An Iraqi refugee has been allowed to stay in the UK despite being wanted for suspected drug dealing in Germany and having his asylum claims rejected by two countries.
Ardi Hussein Saleh Rahim arrived in a lorry in November 2019, when a court in Regensburg wanted him for five drug-supply offences.
Border Force took Mr Rahim to a detention centre, where he was housed in hotels before being sent to Manchester.
All of these were at the expense of the taxpayer, costing them thousands.
In 2023, Mr Rahim’s asylum claim was initially rejected.
However, he was granted an appeal and leave to remain while his case was being processed.
The Iraqi, who has lived in the UK for nearly six years, receives an allowance of over £4,300 a year to care for his wife.
He told The Sun: “I’ve done nothing. I’ve life here.”
The migrant was finally arrested at his home in Oldham last November.
He is now awaiting extradition.
Mr Rahim claims he will be killed in Iraq.
Migration Watch UK said: “This is more evidence of how broken our system is.”
It comes as Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood faced a busy first day in her new role, after more than 1,000 migrants crossed the Channel illegally.
By late evening, GB News counted 1,096 migrants as they were brought to the Border Force processing centre at Dover harbour.
Over 30,000 illegal immigrants have made the journey across the Channel this year.
Officials declared yesterday a “Red” day in the Channel, as UK maritime assets were braced for an extremely busy day.
Under Yvette Cooper’s watch, more than 52,000 migrants made the illegal journey in just 14 months.
It is now a month since the Government signed a deal with France to allow for the partial return of some small boat migrants. Around 100 migrants have been arrested and earmarked for return to France.
However, ministers have said it will be another few weeks before any returns occur.
A Home Office spokesman said: “The people-smuggling gangs do not care if the vulnerable people they exploit live or die, as long as they pay, and we will stop at nothing to dismantle their business models and bring them to justice.
“That is why this Government has put together a serious plan to take down these networks at every stage.
“Through international intelligence sharing under our Border Security Command, enhanced enforcement operations in Northern France and tougher legislation in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are strengthening international partnerships and boosting our ability to identify, disrupt, and dismantle criminal gangs whilst strengthening the security of our borders.”
Britain’s first female Muslim Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood had a rough start on Saturday, with over 1,000 illegal migrants arriving after crossing the English Channel from France on her first day in office.
Mahmood, a former pro-Palestinian activist whose Pakistani parents migrated to England from Mirpur in the disputed Kashmir region, was tasked by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on Friday to run the Home Office, the cabinet department tasked with controlling immigration and protecting Britain’s borders.
It came amid the forced Downing Street reshuffle sparked by the scandal-induced resignation of former Deputy PM Angela Rayner over the socialist politician’s failure to pay full property taxes on the purchase her second home.
The ensuing musical chairs resulted in former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper — who oversaw a record-setting pace of illegal Channel crossings — being moved to the Foreign Office, and Justice Secretary Mahmood being elevated to the position of Home Secretary.
While she has been portrayed so far as being more hawkish on the border than Yvette “refugees welcome” Cooper, Mahmood’s voting record demonstrates that she consistently opposed stricter border and asylum controls, according to the parliamentary tracking website They Work For You.
The newly-minted Home Secretary’s tenure got off to a choppy start on Saturday, with broadcaster GB News counting 1,096 illegal boat migrants being brought ashore by the Border Force at the port of Dover. According to calculations from the news outlet, it takes the total illegal Channel crossings to over 30,000 since the start of the year.
Beset by internal chaos and mounting public anger over mass migration, Starmer has reportedly appointed Mahmoud with the brief to get tough on migration.
According to The Telegraph, this will supposedly include the expansion of a Conservative-era scheme to house supposed asylum seekers in makeshift camps on military bases rather than putting them up in hotels at taxpayer expense.
Currently, there are over 32,000 migrants being accommodated in more than 200 hotels across the country. This has sparked nationwide protests in the wake of a sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl by an Ethiopian migrant living in the Bell Hotel in Epping just days after crossing the Channel illegally.
Labour will also reportedly seek to ink a returns deal with Germany, as it has done so with France. The so-called ‘one in, one out’ framework allows for the UK to send back illegal migrants to Paris in exchange for taking in allegedly vetted asylum seekers living in France. While boat migrants do not set sail from Germany, it is believed that the deal would refer to migrants who passed through the country into France before crossing the Channel.
