Jonathan, let me be clear (as politicians are wont to say). I don’t regard all migrants as potential rapists. Only a tiny minority of foreign nationals are arrested or convicted for sexual assault. Even in the case of the worst offender, Afghanistan, only around 75 per 10 000 Afghani immigrants have been arrested for this crime, which suggests that over 99% are not sexual offenders. And as Richard rightly pointed out, there was no gang rape in Epsom. The only reason that I have engaged in this debate is that a number of contributors have refused, apparently on ideological grounds, to accept overwhelming evidence that a disproportionate number of foreign nationals are involved in sexual assault. Is this fact important? I think it is. We have got too many rapists in the indigenous population. Why would we want to allow even more into the country?As to why people on the left are reluctant to accept evidence contrary to their beliefs, I do have a theory which, at the risk of being accused of writing yet another presumptuous ‘ essay’, I am happy to explain. In my opinion (and it is just an opinion) leftist ideology is a kind of secular religion based on faith rather than reason. Like fundamentalist Christianity it has got an original sin, the Atlantic slave trade. It has got a holy institution, the NHS. It has got sinners, people of right wing views. Nowadays, having largely abandoned actual socialism ( i.e state control of the economy), leftists are chiefly characterised by their belief in a number of anti-isms: anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-elitism and so on. And they judge virtue in terms of adherence to these beliefs. So when evidence is presented that, for example, a disproportionate number of foreign nationals are involved in sexual assaults, they see this as an attack upon their anti-racist ideology, which they must defend at all costs, just as religious zealots defend their faith against unbelievers.
Steven Rose ● 22d