Cameron's new "crusade" embraces rights of Muslim women

David Cameron's article in this morning's Observer makes reference to Labour's "clunking" approach to issues of community cohesion but if you are going to address issues of Muslim integration into Britain it is best, as George W Bush discovered to his cost, not to talk about fighting a "crusade".

Nonetheless Mr Cameron's desire to champion the Muslim women who "are being denied access to education, work, involvement in the political process and surprisingly even denied access to mosques" will be widely welcomed by those worried about ghetto Muslim communities.

Ahead of a major speech tomorrow on community cohesion Mr Cameron uses his Observer article to say that Britain must become defined by its commitment to 'equality of opportunity':

"Questions of social cohesion are also questions of social justice and social inclusion. Cohesion is as much about rich and poor, included and left behind as it is about English and Scot or Muslim and Christian. Inspiring as well as demanding loyalty from every citizen will require a new crusade for fairness. A society that consistently denies some of its people the chance to escape poverty, to get on in life, to fulfil their dreams and to feel that their contribution is part of a national effort: such a society will struggle to inspire loyalty, however many citizenship classes it provides.  Fairness will be our most powerful weapon against fragmentation. In America, new immigrants feel part of something from the moment they arrive because they feel they have the opportunity to succeed. It is that belief in equal opportunity that we need in Britain today and it is why the denial of quality education to so many is such a vital part of the cohesion argument."

If, as is reported, John Bird seeks the Tory nomination for London Mayor Mr Cameron will have a powerful champion for his compassionate conservatism.

The Observer also reports that a report from the Tory security policy group will - this week - suggest that forced marriage should be made illegal.  That policy idea - from Louise Bagshawe - was the second approved policy on ConservativeHome's 100policies.com.

Comments

[Tabman]

Hug a Hejab?

[Cranmer]

a new crusade for fairness

A gaffe of the highest order. The very word resonates across the Islamic world in a the same fashion that 'Reich' offends the sensibilities everyone in the UK. This will not be received by Muslims as a quest for cohesion or compassion, but as a patronising or aggressive imposition. Who wrote this speech? Who is advising Mr Cameron on these matters?

And if this is to become Conservative Party policy, why is a Consevative-led county council not supporting the head and governors of Wycombe High School in their exclusion of a Muslim pupil who insisted on wearing the niqab at school? Do they not realise that such dress is more to do with politics and culture than it is about religion and modesty? There is a desperate needs for advisers of a much higher order than those who appear to be presently engaged. There is likely to be only one opportunity for society to get all this right...

[Sally Roberts]

"why is a Consevative-led county council not supporting the head and governors of Wycombe High School in their exclusion of a Muslim pupil who insisted on wearing the niqab at school? Do they not realise that such dress is more to do with politics and culture than it is about religion and modesty?"

I couldn't agree more! Trouble is although we KNOW this is a "political" gesture rather than an expression of piety it is difficult if not impossible to prove...

[Tory T]

John Bird? That would be an incredible coup and I can think of no better representative of compassionate Conservatism than John Bird. He should have got a peerage long ago but has spent his time and effort on the poor instead of New Labour.

I am very much in favour of making forced marriage illegal and it is good to see David Cameron standing up for the rights of our Muslim young women.

[Simon Newman]

"address issues of Muslim integration into Britain it is best, as George W Bush discovered to his cost, not to talk about fighting a "crusade"."

Bush was talking about fighting an actual war, at a time after 9/11 when the White House was looking for Muslim partners (Pakistan, the Northern Alliance et al). I don't think the two cases are comparable at all.

[Umbrella Man]

You are technically right Simon but surely best to avoid using the crusade word in any article or speech that talks about empowering Muslims. There are plenty of other words that a more careful speechwriter could have used.

[Simon Newman]

"I am very much in favour of making forced marriage illegal and it is good to see David Cameron standing up for the rights of our Muslim young women."

I very much agree with this; it's something I have advocated here and it's great to see Cameron doing this. It's vital that we set ourselves against multiculturalism and insist that Muslim women have the same rights as everyone else.

[Simon Newman]

Umbrella Man:
"You are technically right Simon but surely best to avoid using the crusade word in any article or speech that talks about empowering Muslims."

