Rupert Lowe's astonishing report on the Rape of Britain

 

UK: 219-Page Rape Gang Inquiry Report Exposes Abuse, Torture, the Islamic Link and the Massive Coverup

Jun 18, 2026 3:00 pm By Christine Douglass-Williams16 Comments

The extent of the gross atrocities that Muslim rape gangs committed against non-Muslim British girls are now exposed in MP Rupert Lowe’s 219-page Rape Gang Inquiry report. One truth-teller in particular who paid a dear price for trying to expose what was going on for an extended period was Tommy Robinson. Britain’s authorities savaged him as he relentlessly fought in defense of the voiceless girls and women who faced unimaginable cruelty.

MP Rupert Lowe’s 219-page Rape Gang Inquiry report can be found  HERE.

The report is so wrenching that a commentary in Daily Caller called for the return of the guillotine for heads of state — such as Keir Starmer — who have proven to be the worst betrayers of their own countries. Starmer was accused of letting suspected Muslim rape gang offenders off with a warning note while he was overseeing Britain’s prosecution service. This statement sums up the evils Muslim rape gangs inflicted upon their victims: “You could bundle up Nanking, the Catholic Church, and Jeffrey Epstein and it wouldn’t come close to touching both the body count and the institutional culpability.”

Bombshell UK Report Exposes Sinister Sexual Abuse and Torture of 250,000 Girls by Mostly Muslim Men

by Julia Cassidy, Townhall, June 17, 2026:

A 215-page report released to the public last night details a nightmare that occurred on a colossal scale under the noses of every U.K. official. The “Rape Gang Inquiry,” released by Reform U.K. Parliament member Rupert Lowe, reported that 250,000 white British girls across 149 districts in the U.K. (nearly 40 percent of all U.K. districts) were subjected to “repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma.” The report estimates that 87-95 percent of the perpetrators are predominantly Pakistani Muslims, though smaller groups of Somali, Iranian, Syrian, Turkish, and other Muslim origins were also involved. According to the report, the “vast majority” of men were not prosecuted for their crimes…..

Official portrait of Rupert Lowe MP, ©House of Commons / Laurie Noble, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

So keeping in mind that the other groups included in the perpetrator list beyond the 87-95% Pakistanis are also of Muslim origin, so the perpetrators were overwhelmingly Muslim. They had help from non-Muslims: officers drove police cars to help traffic non-Muslim girls to Muslim rape gangs. And a Muslim rapist who forcibly married his 15-year-old victim in a Sharia ceremony was jailed (along with seven other rape gang members), but it was uncovered that the teen’s social worker attended  the Islamic wedding ceremony, in which the minor get married against her will.

What Rupert Lowe’s Rape Gang Inquiry report shows is how far leftists will go to cover up Muslim crimes and plaster the label of “Islamophobe” on anyone who tells the truth to protect innocent people; and they do it without accountability.

A report from the publication Christian Concern highlights the Islamic factor:

…testimony from victims such as Taylor who said:

“Before they raped me, they would chant ‘Bismillah Hir Rahman Nir Rahim.’”

(Translation: In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful.)

Another victim, Eleanor, said:

“I had friends that were Muslim, girl friends, and this never happened to them. They would be in the cars with us sometimes, but the men would treat them differently.”

Jen, another victim, explained:

“They have no compassion for the young girls that are out on the streets and they see us as slags, as white trash. ‘English pig dogs’ came up a lot. Muslims don’t like pigs and they don’t like dogs. So they hate dogs, they hate pigs, and they’d put women on the same level as that.”

Yet another victim, Kate, said:

“Comments were constantly made suggesting that ‘white girls’ and Christian girls were viewed as having fewer morals or lower value, whereas ‘Muslim girls’ were described by some of the men as having dignity and higher moral standing. These comparisons were used to justify the way I was treated and to further humiliate and control me. I was also subjected to religiously charged comments designed to shame and dehumanise me, including statements implying that God had abandoned me or would reject me because of what had been done to me.” 

