Suella Braverman thread 2

[AdamRyan]

As we filled up thread one eith our battling over whether it's feminist or racist to support Suella Braverman's weekend statements, I thought another would be good.

Here's some of what she said:

"What's clear is what we've seen is a practice whereby vulnerable white English girls, sometimes who are in care, sometimes in challenging circumstances, being pursued and raped and drugged and harmed by gangs of British Pakistani men who've worked in child abuse rings or networks. We've seen institutions and state agencies, whether it's social workers, teachers, the police turn a blind eye to these signs of abuse out of political correctness, out of fear of being called racist, out of fear of being called bigoted. And as a result, thousands, we are not talking small numbers, we are talking large numbers, thousands of children have had their childhoods robbed and devastated. And there are many of these perpetrators still running wild, behaving in this way. And it's now down to the authorities to track these perpetrators down, without fear or favour, relentlessly and bring them to justice"

Sunak has since rowed back on this and the Home Offices own research suggests there is not enough quality research to say any particular ethnicity is disproportionately involved in "grooming gangs"

I wonder what measure of strength they are using?

It does not appear to be lifting weights, since I doubt very much the average man could deadlift 300kg, or benchpress nearly 270kgs.

A link to the methodology would be very interesting.

Feel free to go find it. I simply did a search and found two separate graphics both containing remarkably similar information. I'm not writing a thesis and I have no reason to doubt the methodology, but I will say it was the first applicable graphic on a search of "normal distribution strength male female". It came without any overt link to a political discussion of the data, and was not cherry picked in any way.

I once saw a bus that suggested that leaving the EU would mean £350million a week for the NHS. I believed it to.

What is lot of strawman nonsense! Men are generally stronger than women even if they are shorter. My 50yr old husband is a good 3 inches shorter than 12tes younger me but at least twice as strong despite age and height.

If It's an attempt to move to the gendered brain ththinthat doesnt work as difference is Not clear cut at all when you get to gender and brains, sex only not gender.

Ie there are no clear cut sex brain differences but there are physical strength differences.

I'm not sure how we have ended up on this on a thread about Braverman. Perhaps we can get back on topic?

https://www.geo.tv/latest/481294-thousands-of-uk-healthcare-professionals-seek-apology-from-over-attack-on-pakistanis

The thread was originally about grooming gangs, but then you subverted it. See how it works?

I think you maybe are misremembering the OP. It appears to me to be about the particular group of grooming gangs that the Home Secretary decided to highlight and perhaps a discussion as to why she picked those gangs and not others and the language she used around them.

The argument went along the lines of that whilst grooming gangs exist across a spectrum of ethnicity, there seems to be a particular issue when it comes to bodies failing to take action or face up to the issue when those grooming gangs are comprised of Pakistani and Kurdish men - because of cultural sensitivities and not wanting to be accused of racism.

You then suggested that even bringing this up as a matter for discussion was in itself racist.

I keep thinking of 'Sisters Uncut' for some reason. A lot of your talking points and positions come straight from their 'feministo'.

To secure safety for survivors, we must also fight the other forms of oppression that we face. As intersectional feminists we understand that a person’s individual experience of violence is affected by interconnecting and mutually reinforcing systems of oppression. These include but are not limited to: sexism, racism, anti-blackness, classism, disableism, ageism, homophobia, transphobia, transmisogyny, whorephobia, fat-phobia, islamophobia, and antisemitism. We fight for the safety of all of our siblings: we work in solidarity with the movements for trans liberation and sex worker rights.
Domestic and sexual violence do not exist in a vacuum. The systems of power and privilege in our society enable and protect the actions of perpetrators. This creates a cycle of violence, which can only be broken through transforming society.
To those in power, our message is this: your cuts are violent, your cuts are dangerous, and you think that you can get away with them because you have targeted people who you perceive as powerless.
We are those people. We are Sisters Uncut. We will not be silenced"

Those are not the words the Home Secretary used. As Gary Linekar pointed out the particular words used and their connortations are important.

I really hate it when people make bad faith arguments.

OP on the first thread said "If she did say this and not talk about how men of all cultures, given the opportunity, have and will exploit young women, then she is letting down all the women who are exploited.""

And I was op on this thread and said lets continue discussing if Braverman was being racist or feminist

NeitherOP was supporting her language around grooming gangs. HTH

What do you think of the letter from health care professionals?

“It is unacceptable for the Home Secretary to use inflammatory and divisive rhetoric that is sensationalist and contradicts her own department's evidence. Critically, it enables these heinous crimes to continue by focusing on political exhibitionism instead of implementing impactful action that is evidence-based and requires a whole system response rather than singling out one particular ethnic group.
“As health and care professionals, we are committed to working in multi-agency partnerships to protect vulnerable young people who may be at risk or victims of child sexual exploitation (CSE). We are also acutely aware of the impact that cuts in the public sector and community services under the current government have had on young people in increasing their vulnerability and reducing access to support for CSE."

I also read this article earlier
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/23442142.prepare-election-asylum-seekers-grooming-gangs/

This line reminded me of various posters on this thread and the last:
"It actually doesn’t matter anymore what the evidence is. If you want to believe that British Pakistani gangs are responsible for the majority of grooming sex crimes then you will believe it and no amount of contrary evidence is going to change your perspective."

Very depressing times. I guess that's what happens when the country has had enough of experts.

I find it easy to simultaneously hold beliefs in sacred castes and the unpleasantness of the tories, without even a hint of cognitive dissonance.

These sacred castes have been mentioned a few times now. I have no idea what is meant by them, at any point is anyone going to explain what they mean?

'Sacred castes' are those groups who we are not meant to question or to critique - who are held aloft in their status as the protected victim class ( generally) of intersectionalist type 'progressiveness'. The groups you are meantv to just listen to, shut up, and say nothing about. The 'oppressed' become the oppressors; the 'victims' become the privileged.

If you read and engaged more widely on the forum - rather than just on the isue of 'Labour versus the Evil Tories' you'd learn a lot.

What a load of waffley word salad
Can you explain in plain English what you mean?

My problem Adam, is that my trust in "experts" has been irrevocably damaged by the trans debacle.

So the same organisations that say "follow the science, the data" are happy to look the other way when anti science of TRA infects them, roll over to Stonewall-ification.

Adam, no-one genuinely believes the majority of CSE is carried out by Pakistanis.
But there is a suspicion that per capita the rate may be higher than the white population.
And with a seeming PC pressure to have looked the other way when the grooming scandals were at their height, mud sticks.

And with my specific gripes on Batley teacher/Wings Of Heaven film/Koran teens death threats, which no other community in UK could have promulgated, I'm of a mind that religious and ethnic pressures are most weaponised by certain communities for all sorts of ends.

So like Tory Home Secretaries?

So what explanation do you have for the Home Secretary singling out British Pakistani men then?

I'm a Conservative voter, but not under any illusions that they play absolutely dirty when they want/need to. They are currently with small boats migration, spending money on barges and hotels when they could spend more on getting the 150k+ backlog in applications down.

And the narrative on Pakistanis and grooming scandals could be seen as playing into the same long game.

But I'm minded to think that Sunak had been brought up to speed on the size of the issue of grooming scandals, how they were never grasped, realising PC sensitivities played their part, and resolving to take a stand, make a difference.

And Braverman's statement is the start of these issues becoming more central to government concerns.

Yes, she has a habit of exaggeration, and I can see why people despise "Cruella", for stoking up racial tensions. But on this one (unlike migration tactics), I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the govt.