Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

How Political Correctness Aided and Abetted Sex Crimes in England

The troubling lesson of the Rotherham crimes.

To see the true dread impact of political correctness, look beyond the attitude-policing antics of the pampered imbeciles stinking up America’s Ivy League campuses and Britain’s top universities. Instead, cast your gaze to a town called Rotherham, in Yorkshire in Northern England.

Working-class, rough, famous for having been one of the beating hearts of the Industrial Revolution, Rotherham is about as far as it’s possible to get from the starched lecture halls of Columbia or the dreaming spires of Oxford.

Yet this once thriving and now economically depressed town, home to 250,000 people, stands as an ugly testament to the grave dangers posed by political correctness, or P.C. For here, P.C. has done rather more than cause irritation to libertarians and liberals who don’t think novels should come with trigger warnings; here, P.C. has allowed young women to get raped.

In the fortnight since Jonathan Chait broke the internet by doing what many a libertarian has been doing for 30 years—criticising P.C.—most of the Johnny Come Latelys to the anti-P.C. party have aimed their ire at the crazier instances of speech-policing and word-watching.

They’ve put the boot into students’ sociopathic insistence that we use mad words like “cis” or have railed against academics’ acquiescence to the transformation of universities into kindergartens for outsized offence-takers.

But beyond all this admittedly scary/hilarious stuff, there’s a far larger and harder-to-criticise problem—P.C.’s invasion of everyday life; its movement from colleges into the concrete worlds of politics, society, and community relations. Consider Rotherham.

Major official inquiries, including one published last week, have discovered that in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, around 1,400 young people, mainly white working-class girls, were sexually exploited and abused by gangs of men, most of them of Pakistani Muslim heritage.

The girls, mostly poor, vulnerable, and from broken families, were groomed by the men and passed around as sexual playthings. Some were prostituted; many were plied with drugs and alcohol.

What does this have to do with P.C.? P.C. facilitated these crimes; it aided and abetted them.

The left-leaning Labour-run local council in Rotherham was so hamstrung by P.C., so riven with what the U.K. Home Secretary Theresa May has called “institutionalised political correctness,” that it was reluctant to investigate or talk openly about the Pakistani men’s sex crimes for fear of appearing racist and demeaning an ethnic minority.

All of the major investigations into this 16-year-long reign of abuse by gangs of Pakistani men have fingered P.C. as one of the key reasons the men’s behaviour did not come fully to light earlier.

In last week’s report, commissioned by the government and overseen by Louise Casey, an official who specializes in social welfare, Rotherham is described as having had a culture of “political correctness, incompetence and cover-up,” which “allowed gangs of Asian men to get away with child abuse for years.” Casey found that Rotherham “suppressed” the issue of Asian abuse gangs out of a “fear of being branded racist.”

Her findings echo those of Alexis Jay, a professor of public policy, who last year chaired the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. Jay likewise found among officials in Rotherham a “nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of [the] perpetrators for fear of being thought racist.”

Theresa May describes it as “institutionalised political correctness.” She says P.C. was so entrenched in Rotherham that some of the victims’ “cries for help” were actively ignored by officials who did not want a national spotlight to be shone on the problem of Pakistani abuse of largely white girls. The girls were ushered away, sent back to their abusers, effectively, by officials who did not want to break the first rule of P.C.: Never let any culture or community be subjected to public criticism or ridicule. Well, what’s a few rapes compared with maintaining Britain’s multicultural mush of respect for all identities?

The P.C.-inspired lethargy of local officialdom in Rotherham meant it fell to the media to uncover the abuse scandal. The Times in particular was dogged in its determination to highlight the scourge of Pakistani gangs grooming young women: its reporting led to the first court case, in 2010, 13 years after the gang’s lawlessness first kicked off, in which five Pakistani men were found guilty of grooming three girls, two aged 13 and one 15, and using them for sex. More men have since been arrested. Some of the victims have recently given interviews, describing how they were disbelieved and shushed by officials—officials more concerned with appearing right-on than doing what was right.

The Rotherham debacle captures the most terrifying thing about P.C.—how it discourages, paralyses, in fact, moral judgement; how it strangles critical thinking and common, human decency in favour of turning everyone into obedient nodding robots who promise never to break the First Commandment of P.C.: Thou Shalt Not Offend.

