UK study: No backlash against Muslims after London bombings

posted at 1:45 am on December 5, 2006 by Allahpundit

Eight days after the attack, the Guardian claimed police had already logged reports of 300 hate-crime incidents. Today Britain’s top DA said fully 12 people were prosecuted in the month after the bombings, of whom only six cited revenge as a motive. (There were 43 religiously-motivated crimes prosecuted during the entire 2005-06 reporting period.) How do you get from 300 to 12? Probably through a combination of false reports and reports that were true but either couldn’t be substantiated, didn’t rise to the level of a crime, or were classified by police as racial, not religious, in nature. Interestingly, the one marquee hate-crime that happened at the time — the beating death of a Pakistani man in Nottingham by a group of kids who allegedly called him “Taliban” — isn’t accounted for in the numbers for Nottinghamshire in the report. At least one of the kids pleaded guilty to manslaughter so there should be something in the homicide column for Nottinghamshire under racial or religious. Nope.

Just a little caution, then, that British Muslim rights groups, while plenty hysterical, probably aren’t quite as hysterical as a cursory glance at the article might have them seem. Meanwhile, racially motivated hate crimes increased from not quite 5,800 in 2004-05 to 7,400+ in 2005-06 — a gain of 28%. The report doesn’t break down the victims and perpetrators by race but I’m sure there are ample numbers of whites and “Asians,” i.e., Pakistanis, on both sides of the ledger. Bad days ahead.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “We have received today’s terrible news from the police with anguish, shock and horror.

“Our own children are said to have been involved in last week’s horrific bombings against innocent people.

“We reiterate our absolute commitment and resolve to helping the police bring to justice all involved in this crime of mass murder. Nothing in Islam can ever justify the evil actions of the bombers.”

Shahid Malik, the MP for Dewsbury, said: “This presents the most profound challenge that the British Muslim community has faced.”

What complete drivel! At the same time, they do nothing to combat the hate-filled sermons preached from the mosques. They don’t condemn these sermons for what they are: hate-filled admonitions to attack their (white, pro-western) countrymen.

“This presents the most profound challenge that the British Muslim community has faced.”

Do you think? And what have you done to combat it at this point? Nothing! Those moderate muslims we infrequently hear about are still silent on this issue. Shame be upon them!

thedecider on December 5, 2006 at 2:00 AM

Anti-Muslim baclash? On the contrary.

Steyn might deserve a shout-out here, he of the many-Europeans-will-flee-then-will-come-the-civil-war theory, except he’s such a coward about addressing the immigration question that this is more like events moving beyond him while he still flatters himself that his birthrates/cultural-confidence obsession is the whole issue.

What with the U.S. about to lose in Iraq and all (I mean maybe, of course; I’d still pray otherwise if I prayed!), I think it’s past time to pretend this great long war we’re in is about colonialism when in fact it’s about immigration.

Alex K on December 5, 2006 at 2:35 AM

I think I will find agreement that most British have no Cock and Balls at all. You will just find cleanly shaven sachel. Sorry, to all the Churchill loyalists in the UK. I hope you understand!

Egfrow on December 5, 2006 at 5:56 AM

No backlash? That’s a disappointment.

Not against the Muslims that stood publicly to denounce the terrorists, of which I’m sure there were thousands. Or maybe hundreds. Dozens?

How about a little backlash against the imams preaching this hate and the others inciting their “sheeple” to violence?

How about a new Mohammed cartoon?

Rosetta on December 5, 2006 at 6:32 AM

But there was a backlash against the backlash that wasn’t, wasn’t there?

Oy vey.

Pablo on December 5, 2006 at 7:57 AM

Where I live, after 9/11, there were numerous reports of hate crimes. All but one were simply someone using a racial epithet which is not a hate crime. The one crime involved someone spitting on someone else. As far as using racial epithets, I could of employed a few myself when I heard muslims in my community going on and on that we deserved it.

EF on December 5, 2006 at 8:22 AM

Where I live, after 9/11, there were numerous reports of hate crimes. All but one were simply someone using a racial epithet which is not a hate crime.

