Polygamy - Off to the Courts to decide?

[earth_as_one]

You are going to have to define the "2 issues". I only see one issue. Plural marriage. This isn't about child marriages, forced marriages or pedophilia or whatever else you are trying to link to this case.

You might find plural marriages disgusting. I suggest you don't enter one. Do whatever makes you happy, as long as its with consenting adults and you'll have my support. Even if I found your sexual tastes disgusting, I'd still defend your right to pursue happiness and make personal decisions.

 

[Goober]

You are going to have to define the "2 issues". I only see one issue. Plural marriage. This isn't about child marriages, forced marriages or pedophilia or whatever else you are trying to link to this case.

You might find plural marriages disgusting. I suggest you don't enter one. Do whatever makes you happy, as long as its with consenting adults and you'll have my support. Even if I found your sexual tastes disgusting, I'd still defend your right to pursue happiness and make personal decisions.

Listen to me and think for a change - i do not give a fiddlers Fuk if the 3some that you describe wish to enter into any type of relationship - Really don't give a fiddlers. Should it be legal - No - let them enter into some sort of legal agreement - Yes that can be done.

What i am concerned about are the types that abuse Polygamy as it is practiced in Bountiful. So before you start criticizing my points with your drivel - i have repeatedly stated that polygamy as practiced in Bountiful is disgusting. Tell us your opinion on Bountiful??????

Try and do some research on the matter before you again put your severely limited knowledge of the social impacts that are caused by the situation in Bountiful.

I mention Bountiful quite often but you come up with this 3some crap. Are you in any way aware of the social, emotional costs associated with what happens in Bountiful. I doubt it. Inform yourself before coming into a discussion so poorly armed, translation - Stupid about the facts on the ground.

As to you defending my rights, please do not. That is even more disgusting. And I do mean disgusting, i can look after myself quite well.

 

[earth_as_one]

Actually I'm trying to make you clarify your opinion. You still haven't done that. I am aware that polygamy is practiced in Bountiful, but as long as it only involves consenting adults, its none of my business. If it involves pedophilia, child marriages or forced marriages, then I'd rather we charge people with those crimes rather than the current polygamy law, which is a violation of people's charter rights IMO.

 

[Goober]

Actually I'm trying to make you clarify your opinion. You still haven't done that. I am aware that polygamy is practiced in Bountiful, but as long as it only involves consenting adults, its none of my business. If it involves pedophilia, child marriages or forced marriages, then I'd rather we charge people with those crimes rather than the current polygamy law, which is a violation of people's charter rights IMO.

Actually you are not - Actually you are throwing excuses. Goggle Bountiful - Check the CTV - CBC for reference material. get educated about a topic before you start going after me.

A little secret i will let you in on - When confronted with a situation and how to decide what is right or what is wrong - where you need to take action - The hardest road to hoe is normally the right decision. Something I had learned at my Fathers and Mothers knee, and I learned it quite well.

 

[Skatchie]

It should be legal. no marriage should be something the country has any influence on. They should only ever consider us in a civil union. allowing them to brand us as married was our initial mistake. then gay marriage, plural marriage, none of it would matter.

 

[talloola]

of course what two consenting adults decide on is their business, but I am concerned about 'behind the
scenes', as it seems children are being raised under this belief, then encouraged to enter into one
of those so called marriages, and it is done 'seeming' like the child was in full agreement and willing
to do so, BUT, this child was brought to think it is OK AT 14 or 15 to marry someone, let alone the person
she is marrying might be 40.

She doesn't know any better, and that is the crime here, she has no choice, doesn't think that anything
wrong is being done to her, hasn't a clue how she could grow up as a individual young woman, get some
more schooling, perhaps go on to university, and become a strong self reliant woman, who 'then' can make
her own decision, perhaps at the age of 22 or 30 or whenever she wants, whether she wants to marry, in
the first place, and secondly to whom.
At that point if she wanted to go back to bountiful or any place there are
marriages with multiple wives, that would be her choice, BUT how many would
ever do that, once they have their freedom of thought and maturity, and
the knowledge that the right thing for them is, to 'think' for themselves.

