Britain Mainstreams First-Cousin Marriage in the Name of “Diversity”

In a story that sounds like it’s straight out of The Onion or The Babylon Bee, the British Prime Minister and the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) are now on the record defending first-cousin marriages in the name of diversity, tolerance, and multiculturalism.

In recent years, the U.K. has taken in millions of migrants from countries with troubling practices like child marriage, polygamy, and first-cousin marriages. For instance, 1.6 million people of Pakistani ancestry now reside in Britain, a country of just 70 million. Studies have found that an astonishing 65 percent of marriages in Pakistan are between cousins – a union that puts children at a far greater risk for birth defects and genetic disorders.

But instead of assimilating these migrants to Western culture and values – like not marrying your cousin – British leaders and public health “experts” are instead excusing the practice and even arguing that it can be a net positive for British society.

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer thrust this issue into the spotlight earlier this year when he indicated that he would block a bill put forth by Conservative minister Richard Holden banning first-cousin marriage.

When pressed, Starmer refused to say why he opposed the bill – even though data shows that its urgently needed in Britain. One study found that in the city of Bradford, 46 percent of the female Pakistani community said they were in a “consanguineous relationship,” meaning the husband and wife had a common ancestor. 10 years ago, that figure was reportedly as high as 60 percent.

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) furthered the controversy last month when it published – and then shortly thereafter deleted – an article titled, “Should the U.K. government ban first-cousin marriage?”

While mentioning the medical risks in children from first-cousin marriages, the NHS article went on to cite the supposed “benefits” of such arrangements, such as strengthening family networks and providing economic advantages.

Rather than sticking to strict medical guidance, the NHS article instead seemingly made an effort to avoid offending certain immigrant communities where cousin marriage remains common. In doing so, the NHS elevated cultural sensitivity above truth and the public good – highlighting precisely why trust in public health institutions has collapsed in recent years.

Comically, in an attempt to justify its position within British culture, the article reached back to the sixteenth century, noting that cousin marriage was legalized during the reign of Henry VIII, as though appealing to royal precedent from 500 years ago could destigmatize a practice modern Western societies have long rejected.

This episode is not an isolated incident, but rather emblematic of a broader trend throughout the West where public institutions hide, excuse, or even celebrate cultural practices that undermine public safety or directly contradict both science and long-standing social norms.

The fear of “stigmatizing” minority groups has grown so acute that it now overrides the obligation to speak plainly about reality, risk, responsibility, and the moral foundations of public health, as evidenced in other public scandals across the United Kingdom.

In a related incident, a series of British government inquiries revealed that, for more than a decade, police and local authorities in towns such as Rotherham repeatedly ignored and covered up reports of large-scale child sexual exploitation rings, otherwise known as “grooming gangs,” in which at least 1,400 children were abused predominantly by men of Pakistani and Muslim heritage between 1997 and 2013.

Officials later admitted that they hesitated to act in part because they feared accusations of racism and Islamophobia.

Bureaucrats, social services managers, rank-and-file police, and their commanders all described an environment where concerns about cultural sensitivity were prioritized over confronting and prosecuting crimes. Tragically, the fear of being branded as intolerant became more powerful than the duty to protect vulnerable young British girls and British society as a whole.

The result was devastating and, like the NHS article on first-cousin marriages, has left the British people wondering whether its institutions can still be trusted to act in the best interests of the public.

The same corrosion of institutional trust was on display during the COVID-19 lockdowns in the United States.

In 2020, as governments imposed strict stay-at-home orders that shuttered businesses and churches, many of the same public health officials who had warned against any large gatherings enthusiastically supported “Black Lives Matter” protests they deemed politically and morally justified – even after those “fiery but mostly peaceful” protests turned violent.

More than 1,200 “health professionals” signed a letter arguing that “racial justice” demonstrations were so important to public health that the risks of contracting and spreading the virus became secondary. Is it any wonder, then, that so many Americans hesitated to trust these same “experts” on the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine or the “science” behind school closures?

To ordinary citizens who had been told they could not see or hold their dying loved ones and would have to forgo their funerals, “trusting the science” was exposed as a cover for selective moral reasoning. The goal of protecting public health was no longer absolute when it came into conflict with the need to promote “anti-racist” ideology. (Really, of course, it was about the need to hurt Donald Trump and Republicans politically.)

What unites these scandals across Britain and the United States, from the NHS’s moral equivocation on cousin marriage, to the Rotherham cover-ups and the COVID-era double standards, is not bureaucratic or administrative incompetence, but complete progressive ideological capture.

Adherence to the quasi-religious tenets of multiculturalism and DEI has transformed purportedly “neutral” institutions, designed to serve the public good, into instruments of progressive orthodoxy. The fear of offending a “protected” group, or the desire to elevate their interests, outweighs the duty to tell the truth and uphold basic standards of institutional integrity.

The West now faces a collapse of moral decency and a crisis of confidence in the so-called “expert” class, with leaders either lacking the courage to defend their traditional cultural standards or, worse, demonstrating open hostility toward them. If public trust is to be rebuilt, the progressive noose suffocating corrupted institutions must be severed – or new institutions must be constructed in their place.

Adam Johnston is a writer whose work has been featured in The Federalist, The Blaze, and the Daily Caller. He is also the creator of the Substack publication “Conquest Theory,” where he regularly writes about politics, history, philosophy, and technology. You can find him on X @ConquestTheory.