P.C.’s insistence that all cultures are equally valid, and that inciting concern about the behavior of individuals from any particular identity group is a really bad thing to do, led directly to a situation where young people could be raped.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...that it was reluctant to investigate or talk openly about the Pakistani men’s sex crimes for fear of appearing racist and demeaning an ethnic minority.

    In all fairness, they really had no business judging other cultures.

  • Rayson||

    You disgust me. I suppose just as you won't judge these scum, likewise you wont condemn the Aztecs, the Inquisition or lynching.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    The Aztecs?

  • Paul.||

    Yeah, their culture believed that the man should get the big piece of chicken.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    What is is with the crazy dipshits (and John) and this topic?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic. If not, please go soak your head. Preferably in acid.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Can I do that even if I was being sarcastic?

  • ||

    $89 an hour! Seriously I don't know why more people haven't tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…And i get surly a chek of $12600 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.

    http://www.navjob.com

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Better late than never, I suppose.

  • ||

    Yeah, the lack of Reason coverage of this was...puzzling. Normally they're all over failures of the state.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I suspect that the lack of coverage was, in part, because the situation gave them a swift kick in the open borders.

    What's going on in the UK is the nightmare scenario where the immigrant population refuses to assimilate and the government refuses to act to address the conflict of cultures.

    The culture of Islam is fundamentally in conflict with modern western values. Where Muslims make up a tiny part of the population (such as America) this is not an issue, but in places like the UK and Sweden, with their smaller populations, unfettered immigration breeds a serious crisis.

    When you mix in PC codified into law the problem only gets worse. The UK is a mess because of the confluence of these circumstances, and it's hard to say if they will be able to pull out of their current tailspin.

  • John||

    That is another reason why this is a Libertarian issue. You can't have open borders and still maintain a free society unless you tell the people who come that they have to leave their barbarism at home. Open borders combined with PC restrictions on the ability to criticize and police immigrants is a recipe for tyranny.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    "tell the people who come that they have to leave their barbarism at home. "

    Oh yes that is really going to work - as well as telling people to not smoke pot. Open borders is a ridiculous concept - it is actually collectivist, where instead of personal property being violated it is the territorial and governmental authority of the state being violated. It is impossible to have a effective government without borders and without and effective government you have anarchy not libertarianism.

  • John||

    There is always that. If you actually do police people and throw them in jail for their barbarism, they will likely go home or not come in the first place. If the British police really cracked down on this bullshit and they cut off the welfare, I suspect a good number of Pakistanis would decide to leave and go home.

  • Free Society||

    There is always that. If you actually do police people and throw them in jail for their barbarism, they will likely go home or not come in the first place.If the British police really cracked down on this bullshit and they cut off the welfare, I suspect a good number of Pakistanis would decide to leave and go home.

    I think that could be right. But I think more of them would change their ways and assimilate than would return to a society more compatible with their values.

    Multiculturalist policies in general tend to subsidize the worst cultural values and behaviors.

  • jay_dubya||

    I know right? free markets of ideas are a bunch of progressize HORSESHIT! Instead of letting people say and believe what they want, just chuck those duners and beaners out the back door, right?

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    it is actually collectivist, where instead of personal property being violated it is the territorial and governmental authority of the state being violated.

    What?

  • The Laconic||

    "What?" indeed.

    JeffreyinSandySprings, you just skewered your own position and didn't even notice.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    I think we interrupted John and Jeffrey's echo chamber.

  • jay_dubya||

    Government has rights, too guyz!

  • jay_dubya||

    Government has rights, too guyz!

  • Restoras||

    John, I recall we made a bet - and while I think technically Reason did "address" it in the time frame we agreed on, that was lip-service and doesn't count.

    You were 100% correct. I don't recall the wager...but if you ever make to NYC I'll buy you several rounds of drinks.

    I am appalled at their cowardice on this issue. It's disgusting.

  • ||

    I think you nailed it, DwT.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yes, he did.

  • R C Dean||

    Hear, hear!

    /buffs monocle, kicks orphan

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I have to wonder if the lack of coverage might have something to do with a reluctance to take part in a witch hunt like the daycare abuse panic. I haven't run into any details that defy reason in the Rotherham mess, but I am still gunshy about stories of abuse-rings.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Reason has their Proggy street cred to think of.

    Also, the story has implications for their open borders to all stance.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And not even one shout-out to Pat Condell.

