BCCLA calls for charges to be dropped in polygamy cases

[karrie]

I look forward to the day when those who coerce and brain wash women into plural marriages, who keep them there out of fear, and brandish the law as a threat against associating outside of their community, will no longer have the law to use as a weapon to keep women down.

To keep these marriages illegal and hidden does not protect these women, it simply enables their abuse.

earth as one, your post sums it up nicely, and I thank you for your contribution.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

:wav:

Did you sign it this time?

Sure, I signed it Sir Joseph Porter. As 1st Lord of the Admiralty, you know I am good for it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Polygamists will win their case.

earth_as_one, we disagree on this one. I think it is highly unlikely that polygamists will win their case. The most likely outcome is that SC will declare polygamy to be against the Charter, which means that Parliament cannot legalize polygamy even if they want to (and I don’t think they want to anyway).

BTW, polygamy isn't just about multiple wives. It would also include multiple husbands and communal living.

Perhaps not. But polygamy practiced so far has almost invariably been one man, several wives, with man being the boss, calling the shots. There is no reason to believe that it will be different in Canada, and I think Supreme Court will be cognizant of that.

We are going to have to change other laws regarding divorce, property ownership and child custody....

This opens a big can of worms.

As I have already demonstrated, these laws cannot be changed to give equal rights to everybody in a polygamous situation. But since I don’t see SC legalizing polygamy, I thin the point is moot.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Those would all be issues for the families, and family courts to work out.

Karrie, you made the same point that Zzarchov made. So what you are saying is that a polygamous marriage has to be monitored by the courts, it cannot survive on its own. These issues do not arise in a monogamous marriage. Husband and wife decide how their kid should be brought up, and there is no reason for courts to get involved (except where there is child abuse).

So a polygamous marriage needs continual monitoring by the courts, which is another reason not to legalize it, besides the problem of loss of rights.

It is by choice that we give them a say, and it would be by choice that someone would enter into a polygamous marriage and give another person a say.

Sure, you may give a say to somebody by choice. However, in a polygamous marriage, there is no choice. The spouse, who is not father or mother, will have a say in child rearing whether the biological parents want it or not. That leads to loss of rights on part of parents.

In many instances it will have to be settled by courts, who has how much say in child rearing. A polygamous marriage will often need court intervention, which monogamous marriage does not, except for divorce or child abuse.

My husband and I have no illusion of 'freedom of association'.

You don’t have any. By law, you cannot marry again. However, in a polygamous marriage, the law permits you to marry again. However, another person (another spouse in the marriage) will have a veto over who you can marry.

If a man has to produce the written consent of his wives if he wants to marry another woman (and show it to the Priest or Registry Clerk before he can get married), that is an unheard of abridgement of rights. Today a person needs nobody’s consent to marry.

 

[Zzarchov]

Sir Joseph Porter,

You are again arguing a non-sequitar. You are arguing that abuse marriages are a product of polygamy. They are a product of male dominated cultures and are independant of Polygamy. Forced and abusive monogamous marriages also occur in the same cultures in the same frequency.

Therefore, such are not qualities of polygamy.

And we are forced to recognize those abusive monogamous relationships (Be they Hindu, Christian or Muslim) to no greater or less than we are forced to recognize polygamous relationships.

You're arguements do not hold water because they are not arguements against polygamy, they are arguements against abusive relationships, which are not related to polygamy in either a cause or effect scenario.

 

[earth_as_one]

Historically, Canada's Inuit practriced polyandry when men outnumbered women. They practiced polygyny when women out numbered men. They considered it unhealthy for people to go without companionship and were just being practical.

Even today in some areas of rural Tibet, brothers still practice fraternal polyandry (All brothers married to the same woman). Its a practical solution which avoids dividing up the family farm through inheritance to the point where no one can live on it.

In order to confrom to the Charter, forms or polygamy as well as communal living should be legally recognized. Otherwise, people in monogomous relationships have more rights and freedoms than people in these other relationships. This isn't about approving this lifestyle or imposing it on anyone. Its about the freedom to make personal choices in the pursuit of happiness.

There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. - Pierre Trudeau

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Even today in some areas of rural Tibet, brothers still practice fraternal polyandry (All brothers married to the same woman). Its a practical solution which avoids dividing up the family farm through inheritance to the point where no one can live on it.

Earth_as_one, I think that is the only form of polyandry that has ever been practiced (several brothers marrying the same woman). In the Hindu epic Mahabharata, the heroine has five husbands, all brothers.

As you say, that was usually a marriage of convenience, to keep the estate together, or to keep the family together, to avoid family strife. Polygamy, one man having several wives is much more common.

In order to conform to the Charter, forms or polygamy as well as communal living should be legally recognized.

