Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Many nations are forced to confront Islamic terrorism; Communist China is not one of them | Main | When no assault is sexual assault »

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

How Long Before Polygamy (Formally) Comes to Canada?

Legal experts are pushing for the B.C. Government to make a reference to the B.C. Court of Appeal on the constitutionality of laws against polygamy.  Given that Attorney General Wally Oppal is as staid, dull, and conformist a member of any Cabinet that I can ever recall, it seems likely that it will happen.

After all, can you really imagine Wally Oppal - or anyone else in this most cautious of Provincial Governments - having the guts to step out and say something like, "polygamy is wrong, abusive, and runs contrary to our fundamental values.  We will do whatever we can do to stamp it out - even if it means invoking the Notwithstanding Clause of the Constitution."  Me neither.

I'm the reactionary here.  I'm the one alleged to be the misogynist.  Can I really be the only one who thinks it an absolute disgrace that we allow a cult essentially dedicated to child abuse to roam free in this province?

Anyone want to give odds that the court won't find a constitutional right to polygamy?  Anyone?

Heh.  I thought not.  After all, polygamy is already de facto legal in Canada.  Hundreds of Moslems in Ontario (and doubtless elsewhere) are collecting welfare for their extra wives and the Mormon fundamentalists at Bountiful abuse women with impunity and barely anyone cares.

After all, as many people pointed out at the time, once homosexual marriage is legalized, what legal or constitutional argument exists against polygamy?  If "husband" and "wife" are just technicalities in this area, can anyone tell me with a (pardon the pun) straight face that the number of participants matters?

Yes, yes, I know that back during the debate over gay marriage all sorts of supporters stood up and told us that the idea that gay marriage would lead to polygamy was absurd and "homophobic" but, frankly, I'm also just old enough to remember when those very same people were telling us the same thing about concerns that writing homosexuality into human rights laws and enshrining it as a "right" under the Constitution would lead to gay marriage.  The wonderful thing about collectivists is that, having few moral opinions and thoughts of their own, they can execute a turn on an issue with the precision of a North Korean dance troupe.

Just watch.  The left knows the score.  Multiculturalism is all about winning votes for them.  Once they realize that they can use this to import tens of thousands of polygamist wives (who will vote exactly according to the dictates of thier husbands) from the Third World, they'll embrace this with gusto.  Anyone who opposes it will be branded as a "racist" since polygamy is a part of traditional "Islamic culture."

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on April 8, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How Long Before Polygamy (Formally) Comes to Canada?:


It is only a matter of time, for now that the lid is off any combination can be considered valid. In fact one has to ask just how we can condemn polygamy while condoning SSM.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-04-08 1:38:30 PM


So yeah, I'm in for $80 (CDN) that the Supreme Court of Canada court won't find a constitutional right to polygamy. You know where to email me.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-08 1:54:03 PM

Alain: I'm not sure it's productive to try and tie polygamy and same sex marriage. Maybe from a moral point of view some can make the connection, but from an economic view they are quite different.

We're already subsidizing some marginally useful immigrants. Do we really want to start paying triple welfare to people who are in clear violation of Canadian law? If a couple of gay people want to call themselves a married couple I don't mind. There are only so many of them. We aren't going to have an epidemic. If polygamy becomes the norm we'll have another flood of taliban immigrants coming here just for that reason.

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-08 1:57:23 PM

1. Polygamy and child abuse are seperate issues. The fact that they have come together in the cases of certain Christian denominations that practice both confuses people on the issues, but you can be for recognizing polygamy without being for child abuse. Monogamists can abuse kids too, so objecting to polygamy will not necessarily do anything to stop child abuse. (Marrying young girls has been a part of the monogamous Christian US South's heritage, after all.)

2. Polygamy is widely practiced in Islam, typically among those who are not particularly progressive about the equality of women. So the issue of polygamy is often confused with the issue of the equality of women. But eliminating polygamy from sexist cultures does not mean that they will be any less sexist. It will make some Muslim communities just a bit more like some Judeo-Christian ones in being monogamously sexist.

3. So stipulating that OF COURSE child abuse is wrong and OF COURSE sexism is wrong, is there any real reason to oppose polygamy? I don't know of one. Sure, outside of religious communities that are sexist or condone child abuse there is no real demand for polygamy, but if three or more people want to live together as a married group, why not? Any good libertarian should support their right to do so.

