Latest news with #rapeGangs
The Sun
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Sun
Don't assume Labour has learnt from rape gangs scandal – now it's targeting criticism of Islam in free speech crackdown
THIS week will forever be remembered as the point at which Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour Government jumped on what they once dismissed as the so-called 'bandwagon of the far right'. For much of the past six months, Labour ministers and MPs have lined up to criticise people calling for a national inquiry into the mostly Pakistani-Muslim rape gangs as 'far right' and 'extremist'. 2 2 Or, in the words of Labour MP Lucy Powell, blowing a 'little trumpet' and a 'dog-whistle'. But now, after months of relentless pressure, the Government has finally been forced to recognise what was always obvious to everybody else in this country — that we need a national inquiry to explore how on Earth the mass rape of our children was ever allowed to happen, and to get those girls, and their families, the truth, justice and answers they deserve. But if you think that's where the story ends and Labour has now come to its senses then you'd be very much mistaken. Because on the same day Labour committed to a major inquiry into the rape gangs, something else deeply sinister took place. No doubt hoping few people would notice, Starmer and the Labour Party pushed forward with their plans to impose a dogmatic and dangerous new definition of 'Islamophobia' on the country. This move could stifle free speech and debate about not just the rape gangs but a whole array of closely related issues, including the growing role and impact of Islam on our national life and politics. Authoritarian society Labour's new working group on Islamophobia has launched a 'call for evidence', asking people to help it develop a definition that they say 'will help ministers and other relevant bodies understand what constitutes unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities'. But what this will create, mark my words, is the very opposite of the kind, tolerant and pluralistic society that its supporters talk about. On the contrary, it will usher us into an authoritarian society where our language and views about Islam will be heavily policed and curtailed. What am I talking about, exactly? National inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal finally ordered by Keir Starmer in another Labour U-turn Well, to make sense of this new dark turn in British politics, you need to go back to the original definition of 'Islamophobia' that was put forward, and which the Labour Party supported, by an All Party Parliamentary Group of MPs in 2018. Involving the likes of Tory grandee Dominic Grieve — a man who was so committed to free speech in this country that he relentlessly demanded a second referendum on Brexit — the report defined 'Islamophobia' as being 'rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness'. But what on Earth does this mean, you might ask? What counts as targeting 'expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness'? Anything that will be perceived as 'Islamophobic' by pro-Muslim campaigners and their allies on the radical woke Left, that's what. In fact, astonishingly, that earlier definition endorsed by Labour specifically mentioned discussing the rape gangs and the grooming gang scandal as an example of so-called 'Islamophobia'. It actually described the grooming gangs, which we now know are disproportionately more likely to involve men of Pakistani-Muslim origin, as a 'subtle form of anti-Muslim racism', and 'a modern-day iteration' of 'age-old stereotypes and tropes about Islam and Muslims'. Many of these measures, definitions and laws look more at home in North Korea than Britain. Matt Goodwin Indeed, for much of the past ten years many left-wing activists, journalists and politicians have argued that even discussing the rape gangs was an example of so-called 'anti-Muslim hatred' or 'Islamophobia'. This, alongside Starmer's concerted efforts to brand anybody who opposes mass immigration and wanted an inquiry into the rape gangs as 'far right', is exactly why so many local councils, police officers, social workers and more shied away from investigating the scandal to begin with. They feared being tainted with the 'Islamophobic' or 'racist' brush. And it's not just about the rape gangs. That same dodgy definition of 'Islamophobia', in 2018, also suggested that talking about the alleged demographic threat that some people feel is posed to Western nations by the rise of Islam could also be considered 'Islamophobic'. Here in the UK, my own research suggests that because of mass immigration and different birth rates among different groups, by the year 2100 roughly one in five of all people in the UK will be following Islam, while potentially close to one in three young people, under the age of 40, will be Muslim by the end of this century. If the original definition of 'Islamophobia', which Labour MPs backed, is to be believed then merely even debating these profound and unprecedented demographic shifts could be considered 'Islamophobic'. Sharia law And what about pointing to some of the negative effects of these changes that we can already see emerging in our politics today, such as the rise of sectarian Muslim MPs in the House of Commons spending more time focusing on what is happening in Gaza, or campaigning for a new airport in Pakistan, than wanting to fix problems in their own constituency? The original definition, overseen by Wes Streeting and another diehard anti-Brexit activist, Anna Soubry, specifically said that discussing 'conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions' could be considered 'Islamophobic'. So would we not be allowed to express our opposition to this kind of divisive, sectarian politics or