Canadian polygamy law on trial for the first time in 127 years

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
Canadian polygamy law on trial for the first time in 127 years




It’s almost certainly going to come down to a battle over religious freedom when Canada’s 127-year-old polygamy law is tried for the first time in Canadian history.

Canada’s best-known polygamist, Winston Kaye Blackmore, and his former brother-in-law, James Marion Oler, will face one count each of polygamy when the trial begins Tuesday in B.C. Supreme Court in Cranbrook.

There are 24 women listed on Blackmore’s indictment who are alleged to have been married in a religious ceremony or had conjugal relations with Blackmore, 61.

By contrast, Oler’s indictment lists “only” four.

Both are former bishops of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and descendants of the six founding fathers of Bountiful, a community of about 1,500 people in southeastern B.C.

Blackmore has never tried to disguise the fact he has multiple wives, who have borne him 145 children.

He spoke about his multiple wives at a 2005 polygamy summit that his wives organized. He’s talked about it with reporters and in civil trials in the United States. Under oath in Federal Tax Court in 2012, Blackmore struggled to name all his wives, missing one. It was only after he was prodded by the government’s lawyer that he got them all. Asked how many children he had, Blackmore said he’d have to call home to find out.

Blackmore has admitted that 10 of his wives were 17 or younger when they were married. In a deposition filed in a Utah civil trial in 2014, Blackmore said three of his brides were 16 and one was 15. Despite that admission under oath, Blackmore has never been charged with sexual exploitation or sexual interference.

By contrast, 53-year-old Oler has never spoken publicly and has refused legal counsel. To help the court with legal issues and ensure fairness, Joseph Doyle was appointed as an amicus for this trial.

Doyle was also the amicus in November when Oler faced the more serious charge of removing a child from Canada for an illegal purpose. Oler’s acquittal is being appealed.

The road to this trial, which starts Tuesday, is decades long, winding and marked by missteps along the way.

For more than 70 years polygamy has been practised in Bountiful. But local, provincial and federal governments not only ignored it, they funnelled money into the community in the form of child benefits, private school grants and money for a private midwives’ clinic.

Local residents turned a blind eye. Nurses and doctors occasionally saw the same man at the side of different women giving birth in the hospital and watched as he signed both birth certificates indicating he was the father.

Because no one complained, the first RCMP investigation didn’t even take place until the 1990s. The targets of the investigation were Blackmore and Oler’s father, Dalmon.

It was prompted by complaints by Debbie Palmer — James Oler’s half-sister and Dalmon’s daughter. She is also Blackmore’s stepmother, having married Winston’s father when he was 55 and she was 15, and his sister-in-law. Palmer’s sister, Jane, was Blackmore’s first and only legal wife.

Although RCMP recommended charges, lawyers in the attorney general’s ministry refused to lay them. For more than a decade after that, provincial lawyers refused to approve charges because of never-published legal opinions that the law was invalidated by the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The zeitgeist was reflected in a report to the government done in 1993 by O. Gary Deatherage, the director of the local Mental Health Centre: “We . . . do not view this religious community as being bizarre or particularly cult-like, but instead view it as another manifestation of multiculturalism, a different way of expressing spirituality.”

But by 2007, then Attorney General Wally Oppal had had enough. He appointed special prosecutor Richard Peck to review the RCMP files. But rather than laying charges, Peck agreed with the previous opinions that the law’s constitutionality was in doubt. He recommended a constitutional reference case. Oppal disagreed and over the course of the next two years appointed two more special prosecutors until the third finally agreed to lay charges.

In 2009, Blackmore and Oler were each charged with one count of polygamy. But those charges were stayed after a judge agreed with Blackmore that the second and third prosecutors had been improperly appointed.

The only course left was a constitutional reference case. After months of evidence and deliberation, in 2011 the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that because of polygamy’s inherent harms the law is a justifiable limit on both religious freedom and freedom of association.

That cleared the way for prosecution. Peter Wilson became the fourth special prosecutor and in August 2014, he charged Blackmore and Oler with one count each of polygamy.

Oler, along with Blackmore’s brother, Brandon, and sister-in-law Emily Ruth (Gail) Blackmore, was also charged with unlawful removal of a child from Canada for sexual purposes.

The “removal” trial was held in November. The Blackmores were found guilty and are awaiting sentencing.

This will be a much different trial with fewer witnesses and fewer testimonies from former residents about life in Bountiful. Instead, it’s scheduled for only two weeks and will be a distilled and tightly focused replay of some of the legal issues from the constitutional reference case.

Blair Suffredine, Blackmore’s lawyer and a former Liberal MLA, has said that he won’t challenge the criminality of polygamy. Rather, he will question the right of an individual to not be punished for practising his religion.

Regardless of how Suffredine frames it, the questions that Justice Sheri Ann Donegan will have to decide are: Is the Charter guarantee of religious freedom a blanket protection or are there limits to it? And, if there are limits, is the practice of polygamy covered by it?

These are thorny issue that have bedeviled not only Canadian and B.C. lawmakers over the past century, but those in other countries as well.

India’s Supreme Court is currently hearing a polygamy case involving the Muslim practice of polygamy and contracted marriages of specific lengths. The government’s position is that it can’t be allowed in a secular society because it conflicts with women’s constitutionally guaranteed right to equality. It also argues that polygamy is not a religious practice but a social custom sanctioned by religion.

In Utah last month, the state legislature enacted a new polygamy law. The previous one was struck down in 2013 by a federal judge after the Brown family from the reality TV show “Sister Wives” was investigated.

In an attempt to narrow the definition, Utah’s new law says that an offender would have to live with more than one spouse and must “purport to be married.”

Three days after the B.C. government announced in 1992 that Blackmore would not be charged, he declared “victory over our enemies” during a Sunday sermon to about 200 people.

He preached about “the Principle” of polygamy, reminding his followers that not one year should go by when children are not born into a polygamous marriage.

Blackmore also bought a framed copy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and hung it in his office.

His successful challenge to the appointment of special prosecutors in the mid-2000s further emboldened him to believe that he and his several hundred followers may indeed be above the law, if not specifically protected by it.

Even this time, Blackmore has tried unsuccessfully to have the charge quashed using the same grounds as before — that the special prosecutor was improperly appointed. Last week, Suffredine argued for another delay. He wanted the Blackmore/Oler trial to be split in two because the evidence against one could be prejudicial to the other. Separating the trials, he said, would also allow Blackmore to officiate at a family member’s funeral.

The judge disagreed and the two men will be tried together.

The prosecutor’s case will largely rest on documentary evidence and expert testimony about polygamy’s practice both in the early mainstream Mormon church and later in the breakaway fundamentalist groups such as the FLDS.

Texas ranger Nick Hanna will testify about the FLDS marriage records found in a concrete-encased vault during a 2008 raid on the Yearning for Zion Ranch. Entering those documents as evidence should not be an issue since they’ve already been used in both the constitutional reference case and the recent “removal” trial.

Richard Bennett, a Brigham Young University professor of church history and doctrine, will be called to explain the genesis of polygamy within the Mormon tradition, why it was disavowed in 1890 and how that led to the splintering off of individual families such as the Browns, Blackmore’s group and larger ones such as the FLDS.

Unlike the removal trial, when a number of former Bountiful residents testified and provided gripping descriptions of what it was like to grow up there, this time only one is expected to be subpoenaed: Jane Blackmore.

As a former wife and a midwife, she has a unique view of what was happening in the fundamentalist Mormon community that she and the others were born into.

None of the other wives is expected to be called even though as many as half of them have moved on from Bountiful, left the religion and even remarried.

In November, Jane Blackmore’s testimony focused on what she was taught as a young girl about polygamy or “celestial marriage,” about the importance of obedience to their prophet, their fathers and husbands, and about the primary roles that women are expected to fulfill.

This time, she will undoubtedly be asked about her sister wives and maybe even about her sisters-in-law.

source
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,964
3,060
113
B.C. polygamous sect member Gail Blackmore appeals conviction
THE CANADIAN PRESS
First posted: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 08:39 PM EDT | Updated: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 08:45 PM EDT
CRANBROOK, B.C. — A British Columbia woman wants her conviction overturned after she was sentenced to seven months in jail for taking a 13-year-old girl to the United States to marry the leader of a polygamous church.
Gail Blackmore has filed an appeal arguing B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Pearlman was wrong to find her guilty and imposed a sentence that is unduly harsh and excessive.
Blackmore and her former husband, Brandon Blackmore, were found guilty in February of removing a child from Canada for a sexual purpose.
Their trial heard that the girl was taken across the border in 2004 to marry Warren Jeffs, head of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who is now serving a life sentence for assaulting two of his child brides.
In his sentencing decision, Pearlman says neither Blackmore displayed any remorse for marrying the girl to a man who was 49 years old at the time.
Blackmore’s lawyer, Greg DelBigio, declined to comment on the appeal.
B.C. polygamous sect member Gail Blackmore appeals conviction | Canada | News |
 

