- cross-posted to:
- atheism@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- atheism@lemmy.world
A mother has become the first person to be jailed under Australia’s forced marriage laws, for ordering her daughter to wed a man who would later murder the 21-year-old.
Sakina Muhammad Jan, who is in her late 40s, was found guilty of coercing Ruqia Haidari to marry 26-year-old Mohammad Ali Halimi in 2019, in exchange for a small payment.
Six weeks after the nuptials, Halimi killed his new bride - a crime for which he is now serving a life sentence.
On Monday, Jan - who pleaded not guilty - was sentenced to at least a year in jail, for what a judge called the “intolerable pressure” she had placed on her daughter.
Ah yes, enforcing norms like ‘human rights’ and ‘consent’ on other cultures. So chauvinist! /s
Look, I understand your point. That’s exactly why I would like to know is this is supported by actual research or if it’s just an “ick, brown people do things differently.” Let’s face it, BBC has an abysmal history of jingoism, and Australia has a powerful Right Wing. Who sponsored this legislation?
“Brown people”? There are plenty of brown people around the world who don’t practice arranged marriage. Also, it was very common in Europe prior to the Enlightenment (I may be off on the exact timing).
It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with human rights, as the other person said.
Removed by mod
see edit above
As a practice, it is far more common in south and Central Asia and Africa, and is more culturally significant in those places. However, I was wrong to equate arranged marriage and forced marriage. Australian law makes that distinction, and research supports it.
Fuck your research.
Does each person willingly consent to being in the relationship? Yes or no. That’s the only fucking thing we need to know.
Does consent mean something different depending on skin color? The fuck?
Go far enough left or right and y’all MFs care way too much about skin color…
Okaaaaay, you clearly did not look at what I posted.
You seem to be rebutting the idea of legal protections with ‘but their culture’.
Pretty close? Is it proper to assume violence is cultural?
deleted by creator