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 don't think labour are marvellous at all. I am old enough to have been an adult through the last Labour government and there was plenty I disagreed with. I've never voted for them before. I used to be a lib dem member until I resigned my membership over their position on trans rights and language around GC women.

I have voted Conservative before and I quite liked Cameron. However the current incarnation are awful - the cabinet is full of populist liars. Not a cat in hells chance I'd vote for a party that thinks Johnson and Truss were prime minister material. That are happy to lie and break the law.

Actions speak louder than words, the Tories might say things that you like but they do precisely nothing.

Starmer did a lot for women and vulnerable victims when he was DPP. He's sorted his divided party out and come down hard on antisemitism. I have no qualms at all in saying I believe Labour under him are a lot of a better option than the lying, corrupted Conservative party.

But my dislike for Braverman goes deeper than that. She is appealing to racist, Islamophobic voters. It disgusts me. Viscerally disgusts me, I can't stand that she is any kind of mouthpiece for our country.

You were telling me we agree on Bravermans politics. I was being very explicit about what I think of her politics. If you don't agree with what I wrote, then we don't agree.

So do you agree with what I wrote?

Anyway, I'm interested to know, if we assume Braverman is correct and Britosh Pakistani gangs are responsible grooming, and posters here are correct and Islam is threatening British values. What do you want to happen? I truly can't see what you are after, other than the ability to go "see? I'm not racist, they are objectively a problem".

So let's assume that's happened. What next?

I don't have any objection as to what she said. One can argue about how she said it. And I'm skeptical about the timing.

I'm guessing that means we don't agree. And we don't agree with the reservations I brought up.

I don't really see any way forward. Grooming gangs will continue, Muslim, white, whatever.
More scandals, more commissions, more apologies. More British children abandoned by the system.

And there'll be further episodes that show there is a de facto blasphemy law at work in the UK.

And no solutions to any of it.

That sounds accurate.
I'm neutral about the reservations at the moment. Until there's some statistically sound evidence British Pakistanis are more likely to be groomers, I think its a suspicion and it's racially divisive to act as if its fact. I think its very dangerous for our home secretary to say these things, she isn't a member of the public, she's an official figure and so if she says it, it makes it sound like official, fact baser policy. Which it is not. Its her personal opinion.

I am very used to arguing with mens rights activists and their spurious "facts" and twisting of data to suit an agenda, so take anecdotes and "correlation not causation" type viewpoints with a pinch of salt.

I don't think Islam is any more of a problem in the world than any other religion. I generally think religion causes a lot of problems for humanity.

Christianity is a worldwide problem with attitudes to contraception, abortion. And a lot of terrorism in this country (Irish) largely stems from religious difference.

Saudi Arabia and Iran represent Islam in the same way Russia represents Christianity.

Your post is the very definition of islamophobia. There are billions of Muslims in the world, many countries with Islam as a state religion. Many factions of Islam and yet you tar all those peoples, ethnicities and countries with the same brush. Disgusting.

I don't believe there's necessarily a greater propensity to abuse.

But there is minimal evidence of other minority non white being major groomers. Whether Hindu or Pacific Asian etc etc.

And I stick to my point that ethnic over reach from the Pakistani community allowed greater lattitude for these groups to misbehave, just as Catholic priests did over half century ago.

And I stick to my point that ethnic over reach from the Pakistani community allowed greater lattitude for these groups to misbehave, just as Catholic priests did over half century ago
You are entitled to believe that but there is no strong evidence to support that view, only anecdote.
And you holding that view is a lot less dangerous than Braverman stating is as a fact in UK media.

This thread, and the previous one is evidence that starting from that point enables people to say racist and islamophobic things (and I mean islamophobia in the true sense, an irrational fear of islam). That is the starting point to fascism. It shouldn't be tolerated.

I don't have any fear of Islam. However the instances I've given you of the inability of our country to counteract the three instances of ethnic religious pressure, defacto blasphemy law, to achieve a desired effect, absolutely enrages me.

I can't imagine a group of Christian migrants in a majority Muslim country getting a film pulled, getting a teacher put into protective custody, threatening a local child by death.

Those anecdotes are sufficient for me to know that push come to shove, it's likely that authorities looked the other way.

Not that there was more per capita Pakistani grooming. But what there was, was more easily enabled.

