One Argument

I have been surprised by the sheer volume of material presented and submitted at Canada's polygamy reference trial - - hundreds of affidavits, dozens of witnesses pro and con, months of live testimony, and now weeks of closing arguments.  I pity the poor judge who has to sit there and listen while hired gun lawyers jabber on endlessly about the supposed evils of polygamy.  I can't think of a similar situation in all of history.  The poor judge also knows that after he makes his solitary ruling, it will get appealed to the national justices above him.

In recent weeks, the anti-polygamy legal team has leapt into high gear, racing and begging to get recent sensational media narratives admitted into evidence.  The recent news has dozens of teen girls being trafficked across the U.S./Canadian border (in both directions) for the purpose of plural marriages.  There are also allegations that Warren Jeffs consummated his relationships with very young teens, too.  Stay tuned for the July trial in Texas.

As I have thought through the sheer barrage of pleadings submitted by B.C. A.G., Craig Jones, I have wanted to parse the arguments he and his posse have advanced.  Here is an exhaustive list of his arguments:

Polygamy is an evil concept
Polygamy is bad for humans
Polygamy is harmful to society
Polygamy causes most of the harms in the world

To bolster this vast and diverse set of arguments, Jones has striven desperately to parade an interminable list of all the wrongs ever committed or alleged to have been committed by Mormon Fundamentalists. In a recent post, I challenged the haters to come up with statistics of crimes committed by polygamists in the last 100 years - like domestic violence, murder, rape, etcetera.  I am not oblivious of the allegations regarding young marriages (for which several men remain incarcerated in Texas), but really, the list of crimes committed by polygs is statistically insignificant. This means that 99.999999942678153% of the crimes committed in modern America have been committed by monogs (insulting epithet for monogamists).

So, clearly, Jones' argument can be condensed as follows:

"I think polygamy is bad, so I want it eradicated. so I will endeavor to show that since some polygamists have done some bad things, then no Canadian should ever be allowed to be a polygamist again."

That's it.  That's his whole argument.  The frantic rush to pile on a mounting litany of alleged bad acts is merely an attempt to SHOUT HIS ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT SEVERAL TIMES LOUDER AND SEVERAL TIMES OVER !!!!!

So, Jonesy-boy, you have hitched your wagon to this sole central premise.  If your argument holds water, you should win.  If not, then you lose.  Take a look at my BRILLIANT argument now:

"I think monogamy is bad, so I want it eradicated. and I can show that since many monogamists have done many bad things, then no Canadian should ever be allowed to be a monogamist again."

How do you like that, Jonesy-boy?  My point is this - you have confined yourself to ONE ARGUMENT (mainly because no other argument exists), and your argument is myopic, condescending, disingenuous, insulting and downright illogical [remember my satirical discussion about banning knives].  Honestly, I believe there must be a lapse in your integrity continuum.  You are being paid close to $200,000.00 a year, so you are prostituting yourself to advance for the province an argument which any first-year law student could shoot spit-wads through.  Clearly, you have not learned the flaws in the pseudo-science of basing conclusions on ANECDOTAL DATA. Pretty soon you will be parroting the novelists of the 1800s who insisted that a child born into a Mormon family was likely to be mentally retarded (scientific research be damned).

So, British Columbia Chief Justice Robert Bauman, all eyes are on you.  Can you see through Jones' poppydash, horsewash, hogpucky and baldercock?

The Amicus, George Macintosh, and his illustrious colleagues have responded with these brilliant closing arguments  - - - - - - and these, too.

Mouth Opened, Foot Inserted

Today in the Canadian Reference case, evolutionary psychologist, Todd Shackelford, disputed the earlier testimony of Joseph Henrich (see this article).

Shackelford reminded the court that, if abuse allegedly occurs in some polygamous households, it certainly occurs in every other mating relationship also - polygamy absolutely does not have the "corner" on the abuse "market".

Idiot B.C. Attorney General, Craig Jones, tried to argue that, just because it can clearly be shown that monogamists have also been shown to perpetrate abuse, it remains to be demonstrated whether the abuses occurring in polygamous households occur to a greater extent.

NO DUHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I bet you wish you could take that statement back !!!

Anyway, Jonesy-Boy, if you are so confident that a thorough scientific study would prove that the abuse statistics in polygamous families will surely be proportionally higher than those in monogamous homes, then have at it! Commission the study; ignore the work of Janet Bennion; ignore the work of Altman and Ginat, and start afresh. Take about five years, and then let's resume this circus of a trial in 2015. Plus, while you're at it, do me a big favor, and name three women from polygamous households in Canada who have filed criminal abuse charges in the last ten years.

Jones, I think you are like the witnesses you have called. You have a final, scripted objective - namely to convince a court that the concept of polygamy is evil and that its practitioners must be criminalized, so you scrounge around for anecdotes, and twist academic thinking to bolster your objective at any cost. That is both silly and dishonest. It has no relationship to logic and the truth. You could better argue that the higher the mountain, the greater the likelihood that the mountain-climber will fall and die when climbing it - justifying a criminal prohibition against mountain-climbing above 10,000 feet. If you want to protect Canadians from themselves, start with yourself.

Here's what I see:- the "anti" crowd is churning out an incessant, repetitive, tiresome drumbeat of - "Polygamy is dreadful because we heard that some people were upset with their experiences in a plural family." That is about as absurd as saying, "All Indians walk in single file - and I know this for sure, because the last Indian I saw was walking in single file." Meanwhile the "pro" crowd is offering a cumulative crescendo of voices saying, "Yeah, we're not perfect - we're human, but we are no different from other humans in that we want happy families and we have deeply-held reasons for structuring our families a certain way, so the government should grant us freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and an inviolable right to privacy."

Haters - 0, Polygamists - 10

Competition

I was at a park one day and noticed a game of softball being played. I walked over closer to the athletes and noticed that some of them were in wheelchairs. They were children - special-needs children. I noticed that the coaches were cheering each play enthusiastically. Some kids had to swing a dozen times before connecting with the ball. Some stumbled their way from base to base. Others needed to be wheeled by a loving parent. As the game drew to a close, I realized that it wasn't very clear which team, if any, had won the game. I'm pretty sure that each player felt that he or she had won, while eating the post-game treats.

I thought about Lance Armstrong. I remember that he won seven successive Tour-de-France championships. I remembered that I like to ride my bicycle. I realized, also, that I don't like to ride my bicycle as much as Lance likes to ride his. I wondered (only momentarily) if I would have the drive and passion to ride a bicycle as vigorously as Lance does. . . . . . . . . Naahh!

I thought about all those other riders - hundreds of them - over a seven(-plus)-year stretch. I realized that most of them probably HATE Lance Armstrong (while a few sincerely respect him). The French anti-doping organization hates him too - and tried (unsuccessfully) to take away his trophies.

I thought about the traffic on the I-10 freeway when I drive home from work during rush-hour. I realized that the evening commute is a race. Some of these motorists hate the other ones. Every one wants to get home soon. The other motorists are in my way. I am competing with them for speed and asphalt. In some parts of the world, millions are competing just for the next meal.

I wondered if all of life was like that - a competition. I remembered our miserable U.S. economy and the declining dollar. I thought about the millions of unemployed people who are all competing for the same handful of job openings. I thought about Obama and his argument that we should tax rich people more, and how the Democrats and Republicans are competing over how those public dollars will be spent. I realized that, when God put us on this planet, He knew we would all be competing.

The famous daytime TV life coach, Dr. Phil (McGraw) talks about a phenomenon called "leveling". This occurs after a person achieves success in a certain aspect of life - money, adulation, physical fitness, popularity, offspring, etc. Often, a close friend or family member will express thinly-veiled resentment and try to trivialize the person's success - or even endeavor to take it away from him or her. This is human nature - dragging another person back down to one's own "level". It is natural to feel disappointment when another person achieves a desirable thing when we ourselves could not.

Are we competing to get to heaven? If we succeed in emulating God and building a family according to His divine model, does there have to be a "runner-up?". Does one guy win the race at the expense of all the begrudging losers who look on in disappointment and resentment? Will there be too few good women left in the world?

I watch the progress of the Canadian polygamy reference case (S.293) and wonder if certain men just don't want other men to be successful polygamists and to walk in our Father's footsteps. That idiot A.G., Craig Jones, seems to be arguing that all kinds of orgiastic promiscuity constitute healthy, "good" polygamy, and that the law should carefully, "surgically" protect them. He goes on to argue that the men who build up righteous plural families (according to the doctrines and precepts of the holy scriptures) are "bad" polygamists and must be prosecuted. Perhaps Jones (in concert with others) sees all this as a competition. He knows he is not cut out to win the race, so he is already trying to puncture Lance Armstrong's tires - to keep him from winning, too (like a "re-distribution" of wealth and success).

Does he not realize that God loves him, too? Does he not understand that, in the divine system of progress, all of God's children can win? Not everyone can win the Tour de France, and, in truth, only a few people really want to. They have other, even more rewarding things to do with their lives. Does he forget that, just because he cannot and will not enter the New and Everlasting Covenant, he does not need to persecute those who do enter it? Does he not realize that, despite his handicaps and natural disabilities, his Heavenly Father still loves him and works every day to help him to magnify his potential and receive rich blessings in the hereafter? Or, is he a pouty, sulky, Lost Boy who is convinced that this is a universe of austerity, where there will never be "enough to go round"?

I think you understand the several points I am trying to make, the most important of which, perhaps, is that the widespread resentment of polygamists, the desire to curtail them and eradicate them seems to be a function of jealousy, of leveling, of competition. I know a man who has four wives. He is a good man. His monogamous friends naturally look up to him. I know they are quietly jealous, but they don't want to take his wives away from him. Then again, I know some guys who don't really even want ONE wife. So, to each his own - live and let live. Some people want to excel in the bike-riding world. Some want to excel in the family-building realm. It is no more realistic to outlaw polygamy than it is to outlaw competitive sports (despite the fact that, in both, there will inevitably be some who fall down).

