I think it has to expand to a much larger part of Islam than the extremists that actually commit these crimes.Clearly Muslims are taught that teenage girls should not be offered the same freedoms as other British girls enjoy. Going to an event like a pop concert - possibly in mildly revealing clothes - is completely off limits for Muslim girls (possibly technically still a generalisation, but surely not much). This form of teaching must implicitly set up the idea that Westerners that permit such things are breaking God's laws and are sinful. The extremists are just taking that reasoning one step further. Something of this mindset presumably drove the awful crimes in Rotherham and elsewhere.
This is not actually the case. People in the West have been taught to believe it is the case. I will explain why and how if you want to ride along with me a bit.
List of countries where - to my personal knowledge - the things you mention above don't/didn't apply:
List One
Syria: been to many rock concerts there back in the day. Alcohol freely available. Girls where wore what they want - have photos of this but I won't bore you ;)
Turkey: Ditto but take it to 100%. Very liberal and extremely hedonistic in Istanbul at least. Alcohol - check. Sex available - check. Western lifestyle - check.
Iraq under Saddam - same but to lesser extent. Not because of laws but because of cultural aspects.
Lebanon - oh my God. Party central.
Jordan - again... well, you know the drill.
Indonesia - yep. Again.
Afghanistan pre-Russian Invasion: well... you get the picture
So - let's look at the other side of the coin. One example will suffice - we can call this List Two.
List Two
Saudi Arabia.
So, now let's expand the canvas a little. Who is the West's #1 ally? Clue: it's the same State that is one of the world's most egregious human right's violators and extremist rogue states. Bonus clue: It's in List Two.
Question: which list - 1 or 2 - embodies what you think of when you think of 'Islamic extremism'? Or even when you think of 'Islam'? I'm going to bet it's a country on List Two.
Supplementary Questions: Which countries from a list are being oppressed and eradicated by a country on the other list? Which country from a list claims it is 'True Islam'? Which country from a list has convinced the West that this claim is true?
Bonus: What will happen to the countries on List One when they are taken over or 'Iraqified' by the Western-backed extremists on List Two? I'll answer this one: they will become "Islamic States" and people in the West will shout 'see that's what Islam is!!!' all the while ignoring what they were for 1500 years before the program of 'cultural reform' got under way.
The sad fact is that it is the Saudis who are the extremist fanatics and this was never what Islam was - their sect was only founded (with the West's help yet again) in the 18th century. Ie 1200 years after Muhammad. Because they now have the money and the West's unquestioning support, they can spread their doctrine all over the world.
It is their doctrine you think of when you speak of Islam and you are right to oppose it - I do myself - but it's not Islam. And their ideas are not Islamic. You might think it hair-splitting but millions and millions of Muslims don't - especially when they're getting killed and persecuted by Wahabis like Daesh.
The real problem with PC speak, is that it tries to silence discussion of topics that should be discussed, by splitting hairs in the way you are doing. I mean, the problem of the vastly different moral values between Muslims and all the other communities is rarely if ever discussed on the BBC, and yet it is obviously a major driver of the hatred that these men who have spent their entire lives in Britain clearly feel.
"PC Speak". What does it really mean? As far as I can see it means "I want to be free to insult, to degrade, to mock - and I want to do this to the disadvantaged, the week, the disenfranchised and ethnic minorities".
But if you think it really means 'speaking your mind' I can do that as well as anyone - especially regarding Islamophobes. The irony is of course that if I did that right now in my 'street speak' I'd be as un-PC as it gets. And I'd also be banned which heaps on the irony as this whole discussion started off about people who WERE banned. So there's that. But that's a digression! Lol! Back on topic. You say this:
it tries to silence discussion of topics that should be discussed, by splitting hairs in the way you are doing.
Which is patently untrue and disingenuous. What I am doing is arguing that when the word 'Muslim' or 'Islam' is applied to 2 billion people arbitrarily due to the actions of - say - perhaps 200,000 radicals max, then that needs pointing out. I am up for a discussion on these topics 24/7. Strangely it never seems to happen. What happens is what happens with the atheists when you try to discuss religion with them.
But what happens when these things are pointed out is always informative. If it's a Britain First or other quasi-racist type that the pointing out is directed at then they will ignore this - because of their own bias, stupidity or perhaps inability to process.
If it's a rational person then they will process that information and perhaps adjust - after all, I am as against Wahabis, Daesh, Suicide bombers, general religious fuckwits as they are. So we have common ground.
But there's a spectrum and I often find that there are people in between the rational person and the BF neanderthal knuckle-dragger who
also refuse to accept this info and keep on labelling all Muslims as terrorists (though implicitly of course) and Islam as equating virtually to the Daesh manual of Jihad. I have my own opinion of why this might be - such people are always, without exception, on the Right of the political spectrum, for example - but perhaps I should keep quiet about it.