Strike down anti-poly law: intervener
POLYAMORY / 'It's to the poly movement what the sodomy law was to the gay movement,' lawyer says
Jeremy Hainsworth / Vancouver / Friday, April 09, 2010
Share |

The Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association's affidavit contrasts polyamory and "patriarchal polygyny."
The Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association will push for Canada's polygamy law to be struck down when it speaks as an intervener in the constitutional reference brought by the BC government as a result of failed charges against members of a polygamous community in Bountiful, BC.

Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints leaders Winston Blackmore and James Oler were charged with polygamy under Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada. 

Last fall, however, a BC Supreme Court judge quashed the charges, agreeing with the religious leaders' lawyers that then-attorney general Wally Oppal had gone "prosecutor shopping" in order to lay the charges.

That move led current BC Attorney General Mike de Jong to ask for the reference to determine if the Code section is constitutional.

And, it opened the doors for interested intervener groups to state their reasons for supporting or overturning the law.

Among the interested groups are the polyamorists.

"We want to see the legislation struck down," says the association's lawyer, John Ince. "It's to the poly movement what the sodomy law was to the gay movement."

In an affidavit filed by Zoe Duff on behalf of the association, the group defines polyamory as "the practice of relationships within groups of three or more people, where at least one person in the group has more than one intimate relationship at a time and where all members of the groups formally or informally adopt these principles."

It contrasts that against "patriarchal polygyny" which it defines as a situation "where men have the right to marry or live with several women, but women have no right to marry or live with several men; and where homosexual relationships are highly stigmatized."

The association intends to present evidence about the extent of polyamory in Canada, reasons why people engage in it and its importance to their dignity and self-worth, the social stigma against it and how it differs from "patriarchal polygyny."

The group says the law as written prohibits group-conjugal polyamory and violates fundamental Charter rights such as conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association. It also argues it violates rights to life, liberty and security of the person, and to equality.

While no dates have been set for the case to be heard before BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman, arguments about status in the case have been ongoing.

Blackmore wants full status in the case, giving him status on par with the governments.

And he wants public funds to pay for it.

Adamantly against Blackmore will be Stop Polygamy, REAL Women and the Christian Legal Fellowship.

Arguing for the rights of children will be BC Teachers' Federation, Beyond Borders, the Catholic Organization for Life and Family, Canadian Coalition for Rights of the Child and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights.

And, in the middle are West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) and the Civil Liberties Association. They believe the law is poorly worded and may well be unconstitutional.

The case is expected to be so populated with lawyers that Bauman is looking at moving the hearings to the large federal courtroom where retired justice Thomas Braidwood heard the inquiry into the Vancouver International Airport Taser death of Robert Dziekanski.

The room seats dozens of lawyers and has a large public gallery space.

 



