On polygamy, child brides and why the stakes in B.C. are so high

Carolyn Jessop in conversation with Luiza Ch. Savage

On polygamy, child brides and why the stakes in B.C. are so highCarolyn Jessop, 43, was born in the U.S. into a radical polygamist cult, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (FLDS). At 18, she became the fourth wife of a 50-year-old man and bore eight children. She recounts the abuses she endured and her harrowing flight in a book, Escape. She recently testified before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which is considering whether polygamy laws violate religious freedom under the Charter and whether they can be used to prosecute FLDS leaders in Bountiful, B.C.

Q: Critics of anti-polygamy laws say that the state should not interfere with the religious beliefs or lifestyle decisions of consenting adults. Do you agree?
A: This is not about consenting adults. My position is it is sexual slavery. I was never asked. I was told what I was going to do. My husband Merril never asked me to marry him. The purpose of marriage is not to fall in love but to provide righteous children. They say it’s a victimless crime. I have not seen a polygamous situation that is not abusive to someone in the relationship.

Q: Ironically, you describe your husband, who had more than a dozen wives and 54 children, as emotionally monogamous.
A: If a man gets many wives, he’ll find one he has chemistry with. Once they fall in love, things get difficult for the other women. If he’s not having sex with you, your status in the family goes down. When he shuts you out, they know you are just a prime target for whatever abuse they want to throw at you because he won’t protect you or your kids.

Q: Did you witness child abuse?
A: Systematic abuse. There is a lot of violence toward kids. Merril did a lot of water torture on his babies.

Q: What is water torture?
A: The concept is that you have to break a child’s will before the age of 2. If you don’t, you’ll never be able to control them at the level that their salvation depends on. A baby may be crying because it is hungry. They would take the baby and spank it to really get it going. Then they hold the baby face-up under cold running water for 30 seconds, and as soon as it gets its breath and starts crying, they’d spank it again. A session like that could last an hour until the baby quits fighting from fatigue. That can happen frequently until the parent feels the baby is sufficiently broken.

Q: And you say the community was rife with child sexual abuse?
A: This isn’t a typical sexual assault of a minor. Parents are involved in this. That’s what makes it so egregious. Underage marriage is a conspiracy to have sex with minors. The parents are involved, the grandparents, the aunts and uncles. The options the girls have for help and relief from those crimes—they virtually have none.

Q: The RCMP are now investigating evidence that cult members were smuggling Canadian girls as young as 12 to marry men in the U.S. One of them ended up being given to your husband.
A: Back in 2008, when they did the raids at the Yearning for Zion ranch in Texas, three of the minors that had been sexually assaulted under the pretense of marriage and didn’t know where their parents were, were from Canada. They were brought into the States by the parents, given to [FLDS leader] Warren Jeffs on a silver platter and abandoned. The investigator in Texas, Angie Voss, sent a report to Canada, saying [they had] three girls who were trafficked [there] for the purposes of sex. That got lost in the system and nothing was ever done. As far as I know, they are still in the U.S. Merril married another Canadian girl who was 16 at the time.

Q: What happens to boys when all the girls are married off to the old men of the church?
A: Boys are disposable. It’s simple math. They excommunicate them. They dump a 13-year-old boy on the street, in a big city, and tell him they never want to see him again because he has been turned to the temptations of Satan. There are crimes committed against children in these groups that if committed in a regular household, the family would lose their children.

Q: Why not just leave?
A: Getting out of the community is a huge obstacle. You are not free to say, “Oh, I don’t want to do this anymore.” They hunt you down. They take you back and put you under 24-hour surveillance, take your kids away and tell you that you can’t see them again.

Q: What obstacles did you face?
A: The first was legal: how do you get legal custody of your kids? Merril hired an attorney who was paid around $1 million. Family attorneys would not touch my case because they would be taking on a cult, and they only did family law. I didn’t have any money. My attorney, Lisa Jones, said it was the most stressful case in her career. She did it as a favour to the state attorney general of Utah, who told her we cannot lose. If we lose, no other woman will ever come forward. I was the first one to ever leave the FLDS and get legal custody of all my children and get all of them out. Another problem a woman has is the fact that we are in an illegal lifestyle. When I went into court to fight for my kids, it was viewed as two criminals fighting over the kids. I didn’t get any advantages that women would get who are leaving an abusive situation.

