“Easy Meat” Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery Peter McLoughlin ○c Peter McLoughlin 2014 The PDF (Postscript Document Format) version of this document may be freely distributed. Printed copies of this document may only be distributed by Law And Freedom Foundation. Cover photo By Linsenhejhej (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons:wikimedia:org/wiki/File:Autistic_teenage_girl:jpg publishing history first edition March 2014 Contents 1. Introduction........................ 12 2. The Grooming Gang Phenomenon............ 22 2.1 Defining the Problem............... 30 2.2 Tip of the Iceberg................. 34 2.3 Invisible Victims.................. 36 2.4 National Dimensions............... 39 2.5 International Dimensions............. 41 2.7 Counting the Victims............... 44 2.8 Realising the Damage............... 47 3. Sikh Victims of Grooming Gangs............. 53 4. Chronology: Cover-up to Collapse............ 60 4.1 1988 Sikh/Muslim violence............ 62 4.2 1989 Sikhs convicted............... 64 4.3 1991 “The earliest case...”............ 65 4.4 1995 Bradford: Streets and Lanes ........ 67 4.5 1996 Rotherham.................. 69 4.6 1998 Sikh Awareness Society starts........ 71 4.7 2001 Derby and “Real Caliphate”........ 73 4.8 2003 Bradford/Keighley............. 74 4.9 2004 Edge of the City............... 77 4.10 2005 Radio 5 programme............. 81 4.11 2005 Luton and “Real Caliphate”......... 83 4.12 2007 Julie Bindel: a lone voice.......... 85 4.13 2008 My Dangerous Loverboy.......... 87 4.14 2008 BBC Panorama: Teenage Sex For Sale... 91 4.15 2009 Rise of English Defence League...... 97 4.16 2011 Andrew Norfolk’s pivotal article...... 99 3 5. Systemic Institutional Failure............... 102 5.1 Schools...................... 105 5.2 Local Councils.................. 109 5.3 Police....................... 121 5.4 Criminal Justice System............. 127 5.5 Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. 136 5.6 Serious Organised Crime Agency......... 151 5.7 Children’s Commissioner............. 157 5.8 Home Affairs Select Committee......... 173 5.9 Barnardo’s .................... 180 5.10 Academic Experts................. 190 6. Abuse of the Narrative of Racism............. 201 6.1 Political Correctness................ 201 6.2 Muslims, not “Asians”............... 204 6.3 “Racism” Protected the Rapists.......... 206 6.4 Racist Aspects of Grooming............ 214 7. Islamic Cultural Background............... 222 7.1 “Asian gang”: racist duplicity........... 223 7.2 Islamic Morality, Muslim Culture......... 232 7.3 Koranic Instructions................ 235 7.4 Stories from the Hadith.............. 247 7.5 The Life of Mohammed (Sira)........... 248 7.6 Sharia Law: Child Marriage............ 251 7.7 Sharia Law: Legality of Slavery.......... 255 8. The Scale of the Problem................. 269 9. Victims of Multiculturalism............... 297 10. Conclusion........................ 310 11. Appendix 1: Grooming Gang Convictions........ 320 12. Appendix 2: Grooming Gang Chronology........ 323 13. Appendix 3: Name Distribution of Convicts....... 324 14. Appendix 4: Leeds School Warning........... 325 15. Appendix 5: Sheffield School Warning......... 326 16. Appendix 6: Real Khilafah - Letter to Moslem Youth.. 327 17. Appendix 7: Luton Article on Real Khilafah...... 328 18. Appendix 8: Children’s Commissioner Charts..... 329 19. Appendix 9: Victims to Perpetrators.......... 330 17. Appendix 10: Police Report on EDL.......... 331 20. Appendix 11: Transcription Real Khilafa Letter.... 332 Foreword This is a shocking report. It is written with care, but the evidence is hard to believe. Readers should beware, because there is something to feel angry about on most pages: the prevalence of the crime; the length of time that it has continued; its blatancy; the lengths our authorities have gone to in order to cover up for it; but most of all, the vulnerability and suffering of the victims. That anger is going to spread as awareness of this crime spreads. Denial and damage limitation won’t work any more. It is hard to think of something more calculated to incite public violence than the targeting of native girls for rape by an immigrant population. The use of inter communal rape in the most savage territorial conflicts testifies to its perception as a weapon, and the fear of it evokes the most primal instincts. And this is the basis for our plea to our civil authorities to stamp out this crime by any lawful means: if the suffering of the victims can’t motivate you, then consider the threat to your grip on power. Vigilante violence disables its own society, and is one of the short-cuts from Queen’s peace to all-against-all. The self-appointed doer of justice tears a hole in the entire fabric of the law. He is accountable to no one, and if his violence can be inflicted on child rapists then thieves and debtors will be next. The danger of vigilante justice. Let me tell a story, some hypothetical events to illustrate how quickly power can spin out of the authorities’ hands. It may be argued that the situation is too violent, but violence is what happens when ethnic hostility meets civil disorder. I have tried to underplay the descriptions, to assuage the sensitive. I hope the passage of time won’t reproach me for failing to point out the dangers in clear enough words. 