Outwardly a person who is pressurised might be making moves to resist/move away from a situation. They may also know it is wrong logically and ethically. Inwardly however they might be desparately confused, believing they have done something wrong because of the closeness of family ties/networks and social and family codes they have been exposed to.

There may be situations where they are living constantly in fear. If someone is living in the same town as their extended family there are situations where they may be afraid to go out. There have been situations where a person finds themselves moving around from place to place in their own town trying not to bump into members of their own family even just while going shopping. Being in a state of hypervigilance is not very nice. The person concerned may already be too stressed to want to file for civil process and all that involves.

Sunny may be right though in that it might give out a symbolic message. This would specify the problem specifically.

But I can’t really add much to what I’ve already said. Reluctance on the part of women to give evidence in domestic cases is a big problem: fact. But if you don’t accept that that’s up to you.

Katy this remains to be seen, otherwise I presume SBS and others would not be pursuing this line of action. At least this way case workers can sue on behalf of victims after gathering evidence as opposed to trying to persuade victims to.

If, on the other hand, I was under 16, and was told by my mother, “I’m not letting you back in the house unless you marry the man I’ve chosen for you”, that would almost certainly come within the bracket of the offence of cruelty to/neglect of a child, and would be punishable with imprisonment under criminal law.

I don’t disagree, but I think part of the problem in tackling forced marriages was that because the law was unclear and because socialservices/police felt like they didn’t want to be accused of racism – many were afraid of interfering.

Having a specific law against forced marriage and having that driven by an ethnic minority womens group send out a strong message to them too, that they should not turn a blind eye to FM.

What none of you seem to appreciate is that both civil and criminal cases are based on EVIDENCE.

To be honest I don’t think this is the major stumbling block. If a woman has run away to a refuge because she’s been forced, I think there’s a good chance she’ll be willing to testify, only because running to a refuge takes a lot of courage in itself and is a big step.

Where are the teeth in this bill? What is the point of going through the trauma of a court case and alienating your family for good, only to come out of it with no damages to keep you going whilst you try to rebuild your life?

I think this is the big concern, so I want to see whether this bill will have any impact too. Otherwise I’m happy to suppot complete criminalisation.

Anyone who is at risk of domestic violence or in a forced marriage and who wants advice about their situation should contact a solicitor who specialises in family law (the Law Society will give you a list of suitable solicitors if you aren’t sure where to go) or a specialist NGO such as the Southall Black Sisters.

I think the arguement you developed from post 2 to your final (?) missive in post 72 is some of the best development of a POV I’ve ever seen here. And damn persuasive too. There seems to me, having read what you say, that there is no getting away from the fact that forced marriages are, almost by definition, going to be in conflict at some point with criminal law. It might have been better to gather together the potential ‘crimes’, and highlight that in a way that made it clear to the perpetrators that it isn’t just one law they are breaking, but potentially many.

I agree completely about the funding and training issues. Maybe too, the young womans right not to be subjected to this kind of treatment could be part of citizenship classes in schools or part of the ESOL training for foreign brides.

Aint that the truth…

I second that, this is a really good thread.

Oh dear, I have turned into someone who writes long, rambling post after long, rambling post.

I think its brilliant

But while you make some good points about how the family and the nation state can potentially be oppressive to an individual it is not always the case! I love my family, they’re great. And I love England too!!!!!!!

Because families are reluctant to give evidence about it! If you really do do this for a living, in any role, then you must be aware of the notorious difficulties in getting people to give evidence in these circumstances. In the nicest possible sense, please pull your head out of the sand.

I think it is far far more likely that women would be prepared to sue their family through the civil courts with support and expert back up from an NGO like the SBS than through the criminal courts with the back up of the police and the CPS. Remember, in a criminal case it is the crown bringing the case, not the victim – there are rarely funding and personnel available to support victims. In a civil case like this, in contrast, the case is very much about the victim.

I am astonished that anyone with experience of either side would say that. Actually it is exactly the opposite. In a criminal case the victim has the support of the police, the CPS and Witness Services. There are faults with those facilities, of course, but they exist. The civil courts, by contrast, are in no way equipped to support victims in this scenario. If the SBS help a victim to bring a case in the civil courts, it will be the SBS providing support and no one else.

My apologies for the confusion re funding of criminal cases – I had thought with your reference to third parties bringing cases, lack of legal aid funding for civil cases, and the fact that you clearly consider that the existing criminal laws already do the job meant that you were referring to private criminal prosecutions, which do of course require screeds of money.

No, I wasn’t. Private criminal prosecutions are almost never brought, for the very good reason that if there is adequate evidence to bring a case the police will do it for you. On the very rare occasions that they have been brought, they have collapsed catastrophically, the most recent example probably being the Stephen Lawrence case.

I refer again to the fact that whilst some criminal laws cover some aspects of forced marriage, there does not seem to have been a move in the police and the CPS to actually do so. Maybe it is those pesky evidential requirements.

What, those pesky evidential requirements that exist to protect innocent citizens from wrongful conviction? Why the sarcasm?

Perhaps it is that the police and the CPS are not the people that suffering women turn to – rather they look to women’s organisations with the purpose and expertise of the SBS.

I agree that many women do not turn to the police and CPS. It’s because (a) they don’t want to take their family to court, for a variety of reasons and (b) some sections of the police could do with training in how to deal with these very delicate situations. But the fact remains that if victims don’t come to the police then cases won’t get prosecuted. That’s why the answer is not to create new laws, but to educate within the community about the options that are available and to ensure that there is adequate protection available for women who decide to use them.

If you are trying to make a point about the reality of enforcement, might I suggest that (a) you make that point

I did make that point. That is exactly what I’m talking about. Where are the teeth in this bill? What is the point of going through the trauma of a court case and alienating your family for good, only to come out of it with no damages to keep you going whilst you try to rebuild your life? Who’s going to pay your legal costs if you didn’t get legal aid? In general these things don’t pay for themselves, you know. What if the woman loses the case? What if she doesn’t qualify for legal aid? What if she’s ordered to pay the other side’s costs? If the evidence to bring a case is found to be insufficient and the family/husband is exonerated, this could end up costing the victim of the marriage a lot of money that she doesn’t have.

(b) you ask yourself whether this is about money or whether this about stopping the hypothetical parents doing what they have previously done and saying loud and clear – “this is wrong”.

Well, the people who wrote the Act clearly think it is about money because that’s the remedy they offer for a forced marriage, so there’s no need to be snide with me. We come back to my point about laws, which is that they are supposed to create concrete remedies for people. When you think about the costs involved in a civil case that isn’t publicly funded, and the costs that could rebound on a woman who loses a case against her family, the repercussions are shocking. Can you tell me what this Act achieves that couldn’t have been achieved by an advertising campaign, aimed at the community, listing the different criminal offences and civil liabilities already in existence that are engaged when you force someone into marriage against their will?

Anyhow, I thought it might be useful for anyone still reading this thread to hear from SBS themselves:

http://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk/campaigns.html#forcedmarriage