Muslim asks court to let in second wife

Choke

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7018015.ece

A muslim is taking a landmark High Court case demanding that the Irish state recognise his polygamous marriage.
The man is from Lebanon, where polygamy is permitted. He is married to two women and has been granted Irish citizenship.
Seven years ago the Department of Justice refused to grant the man’s first wife a visa. The Lebanese entered Ireland with his second wife and claimed asylum. His first wife did not arrive until much later. The man has children with both women.
After its decision was challenged, the justice department agreed to quash its refusal to issue a visa to the first wife. But as part of this settlement the man is required to ask the High Court to rule on the validity of his marriage under section 29 of the 1995 Family Law Act.
The state and the wives are all represented in the case. The residency rights of both spouses will depend on the decision. A number of similar cases are awaiting the outcome.
Legal experts say section 29 applications are usually brought to determine if foreign divorces are valid in Ireland. Britain has agreed to recognise marriages in countries which allow polygamy, as long as a man has married just once.
Liam Egan, a member of the Muslim Public Affairs Congress, accused Ireland of discriminating against Muslims in polygamous families. “It is draconian to treat this family differently,” said Egan.
“Ireland discriminates against Muslims seeking citizenship by asking them to sign an affidavit. The state should not be interfering in families like this. It is silent on adulterous affairs but the moment you try and do something honourable by bringing a woman into a marriage, even a polygamous marriage, there is an issue.”
In 2004 the justice department introduced a requirement that Muslims seeking naturalisation sign a form confirming they had only one wife and would not marry a second one.
The department said: “The Irish Supreme Court in 1989 determined that polygamous marriages and potentially polygamous marriages are not valid and not entitled to recognition in Irish law.
“There is a case involving an individual before the courts dealing with this particular issue and, as such, the department is not in a position to comment any further at this time.”
According to Egan, the Koran says that Muslims can marry up to four women but only if they can provide financial support and “love each of them equally”. He said there are polygamous marriages in Ireland “but it is rare enough because of the recession”.
The Immigrant Council of Ireland said the case highlighted the need for the government to address gaps in immigration legislation dealing with family reunification. It wants rules about who qualifies to live in Ireland as the family member of an Irish citizen or migrant.

I'm torn on this.

On the one hand, we are (hopefully) about to recognise civil partnerships, possibly leading to gay marriage, so tbh, I don't think the traditional definition of marriage (one man, one woman, one love) applies anymore, and I can envisage polyamorous relationships being better than a winner/loser scenario in a love triangle, in certain situations.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that it isn't more about treating women as property then an expanded definition of love.

AnonoBoy

Some people are just glutons for punishment aren't they?

The Volt

Choke wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7018015.ece



I'm torn on this.

On the one hand, we are (hopefully) about to recognise civil partnerships, possibly leading to gay marriage, so tbh, I don't think the traditional definition of marriage (one man, one woman, one love) applies anymore, and I can envisage polyamorous relationships being better than a winner/loser scenario in a love triangle, in certain situations.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that it isn't more about treating women as property then an expanded definition of love.

If he doesn't like our laws/customs then he shouldn't come here. Simple as. I'd love to be able to have a pint of Guinness in Saudi Arabia if I ever end up there but I'd be locked up for it.

Choke

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Some people are just glutons for punishment aren't they?

It could turn out ok.
We'll just have to Celiac

Piste

Ugh I really hope the High Court tells him to PFO, if polygamy is legalised then every man can get Visas for multiple women and we'll have an immigration system that's totally out of control.

Also taxpayers would be supporting extra tax credits to the man if all wives werent working. It'd be a disaster.

Mr. Incognito

God- as if one wasn't bad enough.

Let them in I say, wait till they get a taste of Western Culture and his womins want to watch Coronation Street while the football is on.

Morlar

Voltwad wrote: »

If he doesn't like our laws/customs then he shouldn't come here. Simple as.

Amen.

That group 'Muslim Public Affairs Congress' are seen as wahabi style extremists if I recall correctly there was a thread on the islam forum slamming them as wackjobs.

andala

Fishing laws in Poland state that it's ok to catch a pike that's over 50cm and you can catch as many of them as you like. Should I go to Irish court to lift the no-fish-bigger-than-50cm ban for me?

How about Dutch people here? Should they be allowed to smoke marijuana here because it's legal in their country?

