The Foreign Brides

I had a bear of a time getting to the article, try this link instead:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114653192291041090-search.html?KEYWORDS=stephens&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month

This only goes to show the sickness these muslim men have for little children. My neice will be 11 this Sat. and there is NO WAY she is anything close to being a woman or marriageable.

They are just pedophiles like their idol mo. Disgusting.

"When Ms. Kelek was 17, she locked herself in her room in a fit of adolescent rebellion. Her father knocked the door down with an ax. Instead of beating or killing her, he abandoned the family for good. It was, she says, one of the happiest days of her life: "We turned on all the lights and played music. We were free."

What feminist can read this and NOT take her side? It baffles me.

"when a 28-year-old Turkish man took his 11-year-old wife to a registry office in Düsseldorf to get her an ID card..."
-- from a posting above

There is great hysteria in the United States over national ID cards. But they are standard in much of Europe, and so far no police-states have arisen. Here, the need to register someone for such a card led to an important discovery by the German police.

From the article:

With a parent's consent, Turkish law will allow even a nine-year-old girl to marry.

Is this true? I know it was the case in Iran until a couple of years ago, but did Ataturk allow this in Turkey?

No surprise, then, that Ms. Kelek's legislation is being hotly opposed by the Social Democrats and the Green Party. For too many self-described progressives, limitless tolerance of "the other" has replaced the defense of individual liberty as proof of virtue.

Ms. Kelek sees it differently. Europe, she says, "has to fight for its values," not least by putting some hard questions to its increasingly alien and belligerent Muslim communities: "'Why aren't your women free? Why aren't your children free?' If we don't ask those questions, this will only continue."

Why will we not choose to defend our way of life? Are we that lazy?

"When Ms. Kelek was 17, she locked herself in her room in a fit of adolescent rebellion. Her father knocked the door down with an ax. Instead of beating or killing her, he abandoned the family for good. It was, she says, one of the happiest days of her life: "We turned on all the lights and played music. We were free."

What feminist can read this and NOT take her side? It baffles me.

Here are the typical thought-spasms which the typical (Leftist or Leftist-influenced) feminist undergoes upon reading such a description as quoted above:

1) This is another, non-Western, "ethnic" culture: we can't be so arrogant as to impose our values on the values of another culture.

2) Who are we to judge? Look at America, where there are so many crimes against women, etc.

Thanks longtime lurker. I'd just about given up.

The article states that in Turkey 9-year-old girls can marry, with the parents' permission. I find this hard to believe, but I'm prepared to be surprised -- I'll ask my Turkish contacts what they know about this.

The preference for very young, inexperienced, naive girls is perfectly understandable -- from every aspect except that of the girl's own best interest. From our Western viewpoint, we see the young girl as an independent being, with the right to follow her own path in life. But in present-day rural Turkey, and even in the cities too, a girl's best road to lifetime economic security is to be chosen by the right man. Hence, the proclivity for marriages between older widowers from the cities and very young village girls. The widower gets a fresh young virgin who will not question his authority, and the young woman plans on a few years of domestic and sexual servitude, which may produce some children, followed by a peaceful life supported by the state after the much older widower has passed on. There seems to be no expectation that the young woman would support herself by getting a job. In fact, in most cases, that would likely be impossible in the current culture.

The practice of importing very young girls into Germany to marry Turkish men is an extension of this practice: the social standing and economic stability of the widower in Turkey is matched by the prestige afforded resident young Turkish males in Germany, as seen by the premodern villagers back in Turkey.

The teenage girls in question have little hope for any real freedom in Turkey, being constrained at every turn by Islamic social mores, reinforced by their own lack of education. (One of the young victims of the bird flu in Turkey recently was a 12-year-old girl from the rural east, who had never gone to school. In her fear, she ran away from the hospital where she was being treated and later died.) We can only imagine the fear of these young girls when they are taken from their families and plunked down in the super-modern bustling cities of Germany, complete with a strange young male who is supposed to be their future life-partner.

Without the intervention of German authorities their lives in Germany promise to be equally as bleak and fear-driven as they would have been in Turkey.

Excellent article, though I would have liked to see it mentioned that the nine-year-old age minimum in Turkey (and elsewhere) is, of course, in imitation of Muhammad: That's key to understanding how tenaciously the Muslim immigrants will cling to this hideous practice.

