The anti-dhimmitude was only for show. "Plans to outlaw forced marriages shelved," from the Daily Mail, with thanks to Sandi:
Plans to make forced marriage a specific criminal offence have been dropped by ministers in the face of a backlash from Britain's Muslim community.The Government unveiled its proposals two years ago amid great fanfare, suggesting that anyone arranging or encouraging a forced marriage - which is thought to blight the lives of thousands of young women from Britain's Asian community each year - should face jail sentences.
But yesterday the Home Office admitted it would not be pursuing the plans, and would instead encourage the police and courts to make use of existing laws.
The Muslim Council of Britain opposed the plan, claiming it would see children having to give evidence at their parents' trials, and could lead to the Muslim community being further 'stigmatised.'
Ministers have admitted they feared a new law would be 'resented as an intrusion into minority cultures and religions.'
But yesterday charities and campaigners voiced bitter disappointment over the U-turn, while critics accused the Government of grabbing headlines over the issue but failing to take real action.
Thousands of young - mostly Muslim - women are thought to be subjected to forced marriages each year, although the true scale of the problem is hidden behind a code of silence....
Extreme cases have led to 'honour killings' where young women have been murdered for bringing shame on their families....
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: 'The Government seems to be ignoring the views of the victims of this abhorrent practice. We remain to be convinced that ministers will use their existing powers to stamp out this degrading and vile practice.'
He said the Government's eagerness to launch a campaign even though the new law was later shelved suggested ministers were 'more interested in grabbing headlines than delivering results.'
Yes.
The Queens going to have to ask for asylum in the US before long.
"But but but but but...," sez BLair, when asked again what happened to the 500 clerics that were to be deported...
Did Cherie BLair get a payoff in order to go soft on 'em?
Did BLairs labor props get a payoff to 'overlook' the forced marriages and the honor killings and the female genital mutilation?
Aaaahhh, the honor and the integrity of british polit-whores!
Gallow-swine & Red Ken, all the wondrous creatures of pork-barrel corruption, snake-pit inhabitants, drooling and oozing all over each other....
Only the French can beat them when it comes to morals and unwavering patriotism!!!
Even the Queen has had enough:
http://uk.download.yahoo.com/pr/fu/oa/londonfights.jpg
(*#@^!!!)
Generally I'm in favour of enforcing existing laws properly rather than passing new ones, as this Government seems to do. Many of the actions leading to and resulting from a forced marriage, for example kidnap or rape, are already illegal, and forced marriages can be prevented or punished using existing laws. However, if forced marriage were an offence in its own right, parents, cousins or Imams - well it isn't vicars - could be prosecuted as accessories to this offence. As it is, you have different people being prosecuted for different things.
This is a government that banned foxhunting, an unpleasant but trivial matter. Yet when it comes to banning an alien, barbaric and primitive practice, it does nothing. Interesting that it takes a Conservative spokesman to speak up for women's rights, while the Socialists capitulate in the face of pressure from "minority cultures".
Well if you don't want to be stigmatised, don't do it. I was stigmatised the other week for parking my car in the wrong place. Oh the stigma.
B.R.I.T.I.S.H. = Bunch (of) Righteous Idiotic Twats In Selfloving Headspace
Though this is a serious issue, I'm not sure it actually needs legislation. It's a typical New Labour tactic to respond to something by crafting legislation for crimes that are already covered by existing law.
I am not a lawyer, but wouldn't forced marriage come under legislation for say - abduction, false imprisonment and rape?
I'd say its more of an issue that the police feel unable to intervene due to PC sensitivities, and that the community itself has normalised it - making it pretty damn difficult to find anyone to prosecute in the first place.
I'm pretty certain a representative jury would convict, would take a very brave girl to bring a prosecution though - she would at the very least be ostracised from her community and probably in serious physical danger.
but wouldn't forced marriage come under legislation for say - abduction, false imprisonment and rape?
Yes it would and it does. However, these are separate offences. The "husband" could be prosecuted for rape, but the Imam who "married" them isn't guilty of rape, as such.
What a law against forced marriage would bring together a set of offences that are, in fact, connected, but which at the moment can only be dealt with by prosecuting different people for different things. More importantly, it would send out a signal that forced marriage is wrong.
