Shabana Mahmood claims most women coming on small boats have been raped.

[Signalbox]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/oct/04/women-small-boats-raped-shabana-mahmood-asylum-migration

Sadly, I’m not at all surprised by this story. It’s strangely worded though.

“You can almost guarantee that every woman that’s in the north of France has probably been raped along the journey.”

Who do you think are the people traffickers? They're mostly Iraqis and other middle easterners. I expect they're happy to rape women who are not from their ethnic group, but the point is that the rapists are not usually the locals of the European towns they go through. They're from the same sets of nationalities as the people they're trafficking.

Why use this system at all? It’s chaotic, dangerous and people die on the way

And before safe routes are mentioned you’ll need to end arrivals at the shore otherwise you’ll just get both.

Yes I agree.

As far as I understand it, it’s not possible to apply for asylum from outside of the UK. So that’s the system that is available to them.

I think “send the raped women back where they came from” should perhaps be posted on a board that doesn’t have Feminism in its name.

Naive maybe, but I’m also never sure how we could close the border. Given that it’s the sea.

I think that's what she meant too, though she should have spelt it out. Because people have quickly and therefore possibly erroneously drawn the conclusion that she was referring to the other passengers.

And like the OP, I think the words "almost" and "probably" make her sound very hesitant - she didn't need an "almost" and a "probably".

But we do know that there have been cases where women have been raped on the boats themselves - there was a recent case in Spain. And of course there was another case where all three women on a boat died en route, supposedly from "heart attacks". So you do wonder. Do the people smugglers ever get on the boats themselves? Or is it a case that everyone on a boat is a migrant?

One more thought. In the days when there used to be large migrant camps in Calais, aid workers would often say that the women and girls there were at particular risk of sexual violence. And I used to wonder: from whom? From the aid workers? From police? From people smugglers looking for business? From fellow asylum seekers? It was never explained.

Being an asylum seeker or refugee is not illegal, even if they come by boat.

Which charity workers? Are you saying you want to criminilise the RNLI? Will they be allowed to rescue any boat in danger or only if the occupants show a British passport first?

I do agree with having application and processing centres in other Countries so people can start their claim closer to home.

shocking… but are we really shocked?

Acknowledging that individual women, in a considerable minority of female people, are vulnerable to all types of men, including other immigrants, as they make this dangerous journey, isn’t “turning it into an anti-immigrant screed.” All men pose a threat to women, even when they’re refugees, wearing a dress, etc etc etc. That’s a large part of why women need to be dealt with differently to men. All men.

All of the above, I imagine. We know what aid workers, UN etc have done before.

Create the safe and legal routes and there will no longer be a justification for anyone to use the unsafe and illegal ones. Only those arriving under false pretences would be likely to continue.

We don’t need this dangerous system. It favours men not women, not here or on the way.

The Australian system is much better, they have visas specifically for lone women and no unsafe passage which would include sexual violence.

I’m all for making it safer, with approved routes that can be accessed without crossing the sea on a dinghy.

But until we have those, women and children (admittedly not as many as men) will continue to arrive, and sending them back or detaining them is a callous move that I cannot get onboard with.

Ummm... There was a lot of sexual exploitation and child suicides in their offshore detainment centres. https://asrc.org.au/2026/05/05/explosive-testimony-alleges-grooming-and-abuse-by-australian-paid-guards-in-offshore-detention/

I am all for swift processing of asylum applicants and sending back those with no case or with criminal histories etc. But I don't think the Australia solution will help victims of sexual violence. Some of the people calling for this are also quite cross that asylum seekers get three meals a day but I don't know what they think the end result of restricting food would be.

Did you read @Persephonia1966's post above mine?

"In Ceuta women and unaccompanied children were being predated on by the locals (Spanish) and other migrants. In the very long journey most migrants take they will be extremely vulnerable to rape by the people smugglers, other migrants, random locals (there was a big issue with very young boy refugees in Italy being offered food for sex by local Italian men at one point), migrants recruited by the local police to push back other migrants (the Greeks did this. It does seem to filter for the worst people at the expense of the most vulnerable), and border guards themselves.
Don't forget that when the UK home office rolled out it's homes for Ukrainians scheme there was an influx of lovely British men wanting to offer homes to only young women. And early on reports of German brothels trying to recruit them"

The problem is men, of all nationalities and religions, who see vulnerable women and take their chance to rape, abuse and exploit them. People smugglers of whatever nationality, yes, but also British soldiers in Kenya, American soldiers in Okinawa, supposed aid workers all over the place, priests, teachers, doctors, sports coaches, policemen, politicians, royalty, BBC stars, musicians - not all men, but far too many of them, and the only thing they all have in common is a penis.

So don’t keep a system that is so blatantly stacked against women.

Then open up safe legal routes? Saying we can only open up safe routes when people stop using the unsafe routes and not before guarantees we never will. Because you can't kill hope so if the only route available is a dangerous one some people will be willing to take that risk. The situations many people are fleeing are (by definition) not safe so it's not like women and child migrants are going from a place where they are not at risk of rape to a journey where they are at risk of rape.

Do you honestly think safe and legal routes will eliminate the boat crossings? What when a person’s asylum claim is turned down? Do you think those people will just say “oh ok then”. Also they will have to cap the numbers. We are a relatively small country. We can’t possibly provide asylum for the world. What when we say that’s it for this year? Do you not think people will still come over on boats if we don’t take any measures to control the borders? Eventually we will have to say it needs to stop. It’s just a matter of when.

Smugglers don’t get on boats.

The easiest way to crush the gangs and stop their exploitation would be to make it pointless / not worth paying criminal gangs (in whatever way) to cross the channel. By immediately returning anyone who tries that route and not allowing asylum claims from those who come that route (mostly young men).

Is she trolling British women? As a threat?

You’re right. Unless it can meet all the demand, which would be incredibly high, you’d just get safe routes and via the shore as we do now.

There was a time we didn't have immigrants arriving by small boats but unfortunately a bunch of charlatans hoodwinked enough people about a decade ago.

This meant we lost the protections against them; the (foreign, obviously) people smugglers are some of the few beneficiaries of that scam enacted against this country.

The vast majority are male. Men are 100% driving this racket. The few women that make it through should obviously be treated differently and no I am not advocating they are locked up. But tbh if the government takes a firm stance it won’t continue for long anyway. Once the borders are secured they can then consider how to manage asylum claims and what types of people they want to help.

To be clear, is your general issue with overall asylum claims or with abused women not being immediately sent back where they came from?

Regardless. I think you’re lost.

This specific board isn’t really for immigration rants, and I’d assume definitely isn’t for suggesting vulnerable women should be handed back to their abusers, or shouldn’t
seek help at all because it “needs to stop.”

Yes, our current system favours men who are least vulnerable in their home country (leaving those most vulnerable including women behind, maybe to die) and it favours men who are or are willing to become criminals. What do people think those who don't have the thousands of Euros which is the current rate of payment to the gangs for the journey are promising these gangs for passage?

The government (and previous governments) are complicit in the criminal gangs' success and their actions.