Share |


Reader Comments


 
NOT LIKE THE GLBT movement
The gay right's movement has NOTHING in common with this so called poly movement. Being gay or trans or lesbian or bi is NOT A CHOICE that's why we were fighting that's why we had to fight. We were fighting because an immutable fact of our existence was being used as an excuse to persecute us. POLYAMORY is NOT AN ORIENTATION of any kind IT IS A PERSONAL CHOICE. and before people compare me to a right wing religious nut job...there is mountains of scientific evidence to telling us that GLBT people do not choose to be the way we are. But all people can choose to be in relationships with who they want. Also, these people can try to define the differences between them and Blackmore and patriarchal polygyny. But really arguing that everyone in the relationship is equal and happy is the same argument that Blackmore and his institutionalized rapists use. Besides since polyamory is a choice the law doesn't violate their charter rights. It would be like saying that, laws against selling crack violate my charter rights because if I choose to do it in the open then I can't have free conscience or religion. I can't have freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, because I think selling crack is ''OK''. I can't have freedom of peaceful assembly because I might get beast up and I cant have freedom of association because I am dealing with the Hell's Angels or something. As for rights to life, liberty and security of the person a crack dealer would get beat up a lot and be unsafe but that doesn't mean that the law violates his Charter Rights. After-all selling Crack and Polyamory are choices. You don't have to do them if you don't want to.
Mike, Barrie Ontario
04/10/10 8:57 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Agreement With Mike
Yes, I agree, Mike. I'd say homosexuality/lesbianism is the fundamental expression of a human person's sexuality. When it comes to a gay man, the choice is to either be with a man, or else have no expression of sexuality in life at all. The sodomy laws affected gays the way making heterosexuality illegal would have affected heterosexuals. Only the numbers of people involved would be different. Polyamory is an expression of sexuality, but I don't think it's as fundamental as being gay or straight. Why don't you hear people say we should allow polyamory or polygamy because we allow, specifically, heterosexual relationships? Instead they always bring up homosexuality like it's still a debate, and we aren't entitled to the same respect as heterosexuals, for the most basic part of our humanity and our rights, in terms of sexuality.
Clint, Thunder Bay Ontario
04/11/10 10:49 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Wow.
Mike, I have this to say to you: "Also, these gays can try to define the differences between them and child molestors. But really arguing that they don't molest children is the same argument that child molestors use." You are making exactly that argument. Just like a lot of people who used to make it in my form. From where I'm sitting, it doesn't look very good in either form. Would you like to defend it?
J.R., Big city Quebec
04/12/10 8:49 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Nice to be thrown under the bus.
You know, I've been supporting gay marriage since, oh, 1975 or 1977, I'd guess. Whenever I got old enough to think about the subject, which would have been age 12 to 15. Way back before I ever heard of the the idea of immutable sexual orientation, I supported it as a matter of freedom of choice. Because choice should be enough, especially when it's a choice that matters to people. Because I'm not a jerk. Religion is a choice, too, and yet both I and the Charter support religious freedom... so I guess you're wrong that choice doesn't get protected. In fact, in any decent society, people get do do whatever they choose, so long as it doesn't do a lot of clear harm (application to crack left as an exercise for the reader). You're stuck in the rhetoric of the last fight. Orientation is a sideshow. Choice is the big deal. But some people do think that polyamory is an orientation. I don't know if that's true, and I don't care, because it's not relevant. I know that I don't have any of the sort of sexual jealousy that everybody takes as a given, but that proves little. It's certainly the way I am, and I wouldn't know how to go about changing it.
J.R., Big city Quebec
04/12/10 9:02 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
"Expression of sexuality"?
Personally, Clint, I "express my sexuality" through sex. I express other things through marriage. Things like the desire to live with and support the people I love, to visit them in the hospital, to help them to move to the country I live in, to leave them my property. Sex is a minor matter. I can already have sex with as many people as I want, just as LGBT people could have sex before gay marriage. And I'm not even asking to marry anybody at the moment; I'm just asking not to be thrown in prison. How about "expression of ethics", instead? ? I'm in a multi-partner relationship, at least in part, because of the requirements of my ethics in the particular situation at hand. But I guess I could choose to be a scumbag and abandon my family. It's all choice, right?
J.R., Big city Quebec
04/12/10 9:06 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Support for Gay marriage != support of polygamy
I think you're off base (a little), J.R. While I support the choice made of poly living arrangements, it's foolish to assume that support for, and supporters of, same sex marriage will automatically translate to support for polyamory. Marriage is about broadly about pair-bonding, and has long been supported in law and general societal thinking (in my understanding, the definition of marriage in the British North America Act as one man, one woman was actual prohibitive of polygamy, not same-sex marriage.. homos were fairly invisible in 1867). Same sex marriage opened the institution to 'mos, but the underlying structure is the same: two partners form the basic family unit. To the majority, regardless of sexual orientation, polyamory is still too weird/new/strange. It'll take time for folk to realize that poly arrangements are effectively equivalent (with respect to financial/sexual/moral/legal obligations and dependencies).. but involve more than two partners.
Dan, Toronto ON
04/12/10 9:44 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Read the criminal code
