Alarmed yet? sharia law, taxpayer-subsidized polygamy, cousin marriage . . .
Mark Steyn has an article in MacLeans (2.14.2008) titled: So what would it take to alarm you? Sharia in Britain? Taxpayer-subsidized polygamy in T.O.? Yawn. Nothing to see here. He writes:
The question then arises: fair enough, guys, what would it take to alarm you? The other day, in a characteristically clotted speech followed by a rather more careless BBC interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that it was dangerous to have one law for everyone and that the introduction of sharia — Islamic law — to the United Kingdom was “inevitable.” . . .
Last week, the British and Ontario governments confirmed within days of each other that thousands of polygamous men in their jurisdictions receive welfare payments for each of their wives. Still no alarm bells? . . .
In another of those non-alarmist nothing-to-see-here stories, a British government minister tentatively raised the matter of severe birth defects among the children of Pakistani Muslims. Some 57 per cent of Pakistani Britons are married to their first cousins, and this places their progeny at increased risk of certain health problems. This is the only way a culturally relativist West can even raise some of these topics: nothing against cousin marriage, old boy, but it places a bit of a strain on the old health care budget. It’s not the polygamy, it’s the four welfare cheques you’re collecting for it.
But this is being penny-wise and pound-blasé. What does it mean when 57 per cent of Pakistani Britons are married to first cousins and 70 per cent are married to relatives? . . .
Hat tip to Maggie Gallagher for bringing the article to our attention: iMAPP Marriage News