BCCLA calls for charges to be dropped in polygamy cases
- Thread starter L Gilbert
- Start date
I don't agree that Oppal is attacking him because of his religion. He's attacking him because he's using his religion to commit a crime.
I actually know three women who exist in a polygamous relationship with each other quite well. And there are many cultures out there which practice polyandry.
By your logic, monogamous marriages relegate women to second class citizens, forcing them to be barefoot and pregnant, cause pregnancy apparently only occurs in marriage...
Technically as long as one doesn't make the marriages anything other than religious ceremonies there is no crime with polygamy already.
One is perfectly allowed to have as many women for girlfriends/baby mamas at once as they want, or as many men on the side.
What polygamy is about is giving legal rights to multiple spouses. Without legal gay marriage, gay defacto marriages still happened all the time , they just had no rights.
Then why not charge him with ALL his crimes? Why just pick one Oppal is probably going to lose in court over?
Not at all, alot of marriages are simply marriages of convenience after all.
Of course there is a simple solution here, we've applied to other marriage questions people don't like.
If you don't like plural marriages, don't be part of one.
I disagree. If someone wants more than 1 wife (or read is stupid enough to want more than one wife ;-)) then they can go back where they came from. Its Canada and its monogamous marriages. Society will be going down the tubes otherwise.
My couple of posts seem to have generated quite a bit of discussion. I will try to answer a few points.
Quite right, Zzarchov, what people do in their private life is their business. If there is a church which marries one man to eight women, or marries a man to his goat, that is between the man, the women, the goat and the church, and nobody’s business.
What we are talking about here is, should government recognize polygamy, with all the inherent rights that married couples enjoy (government benefits, custody rights, divorce laws etc.)?
And here I say, no. Polygamy comes squarely against the equality provision of the Charter of Rights, polygamy will infringe upon peoples’ rights and it should not be recognized legally. What people do in their private life is their own business, as long as they don’t demand any government sanctioned benefits for their private arrangement.
rofl
There are societies alive and well that don't even have marriages, let alone monogamous ones. And there are some that are becoming amatrimonial ( [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001272.html"]link[/URL] ).
Marriage seems to be only relevant in somewhat religious societies.
Last edited:
Risus, I disagree with Zzarchov on polygamy, but here he happens to be right. It all has to do with the debased position of women in third world countries, but especially in Islamic countries.
If a woman is married to a man but does not have a child for a few years (or one after another has only daughters), people start blaming her for it (it is always the woman’s fault, never the man’s), her position in the society goes way down. To improve her standing in the society, she may plead with her husband to marry again, in the hope that the new wife will have children and thereby enhance her own position in the society.
Sometimes it is a matter of social standing, a status symbol, keeping up with Joneses. If Mr. Mohammad has seven wives, but Mr. Ahmed has only six, all the Mrs. Ahmeds start feeling inferior and would plead with Mr. Ahmed to get married again, so that his (and by implication their) position in the society is on an equal footing with Mr. Mohammed.
Muslim societies are for the most part nightmarish societies, and unless you have visited one, you cannot really get any idea as to how they function.
So here Zzarchov is quite right.
Last edited:
Uhm...in case your forgetting Canada wasn't originally Judeo-Christian. Many Native Groups practiced Polygamy.
So, pack up your bags and get back to where you came from
Islandpacific, the original Mormon faith strongly endorses polygamy. The Mormon leader, Brigham Young (who led the Mormons to Utah) had 27 wives. So polygamy is the true Mormon faith.
The problem came when Utah applied for statehood. The federal government plainly told Utah that polygamy has to go, otherwise no way will Utah be admitted to statehood. So their leader had a ‘revelation’ from God telling him that polygamy is wrong.
But the original true faith very much endorses polygamy and the breakaway group (I think they are called the Reformed Church of Latter Day Saints) is the one that remain true to the faith, the so called ‘revelation’ from God notwithstanding.
lollUhm...in case your forgetting Canada wasn't originally Judeo-Christian. Many Native Groups practiced Polygamy.
So, pack up your bags and get back to where you came from
Gladly. In a marriage, let us say one man and eight wives (let us stick to the example of one man and many women, since that is the only type that seems to be existing today) are married. Then does the law give the man and each woman the same rights? Then the male part of the marriage, has a lot fewer rights than the female part (1/8th, to be precise) and it is not a marriage of equals. On the other hand, if the law gives the male and female parts of the marriage the same rights, each woman has far fewer rights than the man (1/8th) and again it is not a marriage of equals. Either way, there is no equality, and I don’t think there is any way to square the circle.
Let us take an example. Suppose the man marries a ninth wife. Does the law recognize it as a valid marriage even if the consent of the other eight wives has not been obtained? If yes, that means the women have no rights. Or does the law require the written consent of at least four of those wives before the ninth marriage will be recognized?
