Last Thursday a 39-year-old mother was sentenced to three years in jail for forcing her two teenage daughters to marry their first cousins in Pakistan in July 2007. This is the first case where someone has actually been convicted of a forced marriage – and it is about time.
The 14 and 15-year-old girls thought they were visiting Pakistan on holiday. Instead, they were married off in a joint ceremony. The mother married her children off in order to ‘defend’ the family’s honour within Muslim and Pakistani communities, as her eldest daughter supposedly had an affair with an older man, got pregnant and then had an abortion. When the same daughter got married, the mother told her that if she did not consummate the marriage, she would ‘tie her to the bed, blindfold her and strip her’, and then watch to make sure her daughter had sex with her new husband.
When the girls returned to the UK, they told their teacher, who in turn informed the police. The mother was charged and convicted for inciting or causing a child to engage in sexual activity, arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence, and intending to pervert the course of justice. She pleaded not guilty.
On sentencing the mother, the Judge sends a clear message that forcing people to marry without their consent, and at such a young age, should not and will not be tolerated in Britain’s liberal culture and society. The Judge said:
‘Everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs and is to be encouraged to practise in accordance with those beliefs and to live a life which embraces the culture of those beliefs.’
‘But those who choose to live in this country and who, like you, are British subjects, must not abandon our laws in the practice of those beliefs and that culture.’
‘Forced marriage is cruel. It deprives children, your children, of their basic human rights.’
New laws were introduced in 2008 to ensure that no one is forced into marriage and to help those already in a forced marriage. The police, friend or victim can apply for a Forced Marriage Protection Order under the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, which forbids family members taking anyone abroad for marriage or intimidating victims to get married. If the protection orders are breached, an individual can face up to two years imprisonment. The legislation is the first to tackle the problem of forced marriages. However, the onus is on the victim or someone close to them to apply for a protection order.
In 2004 there were plans to make forced marriages a criminal offence in it self. However, MPs dropped the plans for fear of a backlash, admitting that any such law would be ‘resented as an intrusion into minority cultures and religions’.
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), an umbrella organisation often claiming to represent Muslims in Britain, opposed plans to create new laws specifically targeting forced marriages citing current laws as adequate. They argued that new laws would be seen as targeting minority ethnic and religious communities, leading to, for example, Muslim communities feeling further ‘stigmatised’. In its 2005 response to the government’s Forced Marriage Unit consultation paper, FORCED MARRIAGE – A Wrong not a Right (2005), the MCB wrote (doc file):
‘Any law in this regard which is promoted as a tool to help the victims and deter the offenders is most unlikely to be effective because of the nature of the problem and the cultural as well as familial sensitivities involved. A coercive tool in a family and cultural setting is rarely, if ever successful.
‘The family bond and loyalty will deter many from using the law. The tool when used will in effect tear the family unit and create division and distress.
‘The MCB believes that the only way to eradicate this criminal cultural practice is through education and empowerment. The change has to be community led and appropriately resourced.’
The MCB further said that ‘a “forced marriage” has no religious, moral or legal validity.’
According to the government’s Forced Marriage Unit, 65% of all known cases of forced marriages in the UK involve individuals of Pakistani origin – the mother convicted is of Pakistani origin – though this practice is known to exist amongst other cultural and religious groups. From personal observation, familial ties, bonds and loyalties are particularly strong amongst families of South Asian or Middle Eastern backgrounds. It would be extremely difficult for the victim to break such familial ties by seeking a Protection Order, for example.
Contrary to the MCB’s insight on forced marriages, new laws were made to tackle this issue. The practice should (and is) first and foremost be made illegal. Those who think it’s normal must be made aware that they will face the consequences if they break the law. The MCB were wrong in saying that this very problematic and unfortunately widespread issue should just be tackled through ‘education and empowerment’ – who in the ‘community’ will be doing the educating? Those who break the law should and must face the consequences for their actions – that’s why the conviction of the 39-year-old mother is so important – it sets the precedence.
6 Comments
In the name of God, who is political
Sister or traitor Horiya, depending on if you Muslim or not, Salam or Jihad against you,
To proceed:
You attack force marriage in muslims? Just look to west! They have force marriage, but you ignorant!
Look… ! When they advert for woman on poster, do not man feel forced to take woman off street and rape because he aroused by poster? Is not force marriage?
you attack muslim, but west must be attack, because they force man to marry by showing poster of naked woman all on street. so west invented force marriage, not muslim, and west is kafir and muslim is not.
And Allah is political
Salam
Jawab shows everything that is wrong with Islam, and everything that is right with a secular culture.
Pictures of naked women do not make me “…feel forced to take woman off street and rape because he aroused by poster.” And if you confuse rape with marriage then I feel very sorry for you, and for any women with whom you have contact.
Rather than attacking the west for being civilised, better you ask Allah why he made Muslim men so weak that they are incapable of acting civilised.
Nazir Azfal (of the Crown Prosecution Service) has always said that if he could find a strong enough case there was no need for a specific law criminalising FM to get a conviction, but that he could prosecute for violence, abduction, rape, child abuse etc. Respect to Nazir and to the two young women involved.
I call Poe’s Law on Jawab.
Hello Galloise Blonde,
good to see you here representing IKWRO.
http://www.ikwro.org.uk/
Thanks Faisal! Since I’m representin’, I’ll make a few more points:
Although the FMU say that 65% of the FM they know about occur in Pakistani families, they’re also pretty sure this doesn’t represent the reality: they think they are better known in the Pakistani community, and that they are missing vulnerable people in other communities, such as Eastern European, Indian, Middle Eastern and Central Asian.
It wasn’t just the MCB that were against the criminalisation of FM: it was also Southall Black Sisters, and I believe that they were pretty influential in swinging a lot of the women’s groups, although child protection groups (as well as ourselves and Karma Nirvana) backed the criminalisation. SBS argued that if FM was made a criminal offence, women wouldn’t come forward to report it because they would want to protect their families. It was a reasonable concern.
Norway criminalised FM some time ago (sorry, can’t find the document saying when) and prosecuted a Kurdish family. The family appealed twice, and each time they got an increased sentence. Although Norway hasn’t produced any statistics on the reporting of FM pre- and post-criminalisation, Norwegian sister organisations have told us that there has not been a drop in reporting, and that what it has done is strengthen the morale of the victims. Quite often, a victim of forced marriage feels that she (or he) is the offender; they feel guilty and ashamed for wanting to end or escape a marriage planned for them because it goes against their parents’ value systems. Criminalisation makes a clear statement endorsing the value systems (and the human rights) of the victims over the perpetrators of FM.
Although FM is not a religious practice, the Islamic prophet Mohammed (“the perfect man for eternity”) encouraged that by marrying 6 year old Ayesha.
Islam is a reactionary creed and is anti-human. When will Muslims realize the true nature of political Islam and stop brainwashing children to Mohammed’s creed?