Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary in the Blair government is a war criminal who relayed to the nation about the mythical WMDs in Iraq, and now he has alleging another `truth’ about the so-called Pakistani cultural problem of rape. One must not forget that he is doing this as a representative of his loyal, Pakistani and Muslim, voters in Blackburn who have helped him to retain his seat in parliament. However, it seems that his remarks are aimed at appeasing the BNP (British National Party) and UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party), voters. Is Labour trying to regain some lost grounds?
The racist comments of Jack Straw alleging that some Pakistani men preying on white girls, because they are ‘easy meat’ has been swiftly condemned by his fellow Labour MP, Keith Vaz, who pointed out the inherent problem of stereotyping an entire community based on the actions of a few. The stats show that overwhelming number of rapists comes from the indigenous white population. On a more specific issue of gang rape there is a disproportionate representation from the Afro-Caribbean community1, does this mean it is a racial problem; nobody would dare say anything here and risk a riot. One can extend that logic to ask, why there is a disproportionate number of Jews involved in the porn industry, but for sure, it has nothing to do with the Torah. What about the serial killers who are predominantly from the white population, does this mean the entire white community have a case to answer. In fact, Mr Straw’s brother has been convicted for indecently assaulting a girl, in addition, his son has been convicted for supplying drugs2, applying his argument there is a inherent problem within his family.
One must also ask what Jack Straw was implying about the white girls; why are they available in the first place as easy meat? Why are those girls roaming the streets leaving themselves exposed to being exploited by any rapists? It would be helpful for Jack Straw to focus on the supply of ‘easy meat’ and not just the demand for it. The rapists are not selective about race. Those Pakistani men would not pass the opportunity, if their victims were Asians or of any other race. The Judge correctly concluded that the race of the perpetrators and the victims is entirely coincidental.
Therefore, the issue of rape is not about race or culture, but the values of the perpetrators. What went wrong here? Were those Pakistani men not fully integrated into the British society? From their appearance and actions, it is far more likely they are consuming alcohol in the pubs and frequenting the nightclubs in the weekend, rather than the Mosques (Masjid) listening to some bearded ‘fundamentalist’. Just ignore the racial element; they are like the typical BNP/EDL activists or the football hooligan. Had those Pakistani men been practising Muslims, such an act would have been highly unlikely. Maybe it is the wider community that needs to consider integrating with the Muslims and adopt our values. In such times of austerity, it would save millions, as the Muslims are not the ones found drunk on the streets every weekend placing a heavy toll on the Police and the NHS.
Now is a good time to reflect and consider the Islamic viewpoint on rape, which would argue that if you really cared about those women, you would punish the perpetrators adequately. Under Sharia Laws, rape is an act of war against society; those men would have been executed in public. For sure, rape would decline considerably if the society were made aware of the serious consequences; naturally, rape is rare in any Islamic society that is governed by the Sharia Laws and Islamic values. Dispensing such harsh punishment is a reflection of how Islam views the seriousness of the crime of violating a woman’s honour; such an act constitutes declaration of war on society. In contrast, the liberal punishments dispensed by free societies are a reflection of how little emphasis it puts on the honour of a woman. After all what’s the big deal about losing one’s virginity, since being a virgin has become an abnormal state in most liberal societies. Therefore, Sharia Laws are not barbaric; it actually protects the women by imposing harsh punishment on the perpetrator, whereas the liberal laws of a free society implicitly encourages rape, such laws are barbaric from the point of view of the victims.
Apart from the lenient laws, rape is also encouraged through the liberal values imposed in society; men and women are let loose under the culture of sexual freedom, naturally, the bull will seek to spread his seed as much as he can using his physical prowess. A healthy strong male would not pass the opportunity to implant his seed even by force, hence, numerous surveys have revealed that many men have spiked up the drinks to commit date rape. No matter how much the Muslims are lectured about women’s rights, issues of rape and other forms of exploitation exposes the hypocrisy of the West banging on about women’s rights, that there is little regard for women in terms of protecting her honour in a free society. The American soldiers did not invoke women’s rights bible when they continued to rape women and children in Abu Ghraib without remorse. This is expected from the US forces, as rape is rife within3, it reported in 2003 that one third of the women have been raped4. These soldiers are in turn reflecting the larger society where rape is common, where 1 in 6 women has experienced an attempted or completed rape5. One has to bear in mind that this only reflects from what has been reported to the authorities, the real figure is likely to be higher.
Yamin Zakaria (email@example.com)