Politicians and their cronies sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocent girls to avoid the “Islamophobe” smear, and perhaps more importantly, politicians did not want to be held accountable for their suicidal immigration policies.

Also to be kept in mind: religious minorities in Muslim countries have faced and continue to face (if you can possibly imagine) even worse treatment than British girls have endured. These minorities have suffered at the hands of the Islamic State, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hamas (a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot), Boko Haram, al-Shabaab and the like. These persecuted minorities were and are subjected to the same sexual abuse as well as to murder.

Yet anyone who calls out these atrocities that are done in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings is dubbed “Islamophobic,” or met with the condescending observation that not all Muslims are like that. Obviously they aren’t. Yet those Muslims who are not like that need to join infidels in calling out not just the actions of their coreligionists, but their own religious texts which sanction unspeakable abuses, beginning with Muhammad, who married Aisha when she was six years old and raped her (“consummated the marriage”) when she was nine. If it ever faced this, the West could better understand what has driven 1400 years of Islamic conquest and abuse. Once that is understood, the West could be on a road to greater vigilance, which would include understanding and countering subversion. This subversion is precisely what enables the “Islamophobia” subterfuge, and why Islamic abuses such as the Muslim rape gangs continued.

According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O prophet, indeed, we have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given you as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers are successful indeed, who are humble in their prayers, and who shun vain conversation, and who give alms, and who guard their private parts, except from their wives or those that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)

The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Muslim 3371)

It is also in Islamic law: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Umdat al-Salik O9.13)

The biggest question is: what happens now? Are Western authorities in both the private and public sectors going to continue playing the “Islamophobia” card and persecuting those who tell the truth, rather than investigate and prosecute the real perpetrators, those who enabled them, and those who incite abuse and violence?  Of course they are. It’s a business for many, a tally of Muslim votes.

====================================================================================

Approaching Sodom > Now the Xgender lawsuits start in the USA; Will Talarico go to Hell for blasphemy?; Canada's controversial anti-hate bill passes Senate; Christians win flag rights in Jersey City

 

FTC sues World Professional Association for Transgender Health for deceptive practices

By Jon Brown, Christian Post Reporter Wednesday, June 17, 2026

The headquarters of the US Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C., November 18, 2024. | ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) joined four states in filing a lawsuit Wednesday against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) for alleged deceptive practices regarding the treatment of children suffering from gender dysphoria.

The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and joined by Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas, alleges that the world's leading association for transgender medicine made false and unsubstantiated claims to parents to sell pediatric medical transition services for their children, including drugs and surgery.

"When an entity makes a claim about a medical treatment, the claim must be truthful, evidence-based and not misleading," FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson said in a press release. "Children, but especially their parents, must have complete and truthful information when making decisions to purchase medical services. For decades, the FTC has taken action against entities that make deceptive and unsubstantiated health-related claims."

"The complaint filed today reflects that same long-standing mandate: when an entity makes a claim about a medical treatment, the claim must be truthful, evidence-based and not misleading," Ferguson added.

The complaint accuses WPATH, which the FTC described as "an association of clinicians who profit from pediatric medical transition services," of violating the FTC Act by misleading parents and their children about the medical consensus and necessity of transgender procedures, as well as their safety and effectiveness.

WPATH's Standards of Care, which advocate for an "affirmative" model of treatment for those experiencing gender dysphoria, have been used internationally, though several European nations and international health systems have shifted away from this paradigm to embrace a more cautious approach.

Joe Simonson, director of public affairs for the FTC, told reporters that WPATH intentionally "deceived parents and children of the medical and scientific basis for such services" to increase the likelihood that the interventions would be covered by insurance.

"WPATH professional members have profited immensely from the organization's work, but this profit has come at the expense of children and their parents," Simonson said. 

