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?

Usually the authorities aren't scared to stop white groomimg gangs for fear of being accused of racisim

In any incidence of child sex abuse the abusers pick the vulnerable.

Epstein recognised girls who were missing something - love, money, affection, even basics like shoes and clean uniform.

The Pakistani gangs would abuse white girls in the street but the rape and trafficking was for the most poor and neglected girls not working class girls but girls in children’s homes for example who didn’t have family or teacher who would support them.

Grooming gangs don’t just live in the catholic church and don’t just focus on white working class girls,you need to stop peddling that myth as it’s hugely dangerous. Vulnerability comes in many forms.

Your child’s grooming has not been covered up by the police, social workers, counsellors, schools etc. because acting on it would cost them their jobs.

You have no idea how big this is.

Indeed they have no problem kicking down the doors of white men committing crimes mostly thankfully.

If it’s a group of white racism men were raping Asian women then their background woudl absolutely be relevant their hatred is part of the reason they have chosen their victims

its relevant because they are Muslim and from a culture that is deeply misogynistic particularly towards non Muslim women and that is this case given they are living in the (uk) was towards white girls

so it’s relevant why the fuck are we pretending it’s not

Of course white grooming gangs are important. But they do not have the religious and ethnic aggravating features that the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs do (such as the suthorties turning a blind eye for "community relations").which need to be dealt with separately in order to establish the facts and ensure that this type does not happen again.

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"

You be know why….

This reminds me of ages ago when Rod Liddle (yes I know) received criticism (as did the Spectator) for an opinion piece wrote referring to “black savages”. The Spectator edited it after complaint then Liddle write another piece upset and confused as to why anybody took issue with. The comments had a lot of people asking would be refer to “white savages” and he carefully avoided responding.

For some reason white people who are non-religious or christian can be seen as individuals - hence would never get any reference to “white” or “christian grooming gangs” (not even the cover-up of paedo catholic priests was referred to in that way.) The crimes are never linked to their ethnicity (unless they are foreigners).

But for black, brown people and or foreigners, their national and ethnic identity is always directly relevant to their crime. You also see that difference with who and what is considered a terror attack.

It’s odd how sometimes collective responsibility is seen as ok.

I’ll wager you have no idea how big a problem white grooming gangs in the uk are. It’s not tidily kept to the rich and Epstein or the Catholic Church. It’s here in this country and all demographics of children are at risk.

That's racist. MInd, Christian men seem to prefer boys - see Archbishop of Canterbury scandal.
That's a short answer. The longer one is that Mohamed (peace not be upon him) allowed Muslims four wives if they could afford them and any number of concubines. He also left 7th century age of consent rules behind that have not been updated, along with a general idea that you can have 'temporary' marriages.

It was the people who were trying to hide the issue that highlighted the racial aspect of it. The cover up was motivated by their desires to not create racial tension because of the background of these men and also that of the girls. If the grooming gangs had been prosecuted and arrests made earlier then it could have led to a better understanding of the background to all of this. Potentially stopping further abuse which happened because people in authority turned a blind eye. Some of the accused themselves referred to race in their sentencing remarks.

1. Own community girls are closely watched because families know the risk of allowing a girl any alone time or unsupervised .
2. Honor killings
3. Punishment exists in own community but they know that outside their P-bubble, that are not held accountable.

@Pin3martin I can completely understand your concerns for your child. Because we know people don't always have the facts and people will be racist and use anything to do so. I understand that must feel really uncomfortable and I'd probably feel the same knowing how stupid some people can be.

I don't see what we are saying, even my posts as racist. For me the focus is primarily on the religion. I'm comfortable saying I have a problem with religion and particularly Islam and believe that feeds into this. Maybe culture is equally intertwined. It just so happens that in this case the guys are not white. I can hand on heart say the colour of skin is irrelevant.

But Pakistani doesn't equal Muslim???

It’s a mix of both. You don’t need to make it either or. One analysis I read said these crimes happened in areas where poor rural Pakistani communities settled, rather than areas middle class Pakistanis settled. It’s a mix of their culture and religion ( seeing non-Muslim women and girls as lesser).

I wouldn’t want you to lose money. Put your hand back in your pocket.

They do not, they still blame the child not the perpetrator in most instances.

Nobody thinks all Catholic people abused children, or even all Catholic priests, but it was integral to dealing with the problem to name the different elements at play.

Muslim communities need to be at the forefront of this, reflecting on messages their sons might be hearing, sending very different messages to counter it. Not saying "70% are white," which is not a gotcha when 82% of the UK is white and some of them will be under other sub-headings of child sex scandals. As well as Catholicism, there's been the BBC, boarding schools, even Scout leaders, there have been loads of child sexual abuse gangs with prefixes - each time the women in these organisations would have felt the way you do now (at first unjustly targeted, then annoyed at the men involved, now jumping through all the protections in place - because men- to stop it happening again).

True Meaning of the Phrase ‘Ma Malakat Aymanukum’: Does It Mean Only Male Or Female Slaves? | S. Arshad, New Age Islam | New Age Islam | Islamic News and Views | Moderate Muslims & Islam

Listen to Dr Emma Hill (survivor) podcast or read her article in the Guardian and you won't be asking silly questions like this.

The truth hurts. There is nothing wrong or untrue about that headline. Concern yourself more about the girls that were raped. Why do you have mpre concern about the Muslim men that raped tens of thousands ?

I think when we are talking about the wholesale rape, torture and selling of children cultural sensitivities are a bit pointless to worry about. There were predominantly muslim. It’s a feature they shared in common, their victims (outside of their homes) were predominantly white children. I mean whats the point in pretending thats not true. It’s not like no-one going to notice if you just don’t say it. This kind of attitude is what also contributed to the ease with which people covered this really truly awful crime. “Don’t mention race/religion, it emboldens the far right”. No what emboldens the far right is covering up mass rapes of children in an effort to maintain community cohesion.

I understand this is uncomfortable for muslims who have nothing to do with this but it’s easy. Denounce the shit out of them.

That's not the point I was making.

So clearly you don’t.

You misunderstood my point. I don't for a moment thing abuse only happens in the Catholic Church, or that all Catholics are abusers. Far from. My point was in answer to PPs saying that the religion of the perpetrators is important, and they used Catholic abuses as an example. What I'm saying is that if the abuse is done by Catholic religious leaders then it is relevant. If, on the other hand, it is done by some regular bloke who happened to be Catholic, then it wouldn't be relevant. Same as the grooming gangs in question.