Refugee crisis: Nine-month pregnant 14-year-old goes missing amid anger the Netherlands is allowing

The Netherlands currently faces a problem in providing asylum for girls who married in Syria but are below the Dutch age of consent, which some argue condones paedophilia.

As many as 20 girls between the ages of 13 and 15 have been given legal permission to join their older partners in Dutch asylum centres, regional news channel RTV-Noord reports.

Refugee crisis: Nine-month pregnant 14-year-old goes missing amid anger the Netherlands is allowing child brides from Syria to seek asylum

There's quite a lot of discussion going on about the mass immigration to Europe from the Middle east and North Africa. This is predominantly a wave of Muslims seeking asylum or just looking for a better (economic) life. regardless of the reason, there is one undertone that is European culture could be compromised by such an influx.

I have personal interest in women's rights and fear a generally misogynistic cultural worldview, shaped by a constraining Islamic belief system, compromising the civil liberties and freedoms we in the liberal (and secular) West hold dear.

This story highlights the problems that Western nations have accommodating different cultural norms. In this case, children as wives.

Should Western nations be forceful in the application of their own laws, or should they be flexed to accommodate other cultures where child sex seems normal? Personally, I think it's an affront that the Dutch state is allowing this to happen and children should be removed from their husbands.

As an end note... Let's stick to topic. This has sod-all to do with the cause, it's to do with the immigration crisis and the handling of it.

> The Inquisitr source
> What one bunch of Islamic scholars say on child marriage
> Daily Fail

a reply to: paraphi

It starts by not calling them their "husbands". We need to remove them from their:

Pedophiles
Rapists
Slave owners
Manipulating *bad word*

Any of those are acceptable ways to refer to them.

Should Western nations be forceful in the application of their own laws, or should they be flexed to accommodate other cultures where child sex seems normal? Personally, I think it's an affront that the Dutch state is allowing this to happen and children should be removed from their husbands.

This shouldn't even be a question IMO. If I go to another state or another country I am expected to obey all the laws of that particular state or country. If I do not obey their laws, then I can expect to suffer the consequences or be deported back from whence I came.

Those seeking asylum and those just wanting to go to other countries to start a new life deserve no special treatment in that regard. If you want those laws that protect this type of (what I consider sick/abhorrent) behavior, then you can easily stay where it is allowed by law. Here it is illegal for one to marry and impregnate a 13/14/15 year old child.

You want the advantages and safe harbor you so desire here? Abide by the same laws those that already reside here follow. If that is too much to ask, then maybe you should move along to a more forgiving locale post haste.

a reply to: paraphi

Dbl post

a reply to: paraphi

New country, new laws.

There is no need for discussion.

This is shocking. Any immigrants coming to live in Europe or the UK should adhere to the laws of that Country and there should be no negotiation. Any negotiation to allow this is going against the indigenous people of those countries and is against UN Guidance on the subject.

Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be
subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and
redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them
of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values
or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing
them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim
or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite
racial or ethnic discrimination directed against the people

Immigrants need to assimilate with our cultures not vice versa. I would say if this is true it falls directly under Section 8(a) where is refers to cultural values. If they don't want to assimilate or integrate then they should go back to their own country where their laws are different. Simple as. a reply to: paraphi

I can only say that I have to agree with most of the commenters here. Many Islamic nations may be more understanding of their child marriages and that is where they should go if they do not not agree with western laws. Isn't it illegal to even carry a bible in some Islamic countries? (Saudi Arabia? Iran?) I cannot help but understand if a Christian is punished for breaking their law. It is their personal choice to enter a land that goes against what they believe and they are responsible for making a choice to break such laws. Those Islamic countries will not look the other way and be understanding. They apparently know better than to allow outsider beliefs to interfere in their culture...their whole culture would indeed turn chaotic and confused. Western nations should not waiver on their own values, morals, and especially the law of the land!

any marriage involving a girl that is considered to be under the allowable age to marry according to the country's laws should be annulled... and every women, including the other minor children should have the same freedom to divorce as anyone else has...and time should be spent with each women to make sure she understands this. They have come into a country with different values and laws, and while there, especially if they are hoping to remain and become citizens, they should accept those values and laws as well as the freedom they give everyone, including the women.
if they can't then maybe they should be separated from the general population with the knowledge that they will be deported back to their home country as soon as it can be safely done. laws need to be consistently enforced in a country, which is something I wish some in the US would understand...

You can't stop with the 'one' law. There are so many laws with(in) Sharia law that violate the refugee's new country's laws.

All the while, many countries receiving these refugees are bending over backwards trying to be accommodating and politically correct, allowing this and that, which are in violation of their own laws already. So do they pick and choose which Islamic practices (laws) they are willing to accept? How exactly will that be done? Will the refugees be part of the process?

As many before me have said, the cultures don't mix, won't mix. It's a disaster happening!

a reply to: paraphi

The girls can stay. The men, they should be denied asylum and sent back. Plain and simple. Would you allow a rapist to be granted asylum? Europe, be selective in who you take in. You don't have to take in every one. You will regret it if you don't screen and remove the undesirables.

So... im going to play devils advocate here....

now before i say anything on this i would like to be clear... i think the marrying of children is wrong, and really anyone under 16 at least should most certainly be counted as a child... however..

in these cases, we have girls who are ALREADY married, or pregnant or mothers...they have fled their country to another with their "Husband"

now at this point various problems are created ..

1. arguably breaking up a 14 year old who is 9 month pregnant from the person who is supporting her, financially and possibly mentally is going to hypothetically cause issues which at the end stage of pregnancy you may want to prevent.