  • Free Society||

    You done good Mulatto.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • buybuydandavis||

  • John||

    Its a few months late, but it is nice to see Reason finally go after this issue. The original chin scratching "I don't know what this all means" article that came out in November was pathetic.

    This is absolutely a Libertarian issue. You can't have a free society if you don't judge people by their actions and not their appearance. We are used to thinking of this meaning not to think ill of someone based on where they are from or the color of their skin. That is certainly true. There is, however, a flip side to this. Juding someone by their individual character not only means not thinking worse of them because of the color of their skin, but also means not ignoring their flaws or holding them to lower standards of behavior. PC is just the paternal flip side to old fashioned race hate. PC may be less overtly malevolent but it is just as bad for a society as race hatred.

  • MJBinAL||

    Well said

  • sarcasmic||

    but also means not ignoring their flaws or holding them to lower standards of behavior

    The only explanation for disagreeing with Obama's policies is racism!

  • PapayaSF||

    Complaining about street crime or welfare is racism, too!

  • Free Society||

    PC may be less overtly malevolent but it is just as bad for a society as race hatred.

    I find it rather malevolent. These PC apologists cream their pants at the thought of making people of European descent into untermensch.

  • John||

    It is every bit as malevolent. It just is less overtly so because it pretends not to be. The flip side of judging some races too fairly is the inherent unfairness to the ones you don't. British PC culture was just as malevolent and harmful to the victims of these crimes as race hatred ever was to anyone.

  • ||

    Precisely, PC is Racial Profiling's wicked stepsister.

    Neither is very nice but only one oppresses all people abjectly.

  • The Bad Captain Madly||

    In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

    --G.K Chesterton

  • Mickey Rat||

    That type of thinking is of no use to social liberals.

  • colethoney||

    good

  • Free Society||

    P.C.’s insistence that all cultures are equally valid, and that inciting concern about the behavior of individuals from any particular identity group is a really bad thing to do, led directly to a situation where young people could be raped.

    Exactly. Cultures are not equal, some of them should not be tolerated by people free enough to do so, and any impediments to the just and proper use of free association should be obliterated.

    Western European societies and those descended from them, are committing ethnic, moral and political suicide by pretending that all cultures and belief systems are equally valid. I think it's fair to assume that a gang of whites in Pakistan raping young girls would be summarily executed if they were lucky. In Western countries we're taught to believe that we deserve whatever they give us, I'm waiting to see these Ivory tower lefties present their wives and daughters for the type of barbarian justice they would subject the plebians to.

  • sarcasmic||

    But, but, but if you criticize someone's culture then you're racist!

  • Free Society||

    properly defining terms in people's heads would do a lot to deflate the pc arguments.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    No. If you criticise someone else's culture you are the opposit of racist. You expect him to be able to live up to certain standards.

  • colethoney||

    $89 an hour! Seriously I don't know why more people haven't tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…And i get surly a chek of $1260......0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ✒✒✒✒✒✒ www.jobsaudit.com

  • Antilles||

    This simply reveals the naked racism in the SJWs beliefs. These poor, ignorant "brown people" cannot be held to the same standard as white, affluent frat boys. That's why SJWs consider it so much worse when a white guy does these things--because they're smart enough to understand that rape is wrong but they do it anyway. Besides, it's not our place to judge other cultures. SJWs are truly loathsome and despicable...

  • sarcasmic||

    Yep. Those brown people couldn't make it on their own without a helping white hand. Anyone who disagrees is racist.

  • John||

    There is some of that. There is also a lot of class hatred going on. Notice these guys were not raping nice, rich white girls from Kensington or going to Oxford. They were raping poor or lower middle class white girls. The progs hate the white lower class more than anyone else. They are totally okay with minorities victimizing them.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That is true. Unless you've experienced it first-hand, it's hard for an American to truly grasp the class prejudice that makes up the cultural atmosphere of Great Britain.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    I was rather startled by it - in their Army.

    I had a few Scots enlisted and NCOs fill me in, when I was surprised by what I saw.

  • Antilles||

    Agreed. Women in poor communities are raped and assaulted at a rate far higher than those privileged college girls. But look where the 'feminists' are focusing all their energies. Clearly, some women in our society are more important than others.

  • John||

    Some Somalie girl gets sent home to be mutilated and married off at 13 and feminists don't give a fuck. That is just their groovy culture. Some top shelf white girl gets drunk and cheats on her b/f and regrets it and that is a national scandal.

