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.