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.

Here's my observations:-
I grew up in Muslim area
I was from a good family and wasn't out late ever.
I was harrassed, hounded, followed, bothered by Muslim men. (on way to school and work)
It affected my life, I didn't want to go anywhere by foot. (got car)
I was assaulted as a 10 year old by man who wanted me to be his lover.
I was locked in a staff room with one who wanted to be with me. (no encouragement)
I am a white woman, fair skin, brown eyes, brown hair and reasonably good figure.
I was told by an Indian (Hindu) colleague it was not my fault, they see all white women as trash.

This is my truthful account.

WorkingMummyof1 - So, for example, in the Steven Lawrence case you would not have wanted the media to say that the perpetrators were white, just that they were criminals?

RE the 'criminal' v 'black/asian criminal' in headlines and stories. If it says only 'criminal' then I automatically assume they are white. Britain is a predominantly white country so it seems only rational to me to say only 'criminal' when they are white.

Just my thinking; I assume they are white and feel it does not need to be pointed out as it would sound daft for a UK newspaper to refer constantly to 'white criminal'.

I have come across afgan males under 16s who where being sexually exploited and well as Africa girls ...they often target looked after young people. In our area these are predominately white or black with some unaccompanied assylum seeking males ...so there are not many Asian girls available to target. It's a simple question of availability ...these children are commodities to be traded, looked after young people are low risk targets

Lets not beat about the bush here, they are Muslims. Why are the press too scared to just come out and say that? There is problem in the Islamic community with some men seeing white women as bits of meat which they can use and abuse. Its nothing new, its been going on for years and its high time we stopped turning a blind eye to it.

They should have just called them "Those sick, disgusting bastards". Which would have sufficed.

melika
How did you know they were Muslim men? Did they have a badge on?
I know some Lebanease people who look like DH (who is N African Muslim) but they are Christian.

I am not disagreeing that some Muslim men are misogynistic, some are clearly abusive twats. But you can't generalise about 1.8bn people because of the actions of a few people.

There are some cultures which are patriachal and misogynistic and in some of those cultures Islam is the dominant religion but that doesn't make all muslims patriachal and misogynistic.

I don't know the motivations of the men in this case but it is possible that they came from a cultural mindset that women have less value and that white women even less. Or maybe they picked young white girls because they couldn't get access to young girls within the Asian / North African community. The appear to have targeted their victims carefully to ensure they were vulnerable and easy to control and isolate.

What I do know is that they are evil bastards and I hope the book is thrown at them.

I do think any one who thinks this is purely a 'criminal' problem with no overtones of 'race or religion' has probably not lived or worked in areas with a hight density of predominately Muslim population and experienced the attitudes to white/Christian/other women that are sorrily in the majority. Yes, there are other victims who are male and of different entnicities, but the numbers of white girls being targeted ( over 100 possibly in just the Oxford case) is so large as for it to be a bit silly to try and disregard it.

Why would they even think about referring to them as "Muslim"? That's their religion, not where they're from . I don't get it when people on the news (particularly criminals) are described as Muslim. You don't hear anyone being described as Christian or Athiest. It's weird.

Race is certainly an issue - in both Rochdale and Rotherham police and social services ignored child rape and abuse because of the perpetrators' ethnicity. This is documented in the Times investigations, which quoted official meeting minutes and records. In Rotherham, the police charged victims and their parents with racially-aggravated assaults, e.g. when a father was trying to rescue his daughter from a house where she was being raped. And the authorities decided to ignore the crimes because they didn't want to damage their image of Rotherham as 'harmonious' IIRC.

Child abuse and rape are crimes that are committed by people of all ethnicities, of course, but there is never any excuse for covering them up when the perpetrators are from minority backgrounds.

People in the news are referred to as Jewish when relevant - coverage of anti-Semitic attacks, for instance. 'Muslim' in this context is quite possibly a. accurate b. avoids dragging in communities that are not involved. I'm not arguing that is the right approach, btw, just that I imagine that is the thinking behind saying 'Muslim' rather than 'Asian'.

Edam I totally agree with your point about covering up. The ethnic back ground of offenders is relevant if it influences the actions of those who should be intervening ...absolutely

I just don't agree that it was a factor in their motivation or victim choices

But if they do say "Muslims" they're dragging in a whole religion which includes followers from all four corners of the world. These men (if you can call them that) were all of Pakistani and North African (don't know which country) descent. That's what they should be referred as. Religion doesn't have anything to do with it.

I wish PatPig would come back and tell us how she thinks these criminals should have been described.

I would say they use Asian to describe them as they can't use Muslim. Also the SWs and police have to tread lightly to avoid any racism accusations which might have contributed to the issue. A police person accused of racism would def be out of the promotion stakes imo , probably also SW. And no doubt given firm warning.

How come no one in the perpetrators family friends knew they were up to something? for 8 years? Def think the Asian description is a factor in the lack of prosecution and time it took to be discovered. So using 4 men and not 4 Asian men is side-lining issues which will hopefully be addressed in future. ie police and SWs tougher, the asian community less secretive.

Its terrible what these men did, no doubt about it and I hope they pay for it in prison.

