British Muslim girls being forced into marriage via internet
Source: The Times of India
ONDON: Minor Muslim girls in the UK as young as 11 are being forced to marry men living abroad via the internet notwithstanding a ban on forced marriage in the country.
Imams in the UK and abroad have been conducting ceremonies using Skype -- so girls can be married remotely before "being put on a plane and consummating the marriage at the earliest opportunity", according to Freedom, a charity.
The marriage is often conducted with the promise of a visa to the UK for their new husband, it said.
"The reason is to curb the behaviour of their children when they become 'too western'," charity founder Aneeta Prem was quoted as saying by 'The Sunday Times'.
"Once married, there is enormous pressure to get a spouse visa. The hope is the girl will visit (country of husband's origin) and fall pregnant to make the union seem more legitimate before bringing the partner back," she said.
In one case, an 11-year-old home-educated girl from London was married on Skype to a 25-year-old man in Bangladesh.
She contacted Freedom in November after reading a book about forced marriage that her older brother was given at school.
"She hadn't understood at the time but later realised the Skype call was a marriage ceremony. The plan was for her to meet her 'husband' at a later date and hopefully fall pregnant.
In the meantime, she was at home learning to cook and clean," said Prem, the author of 'But It's Not Fair' - an account of forced marriage.
Read more: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/British-Muslim-girls-being-forced-into-marriage-via-internet/articleshow/51179212.cms
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Aggressive action must be undertaken to stop this.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)But no surprise - the hadiths report Islam's prophet marrying a six-year old.
Coventina
(27,064 posts)is what I was told when I brought that up.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts) leftynyc
(26,060 posts)themselves into to excuse the inexcusable is past the point of parody.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 29, 2016, 02:37 AM - Edit history (1)
Yes Mohammad married Aisha when she was six, but she was the daughter of the person who became the first Caliph and at the time of the marriage one of Mohammad's closest followers. No sex till she was eleven, and some people question that (Mohammad only child to reach adulthood, Fatima, married Ali who was the fourth Caliph and founder of the Shitte branch of Islam).
As to Asiha, her family help found the dynasty the ruled Islam during the Arab Conquest. She had no children and in her old age lead a revolt against Ali when he was Caliph .
Aisha never liked Ali for when she was 14 she had missed a caravan move and then picked up by man who returned her to her Caravan. She was accused of adultery and when Mohammad asked Ali, Ali said the law was clear, if she was guilty she had to be killed. Mohammad rejected that position and adopted a new rule that you needed four witnesses to prove adultery and since there were less than four witnesses punished the accusers of making a false accusation. Thus Aisha never liked Ali. In her revolt she lost, but Ali forgave her and she lived to see Ali killed and mourned for him.
Aishas wrote several of the Hadith Sunni Islam accept as valid, she is less revered among Shiites.
I bring Aisha up for such marriages where part of the existing pre-islamic Arab culture. Most socities permitted marriages at age 12, including English Common Law. In fact the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in the late 1990s that the entering into a common law marriage at age 12 was still the law in Pennsylvania in the late 1990s for the State Legislature had never changed the law as to Common Law Marriages. This was one of the reason Pennsylvania finally outlaw such marriages effective January 1, 2005.
Most modern Islamic religious leaders point out that such marriages were common in the time of Mohammad but do to changing society norms no longer acceptable. They use the pray attributed to St Francis, "Give me the strength to change what I can change, the endurance to accept the things I can not change, and the wisdom to know the difference". Mohammad could not change everything that was bad at his time period, and one of those things were marriages before age 12. Such Islamic scholars says it is past time to make that change thus just because Mohammad accepted such a marriage does not mean he approvedof them. The lack of children to Mohammad is a sign that such marriages are bad.
patsimp
(915 posts)who would justify a marriage to a child of that age? And from what I hear, nothing can be questioned in the religion.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Koran is the only part of Islam that is considered not to be questioned, for under Islamic Doctrine the Koran was given to Mohammad by the Archangel Gabriel directly. Thus when Mary gave birth to Jesus she felt no pain (that is in the Koran, Book of Mary NOT in the Christian bible) and that can NOT be questioned in Islam (but can be questioned among Christians).
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/25/viewall/mary-in-islam/
Thus marrying at at 12 or age 6 is NOT in the Koran and subject to interpretation via the Hadiths, or comments about Mohammad made by people who knew him. hadiths are subject to debate and can contain errors, thus can be questioned. I should note the Haidths do NOT mention the age of consent to married so it is fully open to change.
