are not Muslim in a manner which they would not countenance for their fellow Muslims.
How ideologies fail
The reason why this type of racist abuse has been allowed to grow is the ever more paralysing effect political correctness and its component multiculturalism has on British society. Whites, especially white Britons, have become at best deeply afraid and paranoid about doing something which could get them held up as a racist and at worst have succumbed to the incessant politically correct propaganda so that they believe ethnic minorities are in some curious way granted dispensation from the dictates of both traditional Western morality and, ironically, the supposedly essential maxims of political correctness. The most grotesque example of the mentality I can think of is the case of a young white girl Rhea Page who was attacked by four Somali girls whilst walking with her boyfriend. – and the Somalis were screaming “white bitch” and “white slag yet the judge ruled there was no racist motive and also refused to jail the Somalis on the grounds that they had taken alcohol which was not part of their culture.
What will happen now? There will be further action by the police and the CPS on the type of offences exposed in Rochdale – further arrests have already been made (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9261748/Arrests-made-in-second-Rochdale-sex-grooming-scandal.html),
but the question is not whether one or two more trials will be held as tokens but whether the grip of political correctness can be loosened. It is just possible that this is happening already without any conscious decision being made to do so by those with power.
Secular ideologies never stand the test of time if they become the elite ideology. Marxism is the classic example, both because of the scope of its ostensible implementation and the length of time it existed, or arguably still exists in the case of China and North Korea. Such ideologies fail because they never accord with reality. They may have some truths but all seriously clash with what is. This means that those dependent on the ideology have to revise either the reality to accord better with reality or tell lies to cover the gap between the ideology and reality.
Ideologies are also revised to fit the ambitions of individuals and the circumstances of particular societies. These often further remove the ideology from reality. The first great Marxist revision was the denial by Lenin that the proletarian revolution could only take place when a large degree of industrialisation had created an industrial proletariat. The second great revision was Stalin’s acceptance that “socialism in one country” had to replace the internationalist credo of Marx for at least a period of time. To those breaches in Marx’s system was added the ever growing corruption of the Soviet elite and the demoralisation of the people. The upshot was that Soviet propaganda became ever more absurd as the reality of Soviet life jarred ever more with fictitious official reports of soaring harvests and industrial production. This growing discord between what Soviet citizens experienced and what they were told was happening was an important agent in the fall of the Soviet Union.
Political correctness is divorced from reality more emphatically than any other dominant secular ideology of the past century. Marxism, even in its revised Leninist and Stalinist forms, at least appealed to a widespread human desire for equality of material condition and social status, or at least a desire for no great inequality. Even at its most pure political correctness asks human beings to deny vitally important natural human behaviours by pretending that no distinction can be meaningfully or morally be made between races, ethnicities, cultures, religions, sexes or sexual behaviours. It seeks to treat all members of homo sapiens as interchangeable, sees the continuing idea of nations as pernicious and insists that no element of the universal and natural human trait of tribalism be countenanced.
The pure version of political correctness would be very damaging and seriously divorced from reality. But the version of political correctness that actually exists is not pure and is a political recipe for widespread political unrest. It applies double standards when dealing with different racial and ethnic groups and has been reduced to no more than a means of privileging some groups over others. As those who are privileged are invariably the minorities and those disadvantaged invariably the majority native populations, the lies needed to produce an official narrative in accord with political correctness become ever more implausible – the Rhea Page case and the attitude towards the Rochdale defendants are stark examples – and the anger within the majority native populations grows. There is a growing possibility that at least the multicultural part of political correctness may come tumbling down under the weight of its own fantastic absurdity.