UK MP opposes calls to ban first-cousin marriage in the UK saying it can 'help build family bonds' - Guess

1733855436278.png

An MP has spoken against calls to ban first-cousin marriage in the UK, and suggested “advanced genetic test screening” is made available to prospective couples.

Independent Iqbal Mohamed said rather than “stigmatising” cousin marriages, a “much more positive approach” should be adopted to respond to health concerns linked to the children of those relationships.

He suggested measures could include the UK adopting similar screening efforts to those undertaken in Arab countries in the Persian Gulf.

The MP for Dewsbury and Batley also used his Commons speech to insist “freedom of women must be protected at all times”, but said he did not believe a ban on first-cousin marriages would be “effective or enforceable”.

Mr Mohamed was responding to Conservative former minister Richard Holden, who was allowed by MPs to introduce his Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill for further consideration.

Existing legislation states the prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage include those to a sibling, parent or child, but not marriages between first cousins.

Mr Mohamed told the Commons: “There are documented health risks with first-cousin marriage and I agree this is an issue that needs greater awareness on.”

Mr Mohamed spoke of the need to prevent so-called “virginity testing” and forced marriages, and also to protect freedom of women.

He told MPs: “However, the way to redress this is not to empower the state to ban adults from marrying each other, not least because I don’t think it would be effective or enforceable.

“Instead the matter needs to be approached as a health awareness issue, a cultural issue where women are being forced against their will to undergo marriage.

“In doing so it is important to recognise for many people that this is a highly sensitive issue and in discussing it we should try to step into the shoes of those who perhaps are not from the same culture as ours, to better understand why the practice continues to be so widespread.”

Mr Mohamed said an estimated 35% to 50% of all sub-Saharan African populations either “prefer or accept” cousin marriages, and it is “extremely common” in the Middle East and south Asia.

He added: “The reason the practice is so common is that ordinary people see family inter-marriage overall as something that is very positive, something that helps build family bonds and helps put families on a more secure financial foothold.

“However, as is well documented, it is not without health risks for the children of those relationships, some of whom will be born out of wedlock.

“Instead of stigmatising those in cousin marriages or those inclined to be, a much more positive approach would be to facilitate advanced genetic test screening for prospective married couples, as is the case in all Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, and more generally to run health education programmes targeting those communities where the practice is most common.

“I would therefore urge the House to vote against this motion and find a more positive approach to addressing the issues that are caused by first-cousin marriages, including the health risks and the consequences of modern conflicts and displacement of population around the world.”

The motion to introduce the Bill to the House was approved without the need for a formal vote.

Mr Holden asked for his Bill to be considered at second reading on January 17 next year, although it faces a battle to become law due to a lack of parliamentary time.

Moving the motion, Mr Holden said: “Members across the House may wonder why first-cousin marriage is not already illegal, in fact many in this House and in the country may already believe that it is – and that is understandable.”

He said a ban on first-cousin marriage was in place until 1540, explaining: “King Henry VIII broke with Rome and legalised marriage between first cousins so that he could marry Catherine Howard, his fifth wife and a cousin of his second wife Anna Boleyn.”

1733855251367.png


Mr Holden highlighted variations in cousin marriage in countries around the world, adding: “Certain diaspora communities have extremely high rates of first-cousin marriage, with Irish Travellers being 20% to 40% and higher rates still among the British Pakistani community.”

Mr Holden said “health, freedom and national values” are the reasons why he moved the Bill.

Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick, who backs the proposal, earlier told justice questions: “Cousin marriage has absolutely no place in Britain. The medical evidence is overwhelming, it significantly increases the risk of birth defects, and the moral case is clear. We see hundreds of exploitative marriages which ruin lives. Frankly, it should have been stamped out a long time ago.

“Will the Justice Secretary commit to ending this medieval practice which is rearing its head once again in modern Britain?”

Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood replied: “You will know that there has been a recent Law Commission report on marriage law more generally and the Government is going to consult on broader reform to marriage law, we will certainly consider the issues he has raised before setting out a public position.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...arriage-commons-batley-dewsbury-b1199171.html (Archive)

 
You know, shit like this is why we ditched that silly "monarchy" thing the Brits seem entirely too fond of.
Tell me about it. I may be full of corn syrup as a American, but at least Cousin Fucking is illegal
Henry VIII. It's possible to trace many of the problems in this country to acts committed during his reign.
Bro that was over 500 years ago. You guys should have fixed the cousin fucking loophole by now lmao.
 
