Canada, which legally protects the rights of same sex partners to engage in state sanctioned genderless marraiges is now criminally prosecuting others who seek to practice polygamy based on their religious beliefs. The AP is reporting (and is being picked up all over the world) that two polygamous leaders have been arrested and criminally charged in Canada, for practicing polygamy:
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Two top leaders of a polygamous community in western Canada have been arrested and charged with practicing polygamy, British Columbia’s attorney general said Wednesday.
Attorney General Wally Oppal said Winston Blackmore is charged with marrying 20 women, while James Oler is accused of marrying two women.
“This has been a very complex issue,” Oppal said. “It’s been with us for well over 20 years.”
Blackmore, long known as “the Bishop of Bountiful,” runs an independent sect of about 400 members in the town of Bountiful. He once ran the Canadian arm of the Utah-based Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but was ejected in 2003 by that group’s leader, Warren Jeffs.
I’m certainly not an expert on Canadian constitutional law, but I’m probably not the only one who sees some incongruity here:
Oppal said some legal experts believe polygamy charges won’t withstand a constitutional challenge in Canada over the issue of freedom of religion.
“I’ve always taken the position that’s a valid offense in law,” Oppal said. “And if someone says that it’s contrary to their religion, let a judge make that decision.”
FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop said Oler and any other FLDS member who might be charged would face their accusers.
“No one is running,” Jessop said. “We believe that our religion is being discriminated against and that there are many government officials working with each other to carry out a vendetta of hatred and are determined to end our way of life.”
Should be interesting to see what the Canadian judicial system does with this.
Update The Salt Lake Tribune is also now reporting the story:
After investigating a small polygamous community in British Columbia for more than three years, Canadian authorities have charged two of its leaders with practicing polygamy.
Jim Oler, 44, and Winston Blackmore, 52, were arrested this morning and each face one count. They are expected to be released later today, with the conditions that they limit their travel and do not perform any spiritual marriages, said Sgt. Tim Shields, a media relations officer for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Blackmore and Older are scheduled for an appearance in Creston Provincial Court on Jan. 21.
Oler, accused of having two wives, is charged with “practicing polygamy” between Nov. 1, 2004, and Oct. 8, 2008.
Blackmore, alleged to have 20 wives, is charged with “practicing polygamy” between May 1, 2005, and Dec. 8, 2006.
The ages of the wives are not an issue in the charges, though Shields said some of the women may have been under 18 at the time of the marriages. Shields said investigators have not found any wives currently under 18.
British Columbia Attorney General Wally Oppal said in a press conference that the charges stemmed from an investigation into Bountiful that began in 2005. In 2006, the mounted police recommended charges of polygamy and sexual exploitation be filed.
Again, religious freedom will be at the forefront:
But a legal debate emerged over whether Canada’s protections for religious freedom would bar criminal charges against residents who practice polygamy as a religious tenet. Some recommended an appellate court decide that issue before any criminal case proceeded.
Oppal on Wednesday said he does not believe religious freedom protects Blackmore and Oler or that an appellate court should first hear a hypothetical case.
“The fact is, the law is quite clear,” Oppal said. “It prevents polygamist practices from taking place.”
Oppal said there was not enough evidence for sexual exploitation charges, but added the investigation is ongoing.
The Vancover Sun has now published a time line of the Bountiful history, worth a look:
1843 — Officially recorded date of Mormonism’s founder Joseph Smith having a revelation about celestial or polygamous marriages.
1862 — U.S. Congress passes a bill prohibiting polygamy, which the Mormons said was unconstitutional because it interfered with their right to practise their religion (From The Polygamists)
Sept. 1887 — Card and two others go to Canada looking for a site to establish a community in exile. They find Lee’s Creek, later to be called Cardston.
1887 — Edmunds-Tucker bill is introduced and debated. It would authorize the government to confiscate all the LDS property (except chapels) worth in excess of $50,000 and dissolve the church as a corporate entity. It was approved in 1890 and found to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, forcing Wilford Woodruff’s hand.
1888 — Charles O. Card, who is wanted for polygamy in the United States, goes with two others to Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald asking for special dispensation to bring their plural wives and other families to Canada. Macdonald says no and the next year brings in legislation outlawing polygamy.
