British legalizes welfare for multiple wives of muslim men....

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,497
349
126
India does it. Now Britain does this too???? :disgust:

I guess the west is taking on the form of the crumbling Galactic Empire. Its people being too decadent to see the rot eating away the very foundations of their society.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Text

Britain clears way for polygamy benefits

By Al Webb
February 12, 2008

LONDON ? The British government has cleared the way for husbands with multiple wives to claim welfare benefits for all their partners, fueling growing controversy over the role of Islamic Shariah law in the nation's cultural and legal framework.

Bigamy is outlawed in Britain, but authorities have never prosecuted Muslim men who had legally married more than one woman abroad and continued to live with them after immigrating. Shariah permits men to have up to four wives at one time.

Now, after a review that began in November 2006, a panel of four government departments has decided that all the wives of a Muslim man may collect state benefits, provided that the marriages took place in a country where multiple spouses are legal.

Neither the review nor the decision was announced publicly, and their discovery by newspapers late last month triggered an uproar in the largely Christian nation ? a fury exacerbated by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams' remark last week that some aspects of Islamic law could be embraced within Britain's legal system.

Archbishop Williams, the spiritual head of the world's 77 million Anglicans, refused to back down from the idea yesterday, but admitted at a meeting of the church's General Synod, or parliament, that the remark had been "clumsy."

The furor contributed to a sense of unease about Islam after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States and the suicide bombings by Muslims on London's bus and rail system that killed 52 commuters three years ago.

The proposed use of taxpayer money to support multiple wives of Muslim men ? a figure that one estimate puts at up to $20 million a year ? has provoked widespread anger, particularly since bigamy is a crime in Britain, punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Although exact figures are unavailable, government ministers have estimated that up to 1,000 polygamous marriages exist in Britain.

A report in London's Daily Mail newspaper estimated that a Muslim man with four wives could claim up to $20,000 in income support and qualify for an even bigger cash payout if his expanded family needed a bigger house.

Four departments ? the Treasury, the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP), Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office ? were involved in the review, which was concluded in December.

It decided that recognizing multiple marriages that were performed legally abroad was "the best possible" option.

As a DWP spokesman put it to journalists: "We recently reviewed the rules regarding benefit payments to customers in a polygamous marriage, which concluded that the rules in place since 1987 provide the necessary safeguards to ensure there is no financial advantage for claimants in a valid polygamous marriage."

But Chris Grayling, Works and Pensions spokesman for the opposition Conservative Party, described the government's decision as "completely unjustifiable."

"You are not allowed to have multiple marriages" in Britain, he said, "so to have a situation where the benefits system is treating people in different ways is totally unacceptable."

"This," Mr. Grayling said, "sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in [British] law and the benefits system."

Corin Taylor, research director for the rights organization Taxpayers' Alliance, was equally blunt.

"Polygamy is not something which British law allows, and therefore British taxpayers should not have to pay extra for extra benefits for second or third wives," he said. "If other countries sanction polygamy, that is fine, but the British taxpayer should not have to fund it."

Growing concern over the application of Shariah law in Britain has come under a spotlight with the archbishop of Canterbury's seeming endorsement of some of its aspects, particularly those involving family and financial affairs.

George Carey, archbishop of Canterbury from 1991 to 2002, added his weight to the uproar over Archbishop Williams' remarks, saying the introduction of elements of Shariah would be "disastrous for the nation."
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,415
3
81
Hmmmmm ..... what's that Roger Waters song? ........The tide is turning.
Curious to see what Britain will look like in 10 - 15 years.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
How does a family, that composes of a husband and more than one wife, getting welfare signal the collapse of Western civilization?

 

neodyn55

Senior member
Oct 16, 2007
230
2
0
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
How does a family, that composes of a husband and more than one wife, getting welfare signal the collapse of Western civilization?

I think he was getting at the "pandering to islamists" to pointing to the demise of western civilization - but to me, it seems this rule will apply to people of *any* country that allows polygamy. For example, if a certain country allowed a certain sect to be polygamous, they would benefit under this rule too. IMO the Muslim connection fed into the hysteria.

That aside, I think this is an incredibly bad idea and I would NOT be happy if I was a taxpayer there.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
So, do you have to be Muslim to qualify for these benefits? Or can anyone, of any faith, or none, marry multiple wives outside of England, move there, and receive these benefits?

If I were a non-Muslim British citizen, I'd find a way to test the limits of these newfound "privileges" just to prove a f'n point.

The situation is getting ridiculous over there...
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,497
349
126
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
How does a family, that composes of a husband and more than one wife, getting welfare signal the collapse of Western civilization?

The genie of appeasement has been let loose in your nations, one unlike any other before. Imagine every community trying to sponge off money/benefits in the name of minority rights, tradition or entitlement. It will wreck your nations in your own lifetimes.

Britain is playing a very dangerous game now. It's forced too, this time (unlike Hitler's navy), the sharks are swimming right by the Thames.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,497
349
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
So, do you have to be Muslim to qualify for these benefits? Or can anyone, of any faith, or none, marry multiple wives outside of England, move there, and receive these benefits?