Q: Why didn’t you have any money?
A: My husband had a home worth more than $1 million—it was 17,000 square feet for seven wives and 30-some kids. I had no claim, even though I worked as a teacher and all my money contributed to that home. But it was all in a Church-controlled trust. He had other assets such as construction equipment that he put in the name of other members. It was a fraudulent transfer and the state could have traced it back to him, but they didn’t want to do that. My case didn’t fit the simple system where he gets a paycheque and you garnish it for child support. He would have had to give support for eight kids and one with a severe disability and in critical condition with cancer. That’s one of the problems with polygamy. Women don’t have any protection from financial abuse. He was flying around in a private jet and I was in a homeless shelter.

Q: When you escaped, you discovered he had run up debts in your name.
A: He was using my name to finance different things—credit cards, construction equipment. When I left, he stopped paying. I didn’t know what I owed. He legally got away without paying child support and pushed me into bankruptcy and it did not hurt him because we were not legally married. Harrison, my 11-year-old disabled son, at the time was 4. He needed 24-hour-a-day care. That forced me onto welfare.

Q: How are women prevented from physically leaving the community you were in, on the Arizona-Utah border?
A: The men work construction and are gone during the week. They are not there to watch their wives. They don’t want her taking her kids to go to town but it’s not practical to leave a woman with a lot of little kids with no transportation. So they leave her a clunker that’s unlicensed and uninsured to make sure that she cannot leave the community. The minute I start driving outside of the community, they know I’m leaving without permission. It’s like driving a marked car.

Q: Why not go to the police?
A: The cops are members of the cult. Merril would have called and said, ‘My wife is leaving and you’d better get over and stop her.’ I tried to call a cop outside of the community; they said we don’t have jurisdiction there.

Q: What made you finally decide to leave?
A: It was a combination of how critical things were becoming because Warren Jeffs had become the prophet and he was preaching the “lifting up.” I could see he was starting to program us for a mass suicide. I was also afraid for the safety of my daughter, who was turning 14 and I knew Warren wanted to marry her. The other factor was my disabled son. I was having hell on wheels getting him treatment, keeping him alive.

Q: What do you think would happen if courts strike down Canada’s anti-polygamy law?
A: It could have a devastating impact. It would push the legalization of polygamy into the U.S. It would help mainstream that lifestyle. We want to see specific legislation to go after specific crimes they are committing, such as educational neglect of children, medical neglect, in addition to sexual assault. If Canada says this is legal, there probably won’t be legislation to deal with these crimes.

Q: You tell U.S. audiences Canada represents “hope” because of the potential for prosecutions of leaders of a branch of the FLDS in Bountiful, who had many underage brides.
A: Canada presents a hope to me for two reasons. They are looking very seriously at crimes within the polygamous community. The other encouraging thing is because they are looking at a polygamist population of fewer than 2,000 people, dealing with the situation is more feasible. In Utah we have 80,000. If Canada prosecutes, it would put serious heat on Utah.

Q: What do you think the Canadian government should do?
A: They should pass specific legislation. If children are born into it you can’t take away all their Charter rights in the name of freedom of religion. Regardless of what you believe, you don’t have a right to deprive a child of all their other rights. You couldn’t just take girls over international lines and give them over to sexual abuse when they are 12. You can open the door to freedom for people who are trapped. It’s not about consenting adults. There are children there.




Browse

On polygamy, child brides and why the stakes in B.C. are so high

  1. This is a very sad story. It sounds like the men are as brainwashed as the women in the cult.
    Canada should maintain the polygamy and bigamy laws as they are and prosecute all persons who lay claim to multiple spouses or willingly become the spouse of a person who has a spouse.
    The interesting thing about the current BC reference case on polygamy is that the Attorney generals appear to condone that married people (whether in cohabitation or separated but not divorced) can have "common law spouses) at THE SAME TIME.

  2. This is a very sad story. It sounds like the men are as brainwashed as the women in the cult.
    Canada should maintain the polygamy and bigamy laws as they are and prosecute all persons who lay claim to multiple spouses or willingly become the spouse of a person who has a spouse.
    The interesting thing about the current BC reference case on polygamy is that the Attorney generals appear to condone that married people (whether in cohabitation or separated but not divorced) can have "common law spouses) at THE SAME TIME.

  3. This is a very sad story. It sounds like the men are as brainwashed as the women in the cult.
    Canada should maintain the polygamy and bigamy laws as they are and prosecute all persons who lay claim to multiple spouses or willingly become the spouse of a person who has a spouse.
    The interesting thing about the current BC reference case on polygamy is that the Attorney generals appear to condone that married people (whether in cohabitation or separated but not divorced) can have "common law spouses) at THE SAME TIME.

  4. One of the best interviews I have read on such a disgusting topic. This is the first I have heard about babies and water torture.

    It is like raising dairy cattle – the heifers are kept to be bred and produce milk and reproduce – the bulls end up as veal.

    Please Canada, do the right thing and stop this!!!

  5. One of the best interviews I have read on such a disgusting topic. This is the first I have heard about babies and water torture.

    It is like raising dairy cattle – the heifers are kept to be bred and produce milk and reproduce – the bulls end up as veal.

    Please Canada, do the right thing and stop this!!!

    • What is so bewildering about the hearing taking place in BC Supreme Cpurt is that on 18 October 2002, Canada ratified the Protocol on the UN Convention on the Eliminaiton of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and is LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO UPHOLD IT. It states that polygamy contravenes women's equality rights and also harms their children. As well, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees women equality with men. Why, therefore, are we having this debate in court? Is the judge going to dismiss women's guaranteed right not to suffer the scourge of polygamy in Canada, and is he going to dismiss our Charter equality rights? If he dismisses women's equality rights in favour of the pedophiles at Bountiful, he will set back women's rights for 1000 years, and alter the very DNA of the Charter. Polygamy comes from the dark ages when women had no rights and were collected as concubines in men's harems. Time to kick it into the garbage! The year is 2011 AD not 2011 BC.
      Jancis M. Andrews

      • The UN convention simply says that women and men MIST have the same trights and obligations in marriage and at its dissolution. That being the case, then women must be prosected for consenting to become the spouse of a person who has a spouse just as the men must be charged with having multiple spouses. Thats ALL the UN says about it, it does not speak to polygamy at all.

        • Janice, please read the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Equality in Marriage and Family Relations: 04/02/94. CEDAW General Recommendation 21. Sections 14 and 39 state that polygamy contravenes women's equality rights and also harms their children. Please also read the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 18 (3) states: Everyone has the freedom to practise their religion SUBJECT ONLY TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS ARE PRESCRIBED BY LAW AND ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF OTHERS." Canada ratified the Protocol on 19 May 1976, and is legally obligated to uphold it. Since Canada has already agreed that polygamy contravenes women's equality rights, and since we have a Charter stating that women have equality with men, why are we having to endure this threat to our equality rights in BC Supreme Court? Doesn't the federal government's signature on these all-important documents mean anything? Or are they all merely pie in the sky?

  6. The Canadian outlook on mixed families, single parents, same sex parents and blended families, appears to be one of acceptance, support and almost apathy. The "Cleaver" family of the past is more the exception than the norm in Canadian society. The ability to accept is one of the reasons I love my county. I however have my doubts about a polygamous. Sex and relationships between consenting adults, the government staying out of the bedrooms of its citizens… boo-rah I'm all for it. But this is not the case with polygamy. Choices of the consenting adults do not stay with the adults. Trafficing children, torture, loss of freedom, it seems I don't need to look to Libya shaking my head at the vicious regime, there is one in my backyard. That there is no legislation firmly in place protecting our own children, deeply disturbs me. It certainly takes me off my Canadian Holier Than Thou soapbox.

  7. The Canadian outlook on mixed families, single parents, same sex parents and blended families, appears to be one of acceptance, support and almost apathy. The "Cleaver" family of the past is more the exception than the norm in Canadian society. The ability to accept is one of the reasons I love my county. I however have my doubts about a polygamous. Sex and relationships between consenting adults, the government staying out of the bedrooms of its citizens… boo-rah I'm all for it. But this is not the case with polygamy. Choices of the consenting adults do not stay with the adults. Trafficing children, torture, loss of freedom, it seems I don't need to look to Libya shaking my head at the vicious regime, there is one in my backyard. That there is no legislation firmly in place protecting our own children, deeply disturbs me. It certainly takes me off my Canadian Holier Than Thou soapbox.

  8. This makes me very angry. Obviously governments are aware of the abuses that occur in these polygamous communities. Yet they are sitting on their hands acting dumb.
    Why aren't alarm bells ringing and protection agencies ensuring that that children, and young mothers are appropriately treated. If Canada's citizens have been trafficked to the US underage (or not) then we should be seeking protected channels to get them back and provide them with assistance to get some resemblance of the Canadian privileged life they are entitled too.
    Carolyn is very brave, this must be most distressing for her and other victims of these mad men.

