This article discusses the conclusions of Britain’s Rape Gang Inquiry as to what it called the decades-long “systematic targeting of vulnerable girls” for sexual violence in the UK “by predominantly Muslim Pakistani gangs” and the factors that enabled such violence, including the culpability of the British government. This article also considers whether the United States is at risk for such mass sexual violence.
Summary
- Britain’s Rape Gang Inquiry examined what it called “one of the most horrendous scandals in the long history of [the United Kingdom]: the systematic targeting of vulnerable girls, overwhelmingly White British, by predominantly Muslim Pakistani gangs”. The Inquiry, a non-governmental, privately funded commission, “was founded because the authorities failed to act, the politicians failed to act, the civil service failed to act” and because the ruling Labour Party “initially refused a public inquiry and only relented under pressure by ordering a process viewed with widespread scepticism”.
- On June 16, the Inquiry published a report concluding that “[a]t the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma” by the gangs, with survivors describing “daily rapes” and “‘red rooms’ of extreme torture”. The report concluded that these crimes have been committed “since the 1950s by Pakistanis in particular, and have affected every region” of the UK.
- Just as shocking is the cowardice and complicity of the British government and of British public institutions as described by the report, which concluded that “the state and its institutions … failed catastrophically over decades” and that “decades of institutional concealment” and British government enabling allowed the rape gangs to “operate with impunity”. Further, “Labour [Party]-dominated councils and [Members of Parliament] were briefed on the gangs long ago yet later denied knowledge. The party prioritised electoral reliance on Muslim voting blocs and then blocked or watered down inquiries, suppressed ethnicity data, and framed legitimate concerns as ‘far-right’ agitation.”
- As to why the British government allowed the systematic targeting of young British women to happen, the report concluded that “Political correctness, fear of accusations of racism, and fear of losing electoral support from certain demographics have taken precedence over the protection of British children.” It noted that “the charge of ‘Islamophobia’ has been deployed to challenge, intimidate or discredit individuals and organisations attempting to highlight the issue” and that “authorities at every level … feared being labelled ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’ more than they feared failing the girls to whom they owed a duty of care”.
- The report concluded that “[p]erpetrators from Pakistani Muslim and other Muslim backgrounds operated under an honour-and shame-based clan code that treated non-Muslim girls, especially white working class girls, as property available for sexual use” and that “At least eight theological aspects of Islam may contribute to cultural patterns that enable or normalise the sexual abuse of non-Muslim girls.”
Could such a calamity happen in the United States?
I would be the last to claim that America is immune to whatever societal forces have wreaked havoc on the UK. I have written that efforts to stem the spread of other culturally/religiously-based violence against women in the United States have been hobbled by the widely subscribed-to doctrine of multiculturalism and the dread of accusations of racism — the exact same catalysts of calamity in the UK.
The report stated that Pakistanis compose about 2 percent of the total population of the UK. How does the size of the Pakistani community in the U.S. compare? In 2024, 417,674 foreign-born Pakistanis resided in the U.S. (representing about eight-tenths of 1 percent of the total U.S. foreign-born population) along with 197,514 persons born in the U.S. who self-identified solely as Pakistani or who listed Pakistani as the first of multiple ancestries — for a total of 615,188 persons (representing about two-tenths of 1 percent of the total U.S. population).
Foreign-born Pakistanis and their descendants residing in the U.S represent a small (but growing) percentage of the U.S. population — about one-tenth of their proportion in the UK. This makes, at least at the current time, a nationwide replication of the events in the UK less likely here. However, the risk may be heightened in localities where Pakistanis represent a much larger percentage of the population.
Introduction
On June 16, The Rape Gang Inquiry Report (Inquiry Report or Report) was published. The Rape Gang Inquiry “was established to examine one of the most horrendous scandals in the long history of [the United Kingdom]: the systematic targeting of vulnerable girls, overwhelmingly White British, by predominantly Muslim Pakistani gangs across towns and cities up and down the nation”. The Report credited Member of Parliament Rupert Lowe’s “energy and commitment” with “ensur[ing] that The Rape Gang Inquiry took place”.
