Britain: Where non-Muslim honesty is worse than Muslim rape

I haven't seen too much of the response to Nigel Farage's recent remarks to the effect that remaining in the EU could lead to mass sex attacks by immigrant men like those seen Cologne and elsewhere in Germany in recent months. But no matter, since I've read of Shami Chakbrabarti's response, and I'm confident that it's a good representation of the party line among all the other footsoldiers of spineless virtue-signalling in politics, the media, and commentariat with regard to Farage's honesty.

To re-cap, here's what Farage actually said:

"The nuclear bomb this time would be about Cologne", referring, of course, to the wave of organised sexual assaults, rapes, and robberies carried out by mostly North African immigrants targeting hundreds of German women in Cologne on New Year's Eve last year. Attacks, which, it's worth remembering, were at first buried by law enforcement, mainstream media, and politicians, and would have remained so but for social media, and right-wing media platforms like Breitbart.

Farage added: "There are some very big cultural issues", and when asked if similar mass sex attacks could occur in the UK, he replied, "It depends if they get EU passports. It depends if we vote for Brexit or not. It is an issue."

According to Chakrabarti, Farage's comments "can only be designed to stir up disharmony, disunity, possibly even racial hatred".

Weird. Called me old fashioned but I reckon acts of mass rape, sexual assault, and torture of European women by foreigners - almost always Muslims, by the way - are liable to "stir up disharmony, disunity and racial hatred" more so than some politician daring to make reference to them having actually happened after the fact.

In fact, I reckon said acts of mass rape, sexual assault, and torture against European women by almost entirely Muslim foreigners are in fact evidence of racial and religious hatred on the part of the Muslim influx.

Oh, and top of that, I reckon we ought to be very cautious as to how much "unity" or "harmony" we can ever expect to achieve with the ongoing influx of large numbers of people raised in a religion which tells its followers that all non-believers are filthy, immoral, deceitful, and essentially a living, breathing "fuck you" to (their) God, that to adopt their ways or to be friends with them is forbidden, and that, as Muslims, their most important duty and highest possible cause in life is to conquer and subjugate the non-believers and impose the all-encompassing legal, social, and political blueprint of their totalitarian religion over all peoples everywhere, by demographic, political, and military means. That's one of the many lessons we should have learned by now, several decades into Western Europe's great left-wing experiment with Muslim mass immigration.

But there you go. I'm just a right-wing Islamophobe, so I would say all that.

Chakrabarti, speaking on LBC radio, continued:

"It's a classic racist trope, used by racists all over the world, to suggest that women are at risk from marauding hoards of people from another religion or race."

Erm, well. Here's the thing Shami: It's already been proven true, and continues to be proven true all over Britain, and all over Western Europe. Wherever one looks across Western Europe, one will see that Muslim men, almost regardless of their ethnic or racial origin, are far more likely to commit sex crimes than the indigenous peoples.

This goes a very long way to explaining why Sweden, where, in 1975 there were only 421 rapes reported from a population of 8,208,442, is now second only to Lesotho for the number of rapes per 100,000 people, with 6620 rapes from a population of 9,743,087 in 2014.

It also, of course, directly explains the spate of acts of mass sexual assault seen in Cologne and other German cities on New Year's Eve, the recent sexual assaults at a music festival in Darmstadt, in connection with which Pakistani asylum seekers were arrested, and the endless reports of acts of rape in public leisure facilities and such like across the country, and in others affected by the migrant influx. Of course, it also explains the epidemic of grooming, sexual abuse, and torture of non-Muslim girls (mainly white for the obvious that they're the majority, but also Sikh and Hindu girls quite often) by predominantly Pakistani and Kashmiri Muslim men in towns and cities all across the UK. Note here that in many cases, the perpetrators will be the sons or grandsons of the people who actually came here from those places, living as they usually do in their own self-established Muslim enclaves.

Below is a list, up to date as of April this year, of towns and cities in which Muslim men have been convicted of grooming offences against non-Muslim children. Rotherham is merely the most high profile case to date, and given the police and authorities' well-documented aversion to investigating or prosecuting the crimes of Muslims, I'd confidently bet my life and yours on this list being, at absolute most, the tip of the iceberg. Where there are Pakistani/Kashmiri Muslims in Britain, there is sexual abuse and torture of non-Muslim children:

Blackburn
Bradford
Bristol
Burton
Chesham
Derby
Ipswich
Keighley
Leeds
Leicester
London
Manchester
Middlesbrough
Nelson
Oldham
Peterborough
Preston
Rochdale
Sheffield
Skipton
Slough
Telford

So tell us, Shami: is it still a "racist trope" if it demonstrably true?

