Rochdale grooming trial: Nine men jailed

[bamalama]

potentially warrants a new thread

Do it.Better than reading page after page about religious dietry shite...

 

[Das Uberdog]

done it, if anyone's interested

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ty-politics-attitudes-of-progressives.293453/

 

[ViolentPanda]

What the hell, I've decided to labour the point. Perhaps it'll inject something new into the thread.

I didn't think it necessary to say until now, but I should make it clear that I do not think race is valid a scientific category; it is neither consistent nor reliable nor reproducible. It is instead a social construct.

It's not even been taken seriously as a sociological category for the last 40 years, hence so much of the literature since the '70s putting the word in " "s, what the youngster now touchingly call "scare quotes". They know that even as a social construction, race isn't a valid category - it's far too amorphous and open to interpretation as to what the category contains and defines, hence the seemingly "politically correct" shift to attempts at classification by ethno-cultural allegiance as well as nationality, for example.

However, that is not the same as saying that it is unreal. Racial differences are a fact of life. The question is how to respond that. I think antiracism has taken a wrong turn.

There is now in what passes as antiracism a trend that demands we treat people differently. It says that respecting difference means that someone’s culture, ethnicity, religion and so on are so fundamental to their being, that we must treat them not according to universalised principles, but according to the internal mores of each individual culture.

I'm sure I remember Stuart Hall arguing against this way back in the days of rampant identity politics in the '80s. His contention (I think he was replying to a letter or an article in New Society) was that respect should only ever extend as far as legislative rule allowed, because otherwise de facto sanction would be given to practices would transgress it.
And of course, the mess that identity politics became are part of what informs the current approach.

The big cause is to seek and protect cultural “authenticity”. Often this is an ersatz authenticity. I saw a programme on TV some time ago in which people were using mitochondrial DNA to trace their haplogroups. British people were tracing back their genetic ancestry. In one episode, some black Britons traced their genetic origins to specific areas of Africa. They had not known they had any connection with these specific areas before, nor of the culture of the area. But they came away saying that they had found out something about their own cultural identity. This is the sort of thing I meant when I said that there is a tendency to view cultural identity as a biological phenomenon.
I submit that these people were mistaken in thinking they’d discovered anything about their cultural identity. Cultural identity is passed socially, not by mDNA. This is the biologicalisation of the politics of difference. This is what makes distinguishing racism from antiracism increasingly difficult.

You live your cultural identity. You live IN your biological heritage, quite literally.
The problem with this biologicisation of "race" is that it's an old trope that's been with us since at least late-medieval times, wearing various sets of clothes from religious vestments to a lab coat. It's an easy argument to make because it for some it sounds right, it can sound fitting in any society that's hierarchic.

This fetishism of “authenticity” (however ersatz) has been amongst the causes that propelled the most conservative sections of minority communities back to prominence, allowing them to reassert their reactionary impulses at the expense of more vulnerable groups.

And authenticity is very often ersatz, it's usually an essentialised ideal rather than being grounded in actuality.

The ridiculous antirationalism of postmodern cultural relativism has served to baffle people and make them distrust any questioning of cultural mores. Thus women with a reactionary minority culture can be condemned to accepting standards that would not be thought acceptable more generally, merely because “it’s their culture”, when police guidelines advise that sensitivity to “cultural differences”. In Australia, for example, courts often accept that Aborigines should be treated according to their own customs rather than Australian law (which is presumably seen as colonialist), resulting in people convicted of rape being treated differently according to their race. (C/f the case of Pascoe Jamilmira in 2002).

We become so cowed by reactionary politics of difference that we shy from “disrespecting” cultural identity by challenging or offending their values, beliefs or ways of being.

It is this racialisation that I think should be challenged, along with traditional racism.

In the face of relativism, we need to rediscover the courage of our convictions. If we believe something to be anti progressive, we should say so.

