The Shotgun Blog
« Same-sex marriage | Main | NORMAN'S SPECTATOR »
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Polygamy is coming
Not that us lowly citizens will have any say in the matter, as with gay marriage this is an issue that will be strictly handled by our betters. So I bring this news from the UK merely to inform you what will be happening soon in our future. Second wives may get tax break:
THE Inland Revenue is considering recognising polygamy for some religious groups for tax purposes. Officials have agreed to examine “family friendly” representations from Muslims who take up to four wives under sharia, the laws derived from the Koran.
Existing rules allow only one wife for inheritance tax purposes. The Revenue has been asked to relax this so that a husband’s estate can be divided tax-free between several wives.
The move is bound to create controversy if it leads to a change in the rules. It is seen as a breakthrough by Muslim leaders who have been campaigning to incorporate sharia into British domestic law.
Once this type of precedent is established on one issue in one jurisdiction I have no doubt the precedent will be used to inexorably spread the normalization of polygamy until it, too, is read into the Charter of Rights.
Posted by Kevin Jaeger on December 26, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8346d7e9269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Polygamy is coming:
Comments
Kevin
Assuming you're right, where does this argument take you?
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2004-12-26 12:20:50 PM
This is true, of course. The real question, however, is where will the courts draw the line? Now that government approved marriage has been deemed a matter of "human rights", polygamy and incest based marriages are next. Incest is still taboo but for how long? After all, if it involves two (or more) consenting adults, on what basis should they not have a right to marry or to enjoy spousal benefits?
Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2004-12-26 2:30:21 PM
Next? Why not Peter Singer eating beef, pork, veal, liver, foie gras...? A spot-ad for Arby's by Singer or a concert for the youthinasia crowd? Takes one down the well known road. Menu, please.
Posted by: gg | 2004-12-26 3:30:29 PM
Norman, this argument brings me to a realistic assessment of what we're up against. Concerned Canadians might be able to write to their MPs and get a resounding vote in the House of Commons, say, 216-55. It will be treated with the same respect for the House and democratic will as the 1999 vote on the definition of marriage - that being, none at all.
Anyone who wants to take back the governance of our country will have to undo the decades of transfer of power to activists courts, meddling Human Rights tribunals and other unaccountable, unresponsive apparatchiks.
Posted by: Kevin Jaeger | 2004-12-26 4:02:54 PM
Kevin,
If by this you mean doing away with the Charter, I'd say the chances are zero.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2004-12-26 4:13:55 PM
I blathered on (and on and on and on) in response to this post here: http://letitbleed.blogs.com/blog/2004/12/no_polygaemyoue.html.
Posted by: Bob Tarantino | 2004-12-26 5:38:04 PM
Norman, if you mean social conservatives should be neutered so they don't reproduce, flogged in the public square and banished to a remote island I think you're overreaching. But then, you didn't say that so perhaps that's not what you meant.
Posted by: Kevin Jaeger | 2004-12-26 7:22:36 PM
Would Canada be a better place if it overturned its own Charter of Rights and discriminated against its own people, denying some the rights it gives to others? Does respect for Charter rights somehow threaten to the social, economic and political welfare of the nation? I don't think so.
Look at the photos of the same-sex wedding parties -- the happiness in the faces of these couples, and their parents and families and friends, is the strength of our nation.
Posted by: CathiefromCanada | 2004-12-27 12:07:33 AM
Kevin
The Charter transferred power to the courts.How do you propose undoing it?
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2004-12-27 12:18:16 AM
CathiefromCanada......please tell me your joking??
That may be the most poorly thought out post I have ever seen here on this blog and that is saying something considering Bob Maclelland post's here often!!
Posted by: Albertadude | 2004-12-27 4:55:15 AM
In today's Globe and Mail, I demand to know why the Government would discriminate against CathiefromCanada if she fell in love with Paul Martin and wanted to become his second wife. Assuming Sheila Martin agreed to the arrangement, of course.
Here's the link:
http://members.shaw.ca./nspector4/globe93.htm
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2004-12-27 5:39:01 AM
I've said this before. Get the government out of marriage. I don't need a government certificate telling me I'm married - my wife and I will know it, my family will know it, my friends will know it and our priest will know it. Frankly, having a piece of paper from the government is meaningless.
Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2004-12-27 3:32:20 PM
As you will see from the UK story, it's about tax breaks, therefore it's just another use of the welfare state to divide and conquer the populace. Some factions will be alienated, some will be bought off. Either way, the state benefits. And "the state" means politicians and bureaucrats, not you and me.
The schism on this blog between social/fiscal conservatives is a perfect example of the success of this technique.
The solution: cut government, cut welfare, and cut taxes. Alternative marriage arrangements will be largely curtailed as soon as children regain their place as blessings to a family rather than anchors tied around the necks of tax slaves. Abortion will be reduced to near zero when the clinics are no longer funded and when the lack of welfare and the availability of real jobs makes chastity fashionable again. And so on.
This is on top of all the other benefits of wealth and freedom which will result from the dismantling of the welfare state.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2004-12-27 3:58:21 PM
I don't know if Norman is trying to be too cute by a half or if Kevin really has the blinders on tight, but wouldn't the resolution come from the oft-scoffed s.33?
Posted by: Tach | 2004-12-28 8:11:50 AM
The only way to do away with the Charter is to pass a new one, in a new constitutional arrangement, and convince people it gives them more rights.
A tall order, but the constitution really does need to be pulled out from under the rug it's been swept under since 1992... witness Newfoundland's outbursts, seething Quebec resentment, and Western alienation issues that haven't been resolved even though the Liberals and their pals in the big press have convinced Canadians they don't want to hear about the constitution.
Every freakin' problem this country has right now is due to our dysfunctional constitution.
Maybe it will take a victory by Dr. Chaoulli (who is suing the government over the ban on private health care, saying it violates the Charter) to convince the Guardians of Canadian Values to reevaluate the whole framework for our federal system.
Posted by: Jonathan | 2004-12-28 9:47:01 AM
Can Prime Minister Paul Martin or anyone else explain why polygamy is against the law in Canada?
Consenting adults can be involved in loving polygamist relationships without there being any spousal or child abuse.
Consenting loving adults who are very happy with their polygamist relationships, and who want to continue their polygamist relationships, cannot have their polygamist relationships registered with governments in Canada.
Polygamy is discriminated against by governments in Canada since polygamous relationships cannot be legally registered in Canada.
Why do polygamists not have the right to have their polygamous relationships recognized by governments in Canada?
Posted by: David Wozney | 2005-01-22 3:58:58 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.