Polygamy that involves child abuse - Holmes, Randman, CS?

Thylacosmilus writes:If only a small fraction of people abuse the right to polygamy...

They don't have the right to stay away from the authorities, though: with a warrant, the police and the FBI can go anywhere within US borders.

I understand legal polygamy is being considered in Canada.

Really? Cool. I'm interested in the results as well.

Currently, under section 293 of Canada’s criminal code, polygamy is expressly outlawed. A 2005 study for the Canadian federal Justice Department, Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women and Children, recommended abolishing laws criminalizing polygamy. Arguing from the basis that polygamy laws serve no purpose and are rarely prosecuted, Bailey et. al. (2005) recommend that the government repeal section 293 of the Criminal Code that outlaws polygamy. While they acknowledge that polygamous relationships are overwhelmingly a bastion of abuse towards women and towards children, Bailey et. al. contend that “if there are problems such as child abuse, or spousal abuse, there are other criminal provisions or other laws dealing with those problems that certainly should be enforced.”By now we’re all aware of Canada’s very own FLDS community in Bountiful, BC, a place BC Authorities would sooner forget. This week, Vancouver lawyer Leonard Doust issued a report suggesting that the best way to deal with polygamy in Bountiful, BC was to refer section 293 of the Criminal Code to the courts to test its constitutionality, rather than prosecute individuals first. Arguably, this test of constitutionality would be in the context of freedom of religion. However, our courts must also be aware of our obligations under international law to prohibit polygamy. According to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1994):Polygamous marriage contravenes a woman’s right to equality with men, and can have such serious emotional and financial consequences for her and her dependents that such marriages ought to be discouraged and prohibited. The Committee notes with concern that some States parties, whose constitutions guarantee equal rights, permit polygamous marriage in accordance with personal or customary law. This violates the constitutional rights of women . (qtd. in ACLRC, 2004: 9).As states party to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, Canada has an international obligation to consider the impacts of polygamy on women when determining the legality of marriages.And it seems there is increasing recognition across Canada that the harms of polygamy outweigh any arguments of religious freedom:Both Mr. Peck and Mr. Oppal say they are confident that Section 293 could survive a religious freedom challenge under the Charter. “There is a substantial body of scholarship,” Mr. Peck observes, “supporting the position that polygamy is harmful,” and that limits on polygamous practice could thus be found “reasonable” by the Supreme Court.

Notice anything?2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008.

molbiogirl writes:They have been practicing polyamory for over 100 years.And the U.S. is tired of it. And it will stop.

molbiogirl on the evils of the FLDS writes:Allegations of welfare fraud, militant organizations, incest, statutory rape, physical, emotional and psychological abuse have been widely reported in American media

Did you notice anything? Not a single one of your quotes mentioned "polygamy" or even "polyamory".

Eight hit with teen bride sex charges

... his arrangement of extralegal marriages between his adult male followers and underage girls.

What you mean to say is that the US is tired of their abuse, and the US will stop their abuse.

It's all about the polyamory, dude. It's just a walk-in-the-park to bust the child rapists, that's all.

Look a little closer. "One count of bigamy".

Nope. FLDS polyamory is the functional equivalent of polygamy. And it will be stopped.Notice that the legal inroads are getting bigger and bigger?From one, to eight, to the leader of the cult, to four hundred and six.

The U.S. is prosecuting polyamorists, because they are functionally polygamists.

"Bigamy", not "polygamy".

All you have to do is find a single instance where the US is persuing someone with polygamy being their greatest illegal activity.

The bigamy conviction of Mr. Green, who has five wives and has fathered 30 children, is likely to have ramifications for other polygamists throughout the West, who now may face prosecution, lawyers say.

In court papers, David O. Leavitt, the Juab County attorney, charged that Mr. Green had been able to elude prosecution by marrying without state sanction. But he told the court he was basing his prosecution on the legal argument that Mr. Green had made no effort to hide his wedded relations and that "a solemnized marriage otherwise valid is not rendered invalid by failure to meet licensing requirements."

Stile writes:Polyamory is simply polygamy without the title of "marriage".I still think polygamy should be legalized as it has no effect on anything at all. The entire functionality of polygamy (polyamory) is currently alive and well in our society (Canada and the US). We may as well add the simple title.Can you think of any possible reason at all to refuse adding a name for something that already fully exists within society?

molbiogirl writes:Ask and ye shall receive.

molbiogirl's source writes:is likely to have ramifications for other polygamists throughout the West, who now may face prosecution

iano writes:Perhaps I can. I don't know if the institution of marriage there attracts privileges and rights from the state but it does so in Ireland. If you added the name marriage to to polymory then you would also add the rights associated with the name.

Taz writes:I would like to bring your attention to the thread title. Since these three in the other thread were the biggest supporters for "hands off" government policy regarding religious "freedom" even at the cost of the lives of little children, I would really like to see their input about this polygamy issue involving parents forcing their little girls to marry and have sex with much older men.

iano writes:I don't know if the institution of marriage there attracts privileges and rights from the state but it does so in Ireland. If you added the name marriage to to polymory then you would also add the rights associated with the name.

Therefore, the only point in refusing the benefits, is to not give it to the good people. Since it has no effect whatsoever on the evil that's being done.

Stile writes:Out of all men who abuse women, I'd guess that very few of those men are actually in a polygamous relationship.

Stile writes:And, again, if we remove that polygamous relationship, those men will continue to abuse women. Again, this has NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the amount of women being abused.

I was off fishing again all day yesterday (did terrible ).