Shami went on:

"It's been used throughout history and I never thought that this particular Brexit debate would reach this particular depth." 

And that, folks, is where we are. Apparently, anything even vaguely resembling honesty about the fact that more Muslims equals more sex crime is a new "depth" of depravity. Remember, vastly disproportionate levels of grooming, rape, sexual assault, and torture of non-Muslim girls and women by Muslim men is not the problem. The problem is talking about the fact that it happens.

That's how far we are from properly addressing the Islam problem in our countries.

Eight Thoughts on What British Muslims Really Think

If you're reading this, it's likely that you've either watched the Channel 4 investigation 'What British Muslims Really Think' which aired on Wednesday evening in the UK, or are at least aware of some of its findings, which have come as quite a shock to many people. If you haven't, or are not, it'd be worth reading some of the responses to the findings of the survey before reading this, just so you're aware of some of the headline outcomes. 

I won't go over too many of those here, as it's all been covered elsewhere. I also have no comment to make on any of the nit-picking, hysterical accusations of "bigotry", "Islamophobia" or "hate", the general cry-arsing, or outright denial of statistical reality that have emanated from the usual quarters in the wake of the survey and documentary, other than to say that I find none of it remotely surprising.

Instead, what follows is a fairly off-the-cuff, and hopefully relatively concise summary of some of my own reactions to the results of the investigation, some thoughts on what was lacking, and some further questions I would like to have seen asked as part of the survey.

• I'll get the one major negative out of the way first, which is this: I thought the clips showing a reconstruction of the type of face-to-face interview used for the survey conducted by ICM in the programme were ham-fisted, cringeworthy, and potentially unhelpful to the sensible message Trevor Phillips is - belatedly - trying to communicate. For those who haven't seen the documentary, the reconstruction clips featured a female interviewer in her 40s, who, though she looked kindly enough, was clad rather ominously/mournfully (you choose) all in black with a scarf draped loosely over head, and a distinctly shifty looking Asian male interviewee in his late 20s/early 30s, whose demeanour and answers were often more than a little sinister. Add to that the notably bleak, colourless lighting and treatment used, and a particularly depressing-looking setting acting as the interview's subject's home, and it all seemed way over the top to my eye. Is there really any need to try to drive the message home so clumsily and with such melodrama when many of the findings were obviously going to be alarming enough to most viewers anyway? I can't say I've seen any comment on it from detractors, but I'd be surprised if none picked up on it, and in my view, it amounts to putting ammunition right into the hands of the Islam apologists, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who wish to deflect from the worrying results of the survey, and to question the agenda of those behind it.

• I said I wouldn't really comment too much upon the findings themselves, but this one is so telling it bears repeating: only 34% of Muslims interviewed would notify the authorities if they suspected someone was involved with terrorism. I don't think there's anything I really need to add to that, other than to state the obvious in saying that, if the survey is at least reasonably accurate, it suggests that around two thirds of all Muslims would not report someone they suspected of being involved in terrorism to the authorities.

• Many findings of the survey were being discussed in the media and social media in the days before the resulting documentary was actually broadcast, but two which received relatively little attention were that 78% of the Muslims surveyed felt the media should have no right to show depictions of Muhammad, while 87% said that no one should have the right to "make fun" of Muhammad. The issue here, to me, is that, in a diverse society, Muslims really need to be asking why some in the media and among non-Muslims generally may feel the need to defy the (mainly Sunni) Islamic taboo against depicting Muhammad, and especially, to critique, satirise or mock his claims, and reputed actions and words in his own life. After all, it is the example of Muhammad (at least according to the most trusted sources in Sunni scholarship) which is followed for the most part pretty faithfully by the jihadis whose acts of war, mass murder, and occasional genocide claim several thousand lives a month around the world, including on our doorstep in Western Europe. Add to this the precedents set by the Sunnah (the example of Muhammad as recorded in the Sirat [biographies] and Hadiths [examples of the words and deeds of Muhammad ostensibly handed down by word-of-mouth through generations, then compiled by scholars]) for sexual slavery, child marriage, and the killing of critics, apostates, blasphemers, homosexuals and adulterers, which shape the penal codes of dozens of Muslim-majority nations to varying degrees, and are thus directly responsible for countless state and non-state executions and acts of violence, torture, child abuse, and rape, and it shouldn't be difficult to see why anyone would feel the need to critique or satirise Muhammad. Had Muhammad been some kind of egalitarian arch pacifist, and his followers sandal-wearing, non-judgmental, pacifist vegans, I'd have some sympathy with the hurt feelings arising from the rare instances in which anyone is brave enough to satirise or ridicule the guy. But that could not be further from the truth. To be blunt, Muslims need to just accept all that and fucking suck up whatever questioning or mockery that results from it. And if they don't like it? Well, tough shit. Ours is - or at least ought to be - a free country.

