BCCLA calls for charges to be dropped in polygamy cases

[SirJosephPorter]

I truly hope that polygamy is ruled against as was Sharia law.

A small correction, Dixie Cup. Courts did not rule Sharia against the law. Sharia regards one man as being equal to two women, so they wouldn’t have a prayer of getting it past the Charter.

While there is a small (in my opinion negligible) possibility that courts may rule for polygamy, there is not a snowball’s chance in Hell that courts will rule for Sharia.

The argument was about whether Ontario should introduce Sharia law here in Ontario. And they were not talking of introducing the criminal code of Sharia (cutting of the hands of a thief, or stoning women to death etc.).

They were thinking of intruding Sharia in civil matters such as divorce, inheritance etc., for Muslims only. Even that was problematical. Since Sharia law regards one man as equal to two women (e.g. in Sharia court, it needs the testimony by two women to balance the testimony of one man, or a son inherits twice as much wealth as the daughter etc.), I don’t see how it would have survived a court challenge.

But the government was considering a report by an NDP activist, Marian Boyd (she gained notoriety when she defeated Premier David Peterson in an election) that Sharia be introduced in Ontario. In my opinion, the woman was off her rockers.

 

[earth_as_one]

When homosexuality was being debated, people tried to obscure that debate by claiming it was really about perverts sodomizing children. Homosexuals won their case and raping children is still illegal. Now we've moved on to polygamy and the same people claim its about raping children again. Polygamists will win in court and raping children will still remain illegal.

No one here who argues in favor of the right of consenting adults to freely enter adult relationships with other adults is arguing in favor of adults raping children.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

When homosexuality was being debated, people tried to obscure that debate by claiming it was really about perverts sodomizing children. Homosexuals won their case and raping children is still illegal. Now we've moved on to polygamy and the same people claim its about raping children again. Polygamists will win in court and raping children will still remain illegal.

No one here who argues in favor of the right of consenting adults to freely enter adult relationships with other adults is arguing in favor of adults raping children.

Earth_as_one, I have already explained this before. There is a big difference between gay marriage and polygamy (at least as I see it). Same sex marriage expands civil rights, it gives more rights.

Polygamy restricts civil rights. What rights it gives with one hand (right to marry more than one spouse) it takes it away with the other hand (right of association, right to decide how to bring up ones’ children etc.).

The fact that courts legalized SSM does not even remotely mean that courts will legalize polygamy. The two are totally separate issues, and polygamy will be considered purely on its merits, and not because gay marriage was legalized.

If we apply your logic, courts will then also legalize pedophilia. After all, people argued against gay marriage and courts legalized gay marriage. What you are saying is that people are arguing against polygamy, so courts will legalize polygamy. By this logic, since people are arguing against pedophilia, courts will legalize pedophilia.

That is nonsense. Courts will legalize polygamy only if they think that it does not violate the Charter (which I think is extremely unlikely), and not because they legalized SSM.

 

[earth_as_one]

SJP - What part about consenting adults don't you understand? The consenting part or the adult part?

con·sent·ed, con·sent·ing, con·sents
1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree.

a·dult (

-d

lt

,

d

lt) n. 1. One who has attained maturity or legal age.

A polygamous marriage would require the consent of all adults involved. Otherwise we aren't talking about consenting adults.

 

[JLM]

Earth_as_one, I have already explained this before. There is a big difference between gay marriage and polygamy (at least as I see it). Same sex marriage expands civil rights, it gives more rights.

Polygamy restricts civil rights. What rights it gives with one hand (right to marry more than one spouse) it takes it away with the other hand (right of association, right to decide how to bring up ones’ children etc.).

The fact that courts legalized SSM does not even remotely mean that courts will legalize polygamy. The two are totally separate issues, and polygamy will be considered purely on its merits, and not because gay marriage was legalized.

If we apply your logic, courts will then also legalize pedophilia. After all, people argued against gay marriage and courts legalized gay marriage. What you are saying is that people are arguing against polygamy, so courts will legalize polygamy. By this logic, since people are arguing against pedophilia, courts will legalize pedophilia.

