Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
We must respect the cultures of others:
then stopped and turned to his mate and laughingly said 'maybe not!' when I got closer.
I'm not sure whether I should be happy that my appearance is so radically untory it would be LUDICROUS to try and convert me or sad that I will never be accepted as a true blue.
that shit like that is prohibited by islam. and some cultures are quite happy to machete a person to death because they're infected with black magic or something. so yeah, agree that it should be a criminal offence, culture or not
(he's wrong obviously but whatevs, he's the one dying alone)
given your recent form
thanks a lot
White Brits who fall pregnant young, and their family pressure them into marrying the father to save the family name? This was commonplace until recently and still would go on with religious or well-to-do families. "Force" is hard to define, threatening or even suggesting they would be cut off any inheritence, even just being disappointed could make someone young and impressionable rather just get married than go through the hassle of opposing it.
Its obviously aimed more at Muslim communities than the wider public but I can't imagine the Police are gonna investigate anything without a victim coming forward which in my understanding of these cultures won't happen very often due to the supposed dishonour you bring on your family when you do.
I'd be surprised if this change in the law actually brings about many convictions or does much to stop the practise of forced marriages but its definitely a step in the right direction.
makes it look like I'm talking about the band who I doubt are gonna be involved in this
The second question is a wider debate about whether coercion equals force in general.
But I can't see why anybody could see this law as a bad thing.
is that young people may be more afraid to ask for help if there's a danger their parents could go to prison. But I don't think it's that convincing. There are other things connected to forced marriage which are already criminal offences: kidnap, physical abuse etc.
can i just point out that you are not pointing out that the right is sensible whilst the left is silly.
Thomas Sankara also banned forced marriages in Burkino Faso
he was an extreme leftie
is actually the liberal conundrum of 'do you tolerate intolerance'
Its unanswerable within those constraints.
We meet Mr Uppity with his top hat and monocle - a clear and overt representation of the bourgeois industrialist. Other arriviste trappings such as his long limousine and imposing townhouse further give the game away.
In a thinly-veiled reference to the oppression of the workers by the ruling class, we are told that Mr Uppity is rude to everyone, and the detail that he has no friends in Bigtown explicitly informs us that the masses are on the brink of revolution. Are we about to bear witness to class war, Hargreaves-style? To see Mr Uppity brought to account by the revolutionary power of the proletariat? Vanquished and overthrown by the party of the workers?
Not so. Mr Uppity is no Marxian analysis, no Leninist prescription for class action. As always, Hargreaves' inherent and essential conservatism comes to bear. His critique of the bourgeoisie comes not from the proletariat but from the feudal aristocracy. It is the authority of a king that places limits upon Mr Uppity's excesses, as his usurpation and arbitrary exercise of power has violated 'the natural order of things'. Hence the protection the masses are dealt in response to this transgression is paternal, and they receive it as subjects not radical agents of change.
Being so staunch a traditionalist, Hargreaves of necessity is a reformer not a revolutionary. The King does not have Mr Uppity executed, imprisoned or even sent into exile. There is no state seizure and collectivization of his wealth, or in fact any redistribution at all. (Despite his pomp and grandeur, the King no longer has such powers - both the outward self-importance and ultimate weakness of his intervention appear little more than a face-saving exercise for his waning hereditary rule.)
Rather, in the end it is the mildest of all regulation that is imposed upon the capitalist class. The ownership of the means of production remains the same, with no fundamental change to the economic base - just some superstructural tinkering to rein-in any overly brutal treading on the small man. The ruling class can do pretty much as it did before, as long as it says 'please' and 'thank you'. The aristocracy is duly appeased.
Hence we arrive at the Britain Hargreaves lived in - a gently regulated capitalism coupled with sham aristocracy, maintained by our own collective nostalgia and a national lack of appetite for mass action.
you are guilty of not sharing your inheritance up equally
i meant to say how do you define 'forced' what about emotional co-ersion rather than physical force.
can people be found guilty of 'tutting dissapprovingly', 'not mentioning people in conversation' and 'cutting them out of their will' ?
...where Forced Marriage ends and where Arranged Marriage begins?
As horrible as a lot of forced marriage is, this isn't a policy I'd see it worth my while pursuing. Bit unenforcable/chaotic if you ask me for, ultimately, little positive benefit.
and good tactical move.
And the one they've been arranged to marry is secretly evil and played by Billy Zane kind of thing
what other domestic arrangements would fall under this?
then the only question is who paid them to do it.