Some of the questions that arise from this situation were addressed in the Shelby Steele piece (also in yesterday's WSJ):

White Guilt and the Western Past

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318

"Europeans are utterly confounded by the swelling Muslim populations in their midst. America has run from its own mounting immigration problem for decades, and even today, after finally taking up the issue, our government seems entirely flummoxed. White guilt is a vacuum of moral authority visited on the present by the shames of the past."

Note: if the WSJ intro page pops up when accessing the link, either wait a few seconds and it will disappear, or click on 'skip intro' in the upper right hand corner.

For too many self-described progressives, limitless tolerance of "the other" has replaced the defense of individual liberty as proof of virtue.

This is where liberalism diverges from the Left. The Left is a separate entity, dedicated, as it always has been, since the days of the French Revolution, to the overthrow of the established society.

Thus any force that is contrary to the society, in this case, islamic fundamentalism, is a natural comrade of the Left. That is why even the radical feminists support Islam in this context because those feminists are not feminists at all, but another leg of the fifth column. Same thing with immigration proponents, criminal lawyers, Communist organizations, anti-poverty activists, Hollywood actors, the ACLU, and a host of alphabet soup groups. All dedicated, in spirit, to the emasculation of the Judeo-Christian West. So now that this new threat, Islam, comes up on the radar, they latch on to it.

An enemy of an enemy.

http://www.islam-watch.blogspot.com

This is a fact that must be integrated into our public life--absorbed as new history--so that America can once again feel the moral authority to seriously tackle its most profound problems. Then, if we decide to go to war, it can be with enough ferocity to win.

PCRS, that article was perfect. That is the problem in a nutshell with our war against islam. That is why we don't take the gloves off, that is why we don't identify the enemy, that is why we will not win until THEY do something so nasty as to help erase that white guilt from the Elite.

Which is why I say that the only hope we have in the West of turning this tide of moral relativism to our side, is by Islam losing this moral legitimacy by an act outrageous and damaging to our national security. They must commit mass murder in order to wipe some of the white guilt away.

Too bad that 9/11 was not enough of a mass murder, eh? It was enough for me. It was enough for many people. But it was not enough for the politicians, the bureaucrats, the Hollywood celebrities, the business elite, and the academia. They need more blood to change their views.

That is why I hate them as corrupt human beings. In order to throw their weight against mass murder, they require, indeed, insist upon more mass murder to sway them.

http://www.islam-watch.blogspot.com

"did Ataturk allow this in Turkey?"

It could be that no matter how Draconian Ataturk and later Kemalists have tried to be, they could not fully extirpate the deep-seated influences of Islam on their culture. An analogous case would be Saddam's Iraq, where beginning in the 1980s, in order to placate Muslims, Saddam began to institute more Islamic laws (and personal behavior on his own, like having a Koran written in his own donated blood, etc.), among which was punishing prostitutes by having them beheaded and their heads put on spikes in the street as warnings to others. I.e., assuming that Saddam was really just a depraved secularist who would like to behead people for his own reasons independent of Islam, he surely arrogated enough power to himself to ignore Islam and its own peculiar barbarities: but he couldn't, because it was such a profoundly deep-seated grass-roots force among his population (which is why we've been having the problems Hugh has adverted to).

"This is where liberalism diverges from the Left."

Or rather: This is where liberalism should diverge from the Left. The problem is, Western liberalism has become, to a great degree, infected by Leftism -- and not only liberalism, but conservatism too.

"Seven Brides for One and Three-quarters brothers?"

Won't fit on the marquee.

"7 Brides 4 1 & 3/4 Bros."

Problem solved.

Should alphanumeric titles be allowed as a way out? When have you ever seen on a marquee "2 for the Road" or "3 Coins in a Fountain" or "4 Feathers" or "5 Card Stud" or "The 6th Day"(oops, maybe) or "7 Who Were Hanged?"

At least she wasn't 9 or 6.

Bowling Green, Ohio, State Rt. 25.

But that alone says a lot.

I couldn't get to the web site to "read it all." Does anyone know if the 28 year old turkish "man" was arrested by German authority and jailed for pedophilia? I'm not German, but I'm fairly confident there is an age limit in Germany for sex and marrage purposes of a person. Any adult man who wants to wed a child is mentally incapable of dealing with the intellect and mentality of an adult woman.It's much easier for him to thwart a child, making him feel superior. If anyone reading this, can dispute this, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

Foreign Husbands are a problem too. I don't know if the proposed German law deals with this too.

