(To be clear: My discussions about polygamy refer only to Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy as it is practiced in communes like Colorado City and Hildale in the USA and Bountiful in British Columbia. Consenting adults are on their own, in my view. My concern is for women and children who are not given choices and who may be living in abusive situations).



Here is another newspaper article covering the polygamy trial in B.C. that I found interesting.


Province Newspaper: B.C. A-G Defends [Anti]Polygamy Law

http://www.theprovince.com/technology/office%2Bdefends%2Bpolygamy/3875804/story.html

Excerpts:

"Polygamy tends to produce harms to the state, to society and its institutions, including the institution of monogamous marriage, and to individuals, especially women and children," said Deborah Strachan [Crown lawyer].

"The most common forms of polygamy offend women's dignity and are based on sex and sex-role stereotypes subordinating women, she said.

"Women in polygamous marriages suffer increased psychological, physical, sexual and reproductive-health harms. They also face material harms, including economic and educational deprivation."

"If Canada were to allow polygamy, it would be contrary to international obligations that recognize the harms of multiple marriages, she said.

"Several interest groups also told the judge that they support the polygamy law, enacted in 1890 but has seldom been prosecuted in Canada.

"Jonathan Baker, a lawyer for Real Women of Canada, said that when freedom of religion is raised by fundamentalist Mormons as a rationale for polygamy, the court should examine whether the practice being engaged in is, in fact, based upon religious belief.

"Was the marriage entered into in the honest belief that it was required to achieve eternal celestial bliss, or was it simply a matter of social pressure from the narrow, isolated community?"

"Baker added that it was "no exaggeration to say that polygamy is an anti-democratic abomination" and that a finding that the law is unconstitutional would be inconsistent with the values and opinions of most Canadians.

"Janet Winteringham, a lawyer for West Coast Legal Women's Education and Action Fund, also argued that the law was constitutional, saying "polygamy tends toward the exploitation of women and girls."

"He [lawyer] said polygamy-related offences in particular are under-reported, under-investigated and under-prosecuted.

"We'll find out at Bountiful just how many incidents of much older men marrying much younger girls are never reported to the authorities."

-----

I look forward to accurate reporting of the facts about Bountiful. Here's hoping it leads to improved living situations for the people there.

A quick question: Wouldn't legalizing / recognizing it help women who get out of the "marriage" with alimony and child support?

I think the problem with that possible solution is that the men supposedly have no resources. They already rely on benefits and other govt resources to fund their lifestyle. For instance, their independent school in Bountiful receives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from the govt. It doesn't seem as though that money is ploughed back into the school system. They also receive the child tax credit which can be at least several hundred dollars a month per child. Each adult in a given household may be eligible for welfare payments for themselves and their children.

I'm not an expert on the details in this area but I will try to check it out and come up with a more definitive answer about the monetary situation. My impression is that even if a woman were to receive a judgement against her husband, he would not be able to pay, not without protracted legal battles anyway.

On the face of it, it seems that legalization of polygamy could improve conditions in Bountiful and other similar communities because they wouldn't have to be so secretive, perhaps. But it may also further isolate them as there is no law then to use as a reason to keep an eye on life inside the compound. It could well make it even more difficult to obtain evidence and bring prosecution for issues such as alleged child abuse.

I should note that in at least one Canadian province, Ontario, Muslim men who had multiple wives before entering Canada are permitted to claim benefits for more than one wife. This is obviously controversial.

All the various aspects of it touch on many major issues for Canadians, such as immigration law, welfare reform and protecting individual rights and freedoms.

I do not equate any other type of polygamy with that practiced by Mormon fundamentalists. I don't know much about how polygamy works out for Muslim immigrants in Canada. I do think that communes like Bountiful, set up and run by FLDS polygamous males, have their own inherent negative outcomes. I also agree with one of the lawyers in the current case that we need to look long and hard at whether it's really about religious belief.

So, the quick answer is I'm not 100% sure of the definitive answer to your question, but the men cry poverty and would likely not pay child support if any of the wives left, even if the women won a judgement against the husbands.

Another aspect to that is even if a woman is permitted to leave, or manages to get away, they are usually not allowed to take their children with them. That is how you get incidences like those described by Caroline Jessop in her book "Escape" and as told by other ex-plural wives, many of whom had to leave some or all of their children behind.

That is the type of circumstance that illustrates the true situation, that women and children are, in some cases, essentially held prisoner, as it is not easy for them to leave and in some cases, not possible.

The state clearly has a vested interest in either abolishing this practice, or regulating it.

If it's not religious, then it is a combination of both sexual and economic. If these families claim poverty and gain benefits from the state, the practice is a burden on the system.

I dont have a problem with polygamy as long as it's not abusive to any party involved (parents, children), but also the state.

because those who practice polygamy consider it persecution and it strengthens them via "seige mentality."

Most people know I have had some personal experiences involving polygamy and they may be surprised to hear that I am changing my position. Like marijuana, it is time to legalize the whole business, and here's why:

Take the sacred rock star rebel glow off the husband. Make him acknowledge financial and moral responsibility for each and every child he brings into the world. Make sure women have their civil rights protected should they choose this life. Make sure their children are interviewed by a social worker before choosing to marry into polygamy, so they can be educated and make a choice based on a true picture of what real society looks like. Create a waiting period while these future brides take a crash course so they can provide "informed consent." This is clearly in the public interest. They must be 18 and they must sign an informed consent form. Make sure they are not under threats and they have somewhere to go that is safe and not operated by a competitor cult. Make sure the compound treats males and females equally-- no "Lost Boys".

Make sure the wives know how many other wives there are and where they live. Make sure they know how to give a confidential report of abuse. Make sure they know how many reports are on file for a given husband.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me there is some benefit to be had in controlling rather than attempting to prosecute. Like with marijuana, there comes a point where you have to ask yourself if your War on Polygamy is actually working for or against your stated goal.

My gut tells me that empowering and enabling women might be a better strategy than prosecuting men.

No economic perks for this. No welfare, no tax breaks. Only those who are really wanting to live this life should be allowed. No leaches.

This sounds like a practical approach - they horrible cruelty and abuses are protected they way things generally work out.