  9. This makes me very angry. Obviously governments are aware of the abuses that occur in these polygamous communities. Yet they are sitting on their hands acting dumb.
    Why aren't alarm bells ringing and protection agencies ensuring that that children, and young mothers are appropriately treated. If Canada's citizens have been trafficked to the US underage (or not) then we should be seeking protected channels to get them back and provide them with assistance to get some resemblance of the Canadian privileged life they are entitled too.
    Carolyn is very brave, this must be most distressing for her and other victims of these mad men.

    • Billy, more often than not it is the women who deliver the children to men who have multiple spouses. That makes them as guilty as the men.

  10. If polygamy was accepted, I would only ever support it if it was an open honest relationship, not some secretive organization. Not some religious abuse system like what is currently out there.

  11. If polygamy was accepted, I would only ever support it if it was an open honest relationship, not some secretive organization. Not some religious abuse system like what is currently out there.

    • Max, are you not thinking of polyamory, not polygamy? In polyamory, any number of men can live with any number of women, and all the participants are equal, with equal rights and equal responsibilities. Although I wouldn't want it for myself, it is actually a very democratic arrangement. Polygamy, on the other hand, is one man having sex with many women, but where the women are forbidden to have sex with any other man but him. In other words, the man runs a harem. It is quite obvious such an arrangement is built on inequality, and where the women (and their children) have to fight for the man's affection and attention. Moreover, only the first, legal wife is covered by the man's health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance and pensions. Insurance companies do not cover the concubines and their children. Why any woman would put herself and her children into such a degrading, risky position that could leave her in deep poverty is beyond me.

    • This brings up an important point. Despite the urgency of the issues that we would like the law to address, it's actually a very badly written law. See it here, it's just a few sentences, and when you break it down, you'll probably agree that it wasn't designed to deal with the real problems; it just criminalizes relationships, including the victims and attendees to ceremonies. http://polyadvocacy.ca/faq-293-reference#293-text

      Polyamorous people have multiple partners, but they're modern, egalitarian, consenting… the open honest relationship Max just mentioned. They don't think of it as "polygamy" but to the Criminal Code it's currently all the same. Should these consenting, openly loving people be painted with the same criminal brush on the simple basis of whom they love?

      The law as it's written should be scrapped. It should immediately be replaced, thanks to all the evidence in the case, with laws that address the real abuses occurring.

      Jessop says: "We want to see specific legislation to go after specific crimes they are committing, such as educational neglect of children, medical neglect, in addition to sexual assault. If Canada says this is legal, there probably won't be legislation to deal with these crimes." Let's make sure that there is.

  12. What is so bewildering about the hearing taking place in BC Supreme Cpurt is that on 18 October 2002, Canada ratified the Protocol on the UN Convention on the Eliminaiton of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and is LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO UPHOLD IT. It states that polygamy contravenes women's equality rights and also harms their children. As well, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees women equality with men. Why, therefore, are we having this debate in court? Is the judge going to dismiss women's guaranteed right not to suffer the scourge of polygamy in Canada, and is he going to dismiss our Charter equality rights? If he dismisses women's equality rights in favour of the pedophiles at Bountiful, he will set back women's rights for 1000 years, and alter the very DNA of the Charter. Polygamy comes from the dark ages when women had no rights and were collected as concubines in men's harems. Time to kick it into the garbage! The year is 2011 AD not 2011 BC.
    Jancis M. Andrews

  13. Max, are you not thinking of polyamory, not polygamy? In polyamory, any number of men can live with any number of women, and all the participants are equal, with equal rights and equal responsibilities. Although I wouldn't want it for myself, it is actually a very democratic arrangement. Polygamy, on the other hand, is one man having sex with many women, but where the women are forbidden to have sex with any other man but him. In other words, the man runs a harem. It is quite obvious such an arrangement is built on inequality, and where the women (and their children) have to fight for the man's affection and attention. Moreover, only the first, legal wife is covered by the man's health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance and pensions. Insurance companies do not cover the concubines and their children. Why any woman would put herself and her children into such a degrading, risky position that could leave her in deep poverty is beyond me.

  14. The UN convention simply says that women and men MIST have the same trights and obligations in marriage and at its dissolution. That being the case, then women must be prosected for consenting to become the spouse of a person who has a spouse just as the men must be charged with having multiple spouses. Thats ALL the UN says about it, it does not speak to polygamy at all.

  15. Billy, more often than not it is the women who deliver the children to men who have multiple spouses. That makes them as guilty as the men.

