“Silence on cousin marriage is the unspeakable face of liberalism”, writes Matthew Syed in the Times (archived version here).
Mr Syed starts with a discussion of the self-censorship on this issue:
Let me start by telling you about Dr Patrick Nash, a somewhat shy legal academic who in 2017 came across an intriguing finding. He noticed that much of the “extremism” emanating from Pakistani communities seemed to have a “clan” component. The perpetrators were linked not just through ideology or religion but by family ties stretching through generations. He noticed something else too: these communities were cemented together by cousin marriage, a common practice in Pakistani culture. By marrying within small, tightknit groups, they ensure everything is kept within the baradari, or brotherhood — property, secrets, loyalty — binding them closer together while sequestering them from wider society.
At this point Dr Nash hadn’t come to understand the genetic risks, the patriarchal oppression and the bloc voting, nor the growing evidence that rates of cousin marriage strongly correlate with corruption and poverty, but — like any good scholar — he thought he’d do a bit more digging.
But then something odd happened: several academics invited him to the pub for a “drink and chat”. He thought nothing of it, but it turned out to be an informal tribunal. “It was put to me that I might consider another line of inquiry that would be more ‘culturally sensitive’, less likely to provide ‘ammo for the right’ and less likely to ‘make life more difficult for myself’ as a junior, untenured academic,” he told me. “It was sinister.”
You might dismiss this as a one-off or perhaps the testimony of an overly sensitive scholar, but bear with me. You see, I sought to study this area during a sabbatical last year. It’s a subject close to home: when I went to Pakistan as a youngster to meet the extended family, my dad half-joked that he could arrange a marriage with a cousin. He said it lightheartedly but the conversation stuck with me. As I grew up, I kept noticing stories that revealed the genetic risks of cousin marriage and how it could lead to cultural separation. It seemed an area ripe for deeper research.
But I quickly discovered that researchers wouldn’t return emails or calls. When I got through to one geneticist, he said: “I can’t go there.” It was like hitting a succession of ever-higher brick walls.
In the next paragraphs, Mr Syed gives other examples of scientific self-censorship. Both libertarians and many traditional conservatives will share his outrage at this, as will many left wingers. But Syed then goes on to draw a conclusion that in libertarian terms sorts the men from the boys:
Eventually I wrote a column calling for a ban on cousin marriage in April last year. I was assisted by Nash, who had continued his research despite being warned off (his trump card was that his salary was paid not by his university but by the Woolf Institute, an independent body committed to free speech). To my surprise, the piece became one of the most-read stories of the year and was picked up in Scandinavia. Not long afterwards Norway, Denmark and Sweden announced plans to prohibit cousin marriage and Tennessee passed legislation.
Last week the movement picked up momentum when the Tory MP Richard Holden gave a brave speech in parliament calling for a ban. He was strongly opposed by Iqbal Mohamed, one of the independent “Gaza bloc” of MPs, who argued that cousin marriage is a good thing since it “strengthens family bonds”, perhaps the most stunning piece of (unintentional) satire in modern political history. Mohamed’s intervention, however, seemed to do the trick. After first implying that it had an open mind on a ban, the government changed its position to “no plans to legislate”, doubtless fearful of losing more seats to the Gaza bloc. I suspect it will come to regret this cowardly retreat.
But the other striking aspect of the debate was the sinister influence of scientific malpractice. MPs on all sides kept referring to the genetic risks of cousin marriage as “double” those of relationships between unrelated couples. This “fact” is endemic throughout the media, from the BBC to The Telegraph, and for good reason: journalists trust what scientists tell them. But the stat isn’t true — indeed, it’s absurd. When inbreeding persists through generations (when cousins get married who are themselves the children of cousins), the risks are far higher, which is why British Pakistanis account for 3.4 per cent of births nationwide but 30 per cent of recessive gene disorders, consanguineous relationships are the cause of one in five child deaths in Redbridge and the NHS hires staff specifically to deal with these afflictions.
Tragic and terrible. But if you once give the State the power to forbid certain couples to have children the consequences might well be more terrible yet.
Banning certains types of marriage doesn’t address the problem, it’s certain types of *breeding* that is the problem. If this legislation passes, it will be legal to shag your cousin and get pregnant, as long as you’re not married. It’s the incest laws that need to be changed, not the marriage laws.
The surprise to me is that marrying first cousins isn’t already illegal, I assumed that it qualified as incest. Would it also be true to say that the problem is likely to be self limiting? Families that practice this will just become more and more unhealthy until they either change or die out?
How do private health insurers tackle this one?
Historically first cousin marriage has not been illegal in the United Kingdom.
Indeed many famous people have been the products of it.
Although, yes, most certainly it is a genetic risk.
The British aristocracy, supposedly, have a saying – “every third generation marry an actress or the chambermaid” – the dangers of in-breeding being known.
