Canadian Politics Today
Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: Michael Hardner on July 24, 2017, 11:19:27 am
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-polygamy-trial-1.4218735
A British Columbia judge is expected to issue her verdict today for two former religious leaders accused of polygamy.
Winston Blackmore is alleged to have married 24 women in the practice of "celestial'' marriage, while the trial earlier this year heard that James Oler has five wives.
There appear to be three fronts of attacks on monogamous marriage, from my observation: Fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and hipsters. The article says the high court allows for the banning of polygamous marriage but should it ?
Do we care ?
Furthermore, if these aren't attempted 'legal' marriages then how are they different from secular relationships ? The court should stay out of those IMO.
I couldn't see myself having more than one wife but I could be convinced to try it for a weekend or so...
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-polygamy-trial-1.4218735
There appear to be three fronts of attacks on monogamous marriage, from my observation: Fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and hipsters. The article says the high court allows for the banning of polygamous marriage but should it ?
Do we care ?
Furthermore, if these aren't attempted 'legal' marriages then how are they different from secular relationships ? The court should stay out of those IMO.
I couldn't see myself having more than one wife but I could be convinced to try it for a weekend or so...
A friend who believes in and lives the polyamourous lifestyle provided evidence to the court on polyamory. Initially, she felt that polygamy was not a lot different, but by the end of her role in this particular case she felt that the insertion of religious belief made the polygamy practiced by this group harmful to women.
-
These women are brainwashed when they're little girls and given (sold?) to some old man who hears Jesus talking to him about how great he is.
That's not consenting adults... and it harms women to allow this practice to carry on. Throw their religious leaders in jail and give these women the help they need.
-
The thing is, it is difficult for courts to separate free choices from brainwashed choices. The three examples I set out are different scenarios.
-
The thing is, it is difficult for courts to separate free choices from brainwashed choices. The three examples I set out are different scenarios.
If they can't tell, and women are being harmed by the practice, then better to err on the side of safety.
Your hipster comment makes no sense. Since when are they polygamous?
-
Many many of my hipster friends are poly, to one degree or other.
'Err on the side of safety' isn't a good legal axiom to follow. If that were the case, many rights would be curtailed. ex. Drinking...
-
Many many of my hipster friends are poly, to one degree or other.
'Err on the side of safety' isn't a good legal axiom to follow. If that were the case, many rights would be curtailed. ex. Drinking...
Are you confusing polyamory and polygamy?
I didn't say it was a legal axiom, but it's what we do... rights are curtailed all the time in the interest of public safety.
-
These women are brainwashed when they're little girls and given (sold?) to some old man who hears Jesus talking to him about how great he is.
That's not consenting adults... and it harms women to allow this practice to carry on. Throw their religious leaders in jail and give these women the help they need.
This is the same argument I use for why I think the niqab is not really based on free will of a consenting adult and should not be allowed in a free egalitarian society.
Having said that, I get it that it's a fine line.
-
The thing is, it is difficult for courts to separate free choices from brainwashed choices. The three examples I set out are different scenarios.
Why do we respect Muslim women brainwashed choices? Personally I think it's time to stop being respectful of people's religious beliefs and declare atheism the law of the land.
No niqabs no polygamy.
-
Why do we respect Muslim women brainwashed choices? Personally I think it's time to stop being respectful of people's religious beliefs and declare atheism the law of the land.
No niqabs no polygamy.
We could quit paying welfare and other stuff to multiple wives. That would be a good start.
-
We could quit paying welfare and other stuff to multiple wives. That would be a good start.
So their kids suffer? Yeah, that's brilliant. ::)
-
I take it you're FOR polygamy, then?
Or you're just okay with your tax dollars being spent so a man can have multiple wives/children, claim them all and sit back and watch the fat welfare cheques come in?
-
Why do we respect Muslim women brainwashed choices? Personally I think it's time to stop being respectful of people's religious beliefs and declare atheism the law of the land.
No niqabs no polygamy.
A Canadian woman I know, who converted to Islam as an adult, subsequently chose to marry an Egyptian man, knowing he already had a wife. (This is not my sister) Islam requires that wives are treated equally (good in theory, laughable in practice), with separate houses, husbandly time and attentions, and equal financial arrangements. I can't say this woman was brainwashed by Islam, but I think she let romance cloud her judgement and believed this man was able to do as promised and according to what she believed Islam mandated. Perhaps needless to say, the relationship ended and she is back in Canada. Still, women (and men) have made equally stupid decisions without any religion being involved so I fail to see how making religion illegal will really prevent people from being stupid.
But I do hear you on the wish that religion becomes extinct somehow.
(My sister, btw, had it wrotten into the marriage contract that she would be the only wife.)
-
I take it you're FOR polygamy, then?
Or you're just okay with your tax dollars being spent so a man can have multiple wives/children, claim them all and sit back and watch the fat welfare cheques come in?
Of course, someone who doesn't want to see kids suffer supports polygamy and fraud. Perfectly logical reasoning there. ::)
-
Of course, someone who doesn't want to see kids suffer supports polygamy and fraud. Perfectly logical reasoning there. ::)
Ya. Almost as logical as inferring that I want children to suffer because I don't agree with paying out massive amounts of money for polygamists to have multiple families.
See how that works?
-
Ya. Almost as logical as inferring that I want children to suffer because I don't agree with paying out massive amounts of money for polygamists to have multiple families.
See how that works?
He did inferred nothing of the sort, only pointed out the flaw in your plan. You went directly to a black and white choice of either agree with you or support polygamy and fraud.
See how that works?
-
So what's the solution? That was my point.
Do we support polygamists by paying for their families, while they sit and collect cheques?
-
(My sister, btw, had it wrotten into the marriage contract that she would be the only wife.)
Just out of curiosity, how does that work?
I'm curious, because fidelity is generally a condition of marriage, regardless of relligion.
If he one day decided to get another wife, what recourse would your sister have? My understanding is that it's a Muslim man's right to have up to 4 wives, according to the koran. Would her preferences override the koran?
-
Ya. Almost as logical as inferring that I want children to suffer because I don't agree with paying out massive amounts of money for polygamists to have multiple families.
See how that works?
It's just such a simpleton, knee-jerk answer....
First, you didn't show that this was even a problem... just an assumption on your part, or do you have evidence?
2nd, I am not against removing people from welfare if they are fraudulently collecting... but, I think that the children's welfare should be a first thought, not a knee-jerk punnishment to women who have been brainwashed since they were children.
I am in favour of going after these men and nailing them to the wall and GIVING welfare to these women to help them out of their situation.
-
Just out of curiosity, how does that work?
I'm curious, because fidelity is generally a condition of marriage, regardless of relligion.
If he one day decided to get another wife, what recourse would your sister have? My understanding is that it's a Muslim man's right to have up to 4 wives, according to the koran. Would her preferences override the koran?
Their marital contract takes precedence over the *permission* given in the Koran for a man to have multiple wives. He agreed to it, he is bound to it.
Of course, he can break his word and take another wife. My sister could sue for divorce on those grounds. If they do divorce, he is bound by the marital contract to pay for her resettlement in Canada. Of course he could ignore that as well.
Inasmuch as one can consider a Muslim honorable and honest, my brother-in-law is. His religion and culture definitely make him blind to some things we take for granted, but to my mind he is no more blinded by his religion than Betsy is by hers. None of the males in that family have more than one wife, by the way, even though they all have the right according to their law and their religion.
Here's an article about an Egyptian man who took a second wife, twice. I personally think he's a jerk, so i'm not posting this because I approve. But it gives some insight into cultural attitudes in Egypt, and the article mentions that 25% of men in Egypt take a second wife, which means 75% don't - perhaps my sister's husband and brothers-in-law are more the norm than not. It also mentions that 70% of those second marriages end in divorce.
http://www.cairoscene.com/In-Depth/Polygamy-in-Egypt-Why-I-Decided-to-marry-a-Second-Wife
-
Blackmore is now convicted. Good. He's a piece of dog ****.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-polygamy-trial-1.4218735
There appear to be three fronts of attacks on monogamous marriage, from my observation: Fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and hipsters. The article says the high court allows for the banning of polygamous marriage but should it ?
Do we care ?
Furthermore, if these aren't attempted 'legal' marriages then how are they different from secular relationships ? The court should stay out of those IMO.
