Britain Finally Admits It Covered Up Its Pakistani Gang Rapist Problem

A dozen years ago, I wrote about how British elites were hiding the Pakistani grooming gangs to not be racist.

Britain’s Labour Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told Parliament on Monday that the Baroness Casey Report on Britain’s “grooming gangs” scandals reveals:

But on the key issues of ethnicity that I had asked her to examine, she has found continued failure to gather proper robust national data, despite concerns being raised going back very many years. In the local data that the audit examined from 3 police forces they identify clear evidence of over-representation among suspects of Asian and Pakistani-heritage men. And she refers to “examples of organisations avoiding the topic altogether for fear of appearing racist or raising community tensions”.

Mr Speaker, these findings are deeply disturbing.

But most disturbing of all, as Baroness Casey makes clear, is the fact that too many of these findings are not new.

As her audit sets out, there have been 15 years of reports, reviews, inquiries and investigations into these appalling rapes, exploitation and violent crimes against children – detailed over 17 pages in her report – but too little has changed.

We have lost more than a decade. That must end now.

Here’s a Taki’s Magazine column I wrote in 2013, a year before the Rotherham scandal broke.

The Real Threat to British Elites

Steve Sailer

June 05, 2013

Recent incidents of Muslims behaving badly — such as the butchering of British soldier Lee Rigby by two Islamic-convert African immigrants, the riots in Stockholm, and the never-ending revelations about numerous Pakistani pimps “grooming” very young white English girls for being gang-banged by their relatives — has European elites terrified…of European commoners.

For example, last week the European Parliament secretly voted to retroactively strip French nationalist Marine Le Pen, who won 17.9% of the national vote in the first round of the 2012 presidential election, of parliamentary immunity for comments made during her successful campaign for a law against prostration in the streets of France, opening her to prosecution for “hate speech.”

Similarly, the frequently feckless English police responded to the carnage in Woolwich by arresting social-media users.

British leaders repeatedly swept the Muslim statutory gang-rapist phenomenon under the rug for over a decade. Way back in 2001, Nick Griffin of the British National Party began to point out that Pakistani pimps in Britain were targeting white girls under 16.

It’s most useful to think of this practice not so much as pedophilia — a bizarre fetish — but as economically rational whoremastering. Pakistani pimps focus on recruiting very young postpubescent English girls because they are so naive.

As we’ve seen in recent years, Muslim male-chauvinist cultures that treat females like dirt tend to nurture males who have a knack for living off women’s earnings. Thus, Albanian pimps have come to dominate the European sex-slave trade. And the various Chechen layabouts who have been in the news in America since the Boston bombing have displayed a remarkable gift for getting attractive women to throw their lives away on them.

In contrast, women-respecting Swedes seldom make talented pimps.

In the many Pakistani grooming cases in England, Ali G types would convince silly little white girls that they were their boyfriends, provide them with drugs, then browbeat them into proving their love by having sex at a party with all the pimps’ Uncle Jamaals.

The genius of the system is that the pimps don’t pay the girls, not even their room and board. After each party, they dump them back at their moms’ council flats.

Is this rape?

Of course. These girls are adolescents, far too young to give consent to being gang-banged.

Is it racial?

Feminist Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 bestseller Against Our Will famously argued that “rape is a crime not of lust, but power.” That’s obviously missing much of the point. And yet conquest and rape seem to go together.

It might seem insane that this kind of Bronze Age predatory pattern would work so well in a sophisticated country such as England, but that’s exactly why it worked: Noticing patterns is now derided as “stereotyping.”

Moreover, the highest priority in Europe is to never provide any fodder for right-wing organizations. Thus, a decade ago when a Channel 4 documentary crew working on a snoozer about social workers in Bradford stumbled upon this widespread practice, the police insisted that Channel 4 postpone the documentary because it might help the BNP in upcoming elections. The network complied.

Slowly, very slowly, it has become ever so slightly more respectable to mention this horrific practice. In 2011, former Labour government Home Secretary Jack Straw spoke out gingerly after two pimps were convicted:

“Pakistanis, let’s be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offenses, 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.”

