Thirty men and one woman (all Muslims) charged with sexually abusing girls in West Yorkshire

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
So in India the reasons for rape are cultural but in Pakistan it's religious? That doesn't sound right, especially India has a similarly sized Muslim population.

I'll respond further when I'm back in signal.
I'd suggest that in both cases they are cultural but that religion is being used as a (clumsy) group identifier.
 
I'm not sure which groups are over represented in cases of rape and grooming in the UK. I agree that the there has been a conspiracy around reporting and prosecuting cases where race has been an issue.
 
The Islamic world is a sh1t show for women's rights but I'm not sure you can extrapolate much about that in regards to CSE cases in the UK.
 
Ffs...
How many times...
Religion is not the cause, religion provided an umbrella of opportunity and protection though that was eagerly and hastily unfurled by our establishment, in order to demonstrate how “right on” we are, as a society. In doing so, decided that on the “victim” top trumps scale, it was preferential to protect “racial harmony” rather than address issues wrt mainly white working class females from often slightly dodgy backgrounds.
 

Tyk

LE
I suspect that you in turn miss mine.

You'll not find a more nakedly racist society than, say, the USSR. Modern Russia too is remarkably intolerant. Similarly communist China.

The Left throwing open doors is a condition in this country, it is not necessarily universal. Labour is reliant on an ethnic vote and shamelessly plays the race card. An irony, to borrow a word from you, is that anyone non-white who is non-Labour is then attacked in a racist manner.

We can't use terms as crude as 'Left' and 'Right'. The real problem arises as you say at the centre. The problem we have is that the Left (actually, Labour) is alienating and indeed frightening those in the centre by branding any moderated views as racist and Rightist.

I suspect that we're arguing to agree, here.
Entirely true. I agree with both you and @Boris_Johnson

As to arguing to agree that's actually a very positive thing as it sits at the core of reasoned, intelligent debate. Debate and productive argument is an art that's being swamped by some people's inclination to label certain ideas as beyond the pale and unacceptable (haram to steal a term) even if they're only used to illustrate a point.

As to the religion vs culture debate it's impossible to ignore the religion of certain demographics who take part in these horrible acts as the religions and cultures are inextricably linked. To my mind the culture is responsible, the religion is often a convenient excuse for the perpetrators to try to wiggle out of action against them or bigots aiming at the perpetrators trying to attack what they dislike. Religion itself isn't evil, but the way it's manipulated top down as a system of control or excuses most certainly is.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
I'd suggest that in both cases they are cultural but that religion is being used as a (clumsy) group identifier.
No, religion is being identified as an exacerbating factor which is used to inform social and cultural norms and vice versa.

Here's a quick example from the CIA World Factbook. I've chosen Uzbekistan because it's a next door neighbour with considerable cultural and ethnic crossover with Afghanistan and it's a country I know reasonably well. One country's political tradition since the end of the Cold War has generally been hardline Islamism, the other country's political tradition has been authoritarian secular statism. It's unrealistic to expect anything like the Uzbek number for overall literacy from war-torn Afghanistan but look at the gender differential in the statistics:

Afghanistan Literacy
definition: age 15 and over can read and write (2015 est.)
total population: 38.2%
male: 52%
female: 24.2% (2015 est.)

Uzbekistan Literacy
definition: age 15 and over can read and write (2016 est.)
total population: 100%
male: 100%
female: 100% (2016 est.)

I can't be bothered to check all the countries reckoned to be part of the Islamic world but the ones I did check, which included Algeria and Saudi Arabia, so no South Asia syndrome, follow the same pattern to a greater or lesser extent. A comparison with first world countries wouldn't be fair but a quick look at South American equivalents in development terms, like Brazil or Mexico, were broadly at parity or slightly in favour of women. Even macho basket-cases like El Salvador get within few percentage points. I enclose the source for others to mine if they so choose.


By any objective standard it seems pretty clear that countries which identify strongly as Islamic struggle to achieve an acceptable outcome in one of the most basic of basic metrics to determine gender bias. It is entirely legitimate to ask why that might be.
 
No, religion is being identified as an exacerbating factor which is used to inform social and cultural norms and vice versa.

Here's a quick example from the CIA World Factbook. I've chosen Uzbekistan because it's a next door neighbour with considerable cultural and ethnic crossover with Afghanistan and it's a country I know reasonably well. One country's political tradition since the end of the Cold War has generally been hardline Islamism, the other country's political tradition has been authoritarian secular statism. It's unrealistic to expect anything like the Uzbek number for overall literacy from war-torn Afghanistan but look at the gender differential in the statistics:

Afghanistan Literacy
definition: age 15 and over can read and write (2015 est.)
total population: 38.2%
male: 52%
female: 24.2% (2015 est.)