Perhaps we would be better off looking at the race for eternal rewards as a "team" sport rather than as an individual one. Is that not how the Divine Champion did it? Shall we not cheer that He vanquished death and hell?

Hobson's Choice

I'm turning blue holding my breath and waiting for the outcome of the British Columbia polygamy reference case. Yes, I think it's stupid, but I am fascinated to watch the jousting and learn the eventual outcome.

As I thought some more about the impact of this charade, I realized a couple of interesting things. If the Court ultimately rules to retain the anti-polygamy law (S.293), how will it get implemented? First, will all the existing polygamists get a free pass, a "grandfather clause"? Will the law apply only to new polygamists, or will the Mounties swoop in and arrest all the polygamists who, for a hundred years, have witnessed the law NEVER being used? I mean, didn't they have a reasonable expectation of safety and protection? Will the police throw all of the women in prison, too, because they willfully flouted Craig Jones' distorted interpretation of the law? - the interpretation that says that women who CHOOSE plural marriage are just as much perpetrators as the husband they chose? Can B.C. afford to orphan and raise all those bright little kids?

Secondly, if the law were to be enforced immediately, how would the current polygamists regain their innocence? Would they have to meet with a representative of social services and state which wives they are going to abandon? I am reminded of the Church's insanity (circa 1910) when it actively encouraged heads of household to dump the "extra" wives in order to please the government.

I think the people arguing for the eradication of polygamy in Canada are either barbarians or they have not thought through the consequences of their hubris. It is reminiscent of those bastards who stormed into the YFZ Ranch and smugly confiscated those 439 children under the guise of "saving" them from harm. If there are that many Nazi socialists in both countries, our future is grim. Again, I pray that they will see reason and common sense, and remember the principles of liberty which drove so many to sail westward across the Atlantic.

"Two Forms Of Polygamy"

The forces of good and evil are amassing on either side of the simmering polygamy war in Canada. You know I'm already cracking up about some aspects of this "reference" case, aspects like:

1. You are guilty of polygamy if merely accused. The law itself is SO POORLY written and so constitutionally defective, it ought to fall - on its face.
2. The polyamorists are saying that their kind of multiple partnerships is more healthy than that of polygamists. They want to be exempt from the law.
3. If the STUPID polygamy law is upheld in the reference's decision, it will inevitably be challenged again and tested very shortly afterwards.
4. There are so few polygamists in Canada, the vast majority of the amici and affiants are from south of the border.
5. Even gays ridicule the law - see this post.

Anyway, in my browsing around on this topic, I discovered the following statement from British Columbia's Attorney General, Craig Jones.

Jones's (unenviable) job is to defend the anti-polygamy law. Defending it is such a fantastical exercise, he clearly had to cook up some very creative reasoning. Let me quote some of Jones's lunatic contortions of logic:

'At one extreme, "polygamous" in the zoological sense describes an organism that will engage in mating behaviour with more than one partner in the course of its reproductive life. By this standard, most Canadians are "polygamous" and most "polygamy" is innocent.'

OKAY, JONES, WE ARE WITH YOU SO FAR! Let's read on as he argues . . .

'. . . the prohibition in s. 293 should be interpreted as follows:
. . . Section 293 prohibits . . . marriage-like relationships involving more than two persons that purport to be sanctioned by an authority having power or influence over the participants . . '

. . . WHAT? "AN AUTHORITY" LIKE GOD ?????????? Are you grasping this tortured hairsplit? Let's hear his punchline . . .

'8. The Criminal Code prohibition was and is addressed to the overwhelmingly dominant form of polygamy, [he's talking about Fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims] and the one most closely associated with demonstrable and apprehended social harms: that is, a patriarchal polygyny that is intergenerationally normalized and enforced through more or less coercive rules and norms of non-state social institutions. Section 293 leaves the balance of multi-partner human sexual behaviour, that which is unrelated to the harms the prohibitions seek to address, unaffected.'

I get it now - promiscuity in the form of casual polygamous behaviour is healthy, innocent and worthy of Canada's full legal protections (like prostitution now is), whereas informal plural marriages inspired by deeply-held religious beliefs and Biblical doctrines are reprehensible and "criminal".

So, here is where I get horribly confused - if "most Canadians are polygamous" (at least approx. 18 million of the 33.5 million Canadians), then how can Winston's and Jimmy's form of polygamy (practiced by scores of people) be the "overwhelmingly dominant form" ??? (Canadian math?)

Moreover, if the bad "form" of the two forms of polygamy is the one that purportedly involves higher "authority" and "patriarchy", shouldn't all religious, monogamous marriages also be outlawed; - AND, shouldn't all monogamous partnerships (legally-solemnized or not) - where the male is thought of as the "head-of-household" - be prohibited, too?

Message to A.G. Craig Jones - - - GO BACK TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND RE-TAKE ALL THOSE CLASSES YOU SLEPT THROUGH !!!! Only then will you be able to competently teach all those year-long classes to the Mounties, where you will try to explain all of the convoluted nuances of figuring out which polygamists are the good, innocent ones, and which ones are the bad, incarcerable ones.