Today's front page of one of my local newspapers, The Province, has a photo of Winston Blackmore (former 'Bishop of Bountiful') with caption reading "This man has 25 wives and 136 children - and counting. Should this be legal in Canada?"

Another photo, showing two men and a woman, is titled: Threesome's Company and the caption reads "This trio sleeps in one big bed in a 'polyamorous' conjugal arrangement. As a major constitutional trial kicks off this week, they're worried they could become outlaws."

Trial begins tomorrow to answer the question: Is Canada's polygamy law (Section 293 of the Criminal Code) constitutional?

The article refers to one of the female witnesses (who lives in Bountiful) as a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". (Didn't GBH say there is no such thing as a fundamentalist Mormon?)

I find that it confuses the issue when polygamy is compared with polyamory as the latter consists of consenting adults whereas in religious fundamentalist communities, such as that in Bountiful, British Columbia, (an offshoot from US places like Colorado City, AZ) the concerns include allegations of child abuse, lack of consent, teen 'marriages', questionable education standards, 'lost boy' syndrome, etc.

The trial promises to be fascinating, as the question is long overdue to be addressed. A child's right to live free from abuse is well accepted as trumping any individual freedoms of adults, such as the right to freedom of religion. Blackmore's pre-eminent defence is that his right to freedom of religion would be restricted if he were prosecuted for polygamy. As long as he can clearly demonstrate that polygamy arises from his religious belief he feels he has a strong argument - and he could well win that one. The consistent allegations of child abuse within the commune are difficult to prove, to date, and it's much harder then to enforce the current anti-polygamy law on the basis that this way of life encourages and harbours child abusers.

Excerpt from newspaper article, outlining the basic questions and positions:

"The governments of B.C. and Canada, who want to uphold the [anti-polygamy] law, are expected to argue that while some women in multiple marriages may be happy, there are social harms associated with the practice.

"Polygamous wives are said to suffer increased family stress, depression, jealousy, lower self-esteem and feelings of disempowerment. Children have lower levels of socioeconomic status and reduced academic achievement, say the anti-polygamy forces.

"Ron Skolrood, a constitutional lawyer in Vancouver, said it was "very difficult" to predict the outcome given the volume of evidence and argument expected to unfold during the trial.

"But he said the case really boils down to a few consistent themes.

"Does the law address real social evils today? Or is it, as the challengers would say, an antiquated law that really has no relevance today?"

The article further states "The practice of multiple marriages was begun by Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, and remains of central importance to fundamentalist Mormons."

Also, "He [Winston Blackmore] will not be represented at this week's trial, having backed out when the government refused to fund his legal bills".

There are several possible outcomes, the article states. "The [anti-polygamy] law could be upheld, it could be struck down or the court could find that the law is in and of itself unconstitutional except if it can be shown that a particular polygamous relationship involves abuse of women or children".

"Though the case focuses on polygamy in a small B.C. community, there are wider issues being addressed, meaning that the issue could end up in the Supreme Court of Canada."

---

I favour the view that the practice of polygamy as done by fundamentalist Mormons does bring harm to their society, and therefore ours, as there are inherent ills in such an arrangement, such as abuse, isolation, limited education, and others well known to readers of this board. I'm so pleased to see the constitutional issue finally being addressed, as a place to start in trying to protect the children involved and anyone else who is being harmed by fundamentalist polygamy.

As for the trios and etc out there - I have no quarrel with their choices, as long as consent is part of the mix. That is not how it is for at least the children of Bountiful, who after this will at the very least be better off, more protected, I hope.

I think it's great that it's front page news!

http://www.theprovince.com/life/Polygamy+trial+starts+tomorrow/3862116/story.html#ixzz15x7iDz7o


Afterthought: I wonder if the recent COB announcement about using the name "The Church of Jesus Christ" even above CoJCoLDS came about at least in part because of FLDS being negative news over such a long time span now? As many times as they repeat "The FLDS are not Mormons", the media and its readers don't pay attention to that, using the terms interchangeably. It must horrify them that articles like the one cited above actually mention Joseph Smith as the originator of a town like Bountiful. It gratifies me though!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2010 01:56PM by Nightingale.

Thanks for sharing, Nightingale.

Appreciate the updates on this very serious issue that has been bugging me forever, and in fact, is the primary I left Mormonsim-due to the horn dog pevert prophet JS!

We are watching a show on the National Geographic channel at this very moment about this. Very fascinating.

Thanks, Nightie. Keep us posted if you hear how this all turns out.

No one cares who you sleep with. It's only when you call it marriage that we get uncomfortable.

There are hundreds of laws regulating the benefits and responsibilities of marriage in the US, and probably in Canada. They afford a lot of protection to both spouses, something that most polygamous wives don't seem to understand.

I'm not giving up my marriage benefits to make some polygamist happy.

From today's Vancouver Sun newspaper:

"If anyone doubts the importance or interest in the issues surrounding the reference case to determine the constitutionality of Canada's anti-polygamy law, they only need to look into the courtroom.

"On the opening day in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver on Monday, there were 33 robed lawyers representing not only the governments of B.C. and Canada, but a wide range of interest groups from polygamists to polyamorists, child advocates to REAL women and civil libertarians (with some on each side of the argument.)

"There are so many lawyers that Chief Justice Robert Bauman asked that no one move from their designated seats for the two-month duration of the trial "for my own sanity."

-----

Note that Winston Blackmore isn't represented, as I mentioned yesterday, due to the fact that the govt declined his application that the taxpayers cover his legal expenses.

But what a field day for the lawyers!

I can't wait to see how things develop.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Polygamy+reference+case+opens+Supreme+Court/3867008/story.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2010 02:03PM by Nightingale.

in "Under the Banner of Heaven". That guy's still around? Wow. There's mormon fundies all over, not just in Utah - Canada and Mexico as well as a multitude of states. Read the book. It's available on the Kindle.