(Above in reference to the angry misogynists blanketing article comments of late.)

I oppose forced marriage, spousal abuse, and child rape, but explicitly legislating against these practices not only complicates our legal system, but sends the wrong message to all parties involved. When we make special laws singling out these cases, we're manufacturing exceptions and giving the impression that the victims weren't victims of "real" crimes. Spousal abuse, for instance, is already illegal under laws regulating assault and battery. Because this is a gendered crime, as is forced marriage, laws targeting these acts will not be gender blind as the law must be. If our intent is to make certain that spousal abuse cases are treated as legitimate, then improve the laws for handling assault and battery (such as the mandatory arrest laws, evidence handling laws, and so forth). We can see how dangerous it is to make such special cases into law when we look at laws regulating child sex and treating child rape. Rape and sexual assault, defined generally as nonconsensual sexual contact, are already illegal, while a minor is legally incapable of giving consent, therefore any sexual contact with a minor is criminal. Why, then, are we so concerned when a minor isn't actually involved, such as when adults roleplay in a chatroom, or someone draws a picture of an adult and child having sex? Unless a minor was involved, they've done nothing criminal, except that we've "built a fence around the law" by adding all kinds of special cases. Now we have people prosecuted for presumed intentions, before they've committed a crime. Intent to commit a crime and actually commiting one are two very separate entities.

Specific to the case of coerced marriage: threats are illegal, kidnapping is illegal, assault and battery are illegal, perjury is illegal, and compelling someone to sign a legal document is illegal. If the faux marriage proceeds to the point of consummation, rape and sexual assault are also illegal. I submit that forced marriage is already outlawed.

Forced marriage occurs more often than one would think. From the linked 2002 Salon article in the post, 169 countries have signed the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women which bans forced marriage and includes provisions mandating equal access to education, healthcare and property rights for women.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2002/06/22/women/index.html

Article 16b of CEDAW specifically condemns forced marriage:

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm#article16

16b The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent;

If white women or Asian men had this astronomical rate of suicide (three times white women) due to cultural pressures as I've posted, the law would have been passed. The problem is that women of color don't matter in this world.

I'm not very familiar on this subject, but can't they make forced marriage a ground for annulment? It wouldn't end forced marriages, but seems like a kind of legal recourse than say.. suicide.

Marianne: It's curious that you mentioned the headscarve issue in France. At first, I thought the ban was totally silly and smacked of racism. However I later read an article in the New Yorker (about two years ago maybe) which shows the issue isn't really black and white. The article suggests that a lot of really young girls were pressured to wear the scarves by their parents, siblings and some are just too young to understand the meaning of it. In a way. the head scarf wasn't just merely a religious symbol but also a politcal one, which is likely just an extension of the alienation of the Muslim population in general (like the chaos in France last year).

Still the French government's heavy-handed approach isn't the way to deal with such a sensitive issue, likewise a criminal prosecution of forced marriage can set off some ugly responses. I just think that financial and social assistance to women who wants to get out of these marriages would be more effective.

Can we have a few specific examples of such a broadly sweeping statement? I hear the same thing from the usual suspects here in the states, but when pressed, it really comes down to the same few cases...

Jeffery,

"The Blair govt's decision is a sop to the Asian immigrant population. Having invaded iraq and violated the civil liberties of countless Muslim immigrants in the UK, and even killed that Brazilian man on the subway under the impression he was a Muslim terrorist, they make peace by selling out Asian girls."

The racial profiling of Muslims in the US has been a gross violation of civil liberties and the same is happening in London.