ZulFiqar786

Electoral Member
Sep 12, 2017
233
0
16
Brampton ON
There is no rational basis for polygamy to be unlawful in Canada, given that Canada legalized same-sex marriage years ago. The only reason I can think of is the unhealthy political intimidation of the feminists. Otherwise the media citations of fundamentalist Mormon cults are examples of coerced marriages, not voluntary ones. So what is the rational basis for the law prohibiting voluntary polygamous marriage? In fact, I say that the government has no more credibility to regulate marriage at all. Now marriage should be a purely private affair that doesn’t concern the government at all. This is the only way to ensure fair state neutrality, because the status quo is discriminatory to those religions and sects which prefer polygamy. The so-called gay community used their lobbying power to push for same-sex marriage but the Muslim community doesn’t have the political clout to lobby for the legalization of polygamy. Hence, the laws regarding marriage are arbitrary and discriminatory, and are shaped by political lobbying of various interest groups, not by any fair standard of neutrality. Hence government should be taken out of marriage altogether.


India’s Supreme Court is saying that polygamy isn’t a religious practice, rather a social custom sanctioned by religion. However, I think this is not entirely correct. Polygamy is in fact a religious practice if practiced with that intention. In today’s world, practically all polygamy is practiced as an expression of religiosity, not as a social custom, particularly because as a social custom it was decimated due to the active influence of European colonialism. The phrasing of the Verse in the Holy Qur’an which mentions polygamy is such that one is given the impression that bigamy and polygamy are to be the norm, while monogamy is the exception: “Marry the women that seem good to you: two, or three, or four. If you fear that you will not be able to treat them justly, then marry (only) one” (Sura 4: 3). Here, monogamy is described as a sort of concession, not as the normative state, which is bigamy or polygamy. Based on this interpretation, polygamy certainly becomes an Islamic religious practice, not merely an existing social custom that Islam happened to sanction or sought to restrict. In fact, the more important question should be what is the rational basis for outlawing polygamy and how something that is voluntary can be construed as unjust or somehow exploitative of women. It is said that a man’s first wife may resent that her husband has married a second wife. But this is akin to the initial jealousy a child might feel when a second child comes along and the attention of the parents naturally becomes divided. Yet no one in their right mind would say that having multiple children is unjust or should be outlawed.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Actually it is not so much a trial over polygamy as it is a trial about forced marriage. I don't really think the Canadian legal system cares how many sex partners a man or woman has, but it does care about whether they enter into such an arrangement by choice and whether they are of legal age.
 

ZulFiqar786

Electoral Member
Sep 12, 2017
233
0
16
Brampton ON
It’s strange the Canadian legal system doesn’t care how many sex partners you have (as long as its not forced or underage) but doesn’t recognize polygamous marriages, and can even prosecute a man who practices polygamy that is 100% voluntary and of legal age. The laws in this respect seem too arbitrary and inconsistent, again given the fact that Canada recognizes same-sex marriage. The truth is the LGBTQ simply has more lobbying power than the insignificant religious sects that practice polygamy, but this simply proves that “might is right”.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
There is no rational basis for polygamy to be unlawful in Canada, given that Canada legalized same-sex marriage years ago. The only reason I can think of is the unhealthy political intimidation of the feminists. Otherwise the media citations of fundamentalist Mormon cults are examples of coerced marriages, not voluntary ones. So what is the rational basis for the law prohibiting voluntary polygamous marriage? In fact, I say that the government has no more credibility to regulate marriage at all. Now marriage should be a purely private affair that doesn’t concern the government at all. This is the only way to ensure fair state neutrality, because the status quo is discriminatory to those religions and sects which prefer polygamy. The so-called gay community used their lobbying power to push for same-sex marriage but the Muslim community doesn’t have the political clout to lobby for the legalization of polygamy. Hence, the laws regarding marriage are arbitrary and discriminatory, and are shaped by political lobbying of various interest groups, not by any fair standard of neutrality. Hence government should be taken out of marriage altogether.


India’s Supreme Court is saying that polygamy isn’t a religious practice, rather a social custom sanctioned by religion. However, I think this is not entirely correct. Polygamy is in fact a religious practice if practiced with that intention. In today’s world, practically all polygamy is practiced as an expression of religiosity, not as a social custom, particularly because as a social custom it was decimated due to the active influence of European colonialism. The phrasing of the Verse in the Holy Qur’an which mentions polygamy is such that one is given the impression that bigamy and polygamy are to be the norm, while monogamy is the exception: “Marry the women that seem good to you: two, or three, or four. If you fear that you will not be able to treat them justly, then marry (only) one” (Sura 4: 3). Here, monogamy is described as a sort of concession, not as the normative state, which is bigamy or polygamy. Based on this interpretation, polygamy certainly becomes an Islamic religious practice, not merely an existing social custom that Islam happened to sanction or sought to restrict. In fact, the more important question should be what is the rational basis for outlawing polygamy and how something that is voluntary can be construed as unjust or somehow exploitative of women. It is said that a man’s first wife may resent that her husband has married a second wife. But this is akin to the initial jealousy a child might feel when a second child comes along and the attention of the parents naturally becomes divided. Yet no one in their right mind would say that having multiple children is unjust or should be outlawed.

