The Government has decided not to enact the Caste legislation which was designed to make it illegal to discriminate on grounds of caste. The latter, unknown in British history, has become an issue as some Indian diaspora have allegedly brought their views on the supremacy of higher castes (a form of class stratification) to the UK. The NLP has campaigned for the recognition of caste discrimination for a number of years. One of the most active members of the Party National Council, Jagdeesh Singh, on this issue gives his reaction and his disappointment with some of the South Asian establishment

.

The UK government’s EQUALITIES OFFICE has announced that it will not be progressing the intended and proposed anti-caste legislation to give legal recourse and remedy to victims of caste based discrimination. Its Equalities Office has announced that anti-caste legislation would be ‘divisive’, complicated and there would a ‘low volume of genuine cases…’.

THE raison d’être of National Liberalism is self-determination. The National Liberal Party – NLP – is the political expression of National Liberalism in Britain. And even the briefest examination of the NLPs web-site – http://nationalliberal.org/ – and two Facebook sites – https://www.facebook.com/groups/5273904313/ and https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/ – will reveal its commitment to the principle of self-determination. For the NLP notes that self-determination ‘can be applied largely in three areas; National, Political and Economic.

National Self-Determination seeks to ensure decisions affecting the collective future of a nation are taken by ALL the people via referendum. This may be ‘External’, for example: the creation or maintenance of a nationstate, or ‘Internal’ – framing/updating a constitution to reflect how a people should rule themselves. (We favour independent nations and liberal, democratic, states).

Political Self-Determination seeks to ensure that the collective will of the people as well as the variety of political opinion is reflected in decision making. Thus, for example, we favour greater use of referendums to meet the former, and PR to reflect the latter (we favour a system close to the Swiss model of Direct Democracy). Economic Self-Determination seeks to distribute ownership as widely as possible and as close to the individual as practical by favouring home ownership, self-employment, small

businesses, cooperatives and employee shareholdings. (We believe that ownership is the key to economic and social health: where workers obtain a just reward for their labours and gain a feeling of well-being through their having a genuine personal stake in society).

The above principles underpin many National Liberal policies but others are rooted in common sense and usually aim to strike a balance between conflicting opinions, as befits a centrist party.’

With this in mind, we’re reproducing an article entitled Distributism As A Means of Achieving Third Way Economics written by Richard Howard in 2005. It originally appeared on the web-site – http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/index.php – of the Humanist Society of New South Wales.

As usual, we invite our readers to share their thoughts when this article is reproduced on our Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ It goes without saying that there are no official links between Richard Howard, the Humanist Society of New South Wales and the National Liberal Party. You can read the original article here http://hsnsw.asn.au/Distributism.html Readers will note that this article uses the phrase ‘Third Way.’ Here it is used in a context that distinguishes it from capitalism and socialism – indeed, it refers to an economic position that goes way beyond both capitalism and socialism.

.

Distributism As A Means of Achieving Third Way Economics (Part 1)

“Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s the other way around.”

Introduction

At the beginning of the 21st Century of the Common Era, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and with it the political credibility of state socialism, we are daily confronted by those who claim that these events are a vindication of 19th century laissez-faire capitalism.

Whilst undoubtedly a new golden age for corporations whose transnational commercial opportunities and economic might are increasingly beyond the regulatory power of even medium sized national governments, we find the dawn of the age of globalism accompanied by the concentration of more and more wealth in the hands of a few whilst the wages and living standards of the many are moving rapidly backwards.

In these circumstances, it is perhaps opportune to look again at alternatives and consider whether the failure of communism has vindicated laissez-faire capitalism or whether, perhaps, a genuine Third Way is possible.

In recent years, many have sought to lay claim to the concept of a Third Way, but for most, like British PM Tony Blair, use of the term is simply self-serving rhetoric and spin for business-as-usual.

There is however one claimant to the mantle of a Third Way that does not simply collapse on closer examination into welfarist capitalism or state socialism in drag, and that is the political movement known as distributism.

Origins

Distributism’s philosophical origins can be traced to the same nineteenth century roots as socialism, as a reaction against the perceived inequalities and misery of late Victorian high capitalism in England.

The inspiration for the Distributist Movement was the 1891 Papal social encyclical, De Rerum Novarum – On the Condition of Labour – calling for a new compassionate interpretation of capitalism, although a majority of distributism’s later supporters were not Catholics and many were in fact former radical socialists who had become disillusioned with socialism.