  • ||

    Some top shelf white girl gets drunk and cheats on her b/f and regrets it and that is a national scandal.

    And that narrative is giving a number of vicitms room for some measure of credibility that they don't necessarily deserve.

    He said for some, he said/she said for others, and she said/he doesn't exist for the particularly privileged.

    Equality achieved!

  • ||

    To be fair, most of the feminists I know really do give a fuck about genital mutilation and Somali culture. The problem is that there are other PC groups out there besides feminists, and they are sometimes louder. What usually happens is that the Muslim advocates change the subject to something like college rape so they can claim America is being hypocritical. Nobody ever openly defends genital mutilation, they just freak out and start screaming about how evil America is so how dare we judge them.

  • John||

    No they don't defend it. They just ignore it and scream about college rape, which allows Muslims to avoid having to defend it.

    Ultimately, they don't give a fuck because they don't give a fuck about Somalie women. They care about women who look like them and are from their socioeconomic class.

  • ||

    it's not that they don't give a fuck. What happens is that when Muslims bring up some sort of "look how bad America is" topic, they are such big pussies and by changing the subject to rape on US campuses they can find "common ground". Leftists are big on everyone getting along. Since they can share the America-hate and the anti-rape thing at the same time, that's what they converge on. Confronting Muslims about abuse of women in their culture just creates icky conflict and dissent.

  • Pulseguy||

    They don't want to fragment their power also. There are a lot of conflict in proggie groups, greenies versus heavy industry unions, for example. They choose to ignore all these real conflicts in order to grab and hold power. Anything to beat the capitalists.

  • Free Society||

    No they don't defend it. They just ignore it and scream about college rape, which allows Muslims to avoid having to defend it.

    Reminds me of when Bruce Willis' daughter strolled through Manhattan topless as a protest of "rape culture" when we all know she wouldn't be pulling that shit in Cairo or Islamabad.

    Which tells you something (doesn't tell her anything of course) but to a rational person that tells you something about the relevance of "rape culture" and those who moan about it. Stupid people need to have their talking points to mask their own stupidity from themselves.

  • Pulseguy||

    They care about genital mutilation, but not more than they care about claiming equality of cultures.

    My wife has been indoctrinated into 'all cultures are equal' and when I explode 'NO, they aren't', she just thinks I'm a jerk. Because she was told they were. When I bring up female genital mutilation she just sidesteps it - 'how is this done, is it still done, isn't that the same as male circumcision' etc.

  • PapayaSF||

    This is a huge problem with many people. They think that because they shouldn't be prejudiced against people due to gender/race/religion/culture/whatever, and that the law should treat everyone equally, that therefore they are all the same. And if they aren't, it's due to racism/sexism/discrimination/whatever. It's obvious nonsense to anyone with eyes and a clear brain, but there it is.

  • Free Society||

    My wife has been indoctrinated into 'all cultures are equal' and when I explode 'NO, they aren't', she just thinks I'm a jerk. Because she was told they were. When I bring up female genital mutilation she just sidesteps it - 'how is this done, is it still done, isn't that the same as male circumcision' etc.

    Your wife sounds like a real tool.

  • ||

    It's worth noting that this took place in Britain, where there is a shit-ton more classism than America.

  • R C Dean||

    I seem to remember reading that some internal Labor documents got out showing that it was their electoral strategy to import lots of Pakis and concentrate them in some communities to guarantee Labor districts.

    Of course, that means you have to keep them happy. And winking at sexual abuse by Pakis was one way of keeping them onside at the polls.

  • John||

    They admitted it. They hated the British public and their plan was to import another one. US Progressives are doing the same thing here, only they are not even being secret about it. US Progs constantly crow and brag about how immigration is going to overwhelm their enemies and turn the US into a leftist Latin American country like Venezuela or Argentina.

  • Free Society||

    US Progs constantly crow and brag about how immigration is going to overwhelm their enemies and turn the US into a leftist Latin American country like Venezuela or Argentina.

    And they might not be wrong since there seems to be a correlation between cultural values inherited from European fore-bearers and adherence to principles of liberty.

    Generally speaking, white European descended societies deviate less from Enlightenment principles and the exceptions are places like Hong Kong and Singapore where Enlightenment Principles (some of them anyways) have been imported and accepted.

