Tag Archives: Social Worker

MUST-READ: What is causing the epidemic of gang rapes in Europe?

ECM notified me about two posts over at Robert Stacy McCain’s blog.

Here’s is the first article, linked in McCain’s first post.

Excerpt from the article:

At home, Abid Saddique and Mohammed Liaqat, both of whom were married with young children, were considered clean, upstanding family men as well as devout Muslims.

But once they left their front door and their wives behind, they turned into vodka-swilling, cocaine-binging paedophiles who spent every available moment randomly targeting young girls on the street, befriending them, and then horrifically abusing them.

The 28-year-olds were at the head of a 13-strong gang who would film the assaults on their mobile telephones.

For over 18 months, dressed “sharply” in designer western clothes, wearing jewellery and sporting short haircuts, the pair cruised the streets of Derby in a silver BMW 5 series with blacked-out windows, approaching girls at random and with a bottle of vodka and plastic cups hidden under the front seats.

An undercover investigation by Derbyshire Police, dubbed Operation Retriever, was split into three trials which have run since February at Leicester Crown Court and can only now be reported.

The victims, aged between 12-18, ranged from girls in care to a 14-year-old A-grade student from a strong, middle-class home. They were predominantly girls with a troubled background.

[…]In one incident, Saddique, who was convicted of 14 of the 29 charges he faced, was accused of engaging in sexual activity with a 12-year-old in Derby’s picturesque Darley Park, while his accomplice Liaqat, who was convicted of 10 crimes of the 18 charges he faced, had sex with a 14-year-old in the BMW.

Another time, a 14-year-old girl was filmed having sex with three of the gang in a hotel room as cheers ring out.

The group faced 75 charges between them relating to twenty six girls, but police believe there are many more victims who have not come forward.

Yesterday, Saddique and Liaqat – who since legal proceedings have begun had grown long beards and now wear Islamic dress – were convicted of charges of sexual assault and sexual activity with a child, bringing the trials to a close.

This year they had already been convicted of a series of other offences including rape, sexual assault, sexual activity with a child, false imprisonment and making child pornography.

[…]“They were very confident in their approaches. They clearly thought of themselves as attractive young men, they had a car, they had some money and they would be quite aggressive when they would start their charm offensive.

McCain adds this from the UK Telegraph:

A SCHOOLGIRL, who was in the care of the city council when she fell victim to a gang of Derby perverts, had been groomed and sexually abused by another man only months earlier, the Telegraph can reveal.

The youngster was placed in a children’s home by Derby City Council for her own protection after police arrested Ansar Hussain, who targeted her when she was just 13.

But despite being under the supervision of social workers, she fell into the clutches of evil Abid Mohammed Saddique and Mohammed Romaan Liaqat – the ringleaders of a gang who raped and abused 27 girls.

And this from This is Derbyshire:

“[T]hey knew the difference between a girl that goes home to her family at the end of the night and a girl that doesn’t. I didn’t have anyone to protect me or look after me and thought they were going to look after and care for me.”

Most of the victims came from broken homes.

And here’s the second post by McCain.


In a “serious case report,” the Derbyshire board examined issues involved in the cases of two girls (identified as YP1 and YP2) who had been under care of local authorities and were victimized by the Liaqat-Saddique gang. The board also incorporated findings of a multi-agency review in the cases of 25 other victims of the gang.

“Issues of culture, ethnicity and identity were a feature both in relation to the victims and the alleged perpetrators,” the Derbyshire board reported. The two girls “were confused about their identity and sense of belonging. They both had a poor self image and had difficulty making friends and fitting in.”

These issues were “a critical factor in making [the girls] easy targets for abusers,” according to the board report. “Questions have been raised for this review as to whether the ethnic background and culture of the perpetrators had any bearing on their decision to take part in this activity, and also whether the ethnic origin of the victims was significant in making them targets for abuse.”

And he links this Times of India article.


Five British-born Pakistanis have been jailed for abusing white girls as young as 12.

The ‘sexual predators’ preyed on their victims over several months and threatened them with violence if they refused their advances.

One of the men branded his victim a “white b***h” when she resisted, while a second smirked, “I’ve used you and abused you.”

The men attacked the four girls in play areas, parks and in the back of their cars, Sheffield Crown Court heard. . . .

The five, Umar Razaq, 24, Razwan Razaq, 30, Zafran Ramzan, 21, Adil Hussain, 20, and Mohsin Khan, 21, were found guilty of a string of sexually related offences against the girls, one aged 12, two aged 13 and one aged 16.

Stacy adds:

Reid also cited another case in the Manchester area, where a 14-year-old runaway was a “sex slave” for an Asian gang. Nine men ages 25 to 33 – Asad Hassan, Mohammed Basharat, Mohammed Khan, Ahmed Noorzai, Mohammed Anwar Safi, Aftab Khan, Abid Khaliq, Mohammed Atif and Najibullah Safi — were convicted in that case.

According to Reid, “there is a controversial, but relevant, cultural issue. Asian men of Pakistani heritage often believe white girls have low morals compared with Muslim girls.” She quoted testimony in the Derbyshire case, when Saddique told the court: “These are girls I did not respect and these are girls who are just ­partying and taking drugs and we had consensual sex.”

[…]Last year, three men from the Keighley area – Mohammed Zackriya, 21, Mohammed Taj, 37, Mohammed Shabir, 36 — were convicted of sexually exploiting a 14-year-old.

Now I’m going to try to explain some factors that may be causing these events.

Why is this happening?

My hypothesis is two-fold.

  1. Feminism (which explains why the women were fatherless and vulnerable)
  2. Cultural relativism (which explains why the evil men were not challenged on their evil views)

Both of these have no stronger expression than in the United Kingdom, or perhaps in other European nations, which is why the problem is happening there more than here.


As I’ve documented many times before by citing feminist scholars, the goal of third-wave (gender) feminism is the destruction of marriage because of the “unequal” male/female roles inherent in marriage. Third-wave feminists pushed early sex education, recreational pre-marital sex and taxpayer-funded abortion as a way to de-couple sex from marriage. As I documented elsewhere by citing research, pre-marital sex reduces the stability of marriages, and the effect is increased depending on the number of pre-marital sex partners. Feminists deal with the marital instability they introduced by legislating no-fault divorce, punitive divorce courts, domestic violence laws that don’t recognize violence by women against men, bigger social programs, more welfare, taxpayer-funded abortions, taxpayer-funded day care, taxpayer-funded IVF, and taxpayer-funded public schools as a way of substituting government for fathers and marriage. The result is a 40% out-of-wedlock birth rate (72% in inner-cities) and boys and girls raised without fathers.

Feminism claims that men have no distinctive role as protector/provider/moral and spiritual leader. As a result, women influenced by feminism shun chivalry, and bypass men who excel in the traditional roles and who would make good husbands and fathers, and prefer to have the drama of “hook-ups” with “bad boys”, which their girl friends heartily approve of – based on pop culture standards. Male chastity, skill in defending Christianity with logic and evidence, knowledge of social/fiscal/foreign policy, a good resume, and a good portfolio mean nothing – because it’s the government’s job to provide/protect and teach morality/religion to children.

Good men, seeing that goodness is getting them nowhere sexually, will drop goodness like a hot potato and begin to act like bad boys. Naturally, these bad boys are not able to shoulder the burdens of the roles of husband and father, because they were never evaluated or selected to fill those roles. Men have no roles on feminism – so feminists have no way to tell one man from another except based on the most shallow soap-opera/Hollywood-celebrity level of “hotness”, “confidence” (appearance of confidence, not substance), and “chemistry”. Having to choose a man based on qualifications, and having to follow rules for courting, seems to many women to be too “strict” – by which they mean that reason and evidence should not be allowed to override their emotions and the expectations of their peer group.

Instead of preparing themselves morally for their role in the marriage, and testing men for the role they will play in the marriage, women instead amuse themselves with self-centered fashionable and entertaining causes/hobbies like yoga, vegetarianism, fiction and biographies, Dancing with the Stars, People magazine, animal rights alarmism, and climate change alarmism. Thus, their choice of man is going to be made based on selfishness and whimsy, not on the merits. But marrying a lazy, ignorant, cowardly man makes the marital stability situation even worse. Marriages don’t survive if neither the man or the woman is tested and selected for making self-sacrificial commitments to other people.

The real victims of marital instability are the innocent children of the selfish feminists. As a result, boys grow up without fathers, which increases their tendency to be poor students, poor workers and sexually aggressive, and girls grow up without fathers, which drastically lowers the age at which they have sex.

Cultural relativism

Cultural relativism is the idea that is very popular on the secular left that all cultures are basically equal. This is what is taught in public schools where the achievements of Western Civilization are minimized, especially with respect to the United States, while the practices of other cultures are lionized. This is done because of the liberal belief that wars are caused by disagreements. The way to remove disagreements (according to the left) is by bashing down what is really good (Western Civilization) and lifting up what is evil, so that every view becomes equally valid. Specific evils from other cultures, like burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands, are rationalized as either not being evil at all, or by being the fault of the good nations. The goal of the left is to make sure that no one is able to judge anything as right or wrong, so that no one will feel bad about being judged.

Cultural relativism also causes left-wing parties to open Western countries up to massive immigration by unskilled immigrants, or by the unskilled family members of skilled immigrants. The goal of the left here is to tilt the voting away from Western ideas like the rule of law, capitalism, property rights, personal responsibility, religious liberty, monogamy, etc. No attempt to teach the superiority of Western values and beliefs is made in the public schools, so that you can have unskilled immigrants collecting welfare as they protest the very society in which they are protected and supported by taxpayer dollars.

As a result, immigrant communities that are not assimilated through education in civics, economics, and American history can actually import the very cultural beliefs and practices that hold their countries back from liberty, prosperity and security. In fact, in the UK, they actually have a parallel system of sharia law. In Canada, polygamous marriages, with multiple spouses collecting welfare, is normal. Cultural relativism is a major plank of left-wing parties like the Democrats.

It’s very important to understand that the ways that men and women interact in these other countries is not the standard used in the West. Although the left has attacked the values of chastity, modesty and courting that were the staples of Western Civilization, many believing Jews and Christians still believe in modesty and chastity today. The Bible forbids fornication (pre-marital sex) and that standard is one of the major reasons why we have these elaborate courting rituals and this focus on love and marriage, although you would never know it by watching Hollywood movies that glorify emotion-based relationships that lead to pre-marital sex. It turns out that the left and the Islamic radicals are actually united in their denial of the ways of courting that are found in Western literature and art – both oppose chastity, both oppose chivalry, and both oppose the sanctity of marriage.


It’s interesting to note that the majority of young unmarried women support parties on the political left like the Democrats, who push feminism and cultural relativism. They are doing this to themselves, and often criticizing any man who dares to point out what the impact of their vote really is. Voting is not about feeling good, it’s about doing good.

Commenters – please keep it short and contest specific claims that I made, and link to evidence to support your challenge. I will just dig up evidence as needed to support my claims when you contest them, because I don’t want to copy everything from previous posts.

MUST-READ: Does Obamacare encourage men to marry and start families?

Consider this article from the New Ledger. (H/T ECM)

First the video of Democrat Senator Max Baucus explaining what health care reform was really about.

That’s the truth that no one would speak of until the bill had passed. It’s not a bill about health care – it’s a bill about redistributing wealth from rich to poor. The bill’s whole purpose is to capitalize on people’s fears to gain the power to equalize life outcomes by moving money around.

That’s what government-run health care is – it reduces the costs of risky behavior for some people by pushing them onto hard-working people who pay taxes. Those who need abortions, sex changes and in vitro get paid, those who work the hardest and live the cleanest pay. The way to get paid is to engage in risky and/or immoral behavior, and the way to pay is to engage in hard work – like starting your own business to create jobs. Those are the incentives that Democrats create with the government takeover of health care.

And the New Ledger article explains what it means to have the government take care of you.


America was built on the belief that the dreams of each of us could be achieved through hard work, self-determination, and persistence. Immigrants from around the globe came to these shores to find refuge from the very governmental policies this administration is imposing on its citizens. Many an American has fought and died for our right to live in a nation of self-starters, where your hard work would allow you to provide a better life for your children, and grand-children, where you and your family were able to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Senator Baucus’ admission reveals the true nature of these policies – create an America where the incentive to succeed is squashed. Those who work tirelessly to provide for their family are not rewarded for their efforts, but penalized. In the Democrat’s America, those who sit lazily on their duff, are the ones who are rewarded.

This approach will not lift up the poor, but enslave them to the tit of federal leviathan. Without an education, or job training, or dream, Americans will be able to sit, aloof in front of their television and drown their sorrows in Big Macs and beer, still assured of their free health care and their government check. They will not earn that money after a hard day’s work…

The Democrats want people who work hard to have less money of their own. That makes it harder for hard-workers to execute their own life plan. So, it means that people who work hard will have to accept what the government gives them instead – public schools, public hospitals, public libraries, public universities, etc. That way everyone will be equal. Equally dependent on the government.

But these public facilities may not always be the best for Christians who have Christian life plans. And if you think that a secular government is going to give you what you need to raise a Christian family, think again. They’ll put Kevin Jennings, Planned Parenthood, the SEIU and Al Gore in the school to teach your children about same-sex marriage, abortion, socialism and global warming. And you’ll have no money left over to resist them.

What did the Republicans do instead?

Take a look at these graphs from a recent Powerline post.

Per Capita Income
Per Capita Income
Employment Rate
Employment Rate

Republicans want people to get their own jobs and to earn their own income. Pay their own way. Dream their own dreams. And to achieve those dreams. This is a lot better for Christians with a plan to do things in a way that honors Christ.

What do these graphs say to marriage-minded men?

These graphs are a green light to a man. They say to a man: “MARRY AND HAVE CHILDREN NOW”. They say that the harder you work, the more you will be able to provide for your family. That it is safe to take the responsibility for a wife and children, because it is in your power to protect them and provide for them. They mean that a man has nothing to worry about – that he should stop worrying about the future and just go for it! And this isn’t just a blind faith that things will work out – there are reasons to believe that things will work out. More income and more jobs means that things are more likely to work out.

What do 77% of young, unmarried women really want?

77% of young, unmarried women voted for Obama. They don’t really want husbands to protect and provide for them – because they voted for less personal income and fewer jobs. That’s what they’ve voted for, anyway. If they didn’t want to dissuade men from marrying, then maybe they shouldn’t have voted for Obama.

Related: MUST-READ: 20 reasons why the health care reform bill is a disaster.

Parental rights under attack in Poland and Canada

First, Poland, from Life Site News. (H/T Neil Simpson)


A controversial bill that critics say would significantly infringe on the rights of parents to bring up their children according to their values has passed first reading in the Polish parliament.

Incorporated into the bill, titled “On the Prevention of Family Violence,” which deals with a variety of issues, is a clause that says, “It is forbidden for persons holding parental power over children to implement corporal punishment, cause psychological pain or to humiliate them in any other form.”

According to the Polish Labor and Social Policy Ministry guidelines, psychological violence includes, “making the child ashamed, imposing one’s own opinions on the child, criticizing the child continually, controlling the child, restricting the child’s social contacts,” as well as “criticizing the child’s sexual behavior.”

Furthermore, the bill would give social workers authority to take children from families if someone suspects parents are in contravention of these guidelines or if it is believed there is a danger they may in the future “harm” their children this in way.

This is really bad, especially for those of us who think that respectful disagreement about controversial is an important part of learning and growing. That’s what shopping malls are for: to buy presents to make up for all the frank disagreement! But there has to be the disagreement first, otherwise how can people really be honest with one another, and change their minds?

Then Canada, also from Life Site News. (H/T Neil Simpson)


Public school children in Hamilton, Ontario will not be permitted to withdraw from classes that promote homosexuality, according to the Hamilton Mountain News. At the same time, according to a leaked document obtained by a local journalist, teachers are being instructed to tell parents who object to the curriculum that “this is not about parent rights.”

At the end of January, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) hosted a professional development day dedicated to “equity” training, where they distributed a sheet to teachers with “quick responses” they can offer to parents who object to the school board’s “anti-homophobia” curriculum.

That document was obtained by journalist Mark Cripps, and posted on the website of the Hamilton Mountain News. Cripps observes that the handout “basically indicates parents have no rights when it comes to their child’s education at the HWDSB.”

In addition, Cripps reports that, “The board says no child will be excused from the class when topics of homosexuality are brought into the classroom.”

The school board is developing a new equity policy, as required of all boards under the Ontario Ministry of Education’s equity strategy, announced last year. Among other things, the Ministry is requiring all boards, Catholic and public, to develop a plan for combating “homophobia.”

The sheet given to the HWDSB teachers specifies that teachers do not “condone” the removal of children from classes that deal with homosexuality.

This is the kind of thing that terrifies even marriage-minded men like me, who have been saving and preparing for marriage our entire lives. Can you imagine what would happen if my future children said the wrong thing in public and they were seized by the government? I don’t doubt for a second that some of Obama’s nominees would see nothing wrong with seizing children from parents who don’t agree with them on moral issues. Chai Feldblum and Kevin Jennings come to mind. Even government-run public schools are quite vicious in making sure that parents are forced to pay for secular-leftists schools so that they have no money left over to choose a school more suitable to the worldview of the parents.

Related posts

Comments to this post will be strictly moderated in accordance with Obama’s hate crimes law.