Too often U.S. or European born Pakistani (or other Muslim) girls are sent back to the home country for forced arraigned marriages. The boys get a compliant girl from the old country and the girls get a dominant male from the old country. All the better to keep everyone in the Sharia ghetto.

I think the age of consent for resident women to marry a foreigner from a Muslim majority country should be 23. (Actually I think it should be 103 but taking a smaller step now doesn't preclude taking larger steps later.)

Mustang65,

Click on the site:

http://online.wsj.com/article/global_view.html?

If the WSJ advertisment screen pops up, click on 'skip intro' in the upper right hand, or wait a few seconds and it will disappear, at which time you will see the article.

"Next week, the German parliament is set to debate legislation, conceived by Ms. Kelek and supported by Chancellor Angela Merkel, that would require foreign brides (from outside the European Union) to learn German before their arrival and bar entry to those under 21" (From the Wall Street Journal article above).

This legislation is way too insufficient. Let me propose some legislation that might be more effective:

1. Any family that has an honor killing will lose custody of all minor children to be adopted and raised by a family of a completely different culture where such crimes are not acceptable. In other words, a Muslim who allows the murder of his daughter will not only be punished for the crime but all his minor children or grandchildren will be adopted out to Jews, Christians or Hindus. All other adults in his family will be permanently deported.

2. Any family who allows the marrriage of an underage girl (either their own daughter or as the "wife" of a male relative)will be deported, except for all minor children who will be taken away and adopted out.

This will help increase the non-Muslim population by guaranteeing that these Turkish, Arab, Pakistani, or African children are raised as non-Muslims. It also will cut down on any future abuse of the children. Also, fewer Muslims will want to sneak into Europe if they know that they are likely to lose their children to the kafirs if they don't abandon their Islamic backwardness.

That is why even the radical feminists support Islam in this context because those feminists are not feminists at all, but another leg of the fifth column. Same thing with immigrationPosted by Thethinker

I think you are wrong in that assessment, in fact some of the most vehement support for Muslims actually is coming from Catholics, primarily because of Muslims strong stand on "traditional values" (e.g. Patriarchy, anti abortion, homosexuals).

And the feminists I know, once awakened to the real nature of Islam, become steadfastly anti Islamic, although still torn betweeen what they perceive is the Misogyny of the Christian Right (an immediate threat) to the misogyny of Islam (a distant threat).

I think that Christians need to reorder their priorities and change their attitudes towards women and gays (aka the Culture war). I was reading something yesterday that Muslims vote Republican on the basis of "values" (code word).

Don't forget that Muslms voted for Bush and Grover "abdullah" Norquist announced (proudly) that it was the Muslim vote that put in him in the White House in 2000 (and not an exageration either).

The Muslims and the Christian Right were well united in 2000, and (despite the invasion of Iraq) I suspect 2004 as well.

Cherish your allies, against the "feminazi's",

The same people who call feminists "feminazi's" are the same people who call Israelis "zionazis".
Dispute me? Check them out Here, a consensus of "antisemitic", racist, antifeminist, homophobic, Islamophiles"

... in fact some of the most vehement support for Muslims actually is coming from Catholics

What a load of rot! The most voluble support for the Islamic agenda has been from the left. Christopher Hitchens is about the only honourable exception.

... primarily because of Muslims strong stand on "traditional values" (e.g. Patriarchy, anti abortion, homosexuals).

That statement is both false and completely meaningless. The sharia does not "have a strong stand on traditional values" - which is a completely vacuous formulation, in any case. (Traditional in which society?) What the sharia has is a nasty habit of executing people in revolting ways for sodomy:

May 1998: Amnesty International confirmed that at least five men convicted of sodomy by Afghan Shari'a courts had been placed next to walls, and were then buried under rubble as the walls were collapsed on top of them.

The Roman Catholic church and many people in Western societies of other churches or of none may disapprove of all, or some, "homosexual" behaviour. It does not collapse walls on people.

In what might loosely be called Roman Catholic countries - and, indeed, throughout the West - there is a difference between morality and what the state proscribes. People, in general, are left in peace to do as they wish in private, and no one is required to either approve or disapprove of them. You are deliberately comparing unlike matters.

I am not a Roman Catholic, nor indeed a Christian. But what is this site for? Discussing the Jihad and Dhimmitude or conducting a vendetta against the Roman Catholic church?