    Another exception might be former Spanish colonies as their mother country's culture never cared much for liberty.

  • John||

    Latin America had two big strikes against it. One, it was colonized by the Spanish, who were completely unfriendly to liberty. Two, those countries achieved their independence through long partisan wars that tore apart their societies. One of the most fortunate things that happened to the United States is that its revolution ended quickly and with the remaining loyalists leaving for Canada. Had the British not given up or the loyalist stayed and fought on, we would have a very different and much worse country today.

  • Free Society||

    Had the British not given up or the loyalist stayed and fought on, we would have a very different and much worse country today.

    Lots of loyalists did stay and those who left mostly did so because their property rights were not being enforced. That aside, even had they stayed, the former Englishmen whose cultural values dominated that society had a culture that was just more tolerant and respectful of liberty than what you'd fine in the possession of the heirs of Spain's cultural tradition which was predicated on looting, slaving and tyranny.

  • Pulseguy||

    Catholics are in thrall to the Pope. They're into the big man. The still Catholic countries are less liberty oriented because, in part at least, they are accustomed to the big man telling them what they can and cannot do.

  • perlhaqr||

    It doesn't help that US policy bathed what was referred to as "Capitalism" in a very negative light by actually being Mercantilism. "Banana Republic" is a term for a historical reason. The U.S. Marines, sponsored by Dole Pineapple and United Fruit, did quite a bit to be a driving force behind the popularity of socialism in Latin America. But at least Hawaii got statehood out of it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars#Criticism

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's more the Anglosphere than "white european".

  • ||

    "The girls were ushered away, sent back to their abusers, effectively, by officials who did not want to break the first rule of P.C.: Never let any culture or community be subjected to public criticism or ridicule."

    Unless it is white Christian culture and then it's open season year round.

  • Sam Haysom||

    I would say that hatred of white Christians is an increasingly libertarian held policy. I'd say there are more women at your local libertarain meeting than Christians. Depending on the town there might even be more minorities. The nerd culture libertarians recruit from is violently hostile to religion especially Christianity.

  • MSimon||

    The Christians ought to give up on Popery. i.e. Prohibition.

    Gentle persuasion is not good enough for them?

  • Aloysious||

    ...and turn the US into a leftist Latin American country like Venezuela...

    I can't wait to run out of toilet paper. Maybe I should invest in a company that makes bidets.

  • John||

    I don't think they will succeed, but if they ever got everything they wanted, America would look just like Venezuela. And it would be everyone's fault but theirs.

  • ||

    I love you. I love your righteous, wholly justified anger.
    It is like a soothing balm.

  • David_B||

    Absolutely disgusting!

    It almost unbelievable to comprehend how such an absurd situation could arise, but then when we consider that Muhammad the pathetic prophet of Islam, was also a child rapist, and that most of this PC bullshit was created and designed by Leftist morons, suddenly the unbelievable becomes totally possible.

  • Pulseguy||

    I've known lots of ethnic types. They are really disgusted by lower class white women. They think they are all tramps and whores. Raping them is not a horrible thing in their eyes. And, they can't have sex with their Islamic Sisters, and their cousin's hairy butthole is not entirely satisfying. Being sexually aggressive with women who obviously have no standards and obviously are sluts is not great, but not a really big sin.

  • Restoras||

    Personally, I am disgusted that Reason took so long to address this. Not because it means I lost a bet to John, who turned out to be absolutely right about it, but because it was and is most certainly a libertarian issue.

    I think Dances-with-Trolls is 100% correct on the reason it wasn't covered. Rotherham highlighted in a most explicitly horrifying manner the dangers that come with a totally open borders policy - and they didn't have the balls to admit that, gee, maybe some border controls are a good idea.

    I guess the Reason staff is just as willing to sweep the plight of poor people that don't conform to their bias under the rug as those assholes in Britain.

    Cowards.

  • John||

    I won't say I told you so too much.

    It is the same way the mock people who complain that open borders harm them economically with the hipster "they took our jerbs" slur. They never address people's concerns. They just call them racists and stupid and tell them to go fuck themselves for daring to put their own interests ahead of Reason's ideology.

  • Restoras||

    Yup. You were 100% correct. I don't recall our wager but as I mentioned above if you ever get to NYC I'll buy you several rounds of drinks.

  • John||

    I get to NYC once in a while. We need to do that. You can pick the bar.

