Minister warns of ‘inbred’ Muslims

#1
Minister warns of ‘inbred’ Muslims

A government minister has warned that inbreeding among immigrants is causing a surge in birth defects - comments likely to spark a new row over the place of Muslims in British society.

Phil Woolas, an environment minister, said the culture of arranged marriages between first cousins was the “elephant in the room”. Woolas, a former race relations minister, said: “If you have a child with your cousin the likelihood is there’ll be a genetic problem.”

The minister, whose views were supported by medical experts this weekend, said: “The issue we need to debate is first cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins, and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability [in children].”

Woolas emphasised the practice did not extend to all Muslim communities but was confined mainly to families originating from rural Pakistan. However, up to half of all marriages within these communities are estimated to involve first cousins.
Related Links

Medical research suggests that while British Pakistanis are responsible for 3% of all births, they account for one in three British children born with genetic illnesses.

“If you talk to any primary care worker they will tell you that levels of disability among the . . . Pakistani population are higher than the general population. And everybody knows it’s caused by first cousin marriage.

“That’s a cultural thing rather than a religious thing. It is not illegal in this country.

“The problem is that many of the parents themselves and many of the public spokespeople are themselves products of first cousin marriages. It’s very difficult for people to say ‘you can’t do that’ because it’s a very sensitive, human thing.”
In full

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece

another hidden cost?
 
#3
Its not me squire its a Govt. Minister doing his best for race relations.
 
#5
The answer's simple. Make marriages to 1st cousins illegal.

It would also alleviate some of the housing shortages in Cornwall, Devon, East Anglia and Wales. ;)
 
#7
sanchauk said:
It's not the story: It's your "hidden cost" b*llocks.
Um, it's not b*llocks, it's true and fairly well known. The idea behind immigration is to boost the economy, and having immigrants who're already a drain on the economy pop home, marry their cousins then bring them back here is hardly helping the cause.

So yeah, I'd say banning marriage to first cousins would be good. Hard to see why anyone would object?
 
#8
Its a powerful argument for inter-racial breeding A_J.
I've long been an advocate of the "melting pot" school of eugenics, ie: the more you mix up your genes, the better the result. Of course a lot of people will be unable to differentiate the "society" from the "science" and will assume that I'm a proponent of Nazi Frankensteinism, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

If you've got blue eyes, shake the hand of the nearest person who shares your azure irises: He or she may be a distant cousin.

Danish researchers have concluded that all blue-eyed people share a common ancestor, presumably someone who lived 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

"Originally, we all had brown eyes," Professor Hans Eiberg of the University of Copenhagen said in a press release. "But a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes."


That "switch" — a simple change from "A," or adenine, to "G," or guanine, in the DNA — actually sits next to the OCA2 gene, which regulates the pigmentation of our eyes, hair and skin, and hence has only a limiting effect on it.

If the mutation had completely deactivated OCA2, all blue-eyed people would be albinos.

Eiberg and his team analyzed 155 individuals in a large Danish family, plus several blue-eyed people born in Turkey and Jordan.
Related



All blue-eyed subjects had the mutation, and there was very little variation on the genes neighboring it on the chromosome, indicating that the mutation first arose relatively recently.

In contrast, most mammals share the "normal" form of the gene. The six-letter sequence is exactly the same among mice, horses, cows, rats, dogs, cats, monkeys, chimpanzees and humans with brown eyes. (No word on what gives Siberian huskies and Siamese cats blue eyes.)

Eiberg figures the mutation took place on the northern of the Black Sea, but that's an educated guess, assuming the first blue-eyed humans were among the proto-Indo-Europeans who subsequently spread agriculture into western Europe and later rode horses into Iran and India.

Ironically, neither the first person to have the mutation, nor his or her children, would have had blue eyes themselves.

Blue eyes are a recessive trait, and the gene must be inherited from both parents. (Green eyes involve a related but different gene, one that is recessive to brown but dominant to blue.)

It wasn't until the original mutant's grandchildren or great-grandchildren hooked up — cousin marriage is the norm through most of human history — that the first blue-eyed person appeared. He or she must have looked pretty odd for the Neolithic era.

Eiberg stresses that the genetic variation, as the press release puts it, is "neither a positive nor a negative mutation."

That's a bit disingenuous, as the mutation also produces greater instance of blond hair (sexually selected for even today) and fair skin, which confers a survival advantage by stimulating greater production of vitamin D in sun-starved northern European countries — exactly where blue eyes are still most prevalent.
 
