Backlash

It seems the backlash is already brewing.  B.C. Chief Justice Bauman contorted himself into upholding one of the world's stupidest and most tyrannical laws.  Many Canadian observers and commentators are taking note of this decision, and it is sinking in that Bauman's choice is questionable at best.  The common thread in these critiques is a touch of bewilderment that such an intelligent jurist could reach such bizarre conclusions.  It isn't that his explanations weren't articulate and reasoned - it's just that he is wrong and out of touch.  You cannot criminalize private, consensual-adult associations and intimacies in a modern, Western nation.  You daren't even try.  It isn't even clear what he means in some cases.  Let me show you with one simple excerpt from Bauman's ruling just how myopic he truly is:

"Having found a reasoned apprehension that polygamy is associated with numerous harms, it follows that criminalizing the practice is one way of limiting those harms, . .  ."

So, clearly the criminalization of the practice for the last 100 years has successfully limited the harms associated with the practice of polygamy, right?  !!!!!!!!!!!!!  Okay, follow along with me here.  If that kind of logic is the best grounds for the passage of criminal legislation, then we should criminalize the practice of divorce, right?  After all, divorce devastates the lives of millions every year.  The same thing is true for guns and knives, so we should ban them, too, right? We should ban cars and chemicals (both of which kill tens of thousands per year). We should ban single-parenting or the promiscuity that causes it.  The list never ends, but some shrill little posse of haters and colluding politicians has decided to criminalize a rare and specific practice which to my knowledge has not been the cause of a single domestic violence fatality in the Americas in over 100 years.

A friend pointed out to me another incongruous aspect of this ruling that I had ignored.  Bauman stresses the salutary benefits of S.293 in that it endeavors to protect women and children from "harms".  Feminists must surely view this a little dimly since polyandrous unions would also be criminalized.  What about the four poor, subjugated men who find themselves in a plural marriage with one overbearing woman?  Don't they deserve to be protected from all this harm and danger, too ?????

The ambiguity and pomposity of Bauman's reasoning leaves us all wondering how the criminalization he champions could ever be implemented.  Please read the following articles:

A-confused-judicial-treatise-on-polygamy/
Canada-doesnt-need-a-law-banning-polygamy/
We-have-as-many-double-standards-on-polygamy-as-solomon-had-wives/
Polygamy-ruling-offers-road-map-to-avoid-prosecution-lawyer/
State-shouldnt-interfere-in-consensual-adult-relationships/

The hater-harpies are dancing and celebrating what, to them, appears to be a pivotal victory.  The long-awaited day has arrived when law-enforcement can storm the homes of the Fundamentalist Mormons and round up the criminal adults in 'multiple conjugal groupings'.

Fast forward to the arraignment:

"Your Lordship, these three people were found in the same house sewing and doing laundry.  We have good reason to believe that they have formed a multiple conjugal grouping, otherwise termed 'religious polygamy solemnized by a religious ceremonial ritual overseen by one of their informal clerics'. We ask that they be denied bail because of the extreme flight risk."

In the history of the world, there have been entire nations which have been seduced into insanity and self-destruction by false ideals and bigotry.  Let's hope that Canada wakes up in time.

WHAT AN IDIOT !!!

Yesterday I got word that British Columbia's Chief Justice Robert Bauman published his decision upholding S.293 (Canada's anti-polygamy law), stating that 'there is no such thing as so-called “good polygamy”'.

This approach is certainly the more judicially convenient and politically palatable one for him to take. From a practical perspective, however, has he thought through what comes next?  Will they round up all the women and then put the kids in orphanages?

Bauman also says that the original spirit and purpose of S.293 was to "protect the institution of monogamy".  I find this utterly disingenuous.  First, the institution of monogamy in Canada must surely be highly susceptible to change in light of the relaxed gender requirement as of 2005.  Secondly, the tens of thousands of polygamists and polyamorists in Canada have had no impact on the institution of monogamy to date, and their continued existence will be no more relevant than before.  It appears that Bauman was taken in by some of the spurious theories of the hater-nasty tribe.  He even falls for the "not-enough-women-to-go-around", "zero-sum" lunacy!

Sorry, but I am now persuaded that this judge has either no backbone or no brain.  At least now he can wash his hands of the entire matter.  After reading some of Bauman's reasoning, I am persuaded of the following:

1.  He is educated and articulate.

2.  He had his mind made up before the Reference proceedings were over.

3.  Having decided to rule that polygamy was "inherently" harmful, he had to massage the arguments to support and 'back into' his pre-determined conclusion.