More on the Koran and the Hadith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_the_Quran_and_Sunnah
More on Aisha:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha
She wrote 2210 Hadiths, these are given great weight by the Sunni School of Islam, almost no weight among Shiites.
It is only in the 1800s that Countries and States started to raise the age of consent to marriage, mostly do to people actually marrying earlier and earlier in the 1800s. Historically most people married in their early 20s, but legally they could marry as early as age 12. The French Colonial Government actually paid a bonus for people who married before age 13 during the settlement of Canada and until Quebec fell to the English in 1759.
The US Census Bureau kept a survey on age of first marriage from 1890 til today. In 1890 the age of first marrige for both sexes iwas in the early to mid 20s. The age of First Marriage DROPPED all through the 20th century till the 1960 Census when it had dropped to 19 and 18 for men and women respectfully. 1970 saw a slight increase in age (which was within statistical error so NOT given much weight) but ages of first marriage increased after 1970s, with men catching up to when they first married in 1890 by the early 1980s and women doing the same in the early 1990s. Thus in the 1900s the age of marriage DROPPED and it is believed to have been the same situation in the 1800s (but we have no records for many states did not centralize marriage records till after 1900). It is the drop in the age of many first marriage that lead states to increasing the age of consent to marriage in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
As to Mohammad, while he married Aisha at age six and did not consummate the marriage till she was 11, that age is NOT in the Koran and as such NOT an element of Islamic Faith (and some scholars question this age for the first act of sex between the two and some scholars question if any act of sex took place). In fact Mohammad's first wife, he married when he was in his 20s and she was in her 30s (she was widow at the time of they marriage) is mentioned in the Koran but NOT any of his other wives. Mohammad NEVER took another wife as long as his first wife was alive. That relationship is considered the Ideal Islamic marriage relationship.
Mohammad's subsequent wives fell into three categories:
1. Widows of former followers who died, Mohammad clearly married them to give them a place to live. Under Islam each wife MUST have their own separate home to live in, Harems are NOT suppose to exist. Islam accepted Harems but like Christianity accepting Slavery, both were were accepted since both existed not that either was good. A Moslem Male can ONLY HAVE FOUR WIVES AT ANY ONE TIME.
2. Like Aisha, a marriage due to politics. In the case of Aisha support from her father's family in exchange for her father being in the best position to succeed Mohammad at his death.
3. A gift from a foreign country. The mother of Mohammad's son fell into this category. Her son did NOT survive to adulthood. There is a question if this woman was a wife or a concubine. There is a question as to her conversion to Islam, she was a gift from the Governor of Egypt, but she had been raised a Christian. Islamic Source say she was a gift from an unnamed Governor of Egypt to Mohammad. Most Historians believe this to be a Persian Governor, for in 618 Persia (Iran) took Egypt from the Roman Empire, the first time a foreign Army had entered Egypt since Augustus Caesar did it himself in 30 BC. Persian ruled Egypt form 618-629 AD and may have wanted to secure the southern border of Palestine (Which Persia had taken in 617) by giving a "gift" to Mohammad as he built up his forces in Arabia. At that time Present day Yemen, Aden and the rest of the south coast of the Arabian Peninsula were subject to Persian Rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Sasanian_War_of_602%E2%80%93628#/media/File:Byzantine_and_Sassanid_Empires_in_600_CE.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_conquest_of_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Sasanian_War_of_602%E2%80%93628
Some Historians consider the Palmyra invasion of 270 AD an "Foreign Invasion" other do not for Palmyra had been a part of the Roman Empire for over 200 years before that date, but do to the "Problems of the Third Centuries" the Roman Empire almost collapsed and in that struggle Palmyra become technically independent took Egypt, drive the Persian Eastward but then fell to a renewed Roman Empire in 271 AD. Palmyra abandoned Egypt when the Syria was threatened by Rome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmyra#Hellenistic_and_Roman_periods
Back to Mohammad's Egyptian wife. Most Historians consider her a gift From a Persian Governor of Egypt, her age is NOT given but Mohammad, treated her like the rest of his wife, with the exception she she produced a child he clearly had sex with her (Scholars debate if Mohammad had sex with his other wives except for this first wife who he fathered Fatima with).