#12
Bert_Preast said:
That might explain why I'm such a mong. But I'm not monging on the NHS, which is the point.
In that case Bert, if you haven't yet settled down and started breeding, cast your net a little wider, and pick a mate of a different race. The jury is still out regarding the intellectual advantage, but people of mixed racial parentage do display superior physical traits.
 
#13
sandmanfez said:
Bert_Preast said:
That might explain why I'm such a mong. But I'm not monging on the NHS, which is the point.
In that case Bert, if you haven't yet settled down and started breeding, cast your net a little wider, and pick a mate of a different race. The jury is still out regarding the intellectual advantage, but people of mixed racial parentage do display superior physical traits.
Mission already accomplished.

Though I still lie awake at night wondering exactly why girls of my own race would have nothing to do with me. My chat up lines were RGJ SOPs and everything - what could possibly have gone wrong?
 
#16
putteesinmyhands said:
The answer's simple. Make marriages to 1st cousins illegal.

It would also alleviate some of the housing shortages in Cornwall, Devon, East Anglia and Wales. ;)
Windsor, Sandringham, Balmoral...
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
sandmanfez said:
Its a powerful argument for inter-racial breeding A_J.
I've long been an advocate of the "melting pot" school of eugenics, ie: the more you mix up your genes, the better the result. Of course a lot of people will be unable to differentiate the "society" from the "science" and will assume that I'm a proponent of Nazi Frankensteinism, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

If you've got blue eyes, shake the hand of the nearest person who shares your azure irises: He or she may be a distant cousin.

Danish researchers have concluded that all blue-eyed people share a common ancestor, presumably someone who lived 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

"Originally, we all had brown eyes," Professor Hans Eiberg of the University of Copenhagen said in a press release. "But a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes."


That "switch" — a simple change from "A," or adenine, to "G," or guanine, in the DNA — actually sits next to the OCA2 gene, which regulates the pigmentation of our eyes, hair and skin, and hence has only a limiting effect on it.

If the mutation had completely deactivated OCA2, all blue-eyed people would be albinos.

Eiberg and his team analyzed 155 individuals in a large Danish family, plus several blue-eyed people born in Turkey and Jordan.
Related



All blue-eyed subjects had the mutation, and there was very little variation on the genes neighboring it on the chromosome, indicating that the mutation first arose relatively recently.

In contrast, most mammals share the "normal" form of the gene. The six-letter sequence is exactly the same among mice, horses, cows, rats, dogs, cats, monkeys, chimpanzees and humans with brown eyes. (No word on what gives Siberian huskies and Siamese cats blue eyes.)

Eiberg figures the mutation took place on the northern of the Black Sea, but that's an educated guess, assuming the first blue-eyed humans were among the proto-Indo-Europeans who subsequently spread agriculture into western Europe and later rode horses into Iran and India.

Ironically, neither the first person to have the mutation, nor his or her children, would have had blue eyes themselves.

Blue eyes are a recessive trait, and the gene must be inherited from both parents. (Green eyes involve a related but different gene, one that is recessive to brown but dominant to blue.)

It wasn't until the original mutant's grandchildren or great-grandchildren hooked up — cousin marriage is the norm through most of human history — that the first blue-eyed person appeared. He or she must have looked pretty odd for the Neolithic era.

Eiberg stresses that the genetic variation, as the press release puts it, is "neither a positive nor a negative mutation."

That's a bit disingenuous, as the mutation also produces greater instance of blond hair (sexually selected for even today) and fair skin, which confers a survival advantage by stimulating greater production of vitamin D in sun-starved northern European countries — exactly where blue eyes are still most prevalent.
That's all very well and good Sandman, but have you ever compared a Great Dane dog to your average Heinz 57?

What you are suggesting is the ultimate mongrel human. Great for survivabiity and all that, but, well, just not very interesting. You are talking about a global population of brown-eyed, dark-haired, latte coloured, booooring people - in effect, dagos.
 
#18
The 1st Mrs.BDS decided to set up shop with her 1st cousin when we separated. Hope they're happy making lots of squinty-eyed saucepans now...... :wink:
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#19
Talking about blue eyes (and I can see the jokes coming ;) ) both my wife and I have dark eyes, but 2/3 of our children have blue eyes, so even tho' we both know we're recessive for that trait, statistically speaking we're bucking the trend; we should only have 1/4 children with blue eyes :)
 
#20
Deleted because we are in current affairs not the NAAFI.

I thought it WAS illegal in this country to marry your 1st cousins, I thought only 2nd cousins were allowed.
 

Latest Threads

Top