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?
-