Grooming gangs being labelled as "Muslim grooming gangs"

[Olga009933]

Why is religious heritage of child sex offenders only mentioned in headlines when the offenders are of south Asian and predominantly Muslim heritage.
Why not just label them as "grooming gangs" or "Asian grooming gangs" (if wanting to be be specific).
Just thinking and wondering about the thousands of white British and presumably non-Muslim sex offenders who make the news. How many of them are labelled "Christian sex attacker" or "Jewish pervert" etc? Why is the religious heritage of a sex offender only mentioned why the offenders are of Muslim background?
If mentioning religion for one particular demographic then surely its only fair to mention the religious heritage of them all?

I’m not prepared to go from condemning the atrocities of the rape gangs to condemning the doctrine of the religion as a whole.
They are two separate things.

I’m coming off this thread because I see where this is going .
Im interested in making sure these rape gangs are stopped and there are no more cover ups and the victims know that justice has been done and the guilty have been held accountable.

Im not interested in vilifying one particular religion.

Where it’s going is you bottling it because you know the answer to my question

which you are also entitled to do

Goodbye then, think on it

It's relevant in this case to the offences the fact that the perpetrators were Muslim (mainly Pakistanis). These crimes were in part racially and religiously motivated.

It is disgraceful to use the terrible case of the abuse of these girls as a vehicle for your own racism.
Focus on what can be done to safeguard the vulnerable. Stop ranting about what’s in the Koran

Islam is not a race

It is a religious political ideology

you'd do well to read some books rather than keyboard warrioring on Mumsnet

To be fair we do see some other Muslim communities involved in these gangs. It is primarily Pakistani Muslims however. We should not pretend it isn't any more than we should pretend there wasn't an issue with abuse in the Catholic Church

The grooming gangs are primarily of Pakistani Muslim heritage. We know this and shouldn't pretend otherwise. Of course there is other types of sex abuse going on but we should call them all out

Why were they mainly Pakistani

^

Because they are more highly represented in deprived socii economic areas?

Therefore with greater access to deprived girls from lower socio economic backgrounds ( and white)

It's not only mentioned when they are Muslim @Olga009933. Catholic priests have been in the news a lot for child sex offences. Also I've heard them called Pakistan rape gangs on the radio the other day.

Don’t you just love it when some middle class woman, who has never stepped into a working class northern market town, wades in and gives their opinion on our life experiences 😆

^

This. 95% of MN comes from stow on the wold type backgrounds

Keighly, Oldham, Rochdale, Blackburn, Burnley, Bury, Dewsbury etc etc might as well be a foreign land

There is a huge difference between criminals happening to be a certain faith, and people of a faith being motivated by their faith or culture to do wrong.

Where a Jewish person robs a bank or a Hindu person poisons someone, their religion is invariably irrelevant. Their motivations are greed or passion.

But sometimes there is a direct causal link from either the texts or culture of a religion to specific crimes committed. Examples of that would be Islamic terrorism or Catholic priests molesting kids.

In those cases the religion or culture is very relevant as it motivated the crime. This is true even if there are others of that religion who claim the perpetrators aren't 'true' co-religionists. Because there is still a straightforward causal link between the religion/culture and the crime.

I wondered if this was the reason, it seemed likely to me.

I suspect that one thing that may come out of all of this is a greater awareness of economic class/education as an element with ability to integrate into western culture for some groups.

Where I live, (not UK) in the past most of the Asian people who have immigrated are well educated, and also typically more middle/upper class, and often from an urban center. My boss is like this, she's from quite a high class, well off Hindu family, and really has had zero issues coming to live in a western country. I suspect actually that in many ways it almost feels like a better fit overall to her than India, from the way she speaks about it, and I have talked to other people in a similar situation who have that kind of feeling - sometimes it is why they left.

More recently, this has changed a lot. It's not really due to refugees, who were always coming but were low in numbers - some of these people struggle to integrate but there tend to be supports for them. Rather, there has been a flood of people admitted as economic immigrants who come from completely different backgrounds. They have little education, tend to be rural, many have marginal English. They are typically going into jobs where the majority of people are from the same background, something like Burger King.

This group have had a much harder time integrating. The problems here don't so much seem to be anything like sexual assault, but there is sectarian violence, issues with workplace behaviour and inappropriate work practices, and also, issues with driving.

The progressive types deny these things, which we can all see happening, on the basis that the first group have always integrated very well. I don't think their discomfort is just about race, it's about the idea that "lower class" people are the problem, which also makes them very uncomfortable. Which I understand - frankly it doesn't sit well with my politics either, but it's what I see around me. And I am not willing to pretend something isn't so because it doesn't fit some political ideology no matter how sympathetic I find it.

Pretty sure Catholicism isn't ok with anyone molesting kids.

In that case it wasn't the religion per se that motivated the crime but the culture. A combination of abstinence and easy access (ie altar boys), coupled with the protection of a huge organisation closing ranks.

ETA: My point is, the perpetrators being Catholic priests wasn't incidental.

OP, I agree. It's not right. They abuse children because they are evil, not because they are Muslim. And think of how it must feel for all the law-abiding, decent, nice Muslims out there to be tarnished this way.

I certainly think there were systemic issues in the Catholic organization that were important in these crimes. Though I don't think abstinence was one of them. Lots of people don't have sex and don't molest anyone, and I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest those people are more likely to do so statistically, either.

And it's not like there weren't other options, it's not unknown for priests to have affairs with adults if they are struggling with celibacy.

Exactly. If they were Mormon or Scientologist or Evangelical or Jehovah’s witnesses, and they were carrying on their activities within the confines of their religious & cultural circle, the grooming gang would be labelled as such.

Islam is relevant because the religion isn’t centralised unlike say COE, Catholic or even Mormon. Clerics operate independently so one bad apple won’t get hauled in or defrocked by the relevant hierarchy. Clerics are free to go on as they please if they have community support, irrespective of how reprehensible their beliefs or actions are.

Catholics tend to be associated with many child sexual offences in the press - and have been spotlighted for decades. Christians don’t have an easy ride in the press either - and I know Muslims do not. And there has been a lot of antisemitism around.

And whenever someone that is from another place does a crime, their country tends to be mentioned - that could be “Zimbabwean so and so” or “Polish so and so” (sorry I just picked 2 random places) - it’s never British - if it is, they will say “man” or “woman” leaving it ambiguous.

A combination of abstinence and easy access (ie altar boys),

FFS.

Clearly, abstinence was NOT an issue because they were raping kids, the opposite of abstinence.

It was not alter boys. It was children across the board, in sports, in class, in homes, at mass, everywhere. Rich, poor, boys and girls.

The institutions of the church and the access that provided, attracted those who would do harm.

The needs of the church (staff/money/trust of the community etc) meant they turned a blind eye.

The same as the Pakistani, muslim men.

Do not be afraid of naming this.

Decent men would want it named also.

Like white grooming gangs? Yes we should call them out. They are a huge problem and always have been. We shouldn't pretend these are not a huge problem.

Isaac's example set?

Sad that you suggest it wasn't a muslim's own choice and excused it as being the fault of something else (their religion making them do it) as if they have no choice or lack autonomy over their own actions. All rape is down to choice.