Being part the 'Asian community' I do see Asian boys/men in relationships with English females, but its always a mutual respectful relationship. Very very rarely have I heard anyone referring to English girls as whte slgs etc, (school days), but then these girls referred to them as pki bstards so gave plenty of offence back.

I dont think its right to brand any community as being more likely to commit abuse/paedophilia, these types of men target vulnerable young people, and unfortunately the majority happen to be young white girls. Asian/muslim parents are more strict about their young teenage daughters out late at night or hanging around taxi bases/takeaways. And if such a girl was targeted, the father/brother would take the law in his own hands. The abuser would be ostracized from the community and there would be even be repercussions back in pakistan to family members there. So a huge deal basically.
Unfortunately these types of abusers know that the young white girls involved have nobody really looking out for them, most are from care homes or broken homes and THAT is the reason they are targeted, there may be some idiots who reckon white girls are nothing but a bit of meat but I assure you a very few individuals NOT a whole community! If I or anyone I knew was abusing poor kids like these girls they would be reported and wouldn't rest until something is done about it. I am sure majority of the pakistanis/asians/muslims would do the same, there is a reason abusers work undercover and I can be certain there families would have had no idea about all this.

And btw op YANBU. When all this JS scandal broke out, with the subsequent arrests how many times did we see 'white' or 'christian' or 'atheist' or whatever branded about? It isnt a 'pakistani' problem or a showbiz problem, its about dirty men who have a bit of power and feel they are invincible while being in a position to exploit the vulnerable.

Sorry hope it makes sense, typing while juggling whingey baby

OrionArcturus - I would not expect race to be in the headline unless it was a racist attack. This situation is about the exploitation of vulnerable young girls - that should be in the headline. The men were not attacking any random white woman - it is not only a racist attack. The purpose of the headline should not be to classify the attack under the remit of "most of the men were Asian" but to warn girls - here it would be appropriate to say "young white girls in care most vulnerable to attack by local gang" - this would raise awareness of the problem.

CelticPixie - some men are mysogynistic no matter what their religion or background - I refer again to the related BBC events - even today there is a news item of a gang of footballers attacking a woman - they were not all muslim surely? Why do you feel the need to single out muslim men in your post - why not any man who behaves like that - all of them need re-educating - you seem to be influenced by the media.

MomsNetCurtains - the point is that there is no need to mention in the headlines what colour the criminal is - those interested in the case will read the person profile in the actual article and find out - it does not matter what colour/religion they are - they are still criminals.

ZombiesAteMyBaby - yes, what you said!

HoppinMad - good post.

I think the OP is nitpicking simply because two of these men were North African.

Would you be happier, OP, if this gang had been referred to as a "Gang of four Asian and two North African men".

What difference do you think it would make to people's perception of those responsible for the crime?

People would still be thinking "Another Asian grooming gang...!"

I remember the opprobrium heaped on Ann Cryer when she drew attention to this many years ago, but she was right to do so and I'm pleased she's still around to see the long-awaited changes in how these crimes are being dealt with.

The targeting of their victims was racially motivated- whether that's because they went for girls specifically because they weren't from their own culture, or because they sought out girls that were unsupervised/vulnerable who just happened to be white, they groomed girls who were homogeneously from "white British" backgrounds. I don't think it's out of order that they were labelled as such in the headlines.

Frankly if you read through the reports on the case and your predominant concern is, "They've labelled them 'Asian' when in actual fact two of them were North African", then you need your head felt.

Like it or not, this type of crime has now entered the conciousness of the general public as "Asian Sex Crimes/Gangs". It's different from other similarly disgusting acts committed by white individuals in that for a long time dealing with the perpetrators properly was sacrificed in the interest of community relations. It's only now that we're being faced with a barrage of cases, dating back years.

I think Hoppin mad describes what I feel very well. The only reason the white girls are the ones that are targeted is because they are the vunerable ones that are easy to get at for all the reasons she has given. I wanted to post the same but didn't know how to word it without inferring that white people don't look after their children as well. It is simply that any colour or race of vunerable child would do, they just need to be accessible IYSWIM?

Do you really think that if Asian girls had been targeted, the communities these men are from would have stood by and let it happen they way that a fair few of their friends and family obviously have?

Ogg
None of us know. If these men were of Pakistani origin and had been targeting Sri Lankan girls I don't know if the community would have intervened. If an Eritrean man was targeting Libyan girls would the Eritrean community intervened, I don't know.

Asian is not a homogeneous mass of people. Muslim is not a homogeneous mass of people. White isn't a homogeneous mass of people.

I am a white Christian and I have bugger all in common with the views of Fred Phelps, yet we could easily be lumped together as White and/or Christian.

As an American I wouldn't ever think of someone from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan or anywhere in central Asia as Asian. I also wouldn't include anyone from Indonesia either. Interesting....

I have worked among the Muslim community, in particular the Pakistani Sunnis - I can assure you - people knew what was going on maybe not in detail but enough - they would have taken action if any Muslim girls had been involved. There are very many fine and upstanding Muslims - there is also a large percentage of misogynistic, medieval types who think the Taliban have pretty much got it right.