2. a 16 year old in the UK can marry a 21 year old in the UK and although people may frown upon it it can happen, not if they were to visit a country where the legal age for marriage was 18 or even 21, would this make their marriage void? would you argue at that point the 21 year old should not be able to act as the husband or wife to their husband or wife?

3. the Marriage has already happened, and although we can prevent marriages from happening we cant tell people who were married in other countries that their marriage is not being recognised in our country, especially after accepted for asylum..

so yes i agree, the process we are talking about is flawed, however the issues created around splitting up a family (there could be babies involved here), going against another countries rules on marriage and creating stress for a young girls who probably knows very little about the world and the only person they know and be it right or wrong share an intimate bond with being taken away from them may well cause more issues than benefits.

a reply to: GonzoSinister

then make sure these girls understand their new rights as far as divorce and let them decide after considering their options. I imagine that for many, their traditions didn't allow for them to chose the husband they are married to....so well, they are in a country that believes that women should have that freedom, and at least allow them to divorce if they chose to. heck put them in protective custody if it's the only way to ensure their safety afterwards.

a reply to: paraphi

"Should Western nations be forceful in the application of their own laws, or should they be flexed to accommodate other cultures where child sex seems normal?"

My guess, and its just that, a guess, is that the Islamic refugees might well see themselves as being somewhat akin to the Mormons or other sects here in the US. Thus, I see them as probably believing they should be permitted a "Religious Exemption" from from application of host country laws to them in the practice of their religion. Think of this as similar to those old US Supreme Court cases where indigenous peoples were exempted from US drug laws in their use of Peyote in the practice of their religious rites.

If that is their claim, and if the arranged marriages are solely as between Muslim participants, I can see where a religious exemption could be invoked. Its a very strange situation really because what's happening is that a near purely "religious" culture is moving into a near entirely secular European culture. The twain may never meet. For example, one of the impetus for the Muslims to appear to ghettoize and resist assimilation into the host culture is because it is one of the tenets and requirements of the Muslim religion that they live no more than 1 mile from a Mosque. That's why Saudi Arabia volunteered money to build 20,000 mosques throughout Europe.

a reply to: dawnstar

yes i completely agree..


i am simply saying that because its not really a black and white issue it cant really be treated as such,

the girls should be educated and given the opportunity to make choices for themselves, unfortunately however we cant force our sensibility on them either, if they chose to stay with their partner because its comforting, or because they genuinely want to for reasons i cannot fathom, we have no right to break them up based purely on our culture viewing the scenario as wrong, that could create fallout of which we really cant manage.

its an incredibly more complex issue than some commentators are making out, furthermore as i was saying, a heavily pregnant womanchild of any age should be put through as little stress as possible until after the birth which should be everyone on here's priority.. then the process of education and options should be put forward to her.

a reply to: TonyS

Hm. Mormons and Muslims? They both have prophets that became such in caves, but I think the similarities end there.

originally posted by: GonzoSinister

We cant tell people who were married in other countries that their marriage is not being recognised in our country, especially after accepted for asylum..

I don't know why we can't? That doesn't even make sense. Do you expect to be able to go to North Korea and not bow to Dear Leader? Do you expect to go to China, preach the gospel from the rooftops all over the country, hand out bibles and be ok? Do you expect to go to Pakistan and stroll through that country wearing naught but a Brazilian bikini and a smile without issue?

Why are there are only a tiny amount of countries where it is expected that you should just be able to roll up and do whatever you choose without consequence? I would not dream of going to some countries because I know there might be a chance I could be fed to some tyrant's rabid dog because I didn't recognize some law adequately. Yet there are so many others that seem to think completely opposite of that.

When would the cut off age be? 14 is ok? Because it's already done... How about 12? 10? When does it become so repulsive that we no longer care about the "comfort" of those who are seeking asylum that much?

After a few years of accepting their marriages, what happens when the natives decide what's good for the goose is good for the gander? Is it then fair to have two sets of laws?

so yes i agree, the process we are talking about is flawed, however the issues created around splitting up a family (there could be babies involved here), going against another countries rules on marriage and creating stress for a young girls who probably knows very little about the world and the only person they know and be it right or wrong share an intimate bond with being taken away from them may well cause more issues than benefits.

I can appreciate the devil's advocate thing. I play that role quite often. Maybe I can't do it here because I am the mother of a teenage daughter. I certainly don't have all the answers.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: GonzoSinister

then make sure these girls understand their new rights as far as divorce and let them decide after considering their options. I imagine that for many, their traditions didn't allow for them to chose the husband they are married to....so well, they are in a country that believes that women should have that freedom, and at least allow them to divorce if they chose to. heck put them in protective custody if it's the only way to ensure their safety afterwards.

This is a sensible option. Automatically voiding someone's marriage from one country upon immigrating to a new one is a snowball zone. Offer the option for divorce, but leave it up to the wives entirely. It's not just about their age to them, it's a matter of support & family for them & their children. If they think they can carry on without the husband's support, then they should be allowed to do so. If they don't think they can,or don't WANT to, leave it be.

Too right we can tell people that their marriage isn't recognised. They have a choice, they don't have to come to our countries, if they want to remain married then they go to a muslim country where their marriage is recognised. I'm sorry they haven't been forced to come to Europe. Surely you would look at the laws of the Country you are fleeing to. This is why for the life of me I don't understand why they are coming to pre-dominantly Christian countries where the values and way of life is in complete contrast to where they have come from. Asylum is to give safety. They are safe. However, that safety is a privilege and they should take on the culture they have come to and the values of that culture. We have laws in our countries. If we start making an excepion for muslim asylum seekers then quite rightfully this could be used against the Countries by paedophiles. They could argue that the precedent has been changed if Countries acknowledge the marriage.a reply to: GonzoSinister