I'm not sure - I think there's a great danger in changing our ordinary use of language in this way. The people most likely to claim offense are also the people most likely to be oppressing women in the first place or to be supportive of the oppressors; it seems to me that it's best to ignore such claims.

[Denis Cooper]

Forced marriage is already illegal. Of course it is: is it likely that we've sat around for centuries allowing people to be forced into marriages without the state taking any interest, and without allowing any legal redress for the victims? This country and its legal system didn't start to come into existence when the first Muslims arrived here: it has a history which pre-dates even the very existence of Islam.

http://www.forcedmarriage.nhs.uk/thelaw.asp

So let's see the law applied, with police investigations unfettered by "cultural sensitivity", and successful prosecutions, not more unnecessary legislation.

[Henry]

Cameron also says, 'It's no use behaving like the proverbial English tourist abroad, shouting ever more loudly at the hapless foreigner who doesn't understand what is being said. We can't bully people into feeling British - we have to inspire them"

Why does he keep battering the English all the time, when trying to attract votes from non-English? Does he think we will continue to tolerate this crass treatment?

[Simon Newman]

Cameron:
"More recently, Britain's Irish community was questioning and being questioned about its loyalty to Britain."

Apart from Ulster Unionists, very few Irish people feel any loyalty to Britain in my experience, even if they've been living in London for thirty years - in many cases, even if they've been born here. So perhaps not the best analogy.

[Simon Newman]

"I am very much in favour of making forced marriage illegal and it is good to see David Cameron standing up for the rights of our Muslim young women."

Hmm, having now read the whole article, I don't see Cameron mentioning forced marriage or Muslim women at all! In fact it all seemed very windy.

[Annabel Herriott]

Oh Thank the Lord! At last we are doing and saying something that will truly benefit young Asian women! As a Health Visitor who saw their sufferings, (and I do not use that word lightly,) at first hand, I have longed for this law. When Douglas Hurd came to our constituency for some bash or other, I tried to get the problem across to him. He was utterly patronising to me, and said" But my dear, what if you had wanted to marry an Australian" Sheesh!!! Theres a bit of difference between getting your average Oz into the country, and some backwoods, illiterate, often violent first cousin, who in any other circumstance, the girl would have crossed to street rather than even speak to. Go check out the level of domestic violence perpretated against these girls
Lets go through it for the uninitiated.
1. Kid your daughter its a family holiday.
2. Remove her passport.
3.Inform her as to her intendeds name etc.
4.Deal with any protests by locking her up
5.The wedding.
6.Marital Rape.
7.Pregnancy, after which she is allowed
to return to UK.The child must be born
in UK, to get the passport.
8.Her Father does a few fiddles to get "son in
law into country.
9. Husband arrives.
10. Once secure, starts beating his wife
etc. as does not need to behave himself.

Now, I know this, Ann Cryer knows this, why dont our CH anoraks accept that they dont know this, and respect DC for the fact that he has been fully informed,and is now taking a stance. Good for him.

[Mark McCartney]

It striks me that every time Cameron opens his mouth to bray loudly about something concerning which he knows nothing (which is just about everything) he makes yet a new group of enemies.

By the time of the next General Election Dave could be facing a "Rainbow Coalition" of Cameron-haters.

[Denis Cooper]

Excerpts from: http://www.forcedmarriage.nhs.uk/thelaw.asp

"Section 12c of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 states that a marriage shall be voidable if "either party to the marriage did not validly consent to it, whether in consequence or duress, mistake, unsoundness of mind or otherwise".

The Working Group has found that duress is invariably a factor of forced marriages. The Court of Appeal has ruled that the test for duress for these purposes is simply "whether the mind of the applicant (the victim) has in fact been overborne, howsoever that was caused".

Although there is no specific criminal offence of 'forcing someone to marry' within England and Wales, the law does provide protection from the crimes that can be committed when forcing someone into a marriage. Perpetrators - usually parents or family members - have been prosecuted for offences including threatening behaviour, assault, kidnap and murder. Sexual intercourse without consent is rape.

The Working Group does not support the creation of a specific offence of forcing a person to marry.

Decisions whether to prosecute for criminal offences in any given case are for the police and the prosecuting authorities, but perpetrators should be aware that in forcing someone into a marriage they are likely to commit serious criminal offences.

