Polyamorists and Polygamists unlikely bedfellows against antiquated canadian law

[NinaBrooke]

Polyamorists, who practice a form of open relationship that promotes full disclosure, gender equality, and multiple intimate partnerships, have long tried to distance themselves from their kissing cousins, patriarchal polygamists like the FLDS Church. But on November 22, a trial will begin in Canada that puts them on the same side of a constitutional legal challenge that will determine the criminality of both of their chosen lifestyles.

(Part 1 of a 2-part series)

On November 22, while various jurisdictions in the United States continue to battle over gay marriage, Canada will begin a trial to determine the constitutionality of a law forbidding polygamy. BC Attorney General Wally Oppal hopes to use the over-100-year-old statute to prosecute James Oler and other elders of the FLDS Church in Bountiful, British Columbia, who have been accused of polygamy and of arranging the marriages of minor girls to much older men. Feminist activists and others have long sought a way to get around the question of religious freedom and stop the exploitation of women and children that often occurs in situations of patriarchal polygamy. But the law in question, Section 293, could have serious repercussions for another population in Canada: polyamorous families, who live in multi-adult, cohabiting relationships with full consent and equality. Should this law be proven constitutional, such loving adult families could be subject to five years in jail.
“This ancient law”
Said law forbids not only multiple marriage, but “any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage.” It also punishes any celebrants or parties to such a union (did you bring a dish to your friends’ poly potluck wedding?), and does not require any “proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into,” nor any proof that the people involved had or intended to have sex. That’s right: if you are living in a multi-adult household in Canada, you could get a five-year prison sentence, with no evidence required as to whether your entry into the union was consensual or whether you’re engaging in sex.
The law is so broad, so vague, and so antiquated that no prosecutor would agree to take on a case with the law as its basis, but BC Attorney General Wally Oppal wanted to find a way to get at Bountiful and its members. And so he brought a reference to the court, to determine whether or not the law is constitutional.
Canada’s constitution, incidentally, is fairly clear on such matters: beginning in 1967, the country underwent wide-ranging constitutional reform, which guaranteed many sexual and social rights and decriminalized private sexual behavior. But that doesn’t guarantee that those who are intent on prosecuting Bountiful’s leaders won’t find a way to make the law stick. As part of the reference question, however, Oppal is asking interested groups to come forward and provide evidence against, or in favor of, the existing law.
The result is an ironic situation – a trial with no defendants, but where non-religious, non-patriarchal polyamorists find themselves on the same side as the FLDS Church, from whom polyamorists have long sought to differentiate themselves. Enter the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association (CPAA), a group that formed to represent the interests of the Canadian poly community, who will bring evidence against Section 293.

CPAA member and spokesperson Zoe Duff makes it clear that they do not support what is allegedly going on in Bountiful. “We have seen a need to clarify that we do not condone child brides, coercion, nor abusive treatment of women and men of any age,” says Duff, a mother in her 50s who loves and lives with two men. But the organization stresses that a multiple relationship structure should not be seen as the sole predictor of an abusive situation. “We have submitted evidence to the court showing that multiple relationships have many positive examples and configurations and that relationship structure is not the issue and should not be criminalized,” adds Duff.
"Any law that criminalizes people simply for living together in a loving relationship because they have more than one sexual partner is definitely unconstitutional," says John Ince, the attorney for the CPAA. A sexual freedom activist, author, and leader of a bona fide political party called (and yes the innuendo is intentional) The Sex Party, Ince is a bit more careful about how he presents his attitude toward the Bountiful case. “Our position on polygamy is no position,” he states, adding, “We can see that it's a patriarchal system with many problems. [But] there are other countervailing factors such as religious freedom.”
It would be tempting and obvious to try to prove that harm or abuse is being caused in patriarchal polygynous (many women, one man) systems, whereas such harm is not endemic to polyamorous groupings. Revising the existing law to make it more specific to patriarchal polygamy might be one avenue in this case, for as Ince exasperatedly notes, “This ancient law…would capture roommates!”
But while Ince and the CPAA want to maintain a distance from FLDS, they aren’t interested in participating in their prosecution. The problem, says Ince, is how difficult it is to assess harm from a standpoint of more than physical abuse. “If you have a social practice … where generations of children … are deliberately denied an education … and they basically ghettoize their community so that they have no real option to inform themselves of alternatives, and if they do they are very heavily penalized, I think there is grounds there to say that there is significant social harm in patriarchal polygyny,” he says. But “whether freedom of religion trumps that is an incredibly complex question.” And without the expertise to address that question, he is taking another tack: throw out the law altogether, decriminalize multi-partner families, and let the courts find another way to prosecute in Bountiful.

Next week: Part 2: “Poly is the new gay”

An interesting article for me which triggers my question open for discussion: Does the prohibition of a certain lifestyle (patriarchal polygamy in this case) serve to prevent abuse of children? I`d say no, because abuse happens under many circumstances and no one ever would forbid monogamy because some participants that are married abuse their kids as well. What do you guys think? I hope that topic is not too "heated"?

The content of the article:

http://www.examiner.com/open-relatio...d-canadian-law

[charlestudor2005]

The literature I've read, albeit a long time ago, seems to indicate the leading indicator for abuse is having been abused.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

The literature I've read, albeit a long time ago, seems to indicate the leading indicator for abuse is having been abused.

seems to be an important factor, i have read the same. what do you think about prohibiting polygamy as prevention for abusive behaviour?

[Guest053011]

Not sure how you can group them together. Polyamory does not require marriage - so no law is broken there. Hell it doesn't even require living together so you can't even claim it's Common Law.

I don't think we have laws against promiscuity :P

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

seems to be an important factor, i have read the same. what do you think about prohibiting polygamy as prevention for abusive behaviour?

I'm fairly open-minded. I think the US Supreme Court decision banning the Mormon Church from engaging in polygamy was wrongly decided. The faith should be free to exercise what it believes in this country. The only limitation I would place on that is that the spouse should be of an age of consent in order to engage in polygamy.

I also agree with the Muslim notion that it is allowed as long as the husband can afford to support the family and multiple wives.

I would protect children from the practice. What constitutes a "child" is open to discussion.

IOW, I don't think preventing polygamy has any discernible value in preventing abuse.

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I'm fairly open-minded. I think the US Supreme Court decision banning the Mormon Church from engaging in polygamy was wrongly decided. The faith should be free to exercise what it believes in this country. The only limitation I would place on that is that the spouse should be of an age of consent in order to engage in polygamy.

I also agree with the Muslim notion that it is allowed as long as the husband can afford to support the family and multiple wives.

I would protect children from the practice. What constitutes a "child" is open to discussion.

IOW, I don't think preventing polygamy has any discernible value in preventing abuse.

I am astonished that they are trying to lump in polyamorous behaviour with polygamist practices. It is not the same. Again, it appears to be this broad misconception of both that is causing prosectors and people who back them to go after individuals who engage in both. I feel it is incredibly stupid to ban their practices in an effort to get at pedophiles or hebophiles. I agree with you on the Supreme Court decision banning the Mormon Church from engaging in polygamy as being wrong. I wonder how much of that decision was made by those on the Supreme Court due to their own religious beliefs?

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Not sure how you can group them together. Polyamory does not require marriage - so no law is broken there. Hell it doesn't even require living together so you can't even claim it's Common Law.

I don't think we have laws against promiscuity :P

As written in the article above about canadian antiquated laws here is the important quote that puts them together. I am friends with most of the poly activists and if there was not a point that linked them together i think they would not be fighting in court together with some religious patriarchs from FLDS :-). Here is the important quote as pointed out in the article, maybe you just did not read it all, so here is what you might have missed :-):

"That’s right: if you are living in a multi-adult household in Canada, you could get a five-year prison sentence, with no evidence required as to whether your entry into the union was consensual or whether you’re engaging in sex"

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

"That’s right: if you are living in a multi-adult household in Canada, you could get a five-year prison sentence, with no evidence required as to whether your entry into the union was consensual or whether you’re engaging in sex"

Hot Damn....now that is one fuc'd up law

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I'm fairly open-minded. I think the US Supreme Court decision banning the Mormon Church from engaging in polygamy was wrongly decided. The faith should be free to exercise what it believes in this country. The only limitation I would place on that is that the spouse should be of an age of consent in order to engage in polygamy.

I also agree with the Muslim notion that it is allowed as long as the husband can afford to support the family and multiple wives.

I would protect children from the practice. What constitutes a "child" is open to discussion.

IOW, I don't think preventing polygamy has any discernible value in preventing abuse.

me thinks this too. but since polygamy is illegal (church marriages are not legal marriages) they have to find some ridiculous claim to support their legal actions. Which puts polys together with polygamists.

I also think children raised in whatever culture are also raised in biased circumstances. Its hard to say which enviroment is of absolute best for raising a kid. Given the fact that recently in Rutgers someone was mobbed into suicide for being gay and the parents of these mobbers did not even force their own kids to apologize for their behaviour - one might think its VERY difficult to properly raise a kid. Some can only hope they grow up and make their own distinct choices. And free themselves from forces.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by WTF

Hot Damn....now that is one fuc'd up law

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

I am astonished that they are trying to lump in polyamorous behaviour with polygamist practices. It is not the same. Again, it appears to be this broad misconception of both that is causing prosectors and people who back them to go after individuals who engage in both. I feel it is incredibly stupid to ban their practices in an effort to get at pedophiles or hebophiles. I agree with you on the Supreme Court decision banning the Mormon Church from engaging in polygamy as being wrong. I wonder how much of that decision was made by those on the Supreme Court due to their own religious beliefs?

I feel the same. I think they try to get a handle of the child abuse in a wrong way, and since polygamy is illegal they have to find measurements on how to define the praxis of illegal monogamy. and catch the wrongdoers. Since you can barely catch them due to their religion AND the fact that they don`t marry legal you have to define the standards as "lookint at the obvious" and here the " polyamorists" come into play too.

So there is a law that obviously was used against them that also bashes monogamists I wonder how this will end. ..:-)

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

one might think its VERY difficult to properly raise a kid.

"It Takes a Village"

[It is soooo true.]

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Not sure how you can group them together. Polyamory does not require marriage - so no law is broken there. Hell it doesn't even require living together so you can't even claim it's Common Law.

I don't think we have laws against promiscuity :P

this is living proof that you make statements without even reading the article why are you doing this, Lauren? Its not an offensive question just a realistic one. Thanks for a honest answer.