Not only was the Inquiry not an official undertaking of the United Kingdom’s government, it was privately funded by “untold thousands across Britain who made all of this possible by donating to ensure that this Inquiry could take place”. Why? The Inquiry Report contended as to the UK’s ruling Labour Party that:
[The Labour Party] initially refused a public inquiry and only relented under pressure by ordering a process viewed with widespread scepticism.
Labour-dominated councils and MPs were briefed on the gangs long ago yet later denied knowledge. The party prioritised electoral reliance on Muslim voting blocs and then blocked or watered down inquiries, suppressed ethnicity data, and framed legitimate concerns as ‘far-right’ agitation. When finally forced to act, the Labour government produced a national inquiry whose tightly drawn terms of reference deliberately excluded systematic examination of the demographic, cultural, and religious drivers.
MP Lowe stated that “This Inquiry was founded because the authorities failed to act, the politicians failed to act, the civil service failed to act.”
What of the Inquiry Report itself? It is very disturbing to read, and I will spare the reader survivors’ explicit descriptions of the most depraved and inhumane acts performed by the gangs. MP Lowe himself commented that “Participating in our hearings, listening to the survivors, was the most harrowing experience of my life. It is impossible to understand how such evil has been allowed to flourish on such a horrifying scale.”
At a high level, the Report concluded that “[a]t the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma” by the gangs, with “survivors describe[ing] daily rapes, ‘red rooms’ of extreme torture, trafficking between cities … [and] even … to the Middle East” and “forced conversions to Islam followed by [nonconsensual] religious marriages”. These crimes were “committed for decades, since the 1950s by Pakistanis in particular, and have affected every region” of the UK.
Just as shocking is the cowardice and complicity of the British government and of British public institutions as described by the Report, resulting in “decades of institutional concealment” and enabling barbaric crimes to be committed on an unimaginable scale in Great Britain of all places. The Inquiry Report concluded that “The evidence presented throughout the [Inquiry’s] hearings confirmed what had long been known but repeatedly denied by many in the political class,” elaborating that: “[T]he state and its institutions have failed catastrophically over decades. Police, social services, schools, the NHS [National Health Service], licensing authorities, and governments allowed these gangs to operate with impunity. There was a demonstrable lack of political will to confront them.”
I was certainly aware that severe forms of culturally/religiously-based violence against women still occur around the world. In March 2024, I wrote that such violence is carried out on an all-too-regular basis, including the phenomena of female genital mutilation, honor killings, female infanticide, sex-selection abortions carried out to prevent the birth of girls, dowry-related killings, and killings based on accusations of witchcraft. The United Nations has estimated that “more than 130 million girls and women alive today have undergone female genital mutilation, mainly in Africa and some countries in the Middle East” and estimated that there are about 142 million “missing” females around the world “due to the cumulative effect of postnatal [including by infanticide] and prenatal [including by abortion] sex selection in the past”, including about 72 million in the People’s Republic of China and about 46 million in India.
However, I was only aware of rape as a form of culturally/religiously-based violence against women in the contexts of wartime atrocities (such as by Japan and the Soviet Union during World War II and by Hamas during its October 7, 2023, massacres of Israelis), or, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay discussed in 2010, rape victims being murdered by family members for having “dishonored” their families.
But I am not alone in my lack of prior awareness of what was occurring in the UK, or at least to its sheer magnitude. MP Lowe stated in the Report’s forward that he “was unaware of the sheer scale of the evil that has been, and continues to be, perpetrated by chiefly Pakistani Muslim men against vulnerable young white women and girls in communities up and down our country”.
It is, of course, crucial to document and bring to an end the decades-long reign of sexual terror in the UK, and to bring the perpetrators, and their collaborators and enablers, to justice. Lowe emphasized that the Inquiry’s ultimate objective was to “[p]ut rapists and their enablers behind bars” and that “Lessons need to be learned and prosecutions need to follow for the appalling cowardice of those responsible for refusing to resist such horrors.”
