#forcedmarriages

Gender-based violence in India continues to rise.

5th post  - Discussion of a real example.

The real example I’ve picked for this post is about a Muslim girl named Sadia, from Bangladesh.

Sadia’s experience is directly related to this topic because her parents pulled her out of school when she was only 14 years old, which is better than most ages that are being affected by child marriages but it is still too young in my eyes. She really liked school and was very upset when she was forced to drop everything. She was forced to marry

a man years several years older than her and she was forced to have sex with him shortly after her wedding. She had some implications during her pregnancy towards the end of it where it turned into a life or death for either her or her baby. And Sadia was willing to take her own life for the sake of her baby. Fortunately,  both of them survived thanks to the cesarean section. She still worries now about the money situations, her well being, her husband that she must take care of, and her daughter. She worries that one day her daughter will be forced into child marriage like she was. She wouldn’t want the same thing to happen to anybody else.

Culturally speaking, people in Sadia’s village and in that whole country experience child marriages, although not all are directly involved. Her grandmother was married at an even younger age than her, so she was helping out the arrangement and her pregnancy. Her parents didn’t really want to stop it either, it was in their culture, it was tradition. Sadia even told her mother that she wanted to stay in school, finish, then get married at an older age, but her mother didn’t want to terminate the arrangement.

Her positionality in this situation makes it seem like she is just a number. So many girls her age and younger are directly involved with child marriages, being taken out of school, and forced to have a child when they are not ready. Being in a country where child marriages are encouraged, its difficult, sometimes impossible, to get out of a wedding arrangement, and you are lucky if you are not in one.

Works Cited:

On November 5, 2014, the federal government tabled Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act (Bill S-7) introducing sweeping changes to three areas of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), Civil Marriage Act and Criminal Code.  The government’s statements in support of these changes are based on no statistical data or research, nor have they consulted experts in this field. The announcements and the tabled act perpetuate myths about practices of polygamy and forced marriages while misguiding Canadians to believe that violence against women is a “cultural” issue and happens only in certain communities. The federal government has blatantly targeted marginalized and racialized communities through the racist framework used in the intent, wording and announcement of this act. The circulation of these racist myths and generalization of communities is one of the biggest obstacles to understanding the harmful effects of these proposed legislations.

Incidents of forced marriages (FM) and issues related to FM are not new to communities living in Canada. Many FM incidents have been reported by agency advocates from various communities since the late 1980’s. The South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario (SALCO) has been actively working on the issue of Forced/Non-consensual marriage with an advisory committee of community agencies since 2005[1].  “A forced marriage is a form of violence and an abuse of human rights. It is a practice in which a marriage takes place without the free consent of the individuals getting married. Forced marriage can happen to anyone; of any gender, of any age.”[2] This definition of forced marriages evolved from extensive discussions and debates among member agencies of SALCO’s advisory group from 2007 to 2009 which later was renamed to be Network of Agencies against Forced Marriages (NAAFM). While NAAFM and SALCO have been doing extensive work on the issue of forced marriage, the makers behind Bill S-7 have unfortunately misused the issue of FM for their own racist agenda.  

Community advocates and organizations addressing FM understand that FM as a practice is not confined to a particular culture, religion or region, but it occurs across races, religions, continents and economic status. Clients who are facing FM are also often populations that are marginalized on a number of levels relating to race, income, immigration status, and language, and face significant barriers to equality, which contribute to the conditions leading to FM and family violence. 

SALCO has encountered cases where victims from various backgrounds entered into matrimonial arrangements through their families under false pretences, involving physical abuse, emotional abuse, and exploitation. In its work with victims of forced marriage, SALCO has uncovered a number of policy, legal, and social barriers to addressing these issues. These barriers and gaps include but are not limited to:

lack of protocols at an institutional level,

jurisdictional issues,

lack of trust between communities and authorities,

cultural stereotyping of the issue,

complexities related to the immigration and refugee process, and

the context in which this practice is located, including social and economic concerns, lack of capacity to address an incident (i.e. at the school level), and lack of knowledge around the issue.

