The trial in B.C

[marry-ella]

Things are about to get very interesting at the constitutional reference hearings to determine whether Canada's polygamy law is legal.

http://communities.canada.com/vancouver ... xpert.aspx

http://www.sanctepater.com/2011/01/morm ... ctice.html

Prior to his testimony, Walsh's academic credentials were questioned by lawyers for the attorneys general of B.C. and Canada. As part of his challenge, Craig Jones for B.C. read portions of two articles that appear on an Internet website under Walsh's name. One is entitled What is the Purpose of Plural Marriage? and the other is Why Did the Church Abandon Polygamy?

Under oath, Walsh said he didn't recall having written either, noting that he wrote "hundreds and hundreds" of articles 15 to 20 years ago after he first converted to Mormonism. Some were posted on Internet bulletin boards and have since been posted on other websites in full or in part. None of those, he said, reflect his scholarly work.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Mormon Polygamy on Trial : Day 16 Summary and Media links
Media reports from Professor Witte's testimony.

History on the side of monogamy: Academic
http://www.theprovince.com/life/History ... story.html

Far from being a religious relic, marriage has enduring value
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/from+b ... story.html

Tradition of monogamous marriage traced in polygamy hearing
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Tradit ... story.html

Posted by keith at 10:38 PM 1 comments
Monday, January 10, 2011
Mormon Polygamy on Trial : Day 16 courtroom notes
Unofficial transcript - warning - there are likely many omissions and errors in the recording.

Task included 4 things:

1. history of dyadic marriage in the west - starting at 5 or 6th century BCE in the west

2. look at treatment of polygamy in the west especially at law - why was polygamy specifically singled out against other sexual practices

3 isn't in the blog ha ha, but you can find it in the account.

4) harms against society

http://looking-for-balance.blogspot.com/

 

[marry-ella]

Almost all the experts live in the US, a lot of testemony is from Americans. It also weireds me out when we have and do often have co-insiding trials in the USA and Canada. I can recall a big push a few years ago not to legalize polygamy because of a fear of traficing of American Polygamist. We also have the same problem when discussing other laws such as marijawna. Seems that we don't like to make dicissions with out big brothers concent, bad for foriegn affairs.

 

[Tlaloc]

Quoting Aristotle in either of these cases is incredibly crass, considering he had no concept of monogamy without concubines drawn from an extensive slave class...

Oh well, the Vancouver sun is not a reliable to portray news accurately anyway, the case made for polygamy in the court is probably better than the one in the paper, which is good since the one in the paper is not bad.

Where are you from if I may ask, you seem to be fairly Canada focused.

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

Thank you for keeping us updated. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out in the end.

 

[Isabella]

Thank you for keeping us updated. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out in the end.

I second that, it seems after all the news pre-trial from Canada, now that the trial has actually started things have gone pretty quiet, so it is nice to hear some news about it.

Thank you,
B
x

 

[Tlaloc]

Bear in mind, this isn't a trial, its a reference case to determine weather anti-polygamy laws are constitutional being done by the B.C. Supreme Court. The Blackmore trial is over and has been for quite a while now.

Also bear in mind that even in B.C. bans it it is still viable in Saskatchewan via prior precedent, and any other province may make their own decision. B.C. supreme court precedent would be strong, but not a mandatory precedent on the federal level or in any other province. There is a lot at steak here, but no individual is at risk due to these preceding, and losing will not kill polygamy nor winning necessarily allow it nationwide.

Now if only those dang stop polygamy in Canada activists didn't get on my nerves so much...

 

[marry-ella]

I've explained more in Week 2 keeping up to date and Courts in B.C on the links form. It's not legal anywhere in Canada, this case could result in it being completely legal in B.C like the homosexaul marriages that became legal a couple of years ago.

 

[Tlaloc]

It's technically legal in Saskatchewan via both the Homestead Act and a Queens bench ruling two years ago where someone was ruled to be married twice simultaneously. Both are Saskatchewan specific, the Homestead Act technicality is kind of esoteric, but the queens bench ruling is well known.

 

[marry-ella]

Well I know this case isn't about Blackmore or bountiful but his face and 4 of his wives adorn a many newspaper as well as the pic of woman playing Basketball in there "froks". Here is a pre-trial artical about that

Blackmore seeks funding to challenge polygamy law
POLYGAMY / 'It is in the interests of justice to do so,' says his lawyer
Jeremy Hainsworth / National / Monday, March 29, 2010
"the provincial attorney general's laywers told Chief Justice Robert Bauman that Blackmore is a narcissist and believes the polygamy reference coming before the BC Supreme Court is all about him." "Not so, said Blackmore's lawyer"
"Indeed, myriad groups have come forward as interveners in the case, including polyamorous groups, many drawn from the queer community.
That list of interveners includes the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association, REAL Women, West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund, the Catholic Organization for Life, Stop Polygamy in Canada, and Beyond Borders."
"Arvay (Blackmore's lawyer)said Blackmore would boycott the case and not testify. That led to accusations from the government attorneys that the religious leader was attempting to hold the court hostage."
http://www.xtra.ca/public/Vancouver/Bla ... -8433.aspx