But it is equally crucial to ensure that such mass atrocities never occur in the United States. Could such a pervasive societal breakdown really happen here? One would think not, that American leaders, institutions, and society would never allow it to occur. But who could ever imagine that it would occur in Great Britain? The Britain that single-handedly held out against Nazi Germany would never have allowed it to happen. Winston Churchill would never have allowed it to happen. But Churchill resigned as prime minister for the last time in 1955 and shuffled off this mortal coil a decade later. Maybe the Britain of today is not the Britain of yesteryear.
But I would be the last to claim that America is immune to whatever societal forces have wreaked havoc on the UK. I have written that other types of brutal and abhorrent culturally/religiously-based violence against women have already come to our shores through immigration from regions of the world where they are culturally/religiously grounded. And I have written that efforts to stem their spread here have been hobbled by the widely subscribed-to doctrine of multiculturalism and the dread of accusations of racism — the exact same catalysts of calamity in the UK.
The Victims, the Perpetrators, and the Crimes
What happened in the UK, what is apparently still happening in the UK, cannot be dismissed as merely unrelated and infrequent occurrences. The Inquiry Report explained that “[o]rganised networks of perpetrators built coordinated operations” and that “the same unspeakable crimes occurred in at least 149 local authority districts — close to 40% of all such districts across the United Kingdom.” As the Report described:
The Inquiry heard harrowing testimony from survivors and their families. The method used to groom children typically followed the same process. Girls as young as 11 were initially befriended by a young Muslim man who then treated the young child like an adult and would then start providing them with alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes. After a few months the girls would then be collected from school gates, care homes, and streets in taxis. They were taken to houses, flats, restaurants, and hotels where they were raped repeatedly by groups of men, tortured, filmed for blackmail, and told they were “white trash” … who merited punishment. Many became pregnant while still children. Some miscarried under trauma, others endured coerced abortions, and some gave birth to children who were later removed by the state.
The Report noted that “[t]he number of reported rapes in the United Kingdom has risen substantially since 1997, when the era of large-scale mass immigration … commenced under [Prime Minister Tony] Blair” — from less than 9,000 in 2000 to over 70,000 in 2025.
It concluded that “The overwhelming majority of the rape gang networks consisted entirely of men from Muslim backgrounds — predominantly of Pakistani heritage, although smaller groups from Somali, Iranian, Syrian, Turkish, and other Muslim origins were also involved.” It noted that “around 87% of those convicted in … group-based child sexual exploitation … cases bore distinctively Muslim names” and that “an imam with the Oxford Islamic Congregation[] believes the true proportion of gang members who are Muslims to be around 95%”.
The Report explained that “[a]cross Britain … girls from Sikh and Hindu backgrounds have also been targeted by Muslim gangs”, but that “Unlike the White British majority, these non-Muslim immigrant populations were never prevented from organising as a collective to protect their own.” However, “White working-class girls lacked equivalent collective protection, not least because authorities often silenced concerns with accusations of racism.” Thus, “initial assaults without consequences create[d] a perception of Britain as a place where such behaviour carries no risk”. Consequently:
When the target is a non-Muslim girl — particularly White British girls perceived as unguarded, dressed in Western styles and lacking male protectors … [n]o retaliation is expected from the girl’s family or community, so some young men feel emboldened to treat her as property and then approach, assault, groom, share among the group, and sell her services.
Troublingly, “Even second-, third-, or fourth-generation immigrants raised in Britain continue these patterns, acting as demographic clusters where the clan system reproduces itself and intensifies.” Thus, “Ongoing immigration … only … replenish[es] and strengthen[s] such communities.”