Uzbekistan Literacy
definition: age 15 and over can read and write (2016 est.)
total population: 100%
male: 100%
female: 100% (2016 est.)

I can't be bothered to check all the countries reckoned to be part of the Islamic world but the ones I did check, which included Algeria and Saudi Arabia, so no South Asia syndrome, follow the same pattern to a greater or lesser extent. A comparison with first world countries wouldn't be fair but a quick look at South American equivalents in development terms, like Brazil or Mexico, were broadly at parity or slightly in favour of women. Even macho basket-cases like El Salvador get within few percentage points. I enclose the source for others to mine if they so choose.


By any objective standard it seems pretty clear that countries which identify strongly as Islamic struggle to achieve an acceptable outcome in one of the most basic of basic metrics to determine gender bias. It is entirely legitimate to ask why that might be.
You're stating facts backed up by figures which do not show Islam in a great light - be prepared to have a Race-Card wrongly deployed against you for your sins.
 

Tyk

LE
No, religion is being identified as an exacerbating factor which is used to inform social and cultural norms and vice versa.

Here's a quick example from the CIA World Factbook. I've chosen Uzbekistan because it's a next door neighbour with considerable cultural and ethnic crossover with Afghanistan and it's a country I know reasonably well. One country's political tradition since the end of the Cold War has generally been hardline Islamism, the other country's political tradition has been authoritarian secular statism. It's unrealistic to expect anything like the Uzbek number for overall literacy from war-torn Afghanistan but look at the gender differential in the statistics:

Afghanistan Literacy
definition: age 15 and over can read and write (2015 est.)
total population: 38.2%
male: 52%
female: 24.2% (2015 est.)

Uzbekistan Literacy
definition: age 15 and over can read and write (2016 est.)
total population: 100%
male: 100%
female: 100% (2016 est.)

I can't be bothered to check all the countries reckoned to be part of the Islamic world but the ones I did check, which included Algeria and Saudi Arabia, so no South Asia syndrome, follow the same pattern to a greater or lesser extent. A comparison with first world countries wouldn't be fair but a quick look at South American equivalents in development terms, like Brazil or Mexico, were broadly at parity or slightly in favour of women. Even macho basket-cases like El Salvador get within few percentage points. I enclose the source for others to mine if they so choose.


By any objective standard it seems pretty clear that countries which identify strongly as Islamic struggle to achieve an acceptable outcome in one of the most basic of basic metrics to determine gender bias. It is entirely legitimate to ask why that might be.
Very interesting comparison, quite alarming too.

Bizarre in a way as it was knowledge and literacy preserved and developed by the islamic world that helped Europe out of its very grim Dark Ages. Such a shame that those countries which were fonts of knowledge have degenerated into ignorant fly blown dumps and continue to do so even though writing and knowledge are so easily accessed in the modern world.
 
Entirely true. I agree with both you and @Boris_Johnson

As to arguing to agree that's actually a very positive thing as it sits at the core of reasoned, intelligent debate. Debate and productive argument is an art that's being swamped by some people's inclination to label certain ideas as beyond the pale and unacceptable (haram to steal a term) even if they're only used to illustrate a point.

As to the religion vs culture debate it's impossible to ignore the religion of certain demographics who take part in these horrible acts as the religions and cultures are inextricably linked. To my mind the culture is responsible, the religion is often a convenient excuse for the perpetrators to try to wiggle out of action against them or bigots aiming at the perpetrators trying to attack what they dislike. Religion itself isn't evil, but the way it's manipulated top down as a system of control or excuses most certainly is.
Would it not be fair to say that in some cases, culture is largely the religion?
 
You're stating facts backed up by figures which do not show Islam in a great light - be prepared to have a Race-Card wrongly deployed against you for your sins.
Mate, nobody here, including a Muslim, is actually denying there are issues wrt followers of Islam. As regards here, in the UK, I can honestly say, the most virtuous and genuine people I know within my “circle” are in fact Muslims. We differ in our views on the world on many levels. I can categorically state though, I would trust them with my kids, my life.

The ones involved in this grooming stuff are largely “Muslim by birth only”. They don’t follow the tenets of Islam, they don’t go to mosque unless it becomes fashionable for them to do so. They are mainly interested in superficial demonstrations of affluence.
The problem is, their families know about it in many cases and, are torn apart by the cognitive dissonance the situation creates.
Further problems are, best way to describe, are ‘self created’. White people in establishment positions being over eager to demonstrate their alignment with a perceived minority group.

It’s a shit situation but, it’s partly of our own making. If you allow any particular group of people special recognition/protection then further down the line that will be taken advantage of and they will become over represented in various areas.
 