It has also been reported that the government will seek to make changes to the Tony Blair-era human rights codes and potentially issue judicial advice on how to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to allow for more deportations in general.
However, it is unlikely that the left-wing government will actually withdraw from the ECHR and its associated court in France, as has been called for by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. While the legacy media has attempted to criticise Mr Farage for his hardline stance of saying that all illegals should be detained and deported, including sending Afghani women illegals, the Reform leader told Sky News on Friday: “I am more concerned about the rights of British people, than those who come here illegally.”
In an interview with me, a local resident of Dundee has detailed the police disinterest that he encountered when reporting a profoundly concerning instance of child sexual exploitation that he had witnessed first-hand.
This stands in stark contrast with the speed and intensity of the police response after Scottish Lassie was filmed taking her viral stand in Dundee: Local police officers rushed to arrest, charge, and report her for the mere crime of possessing a knife, even though the widely viewed video footage showed she was clearly acting to defend her sister.
Initially, the police signaled that they would not charge anyone else in relation to the incident, only to do a U-turn, over a week later, and only after global outcry. Then, they decided to charge two unnamed adults with unspecified offences.
Police Scotland rapidly mobilized its PR machinery to warn about purported “misinformation” circulating online about the incident. Scotland’s political leaders then stepped up to amplify this warning, bizarrely accusing Elon Musk of trying to “undermine that sense of cohesion in our communities” and stoking “fear and alarm” by posting about the incident.
The entire machinery of the state was applied to criminalize Lassie and berate those voicing support for her. But what does the very same machinery of state do when confronted with reports of child sex trafficking?
Dundee-born and bred local resident Tom Magill knows from personal experience. While sitting in his car in the rundown Hilltown neighborhood in Dundee, a girl who looked to be about 15 randomly approached him and propositioned him for prostitution. He declined the child’s offer and immediately parked up at the street corner and phoned the police.
Meanwhile, the girl got into a van with an older non-white man, whom Magill does not believe is local to the area. Magill attempted to intervene to save the girl, trying to follow the van and recording it as it drove away.
Magill then headed to Dundee’s West Bell Street police headquarters. There, he handed over his footage to officers, who briefly checked the van’s license plates, discovered it might have been a hired vehicle, and proceeded to “assess the area.”
Magill was then asked to wait around for two and a half hours for two specialist officers, to whom he retold what he had witnessed, and to whom he showed his recordings for a second time. “Then,” said Magill, “they said that’s fine and off you go,” adding, “I don’t think they were interested in anything to do with what I was saying to them at the time, no.”
Magill later phoned the police to follow up, and was told by the police that there was no CCTV footage available from the area, even though there are numerous shops around the locality, some of which have CCTV systems facing the street. “They weren’t interested, no… I wasn’t happy with the response,” Magill recounted. He was eventually promised a call back by a police constable, but he says no one then got in touch with him.
“Dundee right now is in a really bad way, the crime, the people, the drugs,” Magill explained to me.
Given the priorities that British police and Britain’s metroliberal political elites seem to have, that may not be all that surprising. Would Britain’s woke cops have kept anyone waiting for two-and-a-half hours if he had been there to report a case of “online misinformation,” “misgendering,” or “hate speech”?
Police Scotland seems in no rush to answer questions. When I contacted them for comment, they did not reply, even though I had given them several days before this essay was to be published. Even after Police Scotland finally decided to charge two adults in connection with the Scottish Lassie incident, they did not actually provide the identities or nationalities of the two adults charged, and refused to “confirm the exact charges against the man and the woman” even to British TV broadcasters.
While the police and the media in Scotland are restricted from identifying under-18-year-olds in criminal cases, there are no privacy laws in Scotland that prohibit the public naming of adults charged with crimes and the publication of the specific charges against them.
Of course, social media users will still try to guess who exactly was charged and what charges were brought, but newspapers and broadcasters in the UK won’t take the risk of an educated guess, meaning their coverage is essentially stifled by Police Scotland’s inexplicable lack of transparency.
Scotland’s arcane and censorious Contempt of Court laws have created a wider environment of self-censorship in Scotland’s media, extensively restricting media reporting about criminal cases. Similar laws exist in other parts of the UK, too.
Prominent bloggers in Scotland have been jailed for the frank way in which they covered politicized criminal trials. In the case of Scottish Lassie’s viral video, Dundee’s local newspaper-of-record, The Courier, recently claimed that “publishing the footage is not an option—it would almost certainly break the law.”