The Role of Islam
The Inquiry Report concluded that “[p]erpetrators from Pakistani Muslim and other Muslim backgrounds operated under an honour-and shame-based clan code that treated non-Muslim girls, especially white working class girls, as property available for sexual use” and that “At least eight theological aspects of Islam may contribute to cultural patterns that enable or normalise the sexual abuse of non-Muslim girls.” These include:
- the doctrine of Muslim superiority,
- the principle of loyalty and disavowal (al-walā' wa-l-barā'),
- male dominance over women,
- enforced seclusion and veiling of women,
- forced marriage combined with the absence of a fixed minimum age of consent,
- the perception of female sexuality as inherently dangerous or fitna,
- historical sharia institution of slavery, [and]
- the system of dhimmitude.
As to “Muslim Supremacism”, the Inquiry Report stated that: “Islam holds that those who are righteous and truly fear God, meaning Muslims, are inherently superior to those who reject God’s commands, namely non-Muslims,” and that this “is closely linked to derogatory views of non-Muslims” and “can provide a religious justification that bolsters an abuser’s conviction of their own superiority and facilitates the dehumanisation of non-Muslim victims”. The Report disclosed that “during gang rapes by dozens of men”, one victim “was forced to lick their feet clean because ‘they believed they were morally superior to her’”.
One victim testified before the Inquiry that she “was beaten, strangled, suffocated, and my head held under water, tortured, kicked, and raped over 100 times”. The Inquiry Report stated that she “was explicitly told during the rapes that the attacks were happening because she was white and because she was Christian” and that “While being beaten she was repeatedly called ‘a white slag,’ ‘a white whore,’ ‘a white cunt,’ and simultaneously condemned as a non-Muslim who deserved punishment for failing to follow Islamic rules.” She elaborated that:
I was told that … all white girls … sleep with hundreds of people. I was told white girls are trash. They are all whores. They are lower than shit under your shoe. They don’t obey Allah, so they deserve to be punished. They don’t dress modestly. … White girls show the curves of their body, so they are asking for it. They should be raped as punishment for not obeying Allah. Kaffir [non-Muslim] girls are worthless. … Many times I was told that the Quran says, “If one of your wives disobeys you, beat her.” This was often quoted to me before they beat me with their hands. They believed they had a position of religious moral superiority over “nonbelievers.” They believed it was their duty to punish us, as they believed that doing so made them good Muslims. … I was told that in Islam, if a girl or woman looks at a man who isn’t her brother, father or her husband, then that means she wants to have sex with him. So was told to look at the floor when I was around Muslim men. So when I did look at a waiter in a restaurant, I was then taken away to be gang raped as “punishment.”
As to the “‘Us and Them’ Mindset”, the Inquiry Report stated that:
The Islamic principle known as al-walā’ wa-l-barā’ (loyalty and disavowal) commands Muslims to direct their love and allegiance towards what pleases God while hating, avoiding, and distancing themselves from what displeases Him.
The Quran warns that God views non-Muslims with contempt and that Muslims who befriend, ally with, or associate closely with them risk being regarded by God as disbelievers themselves.
The Report concluded that:
Beyond its theological role, al-walā' wa-l-barā' has profoundly shaped certain Islamic cultures[ where] many Muslims feel strong pressure not to say or do anything that could damage the image of the Muslim community or bring discredit to Islam. Within an honour- and shame-based framework reinforced by these values, speaking out to outsiders about wrongdoing committed by fellow Muslims is often seen as an act of betrayal.
Thus, “A deeply ingrained culture of enforced loyalty and community protection can discourage individuals from reporting abuses or providing evidence against members of their own group.” Further:
The doctrine of loyalty and disavowal exerts particularly strong pressure when Muslims live as a minority in non-Muslim host societies. In such settings, as they seek to preserve and assert a powerful collective identity, Muslims may place even greater emphasis on internal solidarity and separation from non-believers than they would in their countries of origin.
Such behavior could be seen in action when “after [a victim] reported her kidnapping to the police, she was interviewed by a Muslim officer who switched off the tape recorder and instructed her to drop her allegations because of ‘lack of evidence’”.
As to “Superiority and Dominance of Men Over Women”, the Inquiry Report stated that:
Numerous authoritative sources and sharia regulations reinforce the notion of women’s inferiority to men. [The Quran] declares that men hold a rank above women. The Prophet Muhammad stated that women are deficient in both religion and intelligence relative to men, and in the same hadith he noted that women form the majority of those in hell.