Tyk

LE
Mate, nobody here, including a Muslim, is actually denying there are issues wrt followers of Islam. As regards here, in the UK, I can honestly say, the most virtuous and genuine people I know within my “circle” are in fact Muslims. We differ in our views on the world on many levels. I can categorically state though, I would trust them with my kids, my life.

The ones involved in this grooming stuff are largely “Muslim by birth only”. They don’t follow the tenets of Islam, they don’t go to mosque unless it becomes fashionable for them to do so. They are mainly interested in superficial demonstrations of affluence.
The problem is, their families know about it in many cases and, are torn apart by the cognitive dissonance the situation creates.
Further problems are, best way to describe, are ‘self created’. White people in establishment positions being over eager to demonstrate their alignment with a perceived minority group.

It’s a shit situation but, it’s partly of our own making. If you allow any particular group of people special recognition/protection then further down the line that will be taken advantage of and they will become over represented in various areas.
Indeed and it's hard to disagree with any of that.

The bit I bolded in the quote is a bit restrained, it's almost entirely of our own making (well successive governments):-
Large numbers of immigrants were actively encouraged to come, which in itself is no bad thing, but it was totally unfettered and had no eye to preferring the useful to the useless.
Instead of requiring integration into British society in language, behaviour, traditions and societal norms which would have actively "enriched" the British society (and clobbered racism at the same time), they've been permitted to the point of active encouragement to ghettoise and plant smaller versions of their home countries here.
Ignoring the harmful aspects of immigrant cultures has been done as a result of pandering to certain aspects of the press and loud mouthed right on apologists. Case in point being Hijabs that are actually part of female oppression, in the last 15 years have become mandatory on British streets. Living as I do in West Yorkshire, my sons who're now in their twenties were at school with numerous Pakistani descended kids the girls never wore Hijabs nor did their mothers, I now live opposite a Junior school and almost every woman has at least a Hijab (some in full binbag rig) and many of the small girls have Hijabs too.
 
Indeed and it's hard to disagree with any of that.

The bit I bolded in the quote is a bit restrained, it's almost entirely of our own making (well successive governments):-
Large numbers of immigrants were actively encouraged to come, which in itself is no bad thing, but it was totally unfettered and had no eye to preferring the useful to the useless.
Instead of requiring integration into British society in language, behaviour, traditions and societal norms which would have actively "enriched" the British society (and clobbered racism at the same time), they've been permitted to the point of active encouragement to ghettoise and plant smaller versions of their home countries here.
Ignoring the harmful aspects of immigrant cultures has been done as a result of pandering to certain aspects of the press and loud mouthed right on apologists. Case in point being Hijabs that are actually part of female oppression, in the last 15 years have become mandatory on British streets. Living as I do in West Yorkshire, my sons who're now in their twenties were at school with numerous Pakistani descended kids the girls never wore Hijabs nor did their mothers, I now live opposite a Junior school and almost every woman has at least a Hijab (some in full binbag rig) and many of the small girls have Hijabs too.
Thanks for the consdiered reply-it's much appreciated!

Hijab for example... I only know one girl who wears one. She is not forced to wear it. I've actually asked her why she wears it and, too be honest...It's a case of..."always have done" and...

She related a story her gran told her that goes along the lines of: "If you drop two sticky sweets on the floor, one of which is covered in a wrapper, which one are you going to pick up to eat?"

I cant really argue with that analogy. I have actually mentioned the hijab creates a "barrier" though and some people automatically assume the wearer is some devout...'you cant speak to me' type person. Girl I'm referring to sounds like "Ali-G" when you actually speak to her!!! Totally different to what you would expect to hear from her, based upon appearance.

I know, and she has also told me, there are issues of women being forced, or feeling obliged to cover up. That is a cultural thing though. There is fuckall in the koran about hijabs.
There are though many skewed interpretations of how to be a better follower of islam.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
As ever, it's a case of interpretation. It's about power and control.

I've related this before but one of SWMBO's best mates at work is of Bangladeshi Muslim extraction. A few years back, we had the honour (that's not over-stating it) of being invited to a family wedding. It was teetotal and quite one of the most serene gatherings I've ever been to.

I lived in Crawley for many years and we were placed on a table with two girls from Pound Hill, one of the suburbs of the town. So, I knew the area they lived in quite well - the schools they went to, probably some of the families and people they know, and so on.

We had quite an in-depth conversation about having to live within two cultures. There was lots of eye-rolling and mutual agreement. Their humour was biting and I bet they were great lasses to work with or go out with on the lash. That they were aware of their familial roles was without doubt. Equally, it wasn't overplayed and they were from families who would have been as equally proud of their daughters' professional aspirations and achievements as they would be of their sons'.