The Government's Sex Offences Review is considering offences, such as abduction, that can be related to a forced marriage within its review of sex offences generally. The Working Group has contributed to the Review.

[Simon Newman]

Annabel at 10:57:
"respect DC for the fact that he has been fully informed,and is now taking a stance"

I really hope he is taking a stand, because there's nothing in the Guardian article about this. The CH editor reports "The Observer also reports that a report from the Tory security policy group will - this week - suggest that forced marriage should be made illegal"; but there's no sign that Cameron has himself committed to this yet. The wording in the Guardian article about 'cohesion' is so woolly that it could easily be used to attack the school that won't let a pupil wear niqab on the basis that this was 'unfair'.

[simon]

Well, i read the Observer piece by DC, and have to agree with the reviewer (of the sunday papers) on 'marr-is-awful' that it was a 'wishy-washy' amalgam of waffle with no real inherent meaning. It was a prime piece of meaningless 'symbolism'- ie) 'let's mention Muslims and Britishness'. But he's wide off the mark. Why the constant referral to 'Britishness' where the concept at the very least is greeted with derision in Wales and Scotland- and to a growing degree- England. I must say, i've given DC the 'benefit of the doubt' for a while- but i'm beginning to tire of his 'meaningless symbolism', and lax attitude toward England and Englishness.

[Tory T]

Simon Newman

The Observer says

"His argument will be underlined by a report this week from the party's policy commission on national security calling for new thinking on community cohesion. It will highlight the removal of teenage Asian girls from school and question whether some Muslim parents are supporting their daughters' desire for education, as well as calling for forced marriage to be made a criminal offence. In his speech in Birmingham, Cameron will argue that the oppression of women in some communities is a cultural rather than religious phenomenon. Tories must 'be bold, and not hide behind the screen of cultural sensitivity, to say publicly that no woman should be denied rights which both their religion and their country, Britain, support'.

Sayeeda Warsi, Tory vice-chairman and adviser to Cameron, said she was struck by the way some female Muslims were held back while she was out canvassing at the last election. 'The number of women I came across who said they wanted to go to university but their parents didn't want them to, who wanted to get a job but were not allowed, who were not allowed to vote freely because the men in their family got postal votes... I came away feeling that here was an enormous resource wasted,' she said. 'This way of life is not because of the faith, it is cultural interpretations of it. David feels we can't be culturally sensitive to issues which are fundamentally wrong.'"

I think you will find that the party has given the Observer a preview of what is in the policy review, they do not just make these things up. Also see Sayeeda Warsi's comment on the record about Muslim women and Margot James (Party Vice-Chairman responsible for women's issues) commenting on the Louise Bagshawe policy thread linked to above.

So it looks like you can bank on this change being in the policy review.

PS simon the same thing is in the Telegraph:

"The report by the Conservatives' policy commission on national security will highlight the issue of segregation in Muslim communities and call for forced marriage to be made a criminal offence. It will also criticise the removal of Asian girls from sixth forms and question whether some Muslim parents are supporting their daughters' desire for education. It will warn that in some parts of the community women are being denied access to education, work and involvement in the political process and even denied access to mosques.

Mr Cameron will say in a speech tomorrow in Birmingham that a Tory administration would be "bold and not hide behind the screen of cultural sensitivity to say publicly that no woman should be denied rights which both their religion and their country, Britain, support".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=CWFFLAVXOHDEZQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/28/ncam28.xml

This is standard language when the press is given advance copies of a speech or document.

[Denis Cooper]

Plus there's perjury (maximum sentence 7 years imprisonment) for those who lie on oath about what they know happened, and perverting the course of justice (maximum sentence life imprisonment and/or fine) for those who obstruct police investigations or impede court proceedings. There are plenty of laws: the problem as usual is the lack of political will to apply them to Muslims.

[Simon Newman]

Thanks Tory T - sounds hopeful.

[Sean Fear]

A specific law against forced marriage is a fair idea, but it won't have much effect unless we follow the Danish example, and only allow spouses of British nationals into this country if both parties are aged over 24 at the time of marriage.

That would do much to end the practice of girls being taken out of school and sent off to Mirpur and Sylhet to be married off, and the practice of men bringing in teenage brides from these places.

[Paul Kennedy]

"Hug a Hejab?" 09:34

You better not, as those wearing the hejab/hijab are, as I understand it, signifying their unwillingness to be hugged by anybody other than their husband......and then not in public. ;)

[kingbongo]

"Hug a Hejab"

Paul, tabman, as a LibDem gets things mixed up and should be excused being confused as it is part of LimpDum DNA

[TomTom]

There is likely to be only one opportunity for society to get all this right.

You are correct dear Cranmer, but I very much doubt our political class is astute enough to operate at any level above opportunistic soundbites.

I fear the situation is becoming one that will only be resolved through violence. Events of the past couple of weeks show how fanatical this administration can be in pursuit of some totems and how positively laisser-faire in upholding others.

I think we have crossed The Rubicon and events will unfold over the coming years as a consequence, and historians may identify the points that were not thrown and red signals that were ignored

[I'm Off]

I'm off to join the Lib Dems as even they are more in touch than Dave who seems to be chasing every minority vote in the country one by one.

[Tabman]

Paul Kennedy - I was merely postulating an alternative headline for this story - "Dave" being famous for his "Hug a [insert here]" initiatives - rather than proposing any action on mkine or anyone elses part. Kingbongo was too dim to see the joke.

[Ted]

I'm off at 13.22 - bye!

I was impressed when I read DCs article last night - the essence of integration and assimiliation is by inspiration and adoption of common values through choice in most cases but also through common application of rights & duties. It is when minorities demand opt-outs from these duties and recognition that their own cultural rights should be above the law that conflict begins.

[voreas06]

I think an awful lot of posters have missed the point. This article is not just about integrating the muslim community. It is about fairness. If you want to bring moderate people with you then you have to be even-handed and fair. New labour have spent their time in power legislating for political correctness , they will undoubtedly say that that is to redress the predjudice they believed their supporters were experiencing and to be honest in some circumstances they had a point, but what they have done is gone too far so that they have created their own favouritism. Cameron is right in that if people perceive a society to be truly unfair then that is what breaks up social cohesion, and Labour in many ways have destroyed fairness in our society(social mobility, positive discrimination lack of ethics at the top).

As Cameron says there is no easy answer to this, but I believe that you need to minimise the bias inherent in any society at the very least starting with the state. This is why I favour solutions like customer satisfaction performance related pay that mean people know they are fairly judged on how well the customer is treated rather than if your face fits or how much grovelling you do to the boss.

In a wider context I tend to believe that if an organisation deliberately shows bias, for example the Catholic church on Homosexual adoption, or if a council says that black women are to receive positive discrimination then that just helps to breakup social cohesion. I do not however believe that either organisation should be forced to change its policies, just that they should both be put at a disadvantage by the Government. So in the case of the catholic church stop state funding, and in the case of the council reduce the amount that is centrally funded.

There is of course a limit beyond which mere financial penalties are not enough and anyone who preaches violence should obviously be proscribed, tried etc.

To avoid TomTom's blood on the streets I believe we need a renaissance in fair play, and therefore I think Cameron's article if necessarily vague is a good one.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Sally @ 10.03 - I would imagine that the main reason that the Council has NOT supported the Head and Governors of Wycombe High School, is money because they would undoubtedly be drawn into a court case which exactly what these politically-minded, apparently religious Muslims want, and the majority of council tax payers of that area, would be most unlikely to agree that such a court case would be a reasonable expense. Afterall they - the council surely have (in common with every other council) massive needs to cater for out of their budget, some of which undoubtedly come from ethnic minorities including Muslims.

[Denis Cooper]

Estimated £0.25 - 0.50 million. You can read about here:

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.1150113.0.costs_fear_over_school_veil_row.php

and if you want you can even vote about it on this page:

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/opinion/

"Should girls be allowed to wear full veils in school?"

So far - 93.7% no, 6.3% yes.

[Simon Newman]

Patsy at 13:42:
"and the majority of council tax payers of that area, would be most unlikely to agree that such a court case would be a reasonable expense"

I think if the tax payers were told what the issue was about (school not allowed to ban full-face buka & niqab), the vast majority would support the council defending the case, as supported by Denis Cooper's stats above.

voreas06 at 13:39:
"It is about fairness. If you want to bring moderate people with you then you have to be even-handed and fair."