By this point, millions of people across the world had seen the footage, but publishing it locally was deemed impossible. Scottish Lassie’s mother has also given an interview to The Courier, which, as far as is known, is the only media interview she has ever given about the incident. However, the newspaper claimed that it was unable to print the interview in its entirety: “We are not in a position to publish a full interview with her.”
The Courier, a relatively small local paper by UK-wide standards, isn’t the cause of this trend. It is merely downstream from a wider phenomenon, namely, the self-censorship originates with Britain’s much more influential national media.
The disaster that is unfolding in Scotland and across the UK is not one purely caused by the woke political establishment. Across the world, even in developing countries like Mongolia, brave journalists like Unurtsetseg Naran are ready to risk imprisonment on censorious charges such as “spreading false information” and “contempt of court” for their reporting on corruption and social problems.
Yet, Britain’s national media, with all its much greater financial resources, has chosen to simply roll over and censor itself. These outlets aren’t just depriving locals of the full story. They are creating a civilizational void in which docility, not the future of Britain’s children, matters.
There is a worrying trend in the West, whereby the authorities appear to have concluded it’s far easier to prosecute the victims of crime than it is to deal with the actual criminals themselves. The latest example of this is the so-called ‘Sophie of Dundee,’ Mayah Sommers; arrested and charged by Police Scotland for the ‘possession of offensive weapons’— a hatchet and a knife—which she clearly felt were necessary to protect herself and her sister from an advancing migrant. For the police, it was a matter of supreme indifference that Bulgarian national, Fatos Ali Dumana, was filming, pursuing and harassing the girls in the video. And neither the fact that the girls felt compelled to produce the ‘offensive weapons’ nor the evident terror in their voices factored into the policing equation.
The excellent Rod Dreher has already covered the story in these pages, but I should like to add three points as subsequent information has come to light. First and foremost, nothing whatsoever about this story stacks up. If Dumana is genuinely the ‘victim’ in this case (and I suggest you need psychiatric treatment if you believe he is), why is he chasing his ‘assailants’ and inciting the girls to incriminate themselves rather than simply leaving them alone? Second, there is strong evidence on social media that prior to the video, an assault had taken place. Third, we should not be deceived by the Daily Mail puff piece. Far from being a cuddly ‘family man’ and soi-dissant ‘gentleman from the Kingdom,’ Dumana is actually a self-proclaimed ‘gypsy gangster man,’ as evidenced by his social media presence and AK47 gang tattoos. His Instagram posts include “waiting for you whores to get in my super car” and ‘sex tactics’ videos. It is curious that the media chose not to depict him in this light.
The most telling thing about the Daily Mail article is the disclaimer where the comments section ought to be: “Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article”. Rather than facilitate or lead the debate, the media no longer wants to have the debate. This is the same media that consistently refused to report the truth about Britain’s grooming epidemic, reporting instead that the nation had a ‘child prostitution crisis,’ or that girl X had ‘slept with 100 Asian men by the time she was 16’—‘slept with’ being perhaps the world’s most egregious euphemism for ‘raped by.’
Police Scotland’s response has been predictably cowardly—after all, blaming the victims is a well-worn path. While the grooming gang abusers regularly referred to their teenage victims as “white slags,” the police preferred to call them “Paki shaggers.” When the UK constabulary were not busy raping the victims of grooming gangs themselves, they invariably arrested the girls for being drunk and disorderly, even occasionally arresting the fathers when they attempted a rescue. Incidentally, those epithets are still in use. They were given a recent upgrade by a Labour council leader, who referred to the girls as “white trash”.
While the UK constabulary are deaf, dumb and blind in the face of real criminals, they generally come down mighty hard on victims—particularly when the perpetrators are of a diverse nature. Try being a 17-year-old girl employing pepper spray to fight off a would-be rapist, a Jew who dares to look “openly Jewish” in the vicinity of a pro-Palestine march, or members of the public determined to protect the statue of Winston Churchill from Black Lives Matter vandals because the police refuse to. Try that, and see how quickly you get your collar felt.
Arrest does not always follow victimhood, but this inversion of the rule of law has seeped into other avenues of life. In London, the police now advise you to cover all jewellery, valuables, and watches because ,obviously, they’re too busy to investigate ‘low-level crime.’ Mobile phone retailers, meanwhile, are adorning the pavement with signs like ‘Mind the grab’—a reminder to the public that the duty not to have their phone snatched rests firmly with them. And to staunch the flow of migrant rape sweeping the streets of Britain, the police have decided it’s simpler to instruct women to stay at home.