voice concern about the fact, as a survey has shown, that 40 per cent of British Muslims would support a 'Muslim-only' political party, while roughly one third would back the imposition of a parallel Sharia law system in Britain? What all this is pushing us into, I believe, is a chilling Orwellian world where we will become unable to criticise Islam or point to negative changes that are happening within our society because of these demographic shifts. Look, too, at how the freedom to criticise Islam has been restricted through the case of Hamit Coskun, a man who burned a Koran and was found guilty of committing a 'racially aggravated public order offence' during what was a peaceful protest. In this case, the Public Order Act was essentially used to crack down on legitimate public protest and criticism of Islam, effectively reviving long-abolished blasphemy laws and undermining the notion — long central to British life — that no religion is above the law. These islands, once upon a time, were the home of free speech, free expression and individual liberty. Matt Goodwin You might remember, too, even if Starmer never talks about it while telling Vice President JD Vance we have no free speech crisis in Britain, that we still have a school teacher from Batley, West Yorks, in hiding in Britain who happened to upset local Muslims by showing a picture they happened to find 'offensive'. And make no mistake: this war on free speech is not just about the dogmatic definition of Islamophobia which Starmer and his Labour Government are trying to smuggle into our laws, institutions and country through the back door. It is also about the proliferation of hate laws and so-called 'non-crime hate incidents' in this country. These are used to suppress free speech by encouraging people to report their fellow citizens to the police when they merely perceive one of their 'protected characteristics', such as religion, race or sexual orientation, to have been offended in some way. Think I'm exaggerating? Since 2014, police authorities have recorded more than 133,000 of these dystopian measures, which in turn chill free speech across British society by warning others not to say anything that might be considered 'offensive'. Vigorous debate And it is also about how terms such as 'far right' and 'Islamo- phobia' are today being inflated and expanded to such an extent by the likes of Starmer and Yvette Cooper that they have not only become utterly meaningless but are routinely used to try to shut down debate and discredit anybody who challenges the policies of the ruling class, such as mass uncontrolled immigration, our broken borders, or, as we saw earlier this year, the Pakistani-Muslim rape gangs. These islands, once upon a time, were the home of free speech, free expression and individual liberty. They were a place where people could join together and have a vigorous debate about what was happening in their country, even if this offended others. But increasingly, today, we are ruled by people who can sense their grip on power is now under threat and are using whatever is at their disposal to try to control and curtail the national conversation, to narrow the parameters of what is considered acceptable to discuss. I don't know about you but this is neither the Britain I recognise nor the kind of country I particularly want to live in. Many of these measures, definitions and laws look more at home in North Korea than Britain. If the rape gang scandal has taught us anything then it is that we must reject all these speech codes and the policing of everyday language. We must return to the traditions of free speech, free expression, individual liberty and debate that have long defined these islands — irrespective of who they might offend.
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
No jail sentence is long enough for the cowards who covered up for the Pakistani rape gangs
Thank heavens for Louise Casey. A report this week by the Baroness of Awkward Truths, which found that public bodies covered up horrific evidence about Pakistani-origin rape gangs 'for fear of appearing racist', has forced another humiliating reversal on Sir Keir Starmer. The smell of burning rubber is never far from our handbrake-turn Prime Minister, who has now accepted Casey's recommendation for a national inquiry. He had insisted that wanting such an investigation into those heinous crimes, the worst scandal in British history no less, was evidence you were marginally to the Right of Genghis Khan, or possibly even Tony Blair. Some 364 MPs shamefully voted against a statutory inquiry, including Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips who couldn't do enough for the traumatised victims until she stabbed them in the front. Baroness Casey's findings brought back an emotional encounter I had as I was leaving an event earlier this year. 'Forgive me for asking, Miss Pearson, but what happened to the British men?' The silver-haired American in sports jacket and tie in front of me had a concerned look on his face. I had just appeared on a panel discussing the Pakistani rape gangs chaired by Mark Steyn, who had campaigned relentlessly for their victims when he was a presenter on GB News. Survivors Sammy Woodhouse and Samantha Smith, my fellow panellists, had told the international audience about the ordeal they, and thousands of other British girls, had lived through. Not just being raped and tortured as children, but later stigmatised as prostitutes, criminals and liars in their twenties when they finally plucked up courage to speak out. Sammy recalled that police in Rotherham colluded openly with her abuser, Arshid Hussain, buying his drugs and tipping him off when he was about to have his collar felt. When officers found Sammy in bed with 'Ash', a 24-year-old British Pakistani, they arrested her for