Being a liberal type I'm inclined to agree with you, but the danger is that with this as the ultimate virtue you end up being 'fair and even-handed' between the good and the bad, unprepared to make any value judgements about which is which. If we want our society to endure we need to be prepared to make value judgements, like "niqabs are bad".

[Mark McCartney]

>>This is standard language when the press is given advance copies of a speech or document.<<

Tory T seems extraordinarily knowledgable about such matters, but that comes as no surprise.

In my opinion we need to work, not towards a multicultural society, which is an absurd nonsense, but effectively towards a monocultural society with opt-outs. Those who choose to opt out will include vast numbers of Muslims, and their attitudes towards such matters as sex equality must be respected.

Attending a vast social/motivational function is central London last year I noted that for the multicoloured yuppies of the Great Wen, a debased form of monoculturalism has become a fact.

Members of every race, colour and possibly even creed were sitting and later dancing together united by booze, greed, screaming rock music, and later that evening probably sex. Every man wore a dinner suit and every woman an apology for a frock somewhere up to her armpits.

Ironically some would describe such an event as a "multicultural" gathering. No doubt it represents the brand of multiculturalism with which the Notting Hill set feel comfortable.

[TomTom]

"and the majority of council tax payers of that area, would be most unlikely to agree that such a court case would be a reasonable expense"

Then the Legal Srvices Commission should fund both sides if it is a Test Case. You cannot have funds from the Courts System used to bankrupt schools and local authorities especially when the Courts are to cut spending by 3.5% a year in real terms to save money

[601]

I think we need to ask our selves is this law (forced marriges) going to make this worse or better, would you really be able to testify against your own parents?

[601]

by the way a liberal democrat recently raised this issue in the house of lords

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pabills/200607/forced_marriage_civil_protection.htm

[Graeme Archer]

No-one seems to have picked up on the language in the piece, which I read with pleasure. The paper's on the other side of the room and I'm too lazy to go and get it, but before the stream of sensible suggestions he lays into the failed "multicultural" approach to identity politics which most of us find wanting. It's good stuff and will discomfit the left.

[Annabel Herriott]

In reply to 601, at 15.35, It extremely difficult for these girls to testify against their parents. Some have paid with their lives because they have not found the strength to do so. But as any police force in an area with this problem will testify, they give help, support, and even sanctury for these girls wanting to escape.
I have sat with them, while they poured their hearts out. What a bind they are caught in. They are banished from the family "for ever" if they try to seek help.
It would be useful if we just backed DC in his desire to help them, instead of nitpicking, then ooops when another nasty family murder hits the media.
You have to accept that many "ex pats" are more extremist than their counterparts "back home".

[John Irvine]

All this kind of thing convinces me that Enoch Powell was totally right all along when he warned about the dangers of immigration. Personally I've never doubted it for a moment.

Margaret Thatcher agreed with Powell. She said so. So why is this clown Cameron so totally out of step with the way most Tories think?

[Cranmer]

Margaret Thatcher agreed with Powell (on immigration). She said so.

Could you please source this assertion?

[Denis Cooper]

That Bill introduced by Lord Lester is here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldbills/003/2007003.pdf

Section 1 runs:

"1 Prohibition against forcing another into marriage
(1) A person must not act in a way which he knows amounts to —
(a) forcing or attempting to force another person to enter into a marriage
or a purported marriage without that other person’s free and full consent, or
(b) practising a deception for the purpose of causing another person to
enter into a marriage or a purported marriage without that other
person’s free and full consent."

Section 10 clarifies that:

"“force” and “forcing” include any physical or psychological coercion;"

What would this add to the existing law? Marriage is a form of contract, and I think that if it can be shown in a court that a contract has been made under physical or psychological coercion then not only would the contract be declared invalid, but the person(s) who applied the coercion would have committed a criminal offence by doing so, and be liable for civil damages as well. Similarly with the deception angle. I stand to be corrected on that.

But either way it's pointless if a case can't be proved because the victim and other witnesses won't testify, even if the police can be persuaded to investigate.

I think Sean Fear's preventative measure is much better, @ 11:57:

"A specific law against forced marriage is a fair idea, but it won't have much effect unless we follow the Danish example, and only allow spouses of British nationals into this country if both parties are aged over 24 at the time of marriage.

