What will Friday bring?
  1. haha what a farce, “Polygamy violates human rights?” Does it? If the women consents to being in a polygamist relationship it’s against her rights? I thought human rights were the right of each human to live their OWN life how they wish. And what if the polygamist marriage is non religious or doesn’t involve child wives, child breeding or anything else that is already illegal under the current law system, should the whole act of polygamy be considered illegal? I thought the argument of this site was for human rights, and if so, then a human has a right to practice polygamy (which by definition is the marriage of one man to many wives) and does not constitute any of these other malicious practices. That is the simple definition.

    Sex without consent, abuse, sexual abuse, marriage underage, and child breeding is all illegal in Canada and can all be simply prosecuted already. CFS exists to take care of children in tattered households regardless of religious or moral background. But blanketing a law and petitioning an exclusion of an entire group because negative things happen to SOME people is far from the answer and quite a bad idea.

    This organization has a flawed message and is quite discriminatory. The message of “stoppolygamacanada” is like saying that there should be a law against anyone involved in a gang. There shouldn’t be, because there are already laws against murder, theft, assault and many other things that gang members commit; but just because more people in gangs commit these crimes doesn’t mean being in a gang should be illegal. Keep in mind, I would NEVER practice polygamy, but that doesn’t give me the right to make it illegal for someone else to.

    In our national anthem it says “The true north strong and ‘FREE'” and it would be nice to keep it that way. If you want to have a legitimate organization, try and rally against the malicious acts of polygamy, not the marrying of one man to many women. Rally against the malicious acts themselves; give outlets to wives and children if they are threatened, provide some sort of communication between the vulnerable parties and law enforcement and enforce against any infringement to this communication. Even this would be very close to the lines of infringing on freedom and privacy but given the risk of occurrences in polygamist situations, it could probably be justified.

    As a whole though this campaign has the wrong direction and gives the wrong message. As Canadians, we promote freedom of choice and promote all religions and marriages. Our laws should stay consistent with this and the laws already state that anything your organization deems immoral, is an illegal act; therefore emphasis should not be on creating more laws, it should be on effectively enforcing the ones that already exist.

    • This campaign has heard from you before. Your comments are always very rude. I trash most of the rude comments I receive, but I’m allowing yours through the guise of freedom of speech and press and expression. I want to show the world that there are ignorant, cruel people out there. Are you one of them?

  2. I’ve never seen this site before actually. And the comments aren’t meant to be rude, but I just think that considering the word “ignorant” means “lacking awareness or understanding”; the idea to put a ban on EVERYONE who practices the act of polygamy falls under that description. I agree with your cause. I agree that something is terribly wrong, I just think that you’re proposing the wrong solution to ban an entire demographic over the fact that SOME people participate in malice. Like I said before, help the people who are vulnerable in these living conditions, give them a method of communication, make it mandatory for silent emergency alarms on compounds like an escape button. Solutions are endless and unlimited, and they would all be a way to stop the malice that your organization is against, but still protect those who wish to practice the act responsibly.

    I would never practice polygamy or polyandry, but that doesn’t give me the right to take it away from someone else. This is especially true when some people practice polygamy with the absence of religion or malice. Enforcing the law against polygamy means that regardless whether the people involved are malicious, it is downright illegal, no questions asked. I don’t think that’s fair, because all arguments against polygamy are that they first brainwash (I’m being simple), and then they convince the wives and/or children that something illegal, is acceptable. And I don’t think that is right, but I think that banning an entire marital status doesn’t solve the problem.

    Every religion brainwashes to some point or extent, so should all religions have the potential to be banned based on third party opinion? The problem is when the person WANTS to participate in the religion that requires judgement, but the message right now of this organization is that you are qualified to make the judgement. I though human rights were the right to do as you please without infringing on the rights of others? That is my argument.

    I think that it is more effective, and more fair to offer outlets to the vulnerable parties given the risk that your organization can obviously identify, and I agree that those risks are a serious threat. I also understand that a complete different argument challenges ones beliefs and doesn’t necessarily feel good or look good to your organization which naturally would cause a person aggravation. It’s difficult to look at both sides of an argument when a person feels so strongly for or against something, so I understand your conflict when moderating these views. I do feel that when legitimate and fair criticisms can be pointed out in a philosophy, it gives the one being attacked the opportunity to strengthen the argument.

    I just think that if we are going to solve problems with human rights we should think deeply, and debate deeply about EACH side of the argument as difficult as it is to look at each side. When we do so, we will have much stronger support for whatever solution we come up

    • Then you should have put money where your pen is and attended the debates in the court room during the reference trial in Vancouver; or, spend time reading the court documents on this blog. If you want to view all the video evidence, you can search this blog and be directed to the exact site. But, all of this takes time. Be prepared to read over 10,000 pages and view at least 10 hours of videos. I put both sides of all the arguments on this blog. I have not posted court transcripts, but if you want everything, I believe the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association has all on its site. Just type CPAA into your url. Also, spend time reading Justice Bauman’s 357 page decision.

      Just for your information polygamy is harm, it has been shown to be harm. Whenever I have been challenged on radio shows, it’s always males who get on and defend either polyamory or polygamy–no women. You sound very male!

      • I will look at some arguments in my time. Although I firmly believe that good arguments and ideas can be summed up very strongly in a few sentences as opposed to many thousands of pages.

        I am male, but I would support polyandry as well, because you cannot support one without the other. You must keep in mind, I would never practice either, and don’t personally like either, but what I am saying is that just because I don’t like either doesn’t give me the right to deny others to participate in it. Yes I can see how it would personally be offensive to a male to have one wife and many husbands, I can put myself in those shoes. The important thing to remember is we live in a society where many different views and ways of life are aspired to, and some people wish to live their lives this way. Freedom of choice grants society as a whole, that opportunity to choose how they want to live their own life, and it should grant people the ability to choose whether they want to live in a polyandrous relationship or not. A law banning that, bans the freedom to choose, and that is my argument.

        I would never want to be in a polyandrous relationship, just like I would never want to perform homosexual acts. But we have such a vast difference of people in society today that some people do wish–using freedom of choice–to partake in these acts. Because I personally disagree with those, just doesn’t give me the right to control other’s desires because they don’t align with mine. These acts do not encroach on my personal freedom therefore I have no right to call for it to be banned. If Polygamy, Polyandry is consensual, then that act should be allowed. All malice that goes along with it is already illegal and should still be enforced just like on any other member of society.

        I just say, let people live how they want to live their lives. You have identified a great fact, that there is a greater risk of harm. I say try to protect people in that lifestyle from harm, enforce the laws as they already exist, and provide tools and cooperation so that these laws can be effectively enforced and can protect those who are vulnerable, without completely destroying the freedom of all people involved in this unique facet of society.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.