• It may not have been practical from the point of view of time or clarity - especially assuming a relatively uninformed audience - to break up the answers to the survey questions according to the sect (e.g. Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya), and branch/school/order (e.g. Deobandi, Barelvi, Wahhabi/Salafi [Sunni], Twelver, Sevener, Zaidi, Ismaili [Shia]) of the interview subjects, but it certainly should have been recorded. I suspect that doing so would have produced some telling patterns and variations in responses to many of the questions, and could also have acted as a way of identifying the branches/schools/orders among which literalist ideas and Islamist sympathies are most prevalent, and which thus present the biggest problems. In particular, I would have been quite interested to know how non-Ismaili Shias responded, in light of the fact that while Shia fiqh (jurisprudence) is largely pretty similar to that of Sunni tradition, in my own admittedly limited experience, Shias often seem to be a little less dogmatic and fanatical, and certainly far less militant and triumphalist than Sunnis. Ismailis, for the record, like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown who featured in the documentary, are particularly liberal and relaxed as a whole, and Isma'ilism today is really more of an off-shoot of Islam than part of the orthodoxy. For similar reasons, but perhaps too controversially for those who commissioned the survey and produced the documentary, I would like to have seen the results broken up according to the ethnic/national origin of the interviewees (e.g. Pakistani, Kashmiri, Gujarati, Bangladeshi, Somali, Kurdish, 'reverts' of any non-Muslim religious background etc.), and also by how long they or their families' have been in the UK.

• Given the findings of the survey - shocking to many, clearly, but utterly predictable to those of us who have been paying attention and assessing developments honestly and independently - the documentary really should have discussed the implications of ongoing large-scale immigration from Muslim nations, and the high birth rate among Muslims in Britain. After all, while the negative consequences of Muslim immigration to date - the ghettoisation and colonisation of whole areas of our towns and cities, the mostly Pakistani/Kashmiri epidemic of organised grooming and rape of non-Muslim children, 7/7, Trojan Horse, the murder of Lee Rigby, and the countless foiled terror plots and security threats we live with every day - have been awful enough, the real threat lies in the fact that the Muslim population is growing rapidly, which means both that a great deal more of the above is almost guaranteed in the coming years, and that there is the very real prospect of Muslims eventually coming to dominate our political life and institutions. In light of all that, and given the attention the survey results and the documentary garnered, overlooking the issues of immigration and birth rate was a big opportunity missed.

• One of many things that simply isn't understood by the wider public where the threat of Islam is concerned is the fact that the biggest problem with the religion is arguably the hostility and contempt it encourages its followers to feel toward non-Muslims, and indeed toward any Muslim who abandons the religion. In light of this, I would like to have seen parents who participated in the survey asked how they would feel about any of their children being in a relationship with or marrying a non-Muslim (a breakdown of this according to the gender of the child, and the particular religion or lack thereof of the person they dated/married would also have been interesting), how they'd feel if any of their children were gay, or indeed, how they would feel if any of their children abandoned Islam (i.e. apostasised).

• The issue of apostasy seemed to be overlooked in general, as did the issue of the marriage of under-aged girls. The former in particular really ought to have been addressed, especially since previous reports in this area have yielded some truly alarming results, notably the 2006 Policy Exchange survey in which 36% of Muslims aged 16-24 agreed that Muslims who abandon Islam should be executed.

• My last point is undoubtedly the hardest to assess, but relates to what in my opinion may just be the most important issue of all, particularly as Muslims grow in number, and thus, political and social influence in the coming decades in Britain and Western Europe: Namely, if we see the often Islamist, or at least Islamism-friendly Muslim political lobbying groups gain power and successes in the decades ahead as the Muslim demographic share grows, with whom would most of the roughly 60-80% of Muslims who don't appear to have a conclusively Islamist or staunchly literalist world-view side? Their increasingly influential Islamic supremacist co-religionists, or the rest of us? It's a vitally important question, and having seen Britain's Muslim communities collectively show such scant willingness to compromise, introspect, or empathise with the concerns of wider society to date, my gut instinct is to fear the worst...