  • Free Society||

    Rotherham highlighted in a most explicitly horrifying manner the dangers that come with a totally open borders policy - and they didn't have the balls to admit that, gee, maybe some border controls are a good idea.

    Open boarders should exist only where property rights are absolute. Everyone has a right to emigrate, however unless you're en route to unowned territory, no one has a right immigrate, that is unless they have an automatic right to other people's private property or if they have a right to the public property of a 'public' of which they are not a constituent member.

    And if it's your schtick to maintain that public property is stolen property, as I do, then there is obviously no 'right' to the stolen property of other people. No matter how you cut it, the 'right to immigrate' is fundamentally predicated on the violation of private property rights which means that such a right cannot logically exist in the same social order without severe consequences.

  • ||

    I should be allowed to invite a foreign cousin to come and live on my private property, shouldn't I?

    I don't think anyone is advocating that people come here and squat on owned land. We're just arguing people have a right to engage on consentual transactions with American residents, by working for them and renting and buying from them, through voluntary contracts.

    You don't own your neighbors property so you don't have the right to tell your neighbor that he can't hire or rent to a Mexican.

  • Free Society||

    I should be allowed to invite a foreign cousin to come and live on my private property, shouldn't I?

    Of course. I covered that when I wrote:

    no one has a right immigrate, that is unless they have an automatic right to other people's private property

    Being invited is not a natural right. But the "invite my cousin to my property" thing isn't really the immigration system we deal with either.

    You don't own your neighbors property so you don't have the right to tell your neighbor that he can't hire or rent to a Mexican.

    That's exactly right, but conversely the Mexican doesn't have a right to immigrate here or anywhere he hasn't been invited and sponsored (sponsored since presumably they won't be airlifted onto your property and only your property and would instead be utilizing public property or in a free society the sponsor's own property easements and/or transport subscriptions)

  • buybuydandavis||

    Open boarders should exist only where property rights are absolute.

    Where ever governments are determined by *vote*, "open borders" implies the import and export of your rights.

  • ||

    I don't think this is an open borders problem, you can have an open borders policy and a "the culture you come from sucks" policy at the same time. If you're going to have open borders, you have to have a strong incentive to assimilate. That much I agree with. I would totally be fine with expanding the citizenship test to include basic tenets of Western Civilizaton.

  • Free Society||

    I don't think this is an open borders problem, you can have an open borders policy and a "the culture you come from sucks" policy at the same time.

    Which would include the absolute right to refuse service for property owners. Or otherwise the right to discriminate.

    That much I agree with. I would totally be fine with expanding the citizenship test to include basic tenets of Western Civilizaton.

    I don't know what that's supposed to achieve.

    Actions speak louder than words and methinks they'd be adhering to the principles of paramount civilization pretty quick when they're actually forced to by necessity, i.e. the locals won't sell me shit if I spend my weekends preaching the destruction of their society et cetera. Those unwilling to accept the terms won't come to begin with.

  • ||

    obviously yes, in the ideal libertarian state, everyone would be free to discriminate.

  • ||

    In other words you can't have open borders and a totally PC refusal to judge other cultures.

    In a fully libertarian society, I would totally expect immigration to be open, but conditional on accepting the rules of the libertarian state with respect to private property, equal justice, and non-violence.
    As long as everyone agrees to respect other people's rights, there's no good reason not to let them freely exchange with others.

    Some cultures don't respect those rules, so there may need to be a learning process. But once someone gets it and agrees to accept those values as foundational, there is no conflict.

  • Free Society||

    In other words you can't have open borders and a totally PC refusal to judge other cultures.

    Pretty much.

    As long as everyone agrees to respect other people's rights, there's no good reason not to let them freely exchange with others.

    For the most part, though the arbitrary whim of a property owner is just as good of a reason as any, but there is no reason to ever interfere in the free association of others.

    Some cultures don't respect those rules, so there may need to be a learning process. But once someone gets it and agrees to accept those values as foundational, there is no conflict.

    I'm just not sure a government exam is going to demonstrate whether or not they've accepted anything.

  • Free Society||

    In other words you can't have open borders and a totally PC refusal to judge other cultures.

    In a way, you could say that between our government policy and societal outlook, we're not mature enough to handle open borders.