Particularly troubling in this matter, is the condemnation reserved for those simply ‘noticing’ the pattern. High-profile cases like Tommy Robinson—jailed for showing the documentary Silenced against the instruction of the High Court—are matched by those at the other end of the scale. As a recent example, the Epping ‘pink ladies’—working mothers attempting to protect their daughters from the housing of illegal immigrants at the Bell Hotel—were referred to as ‘far-right’.
The advocates of such censorship are not shy about their motives. Only this week, a coterie of champagne socialist women co-signed an open letter, demanding that “right-wingers stop linking immigration to sexual abuse”:
There is no evidence that people seeking refuge are more likely to commit acts of sexual violence. Many are themselves survivors of violence, war, and persecution. Blaming them distracts from tackling the deep-rooted causes of abuse and from holding those truly responsible to account.
This is an extraordinarily foolish or disingenuous statement. Even in its reluctance to accurately record crime, the Ministry of Justice is painfully aware that foreign nationals overall are 71% more likely than Brits to be convicted of sex crimes. In the case of Afghans and Eritreans, that figure increases to 20 times more likely. The ladies claiming there is no evidence for such a link (three of whom are prominent MPs) simply cannot be unaware of this fact.
The real question we must ask ourselves is whether this policy of victim-blaming is part of a more sinister plot or just a panicked reaction to the surge in crime. Unpicking the issue is naturally no easy task. For starters, the replacement migration ushered in by the likes of Tony Blair and the UN could have merely been a knee-jerk response to declining birth rates and aging populations. Then again, waiting for someone in authority to confirm that Western governments are actively engaged in the destruction of their own populations is hardly a judicious use of time.
There are certain things we do know, however. The authorities are frightened. They are terrified of speaking too honestly, for fear of aggravating their imported Muslim populations. Nigel Farage—the man who may well be ‘taking on’ the fight for Britain’s survival—openly admitted this fear:
The nub of it is, we have a Muslim population in Britain growing by about 75% every ten years … If we politically alienate the whole of Islam, we will lose. By 2050, goodness knows what kind of a terrible state we’re going to be in. We have to do everything we can to bring the majority of British Muslims with us.
Furthermore, former Chief Prosecutor Nazir Afzal famously made the following admission regarding police reluctance to take grooming gangs seriously:
You may know this, but back in 2008 the Home Office sent a circular to all police forces in the country saying “as far as these young girls who are being exploited in towns and cities, we believe that they have made an informed choice about their sexual behaviour and, therefore, it’s not for you police officers to get involved in.” If that’s the landscape coming from the top down in 2008, rest assured, all agencies are going to listen to it.
While former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has denied the existence of such a memo and Afzal confirmed he had never seen it, his information was based on the fact that “dozens of police officers” had told him.
Last, in the recent case of the Bell Hotel, Epping, the government has admitted unequivocally that the human rights of illegal migrants trump those of the concerned local citizens. All of which would tend to suggest—deliberate policy or not—the current UK administration is unlikely to stop blaming the victims of crime anytime soon.
Like most of the victims of Britain’s disastrous immigration policy, smartphones and social media were until recently in their infancy. The cat however, is now well and truly out of the bag—as the case of Sophie of Dundee clearly illustrates. Were it not for social media, how many people would have been convinced by the biased reporting of this case? And how many thousands of grooming victims might have been saved, had the public had X to tell the truth?
Now that the public is awake to the scale of the problem, the only question remaining is whether Western governments will finally do what must be done – mass deportations? Or will the people have to clean up the mess for them?
Lucy Connolly, a British mother who was jailed for over a year for a Tweet, said that she plans to work with Nigel Farage’s Reform UK during an appearance at the populist party’s annual conference on Saturday.
Introduced as Britain’s “favourite political prisoner” to a standing ovation from a packed arena in Birmingham, Connolly recounted her harrowing experience after being sentenced to 31 months in prison and serving a year behind bars and said that she hopes to use the knowledge she gained about the broken judicial system to reform it for the better.
“I’d really love to use my experience to work with, hopefully, Reform in the future and overhaul the prison system, especially the women’s estate,” she said.
“It doesn’t work, it’s a waste of all of our money, and it just needs… We could let 80 per cent of the women population out of prison and none of us would be in any danger. They need housing, they need mental health, they need rehab, and they just need people to care. That’s it,” Connolly continued.
