Forced marriage parents face jail under new laws in the UK - Polidicks

[quote]The new law is expected to acknowledge the differences between forced marriages where there is no consent and arranged marriages Parents who force their children to marry in England and Wales could be jailed under planned new laws. Home Secretary Theresa May said forced marriage was an "appalling practice" and criminalising it would send "a strong message that it will not be tolerated". It is already illegal in Scotland. An estimated 8,000 young women a year are forced into marriages. But campaigners fear the plan could deter victims from coming forward. The new law will distinguish between forced marriages, where there is no consent, and arranged marriages where "both parties have consented to the union but can still refuse to marry if they choose to". A Home Office consultation, which ended in March, was launched at the request of Prime Minister David Cameron, who has said forced marriage is "little more than slavery" and "completely wrong". The new law will not apply to Northern Ireland, but ministers there will be able to introduce their own legislation, the Home Office said. Existing laws Mrs May announced a £500,000 fund to help schools and other agencies spot early signs of a forced marriage. And a government advertising campaign will highlight an individual person's right to choose whom they marry. A similar law was introduced in Scotland in November giving courts there the power to issue protection orders to those at risk, which, if breached could carry a two-year prison sentence. Since 2008, courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have been able to issue civil orders, under the Forced Marriage Act, to prevent forced marriage or protect victims. This is an order in a civil court but its breach is punishable with a two-year jail sentence for contempt of court. Opponents of the idea of criminalising forced marriages fear that victims will be dissuaded from coming forward because they do not want their relatives to end up with a criminal record. Mr Cameron said as the plans were announced that he had listened to these concerns and there would be a "comprehensive package to identify possible victims, support those who have suffered first hand and, indeed, prevent criminality wherever possible." He added: "We have spent time with those who work tirelessly to raise and address this issue and I want to send a clear and strong message: forced marriage is wrong, is illegal and will not be tolerated." Freedom, a charity that campaigns against forced marriage and "dishonour" violence, welcomed the move. Founder Aneeta Prem said: "Forced marriage is an indefensible abuse of human rights and can result in abduction, serial rape and murder. "Criminalising forced marriage will send out a powerful message to people that this practice is unacceptable in England and will be dealt with severely." The Labour peer and chair of trustees for Freedom, Lord Toby Harris, said: "I hope the government put the necessary Bill before Parliament as soon as possible, along with measures to support organisations like Freedom who work to advise and support victims and potential victims." 'Effective framework' Some say that criminal law already provides punishment for offences that may be committed when coercing someone into matrimony. "There is already plenty of criminal law to tackle murder, kidnapping, abduction, rape and all the other evil manifestations associated with forcing people into marriage against their will," said Lord Lester, who introduced the Forced Marriage Bill which led to the 2008 Act. He stated that the family law approach was better than the criminal process which, he said, "has not proved to be an effective way of tackling a major social problem". Shadow equalities minister Kate Green said she supported "appropriate criminal sanctions to stop more forced marriages and protect victims". "The Home Office needs to ensure the framework adopted is effective rather than counter-productive," she added. "Ministers need to demonstrate they are working with victims' groups and experts on the detail to make sure victims have the confidence to come forward and are not put off. "Also, the legal framework won't make a difference without proper support, prevention, education and enforcement."[/quote] [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18356117]Source[/url] Heh, this is actually a good law.

The problem is that with the law, victims may be less willing to come forward, though without a law, they may have no feeling that they should

Good. These practices are unacceptable in a modern society.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36249828]Good. These practices are unacceptable in a modern society.[/QUOTE] Why? Because it doesn't meet your definition of social norms? I personally agree, but I have to say that in a modern society where this is completely normal and even expected, then it would be acceptable in that modern society. Think you meant to say western society, or even that it is unacceptable in the UK in modern times.

That would suck though. Getting your parents arrested.

When does arranged become forced though? The parents could pressure their children to keep their mouth shut.

Forced marriage is kind of barbaric and oppressive; let them make their own decisions about who to get married to, or even better let them choose to not marry at all and live free from eternal bondage. It is one of many things that must be purged from the human spirit if we are to be a respectable species out there in the cosmos. Forced marriage, that is; marriage on its own isn't exactly a terrible thing, even if it technically means that two people focus their love on one-another, leaving little to share amongst their friends and family, and whilst i'm under the impression that love should be a thing shared among many, that's just, like, my opinion, man.