possessing an offensive weapon (which was his). The serial rapist with a rumoured string of more than 50 under-age girls in his highly-profitable harem was not held by police. Sammy was 14 at the time and pregnant. Still a child, then, although childhood and the bubbly, bright little girl who dreamed of being a professional dancer were long gone. After those two brave, articulate women up on stage finished telling their stories of almost surreal depravity, Steyn's audience – Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, Americans, Brits – sat in horrified silence. Not quite silence; a lot of people were crying. A question hung in the incredulous air. How could the UK have allowed such monstrosities to happen to its kids and then allow it to be covered up for years until victims-turned-campaigners, like the two Samanthas, fought tooth and nail to bring it to public attention? Clearly, that's what was bothering the American. He was desperate to understand why British men had not protected their girls. 'See, where I come from, if they'd done that we'd have picked up our guns and…' I nodded. (To be fair, in the UK, when the Pakistani groomers briefly targeted Sikh girls, outraged Sikh men picked up baseball bats and taught them a lesson.) What to say? How do you account for a warped ideology that has taken hold in your country, a fatal blend of cultural incompatibility on the one hand and institutional cowardice and fear of 'Islamophobia' on the other? 'Many of the girls were in care or they came from troubled homes, so often they didn't have fathers to help them,' I began falteringly. 'Sammy's dad did try to rescue his daughter from a house where she was trafficked and police threatened to arrest him, not the groomers.' 'What the hell?!,' exclaimed the American. 'Exactly. What the hell. It's really to do with political correctness,' I went on. 'The Labour Party, which ran most of the towns where the grooming gangs operated, became dependent on Muslim votes and they were very reluctant to have the Pakistani community criticised. So the white, working-class girls (' who must have been asking for it') were not believed even though what was happening to them was evil. And anyone who dared to speak up for them was damned as 'racist', which was hugely damaging obviously, so mainly people stayed silent. Essentially, white kids were sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism. It was Votes for Girls, that was the deal.' (Revealingly, in an interview for this week's Planet Normal, Sammy Woodhouse told me that her abuser, 'Ash', was fully aware of the protected status he enjoyed as a British Pakistani Muslim, and happily exploited it. 'I'll just play the race card,' he used to say.) One thing I didn't mention to that American guy was the complicit role played by the media, notably the BBC, and others in the metropolitan bubble. Until 2013, when Andrew Norfolk of The Times revealed Sammy Woodhouse's story (with characteristic courage the Yorkshire lass waived her anonymity), the overwhelming evidence that Pakistani Muslim men preyed on 11-year-olds whom they disdained as 'white slags' was simply not admissible in polite society. (Even the heroic Norfolk, who sadly died a few weeks ago, initially held back on publishing because he feared the story was catnip to the far-Right). But Sammy had lifted the lid on child sex exploitation cases in her home town, prompting the Alexis Jay report which identified at least 1,400 victims in Rotherham alone. I vividly recall some of the hostile media reaction two years later to a previous take-no-prisoners Louise Casey report into opportunity and integration. The one in which the Baroness criticised public institutions that 'have ignored or even condoned regressive, divisive and harmful cultural and religious practices for fear of being branded racist or Islamophobic'. The Rotherham child abuse scandal, Casey concluded, was 'a catastrophic example of authorities turning a blind eye to harm in order to avoid the need to confront a particular community'. In the impeccably-liberal Prospect magazine, reviewer Oliver Kamm shuddered fastidiously. He condemned Casey's striking honesty as a 'vapid and ill-conceived intervention' which might have been designed to appeal to – quick, pass the smelling salts! – Farage and anti-immigrant tendencies. 'It warns that segregation and social exclusion are at 'worrying' levels,' Kamm complained. 'And it does so… without indicating what it would accept as countervailing evidence.' Such wilful blindness by members of a liberal elite to the problems posed by 'a particular community' continues to this day. Not long ago, in an interview for The News Agents podcast, former BBC maven Emily Maitlis attacked Rupert Lowe (ex-Reform MP, now an independent who has set up a separate inquiry with Sammy Woodhouse) for obsessing about Pakistani grooming gangs 'because probably you are racist and you don't believe there are white perpetrators'. It is Maitlis's sneering brand of superior ignorance, her arrogant stigmatising of critics of failed integration, that created the climate that allowed Pakistani perpetrators to continue violating the Samanthas and tens of thousands of other young girls with almost total impunity. Racism being a far worse crime than child-rape in the best circles, darling. The Home Office data which Maitlis drew on – saying most group-based child sexual offenders are white – always seemed absurd. (A quick look at the police mugshots for most grooming-gang trials quickly told you that white men, although heavily represented among paedophiles, were not the major villains in the trafficking of pre-teen and teenage girls.) How marvellous to see our Islamist-friendly Home Office thoroughly debunked in this new report from Baroness Casey. 