ECM notified me about two posts over at Robert Stacy McCain’s blog.
Excerpt from the article:
At home, Abid Saddique and Mohammed Liaqat, both of whom were married with young children, were considered clean, upstanding family men as well as devout Muslims.
But once they left their front door and their wives behind, they turned into vodka-swilling, cocaine-binging paedophiles who spent every available moment randomly targeting young girls on the street, befriending them, and then horrifically abusing them.
The 28-year-olds were at the head of a 13-strong gang who would film the assaults on their mobile telephones.
For over 18 months, dressed “sharply” in designer western clothes, wearing jewellery and sporting short haircuts, the pair cruised the streets of Derby in a silver BMW 5 series with blacked-out windows, approaching girls at random and with a bottle of vodka and plastic cups hidden under the front seats.
An undercover investigation by Derbyshire Police, dubbed Operation Retriever, was split into three trials which have run since February at Leicester Crown Court and can only now be reported.
The victims, aged between 12-18, ranged from girls in care to a 14-year-old A-grade student from a strong, middle-class home. They were predominantly girls with a troubled background.
[...]In one incident, Saddique, who was convicted of 14 of the 29 charges he faced, was accused of engaging in sexual activity with a 12-year-old in Derby’s picturesque Darley Park, while his accomplice Liaqat, who was convicted of 10 crimes of the 18 charges he faced, had sex with a 14-year-old in the BMW.
Another time, a 14-year-old girl was filmed having sex with three of the gang in a hotel room as cheers ring out.
The group faced 75 charges between them relating to twenty six girls, but police believe there are many more victims who have not come forward.
Yesterday, Saddique and Liaqat – who since legal proceedings have begun had grown long beards and now wear Islamic dress – were convicted of charges of sexual assault and sexual activity with a child, bringing the trials to a close.
This year they had already been convicted of a series of other offences including rape, sexual assault, sexual activity with a child, false imprisonment and making child pornography.
[...]“They were very confident in their approaches. They clearly thought of themselves as attractive young men, they had a car, they had some money and they would be quite aggressive when they would start their charm offensive.
McCain adds this from the UK Telegraph:
A SCHOOLGIRL, who was in the care of the city council when she fell victim to a gang of Derby perverts, had been groomed and sexually abused by another man only months earlier, the Telegraph can reveal.
The youngster was placed in a children’s home by Derby City Council for her own protection after police arrested Ansar Hussain, who targeted her when she was just 13.
But despite being under the supervision of social workers, she fell into the clutches of evil Abid Mohammed Saddique and Mohammed Romaan Liaqat – the ringleaders of a gang who raped and abused 27 girls.
And this from This is Derbyshire:
“[T]hey knew the difference between a girl that goes home to her family at the end of the night and a girl that doesn’t. I didn’t have anyone to protect me or look after me and thought they were going to look after and care for me.”
Most of the victims came from broken homes.
And here’s the second post by McCain.
In a “serious case report,” the Derbyshire board examined issues involved in the cases of two girls (identified as YP1 and YP2) who had been under care of local authorities and were victimized by the Liaqat-Saddique gang. The board also incorporated findings of a multi-agency review in the cases of 25 other victims of the gang.
“Issues of culture, ethnicity and identity were a feature both in relation to the victims and the alleged perpetrators,” the Derbyshire board reported. The two girls “were confused about their identity and sense of belonging. They both had a poor self image and had difficulty making friends and fitting in.”
These issues were “a critical factor in making [the girls] easy targets for abusers,” according to the board report. “Questions have been raised for this review as to whether the ethnic background and culture of the perpetrators had any bearing on their decision to take part in this activity, and also whether the ethnic origin of the victims was significant in making them targets for abuse.”
And he links this Times of India article.
Five British-born Pakistanis have been jailed for abusing white girls as young as 12.
The ‘sexual predators’ preyed on their victims over several months and threatened them with violence if they refused their advances.
One of the men branded his victim a “white b***h” when she resisted, while a second smirked, “I’ve used you and abused you.”
The men attacked the four girls in play areas, parks and in the back of their cars, Sheffield Crown Court heard. . . .
The five, Umar Razaq, 24, Razwan Razaq, 30, Zafran Ramzan, 21, Adil Hussain, 20, and Mohsin Khan, 21, were found guilty of a string of sexually related offences against the girls, one aged 12, two aged 13 and one aged 16.
Reid also cited another case in the Manchester area, where a 14-year-old runaway was a “sex slave” for an Asian gang. Nine men ages 25 to 33 – Asad Hassan, Mohammed Basharat, Mohammed Khan, Ahmed Noorzai, Mohammed Anwar Safi, Aftab Khan, Abid Khaliq, Mohammed Atif and Najibullah Safi — were convicted in that case.
According to Reid, “there is a controversial, but relevant, cultural issue. Asian men of Pakistani heritage often believe white girls have low morals compared with Muslim girls.” She quoted testimony in the Derbyshire case, when Saddique told the court: “These are girls I did not respect and these are girls who are just partying and taking drugs and we had consensual sex.”
[...]Last year, three men from the Keighley area – Mohammed Zackriya, 21, Mohammed Taj, 37, Mohammed Shabir, 36 — were convicted of sexually exploiting a 14-year-old.
Now I’m going to try to explain some factors that may be causing these events.
Why is this happening?
My hypothesis is two-fold.
- Feminism (which explains why the women were fatherless and vulnerable)
- Cultural relativism (which explains why the evil men were not challenged on their evil views)
Both of these have no stronger expression than in the United Kingdom, or perhaps in other European nations, which is why the problem is happening there more than here.
