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?

Because due to bloc voting often controlled by local Muslim leaders and an observed lack of respect for democratic process (I linked an article where this has been examined by the authorities previously), Labour thinks that it will maintain the Muslim vote which is growing in importance to them.

They seem unaware that as discussed further up, some communities are just biding their time until they get the numbers to field their own candidates and further the interests of Muslims. Possibly at the expense of everyone else due to the clan system (perpetuated partly by cousin marriage).

I agree that many Labour constituencies are under threat. At the last election several MPs only got in by a hair’s breadth.

Labour won’t stand a chance in 2029. There will be possibly 30 Islamist (not just Muslim) MPs in Parliament and of course they will have their particular agenda.

Apparently moves are already underway in some areas to field ‘independent’ candidates to further Muslim interests above all else.

This is already the case - there are several independent Muslim MPs in parliament. And several other Labour MPs had narrow wins over others - including Wes Streeting who was barely 500 votes ahead. Labours mistake is thinking they can take votes off them by appeasing the Muslim community.

@BundleBoogie , My MP is Labour, and it's a 'safe seat'. In the last election, the incumbent's lead was down by about 15000. The independent candidate got a lot of votes.

But why would any community or religion from whatever area of the world even think it a tiny bit responsible to bring babies into this world with a high chance of abnormalities? There are enough sick kids about as it is without making more. If it is a muslim thing then there is some fundamental flaw within the teaching. I say this as accepting of all faiths.
we all know it is wrong and no one can answer.

And @CatchingtheCat - we can start seeing the foundation for the growing predictions of a ‘tipping point’ in the next few years, where our own voter apathy and democracy (not to mention lack of decent people to vote for!) is used against the interests of the majority.

The independent was campaigning on the situation in Gaza.
Reform will get a lot of votes in the next elections - immigration.

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 was thinking edcuation of the community would slowly get rid of the practise - it used to be realtivey common in even middle class victorian britain with Darwin himself being married to a first cousin but hadn't realised it had been quite long a time period as 17 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c241pn09qqjo

There is data in Bradford of a decline

Indeed, in Bradford at least, the practice is in decline. The share of new mothers from across the Born in Bradford study who were first cousins with the father of their baby fell from 39% in the late 2000s to 27% in the late 2010s.

Which is good but perhaps a tad slow as it's still 1 in 5 couples with a decade of education though hopefully it's fallen further in last decade as well.

But crucially, Prof Oddie thinks the main risk to genetic health in Bradford is not cousin marriage, but a similar issue known as endogamy, in which people marry members of their close community. In a tight-knit ethnic group, people are more likely to share common ancestors and genes - whether or not they are first cousins, he says.
Endogamy is not unique to Pakistani communities in the UK. It is an issue too in the UK's Jewish community and globally among the Amish and also French Canadians.
"It's often the case that the exact familial tie can't be traced, but the gene occurs more commonly within a certain group, and for that reason, both parents carry the affected gene," Prof Oddie says. "It's an oversimplification to say that cousin marriage is the root of all excess recessive disorders in Bradford or in Pakistani communities. Endogamy is an important feature."

It also doesn't do enough about endogamy - clearly they also need wider genetic testing avalaible to the communities in question as well.

I think first cousin marriages is more a tribal thing, though the low status of women in Islam helps enable it. It seems particularly prevalent in certain Pakistani communities.

It is legally quite straightforward to require all religious marriages within mainstream religions to be accompanied by a civil union within a short time frame.

A Muslim religious marriage is a formal structured event, known as Nikah. Importantly, it involves the couple signing a contract and requires witnesses. So UK legislation can be written requiring that all Nikahs involving a British citizen must be accompanied by a civil union, and this will be enforced.

However, a traditional Traveller/Roma wedding does not involve a written contract, and is much less structured. So this would prove a challenge for the most skilful of drafting lawyers!

The majority of Irish travellers are Catholic so have Catholic weddings which are recognised by the state.