[QUOTE=Irkalla;36249854]Why? Because it doesn't meet your definition of social norms? I personally agree, but I have to say that in a modern society where this is completely normal and even expected, then it would be acceptable in that modern society. Think you meant to say western society, or even that it is unacceptable in the UK in modern times.[/QUOTE] No because it is borderline slavery. I'm not talking about arranged marriages. This law is against forced marriages, where the one who is being married has no say in the matter.

[QUOTE=The golden;36250124]I'm really starting to hate this kind of argument, especially when the topic in question is pretty much slavery. "Guys, you're not allowed to dislike it because [U]CULTURE[/U]."[/QUOTE] "Well, in [I]East Europe[/I] it's okay to marry a 14 year old, you're just against it because you're culture biased!"

[QUOTE=Irkalla;36249854]Why? Because it doesn't meet your definition of social norms? I personally agree, but I have to say that in a modern society where this is completely normal and even expected, then it would be acceptable in that modern society. Think you meant to say western society, or even that it is unacceptable in the UK in modern times.[/QUOTE] I find it morally unacceptable because of the lack of consent, nothing to do with society.

Law won't help much, widespread social change is what is needed I'm pretty sure it is already illegal under other statutes, why make a new one?

[QUOTE=The golden;36250124]I'm really starting to hate this kind of argument, especially when the topic in question is pretty much slavery. "Guys, you're not allowed to dislike it because [U]CULTURE[/U]."[/QUOTE] That line of argument is perfectly valid. Of course you are allowed to dislike the practise but you cannot claim that it universally 'wrong'. Your views on morality may differ from mine so why should I be allowed to impose my views upon you? Why should you be allowed to impose your views on me? Morality is often cultural so you have to accept other values even if you find them backward and repugnant. To not do so is claiming your thoughts/ideas/values are superior to someone else's. So when he says 'you mean it is not acceptable in a liberal, western society' he is correct. To claim it is wrong in all modern societies is philosophically dubious. All humans are rational right? So you must respect the ideas and values that they come up with.

[QUOTE=Mythman;36253427]That line of argument is perfectly valid. Of course you are allowed to dislike the practise but you cannot claim that it universally 'wrong'. [B]Your views on morality may differ from mine[/B] so why should I be allowed to impose my views upon you? Why should you be allowed to impose your views on me? Morality is often cultural so you have to accept other values even if you find them backward and repugnant. To not do so is claiming your thoughts/ideas/values are superior to someone else's. So when he says 'you mean it is not acceptable in a liberal, western society' he is correct. To claim it is wrong in all modern societies is philosophically dubious. All humans are rational right? So you must respect the ideas and values that they come up with.[/QUOTE] You just explained exactly why we are allowed to claim that this is morally unacceptable.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36253657]You just explained exactly why we are allowed to claim that this is morally unacceptable.[/QUOTE] Yes. But you cannot claim it is universally wrong, only that it is wrong in your opinion.

[QUOTE=Mythman;36253427]That line of argument is perfectly valid. Of course you are allowed to dislike the practise but you cannot claim that it universally 'wrong'. Your views on morality may differ from mine so why should I be allowed to impose my views upon you? Why should you be allowed to impose your views on me? Morality is often cultural so you have to accept other values even if you find them backward and repugnant. To not do so is claiming your thoughts/ideas/values are superior to someone else's. So when he says 'you mean it is not acceptable in a liberal, western society' he is correct. To claim it is wrong in all modern societies is philosophically dubious. All humans are rational right? So you must respect the ideas and values that they come up with.[/QUOTE] No, morality is objective. It can be measured by how your actions affect others. And really saying "But it's their culture!" is such a weak argument. Slavery is slavery regardless of whether put under the guise of a marriage. And women have been killed or had their faces melted by acid for refusing to be forced into arranged marriages.

