Richard Stratton is the author of Kingpin: Prisoner of the War on Drugs, and previously wrote Smuggler’s Blues: A True Story of the Hippie Mafia. both published by Arcade Publishing.
Tarek Fatah was born in Pakistan, he lives in Canadian now where he is a writer, broadcaster, activist, and writes a weekly column for the Toronto Sun. In our conversation, he mentioned some Muslims naming their children after Timur.
There’s a video that you should see.
It’s a drama made by the BBC, the British national broadcaster. I’m not sure how or when it will be shown outside the UK, but there are loads of clips online, I’ve even seen that on YouTube there are the whole of the three hour-long episodes, I’m not sure how legal that is, or how long they will stay up, but I’m sure you can find it on some service or other.
Another challenge, if you’re not from the UK, you might find some of the accents a bit of a challenge, so maybe try with subtitles; the reason for that is that it’s set in the northern English town of Rochdale.
Rochdale is a town close to Manchester, it’s got a population of about 100,000, and about a quarter of its population is of Asian origin, although measuring that is a bit tricky, it depends on whether you count just the town or the wider metro area, since Asians tend to live more centrally in the town.
And Rochdale is poor. And that is central to the video you should see. The video is a drama, it’s in three hour-long episodes, it’s called Three Girls, and the title characters are three young teenagers from Rochdale. They represent, according to the British government enquiry, more than 1,400 girls – I’m going to pause for you to take that number in, more than 1,400 girls who were sexually abused by men who chatted them up, gave them fast food, alcohol, sometimes drugs, and gained influence over them – what is called grooming. And having gained influence, they sexually abused the girls, raped them, and in some cases rented them out to be raped by other men.
This went on for years, and as well as the abuse on the girls, the drama looks at how the authorities reacted to what was going on. Most, but not all of the girls, came from quite poor backgrounds, some of them had chaotic lives, were alienated from their parents, in other words they didn’t have a strong adult presence protecting them.
The drama follows one community health worker who repeatedly reported the child abuse and rapes to the police, but they took little effective action, and the scandal, since exposed in a government report, was that two attitudes let this go on for years, although many men have now been convicted in relation to the case.
The first is that all of the perpetrators were Muslim men from a Pakistani or Afghan background and all the victims that we know of were white.
The second is that the girls didn’t look like middle class, well-spoken A-students. Some of them drank, had sex, stayed out late.
The combination of these two factors, it seems, paralyzed the authorities. They were so afraid of being seen to be racist, that they were walking on eggshells any time they dealt with ethnic minorities. They were anxious to find any other explanation than the obvious one, that hundreds of girls were being abused and raped. And there was one explanation that suited them. Many of the girls were not perfect candidates to be seen as blameless victims by a jury.
One scene in the film shows a police officer referring to the girls as underage prostitutes. The health worker replies that there is no such thing as an underage prostitute, she says that they are abuse victims.
There are two things to take away from this. The first is that victims are not always perfect. In this case, I would guess, the abusers targeted them for that exact reason. But they are still victims, and they still deserve justice. Justice is not justice if it’s not justice for all.
The second is that being against racism can’t mean being against reality. Some crimes are prosecuted in a racist way, there is no doubt about it. White and Black Americans use and sell marijuana in much the same proportions, but blacks are vastly more likely to be arrested for it.
But where crimes do follow a racial pattern there is nothing wrong with talking about that, and nothing wrong with acting on it.
And the third point is that some racial or cultural or religious practices – whatever you want to call it – are just disgusting and should be simply rejected. I don’t think you can get away from the fact that aspects of Islam are misogynistic, and that is connected with the abuse of women and girls, and that can be seen in many Islamic countries, and in the pattern of crimes that are committed by some immigrants from those countries.
Anyone who thinks that respecting diversity should mean not prosecuting those crimes to the full should take a long look at themselves.
One last thing, it’s notable that the prosecutor who overturned the original decision not to prosecute these rapists was a guy called Nazir Afzal, a first generation Pakistani immigrant, and I take two things away from that. First that not all Pakistani men are bad, and secondly, that there is no excuse for the ones who are.
Anyway go and look it up and watch the drama, it’s called Three girls.
There are show notes from my interview with Rebecca Lemke with Part 1 of this interview.
