Outrage as French judge annuls Muslim marriage over bride's virginity lie

[BurbankHibee]

President Sarkozy's party called today for a change in French law after a judge annulled the marriage of a young Muslim couple because the bride was not the virgin that she claimed to be.

The decision by a court in Lille has triggered outrage from the Government, media, feminists and rights organisations since it surfaced in a legal journal on Thursday. Patrick Devedjian, leader of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement, said that it was unacceptable that the law could be used for religious reasons to repudiate a bride. It must be modified “to put an end to this extremely disturbing situation”, he said.

The Times

An interesting bit in the article is the following;

Elisabeth Badinter, a philosopher and pioneer of women's legal rights, said that she felt shame for the French justice system. “The sexuality of women in France is a private and free matter," she said. “The annulment will just serve to send young Muslim girls running to hospitals to have their hymens restored."

Although officially discouraged, the 30-minute surgical operation is in increasing demand from Muslim women who fear the consequences of being unable to prove their virginity on their wedding nights. Numerous agencies offer services for surgery trips to north African nations. One is offering a “hymenoplasty trip" to Tunis for €1,250 (£980). Internet sites and blogs are full of would-be brides in fear of the test of “the blood-soaked sheet”.

How quaint.

[egb_hibs]

the law in other parts of europe has already conceded this territory. in sweden if you are lars burbanksson and wish to marry helga bouncersson, she must be 18 yo (or whatever it is). but if you're ibrahim al'burbank and wish to import your child bride from your country of origin, itsa no problem, no AoC applies for you my frien'.

polygamy meanwhile, is virtually openly allowed across europe in terms of welfare systems accomodating it.

(apparently they speak like scarface in stockholm, i'm not sure how that happened. )

[Burbank Lilywhite]

I just don't understand how this behaviour is considered okay on any level. If you pulled the exact same stunt based on a individual's skin colour you'd get taken from pillar to post by the very same group who are telling us to try and understand the 'culture'.

Fcuk that nonsense. Wrong is wrong no matter how you say it, or how you attempt to spin it. It is gender apartheid plain and simple.

Where are all the people who were telling us to boycot South Africa and Rhodesia on this issue? Is the same fcuking thing as far as I can tell. If this is what has become of west, we won't have to worry about extremists defeating us on a battlefield in some far off third world shithole. We'll sign the paperwork ourselves out of fear of offending someone.

The only thing preventing it from happening now are the very people the edunistas love to disparage at every available opportunity. The "dumb gun loving religous nutjobs" who refuse to recognise the authority of a federal goverment or UN. When the time comes they will lead the resistance if we haven't had them all locked up or exterminated out of fear of offending the same bastards who would have us killed or enslaved.

[Archie]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

the law in other parts of europe has already conceded this territory. in sweden if you are lars burbanksson and wish to marry helga bouncersson, she must be 18 yo (or whatever it is). but if you're ibrahim al'burbank and wish to import your child bride from your country of origin, itsa no problem, no AoC applies for you my frien'.

polygamy meanwhile, is virtually openly allowed across europe in terms of welfare systems accomodating it.

(apparently they speak like scarface in stockholm, i'm not sure how that happened. )

Dreary as I know you find it to deal in facts, care to post any evidence for this - a google search has yielded nothing beyond this Islam in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which states that calls for special laws for muslims were condemned by all political parties.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Archie

Dreary as I know you find it to deal in facts, care to post any evidence for this - a google search has yielded nothing beyond this Islam in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which states that calls for special laws for muslims were condemned by all political parties.

while europe slept by bruce bawer, page 57.

the book also discusses the contrast with denmark, where an age of 24 is set for an immigrant spouse, and argues that many people, including native danes who marry foreign people move to sweden as a result (p182). it discusses problems similar to sweden in germany.

this IHT article refers to all these points except it attributes the 24 yo limit to sweden as well as denmark. i don't know if this is a mistake or whether the swedes adopted danish type laws since the book was written.