Local attempts to form grower co-operatives to redress the impoverishment of agricultural producers who were paid little for their crops by middlemen who then on-sold them to consumers at a great profit had achieved considerable success in rural Ireland in the mid-19th century. Equally, the credit union and building society movements, that sought to lend money on a not-for-profit or minimal cost basis for housing and small business development enjoyed great success, particularly in Scandinavia. In England, the success of the Rochdale co-operative retail outlet proved that not-for-profit retailers could operate successfully, and continues to form the basis of all retail co-ops to the present day.

It was however left to Hillaire Belloc and GK Chesterton at the turn of the century to draw together the disparate experiences of the various co-operatives and friendly societies in Northern England, Ireland and Northern Europe into a coherent political ideology which specifically advocated widespread private ownership of housing and control of industry through owner-operated small businesses and worker-controlled co-operatives.

This became the basis of a concrete set of political goals which formed the objectives of the distributist movement and which, ironically, achieved their greatest successes outside England in Italy, Canada, Northern Europe and most spectacularly in Spain.

WELCOME to the first debate hosted by Ulster Voice – the voice of the National Liberal Party I Ulster.

Our attention was recently drawn to an article – https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2016/08/conflating-abuse-with-criticism-of-islam-risks-a-return-to-a-uk-blasphemy-law – which appeared some time ago on the web-site of the National Secular Society – NSS. It’s a group which ‘works for the separation of religion and state and equal respect for everyone’s human rights so that no one is either advantaged or disadvantaged on account of their beliefs’.

The NSS article looks at how anti-Muslim bigotry and criticism of Islam are often conflated. This is extremely dangerous and poses a great threat to free speech. It also notes that the word ‘Islamophobia’ is meaningless and sinister. Ulsterfolk may recall that after delivering an ‘Islamophobic’ sermon in 2014, Pastor James McConnell was arrested under ‘hate-crime’ legislation. Here, the NSS – to the surprise of many – supported McConnell’s ‘fundamental right to free expression’.

We invite our readers to share their thoughts when this article is reproduced on our Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ It goes without sayin that there are no official links between Benjamin Jones, the National Secular Society, Ulster Voice and the National Liberal Party.

.

Conflating Abuse With Criticism Of Islam Risks A Return To A UK Blasphemy Law

Anti-Muslim bigotry and legitimate criticism of Islam or Islamic states are often conflated. Indeed, those who are opposed to ‘Islamophobia’ have failed to provide an accurate definition of the term. This is extremely dangerous and poses a great threat to free speech.

The BBC and Demos have published an accidental case study in why we should all stop using the meaningless and sinister word ‘Islamophobia’.

The BBC has made much of a report from Demos warning that thousands of ‘Islamophobic’ tweets are sent in English every day. But the researchers, like everybody else who uses the term, have totally failed to define what ‘Islamophobia’ actually means.

The research by Demos into ‘Islamophobia’ was reported by the BBC under the headline “Islamophobic tweets ‘peaked in July'”. From reading the BBC report you might imagine that 7,000 bigoted and anti-Muslim tweets were sent every day in July.

In fact, Demos have inadvertently set out what has been warned of for many years; that ‘Islamophobia’ is a nonsense word with sinister implications.

On reading the report it is clear that the Demos research isn’t just focused on anti-Muslim tweets, or bigotry against Muslims, but, as they define it in their research paper, “anti-Islamic ideas”.

In their report Demos selects some tweets it included in the study, which they presumably think are good examples of their methodology in action. A tweet stating “Morocco deletes a whole section of the Koran from school curriculum as it’s full of jihad incitement and violence The Religion of peace” is treated the same way as a tweet saying “I fucking hate pakis” in their methodology.

One of these tweets criticises an idea. The other is racist. One describes and mocks a belief system, the other (verbally) attacks people. Demos’ methodology treats both of these tweets in the same way.

I have read (an English translation of) the Koran. Saying it contains violence (it does) is in no way comparable to using racist language.

This is an appalling conflation, which creates a false moral equivalence between racism and criticising a set of ideas.

Another tweet Demos offer as an example reads: “Priest killed in #Normandy today by a Radical Islamic Terrorist yet Hillary says that Islam is peaceful! 1274 attacks this year=peaceful? Ok.”

Is asserting that Islam doesn’t seem to be conducive to peace really ‘Islamophobic’?

The BBC apes Demos’ dangerous line, referring not to anti-Muslim, but explicitly to “anti-Islamic” tweets as ‘Islamophobic’.