The Report concluded that “Sharia’s approach to rape also disadvantages women,” elaborating that:
Rape is categorised as a form of zinā (illicit sexual intercourse), the same offence that covers adultery and fornication. Zinā is defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who is neither his wife nor his slave. There is no distinct offence of rape; it is treated as coerced zinā. … When a woman accuses a man of rape, her consent is presumed unless both the act of penetration and her lack of consent are proven by four male eyewitnesses who each directly observed the man’s penis entering the woman’s vagina. … Should a woman allege rape but fail to produce the four required male witnesses, she risks being convicted of zinā on the basis of her own accusation. In 2003, Pakistan’s National Commission on the Status of Women reported that up to 88% of women imprisoned in Pakistan were rape or gang-rape victims who, unable to meet the four witness requirement, were instead convicted of illicit sex.
As to “Female Sexuality”, the Inquiry Report stated that:
Islamic canonical sources portray women as possessing sexual desires that are at least as strong as men’s, if not stronger and view these desires as potentially harmful to men.
One practical expression of anxiety over women’s sexuality is the practice of female genital mutilation … , which various schools of Islamic law either require or strongly recommend as a way to curb excessive female sexual desire.
Another reflection of the perceived danger posed by female sexuality is the strict separation of the sexes, enforced through practices such as veiling women’s bodies, restricting them to the home, and the Quranic directive against men and women gazing at one another.
The Report further stated that:
[A] woman who fails to comply with sharia norms — for instance, by appearing unveiled and unaccompanied in public — represents a danger to social order. In such a framework, responsibility for any sexual assault she suffers is often attributed to her own behaviour, especially when combined with notions of the inherent impurity of non-Muslims.
This outlook leads to non-Muslim women who appear uncovered and move freely without male supervision being labelled as “sluts” who are eager to entice men. In this cultural context, a Muslim man who engages in sexual activity with such a woman bears no blame; the fault lies entirely with the woman.
As to “Jihad and Sex Slavery” and “Dhimmitude: Islam’s Treatment of Conquered Non-Muslim Peoples”, the Inquiry Report stated that:
Classical sharia rules on jihad, defined as warfare waged against non-Muslims to extend the dominion of Islam, crystallised during the medieval era … [d]ivid[ing] the world into two fundamental categories: the dār al-Islām (“the house of Islam”), territories governed by Islamic authority, and the dār al-ḥarb (“the house of war”), territories under non-Muslim control.
Under this framework, non-Muslims … living in the house of war could lawfully be fought, defeated, and upon capture enslaved.
Non-Muslim captives taken in such conflicts are regarded as lawfully enslaved simply by virtue of their capture. These captives may then be allocated to Muslim combatants as part of the war booty (spoils). They can subsequently be sold, ransomed, or retained in slavery.
The Report noted that “sexual relations between a male owner and his female captive slave do not constitute zinā”. It explained that:
A significant contemporary legal debate among Muslim scholars concerns the proper classification of Western countries that now host large Muslim immigrant populations. In classical Islamic jurisprudence, any non-Muslim nation was presumptively categorised as dār al-ḥarb … from which Muslims had the “right and duty” to take slaves.
Some authorities now classify Western nations as dār al-da‘wa (“house of propagation”), where Muslims enjoy freedom to invite others to Islam; in such circumstances the obligation to wage jihad is thought to have been suspended. Other scholars maintain that an implicit “covenant of security” exists for Muslim migrants in the West: they are permitted to live and operate freely in exchange for refraining from jihad against the host society.
But the Report cautioned that:
[T]he alternative classifications of Western countries, such as dār al-da‘wa or a tacit covenant of security, serve only to postpone, rather than eliminate, the traditional obligation to engage in jihad. For at least some Muslims … the issue is not whether jihad will eventually be required, but merely when the appropriate moment arrives.
