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?

Sharia “law” is not a law at all, it’s a bunch of religious beliefs from ancient books, which vary depending who is interpreting them or what suits them at the time. It’s completely irrelevant to marriage, which is a legal contract and can only be validated by the state.

The only law that exists is that actual legislation and law of the country.

Somebody doing some religious ceremony doesn’t constitute a marriage and it needs to be made crystal clear that anybody pretending that any religious ceremony without legal standing is not a marriage. If they want to be married before having children and therefore comply with the alleged edicts of their chosen sky fairy then they’ll need to have an actual marriage. And the laws for actually getting married should state that you can’t marry close blood relatives.

Requiring anything purporting to be a wedding or marriage to comply with the requirements in law to actually be a marriage will effectively make all pseudo marriage ceremonies conducted by religious leaders without licence to do so illegal. So again, the answer to that is enforcement. If anybody trying to conduct fake, illegal “marriages” that don’t comply with the law is arrested and prosecuted and appropriate penalities imposed to act as a deterrent then they will soon become unwilling to engage in these attempts to set up a parallel pseudo-legal system because all people prepared to engage in this behaviour will be in prison.

We have to take a hard line on anybody deliberately trying to circumvent UK law and believing that they exist outside of it because “culture” (or lack of). They do not and zero tolerance policies with very harsh penalties should be implemented for this because it is effectively trying to undermine the rule of law.

I highly doubt they were genuinely very “independent”.

This is a huge problem and also why the UK needs a proper written constitution clearly stating the religion should have no place in politics because a constitution sits in precedence to general legislation, which must be compatible with it, and is much harder to change.

There is no way to require religious ceremonies to result in a civil marriage. If someone wants to be married in the eyes of the law then they can, including in a mosque. If they want to undergo a religious ceremony which does not result in a legal marriage then of course they can do that too.

Christianity is woven through our politics and our constitution. But if you want to remove religion, how do you propose doing that? Only allow atheists to stand as MPs so only allow atheists to have representation in parliament?

A good start would be to get rid of postal votes and require photo ID in order to vote. Plus only allow people born in the UK and only hold British Citizenship, no dual citizenship, to stand as MPs.

I read some of the court documents about the Rotherham Pakistani rape gangs, and one of the disgusting rapists avoided deportation because he and his wife were in mourning after suffering several stillbirths. I wanted to scream.

He wouldn't ban it because he cares too much for the Muslim vote. I know others also sometimes marry a first cousin but within Muslims it's higher than in the general population of the UK. In the past maybe there was no medical evidence against it but now we know offspring of a first cousin marriage are far more likely to have birth defects and learning disabilities.

I think there are a few problems with banning it.

The first is that you don't need a legal marriage to have a nikah or other religious ceremony and if you are religious that is the important part.

The recognition of foreign marriages, if you have a nikah in Pakistan then when you return to the UK your marriage is a legal one, unlike a nikah in the UK without the legal bit.

How do you do the paperwork? Do you have to have the birth certificates of the couple, the couple's parents and grandparents?

Some Muslims see a disabled child as a blessing. I'm not saying anyone actively wants a disabled child because I don't know.

I do think genetic testing should be done though, if it is possible. The screening for Tay-Sachs in the Jewish community has had a huge impact. But of course cousin marriage isn't common in that community.

Exactly, it frustrates me when people say this when obviously the people we're worried about (Muslims & also Travellers) are very against premarital sex.

The NHS do offer testing. They have done for a while.
I lived in a majority Muslim area when I was pregnant with my first nine years ago and the doctors’ offices were plastered with advertisements for it.
It doesn’t seem to have made a difference.
Banning cousin marriages will make a difference.

Exactly. People who live here should be required to respect our laws and not be allowed to create their own rules and courts.

The Muslim groups and the government claim that the 70 or 80 Sharia ‘courts’ in the U.K. operate within our laws but we have seen evidence that they don’t and also evidence of police turning a blind eye to many activities.

Travellersxare Catholic so yes, marriage will have to be legal but Muslims can be married with just axreligious marriage and they wont care that the civil marriage hasnt taken place. The Mancheser synagogue attacker had 3 wives. Only one was legal obviously.