The Demos research says that anti-Islamic ideas are “possibly socially problematic and damaging.”

Wanting to jail homosexuals might also be “socially problematic”, but pointing out that half of British Muslims do want to crimilalise homosexuality (1) and most think it is immoral (2) would have me labelled an ‘Islamophobe’ under Demos’ methodology.

And just what are “anti-Islamic ideas”? For many orthodox Muslims and the overwhelming majority of Muslim states, anti-Islamic ideas include apostasy, equality for women and the right to be gay.

Demos is being foolish in including such a vague concept in their methodology. Under their methodology a Pakistani ex-Muslim living in fear for their life who tweeted in English (for instance) “Islam is oppressive” would be labelled an ‘Islamophobe’.

And how subjective is Demos’ research?

In the methodology section of their paper Demos say “An Islamophobic expression was defined as the illegitimate and prejudicial dislike of Muslims because of their faith.” I would prefer that was labelled ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’, but this alone would be among the least bad definitions of ‘Islamophobia’ you could devise. But Demos go on: “Islamophobia can take on a very large number of different forms, and its identification, especially within Twitter research, was often challenging.”

Here we get to the nub of the Islamophobia con. It is “challenging” to identify and takes a “very large number of different forms” because ‘Islamophobia’ is a nonsense term which accumulates bigotry and threats of violence, with criticism of a religion and a set of ideas; ideas which have no rights whatsoever and which must never be protected in law and ought not to be protected by social convention.

Anti-Muslim bigotry and criticism of Islam are separate phenomenon, they may overlap, there are some who engage in both, but it is methodologically meaningless to consider both of these things in one term. That is why Demos’ researchers found ‘Islamophobia’ “challenging” to define.

What they have produced is therefore subjective, as Demos admit: “Ultimately, this research comes down to the judgement of the researchers involved.”

Demos argue that Islamic terror attacks drive ‘Islamophobic’ tweets. Perhaps challenging Islamism would therefore be a good place to start if you want to cut anti-Muslim bigotry off at the source?

The implications of this term’s use are very unsettling. The moral equivalence that is being drawn, increasingly, between abuse against Muslims, and the robust criticism of an idea (Islam), poses an immense threat to freedom of speech.

Muslims and Islam are not the same thing. Hating all Muslims is bigotry; criticising Islam is not. You can say whatever you like, however sharp, rude or inaccurate about an idea. There is no such thing as libel against an idea.

The National Secular Society was instrumental in abolishing the vestigial blasphemy law in this country, but now I fear that our culture is returning to the legal protection of ideas, and Islam specifically. Ideas have no rights, nor any entitlement to be treated with respect. Yet influenced by American campuses and elite sensitivity to something called ‘Islamophobia’, that is the way our wider culture moves.

(1) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense- of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

(2) https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

TOWARDS the middle of June we published part 1 of an article by Caitlin Johnstone which was originally published by the US on-line publicatione Medium. You can read the original – and full article here: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/trump-isnt-another-hitler-he-s-another-Obama-51ea7db498b4

This is the second part. Here, Johnstone continues with her general theme, which is that President Trump is not really much different from President Obama. The National Liberal Party would go one further and say that probably since President Bush, all have been working at the behest of the US Military-Industial complex. They’re all effectively working for the Yankee Dollar.

All US presidents talk about ‘freedom’ and the ‘American way’. How much of this they really believe is open to debate. But one thing is very clear – the only real difference in US policy is down to personality. We believe that if Hillary ‘the War Hag’ Clinton had been elected, she would have followed much the same path as Trump – especially when it came to foreign affairs. Anything else would have just been political theatre. At the end of the day, big business and high finance will dictate what the US does. Money is God to many politicians, so they simply dance to the tune of capitalism.

This article should be read directly on from part 1, which you can find here:http://nationalliberal.org/trump-isn’t-another-hitler-he’s-another-obama-part-1 We invite our readers to share their thoughts when this article is reproduced on our Facebook sites here https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/ and here https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ It goes without sayin that there are no official links between Caitlin Johnstone, Medium and the National Liberal Party.

.

Trump Isn’t Another Hitler. He’s Another Obama. (Part 2)

Both President Donald Trump and wannabe President Hillary Clinton are working for the Yankee Dollar. The only difference between them is purely cosmetic – it’s simply political theatre. At the end of the day, big business and high finance will dictate what the US does. Money is God to many politicians, so they simply dance to the tune of capitalism.