If yes, then man’s right to marry whomever he chooses (which he enjoys today) is violated. Today a man (or a woman) has an absolute right to marry anybody he chooses (with a few obvious exception such as he may not marry his mother, his sister etc.), assuming of course that the woman agrees. This important right (the right of association) will be taken away from the man if he has to obtain the consent of four other individuals before he can marry.
Either way, it is going to lead to loss of existing rights on the part of somebody. And I have considered the simplest case here. What about divorce, property settlement, child custody, part homosexual marriages etc.? How does the law handle that without infringing upon somebody’s rights? The mind boggles.
That is why I think Supreme Court will probably rule that polygamy is against the Charter.
In this respect polygamy is totally different from same sex marriage. SSM does not infringe upon anybody’s right, on the contrary, it grants more rights, always a plus from the point of view of the Charter. But polygamy takes rights away from the people involved in it, so I personally think it is a non starter.
I think polygamy can work only in Islamic countries, where man is the absolute ruler, the absolute dictator in the marriage. He is the one who takes all the decisions, and if he decides to marry a ninth, a tenth or an eleventh wife, who is going to challenge him? Women are little removed from animals as far as Sharia law is concerned. A man may divorce his wife simply by saying ‘talaq’ three times (I think that means ‘I divorce you’).
It was the same in the old Mormon polygamous marriages (or even in today’s Mormon polygamous marriages). Man was the absolute master, the wives wouldn’t’ even think of challenging man’s authority. Even today when they show the Mormon wives in TV, all of them come across as meek submissive, weak, pathetic creatures, who would no more disagree with their husbands than they would disagree with God.
Under such conditions, polygamy can work. But polygamy is not consistent with equal rights for all citizens, and I don’t think it has any place in a society which values equality, human rights and women’s rights.
It was the same in the old Mormon polygamous marriages (or even in today’s Mormon polygamous marriages). Man was the absolute master, the wives wouldn’t’ even think of challenging man’s authority. Even today when they show the Mormon wives in TV, all of them come across as meek submissive, weak, pathetic creatures, who would no more disagree with their husbands than they would disagree with God.
Under such conditions, polygamy can work. But polygamy is not consistent with equal rights for all citizens, and I don’t think it has any place in a society which values equality, human rights and women’s rights.
So your logic, is allowing people the rights of a family unit..to their family unit..infringes upon their rights as a family unit.
So in your mind Gay marriage was all about stripping the rights of gays?
Thats non sensical, you are directly supporting the oppression of people in polygamous relationships by denying them rights, such as the right to see children they raised as a parent while in a relationship.
There is no valid logic you have given to show that any of these abuses happen because of polygamous relationships.
Its akin to saying that because Gay Rape occurs in prison, that all gay relationships are based upon rape.
That is how it comes across to me when you say "That polygamous relationship in that horrid country is abusive, so all polygamous relationships are abusive"
I got news for you, in many countries monogamous relationships are just as abusive to women.
That is simply not true, many polygamous (or more accurately due to the laws Polyamourous) relationships exist. This is your own false preconception.
You are basing this off other countries laws on polygamy. The flaw being other countries laws on Monogamy also treat women as cattle with no rights.
Actually it requires the consent of all 10 people. Thats the way partnership and contract laws work. Which is all a marriage really is, a partnership agreement.
No it isn't, Bigamy is still a crime today. A married man can already not marry anyone he chooses. Thats the nature of marriage.
This is again, false. A person has the right to marry someone if all parties concerned consent. That is the two people (men or women) and if one or both are under 18, the parents.
This does not change.
Again, no its not. You are drawing faulty conclusions. If a man currently decides to marry someone else, without his wifes consent (through divorcce) thats bigamy.
Polygamy takes away no rights from anyone. You made up rights that aren't present then claim those made up rights are taken away. Its been clearly shown they are not.
So your logic, is allowing people the rights of a family unit..to their family unit..infringes upon their rights as a family unit.
So in your mind Gay marriage was all about stripping the rights of gays?
Zzarchov, I have already shown that gay marriage gives additional rights, while polygamy actually takes away the rights from those involved in polygamy. So gay marriage and polygamy are totally dissimilar.
That is how it comes across to me when you say "That polygamous relationship in that horrid country is abusive, so all polygamous relationships are abusive"
I have shown that polygamous relationship can be abusive, and often are abusive where polygamy is practiced. Are all polygamous relationships abusive? Probably not, but that means nothing. I am sure many slave master relationships in slavery days were not abusive. But slavery is wrong from human rights point of view, and so is polygamy.
I got news for you, in many countries monogamous relationships are just as abusive to women.
And what has that got to do with anything? If we were discussing if monogamy should be made legal, that may have some relevance. But monogamy is already here, so abusive or not we have to deal with it.
That is like saying that since sugar is a lethal substance (and it is) and is legal, let not put any restrictions on nicotine, another lethal substance.
So in your mind Gay marriage was all about stripping the rights of gays?
Zzarchov, I have already shown that gay marriage gives additional rights, while polygamy actually takes away the rights from those involved in polygamy. So gay marriage and polygamy are totally dissimilar.
