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.”

Everywhere in the EU has people arriving, don’t fall for this. And we had high asylum claims in early 2000s just by lorries instead.

Oh.

I thought we were talking specifically about female arrivals, what they have suffered either before or during their journey, and what could/should be done about that. That is what your OP was about.

Had I known you just wanted an immigration rant, I probably wouldn’t have engaged with it, to be honest.

What’s wrong with setting up controlled routes as the op suggests?

But the reason women who do come this route are so at risk is because it's mostly male and with a much higher proportion of male criminals - the system as it is almost guarantees the rape if not murder of women who attempt it.

Shocked? We have people on this very thread seemingly trying to imply that it could be French authorities or the RNLI even that are raping these migrant women.

And yes, stop this route and open up legal routes for women only. More vulnerable in the first place, unable to take the criminal gang route safely. I think and hope this is the direction SM is going. Of the current government she seems the one with most brains and decency.

Edited to add: women refugees also much less likely to pose a risk to the current UK population particularly women and girls.

Yes she is right, it has been well documented along the refugee migration routes especially the ones that cross the sahara.

Thank you for posting this OP, perhaps it will stop the posters wondering why so few women undertake this journey and why its usually young men of fighting age in the boats. It is because it is so dangerous for women.

Exactly many of the women are fleeing their homes because they have been raped there either by members of the opposite side, in civil/war zones or by officials of various kinds or simply by criminals

At least some of them are white British...
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15054789/organiser-campaign-flags-ailed-plot-smuggle-illegal-immigrants.html

The sort of organised criminal activity taking advantage of the lack of safe routes l will have participants of many nationalities at different stages. Note, there is no evidence this man was a rapist my point is he is a people smuggler

And there’s minimal vetting with this.

To me all of this lends weight to the importance of creating enough safe and legal routes.

So what is your definition of "enough"?
There are over 110 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, so how do you think UK could deal with that?

Perhaps stop making stuff up about what other people think.

The article posted is about the rape of female asylum seekers. This is a perfectly reasonable board to post on.

If it makes you uncomfortable to read it perhaps just move on to another thread.

Cheerio then.

I would question how many vulnerable women could actually access a controlled route whilst still living directly in their oppressive environment.

But otherwise, nothing.

As I said, all for safe and legal routes that are able to be better managed and protect the genuinely vulnerable.

But my understanding was that OP was referring to vulnerable women, which she now claims to essentially just be a handful anyway, and the majority of her subsequent posts have actually been about men arriving, criminalising the RNLI or closing the sea.

We do already have lots of that kind of conversation, had I know this was another of them - I wouldn’t have bothered engaging in what I assumed was about women… because it’s on the feminist board and was about women.

It is. It’s quite a statement from Mahmood and doesn’t lend to keeping the system as it is.

We do already have lots of that kind of conversation, had I know this was another of them - I wouldn’t have bothered engaging in what I assumed was about women… because it’s on the feminist board and was about women.

You keep saying this. Literally nobody is stopping you from disengaging.

No, I read it.

I’m not sure of it’s relevance to;

Detaining on arrival.
Deporting anyone arriving illegally.
Criminalising anyone facilitating illegal entry including so-called charity workers.
No family reunion at any point for anyone entering illegally.

Because if it was relevant, that would suggest you were advocating for detaining and deporting vulnerable women, criminalising those who help them, and keeping them from the support of their family.

Which would be fairly anti-feminist, no?

If what you mean is that you would deport the males who arrive, because they’re the majority. That’s not the same conversation, because it’s not about raped women, it’s about wider immigration issues. In which case… not really relevant to where you put the thread, or the actual article you used, and could easily have been yet another anti-immigration thread on Chat or similar.

Unfortunately she's probably right. It's what I've always assumed was the case.

Because someone upthread asked me what I would do to secure the border which in my opinion needs to be secured before they open up safe routes for genuine asylum seekers which in my view should prioritise women and girls.

The system as it is directly discriminates against women and puts those who attempt this route at huge risk. It's not a moral position to be in favour of this route - it makes vile criminals rich, it impoverishes the UK, it criminalizes men, it encourages abuse of the asylum system and it puts UK based women and girls at risk.

It also encourages young men to abandon their women relatives to starvation or slavery, torture and abuse, in Afghanistan at least (and probably elsewhere too)

Okay… so if we secure the border using the methods you describe, at least in the short/medium term that would involve:

Deporting vulnerable women and girls (as in sending them back to be further abused)

Detaining them

Criminalising people who help them

Not allowing them the support of their family in this country

Are you happy with that, as even an interim measure?

To be clear, I’m not in favour of it.

I’m in favour of a proper system that enables the most vulnerable to not risk their lives and/or safety by making that journey.

What I don’t agree with, as an interim measure, is sending those vulnerable women back or criminalising charities who support them.

I am generally not in agreement that the UK is impoverished directly and only because of asylum seekers, and I feel no more at risk from a migrant male than I do any other male. As others have said, they all share the same risk factor - their sex.

But on the actual subject at hand, yes - we need a better system that at least attempts to prevent the abuse of women seeking safety. We don’t need to deport or detain them in the meantime.

Yes I agree. And it’s entirely apt to discuss on the feminism forum.

As an aside, our asylum system (or lack of) doesn’t criminalise men.

Men criminalise men.

Perhaps you could try reading my posts rather than making assumptions about what I think.

There’s no point in having a discussion with someone who repeatedly misrepresents my arguments.