As I say, the rot on PC enabling of ethnic religious sensibilities to hold greater sway was first noticeable during Rushdie affair in 1989. PC oversight on grooming a likeky offshoot.

You only have to watch one-time free speech champion Richard Dawkins be cowed to express any opinion in this area when interviewed by Piers Morgan.

I didn't say that all Muslims think exactly the same, or all of them are signed up to fundamentalist forms of Islam.

You have had your brain destroyed by far left thinking when you think everything is "racist", "Islamophobia" etc. Mindless bigotry on your part.

Russia isn't a theocracy and it isn't trying to spread theocracy. It's not the equivalent of an Iran. Saudi Arabia and Iran are part of the mainstream of Islam as I said. I didn't say they were the only Islamic countries.

And Irish terrorism although it was sectarian, did they even claim to be following Christianity in their actions? So another dodgy example and you can't find anything equivalent to the worldwide problem of Islamic terrorism.

And a lot of terrorism in this country (Irish) largely stems from religious difference

Adam, the conflict in Northern Ireland was not a religious conflict.

In that case, how do you feel about our ongoing friendliness with Saudi Arabia? Braverman and the conservative government signing agreements to boost strategic ties?
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2277176/saudi-arabia

If she was genuinely on your side in this, surely she'd be distancing us from this theocracy?

Stems from I said. But I won't quibble as we will get into long ago history.

My main point is Christianity is hardly a shining beacon of fairness and tolerance. I'm listening to Witch Trials of JK Rowling at the moment and I'd forgotten about American schools trying to ban Harry Potter and the Waco Siege for examples (both linked to fundamental Christians).

Adam, it's drives me spare. Wahabism has been imported into the UK via Real Politik, the influence of oil blood money, sports washing etc.

The rise of the super mosque in Europe, and Western govts looking the other way as large parts of Muslim communities in West radicalise.

Even Tony Blair, scourge of Sadam etc, tainted by his links to Saudi and Qatar.

Of course, had the West gone fully civic nuclear powered as was the dream in the 70s and fully weaned ourselves off oil, we could have avoided being compelled into the poison embrace of our addiction to oil.

IClaudine is right - I don't remember car bombs because of transubstantiation or predestination

As someone with first-hand experience of how our police forces operate, I find the suggestion that they would be less likely to pursue the grooming gangs owing to their brown skin to be crass and grossly implausible

It’s seems obvious that they simply didn’t give a fuck about the female victims and the ‘we couldn’t go after them because of political correctness’ was an ex post facto justification for their appalling fuck-up.

that’s the only explanation that fits, given it’s no longer really in dispute that the British police are institutionally both racist and misogynistic.

I think this is pretty much it. If the gangs had been, for example, targeting girls from a private boarding school, the reaction may have been somewhat different.

Don't give a shit, money passing from hand to hand, regional commanders looking the other way.

"Political correctness" doesn't stop the police strip searching black schoolgirls.

Let's ignore the police then.

Why weren't the mainstream media talking about this issue for a long time?

Why weren't mainstream politicians talking about this issue for a long time?

Nothing to do with fear-of-being-called-racist?

We know that the political left routinely calls people "racist" etc., and I think it's very plausible that it does scare some people and suppress discussion.

I remember the typical tabloid discussion of "Broken Britain" in the 80s 90s...these girls were a scourge on society, basically feral slags who had no self control, had everything coming to them.

I'll freely admit, I was badly unsympathetic to the plight of the underclass back then, my misogyny towards the girls we're talking about now was pretty unpleasant in retrospect.

The whole of polite society washed their hands of girls in care, struggling young single mums, girls in and out of trouble.

Unless you were resolutely trying to help them or at very least non judgemental, the rest of us were all at least partly to blame.

It's one of the reasons that today when I could easily be anti migrant, I won't be, especially hearing of teen migrants disappearing in their hundreds.

Are we gonna be hand wringing about their abuse in a decade or two?

Exactly.
Basically white working class teenage girls, drinking/taking drugs/having babies are not sympathetic victims.
The attitude of the whole justice system (police and courts) to victims of rape is the problem here, not "British Pakistani grooming gangs".
If people believed victims first (including juries) then it wouldn't be so easy for groomers to prey on vulnerable girls.

Great Post realityfan, that one I am in agreement with 😁