Prime Minister refused to ban 1st cousin marriage

[happydappy2]

Even though there is clear evidence of serious birth defects to babies born from 1st cousin marriages. It is deeply worrying that the bride and groom will have the same Grand Parents.....this is unsafe for women in a patriarchal family system.

Who takes on the bulk of the work caring for the disabled child-the woman...

Why is the British gov't promoting incest?

https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1974371215629578344

I hope this is not true...but does anyone know any more about it?

Yes, I was shocked at how poor it was, for someone who works at Oxford Uni... The author has apparently debated pro-choicers a lot, but his argument for this was certainly very poor.

Tho tbf it's very hard to make a good argument for it...

The 'white people' thing is also disingenuous given that as he himself acknowledged, it's also about tackling the problem in the ethnically white Traveller community.

It’s emotional handwringing and avoidance of the issue by the professional elite.

I grew up in Rotherham.

It’s not new to me.

Labour seem to believe that certain sections of their constituencies will actually continue to support them if they make the right noises. When the reality is they are just being treated as useful idiots until those communities gather enough votes to vote in their own candidates.

Absolutely spot on.

There hasn't been a division on it, let alone a whip, it gets its second reading on 31st October. Where it will run out of time like all private member's bills under the 10 minute rule invariably do.

Because the leader of the party with an overwhelming majority has signalled that his party won’t support it. If he supported it then it could progress, so his lack of support blocks it.

I agree with pp that immigrant communities often keep alive practices that have long died out in their countries of origin.

When I worked in US, the girls in the office were second/third generation Italian. Just as one example, their husbands had names like Dino and Luigi and Tino. These are like men now being called Roy or Reg. Having a lot of family in Italy I knew that they were (unironically) cos-playing old Italy.

Obviously they were not indulging in cousin marriage though!

I think it should be banned.

It's not about support, it's about time. They're not giving government time to an opposition private members bill because they want to use that time to pass their own legislative agenda. If they give time to this, then something else has to go - there are currently 47 government bills before Parliament for the current sessions - which one do you think the government should ditch for this? The Victims and Courts Bill? The Mental Health Bill? The Pension Reform Bill?

If I am choosing a bill to go it would be the assisted suicide bill. But you miss the point - most potential legislation is blocked before it gets anywhere near parliament, it is still being blocked. The assisted suicide bill is an example of how a private members bill can progress when supported by government.

I don't understand why it isn't, I don't get why the British government aren't supporting it or banning it with immediate effect.

Cousin marriages are to ensure a family maintains power and control. This historically applied to royal families but also applies within certain communities. It is the antithesis of integration.

And if you are wondering what sort of power and control such family ties could bring within the UK - just look at the grooming gangs scandal.

I think you mean The Assisted Dying Bill. That’s currently at committee stage in the Lords so is not relevant. The Assisted Dying Bill was given government time because the Labour Party pledged to support it before the election. Re-drafting it as a government bill when it had already been drafted in the previous parliament would have been a waste of time.

I don’t miss your point at all. You’re having a go at the government for not giving time to a Tory MP’s private bill, when the previous Tory government had 14 years in which hey could have done so. It’s just political point scoring.

https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/bills/government

I think the football act could wait until this is sorted, personally.

We must use clear language - it is an assisted SUICIDE bill, regardless of its proponents trying to deny the fact with their weaselly language. Their cries of outrage when people point out they are promoting suicide (by the most vulnerable, and very possibly coerced) is very reminiscent of the outrage when people call men, who demand others pretend they are men, men.

It was not in Labour’s manifesto and a promise to a celebrity is a scadulous reason for promoting it. They don’t want it as a government bill as it would then have been subject to much more scrutiny and public consultation. As for drafted in the previous parliament - it was barely drafted in time for the committee stage!

Are you suggesting Tories shouldn’t bring any PM bills forward now because they were previously in power? Does that apply to their constituents raising issues too? Do you think they shouldn’t get to vote on legislation for that reason too?

A Labour MP today gave her backing to the government minister who spoke out about the health risks associated with Pakistanis marrying their cousins.