The Arab Conquest of Egypt occurred in 639 AD. Thus Roman Rule only lasted 10 years after the end of the 10 year of Persian Rule.
patsimp
(915 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)First you have the law that recognize marriages performed in other countries as being valid. Thus if a twelve year old marries someone in a country where such marriages are legal most country will recogize it as valid.
Now most countries do not force couples to live together, thus is someone is married at age 12, but then move to a country where such marriages are NOT done, but recognized, the 12 year old will not be forced to stay with the spouse. A divorce can later be granted but that is all the second country can do.
Now how a marriage performed over the net would be valid is a different set of laws. Marriages by proxy has a long tradition but disfavored, thus given this marriage was done by Skype, it is a open question as to the marriage being valid.
My comments was to put such marriages in historical background AND the validity of such marriages in Arab/Islamic countries.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)*shudder*
Democat
(11,617 posts)Certain right wingers get a pass here.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)places in the world to be a woman. Christian values, I guess.
Then, there's the sex tourism business to Asia funded by American Christians.
And, not to mention, the bombing and destruction of Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, Yemen killing 100s of thousands and displacing millions including women and children.
America is 1st world high-tech power. We have developed more sophisticated technocratic and more politically correct ways to exploit women and children around the world. Its all defended by the magic hand of the free market.
patsimp
(915 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)India is near top of list.
patsimp
(915 posts)didn't India has a female Prime Minister at one time?
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)So did Pakistan. As far as hell holes for women, in survey after survey over last decade or more, India is in bad company.
News earlier this month that a fourth woman had been killed by hanging in India’s Uttar Pradesh state highlights how treacherous certain parts of the world can be for the female population. We look at some of the most shocking instances of gender inequality, compiled using data from the Thompson Reuters Foundation, the World Report 2014 and the Foundation for Sustainable Development.
http://www.theneweconomy.com/insight/10-of-the-most-dangerous-countries-to-be-a-woman
Afghanistan
From an early age, life’s a struggle for Afghan girls, with 87 percent left illiterate and 70-80 percent forced into marriages (54% of girls aged between 15-19 are married, according to UNICEF). Having a family can be an ordeal in itself: with a maternal mortality ratio of 400 in 100,000 (vs 8 for the UK), and cases of domestic violence high. Afghanistan’s courts make it notoriously difficult to prosecute the latter too, as family testimony is banned.
The Democratic Republic of Congo
Congo has one of the worst records of gender based violence (GBV), with the American Journal of Public Health estimating that 1,150 women are raped every day – equating to 420,000 a year. Health outcomes are inadequate for women too, with 57 percent of pregnant women reported to be anaemic.
Pakistan
Many of Pakistan’s cultural and religious practices pose a huge threat to women, particularly child and forced marriage, acid attacks and punishment by stoning. According to Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission, more than 1,000 girls and women are victims of ‘honour killings’ each year, and 90 percent face domestic violence.
India
Despite having the world’s largest democracy, famous examples of gang rape and hangings demonstrate what a perilous place India can be for women. Researchers estimate that there have been 50 million cases of female infanticide or foeticide over the last three decades. And even if you get to live, child marriage and high levels of trafficking still cast a shadow over the safety of females.
Somalia
High maternal mortality, rape, female genital mutilation (FGM) and child marriage are just every day concerns for a woman living in Somalia, a country typified by its lack of law and order. 95 percent of Somalia’s female inhabitants face FGM, usually around the ages of four to 11, and in their child-rearing years, only nine percent can expect to give birth in a health facility.
Colombia
GBV in Colombia is alarmingly high – in 2010, The National Institute for Legal Medicine and Forensic Science reported 45,000 cases of domestic violence against women. Still, few organised systems exist to help women and girls needing post-violence care, meaning that many do not receive appropriate medical treatment. To add insult to injury, it’s rare for GBV perpetrators to be brought to justice.
Egypt
The systematic sexual harassment of women and girls throughout Egypt is something that even casual visitors may have experienced. GBV and harassment increased in the wake of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011. In January, Egyptian groups reported that there were 19 cases of mob sexual assaults, with one victim raped with a bladed weapon. One of Egypt’s main failings when it comes to supporting women is its judicial system, which does not criminalise domestic violence, and ignores their rights when it comes to marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance.
Kenya
Despite carrying out the majority of the country’s agricultural work, Kenya’s female inhabitants only receive a small part of the income they generate. In fact, just 29 percent of those earning a formal wage throughout the country are women. Educational prospects for girls are dreadful, as they are taught at an inferior level to their counterparts. Even worse, HIV infection rates are more prevalent among the female populace – partly due to the lack of control women have over their sex lives.