Necla Kelek, 49, best-selling author - International Herald Tribune

this article meanwhile reiterates the point about denmark versus sweden described above (though hear the danish age is given as 28!):

Immigrants Are Coming!, The | Scandinavian Review | Find Articles at BNET.com

this page also reiterates it but we're back to 24:

The Danish Page

edit - ...but wait a minute, this US govt report suggests that the swedes have indeed changed their laws to emulate sweden, since the book was written:

http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/...mony060405.pdf

right then archie, i'm sorry if i've been out of date on this one, though the substance of the point maintains - there were seperate laws. presumably sweden has now followed denmark's lead - in the book the danes purposeful response to the cracks appearing in the scandanavian systems is contrasted to sweden inaction and thus accelerating problems. presumably the swedes have now roused themselves (for more details see aforementioned book). the seperate laws thing meanwhile seems to continue to maintain elsewhere - unless native germans can get married at 14?

apologies for lack of currency notwithstanding, i'm getting a bit bloody weary of this pish about facts archie, when our usual routine involves you popping up like this, me providing you the details you ask for, and then you just disappearing. it feels increasingly like tedious trolling on your part dude. especially when your own googling efforts don't seem to be particularly exhaustive. i'm not here to google on your behalf, and i'm not going to footnote everything with a squillion links. so either engage with points or don't.

on that note; now you've been provided with evidence that this was indeed formerly the case in sweden, apparently remains so in germany, and - as per the other part of my original statement - polygamy is tacitly acknowledged and catered for by welfare systems...

Do you have anything to contribute? do you have anything to say? do you have a point to make? maybe even to the OP if not to mine?

or were you just, indeed, trolling?

[BurbankHibee]

I'm not even sure what the outrage is about. At first glance, it seems rather silly but then again, say he married the woman and she assured him she had two legs but on the wedding night, one of the legs was prosthetic, would he not be entitled to feel he had been gypped ? Or the other way round, he tells her he has a 10" penis and on the wedding night it turns out he only has a 4" penis, would the bride not be entitled to some recourse ?

[Archie]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

while europe slept by bruce bawer, page 57.

ps - i'm getting a bit bloody weary of this pish about facts archie, when our usual routine involves you popping up like this, me providing you the details you ask for, and then you just disappearing. it feels increasingly like trolling on your part dude. or maybe you just don't like the facts trumping your preferences?

So you are quoting a polemical book whereas the Swedish penal code has no mention of it. Actually, what gets me about it is the smeary innuendo that you run with this stuff.Do you understand what evidence and facts actually are? Very revealing that you see dealing in facts as 'pish'.

You said that child sex laws don't apply to muslims in Sweden. That's a very bold claim and one that realy needs to be shown to stand up - don't you think? And here's the thing - if you demonstrate that Swedish law allows this then it would rightly be condemned and the proponents of the legislation should be hounded out of office. If it isn't true, then you are speading the very stuff that stokes up the BNP. And once the lie is out there it will never go away. But that can't be right - in EGB world it is only ever liberals and the left that stoke up racial hatred. So that's why facts are important and relying on one book by a polemicist can't be enough.

So...

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Archie

So you are quoting a polemical book whereas the Swedish penal code has no mention of it. Actually, what gets me about it is the smeary innuendo that you run with this stuff.Do you understand what evidence and facts actually are? Very revealing that you see dealing in facts as 'pish'.

You said that child sex laws don't apply to muslims in Sweden. That's a very bold claim and one that realy needs to be shown to stand up - don't you think? And here's the thing - if you demonstrate that Swedish law allows this then it would rightly be condemned and the proponents of the legislation should be hounded out of office. If it isn't true, then you are speading the very stuff that stokes up the BNP. And once the lie is out there it will never go away. But that can't be right - in EGB world it is only ever liberals and the left that stoke up racial hatred. So that's why facts are important and relying on one book by a polemicist can't be enough.

So...

yawn.

so here he have it; the contentless archie reply.

are you saying the book is making it up - despite the evidence in all these links? what evidence do you have for that? that in itself is a fairly serious accusation. could any book explore these issues without you labelling it in this way? or do we have a circular situation with no way out?

why are you ignoring the IHT reference to it still going on in germany? why are you ignoring the point about polygamy?

bottom line archie, the substance of the point i made; that we have two track laws in europe, has been backed up with plenty evidence.

but instead of then responding to the point as challenged, you ignore all that stuff and throw up chaff and hyperbole - sheesh, talk about smears and innuendo.

yes; i understand what facts and evidence are - they're the things:

- i provide and you don't
- that you ignore when provided
- that you use as a trolling and avoidance mechanism; we're not in a bloody university library here, and the merits of google notwithstanding, we don't have all info at the world at our finger tips - how the feck am i going to be able to analyse the full swedish penal code in a chat with a message board troll? (incidentally can you quote the relevant sections to back up your statement - oh and given the context i'd also like a revision history for the last 5 years or so)

you've been provided with ample links for our purpose. and your endless requests for every conversation to be peppered with citations becomes insufferably tedious when it's all one way and you don't respond when you get them anyway.

so, come on archie - engage with the point or quit trolling. oh and it's the latter of course, that i described as pish - troll.

do you have a point to make?

ps - what are you dribbling on about that i suggest only the left stoke racial hatred? another substanceless statement. what is closer to the mark is that i point out that they do stoke it, which is necessary as the left often don't recognise it in themselves as they do in others. moreover, i feel it's worth point out to y'all that you are the BNP's best recruiting sergeants, which is the opinion of some of it's own members.

