You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
Greed?
She said: “He told me that I would help him in his travel to England and in return he would get a car, home, a lot of money and our life would be settled.
“Now he is not bothering about his baby and me. He has tarnished my life and I need help.”
A Pakistani police report seen by MailOnline claims the British woman willingly married her uncle and later conceived his child in a bid to secure his immigration to Britain.
A legal opinion had been obtained from the department of prosecution which described the relationship as “not permissible in Shariah”, the report claimed.
Greed?
She said: “He told me that I would help him in his travel to England and in return he would get a car, home, a lot of money and our life would be settled.
“Now he is not bothering about his baby and me. He has tarnished my life and I need help.”
A Pakistani police report seen by MailOnline claims the British woman willingly married her uncle and later conceived his child in a bid to secure his immigration to Britain.
A legal opinion had been obtained from the department of prosecution which described the relationship as “not permissible in Shariah”, the report claimed.
I think this bit has something to do with religion. 'Death by stoning' has something to do with religion.
That is a truly shameful article by the Torygraph. Completely ignoring the facts. And giving a Headline that is totally untrue.
Let's start with the legal position. I can only speak from an English perspective, but I would expect that the questions of criminal offences (as opposed to possible penalties) are broadly similar.
I do not know the legal position in Pakistan. I do know that there the death penalty applies to lineal relationships-but this is not a lineal relationship. Given that the Uncle has been arrested, safe to assume that he is believed to have broken the Law.
In the UK, both Uncle and Niece (because she was an adult at the time) would have broken various laws. At both English Canon (religious) Law and Civil Law, they were not allowed to marry. Furthermore, their incestuous relationship means both have committed offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Had any of this happened in the UK. And that child is going to be in serious danger of being taken into care.
Why, exactly, does the Telegraph make the enormous leap that says she faces death by stoning? Who has been arrested? The Uncle. Not the Niece. He is the Accused. She, according to the article, " is a former company director in her 30s and is currently believed to be in the UK". Think it is safe to say she is not going anywhere near Pakistan anytime soon. Because she has likely committed Criminal Offences there.
Shariah Law appears to be saying that they were not legally married, despite going through a ceremony. That would be exactly the same had they got married in the UK.
Just don't get why the Telegraph needs to whip up religious hatred in this way.
Point is-she is never going there. And for the Telegraph to pretend otherwise is just wrong.
The largest Common Law jurisdiction in the World is the USA. Where 6 Men, appointed by someone who relies on Christian Fundamentalist votes, have decided what Women can, and cannot do, with their bodies.
Women tend to get a raw deal when the Laws are run by Men. True in some Muslim countries. Equally true in some Christian countries. More to do with the Male Leaders than any religion.
Ever noticed that 99% of Fundamentalists, religious or otherwise, are Men?