In the lead-up to the November elections those of us on the left who backed third parties were promised over and over and over by Democratic party loyalists that if Hillary Clinton failed to secure the election they’d be goose-stepping stormtroopers patrolling the streets and murdering non-whites with impunity, concentration camps for Muslims and white supremacist extermination programmes. Comparisons to Hitler went on nonstop, and anyone who failed to fall in line with the mainstream liberal narrative can attest that they were accused of aiding actual, literal Nazism on a regular basis.

A year into Trump’s presidency, and not only did the apocalyptic predictions of national genocide fail to come true, he’s not even deporting as many immigrants as Obama (1). He is, however, out-bombing him (2).

We were promised another Hitler. Instead, we got another Obama, who was himself another Bush.  The march into corporatist Orwellian police state at home and globalist oligarchic hegemony abroad continues unhindered for the United States of America.

And of course that march would have continued had Hillary won as well, it just would have looked a bit different. Fewer environmental deregulations, likely catastrophiv escalations against the Syrian government and possibly Russia, the exact same approaches to Iran, just as much hawkishness toward North Korea but minus the tweets about button sizes, no attempts at dismantling Obama’s corporatist healthcare plan. Not much more than that.

Nobody wants to hear this. The Democrats still want to believe that the sitting president is simultaneously a Nazi, a Kremlin secret agent, an idiot, and a lunatic, and Trump supporters want to believe that he’s a populist savior fighting to liberate the nation from the claws of the deep state. Because of their partisan blinders they will both find reasons to believe they’ve got either a savior or a traitor in the White House despite the fact that their country’s actual policy and behaviour remains more or less the same.

I still sometimes get Democrats telling me (3) that Trump is about to flip into Hitler 2.0 any minute now and start throwing non-whites into extermination camps. Whenever I point that they were wrong about their “your choices are Hillary or Hilter” alarmism I get a bunch of them telling me “give him time”. Well he’s had time. They were wrong. They didn’t get a Nazi, they got another shitty neocon. And since the Dems have been paced into alignment with the neocons ther’s no one left to oppose their agendas, which is why we’re seeing so little pushback on Trump’s Iran saber rattling.

I get Trump supporters telling me that he’s fighting the deep state, but the only way you believe that at this point is to redefine what “deep state” to mean to mean “Democrats and their supporters”, which would actually just be more partisan bickering, which is all we’re actually seeing at this point. The only people you see pushing the collusion narrative and working for impeachment at this point are Democrats and Never-Trumpers; now that Trump has proven himself a good, compliant little boy the intelligence community has been putting its energy into the anti-détente propaganda effort to manufacture support for its new cold war escalations instead.

(1) https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/12/14/donald-trump-is-deporting-fewer-people-than-barack-obama-did

(2) https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/8xvn8v/more-bombs-more-boots-more-casualties

(3) https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-latter-ebafaadc293c

DONALD JOHN TRUMP became the 45^th President of the United States on 20^th January, 2017. Since then he’s hardly ever been out of the headlines. The media, in particular, seem to be following a pre-planned narrative. Therefore, the headlines tend to revolve around lurid tales concerning his sex life, being under the control of the Russians or being a second Hitler.

For a long time Trump has been (and still is) what might be termed a ‘colorful and controversial’ character. His straight talking combined with some alleged politically incorrect views puts him light years apart from any former President, and indeed, many US career politicians. His extensive use of Twitter – thus circumventing the Mainstream Media – MSM – has also put many noses out of joint.

But who really is Donald Trump?

He’s been President for well over a year now and many of us still don’t really understand what motivates or drives him. In order to do so, we must put emotion aside and totally ignore silly gossip, rumours of scandal and all forms of character assassination. If we want to really understand Trump – and thus, US home and fioreign policy – we need to look way beyond the orange skin and strange hairstyle.

One way of learning about (and thus understanding) Trump is to examine what others say about him. Again, we’re not interested in articles that contain wild allegations. Instead we must look at more serious studies of him – no matter what side of the political divide they come from.

