From: andal@andal.org   
      
   It is a biting winter’s evening in Cambridge and apparently we are making   
   history. This is the first serious public discussion in the UK of the law   
   on cousin marriage, and the desirability of legislating against it, since   
   the mid-Victorian era. At a time when British universities seem more   
   interested in discussing diversity, equity and inclusion and decolonising   
   the curricula than engaging with the great issues of the day, there is an   
   unmistakable frisson as we gather around a long beechwood table in the   
   brightly lit Weston Room of the interfaith Woolf Institute. A portrait of   
   the no-nonsense Princess Anne, its patron, smiles down upon us.   
      
   Charles Darwin, who was married to his first cousin Emma Wedgwood, sought   
   to include a question on first cousin marriage in the 1871 census.   
   Parliament rejected the attempt as being of ‘particular sensitivity’ and   
   ‘unacceptably intrusive’. One hundred and fifty years later, it remains an   
   issue of ‘great controversy’, as Nazir Afzal, a former chief crown   
   prosecutor, chancellor of Manchester University and one of the evening’s   
   expert speakers, acknowledges.   
      
   We kick off this almost wholly academic meeting with Rebecca Probert, a   
   legal professor and expert in English marriage law at Exeter University.   
   She guides us through a fascinating history, from the Book of Leviticus,   
   which established a template of forbidden familial sexual relations for a   
   man (mother, sister, niece, granddaughter and other relatives, though not   
   daughter or granddaughter) to Henry VIII and his self-serving legal   
   manoeuvres.   
      
   Henry’s Marriage Act of 1540 allowed him to marry Catherine Howard, the   
   first cousin of one of his previous wives, Anne Boleyn, a union which   
   otherwise would have been considered incest under canon law. Cousin   
   marriage, historically the norm for much of the world, has been legal   
   since the Reformation (in 1840, exactly 300 years after Henry’s legal   
   gambit, Queen Victoria married her first cousin, Prince Albert), but has   
   remained a consistent reference point in public discussions, suggesting   
   ‘some disquiet’ about the practice.   
      
   Next up is Afzal on the case for ‘thoughtful legislation’ on cousin   
   marriage in a changing world. He speaks with authority on its incidence in   
   the British Pakistani community, emphasising that every time he brings it   
   up he receives a ‘pile-on’ of public abuse.   
      
   According to Patrick Nash, an expert on religious law and director of the   
   Pharos Foundation, which is co-hosting the discussion, consanguinity rates   
   within the British Pakistani community are between 40-60 per cent, rising   
   to more than 90 per cent within many patriarchal networks in Bradford.   
   Published earlier this year, Nash’s academic paper, ‘The Case for Banning   
   Cousin Marriage’, unexpectedly started trending in Scandinavia, the   
   prelude to Norway, Sweden and Denmark all announcing moves to ban the   
   practice.   
      
   The focus has since switched to the UK. On 5 November, the Conservative MP   
   Richard Holden tabled a question for the Justice Secretary, asking her to   
   assess the potential merits of outlawing marriage between first cousins.   
   ‘We are aware that all aspects of weddings, including first cousin   
   marriage, are important issues,’ Alex Davies-Jones, a minister in the   
   justice department, responded. The government would consider the issue.   
   Translation: lob it into the long grass.   
      
   Afzal treads a thoughtful line through this minefield, an intersection of   
   culture, law and ethics, tradition, morality and public health. The   
   science is clear. The risks of serious recessive genetic disorders,   
   including Tay-Sachs disease, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis and beta   
   thalassaemia, approximately double through cousin marriage, from 2-3 per   
   cent in the child of an unrelated couple to the (still low) 4-6 per cent   
   for the child of one-time first cousins. Multi-generational cousin   
   marriages, however, are only likely to increase these figures.   
      
   It is not always clear which way Afzal is leaning. Some have argued the   
   health risks of cousin marriage are no greater than those from a woman   
   having a child in her mid-forties, he notes. Others say that isn’t true.   
   Taboo for some, cousin marriage for others is about ‘keeping the family   
   together, keeping the property in the family’. He describes how the   
   outlook of the British Pakistani community has steadily evolved, from the   
   more conservative ‘village mentality’ of the first generation to a much   
   more global outlook today. The community is already having the   
   conversation about cousin marriages and there is now a recognition that a   
   much bigger pool of potential marriage partners is available. ‘I’m quite   
   positive about this for the first time in my life. Children have access to   
   online dating apps, they don’t have to rely on mum and dad to find a   
   partner.’ He says he can count the number of prosecutions for forced   
   marriage, criminalised in 2014, on one hand. The same is true for female   
   genital mutilation, criminalised in 1985. ‘Having a law doesn’t always   
   make the difference you think it does.’ Ultimately, Afzal concludes, it is   
   better to engage directly with the communities than impose an outright   
   ban.   
      
   Opinion on the panel, which includes Samia Bano from SOAS, Stephen Gilmore   
   (Cambridge), Inaya Folarin Iman (Equiano Project), Jean-Francois Mignot   
   (Sorbonne), Michael Muthukrishna (LSE) and Philip Wood (Aga Khan   
   University), is reassuringly divided. This is no kangaroo court. It’s   
   cultural relativism versus universal moral standards and human rights,   
   accusations of prejudice and stereotyping against open discussions of   
   problems within communities, and personal freedom against public health.   
      
   The counter arguments to an outright ban are considered in detail, among   
   them the relatively low risk of genetic disorders and diseases, the danger   
   of stigmatising minorities and the fundamental question of personal   
   autonomy. Responding to the charge of cousin marriages creating an excess   
   burden on the NHS, an accusation levelled by Tommy Robinson, the   
   self-styled English ‘patriot’ currently detained at His Majesty’s   
   pleasure, one of the panellists notes that Muslims generally do not drink,   
   which must save the NHS a considerable sum.   
      
   The discussion ends perfectly convivially. To be honest, I was expecting   
   more of a brouhaha, but there have been no brickbats, no stinging insults   
   or anything untoward. Just a few academics finding some things ‘highly   
   problematic’ or ‘deeply concerning’ and only one use of the word   
   ‘Islamophobia’.   
      
   These days the mere act of having such a controversial discussion in   
   Cambridge feels like an achievement. Earlier in the day, I was reminded   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)