Tell me about it. I may be full of corn syrup as a American, but at least Cousin Fucking is illegal
For eugenic, rather than moral reasons as well. You can marry your first cousin in parts of the USA if they are over 55 (or 65, can't recall which) because they likely can't have kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lil Yappy
Bro that was over 500 years ago. You guys should have fixed the cousin fucking loophole by now lmao.
It wasn't a problem while it was confined to a few aristos. Everyone else just knew not to do it, so why waste time trying to convince them to remake the law? It's like bestiality; you only need a law against it when there's people doing it on the regular.
 
It wasn't a problem while it was confined to a few aristos. Everyone else just knew not to do it, so why waste time trying to convince them to remake the law? It's like bestiality; you only need a law against it when there's people doing it on the regular.
I mean I consider it good policy to ban cousin fucking. It's not that hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prokhor Zakharov
It depends on the state. Mostly no.
View attachment 6742125
Everything in red is cousin marriage ban, and the darker the red the harsher it gets
There's also this thing in civilized countries where obviously awful and dumb ideas don't even get legally banned, see also bestiality laws in some precincts. Some laws like cousin marriage bans only exist because there's enough terrible people in your country to make it necessary.

Pakis, the world's most recent reminder that fucking your sister is a bad idea, because most people just sort of figure it out on their own.
 
There's also this thing in civilized countries where obviously awful and dumb ideas don't even get legally banned, see also bestiality laws in some precincts. Some laws like cousin marriage bans only exist because there's enough terrible people in your country to make it necessary.

Pakis, the world's most recent reminder that fucking your sister is a bad idea, because most people just sort of figure it out on their own.
I mean yes. At the same time cousin marriage is still a thing with or without pakis. It's a good idea to have laws on it. Good laws anyway. Not laws made by a king that wanted to fuck his first cousin.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: teriyakiburns
Why is Britain so entranced by Muslims? Why have they let so many of them in? It’s such a backward culture.

They’re more inbred than England’s homegrown aristocracy and they thought it was a good idea to let them hold jobs like MP and Mayor of London. Why?

England was this teeny tiny country on a teeny tiny island that conquered approximately half the world. One of the most successful societies ever. And THIS is what they let in? WHY?
 
Brits have been marrying their first cousins for centuries already, to keep the wealth from spreading too thin. Why should it be banned, now?
Difference is it was uncommon and not systematic with the average European (Royalty excluded) so it didn't cause any genetic issues. With Pakistanis it's different as they've been systematically marrying their cousins for generations that it is causing issues to the point that Joseph Fritzl's children are likely more healthy and less inbred than them.
Ireland what the fuck, am I just reading this wrong?
Irish Travellers (AKA Irish Gypsies) not the ordinary Irish people.
 
A cousin marriage ban is pointless, if you don't also make cousin fucking a crime with a jail term. Just put it under preexisting incest laws, also lift the maximum sentence, joke right now the maximum incest can get you is 2 years, should be a lot higher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prokhor Zakharov
you know how we say mother fucker? in hindi its sister fucker.

also I remember some indian of the muslim type telling me how another part of india hates the pakis because they are mixed and just bred with who or what ever.

honestly the tribal nature of indians is too confusing for me to grasp
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Lil Yappy
Fun fact: hemophilia, specifically the otherwise rare hemophilia b variant, is so overrepresented among European royalty due to their inbreeding that it was once known as "the royal disease".
I’m going to be an arsehole as I was in the other thread and AKSHUALLY here. The haemophilia B in the royal family isn’t really down to inbreeding. It’s an x linked recessive, and it probably arose de novo in either Victoria or a parent. So it’s more akin to a founder effect than actual inbreeding. The males are affected but the women are (mainly) silent carriers. You can get symptomatic carriers but it’s the not the norm.
The better ‘mein gott! Ze inbreeding!’ Case is the Hapsburg, who were all inbred to the equivalent inbreeding coefficient of parent/child offspring. One of their princesses had a coefficient of over 0.3, * although ironically was ok. The rest were pretty badly affected by a lot of stuff and it wrecked their dynastic plans
* Maria Antonia of Austria, should anyone wish to look her up.
 
Back