this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024

243 points (98.8% liked)

World News

38188 readers

1978 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

243

Mum jailed for forcing daughter into fatal marriage in Australia (www.bbc.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 month ago

Nice ruling. A shame a young lady had to die for it to happen.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

An Afghan Hazara refugee who fled persecution from the Taliban and migrated to regional Victoria with her five children in 2013, Jan's lawyers have said she suffers enduring "grief" over the death of her daughter but continues to maintain her innocence.

Escaped a fundamentalist, authoritarian regime only then to implement her own personal authoritarian, fundamentalist beliefs.

Not to excuse the mother, but I wonder if trauma played a role. She was traumatised by a toxic situation and perhaps to gain a sense of control, she repeated it to others. There is a book called "The Body Keeps a Score". The author is a psychologist, inspired from when he was a child when his father, a Holocaust survivor, told him to not question him and just obey. To which the author replied that he sounded like the Nazis who imprisoned him. Again, I'm not trying to excuse, but I'm curious if the Afghan mother has had something similar experience and acting on trauma.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Could also be culture and the people around her enforcing the behavior.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

The article states that played a part.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

That's a pretty fucked up thing to say because your dad won't let you stay out after 11

[+] [email protected] -50 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

Intimate partner abuse is a terrible tragedy.

I don't understand this law though. Don't billions of people practice arranged marriage? Isn't this just enforcing western culture norms on communities arbitrarily?

Personally, I'd like to know if there is a higher rate of spousal abuse in arranged marriages when controlling for other factors. Has this been studied in Australia?

Edit:

ANSWER: It is not arbitrary. It is addressing a real problem of abuse and trafficking. Studies have been done in partnership with the communities potentially impacted.

Here is one research report from the Australian Institute of Criminology: "The cases of forced marriage examined for this study revealed consistent themes.... Marital life was strict, severe and traumatic. Domestic violence, in all its forms, was commonplace—physical, sexual and emotional abuse (actual and threatened), imposed social isolation and financial manipulation—and perpetrated not just by the husband but also by the husband’s male and female relatives."

However, it is hardly cut-and-dry. Here is another study from FECCA, which represents the interests of ethnic minority communities: "Ultimately, the current data suggests that the prevalence of forced marriage is either low or unknown in Australia.... Criminalisation may drive the practice further underground, and there is no data to suggest that criminalisation has reduced the number of instances or referrals of forced marriage."

[–] [email protected] 75 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah yes, enforcing norms like 'human rights' and 'consent' on other cultures. So chauvinist! /s

[+] [email protected] -38 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 month ago (3 children)

"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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Mostly among nobility, given that it was quite similar in different places (e.g. Rome (cum manu) vs. the Germanic tribes (Muntehe)) it's probably something that got imported by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. It never was the sole form of marriage, and much less common to unheard of among people with less political power to inherit.

That form getting outlawed was past enlightenment (16th and 17th century), at least in Germany the right of a woman to annul a forced marriage was considered as established in the 18th century... before that it was probably hit and miss, depending on suzerain, etc. Love marriage becoming the ideal was only in the 19th. That's not to say that people didn't marry for love earlier, but that was the point where economical considerations were put second place at best. Also couples of course have eloped since time immemorial. Also nobles. Say, Mary Tudor.

And then we have to factor inheritance practices into it -- again, in Germany (a, by and large, stem family culture) single heirs were the norm (until that was outlawed you can give a single kid at most 50% of everything nowadays), with the property transfer generally being done while the parents were still alive: Transfer of the estate to a freshly married couple (one of them your kid) in exchange for support in old age, archives are full of transfer contracts like that. If you wanted to marry someone your parents couldn't stand it was very possible to hear "then your younger sibling is going to inherit". The non-inheriting kids would set off elsewhere, get a stipend to learn a trade, become clergy, or be employed by the inheriting sibling.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago

see edit above

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago

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.

"while forced marriage is not a product of any ethnic, racial or religious affiliation, certain cultural approaches and sensitivities should be employed when identifying forced marriage.... Academic literature critiques the tendency to box forced marriage as a problem within new-migrant communities" (Source)[https://fecca.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FECCA-Literature-Review-on-Forced-Marriages.pdf]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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...

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Okaaaaay, you clearly did not look at what I posted.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

‘human rights’ and ‘consent’ on other cultures.

is this is supported by actual research or [whether] it’s just an “ick, brown people do things differently.”

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?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago

Yeah, it's like the abolitionists just enforcing their arbitrary "non-slavery culture" on everyone else all over again.

When will people learn?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Why are you obsessed with the color of people’s skin and indifferent to their humanity? Should children be beaten, abused, mutilated, sold off to be married just because their parents are part of some abrahamic cult?

Daily reminder that religion is a monstrous evil.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

Arranged marriages usually come with all kinds of sexist norms the women are expected to follow. It's normalized when it shouldn't be.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Arranged and forced marriages are two very different things. Plenty of places where arranged simply means "your parents send you on a date to get to know someone once in a while".

As to spousal abuse rates: Irrelevant because it's wrong to coerce people in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Arranged marriage is not forced marriage. The arrangement is that you meet the potential suitor via family, and if things don’t work out that’s it. You’re not supposed to force or coerce a marriage, at least that’s how it is in most South Asian or Middle Eastern families who practice this

Edit the horror stories we read about in the news are usually about lower income or uneducated folks, most middle class or upper class families practicing arranged marriages don’t go around forcing things if a match doesn’t happen

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I appreciate your reitetating. That was a mistake I made in my original comment. They are not the same and I should not have conflated them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Western country western laws

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

These are good questions. Not all arranged marriages are forced or abusive. It seems alien to me as an American, but some people value having their family vet potential partners.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

See edits above

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Your edits do add additional context and information, but they miss the broader point

Forced marriages (sometimes called arranged marriages) are a breach of consent regardless of abuse or trafficking being involved. Having your parents set you up with a date you are free to ignore or choose to engage with is one thing, having them pick who you will marry and when without your consent is another. Regardless of culture, you don't get to violate others consent.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's far too late for edits. You said your peace and you should either accept the fallout or delete what you posted.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That's uncalled for. I posted my initial reaction, which was mostly misguided. I invested the time and effort to research and learn about the issue and mostly found answers to my questions.

I edited the post to clarify and avoid potentially misleading anyone who may have been of the same mindset. Simple as that. It would be far more dishonest to delete the post and act like I didn't have questions about the situation. Instead, I did the work to learn a little and share that knowledge with others through a well-sourced response. If you don't appreciate the effort, while investing none of your own, that's your own business.

Also, it's "Say your piece."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

It did cause an interesting discussion. I hadn't even considered the distinction between forced and arranged. All in all, I appreciated the edit.