WindSock

Having 2 wives can have its advantages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YLpIQ-K6fw

wes

Oh dear, I have no idea why anyone would listen to the loons in MPAC firstly. The guy would only be discriminated if everyone but Muslims were allowed polyamourous marriages.

Now, as for his individual case, well I simply don't know enought about the law to make any kind of educated comments on it.

As for polyamourous relationships, well to each there own imho. If a bloke can convince 2 Women to marry him (or vice versa), then more power to them, and they can lobby to change the law if they want like everyone else.

Menengroth™

should tell him to sod off and pick one.

Pyr0

If we pass a law allowing polygamous marriages then cool, bring her over no bother. If not, accept that it's against law or find somewhere else to live where your practices will be accepted.

WindSock

wes wrote: »

If a bloke can convince 2 Women to marry him (or vice versa), then more power to them, and they can lobby to change the law if they want like everyone else.

Convince? That's a nice word...
& lol at them saying our family laws are Draconian.

wes

WindSock wrote: »

Convince? That's a nice word...

Ok, maybe I should have used romance instead or something, but I don't think it really changes what I said tbh.

Nodin

Menengroth™ wrote: »

should tell him to sod off and pick one.

The Mrs Woods approach.

WindSock

wes wrote: »

Ok, maybe I should have used romance instead or something, but I don't think it really changes what I said tbh.

No I meant the opposite. Convincing often means the person would have a choice. I don't think given the choice many first wives would choose that their husband takes a second, nor do I believe given the choice would many young women like to marry and older already married man and share his household with his first wife.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I'd be more interested in hearing why a muslim from Lebanon was granted asylum here.

wes

WindSock wrote: »

No I meant the opposite. Convincing often means the person would have a choice.

Well, in my hypotetical example, they do have a choice.

WindSock wrote: »

I don't think given the choice many first wives would choose that their husband takes a second, nor do I believe given the choice would many young women like to marry and older already married man and share his household with his first wife.

Well, apparently there are Women who have no issue with such an arrangement, but I would personally think most Women would be against the idea, but I don't really know either way tbh.

Also, I was also mentioned the reverse situation (hence using Vice Versa), and I am sure there are instances of both kinds of relationships (and many more beside) that willing and happy participants.

Alessandra

I think if you come to our country abide by our rules. We do not recognise polygamous marriages in the state, it is illegal and I think were there courts to recognise this man has a right to both wives being here then it would uproot a whole plethora of problems i.e could polygamous marriages be seen as valid in the Irish courts.. How many wives can he have? 1, 2, 3, 4?

I think there are more meritous issues in relation to civil partnership and marriage for homosexual partners which need be addressed rather first than allowing an "asylum seeker" residency with multiple wives half his village in tow(There are other cases which are waiting to hear the judgement on this, just a can of worms which should remain closed here).

sparkling sea

No his second wife should not be allowed in because in Ireland she is not really his second wife, she's his mistress.

WindSock

wes wrote: »

Well, in my hypotetical example, they do have a choice.

Didn't realise it was an example but can't argue with that.

Well, apparently there are Women who have no issue with such an arrangement, but I would personally think most Women would be against the idea, but I don't really know either way tbh.

I'm sure there are that have no issue, but there are probably plenty more who do, but are not allowed to voice their dissent.

3qsmavrod5twfe

Don't see it happening, law of the land and all that, but just in case the PC junkies get their way

I, for one, welcome our polygamous overlords.

wes

WindSock wrote: »

Didn't realise it was an example but can't argue with that.

Well, apologies for no being clear enough.

WindSock wrote: »

I'm sure there are that have no issue, but there are probably plenty more who do, but are not allowed to voice their dissent.

Well, there is always the option of divorce, which someone could do if there partner was cheating on them, so I see no reason why they couldn't in this case as well, and if they can't divorce, then I doubt they could divorce regardless of whether there significant other was cheating or took on a 2nd partner.

Thoushaltnot

Who's paying for this court case?

The usual?

Gurgle

Piste wrote: »

Also taxpayers would be supporting extra tax credits to the man if all wives werent working. It'd be a disaster.

Marriage allowance, one spouse with income...
Marriage allowance, two spouses with income...

Seems to me they'd lose out as there is no extra allowance for extra spouses, while welfare means testing applies to household income with no mention of who is earning it.

