A success for Britain's Forced Marriage Act, in an update on this story. "'Forced marriage' Bangladeshi doctor set free," from Agence France-Presse, December 15 (thanks to JE):
A Bangladeshi doctor whose parents held her captive for four months in Dhaka says she wants to get on with her life after a court ruled she be freed to return to her home in Britain.
Humayra Abedin, 32, was taken from the court to the British High Commission in Dhaka under heavy police escort and was expected to leave Bangladesh for Britain.
"I am really happy. I am really relieved and obviously I would like to have some privacy,'' she said after Judge Syed Mahmod Hossain also ordered Humayra's parents return her passport, driver's licence and credit card.
"I just want to look forward. I have my job so I just want to move forward with my life,'' Humayra told AFP over the telephone from Dhaka, where the judge said she had been held against her will.
She said she had no idea until she appeared in court of the intense media interest in her case, adding she did not know what would come of her relationship with her parents.
Humayra travelled to Bangladesh on August 3 after she was told by family members that her mother was seriously ill.
She had planned to return to Britain soon after, but informed a female cousin that her family were holding her captive and planned to force her to marry a stranger.
Humayra - an only child - reportedly has a Hindu boyfriend in London, which has angered her Muslim family.
"It perplexes me as to why the parents kept her confined and interfered with her personal life,'' said Judge Hossain. "I am shocked.''
Her father Joynal wailed loudly following the verdict and had to be propped up as he left the courtroom.
Outside the courthouse he told AFP he and his wife had done nothing wrong.
"She has not been held captive. These allegations are all false,'' he said.
Humayra's lawyer, Sara Hossain, said after the verdict: "Our courts have shown that we can guarantee the liberty of our citizens. This is quite a precedent.''
Her parents returned to the court with her passport within an hour of the judge's ruling but said they did not have her driver's licence or credit card. [...]
Last month, the British government introduced a law allowing courts to stop forced marriages and provide protection to British nationals who have been married against their will.
Lawyers in Britain had filed a case in London on Humayra's behalf under the new Forced Marriage Act, on the basis she was a resident of that country. Humayra is however not a British national.
The British High Commission in Dhaka said it assisted in 56 forced marriage cases between April 2007 and March 2008.
Memo to the lady.
The kafir have saved you from a living hell. You better be grateful.
Apostasise from Islam. Forget your parents; they tricked you once, they'll try to do it again; don't trust them.
Marry your Hindu boyfriend: he's much less likely to beat you than a Muslim husband would be, and your children, fathered by a non-relative, will be healthy and strong and smart. Become a British citizen and mean it.
Commit yourself to a sane civilisation, finish your studies, be a good doctor, live as a free woman with your hair uncovered in the sunlight.
Choose freedom. Choose joy. Choose life.
"I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing.
Therefore choose life, so that you and your children may live".
"It perplexes me as to why the parents kept her confined and interfered with her personal life"[!!!]
Because, idiot, Muslim women are to spend their entire lives confined. They are not to have personal lives, and if they do, it is under submission to their OWNERS and they have no control over any of it.
I'm very happy for her, but it outrages me that Britain did this for a non-citizen. The only money that should be spent on non-citizens is that which is spent on deportation, and then the country of emigration should be billed. The Hindu boyfriend makes this story okay to me, since she's obviously an apostate, but I can't stand the idea of dragging back every immigrant who gets married off back in Crapistan. The UK should let them go. Remember what happened when we tried to do that to Elian Gonzalez? I can't stand the idea of one of the Egyptian chicks in my department who wear explicit death threats on their heads getting dragged back here on my dollar by my government when they were never qualified to receive a visa in the first place. This woman's family lives in Bangladesh. If you think she received so much as a kindergarten education before she got a student visa you're crazy. She came to the UK thinking the Earth was flat and went straight to college. They're not all 33, single, self-determined apostates in med school. 99.9% of them are 19 (having graduated from 3rd-world 'colleges'), here for demographic jihad, and have no intention of doing anything with their lives but parasitizing us. This is a story with a happy ending but this law is suicide.
Hope she changes her name/credit identity/all known favorite restaurants/everything that could be used to track her down. This includes the clinics she worked at and any never contacting her previous friends. She is dealing with the equivelant of the KGB/Viet Cong, and had better use her wits to the full extent. They will never stop until she is dead.
The chaps at MI5/MI6 had better lend a hand. Scratch that...they are probably infiltrated, and will lead the muslim knife wielders (AKA her Uncles) right to her like a bunch of amateurs.
Same goes for the boyfriend as he will be immediately tortured until he divulges her whereabouts then killed in a most brutal way. This is not a question of "if". It is a foregone conclusion.
"Our courts have shown that we can guarantee the liberty of our citizens. This is quite a precedent."
Freeing a kidnap victim is perceived as a legal precedent? Says a lot.
"Her father Joynal wailed loudly following the verdict and had to be propped up as he left the courtroom."
Pop probably went home to immediately plan an honor killing just in case daughter marries her Hindu boyfriend...he was not wailing with joy.
"Our courts have shown that we can guarantee the liberty of our citizens. This is quite a precedent.''
Quite a statement, coming to think of it. What other purpose does a state have?
Except she is not one of our citizens at all.
Our courts should not be extending English Common Law to non-citizens on foreign territory.
Neither should we be encouraging women of islamic heritage, to think they can risk their own welfare and liberty, and expect to be rescued at the expense of the taxpayer. Such rescue measures should only be applied to British citizens who are under the age of legal majority.
The British High Commission in Dhaka said it assisted in 56 forced marriage cases between April 2007 and March 2008.
Judge Hossain must be "shocked" an awful lot, like at least once every week.
"Humayra - an only child - reportedly has a Hindu boyfriend in London, which has angered her Muslim family".
Her family were a bit hasty, me thinks. Given time, Humayra would have converted (and might still do) one more Hindu into the folds of islam.
Because that's the way it works, doesn't it?
Wow. Talk about controlling parents. I feel for her, I really do.
Imagine living knowing those psychos are your parents. See you in therapy. Good luck as a free woman.
"She said she had no idea until she appeared in court of the intense media interest in her case, adding she did not know what would come of her relationship with her parents."
1. If it wasn't for the kuffar press coverage, muslimah, you would still be locked up by the parent units.
2. Worrying about your relationship with your parents is the last thing you need to concern yourself with. Leaving Bangladesh as quick as you can is your number one issue.
I've known Bangladeshi Hindus, and generally, they tend to be more conscious about their religion than those in India. Reason for this is plain and simple - in India, Hindus don't have to do anything to retain their religious identity, which is a combination of the Hindu ethos (predominantly) and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. As a result, a Hindu in India can be a complete agnostic throughout the year, without risking losing their Hindu identity.
That's different for Bangladeshi Hindus, who have to consciously try to preserve their Hindu identity (and I believe the same is true of Paki Christians and Hindus). I once had a Bangladeshi Hindu colleague who told me how as a kid, his Mohammedan friends would try to (unsuccessfully) trick him into reciting the shehada, which, if done, would have resulted in him being recognized as a Muslim. In other words, Bangladeshi infidels have to try real hard to avoid Islamizing, and to do that, they do imbibe their religious values more seriously than their counterparts in India. Also, keep in mind that since this country was only founded in 1971, in their schools, they teach religion instead of history. So while Muslims get to study Islam (with all that it implies for both Muslims and others - Jdamn might be familiar with that if she's read the testimonials of Abul Kasem and other Bangladeshi apostates at Islam Watch), Hindus too get to study Hinduism and so on. That also contributes to Hindus being more religiously conscious than those in India.
Given the above, I doubt that this Hindu boyfriend of hers will do a Dhiren Barot or a Steven Vikas Chand. More likely, particularly after this experience, methinks (one word) that it's she who'd probably convert to Hinduism while marrying him, and in the process, change her name (since Hindus don't normally retain names like Humayra) to something Hindu like Malati or Sreya and throw her Mohammedan relatives off her scent. While she may have expressed concern over her relationship with her family, had it been serious for her, she would have acquiesced to their forced marriage. Since she didn't, it's fair to assume that after all this sinks in, she'd go ahead with her relationship as it stands.
All that said, I agree with Jdamn and Monty. This is a case of a twisted law accidentally doing justice to a real victim of Islam, but in most cases, Jihadis would be let in. Granted, had the law been written to exclude Muslims, wannabe apostates like her, and also the likes of Ali Sina, Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, et al, would also have been left out. The perfect law would obviously leave out Mohammedans altogether and only allow in apostates or converts out of Islam, but that too would have to have ironclad ways of determining that those apostates are for real, and not taquiyya practitioners trying to sneak in for sabotage purposes.
Real laws would probably have allowed someone like her to be abducted, but while I sympathize with people born into Islam due to no fault of their own, it's not the responsibility of Western or other infidel countries to save their bacon (in a manner of speaking). We need to first de-Islamify our own countries completely, and after we're done and when (not if) we get into a military confrontation with dar ul Islam, then we can look forward to liberating such victims of Islam from Islam.
We're nowhere near that at this stage.