Charges against BC polygamists dropped

[kimmy]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2025786

Criminal polygamy charges against B.C. religious leaders Winston Blackmore and Jim Oler have been thrown out.

B.C. Supreme Court Judge Sunni Stromberg-Stein made the ruling Wednesday in B.C. Supreme Court, said Neil MacKenzie, a Crown spokesman.

Messrs. Blackmore and Oler filed separate court petitions seeking to quash the charges against them. Mr. Blackmore is the leader of the fundamentalist commune in Bountiful, B.C.

Terrific news, if you're a middle-aged religious kook who has a dozen teenage brides and 54 grandkids.

So, this is obviously a ringing endorsement of freedom of religion, right? uhuhuhuh no:

In a decision released Wednesday, Judge Stromberg-Stein ruled B.C.'s attorney general had no jurisdiction to direct his staff to appoint Mr. Robertson as a special prosecutor.

WTF does that even mean?!

-k

[capricorn]

To me, the "learned" judge didn't want to make a judgment and found an out.

[Oleg Bach]

No bodies buisness about how many chidren a man can sire - or how many wives he has and maintains. People don't like polygamists because it is anti-state - They create their own little kingdoms and that state looks at this as a threat...so they toss in the ruse that it's about morality - mean while political have multiple affairs...

[kimmy]

The Blackmore family is a lot like the Bach family, except that Blackmore's wives and kids are sometimes all in the same place at the same time.

-k

[Oleg Bach]

The Blackmore family is a lot like the Bach family, except that Blackmore's wives and kids are sometimes all in the same place at the same time.

-k

I don't know about the Blackmore clan - My extended family is spread out...from Cyprus to Central Amercia...my daughters are all along the same street - my wife has her own residence - the son lives with a sister - I am very tradtional...my family is very loyal to each other - and there is great love - the woman are bold and independent and the males are free thinkers and honest men ---If I lived in another era --- I would have had 5 wives and 100 good children who would have done the world some good - because I believe in goodness and the concept of God...Not in a fanatical way but in an ancient pragmatic way...BUT all you need is one wife or one husband....It's a shame that family is not as important as it once was - I guess after the Russian revolution and the war...that my mother and father wanted what was taken from them FAMILY!

[Oleg Bach]

Oh in closing - we are all polygamists these days. The average person has about 3 wives or husbands during a life time...it's the same just spread out...I just wish people would do their duty and not divorce...besides if you love one person - you love them forever.. I talk big but if I could go back in time I would have stuck to my first love like glue and not cheated.

[ToadBrother]

No bodies buisness about how many chidren a man can sire - or how many wives he has and maintains. People don't like polygamists because it is anti-state - They create their own little kingdoms and that state looks at this as a threat...so they toss in the ruse that it's about morality - mean while political have multiple affairs...

I will agree... up to a point. I don't really have a problem with polygamy, providing it isn't being used in some way to defraud the government, or no harm is coming to the children.

What doesn't happen with a lot of these Mormon sect polygamists, though, is not good. Maybe Blackmore is one of the good ones, but some of his coreligionists are essentially child rapists and child abandoners. Because these polygamist communities tend to have older men possessing most of the women, there is little or no place for young men, who are often turfed. As well, at least in Arizona and Utah, there is significant evidence that young girls are essentially being traded off between polygamists.

So I'd make a few stipulations, if I were boss of the country. Number one; all spouses equal only one spouse as far as benefits, pensions, etc. Secondly, any evidence of forced marriage of young girls under the age of 16 will lead to lengthy prison sentences. That's about the best we can do.

[capricorn]

Oh in closing - we are all polygamists these days. The average person has about 3 wives or husbands during a life time...

The term for this is serial monogamy.

Serial monogamy is characterized by a series of long- or short-term, exclusive sexual relationships entered into consecutively over the lifespan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy

Serial monogamists are not polygamists. I know because I am one.

[Alex Moore]

I think the courts are trying to avoid confrontation with this issue. If convicted the Blackmore "family" would have grounds to appeal before the supreme court. The courts get enough shit from the religious right over the morgentaler case and there's a fear that polygamy could get handled similarly If forced into a constitutional challenge.

[Wilber]

Really this should go to the Supreme Court. Cases like this are the reason for its existence. Who respects a law that no one has the guts to enforce?

[jdobbin]

Serial monogamists are not polygamists. I know because I am one.

Which one?

[jdobbin]

I don't know about the Blackmore clan - My extended family is spread out...from Cyprus to Central Amercia...my daughters are all along the same street - my wife has her own residence - the son lives with a sister - I am very tradtional...my family is very loyal to each other - and there is great love -

Sorry, I am having a hard time following... you are married to your sister?

[jdobbin]

Really this should go to the Supreme Court. Cases like this are the reason for its existence. Who respects a law that no one has the guts to enforce?

Harper could push for a charge. Not sure why he hasn't weighed in.

[Wilber]

Harper could push for a charge. Not sure why he hasn't weighed in.

So could have Martin, Chretien and Mulroney. Maybe even Trudeau. It's not like this just started yesterday. Finally, one provincial attorney general decided it was time to confront it and the rest of the system can't run fast enough.

[jdobbin]

So could have Martin, Chretien and Mulroney. Maybe even Trudeau. It's not like this just started yesterday. Finally, one provincial attorney general decided it was time to confront it and the rest of the system can't run fast enough.

I'm not sure if it is something that can be easily proven in court as we have seen from several attempts to prosecute in other jurisdictions.

[Wilber]

I'm not sure if it is something that can be easily proven in court as we have seen from several attempts to prosecute in other jurisdictions.

What's to prove? No one is denying the practice. That is why it should go to the Supremes. Either it is the law or it isn't.

[ToadBrother]

What's to prove? No one is denying the practice. That is why it should go to the Supremes. Either it is the law or it isn't.

The issue is that they don't appear to be going down to the court house to register multiple marriages. The laws, as they stand, ban bigamy, which has a legal definition. If some guy decides to live with ten women and call them his wives, he hasn't actually broken any laws. If he tries to register them all, then you can go after him.

In short, the reason why the other attempts failed is because no actual laws have been broken (at least as far as the "marriages", which are not real civil unions). My concern is for the children, and I think what needs to be done is for the Ministry of Children and Families to keep a very sharp eye in that regard.

[jdobbin]

What's to prove? No one is denying the practice. That is why it should go to the Supremes. Either it is the law or it isn't.

I think the point is that the charges are difficult to prove if there is no complainant.

They can send section 293 up to the Supreme Court again and they might affirm it but then you have to prove the law is being broken... again.

[Wilber]

I think the point is that the charges are difficult to prove if there is no complainant.

They can send section 293 up to the Supreme Court again and they might affirm it but then you have to prove the law is being broken... again.

If it is a criminal offense, why does there have to be a complainant?

[jdobbin]

If it is a criminal offense, why does there have to be a complainant?

You have to prove that it is happening. I am simply telling you what has happened in the U.S. and why it has been difficult to prosecute in Canada. It isn't like the Crown and judges are supporting the illegal activity. However, you do have to prove it in court.

[kimmy]

Harper could push for a charge. Not sure why he hasn't weighed in.

Isn't it considered highly inappropriate for elected officials to speak out on specific cases?

-k

[jdobbin]

Isn't it considered highly inappropriate for elected officials to speak out on specific cases?

If the problem is an section of 293, that lies within his domain. Likewise, it has always been in his domain to call for a special prosecutor or invoke notwithstanding if the courts decide in a way contrary to where he feels Canadian values lie.

[kimmy]

I can't recall a precedent for any of that happening. He might have the power to do those things, but how many PMs have done any of it?

As a general rule, I don't think Canadians appreciate it when elected officials take an interest in specific cases. I think Canadians like the idea that the courts are separate and independent from elected officials.

And I still don't "get" the decision made here. The judge in this case has acted as if the prior opinions of special prosecutors-- that the case would be difficult to prosecute-- amount to an acquittal for Blackmore and Oler.

-k

[fellowtraveller]

It is not difficult to prosecute, it is difficult to prosecute successfully.

And a defendant would almost certainly invoke their rights under the Charter, and most likely win, which would require that the law against polygamy be struck down. It is uncertain if they would attempt another law.

The reason that polygamy law would not surviove is that the argument against it is simple numberism. There is no reason why any govt should deny 'married' status to anybody simply because it involves more than the usual two persons. We all agree that any combination of genders is OK, why not any combination of persons? The arguments against are rightfully about exploitation of minors, it is already law that no contract including a contract of marriage, is valid when made under duress. There are administrative arguments regarding divorce and inheritance, but these are petty and the favoured field of bureucrats and lawyers, they can sort it out as easily as tey have sorted it out for same sex marriage.

This is the long and significant course that the BC govt (with concurrence by the feds) set upon, but could not get out of the starting gate.

Note that no charges, none, have been laid under against polygamists since the 1930s in Canada.

It is speculated that the reason the law existed at all was to prevent the arrival here of a Mormon fundamentalist diaspora where fundie polygamist elements spread from Utah to Mexico, BC, other US states and other countries. The law did not stop the colonies from being established here, and they have been quietly ignored since.

Isn't it considered highly inappropriate for elected officials to speak out on specific cases?

Totally. If Harper said anything about a criminal case before the courts, he would be rightfully flayed for judicial interference.

Where to now? The govt knows that the law is being broken, and cannot even get charges laid and a case to court so they can lose it. Maybe they will wait another 80 years before laying charges again......

[jdobbin]

I can't recall a precedent for any of that happening. He might have the power to do those things, but how many PMs have done any of it?

The Quebec premier invoked notwithstanding on all legislation to assert Quebec's independence from federal authority. They eventually stopped doing that as it also asserted authority from any court be it federal or Quebec court.

As a general rule, I don't think Canadians appreciate it when elected officials take an interest in specific cases. I think Canadians like the idea that the courts are separate and independent from elected officials.

For a specific case, Saskatchewan invoked notwithstanding to back to work legislation in 1986.

Specific to this case, Alberta invoked notwithstanding in 2000 to the Definition of Marriage act.

Harper could use notwithstanding if he wanted to affirm 293.

There is precedent in the Constitution for it.

And I still don't "get" the decision made here. The judge in this case has acted as if the prior opinions of special prosecutors-- that the case would be difficult to prosecute-- amount to an acquittal for Blackmore and Oler.

I believe the charges are thrown out.

The problem is that Wally Opal might have gone shopping for a prosecutor and that made the previous legal opinions pertinent to the judge's decision. I don't think I heard the word acquittal used.

In other words, the government can place charges again if they have new evidence.