That would do much to end the practice of girls being taken out of school and sent off to Mirpur and Sylhet to be married off, and the practice of men bringing in teenage brides from these places."

[Ted]

Cranmer
Not an agreement with Powell but in Feb 78 "In a television interview, Mrs. Thatcher called for a "clear end to immigration," on the ground that "people are really rather afraid that this country might be swamped by people of a different culture. And, you know, the British character has done so much for democracy, for law, and done so much throughout the world, that if there is any fear that it might be swamped, people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in."
Dog whistles didn't start with Howard....
The policy being examined was:
1) virtually a total clampdown on admission of fiancés, 2) a register to be compiled of all remaining direct dependents of immigrants already in Britain, with a strict quota system for entry of those dependents, 3) citizenship granted "only in the most exceptional circumstances" for those who entered the country after 1973, and 4) repeal of the amnesty granted illegal immigrants in 1973. The latter point, some Conservatives indicate, does not mean uprooting those already settled, but it would deny them the right to bring in wives or children.

That was of course in winter/spring 1978 when view was Britain was on course for economic turnaround (winter 1978/9 rather changed that) See Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948011-1,00.html

[Cranmer]

So, in opposition, where one may pontificate on whatever one wishes in order to appease and befriend the masses, the Good Lady called for 'a clear end to immigration', but in power for over a decade she did nothing to implement such a policy.

This does not, with respect, indicate an agreement with Enoch Powell at all. One at least gets the impression that he would have put his policies where his mouth was.

[Ted]

Cranmer
Agreed - it was electioneering pure & simple. It always surprises me when people hold The Blessed Margaret up as the Prophet of True Conservatism - I liked her because her while she had ideals, her politics were tempered by pragmatism, she was a very practical politician willing to tack and tack again to her destination.

She (like Reagan) was also not the social conservative painted, she supported for example the legalisation of homosexuality and abortion at a time this wasn't the norm expected from a Home Counties MP.

[John Irvine]

Well whatever. Cameron isn't even saying that today.

Maggie undermined the Nationalist Front by promising action against immigration. With Cameron's wet ideas about the issue no wonder the BNP are taking votes away from us.

[TomTom]

the Good Lady called for 'a clear end to immigration', but in power for over a decade she did nothing to implement such a policy.

Douglas Hurd must have worked his magic on her - he now advises Cameron as one Witney MP to another

[kingbongo]

Kingbongo was too dim to see the joke.

no tabman, you are too dim to realise that you are confused.

As it is the Labour party that has 'hug a...' initiatives placed by their spin machine in the press and not Cameron your intended pun doesn't work at any level. As I said, your confusion is a symptom of being a LimpDum. Your accusation of dimness on my part is something I shall wear as a badge of pride.

[Dorian G]

While I applaud David's general thrust in trying to make the Party more inclusive and in encouraging more integration by Muslim communities, I'm at a loss to understand why we continue to allow the video broadcasts of Aymen Al Zawahiri to be broadcast on our TV screens. This man spouts vile racist filth and the Government does nothing to sensor his highly damaging comments that only encourage racial segregation and fear of the UK's Islamic population. I really think David neeeds to address this issue. And if we can't stop these broadcasts can we not edit them to make them lest damaging? For example I saw this on what is unfortunately a rather lefty website, http://www.gweirdo.com/blog but by mocking Zawahiri perhaps we can lessen his impact.

[matt wright]

The funniest thing on this thread was the bloke who said he was going to the Lib Dems!

[TomTom]

in encouraging more integration by Muslim communities,

Integrate into what ? The same oblivion as Christian Churches integrated into ?

Frankly Muslim communities would be stupid to integrate into the black hole at the centre of "British" culture

[Yet Another Anon]

Forced Marriages are illegal because the acts that go towards what is forcing someone ie kidnapping, rape, murder or threats of murder or assault or threats of assault, holding someone against their will or threating someone they know are all already illegal and these laws need to be enforced.

Many other things that many are seeking to define as being something that could constitute forced marriage such as emotional blackmail such as people saying that the family will be disgraced and/or theats of suicide are things that go in various families over various things and not just marriage, lots of families that are not from minority ethnic groups have various machievellian manipulation of family members going on - are all these people also going to be prosecuted, surely the Conservativism stands for supporting the family and avoiding intervening in family matters, not attempting to micro manage families.