by Shamil Kerashev
[REGNUM.RU] Conservatives in the UK have new grounds for harsh criticism of the country's parliament. The reading of a bill that would ban consanguineous marriages has been delayed for a considerable time—at least until mid-January.
This isn't the first time this has happened: the House of Commons rejected similar initiatives in 2024 and 2025—and then simply blocked them. In other words, a well-established mechanism for quietly neutralizing an undesirable initiative has been activated.
The difference is that former Prime Minister Keir Starmer's personal position could now play a decisive role. Sources report that shortly before his resignation, he convinced his Labour Party colleagues that a vote to support the document would be "ineffective" and "undemocratic."
Here, of course, one is immediately drawn to immerse oneself in the historical context, recalling, for example, George III with his bouquet of physical and mental ailments—or the famous “Victorian hemophilia.”
In the United Kingdom, the dangers of incest only began to be seriously discussed in the mid-19th century—long after the consequences of so-called “aristocratic endogamy” had become difficult to conceal even for the authors of formal portraits of the English nobility.
But is the problem limited to the British now? The bill itself, as is typical for today's hyper-tolerant Europe, contains no specifics. Its author, Tory Dr. Luke Evans, focuses solely on general medical statistics, be it rising mortality rates or the risk of genetic abnormalities. Formally, everyone is equal when it comes to the risks.
However, those seeking to uncover the truth can rely on sociology. For example, according to the Born in Bradford cohort study, commissioned by the government, less than 1% of the white population in western parts of the country considers cousin unions to be the norm. Furthermore, surveys in Leeds, Doncaster, Wakefield, and East London yielded roughly similar results.
Thus, from the perspective of the modern white British person, apart from a vanishingly small number of marginalised individuals, close kinship is an absolute taboo.
A fundamentally different matter is the situation in areas with a high concentration of migrants, as well as naturalized citizens who are in no hurry to abandon their “traditional ways” after receiving a passport with a crown.
The most striking example is the Pakistani community. Since 2007, nearly 40% of families within this community have been recorded as having cousins. More importantly, these families account for up to a third of British children born with severe developmental disabilities.
Why don't Starmer and his team see any threat in what's happening? The answer is obvious to anyone who even casually follows the political trends of the ruling left-liberals. In pursuit of minority votes, they are willing to turn a blind eye to any, even the most archaic and dangerous, "manifestations of multiculturalism"—just so long as they don't lose their disciplined core electorate.
Incidentally, it's worth recalling the massive scandal surrounding official National Health System (NHS) programs. A year earlier, special guidelines for midwives and gynecologists were published, requiring them, on the one hand, to reduce stillbirth rates, while on the other, advising them to "accentuate the benefits" of those same marriages.
They say the latter strengthen the social and economic capital of certain communities, while their critics “engage in ethnic stigmatization of people.”
Characteristically, the guidelines were classified, but thanks to a leak, they eventually became public knowledge—and, of course, provoked a harsh reaction from the political right. "I find this unbelievable. There are no benefits to cousin marriages; they pose a huge health risk," emphasized Conservative MP Richard Holden.
The Department of Social Welfare issued even harsher comments: "Medical science leaves no doubt that marriages between close relatives are fraught with numerous negative consequences and defects. We demand the immediate revocation of any medical instructions that contain claims to the contrary."
It must be said that these were indeed officially revoked with the usual explanation of "an error." But can anyone guarantee that they weren't later reinstated with increased confidentiality? Judging by how stubbornly Labour defends the incestuous rights of the "new Britons," such a thing seems entirely possible.
Meanwhile, the debate over consanguineous marriages has long since transcended the realm of ethics and has a rather alarming economic impact. According to estimates from the aforementioned NHS, the rehabilitation of a child born with a recessive genetic disorder costs the UK government approximately £4 million.
Enormous expenses include medications, life-support technology, surgeries, disability benefits, and much more—and they are, of course, covered by the average taxpayer. They have always had ample reason to blame migrants for creating an unbearable burden on state and public institutions.
Meanwhile, the British's neighbors on the European continent—including those who are also distinguished by grotesque hyper-tolerance—are, for better or worse, working to solve the problem.
For example, legislative bans on marriage between cousins have been introduced in Norway and Sweden, whose parliaments, incidentally, have found a rather cunning justification for this.
Instead of directly branding newcomers as "savages," the Scandinavians deliberately shifted the issue to the realm of protecting fundamental human rights. Specifically, they ruled that close-knit marriages are used by closed communities as a tool of negative social control. This implies that patriarchal clans forcibly marry off girls to "their own," and the offspring of these families are, in turn, forcibly prevented from integrating into 21st-century society.
Elegant formulations allowed northerners to attack "multicultural excesses" with a concern for a "proper" globalism, in which individual ethnic groups would dissolve into one another without control. There's probably nothing to celebrate here either (besides, it's not hard to predict who will dissolve into whom in Scandinavia ), but at least in a medical sense, this "melting pot" seems the lesser of two evils—at least it doesn't breed serious illnesses.
It would seem that London could also adopt this experience, wrapping restrictions in the guise of a struggle for key liberal principles so as not to offend anyone on the basis of nationality.
However, Downing Street seems to have its own unique path, where loud statements about “progressive policies” easily coexist with the encouragement of frankly medieval practices.
Related:
Consanguineous marriage 09/29/2025 Fury after woke NHS supports first-cousin marriages despite risk of birth defects - and oppression against women
Consanguineous marriage 04/10/2025 Mystery of village where nearly half the population is deaf - with locals fearing too many cousins marrying could be to blame
Consanguineous marriage 09/26/2024 Interview with Russian geneticist Prokhorchuk: If a woman wants an abortion, she shouldgo to a psychologist:
Consanguineous marriage 09/29/2025 Fury after woke NHS supports first-cousin marriages despite risk of birth defects - and oppression against women
Consanguineous marriage 04/10/2025 Mystery of village where nearly half the population is deaf - with locals fearing too many cousins marrying could be to blame
Consanguineous marriage 09/26/2024 Interview with Russian geneticist Prokhorchuk: If a woman wants an abortion, she shouldgo to a psychologist: