The Vancouver Sun - Canada November 24, 2010
B.C. polygamists 'branded as outlaws,' court hears
By Keith Fraser, Postmedia News
VANCOUVER — Residents living in the controversial southeastern B.C. community of Bountiful are being "branded as outlaws," says the lawyer appointed to represent their views in a court case that could force Canada to rewrite its laws against polygamy.
Lawyer George Macintosh argued in B.C. Supreme Court Wednesday that many of the women in Bountiful, populated by a breakaway Mormon sect, entered into their multiple marriages with full consent due to a deeply and sincerely held religious belief.
"These women, they grew up believing this was the best way to live," he said.
Macintosh is the so-called amicus curiae, or friend of the court, tasked with arguing on behalf of those who oppose Section 293 of the Criminal Code, the country's anti-polygamy law. The constitutional reference case to determine if the law infringes guaranteed freedoms began this week in Vancouver.
The lawyer noted that there were "horrendous tales" of suffering and misery which unfold in monogamous marriages, including spousal and child abuse.
Women in polygamous relationships face the same dangers, he said, but the main difference is that in polygamous settings there is a great deal of reluctance to report crimes out of fear that victims will be prosecuted because polygamy is seen to be illegal, said Macintosh.
"There is a barrier between that community and the rest of us," he said. "Section 293 brands them as outlaws, and the stigma of criminality does nothing except hurt the people who are living there as their religion directs them to live.
"Section 293 in 1890 was about stopping Mormons and aboriginals, because a Christian marriage was in 1890 a monogamous, man-woman union."
Since Monday, lawyers for various interest groups have decried what they say are social harms arising from multiple marriages.
However, Macintosh told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman that 99.9 per cent of people in Canada have never had anything to do with polygamy, and have never met someone in a polygamous marriage.
"The conventional wisdom about polygamy is somewhat vague," said Macintosh. "It is very often resting on a foundation of ignorance, or of bias, or of condescension — that's exactly where constitutional protections have to kick in."
He said the polygamy law will not pass constitutional muster.
"It's somewhat presumptuous for many of us with conventional views to dismiss out of hand what people in Bountiful actually think and believe."
Macintosh said the problem of young girls, 15 and 16 years old, getting married to much older men was a different issue, and said he would address that later.
Earlier Wednesday, the court heard from several groups, including the B.C. Teachers Federation, arguing that the law was needed to protect the rights of women and children in polygamous settings.
This article was found at:
The Vancouver Sun - November 25, 2010
Laws should target abuse, not polygamy, lawyer argues
by Daphne Bramham
It is not polygamy that needs to be kept in check, it's the harms that can arise in polygamy, monogamy, adultery and casual sexual relations that need to be restrained.
That's how George Macintosh Wednesday summed up his position as the amicus -the court-appointed lawyer charged with arguing for the striking down of Canada's polygamy law and against the governments of British Columbia and Canada.
And it came on Day Three of the constitutional reference case to determine the validity of the Criminal Code's polygamy section, a trial that is expected to run at least until the end of January.
It's a complicated case. Mountains of evidence have been collected and the more than 30 lawyers involved generally agree that it's likely the largest library of information on polygamy ever collected.
But the evidence isn't only about polygamy. There are also thousands of pages of legal precedents and argument over balancing rights and limiting freedoms.
There is argument over just how far a government can go in asking questions about people's firmly and sincerely held spiritual beliefs. And there are arguments about children's rights and equality rights.
But at its heart, this is about sex and sexuality, about individual choice versus societal values. It's about how tolerant Canadians are and how tolerant they ought to be.
In his opening statement, Macintosh told Chief Justice Robert Bauman of the B.C. Supreme Court that he must strike down the polygamy law.
He noted that the effect would be to decriminalize conjugal, marriage-like relationships involving more than two people. But it would not legalize polygamous marriages.
The analogy Macintosh used is the decriminalization of homosexual relationships.
That happened in 1969. Same-sex marriages weren't legalized until 2005.
Decriminalization, Macintosh argued, would erase any stigma against people in those relationships and make it more likely that if there is sexual exploitation, abuse or even incest, they would be more likely to report those crimes.
And it's prosecuting those crimes that is important, he said, not the criminalization of choice made by consenting adults.
When the law was originally written in 1890, the amicus contends it was aimed at imposing Christian-style, monogamous marriages on Mormons, Indians and Muslims.
In purpose, Macintosh says, it is racist and discriminatory and contrary to the 1982 Constitution's guarantees of religious freedom, freedom of expression, association and the right to liberty and security of person.