 Since the release of the SALCO’s statistical report (2013) on the incidents of FM in Ontario titled, “Who if when to Marry: The incidence of Forced marriage in Ontario”, this issue has attracted a lot of wanted and unwanted attention in Canada. The report contains data on demographic information about FM clients, and substantive data about the driving factors leading to FM, the barriers clients face, and the challenges service providers confront in serving FM clients. While the attention has created options for better resources and funding on the issue, it has been co-opted by the government to further their racist discourses and agendas through their attempts to focus on criminalization of these issues.

The racist myths that are being perpetuated by Bill S-7 send a very strong message to racialized and marginalized communities that they are being targeted by this Act under the false guise of protection for victims of FM[3]. It is important to understand the need and importance for better protection of victims/survivors of forced marriage. Protection of victims and survivors can effectively happen through education of communities and the social service providers, which will only happen when taking a survivor-centric approach. It is important to recognize that prevention of FM will not come from criminalization through mechanisms like Bill S-7. The prevention of forced marriage should be identified as part of a wider strategy to ensure that populations effected, live without fear, which included racist attacks and gender violence. It is clear that the issue of forced marriage cannot be tackled in isolation and we need to analyze the contributing systemic factors such as patriarchy, racism, poverty and xenophobia that allow forced marriages to thrive and exacerbate the abuse of human rights.

Forced marriages, like many other issues related to gender based violence is very complex and is commonly perceived by mainstream Canadians as a particular cultural practice, which leads to a lack of accountability from larger society as an issue that should not be ignored as something outside of Canadian culture. It is often regarded as a common practice among immigrants from South Asia, the Middle East and certain parts of Africa. However, according to SALCO’s research, forced marriages occur in many cultures and faiths and to Canadian citizens while being condemned by most communities and religions; “Every major faith condemns the practice [of forced marriage] and requires freely given consent for marriage, as does the law in most states.”[4]

The issue of criminalization of forced marriages in the Canadian context is unique because existing criminal laws has sufficient provisions that can be applied to duress, harm, assault, kidnapping etc. that might be inflicted on survivors of forced marriage. Unfortunately, in most cases of forced marriages, families are the perpetrators of violence, and they are also often the only social support a victim has. This complexity makes it difficult to take action and isolates survivors even further if the only option is to pursue criminal action against their perpetrators. We strongly believe that this racist act and its implication will further marginalize the victims and survivors of forced marriage. We know that the strong language used in this proposed Act was an attempt to create further fear and further marginalize communities that this act will not serve, but harm.

We strongly believe that the criminalization of forced marriage and the sweeping changes in Bill S-7 are NOT the right answers for Canada. While we agree that prevention is important in the discussion around forced marriage in Canada, we believe that education is the most effective preventative tool in this debate.  We suggest that educating and raising awareness within the Immigration, Law Enforcement, Health and Education sectors is the best practice. Finally, we stand for victims and survivors of gender based violence, whose voices have told us time and time again that they would not come forward if it meant criminal sanctions or deportation for their own family.  We must continue to ensure that victims/survivors (and not perpetrators) are at the centre of these discussions. In addition, we know and have experience that criminalization has potential to become a tool to further target and over police racialized communities. 

For more information on Forced Marriages in Canada:

Forced Marriage report: “Who if when to Marry: The incidence of Forced marriage in Ontario”: http://tinyurl.com/FMreport 

Statement against Criminalization of Forced Marriages: http://tinyurl.com/notocriminalization

Statement against M-505 (IRP regulation changes to Proxy marriages): http://www.salc.on.ca/ResponsetoM-505.pdf

Please note: This is not an official response from SALCO. Please watch for a detailed statement issued to the public and media next week on SALCO and other concerned community agencies and organization’s official stance on Bill S-7.

By: Deepa Mattoo

  [1] SALCO’s historical data

[2] SALCO/NAAFM functional definition finalized in 2009 as documented in the meeting minutes of advisory.

[3] Public comments on the multiple news articles carried by various newspapers on the after relaase of report .