[Archie]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

while europe slept by bruce bawer, page 57.

the book also discusses the contrast with denmark, where an age of 24 is set for an immigrant spouse, and argues that many people, including native danes who marry foreign people move to sweden as a result (p182). it discusses problems similar to sweden in germany.

this IHT article refers to all these points except it attributes the 24 yo limit to sweden as well as denmark. i don't know if this is a mistake or whether the swedes adopted danish type laws since the book was written.

Necla Kelek, 49, best-selling author - International Herald Tribune

this article meanwhile reiterates the point about denmark versus sweden described above (though hear the danish age is given as 28!):

Immigrants Are Coming!, The | Scandinavian Review | Find Articles at BNET.com

this page also reiterates it but we're back to 24:

The Danish Page

edit - ...but wait a minute, this US govt report suggests that the swedes have indeed changed their laws to emulate sweden, since the book was written:

http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/...mony060405.pdf

right then archie, i'm sorry if i've been out of date on this one, though the substance of the point maintains - there were seperate laws. presumably sweden has now followed denmark's lead - in the book the danes purposeful response to the cracks appearing in the scandanavian systems is contrasted to sweden inaction and thus accelerating problems. presumably the swedes have now roused themselves (for more details see aforementioned book). the seperate laws thing meanwhile seems to continue to maintain elsewhere - unless native germans can get married at 14?

apologies for lack of currency notwithstanding, i'm getting a bit bloody weary of this pish about facts archie, when our usual routine involves you popping up like this, me providing you the details you ask for, and then you just disappearing. it feels increasingly like tedious trolling on your part dude. especially when your own googling efforts don't seem to be particularly exhaustive. i'm not here to google on your behalf, and i'm not going to footnote everything with a squillion links. so either engage with points or don't.

on that note; now you've been provided with evidence that this was indeed formerly the case in sweden, apparently remains so in germany, and - as per the other part of my original statement - polygamy is tacitly acknowledged and catered for by welfare systems...

Do you have anything to contribute? do you have anything to say? do you have a point to make? maybe even to the OP if not to mine?

or were you just, indeed, trolling?

Talk about moving the goalposts - you said child sex was legal for muslims in Sweden - all of the links you provided (some of which were very interesting) talk about limiting immagration of spouses by age up to 28! So cut to the chase - can you provde a credible source that says child sex is legal for muslims in Sweden - which is what you said. So can you engage with the point? I have no knowledge of how poligamy is tolerated in Europe -so can't comment.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Archie

Talk about moving the goalposts - you said child sex was legal for muslims in Sweden - all of the links you provided (some of which were very interesting) talk about limiting immagration of spouses by age up to 28! So cut to the chase - can you provde a credible source that says child sex is legal for muslims in Sweden - which is what you said. So can you engage with the point? I have no knowledge of how poligamy is tolerated in Europe -so can't comment.

where was i talking about 'child sex' - incidentally quite inflammatory of you to label normal marriage practices across swathes of the lsamic world in that way, is it not? reminds me of bnp rhetoric that.

i was talking about the age of consent to marriage. i've provide context and links which compare the danish and swedish situations as they were recounted in the book i mentioned, and which now appear to have come in line. i've also posted a link to an article which infers what you would call child sex in germany.

as i say archie, the thrust of my point has been backed up. even if the book was wrong about sweden, which i have no reason to believe, it seems that the problem exists in germany. what say you to that?

incidentally on polygamy - here's a quick link, you'll be able to find plenty more yourself - Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits - Telegraph

what do you think?

[buckie]

I want to like muslims i really do, so why do i find it so hard.

[Archie]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

where was i talking about 'child sex' - incidentally quite inflammatory of you to label normal marriage practices across swathes of the lsamic world in that way, is it not? reminds me of bnp rhetoric that.

You said:

but if you're ibrahim al'burbank and wish to import your child bride from your country of origin, itsa no problem, no AoC applies for you my frien'.Now I read that as saying - if you want to import a child bride and you are a muslim then Sweden allows that. What is that if it is not child sex?

