OUSU Council voted to scrap a referendum on its controversial No Platform policy last Friday, deciding instead to replace it with an amended version.The new version is intended to be much more specific in detailing who and what are covered by the policy.The referendum was called by OUSU President Martin McCluskey at the end of last term, in response to the demands of JCRs. It had originally been scheduled to take place in fourth week.However many members of OUSU Council felt that the problem was with the wording of the original policy rather than with the idea of a No Platform. An amended version of the policy was drafted by OUSU Vice-President James Lamming (pictured), which Council then voted by a clear majority to accept.
Lamming said, “Along with almost everybody, I’m relieved that this issue has been settled and that we can now focus our energy on improving areas that have an immediate impact on the student experience.”Keble JCR President John Maher, who has in the past been a vocal critic of the policy, agreed. “The general reaction is one of relief; everyone was tired of fighting about No Platform and there’s a feeling that the issue has finally been settled in a fair way,” he said.He added, “I’m disappointed that students won’t get to vote on No Platform but I guess at the end of the day the point of democracy is that you don’t always get your way.”One student, who preferred to remain anonymous, said, “I feel really frustrated. OUSU has dangled the possibility of voting on this issue in front of us and now they don’t have the decency to follow through with it.” The amended policy distances OUSU from the National Union of Students (NUS), which has a relatively strong No Platform policy. NUS President Gemma Tumelty said, “Academic freedom and freedom of speech are often cited as reasons to afford a platform to racists and fascists.”However, NUS believes that the right to freedom of expression must not be separated from, or take precedence over, the right to freedom from oppression,” she added.

No platform policy changes:The name: The new policy is nameless in order to distance it from other No Platform policies, such as that of the NUS.

Oxide and The Oxstu: The old No Platform policy applied to all OUSU media, leading OUSU to ban Oxide presenters from interviewing Nick Griffin in Hilary 2007. Under the new policy, “Media covered in independent agreements” such as Oxide Radio and The Oxford Student are editorially independent.

Use of OUSU mediums: Under the new policy only individuals who are going to actually advocate violence using OUSU mediums are prevented from using them; under the old policy, anyone who had previously advocated violence against a minority group could be prevented from using OUSU mediums.

Decisions must be ratified by council: The old policy gave the OUSU executive the power to decide which individuals or groups should be refused a platform; under the new policy, any decision taken by the executive must be ratified by a simple majority at OUSU Council.

by Paul Rainford (Blues Football Captain) The superb 4-1 victory against Worcester University last Friday ensured that we were crowned BUSA Midlands champions. I feel compelled to emphasise the immense sense of pride and gratitude that I feel at having been part of this team and this achievement. Great credit must be given to players and coaching staff alike, and, indeed it is difficult to downplay the importance of the influence of Martin Keown. His unwavering faith in our abilities as players and his own abilities as a coach to achieve success has been a vital component in this recent triumph. Clearly his experience at Arsenal has fostered an unwillingness to compromise in the pursuit of victory, and his influence is calming yet inspirational such that the team have been driven to believe that success and quality should come as standard. However now that the immediate celebrations are over we must be prepared to put this recent result behind us and move on to address the further challenges that lie ahead. It would be easy to allow the tempo to drop by relaxing back into a comfort zone and wallowing in self-congratulation, but such an approach would be detrimental to our further ambitions in the national knock-out competition (where we are scheduled to meet Team Bath in the first round) and the Varsity match. With no competitive fixture now until Wednesday of sixth week we will look to raise the intensity of our physical training in order to reach our peak levels of fitness. I would like to take this opportunity to say a brief congratulations to all those who were involved in the Duncan Mulholland Memorial match, which took place last Saturday, and made it a fitting tribute to an individual who was undoubtedly an important and much respected figure in the club.

Four matches, one sorry day to avenge for, hundreds of expectant supporters watching on… it could mean only one thing. If you want to feel proud to be blue this 5th week then come and support the might of OUHC as they do battle with the old enemy. Oxford’s 2nd and 3rd teams, both men and women, will line up against their Cambridge counterparts in what is shaping up to be an enthralling day of hockey. Last year, Oxford came out second best in all four fixtures and everyone involved with the club is keen to show that last year’s nightmare was a one off. Competition for places throughout OUHC has been at an unprecedented level this year, with the men’s 2nds arguably having the most success on the field. Top of their league and boasting former Blues players Adam Briggs (LMH) and Neil Gallacher (Brasenose) in their line-up, Adam Tozzi (Pembroke) will lead out his team for the final time with expectations justifiably high. He was keen to add, “Whilst we desperately want to win the varsity match, it will not make or break our season. Becoming league champions is just as important and I will not consider the season a failure if we win the league but lose Varsity. The strength of the squad this year, however, should see us win both.” The women’s 2nds also boast a strong team, with some fine performances in both BUSA and their Saturday league. Ably led by Aynsley Bruce (University) with some exciting new talent on show they will be hopeful of overturning last year’s defeat. Emily Hancock (Somerville) rates Oxford’s chances, “Cambridge have a strong team, but we are confident we can raise our game.” Both 3rd teams will be looking for something to remember their seasons by, having endured a difficult run of games, but it seems that form could be turning at the opportune moment with the men winning impressively at the weekend and the women turning solid performances into goals and at the right time. Oxford will be hoping for a strong, vocal turnout to help ensure the tabs go home empty-handed.by Ian Rossiter

Sean Faye presents the case for abandoning Valentine’s Day…. and adopting spontaneous romance
It’s that tine of year again – Valentine’s Day. My cynically-disposed mind imagines the typical scores of cheating boyfriends presenting their girlfriends with ‘on-offer’ flowers and battered Milk Tray boxes, bought from the Tesco Metro on the way home. The really romantic chaps may even book a table at Pizza Express (set menu, of course). My problem with Valentine’s Day is that it is typifies the smug, yet half-arsed attitude of modern couples. I have often believed that ‘Valentine’s Day’ should be renamed ‘Co-dependence Day,’ not because all couples that choose to celebrate their love on February 14 are necessarily co-dependent, but because the day naturally fosters the co-dependent ideals that surround us throughout the year.
I already know what you’re thinking. You have probably guessed that I’m single; I will fill you in further and tell you I have never been in a relationship and never celebrated Valentine’s Day (I never even did that creepily Freudian thing when you make your mum a card instead). So I am clearly an embittered, loveless cynic. That is a view I am not entirely unfamiliar with, having been told so every year by my marauding bands of loved-up friends. Yet often the friends that tell me this one year are the ones who are forcing me to do something with them to avoid Valentine’s Day the next. Valentine’s Day seems like a day set aside for people who like to feel self-indulgent and waste endless hours walking around with their chosen companion, regardless of whether they like them that much or not, and then going for an overpriced meal. Perhaps it’s just me, but that doesn’t seem different to any other day. The only difference on ‘Co-dependence Day’ is that single people are shamed out of bars, cafes and restaurants because instead of ID, you need a partner for entry.
What is most troubling, however, is that increasingly the spirit of Valentine’s Day is spreading throughout the year. Television, magazines and, often, our friends work on the mission statement ‘you’re nobody until somebody loves you.’ Anti-gay rhetoric has always considered same-sex relationships as a reprehensible ‘lifestyle choice.’ In fact, all types of relationships are equal in being a lifestyle choice, and for many, being single is too. On Valentine’s Day, however, such a belief is apparently unacceptable. The day makes relationships the norm and those who are not celebrating are excluded by their involuntary and deeply shameful status of ‘single.’ What surprises me most is the fact that so many women tacitly support what is surely one of the most sexist days in the calendar. Let’s face it, Valentine’s Day still works on the presumption that the man buys his partner a gift, arranges a sequence of romantic activities for her and perhaps throws in a bit of perfunctory sex at the end of the day. It is chiefly single women who are made to feel bad that they have no such wooer in mid-February. Being a girl without a guy on Valentine’s Day means you’ve failed in bagging a generous man. Sorry, since when did we all live in a Jane Austen novel? Whatever the circumstances of the pair are throughout the year, there is one day where women are made to feel like they must have a man to care for them and protect them or they’re worthless.
Another way in which Valentine’s Day epitomises the modern lifestyle is our complete incapability to have any genuine sense of romance. People are forced to pay their way to assembly-line romance or, perhaps even worse, do-it-yourself expressions of affection. Last year, one of my housemates had a card made for her out of felt. Her admirer had clearly spent a great deal amount of time making it, but resembling as it did a heart after a coronary attack, it earned only ridicule from both her and her friends. Another person I know made a paper rose out of a page of Cherwell. Comically enough, the romantic sentiment was dulled by the fact that a photo of me loomed across the carefully crafted petals. If we are being honest, our ‘aww isn’t that sweet’ response to a couple explaining their romantic treasure trail, or how they serenaded one another, actually masks the more natural ‘that’s fucking embarrassing’ response. Until the 19th Century, Valentine’s Day was marked by the sending of love letters. Handwritten, scented and often poetic, it is hard to imagine modern-day lovers pulling this off without looking disgustingly sentimental. Our generation are just too self-conscious to produce any spontaneous, genuine romance. Indeed, doesn’t a fixed calendar date run against the whole idea of romance anyway? Surely, one of the key ingredients must be spontaneity – I know the same card, flowers and restaurant every year would hardly have me burning in the flames of passion. Even anonymous valentines are slightly menacing on the one day it’s OK to stalk someone without being liable for a restraining order. At the root of most people’s celebration of Valentine’s Day is, above all, a sense of obligation. I have already said how Valentine’s Day stigmatises single people, but (from the outside looking in) it seems to do little for couples’ relationships either. The consumerist pressure on Valentine’s Day has become so great, as with Christmas and New Year, that one is led to believe if you don’t celebrate Valentine’s Day, your relationship is worthless. Like December 31st, Valentine’s Day begets such a weight of expectation from both partners that it is impossible to fully live up to it. If most lovers are honest, Valentine’s Day falls slightly flat, perhaps because in post-Reformation England, we lack the greater sensuality and festival culture of our European and South American counterparts. Its lack of inclusivity makes it anti-social for anyone but the couple themselves, who are forced to spend time with just each other, just because that’s what everyone else is doing. The amount of pressure is an unnecessary stress on the relationship. How many of our friends have had spats or even broken up with their boyfriend/girlfriend on Valentine’s Day? Take my advice, shrug off Valentine’s Day and spend quality time with your partner (if you have one) on February 15th instead – it’s a much bolder statement.

