“Forced to Marry”: A Look at the Documentary

Last week’s “Friday Links” linked to a story of a documentary about forced marriages of young Pakistani-British girls to men in Pakistan. I followed the link and decided to watch this new British documentary. I found the film, called Forced to Marry and which aired on BBC Two on December 1st: fascinating, frustrating, disturbing, chilling, sad, and, at times, hopeful and heartening.

Saira Khan. Image via BBC Two

Saira Khan. Image via BBC Two

The film, which was filmed, produced, and directed by Ruhi Hamid and narrated and presented by Saira Khan, begins with the dire statistics that each year thousands of girls from Britain are taken abroad and are forced to marry, many of them in Pakistan. In fact, Khan notes that more British people are forced into marriage in Pakistan than in any other country. In the documentary, Khan follows staff members Albert David, Neelam Farooq (both Pakistanis), and Theepan Salvaratnam (British Vice Consul) of a unit set up in Pakistan by the British Foreign Office which finds and rescues British girls in Pakistan who have been forced into marriages, in hopes of finding out why young British Pakistanis are being forced to marry.

In the documentary, we are presented with the cases of four British Pakistani girls – Tanya, Aaliyah, Zara, and Rubina (all aliases) – who the unit tries to rescue. With each rescue attempt, I found myself getting nervous and tense. The unit confronts those involved (without showing their faces on camera) and the chance of confrontations becoming tense and dangerous always seem high. However, each confrontation is resolved in some way or another, as the unit is intent on keeping tensions and altercations of any kind at a far distance.

The documentary is eye-opening as it tells the stories of the girls in order to to explain this particular, and seemingly increasing (a 40-45% increase in just one year), problem the U.K. and Pakistan face. When telling such stories, one has to perform a sensitive balancing act: expose the problem without stigmatizing a marginalized community. This documentary does this well. First, the documentary ensures to clarify the difference between forced and arranged marriages, the latter of which are still very common in South Asian cultures. The documentary also mentions numerous times that such forced marriages are un-Islamic.

At one point this distinction becomes bittersweet when Khan speaks with young British Pakistani girls about the issue and they state that it is not Islam but rather the culture. So in defending religion, they implicate culture. I was not sure how to feel about this. I cannot deny that the issues of family honour and “parents know best” are not a part of South Asian culture, but such expressions (i.e., forced marriages) are extreme. Yet, working as a double edged sword, this same depiction of culture as the culprit portrays the parents of the girls as victims of the culture, bound by traditions of honour and having to fall to the pressures of families and bradries (brotherhoods, or castes). This, because it is obvious that the young girls profiled in the film are torn and conflicted. They want to leave Pakistan, they do not want to be forced, but at the same time they love their parents and do not want to hurt them, despite their parents forcing them into marriages. By depicting the parents as victims just as much as victimizers, one sees the complexity of the issue as well as the inner struggles of the girls being rescued.

The film ends back in the U.K., with Khan speaking with British Pakistani writer and broadcaster Ziauddin Sardar who has written books on British Asians. He calls for a reform of laws criminalizing forced marriages. A law which has since become reality. He accurately points out that the attempt of the parents to create closer ties with family in Pakistan by forcing to marriage their children to family in Pakistan has actually ended up tearing families apart.

The film left me feeling sad for the young girls who although portrayed as victims in some ways, were also the ones who instigated the rescues. They were always given the choice of leaving or staying. The unit was just a means for them to escape. And the unit, although a British initiative, was made up mainly of Pakistanis rescuing British girls. However, I wondered, as did Khan, about the many girls the unit was not able to help.

The film left me feeling angry at the parents who force their children to marry to uphold traditions that they may hold dear but which are detrimental for the children involved. The film left me feeling frustrated at the loyalty some of the girls felt to either their parents or in-laws. However, being South Asian myself, I understand that sense of loyalty, honour, and respect. I also understand my own privilege for having parents who would never force me to do anything, thus making my adherence to such cultural practices easy. The film also left me feeling hopeful that there are resources for these young girls (and apparently boys as well). Finally, I felt sad for the Pakistani girls who are forced into marriages, who do not have the Pakistani government to come to their rescue. The issue of forced marriages in Pakistan, of both Pakistani nationals as well as British (and others perhaps), is obviously a problem which must be highlighted and thus such documentaries are a necessity.

You can watch the documentary below, or on YouTube here. I highly recommend watching it.

Not Australia’s Next Top Model: Iktimal Hage-Ali

Iktimal Hage-Ali, 24 is a Lebanese-Australian woman whose life reads like an episode of E! True Hollywood Story.

Iktimal Hage-Ali. Image via Ross Schulz.

Iktimal Hage-Ali. Image via Ross Schulz.

Hage-Ali, a former member of the government‘s Muslim Community Reference Group was arrested for conspiring to sell drugs on Nov. 22, 2006, eight days before she was named New South Wales’ Young Australian of the Year award. She relinquished this title after pictures of her sipping champagne surfaced on the Internet and reports about her cocaine habit were made public. She was released without charge hours later, after she admitted to buying cocaine for her own personal use.

In November 2006, police began tapping her phone calls and taping her conversations with her childhood friend and cocaine supplier, Mohammed “Bruce” Fahda. They had reason to believe she was selling the drugs because in the conversations she told Fahda the cocaine was for a friend, a lie she says she told him because didn’t want him to know she was snorting coke during the holy month of Ramadan. Hage-Ali claims she was wrongly arrested and detained (on suspicion of being a drug supplier) and is suing the government for damages of up to $750,000.

Hage-Ali, who was released without charge the day of her arrest, told The Daily Telegraph she’s “not ashamed of the fact that I have used cocaine” because she “still did a good job” at work.

Although I have problems with the lead in The Sydney Herald story, I’m siding with the media on this one. The “elephant in the room” is that Hagel-Ali is Muslim. The details of her case become even juicier when instances, such as her disgust with former fellow advisory panel member Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly, are inserted. It becomes very hard not to tell Hagel-Ali’s story without the Muslim woman gone bad” angle.

I work in government and I know what it’s like to have to schmooze and network and effectively kiss ass in order to be accepted in the community. But Hage-Ali, who literally represents the Muslim community in government, took it too far. She was acting reckless and it came back to bite her. She was a Muslim affairs advisor, and whether she likes it or not, that means she represents Muslims. That means you think twice before sipping champagne at a highly publicized event. Al Hilaly (who has issues of his own) had these harsh words to offer:

“A so-called Muslim leader drinks champagne and takes illegal substances – and this sends a terrible message to young people. And the government sees her as a role model. The Muslim community never did.”

It would be nice if Hage-Ali was at liberty to say her actions don’t represent all Muslims, but by default of her former title, they do. Having a bright, unveiled, attractive (shit helps!) Muslim woman in the public sphere is great PR for Islam and Muslim women because it defies the image of the depressed woman in the black chador, of the come-hither niqab eyes, of the lifeless woman underneath the burqa, of the apron, and the woman in the private sphere.

Hage-Ali could have taken a stand against the characterization of Muslim women by drawing attention to her own position in a positive manner. She could have said her commendable achievements were a result of her faith; after all, one does not become a Muslim affairs adviser without knowing a thing or two about Muslims. Instead, she projected the image of a Lindsey Lohan-type wild child, and gave the Muslim community the impression that she doesn’t care what they think of her.

A great big thank-you!

Muslimah Media Watch earned an honorable mention at this year’s Brass Crescent Awards, alhamdulillah!

We would like to thank all of you that voted! Be sure to check out the winner’s list: there are some great blogs on it.

A big thanks goes to all of our readers, whether you voted or not. Your comments, both positive and critical, and your support mean a lot to us.

The biggest thanks of all goes to all of the wonderful contributors to MMW: they all work so very hard and put so much of themselves into their writing here. They ensure MMW’s wonderful diversity and discussions. Thank you from the bottom of my heart, ladies. :)