Rod McLaughlin

More inconsistent censorship in the Guardian about Islam (05 apr 15)

Shortly after the Alexis Jay report, the Guardian interviewed Nazir Afzal, who at the time was in charge of investigating grooming gangs.

The reader can judge for herself, but my response was "why the hell is this guy still in charge?".

Today, he speaks on the subject of British teenagers running off to Syria to join ISIS.

I reminded the readers of his history of taqiyyah. My first comment (see picture) was disappeared, as was an attempt to answer it, and my response to that answer.

Nashi_kb wrote:

  You've entirely misread the link.  He's so respected because he's the most prominent prosecutor who actually DEALT with grooming gangs, and all other child sexual abuse across the country.
  The part you've confused appears to be:
  There is no religious basis for this. These men were not religious.

I replied:

Nashi_kb: so how have I confused what he said?
"There is no religious basis for this." The use of the term 'kaffir', the attempts to get white girls to read Islamic texts... see Julie Bindel, the feminist who resisted the p.c. pressure on the issue of Islamic rape gangs.
Now he tries it with ISIS. Afzal consistently claims there is no religious basis for things which the perpetrators see as Islamic. It's as clear as day: he's covering up for the role of Islam in crimes by Muslims.


However, several of my comments were kept, including this:

socialistnotnulabour wrote:

  This lawyer didn't let his personal beliefs get in the way of doing his job.
  If it wasn't for him, the cases of child abuse by Muslim men wouldn't have come out.

I replied:

"If it wasn't for him, the cases of child abuse by Muslim men wouldn't have come out."
Sorry, "socialistnotnulabour", but that's not true. Afzal resisted the conclusion that there was a correlation between Muslim men and child abuse all the time he was in the CPS. So did socialists, new Labour, old Labour, Respect and the SWP. It was left to one feminist writer, one Times reporter, and - I hate to say it - some on the far right - to expose the problem.


Again, it's not a conspiracy. The attempts of the Guardian's moderators to reconcile reality with political correctness are more signs of incompetence and desperation.


Portland London