I don’t like Julian Assange. I don’t know Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, and I probably shouldn’t make a judgment on him as a person based on what I see of him through the media, but my impression is that I wouldn’t like him as a person.
I get the impression that he is too self-important, too convinced of his own centrality to the story; I feel like he would be the sort of person who just talk about himself all the time. I don’t have any evidence for that, I suppose I’m the sort of person a defense lawyer should exclude from a jury for not coming with an open mind.
I shouldn’t have that impression, I shouldn’t have any impression given that you can never know somebody through their media persona, so I’m probably wrong to feel it, I’m probably wrong to feel anything, however I don’t feel like I like Julian Assange. That’s just it.
But. I really like the idea of Julian Assange. I like the way that he has exposed so many people’s hypocrisy.
If you remember back when he first became prominent, he was publishing anything that seemed like it was relevant to shining a light where democracy needed it. In 2007 – a decade ago, now – Wikileaks published a huge archive of evidence of corruption in Kenya, where the government was stealing billions from the people of that poor African country. The result was major political change there. Sunshine really was disinfectant.
Then Wikileaks published first the collateral murder video, and later the Afghan and Iraqi War logs, Diplomatic cables, Guantanamo Bay files and more, that we now know was passed on by Chelsea, then Bradley Manning. Anti-war people were delighted.
Conservatives, not so much. People who thought they loved freedom of speech suddenly weren’t so concerned with constitutional rights. Time magazine writer Michael Grunwald tweeted “I can’t wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange”
Sarah Palin called Assange “an anti-American operative with blood on his hands“, which was of course nothing to do with her illegal use of a Yahoo mail account, the contents of which Assange published when it inevitably got hacked.
Then, in mysterious circumstances, Assange was put under investigation for an alleged rape in Sweden. He wasn’t charged or even formally accused, but Swedish authorities wanted to question him; he was already back in Britain, and despite offering to submit to questioning by the UK police, or even by Swedish police at the Swedish embassy in London, both the Swedish police and the British courts have insisted that he should be extradited to Sweden; just to be questioned, not even to be charged.
Assange said that this was a ruse to get him somewhere from where he could be extradited to the US. Neither the UK nor the Swedish governments would specifically deny this. And then there was the question of the strange way in which he was supposed to have raped the women. The rape consisted of not wearing a condom when he had agreed to do so, rather than having sex without consent, and there seemed to be evidence that the alleged victims were happy to socialize with Assange after the incident.
Men’s rights advocates forcefully made the point that Sweden defines and categorizes and counts rape in a very way different to most countries, this is down to pressure from feminists. The Assange case, they say, proves that innocent men are being accused of rapes that didn’t happen.
But that was way back in 2012. How times have changed.
Last year, somebody hacked the DNC email servers and somebody – somebody whose name begins with P and ends with utin – gave all that information, or as much of it as suited him, to Assange who published it on Wikileaks.
This did the Clinton campaign no end of harm, and all of a sudden the right in the US thought that publishing hacked emails was a fine thing to do. No more talk of drone strikes, Sarah Palin even publicly apologized to Assange and praised him for doing to Hillary Clinton what she had called for him to be murdered for when he did it to her, to Palin.
And the left is now curiously silent about their former hero, they’re not nearly such enthusiastic supporters now that it seems that Assange played a part in putting Trump in the White House.
But the biggest hypocrites of all are the Men’s Rights advocates who five years ago raged against the Swedish justice system. Five years later Europe has had the refugee crisis, and it has become an article of faith amongst the MRA, which has morphed into the alt-right, that refugees are responsible for a hugely disproportionate number of rapes and sexual assaults, and that because Sweden accepted a relatively large number of refugees, that must be causing an epidemic of rape there.
First, there is clear evidence that that’s untrue. But secondly, I just love how they’ve flipped from saying that Sweden enforces rapes laws far too strictly, to saying that they are far too lax.
So that’s the Julian Assange that I like. Not the person Julian Assange. The Julian Assange who exposes the hypocrisy of so many people right across the political spectrum.
I mentioned obesity statistics from the Centres for Disease Control:
- Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years.
- The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 18% in 2012. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increased from 5% to nearly 21% over the same period.
- In 2012, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.
