Comments on: Bill on forced marriages debated today

By: Leon

Leon — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:50:22 +0000

Interview with Jasvinder Sanghera here.

By: Desmond

Desmond — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:40:17 +0000

Forced marrages = Inbreds + Genetic disorders

By: Don

Don — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:15:37 +0000

‘Perhaps someone could enlighten me on his voting record in this area ?’

Ever heard of research?

By: Gibs

Gibs — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:08:31 +0000

Here’s an honest question – has Keith Vaz ever tabled an early day motion in the House Of Commons denouncing forced marriages ?

I couldn’t help but notice his concern for the abuse suffered by (the very rich and forign national) Shilpa Shetty in the BB House.

Has he shown the same amount of concern for the abuse suffered by the numerous poor BRITISH women facing forced marriages ?

Perhaps someone could enlighten me on his voting record in this area ?

By: Galloise Blonde

Galloise Blonde — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:56:22 +0000

Hey! I just read that Michael White link: he says Baroness Uddin was expected to speak against the measure; but she was very much in favour! She was just making practical suggestions to make sure it was more effective! Lord Lester thanked her for her support and input into the Bill! How he can title it ‘Division in Westminster?’; because of this Sadiq Khan guy? I dunno, that article is just bizarre.

By: Gibs

Gibs — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:46:02 +0000

“The religion of victims is irrelevant and thus it annoys me to no end when politicians and journalists start asking the likes of the Hindu Council / MCB / Sikh Federation for their opinion.!

Well said ! These religious groups’ howls of protestation should be disregarded. They are (at best) in denial about the scale of the problem, and (at worst) apologists for it.

By: Chris Stiles

Chris Stiles — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:55:48 +0000

The problem – as with all family law – is to trying to draw up something that isn’t then used in feuds between relatives.

Personally, I don’t see why the existing laws on coercion couldn’t be rigourously applied here – perhaps backed with a strong public information campaign. I agree with Kismet – starting with the women already in refuges would send out a strong message. Followed by a campaign against coercion in marriage – of both sexes.

By: William

William — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:26:57 +0000

There need to be laws against coercion towards marriage but also against coercion to stay in a marriage that goes wrong even if initially it was consensual. Also there should be refuges for anyone who needs them.

Is it possible as well that these things can be questioned at a cultural/psychological level. Does it stem from situations where networks of relatives are part of ones economic security so to speak. That is, such things were deemed as part of ones survival but really they donâ€™t count as such when reality checked. For people to feel so strongly if boundaries are broken there must be some fear that strong moral/survival codes are broken. Where do the insecurities come from, do they match up to reality etc. Is it possible for the underlying values unconscious or otherwise to be looked at deeply and unpacked.

By: Galloise Blonde

Galloise Blonde — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:24:51 +0000

Not just Asian. Fadime Sahindal (a Turkish Kurd) was murdered five years ago this week in Upsala for having had a Swedish boyfriend. Her brother had also had a Swedish girlfriend — in fact they had lived together in the family home. In court, this same brother said she deserved to die because she was a ‘whore who disgraced the family’.

By: sabinaahmed

sabinaahmed — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:08:40 +0000

Vow Shami Chakar, she is my Hero,you lucky person to have met her.
I had a long chat with Jasvinder,she says on an average there are 7-8 women a week who come to her refuge,having been abused by families.She is of the opinion that men and woman are brought up very differently in Asian culture.She gives an example of hher brother who was going out with a European woman,and though her parents didnt approve of it, but they turned a blind eye. Whereas if a girl has relationshaip with a man whom the parents dissaprove,then it is a matter of honour and the girl can be killed for it.

By: Jagdeep

Jagdeep — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:03:59 +0000

Hmmmm….I’m not sure trouble-making ex-boyfriends would be the issue. But good to hear that it has the checks and balances regarding the judge having to oversee applications. By the time it reaches that stage most likely either trusted agencies, social services or police will have been involved, or will become involved to ensure it is employed with guardianship on behalf of the person involved. Should be good back up for the armoury of shelters and refuges.

By: Galloise Blonde

Galloise Blonde — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:54:26 +0000

Sunny – Hopefully not, because the third party has to be accepted by the judge, who shouldn’t accept it without being convinced it the action was being carried out with the victim’s agreement and with her consent, which should weed out hypothetical trouble-making ex-boyfriends.

By: Leon

Leon — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:53:31 +0000

A close colleague said this was controversial because there was a worry that people not directly could report the authorities without the girlâ€™s consent.

Interesting, I wonder how this works with domestic violence law in general where the police can arrest/charge without needing the victims consent etc?

By: Galloise Blonde

Galloise Blonde — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:47:54 +0000

I didn’t get a chance to talk to anyone, not even Jasvinder! There was a huge consensus on the Bill and just about every peer in the House wanted to stand up to congratulate Lord Lester and offer moral support and commentary so that even with the 6 minute limitation on speeches it was getting really late and get back for the school run. I have to write something for the Boss anyway, so I certainly don’t mind you giving a look at it Leon, and you can see if you’re interested.

By: Sunny

Sunny — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:40:22 +0000

I was just going to say the same as Leon. Probably be best as a new article GB.

On Third party, it’s tricky. A close colleague said this was controversial because there was a worry that people not directly could report the authorities without the girl’s consent.

By: Leon

Leon — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:33:21 +0000

Yep agreed about the 3rd party representation being a good thing (and agreed with Kismet above somewhere that this needs real resources to make this work).

Iâ€™ll give you a round-up of what was said and by who once Iâ€™ve sorted out my children and read my notes â€” if youâ€™re interested.

Please do, alternatively (and I know you’re a busy as hell type and er Sunny hasn’t given me permission to ask!) maybe you could do a write up for a PP piece?

By: Jagdeep

Jagdeep — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:12:58 +0000

Third party representatives is an excellent thing it would seem to me, as far as being a practical tool for helping people under direct pressure with the injunction and threat of prison. Good to have it on the statute books to draw a line. So how do you rate the chances of it being passed given that you must have talked to the activists down there? What’s the feeling?

By: Galloise Blonde

Galloise Blonde — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:10:08 +0000

Some quick points: Jagdeep, we may see this in effect by the end of the year apparently. Besides criminalising FM, this Bill also allows women, girls and men to get injunctions against their family members, and to claim compensation for having been forced into marriage. I was a bit doubtful about this at first, but it is also the case that a third party can represent the victim: so, if for example a girl is in a refuge and relatives are harassing her there, the refuge could get an injunction against them in her name, which seems like quite a helpful thing, particularly since there is a real prison sentence attached to breaking the injunction. It does provide some tools as well as making a much-needed and years overdue statement.

By: Galloise Blonde

Galloise Blonde — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:54:49 +0000

I was in the House of Lords this afternoon watching this debate (sitting next to Sharmi Chakrabati even). I’ll give you a round-up of what was said and by who once I’ve sorted out my children and read my notes — if you’re interested.

By: Jagdeep

Jagdeep — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:04:42 +0000

Would need alot of activist support for any civil case to be taken, most likely from a plaintiff who escaped and is older to seek retrospective damages.