Ann Cryer, MP for Keighley, said she was delighted that Phil Woolas had triggered a public debate on the issue which she said affected some sections of the Pakistani population in her constituency.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/feb/11/religion.medicalscience

This is from seventeen years ago

It received the usual criticisms

The Muslim Public Affairs Council accused Woolas of being racist, while the Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne said he should have raised the issue more sensitively

Cryer claimed that Pakistani community leaders were "in denial" about the problem. But she said she hoped they would now debate the issue, and encourage parents to move away from first-cousin marriages.

Downing Street was more cautious than Cryer in its response to Woolas's decision to spark a public debate on the issue of cousin marriages.

The prime minister's spokesman stressed that Woolas was speaking in his capacity as a constituency MP, and not as a minister, when he spoke out at the weekend.

"We believe that these matters are best addressed locally by local members of the community, as well as by the relevant professionals," the spokesman said.

So seventeen years ago, the Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the matters were best left to local members of the community and relevant professionals. Even the admirable Ann Cryer could only hope that people she said were in denial about the problem would come to their senses.

The evidence suggests they have not.

I am glad this bill was raised but I can also understand Starmer for not supporting it right now. This issue has been avoided for so long that we need more public debate before action is taken but it is not acceptable just to sweep it under the carpet like Brown did.

Starmer has to at least recognise that leaving it to local members of the community and relevant professionals has not had much impact. He has to recognize that it should be a concern of his government. He should launch a public inquiry that involves the possibility that legislation can be brought in or come up with plans for an alternative. He should certainly not be worried about accusations of racism. If he does nothing then the far right will grab the issue by the horns and turn it into a race issue. If he does nothing then another generation of kids will have increased chances of genetic deformities. If he does nothing he is a waste of space who should not be Prime Minister of this country.
.

Ann Cryer:

The son of a former Labour MP who was the first to raise concerns about Asian grooming gangs has described how his mother was smeared and attacked for being a racist, particularly by members of her own party.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07dnrgez84o

And the accusations of racism again. There is no way they can introduce a definition of Islamophobia. It's insane.
As a aside they are going to be consulting on weddings.

It will be interesting to see if all mosques sign up to it.

'THE LAW in Britain is to be amended to grant couples more choice over where they can marry “while ensuring the dignity and integrity of marriage is protected”, the Ministry of Justice said on Thursday.'
www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2025/3-october/news/uk/ministry-of-justice-announces-reform-of-wedding-laws-to-reflect-modern-britain

Those advocating for no legislation on cousin marriage need to come and spend some time in the special school where I teach.

Over 70% of our children are from a Muslim background. This is not reflective of the local demographic, as 90% of our children are bussed in from other areas/authorities.

The effects of repeated first cousins marrying and having children is utterly devastating. The majority of the children I teach have such severe needs that they will require round the clock care for the rest of their lives. They require (and likely always will) support for all aspects of personal care, will never be toilet trained, cannot feed themselves, keep themselves safe, have a variety of medical issues that will stay with them for life and require near constant hospital admissions and procedures. Most of my children's cognitive abilities and understanding will remain at the level of a 2 year old for the rest of their (probably shortened) lives.

I love them all dearly and we do our best to provide a rich and stimulating environment for them, full of fun and affection, but their quality of life is extremely low. You cannot say otherwise.

And who is providing the care, love and support for them when they're not in school? Overwhelmingly the mothers. Fathers are rarely seen. Their mother's can't work, they are absolutely burnt out from being awake all night supporting their children. They have to sleep during the day, when they can. No respite, their quality of life is non existent too.

To actively and knowingly create children that have a very high chance of living a life like this is not kind. It's catastrophic for the children and for the mothers.

It is also putting an incredible amount of stress on an already crumbling SEND offer.

legislation on cousin marriage
It's not the marriage of first cousins, it's that it's been repeated over several generations.

The sad thing is that if looking at their severely disabled children hasn't stopped the ( male) elders, fathers and often the mothers of adult daughters marrying their children to their first cousins, banning first cousin marriages won't either. They will simply have a religious marriage which has the added bonus of not giving women any protection whatsoever if the man wants to bugger off and marry someone else.

I'm thinking that this is a patriarchal culture and so men are the ones who make the decisions. It's not a problem for the men because the women are the ones who have to deal with the children. If anything it makes the men's lives easier because a disabled child uses up even more of the women's time and energy, therefore have freedom is especially restricted she can't earn her own money etc. That suits the men just fine.