That is how it comes across to me when you say "That polygamous relationship in that horrid country is abusive, so all polygamous relationships are abusive"
I have shown that polygamous relationship can be abusive, and often are abusive where polygamy is practiced. Are all polygamous relationships abusive? Probably not, but that means nothing. I am sure many slave master relationships in slavery days were not abusive. But slavery is wrong from human rights point of view, and so is polygamy.
I got news for you, in many countries monogamous relationships are just as abusive to women.
And what has that got to do with anything? If we were discussing if monogamy should be made legal, that may have some relevance. But monogamy is already here, so abusive or not we have to deal with it.
That is like saying that since sugar is a lethal substance (and it is) and is legal, let not put any restrictions on nicotine, another lethal substance.
Last edited:
That is simply not true, many polygamous (or more accurately due to the laws Polyamourous) relationships exist. This is your own false preconception.
Oh, really? Tell me of even one country where polyandry (one woman having many husbands) is practiced, except perhaps isolated tribes in Africa (even that I doubt).
You are basing this off other countries laws on polygamy. The flaw being other countries laws on Monogamy also treat women as cattle with no rights.
That is the only basis we have to go upon, see how polygamy works where it is practiced. Again, argument about monogamy is facetious, we are not discussing whether monogamy should be legalized. We already have a model for monogamy, we don’t have to look at other countries.
Actually it requires the consent of all 10 people. That’s the way partnership and contract laws work. Which is all a marriage really is, a partnership agreement.
So you are not discussing polygamy here you are discussion something else entirely. If there is one man and eight wives, what you are saying is that not only the man is married to eight women, but those eight women are in turn married to each other. So you are not talking of one polygamous marriage, you are talking of 36 two person marriages.
That is not how polygamy is understood today. In polygamy as practiced today, the man is married to the women,, the women are not married to each other.
The other wives are not marrying the new wife, only the husband is. There won’t be nine marriage ceremonies with the man and nine women marrying the same woman. Only the man is getting married and if you are saying that it will require the consent of all the eight wives, that means that the man is losing his right to associate with anybody he wants. Currently he does not need anybody’s consent to marry, this is clearly a curtailment of his rights.
No it isn't, Bigamy is still a crime today. A married man can already not marry anyone he chooses. That’s the nature of marriage.
Bigamy has nothing to do with it. Toady, if a man is permitted to marry by law (being single), he has the right to marry anybody he chooses (provided the other person agrees). Under polygamy, even if a man can marry under the law, in your scenario he cannot marry unless he gets the consent of eight other women. This is clearly a curtailment of his rights.
This is again, false. A person has the right to marry someone if all parties concerned consent. That is the two people (men or women) and if one or both are under 18, the parents.
That is the current law. A person has the right to marry someone if that party consents. Under polygamy, a person won’t have the right to marry someone even if that party consents, he will have to get the consent of existing spouses. That is clearly an abridgement of his rights.
Oh, really? Tell me of even one country where polyandry (one woman having many husbands) is practiced, except perhaps isolated tribes in Africa (even that I doubt).
You are basing this off other countries laws on polygamy. The flaw being other countries laws on Monogamy also treat women as cattle with no rights.
That is the only basis we have to go upon, see how polygamy works where it is practiced. Again, argument about monogamy is facetious, we are not discussing whether monogamy should be legalized. We already have a model for monogamy, we don’t have to look at other countries.
Actually it requires the consent of all 10 people. That’s the way partnership and contract laws work. Which is all a marriage really is, a partnership agreement.
So you are not discussing polygamy here you are discussion something else entirely. If there is one man and eight wives, what you are saying is that not only the man is married to eight women, but those eight women are in turn married to each other. So you are not talking of one polygamous marriage, you are talking of 36 two person marriages.
That is not how polygamy is understood today. In polygamy as practiced today, the man is married to the women,, the women are not married to each other.
The other wives are not marrying the new wife, only the husband is. There won’t be nine marriage ceremonies with the man and nine women marrying the same woman. Only the man is getting married and if you are saying that it will require the consent of all the eight wives, that means that the man is losing his right to associate with anybody he wants. Currently he does not need anybody’s consent to marry, this is clearly a curtailment of his rights.
No it isn't, Bigamy is still a crime today. A married man can already not marry anyone he chooses. That’s the nature of marriage.
Bigamy has nothing to do with it. Toady, if a man is permitted to marry by law (being single), he has the right to marry anybody he chooses (provided the other person agrees). Under polygamy, even if a man can marry under the law, in your scenario he cannot marry unless he gets the consent of eight other women. This is clearly a curtailment of his rights.
This is again, false. A person has the right to marry someone if all parties concerned consent. That is the two people (men or women) and if one or both are under 18, the parents.
That is the current law. A person has the right to marry someone if that party consents. Under polygamy, a person won’t have the right to marry someone even if that party consents, he will have to get the consent of existing spouses. That is clearly an abridgement of his rights.