Mexico
With 4,000 cases of women disappearing in 2011-2012, and 22.7 murders for every 100,000 in Chihuahua state in 2012, you’d think the Mexican government and police would do everything possible to protect their inhabitants. Sadly women are massively let down by Mexico’s legal system, which does not protect against domestic and sexual violence. There are certain punishments set out for perpetrators of sexual violence against women, however judiciary officials often weight up the latter’s chastity when it comes to deciding a sentence – contradicting international standards. The unfortunate outcome of all of this is that few women come forward to report sexual offences. And when they do, they are frequently met with suspicion, apathy and disregard.
Brazil
For a country with many things going for it, Brazil has some troubling statistics. Reports indicate that every 15 seconds a woman is assaulted, and every two hours a woman is murdered. Brazil also has a bad record when it comes to reproductive choice as its criminal code bans abortions – except in cases of rape, or where it is physically dangerous to have the baby. Women who do not meet these exceptions and have an abortion can face up to three years in jail.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,272 posts)though it does talk of "many communities including those from Hindu, Sikh, Jewish, and Mormon backgrounds". Seems strange that you single out India for the underage marriages.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)India
Despite having the world’s largest democracy, famous examples of gang rape and hangings demonstrate what a perilous place India can be for women. Researchers estimate that there have been 50 million cases of female infanticide or foeticide over the last three decades. And even if you get to live, child marriage and high levels of trafficking still cast a shadow over the safety of females.
http://www.theneweconomy.com/insight/10-of-the-most-dangerous-countries-to-be-a-woman
Arazi
(6,829 posts)
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)And create a public service campaign, telling girls how and where to go to get help outside the family. Then enforce it - no more PC crap.
The country has laws against this, but they are not being enforced.
valerief
(53,235 posts)
happyslug
(14,779 posts)In fact the Catholic church of the middle ages was the first group to ban marrying cousins and giving women the right to say no to a marriage. Prior to that movement people married their cousins and that is still the rule outside of the "Christian west" (please note By that term I do not mean Christians but those areas of the world tied in with the traditional areas of Christianity in Europe, which includes Europe, North and South America and Russia). China has also adopted the rule banning cousins marrying, tied in with the adaption of communism via Stalinists Russia. Stalin considered himself a good atheist but on marriage he fully embraced traditional marriage. Thus Mao adopted that attitude to marriage in Communist China.
In the rest of the world, marrying cousins and arrange marriages as young as 12 is normal. Most countries have adopted laws outlawing both, but enforcement is lax.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Religion being used to reinforce negative practices that existed prior.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)A culture's religion often reflects how that culture sees itself, it is a means of keeping a group of people united. The most recent example of this was Communism, while technically Communism said it was atheistic, communism itself had a set of dogma (Which is what Religion is) that it held to be true, and feedback that supported that dogma was emphasis, while things that showed otherwise were either ignore, dismissed or attacked (and you can see the same thing among right wing Capitalists, for capitalism is their "Religion", you do NOT need to believe in God to have a Religion).
A society's religion will reflect what is good for that society as a whole. When it fails to do so, the religion of that society changes. One of the most radical change was when Christianity replaced the Pagan Religions of Europe. When the Roman Empire almost fell in the 200s, the reason it did not was the people of Europe wanted to be untied for being one Nation enhanced their standard of living. The problem was the people of Europe did not have what has been traditional means of unifying a people, they did not have any common bloodlines, tribal backgrounds, nationality, language or religion. Common bloodlines, tribal backgrounds, language and religion are the tools of unity when people want to be one people. A recent example of this is that the "Common Language" of the EU is English. which was one way to unite Europe today (The problem with the EU today, is the elite of Europe want to be one nation, but the people of Europe have their doubts). The US has a common Language, English and a common set of belief as to the role of Government (which includes the separation of Church and State) and that set of beliefs are the common religion of the US (Those beliefs have a strong Christian tradition, but also a strong tradition of saying those beliefs are NOT Christian or religious, the religion of any people do not have to make sense to people outside that nation, thus the fact the US is both Christian AND rejects Christianity as a state Religion is perfectly acceptable to most Americans).