1890 — Wilford Woodruff, the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, renounces the practise of polygamy.
1946 — Winston Blackmore’s uncle, Harold Blackmore, buys property outside Creston, B.C. and establishes the community that will come to be called Bountiful. Blackmore is affiliated with the fundamentalist Mormons living along the Utah-Arizona border in a community called Short Creek.
Spring 1961 — Winston Blackmore’s father, Ray, takes control of Bountiful away from Harold.
October 1991 — RCMP conclude a 13-month investigation and recommend charges be laid against Winston Blackmore and Dalmon Oler for practicing polygamy.
June 1992— Attorney General Colin Gabelman decides not to lay charges after getting legal opinions that the polygamy section of the Criminal Code would not withstand a Charter challenge.
2002 — Winston Blackmore is excommunicated by Warren Jeffs, who succeeded his father, Rulon, as the prophet of the FLDS. Jim Oler is appointed bishop.
Spring 2004 — Debbie Palmer, who was the complainant in the late 1990s, along with several others files a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
June 14, 2004 — After receiving a letter from someone in Bountiful alleging abuse, B.C. Attorney General Geoff Plant asks RCMP to investigate,
April 2005 — Winston Blackmore holds a polygamy summit in Creston. At the polygamy summit in April, WB says that his son married a 14-year-old. He also admits that he has married “several under-aged girls”.
Summer 2005 — Wally Oppal is appointed attorney general of British Columbia and describes the situation in Bountiful as “intolerable.”
FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs is indicted by an Arizona grand jury along with seven others on various charges of sexual conduct with minors.
Aug. 16, 2005 — Justice Minister Irwin Cotler re-affirms his opinion that the polygamy law is constitutional, but asks justice officials to see if there are any amendments that might be made to strengthen it.
May 5, 2006 — FBI puts Warren Jeffs on its 10 Most Wanted list.
Aug. 25, 2006 — Warren Jeffs is arrested outside Las Vegas on a routine traffic stop.
Dec. 8, 2006 — Winston Blackmore goes on CNN with Larry King and admits to being a polygamist and having ‘married’ several girls who were 16 and one who was 15.
Aug. 1, 2007 — Special Prosecutor Richard Peck recommends to Attorney General Wally Oppal that rather than laying charges the province should refer the polygamy law to the B.C. Court of Appeal to determine whether it is constitutionally sound. Oppal disagrees.
Sept. 7, 2007 — Oppal appoints another special prosecutor, Leonard Doust to review the evidence RCMP collected and review Peck’s decision.
Sept. 25, 2007 — FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs is convicted on two counts as an accomplice to rape of a 14-year-old girl, who he had forced to marry her 19-year-old, first cousin.
April 7, 2008 — Doust reports to Oppal that he agrees with Peck and recommends a court reference. Oppal is still not convinced.
June 2, 2008 — Oppal appointed Terry Robertson as special prosecutor, who subsequently asks RCMP to do more investigating.
Jan. 6, 2008 — RCMP Sgt. Terry Jacklin swears information about Oler and Blackmore, charging each with one count of practicing polygamy.
Jan. 7, 2008 — Blackmore and Oler are arrested, taken to Cranbrook where they are charged and released with conditions. Their first court appearance is set for Jan. 21 in Creston provincial court.
This news can’t hurt the return of BIG Love to the HBO screens this Sunday.
January 7, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s only an incongruity to the extent you believe gay marriage and polygamous marriage are comparable.
January 7, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Here’s a test for you, Guy. Since we all know how eager you are to publicize each and every alleged offense by gays against those who supported Prop 8 (including blaming the “white powder” envelopes sent to two LDS temples on gays, without any evidence to back it up beyond speculation), let’s see whether you’re willing to put up a blog post about this story, in which a critic of gays has threatened to murder at least 55 gays in Seattle via poison:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/localnews/2008597989_ricinthreat07m.html
Yeah, I know Guy….it doesn’t count if it’s a threat against the gays, does it? This guy must be on deity’s side, right?
January 7, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Steve, #1
The incongruity, as I see it, is that Canada has it backwards. The better constitutional/legal arguments rest with the polygamists, not the genderless marriage crowd.