In order to conform to the Charter, every arrangement must guarantee equal rights for everybody, and none of the existing rights must be infringed.

Otherwise, people in monogamous relationships have more rights and freedoms than people in these other relationships.

This argument does not hold water. Then should we legalize slavery? If we don’t, then those who are not in a slave relationship will have more rights than those in the slave relationship.

Those in monogamous relationship have more rights and freedoms because of the nature of the institution. Monogamy can be devised so that both the partners have equal rights (it may not always work out that way in practice, but legal framework can easily be devised for it). Polygamy (or slavery) cannot be devised in such a way that all the members in it have equal rights, and none of the existing rights are abridged.

I think (or at least I hope) that courts look to expand civil rights, personal freedoms when looking at such arrangements. That was the advantage of gay marriage, it did not take anybody’s rights away, it granted more rights. Polygamy on the other hand, takes rights away.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You are again arguing a non-sequitar. You are arguing that abuse marriages are a product of polygamy. They are a product of male dominated cultures and are independant of Polygamy. Forced and abusive monogamous marriages also occur in the same cultures in the same frequency.

Therefore, such are not qualities of polygamy.

I quite agree with you there, Zzarchov. However, in this respect monogamy and polygamy are totally different. Monogamy is already legal. So when it comes to abuse within monogamy, we should ask the question, how can we minimize the abuse in monogamy.

However, polygamy is illegal, so we must ask the question, is polygamy subject to widespread abuse? If the answer is yes, then that is a strong point against legalizing polygamy. If monogamy is subject to widespread abuse, then we should ask, how can we eliminate or at least minimize abuse within a monogamous relationship?

And we are forced to recognize those abusive monogamous relationships (Be they Hindu, Christian or Muslim) to no greater or less than we are forced to recognize polygamous relationships.

Not quite. One is already legal, the other is illegal. That is a huge difference.

You're arguements do not hold water because they are not arguements against polygamy, they are arguements against abusive relationships, which are not related to polygamy in either a cause or effect scenario.

I am not arguing about the abuse per se (although that is a strong argument against legalizing polygamy), I am talking about the loss of rights and freedoms that people currently enjoy. If as a result of granting the right to polygamy it takes away some of the existing rights and freedoms, that is a strong argument against legalizing polygamy.

 

[karrie]

Why would he need written permission when she is as free to leave the marriage as he is to bring someone new into it? Remember, we're talking about free and open polygamous marriages here, where women have some education of their rights, not secret polygamy where they can be kept hidden and ignorant by their churches as you'd like to see it stay.

And, BTW, I needed governmental consent to get married, in the form of a license. Where's the freedom of association there?

My husband and I have no illusion of 'freedom of association'.

You don’t have any. By law, you cannot marry again. However, in a polygamous marriage, the law permits you to marry again. However, another person (another spouse in the marriage) will have a veto over who you can marry.

If a man has to produce the written consent of his wives if he wants to marry another woman (and show it to the Priest or Registry Clerk before he can get married), that is an unheard of abridgement of rights. Today a person needs nobody’s consent to marry.

 

[VanIsle]

Earth calling the moon!
Even today in some areas of rural Tibet, brothers still practice fraternal polyandry (All brothers married to the same woman). Its a practical solution which avoids dividing up the family farm through inheritance to the point where no one can live on it.
That's more sick than Bountiful, B.C. is. Why do people today think they are owed a family inheritance?

 

[karrie]

That's more sick than Bountiful, B.C. is. Why do people today think they are owed a family inheritance?

lol... that is old tradition, practised for centuries. It's not 'people today' that are at issue with this one.

 

[Vereya]

Depending on the culture, sometimes its the wife who wants a second wife for the husband.

I just can't imagine a situation like this. To my way of thinking a polygamous marriage, or an acknowledged polygamous relationship is an insult and a humiliation to all the women involved. Willingly being part of it just shows that you have zero dignity and self-respect. But that's just my way of thinking...

 

[gerryh]

I just can't imagine a situation like this. To my way of thinking a polygamous marriage, or an acknowledged polygamous relationship is an insult and a humiliation to all the women involved. Willingly being part of it just shows that you have zero dignity and self-respect. But that's just my way of thinking...

Do you feel the same way about polyamorous or hedonistic lifestyles?

 

[Spade]

I just can't imagine a situation like this. To my way of thinking a polygamous marriage, or an acknowledged polygamous relationship is an insult and a humiliation to all the women involved. Willingly being part of it just shows that you have zero dignity and self-respect. But that's just my way of thinking...

It's an gross insult to the women and a gross exaggeration of the man.

 

[Vereya]

Do you feel the same way about polyamorous or hedonistic lifestyles?