There's a huge contrast there with the backward idiots who profess to be of the same religion but who keep their women segregated, away from learning English and covered head to foot.
 
The Roz's of this world will never acknowledge their role in helping to create & prolong the conspiracy of covering up such massive numbers of CSE cases in the UK. You mention to them the gains the BNP made in Keighley & they look blank faced. Who would've thought that a cover up in south Yorks would've inspired a massacre in a mosque in NZ?

They're at it again. Busy burying their heads in the sand over the homophobic school protests. More worried about the far right making gains & terrified of upsetting their "allies" who absolutely despise them.

The root of all this though, is kids from broken homes who ended up being exploited, who had kids & are probably stuck in a cycle of misery. Do the RGJs of this world give a moment's thought to those victims or are they continuing that exploitation to further their own bigoted narrative to try and encourage violence against Muslim civilians?
 
Except they don’t. We were told both of my daughters (born in the last few years) gender as soon as they could tell, at around 16wks. It has nothing at all to do with ability or otherwise to abort due to gender.
Maybe because you dont match the demographic of those who would choose to abort female foetuses?
 
Would it not be fair to say that in some cases, culture is largely the religion?
When a culture develops where its cohort's every thought and action are based upon the tenets of a faith that is universal (obligatory?) in that region, I'd say that the two things were entirely indivisible.
 
No, religion is being identified as an exacerbating factor which is used to inform social and cultural norms and vice versa.

Here's a quick example from the CIA World Factbook. I've chosen Uzbekistan because it's a next door neighbour with considerable cultural and ethnic crossover with Afghanistan and it's a country I know reasonably well. One country's political tradition since the end of the Cold War has generally been hardline Islamism, the other country's political tradition has been authoritarian secular statism. It's unrealistic to expect anything like the Uzbek number for overall literacy from war-torn Afghanistan but look at the gender differential in the statistics:

Afghanistan Literacy
definition: age 15 and over can read and write (2015 est.)
total population: 38.2%
male: 52%
female: 24.2% (2015 est.)

Uzbekistan Literacy
definition: age 15 and over can read and write (2016 est.)
total population: 100%
male: 100%
female: 100% (2016 est.)

I can't be bothered to check all the countries reckoned to be part of the Islamic world but the ones I did check, which included Algeria and Saudi Arabia, so no South Asia syndrome, follow the same pattern to a greater or lesser extent. A comparison with first world countries wouldn't be fair but a quick look at South American equivalents in development terms, like Brazil or Mexico, were broadly at parity or slightly in favour of women. Even macho basket-cases like El Salvador get within few percentage points. I enclose the source for others to mine if they so choose.


By any objective standard it seems pretty clear that countries which identify strongly as Islamic struggle to achieve an acceptable outcome in one of the most basic of basic metrics to determine gender bias. It is entirely legitimate to ask why that might be.
Minor segway, the Iman's in Tajikistan recently caused a statue of Lenin to be re erected, their statement was that without him they (Tajiks) would be like the Afghans, that although much evil had been done by the Soviets, all manner of cycles of negative tradition and ignorance had been broken, including illiteracy especially with women. By re erecting the statue they wanted to ensure that future generations remembered that.

Having spent time there the difference between Tajiks and their southern neighbours is remarkable.
 
Last edited:

anglo

LE
The Roz's of this world will never acknowledge their role in helping to create & prolong the conspiracy of covering up such massive numbers of CSE cases in the UK. You mention to them the gains the BNP made in Keighley & they look blank faced. Who would've thought that a cover up in south Yorks would've inspired a massacre in a mosque in NZ?

They're at it again. Busy burying their heads in the sand over the homophobic school protests. More worried about the far right making gains & terrified of upsetting their "allies" who absolutely despise them.

The root of all this though, is kids from broken homes who ended up being exploited, who had kids & are probably stuck in a cycle of misery. Do the RGJs of this world give a moment's thought to those victims or are they continuing that exploitation to further their own bigoted narrative to try and encourage violence against Muslim civilians?
What is a "Muslim civilian"? I've seen it in one or two of your posts
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Minor segway, the Imans in Tajikstan recently caused a statue of Lenin to be re errected their statement was that without him they (Tajiks) would be like the Afghans, they stated that although much evil had been done by the Soviets, all manner of cycles of negative tradition and ignorance had been broken, including illiteracy especially with women. By re erecting the statue they wanted to ensure that future generations remembered that.

Haveing spent time there the difference between Tajiks and their southern neighbours is remarkable.
I don’t see that as a minor diversion at all. I think it’s absolutely germane to the discussion.

Compare that rather enlightened ‘Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it’ attitude with the ‘Rhodes must fall’-type idiocy that’s going on here.

Blimey... some backward Moslems showing us how it’s done.
 

Top