January 7, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Only to the extent you’re reasoning from the U.S. constitution, Guy. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and attendant case law) just doesn’t track.
January 7, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Steve #4,
But, even in Canada, they recognize religious freedoms, i.e., free exercise and the like, no?
January 7, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Well they have been excepting gays in the Mounties for some time. You know what the motto for the Mounties is? No, not we always get our man. “Choose the right. “
January 7, 2009 at 7:38 pm
IMHO, polygamy is a much more drastic departure from existing marriage law than gay marriage. All that needs to change in the law for gay marriage to take place is lifting the restriction that the couple be opposite-gender. End of story. With polygamy, on the other hand, it’s not only totally incompatible with almost every aspect of existing marriage law, I’m not sure how you would even begin to reconcile the differences. If I’m in the hospital with a coma, it falls to my husband and only my husband to make the determination if life support should be continued. This situation works perfectly, from a legal perspective, with gay marriage. But how does that work in a polygamous marriage?? It plain wouldn’t work with the laws as currently written. So, ok, let’s say you want to REALLY bend over backwards to accomodate polygamous couples, and rewrite everything for them—how would you write it? Let’s say husband is in a coma and wives are not in agreement. Oldest wife decides? Newest? Majority vote? What if the number of wives is even? How does divorce and community property work? Custody? It’s a complete irredeemable mess as far as integrating polygamy into the law.
Now, whether polygamists should be actively prosecuted/persecuted, that’s a different story. But what I’m trying to illustrate is that it isn’t some petty bigoted objection or “ick” factor type objection to polygamy that prevents it from being legal but allows gay marriage. One is implementable and the other just isn’t, so that’s a pretty objective distinction.
January 7, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Since I have done a lot of research on this issue let me point out two major things.
1. BC justice has wanted to challenge Bountiful on Polygamy for years but the politics has wanted to avoid it fearing that polygamy laws would be struck down.
2. The Status of Women did some sort of study on this idea that gay marriage = polygamy marriage and came back slightly wishy washy.
3. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been put all over the map, however if polygamists fight this on Freedom of Religion they will likely lose. Freedom of Religion appears to always lose in confrontations with other rights, unless you do not want to vote without your Burka or have your picture taken for a drivers license.
However, if the Polygamist can get good legal representation and fight it on an alternative marriage side they MIGHT have a chance. However, even with that, there is accusations marriage to young girls which could be insurmountable.
However, Mormon polygamy is only one dynamic as there are many muslim polygamists in Canada, their is lots of suspicion about how many cases of polygamy coming to the country from Muslim ones. This may also have a bearing on the way this case goes.
4. I think BC made a huge mistake, they could lose this and legalize Polygamy, then who knows what would happen. I think they should have gone the Utah route, convict for actual child brides not for polygamy.
January 7, 2009 at 9:16 pm
ok that was more like four but you get the idea
January 7, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Polygamy has a much, much longer history than Gay marriage. Pretty much everyone alive is directly descended from a polygamous union at some point. Can’t say the same for gay marriage.
January 8, 2009 at 9:16 am
Great post, Guy. Thanks for highlighting this bit of news.
January 8, 2009 at 9:52 am
Thank you Guy for pointing out what an immoral country Canada is. Not only that, they are socialists!! I would much rather have a man father 100 hundred children by many wives than have two people of the same sex be in a “committed” partnership. Thank you for you work in fighting against Satan.
January 8, 2009 at 1:55 pm
If the constitution in Canada allows freedom of religion, that is a much better argument than gays saying they have the right to “pursuit happiness”.
It’s a pop culture thing. (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2647)
January 9, 2009 at 7:31 am
Sister Blah 2 #7
Polygamy, like marriage, has always been between men/women. It is gay marriage that is the departure. While polygamy has not been popular in the West, it has been a practice in other cultures, for thousands of years, and has also been legally recognized in those cultures. Polygamy also allows for the possibility of procreation and all the attendant benefits that brings to society, which gay unions lack. In short, I disagree that polygamy is the more radical departure.
