IN A recent speech given in the House of Lords to the Cambridge University Conservative Association, Dr Gavin Ashenden, for ten years a chaplain to the Queen, spoke of a ‘respected’ imam with whom he had worked ‘for quite a long time’ while running inter-faith seminars at the university where he was employed.
At the conclusion of one of these events, Dr Ashenden relates, this man confided in him as follows: ‘I’ve been doing this for an awfully long time, but my task is complete. I arrived in the 1970s with the aim of inaugurating an Islamic republic of Great Britain, and I’ve done it. This country is going to be an Islamic republic or, at least, a partitioned portion of it, in the time of my grandchildren.’
In fact, he continued, things were going so well that it could happen even within the lifetime of his children.
Dr Ashenden records this incident as occurring ‘long before Angela Merkel opened the border to the millions’ in 2015. Most of the under-16s who, according to the imam, comprised the majority of the Muslims in Britain a dozen or more years ago, have now gained access to the polling booths, allowing a combination of demography and a democratic system designed to cater for a non-sectarian population to ‘achieve what agitation would take longer to do’.
Already Muslim enclaves are, as the imam predicted, installing Islamic mayors, pushing for sharia, and claiming the right to flout the cultural norms of their adopted country: one example being the appearance of unlabelled halal meat in supermarkets, or as the sole choice in meals at schools, universities and hospitals; another, the refusal of large numbers of new arrivals to learn English; not to mention the proliferation of madrasas, where little boys in long kameez shirts and skull caps are rehearsed in the fundamentals of racial intolerance and religious and tribal group-consciousness.
In many ways, what is happening to Britain, as the imam’s Islamic republic takes shape, is similar to the colonisation of Tibet through Chinese immigration; the main difference being that in our own case there was no need for the preliminary ‘agitation’ of an armed invasion to enable the planting of a demographic time-bomb: our own globally-orientated governments, and, not least, a Labour Party greedy to hoover up the Muslim block vote, have been only too eagerly complicit in the take-over of our cities, while silencing any protest on the part of those encroached upon and displaced. As in Tibet, the result is cultural genocide, proceeding unchecked.
After the fiasco of the Gorton and Denton by-election, where the Greens seized the advantage from Labour as the favoured lapdogs of Islam, perhaps Sir Keir Starmer’s government will belatedly do whatever is necessary to reduce postal voting to the bare minimum and enforce the sanctity of the polling booth.
However, without sweeping measures even the most scrupulous application of traditional voting rules will do little to counter the demographic dominance predicted so gleefully, and so accurately, by Dr Ashenden’s ‘respected’ imam. In the Muslim enclaves of places such as Bradford – where many people have a poor grasp of the English language, or are unable to speak it at all; where women are perceived to be the possessions of their husbands or fathers, having a divinely ordained incapacity to think for themselves, and where tribal loyalties hold sway – democratic voting, as understood in Britain, will always be a casualty. Where those enclaves spread outwards and indigenous householders take flight, feeling unwelcome, where pubs disappear and dog-walkers are subject to hostile stares in streets where no English is spoken and shop signs are written in inscrutable squiggles, no effective opposition will eventually remain.
It is not merely widespread voting fraud which threatens our electoral system, but the concentrated voting power of whole Kashmiri villages which have settled in our towns and cities as if transported on a magic carpet from their native soil. These villages are rapidly appearing in ever more constituencies and they are inhabited by people who do not believe in one man, one vote but in one tribe, thousands of votes.
Why, exactly, do they want to be here? They would surely be happier in their ancestral habitat of mountainous Kashmir than in what, for them, must be our drab wind-and-rain-swept islands. As Richard North has pointed out repeatedly, seeing his home town steadily subsumed by chain migration, the people in these villages continue to speak their own languages, go around in clothes which would not have been out of place in the Old Testament, eat meat slaughtered according to their own laws, follow their own customs and religion and marry their cousins. They have no concern for anyone outside their own kinship community, indulge in inter-racial vendettas, are involved in thriving crime networks and despise the host population.
What can this country give them that they cannot enjoy more comfortably in Kashmir, which in any case they regard as their homeland?
Two obvious reasons are a docile and decadent indigenous population ripe for exploitation and money from the transnational crime networks in which they participate. Between July 2024 and June 2025 ‘overseas Pakistanis’ living in the UK, the majority Mirpuris, sent remittances totalling £4.42billion ‘home’, an increase of 31 per cent on the previous year. How much of this bonanza represented a surplus generated by lawfully earned income, and how much the booty from child and drug trafficking, or from a benefits system which defies reform? The next, as it has transpired, has been the easy sexual exploitation of white girls.
There is a third reason. According to this article, India’s deadliest enemies in the UK are the Mirpuris: ‘Pakistani intelligence agencies encouraged more and more Mirpuris to settle in the UK to create a pressure group in that country against India.’ A ‘key element of the Mirpuris’ political strategy has been the conscious cultivation of a “Kashmir” identity, distinct from a Pakistani one,’ allowing them to lobby in Parliament for the establishment of an independent Kashmir.
Anyone daring to call the exclusive ethnic settlements which have taken root in our country ‘colonies’ receives a stiff rebuke and denunciation as a ‘far-right racist’.
What is a colony? It is a territory or group of people under the full or partial political control of a distant mother country.
A network of Mirpuri enclaves living apart from the native population in the UK, while seeking to further the policies of a foreign government and the interests of a foreign nation, imposing foreign laws within the community, following a religion and customs alien, and in some cases hostile, to those of the host population, speaking a foreign language, sending billions back to their country of origin where they have close relatives and even second homes: what is this but a colonising force, empowered by demographics and an all-too-trusting democracy?
Foreign enclaves which have no intention of merging with the indigenous population have not enriched our country: they are exploiting it, whilst introducing political and religious tensions which, before their arrival, were none of our concern. Their sectarian loyalties are destroying our democratic voting system and will eventually make such things as trial by jury impossible. What is more, they cast guilt by association on those of their race and religion who do not live in enclaves, who mix and intermarry with the natives, and who wish only to be absorbed into the distinctively British way of life which attracted them here in the first place: those who, like the Huguenots and the Jews before them, have brought benefits to our nation, and who respect its history and culture.
As for those who wish only to recreate the conditions of their countries of origin and spread their religion throughout Britain, isn’t it time that we encouraged them, with our blessing, to return to the lands which they clearly love so well?