Nariz, you are wrong on many points.

1. The biggest supporters of Muslim are by far the multicultist Leftists and the Open Borders fellow travellers (libertarians and neocons) on the right. I've read a lot of what far right antisemitic Catholics have had to say and most of them hate the Muslims as much as they hate the Jews. They just want the Muslims to destroy Israel first. They do not agree on "values", but they are using them as their mandarins against the secularists and, of course, the Jews.

2. I disagree with you on the feminists. They have sold out. They have totally succumbed to PC and the multicult at the expense of their own cause. Firebrands like Daly and Dworkin (two radicals who actually told the truth about how Third World cultures treat women) are now dismissed as racists. Most progressive feminists are stuck in a post-colonial slump and they can't bring themselves to criticize honor killings which happen daily in the Muslim world until America becomes a utopia for women itself and eliminates women abuse. Although I appreciate your efforts to "open their eyes" to the truth, it is a useless endeavor since the leaders and the majority of the movements are not willing to "defame" Muslims and embolden the "right wing" and "racists" by simply stating a few facts and figures about the reality for women in al-daralislam.

3. Muslims only voted Republican in 2000 because of what Bush said about secret evidence. That is it. They did not vote on "values" but on ethno-cultural interests. And the "Muslims" that voted Republican in 2000, includes Arab Christians who overwhelmingly identify with Muslims in America. More often than not, Muslims will vote Democrat and they certainly don't share their values, so why would it be different if they voted Republican in 2000?

4. Liberty Forum is not representative of the racist Christian far right that you speak of. I won't name any names, but look on real racialist and nativist websites and you'll find out that although this group does hate feminists, gays, Jews, and blacks, they also really hate Muslims. None of them are happy with Muslim immigration and none of them want to live by Muslims. Any Islamophilic tendecies are easily explained by antisemitic tendencies and I'm sure you know Nariz, that doesn't only apply to the far right.

Nariz, you are totally off the mark. The feminists have always remained strangely quiet about all the misogynistic abuse taking place in the third world, especially islam. They never bring it up. In fact, some feminists, when they realize that George Bush is supposed to be fighting a war on terror, instinctively side with the islamic militants, out of a Pavlovian reflex to be in favor of whatever our "paternalistic" society is fighting. Feminists, most of them, are part of the Left. They care not a whim about the misery of women anywhere in the world. It is all about domestic politics.

"Christopher Hitchens is about the only honourable exception."
--posted by Yojimbo

The same Trotskyite that called a fellow leftist, Orianna Falacci, a racist? I think not. He wants more Muslims in the West in hopes that they'll become deluded leftists like himself. Good luck with that, Hitch. Hitchens also wants us to pay more jizya to Muslim countries and to give the Hitler-spawn in "Palestine" their own Nazi-mini-state. The real exceptions like Falacci, who actually care about the culture West moreso than killing KKKapitalism would be insulted.

The practice of importing spouses is doubly dangerous to the host nations. Not only are the backwards values of the source country perpetuated where they would otherwise be diluted, the hostile colonist population grows much faster. It is a well-known fact among demographers that although the first generation of many immigrant populations have high fertility relative to the host nation, the next generation, born in the host country and at least partly acculturated, tends to produce children at or very close to the rate of their surrounding "countrymen". The population growth of Muslims in Europe would not be as worrying if they were not allowed this practice of importing spouses. The assimilation of European values would have more of a chance as well. Let's face it - free societies are very appealing. It would be hard for a Muslim community to keep out modern values without several kinds of support: hateful preachers from the middle east, separate schooling, welfare dependency, and spouses brought in from the source country.

Last I heard, Denmark was restricting this practice. Bravo. They are only ~2% Muslim now (per the CIA factbook at CIA.gov), and trying hard to hold the line. They may survive as a nation if they keep it up.

Forced marriages, imported child brides, honor killings - how do we know that this isn't going on to a certain extent in Muslim enclaves in the U.S.? Who's looking out for this?

"child brides" -- yes. One case made the papers a few years ago -- some Iraqi brothers in Iowa who couldn't understand why they should not be allowed to marry their 11 and 12-year-old child brides. Just couldn't.

"honor killings" -- yes. "Die, my child, die" said the father stabbing his daughter -- named "Palestina." How many others are unreported? Who knows?

