So here's what's going on in Canada, people. Charges for polygamy against two religious leaders are dropped on the grounds of religious practice under the Charter of Rights and Freedom. One of the accused, William Blackmore, "was charged with one count of polygamy with at least 19 women named in an indictment."
Irene Spencer , who was married off to Verlan LeBaron when she was only sixteen years old, talks about the abuse hidden behind polygamous practices in the name of religion. LeBaron was already married to her half-sister when he married her, and she would later give him thirteen children and watch him take eight more wives after her. Spencer says that "the men always say ‘marry them young so you can train them.’
I am very disappointed.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Polygamy Charges Tossed Out.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16214
Laws should prohibit forced marriage (and they do it). It's up to people with whom they want to cohabitate. Government shouldn't dictate here.
Not all governments do. Even in America, parents can still force a 16 year old to marry someone older if the state law permits it. I've gone to school with multiple teenagers where this has happened and they were stuck in the marriages until they were 18 when they could legally file for divorce. Government needs more laws defining "forced" because willing consent is different than "Daddy/mommy/relative/in-laws threatens me" consent or "The religious authorities says it has to be done" consent.
Well, there must be a law that says the teenager has to nominally consent. I can't see any marriage being literally forced by the state-- with a police officer there telling a 16 year old that sorry, its not her decision, its her parents. Now, obviously the parents have other ways of forcing their kids to go along with it, and that can be really hard to prevent or prosecute. But in principle the law does prohibit forced marriages.
I don't really see why in today's society we need to allow kids to get married before they turn 18, anyway.
I'm so disappointed to hear this. They should have taken the "Bountiful" guys down. It's not discrimination against your religion when it's an issue of coercing young girls into these marriages.
It worries me that the Charter of Rights and Freedom is being used to protect these people.
It doesn't particularly surprise me, it would seem to stem from Canada's increased concern of group rights vs the obsession with personal rights in the states.
I think we are looking at two separate issues here: forced marriage and coercion and polygamy. The former is a very bad, and the second I am a less certain on. In this case, the family should be prosecuted for forcing the girls into marriage, but the bare act of having more than one spouse isn't the issue here.
There's actually a third issue, in my opinion. First, the forced marriage issue. No-one should ever be forced into marriage. Second is the polygamy issue. What goes on between consenting mature individuals is not something the gov't (in any country) should be involved with, so I don't think that on it's own is what concerns me (although it looks like in this case, the polygamy was coerced, see point 1).
But the third issue is the lack of equality with respect to polygamy. If a bunch of mature people want to belong to a group where polygamy is considered fine, and no-one is being coerced into marriage, I don't have a problem with that, as long as it goes both ways. If the women can also take multiple husbands, then at least it would be fair. I doubt that is the case here.
If the women can also take multiple husbands, then at least it would be fair.
But the whole point of these religious patriarchies is that they are not aren't interested in being fair. As I understand it, there is no way that their teachings would allow a woman to take multiple spouses.
But legally, that shouldn't matter, as long as the law allows women to have multiple husbands. Some religions teach that women should be subservient to their husbands, but that doesn't mean they're barred from getting legally married because we think marriage should be an equal partnership.
But legally, that shouldn't matter, as long as the law allows women to have multiple husbands
But I thought that Canadian law doesn't allow people to have multiple spouses?! These individuals instead are cowering behind so-called religious freedom to get around the issue.
In the US and W. Europe, fundies do the exact same thing by by simply having one legal wife on paper and then lying and manipulating the system to move in additional women, almost always underaged girls and in the case of Europe importing brides who are uneducated, illiterate and don't know their rights.
There is a time to be arguing for polyamory and this ain't it.
If the women can also take multiple husbands, then at least it would be fair. I doubt that is the case here.
Its an issue in regard to a discussion of the merits of polygamy/polyandry but not as much for the Government of Canada. So long as the government allows or disallows polygamy and polyandry equally they are treating the situation fairly and allowing a woman to take multiple husbands. They aren't required to ensure that anyone actually does so.
That said, I hope the government manages to nail the group to the wall for all of their other practices and hopefully the government has sufficient evidence to do so.
I've always wondered how anti-polygamy laws are enforced. You can only have one legal marriage in the eyes of the state, for tax purposes, marital privilege in court, etc, fine. But if you aren't trying to claim any of those rights-- if you only want to live together and call each other husband and wife-- how can a law against that be enforced? The US at least doesn't have any laws against adults living together. What's to stop a bunch of adults from living together and saying they're all married, as long as they don't try to get tax benefits from it?
Obviously, coercing young girls is a separate issue and they should be able to punish them for that separately.
You're right...nothing's to stop it.
What you've described is exactly what some of those religious sects do who sequester themselves out in the desert. And they do milk the system because each additional woman with kids can qualify for state aid as a "single mom"--just build a bunch of a little houses close to each other and nobody is the wiser that everybody is shacked up together.
The only way they get busted is when somebody finally blows the whistle on the child abuses that tend to occur.
Yeah, if there are other abuses like child abuses, then there's stuff to bust them on it. But when you say "nobody's the wiser" that they're all in a relationship together, it makes it sound like if the state did know that, they'd somehow be in trouble. Seriously, if they announced they were totally all polygamous, as long as they were consenting adults and not abusing children, what would the state be able to do about it? Could they still prosecute them for polygamy if they weren't trying to have the legal benefits of marriage?
The "nobody is the wiser" part was about fraudulently receiving state money, when in fact you are essentially cohabiting with and getting support from the baby daddy. ;)
As for the rest of the question, my impression is that the state cannot prosecute what is essentially people living communally in the absence of other infractions of the law.