This practice is wrong, it is child abuse, and should be dealt with.

 

[FiveParadox]

This is certainly one of the arguments that many political and policy academics offer--that is, the federal and provincial levels of government should not be in the business of defining the institution of marriage in any capacity. The rationale, here, would be that the entire population has equal access to an institution of "civil union", or some similar term, and marriage would be exclusively the domain of religious institutions. The challenge with this strategy, though, is that such an amendment to the constitutional distribution of powers would require a constitutional amendment under s. 38(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, requiring the consent of the Honourable the Senate of Canada, and the House of Commons, and the legislatures of each of the ten provinces.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

It should be legal. no marriage should be something the country has any influence on. They should only ever consider us in a civil union. allowing them to brand us as married was our initial mistake. then gay marriage, plural marriage, none of it would matter.

That's a bit of a dichotomy, asking the government to ligitimize a marriage is asking for the government's influence by making it legal, with all the legal ramifications that come with it, but then saying the government has no business dictating what should constitute a legal marriage. We allow them to brand us as married because we want the protection the law allows. Those who didn't want either the shackles of the law nor the protection thereof simpy co-habitated. Of course that is now no longer an option in Canada, except for Quebec, but then again it may not be an option there much longer.

As to whether s. 33 of the Charter (the ominous notwithstanding clause) should be invoked, I am not a fan of the clause ever being invoked, except in the case of some as-yet-undefined national emergency. The use of this clause is an express declaration, by the Parliament of Canada, that it knows about and consents to, and in fact enacts, the trampling of the fundamental freedoms of citizens. This is in nearly all cases, in my view, unacceptable--to overturn a decision from the bench that a right or freedom has been violated, using the notwithstanding clause, is unthinkable.

You seem to hold the SCC in high esteem. However, laws are written at the behest of the citizens of this country by their elected representatives. Bills are debated in parliament and enacted into law if they recieve majority approval. Not all laws are good, not all are passed democratically, there are a lot of stinkers. Unfortunately too much power has been given to the SCC by previous governments too weak kneed to tackle some very thorney issues. They prefer deference to the SCC, a cabal of 9 unelected bishops whose tenure is pretty much guaranteed, rather than risk the wrath of voters. The SCC no longer rules objectively on points of law but more subjectively based on their progressive opinions. Section 33 was written just so the laws would not solely be in the hands of the SCC as to usurp the power of parliament. We, the people own the law, not the 308 members, and certainly not 9 members of the judiciary. We know how imperfect our system is, I think s. 33 is far too underutilized, (only Qebec has ever used it), it is one of the few safeguards we have against juicial activism.

 

[FiveParadox]

Canada's status as a liberal democracy depends, though, largely on the idea that individual rights and freedoms should be expansive, and that there should be areas that the executive and legislative branches of government should not have the power to enter. It is one of the most contentious debates, in Canada--whether the definition and solemnisation of marriage are indeed res publica. Let's recall, as well, that the Constitution Act, 1982, instructs the judiciary to render laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution of Canada to be of no force or effect--the power of judicial review, then, is demanded of the courts, and is not (contrary to what many people suggest) an invention of activism from the bench.

Besides, the principle of parliamentary supremacy is very much safeguarded in Canada, for four reasons here. One, s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (i.e., the "reasonable limits" clause) gives the Parliament of Canada the option of arguing that a restriction on a right or freedom is reasonable, in a way that is "justifiable in a free and democratic society." Second, s. 33 of the Charter (the notwithstanding clause) gives Parliament the ability to expressly override fundamental freedoms. Third, the Supreme Court Act is in fact an instrument of Parliament, and therefore the courts are inarguably subordinate to the legislature. Fourth, our honourable justices are accountable, for their conduct, to Parliament--the Honourable the Senate of Canada, and the House of Commons, may at any time jointly request that His Excellency remove a justice.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Let's recall, as well, that the Constitution Act, 1982, instructs the judiciary to render laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution of Canada to be of no force or effect--the power of judicial review, then, is demanded of the courts, and is not (contrary to what many people suggest) an invention of activism from the bench.

Judicial review, as it stands, merely opens the door to judicial activism, but they are two different things, as different as rendering unconstitutional laws to be of no force or effect, to reading into, or in fact writing into laws what you believe the law should be. As well, the courts and the courts alone decide which cases will be heard.

Besides, the principle of parliamentary supremacy is very much safeguarded in Canada, for four reasons here. One, s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (i.e., the "reasonable limits" clause) gives the Parliament of Canada the option of arguing that a restriction on a right or freedom is reasonable, in a way that is "justifiable in a free and democratic society." Second, s. 33 of the Charter (the notwithstanding clause) gives Parliament the ability to expressly override fundamental freedoms. Third, the Supreme Court Act is in fact an instrument of Parliament, and therefore the courts are inarguably subordinate to the legislature. Fourth, our honourable justices are accountable, for their conduct, to Parliament--the Honourable the Senate of Canada, and the House of Commons, may at any time jointly request that His Excellency remove a justice.

I know of only one case where a Supreme Court Justice was removed from the bench, he wasn't fired, but sent to a sort of judicial land of Nod. In any case, they may be accountable to parliament, but they are not accountable to the people.

Section 33 is a double edged sword, but it certainly isn't needed for parliament to override fundamental rights and freedoms, they can and have done just so because the Charter itself is full of enough holes to allow for it. The biggest hole is the one you mentioned first; what is not reasonable or not demonstrably justified today may well be made demonstrably justified tomorrow. Or, in the case of Bountiful, what is considered reasonable and demonstrably justified today may not be at the end of this thing, according to the courts that is.

Reasonability is as fluid as it is subjective, even what is demonstrably justified is open to interpretation. Many bad laws have been enacted where justification has been manufactured by lobbying, misrepresentation of statistics, or just plain emotion, but I digress.

Much emphasis has been placed on individual rights, but only to the extent to what is considered to be reasonable by "progressive" thinkers, (most of whom have a marked disconnect with reason and reality). This will eventually lead us, as a society to something that would have been unrecongnizable 30 years ago, in fact I think we already are, and its only about to get worse. Many believed that allowing gays to be legally married would somehow threaten the institution of traditional marriage. Nope, that train left the station when we allowed no fault divorce and recognized common law relationships. Whether recognizing plural marriages is the next step is going to be a crap shoot.

I don't hold out a whole lot of hope. FLDS members are indoctrinated from birth to believe "celestial marriages", (the term the FLDS prefers) are their doorway to Heaven; for the men, more wives = more favour. For the women, they will become goddesses in the afterlife. Wives are assigned to a husband by decree from the prophet. The women must be subservient and children obedient. The men own everything and the women own nothing. I'm not sure of the sect in Bountiful, but in Utah they were very strictly controlled, they had very little or no money. I many cases where they worked outside the family business all monies were turned over to the husband or dominant wife. Though women could drive, there were no plates on the vehicles. If they either ran out of gas or were caught with the unregistered vehicle they were simply returned to the home by police, (many of whom were either members or sympathizers of the FLDS), and often to some sort of sanction or beating.

A polygamy prosecution may be a tough row to hoe. Witnesses completely dependant upon the accused may not be too co-operative. Polygamy put Warren Jeffs on the radar, but it was tax evasion that brought him down, (along with the followers who believed he was ready to pass out the punch). What will happen with Bountiful is anyone's guess. Polygamy brings with it a boatload of societal ills, if it ends up being legitimized I fear for society as we know it.

 

[earth_as_one]

of course what two consenting adults decide on is their business, but I am concerned about 'behind the
scenes', as it seems children are being raised under this belief, then encouraged to enter into one
of those so called marriages, and it is done 'seeming' like the child was in full agreement and willing
to do so, BUT, this child was brought to think it is OK AT 14 or 15 to marry someone, let alone the person
she is marrying might be 40.

