During the last few months in Britain there have been yet more revelations of new Muslim crimes and detailed confirmations of older ones.

In 2014 Lutfur Rahman, a Muslim, was elected for a second term as the mayor of Tower Hamlets, a London borough where one third of the population is Muslim.  This April a judge declared the poll result null and void because of Rahman’s use of corrupt and illegal methods to win the election.  Rahman has been banned from seeking office again and ordered to pay total costs of $1.5 million, nearly $400,000 of which he had to pay immediately.  Much of the Tower Hamlets corruption was obvious—the taking away of grants from worthwhile charities such as the Alzheimer’s Society in order to hand them out to Muslim groups (some of which had not even asked for them) to bribe them into voting for him; the intimidation of voters; vote rigging, particularly in the use of postal votes; and threats of violence against rival candidates and journalists.  Most of this wrongdoing had been widely known for a long time and even written about in the press, but the local police looked at the evidence tardily and halfheartedly and declined to act on the 131 complaints of electoral malpractice brought to them.  The judge said of these officers that “An unkind person might remark that the policemen had appeared to take as their role model the legendary Three Wise Monkeys.”

The case against Rahman had to be brought by four private individuals, who took a very considerable risk in doing so, not only because they were threatened and vilified but because they would have had to pay all of the next-to-ruinous costs if their case had failed.  Rahman’s case is not the only one involving Muslims.  In the town of Slough, Eshaq Khan and five others have been sent to jail for three and a half years for using ghost voters to corrupt the postal-voting system.  It happens quite often.  A crown prosecutor has called it an epidemic.

Mr. Rahman is no ordinary crook: He is a Muslim crook.  The judge convicted him of employing “undue spiritual influence,” a charge that had not been made in a British court since the 19th century.  Rahman had persuaded 101 local imams to say that it was the religious duty of all Muslims to vote for him, and that, if they did not, they would be siding with the enemies of Islam and defying the will of Allah.  Lutfur Rahman has even flown the Palestinian flag over the town hall as a gesture of Muslim solidarity; it amounts to a gesture of exclusion to the borough’s Jews.

Rahman had long been able to block and intimidate his critics by screaming “racism” and “Islamophobia” whenever his crimes were pointed out.  There was no truth in this, but his words prevented his Muslim followers from ever wondering if his critics might be right, and scared local politically correct officials and senior police officers.  The consequences for their careers of being successfully smeared as racists or Muslim-haters were much too great; it was safer not to do one’s duty.  The judge was very forthright on this point, saying, “Even in the multi-cultural society which is 21st century Britain, the law has to be applied fairly and equally to everyone.  Otherwise we are lost.”

His use of the word even reveals exactly where the problem lies.  We probably are already lost.  Multiculturalism and political correctness have so utterly undermined the traditions of fairness and the rule of law that earlier generations took for granted that a return to the decencies of the 20th century would be extremely difficult.  The forces of the left and the followers of Islam will fight hard to prevent such a return.  Theirs is a curious alliance, for they have only one thing in common: a wish to replace our free and equitable British democracy with something nastier, even though they differ about what kind of nastiness they desire.

The Tower Hamlets scandal followed closely on the publication of the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, 1997-2013, by Prof. Alexis Jay.  This report confirmed that in those years at least 1,400 children were sexually abused by gangs of Muslim men, with girls as young as 11 being repeatedly raped.  A confidential police report in 2010 had already shown that networks of Muslims were involved in sexually exploiting thousands of children, but little had been done.  In 2013 there were 157 reports made to the police, but only 9 prosecutions followed.

The report concludes that it was “misplaced political correctness” that led to the failure of Rotherham’s Labour-dominated council to recognize, let alone deal with, the child abuse by Muslim gangs in their town.  I agree entirely except for one word: misplaced.  There is no such thing as justified political correctness; it is quite simply wrong, the very antithesis of justice.  Rotherham is but an extreme case.

Yet even now people are afraid to use the M-word.  Officials and journalists alike speak of the perpetrators as being “Asian” or “south Asian,” which is an insult to Britain’s many decent Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsees, and Indian Christians; they have not been involved in these terrible crimes.  The use of the term Asian is also a grubby way of making it appear that it is a question of race.  Sometimes, the pink commentators coyly speak of “men of Pakistani heritage,” while ignoring the fact that the key component of that heritage is Islam: Pakistan was created as a Muslim state.  In so doing they also sidestep the evidence that in other countries, such as Scandinavia and Australia, it is Arabs and Turks who are responsible for a disproportionate number of violent sexual attacks.  Many of these Lebanese, Syrians, and Turks are white, but of course they are all Muslims.  Race is irrelevant.  The crimes are a direct product of the nature of one particular religious minority in Europe; its members are ethnically diverse.

The abuse of young girls seen in Rotherham has had counterparts in Rochdale and other towns; many Muslim gangs have been convicted.  When we take into account the unwillingness of the police and social services properly to investigate such crimes, we may be sure that the actual number of gangs and of sexual assaults is very much higher than just the ones that have been recorded.

When the evidence of Muslim guilt is put before left-liberals, they always bleat, “Only a minority of Muslims behave like that” and “There are non-Muslim sex gangs and election fraudsters too, you know.”  Both of these statements are obviously true, but they are spoken with forked tongues.  They are intended to divert people away from recognizing the obvious facts.  While only a relatively small minority of Muslims are involved in electoral fraud or join gangs to commit sex crimes, the size of that minority in relation to the number of Muslims in the population is far greater than the much smaller proportion of non-Muslims who behave in these ways, and the main reason is their religion.  What is just as shocking is the much larger proportion of Muslims who will not admit to—let alone protest, inform on, or condemn—the criminal ones.  There are honorable exceptions, but they are rare.  One of those bringing the case against Rahman was a Muslim businessman, and it was a Muslim prosecutor in Lancashire who authorized the first prosecution of the sex gangs.  But most Muslims were and are unwilling to take sides against the malefactors in their own community.  Loyalty to the followers of Islam takes precedence over standing up for what is right.  An example of this in Rotherham occurred when a Muslim councilor blocked a move to inspect and regulate more closely the behavior of the local taxi drivers, most of whom were Muslims.  The taxi drivers tended to work with and knew most about the sex gangs in that town, yet they were men who had been issued taxi licenses without a proper criminal background check.  It was not that the councilor was in league with the gangs, but rather that he did not want the scandalous behavior of his fellow Muslims to be revealed.  He was willing for girls to go on being assaulted in order to protect the public image of Muslims.

Central to the Islamic view of the world is the idea that women are inferior beings who should not be allowed autonomy.  In the Tower Hamlets election, women were intimidated into voting as the men wanted.  Likewise, postal ballots would all be completed by the male head of the household regardless of what the others wanted.  In Rotherham the Muslim women lived secluded lives under the complete control of their male relatives.  Occasionally, a Muslim gang will rape a Muslim girl knowing that she will not dare to tell her family.  If they were to find out, they would blame her, the victim, for having brought shame on the family and ruining her marriage prospects.  Last year in Birmingham a Muslim girl was raped by 30 men, including a father and son.  But most of the time it is native English girls without male protectors, often girls from children’s homes, who are preyed on.  It is they who have been the victims of the Muslim contempt for women and for non-Muslims in general.  It is they who are crushed by the misogyny and prejudice inherent in Islam.  Needless to say, British leftists, feminists, and antiracism campaigners are quite unwilling to recognize this.