Last week the Home Office decided that there should be no specific offence of rape. This has meant that the definition of such criminal act has no specific ground, eventually driving such attacks and offences underground and further isolating the ‘victims’. What this article asks us is to review the role of Asian women in British society whilst coming from a traditional-minded family or upbringing. Can Western values of individual liberty, freedom and civil rights in a multicultural society be compatible with traditional practices, such as, arranged or forced marriages? Or is outlawing traditional or tribal practices (that are against the human rights act) become an act of intolerance towards that particular culture; creating a sense of superiority of all Western forms over so-called ‘primitive, ‘backward’ and ‘oppressive’ societies. 

There seems to be a vague distinction between ‘forced marriages’ and ‘arranged marriages’, as well as unfair confinement to specifically Asian (Indian and Pakistani) communities, as well as Muslims. Islam does not allow forced marriages or anything against ones will and such pagan practices are all cultural not religious. No one can be forced to do anything they wish not to do; there is no compulsion in religion. The Quran teaches us about social justice and equality. 

The Home Office’s concern lies in the dilemma between the governments commitment towards Human Rights which has shown precedence over their weak-headed devotion of multiculturalism. Baroness Scotland argues that by providing specification to what forced marriages are, or what ‘rape’ actually constitutes you are giving a voice and meaning to something that currently does not hold form. The problem of also targeting ethic minorities in this specification in such a law also stands. The Home Office says that they are ‘frightened’ that in provoking ‘mad Imams’ they would only fuel greater hostility and rage between them and the Muslim community. Again, forced marriage and rape is not Islamic teaching, but rather the mentality of narrow-minded, traditional communities and individuals that hold out-dated and manipulative practices. It only becomes the issue of an ‘Imam’ if you place it under one umbrella and present it as though it is common amongst the Muslim world due to Islamic or Shariah teaching which is not the case! 

The Home Office reported that 300 British women annually are forced into arranged marriages against there will, but out of these how many women are left in the dark and are unable to speak out about this? The government has created a situation where Asian women are deemed to have lesser human rights then the rest of us. The failure to support British women’s rights will only allow such victimisation to continue; low status quo, ‘honour killing’, ‘forced marriages’, are we just to respect these differences and leave vulnerable people responsible? Or are the fundamental principles of human rights universal? In that women of all nationalities and races ought to be treated equally, with respect and dignity and have the basic right to speak out against any injustices and mistreatments.

 This is not a battle or matter of concern for ‘feminists’ alone, but for all Muslims, non-Muslims, Asians and non-Asians to condemn such repulsive, inhumane and un-Islamic acts to give way to generations that respect the role and position of women, treat them with value, but most importantly view them as equals!

---