She doesn't know any better, and that is the crime here, she has no choice, doesn't think that anything
wrong is being done to her, hasn't a clue how she could grow up as a individual young woman, get some
more schooling, perhaps go on to university, and become a strong self reliant woman, who 'then' can make
her own decision, perhaps at the age of 22 or 30 or whenever she wants, whether she wants to marry, in
the first place, and secondly to whom.
At that point if she wanted to go back to bountiful or any place there are
marriages with multiple wives, that would be her choice, BUT how many would
ever do that, once they have their freedom of thought and maturity, and
the knowledge that the right thing for them is, to 'think' for themselves.

This practice is wrong, it is child abuse, and should be dealt with.

I agree that child abuse, child marriages and pedophilia are immoral and illegal. Those are different issues and we already have laws to deal with these problems, which can also occur in monogamous relationships.

I predict the court will find the current law regarding polygamy contradicts the Canada Charter of Rights and as a result is unenforceable. At which point polygamy becomes legal and we have a whole new set of problems with laws related to marriage, child custody rights, benefits...

Eventually polygamy will become legal in Canada, because we are a free and tolerant nation and our Charter recognizes freedom of religion and rights of consenting adults to make personal choices. When polygamous relationships become legal, then parents who practice polygamy will be able to legally raise their child according to their beliefs. Under the current laws, parents in a polygamous relationship risk imprisonment and losing their children. I have a problem with laws which interfere with people's Charter rights and potentially create problems where none exist.

 

[FiveParadox]

The problem here, as I believe I have mentioned before, is not so much the actual definition of polygamy (that is, more than two consenting adults entering into a formally-recognised relationship), but the baggage that tends to be associated with these sorts of relationships in communities such as Bountiful, in British Columbia. Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "reasonable limits" clause) should not have such an expansive scope, I would suggest, so as to preclude rights based on what may in fact be associated with those relationships based on a small subculture, and not the polygamous nature of the relationships themselves.

 

[earth_as_one]

A similar rationale was used against homosexuals and same sex marriages. Opponents of equal rights for homosexuals claimed that homosexual men tended to be associated with pedophilia to justify keeping homosexuality and same sex marriages illegal. That misperception has been proven wrong. Pedophilia (and most other crimes) tend to be associated with men, regardless of sexual orientation. Following that logic, it should be illegal to be a man in Canada, since most criminals are men.

I disagree with making polygamy illegal because people perceive it to be associated with other criminal activity. Even if its proven that polygamy tends to be associated with other criminal activity it still doesn't make sense to criminalize it, just like it doesn't make sense to criminalize being a man.

Even in Bountiful, child marriages appear to be exceptions rather than the rule. The majority of polygamous relationships in Canada involve consenting adults. I agree with prosecuting people involved in forced marriages, child marriages and pedophilia to the full extent of the law. I disagree with Canada's current polygamy law because it prohibits consenting adults from making personal choices, is potentially harmful to the children involved and unfairly discriminates against people who aren't creating any problems for anyone else.

 

[coldstream]

The Canadian Court system is filled with so many intellectual and moral mediocrities, none more so than our Chief Justice, Bev McLachlin, that i have little doubt that these fools will see all kinds of inalienable rights in opening the institution of marriage to polygamy, and of course it would be sexist to deny any types of 'clumps' of whatever sex or number is just as legitimate as any other. I blame the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for creating a judicial tyranny in the this country.. of these political hacks that make up its ultimate, and completely unanswerable, political autocracy.

The institution of marriage has been turned into an absurdity, by homosexual 'marriage', in any case.. completely alienating from its intent of providing a secure foundation, economically, morally, pedagogically .. for the rearing children.. and providing healthy, educated, emotionally mature adult citizens.