====================================================================================

Texas Lt. Gov Dan Patrick says James Talarico is 'going to Hell' for blasphemy

By Ian M. Giatti, Christian Post Reporter Wednesday, June 17, 2026

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick speaks during the Republican Party of Texas 2026 State Convention in Houston, Texas, on June 12, 2026. | Screenshot/YouTube/@Republican Party of Texas

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said he believes Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Rep. James Talarico will “go to Hell” for his interpretations of the Bible.

Speaking June 12 to cheering delegates at the Republican Party of Texas’ 2026 State Convention at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Patrick accused the Austin Democrat of injecting faith into the high-profile Senate race and called Talarico’s views on Scripture blasphemous.

“It’s James Talarico who decided to bring the Bible into this election. And let me tell you, that’s not a Bible I’ve ever read. I’ve never seen so much blasphemy from anyone running for office,” Patrick told the crowd. “Let me tell you what, I’m going to pray for that guy, because when he loses the Senate race, if he campaigns against God as he’s been doing, he’s going to Hell, for sure. That’s what we’re up against. That’s the darkness. That’s the light. That’s why we must be one.”

Last month, Talarico backed down from previous comments he made on various theological views, such as his statement during a 2021 legislative debate that “God is non-binary” and his claim that biological sex exists on a “nuanced spectrum.”

Patrick used his convention speech to rally Republicans to unify ahead of the November election, highlighting Talarico’s strong Democratic support. After warning GOP supporters that Talarcio starts with roughly 45% of the vote automatically and needs only about six more percentage points to win, Patrick pointed to recent election results in Maine, where a Democratic candidate received 72% of the vote.

“We must stand together. We cannot lose Texas. We cannot lose this Senate race,” he said. 

Talarico, who has made his Christian faith a central part of his Senate campaign, responded Friday evening on social media.

“For decades, Dan Patrick has sold out the poor, the sick, and the vulnerable to enrich his donors. Love feels like blasphemy when you worship power,” Talarico wrote on X.

Attorney General Ken Paxton, Talarico’s general election opponent, also spoke at the convention.

Patrick, the presiding officer of the Texas Senate and a leading voice for conservative Christian policies, has long championed legislation aligned with his interpretation of biblical values, often citing his efforts to instill faith-based initiatives in Texas governance, including his support for SB 10, which mandates the display of the Ten Commandments in public classrooms and supporting the sonogram bill, which he says helps protect unborn children.

The U.S. Senate race in Texas is widely expected to be one of the most expensive and closely watched contests in the country, with Democrats hoping to capitalize on anti-Trump sentiment to secure their first statewide victory in more than three decades.

Liberals’ Anti-Hate Bill Set to Become Law in Canada

Anti-hate bill, or anti-free speech and anti-religion bill? Will this bill stand up in Canada's left-leaning Supreme Court when it is challenged on free speech and freedom of religion laws? My guess is the godless, anti-God Liberals will have their way.

The federal government’s new hate crime bill, which has been opposed by Conservatives and religious groups, is set to become law after passing through Parliament.

Bill C-9, known as the Combatting Hate Act, is currently awaiting royal assent now that it has passed through both the House of Commons and the Senate.

The bill passed third reading in the Senate on June 4, usually the final legislative step before royal assent. However, it was then sent back to the House of Commons to consider a Senate amendment adding the noose to the list of prohibited symbols that cannot be used to wilfully promote hatred.

The House passed the amendment with 189 MPs voting in favour and 128 MPs voting against. All parties except the Conservatives voted for the amendment.

The House also voted down a Conservative amendment that sought to withdraw the bill, with 132 voting for and 184 voting against it. The Conservatives, NDP, and the Green Party voted in favour of it, while the Liberals and Bloc Québécois voted against it.

The bill creates new criminal offences associated with intimidation and obstructing access to places of worship, as well as a new offence for intentionally promoting hatred through the public display of certain symbols.

Related Stories

Senate Expands List of Prohibited Symbols in Hate Crime Bill to Include Noose, Bill Headed Back to Commons

Senate Rejects Amendments to Bill C-9 Criminalizing Residential School Denialism

An amendment to the bill that was proposed by the Bloc and adopted by the Liberals removes the religious defence to hate speech in section 319 of the Criminal Code, which currently protects Canadians from charges of wilfully promoting hatred when expressing religious beliefs in good faith.