Britain’s prison system is chronically overcrowded, often operating at near 99 per cent occupancy, in large part as a result of foreign criminals taking up around twelve per cent of jail spaces rather than being deported, as Farage and Reform have vowed to do.
The 42-year-old mother, who was released from prison just weeks ago, recounted how she felt pressured into pleading guilty, under the belief that it was the quickest way to return to her husband and 12-year-old daughter, explaining that because of the judicial backlog, others wait for years in prison waiting for a trial.
Connolly also said that she believes she was given a lengthy sentence — rather than the lenient sentence she was led to think she would receive — came as a result of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s public comments, demanding that the book be thrown at those involved in last summer’s anti-mass migration riots which broke out after second-generation Rwandan Axel Rudakubana viciously murdered three young girls and injured ten more in a mass stabbing at a Southport dance party.
While Connolly was not involved in the riots, she posted on X: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it, take the treacherous government politicians with them… I feel physically sick knowing what these [Southport] families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”
Although she deleted the post within hours, and had explained she was in a state of distress over the child murders, given the loss of her own son in 2011 — later proven to have been a result of “failings” by Britain’s socialised healthcare system — she was given a 31-month sentence, and served over a year in prison.
Commenting on her sentence, Connolly told the Reform members in Birmingham, “Never in a million years did I ever think I was going to end up in prison. And it’s not funny, but as I said earlier, if you didn’t laugh, you’d cry.
“However, I learnt a lot in there and things that you’d never see in any other walk of life, and I really hope that I can change some things having come from there… Because it really is such a broken system, the whole system just needs complete reforming.”
Connolly’s case was highlighted in a U.S. congressional hearing on the state of free speech in Europe and Britain this week by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who said that he had hoped to bring Connolly to Washington, D.C. to tell her story, but was prevented due to her bail conditions.
Mr Farage has also suggested that if elected, Reform could pass “Lucy’s Law”, which would allow the public to petition the government to review sentences they felt were unjustly decided.
As Norwegians head to the voting booth on Monday, defense, the economy, and immigration are high on voters’ minds. Energy policy is also central, with tensions over Norway’s oil-dependent economy versus the push for renewable energy transitions and EU directives on electricity markets.
PM Jonas Gahr Støre’s social democratic Labor Party (Ap) government, formed in 2021 with the Euroskeptic Center Party (Sp), cracked in January 2025 over disagreements on implementation of the next EU energy package, leaving Ap to govern alone. The party hit an all-time low in the polls in late 2024, dropping to 16.8% in December.
Enter former NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg. With the well-respected statesman’s return to domestic politics—as finance minister—in February, the governing party’s ratings got a boost. The ‘Stoltenberg effect’ has brought voter support up to around 27–30% by August 2025.
Political scientist Johannes Bergh told AFP that U.S. President Trump’s trade policies and questions over U.S. willingness to defend Europe militarily have also shifted Norwegians towards the well-known leaders of Ap, who have been campaigning under the slogan “Security for the Future.” Finding consensus with the four other leftist parties they would need for support might be a challenge, however.
On the Right, the Progress Party (FrP), Norway’s right-wing populist party, has surged in polls and is currently the country’s second biggest party. Founded in 1973 to fight high taxes and government overreach, the FrP is known for its advocacy of economic liberalism, tax cuts, and stricter immigration policies.
The party has doubled its support since the 2021 elections (11.6%) under leader Sylvi Listhaug and has overtaken the center-right Conservatives (Højre) as the major right-wing force, polling in the 20-22% range (with a high of 26.9% in February) against the Conservative Party’s numbers in the mid-to-low teens.
Party leader Listhaug caused quite the ruckus back in 2016 when she, as integration minister, warned immigrants that, “Here we eat pork, drink alcohol, and show our faces. You must abide by the values, laws, and regulations that are in Norway when you come here.” But in the years since, FrP’s focus on immigration has shifted the national conversation, influencing even Ap to consider stricter asylum policies.
FrP has called for zero net immigration from “high-risk countries” (e.g., parts of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia), citing integration challenges, crime, and costs to the welfare state. It prioritizes Christian refugees and stricter rules for citizenship, permanent residence, and family reunification. The party’s spokesman on immigration issues, Erlend Wiborg, toldAftenposten, “Over time, Norway has taken in far too many immigrants from these countries. It’s not sustainable and places a heavy burden on taxpayers,” pointing to Sweden as a cautionary example. Currently, about one-fifth of residents are immigrants or children of immigrants.
