One word, Barbaric, at the very least.

Hence why they’re publishing pamphlets for them in their language to tell them what is not legal in the UK.

Let’s talk about reality and proportionality—two concepts increasingly absent from our criminal justice discourse.
The Core Issue: Feeling vs. Thinking
Too many people feel. Too few people think.
Sex crimes and sexually aggravated offenses undeniably cause lasting harm to victims. But let’s set emotions aside and examine facts: nothing is as permanent as death. Nothing is as irreversible as physical maiming. Yet stating this obvious truth has become taboo because facts upset feelings.
The Questions That Expose the Disproportion
If we’re serious about “preventative justice” and public safety, ask yourself:
• Where is the Murder Registry? Where is the Violent Assault Registry? Where is the Arson Registry?
• Why aren’t we chemically castrating those who kill? Why no mandatory hand amputations for knife crimes? Why not voluntary blinding for those guilty of acid attacks?
• Where are the daily headlines screaming for new restrictive laws against violent offenders?
The “One Life” Hypocrisy
“If it saves just one life”—the rallying cry for every new sex crime restriction. If that logic holds, why doesn’t it apply equally? Why not blind the violent to save one innocent child? Why not maim the hands of gun criminals to protect one woman?
The Uncomfortable Conclusion
We don’t apply these standards consistently because this isn’t about safety or justice. It’s about a socially acceptable target for collective outrage. Sex crimes generate visceral disgust—and that disgust has become the foundation for policy that would be unthinkable applied to any other category of offense.
The result? A growing archipelago of punishments, restrictions, and lifelong stigmas for one class of offender, while those who leave victims dead or permanently disfigured serve their time and move on.
Either apply the logic equally—or admit this was never about logic at all.