With this in mind, our attention has been drawn to an article by Caitlin Johnstone which was published by the US on-line publicatione Medium. We’ll be reproducing her article in sections but you can read it here: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/trump-isnt-another-hitler-he-s-another-obama-51ea7db498b4

Caitlin Johnstone describes herself as ‘an uncouth heretic and unapologetic rabble rouser writing out of Melbourne, Australia. Rogue journalist. Bogan socialist. Anarcho-psychonault. Guerilla poet. Utopia prepper. You will disagree with me sometimes. That’s okay.’ And Medium declares that it ‘taps into the brains of the world’s most insightful writers, thinkers, and storytellers to bring you the smartest takes on topics that matter. So whatever your interest, you can always fresh thinking and unique perspectives.’

Caitlin Johnstone seems to suggest that President Trump is merely following on where President Obama left off. We’re tempted to agree with this analysis. The political style of Trump is completely different from that of Obama, but they’re essentially following the same path dictated to them by the US Military-Industrial complex.

We invite our readers to share their thoughts when this article is reproduced on our Facebook sites here
https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/ and here https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ It goes without saying that there are no official links between Caitlin Johnstone, Medium and the National Liberal Party.

.

Trump Isn’t Another Hitler. He’s Another Obama. (Part 1)

Current US President Trump and former US President Obama. The political style of Trump is completely different from that of Obama, but they’re essentially following the same path dictated to them by the US Military-Industrial complex.

NOT A LOT of people remember this, but George W Bush actually campaigned in 2000 against the interventionist foreign policy (1) that the United States had been increasingly espousing. Far from advocating the full-scale regime change ground invasions that his administration is now infamous for, Bush frequently used the word “humble” when discussing the type of foreign policy he favored, condemning nation-building, an over-extended military, and the notion that America should be the world’s police force.

Eight years later, after hundreds of thousands of human lives had been snuffed out in Iraq and Afghanistan and an entire region horrifically destabilized, Obama campaigned against Bush’s interventionist foreign policy, edging out Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries partly because she had supported the Iraq invasion while he had condemned it. The Democrats, decrying the warmongering tendencies of the Republicans, elected a President of the United States who would see Bush’s Afghanistan and Iraq and raise him (2) Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, along with a tenfold increase in drone strikes (3). Libya collapsed into a failed state (4) where a slave trade runs rampant (5) and half a million people died (6) in the Syrian war that Obama and US allies exponentially escalated (7).

Eight years later, a reality TV star and WWE Hall-of-Famer was elected President of the United States by the other half of the crowd who was sick to death of those warmongering Democrats. Trump campaigned on a non-interventionist foreign policy (8) saying America should fight terrorists but not entre into regime change wars with other governments. He thrashed his primary opponents as the only one willing to unequivocally condemn Bush and his actions, then won the general election partly by attacking the interventionist foreign policy of his predecessor and his opponent, and criticizing Hiillary Clinton’s hawkish no-fly agenda in Syria.

Now he’s approved the selling of arms to Ukrane (9) to use against Russia, a dangerously hawkish move that even Obama refused to make (10) for fear of increasing tensions with Moscow. His administration has escalated trop presence in Afghanistan (11) and made it abundantly clear that the Pentagon has no intention (12) of leaving Syria anytime soon despite the absence of any reasonable justification (13) for US presence there. The CIA had ratcheted up operations in Iran (14) months into Trump’s presidency, shortly before the administration began running the exact same script against that country (15) that the Obama administration ran on Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Maybe US presidents are limited to eight years because that’s how long it takes the public to forget everything.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

(2) http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/oct/21/jill-stein/jill-stein-green- party-candidate-correct-about-us-/

(3) https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush

(4) http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/libya-failed-state-its-americas-fault-23325

(5) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/libyan-slave-trade-commodification_us_5a4f96a8e4b089e14dba6860

(6) http://www.iamsyria.org/death-tolls.html

(7) https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-war-on-syria-can-show-you-whats-happening-in-our-world-6df7de60fd27

(8) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-military/trump-lays-out-non-interventionist-u-s-military-policy-idUSKBN13W06L

(9) https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/12/21/trump-approves-us-lethal-weapons-sales-ukraine-angering-moscow/

(10) https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/europe/defying-obama-many-in-congress-press-to-arm-ukraine.html

(11) https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/19/16227730/trump-afghanistan-3000-troops-mattis

(12) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jim-mattis-on-syria-were-not-just-going-to-walk-away-after-isis/article/2176990

(13) https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/11/17/secretary-mattis-off-base-us-military-presence-syria-has-no-legal-grounds.html

(14) https://archive.is/6k3iB

(15) https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/us-empire-is-running-the-same-script-with-iran-that-it-ran-with-libya-syria-2bb37b5c5af

WELCOME to the latest Liberal Future debate. It relates to an article – reproduced below – by NHS psychiatrist Dr. Max Pemberton, which appeared in the Daily Mail at the end of March. Our attention was recently drawn to it as it related to the publicity concerning sexual abuse in Rotherham and Telford. In both instances, mainly troubled and vulnerable young white working-class girls were abused on what could be termed an ‘industrial scale’ by men of ‘Pakistani heritage’.

These men of ‘Pakistani heritage’ are Muslims. However, it is important to point out that Liberal Future (unlike the ‘right’) does not blame all Muslims for the actions of some. We are well aware that world Islam is not a monolithic bloc – like many religions, there are differences in interpretation. For instance, Islam includes very liberal Shiite Muslims such as the Alawites (probably the most well known being Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad) as well as extremely culturally conservative Sunni Muslims like the Salafists (who are the medievalist head choppers associated with Islamic State).

Liberal Future (unlike the ‘left’) is also more than happy to expose the behaviour of any section of the community – indigenous or immigrant – without fear or favour. The ‘left’ feels that the mildest criticism of any immigrant community smacks of racism, fascism and Islamophobia. We are not fussed about the colour of someone’s skin or what religious garb they wear – if they have done

wrong, they have done wrong. We need to sweep away any blinkered vision and establish the facts, no matter how uncorfortable or where these facts may lead. This applies to some members of the Muslim community (particularly in the North of England) as well as some members of the – presumably – Christian community who are alleged to belong to rich and powerful paedophile rings.

With the above in mind, we invite our readers to read Dr Pemberton’s article and have their say in the comments section once they see this article on the Liberal Future Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/706779429376233/

It goes without saying that there are no official links between Liberal Future, the National Liberal Party, Dr Pemberton or the Daily Mail.

.

It Is NOT Racist To Highlight This Abuse

Headlines relating to the Rotherham (left) and Telford (right) sex scandals. In both instances, mainly troubled and vulnerable young white working-class girls were abused on what could be termed an ‘industrial scale’ by men of ‘Pakistani heritage’. Should we be scared to speak out when such behaviour involves ethnic minorities?

WE MIGHT have hoped something was learned from the sickening scandal of abuse and depravity in Rotherham, but the Telford story shows nothing has changed.

Indeed, many still avoid the issue of paedophile gangs preying on young girls. People would much rather post a #MeToo tweet and congratulate themselves for sharing a story of how their boss once touched their knee than tackle the thorny issue of what’s happening up and down the country to working-class white girls. Far easier to wear a black dress on the red carpet than use your celebrity to speak out for those voiceless girls being raped.

If we want to send a message that we won’t tolerate child sex abuse, we must crack down with unimaginanable force on the likes of those abusing girls in Telford and condemn them with one loud, unified voice. Yet I worry the questions raised by this are too challenging.

Children are abused by people from all sorts of walks of life, but it would be foolish not to understand there’s a cohort of men from certain ethnic minorities, in particular of Pakistani heritage, who view women in a different way from the rest of us.

Clearly, these men’s behaviour is not representative of their culture. But these scandals emerge from social mores that endorse or turn a blind eye to female genital mutilation, forced marriage and honour killings; a culture that believes because white women wear revealing clothes, they must be prostitutes; a culture that forbids women leading independent lives – or even learning English.

Like many doctors in inner-city hospitals, I’ve seen countless women able to communicate only through a relative who translates for them, subservient to their husbands, living lives of quiet desperation.

This is what provides the fertile grounds for these rape-gangs.

Talking about these cultural differences – and accepting that it is not racist to point them out – is the first step in sending a clear message to the wicked minority in those communities who refuse to alter their behaviour or beliefs.

• CHECK OUT our previous debates:

Liberal Future Debate (1) – Should We Lower The Voting Age Throughout the UK?

http://nationalliberal.org/liberal-future-debate-1-%e2%80%93-should-we-lower-the-voting-age-

throughout-the-uk

Liberal Future Debate (2) – Must The Earth Die Screaming? http://nationalliberal.org/liberal-

future-debate-2-must-the-earth-die-screaming

Liberal Future Debate (3) – Do Sport And Politics Mix? http://nationalliberal.org/liberal-future-

debate-3-%E2%80%93-do-sport-and-politics-mix

Liberal Future Debate (4) – Is Tony Blair A War Criminal? http://nationalliberal.org/liberal-

future-debate-3-–-is-tony-blair-a-war-criminal