4. One might now ask, "If polygamy is allowed, will incest be next?" Well, if by "incest" you mean "child molestation" then, no, it won't. But if by "incest" you mean this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7334649.stm or this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6379785.stm then it might well be next, and any good libertarian should support their right to do have such a relationship.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-08 1:58:37 PM

dp asks: "Do we really want to start paying triple welfare to people who are in clear violation of Canadian law?"

We already do, in Ontario


Posted by: Joanne (TB) | 2008-04-08 2:25:07 PM

Polygamy and Child Abuse are not seperate issues, in practice. The core of polygamy - why the first Republican platform branded it and slavery as "twin relics of barbarism" is the abuse of women and, in most cases, of very young women.

There's an entire world of difference between, to use your example, some guy in South Carolina marrying a sixteen year-old girl and a girl of the same age (or younger) being "given" by her father to be the fourth wife of some other man.

The first happens of the person's own free will. No one forces that girl to get married. The other, of course, is not a matter of freedom - but of domestic slavery.

Second, eliminating polygamy will, over time, make cultures less sexist. It's not going to turn Islamic values into Dutch ones overnight, but ending a practice which treats women as property and chattel is a very big first step in this area.

Third, libertarians aren't anarchists. There are justifable limits on freedom - primary among the, actions which infringe upon the rights of others are not in keeping with the spirit of liberty.

You yourself admit that there is no real demand for polygamy outside of fringe communities who want it to institutionalize the abuse of women and children. Refusing to allow a practice which leads, inevitably, to the infringement of liberty of many, on the grounds that doing so slightly restricts the liberty of a few (those who believe in non-religious polymory hardly seem to be the kind who'd want to get married in any case) is in keeping with the spirit of basic decency.


In the final case, those examples are absoluely appalling - first degree relatives (father-daughter/brother-sister) having children with eachother, at least one of which died from a birth defect? I don't think any human being of common sense supports that being legal.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-08 2:27:47 PM

Sorry, I see that link doesn't work.

There was a Sun article by Tom Godfrey on Feb. 8/08 that started off:

"Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages -- some with a harem of wives -- are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say. "

Posted by: Joanne (TB) | 2008-04-08 2:28:03 PM

Since it's open season on Christian beliefs here in Canada why would anyone expect we'd have any laws to prevent polygamy that can't be challenged under our Trudeau Charter?

Since Toronto and environs is loaded with people of the Muslim faith and they're heavily involved with the politics of this Country, thanks to the Liberal immigration for votes scheme, we have a pretty heavy duty mess to sort out.

If two men or two women can get "married", how much farther down can the state of marriage be taken? At this point it's a sham.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-08 2:50:53 PM

It's important to have a woman who helps at home, who cooks from time to time, cleans up and has a job.

It's important to have a woman who can make you laugh.

It's important to have a woman who you can trust and who doesn't lie to you.

It's important to have a woman who is good in bed and who likes to be with you.

It's very, very important that these four women don't know each other.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-04-08 3:18:40 PM

Lord Jesus, more than one wife! Hell, I can't control the one I have!
On second thought, it would keep the Harpies off the streets.
Just damn, I am confused.

Posted by: atric | 2008-04-08 4:03:45 PM

If we are going to get on our high-horses about freeing Tibet so that Tibetans can practice their traditional culture, we should at least learn something about what we are advocating.

Traditional Tibetan culture endorsed a dazzling variety of marriage forms, of which polygamy is perhaps the most mundane. At the risk of making some of our more conservative members want to puke, I'll list some of them: multi-fraternal polyandry (2 to 6 brothers share same wife); sororal polygyny (2 or 3 sisters share same husband); bi-generational polyandry (father & son share same wife); bi-generational polygyny (mother & daughter share same husband); etc. (See Chapter 2 of William H. Durham's "Coevolution" for enlightenment.) These forms of marriage were highly functional within the socio-economic milieu of the region, which is why they persisted and co-existed for centuries.

In many notionally monogamous cultures, it is de rigeur for high-status men to have mistresses, concubines, geishas, sex therapists, etc. Again, these practices have persisted since time immemorial. (Humans are slightly dimorphic, suggesting that in our ancestral past we were a harem-building species, like gorillas. No doubt a vestigial psychological tendency toward polygamy persists.)

