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!
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.