And the Report concluded that, theological debates by Islamic scholars aside, “Certain Muslim men, lacking deep scholarly knowledge, often rationalise their grooming gang offences by mentally recasting their victims in the role of legitimate slave property under an Islamic framework.” It quoted journalist Andrew Norfolk as having “captured this mindset” when he wrote:
Some of these [Muslim] kids have got an idea, probably because it’s quite convenient for them, that Britain’s been designated a land of war, so certain things have become permissible in terms of “the enemy”; I think some of these guys think it’s okay to do stuff to white girls that they wouldn’t dream of doing to Muslim girls.
As to “Dhimmitude”, the Inquiry Report stated that:
[Non-Muslims] residing within the house of Islam were considered protected, provided they fulfilled specific obligations and were not legitimate targets of military action.
When non-Muslim communities came under Islamic rule, they were granted conditional tolerance through a formal surrender agreement known as the dhimma pact. This arrangement allowed dhimmis … to retain their religion, but only on the condition that adult males paid an annual tax called the jizya and that the entire community observed a range of restrictive regulations. As the … commentator Ibn Kathir explained, these rules were designed to ensure their continued humiliation, degradation, and disgrace.
If a dhimmi community was deemed to have violated the pact, whether by failing to pay the jizya or by breaching any of the imposed conditions, Islamic law permitted the resumption of jihad. In such circumstances, the full sharia regulations of war would apply: adult males could be killed, women and children enslaved, and the property of non-Muslims seized as spoils.
The Report concluded that “The dhimma framework … has supplied a religiously sanctioned cultural template that continues to underpin the abduction, forced conversion, and coerced marriage of non-Muslim girls in places such as Egypt and Pakistan.” It quoted the Network of Sikh Organisations’ statement as to “the appalling treatment of girls from minority faiths in Pakistan — where Christian, Hindu and Sikh girls are kidnapped, forced to convert to Islam and married”.
State Sponsorship
Can one seriously assert that the British government sponsored or, at the very least, sanctioned, these mass sex crimes? Before rejecting such a contention out of hand, consider the Inquiry Report’s conclusion that “The perpetrators operated with impunity because the [British] state enabled them,” that “every one of our institutions failed the[ victims] catastrophically”. Consider the Report’s accusations that:
Police forces ignored repeated reports, criminalised victims instead of perpetrators, destroyed evidence, and allowed known rapists to walk free on bail.
Social care services undermined protective parents, placed children in trafficking hubs inside children’s homes, closed cases despite clear indicators of exploitation, and retaliated against whistleblowers.
The NHS recorded genital injuries, multiple sexually transmitted infections in children as young as 13, pregnancies caused by rape, and suicide attempts, yet discharged victims back to their abusers without safeguarding referrals or trauma care.
Schools observed older men collecting girls at the gates, heard disclosures of rape on school premises, and responded by excluding victims rather than protecting them.
Taxi licensing authorities renewed permits for drivers who formed the logistical backbone of the networks and collapsed in the face of organised protests when basic safety measures were proposed.
As one example, the Report stated that “On at least five occasions [a victim] approached the police, presenting medical evidence of her injuries, yet each time she was told there was nothing they could do and her evidence was not accepted.”
As to the United Kingdom’s political leaders, the Inquiry Report concluded that “Political failure lies at the heart of the scandal” with “[s]uccessive governments lack[ing] the will to confront the ethnic and religious patterns”. While the Labour Party “bears particular responsibility”, “while in government, [the Conservative Party] continued with Labour’s approach and failed to … launch a full statutory inquiry despite clear evidence”. “Despite now pushing for an inquiry in opposition, when in government [it] did very little.”
To the survivors, “institutional disbelief … compounded their suffering”. “Whistleblowers, parents, and survivors … who came forward [to assist the Inquiry] showed extraordinary courage, despite having been met in the past with disbelief and intimidation.”
