First They Came for the Polygamists…

susan drummondSusan Drummond, professor of family law at Osgoode Hall, finally weighed in yesterday on the polygamy issue.

She claims that if fully prosecuted many individuals, including herself, would be guilty.

There is a general rumbling afoot in Canada about laying polygamy charges against individuals within certain religious communities across Canada. But there are some things Canadians need to know about our Criminal Code’s “Offences Against Conjugal Rights” before we can be sure we really want to open that particular Pandora’s box. One thing to ask may be whether you, or anyone you care about, has committed one of these indictable offences carrying liability of up to five years in prison. In the spirit of the poem “They came first for the communists…,” let me say that I have committed polygamy.

It’s the End of the World as We Know It

The rumblings have included other law faculty, and Prof. Tom Flanagan of the University of Calgary who said,

The small cult of fundamentalist Mormons will not bring down the social order by itself, but Canada is now accepting substantial immigration from Africa and the Middle East, where polygamy is widely practised.
If we don’t enforce our existing laws against polygamy, we will jeopardize the fundamental institution of our free society and constitutional government.

To the contrary, Drummond responds. She points out one of the many absurd consequences of doing so,

Catholics can never divorce religiously – and yet they can (and do) divorce and remarry civilly. Those who have done so (along with other Canadians who have not put an end to their religious marriage before remarrying civilly) are both in multiple conjugal unions and multiple forms of marriage. So, should the state decide to sweep up all those polygamists, many of us might be astonished at how many of our acquaintances and loved ones would be carted away.

You Heard of Bush’s Brain – Here is Harper’s

Just a reminder – Tom Flanagan is often called the man behind Stephen Harper. According to the Golden Lake Institute, the philosophy he ascribes to is based on the writings of Leo Strauss,

Strauss was very pre-occupied with secrecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by society — specially a liberal society — because liberal democracy is about as far as one can get from the truth as Strauss understood it.

They Even Came for Rita

And here’s some more truth – the RCMP spied on Rita MacNeil and other feminists during the ’70s.

It has long been known that the now-defunct Security Service spied on a vast array of groups — from trade unionists to student associations — during the Cold War with the aim of gauging the potential threat from left-wing subversives, possibly linked to hostile foreign powers.

As any student of COINTELPRO knows, Big Brother persecutes the Left, not the Right.

Laws Do Signal Values (aka Liberal Fascism)

Robert Janes, a litigation lawyer in B.C. (originally from Newfoundland) who writes on Thoughts from the Western Edge, said,

Professor Flanagan is right though that ultimately it is the role of our laws to signal our values and to reinforce the values we want to encourage. This means though that there is a role — contrary to what most of the right wing would argue –for the state to define preferred values and so to shape society. Professor Flanagan is also right in advocating move away from patriarchy — which marginalizes half of humanity — but this argument should be applied first and foremost to the laws which are having the greatest effect on our society. Professor Flanagan’s arguments are therefore to my mind arguments against all laws that reinforce inequality between men and women and entrench outdated religious notions of the proper ordering of society. The next time you hear a call from the right wingers for the imposition of abortion bans; support for publicly funded religious education; the repeal of laws designed to promote equality (ie the Human Rights Codes and associated tribunals)– just remember Professor Flanagan.

So first it’s the polygamists, then the gays, then immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, and then maybe people who refuse to procreate

4 Comments on "First They Came for the Polygamists…"

  1. Thanks for such an interesting post, it’s so true, but sadly too logical for some of the people who believe they have “right” on their side. Take care!

  2. the idea that because the church does not allow divorce and a catholic who gets a civil divorce and remarries is somehow bigamist by canadian law calls into question the legal training of the author of this post. how can one compare that with people who have multiple wives, and who expect the social security system to support them. and the record of bigamists’ treatment of their wives is pretty appalling. one cd actually argue that this post is sexist in its defense of some of the ugliest aspects of oppressive patriarchal society.


    Law is Cool:
    The author of the substantive material of this post is a well renowned law professor. We’re not sure what your credentials in family law are yet, but you seem to run a pretty politically controversial site in the U.S. on a completely different subject matter, and have obvious Millennial sectarian biases that would likely affect your evaluation of Mormonism.

    And we’re not sure what record you’re citing, because there are many different types, for example, in Bountiful, B.C. We’re sure your definition of a “free and democratic society” differs substantially from the people in Bountiful.

  3. It is interesting that you have identified contradictions around the practice of divorce and as actually supporting the state of polygamy. You make it an argument in favor of polygamy, but I make it an argument against divorce. Divorce is not benigh. Divorce is not green. Divorce is a primary factor in our national neurosis (teach school for a year–you’ll see). Divorce messed up Carrie Bradshaw’s dream. Divorce kills love. Let us fight it with all our hearts. I myself do not do business with those who initiated divorce, and always tell them so. I especially avoid doctors who flout their trophy wives. God proscribed divorce as strongly as murder, because marriage is a metaphor for man’s relation to God; some relationships are so important that they cannot be discarded, and our relation with God is one of them. We should not divorce our spouses without tempting God to divorce mankind, and this can never be.

    Yes, recognize that divorce is no different from any other form of marriage that paganizes the relationship, and fight it with all your heart.

  4. This Landes character must be another Steyn fan, especially looking at his extremely racist website.

    Why do they have such difficulty actually identifying the issues? Or do they do this deliberately to take people off track?

Comments are closed.