The hard facts of polygamous communites... of sexual subservience of young girls, inculcated from birth to be sexual partners of decrepit old men like Lincoln Blackmore.. robbed of education or any other opportunity for escape, and married off in their early teens. .. the ejection of young men from their mothers and community because they represent challenges to these old farts sexual designs on young girls.. will likely have little effect on the judicial rulings, with their complete, fawning allegiance to some indistinct idol of individual liberty, free from all commensurate responsibility to the others and community at large.. and propelled by an amorphous post structural ideology of radical individualism and moral relativism.

It's time to recognize that the Charter has been a disaster for Canada. It is a anathema to a parliamentary system, which has no checks of balances to judicial dictatorship. Even in systems that have these checks, like the American, it has never worked well. It is time to ditch it, and bring some reason back to governance.. by reinstituting the sovereignty of Parliament.

 

[FiveParadox]

Our honourable justices have discharged their duties in judicial review, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, most admirably--particularly under the leadership of The Right Honourable Madam Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin P.C., the Chief Justice of Canada. It's absurd to suggest that the Charter derogates from parliamentary supremacy, since the Parliament of Canada can defend its interests under ss. 1 and 33, and furthermore, may remove the justices of the Supreme Court at its will.

 

[coldstream]

Our honourable justices have discharged their duties in judicial review, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, most admirably--particularly under the leadership of The Right Honourable Madam Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin P.C., the Chief Justice of Canada. It's absurd to suggest that the Charter derogates from parliamentary supremacy, since the Parliament of Canada can defend its interests under ss. 1 and 33, and furthermore, may remove the justices of the Supreme Court at its will.

I'm afraid Bev is one of these frustrated 60's era feminist ideologues. The ones with all the complexes and hangups that you avoided dating in college because they were so stridently clueless and unpleasant. Only a complete incompetent like Chretien would make such an intellectually inferior individual Chief Justice. Her major 'accomplishment' so far is forcing the awarding the Order of Canada, over objections of the nominating committee and previous recipients, to mass murderer, Henry Morgentaler, essentially turning the award into so much tin junk.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Criticism of the Right Honourable the Chief Justice

I'm afraid Bev is one of these frustrated 60's era feminist ideologues.

All of the decisions of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin have been soundly based in rational interpretations of the law, and I would challenge you to present even a single case where the Supreme Court under her leadership has been in error. You can browse the decisions of the Supreme Court here. Our honourable justices have demonstrated a tremendous ability to be able to deliberate entirely independently of the political ideologies of the day. I understand that you may oppose the very concept of judicial review, but this is function is absolutely required of the courts by virtue of s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Only a complete incompetent like Chretien would make such an intellectually inferior individual Chief Justice.

Madam Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin was appointed to the Supreme Court, originally as a puisne justice, on the advice of The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney P.C., C.C., G.O.Q., the 18th Prime Minister. It was a Progressive Conservative prime minister who appointed her to the bench of the Supreme Court, and it was certainly a wise decision to raise her to the position of Chief Justice; she has demonstrated a fantastic understanding of the law, and of the constitutional framework of a contemporary Canada with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You cannot blame the Chief Justice for enforcing the Charter, when questions come before the bench--that is her essential function.

Her major 'accomplishment' so far is forcing the awarding the Order of Canada, over objections of the nominating committee and previous recipients, to mass murderer, Henry Morgentaler, essentially turning the award into so much tin junk.

The Chief Justice is only the chairperson of that advisory council. Other members include one representative for each of the five regions (Ontario, Quebec, the Western provinces, the Atlantic provinces, and the prairie provinces), the Chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage, the President of the Royal Society of Canada, the President of the Canada Council of the Arts, and the Clerk of Her Majesty the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. Your notion of a "feminist" Chief Justice (which clearly is not the case) leads me to believe, perhaps, that you simply take issue with having a female head of the Canadian judiciary. Is there some difference between the sexes that you feel makes her inappropriate to lead the justice system?