A key element of FrP’s latest policy proposal is a plan to hold municipalities accountable for integration outcomes. Wiborg suggested introducing publicly available local statistics on crime, employment, welfare dependency, education levels, and social participation. The goal, he said, is to halt immigration to municipalities that are clearly struggling with integration.
“This way, municipalities can also learn from each other, while at the same time stopping all immigration to municipalities that clearly have major integration challenges,” Wiborg said.
The party is also pushing for the establishment of offshore asylum reception centers in third countries—an idea also backed by the Conservative Party, which the FrP hopes to join in a potential future governing coalition. Its projected 39–46 seats in the 169-seat parliament could make it the largest party in a center-right coalition, potentially positioning Listhaug as a prime ministerial candidate, though Høyre’s party leader Erna Solberg is also a contender.
Three women from Santa Rosa Junior College’s volleyball team have filed a federal Title IX complaint demanding the removal of a male player from their women’s squad. Sophomore Madison Shaw and freshmen Gracie Shaw and Brielle Galli allege that they were penalized for protesting the inclusion of Ximena Gomez on the team.
The 46-page filing, submitted to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights on September 3, accuses SRJC and the California Community College Athletic Association (3C2A) of “egregious violations” of women’s rights, claiming current policies allow men to take roster spots, invade locker room privacy, and even inflict injuries on female athletes.
The complaint centers around Ximena Gomez, a male student who identifies as a “woman.” Gomez first appeared on SRJC’s roster as a redshirt freshman in 2024. That season, Gomez did not compete in matches but practiced with the team, joined weight training sessions, and utilized the women’s changing room.
According to the filing, which was first reported by OutKick, Gomez allegedly concussed a teammate during practice in 2024 by spiking a ball at her head. The female athlete was unable to participate in practices and competition for two weeks due to the severity of the injury.
The complaint notes: “Men maintain significant athletic performance advantages over women in 3C2A varsity sports including volleyball. This is evident, for instance, from the fact that the women’s net in college volleyball is 5 5/8 inches lower than the men’s net, i.e., 7 feet, 4 1/8 inches (2.24 meters) compared to 7 feet, 11 5/8 inches (2.43 meters). This height difference is due to significant overall differences in height, jumping ability, and hitting strength between male and female volleyball players.”
🚨OUTRAGEOUS: Santa Rosa Junior College benched 3 women’s volleyball players to let a man play on the women’s team—after the women demanded the school honor their Title IX rights. https://t.co/RZy263KyHopic.twitter.com/m7NNICPGEo
Throughout the 2024 season and into 2025, Gomez was also given full access to the women’s locker room, causing discomfort amongst the female players. The female athletes cited in the filing say Gomez was repeatedly present while they and other teammates undressed and changed. While they noted that Gomez did not openly disrobe in front of them, the complaint stresses that his mere presence during intimate moments created an environment of “privacy invasion and humiliation.”
The athletes raised these concerns directly to Athletic Director Matt Markovich, Head Coach Ally Sather, and SRJC’s Title IX Coordinator Stephanie Jarrett, citing safety, fairness, and privacy. But rather than address the issue, they say administrators claimed they could not confirm or disclose Gomez’s sex, citing outdated privacy laws that had in fact been withdrawn years earlier. At one point, the players say, they were even instructed not to talk to their teammates about Gomez’s male sex or transgender status.
By spring of 2025, Head Coach Sather integrated Gomez more fully into team practices. When the 2025 season began, Gomez was retained on the official roster and moved into active competition, playing as an outside hitter, the same position as sophomore starter Madison Shaw.
Gomez is described in the filing as having been stronger, faster, and hitting harder than any female player the complainants had ever played with or against. One teammate compared Gomez’s power to levels “beyond anything seen even in NAIA competition.”
The three women began formally protesting in June of 2025, meeting with administrators to demand Gomez’s removal from the team. It was around this time that they claim the tone from SRJC’s athletic department and coaching staff shifted dramatically towards them. Head Coach Sather, who had previously assured Madison Shaw she would return as a starting outside hitter, allegedly began withholding coaching attention from her once she raised concerns about Gomez. Madison says drills were redirected toward Gomez, leaving her sidelined in practices where she had once been the focus.
