BCCLA calls for charges to be dropped in polygamy cases

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
February 9, 2009
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
February 9, 2009
For immediate release
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]BCCLA calls for charges to be dropped in polygamy cases
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Vancouver – [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The BC Civil Liberties Association today calls for charges to be dropped in the recently laid polygamy cases in Bountiful.
Early in January, charges were laid against Winston Blackmore and James Oler, leaders of the Bountiful religious community outside Creston BC, changing them both with offenses against section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, a provision of the code passed in 1892.
- http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/09Polygamy.pdf

BCCLA would much prefer that Blackmore and his cronies be charged for various sexual abuses if there is any truth to it. Charging them with polygamy sounds like a legal nightmare considering the Charter of Rights & Freedoms (the liberty to practise your religion). I think Oppal is off his nut.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I agree. I think it is high time The Supreme Court established whether ban on polygamy is constitutional.

I myself think polygamy violates the equality provision of the Charter, and Supreme Court will probably rule that the Parliament has the right to ban polygamy. However, if SC rules the other way and legalizes polygamy, I would be willing to live with that.

But I think it is necessary to establish once and for all if ban on polygamy is legal or not. In the unlikely event that SC overturns the ban on polygamy, then these people could be charged with sexual abuse, there is always time for that.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
There is a pretty strong basis for discrimination based on religion for banning polygamous marriages.

Monogamous Marriage is a pretty strongly Judeo-Christian structure.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
You should be able to marry whomever you want. Why a guy would want more than one wife is beyond me though. I can barely afford one.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Depending on the culture, sometimes its the wife who wants a second wife for the husband.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,280
11,381
113
Low Earth Orbit
As long as women are abused in the borders of Canada the war in A-Stan will continue to be a propaganda farce about bringing woemn and children freedom and rights.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
There is a pretty strong basis for discrimination based on religion for banning polygamous marriages.

Monogamous Marriage is a pretty strongly Judeo-Christian structure.

Sure it is discrimination, but freedom to worship is not absolute, basic human rights trump the freed of religion. When the two are in conflict, freedom of religion must yield.

E.g. some religions demand human sacrifice, but Canada won’t permit human sacrifice in the name of religion. If tomorrow somebody starts a religion with rape as its main sacrament, Courts won’t permit them to indulge in rape, in the name of freedom of religion.

It is the same with polygamy. Sure some religions demand polygamy (e.g. Islam, or Mormonism). However, I think polygamy comes right smack against the equality provision of the Charter. There is no way courts will permit religions to do something if that means relegating women to second class citizens.

In my opinion, it is highly likely that courts will rule that permitting polygamy is unconstitutional.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Depending on the culture, sometimes its the wife who wants a second wife for the husband.

Now really, what does culture have to do with constitution? Constitution guarantees equality of all human beings, culture is shaped by centuries of tradition, practice and biases. One has nothing whatever to do with the other.

Indeed, when we were discussing whether Sharia should be introduced in Ontario, some Muslim men made precisely the same argument. They claimed (probably with some justification) that Muslim women want Sharia introduced in Ontario.

The response is, so what? Most Muslim women are conditioned by their culture, are intimidated by Muslim men, they will agree to anything the men want.

This argument has been made through the ages, e.g. they argued that even if blacks were freed many of them will opt for slavery, or that most women don’t want to vote etc.

So if somebody’s culture demands that a wife must want a second wife for her husband (it may be a status symbol, social standing etc.), then let that couple return to their country and do whatever they want.

If it is decided that polygamy is against the Charter (as I think and hope the Courts will rule), what somebody’s culture says is irrelevant.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Sure it is discrimination, but freedom to worship is not absolute, basic human rights trump the freed of religion. When the two are in conflict, freedom of religion must yield.

E.g. some religions demand human sacrifice, but Canada won’t permit human sacrifice in the name of religion. If tomorrow somebody starts a religion with rape as its main sacrament, Courts won’t permit them to indulge in rape, in the name of freedom of religion.

It is the same with polygamy. Sure some religions demand polygamy (e.g. Islam, or Mormonism). However, I think polygamy comes right smack against the equality provision of the Charter. There is no way courts will permit religions to do something if that means relegating women to second class citizens.

In my opinion, it is highly likely that courts will rule that permitting polygamy is unconstitutional.

Please explain how this is relagating women to second class citizens again? Allowing multiple spouses doesn't seem to have any bias towards either gender or sexual orientation.

It seems to be purely a case of individual freedom being trounced for Judeo-Christian religious based morality.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
I don't really give a crap about the polygamy. What I care about are the 14 year olds being coerced into marrying 45 year old men under the guise of some whacked out religion. I mean, it's one thing to brainwash kids into the religion in the first place, but when you use that brainwashing to sexually abuse them, that's a whole other ballgame.
 

VanIsle

Always thinking
Nov 12, 2008
7,046
43
48
Sure it is discrimination, but freedom to worship is not absolute, basic human rights trump the freed of religion. When the two are in conflict, freedom of religion must yield.

E.g. some religions demand human sacrifice, but Canada won’t permit human sacrifice in the name of religion. If tomorrow somebody starts a religion with rape as its main sacrament, Courts won’t permit them to indulge in rape, in the name of freedom of religion.

It is the same with polygamy. Sure some religions demand polygamy (e.g. Islam, or Mormonism). However, I think polygamy comes right smack against the equality provision of the Charter. There is no way courts will permit religions to do something if that means relegating women to second class citizens.

In my opinion, it is highly likely that courts will rule that permitting polygamy is unconstitutional.
Parts of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) are a break away from the main church. Bountiful Mormons are part of the "break away". We have friends who have strong Mormon faith and they believe only in monogamous relationships. Like most of us - the idea of sharing one's spouse with another is repulsive to them.
 

VanIsle

Always thinking
Nov 12, 2008
7,046
43
48
I don't really give a crap about the polygamy. What I care about are the 14 year olds being coerced into marrying 45 year old men under the guise of some whacked out religion.
So you are saying that (if you are married and I believe you have stated that you are very happily married) it would be okay with you if your wife brought another husband into your home? That is what it sounds like you are saying.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Parts of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) are a break away from the main church. Bountiful Mormons are part of the "break away". We have friends who have strong Mormon faith and they believe only in monogamous relationships. Like most of us - the idea of sharing one's spouse with another is repulsive to them.
The Mormons at Bountiful are a break away from the regular Mormons.
 

VanIsle

Always thinking
Nov 12, 2008
7,046
43
48
Please explain how this is relegating women to second class citizens again? Allowing multiple spouses doesn't seem to have any bias towards either gender or sexual orientation.

It seems to be purely a case of individual freedom being trounced for Judeo-Christian religious based morality.
How many women do you know have multiple husbands?? Of course it is relagating women to second class citizens - barefoot and pregnant.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
So you are saying that (if you are married and I believe you have stated that you are very happily married) it would be okay with you if your wife brought another husband into your home? That is what it sounds like you are saying.
Read my signature, and then read what I said in my OP.
IOW, I think it's absolutely inane to charge Blackmore with polygamy and ignore the other things he's doing.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
So you are saying that (if you are married and I believe you have stated that you are very happily married) it would be okay with you if your wife brought another husband into your home? That is what it sounds like you are saying.

Im happily married , and I can answer that.

If we both decided to do that, then yes, I think thats fine. As its not other peoples business. No where in the concept of plural marriages does it state one married member is the "master" who decides how many spouses are involved. If everyone in the existing marriage says "Sure, whats one more" thats fine.

If one person secretly marries another, thats bigamy, and thats another crime entirely.