Women are turning against mass migration. Can the Left really defend it?

Telegraph

25-07-2025

Britain's political history is littered with the names of significant men. Churchill, Wilberforce, Disraeli, two Cromwells and countless others have all left their mark on the country we know today. But while the glory and the statues have usually gone to male leaders, the collective efforts of passionate and determined women have been responsible for some of our most important social reforms.
Women in Epping are hoping to secure another such reform. Over the past week, mothers from this small town in Essex have organised protests against the housing of migrants in The Bell Hotel after an Ethiopian asylum seeker who was residing at the hotel was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl. One of the mothers at the protest, Lindsay Thompson, told GB News that the town has been 'ruined' and their children's safety 'taken away'.
The Epping mothers have every right to be fearful. There are growing concerns about the behaviour of many young men housed in such hotels across the country and numerous reports of appalling sex crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Data shows that men from countries such as Afghanistan and Eritrea – from where a large proportion of illegal immigrants originate – are significantly more likely to commit sexual offences than British men or immigrants from Western nations.
Over recent decades, significant political, legal and cultural efforts have been made to reduce violence against women and girls. Yet as a result of the failure of successive governments to prevent men from misogynistic cultures arriving in the UK illegally, the fear and prevalence of sexual violence are growing.
For the mothers of Epping – and I suspect millions of others – enough is enough. Ordinarily, women tend to avoid gatherings where there may be a risk of violence; riots are by-and-large a testosterone-fuelled sport for young men. But when mothers believe their children are in danger, and when ordinary women start organising protests, history teaches us that the tide may be about to turn.
In the 19 th century, women's organisations played a significant role in ending child prostitution. Female anti sex-trafficking campaigners in the United States, headed by young mother Laila Mickelwait, have succeeded in forcing the tech giant Pornhub to take down 10 million videos. The tables have turned on trans activism, largely because ordinary women saw the danger to their children and started campaigning. Mothers like Londoner Clare Page and the brave women of the Bayswater Support Group have risked jobs and reputations to raise awareness of the threat of gender ideology to children. The smartphone-free childhood movement is another such phenomenon, where much of the running has been done by everyday mothers appalled at the damage being done to their children by screens.
But women's protective tendencies are not always deployed constructively. Some of the political movements most detrimental to women and children's safety – campaigns to welcome more immigration, allow men into women's spaces, or extend the abortion time limit to birth – have also been spearheaded by so-called feminists. When women's instincts drive them to protect children, who genuinely lack the means to defend themselves, they are an enormous force for good. But when female 'compassion' is employed to make excuses for adults who have agency, the results can be disastrous. All too often, women who demonstrate this 'toxic empathy' are being used by men who want to exploit women and girls.
The maternal instinct is extraordinarily powerful, driving women to risk everything to protect children, often without any desire for recognition. Perhaps this explains why, when women get the bit between their teeth, things – eventually – will change. When it comes to Britain's broken immigration system, that change can't come soon enough.