Over the summer, the three athletes repeatedly returned to Athletic Director Markovich’s office to raise their concerns about Gomez, and by mid-August, tensions reached a breaking point.
Gomez achieving liftoff during a volleyball game. Source: ICONS / X
At the team’s opening event on August 15, the Solano Scrimmage, the three women refused to play when Gomez was included on the roster. Their coach told them their starting spots could not be held if they didn’t play alongside him.
On August 20, after a meeting where SRJC officials confirmed Gomez would stay on the team, the players announced that they would remain on the roster but sit out matches in protest. The following day, they submitted letters reiterating their position and demanding a Title IX investigation. That evening they attempted to hold a team meeting to explain their decision, but the captains cancelled it under administrative pressure. They then organized a Zoom call with teammates, which the coach monitored. Most teammates stayed silent, and the call ended abruptly.
Due to her vocal opposition to Gomez’s inclusion on the team, Madison says she was benched outright, despite being one of the most experienced players on the roster. Gracie and Brielle saw their positions reassigned, and their opportunities to develop as freshmen undercut. By August 22 and 23, when the season opened, they were reduced to staging a symbolic sit-down protest from the bench while Gomez played in their place.
The women say they felt isolated by their coaches, alienated from teammates, and constantly under surveillance. Madison in particular reported that the stress left her drained, forcing her to quit the team altogether on September 2.
The complaint argues that SRJC and the 3C2A knowingly enforced a transgender participation policy in violation of Title IX. The policy reportedly allows male athletes to join women’s teams after one year of testosterone suppression, without setting clear hormone thresholds or requiring ongoing monitoring. In some cases, athletes may compete without even disclosing their biological sex if they adopted a female identity before enrolling. The female athletes argue this framework not only strips them of opportunities and privacy, but also puts them in direct physical danger.
The complaint concludes by asking the Department of Education to investigate and determine whether SRJC should be cut off from federal funding due to noncompliance with Title IX. In their words, the complaint is not just about one roster spot in Santa Rosa, but about thousands of women across California’s 112 community colleges who could face the same loss of safety, dignity, and opportunity if males are allowed to continue self-identifying into women’s athletics.
It feels as if leftists across the West try to out-crazy each other every day.
In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Keir Starmer appears completely content with foreigners invading his homeland and raping his country’s young children, but he absolutely will not tolerate the sale of Red Bull to teenagers. “I won’t shy away from decisions to protect kids,” says the toad who puts parents in jail for correctly pointing out that he and other members of the British Establishment covered up the crimes of Islamic rape gangs for decades.
How will Starmer “protect kids”? “We’re stopping shops from selling high-caffeine energy drinks to under 16s,” the pedophile-enabling prime minister triumphantly declared this week. That makes sense. If British kids had enough energy to fight back against Islamic rapists, the British government would have to charge them for an “Islamophobia hate crime.” Child rape is merely a “cultural misunderstanding.” “Hate speech,” on the other hand, is intolerable!
Not to be out-crazied by leftists in the U.K., pro-“trans” demonstrators in the United States have gathered near the site of last week’s Minneapolis Catholic school shooting to demand extra “trans” rights. The mentally ill members of this perpetually offended club of sex fetishists consider it appropriate to express their grievances right next to the church where one of their deranged fellow travelers murdered praying kids. They couldn’t care less about grieving parents or traumatized children. They just want to make sure that Christians respect “trans” terrorists’ pronouns.
Some schools in the state of Washington are apparently trying to avoid another “trans” terror attack by proselytizing young children to the Alphabet People’s demonic religion. Indoctrinating kids with a “Gender Jamboree,” teachers instruct students to choose their own “gender identity.” Kindergartners are taught that “some people are boys, girls, some people are both, some people are neither.” On both sides of the Atlantic, schools have become little more than institutions built for grooming and sexually exploiting children. Teachers are often just as crazy as the delusional “trans” militants that they hold up as role models.
Leftists in the U.S. believe that Christian kids deserve to die for believing in biological reality. Leftists in the U.K. believe that Christian kids deserve to be raped in the name of “diversity.” Sane people have come to understand that “multiculturalism” and “inclusion” are just black magic incantations of a depraved “woke” religion.