It's cultural rather than specifically Muslim. The Quran doesn't condone or condemn the practice. It's linked to specific communities who live within tribal groupings, it's far less common in urban educated areas.
Prophet Muhammad married his cousin, and his daughter Fatima also married her cousin, Ali, establishing a precedent for such marriages.
This is pretty much what some people are arguing on here. There's a precedent.
However a number of Islamic scholars are speaking out about it.

More evidence of the health problems it causes for the Irish Traveller community :

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.researchgate.net/publication/322650409_Catalogue_of_inherited_disorders_found_among_the_Irish_Traveller_population&ved=2ahUKEwiVucXWn5KQAxUpUUEAHbMBPRg4FBAWegQILxAB&usg=AOvVaw0KoN6lx8cpG4myorYFC-Pg

https://www.orpha.net/pdfs/data/Cns/Protocol/IE/ID115626NW.pdf

The thing with Travellers is that they are mainly strong Catholics . How they reconcile that with the Catholic Church's condemnation of cousin marriage, I don't know.

That's very useful to know. Thank you.

So the main remaining difficulty will be how to include Romany marriages in a requirement for all religious/cultural 'marriages' in the UK to be legal. It is difficult to see how we could legislate to cover a 'marriage' which doesn't involve a formal contract.

But! The NHS is currently trialling whole genome sequencing in newborns to identify as early as possible hundreds of rare treatable genetic conditions.

If this is done for everyone going forward, then it will be very easy for the next generation to check for consanguinity prior to marriage, or when an unmarried couple are planning to have children.

Right now we need to urgently legislate to ban cousin marriage and require all religious marriages to be legal marriages under UK law.

I very much hope Keir Starmer decides to drive these very necessary legislative changes through Parliament as part of the planned Wedding Law Reforms. These proposals (which currently focus on moving legality away from buildings/venues to instead requiring only an approved officiant) are expected to be consulted on in 2026. And new legislation is to follow 'when parliamentary times allows'.

So if any Mumsnetters have influence here, now is the time!

I agree but am heartened by Wes Streeting's response to recent cases with Doctors. Maybe they're starting to realise they need to stand for something other than appeasement.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/1b45bd89-11fc-4ad9-bb79-7f4cf5487198?shareToken=c7a6dc7e5f69e918347cf60161e25c89

The health secretary is preparing to overhaul medical regulators — the General Medical Council (GMC) and Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) — after being appalled by a series of cases in which doctors have escaped disciplinary action.

Streeting told The Times: “Two years on from the horrific events of October 7th and just days after a despicable attack on our nation’s Jewish community, we must be unequivocal that antisemitism has absolutely no place in our NHS, or anywhere in our society

I was initially pretty neutral on the genome thing, but Labour’s increasing authoritarianism, including digital ID which they seem intent on imposing and not even trying to win people round by debate, has made me increasingly worried about the data they propose the state holding.

It is difficult to see how we could legislate to cover a 'marriage' which doesn't involve a formal contract.

What is this formal contract you keep mentioning? Do you mean marriage as a state recognised by the state? That currently doesn’t differ between religions or civil partnerships. How religions interpret it is ‘extra’ to the state’s recognition of marriage.

A poster on another thread has pointed out that there are differences between British Romanies and Eastern European Roma.

One of my secondary school pupils had lived in two EU countries prior to moving to Scotland and had been married and divorced twice. She told us that these were 'traditional' rather than legal marriages and that it was all to do with property. I couldn't tell you whether or not these were kinship marriages, but there was no official record of them, of course.

Her attendance was poor. Apparently, she was being kept off school to mind the younger children in her extended family. It's a great shame. When she attended she was making great strides with her English.

We did have a council worker who was a liaison for Gypsy/Roma/Traveller/Carnival families, but the answer to most things was a shrug. Said council worker was a bit naive, I have to say. Wittered on about how Traveller children would tell her that they much preferred trailers to houses and benders [makeshift tents] to trailers.

In actual fact, the Traveller children were very competitive over who had the best trailers. (The houses were council houses used by the women, girls and younger boys while the men were on the road.)

Currently some women are in 'religious marriages' that involve a ceremony and signing something (a register or a contract), but are not legally recognised as a marriage under UK law.

