| By giving them what they demand, they make the Moslem colonists less able to compete in Darwin’s race. But the English never played fair when there was a chance to weight the scales on their side, and so they gained an empire. |
[Daily Mail, where America gets its news] The NHS has been accused of 'taking the knee' to political correctness by advocating the benefits of marriages between cousins – despite it carrying an increased risk of birth defects and being used as a way to oppress women.
The guidance – which incredibly points out that it has been allowed in Britain since Henry VIII passed a law enabling him to marry Anne Boleyn's cousin Catherine Howard – says that cousin marriage offers benefits such as 'stronger extended family support systems'.
The practice, which is common in the British Pakistani community, has been linked to a greater prevalence of disorders such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease.
Figures show that up to 20 per cent of the children treated for congenital problems in cities such as Sheffield, Glasgow and Birmingham are of Pakistani descent, compared with 4 per cent or lower in the wider population – and treating these problems costs the NHS billions.
The guidance, released by NHS England's Genomics Education Programme, argues that 'although first-cousin marriage is linked to an increased likelihood of a child having a genetic condition or a congenital anomaly, there are many other factors that also increase this chance (such as parental age, smoking, alcohol use and assisted reproductive technologies), none of which are banned in the UK'.
It claims inter-marriage offers benefits which include 'stronger extended family support systems and economic advantages (resources, property and inheritance can be consolidated rather than diluted across households),' and that as banning the practice would 'stigmatise certain communities and cultural traditions', the authorities should instead offer 'genetic counselling, awareness-raising initiatives and public health campaigns'.
And it says 'although children of first cousins have an increased chance of being born with a genetic condition, that increase is a small one: in the general population, a child's chance of being born with a genetic condition is around 2-3 per cent; this increases to 4-6 per cent in children of first cousins. Hence, most children of first cousins are healthy'.
| This assumes that the harmful mutations are uniformly recessive, leading to one in four births being mutation-free, one in four showing the mutation, and two being carriers, with each a generation completely independent of history. But in real life after a series of generations of close-cousin marriage, each carrying parent will likely have several mutations, some recessive (25% of offspring displaying, 25% free of that particular mutation, and 50% carriers) and some dominant (75% of offspring displaying the mutation to a greater or lesser extent, 25% free of that mutation — think sickle cell anemia). And each additional mutation will increase the cost of caring for that child and decrease its ability to compete as an adult. |
Responding to the guidance, Tory MP Richard Holden said that the Conservatives would legislate to ban marriage between first cousins on the grounds that it 'destroys integration, women's rights and the health of those involved'.
| True as that is, Mr. Shadow Secretary, don’t make promises you won’t have the MPs to keep. I’m afraid Edith May and Boris Johnson are not shining examples of how to win at politics, British style. |
Mr Holden told The Mail on Sunday: 'Our NHS should stop taking the knee to damaging and oppressive cultural practices. The Conservatives want to see an end to cousin marriage as a back door to immigration too, but Labour are deaf to these sensible demands. Sir Keir Starmer should stop running scared of the misogynistic community controllers and their quislings who appear in the form of cultural relativist obsessed sociology professors, and ban a practice the overwhelming majority, from every community in Britain, want to see ended for good.'
Dr Patrick Nash, an expert on religious law and director of the Pharos Foundation social science research group in Oxford, said it was 'truly dismaying to see NHS England publishing official 'educational' material that promotes the supposed social benefits of cousin marriage without even mentioning its proven links to honour violence, gender discrimination, multifarious forms of clan corruption, and the immense cost to the taxpayer'.
Dr Nash added: 'Cousin marriage is incest, plain and simple, and needs to be banned with the utmost urgency – there is no 'balance' to be struck between this cultural lifestyle choice and the severe public health implications it incurs.
'This official article is deeply misleading and should be retracted with an apology so that the public is not misled by omission and half-truths.'
A YouGov poll earlier this year found that three quarters of Britons support a ban, with only 9 per cent thinking the law should remain as it is.
| And that 3/4 won’t indulge, increasing their children’s odds of avoiding problems. |
The NHS guidance also argues that 'marriage between first cousins, known as consanguineous marriage, has been practised for centuries across many cultures'.
| And the problems that result are well known. Ponder the known mutations of the closely entwined royals of England and Europe, where Queen Elizabeth II had to send to Greece to find in Prince Phillip a man only her second cousin on one side and third cousin once removed on the other, and lucky indeed that none of the Windsors thereafter are bleeders or worse. |
It states that 'UK laws allowing first-cousin marriage date back to the reign of Henry VIII in the 16th century: having broken with Rome in order to marry Anne Boleyn, Henry passed a new law that enabled him to marry her cousin, Catherine Howard'.
The NHS Genomics Education Programme did not respond to a request for comment.
# id) ?>
|
