Jump to content
IGNORED

Canadian polygamy laws upheld


Recommended Posts

I know this has been mentioned in the past that there was a reference question in front of the BC courts regarding Canada's polygamy laws. The judge's decision was released today and he ruled that the ban on multiple marriages was consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, its constitutional. The case was started after a judge threw out polygamy charges against two bishops of the FLDS from Bountiful.

 

Justice Bauman said the government's case had shown the law limits the harms expected to rise from polygamy, including spousal abuse, child neglect, and higher infant mortality. The judge said, however, that the law should be changed to avoid criminalising the actions of minors in polygamous marriages, i.e. girls ages 12 to 17 who are in polygamous marriages are victims and not perpetrators of a crime.

 

The full decision can be read here courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/2011BCSC1588.htm

 

This case was a big deal, especially in the legal community. A lot of people were uncertain what the outcome would be. Bountiful is an FLDS community and some of Warren Jeffs' underaged brides came from there, trafficked by their own parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay! Go Canada! This is very good news, the more pressure put on the FLDS and Winston Blackmore's offshoot sect the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pedophilia is already illegal. The men who marry children, and any adults involved in the whole thing should be tried regardless of polygamy laws. If an old man married only one 12 year-old, would that make it ok? When adults are involved, I'm more concerned about the likely coercion that even adult women face. Forcing a woman into a marriage that she doesn't want is essentially rape since the marriage will definitely be consummated, and could possibly even count as kidnapping. Again, this isn't suddenly ok if a man does it to only one victim.

I think charging these men with polygamy is the wrong way to do this. Yes, it's easier to prosecute them for that than for those other crimes that are already illegal. But if it's that easy to get away with child marriage and forced marriage, that is the bigger problem and needs to be addressed head-on.

It's not illegal for a man to be married and have sex with another woman. It's not even illegal for a man to be married and live with another woman in the house. If they haven't already, the cult will soon catch on and have religious ceremonies but never register the marriages with the government or make them official. Then if a woman gets forced into a marriage at 18 or younger, devotes her whole life to this man, and then either is widowed or wants a divorce, she won't be legally entitled to his estate because she's not officially married to him. And then the government will still have to fall back on charges of pedophilia and forced marriage to get these guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were so worried about stepping on peoples toe's offending someone even in these kinds of situations, I'm not surprised at the out come I'm more disgusted that it took this long for nothing, yes it put a spot light on a problem but nothing was done. It would be different if it was Terrorist group I know, but what about women and children's rights not to be forced to marry or be abused, I guess they would have to kill someone to get help.

This makes me so mad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pedophilia is already illegal. The men who marry children, and any adults involved in the whole thing should be tried regardless of polygamy laws. If an old man married only one 12 year-old, would that make it ok? When adults are involved, I'm more concerned about the likely coercion that even adult women face. Forcing a woman into a marriage that she doesn't want is essentially rape since the marriage will definitely be consummated, and could possibly even count as kidnapping. Again, this isn't suddenly ok if a man does it to only one victim.

I think charging these men with polygamy is the wrong way to do this. Yes, it's easier to prosecute them for that than for those other crimes that are already illegal. But if it's that easy to get away with child marriage and forced marriage, that is the bigger problem and needs to be addressed head-on.

It's not illegal for a man to be married and have sex with another woman. It's not even illegal for a man to be married and live with another woman in the house. If they haven't already, the cult will soon catch on and have religious ceremonies but never register the marriages with the government or make them official. Then if a woman gets forced into a marriage at 18 or younger, devotes her whole life to this man, and then either is widowed or wants a divorce, she won't be legally entitled to his estate because she's not officially married to him. And then the government will still have to fall back on charges of pedophilia and forced marriage to get these guys.

I have a problem with polygamy beyond the underage marriages. Polygamy has historically and currently been one-man-many-wives. This reduces the status of these women to one of being the polygamist's property. They don't have the rights of inheritance and community property that a single wife would have. They likely don't have insurance rights, either. And then there's the sociological impact of seeing women only as sexual receptacles and breeders for a patriarchal man. I'm fine if people want to have polyamorous relationships, but polygamy is about marriage and all the attending rights and privileges that our society gives with it. It's naive to see it otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think charging these men with polygamy is the wrong way to do this. Yes, it's easier to prosecute them for that than for those other crimes that are already illegal. But if it's that easy to get away with child marriage and forced marriage, that is the bigger problem and needs to be addressed head-on.

I agree with that. The anti-polygamy laws only makes sense to me when it comes to child brides and forced marriages. The wide ranging scope of the laws makes anyone in a polyamorous relationship who "marries" their partners criminals, and that doesn't sit right with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law's reinterpretation, articulated within this decision, still explicitly criminalizes consenting polygamists, a la Sister Wives, and polyamorous families when they include children, or anyone who holds a spiritual (as opposed to legal) marriage or commitment ceremony with more than one person. I do not consider this a step forward. It is nice to know that I'm no longer breaking Canadian law when I visit my partner there--but if we were to have the commitment ceremony we've been talking about, we would both be in violation of this law. It's okay to have multiple partners, just don't marry them? This relegates all such relationships to second-class legal and spiritual status. There has to be a way to protect children/young girls from the FLDS without infringing on the religious freedom of consenting adults.