Your understanding of these legal issues is not really accurate. In CA, the responsibility falls to the person actually designated to make life support and medical decisions. That person may or may not be a spouse. In CA, registered domestic partners of the same gender have all the rights afforded married couples; but, without a written health care directive it doesn’t automatically fall to anyone to make these decisions. They need to be spelled out in a properly drafted health care directive, and may or may not include a spouse or register domestic partner. In short, your analogy to the health care decisions falls short and really has nothing to do with polygamy or gay marriage.
Not sure how you get here, Sis. Blah. Polygamy has already been instituted in other cultures for thousands of years–gay marriage for the most part has not, and is not.
Jon W #8
Thanks for your points.
Laser Doc #10
Thanks for your comment
Brian #11
Hey Brian, thanks for stopping by.
Mary #12
You’re Welcome, Mary.
Justin #13
I agree
January 9, 2009 at 5:06 pm
@Guy’s #14:
Seems to me your entire argument boils down to “That’s the way we’ve always done it and I don’t want to change.”
Rather a bit of circular bootstrapping, don’t you think?
January 11, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Food for thought, gay & polygamy being legal would mean multiple spouses of any combination or sex, with access to government support financially! 8 men, some straight, some bi-sexual, some gay. 11 women, some of the same three options, but only 4 contracts, each overlapping the other. Then as you consider this in Canada, with indictments in Texas, Canada can be the new magnet for FLDS migration. Think of all the American’s who want to relocate to Canada and plural any status could achieve that.
This doesn’t solve the underage concern!
Winston Blackmore married Lorraine Johnson when she was 15 and a journalist recorded her father Ray Johnson discussing how she arrived up there. At that time, Jane was Winston’s only legal wife. Under Canada law, the age of consent being 16, includes that the male partner not exheed 24 months the girls senior, nor be is a position of authority over her. Winston was the Bishop and her priesthood councilor, if she was a student in Bountiful, he ran that school with Merril Palmer.
When she gave birth to her child, Winston’s first wife Jane ran the birthing center and made a record of that date of birth.
Since Terrence Robertson is aware of this, I think the issue goes way beyond Polygamy and into a selective view of Gods laws vs the law in Canada. Seperating CHURCH & state, religion does not permit only religious people to break the law in the beliefs of their religion.
Then what did Canada know and when?
Canada INS Interview #1 in 2000 Carol remarks at what her government knew;
Canada INS interview #2 in September of 2000;
Canada INS Interview #3 in the year 2000;
Interview with Canada INS tape #4 in 2000;
January 12, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Hey we do not want any of you snow backs moving up here for polygamy… go back to the no socialized medicine, broken mortgage system, culturally dominate fields where you came from. Plus we will make you a criminal if you bring your satellite with you. We don’t want Directv when we have the CRTC.
;o) And yes that is all in fun.
January 14, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I get there with the part of my argument you cut out.
You don’t like the health care analogy, fine. What about the others I brought up: Divorce laws? Custody? Community property? Basically all aspects of our current marriage law only work if the arrangement is between only two people total. (example: marriage certificates only have two signatures, in other words, only the man and wife have to consent–however if a man adds a wife but without the explicit legal consent of his existing wives, he is essentially robbing them of some fraction of their community property because the new wife could take her share with her in the event of a divorce; therefore, really the existing wives should also consent to the marriage, therefore a marriage license would have to have a place for their signatures…)
That is why I said that gay marriage is less of a “departure from existing marriage law” than polygamy. You cited cultural and historical precedent for polygamy, that I will happily grant you. However, the point I made about departure was specific to our law, and why there are pretty logical reasons why we haven’t up and decided one day to extend marriage rights to polygamists.
This is not any kind of moral or rights-based argument about whether it should be done, just that it won’t be easy (whereas gay marriage is demonstrably easy from a logistics in the law standpoint).
January 16, 2009 at 11:00 am
Can I bring two wives to canada Both os them are mine?
January 23, 2009 at 7:04 am
Hi
please help me i am a gay and want to marry with my friend with the same sex. our society will not allow us i am working in dubai and my friend with whom i want to marry in pakistan. please help us
February 1, 2009 at 9:16 am
I don’t think Mary was being serious…lol.
