to be a bit unhappy about Harems being supported by the taxpayer?

[pankhurst]

I am ardently against polygamy. Sorry. I think it's discourteous and (because usually male advantageous) sexist nonsense masquerading as religious right.

I found out that men with multiple wives under islam will have benefits for all of them.

AIBU to be concerned about this? If I were a muslim man on benefits and I wanted to, there would be NOTHING now to stop me bringing four wives in.

I don't want my children to grow up in a country where harems are even 1% of the population. I really don't. I would prefer more obstacles rather than making it easier.

Or did I miss the point somewhere? Help?

maybe it is cheaper to recognise the extra spouse and pay the #33 or whatever the article said, than for her to be classified differently and a lot more money paid out? i don;t know, i don;t have any great knowledge of the benefits system

So, this thread is a thinly veiled racist attack, NDP?

Do you say that whenever a piece of news that involves other cultures is discussed? Will you brook no discussion at all?

Perfectly reasonable OP in my opinion. I don't think there's any need to come out with that tired old racism dross, particularly when it's a culture being discussed and not any particular race.

I doubt people would bring in extra wives just to get the benefits - it says "£33.65 for each additional spouse", it's not exactly a fortune (is that weekly? monthly?)

It is an interesting question though - this IS effectively supporting a practise that is illegal in this country, presumably in the name of religious diversity (be it muslim, mormon or whatever).

My dh has just gone off to work a 12 hour night shift, why the hell should he work so that somebody can claim benefits for all his bloody wives without doing anything to earn it? Especially when the recipients are from another country and have paid zilch in taxes etc
and if that sounds racist then tough shit, racist is the last thing I am, but it's absolutely not fair.

I can only guess, but:

Imagine A and B are married. C is in a subsequent relationship with A, and they all live together (be they Muslim, or otherwise polygamous/polyamorous -- could just be a good old-fashioned British menage a trois).

Under previous rules, A and B would be eligible to claim income support. C would be unable to claim anything -- would not be able to claim in his/her own right (because "living as if married" with A) and would not be able to claim as part of a couple with A because A was already married to, and living with, B.

Under new rules, C can also claim, although not as much as if single.

This doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me. If you don't assume that all the spouses are being shipped in from overseas, in particular (and it's actually pretty unlikely that they would be -- given that it's very difficult to get a visa for a polygamous spouse to come into the UK). It's largely a case of British citizens, entitled to benefits, not being denied those benefits because they live in an atypical family group.

But PortAndLemon, if three people live together in a defacto marriage, 2 of them married here in the UK, then the third person will not be entitled to anything.

ladymariner - "not racist, but..."

You are getting annoyed at a hypothetical situation.

oh, I see. so it might actually be saving us money?

ok, that makes more sense.

hmmm....

(still not comfortable)

BUT polyandry isn't allowed though. nor is bigamy. nor are the mormon multiple marriages allowed.

it only applies to a MUSLIM man with three or more wives (so WE can't have a menage a trois with two blokes).

it feels a bit sexist and racist and odd.

lapin, from my reading of the news story here, that's been the situation up until now but this decision changes that and makes the third person entitled to some limited benefits.

I may be misunderstanding, of course. It has been known (whatever I may tell DH about my infallibility...)

btw, I think Mormons are no longer polygamus?

excuse spelling

presumably they couldn't afford it?

(sorry - that was an obvious comeback!)

Nicky, I don't care whether someone is black, white, sky-blue purple, I would get annoyed at anybody trying to milk the system.

lOL Pankhurst!

(hijack - lapindetention, were you once little lapin. excuse my ignorance, i was away for a long time. If so hello!)

Quoted from the TELEGRAPH

"People who come from cultures where coercive behaviour towards women is the norm should be made to realise that it will not be tolerated in this country.

And yet what do we actually get from the Government? So far, a failure to tackle cultures that endorse the brutal oppression of women. As we also report today, the Government has just taken the dismally retrograde step of recognising polygamy: men with more than one wife will be able to claim benefits for each additional spouse. How this can be squared with the Government's rhetoric of commitment to women's rights is beyond us: it is a quite clear incitement to the humiliating and blatantly unjust practice of allowing men, but only men, to take more than one spouse.

"The issues are so sensitive that nobody has been prepared to talk about them," says Shahien Taj, director of an organisation dedicated to trying to free women from the oppression of cultures which endorse their coercion. She laments the detrimental effect that silence has on her work. The Government has a duty to talk about the issues, and to do something about them. In failing to do so, it betrays our most fundamental values - and thousands of women in Britain."

Actually, even if the Mormons were polygamous, it wouldn't count because polygamy is illegal in the USA as well.

PortAndLemon - "polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal." - so I don't think my example would be included in this.

I'll see if I can find it in Hansard, rather than reading it through the filter of the media.

It doesn't only apply to a Muslim man with three or more wives, though -- it may be that they are the group who will chiefly benefit, but anyone living in a polyamorous household will be able to take advantage of it. Including you, should you wish to shack up with two blokes...

noooooo!

i think the criterion is that the women have to be domiciled in countries where it's legal for multiple marriages.

(although could you check that for me...?)

[grins]

am already holding colditz's proposal on ice for later....

Have ony read the OP but there was a thread referring to this earlier today.

A Muslim aqaintance of mine says that in many cases, and the ideal is, that the 'harem' consists of widows and their children who have no other means of support, financial or otherwise.

I would think there are very few polygamous marriages/families in the UK tbh.

Right will now read the thread.

Telegraph in criticising Labour government shock!

Next week, bears in defecating in woods shock!

After that, Pope in possible Catholicism link...

ladymariner, seriously, I am sure you aren't racist at all. I just wonder about news stories such as this which focus on a tiny tiny group of people doing something which is possibly objectionable when there are other larger groups of people doing far worse things. Unfortuanately, there are people in society who will see that story and use it as another way of justifying their negativity to sections of the community. Trust me, people round here are like that!

Puss, as a Muslim, roffles at thought of her DH coping with more than one wife.....he has enough on his plate with me!!!