JCRs throughout Oxford have been calling for colleges to switch to sustainable fish as part of a major environmental campaign.Five colleges have already passed a motion mandating a member of the JCR to request that the college not serve unsustainably caught or endangered fish, and replace them with more sustainably caught species. Worcester, who voted to switch fish sources last term, were recently followed by Magdalen, Regents Park, St John’s and St Hugh’s.Hector Guinness, a Zoology student at Worcester, who has been helping to lead the campaign through the Oxford Environment Group said, “The aim is to have all college kitchens agree to stop serving fish from unsustainable sources by the end of this year.”A fact sheet accompanying the motion by Marica Haig, Worcester’s Environment representative and OUSU Biodiversity representative explains that fishing levels are currently at less than 1% of their 1977 levels. “The over exploitation of our oceans will mean that within our lifetimes the ecology of all seas will have shifted so dramatically that no edible fish species will survive to be of use to humans ever again,” she said.“We have two options – we could ‘hurry while stocks last’, and eat all we can while there are any left, or choose the sustainable future, and demand that kitchens in Oxford are not driving demand for unsustainably caught fish, and send a clear message that we want sustainably harvested fish, or no fish at all,” Haig continued.The proposal added that current over-exploitation does not mean that colleges will never be able to serve fish again. “The sea is a valuable natural resource that can provide some of our dietary requirements if it is harvested in an appropriate way using modern sustainable techniques.”The motion passed with little opposition from the Worcester JCR, despite concerns over the increased cost of buying sustainable fish. Haig explained that this had caused some objections from the Catering Manager. “He thought using sustainably sourced seafood would cause an increase in the cost of the meals which members of all the common rooms would object too, especially the SCR who are served cod and swordfish relatively frequently.”“However the college Dean fully supported the motion and encouraged me to talk directly to the Provost, who agreed that the SCR could live without these fish, and gave his support for the policy. Since then the Catering Manager has been looking into alternative species or sources, and any unsustainably sourced fish have been removed from the menu,” she said.Guinness recognised that the change may involve more effort from kitchen staff. “Some chefs seem to be worried about things getting more complicated for them, which is why the motion is phrased negatively rather than asking for specific alternatives,” he said.Haig has passed the motion and fact sheet on to Environment representatives across the University in the hope that more colleges will implement it. She said, “we are aiming to get as many colleges as possible to pass this motion as it is an important cause which could greatly benefit simply by raising awareness so that people start to think about where the fish they buy came from.”Regent’s Park passed the motion two weeks ago. Emmeline Smart, a third year Geographer and the JCR Environment representative said, “the motion was passed with only one person against and has been widely supported by members of Regent’s Park. Our kitchen staff have been very supportive and have changed the types of fish we use in college- they argue that they only used unsustainable fish before because students were unwilling to try different fish.”She encourages other colleges to do the same, saying, “This just shows how easy it is to raise awareness and make a difference on this issue.”College authorities at St John’s have also been enthusiastic to adopt the changes, and motions have been passed in both the JCR and MCR. The Catering Manager and Dean support the idea and are trying instigate changes in the SCR. Guinness said, “monkfish and swordfish have been taken off the list of choices for the guest dinners and the catering manager has a ‘good fish guide’ to follow when buying for hall generally.”Magdalen JCR has also passed the motion with no opposition. Environment and Ethics representative Jenny Chapman explained that she hoped the Hall Manager would not reject the initiative due to problems of expense. “There is no reason why it should be more expensive, it would just mean that our fish would come from elsewhere,” she said.he journal ‘Science’ has suggested that, if current trends continue, there will be a total marine collapse by 2050, with a loss of 90% of each species.

