Tar Baby, Eh?

In my short, cynical life, I have seen some public officials get a wild hair about a particular thing and then over-act. I watched a documentary yesterday about ex-Beatle, John Lennon. Richard Nixon and his administration were nervous about John Lennon's ability to marshal sentiment and support for anti-war groups and left-wing activists. They hatched a plan to silence Lennon by revoking his visa and deporting him back to Britain. Needless to say, the plan failed. Lennon had the emotional support of hundreds of millions of fans, and the deportation plan was craven and disingenuous. Lennon eventually became a legal permanent U.S. resident and lived out the rest his (woefully short) life in New York City. Nixon went down in political flames and shame.

I won't say that Canadian polygamists are as popular as the Beatles, but some Canadian politicians are as stupid as Richard Nixon, eh? Perhaps driven by the likes of Wally Oppal, Jancis Andrews, Daphne Bramham and Nancy Mereska, some Canadian observers and officials have taken up the anti-polygamy crusade and are gearing up for the polygamy showdown of their shallow lives. A TV reporter remarked to me recently that he found such crusades too full of "negative energy". What kind of person wallows in "negative energy" 24/7/365 ??? Does negative energy survive into the next life?

People acted shocked when Warren Jeffs was un-convicted. Why? His prosecution was a big set up in the first place. Perhaps the only surprise was that a Court, which not long ago upheld the criminalization of fantasy weddings, now recognized the absurdity of imprisoning a cleric who solemnized a wedding for a couple whose marriage would eventually be unsuccessful.

So, what do we think will ultimately be the result of the "reference" battle before the British Columbia Supreme Court? Which outcome will shock us the most? (See the intelligent discussion and a link to an excerpt of a conference on the subject:)

Canadian Constitution Foundation 2009 Conference

Or watch Martha Bailey on YOUTUBE - [Note also the comments from Nicholas Bala (Queens University Law Professor), who argues that group sex (commercial or non-commercial) should be permitted, while religious plural marriages should not, because the group sex generally does not produce as many children.]

The last thing I would want to see is that the Canadian Charter of Freedoms be muzzled in favor of prosecuting Canadians who enjoy an alternative lifestyle. COME ON, PEOPLE !!! Gay relationships and MARRIAGES in Canada are legal and commonplace. The polygamists are not seeking legal recognition or status for their relationships as did the gays. They want only to be left alone.

The question of prosecuting "polyga-bigamy" is an exquisite migraine. It is a tar-baby for any foolish public official who wants to take it on. I say "BRING IT ON !!!". This debate has awakened a different Canadian faction - a literal army of Canadian "poly-amorists" -- people who share multiple bed-or-life-partners for generally NON-religious reasons. Will they too be marched off to prison?

I can see it now (almost a Joan of Arc or Martin Luther tribunal) - the judge asks the defendant, "Do you believe in Joseph Smith or Mormonism? Did you sleep with this person for religious or erotic reasons. Be careful how you answer, because how you answer the question will determine whether you go free or go to prison for ten years!"

EVEN IF the decision were to go against the polygamists, what then ??? I assume that Canada would prosecute Winston Blackmore and Jimmy Oler - but for WHAT ??? Is it the religion that defines the crime? I know there are a lot of stupid public officials in Utah and Texas, but has Canada lost its mind altogether? Does Canada want to get stuck to this tar baby?

This is like watching a three-ring circus where most of the observers don't realize it is a circus. Murderers often experience regret once they have been incarcerated and are no longer abusing substances or rage. Will our public officials finally have regret and contrition when they realize that brutalizing a generally innocent minority was not the purpose for which they were elected or appointed?

"In the days when the love of men shall wax cold for one another, see that thou be not found with thine hands on a tar baby, lest thou be consigned at the last day to a state of eternal disgrace and shame, eh !!. Renn II, 24:7"