As I said above, I agree with you on the general point about enforcing existing laws rather than passing new ones. However, of all the new laws that this Government has come up with - bans on fox hunting, smoking in pubs, and so forth - this is about the only one worth passing. And it has been dropped.
By their protests, their actions, and their wishes despite their official lies to the contrary here is a list of what muslims want in the UK an deverywhere else they live in large numbers.
- right to forced marriages and right to marry as young as they wish and as many wives as they wish.
-right to build endless numbers of mosques while tearin g down churches and temples.
-right to make sharia the law of the land.
-right to discriminate against nonmuslims in all walks of life.
-right to honor killings.
-right to kill jews and gays.
I could go on but you know the picture. islam is nazisim and every muslim is a hitler.
Forced marriage, which in Islam is organically related to subservience and a host of Quranic inequalities and abuses (unequal inheritance, submission to the authority of the husband, wife beating, polygamy) is a form of slavery. But will it be recognized as such and will women have any significant social and legal protections in Britain without laws like this? It seems that all parties are fully aware that the answer to this is 'no'.
Ministers have admitted they feared a new law would be 'resented as an intrusion into minority cultures and religions.'
In other words, it is better to leave Muslim women without legal and social protections against slavery than risk more bombs in the tube. That's what it sounds like to me.
B.R.I.T.I.S.H. = Bunch (of) Righteous Idiotic Twats In Selfloving Headspace
Posted by: cosmicAvenger [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2006 06:22 AM
That would be really funny if it wasnt so true.
Oh dear, a couple of half wits crawling out from under their rock with their hilarious anti-British comments.
The original move to outlaw forced marriages came from the metropolitan police who had no idea what to do about the 492 cases reported to them in the space of 2 years.The government hopes that raising to 18 the age when marriage is allowed to people from abroad will help obviate the problem. One woman Labour MP tried to have this age set at 21 but was defeated by the gutlessness of the government who want to appease voters in predominantly 'Muslim ' constituencies.
"who had no idea what to do about the 492 cases reported to them in the space of 2 years"
oh yes, so where are the existing abduction, kidnapping, rape etc laws?
Probably the fact that all of those are much, much harder to enforce than the simple legal fact that a couple is married.
Mind you, would it become another rape-like issue: 'it was against my will' vs. 'no it wasn't' etc etc?
Sheik-
PULEEZE!
Red Ken & Galloway are staunch Islamic supporters.
To call them guilty of pork-barrel corruption might offend someone. Especially the pig.
With apologies to swine everywhere, perhaps we could hold them guilty of corruption of the-other-white-meat type of offense.
This way, Islamists and liberal supporters can feel good about themselves, and feel they are making progress in identifying one more prospective dhimmi,or,dummi. Which is which? Its hard for me to keep track of what their aims really are.
I am forced to lower my numbers for the critical mass of Muslims necessary to bring about catastrophic social damage against Western target nations. So far, I have thought of France and Germany (upwards of 7.5%) as the operative models, but it's apparent that, given the proper receptivity to their agenda, (or reciprocally an unwillingness to repudiate them harshly) numbers as low as 2.7% (such as the UK and Canada) may be sufficient. This is blood curdling if true.
We are fortunate in the US to currently have a .5% density (still far too great), and this might help partially explain the lack (so far at least) for terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. The relatively quiet (so far) of the US Muslim community also has something to do with our lower ratio.
US gun ownership, the diffusion of Muslim communities, and, the American model of assimilation which, although not perfect, probably does a better job of diverting Muslims from turning further to the dark side than they already are, must also be factors ... Still, I am not sanguine, even for ourselves. With any Muslim presence I believe we remain vulnerable to the worst they can cook up. But with 5 to 15 or 20 times the density, Europe, Britain, and Canada may already be in far over their heads.
The idea that a measure like this could be defeated without even mounting a confrontation is a grave sign -- to me far worse than 7/7 or the recent bomb scare. If the UK is unable or unwilling to have a political shootout with this rabid beast with strength under 3% -- then their leverage is past the critical tipping point.
What do the UK people think about this?
I forgot to post this interesting and ominous link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
(Latvia, Lithuania, and Dominican Republic still look like safe places to vacation.)
Thanks so much for all the British participation to my question. Glad to see you have the situation firmly under control.