The Secret World of Polygamy

[scribblet]

It's not just Bountiful. Ontario allready recognizes polygamous marriages if they took place in a country where it is legal. With all the abuse problems lately how long is it going to take for Canada to step up to the plate and crack down on this illegal practice. Or, will it not pass the constitutional test?

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/429490

TORONTO'S SECRET WORLD OF POLYGAMY

excerpted:

As Toronto mother describes her ordeal, imam admits he has `blessed' over 30 unions.....

t was easy. He simply found an imam willing to break a Canadian law, in exchange for upholding an Islamic one.

"Polygamy is happening in Toronto; it's not common, but it's happening," said Hindy, imam at Salahuddin Islamic Centre.

Hindy, hardly a stranger to controversy, is well known for his friendship with the family of Omar Khadr, the young Canadian detainee at Guantanamo Bay, and his outspoken views on the implementation of Islamic law. In the past five years, Hindy said he has officiated or "blessed" more than 30 polygamous marriages; the most recent was two months ago. Even some imams in the GTA have second wives, he added.

"This is in our religion and nobody can force us to do anything against our religion," he said. "If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that."

Those who condone the practice rarely let their views be known, and those who practise it themselves tend to do so in secret, making it difficult to record how many such marriages have taken place in the GTA. Equally hard to determine is how many polygamous families have immigrated to the country, despite a 2005 report commissioned by the federal Status of Women that tried to find out the extent of polygamy and its implications.

But conducting such unions in clear violation of Canadian law is wrong, according to Syed Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, who speaks frequently on polygamy issues.

"Muslims should not enter into polygamy while they are living in Canada, because the local Canadian law prevails. It overrules the Islamic law if there is a conflict between the two," he said.

Under the Criminal Code, polygamy was deemed a crime in 1892. Those who enter into reside in, or officiate a polygamous union can be charged with a criminal offence and face up to five years in prison.

But the last time polygamy was prosecuted in Canada was more than 60 years ago. Fundamentalist Mormons in Bountiful, in southeastern British Columbia, have managed to get away with openly practising polygamy, believed to be an integral and necessary part of their faith, since the 1940s with little legal recourse.

[maldon_road]

It's not just Bountiful. Ontario allready recognizes polygamous marriages if they took place in a country where it is legal. With all the abuse problems lately how long is it going to take for Canada to step up to the plate and crack down on this illegal practice. Or, will it not pass the constitutional test?

If the courts can find SSM to be a constitutional right it'll be easy to do the same for polygamy which is practiced in many palces.

[Kitchener]

If the courts can find SSM to be a constitutional right it'll be easy to do the same for polygamy

Any reason to believe this claim?

[Shakeyhands]

Any reason to believe this claim?

any reason to really care?

[maldon_road]

Any reason to believe this claim?

Freedom of religion.

[Bryan]

Any reason to believe this claim?

Because the Supreme Court has already judged that the definition of marriage itself is unconstitutional. If the traditional definition doesn't define the limit, one alternative definition can't either.

[August1991]

Ontario allready recognizes polygamous marriages if they took place in a country where it is legal.

That statement is false.

----

I read that article and I found that the Toronto Star was being misleading and controversial. How many men or women conduct affairs outside of marriage? How many men or women maintain relations with several people simultaneously? How many of these situations involve Muslims?

We don't know and the article doesn't help understand the dimension of this phenomenon. My guess is that Christians, Atheists, Jews, Buddhists are just as likely to sleep around as anyone.

The article's money quote, if there is one, is this from Imam Aly Hindy:

"This is in our religion and nobody can force us to do anything against our religion," he said. "If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that."

I know several people on Ste-Catherine Street who seem to follow their own religion too but the law of gravity still applies to them, and Aly Hindy.

[Borg]

This country stands for very little. This was predicted years ago - and has been reported before.

The taxpayer will easily fund this through various welfare programs.

Life goes on. And the working man will simply continue to pass over a portion of his salary to ensure all are fed and housed.

Just another example of how standing for little begins to actually mean we stand for nothing.

Import those who will ignore the law and sooner or later it will indeed become an issue - albeit too late to do anything about it.

So, stand by for the courts to approve this and the government to be forced into providing funds for those who cannot support themselves.

In the end the islamic preacher said it all - "If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that."

Just the type of people we want to bring into canada. Not!

The slippery slope is getting steeper.

Borg

Edited May 24, 2008 by Borg

[scribblet]

That statement is false.

----

I read that article and I found that the Toronto Star was being misleading and controversial. How many men or women conduct affairs outside of marriage? How many men or women maintain relations with several people simultaneously? How many of these situations involve Muslims?