"Forced marriages" -- all the time. And sometimes a seemingly intelligent and advanced "revert" will head off to Yemen to find a completely illiterate but devout village girl to bring home.

We should put muslims on a probation while they're here in America. They would have to check in (with entire family), the "probation officers" could do unannounced visits to the home every week or two. If the muslim family doesn't seem to be assimilating, they would be sent back home. If there appears to be another child in the home of "marrying age", the man could be arrested and his family shipped out and wait for him on the other side of the ocean til he gets out of prison.

50 - 70% of all Bangladeshi and Pakistani marriages in the UK are of this kind: I have a feeling that there will be action on it soon as it is has for a long time been causing bad feeling about the allocation of public housing at a local level. Bizarrely, a high proportion of these marriages are of first cousins leading to a noticeably high amount of congenital illness being a characteristic of these communities. In a previous entry I said the Danes had raised the minimum age for a citizen to marry a foreigner to 28, but checking the Danish website I found it was 24. Whether they have any rules about the age of the foreign national, I don't know.
A lot of the discusion in the UK is around forced marriages, in which girls are taken to South Asia 'on holiday' and forcibly married there.British consuls in Pakistan and Bangladesh often have to respond to calls for help from such girls: there are interesting articles on the subject at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4217056.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-19-forced-marriage_x.htm

... when a 28-year-old Turkish man took his 11-year-old wife to a registry office in Düsseldorf to get her an ID card.

They didn't have ID cards back when the "Holy Prophet" Mohammed established pedophilia as a source of monotheistic religious worshop (Cf., Koran 33:21).

MO HIJABS MO DISK CONSUMING HEAD-CHOP JPG BLOBS MO HINKY INFIDEL SOBS

But if they had had [sic] photo ID cards back in 618AD, Mohammed's beaming face sure as heck woulda been smiling.

Ain't nothing like little good ole' fashioned pedophilia to brighten a 53 year old pervert's day.

Do you know what I mean?

Europe has looked the other way on many Muslim problems for a long time, including those of forced marriages/child brides. There should be better records and tigther enforcements to save these children. And, while they are tightening laws and regulations, the Europeans should be monitoring polygamous marriages. What Europe doesn't need is thousands of cases like Mohammed, age 45, and his wives, Fatima, age 12, Nadia, age 15 and Leila, age 17.

The point about Turks not being able to get citizenship is a feeble excuse. I'm from NZ and grew up in Germany. Yes, my parents weren't 'citizens' and couldn't vote. But we were fully part of the employment, educational and social life there. It's just no excuse at all.

Quijybo,

Mohammedans are less than 2% of Australia's population and they create enough problems, especially in Sydney.

But on the positive side, OBL let the cat out of the bag on 911 and Islam in under the microscope. So we now have enough time to prevent the % growing to 5-10% as in Holland and France.

One aspect of this story that hasn't been commented on yet is the implication of bringing in thousands of these poor souls into Europe to act as baby factories for their young husbands over the next decade.

In other words, the demographic curve is accelerating.

I wanted to check the legal age for wedding in Turkey, and so I googled (French being my native language) "législation mariage turquie".

I found an interesting document on Amnesty web site, called "Turquie - Les femmes et la violence au sein de la famille" (Turkey - Women and family violence), full of creepy stories of abuse. But... but nowhere do the words "islam", "islamique" or "musulman" appear in this long text, altough it would be quite relevant to the issue; a "violent culture" is the closest explanation you can read... I checked also the english text (http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engeur440132004), same thing. F.cking unbelievable.

OK, on the issue of legal age, "Under Turkish law, the legal age for marriage is "having completed 17 years". A person under 18 is not of full legal age; in these cases his or her family must give permission for the marriage (...) Forced and underage marriages are in breach of international legal standards and of Turkish law but the law is widely ignored in some areas of Turkey.". It doesn't really tell, however, if a wedding with a 9-years old is OK if her family gave permission...?

IMO, the radical left and the radical right are one in the same; prejudicial, intolerant, and insufferably self-righteous.

On that note let me inform you that in the 1770's there was no age of consent in the "colonies." As late as 1907 the age of consent in Texas was 7 years old.

On another level, immigrants, no matter the country to which they come, need to learn and practice both the mores and language of the host nation or face deportation. Those must be priorities and they must be emphasised and enforced.

We can't force other nations to our ideologies, but we can force immigrants to follow our laws in our countries.