Polygamy ban goes before B.C. court - Macleans.ca
 

Polygamy ban goes before B.C. court

Attorney general asking for ruling on constitutional validity


 

Canada’s ban on polygamy will come under the scrutiny of the B.C. Supreme Court following the failed prosecution of religious leaders from the Mormon community of Bountiful. B.C.’s attorney general is asking the court to rule on whether a law against polygamy violates religious protections outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and whether all polygamy should be illegal, or just marriages involving minors or exploitation. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association, which is against the ban, and the West Coast Legal Action Fund, which says the current law helps protect vulnerable women and children, are both expected to take part in the trial. Canada would become the first developed country to decriminalize polygamy if the law is struck down.

CBC News


 
Filed under:

Polygamy ban goes before B.C. court

  1. One spouse, already costs a lot of time, effort, and emotion, wanting more, is a mind boggler. I hope, God forbid, if this polygamy ban will be struck down, it would not limit as men's prerogative only.

  2. One spouse, already costs a lot of time, effort, and emotion, wanting more, is a mind boggler. I hope, God forbid, if this polygamy ban will be struck down, it would not limit as men's prerogative only.

    • Such a restriction would violate the Charter – so rest easy!

  3. The BC Attorney General has laready stated inh his opening statement of the polygamy reference case that polyandry is OK. In other words the anti-polygamy law in Canada only pertains to men who have more than one spouse. He claims he has never heard of polyandry existing in Canada yet he was sent documented court cases in Saskatchewan where provincial court judges forced men to become spouses of women who already had legal marriages.. What a crock. Oh, btw, he also says married men can have multiple spouses under law.

  4. The BC Attorney General has laready stated inh his opening statement of the polygamy reference case that polyandry is OK. In other words the anti-polygamy law in Canada only pertains to men who have more than one spouse. He claims he has never heard of polyandry existing in Canada yet he was sent documented court cases in Saskatchewan where provincial court judges forced men to become spouses of women who already had legal marriages.. What a crock. Oh, btw, he also says married men can have multiple spouses under law.

  5. The biggest problem I have with legalizing polygamy is the expensive legal quagmire it will create. If allowed, there can be no single "correct" form and thus it will be nearly impossible to draft property, divorce or family laws that will properly and fairly cover every situation. For the small number of people who will choose this lifestyle, we would be throwing out huge numbers of laws and tying up courts trying to sort out the Pandora's Box it would create. We, the average taxpayers, would end up paying through the nose as a result.

    Assuming it passes a Charter test, this would probably be the best use I can think of to employ the "notwithstanding" clause.

  6. The biggest problem I have with legalizing polygamy is the expensive legal quagmire it will create. If allowed, there can be no single "correct" form and thus it will be nearly impossible to draft property, divorce or family laws that will properly and fairly cover every situation. For the small number of people who will choose this lifestyle, we would be throwing out huge numbers of laws and tying up courts trying to sort out the Pandora's Box it would create. We, the average taxpayers, would end up paying through the nose as a result.

    Assuming it passes a Charter test, this would probably be the best use I can think of to employ the "notwithstanding" clause.

  7. I agree completely with Keith. Well said.

  8. I agree completely with Keith. Well said.

  9. I agree with Keith too. However, the AG in BC is well aware of Saskatchewan family law lewgislation that allows multiple spouses and he likely intends to pattern interpretation of the criminal code against polygamy so that any outcome will be disputed. Men, homosexuals and lesbians, he claims, are exempt from polygamy law. He knows well that if this exemption is passed, then it is a matter of time until those three groups challenge the discrimination in the law and polygamy "slides in the legal door".

  10. I agree with Keith too. However, the AG in BC is well aware of Saskatchewan family law lewgislation that allows multiple spouses and he likely intends to pattern interpretation of the criminal code against polygamy so that any outcome will be disputed. Men, homosexuals and lesbians, he claims, are exempt from polygamy law. He knows well that if this exemption is passed, then it is a matter of time until those three groups challenge the discrimination in the law and polygamy "slides in the legal door".

