Reminded me about this terrible case from the Mennonite community in Bolivia :
http://www.vice.com/read/the-ghost-rapes-of-bolivia-000300-v20n8 On 6 September 2014 09:04, SS <cybers...@gmail.com> wrote: > The story in the link below, which reveals how 1400 girls were sexually > abused in Rotherham, England over a 16 year period is, to my mind, > sociologically interesting. > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/world/europe/reckoning-starts-in-britain-on-abuse-of-girls.html?emc=edit_th_20140902&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=46309869&_r > > First, a relevant quote: > > > It has highlighted another uncomfortable dimension of the issue, that > > of race relations in Britain. The victims identified in the report > > were all white, while the perpetrators were mostly of Pakistani > > heritage, many of them working in nighttime industries like taxi > > driving and takeout restaurants. The same was true in recent > > prosecutions in Oxford, in southern England, and the northern towns of > > Oldham and Rochdale, where nine men of Pakistani, Bangladeshi and > > Afghan origin were given long prison sentences in 2012 for abusing up > > to 47 girls. Investigators in Scotland have reportedly uncovered a > > similar pattern of abuse. > > > Why were all the girls white? Why were there no Pakistani or other Asian > girls who were abused? No one seems to have asked the question. > > Let me hazard a guess. There is a culture of allowing children more > freedom among white households in Britain. Girls in Pakistani and other > Asian families are supervised, shielded and burdened with the idea that > family honour revolves around their chastity. Honour killings are, after > all, an offshoot of this. > > A whole lot of reports about the 1,400 abused girls of Rotherham speak > of how "vulnerable" these girls were and how the vulnerability was > exploited. Of course young children, boys or girls are vulnerable. That > is a banal truism. Vulnerable people need protection. Whose > responsibility is it to protect vulnerable children, the state or the > family? > > In Britain the state attempts to protect vulnerable children from > physical and emotional abuse by parents. The state lays down parenting > laws that ensures that minor deviations that may arise out of > disciplining children can lead to jail sentences for parents. > > On the other hand the laws governing underage sex are ignored if it is > deemed consensual. > > What this means is that disciplining children can get parents punished. > Allowing these "vulnerable" children to have consensual sex attracts no > punishment. > > > The system seem to have things the wrong way round. Exactly what is > going on? > > shiv > > > >