February 1, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Section 293 of the Canadian Criminal Code reads:
(1) Every one who
(a) practices or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practice or enter into
(i) any form of polygamy, or
(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
But one state called saskatchewan, Canada does allow polygamy. Saskatchewan Canada allows Polygamy under its Family marriage property law. They have a Section.51 in the act that allows Polygamy. A person can have as many “conjugal relationships” as they want and the police can’t prosecute because the judges and the government have made it a law. It is the government and family judges themselves that assists and sanctions the multiple conjugal relationships. Winston Blackmore does not need to use the freedom of religion argument because he can demand equal treatment of all Canadians under their constitution.
February 1, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Lawbuff,
The Canadian law university at Queens university says:
http://law.queensu.ca/facultyAndStaff/facultyProfiles/bailey/baileyCourseMaterials/law550/marriage.pdf
“Within Canada, marital property laws provide an example of the diversity of laws relating to cohabitation. In most provinces, unmarried cohabitation does not give rise to statutory marital property rights and obligations. Saskatchewan’s statute, however, extends such rights and obligations to those who have cohabited continuously for two years. Parties who cohabit in Saskatchewan for two years may subsequently move to, say, Ontario, where cohabitants do not have statutory marital property rights and obligations. If the parties later separated, Ontario law may apply as the law of the parties “last common habitual residence,” and the claimant would not have a statutory right to apply for a division of the parties’ property.”
I checked the family property legislation in Saskatchewan and it dos say in section 51 that a person can have multiple spouses.
If they can have multiple spouses there for cohabitation as married persons then can they also be married in a civil union to another person at the same time? Because that is the definition of Polygamy, having more than two spouses! Like the tea commercial says..Polygamy only in Canada!
February 7, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Don Morgan, Saskatchewan Attorney General,Canada, allows Polygamy, which is against Federal Criminal code law(he does not report his own alleged Criminal code violation to RCMP):
Two members of a Mormon splinter group were charged recently with practicing Polygamy in Bountiful, British Columbia, Canada. On has claimed religious persecution by government.
The federal Criminal Code of Canada states:
S. 293. Everyone who
(a) practices or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practice
or enter into
(i) any form of polygamy
(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same
time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage,
or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or
consent that purports to sanction a relationship [that is polygamous]
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding five years.”
This section is very general, capturing formal and informal arrangements.
It captures cohabitation as well as marriage; and it encompasses
both heterosexual and same sex relationships.
However, that has changed now and Polygamy is legal in at least one Canadian province. Indeed, two different Attorney Generals of that province and at least four Family Court (Queens Bench) justices have commented and argued in public court cases that a married woman may also have same time conjugal unions. Don Morgan of the Saskatchewan Party, who is also Don Morgan Attorney General of Saskatchewan and its’ Justice Minister has commented that Saskatchewan legislation allows multiple conjugal unions and that persons do not need to formally end a marriage to be legally recognized as having other legal spouses in Saskatchewan. His argument is the same as his predecessor Attorney General. Basically, Section 51 of Saskatchewan Marital Family property Act states:
“Rights of new spouse
51 Where a person becomes the spouse of a person who has a spouse, the rights
pursuant to this Act of the subsequent spouse are subject to the rights pursuant to
this Act of the prior spouse.”
As early as 1999 and again in 2009 different Queens bench judges have ruled that a married woman may also legally have other conjugal partners under the laws of Saskatchewan. They contend that this does not violate the Federal Criminal code that clearly does not allow plural conjugal unions to exist at same time. In both cases Saskatchewan Attorney General representatives appeared to argue in favor of multiple conjugal unions and in both cases the Federal Attorney Generals declined to appear to defend Canada’s Polygamy law.
Canada’s Immigration rules do not allow potential immigrants to be both married and also claim another spouse, either as a cohabitation spouse or married.
The case of Ariza v. Canada (2007) denied entry to Canada to a Muslim who might have claimed to have a wife in the Philippines and a common law cohabitant wife in Canada concurrently. The summary can be found at canlii.org under Ariza V. canada.
Summary is:
“[8] Further, as the appellant lives in Canada and has lived in Canada on a continual basis since 1992, and the applicant lives in the Philippines, there is no factual basis upon which to entertain the possibility that this relationship could be saved under a different classification, such as the concept of common-law marriage. The other concept created in the law in 2002 having to do with conjugal partnership is also of no help, as a conjugal relationship needs to be, by definition, an exclusive relationship. It is not open to the appellant to claim that she is in an exclusive relationship with the applicant, where he is still involved in a legal marriage with his first wife.”