  11. sory that should have been "women" , homosexuals and lesbians are exempt from polygamy law. The AG claims that women can have more than one spouse, just not men. Polyandry ,he claims is exempt.

  12. sory that should have been "women" , homosexuals and lesbians are exempt from polygamy law. The AG claims that women can have more than one spouse, just not men. Polyandry ,he claims is exempt.

    • I have heard on other sites of an instance of a man being "forced" into a polyandrous marriage in Saskatchewan, and other references to Sask law that allows this, but cannot find clear case law that indicates this is legal. Can someone please provide some cites or links on this? My Google search only turns up vague references, and I'm too pressed for time to dig further at present.

      According to the sources I've referenced, polygamy is a gender-neutral term; polygyny is the gender-specific term for a man having multiple wives. So if they have argued based on sex, and if the wording of the Cim Code is gender-specific (haven't time to check on lunch), then given equality laws it would be very easy to "read in" polyandry. So these references to Saskatchewan's polyamy don't make sense to me.

  13. I have heard on other sites of an instance of a man being "forced" into a polyandrous marriage in Saskatchewan, and other references to Sask law that allows this, but cannot find clear case law that indicates this is legal. Can someone please provide some cites or links on this? My Google search only turns up vague references, and I'm too pressed for time to dig further at present.

    According to the sources I've referenced, polygamy is a gender-neutral term; polygyny is the gender-specific term for a man having multiple wives. So if they have argued based on sex, and if the wording of the Cim Code is gender-specific (haven't time to check on lunch), then given equality laws it would be very easy to "read in" polyandry. So these references to Saskatchewan's polyamy don't make sense to me.

  14. I googled it and it is under s.51 of the Saskatchewan Family Property Act. It says the provincial government allows "subsequent spouses". The subsequent spouses can be forced to become spouses under family law without their consent. For example a married woman can live with a man for two years and be their "common law" spouse under law. The man does not need to consent and the women has multiple legal spouses. I beleive immigrants are not allowed into canada when they have multiple spouses. (comon law or otherwise)
    The case laws are from <a href="http://www.canlii.org” target=”_blank”>www.canlii.org (sask) enter search terms for polygamy and bigamy.

  15. Methinks the AG's in Canada don't want men to know that they plan to use provincial family law courts to allow married women to have sametime spouses in common law "marriage" or cohabitation, without divorcing their existing husband(s). Over time, men will get the same rights due to equality of treatment laws..and polygamy will be legal in Canada. If only pariarchical and "religiously coercive " polygny becomes s.293 wording, men will suffer grievously in divorce courts as women scramble to line up as many spouses as possible so they can share "marital" property with multiple spouses without divorcing any of them.. This way they can pick and choose the most aedbantageous timing for property splits with various "spouses". and not have to rely on constuctive trust claims where they have to prove they contibuted to property accumulation .Lawyers will really love the new divorce court proceedings with multiple spousal claims that drag on for years and years, and AG's..well.. they are lawyers too, when they return to private practice.

  16. Methinks the AG's in Canada don't want men to know that they plan to use provincial family law courts to allow married women to have sametime spouses in common law "marriage" or cohabitation, without divorcing their existing husband(s). Over time, men will get the same rights due to equality of treatment laws..and polygamy will be legal in Canada. If only pariarchical and "religiously coercive " polygny becomes s.293 wording, men will suffer grievously in divorce courts as women scramble to line up as many spouses as possible so they can share "marital" property with multiple spouses without divorcing any of them.. This way they can pick and choose the most aedbantageous timing for property splits with various "spouses". and not have to rely on constuctive trust claims where they have to prove they contibuted to property accumulation .Lawyers will really love the new divorce court proceedings with multiple spousal claims that drag on for years and years, and AG's..well.. they are lawyers too, when they return to private practice.

  17. Such a restriction would violate the Charter – so rest easy!