The Rotherham child abuse scandal has become news again after a report was recently released giving sordid details of extortion (against the girl victims and their families) and the complicity of police. How bad was it? It was so bad that fathers were arrested for going to homes where their daughters--one assumes, their minor daughters--were being abused and trying to get their daughters out. Meanwhile, the police ignored the appalling crimes of the rapists and traffickers out of fear of being thought racist.
One home office researcher into the horrific actions of these Muslims reports that she was told never again to refer to "Asian men" and that she was made to undergo a two-day diversity course as punishment for her politically incorrect findings.
When one recalls that making racist statements is illegal in Britain and that police investigate it as a crime, the whole thing takes on a new complexion. Police were at least psychologically hampered and corrupted in investigating rape and trafficking by the fact that they might be committing a crime themselves if they said the wrong thing in the course of their investigations or prosecution.
This article points out the role of "Asian" (Pakistani Muslim) culture and corruption. The perpetrators were aided and abetted by local politicians elected from within the Muslim community.
That all of this starkly illuminates the problems with Muslim immigration should be obvious, but it is doubtful that anyone in a position to do anything, either in Britain or in the U.S., will take the hint. After all, even among many conservatives in the U.S., it's all right to wring one's hands about the bad behavior of Muslim immigrant communities--their suppression of free speech, their imposition of what is in practice sharia, their bad treatment of women--but not okay to question whether such enclaves should be allowed to form by Muslim immigration in the first place.
I have said elsewhere that the real problem with laws against the use of sharia (even if they were permitted by the courts) is that they will act as a kind of inoculation, making conservatives think that they have taken care of problems that are really not well taken care of by statutory means at all. These problems, rather, arise from the application of law, from the decisions of child welfare workers and police, and from decisions to prosecute or not prosecute.
Here I said,
Sharia is multifaceted and multidimensional. It's a much harder sell to talk about lots of Muslims not on-board with sharia. Functional sharia will as a matter of course result from the existence of large Muslim communities in the U.S. And judicial and police deference to sharia will, does, and can take the form of applying the law selectively, prosecutorial discretion in refusing to prosecute Muslims, designating crimes as accidents, designating non-crimes by uppity Christians as "disturbing the peace," refusing properly to police Muslim areas and protect Christians, and so on and so forth--all of which are virtually impossible to root out by any single or comprehensive legal approach. [snip]
[I]t seems to me that only comprehensive anti-Muslim immigration reform can stem the tide of sharia, specifically. Jihad, too, but sharia even more, because you just really cannot prosecute someone for, say, voting for Police Chief Haddad in Dearborn! Nor can you prosecute the Florida police department for negligence in the case of the death of this girl, even if they really were negligent. You have to stop the development of powerful, influential, Muslim communities.
It would be completely incorrect to believe that we can continue to allow Muslim enclaves to form in America and then counter the negative consequences of doing so with creative new laws. Moreover, let's remember: If judges are determined to be lawless and to defer to Muslim sensibilities, they will find ways of doing so. The New Jersey judge should have faced impeachment for such an outrageous ruling, but I'd be astonished if any such thing happened. An anti-sharia law could have made things brisker at the appeals level and is a good first move, but the problem we face with sharia is a problem all too much like corruption--only an ideological rather than a monetary corruption. And as everyone knows, corruption is as hard to root out of a legal and enforcement system as dandelions in a yard.
These comments might have been made with the Rotherham case in mind, but of course they weren't. They simply anticipated something like it by looking at other cases and at the way that local politics, law enforcement, and judicial and prosecutorial discretion actually work.
It's worse in Britain than it is here, I think, but how much worse? Can we really be sure that something like Rotherham's coverup of child prostitution would not happen in Dearborn, MI, or in one of the Somali enclaves in Minnesota?
Meanwhile, we have this silly case in Vermont of a restaurant that hastily removed a sign advertising bacon. A Muslim woman complained that it offended her. You can't make this stuff up. Dennis Prager beautifully skewers everyone involved.
It's important to realize in a case like that what is at stake: When Americans and other Westerners voluntarily behave like dhimmis, we legitimize dhimmitude. As it becomes accepted that there really is something offensive about a sign advertising bacon (for example) and that people really should take it down, we change our culture. Even if we never get to the point--and can we say with confidence that we never will?--where everything deemed offensive to Muslim sensibilities is outlawed, we change who we are. We chip away further at the very existence of any kind of remaining Western culture with an oeuvre of its own. We make our public culture infinitely malleable by the whims of designated victim groups.
It does not take a great stretch of the imagination to see a connection between this Western cultural self-immolation, on the one hand, and the rape of girls in Rotherham under the noses of the police, on the other.