Each form of marriage requires its own set of rules or common understandings, so that children get cared for and interpersonal frictions don't errupt into full-blown conflict. Monogamists who can't conceive of any other marital arrangement working are like the frenchman who was surprised to learn he was speaking prose all his life. You have rules, too, which are more or less successful in managing child care and conflict avoidance / resolution. Moreover, the rules for monogamous relationships have undergone dramatic change since the rise of birth control and women entering the paid labourforce in droves.

As a libertarian, I suggest the solution resides in promoting private Marriage Contracts, not imposing rigid public laws in this area.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-04-08 4:15:51 PM

My God. I didn't realize I'm a sexual deviant. I thought I was just being tolerant. Or are they the same thing?

I've always found that the loudest protestors are the ones you should spend the least time in the shower with. I had a friend once who swore he wasn't gay. Claimed he hated gays. One night when I was kissing him, he closed his eyes. That was it. No more long walks with that guy.

Marc, the more I read the more I think Frenchmen aren't all bad. A sense of humour, and a sense of pride in your culture. If you separate, you'll be missed.

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-08 4:37:25 PM

I hope I haven't given the impression that I pretend to have any answers for you Karol. I'm agreeing that polygamy is a no no. I also don't want Canada to be some kind of haven for any special interest group. I just don't think that many homos will jump the queue and flood the streets of Toronto. The weather is so much better in San Francisco and Vancouver.

Besides, isn't Toronto pretty well saturated already? Is that why you're so upset?

But I guess I'd feel safer with the homos than the jihadists since, according to Akbar Iditirod there aren't a lot of muslim homos.

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-08 5:23:35 PM

Actually Karol I have 3 sons. I'm no more afraid of them being assaulted by homos than any other crazy bastard. They are pretty good at looking after themselves, and they don't attract a bunch of attention by screaming about the horrors of homosexuality. Holy shit, I hope that doesn't mean they're gay.

I once heard a statistic that 90% of all violent pedophiles are heterosexual. I've run into the odd dirty uncle in my life, so have most people. They usually find victims who are more or less willing to comply for the right bribe. One guy that hung around when I was a teenager used booze to gain the trust of some young guys. I always knew enough to stay out of their cars. My dad pointed those guys out to me.

The thing is, in my entire young life I can only remember 2 or 3 of these guys. There just weren't as many of them as Karol believes. There are far more creepy guys trying to score really young girls. Those guys are the ones I could run over in a crosswalk.

In polygamist cults these guys are the church elders. There's a story happening right now in Texas involving hundreds of children. There seems to be no will to confront this abomination. Look at Bountiful, right here in Canada. How are these degenerates worse than consenting adult homos?

No I don't worry that much about my sons. I hope they don't follow some alternative lifestyle because it would be a life filled with controversy and ridicule. I give thanks often that I have no daughters. The risk to young girls is 100 times worse than to young boys.

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-08 6:14:25 PM

You're not just a reactionary. You're an ignorant blowhard.
Given that you seem to imagine a life in politics for yourself, maybe now would be a good time to figure out which level of government does what. Saves so much awkwardness later.
I'll use short sentences so you can follow:
The bar on polygamy is in the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is a federal statute. The only government that can add a provision to the Criminal that the section barring polygamy is operative notwithstanding the Charter is the federal government. Last I looked, the federal government was in the hands of your pal (not mine) Little Stevie Harper.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-04-08 8:13:12 PM

"You have to be a homosexual or a bisexual to sexually attack a boy"

Or a coach, or a sick father, or a priest, or a teacher, or a Raelien, or a druken uncle, or...

Posted by: Marc | 2008-04-08 8:16:30 PM

Or a heterosexual woman.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-04-08 8:29:04 PM

Truewest - Justice is an area of shared competence, under the Constitution.

Provinces have the power to make and enforce laws of their own. This is one area where Provinces would be competent to legislate and impose criminal penalties, since the administration of marriage is a Provincial Jurisdiction.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-08 8:55:34 PM


You are an idiot. Only the federal government can make criminal law. Try reading the constitution some time. Start here:


Scroll down to subsection 27. Or let me make it simple for you:

"...it is hereby declared that ... the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to ... The Criminal Law...."

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-08 9:17:39 PM

Karol: I've met lots of gay men that I was aware of and probably more I wasn't aware of. What I said was I only remember a couple of real pedophiles. On the other hand, I've met plenty of guys who think it's okay to go after underage girls. That, by definition, is a pedophile.

I freely admit that I've probably met plenty of pedophiles I wasn't aware of on both sides of the fence.

So what I'm really saying is that I don't get very upset about anything that doesn't involve underage boys or girls. That's a hanging offence.

The fact it's illegal, and wasn't part of the original post makes me wonder why it turned into such an issue. To me it's clouding the original issue.

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-08 10:00:58 PM

"Same sex marriages for sexual deviants, polygamy for Muslims and slow demise of Western Civilisation in Canada or rolling back of all rights of sexual deviants, holding a dam on polygamy and a last ditch attempt to reinvigorate Western Civilisation in Canada????"

Karol for PM.

Monogamy, focuses the investment of males upon the offspring of one woman. Therefore support for the family rested solely on that investment. In other words the dependence on extended kinship relationships diminish. It emphasises non-kinship based altruism. Benefits do accrue from the protection offered by an extended polygamous family, however, there are also costs, for instance, an increased demand for reciprocal services. Monogamy allowed for the develop of contractual relationships with strangers.

Kevin MacDonald also suggests it allowed for a "unique European "low-pressure" demographic profile. The connection with monogamy is that monogamous marriage results in a situation where the poor of both sexes are unable to mate, whereas in polygynous systems an excess of poor females merely lowers the price of concubines for wealthy males. Not only was the marriage rate the main damper on population growth, but this response, especially in England, had a tendency to lag well behind favorable economic changes so that there was a tendency for capital accumulation during good times rather than a constant pressure of population on food supply..."

He argues that monogamy influenced the structure of economic demand "giv[ing] a disproportionately strong boost to demand for commodities other than the basic necessities of life, and so to sectors of the economy whose growth is especially important if an industrial revolution is to occur."

Posted by: DJ | 2008-04-09 12:49:44 AM

LOL! Bountiful and Warren Jeffs and those Mormons are all Muslims? That's what Karol and the other winners here seem to think! LOL! How come Harper is ignoring the polygamy issue? I think Harper knows he has you bunch of clowns on a leash and you can pull and bark all you want, but when he says "heel" you sit and pant like an obedient puppy! LOL! Harper owns all of you!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-09 1:38:45 AM

Fact Check - check your facts:


"The province retains some power over criminal law through a number of constitutional provisions. Under section 92(15) the provinces are able to impose "Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated" within section 92. This means that a province can attach criminal penalties to valid provincial laws."

And, listed directly under the powers of the Provinces:

"The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province."

After all, Fact Check, that's how Provinces pass, for one example, traffic laws.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-09 2:04:58 AM

I see LOLly ROGER has come back to serve us with his superior intellect while laughing his arse off.

He must be taking time out from writing speeches for Dion.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-09 6:02:29 AM


You are a sub-moron. Yes, the provinces have the power of punishment by fine, penalty, or imprisonment, but they do not have the power to make criminal law. You don't seem to know that there is a difference. There is. Whether your pea-brain can understand it or not.

Also, the provincial power over marriage is just that provinces can set the rules for how one goes about getting married. The question of who can get married is a federal power (section 91 subsection 26). So no province can declare a ban on polygamous marriages or on siblings marrying. That bit of of your prefered version of the nanny-state has to come from the feds. Albertans found this out when they wanted to ban same-sex marriage and could not.

I like how in citing references *I* link to the Canadian Government's webpage that contains the constitution and *YOU* link to wikipedia. Say no more. You are a tool.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-09 7:25:14 AM

Men or women with androgynous names always seem to struggle with their identities. I realized yesterday that Karol is actually a man. It hadn't occured to me before, and the revelation made me understand why he's so rabidly anti gay. He must have been teased mercilessly in elementary school.

It seems to be what's driving him so hard to make some sort of statement. In the process he's managing to alienate friend and foe alike.

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-09 9:07:30 AM

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this carol, you closet queen. I've never in my life met someone who rants about queers that wasn't one himself.

The sheer volume of your ineffectual rants on gay people is absolute proof of your uncontrollable urges to live out your fantasies.

