The word “race” is used instead of “religion”, and the word “Asian” is used instead of “Muslim”.
What made South Yorkshire perhaps more politically charged is that in many cases the victims were underage white girls and the perpetrators were Asian men.
There were other abuse cases – in Oxford and Telford – with the same mix of ethnicities.
The far right had a field day with slogans which cast Muslim men as dangerous paedophiles. The tabloids leapt on remarks made in 2012 by the judge in a widely reported Rochdale case, Gerald Clifton, who in sentencing nine Asian men for 77 years for abusing and raping up to 47 girls said: “I believe one of the factors which led to that is that they [the victims] were not of your community or religion.”
Andrew Norfolk, the Times’s dogged and brilliant reporter who broke the story in Rochdale, has always said the “overwhelming majority of child abusers in this country are white men acting on their own”.
However, his own analysis was that race was important to discuss because council staff feared “treading into a cultural minefield”.
The report accepts that the concern of being labelled a racist did mean people pulled back from probing too deeply.
However, there must be an acceptance that perpetrators were criminals rather than Muslims. (on what grounds? -Dalwhinnie) Surely the crime of a young girl being raped should have led officials to act, whatever the colour of the skin of her assailant?
Apparently, not if it concerns Muslims acting as Muslims do.
Second point, Islam is not about skin colour! It is a religion (or totalitarian political ideology, as I believe it to be). It is not a race, a skin colour, or an ethnicity. Even in the midst of the revelations, the reluctance of the political Left to confront Islam constitutes my principal reason why I think the Left is in bad faith.