But what the hell, lets support our narrow minded Roman Catholic theocracy to the death.

sparkling sea

wes wrote: »

Well, apparently there are Women who have no issue with such an arrangement, but I would personally think most Women would be against the idea, but I don't really know either way tbh.QUOTE]

Yes there are women who have grown up accustomed to this practice, who are brainwashed into thinking its ok because their religious beliefs. People here were brainwashed for years by the church and this allowed some terrible things to happen to vunerable people. All people are of equal in the eyes of the law and this country does not allow women to be seen as lesser beings.

There are also women who have self esteem issues and don't feel they will ever be good enough .

I am sure there are women somewhere who are happy enough to share as long as their partner doesn't mind sharing either but should we legislate for this, probably not. How would we word it.

Thoushaltnot

I might have had some time for this, if the same right was extended to a Lebanese/Muslim woman, ie. if she had the means and urge to marry up to 4 men and was fighting to have those relationships recognised. :rolleyes:

Add into the mix, that in some countries - their lower age limit amounts to paedophile marriages. I've recently seen a story about a Saudi man divorcing his 8 year old wife.

And don't even get me started about those dodgy Mormon aul 'lads....

prinz

Gurgle wrote: »

But what the hell, lets support our narrow minded Roman Catholic theocracy to the death.

This has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism ffs. How many "protestant" countries recognise polygamy?
It has nothing to do with being narrow minded etc.

WindSock

wes wrote: »

Well, apologies for no being clear enough.

Ah well. I am just talking about polygamy in general, paying no specifics to any case, hypothetical or otherwise.

Well, there is always the option of divorce, which someone could do if there partner was cheating on them, so I see no reason why they couldn't in this case as well, and if they can't divorce, then I doubt they could divorce regardless of whether there significant other was cheating or took on a 2nd partner.

Is divorce really an option for a woman in a Muslim country? Can she easily remarry, or is she tainted?
Why also must she wait for her husband who she didn't want to marry anyway to cheat?
Does he have to cheat with up to 4 wives?

the_syco

Thoushaltnot wrote: »

Who's paying for this court case?

The usual?

Must have seen Pam on the TV.

super_furry

No. If he wants to live in our country he must adhere to, and obey, our laws.

wes

sparkling sea wrote: »

Yes there are women who have grown up accustomed to this practice, who are brainwashed into thinking its ok because their religious beliefs.

So, polyamourous relationships are wrong then? On your say so I guess?

You do know what polyamours means, right? I didn't use that word for ****s and giggles:

polyamorous Twit Definition of polyamorous Share Definition of polyamorous on Facebook Digg:Definition of polyamorous! stumble Definition of polyamorous Bookmark Definition of polyamorous on Delicious submit Definition of polyamorous to reddit Bookmark Definition of polyamorous
adjective

1. Following one of various practices of having relationships with multiple partners, with the knowledge and consent of all involved.
2. Having personal beliefs regarding relationships that are compatible with polyamory, regardless of one's experience or current practices.

As you can see from the above definition, it does not mention gender, and I mentioned both genders. So I don't understand why you focus soley on Women tbh.

So for example a polyamorous relationship, can consist of 2 Women and a Man, or let say 2 Men and One Woman, and any number of other variations.

sparkling sea wrote: »

People here were brainwashed for years by the church and this allowed some terrible things to happen to vunerable people. All people are of equal in the eyes of the law and this country does not allow women to be seen as lesser beings.

Where did I suggest Women were lesser beings? How does a Woman having 2 husbands, or sharing a single husband make her a lesser being?

sparkling sea wrote: »

There are also women who have self esteem issues and don't feel they will ever be good enough .

Sure, fail to see the relevance here tbh. Plenty of Men feel the same way too.

sparkling sea wrote: »

I am sure there are women somewhere who are happy enough to share as long as their partner doesn't mind sharing either but should we legislate for this, probably not. How would we word it.

Haven't a clue personally, but once again I did mention both genders and was not specifically talking about Women.

Gurgle

prinz wrote: »

This has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism ffs. How many "protestant" countries recognise polygamy?
It has nothing to do with being narrow minded etc.

It has everything to do with being narrow minded.
And the Protestant church is just a spin-off from RC in any case, with a few tweaks to the rules.

Coriolanus

Thoushaltnot wrote: »

Who's paying for this court case?

The usual?

No doubt some civil servant decided there was sufficient public interest for them to bankroll the Lebanese chap.

The.Q

Imagine the effect this could have on the already overstretched Social Welfare Laws. Will it have implications, for instance, for claiming an Adult Dependant on a social welfare payment?