By the way, how does someone who can't even spell engineer actually become one? Did you fake your degree from some east europian degree factory? It wouldn't be the first one I've run into.

If you mention me or my family again you will regret it. I will research every word, and every piece of slander you've ever written and prove beyond a doubt that you are a fudge packing phony.

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-09 11:05:14 AM

Personally I think polygamy is detrimental to society, but I don't think enough people are willing to stand up to it when it is a gray issue, (bringing in religious freedoms).

The only way the police have to nail these people is through child abuse, which is universally hated.

The author makes a couple good points at the beginning, but then brings in the argument of gay marriage leads to polygamy. Although I agree a little, it is a weak argument, and somewhat of a sidetrack. He further betrays his racist and isolationist policies by somehow implying that multiculturalism supports polygamy, when in reality the majority of other cultures worldwide also have banned polygamy.

It is no wonder the author is called a reactionary, with such divisive views.

Posted by: James Durning | 2008-04-09 11:13:13 AM

Personally I think polygamy is detrimental to society
Posted by: James Durning | 9-Apr-08 11:13:13 AM

Generally I would agree with you, however if I had the chance to marry Kate Moss, Carmen Electra, Cindy Crawford and Claudia Schiffer on the same day I might consider polygamy.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-04-09 11:31:45 AM

Posted by: James Durning | 9-Apr-08 11:13:13 AM

Just curious, when does Polygamy become Polygamy in your eyes? Do you have to "exchange vows" or does that happen the moment there are more than two people in the relationship?

I am asking, because if the latter it may be far wider spread than you think.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-09 11:44:55 AM

>"multiculturalism supports polygamy, when in reality the majority of other cultures worldwide also have banned polygamy."
James Durning | 9-Apr-08 11:13:13 AM

With multiculturalism, what the majority of other cultures wants is irrelevant.

The majority of cultures have banned homosexuality but we have legal homosexuality and SSM in Canada.

Paul Martin, when asked why he wouldn't put SSM to a referendum stated, "The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority."

You better believe that the "Charter" is going to make legally recognized polygamy a reality some day in Canada.

How soon is any one's guess.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-09 11:46:03 AM

You better believe that the "Charter" is going to make legally recognized polygamy a reality some day in Canada.

How soon is any one's guess.

Posted by: Speller | 9-Apr-08 11:46:03 AM

I am curious about something here. Let's assume for a moment poor Steve gets manhandled by the other parties into legalizing Polygamy..... What would that actually cause to society as a whole?

I mean, Same Sex Marriage is legal, has any of you now suddenly decided to dump your wife or girlfriend and marry your best buddy from highschool (No Karol, you don't need to answer, we all know the answer to that question).

If these people are happy with it, why are people like Adam flying of the handle over this? I am not talking about forced marriaged / underage marriage just to forestall any of the obvious cries of agony that will surely ensue over this.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-09 11:53:31 AM

Posted by: Karol Karolak | 9-Apr-08 12:45:56 PM

Nice selective Quoting. But taking things out of context is nothing new on this blog. let's try this with some context:


Wynne and Rae are both over 40 and don't claim to speak for the whole movement. They aren't clear how its younger members will react to the political environment of the megacity. Rae notes that his generation came out in their 20s, when they were safely out of the family home, generally at university, while kids are now coming out in high school, while they are still living at home with parents who are sometimes supportive.

"Youth are moving in and out of the (gay and lesbian) identity in a way we never could imagine," says Wynne. "They assume it's OK to be gay.''

Wendy Snelgrove, co-chair of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Youth Line, is in her late 20s and says she can't speak for those younger than herself. (She thinks every five-year span is a new generation in terms of queer sensibilities and politics.)

"How you're treated depends on where you are,'' she says. "I'm treated differently in Parkdale, where I live, than on Queen West, where I work, or in the queer ghetto. On Queen West it's acceptable to be different, but when I walk hand-in-hand with my girlfriend in Parkdale I get stares and am sometimes verbally harassed. If I went to Etobicoke, they'd think I was from Mars.