The Harvard School of Public Health says that young people are getting up to 30 per cent of their daily calories requirement from soft drinks. Beverage companies in the US spent roughly $3.2 billion marketing carbonated beverages in 2006, with nearly a half billion dollars of that marketing aimed directly at children.
Since the 1970s the proportion of calories from sugary drinks more than doubled from 4 per cent to 9 per cent.
Economics push food companies to include more sugar in products to increase profits. Since the 1980s, the price of supermarket sugar has doubled, the price of candy bars have quadrupled, but the price of raw sugar has declined, and is set to decline further.
A literature review by the National Institutes of Health indicates that sugary drinks are particularly problematic because the body doesn’t register their calories the way it does for calories eaten, so despite the sugar intake, people still feel hungry.
The British Medical Association’s study in the BMJ reported that purchases of taxed beverages decreased by an average of 6%, and decreased at an increasing rate up to a 12% decline by December 2014, comparted to what they would otherwise have been. Reductions were higher among the households of low socioeconomic status, averaging a 9% decline during 2014, and up to a 17% decrease by December 2014 compared with pretax trends.
In our discussion, we talked about Purity Culture and its disadvantages, and its thought leaders including Josh Harris, who wrote I Kissed Dating Goodbye, and Bill Gothard who advocates total gender separation before marriage.
I mentioned The Loophole by Garfunkel and Oates, which is very NSFW.
I’ve been looking at the news coming out of the white house and thinking of something that the alt-right blogger, Vox Day predicted about the way that the news media would report goings on in the Trump administration. Recently we’ve had the firing of F.B.I. Director James Comey, before that we’ve had the reported rivalry between Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon, the firing of Michael Flynn, and if I was Seán Spicer, I wouldn’t be making any long term career plans just yet.
I actually sort of agree with Vox Day there, that turbulence is not a sign of failure, and that trying things and dropping them quickly if they don’t work is a good management strategy. People can laugh at Trump Steaks and Trump Vodka, but Trump is rich. Sure, he’s tried a lot of businesses that didn’t work out, but on the whole he has ended up way ahead. One of the reasons that he’s still rich was that he didn’t cleave on to failing businesses. And that’s a good strategy.
Nobody can expect to never make a mistake. But if you are the sort of person to recognise when you are doing something wrong and stop, then you are more likely to be successful.
But hang on. Sure, giving up on lost causes is a good idea. It reduces losses. But just reducing losses isn’t enough. If you want to successful, you have to also have some wins.
Trump made big promises during the election campaign. That was one of the reasons that he won, other politicians were nervous to make big promises because their political experience told them to be cautious in what they promised.
Trump promised big, not just his specific promises like the wall, but other more implied ones like bringing work back to the rust belt from China or Mexico or wherever. There are going to be a lot of very annoyed people if those promises don’t follow through; the message from the White House that all the personnel stories are side shows. Maybe they are, but if Trump doesn’t put a performance on the main stage, that might not be enough of a line to tell for too much longer.
In our discussion, we referred to the Backfire Effect which was documented in a study by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, which found that people with invested political opinions tend to believe them even more strongly when confronted with refuting evidence.
We also talked about a Fairleigh Dickinson University study which showed that Fox News and MSNBC viewers not only scored much lower on their knowledge of current affairs than viewers of other news sources, but also scored lower than people who did not watch any news at all.
This is a story about Spocko in the New York Times, and a clip about the TPP. This is a story about Spoco says Rush Limbaugh’s distributors hate him, and his take on Rupert Murdoch (in front of his shareholders) for why he kept Glenn Beck on TV while he was losing money for Fox News.
Claire Berlinski is a journalist, academic and author. She has lived and worked in Thailand, Laos, Turkey and France, an an academic for the American Foreign Policy Council and the Manhattan Institute.
In our discussion I mentioned that, among Trump supporters, a huge proportion think that he is performing well in his first weeks in the job, and that he has strong backing from voters in areas such as Macomb County, who previously twice backed Obama but swung Michigan for the GOP last November.
This is Pascal’s Wager that Julie mentioned, and this is a trailer for Philomenia, the story of an Irish woman who had her child kidnapped and sold into adoption while she was incarcerated in a church-run institution. These are articles about Mary Merritt, whose story I mentioned. This is the trailer for Spotlight, about the cover-up of sexual abuse in the Boston Archdiocese.