For example, a Nikah 'contract' typically specifies the mandatory gift under Sharia from the groom to the bride as well as requiring both parties' consent. However unless the Nikah ceremony is designed to meet all the requirements for a civil marriage it will not be considered a legal marriage in the UK.

The bride/wife may not even realise this, until the 'marriage' breaks down, or if they are 'widowed'. Only then, they find out that under UK law they are not a 'wife' but only a cohabiting partner. So they miss out on all the benefits other British women are entitled to, because their 'Sharia Marriage' wasn't legal under UK law.

It does matter! Women and children, of any or no religion, deserve to be protected when a 'marriage' ends through divorce or death.

You are either married according to the state, or you aren’t. A religious ceremony can easily incorporate marriage recognised by the state or a civil ceremony can take place separately, but if people are determined to not to have a marriage recognised by the state then the state can not recognise it. One reason for this might be age - there are reports of imams ‘marrying’ young girls in England. That would be hidden within the community as illegal/abuse. Or polygamy. Or, in the case of some pagans I know, they don’t believe in marriage but had a ceremony of commitment for now. The state cannot assume marriage.

There is a role for education in schools so girls especially know what the legal situation is, but if the state recognised ‘sharia marriages’ then they are recognising an alternative legal system which ultimately would cause far more harm to women and girls.

Mosques can register to provide a civil service but most dont:

A Nikah ceremony alone is not legally recognised as a valid marriage in England and Wales unless it takes place in a registered venue.

Under UK law, marriages must adhere to the Marriage Act 1949. This means that a marriage must be conducted either:

In a registered place of worship where civil ceremonies are also permitted (such as a mosque that is licensed for marriages), or
In a civil registry office or approved venue in the presence of a registrar.
Most mosques in the UK are not registered to perform legally binding marriages, meaning that a Nikah alone does not provide legal marital status.

As far as under 18s are concerned a Nikah ceremony is now illegal:

Northamptonshire Police said Ashraf Osmani had been charged under forced marriage legislation after he allegedly conducted a Nikah wedding ceremony involving two 16-year-olds at Northampton Central Mosque in November 2023.

Mr Osmani, 52, from Northampton, is the serving imam at the mosque.

The Bangladesh-born British national has been charged under Section 121 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, as amended by the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 and he is due to appear at Northampton Magistrates' Court on 11 September.

The Law would not be 'recognising' Sharia marriages.

The Law would require either (i) additions/changes to the current Islamic ceremony or (ii) a timely separate civil ceremony so that the couple will fulfil the requirements of a UK Civil Marriage and that under Islamic Law. So the couple must be both married in the eyes of their God and under UK Law.

This would be essential to ensure the large majority of Muslim couples would be included within the scope of a ban on Cousin Marriage. Very few Muslims, I understand, would be willing to have children outside of marriage.

This would be a very good thing, do you agree?

(Edited for confused wording. Sorry)

Currently, the large majority of UK Jewish religious marriages are legal by also meeting the civil requirements.

They achieve legality by:

• giving the required notice at the local Register Office, and
• having the ceremony conducted by a rabbi or authorised Jewish religious official, and
• arranging it through their Synagogue, who will have a Registrar who ensures the legal requirements are met and will register the marriage on behalf of the couple.

We should be able to do something similar for Islamic marriages? It would require new legislation but there is a Marriage Reform Bill being developed!

I agree. We should also simultaneously legislate against pseudo courts and attempts to establish parallel pseudo legal processes. We should require all “religious ceremonies” which are named anything implying that they constitute a marriage also includes a properly registered civil ceremony. Muslims believe that having children outside marriage is haram so it should be hammered home that this is what they are doing if they don’t have a valid civil ceremony. Significant penalties for breaking all of these laws should be imposed, including disbarring any religious leader from further roles of that capacity in the UK for life if they are found to have been carrying out religious ceremonies and pretending that they are a marriage ceremony. You’re absolutely right that enforcement is crucial and also completely separate from policy making and determining whether legislation is justified and appropriate.

Cross-post! Yes, we absolutely should be doing exactly that.