Is “hate” too strong of a word to describe how leftist-globalists feel about Western citizens? I don’t think so. Leftists insist on open border policies that flood formerly safe towns with military-aged males from foreign nations with incompatible cultures. When those men operate as agents for transnational terrorist organizations specializing in drug-smuggling and human-trafficking, leftists cover up their crimes. When those men rape women, girls, and boys, leftists still cover up their crimes. When Westerners complain about the increase in violent crime, leftists publicly shame the victims for their “bigotry.” When Westerners demand that foreign criminals be deported, leftists claim that foreigners are an indispensable part of the economy and more worthy of respect than Western citizens. Leftists then censor and imprison any Westerners who complain. That reeks of Western self-hate.
There are perhaps forty million illegal aliens and fifty-five million visa holders in the United States. Nobody knows the exact numbers, and after decades of nobody knowing, it seems obvious that the leftist-globalists who constitute the permanent bureaucracy prefer it that way. When ordinary Americans learn of these numbers, they are floored. How can America be secure if it allows a nation of a hundred million or more foreigners to live within its borders? Why should Americans searching for jobs have to compete with non-Americans? Why should Americans have to pay more for food and housing because a hundred million foreign nationals drive up demand? It’s crazy.
Now that he’s back in office, President Trump is once again trying to disarm this national security ticking time bomb. He’s rebuilding the southern border wall that Biden tore down. He’s given ICE more funding for immigration enforcement than it’s ever had. He’s enlisted federal agencies, National Guard troops, active members of the military, and local law enforcement to assist in the gargantuan task of ridding the country of criminals, terrorists, foreign operatives, and anyone who sneaked into the United States. It’s an “all hands on deck” moment for every American who cares about the sovereignty and security of the country.
Yet leftist judges (many born in foreign countries), globalist NGOs (many funded by foreign billionaires), and Democrat politicians (many elected by foreign nationals) are doing everything they can to stymie the president’s efforts. Democrats and their leftist friends work harder to protect America’s enemies than they do to defend American citizens. It’s insane.
Since Democrats insist on coddling rapists, murderers, and terrorists, President Trump has an alternative strategy: obliterate members of foreign terrorist organizations in international waters before leftist judges and Democrat senators can protect them. It doesn’t matter how much Democrats depend upon drug cartels for money and votes. As secretary of State Rubio says, President Trump will “wage war on narco-terrorist organizations” and “blow them up.”
Leftists across the West sure do love criminals, pedophiles, and terrorists. They defend those animals every day. No wonder they hate Trump. A leader interested in protecting citizens? To leftists, that just sounds crazy.
On today’s #NCFNewspeak, NCF Senior Fellows Rafe Heydel-Mankoo and Dr. Philip Kiszely, Danube Institute Fellow David Oldroyd-Bolt and Amy Gallagher of Stand up to Woke discuss:
The Death of Free Speech in Britain: Graham Linehan’s Arrest
Robert Jenrick proposes migrant prison camps and negative emigration
Labour considers ID Cards for everyone to crack down on illegal migration
Even after a month, the shock among parents, children and staff at the municipal daycare centre is still deep. One day before the usual summer closure lasting several weeks, a father stormed into the facility and, according to eyewitness accounts recorded in a police report, threatened some of the staff with words including ‘I’ll gouge your eyes out. Allah will judge you.’ ‘We were on site and, based on the reports, filed a complaint for threats on the morning of July 31,’ said a police spokesperson in response to an inquiry from our editorial team. The holidays are now over and the nursery is open again. But the uneasy feeling remains. ‘Many are worried, fearing that a similar situation could happen again,’ is what we were told by parents.
The concerns of those who are worried: someone who loses their temper once may do so again. And in the worst case, it might not stop at verbal attacks.
There is also a great deal of incomprehension among families and staff because, in their opinion, the reason for the aggressive behaviour, which still causes fear today, was trivial. According to them, the reason for the alleged threats was that the father felt that a supposed or actual argument between his son and another child at the nursery had gone too far. The man claimed that his son had even been injured in the incident. ‘But that wasn’t the case,’ according to the nursery community. Further debate was caused by uncertainties surrounding the proposed ban on the father entering the premises. Somehow, it was said, it was not clear whether it was already in force or had yet to come into effect. ‘We issued a ban on entering the premises with immediate effect on July 31 and sent it to the father in writing through the Office for Social Affairs and Youth,’ a city spokeswoman emphasised to this editorial team. This ban is permanent. In addition, the city, as the responsible authority, had ‘ensured increased security.’ In particular, attention had been paid to increasing visibility and access security during drop-off and pick-up times. Specifically, this meant that the doors were always closed to outsiders and were opened by staff.