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

i was talking about the age of consent to marriage. i've provide context and links which compare the danish and swedish situations as they were recounted in the book i mentioned, and which now appear to have come in line. i've also posted a link to an article which infers what you would call child sex in germany.

Well that is maybe clearer, but your use of language was very sloppy indeed.

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

as i say archie, the thrust of my point has been backed up. even if the book was wrong about sweden, which i have no reason to believe, it seems that the problem exists in germany. what say you to that?

So the key source was wrong and the issue appears to have been addressed.

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

incidentally on polygamy - here's a quick link, you'll be able to find plenty more yourself - Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits - Telegraph

I think poligamists are off their head - but there you go. Incidentally, the article makes clear that multiple wives cannot enter the country by way of marriage - an important qualification. I think it's very odd. But it might save money as the other families might be able to claim more as single parent families - which I know you don't agree with!

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Archie

You said:

but if you're ibrahim al'burbank and wish to import your child bride from your country of origin, itsa no problem, no AoC applies for you my frien'.Now I read that as saying - if you want to import a child bride and you are a muslim then Sweden allows that. What is that if it is not child sex?

well i was talking about age you can get married at, but it comes to the same thing i suppose.

Well that is maybe clearer, but your use of language was very sloppy indeed.

well it wasn't originally written with you pedantry in mind. i'll try and remember your lurking out there.

btw - you're once more using your using that pedantry to avoid the point, aren't you?

So the key source was wrong and the issue appears to have been addressed.

what a muddled man you are. there is no suggestion that the source was wrong, and even your inference that the issue has been 'addressed' seems contradictory your assertion it was wrong what.

what seems to me is; it was right - and sweden has now emulated denmark as the author was urging it too at his time in writing. the series of links i provided make quite clear that sweden has only recently come in line, which corroborates the books account, although they dont go into detail about prior age limits.

plus, i've provided a link about germany that you have refused to confront, which i repeat, along with everything else i've provided, upholds the substance of the point - what is going on in europe and the laws response.

you have hidden from this repeatedly with your pedantry, and you have also refused to engage with the point made up your own language. have some more moral fibre arch - are you or are you not accusing societies which permit lower than european AoC's of cultivating 'child sex'? come on arch, what are you saying?

moreover, i notice you've not furnished any evidence whatsoever; you quote the swedish penal code but haven't provided the evidence i requested. do you know what facts and evidence are Arch

I think poligamists are off their head - but there you go. Incidentally, the article makes clear that multiple wives cannot enter the country by way of marriage - an important qualification. I think it's very odd.

so are you saying that our welfare systems should or should not support it?

But it might save money as the other families might be able to claim more as single parent families - which I know you don't agree with!

i don't agree with what? i don't agree with the state incentivising breakup. i'm not sure thats what you have in mind though.

doubt it will save money either; one man is highly unlikely to be able to support multiple families hence benefit will be required. A one man / one wife arrangement is much more viable from a financial independence pov.

[Archie]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

well i was talking about age you can get married at, but it comes to the same thing i suppose.

well it wasn't originally written with you pedantry in mind. i'll try and remember your lurking out there.

btw - you're once more using your using that pedantry to avoid the point, aren't you?what a muddled man you are. there is no suggestion that the source was wrong, and even your inference that the issue has been 'addressed' seems contradictory your assertion it was wrong what.

what seems to me is; it was right - and sweden has now emulated denmark as the author was urging it too at his time in writing. the series of links i provided make quite clear that sweden has only recently come in line, which corroborates the books account, although they dont go into detail about prior age limits.

plus, i've provided a link about germany that you have refused to confront, which i repeat, along with everything else i've provided, upholds the substance of the point - what is going on in europe and the laws response.

you have hidden from this repeatedly with your pedantry, and you have also refused to engage with the point made up your own language. have some more moral fibre arch - are you or are you not accusing societies which permit lower than european AoC's of cultivating 'child sex'? come on arch, what are you saying?

moreover, i notice you've not furnished any evidence whatsoever; you quote the swedish penal code but haven't provided the evidence i requested. do you know what facts and evidence are Arch

so are you saying that our welfare systems should or should not support it? i don't agree with what? i don't agree with the state incentivising breakup. i'm not sure thats what you have in mind though.

doubt it will save money either; one man is highly unlikely to be able to support multiple families hence benefit will be required. A one man / one wife arrangement is much more viable from a financial independence pov.