6 Suppose a group of former soldiers, with weapons and intelligence training, are bored with their post-service jobs for security companies and print shops, and tired of the pub going which keeps them in touch with each other and with what bestowed a sense of pride and purpose. Their patriotism is frustrated by their impotence in the face of predatory criminality. They gained a none-too-rosy view of Islamic culture during their tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, and its presence in Britain has become a frequent topic of conversation. Fuelled by beer and boredom, their conversation turns to outrage at the failure to eradicate child rape gangs, and to boasts about how quickly they could eradicate them. One of them points out the number of Muslims among those convicted for grooming crimes, relative to the proportion of Muslims in Britain: he’s been looking through the convictions and realised that almost everyone convicted for these crimes has a Muslim name, when Muslims are only 5% of the population. They do some quick calculations, and conclude that Muslims are 154 times likelier to be perpetrators of these crimes than non-Muslims.1 Another points out that it’s worse than that: there’s not been one case where the victim was a Muslim and the paedophiles 1 Some of the calculations get lost in the bar room hubbub, but they were as follows: muslims made up 89% of offenders from the most reliable lists, i.e. the lists of convic- tions as compiled by Andrew Norfolk, where guilt and innocence had been tested in the glare of a courtroom, uninfluenced by the professional self interest of social work- ers’ feedback forms. But muslims made up 5% of the population. Their calculations were: The likelihood of individual Muslims to commit this offence is: 89 ÷ 5% = 1;780:00 The likelihood of individual non-Muslims to commit this offence is: 11 ÷ 95% = 11:58 So the likelihood of individual Muslims to commit this offence, compared to individ- ual non Muslims, is: 1;780 ÷ 11:58 = 153:73 I.e. Muslims are roughly 154 times more likely than non-Muslims to commit this crime. There is some squabbling, and much mathematical to-ing and fro-ing, as to whether the figure can really be so steep. But, after much swearing at mobile phone calculator apps, that is the figure settled on... 7 were non-Muslims. “They’re raping our kids, we’re not raping their kids. There’s something wrong with Muslims,” he says. They say they could put an end to this problem. They mean if they were given the chance, like. Infuriated by each new crop of bearded paedophiles glowering from the front pages, their talk becomes more sober and less boastful. Prompted a few weeks later by reports of a particularly incompetent police investigation, idle talk turns to not-so-idle planning. Tipped off by a disillusioned child protection worker or police officer as to the location of a B n’ B establishment used for this crime, they decide to put their plans into action. Instead of planning a reprisal raid – as one or two Sikh groups appear to have done in response to the abuse of Sikh girls – they decide that prevention is better than cure. Acting on information received, they surveil the premises, noting when the 13 year old girl is led into the building, and when the clients follow. One evening they lay in wait, force their way inside the building, and into the room where a semi comatose girl is held. A terrible massacre follows: they shoot dead all the men in that room, without warning, at point blank range. They are caught, arrested, charged with murder, and plead not guilty. The appalling aftermath leaves no room to deny the killings. So, at trial, they admit the facts but claim their actions were justified because they were done in the prevention of a crime. The prosecution are left with the unenviable task of rebutting this defence beyond reasonable doubt, and argue that the Defendants’ actions were not “reasonable in all the circumstances” because lesser force would have sufficed. 8 The Defendants cite the fact that American states specifically sanction citizens’ use of “deadly force” against home invasion, whether or not the life of the householder is threatened, and even in some car chases. Similar laws have been proposed for this country in the case of burglary, and would enjoy substantial public support. They argue that most people agree that the gang rape of children is more serious than burglary.