It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Should Countries like Britain take in Unaccompanied but Already Married 'Children'?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:30 AM
a reply to: anxiouswens

Once again, this all leads back to a government level desire to see persons in this nation divided against one another, instead of being united together. Divided, we can be manipulated with ease, wedge apart, corralled, cornered and fed crap until we learn to love it. Together however, we can demand that our government make proper legislation, enforce the law as it stands, and modify the existing laws so that loopholes close, and more justice can be secured with less chance for failure.

This would make being in government a very much less desirable position than it is today, because at the moment, criminality at the top is vast and quiet. And you are right, money is changing hands, but I believe that the money is paying for a huge psyop. If the Muslims of good standing and moral character (according to our standards here in Britain) can be made to mistrust non-believers, and if everyone else can be made to mistrust the Muslims, and the Christians, and the people from the Far East, and the folk from Eastern Europe, and the Africans, the Indians, Pakistanis, Iraqi and Iranian immigrants, then what you have is a nation which is so divided, that it can be forced to make appalling leadership choices, by way of not being in a position to unite to demand or effect positive change.

The system is old, and it works, and I am SICK of the fact that we are still capable of being lead around by the nose like this!

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:40 AM
In the U.S. a person must be eighteen years old to enter into a legal contract. (Well they can and do, but it's not enforceable).

Marriage is a legal contract, which is why it takes a legal procedure to undo it.. Since a child is unable to legally enter into a contract, any child marriage should be null and void upon entry to the host country.

Who Lacks the Capacity to Contract? |

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:40 AM
a reply to: TrueBrit

I know you are against child brides and didn't say you were not in fact I acknowledged your values, so I didn't misread you whatsoever.

But if I understand what you are saying no one with any honour - least of all Cameron will deal with these violations of our laws. Which is the crux of this thread - about how much our laws will be flaunted and will we be expected to follow the law whilst others get the 'get out of jail free card due to their cultural differences?'

Cameron's tax dodging buddies have been done to death yet he's still there corrupt and lying through his teeth - great example of our elites.

Your view about fostering is another reason why these children will still be at risk simply because social services try to place children within their own cultural background and that means again, these vulnerable youngsters being placed right back into a position that social services will be frightened to challenge and we will all be paying for all the perks of foster caring but whether they are in a safe environment is quite another matter.

As Anxiouswens pointed out this is not something new or something Cameron doesn't know about but its certainly something the public will be shocked by.

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:58 AM
a reply to: Shiloh7

The social services do indeed like to place kids with foster families who have cultural similarity with the child in question. However, simply placing them with a Muslim family should not place that child in harms way, unless the foster parents in question, are the sort of morons who would consider such a thing for a child. Being Muslim does not automatically mean that one is going to be happy to put a child in that position, and being a foster parent ought to mean that they certainly are not, regardless of their faith.

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:27 PM

originally posted by: Shiloh7
Are we happy to allow this and how far will the laws we as Brits have to follow be compromised so that e.g. men can marry underage and also unwilling girls? Can a marriage contract between a girl of 8, 10 12 years of age and some older man abroad be annulled? Its a new phenomena that hasn't yet been tested and has been kept from the public's awareness when it comes to children coming to the UK.

We could go on like this. But I think I simply give my last statement and done:

If it is against the law it is against the law. You answer with the dystopia that your country would change the law according to Sharia law.

I say: He? Why should anybody do this and why should anybody think that could happen.

Okay, you are the Brit. So Britain is doomed because of little girls who swarm into the country and demand their adult husbands to be allowed into the country. Odd, but you tell me that is the situation.

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 05:27 PM
The slippery slope argument is being used increasingly with regard to the migrant issue. This argument assumes firstly, that we are actually on a slope. I have not seen any evidence of being on a slope.

Secondly, proponents of this type of argument can only tell you what they see at the bottom of the slope. When you ask them to describe other levels on this downward slope ie how we get to the bottom, they are most often than not, either lost for words or they describe concepts that cannot be substantiated in the real world eg show how A leads to B then C etc.

Under-age marriage, sharia law for all and the prohibition of alcohol will never be accepted by the British public. As for allowing bigamy with Muslims, you can blame that on modern liberalism and PC nonsense. You cannot cherry-pick equality.

The current conservative government are no better. Only a few days ago someone described Cameron as the best leader the LibDems never had. Very apt.

You asked why the government is not stopping hate speech. You should read Brendan O’Neill's recent article below on why we must have the freedom to hate. Its primarily directed at university campuses but still very relevant.

We must have the freedom to hate

Censorship doesn’t tackle, far less defeat, ugly views; it just pushes them aside. It has the terrible double effect of allowing the hateful ideology to fester and grow — unchallenged, unexposed — while depriving the rest of us of the ability, and right, to see, know and dent that ideology. It strengthens the haters, convincing them their idea must be really challenging if it freaks out society so much, and it weakens the right-thinking, absolving us of the human duty to stand up to what we think is wrong.

Last week I watched a video of a young petite British lady who bravely went to an Islamic march and verbally challenged several individuals on the march eg why they will not accept British values and integration. This lady was passionate enough to go and confront what she believes to be wrong in a non-threatening and non-derogatory way. I admire her for doing that.

I agree with Brendan that people who hate are passionate about their beliefs. We need to be just as passionate about British values, our way of life and our freedom. Defending this is not racist or Islamophobic despite what the PC mob say. If we have more of the likes of the lady above and less armchair protests maybe we can make our voices be heard during these hate marches. Sadly most of the British public would not inconvenience themselves or venture outside their little bubbles.

edit on 4-2-2016 by Morrad because: spelling correction

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in