Bloody hell - this is a Clintonesque level of defence. You pose something as a fact when it isn't - you eventually acknowledge that it's just possible that someone could interpret child marriage as suggesting child sex - and then come out with a scattergun of general obfuscation. You should be a politician - are you sure you are not? And the thing is - you know fine well your doing it. It's like Norman Tebbit - make an outrageous statement and then shift the ground, muddy the water and then complain of unfairness. I mean - dismissing the exposure of the 'error' central to your argument as pedantry and then claiming that I didn't give evidence! It's effective and you are impressively good at it - but this time you are banged up to rights! But hey - I take my hat off to your chutzpah.

[GforGallo]

ingoring the squabbling on the thread, does anyone else think the whole "blood stained bedsheet challenge" is fuckin horiffic?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Archie

Bloody hell - this is a Clintonesque level of defence. You pose something as a fact when it isn't - you eventually acknowledge that it's just possible that someone could interpret child marriage as suggesting child sex - and then come out with a scattergun of general obfuscation. You should be a politician - are you sure you are not? And the thing is - you know fine well your doing it. It's like Norman Tebbit - make an outrageous statement and then shift the ground, muddy the water and then complain of unfairness. I mean - dismissing the exposure of the 'error' central to your argument as pedantry and then claiming that I didn't give evidence! It's effective and you are impressively good at it - but this time you are banged up to rights! But hey - I take my hat off to your chutzpah.

archie, your a troll with bugger all too say mate. this and your claptrap on the bbc discussion where you've been panelled with evidence and are away making stuff up about the daily mail have settled it for me.

here's a quick bullet point summary and we're done:

1. my point was about the legal climate in europe and the way it's performing in the way of these cultural issues

2. you've bottled it from addressing that point in any shape or form, hiding behind the specifics of a point you claim has been proved not to be a fact. this is far from the case; i've provided a lot of corroborative evidence, which supports the point without being 100% conclusive in wording. you meanwhile have provided feck all; you've simply dismissed the original source, ignored the other sources that i've provided, and are yet claiming for a 'fact' that it's wrong. how bizarre.

3. you retreat from anything that would force you to tackle a politically difficult subject; you refuse to back up your child sex judgement, you refuse to make a statement on whether welfare states should support polygamy or not, you refuse to address german evidence for the scenario you are disputing has been proved in sweden.

4. there's no dodging by me on marriage versus sex. i clarified what i think is obvious from the first post that i was referring to marriage but agreed with you it's as good as synonymous. but i then challenged you to clarify the implications of your own choice of language - which you declined to do, quelle surprise.

5. banged up to rights? i have no idea how your mind works. i've provided you with a source that makes the claim, and others accessible online that are supportive if not definitive. you meanwhile have decided this is all untrue on apparently no greater strength that you don't want it to be. moreover, proof of the type of scenarios the specific point you dispute have been provided for other countries and utterly ignored.



in summary; the general point has been proved and the specific illustration of the point has not had any evidence provided to suggest it's inaccurate, while evidence has been provided in support of it.

and you call this 'bang to rights' - what planet to you inhabit archie? feck me, even if you could disprove the swedish point, the general one stands - to say nothing of failure to support extant laws, which we could get into, but would be something your pedantry would give you great scope for evasion in, although would ultimately signify nothing but your propensity for hiding.

talk about clintoneqsue. i've endeavoured to face everything you've put to me, on the other hand you've squirmed away from everything. i do all the running, you're wasting my time. you're either trolling or you really are what you appear to be; enslaved to pc and afraid to engage with difficult subjects, finding solace in pedantry rather than dealing with difficult subjects.

if a successfully integrated europe is ever achieved, it will not be thanks to attitudes like that dude, which in fact have contributed to the social problems we do have.

good night and good luck, i hope your piety keeps you warm, and your door remains fast against the real world outside.

[egb_hibs]

oooh archie dear, i've managed to find a link from a few years ago:

Minimum age for marriage

207. A person under the age of 18 may not marry without special permission. If the right of entering into matrimony is to be examined in accordance with foreign law, then, under the Act on Certain International Legal Relations Concerning Marriage and Guardianship, the rule is that permission from the county administrative board is required for a person aged under 15. Proposals put forward in 1987 provide for this rule to be amended in such a way that Swedish law will always apply to the examination of impediments to marriage. If so, permission will be required for all persons under the age of 18. This proposal is currently being studied at the Ministry of Justice.


Sweden - [At What Age?...are school-children employed, married and taken to court]

i guess this will not be evidence either. not for you anyway.

i any third parties have been mad enough to follow this through, i think they'd have to say the balance of evidence is pretty definitive now; that is my case is made in the general and in the specific, while all you've done is throw insults and claim something was not so, without any basis whatsoever.

over to you.