I hear what you are saying but a ban on first cousin marriages in the UK does a number of things:

• Makes it really clear that it is not an acceptable practice
• Makes it harder for families to circumvent the law by having to go abroad to a country that allows it for a ceremony
• Gives the young people, mostly young women, more ‘clout’ to say no to a forced cousin marriage - the law protects them
• Enables social services to step in and take action if it is suspected in the same way as underage marriage.

Lots of people swore they would never wear a seatbelt when the law was brought in. It took years, punishments and education but the vast majority now would be horrified at the idea of not wearing a seatbelt.

We shouldn’t be afraid of making laws because of the objections of a minority whose actions necessitate those laws.

One of the independent MPs elected last year has as his main issues a) Gaza b) opposing any ban on cousin marriage and c) opposing any grooming gang enquiries.

Whaddayado?

That is quite shocking-and I don't suppose anyone asked were they 1st cousins & might that be why the wife was miscarrying?

Why has KS refused to ban 1st cousin marriages?

Because more than 72% of Muslims vote for labour.

Yes, the Labour boys' club would rather support misogynistic imams & their male followers than women who speak out against this and other anti-women practices. It's like some US Democrats who supported gangster rap & ignored black women who protested its misogyny .

And they mistakenly believe that pandering to them will stop them vote for Islamic candidates.

I think the reason I despise the labour party as much as I do is that, although they are exactly the same as every other party, they insist that they’re the good guys. They’ve managed to convince good people that they’re the only moral vote and that anyone who says otherwise can be dismissed and silenced with single words “Islamophobic”, “transphobic”, “bigot”. Yet they treat the vulnerable with the exact same contempt as every other political party.

They’re a really special kind of evil.

Ha! Of course not. Everyone knows the real reason they suffered multiple stillbirths, but it’s conveniently ignored; apparently, mourning incest-related stillbirths now qualify as a valid excuse to let a child rapist stay in the country.

I would point out that in most muslim majority countries when you have a nikah it will be legally recognised. You don’t actually just randomly performa nikah and not mention it to the authorities. This is fairly standard practice so theres no excuse for not saying a legal marriage must be obtained before a nikah can take place. We don’t actually have to just accept anything we can enforce that. I said somewhere else that my Gudwara refuses to perform a the religious wedding ceremony unless a civil marriage has taken place, the options are before the date of the temple wedding, at the temple just before the ceremony or you aren’t getting married here. There is literally nothing stopping mosques from stipulating this and theres nothing stopping the UK from legislating that no religious institution can perform a wedding ceremony without a prior civil marriage taking place. There is no downside to this. Well intentioned people will be happy to comply.

Nothing changes in respect of Shariah, it just makes the marriage compliant with Uk law and prevents a man going out and collecting wives (like we saw with the synagogue attacker) because bigamy is illegal in the UK.

This still completely ignores the fact that mosques can do civil marriages but choose not to. Or that the state cannot ban religious ceremonies that have no meaning in law.

More because they will actively legislate and campaign for things that harm vulnerable groups (as long as they are women) and will enthusiastically pander to the most misogynistic of men. Its almost as if they recognise something familiar about them. To be fair to Labour its the Left in general.

Yes.
And when the Tories do things like that we’re allowed to be appalled and outraged but when labour do it they’re defended by so-called “liberals”.
Not to mention the fake “help” they offer like the free breakfasts for children campaign which actually costs schools more money and means none will take up on the scheme.
I hate it.

Exactly. Whereas in reality the Islamic candidates are just biding their time to get the population density they need to win seats in the guaranteed votes coordinated by religious leaders.

Add in a propensity for electoral fraud and an easily abused postal voting system and in the next election we may see some significant changes.

I saw a clip from Swipewright on X with a Muslim leader sat with Humza Yousaf saying that Muslims want more control, more power, ‘more seats at the top table’. For a small minority population of 4 million in this country they already seem to have quite a lot of power and representation at the highest levels of government.

Keir Starmer meets regularly with and is influenced by the Muslim Council of Britain. They are working to silence criticism of Islam with a new definition of Islamophobia.

The government (and maybe the last government) are clearly keen to do what Muslim leaders ask. What more do they want? Actually, we know the answer to that question - they want total power.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379417300811