For example, If this man were to become unemployed in the future (having worked here, passed habitual residency conditions, Etc., Etc.) and both his wives were recognised, would he receive 2 Adult Dependant Allowances on his Unemployment payment?

super_furry

There are plenty of muslim countries out there that will recognise his marriages. Why doesn't he claim asylum there?

super_furry

The.Q wrote: »

Imagine the effect this could have on the already overstretched Social Welfare Laws. Will it have implications, for instance, for claiming an Adult Dependant on a social welfare payment?

For example, If this man were to become unemployed in the future (having worked here, passed habitual residency conditions, Etc., Etc.) and both his wives were recognised, would he receive 2 Adult Dependant Allowances on his Unemployment payment?

Not to mention the cost to the taxpayer if he has kids with both. You could concievably see him ship in a dozen people.

the_syco

The Lebanese entered Ireland with his second wife and claimed asylum.

According to Egan, the Koran says that Muslims can marry up to four women but only if they can provide financial support and “love each of them equally”

So he comes over to the one country that doesn't accept polygamous marriages, claims asylum, and then wastes our money by going through our courts to get us to acccept them?

As the saying goes: Are you having a f**king laugh?

ScumLord

There's nothing wrong with what he's doing, he's just making his case and if this is a secular society and a democracy he should be allowed to have his religious freedom to have two wives. I don't see why he should have the Christian values of one wife pushed on him.


All this it's our country take it or leave it when our country is in the toilet is daft.

WindSock

Greysen Colossal Blob wrote: »

I'd be more interested in hearing why a muslim from Lebanon was granted asylum here.

Prolly from this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

The conflict killed over a thousand people, mostly Lebanese civilians, severely damaged Lebanese civil infrastructure, and displaced approximately one million Lebanese

prinz

Gurgle wrote: »

It has everything to do with being narrow minded.

What happens when a man comes here with his sheep and wants to have a bestial relationship recognised?

Morlar

ScumLord wrote: »

All this it's our country take it or leave it when our country is in the toilet is daft.

There is nothing daft about the notion that immigrants should comply with our laws.

Morlar

prinz wrote: »

What happens when a man comes here with his sheep and wants to have a bestial relationship recognised?

Or more realistically a child bride from pakistan.

Thoushaltnot

@wes
I think you may be a little confused. Polyamorous is not the same as polygamous. There's also polyandry, btw.

Polyamory is being open to multiple, open, simultaneous relationships.
Polygamy refers to a man having multiple wives.
Polyandry refers to a woman having multiple husbands.

WindSock

prinz wrote: »

What happens when a man comes here with his sheep and wants to have a bestial relationship recognised?

What if he has 2 cloned sheep? :eek:

bullpost

Flock that - no way!

WindSock wrote: »

What if he has 2 cloned sheep? :eek:

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

All this it's our country take it or leave it when our country is in the toilet is daft.

So if a gay man went to live in his country, his civil partner would be welcomed with open arms?

prinz

ScumLord wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with what he's doing, he's just making his case and if this is a secular society and a democracy he should be allowed to have his religious freedom to have two wives. I don't see why he should have the Christian values of one wife pushed on him..

You mean somewhere secular like say France.... no polygamy is illegal there too. What about somewhere secular and without any bias of "Christian values"...like Turkey... no wait polygamy is illegal there too, has been for 80+ years.

Coriolanus

What about incest then?

In Brazil the AoC for incestuous relationships is 14, in India, there are no specific legal statutes defining, banning or otherwise mentioning it.

Does that mean that if they decide to carry their customs over should have free rein?

Gurgle

prinz wrote: »

What happens when a man comes here with his sheep and wants to have a bestial relationship recognised?

Recognized in what way?

If he just wants to screw the thing, then afaik there's not much to stop him provided he does it in private. (Is it illegal to screw a sheep here?)

If he wants to marry it, I doubt he'll get far unless the sheep can sign its name and say 'I do'. In that case, we may have to re-examine the legal rights of sheep.

Or are you suggesting that Muslim women are just livestock to their husbands?

WindSock

According to Wiki:

United Kingdom: Illegal if the marriage took place in the UK, but recognized (for some private purposes;I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify"][COLOR=#002bb8]clarification needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I but not for e.g. pension, immigration or citizenship rights) if it took place in another country where the law allows it if the parties were domiciled in that country