Now, The persons charged with Polygamy in Bountiful (a different town/ province in Canada)are accused of practicing Polygamy in Canada. On two fronts. One, having more than one spouse at the same time. Second, providing consent and assistance to the formation of simultaneous conjugal unions as “bishops” of the sect.
One must query why Don Morgan as Justice Minister of Saskatchewan, in a province a short distance away from British Columbia provides unilateral consent and assists with allowing multiple conjugal unions as valid under Saskatchewan law, yet British Columbia Attorney General does not allow Polygamy; are the Attorney Generals reading the same Federal law?
In the case of Saskatchewan Polygamy, two married women claimed to have a legal conjugal relationship with other men while still legally married. Both men denied this and said they just lived in the same house with the married women and hence had the right to not be legal spouses while the women were married to others. They argued they had the constitutional right to not be the spouse of a person that already had a spouse and they be entitled to live under a “shacked up” but not legally the spouse of a married person”. Don Morgan of the Saskatchewan Party and his constitutional lawyers argued that the women were entitled to have another spouse under Saskatchewan law, even tho they remained married to another. Morgan believes that people do not need to formally end a marriage to take other spouses. In Winik V. Saskatchewan trustee, the Queens bench judge ruled:
“21] With respect to the first issue, the continuing marriage of Maureen Winik would not necessarily have hindered the formation of a common-law relationship with Randy Wilson. The formation of a common-law relationship does not involve the solemnization of a marriage. Rather it requires a mutual intention to enter into a permanent and exclusive matrimonial relationship”
“To constitute a marriage valid at common law, that is, in the absence of a statute otherwise specifically providing, it is not necessary that it should be solemnized in any particular form or with any particular rite or ceremony. All that is required is that there should be an actual and mutual agreement to enter into a matrimonial relation, permanent and exclusive of all others, between parties capable in law of making such a contract, consummated by their cohabitation as man and wife or other mutual assumption openly of marital duties and obligations.”
“As the formation of a common-law relationship does not require the solemnization of a marriage, there is no risk of violating the criminal sanction against bigamy. The formation of a common-law relationship is not hindered by the existence of a subsisting marriage. Mutual intention of the parties consummated by their conduct, perhaps with an expressive public component, is all that is required for the formation of the relationship.”
The judge decided to make formal and legal the subsequent spousal relationship unilaterally ( providing consent and assisting)as follows:
“[40] Maureen Winik, as the common-law spouse of Randy Wilson at the time of his decease, has standing to challenge the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Act.”
Interestingly, the judge may have determined the new spouses had an exclusive and monogamous relationship, despite the fact that Winik was married and the man had also fathered a child with a different women during their cohabitation!
You can read the case and decide for yourself.
The question is, if it is illegal in Canada to have plural spouses in valid constitutional law, and Don Morgan and his Saskatchewan party allow same time multiple conjugal unions, why does British Columbia charge Bountiful members who have done no more? Since Osler and Blackmore (Bountiful) are charged under the Federal Criminal Code Section 293 with having multiple conjugal relations and also performing multiple conjugal relationship consent by sanctioning plural unions, why aren’t the Saskatchewan Attorney Generals and Saskatchewan Queens Bench judges also charged with creating these plural conjugal relationships under law and assisting and consenting to them?
It seems apparent that the Bountiful residents, Muslim immigrants and others wishing to practice Polygamy in Canada will need to live in Saskatchewan Canada to have legal Polygamous unions.
Some other provinces in Canada allow multiple conjugal unions if they occurred in a place that allows them. Immigrants must prove their place of origin does allow Polygamy. Since Saskatchewan Canada allows simultaneous conjugal unions it seems unfair that Muslims and others are persecuted for their Polygamist religious beliefs when it is perfectly legal in parts of Canada. Charge them all or charge none as the saying goes! Who will charge Don Morgan?
February 11, 2009 at 4:27 am
Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…
…
February 14, 2009 at 5:30 pm
[...] Cultural Marxism in Canada: Prosecuting Polygamy, Protecting Gay Marriage [...]