  • perlhaqr||

    Sadly, I could probably buy into this position. *sigh*

  • Mickey Rat||

    Except the writing staff is not terribly keen on immigrants assimilating either. Yhere was some pearl clutching here by Dalmia on Bobby Jindal's speech to that effect, if memory serves.

  • perlhaqr||

    I think pinning this on "open borders" is like saying the vast majority of the damage from a forest fire comes from the way it contributes to global warming by heating the atmosphere.

    I don't think it'd a huge stretch for people to hold the positions of "I think people should be allowed to freely travel and contract for work with willing participants" and "I think people who commit rape should be punished for that" simultaneously. They are utterly orthogonal issues, to my mind.

  • John C. Randolph||

    My current policy:

    "I'm a bit offended by (insert some random PC bullshit guilt tripping here)."

    "Oh yeah? Fuck off and die in a fire, you guilt-peddling cunt."

    -jcr

  • TheZeitgeist||

    This story is a modern British version of a D.W. Griffith flick's stereotype-script, but real.

    No wonder the lefties want to move along on this one.

  • PapayaSF||

    I've noticed that people often have a really hard time dealing with reality when it "confirms negative stereotypes."

  • cyrusmilly746||

    Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income... You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection... Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up... You can have your first check by the end of this week...........

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  • RealityBites||

    Not only should every man involved be euthanized as the feral animal it is, every single person in the utterly inept useless justice department should join the feral's in the compost heap.

  • Richard Fitzwell||

    Horny Preteen British Slags Seduce Adult Pakistani Muslims http://wp.me/p31sf8-1A5

  • TimothyLane||

    The problem in Rotherham was the toxic combination of political correctness and multiculturalism that is the hallmark of the Left in both Britain and America.

  • ||

    "How Political Correctness Aided and Abetted Sex Crimes in England"

    Pakistan has as many rapes as the rest of the world combined. Women who are raped are often imprisoned for having sex outside of marriage where they are raped again. Courts sometimes sentence women to be gang raped. Letting large numbers of monsters from a culture like that into your country and then pretending they are just people like everyone else is insanity.

    Who said the other day that in 50 years either Norway will be Muslim or there will be a statue of Anders Breivik in every town?

  • JPyrate||

    A Crime is a Crime.

  • Coach Panto||

    These gangs should be exterminated, and their genitals removed and placed in their dead mouths, and pork sausages shoved in their jihadi asses. Not libertarian of me? Au contraire. The great thing about being libertarian is that it does allow war to be made on aggressors. These gangs were ORGANIZED to capture and rape underage girls, and therefore all gangs in the underage sex trade should be dead fuckin meat. The non-aggression principle is intact if men of honor carefully track gatherings of these animals and pick a good opportunities to execute them in groups with skill until they get the message and move the fuck back to Pakfudgistan. But one of the diseases of statism is that it emasculates men. Men were designed to protect women. The men of Rotherham are defective men for not killing these pieces of shit when these rapes started. The police are also cunts for not enacting reprisals, legal or illegal, to defend underage rape. Libertarianism allows men to be men. These Pak mongrels should be walking in fear now, but I think the cunt-men of Rotherdam are still the fearful ones. They need to form their own gangs and separate the duties of tracking, lookout, and attack, and have alibis and omerta ready to over the reprisals. Government isn't going to do it. Only Free Men can.

  • CosineKitty||

    Deadly force is perfectly rational and ethical when used to protect oneself or other innocents from serious harm. But what you are talking about is revenge, not self-defense. I think this is where one draws a line between libertarianism and anarchism.

    Revenge/justice belongs to government, provided that government has checks and balances, follows rule of law, and incorporates the presumption of innocence. I say that primarily because I don't want it to be OK for some hothead to blow my brains out because he thinks I look like the guy who raped his wife.

  • dmicah48||

    My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998!

    ........... www.Moneykin.Com

  • encinasgarnette||

    My last pay check was $ 9500 working 10 hours a week online. My Friend's has been averaging 14k for months now and she works about 21 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out
    OPEN THIS LINK IN YOUR BROWSER,,,,
    ➜➜➜➜➜➜➜ www.jobsaudit.com

  • ||

    Gotta love the Reason commenters. A person can be as big a god-damned Marxist as fucking Stalin, but as long as they hate sand-niggers, they are a-okay.

  • marcelapudritz||

    my classmate's mom makes $82 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $16174 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can check here...............
    ➜➜➜➜➜ http://www.navjob.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online