Why did the British government fail so catastrophically? The Inquiry Report concluded that “Political correctness, fear of accusations of racism, and fear of losing electoral support from certain demographics have taken precedence over the protection of British children.” The Report stated that:
Concerns have long been raised that fear of accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ has inhibited open discussion and effective action on group-based child sexual exploitation cases, particularly those involving grooming gangs. A series of reports and analyses from the think tank Policy Exchange have documented how the charge of ‘Islamophobia’ has been deployed to challenge, intimidate or discredit individuals and organisations attempting to highlight the issue.
Policy Exchange[] … argues that accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ … have been used to suppress exposure of the scandal and the pursuit of justice for victims.
Additionally, the Inquiry Report concluded that:
[UK] law … began to foster an environment in which challenging certain minority communities, including Muslim ones, became politically dangerous and even criminal. This enabled the grooming gangs to operate with impunity for years because authorities at every level … feared being labelled ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’ more than they feared failing the girls to whom they owed a duty of care.
The Report elaborated that:
[In 1999, t]he Macpherson Report … branded the police “institutionally racist” and introduced a definition of racism so broad that police officers and social workers became terrified of any action that could be construed as targeting ethnic minorities. Across Britain, clear evidence of organised abuse by Pakistani gangs, among other majority-Muslim ethnic groups, was ignored because confronting it risked accusations of racism. The fear was not abstract. Senior officers and council staff explicitly cited concerns about so-called “community relations” and potential race riots as reasons for inaction.
The country’s transformation was greatly accelerated under [Prime Minister] Blair’s New Labour project, which culminated in the Equality Act 2010. … Combined with [pre-existing] hate crime legislation … it created an environment in which criticising aspects of Islamic culture or patterns of offending linked to Muslim communities could be framed as ‘racial hatred’ or ‘Islamophobia.’ … Police forces, social services, and local councils repeatedly chose silence or denial over robust investigation because the political and professional costs of appearing to single out Muslims was deemed too high.
The Report concluded that “[l]iberal elites in media, politics, and the public sector internalised the idea that acknowledging cultural or religious factors in crime was itself a form of bigotry” and that, tragically, “This mindset actively shielded the rape gangs by discouraging the very inquiries and interventions that could have saved thousands of children.”
The Report warned that “Until the country rejects the fear of being called ‘racist’ and restores the courage to name uncomfortable truths, the conditions that allowed these networks to thrive will remain.” It provocatively stated that “[o]ne way to view the involvement, or lack thereof, of British state officials in the rape gang scandal is as an incorporation of dhimmi-like submissiveness” and that “From this perspective, the failure of authorities to act decisively against the grooming gang issue might represent a significant step in the gradual Islamisation of Britain.”
Could It Happen Here?
As I stated earlier, I would be the last to claim that America is immune to whatever societal forces have wreaked havoc in the UK. In 2011, Abihail Esman wrote in the Washington Times as to honor killings in the U.S. that:
[T]he liberal left ... maintains an almost conspiratorial silence [regarding honor killings]. Instead of investigating, reporters and editors in the liberal media turn their heads. They insist these events are incidents of “domestic abuse,” not “honor killings” or that there is no difference between the two. Above all, they resist ascribing religious underpinnings to these deaths even as women who manage to escape them — and often, the men and women who commit them — assert quite clearly, the cause is “my religion.”
The situation in Canada is certainly more grave than in the United States. To our north, the refusal to call out honor killings for what they are has led to a refusal to demand that immigrant communities themselves take responsibility for ending this practice. Aruna Papp concluded in ”Culturally Driven Violence Against Women: A Growing Problem in Canada’s Immigrant Communities” that:
[M]ost advocates and activists for female victims of abuse shy away from challenging the immigrant communities to examine their own traditions and cultural values in explaining the violence in their homes. The ideology of multiculturalism, even amongst the most well-meaning advocates ... tends to preclude any discussion of cultural values and traditions that project a “colonialist” mentality or that may lead to a perceived “racialization” of an entire ethnic community. The reasoning appears to be that to suggest violence against girls and women arises from specific cultural values implies some cultures are better than others where treatment of women is concerned. ... It is much safer to blame the abuse of women on the “global phenomenon” of women abuse or on settlement issues or on discrimination or racism in the host society while comfortably ignoring values that need to be challenged within the community.
