Arranged Marriages are not the same as Forced Marriages. In Arranged Marriages, both people have a degree of choice and can refuse. With forced marriages, the choice is taken away from them and this is wrong and needs to be dealt with although I’m not sure this is the right way.

People shoul;d be free to marry who they want and if that means an arranged marriage from India then it’s up to them.

Imagine the following scenarios:

1. A 25 year old british born Indian marries a 19 year old indian girl and wants her to join him the UK. He has worked for a good 4-5 years aqnd has always paid his taxes and contributed to society. He has his own property and is not claiming any state benefits.

2. A 19 year old Eastern European man who came to the UK two years ago wants to bring his 17 year old fiancee who he met whilst on a trip back home from the UK. He too has paid his taxes during his worklife in the UK but is not sure that he will eventually marry the girl.

Is it not wrong that the first guy should not be allowed to bring his WIFE whilst the 2nd one will have no problem to bring his FIANCEE?

Sure Forced marriages need to be dealt with but would it not be better to have stricter interviews for all non-european nationals with the requirement for more evidence such as family photos and evidence of regular contact?

BBC NEWS | Politics | Marriage visa age to rise to 21 The Government have announced that they are raising the minimum age for acquiring a marriage visa to the UK from 18 to 21, ostensibly in order to reduce……

But the main reason for the rule is to secure that some young women ( from muslim origins)achive an education and work experience before they marry.

The alternative to this situation is that they get married as a 18 year old, they have children 2-4
and then at 32-35 year old they have been living on welfare for the last 15 years and now they have to join the workforce.
This life cycle is absolute contrary to the one chosen by danish girls.
And it isn’t wery helpful for integration, that we have two different life cycles.
The UNPD report (3) concludes that one of the main problems in the arab world is that the women isn’t active in the labour market.
If we accept that the immigrants continue this tradition ex. in Denmark – and supported by a rather
generous welfare system – it could mean a break up of a healthy society.

http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=12

Heh, don’t worry. I know you don’t always agree though I do appreciate your input. I don’t know how many marriages are forced, although my guess is over a thousand a year, since around 300 cases get reported. Maybe even as high as 3000 if only 10% of cases are reported.

I don’t have any faith in the govt, I’m just saying this law can have positive benefits in restricting some people from marrying girls from South Asia who are too young.
It’s a sledgehammer, I agree. But the problem is that socially, there is little movement within our communities to deal with this.

Raising the age to 21 – 24 would be better – means that there is a greater chance that both parties will be better educated, in a position to support themselves, and will know their own mind.

A genuine love match will mean people are prepared to wait.

The support to escape needs to be there first. Such border controls can militate against an immigrant wife/husband’s sense of security, and is a disincentive to escape, especially if the decision to allow entry is not final and can be revoked.

1. How many forced marriages are there of UK citizens to non-UK citizens where the non-UK citizen is believed to have been forced and is under 21/24 at the time of marriage and would not have got married above the age of 21/24?

2. How many unforced marriages are there believed to be of UK citizens to non-UK citizens who are not forced under the age of 21/24?

3. How many non-UK citizens under the age of 21/24 feel threatened in their homeland and believe they are safer for having been able to join their UK citizen spouse?

If the first figure is relatively high and the second and third are relatively low, I would be sympathetic to the policy.

On seizing assets – assets seem to be legally assigned regularly by courts in divorced proceedings – or does it not work currently?

On bonds – you seem to say the same thing – rich families who can afford flying around may also be able to afford bonds. Poor families or individuals might not. Wouldn’t it make it more likely that you would have to marry someone of your parents’ choosing? I don’t think I would have been able to afford to marry my wife under those conditions.

The sati analogy is useful, if it is not a public act where those complicit in it are known to be so by others. If the law stopped private satis, then it would mean that making domestic violence or forced marriage illegal should be enough, there would be no problem requiring discriminatory laws. For me the problems are in investigating and intervening in private acts and dynamics, and allowing women to re-marry appears to me a more useful model, by changing incentive structures, extending rather than sacrificing liberty and equality.

I am not asking you to have faith in community leaders, any more than you would ask me to have faith in the Government. I am discussing ideas that might work and how it would work, and thinking through possible obstacles. You seem to think that community organisations are evil, while I see them as merely institutionally corrupt.

I am all for listening to campaigners and MPs, as well as community organisations, and you, Amir, Katy and Kismet Hardy etc. I don’t always agree.

I think that this proposed increase to 21 will have zero direct impact on reducing domestic violence to women, or reducing incentives for men from the sub-continent to take younger bride, or any of the areas discussed in this thread. The better route for the government to take would be to strengthen the evidencing and documentation processes at these two points, creating better and more subtle opportunities for advocacy by abused partners (sorry, this is quite a tough point to make clearly).

No, because then the marginal cost of introducing the legislation is much greater than the marginal cost of introducing / enforcing it.

Your idea about seizing assets doesn’t really work either. The govt did moot the idea but decided it would become a swamp like the CSA – taking people’s assets is not easy as it sounds. Hence the 20,000 bond is a better option because it is a deposit in advance.

If people can spend money to take the entire family to India/Pakistan to get married, then 20,000 is easily affordable I’d say.

I think you are looking at these forms of pressure sincerely, but in a very blunt way by using the law. If the law is going to police the private sphere effectively we are going to have a very different kind of society.

Hey, it worked by banning Sati, and it worked by allowing widowed women in India to re-marry. Y
ou guys haven’t put a case forward why this is harmful other than that it discriminates against certain people (and in this case I’m happy with that).

Other social remedies are also useful, but to be honest I have little faith in the ‘community leaders’ to push forward any positive social change.

You say we should give them money to find out the causes. What if they swallow all that money and produce nothing of any benefit or use, because they don’t really care?
Why not listen instead to MPs and other campaigners who do actually care?

If you found over 21s (or 24s) are also vulnerable when the long engagment is over and they come to the UK, would you want to ban cross-national marriage across the board? Why not? Lives would be saved!
If your solutions offer protection to non-UK citizens, would it not also give the same protection to UK citizens? If the benefits are great and the effects on innocent people minimal, should it not be equally to the benefit of UK citizens?

But this also goes into the question of domestic violence which is a slightly different and much more pervasive issue from forced marriage. Obviously forced marriages are maintained by pressure: financial, psychological, intimidation, emotional blackmail, isolation and domestic violence is likely to be a part of it. I think you are looking at these forms of pressure sincerely, but in a very blunt way by using the law. If the law is going to police the private sphere effectively we are going to have a very different kind of society.

If you want such a radically different society, I may agree with you (but I’d have to have a fuller understanding of how such a society would work), but if the government wants to pass a symbolic law saying “this shows how much we disapprove of forced marriages”, then I wouldn’t expect it to be any more effective than any other legislation against domestic violence.

The last proposal you mention – a £20 000 bond – is also discriminatory, not least for people who aren’t wealthy. If it is a good idea, then everyone who marries in the UK should put down such a bond. As for whether my proposal is legally possible, I guess if you can pass laws to change the age of marriage, you can change laws to alter the rules governing divorce settlements.

A good point. I raised the point of about No Recourse to Public Funding thing in my doc. It is also a Southall Black Sisters Campaign.

The govt does discriminate against women who are not British citizens. I pointed this out in my Times article too and raised it with Ann Cryer when I was in a radio discussion. She said that MPs do try and get around this by stepping in, but this only applies if its a sympathetic MP like herself, Marsha Singh and a a few others.

If you’re an overseas citizen and want to run away from your husband, and are living in an area where your MP doesn’t care, then you’re in trouble basically. Then womens groups have to jump through all sorts of hoops to help you get funding.