There is a risk in first cousin marriages but the real risk of in-breeding is when it is generational as happened to the Habsburgs (or Hapsburgs). It has not been a general problem in the UK ouside of very remote location such as St. Kilda.
Now we are changing the law to tackle a problem within a single ethnic, really a cultural, group. As was the reason to ban marriage at 16.
And how will you tell if they are first cousins? Will the authorities check or will the bride and groom have to provide evidence that they are not first cousins? How will that work when one has records from Pakistan?
I seem to recall someone calling “Burke’s Peerage” the Greatest Work of Fiction in The English Language.
BTW… Arwen and Aragorn were 1st cousins. admittedly 1st cousins 23 times removed. I guess you get that sort of thing with immortals. In case anybody has ever wondered why Arwen is such a minor character in the book – she was a late addition – Aragorn was to marry Eowyn. Oddly enough everyone seems to think that was turned into a sort of teenage “crush” (there is quite an age gap) but once Arwen is in the mix Aragorn has to play it careful because he’s in a seriously awkward spot. He risks the alliance with Rohan – Eomer: “You shagged my sister and have now gone off with that elven tart!” and also Elrond (Arwen’s Dad) and Galadriel (Arwen’s Grandma). People do criticise the LoTR for the lack of a real romantic sub-plot. But… if there had been then Sauron wouldn’t have had to do much… Just sit back and watch a bad soap opera and then present himself as the “unity candidate”.
It may “only” be 30% right now but surely the inevitable continuation of UK domiciled cousin-shagging (because what’s going to stop it?) will increase this figure incrementally. Particularly as I am unaware of any evidence that the offspring of cosanguinous relationships are themselves lacking in fertility.
I thought the Catholic Church banned cousin marriages in the middle ages. Not sure why, but, if memory serves, there are claims that it undermined tribalism and was an advantage to Western culture.
Exasperated,
That all sounds vaguely familiar. Of course the “Islamist Party of the UK” hate Western Culture and have no desire for their “ink-spots” to assimilate. And that is exactly what the likes of Iqbal Mohamad want – The Islamic Republic of West Yorkshire and Allah knows what in Tower Hamlets…
In general,
Sorry for my aside into JRRT. To get serious (not that JRRT isn’t) there seems to me three issues here…
1. The “melting-pot” being kicked into touch. See my answer to @Exasperated.
2. The ideologicalisation of science. Something to make Isaac Newton Himself vomit with rage. CF assorted Critical “Theories” and the whole trans bollocks (or not bollocks?). This genetics is a pukka area of study. What next? Am I to be told to burn my astronomy books because they might vaugely offend a Zetetic?
3. How utterly defensive Islam is. How utterly intellectually weak it is. Islam never seems to defend itself intellectually does it? It just makes threats, plays the race card (from the bottom of the deck) and sometimes carries out epic acts of violence. I mean I had the Jehovah’s witnesses around recently and they left a pamphlet. They did not draw a scimitar and shriek, “Convert or Die, Infidel Pig!”. They were actually very polite and chatty. Am I alone in thinking it’s because Islam simply can’t justify itself that it always goes for political/legal antics or outright violence. I mean that is what The Prophet (PBUH) did wasn’t it?
I guess it’s #2 that irks me most. I mean back when I was a student in the ’90s it was well known that the departments of “anti-social ‘sciences'” were full of Wackademics but I always thought of real science (and especially maths*) as Helm’s Deep. Unbreachable. To discover not only is this not the case but the Uruks are already in the Hornburg and playing Les Buggeurs Risible on the Horn of Helm Hammerhand is tragic.
*Note: any genetics research is quite math intensive.
OK, an Islamic marriage is not necessarily recognized by the state in England and Wales. They’d need a civil do as well. This applies to most religions apart from CofE, Catholic, Jewish, Quaker and I think most non-conformist protestants*. The upshot of this is getting married in a mosque makes you husband and wife in the eyes of Allah but not under English law. So, you ban cousins officially marrying then they still will because as far as the imam is concerned they are married because shariah is above secular law. It is a classic case of “banning doesn’t make the problem go away”. Did prohibition stop Yanks boozing? And what if you marry your cuz in Karachi? I can think of no even vaguely liberal (I’m thinking Gladstone, not Biden here) legal solution here.
What is needed is a change in culture. Bring back the “melting-pot” and throw away the “salad bowl”. This is nearly 2025. This is not the Venice of Romeo and Juliet. I know in these parts (particularly Kettering) Teddy Roosevelt is not that popular but he did say this:
If I look at my blood-family… Well, my Great Uncle Harry was an aircraftsman in the RAF in WWII and stationed in India. He got a Hindu WAAF in the family way, they got married (In Calcutta Cathedral no less!). He was de-mobbed and came home with his bride. All the rest of the family had heard was a terse telegram saying, “Got married, coming home, wife slightly coffee-coloured”. The couple were met off the train by his Dad who just said, “Damn strong coffee, Harry” and she was welcomed into the family. They moved to Birmingham and had a lot more children who had a lot more children with the whole variety that is Brum. A family get together looks like a UN summit. They aren’t “hyphenated Brits” though I can struggle with the Brummie accent. And they’re Villans!
