American Thinker published a commentary piece by Olivia Murray on September 18, 2026, taking aim at a Scotland-based migrant charity over a seminar that, according to the author, walked newcomers through the legal boundaries of sexual contact with minors. The claim at the center of the piece is that the Mamacita Foundation held a session in which a speaker told migrants the age at which they would not be arrested for having sex with children.
The only evidence Murray offers for this is an embedded social media clip, which she presents without independent verification. According to her description, the video shows a speaker floating an age as low as 12, while a woman in the audience suggests 14. Murray writes that the actual age of consent in both England and Scotland is 16, and she treats the gap between that number and the guesses in the room as the scandal.
She then speculates about origins. The speaker who said 12, in her telling, is probably African, because the age of consent in Sudan is 12 for married girls, 13 in Niger and 9 in Yemen. The woman who said 14 is likely from southeast Asia, Murray writes, citing Bangladesh’s age of consent of 14 and 15 in Laos and Cambodia. These figures are asserted without sourcing.
The Author’s Core Argument
From there, Murray pivots to what she says such sessions will produce. Her prediction: a defense attorney standing up in a rape trial to argue that his client heard in a lesson that the age was 14. It is a rhetorical flourish rather than a documented case, but it sets up the piece’s main claim — that rapes committed by migrant men across Europe are “through the roof.”
To back that up, she stacks headlines and social media posts. Among them: a claim that a migrant from Barbados tried to rape a 13-year-old British girl; a report that 19-year-old Gift Ayoola, living in Cardiff, was jailed for four years after directing children as young as 2 into sexual acts on camera and selling the footage, with bestiality images also involved; an assertion that a teenage girl was raped in broad daylight in Norwich and that locals online identified the rapist as a migrant; and a court report that an asylum seeker repeatedly raped a 16-year-old after luring her to a city center car park.
Not all of the material lines up with the argument being made. Murray acknowledges that some of the women in the headlines she cites are not teenagers, then asks her readers a question instead of resolving the mismatch: what about the other stories, the ones from the last few days? She does not reconcile them either, beyond presenting the cluster as evidence of a pattern.
The conclusion she draws from the seminar is blunt. If grown men have to be taught not to have sex with children, she writes, maybe those men do not belong in the country — a line she delivers knowing it will be labeled far-right and fascist. She dismisses the seminar itself as pointless, arguing that what she calls baked-in cultural attitudes and low IQs are the real cause of the rapes and that a leftist feminist “love and logic” approach cannot reach people she describes as incapable of reason.
From Scotland to American Federal Grants
The Scotland story is not really the destination. Murray uses it as a bridge to the United States, where she says similar organizations operate in abundance. Her proposal is sweeping: federal grants for charities should be eliminated entirely. She adds, almost as an aside, that she would be fine eliminating all federal grants while the country is forty trillion dollars in debt and climbing — a subject she flags and then sets aside.
Americans may not have the Mamacita Foundation, she concedes, but in her framing they have plenty of leftist organizations doing comparable work, which she accuses of facilitating what she calls the third world invasion and the cultural genocide and literal rape of native Americans. The rhetorical question she leaves readers with is why tax dollars should go to charities like the one in Scotland at all.
The post closes with a fundraising appeal for American Thinker, asking readers to donate so the outlet can keep paying staff and keep its ideas heard — a standard sign-off for the site’s opinion content.
What the piece never provides is the full context of the seminar. There is no named speaker, no date, no location beyond Scotland, no response from the Mamacita Foundation, and no reporting that confirms what the session was actually meant to cover. The video is the entire factual foundation, and Murray treats it as self-explanatory. Whether the charity was explaining the law, correcting misinformation, or doing something else is left unresolved.
That gap matters because the argument built on top of it is expansive — from a single viral clip to a continent-wide crime wave to a wholesale overhaul of how American charities are funded. Readers who want the underlying facts will have to look past the post for them. What American Thinker offers instead is the argument itself, delivered in the site’s familiar register and aimed at readers already inclined to agree.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/09/scottish-charity-holds-seminar-for-migrants-teaching-them-how-young-is-too-young-when-selecting-a-girl-to-rape/