Christianity was the uniting force adopted by the late Roman Empire. Subsequent to that change, Europe then split into the Latin Catholic Western Europe and Greek Orthodox Eastern Europe and Islamic Arab Speaking North Africa and Middle East, the language supported the religion, which in turn supported the common language (And these three regions of the Roman Empire were using Latin, Greek and Egyptian prior to the crisis of the 200s). Notice the language and Religion SURVIVED the fall of the Roman Empire (Ancient Egyptian is closely related to Modern Arabic thus the switch from Egytian to Arabic was NOT that radical a change in Language).
When the Empire fell do to internal stresses (you can NOT have the 1% own to much of your country, which is what happened to the Roman Empire when it fell, the part of the Roman Empire that Survived into the Dark Ages was the Area of the Empire with the smallest ownership of land by its 1%), the desire to be one nation survived for almost another 1000 years in the form of the Catholic Church in Western Europe (and Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe). The beliefs of each religion, Catholicism (Protestantism only split with Catholicism in the 1500s), Orthodoxy and Islam tends to reflect the needs of the people in that part of the world where they are the dominate religion (as does Buddhism it that part of the World where Buddhism is the dominate religion). Communism did the same thing for Russia after 1917 till 1989.
My point is religion is a tool of unifying a people and as such Religion tends to support what is good for those people as a whole. When a religion stops helping a people as a whole, it is either replaced, or adapts to the new situation. Russia and Mexico became anti-Christian countries after their revolutions in the 1910s. This rejection of Christianity reflected a belief that Christianity was holding both countries back. In response both the Catholic Church in Mexico and the Orthodox church in Russia adapted (with some violence on both sides) and is strong in both nations today.
My point is a country's religion reflect how that country sees itself and unify itself. Religion is one of the factors that holds a country together (along with a Common Language and a share belief that the people are one nation). This occurs mostly through positive feed backs, that most people accept. Yes, you have negative feedbacks, but such negative feedbacks tend to be small compared to the positive feedbacks. Most "Negative Feed backs" appear negative to outsiders, but to insiders appear positive. The Classic case of this are the "Taboos" of various societies, for example Arabs and Jews refuse to eat Pork. Why? Pigs use as much water as a human being, thus in a desert community, for every pig you have, you can support one less person. That is NOT true of Sheep or Goats, the preferred animals of desert dwellers. The reason for this is simple, given the same restrictions on water, sheep and goat herders can support more warriors then a desert tribe herding pigs and thus a ban on pigs makes desert communities stronger then desert communities that do keep pig. Thus people who embrace a ban on pigs are stronger desert communities. From someone living in a society with access to cheap water a ban on pigs makes no sense, but to a desert community it makes perfect sense.
Now, Jews and Arabs who move to jungle areas do start consuming pork, for avoiding pork cost them nothing in such situation (and many Eastern Europeans raised pigs for after the Mongols of the Golden Horde embraced Islam, on raids into Eastern Europe they saw no value in pigs, thus the freedom to raise pigs by Eastern European enhanced their religion, which permitted raising of pig. With the Golden Horde defeated by Catherine the Great the advantages of raising pigs disappeared but again no loss if you raise pigs in Eastern Europe).
Just a comment that Religion has both positive feedback loops in addition to the much rarer negative feedback loops.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)to be more specific.
mopinko
(70,027 posts)put the stop to it right there.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,272 posts)The point being that the family puts pressure on the girl to to the other country (where she may get raped under the age of consent) and the family thinks this will end up with her agreeing to a legal marriage after she's 16 (it doesn't mention 16, but that's the age of consent for marriage, if the parents consent, in the UK). It's about coercing her because they've made it look like a fait accompli to her.
mopinko
(70,027 posts)just unbelievable. i hope the officials that end up processing any such request give it an emphatic NNOOOO!
and it would be nice to see some of the parents nailed for fraud.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Thus if you get married in a country that permits marrying 12 years olds, that is considered valid in most other countries. People have moved to countries that forbid multiple wives with multiple wives, and those wives are considered legally married. Such a man can not marry more wives while in that country but existing wives are viewed as valid marriages.
This goes back to the days of slavery, a slave owner had the right to take his slave to another country that did not permit slaves, and keep those slaves. The same with marriages as young as 12, if valid in the country the marriage took place, most countries will recognize that marriage even if it had occurred in their own country the marriage would be invalid.
Thus the promise to marry can lead to a valid marriage that can lead to a unification of family immigration. This is true even if the marriage is made in a foreign country where such a marriage is legal but the married couple wants to move to a country where such a marriage would be illegal.
Unless the UK has a specific law making such foreign marriages not valid in the UK, the resulting marriage in a third country would be valid in the UK.
Please note the Common Law age of consent to marry was age 12. Pennsylvania ruled in the late 1990s that was still the age to consent to a common law marriage in Pennsylvania (entering into a Common Law Marriage was outlawed in Pennsylvania effective 1-1-2005).
muriel_volestrangler
(101,272 posts)In order to apply for a ‘family of a settled person’ visa you will first need to show you are eligible to apply.
To apply for this type of visa you must be able to prove:
you are over 18
your relationship with your partner is genuine – either you are married or in a recognised civil partnership, have been living together for at least two years or are engaged to be married or to become civil partners
...
http://findlaw.co.uk/law/immigration_emigration/marriage_visas/apply-for-a-visa-as-the-partner-of-a-british-resident-when-based-outside-the-uk.html
For a few years, the age was 21, but the courts overturned that as affecting genuine marriages:
http://www.bradfordlawcentre.org.uk/news/new-policy-guidance-marriage-visa-age-21
'Common law marriage' hasn't been legally recognised in England since 1753: http://www.lawpack.co.uk/cohabitation/articles/article1585.asp
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Given in these circumstances the woman is only age 12 or so but is a British Citizen and thus does NOT need a visa to return to Britain. Her husband needs to be over 18 under that regulation for HE needs the Visa not her.
I brought up Common Law Marriage to show under such marriages you could marry as young as 12. As a general rule laws in derogation of the Common Law must be strictly construed. i.e. if there is a way around that change in the Law, but within the Common Law, the Common Law rule apply NOT the change in the law.
A good way to see this is the English ban on Common Law Marriages of 1753 did NOT apply if someone is overseas. Thus the American Colonies retained Common law Marriages in 1753 and some States retain it to this day. There was a case of a Polish Couple serving in the British Army during WWII being married under the Common Law. They divorced in the 1950s, the Husband said that since no marriage license was issued in Italy (the marriage was by a Catholic Priest in Italy only) it was an invalid marriage under Italian law. The British Court agreed that it was an invalid Italian Marriage, but since the King's law follows the King's Troops it was a valid English Common Law Marriage for the ban on Common Law Marriage never applied "Overseas". The court ruled that since the couple were serving in the British Army and exchanged vows while in the British Army and neither were married at that time period, the exchange of vows was a valid common law marriage for the law banning such marriages did not apply "Overseas".
The old practice (I believe it is now illegal even on British Ships) of Ship Captains "Marrying" people, was NOT the Captain marrying the couple, but witnessing their exchanging vows and entering a valid Common Law Marriage. This was due to the law outlawing Common Law Marriage NOT applying "Overseas".
Side note: Most marriages before the Council of Trent (Mid 1500s) in Europe would be what we call Common Law Marriages. In the Council of Trent the Catholic Church made in a requirement that all marriages be done by ceremony not tradition and that was adopted by Catholic Countries within years of the Council Of Trent (this was one of the "Reforms" advocated by Martin Luther at the start of the Reformation). Protestant countries were a lot slower adopting the rule, Britain not till 1753. I bring this up to point out what we call Common Law Marriages were the norm before the Reformation, and appears to have been the most common form of marriage till the 1700s in England (and among the poor, appears to have been the rule even in France till the late 1800s, through such marriages in France were NOT valid after the late 1500s).
muriel_volestrangler
(101,272 posts)...
The guidance primarily affects applicants whose applications for entry clearance or leave as a fiancé(e), proposed civil partner, spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner or same-sex partner were refused under paragraphs 277, 289AA, or 295AA of the Immigration Rules solely because they or their sponsor were aged between 18 and 20 and whose application was refused on that basis between 27 November 2008 and October 2011. This applies to applications made within or outside the UK. The guidance sets out how such applicants can apply for a review of the original decision to refuse a visa which might now result in a visa being issued.
Changes to the Immigration Rules have been laid in Parliament today to reinstate a minimum age of 18 for a spouse, civil partner, fiancé(e), proposed civil partner, unmarried partner or same-sex partner and for their sponsor in order to qualify for entry clearance, leave to enter, leave to remain or a variation of leave on that basis. These rules will come into effect on 28 November 2011.
or, eg:
You and your spouse must be 18 years old or over.
You must have met each other and be legally married - this is to prevent arranged marriages.
...
http://www.visalogic.net/uk/uk-spouse-visa/4/103
The common law marriage stuff may be of historical interest, but it doesn't give any way round the British visa laws.
patsimp
(915 posts)
keithbvadu2
(36,678 posts)"The reason is to curb the behaviour of their children when they become 'too western',"
That's exactly the sentiment of Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil R. who says he and his ilk should marry girls as young as 15 while they are still trainable and not have too many independent ideas.
patsimp
(915 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,678 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)"We want to move to New Jersey and then raise kids in such a way that they'll want to blow it up"
patsimp
(915 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)What is one to think when there is mass migration to a country by a group of people that despises the values and beliefs of that culture? They aren't going to change, they want to force us to change.
scubasteve76
(16 posts)But it is hard for me to judge. I was taught to practice cultural relativism and at least try to understand why and what this means in Muslim society. Why is this acceptable? It doesn't mean the same thing to us as it does to them.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
scubasteve76
(16 posts)In terms fo laws are laws, absolutely, laws are broken. I was thinking more along of the lines of personal judgement. If that's their culture, what are we supposed to say? It sadly is a reason to consider if cultures do clash and what do about it.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)I'm fine with cultural relativism until it takes innocent victims. Slavery is wrong, it's always wrong, there is nothing relative about it.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... and if you continue to do so or facilitate those who do so we will deport you or send you to jail then deport you.
These children would literally be better off in the foster system than with their backwards families.
Probably better off with wolves being raised in the wild frankly.
romanic
(2,841 posts)that you even had to say that. Marrying a child is not "cultural", it's sick.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Cultural relativism always seems to be the practice of those who would never have to put themselves in the place of the victim due to their privileged status in the world.
Democat
(11,617 posts)And then back to Free Republic.
Skittles
(153,122 posts)YES IT IS THE "SAME THING" - child abuse and misogyny
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)My father in law started getting marriage overtures from cousins when she was sixish.
He never responded and was glad to flush that nation when he was 18. He got his brothers across and they never looked back.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)it's really confusing.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)of the culture. I suspect they left because of economic reasons or because there are bombs dropping in their home countries. They're just trying to bring the culture with them and as long as it doesn't interfere with our laws, that's fine. Anyone who agrees to marry off their 11 year old daughters ought to be thrown the fuck out.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)Agreed.
Furthermore, anyone who tries to buy ("marry"
an 11 year old girl
ought to be banned for life from ever getting in.
patsimp
(915 posts)Skittles
(153,122 posts)Response to MariaThinks (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Quantess
(27,630 posts)But the reality is that you don't want this fucked up, woman-hating, fucked up, gay hating, fucked up, christian hating, fucked up, jew hating culture into your culture.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)Couldn't find a British newspaper. It must be exhausting hating all the time. These articles have a more balanced view.
This month, a 34-year old businessman from Cardiff become the first person in the UK to be jailed under the forced-marriage laws introduced in June 2014.
Forced marriage is defined as being when one or both spouses do not consent to the marriage, or when consent is extracted under duress – which can include physical, psychological, financial, sexual and emotional pressure.
Iwan Jenkins, head of the Crown Prosecution Service’s rape and serious sexual offences unit in Wales, said: “Forced marriage wrecks lives and destroys families. We hope that today’s sentence sends a strong message that forced marriage will not be tolerated in today’s Britain.”
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jun/26/forced-marriage-is-still-a-big-problem-in-the-uk-what-more-can-we-do
No religion advocates forced marriage; the issue is a cultural one. While Muslim women and girls make up the majority of victims, a significant number come from other minority groups, including Sikhs, Hindus, Orthodox Jews and Roma families.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/forced-marriage-how-hundreds-of-terrified-british-victims-of-the-tradition-are-being-failed-every-10394985.html
In 2015, the five countries with the largest number of cases in which a victim was at risk of being, or had already been, taken to in connection with a forced marriage were Pakistan (539 cases), Bangladesh (89), India (75), Somalia (34), and Afghanistan (21).
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/08/number-of-forced-marriages-in-uk-continues-to-fall
The truth is more nuanced, people are starting to go to prison for this, and it is not a uniquely Muslim problem. None of which is apparent from your biased article. Now your not only content to malign all of Islam by pretending this does not happen in other religions, but you malign Britain by ignoring the fact that we're doing something about it.
Who else do you hate other than the British and all Muslims? I bet it doesn't end there. You should post a list on your profile and be honest for once.
Haters got to hate.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are either stupid or someone is lying.