Conservatives and religious groups have opposed the amendment, arguing that it could infringe on freedom of religion and expression and potentially expose people to prosecution for quoting or teaching religious scriptures.

Meanwhile, the Liberals have said Bill C-9 is important for combatting hate, including the rise of anti-Semitism and hate-motivated violence.

It will be interesting to see if the laws are applied equally against Muslims and Christians. Or will Canada follow the UK in its two-tiered justice system.

Justice Minister Sean Fraser has defended the amendment to remove religious defence to hate speech, saying freedom of religion in Canada is a “fundamental guarantee” under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and would not be impacted by the amendment.

Conservative MP Andrew Lawton has said the removal of religious defence means it will be “easier to prosecute someone for quoting a scripture or expressing a religious viewpoint that someone finds offensive.”

During debate in the House of Commons on June 16, Conservative MP Roman Baber said “nothing that minority communities are actually worried about in terms of security” would be changed by Bill C-9.

Baber said there are existing laws to deal with mischief, intimidation, arson, or assault targeting Jewish communities, and the religious defence in the Criminal Code “does not excuse incitement to violence” as it only applies to statements that are spoken in good faith.

Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux, parliamentary secretary for the Government House Leader, said Bill C-9 would protect institutions such as community centres, churches, gurdwaras, temples, mosques, and synagogues from protests that are intimidating to people who want to attend those institutions. He also said it would protect Canadians from hatred-motivated offences.

“We made a commitment in the last federal election to deal with hatred, and that is what this legislation would do,” Lamoureux said.

=================================================================

Christian Flag Victory: Jersey City Reverses Course after Religious Liberty Group Intervenes

A New Jersey city has reversed its ban on a Christian flag being raised at City Hall after a religious liberty group cited First Amendment protections and Supreme Court precedent. This decision allows a long-standing tradition to...

A New Jersey city has reversed its decision and will allow a Christian flag to be raised at city hall after a religious liberty group challenged the move on First Amendment grounds.

The controversy centers on the Children of Faith Parade, which, since 1979, has concluded its annual celebration with the raising of a Christian flag at Jersey City Hall. But in 2025, organizers were informed by Jersey City that the tradition could no longer continue because city officials believed it would violate the Constitution and that the city “cannot be seen to endorse any particular religion.”

But Liberty Counsel, which represents the Children of Faith Parade, sent a letter to Jersey City arguing that denying the group permission to raise its flag would violate both the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.

Liberty Counsel noted that the city has permitted numerous other groups to ceremonially raise their own flags at city hall, including those representing the Jersey City LGBTQ+ Pride Festival and the Palestinian American community.

If Jersey City permits those and other groups to raise their flags, Liberty Counsel argued, then it must extend the same opportunity to the Children of Faith Parade and its Christian flag.

The organization pointed to a similar case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022, when the justices unanimously ruled that the city of Boston violated the free speech rights of a faith-based group by refusing to fly its Christian flag while approving flag-raising requests from numerous other organizations.

Boston had “violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” the court ruled.

Liberty Counsel represented the faith-based group in that Boston case.

After Liberty Counsel contacted Jersey City, the city reversed its position and agreed to allow the Christian flag-raising ceremony to proceed.

“We commend Jersey City officials for making the right decision to grant the Christian flag-raising permit for the Children of Faith Parade,” said Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver. “Jersey City had stated that raising the Christian flag in their public forum would violate the Establishment Clause, but it does not. The opposite is true. Denying the right to raise the Christian flag in a public forum is the actual First Amendment violation. The clear message from the U.S. Supreme Court is that the government cannot favor one viewpoint and censor another in a public forum. Municipalities like Jersey City can legally permit both secular and religious commemorative emblems when they open their flagpoles to public expression.”