'This audit found it hard to understand how the Home Office [2020] paper reached that conclusion, which does not seem to be evidenced in research or data.' Oops. Astoundingly, in our interview, Sammy Woodhouse recalled that 'in council safeguarding meetings, when I was a child who was being raped by a 24-year-old Pakistani man, there was an anti-racism co-ordinator'. That tells you everything you need to know about the priority of Labour authorities – and it sure as hell wasn't protecting innocent little girls. Keir Starmer must have had high hopes that Louise Casey would save him from the acute political embarrassment of the authorities in Muslim-voting Labour areas coming under scrutiny. (She had indicated she opposed a national inquiry.) What Labour really fears, I suspect, is that the discovery of a widespread cover-up of the industrial-scale rape of British children will pose existential questions about the ability of certain British Pakistani men to ever integrate into a society where women and girls are created equal. That's what Sammy Woodhouse thinks – she says any dual-national child-rapists must be deported. And which of us would disagree? 'I don't think this inquiry is going to get the justice that we need,' Sammy told me, 'because it's Labour investigating Labour. They're just chucking this out there to keep us quiet.' I pray that she's wrong, I pray that all her passionate campaigning for the ones who couldn't fight as she has fought pays off. Let's hope we will need to build new jails to house all the cowards who covered up for the rape gangs. Police, councillors, social workers, MPs, community leaders. Grown men who allowed little girls to endure such fathomless depravity. At least they will be sleeping less well tonight thanks to the Baroness of Awkward Truths.
Daily Mail
5 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Will the sick cowards who covered up the rape gang scandal ever be punished? Don't hold your breath
Another day, as the well-known phrase or saying goes, another public inquiry. This time into the rape gangs, which Surkeir has been dodging up until now on the risible grounds that the unvarnished truth will lead to a 'far-Right' backlash. This one is long overdue and, for once, welcome. Let's hope that it throws a retina-scorching searchlight on those responsible. Not just the vile Stone Age sexual predators, but the evil politicians, social workers and police who deliberately turned a blind eye to the industrial-scale abuse of young white girls because they were terrified of being accused of 'racism' and 'Islamophobia'.
Telegraph
5 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
All aboard the Faragemobile after Labour's oh-so-surprising change of heart
It's only a matter of time before the Government reports itself to Prevent. Last week, demanding a national inquiry into rape gangs was jumping on a 'far-Right bandwagon'. Then the Prime Minister read the Casey report, set fire to a cross and hopped aboard the Faragemobile. 'Twould be lovely to hear more about his thinking but he's buggered off to Canada – a critical meeting of the S Club 7 – tweeting a photo of himself reading papers on a plane to prove he's not worried about a thing. I'm told Sir Keir Starmer insisted on seat 11A. So it was Yvette 'proceeding at pace' Cooper who delivered Casey to the Commons, breaking the unpredictable news that the perpetrators were sometimes Asian and we might need an inquiry that is, oh, national-ish. As Anthony Eden liked to say: 'Well, slap me silly and call me Susan.' The damage-limitation strategy is always the same: deny you've erred and act as if it's beneath everyone's dignity to discuss it. Among ministers sitting with their arms folded – teachers waiting for silence – was the authoritative Lucy Powell (once said rape gang talk is a 'dog whistle') and the sober Bridget Phillipson (called the Tories 'bandwagon jumpers'). The only minister who didn't get the 'poker face' email was Jess Phillips (anything marked 'urgent' goes into junk). Jess has a reputation for taking safeguarding very seriously, yet in the Commons seems to find the subject absolutely hilarious – giggling, eye-rolling and showing her phone to the other girls in the class. No doubt a panda had sneezed at Whipsnade Zoo. Up jumped Kemi, 'avin' none of it. 'I couldn't believe my ears,' she said: Yvette seemed to think 'their plan all along was another U-turn!' What had Starmer read to change his mind? And why did Labour MPs early vote against a national inquiry?! Said MPs thought it rude of her to ask. The Commons is too well-bred for such scrappy scrutiny. Paul Waugh, MP for the lovely town of Rochdale – that's one to drive through with the windows rolled up – described Kemi's speech as 'beneath contempt', welcomed Cooper's statement and said 'no ethnic group should hide from the fierce scrutiny of this national inquiry'. Paul struck a rather different tone in January when he voted against a national inquiry and told the House that his seat 'has been exploited by some people who treat child rape as a political game'. But that was six long months ago, and it's funny, isn't it, how we all become more Right-wing as we get older? Deference to consensus, which can change on a coin-toss, is part of the reason we're in this mess. The culprit isn't just political correctness. It's an excess of political politeness. For years, we've been run by an elite hooked on a woke dogma that puts avoiding offence before fighting crime, keeping the peace before nailing perverts. The result: some rapists enjoyed greater licence than they'd ever get in Pakistan – indeed the time may come when the only solution to disorder in British cities is the firm smack of Sharia law. I doubt anti-grooming crusader Rupert Lowe would agree, but then he didn't attend the statement to offer a view. The real bandwagon is idling its engine online.