The problem being that our political overseers find it more profitable politically to preserve this set of reactionary "communities" (or, more realistically, the political power of the "leaders" of such communities), rather than acknowledge that under their own law, every person is equal before that law, without fear or favour.

Great post, by the way.

 

[Spymaster]

Bit off topic but then again so is most of the rest of the thread so I'll ask anyway. Do you know if it's it common for Sikhs to take the principle of minimal suffering even further and become vegetarians? Only as far as I can remember all the sikhs I've known have been vegetarians. Or could it just be that it's harder to get the right meat up here where there isn't a big sikh community with its own butchers etc.?

Hallo SpineyNorman. This is Kris writing. I'm Simon's wife. You're right about alot of sikhs being veggies, I almost am but not completely. It's funny but all the girls in our family (almost) don't eat meat. That's because we cant guarantee that the meat is humanely killed and we don't believe that it's right to offer sacrifices to god(s) that may not exist. It's against our principles to eat anything that has suffered for our pleasure. I dpn't eat any processed meat products or meat in restaurants that I don't know and trust. Chatka is a way of life for us. It doesn't just mean "one blow" like Emu said (although that is the idea and what wikipedia would have you believe). It is an understnding that you shoudn't cause pain and suffering to any animals that serve you. To answer your question about vegetarianism, I find that most sikh men coukdn't care less about the provenance of the meat they eat. Certainly not in my family (haha). But most who are even slightly observant won't eat kuttha (halal or kosher) because it's ritually killed. You ask if that's why lot of us are veggies and I can only say that we're the same as eveyone else. My sisters generally don't eat meat and would NEVER eat kuttha. The reasons for that are various, not just religious. Personally, I don't really like it and animal suffering is big for me (haha I married Simon who shoots alot of animals-hence Cunty Simon-) but i'd rather eat stuff that he brings home than stuff from Tesco. We have a little deer in the freezer that he killed in December. He shoots them to break the neck or spine which would be observant but I won't eat it because he also stalked it (which must have caused it distress, so it isn't chatka, FOR ME). Chatka doesn't just mean "one blow" for most sikh's. It is a principle that all life is sacred and if you take a life, you must do it without reference to God, because it's God's animal anyway and God has given you that animal anyway. The crime is to frighten or hurt it. I know it sounds silly but that's what we are taught as children. Again, to answer your question, most sikh girls that I know (all of out family) are vegetarian. Mainly because of animal we lfare. Most sikh blokes couldn't care less so long as they have a kebab after they get pissed, but most sikh blokes are wankers (I've been told to say here that Simon is not sikh -although he can be a wanker- haha). So, most sikh's can eat meat if they want to, but the reasons for NOT eating meat are many and varied, usually because we respect animals. Most sikh's (girls) won't eat kuttha because we have been brought up to believe causing an animal distress (stringing it up, saying a prayer, and slashing its neck) is cruel. I don't think that's racist, but if it is, I'm a racist.

Can I just say hallo to Blue Streak and the lovely Dot Communist.

Bye!