As I’ve documented many times before by citing feminist scholars, the goal of third-wave (gender) feminism is the destruction of marriage because of the “unequal” male/female roles inherent in marriage. Third-wave feminists pushed early sex education, recreational pre-marital sex and taxpayer-funded abortion as a way to de-couple sex from marriage. As I documented elsewhere by citing research, pre-marital sex reduces the stability of marriages, and the effect is increased depending on the number of pre-marital sex partners. Feminists deal with the marital instability they introduced by legislating no-fault divorce, punitive divorce courts, domestic violence laws that don’t recognize violence by women against men, bigger social programs, more welfare, taxpayer-funded abortions, taxpayer-funded day care, taxpayer-funded IVF, and taxpayer-funded public schools as a way of substituting government for fathers and marriage. The result is a 40% out-of-wedlock birth rate (72% in inner-cities) and boys and girls raised without fathers.
Feminism claims that men have no distinctive role as protector/provider/moral and spiritual leader. As a result, women influenced by feminism shun chivalry, and bypass men who excel in the traditional roles and who would make good husbands and fathers, and prefer to have the drama of “hook-ups” with “bad boys”, which their girl friends heartily approve of – based on pop culture standards. Male chastity, skill in defending Christianity with logic and evidence, knowledge of social/fiscal/foreign policy, a good resume, and a good portfolio mean nothing – because it’s the government’s job to provide/protect and teach morality/religion to children.
Good men, seeing that goodness is getting them nowhere sexually, will drop goodness like a hot potato and begin to act like bad boys. Naturally, these bad boys are not able to shoulder the burdens of the roles of husband and father, because they were never evaluated or selected to fill those roles. Men have no roles on feminism – so feminists have no way to tell one man from another except based on the most shallow soap-opera/Hollywood-celebrity level of “hotness”, “confidence” (appearance of confidence, not substance), and “chemistry”. Having to choose a man based on qualifications, and having to follow rules for courting, seems to many women to be too “strict” – by which they mean that reason and evidence should not be allowed to override their emotions and the expectations of their peer group.
Instead of preparing themselves morally for their role in the marriage, and testing men for the role they will play in the marriage, women instead amuse themselves with self-centered fashionable and entertaining causes/hobbies like yoga, vegetarianism, fiction and biographies, Dancing with the Stars, People magazine, animal rights alarmism, and climate change alarmism. Thus, their choice of man is going to be made based on selfishness and whimsy, not on the merits. But marrying a lazy, ignorant, cowardly man makes the marital stability situation even worse. Marriages don’t survive if neither the man or the woman is tested and selected for making self-sacrificial commitments to other people.
The real victims of marital instability are the innocent children of the selfish feminists. As a result, boys grow up without fathers, which increases their tendency to be poor students, poor workers and sexually aggressive, and girls grow up without fathers, which drastically lowers the age at which they have sex.
Cultural relativism is the idea that is very popular on the secular left that all cultures are basically equal. This is what is taught in public schools where the achievements of Western Civilization are minimized, especially with respect to the United States, while the practices of other cultures are lionized. This is done because of the liberal belief that wars are caused by disagreements. The way to remove disagreements (according to the left) is by bashing down what is really good (Western Civilization) and lifting up what is evil, so that every view becomes equally valid. Specific evils from other cultures, like burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands, are rationalized as either not being evil at all, or by being the fault of the good nations. The goal of the left is to make sure that no one is able to judge anything as right or wrong, so that no one will feel bad about being judged.
Cultural relativism also causes left-wing parties to open Western countries up to massive immigration by unskilled immigrants, or by the unskilled family members of skilled immigrants. The goal of the left here is to tilt the voting away from Western ideas like the rule of law, capitalism, property rights, personal responsibility, religious liberty, monogamy, etc. No attempt to teach the superiority of Western values and beliefs is made in the public schools, so that you can have unskilled immigrants collecting welfare as they protest the very society in which they are protected and supported by taxpayer dollars.
As a result, immigrant communities that are not assimilated through education in civics, economics, and American history can actually import the very cultural beliefs and practices that hold their countries back from liberty, prosperity and security. In fact, in the UK, they actually have a parallel system of sharia law. In Canada, polygamous marriages, with multiple spouses collecting welfare, is normal. Cultural relativism is a major plank of left-wing parties like the Democrats.
It’s very important to understand that the ways that men and women interact in these other countries is not the standard used in the West. Although the left has attacked the values of chastity, modesty and courting that were the staples of Western Civilization, many believing Jews and Christians still believe in modesty and chastity today. The Bible forbids fornication (pre-marital sex) and that standard is one of the major reasons why we have these elaborate courting rituals and this focus on love and marriage, although you would never know it by watching Hollywood movies that glorify emotion-based relationships that lead to pre-marital sex. It turns out that the left and the Islamic radicals are actually united in their denial of the ways of courting that are found in Western literature and art – both oppose chastity, both oppose chivalry, and both oppose the sanctity of marriage.
It’s interesting to note that the majority of young unmarried women support parties on the political left like the Democrats, who push feminism and cultural relativism. They are doing this to themselves, and often criticizing any man who dares to point out what the impact of their vote really is. Voting is not about feeling good, it’s about doing good.
Commenters – please keep it short and contest specific claims that I made, and link to evidence to support your challenge. I will just dig up evidence as needed to support my claims when you contest them, because I don’t want to copy everything from previous posts.