The Guardian tut-tutted:

“The former home secretary Jack Straw has been accused of stereotyping Pakistani men in Britain after he accused some of them as regarding white girls as “easy meat” for sexual abuse.”

In the Tory Telegraph last month, Sean Thomas wrote about Nick Griffin’s role:

“As long ago as 2001, Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, was making claims about Asian grooming gangs. In 2004 he repeated these allegations in a speech clandestinely recorded by the BBC for a TV documentary, Secret Agent. He was arrested and charged with inciting racial hatred.”

So Griffin is a hero for risking prison to alert the nation to this horrific pattern of abuse? Wrong. According to The Telegraph, when you stop and think about it, the decade’s delay was mostly Griffin’s fault:

“No doubt Griffin feels vindicated today: for telling the truth before anyone else. And yet, paradoxically, it was his thuggish intervention that gave society another excuse to ignore the scandal. And thus the abuse continued.”

Strikingly, the Pakistani pimps and johns seem astonished that anybody would object to their behavior. If the girls’ parents cared about protecting their daughters, in their view, they would keep them locked up at home like good Muslims do.

The pimps seemed convinced that since their victims’ families haven’t organized lethal vendettas against them like any honorable Pakistani family would, they must not have cared.

Moreover, since the English people hadn’t carried out mass communal violence, such as burning down Pakistani neighborhoods in the time-honored South Asian manner, clearly they didn’t mind.

And if the English government didn’t want Pakistanis to act Pakistani, they wouldn’t let them into England, now would they?

You have to admit the defendants have a point.

It’s difficult for Americans to grasp precisely why European elites are so terrified of populist organizations such as the BNP or the ascendant English Defence League that they instinctively cover up the crimes of barbaric foreigners.

A major difference between the US and Europe is that almost every European country has a rudimentary set of localist/nationalist organizations for young men already in place due to the more organic nature of sports over there.

The English Defence League, for example, emerged in part out of soccer hooligan firms.

Note that in the World Cup quadrennial soccer tournament, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all compete separately: This gives the newer English Defence League an advantage in striving against the older British National Party for the loyalties of young English soccer fans. The appeal of Britain is in decline with the winding down of the conflict in Northern Ireland, so England is increasingly the locus of natural loyalties.

In the US, however, spectator sports were organized from the top of society down, which has largely kept them from being a vehicle for mass populism. For example, American football evolved among rivalries between universities with national pretensions: Harvard v. Yale, Army v. Navy, and Notre Dame v. USC.

Similarly, professional sports in the US always had a strongly corporate, upper-middle-class air. For instance, the most celebrated game in professional football history, Broadway Joe Namath’s New York Jets’ victory over the Baltimore Colts in the 1969 Super Bowl, was a victory for the national media’s home team.

In the 1890s, baseball’s sole major league, the National League, was being taken over by Irish brawlers such as the crafty John McGraw of the Baltimore Orioles. Thus, ballparks attracted a lower class of fan. In 1901 entrepreneur Ban Johnson founded the rival American League to provide a more honest and gentlemanly version of the game that would appeal to WASP and German-American families. Johnson’s league has remained dominant for most of the last eleven decades.

In contrast, European soccer clubs mostly emerged from their indigenous communities. European soccer teams sponsored local youth leagues that served as feeder systems for talent. American college basketball coaches, though, are lauded not for their training, but for scouring distant slums to recruit genetically gifted one-and-done stars.

In recent decades, European soccer has been corporatized, with importation of South American superstars and fairly successful efforts to suppress hooliganism by making the spectator experience more genteel, like that of American football. Still, unlike American sports, soccer furnishes the skeleton of a system by which nationalist loyalties could potentially be organized.

This scares European elites. To them, Pakistanis are no challenge. Sure, they’re good at gang-raping little girls, but they’re hardly a threat to the establishment. It’s European men — with their talent for self-organization — who frighten Europe’s ruling class.