I actually like Tunisia's policy on the matter. The state will not recognize a polygamous marriage contracted within its own jurisdictional boundaries but will recognize a polygamous marriage that is legally contracted abroad. It finds the right balance between discouraging polygamy without breaking up already established polygamous marriages along the two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right principle.

If, as it is the case in some states, a man could take up to four wives but a woman could take no more than one man, this would necessarily result in a large population of single men. Economically, that is inefficient since we then have children being raised by one mother and a quarter of a father while plenty of other would-be fathers are raising no children. In other words, not all of the country's manpower would be utilized to raise these children. Taken to the extreme, this would lead to around 75% of men being unable to find a souse while the other 25% would need to support 100% of the country's female population.
Add to that that if a man does not treat all of his wives fairly, his secondary wives will be more tempted to divorce, so more unhappy families and broken marriages traumatizing the kids and spouses themselves. So no, we don't want to break up already-established polygamous or even polyandrous marriages, but we do want to discourage them.

It’s strange the Canadian legal system doesn’t care how many sex partners you have (as long as its not forced or underage) but doesn’t recognize polygamous marriages, and can even prosecute a man who practices polygamy that is 100% voluntary and of legal age. The laws in this respect seem too arbitrary and inconsistent, again given the fact that Canada recognizes same-sex marriage. The truth is the LGBTQ simply has more lobbying power than the insignificant religious sects that practice polygamy, but this simply proves that “might is right”.

I do agree that from an epidemiological standpoint, it would be preferable for a man to marry say, four women than for him to be sleeping around with any random woman. It saves on healthcare costs too.


However, I believe that the solution is not to liberalize polygamy too much, but rather to criminalize fornication.
 

ZulFiqar786

Electoral Member
Sep 12, 2017
233
0
16
Brampton ON
I actually like Tunisia's policy on the matter. The state will not recognize a polygamous marriage contracted within its own jurisdictional boundaries but will recognize a polygamous marriage that is legally contracted abroad. It finds the right balance between discouraging polygamy without breaking up already established polygamous marriages along the two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right principle.

If, as it is the case in some states, a man could take up to four wives but a woman could take no more than one man, this would necessarily result in a large population of single men. Economically, that is inefficient since we then have children being raised by one mother and a quarter of a father while plenty of other would-be fathers are raising no children. In other words, not all of the country's manpower would be utilized to raise these children. Taken to the extreme, this would lead to around 75% of men being unable to find a souse while the other 25% would need to support 100% of the country's female population.
Add to that that if a man does not treat all of his wives fairly, his secondary wives will be more tempted to divorce, so more unhappy families and broken marriages traumatizing the kids and spouses themselves. So no, we don't want to break up already-established polygamous or even polyandrous marriages, but we do want to discourage them.





You’re comments are invalid because culturally most people don’t practice polygamy. Making something legal doesn’t mean suddenly everyone will be practicing it. Only a very small minority of Muslims and maybe some obscure Mormon cults practice polygamy. So none of your concerns are valid. Furthermore, those Muslims who do practice polygamy end up sponsoring wives from abroad, usually their country of origin, there is absolutely no issue of any kind of shortage of women. In fact, one could argue that there are many women who because of various reasons practically have low prospects of marriage – like single mothers either divorcees or widows. They are still young enough to be remarried but obviously not the first choice for a man. Another problem is that many men want to remain bachelors. They are content with having girlfriends for a few months at a time and never get married or have a family. Now the maternal biological instinct is much stronger in women, who have a much stronger desire to have a permanent partner and have children. But because many men don’t want to get married and have kids, there aren’t enough men for the amount of women that do want to get married and have children. This is why adoption of kids and even artificial insemination is a huge thing in the West among your White women. They are willing to be artificially inseminated by the sperm of a complete stranger just to get pregnant and have a child. That’s how much your society has broken down.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36