The problem with deciding to prohibit polygamy because of the "inherent harms" associated with it is that you cannot prosecute the (intangible) "institution of polygamy".  You can only prosecute the human actors who espouse the abstract concept of polygamy.  This is just like my earlier point about knives.  Knives are far more tangible and are (admittedly) inherently dangerous - they wound and kill people, but no judge in his right mind would ever dream of outlawing knives.  I shall quote some of Bauman's argument so that you can further see the bizarre fallacy of his reasoning (emphasis mine):

------------------------------------------------------------------ 
' . . . . S. 293 prohibits more than two individuals from associating with one another in a conjugal union. As seen above, the criminal law does not prohibit a whole range of activities that can be characterized as polygamous, such as:

(a) Serial monogamy, through divorce and remarriage (de facto polygyny, as it is sometimes called from an evolutionary psychology perspective);
(b) Having sex or affairs with any number of partners while in a conjugal union with an unknowing and unconsenting partner (that is, adultery);
(c) Having sex with many partners at the same time;
(d) Having children with more than one partner, whether as a result of conjugal union, one night stands or even group sex; and
(e) Raising children by more than two adults, such as through blended families, including where one or more adults are unrelated to the children.

Yet, while the law is tolerant of these behaviours, S. 293 criminalizes three adults from agreeing to form a conjugal union together. Section 293 prohibits their association together as a conjugal union. While polygamous activities are not prohibited, s. 293 criminalizes polygamous groupings. 

------------------------------------------------------------------ 

What the HELL is a "polygamous grouping"?  What kind of tortured logic is that?  How do you dispatch the Mounties to a polygamous household to check for that - (especially if the women live in separate residences)?  If all of the multiple-sex-partner activities listed above are "not prohibited" by S.293, then what will the exact nature of the charge be?  This judge (like the law-enforcement community in Utah) has painted himself into a corner where his framing of the crime of polygamy is essentially as a 'thought crime' -- "Have sex for the wrong reasons, and we will imprison you!"  I predict that there will be no more successful convictions now under (the freshly upheld) S.293 than there were in the last 100 years.

I hope that George Macintosh will be financially supported by the province to take the case to the Court of Appeals.  If not, then I can't wait for them to try to prosecute the first family for polygamously grouping.  After all, if it is a "group" crime, they'll have to arrest the women over 18, too.  That will go over real well !!!  They don't remember the 1953 Short Creek raid, do they?

WHAT AN IDIOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Read this brilliant article concurring with my thoughts.

Today's the Day

Today's the day when Justice Robert Bauman will issue his decision in the polygamy reference case addressing whether Canada's (S.293) law forbidding polygamy is in violation of Canada's charter of rights and freedoms.

I pity the poor guy.  The hater-witches are not wrong - Warren did molest the young wives.  Does this mean that all polygamists must go to prison?  The law says that you are guilty of polygamy even if you didn't have sex with any of your partners, and even if you don't even intend to have sex with them.  What, then, constitutes "a partner"? - someone with whom you study at the library?

I have said it twice before, so now I'm belaboring, but I think there are three potential outcomes in this decision (one of which I'm not sure is even available to Justice Bauman):

1.  S.293 is constitutional (and doesn't violate the Charter). 
2.  S.293 is unconstitutional and is now void.
3.  The B.C. parliament must craft a more legally sound anti-polygamy statute (I don't think he has the option to order this, but we'll see).

So, folks, picture me now, sitting at my desk, grinning from ear to ear in anticipation of the announcement around lunch-time today.  How fortunate I am to be happy with whichever decision comes down. Why? - because we win either way!

If S.293 is upheld, will they go and arrest Winston and Jimmy today, or will they wait until the case is appealed before the Canadian Supreme Court?

If Winston and Jimmy are prosecuted under this stupid law, what will be the nature of their crime? - "You had more than one sex partner, and you had religious thoughts in your mind during the same approximate time period"?

If, by some stroke of fate, Justice Bauman orders the law to be rewritten, I, Renn Oldsbuster, will personally demand to be part of the rewriting team.  I will take a sabbatical from my company and go to Vancouver and show those Members of Parliament how it's done (and vastly simplified from the original): -

Polygamy
S.293 Revised, 2012
(1) Every one who has sex with more than one person in a ten-year period is guilty of an indictable polygamy offence, and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(2) It shall be a defence to the indictment if the accused can show either that:
   a) All of the partners were of the same sex as the accused, or
   b) All of the intimate activities were engaged in solely for recreational purposes, or
   c) No sexual intercourse occurred, or
   d) None of the participants was a member of any religious congregation at the the time the sexual intercourse occurred.
-------------------------------------------
That ought to work, don't you think?
-

Shameless Advertising

I don't even know what to say about this . . . . or this >>>>>

I guess this is what your tithing money is used for.

Who needs missionaries when you have this kind of advertising?

Clearly this is what Peter, James and John had in mind in 1829 when they restored the Melchizedek priesthood through Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.