[QUOTE=Melkor;36253766]No, morality is objective. It can be measured by how your actions affect others.[/QUOTE] Morality is subjective because the conclusions that can be drawn from how your actions affect others vary. I kill a mass-murdering paedophile. That is right (he deserved it) or it is wrong (I still killed somebody). My actions still killed the man but depending on your morality my actions were either just or unjust. [editline]9th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Melkor;36253766]No, morality is objective. It can be measured by how your actions affect others. And really saying "But it's their culture!" is such a weak argument. Slavery is slavery regardless of whether put under the guise of a marriage. And women have been killed or had their faces melted by acid for refusing to be forced into arranged marriages.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Mythman;36253829]Morality is subjective because the conclusions that can be drawn from how your actions affect others vary. I kill a mass-murdering paedophile. That is right (he deserved it) or it is wrong (I still killed somebody). My actions still killed the man but depending on your morality my actions were either just or unjust. [editline]9th June 2012[/editline][/QUOTE] If you killed him when you could have detained him and turned him into the police, or otherwise prevented him from harming anyone else. Then you're just a vengeance killer and a vigilante. Which would make you in the wrong. Morality isn't about harming people because you think they deserve it. It's about making the world a better place to live in.

[QUOTE=The golden;36250124]I'm really starting to hate this kind of argument, especially when the topic in question is pretty much slavery. "Guys, you're not allowed to dislike it because [U]CULTURE[/U]."[/QUOTE] culture has nothing to do with forced marriage.

[QUOTE=Mythman;36253829]Morality is subjective because the conclusions that can be drawn from how your actions affect others vary. I kill a mass-murdering paedophile. That is right (he deserved it) or it is wrong (I still killed somebody). My actions still killed the man but depending on your morality my actions were either just or unjust. [editline]9th June 2012[/editline][/QUOTE] If morality is subjective, it implies that Hitler was just as morally correct as Mother Theresa. I could kill you right now and you have absolutely no right to criticize me for it. In other words you're [b]FUCKING WRONG[/b]

[QUOTE=Melkor;36253866]If you killed him when you could have detained him and turned him into the police, or otherwise prevented him from harming anyone else. Then you're just a vengeance killer and a vigilante. Which would make you in the wrong. Morality isn't about harming people because you think they deserve it. It's about making the world a better place to live in.[/QUOTE] You aren't getting the point of my argument. There are people out there that would say I was right to kill him (hence why the death penalty exists). NB - this is just an example an is not reflective of my views. I don't support forced marriage - I am happy that this law has been passed in this country since it fits the prevailing morality of this country. I cannot say that forced marriage is unilaterally wrong because I have no right to tell other people what is right or wrong nor do I have the right to change their traditions or beliefs. [QUOTE=geel9;36253967]If morality is subjective, it implies that Hitler was just as morally correct as Mother Theresa. I could kill you right now and you have absolutely no right to criticize me for it. In other words you're [b]FUCKING WRONG[/b][/QUOTE] No, it implies that in some peoples eyes Hitler may be seen as just (ie in Hitlers own eyes). If you thought you were justified in killing me and you did then in your eyes it would be just. Now if you break the law then you will be held accountable

[QUOTE=Mythman;36253974]You aren't getting the point of my argument. There are people out there that would say I was right to kill him (hence why the death penalty exists). NB - this is just an example an is not reflective of my views. I don't support forced marriage - I am happy that this law has been passed in this country since it fits the prevailing morality of this country. I cannot say that forced marriage is unilaterally wrong because I have no right to tell other people what is right or wrong nor do I have the right to change their traditions or beliefs.[/QUOTE] If an action causes someone to have a shit time/worse life that they had no choice over (ie punishing people for crimes doesn't count in this statement) then you can say it is universally wrong.

[QUOTE=geel9;36253967]If morality is subjective, it implies that Hitler was just as morally correct as Mother Theresa.[/QUOTE] if morality is objective, then how and under what authority do you determine your morals?

[QUOTE=Mythman;36253974]You aren't getting the point of my argument. There are people out there that would say I was right to kill him (hence why the death penalty exists). NB - this is just an example an is not reflective of my views. I don't support forced marriage - I am happy that this law has been passed in this country since it fits the prevailing morality of this country. I cannot say that forced marriage is unilaterally wrong because I have no right to tell other people what is right or wrong nor do I have the right to change their traditions or beliefs.[/QUOTE] I do get the point of your argument. It's just horribly horribly flawed. People can be objectively wrong. Just because someone has the ability to form an opinion doesn't mean that their point of view should be given the same credence as everyone else's. You don't give a holocaust denier the same credibility as a learned historian.