St. Edmund Hall 2 – 1 Lincoln Teddy Hall laboured to victory over Lincoln on Wednesday in a match that belied the polar League positions of the two teams. If Hall were hoping for a routine win over a team with a solitary point to their name this season before a string of tricky fixtures in the coming weeks, they were certainly shaken by a determined performance from their opponents. In an attempt to stir Hall to improve on recent performances – a scrappy league win at Jesus and Cuppers shoot out victory against Queen’s – captain John Waldron asked his team to ‘enjoy themselves’ during the game. It was Lincoln, however, that started brightest in a high-tempo, if scrappy, opening. They were unfortunate not to make the most of a defensive mix-up early on, while they did not make the most of a series of reasonable openings carved by the clever running of their strikers, with number 9 dragging a shot wide of Ielpo’s left post. While Lincoln continued to create anxious moments for their defence, Hall’s confidence in attack grew as the half wore on; Tom Theodore and Ed Morse began to dictate the midfield, and Lincoln were gradually forced back towards their goal. Lincoln showed impressive resolve, however, with a stubborn pressing game that frustrated Hall’s attacking players who were allowed little time on the ball. Persistence paid off though for Hall, though, as chances eventually came. After great work by Morse and Wilfred Frost, Talbot-Smith’s goalbound effort was hacked away, Will Herbert nodded just wide, while Frost was disappointed not to finish when the ball fell kindly at his feet a few yards out. Nutton, the Lincoln ‘keeper, was having an assured game and the Hall strikers could hardly believe it when his stunning double save kept them out when the opening goal looked certain. When a push on Charlie Talbot- Smith in the Lincoln box was waved away by the referee, it seemed that Hall were in for a frustrating afternoon, but within minutes a long balled was flicked on to Frost who nodded calmly over the stranded ‘keeper to Hall’s considerable relief. Hall came out strongly in the second half, with Talbot-Smith, Morse and Theodore going close. Then when a powerful Waldron header flew out of defence, Talbot-Smith collected and managed to break free and continue his good form in front of goal to finish in the roof of the net for his side’s second. Hall, though, knew that any slip up could easily knock them out of the title race, and their nerves, even when two in front, contrasted with the attitude of their opponents; comments such as ‘let’s double our points tally boys!’ suggested that were playing like a team under no pressure and were enjoying playing on such a fine and sunny winter afternoon. Lincoln, galvanized by Symons in midfield, began to play simple yet dangerously effective football, threatening their increasingly distracted- looking opposition. Their wide players proved a particularly potent outlet, providing the strikers with several clear-cut opportunities to deservedly get back in the game. The pressure soon told, a free kick half-heartedly cleared by Hall and eventually bouncing to a Lincoln striker to volley home. But ultimately this was not enough as Hall’s title hopes were saved from embarrassment by the referee’s full-time whistle. Unnerved by this terrier-like and spirited performance from Lincoln, Hall were left despondent at their performance and their inability to make ground on Worcester’s superior goal difference. Minutes later, though, they were celebrating at having closed the gap to a single point after their rival’s unexpected draw at Brasenose. The title race this year may yet prove far closer than originally expected.by Ed Halliday

