| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
A welcome move, but note the resistance from the Home Office minister with the beyond-parody name. "Tory Muslim peer says forced marriages should be made a crime 'like domestic violence'," from the Daily Mail:
Forced marriages should be made a crime to send out a clear signal that it is "intolerable", a Tory Muslim peer said yesterday.
Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, shadow minister for community cohesion and social action, dismissed arguments against making forced marriages a crime, saying that they were the same that were used against banning domestic violence.
But she told peers: "We did make domestic violence a crime and we put down a benchmark that this is intolerable.
"Is it not now time to make forced marriages a criminal offence to say very clearly that this will not be tolerated and people will be prosecuted for committing this offence?"
Home Office minister Lord West of Spithead replied: "The difficulty is that these things happen in families. We have taken a lot of advice and talked to many people.
"There is a feeling that the crime would go even further underground because people generally do not want to put their families through this.
It's rather "underground" anyway. Shouldn't the government go on record as saying forced marriages will not be tolerated, and prosecute those who are caught?
"It is a very interesting debate and interesting issue and clearly we will have to consider it further and go into more dialogue on it."
He said that "because it was made a crime", the cases of domestic violence dropped from 814,000 in 1997 to 407,000 in 2006-07.
On the subject of "honour" violence, the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali asked: "Can you assure us that there is effective policing in all areas of the UK so that women exposed to violence are adequately protected?"
Lord West replied: "At times there has been nervousness that this might step across cultural or religious divides but there are no cultures or religions that condone so-called honour-based violence."
If it's unacceptable in British society, what does it matter if condemning it "steps across" those divides?
Aside from that, Lord West's claim is obviously ridiculous. The premium that Islamic teaching places on a woman's chastity as the benchmark for her value, honor, and her family's reputation, coupled with the precedent set by Qur'an 4:34 for violence against women combine with consequences we frequently read about in places from Jordan to Texas.
Posted by Marisol at March 11, 2008 12:05 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Baroness Sayeeda WarsiI can't honestly see how that's better than Lord of Spithead. Not like you have a Begum Margaret, Nawab Johnson or Malcolm Khan in Pakistan Posted by: Infidel Pride
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 11, 2008 12:38 AM
Forced marriages should be made a crime to send out a clear signal that it is "intolerable", a Tory Muslim peer said yesterday.
Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, shadow minister for community cohesion and social action, dismissed arguments against making forced marriages a crime, saying that they were the same that were used against banning domestic violence.
Sounds like we may have found a couple of moderate Muslims, Muslims who are actually willing to pass laws against these atrocities.
It's a good start.
Lord West replied: "At times there has been nervousness that this might step across cultural or religious divides but there are no cultures or religions that condone so-called honour-based violence."
Hey, Lord West, you have no business having the title of Lord if you aren't going to provide any leadership here which protects your people, the British people, as well as those who have come under the protection of the British Crown.
at March 11, 2008 1:10 AM
Forced marriages should be made a crime to send out a clear signal that it is "intolerable"
With Muslims at 3% of the population in the U.K., we are having discussions on whether forced marriages should be legal. We are also seeing attempts to legalize polygamy, and to outlaw criticism of Mohammad.
What discussions will we be having at the 5% level, then 10%, then 20%?
This is shameful. We are disgracing our predecessors and every institution they created.
Posted by: special_guest at March 11, 2008 1:52 AM
Weren't forced marriages outlawed in England in the 12th Century?
Posted by: Voltaire at March 11, 2008 2:20 AM
Further validating professor Ross's thesis.
The practice of forced marriage is another natural result of the production all that North Sea Oil.
No more oil for the UK!
sarc/ off
Posted by: USorThem at March 11, 2008 8:32 AM
Can someone tell me how Baroness Warsi became a Baroness?
.
.
.
titles4sale
at March 11, 2008 8:34 AM
And Lord Shahid Malik. What's in a name? Shahid means martyr or one who dies in the cause of islam.
Couldn't they find someone named Jihad Islam to make a peer?
Posted by: Borg at March 11, 2008 8:57 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3292101.ece
Posted by: Borg at March 11, 2008 8:57 AM
At 20% there will be no discussion. It will already be practised in fact and discussion will be outlawed.
Posted by: Borg at March 11, 2008 8:59 AM
Welcome to multicultural Britain. Ding ding, all aboard........
If you look to your left you will see women being used as commodities. If you look further to your left you will see women being treated like animals, a form of cattle; to be traded.
"Welcome to multicultural Britain, your rights are only important if they gain us votes in marginal constituencies." GORDON BROWN.
Posted by: DaveMate
at March 11, 2008 9:45 AM
Somewhat OT but relevant - My son and his girlfriend were over for dinner last night when the topic turned to her studies. She is about to graduate from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. She said one of her classes is in Women's Studies - The Role of Women in Ancient Rome. My husband asked her if there were any classes available pertaining to women's roles under shariah law. She looked shocked and said "Of course not, that would be way too controversial!".
I guess it's safer to study the past, not learn from it.
Posted by: mepeteart at March 11, 2008 9:59 AM
Headline-- "U.K.: Tory Muslim peer says forced marriages should be made a crime 'like domestic violence'"
No. Parents who sell their daughters into forced marriages should be charged with trafficking in slavery.
Men buying these women should be charged with both trafficking in slavery, and rape. (With additional charges of child abuse for both buyer and seller, if the woman is underage.)
at March 11, 2008 10:19 AM
Its called 'involuntary servitude' and it is a crime, like human trafficking and slavery. The last thing Britain needs is a Muslim twit 'advising' parliament how to handle it. The law has to b enforced, thats all.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i071.htm
at March 11, 2008 10:49 AM
Since when did it cease to be a crime, anyway? In 1904, English law considered "forced marriage" a felony punishable with ten years' penal servitude, as Sherlock Holmes points out:
... a forced marriage is no marriage, but it is a very serious felony, as you will discover before you have finished. You'll have time to think the point out during the next ten years or so, unless I am mistaken.
("The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist", Strand Magazine, January 1904)
Posted by: Paolo at March 11, 2008 1:51 PM
Living west of Spithead (as I do and always have done), I'd like to suggest that the UK jump to the chase and outlaw the "religion" which has as its basis laws and the intention to implement such laws as forced marriages, multiple marriages, the lopping off of hands and feet and heads, the slicing out of tongues, the gouging out of eyes, forced conversions, the degradation and subjugation of "unbelievers", terrorism to spread and enforce itself...
It would avoid many interim complications, save many interim steps, and many interim lives as well.
Posted by: jsla at March 11, 2008 2:08 PM
It is time for us to value and protect our own standards within the law even if they seem to have a religious basis. Was civil rights legislation wrong because some of it was based on a religious moral code? The idea of arranged marriages isn't entirely wrong even in the modern world. I know a number of US raised Hindus whose marriages were arranged, but the final selection by the bride and groom was up to them alone. The idea of forced marriage of juveniles is repulsive. It's practice in the West should be criminalized.
Posted by: Jerry M at March 11, 2008 3:30 PM
"Can someone tell me how Baroness Warsi became a Baroness?" (Borg)
It seems that she was appointed to the House of Lords by the Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron. She is the first Muslim to sit at Cabinet level, the first female Muslim to sit for the Conservatives in the Houses of Parliament, and the youngest member of the Lords.
I saw her speak on a television panel discussion programme recently and was very impressed. She seemed intelligent, rational, considerate, and likeable. She is Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion, which sounds like a load of PC nonsense, but she seemed to genuinely believe in it, and did not in any way push a Muslim agenda. Indeed in this case it seems that the dhimmitude was being pushed by Lord West, and she was arguing strongly against it.
Posted by: Paul at March 11, 2008 5:27 PM
Lord West sounds like a hopeless bureaucrat, that's all. Not a real idea in his head, nor an emotion in his soul.
Posted by: protozoah at March 13, 2008 2:00 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)