- 13 Mar 2018 15:33
#14895963
That number is meaningless within itself as there's not really a point of reference, it's a raw number but how is one to make signifiance of it? I mean a single case has significance but in the realm of numbers, to make that stand out, would have to put it in relation to show that it is somehow worthy of note.
In regards to BBC, I don't know, don't have much of an opinion or impression of them. One could perhaps speculate a sort of political correctness though not sure if people see BBC as one for that, which is a weak response should it be done in fear of people misconstruing such a case.
But even with that impression, it is to be noted it is speculative and not something that readily confirmed.
The concern here though is how sexual violence isn't a concern in itself but becomes confined to certain groups. It has a historical trajectory in which rightly or wrongly, those more likely to be believed criminals of violence are poor and coloured (their skin color acquiring a status often in relation to being disproportionately poor, an average status effect). It becomes an all too easily call for imperialsim or attack based on people's anxieties about such populations. Which doesn't require that the real cases of such are to be ignored, but that the meta-belief should certainly be questioned for its tendency to side with state violence when it suits the state. Often based on reckless interpretations that don't know how to make standardized comparisons, the glowing example often been the characterization of Sweden as some rape capital ignoring its expansive definition of sexual assault and policy in reporting compared to other countries. All feeds into a hysteria which of course confirms worst suspicions which aren't to be countered strictly on the level of fact but need to be more deeply interrogated as to how people interpret the world around them.
But I would emphasize something more to a feminist position in which sexual violence in general is in consideration and it's not only note worthy when some coloured folk do it as it's not a problem confined to them but much more prevalent. Which some may simultaneously deny whilst asserting the prevalence of violence by the specified group, showing a lack of concern for such violence except to the extent it politicizes their concern with a set group.
To which I like @AFAIK 's point in regards to it being a failure of the system. I live in a poor state where child protection services are severely under resourced to the point of being fraudlent of federal requirements and police failing to take up a lot of things because of their lack of resources or prioritization with requirements of their superiors who are influenced by political figures. Such that the majority of violence and abuse in this state can no way be meaningfully responded to. So when a kid does end up dead, people point fingers at a child protection services that was notified but didn't remove the kid without considering that they're so under resourced that the very decision to remove a kid requires a very high burden of proof and justification even where people feel the child is being mistreated.
The question to ask in this case is why did they fail to investigate this, why did it go on for years? In the case back in Australia, can point to examples of powerful actors bribing police and such. This is where we could speculate maybe the police are too PC (though I doubt it) about arresting coloured folk for crimes. Or where thre pressures elsewhere to impede them doing so?
An issue being that outside of policy, there is simply the realization of such policies where even if they're perfect, it takes people to act in accordance with them, to have an existing culture that actualizes the ideal standards.
Either way, it's pretty bloody terrible and is on par with many terrible things that happen and absolutely nothing is done about it because the state is impotent and sometimes unwilling to protect many of the most vulnerable.
My glances at the subject don't readily lend itself to conclusions of PC or anything else, Douglas Murray asserting as much has the same possibility of simply confirming presumptions rather than arguing persuasively that it is the case. But then again it's not entirely implausible as the liberal response is rather weak against such questions, afraid to talk about things and actually feeding into the rise of reactionaries as far as I can tell for not offering a substantive alternative.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics