Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Iggy Why | Main | Canadian Medical Association is wrong on MMA ban »

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Because It Will be Good for the Environment

I don't know if Elizabeth May ever ran for high school class president. Her colleagues, however, seem to be running for that office:

The Green Party of Canada will consider a motion Sunday on whether or not they will push to decriminalize polygamy.

Party members in a workshop on Saturday evening voted to send the motion to the full-Party plenary, where they'll debate and vote on it.

Speakers in the workshop were careful to define polygamy as a marriage between multiple spouses. They made a clear distinction between polygamy between consenting adults and a polygamist sect in Bountiful, B.C., where domestic abuse has been alleged, though charges were thrown out in 2009.

Love is a many splendoured thing. Political amateurism isn't. For the record May is against the idea. Perhaps because polygamous families have larger carbon footprints than monogamous families. Who knows? This all goes back to the whole point of having a Green Party. Is it an environmentalist protest party? Or a genuinely new national party, which happens to have an environmental emphasis? As the NDP skews unionist and working class. 

Talking about polygamy muddles rather than broadens the party's brand. It also adds an unneeded, and additional, "weirdo" level to the public's perception of the party. It's the kind of issue that gets raised at left-wing law schools (I know, an unnecessary qualifier), not by serious parties vying for the mainstream. It isn't just that the issue is extreme, it makes little philosophical sense for the Greens. It's like the Conservative Party arguing for privatizing sidewalks, without the ideological consistently. For those not in the know:

Polyamory is the process of having more than one intimate relationship at the same time, according to the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association.

We used to call that being easy. But that was awhile back.

Posted by Richard Anderson on August 26, 2010 | Permalink


Excuse me, but your ignorance is showing.

Polyamory is not and never was, 'being easy'. It is about open, honest non-exclusive relationships based on love.

There is so much good information on the web about this, anyone who is sincerely interested can easily find out what it's about. This is a good place to start:


Psychology Today even has a regular column about it:


Dismissing polyamory because you don't understand it serves nobody.

- Scot

Posted by: Randy | 2010-08-26 6:57:56 AM

Have you SEEN the women in the Green party? Imagine being married to 3 of them. Shudder!

Posted by: Leigh Patrick Sullivan | 2010-08-26 7:08:10 AM

One good reason to keeping polygamy illegal, and enforcing it, is to keep certain anti-social elements at bay (and hopefully out of the country).

Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2010-08-26 7:46:06 AM

That will ensure the Muslim vote for sure.

Posted by: The LS from SK | 2010-08-26 9:30:40 AM

Have you SEEN the women in the Green party? Imagine being married to 3 of them. Shudder!

Posted by: Leigh Patrick Sullivan | 2010-08-26 7:08:10 AM

Good one!

Posted by: TM | 2010-08-26 10:18:06 AM

Comments like this from a right wing bunch of yahoos like you is a compliment. If you reported just as quickly on the Conservative gaphs you would have a lot more to write.

Posted by: Nick | 2010-08-26 11:36:20 AM

Nick, clearly you do not follow the WS blog, for if you did you would know that there is no shortage of criticising Conservatives or even conservatives even to the point of being ridiculous. Furthermore you would be hard pressed to find many who would qualify as "right wing", but I am aware of the tendency to label anyone who holds a different opinion as being "right wing".

If you or others expect people to take the Greens seriously, then may I suggest that you present a clear policy on issues which are relevant such as the economy, property rights, individual freedom and the role of government vs individual freedom to live their lives without constant government interference and intervention as a start.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-08-26 1:28:02 PM

Nick you sound just as narrow minded as the right wing yahoos. How simple. I am personally very critical of all the political parties yet I am sure you would label me a yahoo on some issues.

Posted by: TM | 2010-08-26 1:50:07 PM

The greens are particularly adept at group think and and group hugs. I'm thinking that perhaps this is an extension of that concept to group sex, group think sex, group marriage, etc.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2010-08-26 5:53:26 PM

Publius ... you're talking like the villain in nearly every Robert Heinlein book - the square small-towner found persecuting the open-minded libertarian hero and all his wives.

Other than asserting that plural marriage is bad and weird - do you have an actual argument?

Posted by: Robert Jago | 2010-08-26 7:17:37 PM

Nick, i doubt that Publius is advocating that the state should have a voice regarding who marries whom.

...hell, most of us here want government out of the marriage agenda altogether.

you obviously haven't read the Shotgun.

Posted by: Shel | 2010-08-26 7:43:03 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.