That is nonsense. Courts will legalize polygamy only if they think that it does not violate the Charter (which I think is extremely unlikely), and not because they legalized SSM.

All philosohizing aside, Sir Joseph, polygamy is ILLEGAL in Canada, so any other points are moot.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

All philosohizing aside, Sir Joseph, polygamy is ILLEGAL in Canada, so any other points are moot.

I know that, JLM, and may it stay that way.

 

[JLM]

I know that, JLM, and may it stay that way.

And so it should. We have too many fractured families as it is, and the family unit has traditionally been the anchor of society.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And so it should. We have too many fractured families as it is, and the family unit has traditionally been the anchor of society.

JLM, I have no problem tinkering with the family unit, if it makes sense. After all there is nothing sacrosanct about the nuclear family; it is a fairly recent invention.

That is why I was strongly in support of same sex marriage. It did not hurt anybody, and granted more rights (equal rights) to a minority. So here tinkering with the family unit was justified, even beneficial, in my opinion.

Polygamy is a different matter altogether. Not only is polygamy harmful to the traditional family (which I don’t care much about), but it is also inimical to human rights, I think it violates the Charter (which I very much care about).

 

[JLM]

JLM, I have no problem tinkering with the family unit, if it makes sense. After all there is nothing sacrosanct about the nuclear family; it is a fairly recent invention.

That is why I was strongly in support of same sex marriage. It did not hurt anybody, and granted more rights (equal rights) to a minority. So here tinkering with the family unit was justified, even beneficial, in my opinion.

Polygamy is a different matter altogether. Not only is polygamy harmful to the traditional family (which I don’t care much about), but it is also inimical to human rights, I think it violates the Charter (which I very much care about).

You're 50% right. I think the traditional family trumps the Charter. The charter has destroyed a lot of families indirectly, one example would be increased rights for criminals who because of the Charter, some who should be locked up are on the streets, committing mayhem and every time a murder is committed another family is destroyed or at the very least compromised. You're right about SSM as families don't result from SSM. "Weirdos" (don't take the term literally) should be paired off.

 

[missile]

Wonder if the govt. might be opposed to polygamy because of the issues raised by divorces or family allowance payments? A divorce in a polygamist family seems to me to be a field day for the lawyers. In my province, a marriage license costs 100 dollars each, so I can't see many multiple marriages here in the future.

 

[earth_as_one]

The courts make decisions based on charter rights. Freedom to make personal choices is a charter right. That's why polygamists will win.

Politicians can still outlaw polygamy in contradiction to the Charter, but they will have to use the "not withstanding clause" to do it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Wonder if the govt. might be opposed to polygamy because of the issues raised by divorces or family allowance payments? A divorce in a polygamist family seems to me to be a field day for the lawyers. In my province, a marriage license costs 100 dollars each, so I can't see many multiple marriages here in the future.

Exactly, missile. Not only divorce, but child custody, property settlement, visitation rights, all these issues will make lawyers rich and will be legal nightmares.

In the case of same sex marriage, it was simple. They simply had to replace the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ by spouse in the marriage legislation and that was that. If polygamy is legalized, all the marriage laws will have to be rewritten, we are talking of an undertaking of at least several years. Then of course, each law will be challenged in courts. I don’t see that happening.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The courts make decisions based on charter rights. Freedom to make personal choices is a charter right. That's why polygamists will win.

Politicians can still outlaw polygamy in contradiction to the Charter, but they will have to use the "not withstanding clause" to do it.

I wouldn’t support the use of Notwithstanding Clause. Let me describe how I think it is going to work out.

The most likely outcome is that the courts will rule that polygamy violates the equality provision of the Charter of Rights. Which means that the Parliament cannot legalize polygamy even if it wants.

A less likely outcome is that the courts will rule that the constitution does not say anything about polygamy, and Parliament may ban polygamy or permit it, whatever it wants. In that case, I would support parliament passing a law to ban polygamy.

The least likely outcome is that the courts will rule as they did in the case of gay marriage, they will say that polygamy must be permitted. If that happens, I would be willing to live by the court’s judgment (that polygamy could be permitted while guaranteeing equal rights to everybody). I would be willing to live with polygamy if that happens and I would oppose any attempts to use the Notwithstanding Clause.

