to think that men should not be referred to as 'Asian' when they are not in fact Asian

[PatPig]

Examples (disturbing content warning):

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/14/oxford-child-sex-ring-police-investigation
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324621/Girl-12-branded-hairpin-raped-sold-sex-600-hour.html

According to this:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-22164676

The leaders of the gang are:

'thought to originate from Eritrea, in East Africa, but he grew up in his parents' house on the Cowley Road.'

Since when was Eritrea in Asia?

The Telegraph goes with:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10057543/Asian-grooming-gang-convicted-of-appalling-acts-of-depravity-on-children.html

"Asian grooming gang convicted of appalling acts of depravity on children"

yet in the article concedes:

"Seven men of Asian or North African origin were found guilty of grooming"

It seems like inaccurate and prejudicial language to me, especially when Asia contains 2/3 of the population of the world yet 'Asians' are obviously an ethnic minority in the UK.

Blue, but that is a wild generalization, not all think that way.
It's some or those particular men.

The second comment I don't agree with at all.

I don't think it is unneccessary titling, Buzzardbird, because of the racial profiles of the abusers and of the victims. It doesn't matter what racial/ethnic/religious groups the abusers and victims were from, as far as I am concerned - but what DOES matter is the possibility (or probability) that the abusers deliberately chose their victims from a different racial/ethnic/religious group.

It would be just as abhorrent if it were French men deliberately targeting American girls, or white men targeting muslim girls.

It looks as if there is a deliberate racial/ethnic bias to the way these men selected their victims, and going by what has been said in other cases (Rotherham etc), it seems as if men like these believe that white girls are easy/sluts/not worthy of respect - and are treating them radically differently to the way they would treat girls from their own community/racial/ethnic background.

If this is the case, this is something that needs to be dealt with firmly and fast. If there are men in one community/ethnic group that believe this about girls from another racial/ethnic group/community - then this attitude needs to be stamped out at once. To my mind this is far more important than worrying about whether the group should be referred to as Asians or whatever.

I don't believe that the vast majority of Muslims, or men from the Pakistani/North African/Asian communities believe that white girls are easy sluts and don't deserve to be respected the same way that girls from their own communities/groups do - but if that attitude exists in pockets within ANY community/group, then that community/group MUST take action.

See I think from a child safegaurding view point it is quiet dangerous to focus on ethnic backgrounds too much. The percived view of women in 'their' culture for example ...these girls are being exploited and trafficed for profit ...drugs can only be used once , more money in sexual exploitation. I bet many profiferal abusers of these girls where for a mirriad of ethnic groups. The majority of BBC staff in the 70's where white but we don't refer to that do we. Abusers span every ethnic group it us dangerous to think otherwise

Ignore the awful spelling

I think the relevance of mentioning they were Asian by the newspapers is there has been some debate in recent years that Asian grooming rings are targeting white girls. Jack Straw has talked about it with a Muslim commentator saying there was an element of truth in it. I don't think the newspaper reports today are prejudiced. They state the facts about these men's heritage. Explanations for that need looking in to whatever their heritage, origins, nationality etc.

i don think these men went home and treated their wives or mothers with respect.

so I think they better defined as misogynists than racists.

But if they picked their victims from outwith their own communities, because they felt they were less worthy of respect or they perceived them as 'easy', 'sluts', because of the girls' racial/ethnic origin, isn't that a real problem?

I agree with what SDTG said who explained it much better than I.

If it were a group of white men targeting asian girls then I think the headlines would say that and the social implications within the community would be far worse.

The title is inciting racial hatred

Well, THEY obviously didn't care about their heritage/religion/communities, did they??

Listening to the radio yesterday the men were usually identified as being from Pakistan and North Africa - as on the TV news.

PatPig how would you prefer this gang of men, who groomed vulnerable young girls for sexual abuse and torture, to be described in those website/print headlines?

Faster is the misogyny not accepted within their culture? It seems to me like that is almost normal - not only within that culture as there are other european countries which are similar.

Ive heard Asian lads talking about the "white tarts" they have got off with on the train.

I was shocked to see a small boy shouting at the women within his family for not doing what he wanted, I thought they would tell him off but they just did what he told them to. I was my son would have had a serious talking to if he even considered talking to me like that.

My perception from those and other observations, rather than headlines white people and women were inferior to the Asian male

BlueSky - got it in one !

I've read the first link. There are two references to Asian men. One is that one of the victims mentioned two Asian men and the other is that social workers mentioned Asian men when questioned as part of the investigation.

So what is your point? That if raped, children shouldn't mention the ethnicity of their attackers in case the attackers turn out to be part of a larger group of criminals of varied ethnicity? And if the child does mention the ethicity of the men who raped her, she's a racist? If not, why are you linking to that first article?

I think this is an example of how getting lost in the human rights of the criminals can put the victims at risk and indeed did so in the Yorkshire case where young men from wherever were abusing young girls.

They were more scared of upsetting certain communities than actually stopping the rape, sale and destruction of these young girls lives.

If the description was in Asia calling Hazel someone from the " white" community, I wouldn't be up in arms even though that could be from anywhere.

Blue - I think their cultures are more misogynistic than prevailing UK culture so think their misogyny was related to the rapes.

"I think this is an example of how getting lost in the human rights of the criminals can put the victims at risk" - agree totally Yoni.

This should not be about worrying about offending this culture or that culture but about right and wrong

I do think the policed needed to address their attitudes to racism, sexism and homophobia but it seems particularly with regard to racism that they are so busy worrying about fallout from dealing within certain communities that they are dragging their feet in dealing with problems.

Im white do I think Stuart Hazell's actions reflect on me, if he is described as white, no I dont. I couldnt give a damn as long as he is kept in prison for a very long time.

No I agree that ignoring the cultural background is also counter productive the bottom line is, like ANY abuser the targets where vulnerable young people ...target because they where easy to groom and abuse not because they where not Asian.

This is organised crime ...these gang also traffic drugs etc ...sex is easy to sell because men of all ethnic backgrounds want to abuse..we need not to loose sight of that

These gangs exist in many cultures ...its organised child sexual abuse ...it crosses racial boundaries

By that I mean its dangerous, for example, to assume that 'Asian' views of white girls was the reason they targeted them ...it was the vulnerability of those children not their ethnic background that made them targets.

I have come accross organised child abuse involving young people from all back grounds.

When you are white and you commit a crime, you are a criminal.
When you are black and you commit a crime, you are a black criminal.

They should not be referred to as men

I don't know if it is relevant in this case (I haven't read the articles) but there are some large numbers of people of Asian descent living in some African countries (Kenya springs to mind).

The reason why their ethnicity was mentioned and is important is because all these gangs specifically target white, British girls. They do not target vulnerable girls from their own culture.

If there was a gang of white, British men specifically targetting Asian women, then yes, I suppose their white origins would be mentioned as this would be relevant to the case.

And of course there are loads of white paedophiles but they don't tend to specifically groom and target girls from other races in gangs.

Can see your point, but as race seems to have been a prt of this then not surprised it is mentioned. like the disturbing case in the US years ago where white men took a black man and killed him by dragging him behind their van for miles. Their race was definitely mentioned in the headlines and articles as it was important to the motive.

The acts committed were atrocious - no doubt about it - hell on earth. There is at least another thread on the site discussing how terrible these crimes were. Going back to this thread - the OP has a very valid point - OP did not make this an issue - the media did - why do they need to define the ethnic origin of the criminals? They are criminals full stop - why not the headline simply "gang"? Cliche, but e.g. the recent BBC cases of abuse - there were no headlines to point out the ethnic origin of all those accused/criminals.