Papp pointed out that “Community leaders point to cultural traditions, religious values and norms in defending their way of life. Thus, they consciously exploit multiculturalism-inspired fears amongst mainstream Canadians of appearing racist or of perpetuating cultural stereotypes.”
She argued that there needs to be “a challenge to the leaders of those communities who too often remain silent — and even to the politicians who represent [them] — who effectively enable these horrible crimes against women in the name of family honour and shame”.
No such challenge was ever issued in the UK. Would one be issued in Canada should rape gangs take hold? Would one be in the U.S.?
The Inquiry Report stated that Pakistanis compose about 2 percent of the total population of the UK. Of course, this is largely the result of Britain’s colonization of India in the past. Pakistan is a member of the British Commonwealth, which the British monarchy’s website describes as “a voluntary association of 56 independent countries, almost all of which were formerly under British rule”.
How does the size of the Pakistani community in the U.S. compare?
The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Homeland Security Statistics reports that immigration by persons born in Pakistan averaged 15,068 annually over the decade from FY 2015 to FY 2024. This represents only 1.5 percent or so of average annual immigration to the U.S. of 1,049,280 over that period.
As to the number of foreign-born Pakistanis and their descendants residing in the U.S., my colleagues Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler analyzed U.S. Census Bureau data and found that:
- In 1980, 31,340 foreign-born Pakistanis resided in the U.S. (representing about two-tenths of 1 percent of the total U.S. foreign-born population of 14,079,906 at that time) along with about 5,000 persons born in the U.S. self-identifying solely as Pakistani or who listed Pakistani as the first of multiple ancestries — for a total of about 36,000 persons (representing about two-hundredths of 1 percent of the total U.S. population of 226,545,805 at the time).
- In 2000, 229,206 foreign-born Pakistanis resided in the U.S. (representing about seven-tenths of 1 percent of the total U.S. foreign-born population of 31,107,889 at the time) along with 65,932 persons born in the U.S. who self-identified as Pakistani — for a total of 295,138 persons (representing about one-tenth of 1 percent of the total U.S. population of 281,421,906 at the time).
- In 2024, 417,674 foreign-born Pakistanis resided in the U.S. (representing about eight-tenths of one percent of the total U.S. foreign-born population of 50,234,841 at the time) along with 197,514 persons born in the U.S. who self-identified as Pakistani — for a total of 615,188 persons (representing about two-tenths of 1 percent of the total U.S. population of 340,003,797 at the time).
In sum, foreign-born Pakistanis and their descendants residing in the U.S represent a small (but growing) percentage of the total U.S. population — about one-tenth of their proportion of the population in the UK. This makes, at least at the current time, a nationwide replication of the events in the UK less likely here. However, the risk may be heightened in localities where Pakistanis represent a much larger percentage of the population. The Pew Research Center found that, in 2019, New York City was the U.S. metropolitan area with the highest Pakistani population (apparently both foreign-born and those identifying as Pakistani) at 98,000, followed by Houston and Washington, D.C., both at 38,000, and Chicago at 37,000.
Conclusion
The British Broadcasting Corporation has noted that “We have received complaints from people who felt there was a lack of coverage of the findings of the ‘rape gang inquiry’ backed by Rupert Lowe MP.” The BBC almost comically defended itself by stating that “We know that not everyone will agree with our decisions on what to cover. These complex choices are made for editorial and practical reasons, and should not be taken as indicative of bias.”
And, hot off the presses, the British government has issued a guide for asylum seekers informing them that “Rape is a serious crime in the UK,” as is “[s]ex with someone under the age of 16”, so serious that “You could go to prison, lose your support and accommodation, and it will affect your asylum claim.” The fact that the British government feels the need to publish such a guide makes one think that it might want to reconsider its immigration policy. In any event, as a long overdue acknowledgement of and response to the Pakistani rape gang scandal and the government’s own bloody hands, it is comically and tragically feckless.
Business as usual for some in the UK’s ruling class?