If I were a non-Muslim British citizen, I'd find a way to test the limits of these newfound "privileges" just to prove a f'n point.

The situation is getting ridiculous over there...

Quoting the article :

Now, after a review that began in November 2006, a panel of four government departments has decided that all the wives of a Muslim man may collect state benefits, provided that the marriages took place in a country where multiple spouses are legal.

 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Why do governments insist on rewarding the stupid and the lazy? Apparently when you can't afford to take care of one wife, get a few more? WTF? I'd be less concerned about the fact that they're Muslim and more concerned that more and more money keeps getting shoveled into the hands of those who contribute nothing to society.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Braznor
Originally posted by: palehorse74
So, do you have to be Muslim to qualify for these benefits? Or can anyone, of any faith, or none, marry multiple wives outside of England, move there, and receive these benefits?

If I were a non-Muslim British citizen, I'd find a way to test the limits of these newfound "privileges" just to prove a f'n point.

The situation is getting ridiculous over there...

Quoting the article :

Now, after a review that began in November 2006, a panel of four government departments has decided that all the wives of a Muslim man may collect state benefits, provided that the marriages took place in a country where multiple spouses are legal.

??? I read that before. It's why I asked whether or not this applies to non-Muslim men as well; which the quoted portion leaves unanswered.

What did you intend to prove with that quote?
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Maybe you should claim you are a mormon and want to practice polygamy???

My look at this is that I can not afford one wife. I think this is a system that is rife for abuse and can be used to degrade the value of women and women's rights. It can also lead to forcing women into a marriage at an early age as a second, third, or fourth wife. Women could also be treated like a slave to the first wife, etc. This is a very complex situation.

Imagine you have 4 wives and each of the 4 wives has 4 children. Now you have a family with 21 people in it all living off the state. How is this fair to the traditional family that is scraping to get by and paying higher and higher taxes.

This could also lead to one group of people having more offspring and taking your civilization over.

If you are going to allow welfare, then limit the welfare to 4 children or something like that. Just because some person wants to breed children like rats, it does not mean the state should pay for it!
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
I believe the seeds of extremism have been planted in Europe, and it will explode like a powder keg after so many years of losing their identity to this bullshit multicultural experiment. Their response will be to elect an extreme nationalist government, and then all hell will break loose.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
4
76
I knew it would happen when they built that underground tunnel...they have been tainted and corrupted
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,497
349
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Braznor
Originally posted by: palehorse74
So, do you have to be Muslim to qualify for these benefits? Or can anyone, of any faith, or none, marry multiple wives outside of England, move there, and receive these benefits?

If I were a non-Muslim British citizen, I'd find a way to test the limits of these newfound "privileges" just to prove a f'n point.

The situation is getting ridiculous over there...

Quoting the article :

Now, after a review that began in November 2006, a panel of four government departments has decided that all the wives of a Muslim man may collect state benefits, provided that the marriages took place in a country where multiple spouses are legal.

??? I read that before. It's why I asked whether or not this applies to non-Muslim men as well; which the quoted portion leaves unanswered.

What did you intend to prove with that quote?


I'll presume that this benefit should apply to all (including muslims and non muslims) But it could very well be that the muslim community benefits the most from this. British Muslims could marry upto four wives in a country like India (which allows only muslims to marry four wives legally)




 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Fvcking abhorren. There is just no other right impression to get from this.

BTW, link in first post points to the post!
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91

Sigh. Is the U.K. suffering from an infusion of diversity-loving liberal altruists, too? Why the hell are they allowing so much immigration when they live on a tiny island and need to keep a lid on population growth? Have those limeys gone batty? Did someone put something in their fish and chips?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Sigh. Is the U.K. suffering from an infusion of diversity-loving liberal altruists, too? Why the hell are they allowing so much immigration when they live on a tiny island and need to keep a lid on population growth? Have those limeys gone batty? Did someone put something in their fish and chips?
Scotland has poisoned the water and it flows south. The country is in a mess. For every story like this in America (and face it, there aren't actually many like this at all because they wouldn't get off the ground as easily) you've got a dozen from the UK. I think in private the government must be using 1984 as a blue print for the country. The citizenry are being monitored and told what they can and cannot do. They are losing freedoms at quite a pace to the "greater good". England was once the preeminant nation and now look at it. Utility companies breaking into houses to detect theft, people held without charge for a month, talk of issuing licenses to smoke, cameras everywhere, cannot have any weapons, unemployment high, the whole country is being broken.

 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,497
349
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Fvcking abhorren. There is just no other right impression to get from this.

BTW, link in first post points to the post!

Fixed link.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Re: polygamy in general:
The main contention with polygamy in general has been the historical abuses of women associated with the practice, ex. girls getting forcibly married under the age of consent, incest and sexual abuse. If in the modern world women have achieved enough power or equality to enter into marriages without these abuses, perhaps there should be discussion on the issue, instead of the knee-jerk ickiness most of us experience when thinking of the stereotypical polygamous family.

Big Love on HBO already displays how a modern polygamous family would likely function, and probably already does. At this point the main rejection of the practice is tradition, the same argument used to combat gay marriage.

