Charges against BC polygamists dropped

[jdobbin]

Neither your quote or that of the OP refers at all to evidence, and indicates what I had said: there were other reasons for not getting to trial, they never got to the issue of evidence.

Look, it mentions right in the link that the Crown didn't proceed because they didn't believe they had the evidence to guarantee a conviction. It is why the Attorney General asked for a special prosecutor. Two of them agreed with the Crown that there wasn't enough evidence and both agreed that if the Attorney General did wish to proceed that he should go to a higher court to affirm the Marriage Act over religious freedoms.

However, the main concern was if underage children were being married to adults from the RCMP's initial investigation. As the links have indicated, the RCMP certainly thought so but the evidence didn't seem solid enough for the Crown.

And if they ever do actually get evidence, IMO they will lose a Charter challenge, which will mean the polygamy law is toast.

I don't know that that it is a guarantee at all. Religious freedoms have not always supplanted specific acts of the government.

Then they'll have to decide what to do: somehow create a law that bans polygamy yet respects the Charter(not easily done or they'd have done it already), change the Charter(won't happen) or just give up and bring in the necessary civil administration to regulate the practice.

Or invoke notwithstanding which I have shown in this thread to been done a few times.

And really, as long - and this is critical- as the people involved are consenting adults- why should I care who boinks whom?

Think that is what some of the issue is: Not everyone was a consenting adult. However, the Crown didn't have solid evidence of a 15 year being married to proceed with charges. The RCMP believed that some of the people were underage but it obviously wasn't a slam dunk.

I doubt the Supreme Court would allow any legal marriages of say, children to children or children to adults, with the argument of religious freedom.

Had the Crown actually had solid evidence of an underage marriage, the legal opinion I heard on radio was that the Crown would have proceeded.

The govt should have recognized this coming long ago, ten years ago when the discussion of same sex marriage entrenched the feds in defining marriage. Instead, they should have abdicated any defintion of marriage to religious organizations or individuals themselves, and just concerned themselves with the adminstration of whatever domestic arrangement two or more Canadians choose.

I happen to agree that the matter must be considered by the Supreme Court. I don't believe is possible to know exactly how they will rule. The Court could decide that the marriages in Bountiful do not meet the standards of the act.

Whatever your thoughts on the issue, the court is asked by the individuals and organizations to affirm marriage every day so that it has legal protections in terms of benefits and in division of assets and custodial rights for parents with children in event of divorce. It would require a complete re-write of the Marriage Act to ensure fairness if such relationships are affirmed and I'm not sure the court would obliterate the act given it could cause legal ramification for all marriages.

[fellowtraveller]

Look, it mentions right in the link that the Crown didn't proceed because they didn't believe they had the evidence to guarantee a conviction. It is why the Attorney General asked for a special prosecutor. Two of them agreed with the Crown that there wasn't enough evidence and both agreed thcase, it is t if the Attorney General did wish to proceed that he should go to a higher court to affirm the Marriage Act over religious freedoms

But that is not thee reason the judge in this instance booted the case was

Madam Justice Sunni Stromberg-Stein found that the former attorney-general of B.C. had unfairly gone “special prosecutor shopping” when he ignored the advice of two prosecutors and kept searching until one was found who wanted to press charges.

By doing so, Judge Stromberg-Stein said, the attorney-general “upset the critical balance that … should be kept between political interference and accountability

Lack of evidence may have come into eventually, but not yet.

I doubt the Supreme Court would allow any legal marriages of say, children to children or children to adults, with the argument of religious freedom.

I doubt it too, but who has ever advanced that as a justification for change of the law or of polygamy itself?

Marraige to minors and sex with minors is prohibited now, that would not change as the Bountiful crew would not attempt such a silly tactic.

the court is asked by the individuals and organizations to affirm marriage every day so that it has legal protections in terms of benefits and in division of assets and custodial rights for parents with children in event of divorce.

These are simply adminstarative details and come after the more basic question: why is marriage between more than two consenting adults prohibited?

No, they'd approach it as being a human right, the right for consenting adults to cohabit as they choose. Much like same sex marriage. I cannot see a coherent argument aginst consenting adults being permiotted this.

[jdobbin]

But that is not thee reason the judge in this instance booted the case was

The judge cited what the two previous prosecutors said as well as the Crown. And that was on evidence.

Lack of evidence may have come into eventually, but not yet.

If they had evidence of underage marriage, they would not have run into the problem of proceeding. There is no religious defence that would have likely worked.

I doubt it too, but who has ever advanced that as a justification for change of the law or of polygamy itself?

Marraige to minors and sex with minors is prohibited now, that would not change as the Bountiful crew would not attempt such a silly tactic.

This is why the RCMP wanted to proceed with a case in the first place. Had it gone through, we may have seen a religious defence but the Crown felt there was not enough evidence to continue.

These are simply adminstarative details and come after the more basic question: why is marriage between more than two consenting adults prohibited?

No, they'd approach it as being a human right, the right for consenting adults to cohabit as they choose. Much like same sex marriage. I cannot see a coherent argument aginst consenting adults being permiotted this.

I suppose that is what the court will have to decide.

If Parliament doesn't like it, they can invoke notwithstanding.

[fellowtraveller]

the Crown felt there was not enough evidence to continue.

No, the judge smacked them down before any evidence was presented because their prosecutorial appointment was deemed prejudicial. The Court never considered the volume , lack of volume or quality of any evidence.

[ToadBrother]

No, the judge smacked them down before any evidence was presented because their prosecutorial appointment was deemed prejudicial. The Court never considered the volume , lack of volume or quality of any evidence.

Was there any particular point? How many times has the Crown or whatever-the-Ministry-of-Welfare-is-called-this-week looked into Bountiful? Every ten years or so, someone will remember that there are polygamists down there, and will set about to end their evil ways, only to come back to Victoria with a shrug and admit that there's no particular evidence of abuse, and that prosecuting people for what amounts to religious beliefs would be doomed to failure.

What the Court did was slap down a clearly flawed game. What it amounted to was political interference on the judicial process. It's pretty clearly not desirable to have an AG just keeping flinging special prosecutors at Bountiful until they find one that would give him the answer he wanted. That's not how our system is supposed to work. The Crown Prosecutor investigates, perhaps in conjunction with other branches of government (particularly where minors are involved), and deems whether there is sufficient evidence to lay charges, and just as importantly, whether there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable chance at a conviction. It's not supposed to be a process where, in the absence of any new evidence, you just keep sending new guys in, knowing that eventually you're bound to find someone who will agree with you.

[jdobbin]

No, the judge smacked them down before any evidence was presented because their prosecutorial appointment was deemed prejudicial. The Court never considered the volume , lack of volume or quality of any evidence.

What judge?

[ToadBrother]

What judge?

Supreme Court Judge Sunni Stromberg-Stein.

[jdobbin]

Supreme Court Judge Sunni Stromberg-Stein.

That is not the judge I am asking about.

The RCMP went to the Crown to lay charges and they decided not to proceed based on evidence. Now, I am hearing that a judge shot them down prior? Which judge?

[ToadBrother]

That is not the judge I am asking about.

The RCMP went to the Crown to lay charges and they decided not to proceed based on evidence. Now, I am hearing that a judge shot them down prior? Which judge?

I have no idea what you're talking about. So far as I know, this is the first time charges have ever been laid, and any attempt to haul Blackmore into court has been made. There have been other investigations of Bountiful, all of which have come back empty handed.

[fellowtraveller]

That is not the judge I am asking about.

The RCMP went to the Crown to lay charges and they decided not to proceed based on evidence. Now, I am hearing that a judge shot them down prior? Which judge?

The judge cited is the subject of the OP.

What other judge matters?

What the Court did was slap down a clearly flawed game. What it amounted to was political interference on the judicial process. It's pretty clearly not desirable to have an AG just keeping flinging special prosecutors at Bountiful until they find one that would give him the answer he wanted. That's not how our system is supposed to work. The Crown Prosecutor investigates, perhaps in conjunction with other branches of government (particularly where minors are involved), and deems whether there is sufficient evidence to lay charges, and just as importantly, whether there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable chance at a conviction. It's not supposed to be a process where, in the absence of any new evidence, you just keep sending new guys in, knowing that eventually you're bound to find someone who will agree with you.

I quote this t agree with your succnct summary and to give dobbin a final opportunity to understand how it relates to the OP.

[jdobbin]

The judge cited is the subject of the OP.

What other judge matters?

I quote this t agree with your succnct summary and to give dobbin a final opportunity to understand how it relates to the OP.

You see, I am referring to waaay before the special prosecutors were being tasked to look at the issue.

The RCMP first went to the Crown and recommended charges. The Crown Prosecution office at that time said they didn't have enough evidence to proceed. This is when the Attorney General began looking for a special prosecutor to proceed anway. The first two prosecutors agreed that there was not enough evidence to proceed and but also recommended the government go to the high court to settle the matter on relligious freedom and marriage.

You keep saying that evidence wasn't heard which I agree wasn't heard. I keep saying that the Crown didn't think there was solid enough evidence to proceed. If they had evidence of underage marriage, I think they would have no problem going to trial.

[jdobbin]

I have no idea what you're talking about. So far as I know, this is the first time charges have ever been laid, and any attempt to haul Blackmore into court has been made. There have been other investigations of Bountiful, all of which have come back empty handed.

I was reffering to when the RCMP went to the Crown to recommend charges. The Crown decided there wasn't enough evidence.

The Attorney General then tried to proceed anyway.

[fellowtraveller]

"You keep saying that evidence wasn't heard which I agree wasn't heard. I keep saying that the Crown didn't think there was solid enough evidence to proceed. If they had evidence of underage marriage, I think they would have no problem going to trial.

"

What is it about you that prevents you from admitting you did not understand the situation?

You should consult a physician aboiut this chronic condition, luckily Manitoba has a pretty good medical system provided to you by the gracious taxpayers of Canada.

The Crown Prosecutors were going to trial, they had laid charges against two persons from Bountiful. They had in fact decided there was enough evidence to proceed, hence the charges.

The process was short circuited by the judges ruling, the judge cited several times by myself and others, for non-evidentiary reasons.

And all this yap apout 'evidence' is premature, it has not been presented in a court to be established or disproved.