Currently at Toronto Pearson: -1. High today: 1. Some more sloppy snow today. (Thanks, Sean Avery: I'll probably never see the word "sloppy" the same way again. Or "seconds", for that matter.)
So, after some 20 years of debate, the Attorney-General of British Columbia has decided to charge two men associated with the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints of Bountiful, BC with polygamy. This prompted me to go look at the Criminal Code, to see how exactly the offence of polygamy is defined. I append the section below. Reluctance to press charges in Bountiful has long been reported to be motivated by fears that the law would not withstand a Charter challenge on grounds of religious freedom (and, less plausibly, that this could open the door to religious challenges of other marriage-related statutes). Looking at the actual law, in light of the fact that it applies to "any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time", it seems fairly clear to me that it is not justifiable in a modern liberal state in the first place--hardly more justifiable than sodomy laws, for instance. In any event, it seems obvious that special attention has been directed to the FLDS in terms of the enforcement of this law.
Polygamy
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.
Evidence in case of polygamy
(2) Where an accused is charged with an offence under this section, no averment or proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into, agreed to or consented to is necessary in the indictment or on the trial of the accused, nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is clearly a case of religious persecution. How can one attack polygamy while not attacking any number of multiple partner situations in Canada? How many MP's have a mistress?
Religious bigotry should not be rationale for a criminal conviction. I hope the judges are smart enough to strike it down.
Parents Rights
The "celebrates" language seems to make watching a movie with a threesome a felony punishable by five years.
Post a Comment