by Aneurin Ellis-Evans GQ’s decision to place David Cameron above Gordon Brown in their list of the most influential people in Britain is intentionally provocative. By distinguishing between being in power and being powerful, they have picked up on something much bigger – what it now means to be a political leader. Cameron richly deserves his GQ crown because he has grasped how to make spin a positive force in government. Cameron is unashamedly about PR, and this, I think, is a good thing in a leader today. A distinction has to be made between the kind of spin which covers up the flaws of a government, and that which a politician uses to gain leverage with the media. It is of course inexcusable to redefine corridors as wards to make it seem as if a hospital is reaching its targets for available beds. But this is quite a different thing to what Cameron has been doing. As editor of GQ Darius Sanai put it, ‘He is the initiator and it seems to many of us that Gordon Brown is only reacting.’Take his fact-finding mission to Svalbard in April 2006. I do not know how many ‘facts’ Cameron ‘found’ during the six hours he spent on Svalbard (which makes it more of a day trip than a mission). The next day in Oslo he told an audience that the glaciers were retreating (shock), and that they were doing so quicker than ever before (horror).My suspicion is that these were facts not wholly unknown to the scientific community at large. Indeed, one wonders how many of the ‘facts’ he ‘found’ were not already readily available on Wikipedia (here’s a clue – all). On the same day, Gordon Brown had been due to speak to the UN on the subject of climate change.
Not surprisingly, it was Dave of the Arctic driving a sled pulled by huskies, not dour Brown speaking to a room of suits in a glorified talking shop, which caught the media’s attention. On that day, and for that week, environmentalism went from the bottom of the pile to the top. It was a shameless PR stunt, but an incredibly effective one. Naturally, media attention has to go hand in hand with real action, but the two – style and substance – are not necessarily at odds. My dad, an environmental scientist, has certainly not complained since the ‘obstacles’ to receiving more funding miraculously vanished.We think we don’t want spin, but ignore those who don’t use the media. We want all-action politicians who see things for themselves, interrogate the experts in person and call all the shots, but complain when the impracticalities create a media charade.In a democracy, we cannot complain when politicians give us what we want. We should accept that a leader’s job today is to publicise policies. They are communicators and negotiators. In our sound-bite culture, political leaders are the shop windows of political parties. The media is an inherently shallow medium, and when using it politicians must be similarly superficial. But that does not mean the substance is necessarily lacking altogether. To anyone who thinks Cameron has no policies, I suggest you go on the Conservatives’ website where you’ll find a wealth of detailed reports from the task forces Cameron set up when he first became leader.The problem is not so much spin, as our inability and unwillingness to look past spin. Aneurin Ellis-Evans is the Political Officer of OUCA.
 

Worcester 2 – 2 BrasenoseGoing into this match off an impressive victory over Wadham, a dogged Brasenose side made Worcester scramble for a draw in a jarringly physical encounter. Twice taking the lead, Brasenose looked like they might take all three points here, only for Worcester to peg them back late on and go very close to winning it. Despite taking four points from six against two of the toughest sides in the division, Brasenose still face an uphill battle to avoid relegation, whilst Worcester now have Teddy Hall and St Anne’s breathing right down their necks at the top. Early on, a nice one-two with skipper Plaxton put Worcester striker Desai through, only to be denied by a terrific save from Mitropoulos stretching to his left in the Brasenose goal. At the other end, Field-Johnson picked up the ball outside the box and, after being given far too much time and space in which to turn, hit a hard shot straight at the Worcester keeper, who fumbled it through his hands as it bounced in front of him and into the goal. This was a far-cry from the defensive resilience which has given Worcester the best defensive record in the division this season. Worcester quickly bounced back, after a thunderous challenge from Brasenose right-back McCormack on Plaxton gave away a free kick to the left of the area. The otherwise excellent McCormack was lucky not to get booked – only to then see his luck disappear, heading Desai’s in-swinging set-piece into his own goal under pressure, with the ball arching agonisingly over the despairing lunge of Mitropoulos and into the far corner. Then, right on the stroke of halftime, Brasenose re-took the lead – a perfect deep cross from Leviseur curling right onto the foot of Barrett, who side-footed his volley into the top corner with impressive composure. Overhearing the Worcester halftime team-talk, a heated discussion showed how angry Worcester were with their lacklustre performance. Demanding more passion and desire from his side, Plaxton called for a ‘Do or Die’ attitude, knowing that a defeat could see Teddy Hall level with them at the end of this game. Radcliffe was looking threatening down the left for Worcester, but was unable to penetrate the determined-looking Brasenose defence led by the colossal figure of centre-back Nordby. Both sides went close from corners, first Worcester heading over and then Brasenose inducing a chaotic goalmouth scramble, in which two shots were blocked by Worcester defenders. Soon after, at the other end, Worcester went even closer from another corner, with a close-range shot cleared bravely off the line. The equaliser came soon after. Following a throw-in, Worcester crossed from the right for midfielder Grady, unmarked, to beat the keeper to the ball and head home. Brasenose then missed a golden opportunity to instantly re-take the lead, an innocuous long ball somehow going through the entire Worcester defence, only for a surprised Barrett to miss his touch completely when oneon- one. At the other end, the ever more-influential Grady, relishing the physical battle, went close to his second for Worcester, through on goal only to be thwarted by a phenomenal lastditch challenge – the rebound fell to Plaxton, whose shot was desperately hacked off the line by a second defender as Brasenose grimly clung on. Plaxton and Brady combined well again to give Plaxton a shooting chance, only for the skilful forward to shoot straight at the keeper with the unmarked substitute Gee screaming for it at the back post. Straight afterwards another chance went begging, Radcliffe whistling a shot past the post from ten yards. As Brasenose tired, Worcester scented victory, and thought they had grabbed it at the death when Grady burst onto a flickon to fire home – only to see the linesman flagging for an earlier offside. Right at the end Brasenose might have nicked it, with the persistently troublesome winger Lennie fighting off his marker to force a good save from the Worcester keeper. But as the final whistle blew, 2-2 seemed a fair result. Worcester, whilst never showing the quality they are capable of, had been persistent enough to deserve at least a point, whilst Brasenose, having led twice and fought hard, would have been exceptionally unlucky to lose. This was far from a classic, and moments of genuine class were rare, yet the high-octane commitment of both teams made for an exciting spectacle. The title race has been blown wide open. In the words of their captain, Worcester ‘can’t afford any more slip-ups.’by George Kynaston