  16. The polygamy reference case in BC presents confusing information. The AG claims there are illegal "marriages" because one of the "spouses" is already married to someone else. MARRIAGE BY DEFINITION ACCORDING THE THE AG IS A UNION THAT IS SOLEMNIZED IN CIVIL REGISTRATON. The "conjugal relationships" in BC that are mutiple are really "common law marriages" because no civil registration occured. The BC family law courts say married people can have common law spouses too (while married) Therefore no polygamy occured because the added ones were not civilly sanctioned ones.

  17. The polygamy reference case in BC presents confusing information. The AG claims there are illegal "marriages" because one of the "spouses" is already married to someone else. MARRIAGE BY DEFINITION ACCORDING THE THE AG IS A UNION THAT IS SOLEMNIZED IN CIVIL REGISTRATON. The "conjugal relationships" in BC that are mutiple are really "common law marriages" because no civil registration occured. The BC family law courts say married people can have common law spouses too (while married) Therefore no polygamy occured because the added ones were not civilly sanctioned ones.

  18. Janice, please read the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Equality in Marriage and Family Relations: 04/02/94. CEDAW General Recommendation 21. Sections 14 and 39 state that polygamy contravenes women's equality rights and also harms their children. Please also read the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 18 (3) states: Everyone has the freedom to practise their religion SUBJECT ONLY TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS ARE PRESCRIBED BY LAW AND ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF OTHERS." Canada ratified the Protocol on 19 May 1976, and is legally obligated to uphold it. Since Canada has already agreed that polygamy contravenes women's equality rights, and since we have a Charter stating that women have equality with men, why are we having to endure this threat to our equality rights in BC Supreme Court? Doesn't the federal government's signature on these all-important documents mean anything? Or are they all merely pie in the sky?

  19. Carolyn Jessop was amazing in the film "Banking On Heaven". Utah should be building monuments to honor her bravery and determination. Carolyn is taking on FLDS cowards and she's kicking their sorry asses. WOO-HOO!!! Go, Carolyn, GO.

  20. Carolyn Jessop was amazing in the film "Banking On Heaven". Utah should be building monuments to honor her bravery and determination. Carolyn is taking on FLDS cowards and she's kicking their sorry asses. WOO-HOO!!! Go, Carolyn, GO.

  21. I'm proud of the leadership stance B.C. can take this horrible situation. What I'm not so proud of is the way Carolyn Jessop conducted her interview: Using classic Canadian self-loathing by eagerly using the names of the States in the U.S. but not using the names of provinces in Canada, even though she is in Canada and writing about Canada in a Canadian magazine.

    Why is B.C. generically referred to as Canada throughout the article? Especially when the states of Utah and Arizona are not generically referred to as the U.S.? Why is The British Columbian government referred to as the Canadian government?

    No other reason than a classic Canadian's lack of intentionality, self-identity, and pride. Can you imagine if the someone in the States actually read the article and were confused as to where Bountiful, BC was??? Better to kowtow to them, say "Bountiful, Canada" and save us all any embarrassment.

  22. I'm proud of the leadership stance B.C. can take this horrible situation. What I'm not so proud of is the way Carolyn Jessop conducted her interview: Using classic Canadian self-loathing by eagerly using the names of the States in the U.S. but not using the names of provinces in Canada, even though she is in Canada and writing about Canada in a Canadian magazine.

    Why is B.C. generically referred to as Canada throughout the article? Especially when the states of Utah and Arizona are not generically referred to as the U.S.? Why is The British Columbian government referred to as the Canadian government?

    No other reason than a classic Canadian's lack of intentionality, self-identity, and pride. Can you imagine if the someone in the States actually read the article and were confused as to where Bountiful, BC was??? Better to kowtow to them, say "Bountiful, Canada" and save us all any embarrassment.

    • way to miss the point

  23. This brings up an important point. Despite the urgency of the issues that we would like the law to address, it's actually a very badly written law. See it here, it's just a few sentences, and when you break it down, you'll probably agree that it wasn't designed to deal with the real problems; it just criminalizes relationships, including the victims and attendees to ceremonies. http://polyadvocacy.ca/faq-293-reference#293-text

    Polyamorous people have multiple partners, but they're modern, egalitarian, consenting… the open honest relationship Max just mentioned. They don't think of it as "polygamy" but to the Criminal Code it's currently all the same. Should these consenting, openly loving people be painted with the same criminal brush on the simple basis of whom they love?

    The law as it's written should be scrapped. It should immediately be replaced, thanks to all the evidence in the case, with laws that address the real abuses occurring.