IIRC, CAIR et al were counting up “hate crimes” that included people giving Muslims dirty looks.

Pablo on December 5, 2006 at 8:58 AM

Maybe someone can splain it to us Lucy!

But when some religious zealot (read nut) kills innocent people, it is suppose to be ignored. But OH NO, when civilized, peace loving people stands up for themselves and say it was wrong it’s termed a Backlash?

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 5, 2006 at 9:06 AM

And while I’m on the subject, WHY IN GOD’S NAME DID SOMEONE HAVE TO CONDUCT A STUDY? Who did the Brits have to prove it to that they tucked there heads up John Bull’s ass and let this affront go unchallenged? What happened to the British Empire anyway?

PS. Did the Syrians ever conduct a study? Did the Iranians? Did Sa-damn? Did Li’l Kim? NOT!!!!!!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 5, 2006 at 9:11 AM

So the general mood around here seems to be disapointment that Britons haven’t increased the number of racially motivated hate crimes enough for you guys?

JaHerer22 on December 5, 2006 at 9:39 AM

“Hate crime” simply means not bending over backwards to kiss whomever’s ass is easily offended these days (muslims, gays, homeless, illegals, europeans, liberals, etc).

And all those easily offended can kiss my ass! (_!_)

SouthernGent on December 5, 2006 at 9:54 AM

So the general mood around here seems to be disapointment that Britons haven’t increased the number of racially motivated hate crimes enough for you guys?

JaHerer22,

If by “racially motivated hate crimes” you mean retaliation in lieu of punishment against those Muslims that incite and support the terrorists homicide bombers, then yes.

I would like to see more of that specific type of “racially motivated hate crime.”

Idiot.

Rosetta on December 5, 2006 at 9:54 AM

Words aren’t crimes. If people say words that you find hurtful it is not a crime (though it might be in the UK). I am so sick of the thought police and the hate speech police. It’s gotten ridiculous.

EF on December 5, 2006 at 10:00 AM

Aren’t acts of terror “hate crimes”? This PC crap is going to get us all killed.

Valiant on December 5, 2006 at 10:24 AM

Kids are leading this/these incident/s.

They have probably cut through “the Bull” offered by the grown-ups and decided what’s up and taken action.

The war in England may have started.

It will be interesting/strange to be on the sidelines for this, it is usually not a spectator sport.

IMHO

tormod on December 5, 2006 at 10:26 AM

The English will only wake up when it’s too late.

If you all are not reading what I have termed in my bookmark file, “The Dirty Bomb Blog” — http://strata-sphere.com/blog/ — you should be.

Litinvenko was killed by a dose of polonium that was 300 times the lethal dose for a human.

The manufacturing cost for a lethal dose of polonium for a human is @ $1,000,000.

Therefore, the cost of Litinvenko’s alleged “assassination” by Putin, or whomever they are trying to blameshift it onto, would be $300,000,000.

257 grains of lead costs substantially less.

Litivenko requested Islamic burial rites.

Clearly, he had snuck a container of Polonium into England, and either the container was faulty, or being an idiot, he kept opening it up to show to people… my money is on the latter.

Therefore, either the material for a dirty bomb, or perhaps even a fissile trigger is now in Britain.

I am shorting all market indexes for the foreseeable future, therefore.

This is going to be a long century, and I don’t think it is going to end well.

wordwarp on December 5, 2006 at 10:28 AM

How do you get from 300 to 12? Probably through a combination of false reports and reports that were true but either couldn’t be substantiated, didn’t rise to the level of a crime, or were classified by police as racial, not religious, in nature…Meanwhile, racially motivated hate crimes increased…The report doesn’t break down the victims and perpetrators by race but I’m sure there are ample numbers of whites and “Asians,” i.e., Pakistanis, on both sides of the ledger. — AP

…right about now would be a good time to plug Melanie Phillips’ “Londonistan”. Excellent, excellent book on this very subject, including the events and impact of events surrounding 7/11.