February 28, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Actually, Guy, somewhere around 120 groups of Native Americans have practiced gay marriage right here on the land now called the USA for, uh, who knows? 12,000 years? Berdache/Two Spirits, so as far as tradition goes, where you’re standing, the tradition is absolutely for gay marriage. History Fail.
July 4, 2009 at 3:59 am
A little scrutiny of Saskatchewan Justice is recommended.
Don Morgan allows Polygamy. Section 51 of the Saskatchewan Family Property Act has been used by Saskatchewan Queens Bench judges to create Polygamous marital unions for a decade. Then the government sues and wins against Orville to force him to perform same sex marriage. In a reversal (again from Morgan) now the Saskatchewan Justice department wants to make marriage commissioners’ independent of the laws against discrimination? Could it be Saskatchewan is posturing to increase immigration to Saskatchewan by having full fledged communities of Polygamists move to their province? Winston Blackmore and other Polygamists have been arguing that the Federal law against Polygamy discriminates against their religious beliefs so coincidently now Saskatchewan wants legislation to allow religious objections to be recognized in legislation.
There are federal criminal code laws respecting Polygamy and religious discrimination. They protect Canadians. Saskatchewan ignores them with a little legal wrangling. The real motives are hidden from the simple public.
July 31, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Is it not obvious that religious sects and cults are dictatorships? Do dictatorships have a right to exist within a democracy? Where are the rights of women and children, and also some men who are not the leaders or the favorites in these sects? It certainly seems that those persons have no rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. They are prevented from enjoying basic human rights by the leaders and the teaching of the sects. One basic right—the right to a free will. The only one with an overload of free will in Bountiful colony of B.C. is Blackmore! He can do whatever he wants, day and night, every single day, while others bend to his sick whim! Why on earth are we allowing this to happen in Canada? We have no business running around to the dictatorships of this world, and bragging to them and the world about the human rights enjoyed by Canadians! Time for us to practice what we preach. –You notice that these sect leaders—all men for the most part, wear western-style clothes, but the women and children are required, for the most part to wear very distinctive, branding group clothing and hairdos. The whole scenario is one that smells of slavery! The leaders need to be brought to justice and these sects outlawed. They have no place in a democracy! Time for Canada to become enlightened–be a leader in the world and redefine, legally, the word “religion” to exclude all sects. By virtue of belonging to a sect–we have closed societies where laws to protect the individuals are practically non-existant. Who is going to report abuse of any description that goes on in these sects and cults? Practically no one! We see photos of smiling children and young girls with old men, young women pusing carriages. Where are the elderly women? Where are the handicapped children? When have we seen a young person helping an elderly person in a wheel chair? There are a lot of mysteries about all sects and cults! So, how long will it take for these victims to get justice, while we debate the laws that were made to protect people and society? Those in authority who are finally laying long overdue criminal charges have to be commended for having the strength to defy all the doubters and the faint-hearted who would rather spend time debating issues than doing something about them.
December 12, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Interesting thread here. Actually most Canadians are opposed to polygamy as practiced in Bountiful because the ‘brides’ are taken at a very young age. It is despicable to bring a child into a sexual relationship. This is the core issue and it is illegal everywhere. Seems to be a number of pedophiles taking girls into their lives and resulting in ‘babies having babies’. Revolting.
December 18, 2009 at 9:56 am
Many other Canadians are opposed to family property laws that allow people to legally take new spouses before they are divorced. It gets tres messy in court when this ocurs. No-one knows where they stand until court decision is made.
December 29, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Canada Saskatchewan DOES allow polygamy.It says so right in its Family Law Act
Rights of new spouse
s.51 Where a person becomes the spouse of a person who has a spouse, the rights
pursuant to this Act of the subsequent spouse are subject to the rights pursuant to
this Act of the prior spouse.
March 22, 2013 at 11:37 am
Case of Winik Vs Wilson.
Randall Wilsons child was conceived prior to his relationship with MRS Winik. She was still married to her husband when she lived with Randall Wilson. You have your facts very wrong in this case.
You make is sound like his child was a product of an affair. This is not even close to the truth.