Kris.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Hallo SpineyNorman. This is Kris writing. I'm Simon's wife. You're right about alot of sikhs being veggies, I almost am but not completely. It's funny but all the girls in our family (almost) don't eat meat. That's because we cant guarantee that the meat is humanely killed and we don't believe that it's right to offer sacrifices to god(s) that may not exist. It's against our principles to eat anything that has suffered for our pleasure. I dpn't eat any processed meat products or meat in restaurants that I don't know and trust. Chatka is a way of life for us. It doesn't just mean "one blow" like Emu said (although that is the idea and what wikipedia would have you believe). It is an understnding that you shoudn't cause pain and suffering to any animals that serve you. To answer your question about vegetarianism, I find that most sikh men coukdn't care less about the provenance of the meat they eat. Certainly not in my family (haha). But most who are even slightly observant won't eat kuttha (halal or kosher) because it's ritually killed. You ask if that's why lot of us are veggies and I can only say that we're the same as eveyone else. My sisters generally don't eat meat and would NEVER eat kuttha. The reasons for that are various, not just religious. Personally, I don't really like it and animal suffering is big for me (haha I married Simon who shoots alot of animals-hence Cunty Simon-) but i'd rather eat stuff that he brings home than stuff from Tesco. We have a little deer in the freezer that he killed in December. I won't eat it because he stalked it (which must have caused it distress, so it isn't chatka, FOR ME). Chatka doesn't just mean "one blow" for most sikh's. It is a principle that all life is sacred and if you take a life, you must do it without reference to God, because it's God's animal anyway and God has given you that animal anyway. The crime is to frighten or hurt it. I know it sounds silly but that's what we are taught as children. Again, to answer your question, most sikh girls that I know (all of out family) are vegetarian. Mainly because of animal welfare. Most sikh blokes couldn't care less so long as they have a kebab after they get pissed, but most sikh blokes are wankers (I've been told to say here that Simon is not sikh -although he can be a wanker- haha). So, most sikh's can eat meat if they want to, but the reasons for NOT eating meat are many and varied, usually because we respect animals. Most sikh's (girls) won't eat kuttha because we have been brought up to believe causing an animal distress (stringing it up, saying a prayer, and slashing its neck) is cruel. I don't think that's racist, but if it is, I'm a racist.

Can I just say hallo to Blue Streak and the lovely Dot Communist.

Bye!

Kris.

Thanks for the reply Kris

And no, of course it's not racist. Only an idiot would say it was.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think that brings an end to the dietary detour.

 

[claphamboy]

(I've been told to say here that Simon is not sikh -although he can be a wanker- haha).

There was no need to mention that on here.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's not even been taken seriously as a sociological category for the last 40 years, hence so much of the literature since the '70s putting the word in " "s, what the youngster now touchingly call "scare quotes".

Yes, I'd spurned doing that in the past, but actually given the confusion Jeff had with a couple of my previous posts, I perhaps ought to. I suppose I just assume that people know where I'm coming from, but of course why should they? There's hundreds of posters on here. I also have a bad habit of using phrases sarcastically, which I don't suppose helps.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There was no need to mention that on here.

Oh, I don't know.

 

[purenarcotic]

Unfortunately for the world, not all cultures are quite as inquisitive and argumentative as Jews? "Why" is the first word we learn after birth!

Ask two Jews a question and get at least three different responses.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes, I'd spurned doing that in the past, but actually given the confusion Jeff had with a couple of my previous posts, I perhaps ought to. I suppose I just assume that people know where I'm coming from, but of course why should they? There's hundreds of posters on here. I also have a bad habit of using phrases sarcastically, which I don't suppose helps.

It doesn't, really!

I know people can see using "scare quotes" as pretentious and/or portentous, but I've found, over the years, that it's a fairly pithy way of encapsulating the fact that you (as a writer of a post/essay/article) are aware that the category you're using is very open to question.
And yeah, it also means that you don't get as many people getting the wrong end of the stick.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ask two Jews a question and get at least three different responses.

No, it's definitely "ask three Jews a question, get six different responses and an argument about whose mother makes the best kugel".

 

[danny la rouge]

Oh, here we go again with the dietary diatribes.

 

[Frances Lengel]

No, it's definitely "ask three Jews a question, get six different responses and an argument about whose mother makes the best kugel".

Stop with the kvetching

 

[ViolentPanda]

Oh, here we go again with the dietary diatribes.

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh, here we go again with the dietary diatribes.

It's enough to make you sick

 

[Frances Lengel]

I can't be alone in feeling that all ways of killing animals for human consumption are barbaric[/q
yeah, you are alone in that....fuck animals, personallly, I couldn't give two about animals.

 

[Pickman's model]

Good for you

 

[ViolentPanda]

Good for you

What, killing animals and eating them? I agree!

 

[Citizen66]

fuck animals

You beastie.

 

[danny la rouge]

What, killing animals and eating them? I agree!

