Paedophilia, molestation, rape, grooming, ‘white trash’.. Stories abound of the gangs of Asian (usually Pakistani) men preying on young white girls, believing them to be somehow worth less than the girls of their own race, religion, community or culture. Indigenous white/Christian British girls aren’t worthy of respect: they are easy meat; good for nothing but being plied with booze, fingered, slapped around and screwed. It isn’t easy to talk or write about, for fear of the ‘racist’ smear. Either that, or ‘Islamophobia’: white men groom and rape, too, you know.
Labour’s Jack Straw pressed all the wrong PC stereotypical buttons back in 2011, when Abid Mohammed Saddique and Mohammed Romaan Liaqat were given indefinite prison terms for grooming girls as young as 12. The former Justice Secretary told the BBC:
“Pakistanis, let’s be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders’ wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders. But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men… who target vulnerable young white girls.
“We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way. These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they’re fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically. So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care… who they think are easy meat.”
Cue outrage from academia, religious leaders, journalist-sociologists and the godmother of multiculuralism Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Of course rapists and paedophiles come in a range of skin colours, and of course children of all ethnicities are vulnerable. But Jack Straw was simply making the point that ‘white trash’ chauvinism is a particular problem in a particular community, which tends toward the view that Asian girls are “off-limits” because they are of greater virtue and value – quite literally in terms of bride-price or dowry. It is a warped mindset; a distinctly racist view of indigenous British girls, and it’s wrong.
So one doesn’t quite expect an English court of law to issue a judgment effectively affirming it.
The Yorkshire Evening Post has the story: ‘Asian sex crime victims suffer more than white girls, judge rules‘. For Jamal Muhammed Raheem Ul Nasir, Asian girls were manifestly not “off-limits”: he molested and assaulted two Asian girls, and was given seven years for his perverted brutality. But this was longer than he would have been incarcerated had his victims been white “because Asian sex-crime victims suffer more”.
This wasn’t only the reasoning of a rogue judge sitting in Leeds Crown Court: it has been upheld by the Criminal Appeal Court in London:
Mr Justice Walker said it was proper for paedophile, Jamal Muhammed Raheem Ul Nasir, to have been given a tougher than normal sentence, because his victims were Asian.
..The judge who jailed him, Sally Cahill QC, specifically said that the fact the victims were Asian had been factored in as an “aggravating feature” when passing sentence.
..She stated that the victims and their families had suffered particular “shame” in their communities because of what had happened to them.
Additionally there were cultural concerns that the girls’ future prospects of being regarded as a good catch for arranged marriages might be damaged.
Lawyers for Ul Nasir, 32, of Firthcliffe Grove, Liversedge, argued at London’s Criminal Appeal Court that his sentence had been unfairly inflated.
But their complaints were rejected by Mr Justice Walker, who said: “The victims’ fathers were concerned about the future marriage prospects for their daughters.
“Judge Cahill was having particular regard to the harm caused to the victims by this offending.
“That harm was aggravated by the impact on the victims and their families within this particular community”.
So, the “shame” felt by Asian-Muslim/Sikh/Hindu girls is greater than that felt by white/Christian girls. The worries and concerns of Asian fathers are a greater burden than those of white fathers. Ergo the daughters of “this particular community” are worthy of greater protection by the courts.
What misery and despair is felt by raped Asian girls but not by raped white girls? What hurt and outrage about their daughter’s abuse is felt by an Asian father but not by a white father? How is the anger, grief or violation of an Asian family different from the anger, grief or violation of a white family?
What happened to equality under the law?
Our normative ethical judgments must always be responsive to different kinds and weights of evidence, but the law must be also seen to be fair and understood to be coherent. ‘Now concerning virgins‘, wrote St Paul, ‘I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful‘ (1Cor 7:25). That is to say, one judge may set forth a position with conviction, while recognising that another will hold a different if not conflicting opinion. Having overcome ethnic division and abolished an eye for an eye, why are white British judges determining that brown eyes are worth more than blue?
What would we think of this judgment if it had been issued by an Asian judge who had ruled that sexually-abused Asian girls were “shamed” more than white girls; and Asian babas were more “concerned” about their daughters’ welfare and future than white dads?