Why the media focus on race in the “child grooming” trial?, the Liberal Conspirators want to know.
Well, indeed. You didn’t see a lot of focus on race in this case from 2009, nor in this one from 2010, neither of which
is any less horrifying than the one that ended in Bradford today.
Evidence as presented by Ceops suggests that this kind of crime is more prevalent among Asian men, but you seldom hear angry demands that, say, alcohol-related violence be referred to as a white man's pastime. After all, I live in Scotland - up here, I'd be surprised if ethnic minorities account for even one percent of violent and/or sexual offences. That's one headline you never see in the Record.
I’ve written about this before and I'm going to have to repeat myself a bit here. The long and short of it is this - race is
presented so centrally in the Bradford trial because it has an attribute that the others
lacked, i.e. an opportunity to pin the blame on an unpopular bugbear and then
indulge in a bit of moral grandstanding.
From the get-go, every time this case has appeared in court, it’s been
accompanied by a rash of articles and reports decrying an all-pervading political correctness
that somehow prevents their authors talking about race and sexual abuse
– even while their authors are explicitly talking about race and sexual
abuse. Linking race and sexual abuse is taboo, an unmentionable truth,
a no-no, a sacred cow, the gorilla in the pantry or whatever, the hacks tell their
readers and viewers, and then they…
...explicitly link race and sexual abuse.
In fact, there have been numerous reports about apparent links between crime and race,
specifically relating to this case, in the Mail, the Times and the Guardian; on Channel Four
news and its accompanying website; in the Telegraph and on vast array of other
There have been announcements made on child grooming as a specifically Asian
problem by the Minister for Children; by the previous Home Secretary; by various
Members of Parliament; by the police Child Protection Centre, all of whom laid
out their opinions in the starkest possible fashion.
Elsewhere, it’s the hot
topic on blogs, newspaper websites and nutter hangouts, with every crackpot in
the land free to express his or her opinion as bluntly as he or she likes. A five-minute Google search proves this beyond doubt.
So, whither the PC Brigade, when it can't even suppress such a sensational story? Well, maybe that question contains its own logical answer.
I'd contend that the target of these pieces isn’t Asian men, as has been darkly hinted today. Nor is it Muslims or any specific
minority, and it isn't even child abusers as such. The target is the British public, and more specifically its perpetually
offended reflex of victimhood, injustice and persecution, which is the
vein you absolutely must hit if you want to sell newspapers.
In this, it’s no different at all to stories about women having a billion kids so
they can claim council houses or Britain’s Got Talent contestants claiming
disability allowance, both with the assistance of our overweening
culture of soft-touch blah blah whatever.
Both give the reader 1) indefensible villains to villify; 2) a context of
your-money-funded villain-coddling to rail against and 3) a very personal sense of wounded outrage and resentment to nurse and stroke… thus bringing the
reader back to buy the paper again the next day, to find out what else
they are not allowed to hear about. It's the Great British media business strategy, all on one page!
All-white child abuse rings can’t really be sold to this market and indeed, haven't been. They don’t
trip the right switches or spark the same emotional response, although their crimes are equally heinous.
If a bunch of white men abuse a group of children,
nobody can pretend that the abusers are somehow protected by a nebulous
political correctness; nobody can credibly feign concern that they themselves could face a
recriminations simply for raising the perpetrators' ethnicity as a negative. It’s just a depressing
reminder that there are large numbers of evil fucks out there, and it’s hard to
make money by depressing your readers and making them feel helpless.
Asian men abusing kids, though – that can easily be reconciled into a
pre-existing freakout about PC Gone Mad/Overindulgence of criminals/Reluctance
to criticise ethnic minorities/Discrimination against white people or any number
of similarly retarded, tabloid-fodder stories. It stokes anger and indignation.
Indignation sells bucketloads!
Summary: The targets here aren’t Asians, or criminal-coddling
libruls or even sex offenders and really, you'd think it'd be the sex offenders part that is of primary importance.
The targets here are sales targets. If that means making race a
critical factor where its relevance is debatable and pretending to be terrified of
some non-existent, never-occurring Vengeance Of Tha PC Brigade… Well then, that’s what it takes. Ker-Ching!
Don’t imagine that everything you see and hear is about politics, folks. It isn’t. Newspapers and politicians have motivations that supercede the need to push particular party lines.
Even the Express
is first and foremost a business, and even the Mail would gladly tell its readers tomorrow that labour unions
are awesome or that knife-wielding hoodies are lovely, if those stories sold better than
fostering resentment does.
And hey, with the Sun and the Mail as the nation's most popular newspapers, I think we're past the point where we can doubt which business model shifts more units.
As to whether cashing in on the public's perfectly justified outrage over organised sexual abuse of vulnerable children is a morally reprehensible behaviour or not... Well, I suppose that if they didn't do it, somebody else would, but let's leave that question for another day.