by Ghayasuddin Siddiqui Several years ago, when I finished speaking to an audience in a mosque in Birmingham on why it was wrong to force children into marriage without their consent, a man came forward and said, ‘I wish you had come six months earlier, I forced my son to marry my brother’s daughter. They are now separated.As a consequence relations between my brother’s family and me are also broken,’ he said. I had spoken in that mosque several times before, but often the advice was ignored because it was thought that I was giving ‘wrong’ ideas to young people.This story is repeated all over the United Kingdom in patriarchal families where parents think that children are their property; it is their responsibility to decide about the future of their children. In such families healthy debate between parents and their children on life choices are always absent. When children disagree, they are emotionally blackmailed, harassed and intimidated. Unable to resist, many young people give in to parental pressure and accept the life of misery. But things are changing. Many former victims have come together to form self–help groups and refuges giving hope to many.The case of Imran Rehman, from Derby, aired by BBC Radio 5 Live recently is typical. When young people become defiant, their families take extreme measures.In his case he was abducted and taken to Pakistan. He was shackled and imprisoned for 15 days until he agreed to be engaged to his 5-year-old cousin.Although cases of forced marriage involving women are more common, some 10-15% of victims are men. In the case of women, the victim is often held back in their native country till she becomes pregnant or gives birth.The Foreign and Commonwealth office has established the Forced Marriage Unit (FMU), which deals with some 300 cases each year. The unit helps and often rescues the victims from difficult circumstances if they are alerted before undertaking journeys abroad. It is always advisable to leave contact details with a trusted friend who could contact the FMU in case of emergency.There are some 165 women’s refuges. After Imran Rehman’s case the government has indicated that it would be willing to fund a male-only refuge for victims of forced marriage. In the past, when no refuges existed, victims remained constantly on the move for fear of being caught by the bounty hunters let loose by their parents. The possibility of an impending forced marriage affects the victims in a variety of ways; a drop in performance and low motivation in education, self-harm, depression, attempted suicide and family disputes are common symptoms. But the misery does not stop there. Some 70% of such loveless marriages end up in divorce.Forced marriage is not sanctioned within any culture or religion.
It is a mind–set of patriarchal culture that needs to be addressed through education. For this to happen it is important that children are taught from a very early age that they also have rights, such as when to marry, where to marry, and whom to marry. It is the parents’ duty to help them grow in a loving and caring environment, into mature and responsible adults. Sexual equality and zero tolerance against violence should be part of their upbringing. An arranged marriage is not the same as a forced marriage. In an arranged marriage, the families and friends take an active part in choosing the marriage partner. But the marriage is entered into through free consent of both people. A happy marriage is a gateway to a happy future.
Ghayasuddin Siddiqui is from the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain.