1,400 teen-age girls, mostly white, were denied legal protection lest ‘racism’ be charged
Despite the best efforts of British officialdom to hush the fact up, it has finally been conceded that their country for at least thirty years has been quietly harbouring the most massive program of child sexual abuse in its history.
Some fourteen hundred children, aged about eleven to fifteen, nearly all of them white and nearly all of them girls, have been held captive in several mid-size industrial cities– Sheffield, Bristol, but chiefly at Rotherham in South Yorkshire. Many were actually living under government home-care programs, picked up at night by taxis, and driven to assignations arranged for them by their masters. This might include several “clients.”
If they tried to escape this captivity, various horrifying punishments were threatened, some of them bordering on the macabre. In at least one instance, a terrified child was soaked in gasoline and threatened with a match. More frequently, they might be warned that if they attempted escape their mother and little sisters would be raped. Or they might be required to watch one screaming victim being raped by a succession of men.
Most had been lured into the life by some nice looking, handsome and friendly young man who had asked to be their boyfriend and offered them candies, or drugs, or possibly mere companionship if they had sex with various men. What followed is known as the “grooming,” wherein they would be schooled for the work. Many came from broken homes, but far more than a few from good and stable families.
The frantic parents would go, of course, to the police. Their daughter had simply disappeared. A careful report would be composed, but never acted on. Why not? In the words of one report to the increasingly uneasy Rothingham city council: “There are sensitivities of ethnicity, with potential to engage the harmony of community relationships, Great care will be taken in drafting .., this report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham’s qualities of diversity. It is imperative that suggestions of a wider cultural phenomenon be avoided.”
In other words, the fact that every last man involved in this child enslavement program was a Muslim must never be mentioned. The fact that all but two were Pakistanis must likewise be suppressed, since nearly all Pakistanis are known to be Muslims. So after much debate it was agreed the accused could be identified only as “male Asiatics.” The obedient media instantly acquiesced. thereby prompting a sharp rebuttal from Sikh, Hindu and other “Asiatics,” who protested that none of their people had gone into the business of buying and selling the sexual favours of English children, threatening them with hideous consequences if they dared go to the police.
Not that it would have done them much good if they had. The accumulating evidence of the sex syndicate’s activities included the account of a 13-year-old with “disrupted clothing,” found in a house at 3 a.m. with a group of men who had given her vodka. The police let the men go without questioning them and arrested the girl as “drunk and disorderly.” In another case, one fifteen-year-old told her ‘pimp’ that she was pregnant and did not know who the father was. He then beat her unconscious with a clawhammer.
The whistle-blower who finally broke through the various cover-ups was neither a social worker, policeman or politician. He was a journalist. Up to 2010, such prosecutions as had been made involved only limited local cases — mostly cab drivers with a list of acquiescent girls. Reporter Andrew Norfolk, pursuing these cases began to notice the links between them, some of them involving young girls shipped for sex as far away as Manchester. These were not isolated cases. All were linked to a syndicate located in Rotherham, run by “Asiatics.” His story in the London Times and his other accounts which followed it finally forced officialdom to act.
Some five inquiries were called, two sponsored by Rotherham council, three by the national government. When two of the local groups gathered far more evidence than the council expected or was comfortable with, they found themselves being restricted and thwarted, with much of their evidence taken from them and warnings about what they must not say in their report.. Finally, the national government unseated the whole elected council and replaced it with a five-member commission.
Over a six-year period — 2010 to 2016– 23 men and two women were convicted on charges that ranged from indecent assault to false imprisonment and rape. Seventeen of them received terms of 10 years or more. The grand master of the syndicate went down for 35 years. Of the two women, neither of whom had Muslim names, both were convicted for holding girls captive and for “procuring” prostitutes. One received an 18-month suspended sentence, the other 13 years. The second was discovered to be running her end of the operation as a recognized child care charity.
Numerous resignations followed the inquiries. The council’s chief executive officer quit under protest as did the director of Children’s Services and the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire. Two other officials refused to resign, until pressured from London to do so.
Which left open the question: What happens now? Once the fervour and outrage cools will the slave trade in Rotherham and elsewhere go back to business as usual, or can it somehow be stopped? Here things become sticky. If the cause of what Wikipedia calls “the Rotherham Scandal” can be traced back to male lust and sexual exploitation, it might be controllable. But suppose that another factor is involved, notably religion? Does any religion actually permit rape under any circumstances? The answer is yes, Islam does, and always has, but only when the women victims were captured in war.
For an explanation of this,, the media went to Dr. Suad Salh, a female professor of doctrine at Al-Hazar University in Cairo, something of a reformer on the side of Islamic women’s rights, though western feminists would be loath embrace her ideas. “Non-Muslim female prisoners of war are those whom you own. In order to humiliate them, they become the property of the Muslim army commander, or of a Muslim, and he can have sex with them like he has with his wives.”
Left unanswered, of course, was the definition of a war. Many Muslims see Britain itself targeted in a Muslim jihad. If this view became wide enough to result in a civil war, it would make all non-Muslim women in Britain legitimate targets for rape and sexual enslavement. There were other implications. The ISIS movement, for example, is certainly conducting a war. Does this validate under Koranic law their mass enslavement of non-Muslim women in the Middle East? Taking it further, if a Muslim country were to attack Israel, could all captured Israeli women be legitimately enslaved? All this appeared to follow from what Prof. Salh was asserting. Moreover, the enslavement of people who had unsuccessfully resisted Muslim conquest was thoroughly borne out by past experience. History, that is, would support Prof. Salh.
A Muslim spokesman in Rotherham denounced the perpetrators, emphasizing that sex with children is totally alien to “the Muslim culture.” The Breitbart channel demolished that contention by pointing out that gang raping, particularly of young girls, was becoming world-wide, and Muslim groups were inevitably behind it. Thus in Australia, the perpetrators were Lebanese Muslims; while in the Netherlands they were Moroccan Muslims. But on the BBC, notes Breitbart, they are all identified “male Asians.” Brietbart noticed the irony. Salient facts were being withheld to preserve the harmony of the community. Precisely the same attitude prevented the authorities in Rotherham from protecting 1,400 children from being lured into Muslim slavery.
Thus the code of Political Correctness is imposed with the usual iron coercion. But why so, one might wonder. Simply put, it’s because the western world has adopted as a governing philosophy the dogma of religious “pluralism.” It’s rigidly observed by high-minded politicians, bureaucrats and academics and it decrees that all religions must be regarded as essentially the same. Well, they aren’t, as 1,400 young girls have been given grievous cause to discover. It was Jesus Christ who told us that we could recognize the “false prophets” by their “fruits.” So take a look at “the fruits” of one religion, and don’t say we were not warned.
NOTE: For further detail on this and other related stories, Google ‘Rotherham Scandal’
Ted Byfield was founder and publisher of Alberta Report news magazine, general editor of Alberta in the Twentieth Century. a 12-volume history of the province, and general editor of The Christians: Their First Two Thousand Years, a 12-volume history of Christianity. His column on education appears in The Christians.com, a web journal. He has recently authored two little books on modern pedagogy: Why History Matters and The Revolution Nobody Covered. You can order both copies here.