As more and more details surrounding the case have emerged, public outrage has grown. In case you hadn’t guessed from his name, Mr Ezedi is not British. He’s a migrant, probably from the Middle East by the looks of things; although he could just as easily have crawled out from under a stone or a wet log or direct from a little girl’s nightmares.
Ezedi’s story is becoming an increasingly familiar one. He first entered Britain illegally in 2016, in the back of a lorry, and made two unsuccessful appeals for asylum, the second of which was rejected in 2018 after he was convicted of sexual assault and indecent exposure. He received a suspended sentence and was placed on the sex offenders’ register for ten years. In 2020, however, his third application was successful, after he claimed to have converted from Islam to Christianity. A priest from the Church of England vouched for Ezidi and said that his conversion was “sincere,” and this appears to have made the difference. Ezidi was then housed and fed for two years by Action Foundation, a Christian charity that receives hundreds of thousands of pounds of government funding—taxpayer money—a year to help migrants settle in Britain.
There’s a lot to unpack here. But what’s at issue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is immigration and its effects on British society.
Why was this revolting man in the UK in the first place? Why was he not deported when he committed serious sex crimes over five years ago? Why is any foreigner who commits crime in Britain, or is likely to commit crime—since many come to Britain with criminal records—allowed to stay?
These are questions the British people find themselves asking, for the umpteenth time. Reasonable questions. But somehow the answers they receive are always the same: Sorry, you’re asking the wrong questions. You’re not racist, are you? Try again.
The case is a wretched catalogue of failures at every level of British society. The police, the media, the Church, government—all are complicit, but none will admit their part. They all want to blame somebody or something else.
Consider the Church of England, for a moment, and its role in events. Parallels have been drawn with the case of Emad al-Swealmeen, who blew himself up outside Liverpool Women’s Hospital in 2021. Another “asylum seeker” of unknown origins, another recent “convert” to Christianity. Before doing the world a favour and turning himself into a fine red mist, al-Swealmeen made multiple attempts to claim asylum in the UK. Not long after his first application was rejected, he was baptised at Liverpool Cathedral, in 2015. He bolstered his second application with letters of support from members of the church community; although he was unsuccessful again. In the inquest after his death, it was revealed that he still had a Quran and prayer mat in his home. It had all been a ruse.
Of course it had.
But this is just the start. A few days ago the Sun newspaper revealed that the Church of England has been helping migrants to game the system with fake “conversions” on a far wider scale. Immigrants, especially from Muslim countries, now know that this is an easy way to make it harder for them to be deported, and the Church is more than happy to oblige. The Sun reports that mass baptisms are being held regularly for asylum seekers at places like the Wethersfield detention centre, in Essex.
Among the recent Muslim converts to avoid deportation, and thus continue enriching British society with their presence, is a Bangladeshi man who murdered his British wife in 2008. The judge in the case said he would now be at risk if he had to return to his Muslim-majority birthplace, even though there are no laws against apostasy there.
When asked for comment on the Ezidi case, the Church of England issued a trite response expressing its sympathies with the victims, before asserting that, “It is the role of the Home Office, and not the Church, to vet asylum seekers and judge the merits of their individual cases.”
Whatever it may say, the Church is neck deep in this scam. It’s neck deep in immigration scams across the Western world.
Look at Italy. A major scandal recently broke there when it was revealed that powerful figures within the Catholic Church, including bishops and cardinals, have been funnelling millions of euros to NGOs that are bringing illegal migrants to the country by boat. One of the NGO leaders is a personal friend of Pope Francis, suggesting that the payments may even have had the tacit support of the pontiff himself.
In the US, Catholic and Protestant NGOs—Jesuit Refugee Services USA, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, the National Association of Evangelicals—are helping to bring migrants across the southern border in record numbers. They provide food and water, logistical aid, papers, money, phones and transport—all quite openly.
The British Broadcasting Corporation’s contempt for the British people has also been on unusually prominent display, as it seeks to caution us that the Ezidi case is about anything but immigration. On the topical show Newsnight, an all-female panel, including Conservative and Labour Members of Parliament, tried to frame the issue as one of “violence against women and girls.”
This is certainly true, in a non-trivial sense. The main victims were all female: a mother and her two young daughters. But blaming “incel culture” (whatever that is) for the attack, or trying to suggest that there’s a slippery slope from “microaggressions” like courteously holding open a door to throwing acid in a woman’s face—well, I think that’s about as risible as it gets. I’ve rewatched the interview multiple times just to be sure I wasn’t making it up. But yes, Members of Parliament really do believe these things in 2024. Both women speak for their respective parties and for large segments of the chattering classes too, no doubt.
While there may be uniquely British forms of misogyny, the acid attack is not one of them, nor has it ever been. And yet the Times claims that Britain now has the “highest number of recorded chemical attacks in the world—mostly on women— with a total of 710 in 2022 compared with 421 in 2021.” That’s a 69% increase in a single year. British police statistics on recorded crime must always be taken with a liberal application of sodium chloride. Many crimes simply go unrecorded and the race of perpetrators is a thorny issue indeed, especially in cases where a clear non-white racial pattern is observable. The statistics cited by the Times mention nothing of race, but they actually show a roughly equal gender balance. 339 of the 710 attacks were against women, and 317 were against men, with the gender in the remaining 48 cases being unrecorded. So much for “incel culture.”
The truth is, we don’t need detailed statistics, broken down by race, to know that this is an imported, avoidable problem, in the same way that female genital mutilation and Muslim grooming gangs are imported, avoidable problems. Acid attacks are called a “social epidemic” in countries of the Middle East and Western Asia, from Afghanistan to India, for good reason. Every year, hundreds of girls and women in these countries suffer terrible disfigurement, shame and even death because of the retarded belief that affronts to personal honour, usually the rejection of a marriage offer, must be answered with battery acid or cleaning fluid, instead of the perpetrators taking a long hard look in the mirror.
Acid attacks are on the rise in Britain because immigration is on the rise. Forget Andrew Tate, forget 4Chan, forget your dumb social-scientific theories about implicit bias and misogyny.
Stop importing men from countries where it’s a normal thing to throw acid in people’s faces when they get upset and the problem of men throwing acid in people’s faces when they get upset will disappear.
Trust me. It’s that simple.
As reprehensible and ridiculous as the actions of the Church of England and the BBC are, it is of course the British government that bears the greatest responsibility for this situation. For decades, against the will of the British people, successive administrations have sought to transform the demographics of the country, solely for political gain. The modern policy of mass immigration began with Tony Blair’s New Labour in 1997, but it has taken the Conservative Party, which the policy was originally intended to destroy, to bring immigration to the insane, fall-of-the-Roman-Empire levels we’re seeing today. Last year, 705,000 migrants, net, entered the United Kingdom—and that was just legal migration. In 1997, the figure was less than 50,000.
Britain’s Office for National Statistics now predicts that the national population will increase by around seven million within the next 12 years, driven by the arrival of nearly 14 million new residents from overseas. This is likely to be a hopeless underestimate.
Despite pledge after pledge that net migration would be brought down to “manageable levels” in the tens of thousands a year, the Conservatives are fully committed to replacing the native population of Britain with foreign-born migrants and their offspring. Labour, should they regain power, will obviously do the same, but without the false promises of “finally getting tough on immigration.”
It’s unclear which option is worse. In the end, they both amount to the same thing. A Britain that isn’t really Britain at all. A rainy, windswept outpost of a very different civilisation indeed.