 

[earth_as_one]

Equality exists if the right to multiple wives is accompanied by the right to multiple husbands, or two men and women forming a communal group. Banning polygamy interferes with rights of people in these relationships to have survivor benefits, child custody rights, joint property ownership rights and so on. Making polygamy illegal would take away rights from people in these relationships which exist for other married people.

If your point is that people give up some rights when they get married. I agree. By your reasoning marriage should be banned.

C'mon admit it. You find polygamy morally wrong. What this is really about is your self ordained right to impose your version of morality on others. Why is it that people have to stick their nose in other people's business? How come some people aren't happy until they are making someone else miserable?

Why don't people like you leave these people alone and let them find happiness in their own way.

 

[L Gilbert]

...............Why don't people like you leave these people alone and let them find happiness in their own way.

So you are happy that 50 year-old men can brainwash 14 year-old girls into thinking that marriage between them is ok and then swapping thenm around from 50 year-old to other 50 year-olds is cool? You are dead right; morality is relative.
The polygamy charges are a joke and Oppal is off his rails.

 

[gerryh]

So you are happy that 50 year-old men can brainwash 14 year-old girls into thinking that marriage between them is ok and then swapping thenm around from 50 year-old to other 50 year-olds is cool? You are dead right; morality is relative.
The polygamy charges are a joke and Oppal is off his rails.

If this was provable fact....and not just so much supposition and false accusation...then why have they not been charged accordingly.....why charge them with polygamy when child molestation is so much worse.

 

[L Gilbert]

If this was provable fact....and not just so much supposition and false accusation...then why have they not been charged accordingly.....why charge them with polygamy when child molestation is so much worse.

The authorities' excuse is that they don't have enough witnesses to come forward and lodge complaints. They have had a few, though, so my guess is that said authorities are too freakin lazy to actually work at an investigation. Kinda like the CIC's version of controlling illegal aliens in Canada; freakin lax.

 

[Zzarchov]

If we apply your logic, courts will then also legalize pedophilia. After all, people argued against gay marriage and courts legalized gay marriage. What you are saying is that people are arguing against polygamy, so courts will legalize polygamy. By this logic, since people are arguing against pedophilia, courts will legalize pedophilia.

Equating people with different lifestyle choices as pedophiles is the Godwin's Law of morality debates.

If you cant distinguish between consenting and informed adults and Children that is your issue and I Bid you good day.

That same crap argument was applied to homosexual marriages as well, word for word, and it didn't hold then, it won't hold now. This will be the end of my debate with you on this matter in this thread.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

This will be the end of my debate with you on this matter in this thread.

No problem, Zzarchov. I enjoyed our debate, we had a good discussion. Perhaps we did debate a bit too long anyway.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Equality exists if the right to multiple wives is accompanied by the right to multiple husbands, or two men and women forming a communal group.

Earth_as_one, that is like saying that before same sex marriage was legalized, gays had the same rights as heterosexuals, they had a right to marry a person of the opposite sex, same as heterosexual people.

The fact is if polygamy is legalized, most of the polygamous marriages will be one man and perhaps 7 or 8 women, mostly in Muslim and Mormon communities. Any other groupings (multiple husbands etc.) will be extremely rare. It is not a coincidence that the pressure to legalize polygamy is coming for Mormons and Muslims who believe in one man and several wives, not the other way around.

If your point is that people give up some rights when they get married. I agree. By your reasoning marriage should be banned.

People don’t give up the right to decide how to bring up their children, which school to send them to, which church to send them to etc. in a monogamous marriage. These rights will be lost or seriously impaired in polygamous marriages.

C'mon admit it. You find polygamy morally wrong.

You are entitled to think what you wish. I have already given my reasons why I oppose polygamy; I think it comes squarely against the equality provision of the Charter. If you want to think that I have some other reason, that is your business.

Why don't people like you leave these people alone and let them find happiness in their own way.

They are most welcome to do so, as long as they don’t ask the government and the courts to recognize their ‘human rights challenged’ lifestyle.