[QUOTE=geel9;36253967]If morality is subjective, it implies that Hitler was just as morally correct as Mother Theresa. I could kill you right now and you have absolutely no right to criticize me for it. In other words you're [B]FUCKING WRONG[/B][/QUOTE] It does not imply Hitler is the same as Mother Theresa, it merely acknowledges that people consider different things moral and immoral. A Neo-Nazi may see Hitler as being a morally upright man. People might also see you killing others as morally acceptable, to them they are clearly weak and deserving of death. You and I would see such things as morally unacceptable, why are we simply right and the others wrong? You can't dismiss an entire, well-established arguement with "You're fucking wrong", even if you [B]bold[/B] it. You show me an entirely unambiguous definition of morality that applies in all situation to everyone and I'll show you a tautology. [QUOTE=Melkor;36254047]I do get the point of your argument. It's just horribly horribly flawed. People can be objectively wrong. Just because someone has the ability to form an opinion doesn't mean that their point of view should be given the same credence as everyone else's. You don't give a holocaust denier the same credibility as a learned historian.[/QUOTE] What is objectively wrong? Morality is a vague concept and can be taken to mean many things, one person's definition can't simply be 'right' and another's 'wrong'. A holocaust denier doesn't comment on morality, they deny historical fact. It's not comparable in the least.

[QUOTE=Stormcharger;36254027]If an action causes someone to have a shit time/worse life that they had no choice over (ie punishing people for crimes doesn't count in this statement) then you can say it is universally wrong.[/QUOTE] What if according to both your morals and both parties that are getting married it is the true key to a better life? What if the girl actually believed forced marriages was a good thing? Surely it would be just because the consent is there? [QUOTE=Melkor;36254047]I do get the point of your argument. It's just horribly horribly flawed. People can be objectively wrong. Just because someone has the ability to form a point of view doesn't mean that their point of view should be given the same credence as another.[/QUOTE] It isn't flawed, it makes sense if you think about it. We both have the ability to form a sense of morality so both are views are equally valid. To argue one is better than the other is to be a moral supremacist.

[QUOTE=Mythman;36254118]What if according to both your morals and both parties that are getting married it is the true key to a better life? What if the girl actually believed forced marriages was a good thing? Surely it would be just then because the consent is there?.[/QUOTE] If there's consent then obviously it wouldn't be a forced marriage. [QUOTE=Mythman;36254118]It isn't flawed, it makes sense if you think about it. We both have the ability to form a sense of morality so both are views are equally valid. To argue one is better than the other is to be a moral supremacist.[/QUOTE] Lol moral supremacist. I'm sorry that I feel my morals are superior to that of a Neo Nazi. I'm such an elitist.

[QUOTE=Melkor;36254139]If there's consent then obviously it wouldn't be a forced marriage. Lol moral supremacist. Sorry that I feel my morals are superior to that of a Neo Nazi.[/QUOTE] If the parents chose the groom and the girl submits then it is still forced. Well, you obviously believe your morals are superior to everyone else's. That's not very tolerant is it?

[QUOTE=Mythman;36254145]If the parents chose the groom and the girl willingly submits then it is still forced. Well, you obviously believe your morals are superior to everyone else's. That's not very tolerant is it?[/QUOTE] By doing what, arguing? Sorry if I hurt your delicate feelings. Meanwhile, in the real world women are being tortured and killed because they wouldn't submit to an arranged marriage.

[QUOTE=Melkor;36254139]If there's consent then obviously it wouldn't be a forced marriage. Lol moral supremacist. Sorry that I feel my morals are superior to that of a Neo Nazi. I'm such an elitist.[/QUOTE] "Why should a woman need to give consent, they are clearly inferior to men?" In 1930's Germany, your sense of morality would be considered just as unacceptable as Neo-Nazi's is today. Would you still hold those views if you were brought up under different circumstances? To think you are fundamentally morally superior to someone else is bordering on Neo-Nazi beliefs so perhaps you would like to rethink your viewpoint.

[QUOTE=The golden;36254162]He's not tolerant for thinking his morals are superior to someone who thinks their morals are superior and people who do not follow them should be brutally punished? Head. Ass. Remove.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Melkor;36254169]By doing what, arguing? Sorry if I hurt your delicate feelings. Meanwhile, in the real world women are being tortured and killed because they wouldn't submit to an arranged marriage.[/QUOTE] Instead of attacking me, why don't you prove that your view of right and wrong are the right ones?