Hoo boy, this'll be interesting

[jawnbc]

 BC has it's own branch of the fooked Fundamentalist LDS (a/k/a Mormon) church. It's splintered into 2 groups (one allied with Warren Jeffs, one not), but both practice plural marriage. After rumblings for a number of years, the leaders from both sects have been arrested and charged with polygamy.

This could be a huge can of worms, since some legal experts think the accused with argue religious freedom for entering into plural marriage when all are consenting adults. Article from CBC News follows


--------------------------------------

Two rival leaders of a religious community in Bountiful, B.C., have been charged with practising polygamy.

 

The CBC has confirmed that Winston Blackmore and James Oler were charged on Tuesday for alleged offences that took place in May 2005 and November 2004.

 

More details are expected to be released Wednesday at a news conference scheduled for noon PT.

 

Blackmore, the one-time bishop of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the rural community in B.C.'s Southern Interior, is rumoured to have fathered about 80 children by his 26 wives.

 

In 2003, Blackmore and about 1,000 other members of the Bountiful community split from the church after rejecting Warren Jeffs, the church's U.S.-based leader, as a prophet. Jeffs then appointed Oler as his leader in the community.

 

In September 2007, a jury in St. George, Utah, convicted Jeffs of being an accomplice to rape for performing a wedding between a man, 19, and a 14-year-old girl.

Past prosecutors reluctant to lay charges

 

In the past, B.C. Crown prosecutors have been reluctant to lay polygamy charges for fear they would be contested on the basis of religious freedom.

 

Special prosecutors Richard Peck and Len Doust both recommended the government get a court ruling on the constitutionality of Canada's polygamy laws before attempting to press charges against men in the polygamous community.

 

But B.C.'s Attorney General Walley Oppal rejected that approach and appointed a third special prosecutor, Terrence Robertson, this past summer to investigate once again if charges should be laid.

 

The results of that investigation are expected to be revealed at the news conference Wednesday.

 

Comments

[gfrancie.livejournal.com]

I keep thinking how difficult it will be to get girls (especially the under-age ones) to admit that they are "married" to some adult.

[jawnbc]

I suspect they'll coach them to chant they're not legally married. Strangely enough Canada recognizes "concubine marriages" from some parts of the world, where an "au pair" also has a sexual relationship with the husband. She takes care of husband's and wife's kids and the husband as well it seems. The rationale is: 1.) because to the kids the au pair is a parent, and 2.) hopefully by coming to Canada she'll discover she has other choices perhaps.

[gfrancie.livejournal.com]

Really? That is rather interesting.
I suppose the only way to nail some of the FLDS guys is through DNA testing to match children of under-aged girls.

[daddytodd.livejournal.com]

My boss grew up in an FLDS family, but he left "the Church" at 17. His brother, however, is still a member, and lives in B.C. I bet he lives in that community...

[jawnbc]

Almost undoubtedly. Bountiful BC.

[slate-canada.livejournal.com]

As much as I think Blackmore and Oler are slime balls I do have an issue with legal polygamy charges when all parties are aware of the relationships. Just seems like one out-dated religious doctrine that has become social convention trying out trump another one. I'd rather see them get at the heart of what is going on in those communities in Bountiful. Primarily intimidation of its youth and under-age marriage of young women.

Since Blackmore's first wife divorced him, I think it would hit him much harder if she was to go after half of his vast wealth. In the eyes of the law she's the only wife that matters as far as property rights.

[jawnbc]

I suspect there's a chance polygamy might be ruled legal between consenting adults. It could go either way.

But I'd love it if the rule was "only if a woman has an equal chance of plural husbands." :) Or a husband.

Not my thing; can't imagine loving 2 people as partners concurrently. But I think adults should, within reason, be allowed to do as they see fit.

Will you shag marry me?

[slate-canada.livejournal.com]

Okay, but what will our husbands say?

[jawnbc]

They can do each other

[snousle.livejournal.com]

What exactly constitutes "polygamy" such that they can file charges? As far as I know, it isn't illegal to hold ceremonies, say the words "I do", or have sex with lots of women, so long as you aren't representing yourself as being married to more than one woman in legal situations.

It doesn't seem to me that you have to break any laws at all to have de-facto polygamous relationships, so it seems odd to me that you could figure out a way to charge someone for it unless they were doing something really dumb.

[jawnbc]

The impugned provisions: The ban on polygamy is as old as the Criminal Code itself; Canada’s very first Criminal Code, enacted in 1892, prohibited the practice. A similar ban can now be found in section 293 of today’s Criminal Code:

293. (1) Every one who
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into
(i) any form of polygamy, or
(ii) 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, or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

You gotta be kidding me. ANY kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time?

I cannot count the number of times I have violated this law. Sometimes in the most literal way possible.

I had no idea. Guess that makes me an outlaw! ;-)

[sunsmogseahorse.livejournal.com]

Any hesitancy to intervene must come to a screeching halt the very second there it is plausible that an adult has been fucking children.

Barring direct harm to others the state has no interest in telling you how to worship. Forcing a 14 year old to 'marry' a 19-year-old cousin is direct harm.

[slate-canada.livejournal.com]

And the age spreads in Bountiful, BC are MUCH wider than 5 years.

[sunsmogseahorse.livejournal.com]

Kick their asses.

[jawnbc]

In BC only a judge can approve a marriage for anyone 16 or younger, even if pregnancy is involved. I doubt there's any judges in BC who would approve an underage marriage in this community.

For persons under 19, one or both custodial parents have to consent in writing. That probably does happen. The schism here was partly about Jeffs' ilk marrying minors to senior citizens...partly.

But I don't agree with your broad blanket statement. A 19 year old fucking a 15 year old shouldn't be criminal in my mind, unless there's a relationship where a power dynamic could have been exploited. And a 16 year old can consent to sex with anyone else their age or older. I think our 14 years (with a 4 year differential) age of consent was better.

[garpu.livejournal.com]

You know, I really do try to respect other people's beliefs, but the FLDS people make it hard for me to do so. Then again the victimization of their children doesn't give me much sympathy or empathy for them.

[skeezix1000.livejournal.com]

From a legal perspective, it will be fascinating. I would love to see the legal opinion on the Charter issues that the B.C. Attorney General has been provided.

My suspicion is that the Charter arguments will be rejected by the Courts. I think that the Crown will be able to put together a good dog-and-pony show about the exploitation of women, the harm to the children, etc. etc. such that the Courts (up to and including the SCC) will not entertain the s. 2(a) (or even s. 15) arguments. It is iffy, however. In the event that the Courts do decide that polygamy is protected by s. 2(a) or possibly s. 15, I suspect strongly that the claim will fail on the subsequent s. 1 test (the rights in the Charter are subject to reasonable limits in a free and democratic society). That's my guess. I might be proven wrong.

What will truly be annoying is the background noise. All the so-cons will undoubtedly climb out of the holes in which they live and whine about how same-sex marriage was the slippery slope towards legal polygamy.