Telegraph
5 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
The questions this grooming gangs inquiry must finally answer
The Casey report into the rape gangs yet again proves what we already knew: that the systematic and racially and religiously aggravated rape of thousands of vulnerable white girls is the worst scandal of our lifetimes. The response by the Government, however, leaves many important questions unanswered. Labour says it's launching a national inquiry, yet its official document says it will only 'coordinate a series of targeted local investigations', with the Home Secretary yet to confirm whether it will cover every affected town and city. And we do not yet know how independent the inquiry chair will be. Yvette Cooper once again refused to instruct the National Crime Agency to investigate police officers, social workers and councillors who were complicit in these appalling crimes. The long refusal to accept a national inquiry – and the furious response of some Labour MPs towards scrutiny of the role of their councils in this scandal – is part of a wider showdown between those who govern and the governed. Because liberal authoritarianism remains a huge problem in our politics. Opinions and motives disliked by the Government are increasingly dismissed – and delegitimised – as 'far Right'. The Prevent programme, established to counter the radicalisation of those who might be drawn to terrorism, says concern about mass immigration is a 'terrorist ideology'. The riots that followed the Southport murders – later said to have been caused partly by the lack of Government transparency – were dismissed by the Prime Minister as 'far-Right thuggery'. But the idea that the riots were in any way planned or coordinated by far-Right agitators – and not a spontaneous reaction of fury – has been discredited by the police inspectorate, which suggested most offenders were local, often young, and had no connections to extremists. But the most notorious example of the far right smear has been the Government's dismissal of concerns about the rape gangs of mainly Pakistani, Muslim men who systematically abused vulnerable, white working class girls. When the Conservatives pressed for a national inquiry earlier this year, Starmer accused the Party of 'spreading lies and misinformation' and 'amplifying what the far-Right is saying.' In an attempt to avoid an inquiry, Starmer commissioned Louise Casey to conduct an 'audit' of the crimes and their investigation. But Casey concluded an inquiry was necessary and Starmer has folded. This demonstrates the limits of the campaign to delegitimise public opinion. For not even a Prime Minister can withstand sustained public pressure of the kind we have seen over the last six months, and Labour MPs were likely to be asked to vote on the need for an inquiry when the Commons considers the Crime and Policing Bill this week. But does this mean we are finally going to get to the truth of the rape gangs? Given the deliberate refusal of large parts of the state over so many years to prevent the abuse and prosecute the observers, the refusal by some Labour ministers to even acknowledge that these crimes were racially and religiously aggravated, and the alleged complicity of some Labour councillors in these horrific crimes, we should be wary. So we will need clear answers to important questions about the inquiry. Following the death of Dr David Kelly, one of Tony Blair's senior advisers reassured colleagues about the subsequent inquiry, saying, 'don't worry, we appointed the right judge'. The identity of the person who chairs this inquiry will be vital, and it may need to be a judge from another Commonwealth jurisdiction, to avoid conflicts of interest or social or political beliefs that prejudice the work. The inquiry will need to be unsparing about the most sensitive subjects: about ethnicity, religious identity, family structures and social attitudes among members of the Muslim population in Britain. What role did clan identities play? Why did social workers make choices that made them complicit in abuse, instead of confronting it? How many police officers were corrupt or complicit? What role did local councillors play in keeping the scandals a secret? What about other public services, like schools, GP surgeries and hospitals? One of the reasons our politics is so crisis-ridden is the gulf in values and expectations between the governed and the government. The campaign to delegitimise public opinion – about the rape gangs and many other things – shows just how authoritarian our liberal leaders are. The reason they are afraid of the public is that they know they will, soon, be smashed. But it is time now for the truth, and time, too, for justice.