Not according to this:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/02...834833-sun.html

Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.

"Polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims," Ali said yesterday. "Ontario recognizes religious marriages for Muslims and others."

and this;

FAMILY LAW ACT

In addressing the issue of polygamous marriages, the preamble to the Ontario Family Law Act states: "In the definition of 'spouse,' a reference to marriage includes a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 1 (2)."

I don't know how many Muslim women are being abused, if any, but we know there is a problem in Bountiful, so why would we not put a stop to this practice and protect the children and women.

[oreodontist]

I don't care if someones wants to marry their pet hamster... hamster of the same sex...or even 3 of them.

The B.C. justice system has not pursued polygamy cases because the laws aginst polygamy are probably not valid. There are bigger fish to fry and drawn out court challenges that will end on the side of the defendants are a waste of tax dollars.

It's revealing that folks on the right (of which I share many economic views) are so quick to insist the state get involved in personal matters and expend resources on rooting out perceived 'evil'. 'The law' should be upheld....blah, blah,...but when 'the law' is against their moral values, such as same sex marriage, then it's the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.

[scribblet]

It has nothing to do with my moral values, I don't care as long as all parties agree, and are of age

The big problem is with underage girls being married off and an apparent abuse of children. To let this go on, without acting on it is reprehensible, at least now that the age of consent has been raised, it will at least stop the marriage of children (girls) under 16 to men who are more than 5 years older than them. And if it hasn't stopped, it I hope the have the balls to step in and do something about it.

[August1991]

Not according to this:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/02...834833-sun.html

and this;

I don't know how many Muslim women are being abused, if any, but we know there is a problem in Bountiful, so why would we not put a stop to this practice and protect the children and women.

Scriblett, go on and read the rest of the news article:

However, city and provincial officials said legally a welfare applicant can claim only one spouse. Other adults living in the same household can apply for welfare independently.

Asto your quote of the Family Law Act, it merely means that if someone marries several times in a jurisdiction where that is allowed, the first marriage remains valid under the act. For example, the first spouse (alone) is entitled to any government benefits (eg. survivor pension benefits).

If you think about it, it is in fact to the benefit of a second spouse not to be married. A Muslim man with several wives could put Number Two, Three and Four wives on welfare benefits as single mothers even though the Muslim man has a high income and could be living conjugally with these spouses. If the government were to recognize these marriages, then the spouses would lose their welfare benefits.

As to their matrimonial status, as oreodontist notes above, a marriage contract is a private contract between two parties. The two parties can negotiate anything they want and can defer to an arbitrator of their own choosing in the event of a dispute. It happens every day in Canada and the State is not involved at all nor should it be.

----

With all of this said, IME, the idea of several spouses owes more to a traditional lifestyle. Women in such marriages are often illiterate or uneducated. It is an old argument on this forum whether traditional Muslim practices will survive exposure to western ways after a generation or two.

I will add that the case of the woman in the OP is ironic. A good Muslim, she chose to return to Egypt and raise her child in a traditional way only to discover that her husband had taken a second wife in Canada while she was gone. That's like being surprised to gain weight on the beer-and-donut diet.

[Pliny]

If the courts can find SSM to be a constitutional right it'll be easy to do the same for polygamy which is practiced in many palces.

I think you left an "a" out of "palces".

[scribblet]

Scriblett, go on and read the rest of the news article:

Asto your quote of the Family Law Act, it merely means that if someone marries several times in a jurisdiction where that is allowed, the first marriage remains valid under the act. For example, the first spouse (alone) is entitled to any government benefits (eg. survivor pension benefits).

If you think about it, it is in fact to the benefit of a second spouse not to be married. A Muslim man with several wives could put Number Two, Three and Four wives on welfare benefits as single mothers even though the Muslim man has a high income and could be living conjugally with these spouses. If the government were to recognize these marriages, then the spouses would lose their welfare benefits.

As to their matrimonial status, as oreodontist notes above, a marriage contract is a private contract between two parties. The two parties can negotiate anything they want and can defer to an arbitrator of their own choosing in the event of a dispute. It happens every day in Canada and the State is not involved at all nor should it be.

----

As far as welfare goes technically they will only pay for the one spouse but that ain't happening either they are collecting for more than one wife.

I believe the family law act recognizes all of the wives if polygamy was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid. So we recognize it too.

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/12/ha...n-the-west.html

Polygamous Canadian wives recognized and eligible for benefits: The Ontario Family Law Act accepts polygamy. It defines "Polygamous marriage" as "a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid." In other words, the act recognizes polygamous marriages legally contracted in other countries.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/t...40-72b422deef14

It was a rude awakening for British and Canadian taxpayers when news emerged this week to confirm that their tax dollars were being used to support polygamous marriages.In any other situation, a bigamist would be prosecuted. But thanks to our far-sighted and open-minded legislators who thought changing the definition of spouse wouldn't matter, any attempts to stop the welfare fraud could lead to the full recognition of, and support for, polygamy.

[August1991]

As far as welfare goes technically they will only pay for the one spouse but that ain't happening either they are collecting for more than one wife.

I believe the family law act recognizes all of the wives if polygamy was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid. So we recognize it too.

As I noted, for collecting welfare, it's not in the interest of a polygamous spouse to declare the marriage - even if they could. They receive more as a single mother. If single indiviudals on welfare happen to live under the same roof, then what of it? This is a problem of welfare law, not marriage law.

I will stand corrected on the interpretation of Ontario's Family Law Act. It appears that it gives protection to spouses in a (legal) polygamous marriage - as long as it's clear what protection is referred to:

While Ontario, the Yukon, the North West Territories, and Nunavut include polygamous parties who were married in foreign jurisdictions that permit polygamy in their definition of “spouse” for the purpose of property equalisation,[439] this would not apply to de facto polygynous unions formed in Canada. Provincial legislatures that have not specifically extended spousal support and matrimonial property schemes to include de facto polygynous spouses,[440] in addition to de jure polygynous unions entered into in foreign jurisdictions, within the definition of “spouse” for the purpose of support and property equalisation should do so. Because many polygynous wives will not have property registered in their name throughout their de facto marriages, their inability to access matrimonial property division schemes makes them particularly vulnerable at relationship breakdown. This is the case in Bountiful, for example, where women are not permitted to own property.

Federal Justice link

----

Let's be plain here. For immigration law, for pension benefits, for welfare payments, for tax purposes - only one spouse is allowed. IOW, for any State benefit, a person can only claim to have one spouse. Where private property is concerned (ie. a divorce settlement or an inheritance), then other (legal) spouses may have recourse under Ontario (and territorial) law.

This makes eminent sense to me and if anything, will save the taxpayer money.

If a man has children with different women, then it seems to me he should be liable for child support. If he is married to one woman and then shacks up with another in a common law relation, then it also seems to me that he should be liable for spousal support to both women. The man is free to write a will in which he leaves any property to whomever he wants. (Here, I would not grant any favourable tax treatment and as I understand it, polygamous spouses gain no such benefit.) If he dies without a will, it seems reasonable that other spouses have a claim on his estate.

As the Justice Department note makes clear, this policy has for effect to protect women who otherwise would not have protection.

----

I think the problem arises because while the Criminal Code forbids polygamy, Ontario's family law explicitly uses the term. For some people, this makes red lights flash and one hears about the thin-edge of the Sharia wedge. Rather, I think we should leave individuals to choose as much for themselves as possible. This is the principle worth defending.

[maldon_road]

I think you left an "a" out of "palces".

Very good point. As Prince Charles said to Princess Di "I don't intend to be the first Prince of Wales who has never had a mistress".

There are ways of getting around the laws against polygamy.

[scribblet]

Very good point. As Prince Charles said to Princess Di "I don't intend to be the first Prince of Wales who has never had a mistress".

There are ways of getting around the laws against polygamy.

True, as in adultery... The big point here is how do we protect the children in cases such as Bountiful and Texas, will legalizing polygamy allow more scrutiny of these cults? Certainly, if it's legalized only one wife should be allowed widow's benefits, and medical benefits (within a company plan) imagine the cost to society otherwise.

[maldon_road]

True, as in adultery... The big point here is how do we protect the children in cases such as Bountiful and Texas, will legalizing polygamy allow more scrutiny of these cults? Certainly, if it's legalized only one wife should be allowed widow's benefits, and medical benefits (within a company plan) imagine the cost to society otherwise.

What is happening in Bountiful is adultery approved by a "Church". And right now the children and wives from the second and subsequent marriages have no legal rights.

Edited May 25, 2008 by maldon_road

[oreodontist]

What is happening in Bountiful is adultery approved by a "Church". And right now the children and wives from the second and subsequent marriages have no legal rights.

Not true. The children of a second or third wife have as much rights as any child born within a legally recognized marriage. The rights of illegitimate children are identical to those of legitimate children in all Canadian provinces.

[maldon_road]

Not true. The children of a second or third wife have as much rights as any child born within a legally recognized marriage. The rights of illegitimate children are identical to those of legitimate children in all Canadian provinces.

If I divorce my wife can any illegitimate children I might have become a party in the divorce and claim support?