    Jessop says: "We want to see specific legislation to go after specific crimes they are committing, such as educational neglect of children, medical neglect, in addition to sexual assault. If Canada says this is legal, there probably won't be legislation to deal with these crimes." Let's make sure that there is.

  24. This is probably the most disturbing interview I have ever read. When I read about the water torture I had to put the magazine down and stop reading. These are very sick people. I hope the authorities investigate this with all there power. No person should have to live like that, especially here in the free world.

  25. This is probably the most disturbing interview I have ever read. When I read about the water torture I had to put the magazine down and stop reading. These are very sick people. I hope the authorities investigate this with all there power. No person should have to live like that, especially here in the free world.

  26. Systematic child abuse in the name of religion. Once again I find myself proud to be an atheist and if that offends anyone I suggest an adjustment of their priorities is in order. As the mother of a 9 mos. old baby boy who will never know such terror in the name of religion I am haunted by this interview. Come on Utah, come on BC, do the right thing and stop letting these people hide behind “religious freedom”.

  27. Systematic child abuse in the name of religion. Once again I find myself proud to be an atheist and if that offends anyone I suggest an adjustment of their priorities is in order. As the mother of a 9 mos. old baby boy who will never know such terror in the name of religion I am haunted by this interview. Come on Utah, come on BC, do the right thing and stop letting these people hide behind “religious freedom”.

  28. The problem that is clear here is that women are pratically slaves in this kind of community. I was born in a protestant and very strict religious family. I have my own opinions and I choose not follow them by the age of 18, when I started to think about the real purpose of the religion in my life. I respect my family's faith and I expect they respect that I don't have one and I am very happy with that. If I was born in this religion/cult community I would probably get married before taken my decision and start to procriate with an older man without getting any chance to make choices in my life. This religion is taken an step back to the time when women were not more than accessories in men's neeeds and wants. This is the most cruel crime and is amazing that is happening in front of everybody and in US and Canada, countries that should be considered developed in women's rights…And some people talk about women's rights in Afeganistan…Let's think about it. What's the difference?

  29. The problem that is clear here is that women are pratically slaves in this kind of community. I was born in a protestant and very strict religious family. I have my own opinions and I choose not follow them by the age of 18, when I started to think about the real purpose of the religion in my life. I respect my family's faith and I expect they respect that I don't have one and I am very happy with that. If I was born in this religion/cult community I would probably get married before taken my decision and start to procriate with an older man without getting any chance to make choices in my life. This religion is taken an step back to the time when women were not more than accessories in men's neeeds and wants. This is the most cruel crime and is amazing that is happening in front of everybody and in US and Canada, countries that should be considered developed in women's rights…And some people talk about women's rights in Afeganistan…Let's think about it. What's the difference?

  30. It would not have been possible for the AG's to more convincingly "toss" the anti-polygamy case. Marriage is the cornerstone of society. It is a civil contract governed by law. However, the provinces administer the rights and obligations. Out of marriage grows social relations and duties and obligations. It is the rightful job of government to maintain these orders. The AG's in Canada never once mentioned these responsibilities, as they attempted to focus harms of polygamy on women and children, which are served by other laws.
    You can bank on the government lawyers wishing to allow married persons to have common law spouses at the same time. This is in the interests of lawyers who know it will take years for divorces to occur and property settlements to take effect, due to multiple spouses. They also know that when this occurs, civil marriage participants will demand equal rights to spouses, whether by defacto marriage cohabitation or by civil marriage contract. A lawyers dream! The right and benefit to a speedy divorce will be a forgotten ideal.

  31. It would not have been possible for the AG's to more convincingly "toss" the anti-polygamy case. Marriage is the cornerstone of society. It is a civil contract governed by law. However, the provinces administer the rights and obligations. Out of marriage grows social relations and duties and obligations. It is the rightful job of government to maintain these orders. The AG's in Canada never once mentioned these responsibilities, as they attempted to focus harms of polygamy on women and children, which are served by other laws.
    You can bank on the government lawyers wishing to allow married persons to have common law spouses at the same time. This is in the interests of lawyers who know it will take years for divorces to occur and property settlements to take effect, due to multiple spouses. They also know that when this occurs, civil marriage participants will demand equal rights to spouses, whether by defacto marriage cohabitation or by civil marriage contract. A lawyers dream! The right and benefit to a speedy divorce will be a forgotten ideal.

  32. The Water Torture on babies is horrendous!  I live by these people.  I will look at them with more understanding now.

Sign in to comment.