Now go back to your closet and try to figure out if you want to jumpt out of it or not.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-09 4:00:05 PM

I think this is getting off topic. I fail to see the connection between allowing gay marriage, which cannot possibly harm anyone; and polygamy, which has a great deal of potential for child abuse as well as the degredation of women. Since polygamy tends to consist of one man having several wives and way too many children and seems mostly to be an an excuse for some dirty old man to get his hands on a young and nubile child, I think any intelligent person would shudder at the idea of it being enshrined in law. Polygamy is illegal in Canada, and the law should be enforced. If persons engaged in it bleat about their religious convictions, too bad. If their religion told them to sacrifice babies or go around spitting on people we wouldn't allow it...so why should we support the oppression of women and children?

Posted by: Cindy | 2008-04-09 8:55:43 PM


You are the collectivist, li'l buddy.

Why are you so worked up, so threatened by polygamy? Or is it just now a convenient excuse to hate on a group you don't understand?

For the record, you don't need to be married polygamously in order to spawn a bunch of kids and have welfare pay for it; its done all the time.

All religions are cults. You just like to single this one out because they are different, perhaps a bit medieval. I used to regard polygamy as a form of mysogynist slavery. Until I visited two different FDLS communities; whether you or I like it or not, the majority of the women involved are so voluntarily. Hurts when facts don't jibe with your hate, don't it, Yoshida?

Finally, you blather about "our" values. Whose? Your values are not mine, li'l chubby sucker. Canada's values were once based on the individual, which means our values are individual values which means people can choose their own culture or to follow that they were born in to.

Posted by: Jeremy | 2008-04-09 8:56:20 PM


You are the collectivist, li'l buddy.

Why are you so worked up, so threatened by polygamy? Or is it just now a convenient excuse to hate on a group you don't understand?

For the record, you don't need to be married polygamously in order to spawn a bunch of kids and have welfare pay for it; its done all the time.

All religions are cults. You just like to single this one out because they are different, perhaps a bit medieval. I used to regard polygamy as a form of mysogynist slavery. Until I visited two different FDLS communities; whether you or I like it or not, the majority of the women involved are so voluntarily. Hurts when facts don't jibe with your hate, don't it, Yoshida?

Finally, you blather about "our" values. Whose? Your values are not mine, li'l chubby sucker. Canada's values were once based on the individual, which means our values are individual values which means people can choose their own culture or to follow that they were born in to.

Posted by: Jeremy | 2008-04-09 8:58:51 PM

LOL! Karol can have many husbands if polygamy is legalized.

By the way, Steve Harper won't stand up for anything that requires work and risk. Steve is an opportunist who wants a majority government, no matter what the cost. Steve already own most of the bloggers here. What you have to say doesn't matter, as far as Steve is concerned, cuz you aint got nowhere else to go. Steve is basically incompetent. He is unable to get anything done, but he is good at spin and silencing everyone. What values has Steve defended lately in Canada? LOL!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-09 10:08:44 PM

Snowrunner thanks for helping me out. If I were to post it everybody would assume that I was trying to be mean to sexual deviants. Since you posted it in their defence it makes it so much more believable.
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 9-Apr-08 9:59:48 PM

Karol give it up before you make more of a fool out of yourself. That you lack even the basic reading comprehension much less the ability to grasp things beyond 1+1 = 2 (oh these evil Arabs with their math) is pretty clear by now.

But hey, keep going, I am sure dp is just waiting to hear from you again.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-09 10:22:25 PM

I happen to live in Mississauga outside of Etobicoke and if Ms. Wendy Snelgrove thinks that she is a Martian in Etobicoke, it is not my fault by any means that I might consider her a public menace - hillbillies and hicks from Mississauga, I hope that you will understand.

Posted by: Karol Karolak | 9-Apr-08 10:52:08 PM

Yes you Hillbilly (how did you get on the Internet?) forgot to mention that this article was written pre-amalgamation so before 1998 and that was before I moved to Canada and lived in Toronto, but from what I have seen while I was there I don't think her description of early 90s "Hillbillies" was necessarily far off.

But please show me where her assessment was wrong, so far you haven't really done anything to disprove her statement, just shown that she was right.

Now back to your important decision: Out of the closet, or in?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-09 10:56:03 PM

Snowrunner I do not know how to convey it to you but your behaviour is totally predictable. You act just like a monkey that is shown a banana.

Posted by: Karol Karolak | 10-Apr-08 6:34:25 AM

Didn't find anything to copy & paste, eh? So you attempted a personal attack... Bummer that your verbal skills aren't as good as your c&p skills.