 

[earth_as_one]

Coldstream,

People are entitled to their moral opinions, but in a free society, we cannot allow the state to impose one group's version of morality on another. This issue is fundamentally about the right to make personal choices, including ones other people don't like.

Abuse and exploitation are as rampant in monogamous relationships as they are in polygamous ones. Attempts to tie polygamy to these other immoral or illegal activities are diversions.

We have age of consent laws and many other laws which judge if a person is mentally competent and qualified to make rational personal choices. We can't assume people aren't competent because they are in a polygamous relationship or come from one.

Parents must be free to teach their children their value systems without undue state interference. The exceptions are already covered by child protection laws.

BTW, I am proud of Canada's Charter of Rights and our criminal justice system.

Judges don't make laws. They interpret them. If a law violates the Charter, then its up to the politicians to explicitly allow the law to violate the Charter with an expiry date.

...The Notwithstanding clause....permits elected legislatures (federal, provincial, or territorial) to declare that a particular action or law operates "notwithstanding" or "in spite of" a right or freedom found in the Charter. The judiciary is still responsible for interpreting the Charter and reviewing government actions in general. However, the Notwithstanding clause allows legislatures to make some of their laws or actions temporarily immune from judicial review under the Charter. If, for example, a legislature wishes to pass a law that will unconstitutionally violate the Charter right to freedom of expression, it can make a declaration under the clause stating that the law will continue to stand, regardless of the violation. The judiciary, therefore, no longer has the power to force the legislature to change the law in that case. The Notwithstanding clause thus alleviated provincial concerns of judicial power by permitting legislatures to protect themselves from judicial review under the Charter.

The Notwithstanding Clause: Section 33 of the Charter | Mapleleafweb.com

 

[Goober]

I agree that child abuse, child marriages and pedophilia are immoral and illegal. Those are different issues and we already have laws to deal with these problems, which can also occur in monogamous relationships.

I predict the court will find the current law regarding polygamy contradicts the Canada Charter of Rights and as a result is unenforceable. At which point polygamy becomes legal and we have a whole new set of problems with laws related to marriage, child custody rights, benefits...

Eventually polygamy will become legal in Canada, because we are a free and tolerant nation and our Charter recognizes freedom of religion and rights of consenting adults to make personal choices. When polygamous relationships become legal, then parents who practice polygamy will be able to legally raise their child according to their beliefs. Under the current laws, parents in a polygamous relationship risk imprisonment and losing their children. I have a problem with laws which interfere with people's Charter rights and potentially create problems where none exist.

EAO - The case before the courts is driven by the situation in Bountiful - To think otherwise is as they say - Not Thinking.I asked if you were familiarar and to research Bountiful. As it does not Involve Zionists I assume that you have not bothered to do any research on the Social costs.The Child Brides, Child Abuse, possible fraudlent use of education funds. So I have some for you.

CBC News: the fifth estate - Bust-up in Bountiful - Watch Video

http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2008/01/report-on-bountiful-school-leaves.html

http://elronsviewfromtheedge.wordpress.com/2006/05/17/cbcca-the-hour-polygamy/

The Canadian Home of Polygamy

Ron Barton: If a man, an older man seduces a 13-year-old girl, he doesn't commit, in his own mind he doesn't commit sexual abuse on that girl. Once he's successful in having intercourse with her, then in his own mind he views himself as married. Hana Gartner: IF NO ONE COMES FORWARD TO COMPLAIN BARTON HAS NO CASE. IF IT'S NOT BOTHERING ANYBODY-- WHY DON'T WE JUST MIND OUT OWN BUSINESS?

Ron Barton: Well, that's been the attitude for many years in Utah and I think in other states where fundamentalists live is that this is a victimless crime. They're not bothering anybody. Nobody is being injured and that's simply not true. We establish laws to protect young women and we can't have a second standard for girls that grow up in Colorado City, a lesser standard and say that's fair.

 

[earth_as_one]

Read your own links Goober. They reference education standards, rape and child abuse. We already have laws to deal with these other issues which also exist in monogamous relationships.