I think that I do. If you don't have a serious relationship, or don't plan to have one any time soon, it's alright for you to have as many partners as you like. But once you are in a serious realtionship, other wives/husbands just don't fit into the picture. You can't have three wives, and have the same kind of relationship with all the three of them. It just doesn't work that way. There's always THE one among these three. And this kind of "lifestyle" is simply cruel towards the other two. Very cruel.

 

[karrie]

I just can't imagine a situation like this. To my way of thinking a polygamous marriage, or an acknowledged polygamous relationship is an insult and a humiliation to all the women involved. Willingly being part of it just shows that you have zero dignity and self-respect. But that's just my way of thinking...

For a bisexual, Zzarchov's point of view makes a lot of sense. Being in a marriage with a woman would be just as natural to me as being in a marriage with a man. Humiliation? Hell no. Love? Hell yes. Just because it wouldn't make sense to you personally, doesn't mean it doesn't make perfect sense for others.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Why would he need written permission when she is as free to leave the marriage as he is to bring someone new into it? Remember, we're talking about free and open polygamous marriages here, where women have some education of their rights, not secret polygamy where they can be kept hidden and ignorant by their churches as you'd like to see it stay.

And, BTW, I needed governmental consent to get married, in the form of a license. Where's the freedom of association there?

For a while there I was the only one holding the fort on anti-polygamy side. It is good to get some reinforcement.

Karrie, so what you are saying is that the man does not need the written consent of his wives if he wants to marry one more woman. That he can marry again regardless of how the current wives feel.

That means that in a polygamous marriage as envisaged by you, women have no rights. Man may do what he pleases; women can either shut up or leave. I think that about summarizes the Muslim marriage today, except for the ‘leave’ part.

So here you are protecting the man’s right of association, his right to marry whoever he wants, but you are taking rights away from the women. When it states in the law that a man may marry again without regard to the opinion of his current wives, that officially relegates the wives to second class status.

See how difficult it is to construct a polygamous relationship while respecting everybody’s rights?

 

[karrie]

For a while there I was the only one holding the fort on anti-polygamy side. It is good to get some reinforcement.

Karrie, so what you are saying is that the man does not need the written consent of his wives if he wants to marry one more woman. That he can marry again regardless of how the current wives feel.

That means that in a polygamous marriage as envisaged by you, women have no rights. Man may do what he pleases; women can either shut up or leave. I think that about summarizes the Muslim marriage today, except for the ‘leave’ part.

So here you are protecting the man’s right of association, his right to marry whoever he wants, but you are taking rights away from the women. When it states in the law that a man may marry again without regard to the opinion of his current wives, that officially relegates the wives to second class status.

See how difficult it is to construct a polygamous relationship while respecting everybody’s rights?

None of that is different than everyone else's marriage. My husband can run out and sleep with anyone he wants, with no written permission from me needed, and my only option is to shut up or leave. Does that mean I have no rights? No. It means I have every right to do the same, keep quiet, or walk as I see fit. Why would any woman in any marriage, plural or not, be any different? They can stay, they can go, or they can go marry themselves a husband without so much as a word to their current spouse, and see how he likes a taste of his own medicine.

The key being that they have the informed right to make that decision for themselves.

(and I'm curious why you automatically apply the right to plural marriages only to men. A right to marry more than one person would go both ways)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It's an gross insult to the women and a gross exaggeration of the man.

Spade, merely ‘gross exaggeration’? Man is living in cloud cuckoo land if he marries 10, 20 or even 100 wives (as rich Arab Sheiks routinely do) and thinks he can keep all of them satisfied.

It wouldn’t at all surprise me if adultery and lesbianism are rampant in a marriage between one man and several wives. Of course, in Islamic countries that means sure death if found out. If convicted of adultery, the woman is stoned to death. I can’t even imagine what horrible fate awaits a woman convicted of lesbianism (surely something worse than being stoned to death?).

In spite of these dangers, I would think adultery and lesbianism must be common place in Islamic countries.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

My husband can run out and sleep with anyone he wants, with no written permission from me needed, and my only option is to shut up or leave.

Sure he can, karrie, but the law does not give him the right to do so. The law does not tell him when he marries that he is perfectly free to go out and commit adultery the very next day.

In your scenario, the law tells him exactly that. If he does not need the consent of his wives to get married, presumably it will be codified into law that a man may marry more women without the consent of his wives (the law has to outline some mechanism as to how polygamy would operate).

So when law says that a man may marry without the consent of his wives, the wives are officially reduced to second class status.

Currently a person may do all kind of unethical things within a marriage (cheat on his spouse, spend money recklessly without consulting his spouse etc.), but the law does not specifically tell him that he is free to do that. In the case of polygamy, the law would specifically tell him that he may marry without the consent of his wives and that will be the big difference. Here the law will consign wives to second class status.