Keep practicing.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-10 3:16:40 PM

Never join a religion that has a walled compound in some remote area.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-04-10 3:46:20 PM

"Didn't this in itself make polygamous marriage legal?"

EBT, nope, there are laws that supersede those laws. The laws that 'outrank' marriage laws (including any they'd cook up to defend polygamy) would be overridden by the ones that relate to our signing international an convention on rights of women (to name one).


Sort of like how someone could claim they have a religious obligation to Huitzilopochtli to sacrifice his neighbor on top of a pyramid, but we have laws that would override any religious-rights claims the guy with the pyramid might claim.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-11 1:05:38 PM

"someone could claim they have a religious obligation to Huitzilopochtli to sacrifice his neighbor on top of a pyramid"

Crap, there go my plans for the weekend.

Posted by: Markalta | 2008-04-11 2:46:52 PM

"makes polygamy legal right now"

No it doesn't. EBT, I added two web links but you obviously haven't read them yet, or ever intend to because they might shut you up, so I'll go get the highlights for you:

"There is no indication, however, from the text itself or the HRC General Comment on the Article that this includes a right to be governed by religious law in familial matters.[278] That is, the right to religious freedom does not allow personal status or customary law to trump secular law in family matters. Indeed, the Declaration on Religious Intolerance does not include a freedom to be governed by religious law amongst the many protected religious practices it lists.[279] In addition, the Women's Convention does not provide for any religious or customary law exceptions to its commitment to gender equality."

"Even if there were a right to be governed by familial religious law, the Political Covenant does not extend its religious freedom protection to those practices that violate the rights of others."

"Given that the HRC itself has found that polygamy violates these equality guarantees, international law clearly sanctions domestic legislation that prohibits its practice in order to protect the rights, health and safety of women and children.[282]"

And on and on and on and on.

Go. Read. The. Article.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-11 3:08:14 PM

I see the argument over polygamy as missing a couple of constitutional issues.

One, the constitutional right to freedom of assembly. So if three or more people want to assemble in a house and want to have sex while assembled - what else is new? That has been happening for years in Canada. What if they assemble for not just hours, but they have an assembly that goes on (with people coming and going) for years? Ok - so they don't actually use the word "polygamy", but in essence they live out the life of polygamists. Would that mean they can carry on as long as they just don't use the "p-word"? Outlawing polygamy is an issue that has to do with more than situations that specifically use the p-word.

Two, there is a constitutional right to privacy without undue interference from government. When individuals involved are all consenting adults (no child brides and no forced marriages) upon what legal basis would there be for governments intervening (more properly put "interfering") in how consenting adults wish to relate to each other? Laws regulating relations such as marriage, divorce, inheritance etc, generally aim at preventing harm to an involved party. Where is the harm of polygamy between consenting adults?

Even if polygamy is restricted from now on based on striking down a constitutional right to freedom of religion, that will not stop a tangle in the courts. Other constitutional angles could be brought to bear. The government needs to think long and hard before stepping on the consensual behaviour of adults. Otherwise, they need to set aside a huge amount of money for defending a prohibition and for policing it in the privacy of people's home life thereafter.


Posted by: Barry | 2008-04-27 5:47:41 PM

one problem is largely spiritual. In enough minds to matter, legalized polygamy is needed. Why? Well, I don't agree, but polygamy is seen as a counter-balance to uber-feminism. Uber feminism plays two hands at once: the hallowed, ancient and legal "privileges of weakness," continue to be asserted in tandem with the "privileges of equality," and that makes for a non-level playing field on gender intensive issues. Not to mention affirmative action.

Ergo, they conclude, let's liberalize further and permit the institutionalized abuse and degredation of women...then watch the fireworks from a distance. Presto - legal polygamy.

I do know that Jesus Christ will win.

Posted by: Alec | 2008-05-07 5:42:45 PM

I don't know Alec.

My score card reads:

Romans - 1
Jesus - 0

This isn't about Jesus. It's about freedom.

Dr Brown: I'm looking forward to seeing you at the libertarian convention.

Posted by: abc | 2008-05-07 5:53:42 PM

dcqs +1 odaback.1d cialis <a href=http://odaback.1d>cialis</a> bn251

Posted by: SetoupStuff | 2009-03-24 5:28:52 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.