That’s my “lived experience”** of multi-ethnic stuff.
*Note: the Quakers and some Methodists and some Jews were a big force for gay marriage in the UK. Because they wanted to be able to marry same sex couples in the place those couples went to pray.
**I hate that term. Most basically in linguistic terms. Do we ask the dead about their “unlived experience”. I could go to the local churchyard and speak to tombs… I suspect the best outcome would be the Rev asking me, politely, to “fuck off”.
What needs to banned is not cousin marriage but forced marriage. The occasional cousin marriage is pretty harmless, it’s only a problem when people in a society pretty much exclusively marry within their clan for many generations. This doesn’t happen voluntarily, and switching from first cousin marriage to second cousin marriage won’t
help much.
@George Weinberg hits it on the nail. The government has no right to tell someone who they can’t marry, but your dad equally has no right to tell you who you must marry.
Let people choose. The problem is the immense cultural pressure in some societies to force young girls into marriages when they had no ability or maturity to determine if it is what they want, and no power to resist.
If you want to change things, raise the minimum age of marriage to 25 when girls, or by then women, have a bit more of the power and resources to choose for themselves. I’m not necessarily advocating such a change, but, for the record, getting married earlier than that is, as far as I am concerned, always a mistake (though I guess it sometimes works out.) But it is a hell of a lot better than the government or fathers choosing who someone gets to marry.
Don’t get me wrong, this approach does not work for tribal village life in 14th century Pakistan. But we are talking 21st century Bradford here. Right?
Raser,
These days C21st Bradford looks a lot like C14th Pakistan.
Had a discussion with, among others, a Somali elder in Minneapolis last year, about arranged marriages.
His comment that stuck with me: “If I want to sell my tractor to Ashmir, I do not ask the tractor’s advice.”
Some cultures are not mixable.
Anne Cryer raised this subject in the HoC in 2005 in regards to her Keighley (part of Bradford MDC) constituency.
The social care costs to the soon to be bankrupt Bradford MDC have only massively increased in the intervening 2 decades.
The problem, that I have witnessed first hand, is that people who practice generational 1st cousin marriages don’t care. The state provides free cars, free parking, free special schools and transport.
The parents do the square root of bugger all in provision of care, whilst raking in the benefits of producing offspring that will never have any kind life. And quite often more than one in a generation.
Anecdotal I know, but a colleague of mine used to drive the buses provided by the Bradford public health transport, one child got picked up and was driven 2 minutes to the nearest special school in BD3. The other children were provided taxis, one for the girls and another for the boys to their different segregated schools. All funded by the Council.
Whatever opinions people outside of Bradford have, how bad they think it is, it’s worse.
And on a tangent and purely about Bradford, yet related. Bradford MDC is in the “process” of removing funding for bus services to the only Catholic Upper school and a Grammar School in Bingley.
No talk of cutting the public funding for buses to the other faith based schools.
Sorry, I missed Fraser Orr and NickM comments regarding Bradford. As I said it’s a lot worse than outsiders know.
The Labour Council celebrated the report about 1st cousin marriages in Bradford, because it said they’d dropped amongst Pakistani women (as far as I know it made no distinction between British born or imports) from 63% to 46%.
Obviously never heard of Taqiyya.
Paul Marks wrote: “Historically first cousin marriage has not been illegal in the United Kingdom.”
This is true. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer, at least in the 1662 edition (which is still in use in some parishes), has as a last page “A Table of Kindred and Affinity Wherein Whosoever Are Related Are Forbidden In Scripture And Our Laws to Marry Together”.
There follows two columns, one for men and the other for women. There are thirty relationships in each that are forbidden. Many of them must have been pretty rare; did many men really want to marry their grandmothers?
But in all those thirty relationships “cousin” doesn’t appear.
bobby,
“Had a discussion with, among others, a Somali elder in Minneapolis last year, about arranged marriages.”
That ws what I was saying. That’s the problem! He’s a Somali elder. He’s not an American or a Minnesottan. He’s not there to become American. He’s there to make Minneapolis into Mogadishu. You’ve seen what Mogadishu looks like?
NickM, Do we ask the dead about their “unlived experience”? You could always try asking the undead!
When I was in the near east, I often heard tales of foulups responded to with “Two thousnd years of fcking your cousin.”
instead of banning cousin marriage, would it be unthinkable to simply ban immigrants from nations where
cousin marriage is highly practiced? or has the camp of saints mentality infected libertarians too?
is the idea that the british isles should belong to the british people so poisonous that it must not even
be considered? import third world people and you will surely import their third world problems. we must
all be insane….
Phillip Scott Thomas – correct Sir.