…one thing about racially-motivated crime in Britain (and, to a lesser extent in the US): the police *PURPOSEFULLY* don’t report the race of the offender.

Back a few years ago (three or so), there was a report concerning the current fascination of the Yuppies (Young Urban Predators) of London, etc., with stealing cellphones. They’d do it at knife-point. It was even done at gunpoint (so much for England as a poster-child for gun control). It was reported, as I remember it, that 98% of the victims were white, while that same percentage of the reported thieves were black. Bear in mind that, in Britain, what is not white is black, so “Asians” as well as Caribbean and African blacks would be counted, I presume.

Anyway, I remember reading either the next day or a short time later that the Metropolitan Police had instituted a policy of not releasing the race of offenders because they didn’t want to “stigmatize” young black men.

Even in the case of actual assaults or crimes on muslims, I don’t know if we can rely on anything we hear here, either. I don’t know if anyone in the British police establishment is even *COLLECTING* or collating much in the way of victim/offender profile information. The culture of British officialdom is rigidly colorblind, even if the people in it aren’t.

When crimes against muslims are reported, I wonder how often the assumption is fostered and furthered that the offenders were white Yobs — skinheads, BNP’ers — to further the notion that “black” people in Britain are victims. All the while it might just as well have been equally brown Sikhs or Hindus, who have a bone to pick with muslims on their own.

Just as in the US, Britain’s Left *NEEDS* to feed the illusion of victimhood at the hands of an uncaring society…over which the Left has little control, and which they’d presumably fix once they marched to power.

Mind you, the Left in many places — Russia springs to mind, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, and many places in Latin America — are *AT LEAST* as racist as the societies they eventually supplant. Ask the Montagnards, Khmer Krom, Miskitos, Karens, and any of those pesky ethnic minorities which together make up huge parts of some sections of Russian and China.

Again, Ms. Phillips book describes the whole “if there ain’t a backlash, there oughta be” phenomenon, and its usefulness to both the Left and to the jihadis.

Puritan1648 on December 5, 2006 at 11:01 AM

If by “racially motivated hate crimes” you mean retaliation in lieu of punishment against those Muslims that incite and support the terrorists homicide bombers, then yes.

I would like to see more of that specific type of “racially motivated hate crime.”

Idiot.

Rosetta on December 5, 2006 at 9:54 AM

By “racially motivated hate crime,” I mean whatever Allahpundit meant when he used it as I was responding to his post and the comments that followed. I’m not trying to frame the argument by creating phrases, I’m using the same phrases used in the post. I appreciate the demonizing though, it helps me put your reponse in perspective.

JaHerer22 on December 5, 2006 at 11:16 AM

I mean whatever Allahpundit meant when he used it

You clicked through the link, right?

Pablo on December 5, 2006 at 11:45 AM

I mean whatever Allahpundit meant when he used it…

Which was what?

Allah didn’t make the asinine comment about commenters on this thread itching for more racially motivated hate crimes in Britain, you did.

And if what you implied in your comment was what you intended then you are an idiot.

If your intent was to use Allah’s words out of context to try to hobble together some sort of incendiary statement untethered to reality, you’re at the wrong place. You’re looking for HuffPo.

Rosetta on December 5, 2006 at 11:49 AM

JahererTuTu-

What “race” are Muslims?

Other than sub-human when militant?

And how can there be any “racially motivated crimes” if Brits studiously do not report the “race” of the attackers or victims?

By “backlash”, what most here mean is: a natural outrage against those threatening your national and personal existence, which should have appeared on the streets of London in the form of mobs as massive as those who gathered with ease to protest Bush’s Iraq plan.

But the Brits’ instinct to survive is apparently less engaged than their superficial political reflexes.

They will pay for their current kid gloves with future heads on pikes.

Their own. (Placed there by a pair of halal hooks.)

profitsbeard on December 5, 2006 at 12:08 PM

No backlash against Muslim terrorist? Dhimmitude?

Timber Wolf on December 5, 2006 at 1:52 PM