Criminalizing individuals' choices in sexual relationships and family configurations, he maintains, is contrary to the values of a multicultural, secular and tolerant society.
More specifically, Macintosh contends that the law is so badly written that lawyers for the attorneys-general of B.C. and Canada don't even agree who is captured by it.
Craig Jones, acting for the province, says it's only men with multiple partners; Canada's lawyer Deborah Strachan says it means any three people in a conjugal, marriage-like relationship.
(Jones and Strachan along with interested groups that support maintaining the law made their opening remarks before Macintosh.)
Further, the amicus discounted the position of West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund and the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of the Child that the polygamy law could be "read down" to exclude all of those in "good" polygamous relationships and include only "bad polygamists" who exploit children sexually, force marriages on unwilling participants or use children as slave labour.
Just as the attorneys-general have allies, so too does Macintosh.
His position is also supported and bolstered by interest groups. They include the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association and the Canadian Association for Freedom of Expression.
Noting that "99.999 per cent" of Canadians have never had anything to do with polygamy, Macintosh said their perceptions about it are based on "ignorance, bias and condescension."
"That's exactly where constitutional protection needs to kick in," he told Bauman. "It is the only time constitutional protection means anything ... There is no need to protect the majority of 'right-thinking' people."
It may well be that the majority doesn't need protection. But that's not what Bauman has been asked to decide.
For the amicus to win, he must convince the chief justice that there is insufficient evidence proving that polygamy is inherently harmful not only to the men, women and children directly affected, but to the society as a whole.
He must prove to Bauman that polygamy does not offend the equality rights of women and children or any other competing rights.
Yet even if Macintosh does prove that this law is not the right one, the courts don't have the final say. Parliament does.
This article was found at:
Stop Polygamy in Canada website has notes taken by observers in the courtroom as well as links to most of the affidavits and research the court is considering in this case.
Canadian constitutional case on polygamy begins with BC government's opening statement
Unique Canadian constitutional case on polygamy set to begin November 22, 2010
Timeline of events leading up to Canadian constitutional case on polygamy which is set to begin
Survivor of abuse by Mormon polygamists documents accounts of sex crimes in the FLDS and other fundamentalist groups
Mormon fundamentalist leader asks court to exclude evidence against him in Canadian constitutional case on polygamy
Fundamentalist Mormon spokeswoman says polygamy doesn't hurt anyone
Mormon fundamentalist claims of religious persecution in Canadian constitutional case on polygamy not supported by the facts
Polygamist leader says BC attorney general guilty of religious persecution
Polygamist leader calls charges religious persecution
More persecution than prosecution
Second Mormon polygamist found guilty of child sex assault, jury doesn't buy defense claim of religious persecution
Claims of persecution ridiculous in societies where Christians have special privileges to indoctrinate children
More pro-polygamy affidavits by Mormon fundamentalists filed in Canadian constitutional case set to begin in November
Judge will allow anonymous testimony from Mormon polygamists in Canadian constitutional case on polygamy
Mormon polygamists seek immunity from future prosecution before giving evidence in Canadian constitutional case
Canadian constitutional case on polygamy triggered by Mormon fundamentalists, but will also examine Muslim communities
Polygyny and Canada’s Obligations under International Human Rights Law (pdf)
Research paper submitted to B.C. court in constitutional case documents harms associated with polygamy
Man from Bountiful says girls in Mormon polygamist communities "treated like poison snakes", taught to obey men and have many children
Bountiful evidence that polygamy harms women and children - constitutional case likely to reach Canadian Supreme Court
Review of the positions 12 intervener groups are expected to take in upcoming Canadian constitutional case on polygamy
Some religious practices, such as polygamy, are inherently harmful and should not be tolerated in modern society
Women's adovcates: polygamy is an “oppressive institution” that abuses and enslaves women and children
Prosecuting Polygamy in El Dorado by Marci Hamilton
Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearings on Polygamy Crimes: What Needs to Be Done at the Federal Level to Protect Children from Abuse and Neglect
Senate hearing: "Crimes Associated with Polygamy: The Need for a Coordinated State and Federal Response."
Texas Will Attempt to Show That Polygamist Culture Itself Harms Children
FLDS defendants complain their religious freedom violated, while denying religious freedom to their children
Children in Bountiful have religious rights too, but are denied them by parents claiming religious freedom
Some Canadian children are protected from religion-related abuse, while others are not
Polygamy is not freedom
Israeli politicians and women's advocates call for immediate change to polygamy law to protect rights of women and children
New study on polygamy in Malaysia finds evidence of harm to everyone involved
Indonesian Women's Association divided on whether polygamy, which is legal in Indonesia, is harmful to women and children