Frances appears to be saying something about her desire to "fuck animals".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Frances appears to be saying something about her desire to "fuck animals".

Ah, "zoophilia". AKA "liking animals too much, and for the wrong reasons".

 

[Frances Lengel]

Frances appears to be saying something about her desire to "fuck animals".

Only when I can catch them though, and TBH it's not that easy to run with your kex round yer ankles - Remember when the guardian were giving away posters? They did a few of them, I think there was one of jellyfish, one of mushrooms but there was definately one of sheep - I know coz it's on my wall - And some of those sheep have got ticks next to them (ticks as in affermative strokes of a pen, not the parasitical animal), but we all know what those ticks mean. Oh yes, Liecester Longwool, Castlemilk Moorit,Beulah Speckled Face and even old Jacob got a portion. I mean come on, it's taken 28 pages on a thread about Rochdale before sheepshagging gets a mention?

 

[Joe Reilly]

My criticism is not directed at everyone in general but at Joe and the people who tend to fall in with his interpretation(s). It is deduced from what I've read on this thread.

Disgraceful straw man? Well some people seem to be sailing perilously close to arguing just that.

Trevor Phillips argues that to deny the link between the grooming gangs and race is "fatous" while Baroness Warsi states that a minority of men in the Pakistani community see "white women as third class citizens".

Remind me again what it is we are all 'sailing periliously close to'?

In composing this post it has just struck me that in previous threads you have pushed the line that anti-fascists were often mere thugs while the 'Reebok rioters' could/should be seen as proto revolutionaries.

I forget now what your contributions were in discussions on the IWCA, (though I could make a stab at an educated guess) but in any case the Rochdale case makes for an impressive hat-trick.

And as I don't think that you are in anyway unrepresentative (if that's any consolation) it does show how amusingly warped the conservative Left/liberal instinct has become.

 

[articul8]

In composing this post it has just struck me that in previous threads you have pushed the line that anti-fascists were often mere thugs

I didn't say that, I said there was a danger of the violence and confrontation becoming an end in itself. This isn't the same at all.

while the 'Reebok rioters' could/should be seen as proto revolutionaries.

I most certainly didn't say this either.

I forget now what your contributions were in discussions on the IWCA, (though I could make a stab at an educated guess) but in any case the Rochdale case makes for an impressive hat-trick.

I have only said that it's one sided to look only at the question of ethnicity/religion, not that there aren't specific issues to be raised there. Interesting that you are lining yourself up with Warsi and Philips

And as I don't think that you are in anyway unrepresentative (if that's any consolation) it does show how amusingly warped the conservative Left/liberal instinct has become.

You want me to be your token "liberal left" opponent and are determined to misrepresent and misconstrue what I've actually said for what you'd imagine I'd be saying. Slack.

 

[Joe Reilly]

You want me to be your token "liberal left" opponent and are determined to misrepresent and misconstrue what I've actually said for what you'd imagine I'd be saying. Slack.

I don't want you to be anything, merely pointing out how effortlessly you and your travelling companions effortlessly find yourselves on the wrong and losing sides of practically any given debate.

 

[articul8]

I don't want you to be anything, merely pointing out how effortlessly you and your travelling companions effortlessly find yourselves on the wrong and losing sides of practically any given debate.

By inventing what I'm meant to have argued?

 

[butchersapron]

Expect this to become focal point again next week when the "Home Affairs Committee holds evidence session on 'localised child grooming'."

 

[malatesta32]

rochdale demo tomorrow with the edl which the casuals are claiming to support despite the huge fallouts with mr tommy this week (and despite all the denials, recriminations flew!)
http://www.edlnews.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/latest-news/762-marsh-steps-up-war-of-words-with-edl
and on the same day the BNP in blackpool on the charlene downes thing having basically taken it over and booted out the casuals much to stabber marsh's chagrin. mrs downes has been courted by griffin who is happy to capitalise on it all! as ever great timing.

 

[butchersapron]

30 child rape guilties for bloke said to be ringleader.