“It’s been nearly 24 hours and Keir Starmer has not yet condemned the awful comments made by Mike Tapp,” writes Zack Polanski, leader of the Greens, “The Labour Party showing us exactly who they are.”
“This is a Labour minister,” says Owen Jones, also in reference to Tapp’s words, “What. The. Fuck.”
What did Mr Tapp say? Did he use racial slurs? Did he deny the Holocaust? Did he threaten to curb stomp an adorable kitten?
No. What Mr Tapp said was:
… we must identify and address any links between ethnicity, religion and culture — and child rape.
Now, it would be stupid or dishonest to deny the potential dangers of discussing such “links”. For example, it must be emphasised that there is no essential link here — i.e. having a certain background, whatever that background might be, does not give one a probable still less inevitable inclination towards criminality. Nor is there an exclusive link. Yes, most child rapists — and rapists in general — in the UK will be white men.
But neither of these points means that there is no link at all. There is, indeed, significant evidence of such links. There is (if you’ll forgive a slightly reductive argumentative structure):
— Evidence of criminal networks being encouraged in their development by the stark in-group/out-group dynamics of imported clan structures, reflecting Mirpuri culture.
— Evidence of anti-white animus among criminals, with victims being called “white slags” and “white whores” whose alleged sexual decadence made them fair game.
— The belief among some British Pakistani commentators that some members of the Pakistani community knew about the abuse and looked the other way, with Mohammed Shafiq, for example, writing, “Some British Pakistanis have deliberately buried their heads in the sand”.
— Evidence that authorities failed to investigate the problem in part because of the fear of being seen as racist or inflaming community relations.
To problematise investigation … is absurd denialism
All of this needs further investigation. (The third point is especially speculative.) But to problematise investigation to the point where it is framed not just as wrong but as a scandal which demands prime ministerial condemnation is absurd denialism — either purblind or opportunistic. Polanski and Jones are not just behaving as if the evidence that I have mentioned does not exist but as if it could not exist and as if even referencing the possibility is a malign provocation. This is the worst of political correctness — irrationally closing the borders of acceptable inquiry.
It’s worth mentioning that left-wing commentators have had no essential problem with the idea that culture and ethnicity can be factors in sex crimes. There has been a lot of academic research into how race influences child sex tourism — i.e. white Europeans abusing kids in the third world. Quite right too. I’m sure that the “othering” of poor and apparently “exotic” children have been factors in this appalling form of abuse. But why should such inquiries be prohibited when white people are the victims?
A charitable explanation is that people like Polanski and Jones think that asking questions which contain the potential for inegalitarian answers will legitimise the worst inegalitarian answers. Open the door to the idea that kinship networks might have enabled abusers, in other words, and the belief that all Pakistanis are criminals will barge in as well.
I disagree. Fail to have a sober and sensitive conversation — when there is substance for such a conversation, anyway — and a coarse, irrational argument will happen instead. Mainstream politicians and commentators ignored grooming gangs, for example, or were bullied for not doing so, and Tommy Robinson took their place. Anne Cryer was hectored. Jack Straw was hectored. Sarah Champion was hectored. How did that work out? Did the issue disappear?
This week, we are seeing headline after headline about Afghan rapists in the UK — a phenomenon which reflects their statistically disproportionate representation among sex criminals. Now, that disproportionate representation can be exaggerated. It reflects a small amount of all the sex crimes in the UK. But to ignore some kind of link — as if it’s unexpected from at least some of the men migrating from a country where rape victims are jailed or pressured into marrying their abusers — means that making such qualifications is impossible. The vacuum will be filled by rage and paranoia.
Like Chris Bayliss, I’m pretty sceptical about the prospects of a new inquiry into grooming gangs. It will not surprise me in the least if it is longer on process than substance. But the fact that even a nod to some — and I emphasise some — of the major implications of the scandal is enough for the likes of Jones and Polanski to hyperventilate is symptomatic of a culture that sustains its incurious egalitarian pretensions through the sheer force of social taboo.
Labour appears to have accepted that to some extent this is unsustainable. The thought police, in hungrily attempting to extend their powers, have lost their authority. They can blow their whistles but fewer people will listen.