 

[marry-ella]

You are going to need to tell me more about this Homestead Act applies to polygany law in Saschewan.
So you know If your wondering why the mention of the Queen, we are infact still a part of the Comonwelth. We singed treates instead of having an independance day. We did win the war of 1812 though he he, just sayin . So we have Queens bench rulings, I also borrowed money from the Queen to pay my gas bill, no kiding. All formal papers in the welfar office but still, then later you pay it back via taxes. Thanks Queeny. But I can't for the life of me find the ruling could you direct me, perhaps add a link?

It's technically legal in Saskatchewan via both the Homestead Act and a Queens bench ruling two years ago where someone was ruled to be married twice simultaneously. Both are Saskatchewan specific, the Homestead Act technicality is kind of esoteric, but the queens bench ruling is well known.

The Homestead Act according to the Encyclopedia of Saschewan

The Saskatchewan landscape changed as the Dominion Lands Act/Homestead Act came into effect in 1872. While Saskatchewan would not become a province until 1905, settlers arrived during the mid- to late 1800s because of promises of land grants by the government. The Dominion Lands Act of 1872 outlined the provisions for granting homesteads to settlers: free homesteads of 160 acres were offered to farmers who cleared ten acres and built a residence within three years of a registered intent to settle a specific land claim. The Dominion Lands Act imposed a standard measure for surveying, subdividing and settling the Prairies: land had to be located through cadastral surveys; individuals had to show that their land was improved upon and had increased in value or use by constructing a dwelling or cultivating the land; letters patent would then be issued to settlers by a Dominion Lands Board which screened and validated all applications.

While the availability of land helped to entice settlers, the Dominion Lands Act also ensured that inhabitants would have no control over the land and other resources: the Dominion would hold this control until 1930, when the federal government transferred responsibility of land issues to the provinces. The 1879 amendments to the Dominion Lands Act acknowledged previously unsettled claims and addressed the claims of First Nations and Métis in the west; section
42 of the Act indicated recognition and protection of Aboriginal rights, limiting settlement of the land by homesteaders until title was extinguished by Métis and other Aboriginal inhabitants. However, while criteria regarding land claims for settlers were clearly defined under section 31 of the Manitoba Act, the stipulations applying to Métis in the North-West Territories before joining the Dominion as Saskatchewan in 1905 were not: section 125 of the Dominion Lands Act of 1879 empowered the federal government to grant persons who established undisturbed occupation and peaceable possession of the land, occupancy of that land.Elizabeth Mooney

http://www.factbites.com/topics/Polygamy

Fyi
"Canada's prohibition against polygamy does not criminalize women who have multiple husbands, a lawyer for the British Columbia government said Tuesday."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... z1BMmwgFSp
This artical also has Blackmore's face on it. And it also outlines what you were saying about the law "The results aren't technically binding, but experts have said other courts would certainly look to the decision for guidance and the case is expected to ultimately end up before the Supreme Court of Canada."

The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's final court of appeal, the last judicial resort for all litigants, whether individuals or governments. Its jurisdiction embraces both the civil law of the province of Quebec and the common law of the other provinces and territories.

 

[Tlaloc]

If you search 'Saskachewan polygamy' you will find lots of references to the rulings, but the links to news articles I had links too have been dead for months now. Either way I didn't get my information online, but from my lawyer, so it isn't something you can just put a link too.

The Homestead act has a clause granting rights anyone who lives with any landowner for a set period of time. This was originally for the protection of women to give them rights to their home and not make them subject to the whims of the man who legally owns the home she lives in. (3 or 6 months, I forget which now) So, if someone is married, separated, and living with someone else for that period of time they are legally the same as polygamists. He called it before any rulings where made and gloated after the first one was. Now it sounds like two such rulings where made, but I don't know if that is accurate or not.


That lawyers opinion on polygamy won't help the anti-polygamy case any. The old law does apply both ways, and no new law is enacted, either way that lawyer is (successfully) just looking to grab some media attention. Sadly that is what a lot of this case is about.

 

[marry-ella]

The trial has gone to supreme court

 

[Tlaloc]

of Canada I assume? It already was at the B.C. supreme court.

 

[James]

Mary-Ella,

I was reading about the trials in Canada and a friend of mine brought another community to my attention in Canada. The place is Bountiful, Canada. It is a community built on fighting for the rights of polygamist their. They have over a 1000 residents that knowingly practice plural relationships. Here are a couple of the addresses to read more on there community. This was very interesting to read. So many people are still fighting for their religious beliefs. Hopefully one day Polygamy will be recognized and legal to practice beyond closed doors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountiful, ... h_Columbia
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_poly1.htm