You’re comments are invalid because culturally most people don’t practice polygamy. Making something legal doesn’t mean suddenly everyone will be practicing it. Only a very small minority of Muslims and maybe some obscure Mormon cults practice polygamy. So none of your concerns are valid. Furthermore, those Muslims who do practice polygamy end up sponsoring wives from abroad, usually their country of origin, there is absolutely no issue of any kind of shortage of women. In fact, one could argue that there are many women who because of various reasons practically have low prospects of marriage – like single mothers either divorcees or widows. They are still young enough to be remarried but obviously not the first choice for a man. Another problem is that many men want to remain bachelors. They are content with having girlfriends for a few months at a time and never get married or have a family. Now the maternal biological instinct is much stronger in women, who have a much stronger desire to have a permanent partner and have children. But because many men don’t want to get married and have kids, there aren’t enough men for the amount of women that do want to get married and have children. This is why adoption of kids and even artificial insemination is a huge thing in the West among your White women. They are willing to be artificially inseminated by the sperm of a complete stranger just to get pregnant and have a child. That’s how much your society has broken down.

What do you mean by among 'our' white women? I might be a White man, but I have one Chinese wife and no daughter, so I have no White woman other than my mother and sister. Are you saying that White women belong to White men? And you do realize that some White women might be Muslim.
 

ZulFiqar786

Electoral Member
Sep 12, 2017
233
0
16
Brampton ON
What do you mean by among 'our' white women? I might be a White man, but I have one Chinese wife and no daughter, so I have no White woman other than my mother and sister. Are you saying that White women belong to White men? And you do realize that some White women might be Muslim.



I don’t mean that they are your property, but they are your fellow Whites. It’s like saying “your people” “our people” ...the pronouns “your” and “our” aren’t being used in a possessive sense, but to show association.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36


I don’t mean that they are your property, but they are your fellow Whites. It’s like saying “your people” “our people” ...the pronouns “your” and “our” aren’t being used in a possessive sense, but to show association.

Okay. But what makes you think that a White man will identify more with White women just due to common racial features? I identify far more with my wife, mother, sister, and female friends than I do White women whom I don't know, and that is in spite of the fact that most of my circle of friends are not White at all.

As for identifying with strangers, I tend to identify more with a common language than I do with a common nationality or racial features.
 

ZulFiqar786

Electoral Member
Sep 12, 2017
233
0
16
Brampton ON
Okay. But what makes you think that a White man will identify more with White women just due to common racial features? I identify far more with my wife, mother, sister, and female friends than I do White women whom I don't know, and that is in spite of the fact that most of my circle of friends are not White at all.

As for identifying with strangers, I tend to identify more with a common language than I do with a common nationality or racial features.





Kind of ironic from someone whose ID is literally “White Unifier” with the St. George cross on display. When I first came across you I was pretty sure you were one of those EDL or White nationalist types.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36


Kind of ironic from someone whose ID is literally “White Unifier” with the St. George cross on display. When I first came across you I was pretty sure you were one of those EDL or White nationalist types.

I find some people like to pidgin hole posters in online forums like this one. Once they do that, they pay less attention to what the person is saying because, well, they'll already have pidgin-holed him. But if the user name and avatar conflict with my real personality, then that forces a person to pay more attention to what I say since what I say conflicts with his first impression of me. :)

My mother, sister, and some of my friends are white, but that's it.
 

Johnnny

Frontiersman
Jun 8, 2007
9,388
124
63
Third rock from the Sun
I find some people like to pidgin hole posters in online forums like this one. Once they do that, they pay less attention to what the person is saying because, well, they'll already have pidgin-holed him. But if the user name and avatar conflict with my real personality, then that forces a person to pay more attention to what I say since what I say conflicts with his first impression of me. :)

My mother, sister, and some of my friends are white, but that's it.

Was there any particular incident that made you think this way?
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Was there any particular incident that made you think this way?

A poster once insinuated that I was racist for my opposition to the Federal government's proposal to pass a motion against Islamophobia. I considered it discriminatory since it ought to have been a motion against religious prejudice generally and not just single out one single religion. To satisfy his opinion of me, I decided to go with a more nationalistic avatar, name, and signature.

Since then though, I've noticed that that has sometimes sparked particular reactions to me where some newbies are less quick to pidgin-hole me. I'm guessing that the conflict between my initial image and my conversation probably makes it more difficult for a person to pidgin-hole me at first glance.
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,682
801
113


Kind of ironic from someone whose ID is literally “White Unifier” with the St. George cross on display. When I first came across you I was pretty sure you were one of those EDL or White nationalist types.

Funny that...when I first came across your posts on the other forums and this one, I thought you were a racist Muslim.