I'm not advocating polygamy or polyandry, just curious what the modern arguments against them are, if the historical abuses are dealt with. One could argue the government shouldn't get involved in defining family relationships (what should be the conservative position), but the government would by necessity become involved to enforce a will or probate the estate after the death of one of the spouses.

Here come the "why can't people just marry goats then?" ... the issue should generally be one of consent, not mandated morality.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The main contention with polygamy in general has been the historical abuses of women associated with the practice, ex. girls getting forcibly married under the age of consent, incest and sexual abuse. If in the modern world women have achieved enough power or equality to enter into marriages without these abuses, perhaps there should be discussion on the issue, instead of the knee-jerk ickiness most of us experience when thinking of the stereotypical polygamous family.

Big Love on HBO already displays how a modern polygamous family would likely function, and probably already does. At this point the main rejection of the practice is tradition, the same argument used to combat gay marriage.

I'm not advocating polygamy or polyandry, just curious what the modern arguments against them are, if the historical abuses are dealt with. One could argue the government shouldn't get involved in defining family relationships (what should be the conservative position), but the government would by necessity become involved to enforce a will or probate the estate after the death of one of the spouses.

Here come the "why can't people just marry goats then?" ... the issue should generally be one of consent, not mandated morality.

This isn't about legalizing polygamy. It is about the government cutting a check for each of your wives in a country where polygamy traditionally has not been practiced.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The main contention with polygamy in general has been the historical abuses of women associated with the practice, ex. girls getting forcibly married under the age of consent, incest and sexual abuse. If in the modern world women have achieved enough power or equality to enter into marriages without these abuses, perhaps there should be discussion on the issue, instead of the knee-jerk ickiness most of us experience when thinking of the stereotypical polygamous family.

Big Love on HBO already displays how a modern polygamous family would likely function, and probably already does. At this point the main rejection of the practice is tradition, the same argument used to combat gay marriage.

I'm not advocating polygamy or polyandry, just curious what the modern arguments against them are, if the historical abuses are dealt with. One could argue the government shouldn't get involved in defining family relationships (what should be the conservative position), but the government would by necessity become involved to enforce a will or probate the estate after the death of one of the spouses.

Here come the "why can't people just marry goats then?" ... the issue should generally be one of consent, not mandated morality.

This isn't about legalizing polygamy. It is about the government cutting a check for each of your wives in a country where polygamy traditionally has not been practiced.

more than that, until now, it has been illegal in the UK.

The legal exceptions being made for Muslims are criminal -- allowing them to draw welfare for multiple wives is just icing on the cake.
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,905
2
76
first of all there is nothing wrong with polygamy, its present in cultures around the world and its up to them to decide if they should allow it or not.

Countries should be respectful of immigrants from these cultures. If a man with 4 wives decide to move to the US or the UK, they should be allowed to continue their marriage in a new country. Their visas and green cards should reflect that. Its like "hey we're moving to another country, but i can only take one, so i'm divorcing you three, bye" I don't feel that governments should be involved in the business of deciding if marriages are valid or not unless it is for the protection of an underage child.

That being said, the problem here is with the British Welfare. They can easily get a law pass to disallow welfare benefits to polygamous marriages. If you have 4 wives you could possibly have 4 people working and one at home taking care of the children.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: maddogchen
Countries should be respectful of immigrants from these cultures. If a man with 4 wives decide to move to the US or the UK, they should be allowed to continue their marriage in a new country. Their visas and green cards should reflect that. Its like "hey we're moving to another country, but i can only take one, so i'm divorcing you three, bye" I don't feel that governments should be involved in the business of deciding if marriages are valid or not unless it is for the protection of an underage child.
No, sir. In plenty of nations I can beat my wife for her not cooking my supper properly. Should that be allowed in the US? When you go to a country as a voluntary immigrant, you better adopt its laws or educate the locals on how you think they should be changed. You cannot have a multi-tiered system. You don't like it, get the hell out (and I am an immigrant). That's what you buy when you move there. Now, the legitimacy of the polygamy law may be weak anyway, but as it is with it in force against citizenry, certainly no immigrant should get to avoid it.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Re: polygamy in general:
The main contention with polygamy in general has been the historical abuses of women associated with the practice, ex. girls getting forcibly married under the age of consent, incest and sexual abuse. If in the modern world women have achieved enough power or equality to enter into marriages without these abuses, perhaps there should be discussion on the issue, instead of the knee-jerk ickiness most of us experience when thinking of the stereotypical polygamous family.

Big Love on HBO already displays how a modern polygamous family would likely function, and probably already does. At this point the main rejection of the practice is tradition, the same argument used to combat gay marriage.

I'm not advocating polygamy or polyandry, just curious what the modern arguments against them are, if the historical abuses are dealt with. One could argue the government shouldn't get involved in defining family relationships (what should be the conservative position), but the government would by necessity become involved to enforce a will or probate the estate after the death of one of the spouses.

Here come the "why can't people just marry goats then?" ... the issue should generally be one of consent, not mandated morality.


Considering the main beneficiaries of something like this. The abuse arguments are justified.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
btw this is simply brilliant on the Muslims part. They are now going to have the taxpayers of england pay for subverting their own culture.