I suggest going to read section this law and thinking about the implications. [paragraph] http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-6.html#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_293 [paragraph] Section 293 forbids being in "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" and also prosecutes anyone who "celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction..." such a relationship. [paragraph] A 1937 court case ruled that this law does not apply to adultery, only to *consensual* multiple-person arrangements. [paragraph] Under section 293, if one of your friends has an agreement with zer partner who is on a two-year overseas contract, has met a sweety and has a party to welcome this person into zer life, anyone who *attends the party* could spend five years in jail. [paragraph] This is a terrible law and the only reason that it has not already been repealed or overturned is that it has not been used to prosecute someone recently.
Amy Fox, Nelson BC
04/12/10 11:52 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Still Not the Same
Well, J.R., I was not arguing that you should be put in prison. No, I don't believe it would be a good "expression of ethics" for that to occur. However, we were discussing the sodomy law. Under this, it's not true that someone who is attracted to the same sex could have had sex with as many people as desired without breaking the law, since the only means of sexual desire and its expression with another human, is with the same sex. That seems to cut to the core, sexually speaking, does it not? And no on talks about heterosexuals making a choice for each and every expression of their sexuality. It's just something that's accepted as occurring naturally and as being fundamental. You can't tie polyamory to gay rights anymore than you can to the rights of heterosexuals. This is not to say poly relationships are bad or that the current law is correct and just.
Clint, Thunder Bay Ontario
04/12/10 12:45 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Thanks
Thanks, Clint, for your response. And your point is taken; you were talking about the sodomy laws, not the polygamy law. However, I think I *do* want to tie polyamory to the rights of heterosexuals. Monogamous heterosexuals get to marry according to their choices, and so should everybody else. That includes including both GLBTs (already there) and polys (still threatened with prison). That doesn't mean that GLBTs and polys are the same in every way, or that poly is necessarily an orientation. It just means that there are some relevant similarities between the debates, because really orientation isn't the only issue or even the main one, and neither is sexuality. The main issue is our desire, whatever the reason, to break with the monogamous heterosexual script. That script is the *whole* issue for our strongest opponents. They really don't care if orientation is immutable or not, or if any given person is miserable or not. Fundamentally, they're about sacrificing individual human beings to social scripts, because they really believe that the whole world would fall apart without those scripts. We're all pretty much identical in their eyes, and they fight us in the same ways for the same reasons. But, if you prefer, I'm perfectly willing to express it as "Everybody else (straight and gay) can have sex and get married the way they want to, why not us?"
J.R., Big city Quebec
04/12/10 1:12 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Polygamy
Polyamory doesn't really have to do with the polygamy debate....unless the persons involved wish to CLAIM they are all spouses. If they do, then too bad. Canada's law and justice system has a number of secondary protections that are a result of polygamy laws. Mainly, the protection of property. Also, the right to a speedy divorce.
Robert, Edmonton Alta
04/12/10 5:42 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Mormon polygamy nothing like GLBT
So how many gays and lesbians are teaching children that they must have gay sex or go to Hell? That is exactly what Mormon off-shoot polygamists teach girls, that they must have sexual relations with a married man with at least 3 sexual partners or they will be forever damned. You can only have salvation by being married to a man with three wives. Mr. Blackmore has had 26 in all. 9 he admits were 16 or under and several he admits were trafficked from the United States for sexual purposes (i.e. to be his brides). While Bishop of Bountiful he limited the education of children to 10th grade, worked teens in his mills for little or no pay, and sexually preyed on girls under his religious leadership in violation of Canadian sexual abuse laws. He was also named in a suit in the United States as a trustee of the FLDS business arm that was evicting people from their homes. He was a crony of Warren Jeffs until he announced he had seen Jesus and Jesus was all buff and blonde haired like a surfer Jesus which Warren didn't like. He is no victim. He is a victimizer. This is not about a threesome wanting to be married it is about coercing girls under threat of damnation to become concubines.
Blackbird, Elkton Maryland
04/16/10 9:50 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Sorry, not volunteering to be a victim.
That's great, Blackbird, except for the little matter of the actual law up here in Canada. That law makes absolutely no distinction between the FLDS and the "threesome" you say this "is not about". As far as the law is concerned, this is about the threesome. They go to jail right alongside the FLDS. That's kind of a problem for some of us, thanks. What happens to Blackmore is one thing. The same happening to me is a very different thing. It's funny how the prospect of being thrown in jail focuses your perspective, eh? People who make your argument seem to be happy to fry me, and those like me, along with Blackmore, Oler, and whoever else. We're acceptable collateral damage; you can just ignore our existence. I'm afraid you're not winning my heart or mind. It matters not at all what you think this is "about". Rational people care what the law actually says, not how you, personally, would like to use it. Look upthread for a summary and a link. The Criminal Code doesn't even mention the abuses you're talking about; it's just about the number of people involved. How about enforcing the laws against trafficking, sex with minors, and whatnot? Or making some, if there are none to enforce? Heck, you might even catch some monogamous abusers, too. Or are just laws too much trouble?
J.R., Big city Quebec
04/18/10 12:29 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.