Looking forward to seeing how the appeals process goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's okay to have multiple partners, just don't marry them?

yup.

That argument never held water with same-sex partners, and it doesn't do any better with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to read the full decision to really make up my mind about it, but my gut reaction is that I don't agree that polygamy itself is a crime.

In response to this:

I'm fine if people want to have polyamorous relationships, but polygamy is about marriage and all the attending rights and privileges that our society gives with it. It's naive to see it otherwise.

Don't forget about the hybrid situation we find ourselves in with regard to marital rights, i.e. different rights and obligations depending on whether couples are married or living in common law relationships.

I don't have a problem if the state wants to regulate how many "spouses" one can have for purposes of sharing income tax credits or private insurance benefits or automatic inheritance rights or a multitude of other things where "marital status" is relevant. (Though I do note that there are no such caps on having only one child, so there doesn't inherently have to be such caps on the number of spouses.) I do find it completely objectionable to criminalize having more than one spouse at a time when all participants are consenting adults. Seems to me that's a life choice people should be free to make for themselves. Sure, the reality is that polygamy frequently presents itself in ways that are disempowering for women but does it have to be that way? If I want a husband and a wife or two husbands or two wives, shouldn't that be up to me and to these hypothetical spouses? Does it necessarily mean I will be more harmed by this arrangement as a woman than a man would be? And, if the real moral impetus is harm to women, shouldn't same-sex plural marriage then be allowed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to read the full decision to really make up my mind about it, but my gut reaction is that I don't agree that polygamy itself is a crime.

In response to this:

Don't forget about the hybrid situation we find ourselves in with regard to marital rights, i.e. different rights and obligations depending on whether couples are married or living in common law relationships.

I don't have a problem if the state wants to regulate how many "spouses" one can have for purposes of sharing income tax credits or private insurance benefits or automatic inheritance rights or a multitude of other things where "marital status" is relevant. (Though I do note that there are no such caps on having only one child, so there doesn't inherently have to be such caps on the number of spouses.) I do find it completely objectionable to criminalize having more than one spouse at a time when all participants are consenting adults. Seems to me that's a life choice people should be free to make for themselves. Sure, the reality is that polygamy frequently presents itself in ways that are disempowering for women but does it have to be that way? If I want a husband and a wife or two husbands or two wives, shouldn't that be up to me and to these hypothetical spouses? Does it necessarily mean I will be more harmed by this arrangement as a woman than a man would be? And, if the real moral impetus is harm to women, shouldn't same-sex plural marriage then be allowed?

I think you make good points. The other thing that confuses me about arguments against polygamy because of the patriarchy is that, until a few decades ago, pretty much all of those arguments could be made against monogamous marriage, too. Upon marriage a woman's legal identity was subsumed into that of her husband: she could not own property that he did not have full access to; she could not divorce him or bring any legal charges against him; there was no such thing as 'marital rape' because in marrying a man a woman consented to sex with him whenever he wanted it. She was effectively his property, existing to serve him and bear his children.

It is only comparatively recently that monogamous marriage has largely been redefined to mean an equal, respecting, consensual relationship. Why can't the same be done with polygamy? Rather than condemning plural marriage, if we celebrate consenting polyamory and condemn patriarchy, then polygamy, like monogamy, can become an equally fulfilling and respectful relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is some relief that they can use polygamy to prosecute these men simply because they have so far been unable to prove that they broke other laws (child brides, abuse) - it might be the wrong way of going about it - but I think that's the real reason behind it(i.e. they know that there are child brides etc, but need to open the case this way to bring it out). I don't think the authorities would really bother going after consenting adults in poly relationships unless someone tried to legally marry more than once.

There is, however, hope that they can go in and prosecute as they are investigating the trafficking of child brides into Canada (as well as the export of them to Jeffs). This article doesn't state where in Texas they are investigating/discovered documents, but isn't the Waiting for Zion ranch in Texas?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/25 ... ref=canada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is some relief that they can use polygamy to prosecute these men simply because they have so far been unable to prove that they broke other laws (child brides, abuse) - it might be the wrong way of going about it - but I think that's the real reason behind it(i.e. they know that there are child brides etc, but need to open the case this way to bring it out). I don't think the authorities would really bother going after consenting adults in poly relationships unless someone tried to legally marry more than once.

There is, however, hope that they can go in and prosecute as they are investigating the trafficking of child brides into Canada (as well as the export of them to Jeffs). This article doesn't state where in Texas they are investigating/discovered documents, but isn't the Waiting for Zion ranch in Texas?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/25 ... ref=canada

I believe that they did in fact find the documents during the raid of the Waiting for Zion ranch. It came out during the Court hearing evidence for the Reference Question. I would find some links but I'm out of town in the middle of no where for my aunt's funeral and my internet connection is really slow and not working that great.

I support the laws against polygamy right now because its the only way that to get some of these guys. I wish it wasn't but that where it stands right now.

The decision is going to be appealed and it is vulnerable on appeal due to some assumptions that the Judge made as the basis for decision. I've read some opinion pieces in which its been said that the judge was so disgusted by the evidence presented against the Bountiful FLDS community, that he upheld the laws. They used the BC Supreme Court which is a lower trial court in the province so they could hear witnesses, which you can't at appeal lever where traditionally most reference questions are decided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.