|
I always wanted to have daughters. Being of a Jewish family, but completely
non-religious myself (in fact - going in the other direction) it was no big
deal to marry a non-Jew. However, had I had sons I would have had to
horrendous battles with my traditionally religious mother - from refusing
to have my child circumcised or at age thirteen, Bar Mitzvahed.
Luckily for me I had two daughters - thus avoiding serious conflict
with my mother. If they had been boys - and I had gone
my own sweet way (as I most certainly would have) - it wouldn't have
been the end of our relationship and I certainly would not have faced family
disgrace or been killed for bringing dishonour. I would simply have been
an embarrassment and my mother would always have had to fend off
comments from friends and neighbours – at least at that point in time.
Of course - since then - times have moved on again and fewer and fewer
people hold those views as strongly now as they did thirty years ago.
However, amongst some members of some communities - Jewish,
Christian, Muslim and others - there is still a strong determination to
keep to the very strict mores of their original traditions, motivated in
large part I suspect because people fear assimilation or dilution of their beliefs
amongst a multicultural society.
Hanging together in the face of adversity - and often in the face of having
a community flung into different parts scattered around the world - is an
admirable trait. But it can lead to some customs, traditions and religious
practices that cross a line of what can be accepted in a civilised society
- and so where the state does have (in my view) a duty to intervene and
prohibit.
The dilemma for those making the state's policies is where to draw the
boundaries as to what is considered appropriate and civilised behaviour in
a permissive and tolerant society that respects cultures, practices and
traditions of other religions and races.
Forced marriages - and the so-called honour killings that sometimes follow
those who fight against that tradition - have now been put on the political
agenda. Not, as promised, by the Government - but by my Liberal Democrat
colleague Lord Lester, who introduced a Private Members' Bill in the Lords
just recently.
It was an innovative move, in that rather than looking at this from a
criminal perspective, the Bill enables civil action. This is probably a
good thing - as the intent of this legislation is not to criminalise or
demonise British Asians but to move to inhibit what cannot be tolerated and
- of course - it affects many religions, in fact, not just Asian communities.
By bringing this into the civil courts, it puts the whole issue in the
realm of 'victim centred human rights approach' and adds to the protections
under the existing laws. The Bill received its second reading and hopefully
will continue on through to law in due course - demonstrating that
a tactful yet effective path can be followed between respecting traditions
whilst not neglecting the basic standards that make up our society.
(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007
Getting these columns in future
Or, you can subscribe to my columns feed:
|
The dilemma for those making the state's policies is where to draw the boundaries as to what is considered appropriate and civilised behaviour in a permissive and tolerant society that respects cultures, practices and traditions of other religions and races.