I really couldn't care less if consenting adults want to engage in "open marriages", "swinging", polyamorous relationships, or any other kind of non-exclusive, non-monogamous sexual relationship. Conversely I don't see any reason to give them any legal recognition either.
Prosecuting Winston Blackmore wasn't about putting an end to consenting adults getting frisky together. It was about putting an end to his disgusting cult. Perhaps those outside BC aren't familiar with Blackmore.
-k
-
A Canadian woman I know, who converted to Islam as an adult, subsequently chose to marry an Egyptian man, knowing he already had a wife. (This is not my sister) Islam requires that wives are treated equally (good in theory, laughable in practice), with separate houses, husbandly time and attentions, and equal financial arrangements. I can't say this woman was brainwashed by Islam, but I think she let romance cloud her judgement and believed this man was able to do as promised and according to what she believed Islam mandated. Perhaps needless to say, the relationship ended and she is back in Canada. Still, women (and men) have made equally stupid decisions without any religion being involved so I fail to see how making religion illegal will really prevent people from being stupid.
But I do hear you on the wish that religion becomes extinct somehow.
(My sister, btw, had it wrotten into the marriage contract that she would be the only wife.)
I think the way we currently operate is you're allowed to practice your brainwashed religious taboos as long as it's not hurting anyone. So FGM is out even if women are the brainwashed ones performing it on each other.
It can be argued that polygamy hurts women, so we outlaw it, but niqab doesn't.
But here is where it becomes a grey are and subjectivity comes in. I say niqab does hurt women because it hinders their ability to get jobs and function in society.
Where do we draw the line saying something is hurting women or not? I think it's easier to just get rid of all together. If it's not egalitarian it doesn't belong in Canada. For example, if men can have multiple wives but women can't have multiple husbands, it doesn't belong. If women have to suffocate under a niqab and men don't, it doesn't belong. If men don't have to chop their parts, neither do women.
I find we're very selective and inconsistent about the rules and it's better to just have an arbitrary line to draw .
-
Blackmore is now convicted. Good. He's a piece of dog ****.
I really couldn't care less if consenting adults want to engage in "open marriages", "swinging", polyamorous relationships, or any other kind of non-exclusive, non-monogamous sexual relationship. Conversely I don't see any reason to give them any legal recognition either.
Prosecuting Winston Blackmore wasn't about putting an end to consenting adults getting frisky together. It was about putting an end to his disgusting cult. Perhaps those outside BC aren't familiar with Blackmore.
-k
That's why it should go further up the judicial ziggurat. Consenting adults should not pay for this guy's sins.
-
This is about indoctrination and control, not a consentual relationship of equals. Several of his "brides" were in their teens, the yougest, fifteen. The guy is scumbag of the first order and I hope he goes to jail. This is Canada though, so I am probably dreaming.
-
This is about indoctrination and control, not a consentual relationship of equals. Several of his "brides" were in their teens, the yougest, fifteen. The guy is scumbag of the first order and I hope he goes to jail. This is Canada though, so I am probably dreaming.
That's exactly my point. Why should this guy get the final say on the issue?
-
This is the same argument I use for why I think the niqab is not really based on free will of a consenting adult and should not be allowed in a free egalitarian society.
Having said that, I get it that it's a fine line.
I just don't see how you equate wearing a veil to **** children.
This is an article on the leader of their cult:
"Six years after Warren Jeffs was first arrested and later sentenced to life in prison for sexually assaulting children, it's almost as though the fundamentalist leader, whom the faithful call their "prophet," never left Colorado City.
Jeffs' followers, who live in the desert town nestled on the border between Arizona and Utah, are a radical splinter group of the mainstream Mormon church who call themselves the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/jailed-polygamist-leader-warren-jeffs-issues-hundreds-orders/story?id=17770090
But sure....fashion choices are so clearly the same.
-
I just don't see how you equate wearing a veil to **** children.
I wasn't. I was comparing it to the illegal act of marriage of one man and multiple women over the age of consent.
You're the one talking about a particular case.
-
I wasn't. I was comparing it to the illegal act of marriage of one man and multiple women over the age of consent.
You're the one talking about a particular case.
It's not a particular case. It's the standard practice of the cult that these people were in. That "particular case" happens to be the leader of their cult. These men groom little girls to be their brides and often times are screwing around with them when they're underage. You were comparing grooming a woman to be your sex slave as the same thing as choosing religious attire as an expression of your faith. I don't see how they're comparable at all.
-
It's not a particular case. It's the standard practice of the cult that these people were in. That "particular case" happens to be the leader of their cult. These men groom little girls to be their brides and often times are screwing around with them when they're underage. You were comparing grooming a woman to be your sex slave as the same thing as choosing religious attire as an expression of your faith. I don't see how they're comparable at all.
It's all sexual fetishes - the niqab and the burka included.
-
It's all sexual fetishes - the niqab and the burka included.
So is the crucifix, yeah? Ever see the movie The Exorcist?
-
It's not a particular case. It's the standard practice of the cult that these people were in. That "particular case" happens to be the leader of their cult. These men groom little girls to be their brides and often times are screwing around with them when they're underage. You were comparing grooming a woman to be your sex slave as the same thing as choosing religious attire as an expression of your faith. I don't see how they're comparable at all.
Again, I wasn't comparing it to this particular case, just like MH wasn't making jokes about wanting an underage wife when he said
"I couldn't see myself having more than one wife but I could be convinced to try it for a weekend or so..."
The OP linked to a particular event but the discussion that ensued has been about polygamy in general between consenting adults as well as about this particular case.
Clearly I wasn't talking about the case, but polygamy in general when I compared it to the niqab. Just like MH was clearly talking about polygamy in general when he made his joke and you understood that and didn't call him out for 'wanting to **** children'.
Hope that clarifies it for you.
-
Can't we separate the issue of child marriage from that of polygamy ?
If adults want to enter into a 3-way marriage then why stop them ?
It seems like overkill to disallow the practice because of the actions of this one cult. If we want to balance security concerns with freedom, there are other examples where we balance those concerns out.
I have some examples but they play out on a larger scale, and maybe that's the issue. I can't think of another one where a wider freedom is disallowed to protect a small number of people who may not be entering into an agreement willingly.
If you can't tell, I am not convinced of either side on this one.
-
Absolutely we can (and we were) separating child marriage and polygamy, that's why CC's post to me was very misdirected.
I think it's very apt to make a comparison of polygamy (in general) to the niqab because we allow one under 'freedom' of choice for the women but outlaw the other. That makes no sense.
Obviously you think both should be allowed. Good on ya.
I think it's more complicated than that but if anything, I'm arguing that we should have some consistency.
-
1) Obviously you think both should be allowed. Good on ya.
2) I think it's more complicated than that but if anything, I'm arguing that we should have some consistency.
1) I'm undecided, as I said. One bad cult, though, doesn't make a case for a sweeping law IMO.
2) We can only hope for a bit of consistency in such things. But, yes.
-
I largely agree with MH on this with the exception that I am decided.
Freedom, including the freedom of religion and from religion, in part of our Charter.
I think child marriage can be separated from shacking up with multiple consenting adults.
Sure, we may not like the religious sensibilities that lead to the shacking up - but too bad - freedom is about letting people do this.
Oh, and people should be allowed to wear burqas too. Once again: freedom.
It is insulting, if not outright tyrannical, for the state to tell us "you can't wear that because men who follow your religion may be abusing you."
Prove real harm being conducted at the individual level and throw those people in jail.
Do not impose the prejudices of the majority upon minorities.
-
I guess I largely agree.
That said... even freedom of religion is a freedom that is subordinate to freedom of expression. And anything that we can harmlessly do to reinforce the decline of religion, tacitly, is kind of ok with me. Banning religion is not on, but 'reasonable accommodation' is temporal and so I'm kind of ok with this not being allowed either.
But I lean towards 'agree'.
-
It's one thing for multiple consenting adults to shack up together but when you make it a legal contract how do you divide assets in the event of two of them divorcing? Should be lots of money in it for lawyers.
-
My parents left their families and my dad had to start a whole new career where we knew nobody and the ONLY reason they did it was because they wanted me to grow up in a society that values me as much as it does my brother. I am so grateful to them for it.
I am careful what I say post-9/11 because criticism of repressive societies often is espoused by the 'bomb them and let Allah sort them out' crowd, but I am a fierce opponent of coddling beliefs that treat women as second class citizens.
I wrote plenty critiques about Abrahamic religions throughout my university years and I went head to head with many Muslim 'feminists' and to my dying day I will never accept polygamy or niqabs or anything else that treats women differently than it treats men.
When women can have multiple husbands, we can consider polygamy. When men have to cover their entire faces, then they can ask women to do it.
Otherwise to hell with these beliefs. Dawkins is so right, we don't need to 'respect' what is essentially BS and has no place in a civilized egalitarian society.
-
I just don't see how you equate wearing a veil to **** children.
This is an article on the leader of their cult:
"Six years after Warren Jeffs was first arrested and later sentenced to life in prison for sexually assaulting children, it's almost as though the fundamentalist leader, whom the faithful call their "prophet," never left Colorado City.
Jeffs' followers, who live in the desert town nestled on the border between Arizona and Utah, are a radical splinter group of the mainstream Mormon church who call themselves the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/jailed-polygamist-leader-warren-jeffs-issues-hundreds-orders/story?id=17770090
But sure....fashion choices are so clearly the same.
I think the only comparison is that both are impositions on women, by men, for the purpose of oppressing them, excused by religion.
Obviously, other than that, they are completely different. The poor veil wearers have their own child molesters to worry about. (I just can't swear...)
-
Let's get a number of things sorted out.
First off, while freedom of religion is promised in the Charter of Rights, no freedom is absolute. And we have a history of prioritizing the safety of children above the freedom of religion. This has been established in repeated cases where religious nut-jobs asserted that their freedom of religion entitled them to reject modern medical care for their children. The courts have ruled against them time and time again. That was the ruling when Jehovah's Witnesses wanted to refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds. That was the ruling when the native girl's family wanted to reject modern medicine in favor of magic mumbo-jumbo. There are a lot more examples. When freedom of religion comes into conflict with a child's right to life, liberty, and security of person, the child's right to life, liberty, and security of person wins out every single time. I invite anybody to provide a counterexample, but I don't think there are any counterexamples.
Second: unlike Islam or other major faiths where polygamy is *allowable* in some circumstances, Blackmore (and Warren Jeffs, and others from this retarded cult) assert that their faith *requires* that they take multiple wives. If a Muslim or a mainstream Mormon went to court and said that a law against polygamy violates his religious freedom, the court could easily say no, because there is no obligation in his faith to take multiple wives. Not so with Winston Blackmore, who believes that God *requires* him to have multiple wives.
I think there's a significant difference between allowing consenting adults to share partners, engage in adultery, and whatever other shenanigans consenting adults might get up to, versus allowing a religious cult to indoctrinate young girls with the belief that their uteruses are the property of some withered old creep. And unfortunately, BC prosecutors have spent decades trying to figure out how to make this difference stand up in court without a Charter of Rights challenge on the basis of Freedom of Religion, and the Polygamy charges were apparently the best option available.
Overall I look at this pretty much the same as I look at using Tax Evasion to put Al Capone in prison. Ideally that wouldn't have been the way to put Al Capone in prison, but it's better than nothing.
Listen: the BC government has spent decades trying to figure out how to deal with Winston Blackmore. This is the best they could do. It's not ideal, but it's better than nothing.
-k
-
btw: is it inappropriate for me to hope that Winston Blackmore gets to have 24 different husbands in prison?
-k
-
It is one thing for a religion to impose upon society its outrages beliefs.
It is another for society to impose, at the individual level, upon individuals for their stupid beliefs.
Freedom allows people to shack up and wear clothing for whatever reasons they fancy as long as no harm is occurring.
The Muslim women who chooses (whether brainwashed or not) to wear a burqa has the freedom to wear it because the state has no business in choosing what individual citizens choose to wear (nor are the reasons for wearing it any of the state's business, for that matter).
Same with shacking up.
Again, prove harm of abuse under existing laws that are meant to protect citizens from real harm.
But leave people alone to choose their life whether you agree with it or not.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when those who want to take your freedom away "because it's good for you because you are being harmed/brainwashed" coming knocking on the door.
-
To be clear, I do not support child marriage.
Very clearly have stated between consenting adults.
-
I think that kicking polygamy in the groin as a legitimate religious (ie, Charter-protected) lifestyle is different from imposing a government ban on adultery, swinging, open marriages, or any other recreational sexual activities that consenting adults might undertake.
-k
-
It is one thing for a religion to impose upon society its outrages beliefs.
It is another for society to impose, at the individual level, upon individuals for their stupid beliefs.
Freedom allows people to shack up and wear clothing for whatever reasons they fancy as long as no harm is occurring.
The Muslim women who chooses (whether brainwashed or not) to wear a burqa has the freedom to wear it because the state has no business in choosing what individual citizens choose to wear (nor are the reasons for wearing it any of the state's business, for that matter).
Same with shacking up.
Again, prove harm of abuse under existing laws that are meant to protect citizens from real harm.
But leave people alone to choose their life whether you agree with it or not.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when those who want to take your freedom away "because it's good for you because you are being harmed/brainwashed" coming knocking on the door.
It's easy for you to say brainwashing doesn't hinder the consenting adult process and isn't really 'harmful'. You're not wife number three to anyone and you can leave the house without covering your face and have a life and be mobile and socialize.
The charter was written in the early 80's. The Canada of those days is very different than the Canada of today. We didn't have the level of diversity we do now. We're not dealing with protestant vs. catholic here, but beliefs that are abhorrent to most Canadians.
It's like Americans who cling to the second amendment for their right to carry an AK-47 without putting in context the timeframe of when it was written.
This may not be a popular opinion, but I think it's time to dust off the charter and make a few amendments.
-
It's easy for you to say brainwashing doesn't hinder the consenting adult process and isn't really 'harmful'. You're not wife number three to anyone and you can leave the house without covering your face and have a life and be mobile and socialize.
If the amendments you favor came into existence, what is your solution for those women who cannot leave the house at all because they cannot be seen in public in a niqab? To me, this still looks like a matter of out-of-sight-out-of-mind rather than supporting female emancipation. It is to me, akin to a law that tells women to stay home if they have visible injuries from their partner's violence.
-
It's easy for you to say brainwashing doesn't hinder the consenting adult process and isn't really 'harmful'. You're not wife number three to anyone and you can leave the house without covering your face and have a life and be mobile and socialize.
The charter was written in the early 80's. The Canada of those days is very different than the Canada of today. We didn't have the level of diversity we do now. We're not dealing with protestant vs. catholic here, but beliefs that are abhorrent to most Canadians.
I'm sorry, but you're absolutely wrong. The 'abhorrent' things are already illegal. It's not up to you to decide for other people if they are or are not doing things of their own volition unless you can prove some kind of violation.
-
If the amendments you favor came into existence, what is your solution for those women who cannot leave the house at all because they cannot be seen in public in a niqab?
And why couldn't those women leave the house at all?
To me, this still looks like a matter of out-of-sight-out-of-mind rather than supporting female emancipation. It is to me, akin to a law that tells women to stay home if they have visible injuries from their partner's violence.
In your analogy a niqab is an injury, which is fine with me... but unlike injuries inflicted by a violent partner, a niqab is self-inflicted. If wearing a niqab is like an injury, then stop injuring yourself.
I think emancipation would entail getting rid of restrictive traditions, not accommodating restrictive traditions.
Still, I think a woman should be allowed to wear a bag over her head if she wishes. Likewise a Hooters uniform or a chicken suit or any other degrading clothing. She should be allowed to wear her niqab, except under certain circumstances. The idea that people should be allowed to wear their niqab in their ID photo is moronic. The idea that people should be allowed to wear their miqab while testifying in court is unacceptable. The idea that people shouldn't have to show their faces to police officers and other law enforcement agents is ridiculous. But aside from that, a woman should be allowed to wear her niqab if she wishes.
And the rest of us should feel free to point out that wearing a bag on your head is stupid.
The current efforts to rebrand the niqab as a feminist symbol are retarded. And people who contend that it's Islamophobic to denounce niqabs and burqas and other symbols of female repression can go **** themselves.
-k
-
It's easy for you to say brainwashing doesn't hinder the consenting adult process and isn't really 'harmful'. You're not wife number three to anyone and you can leave the house without covering your face and have a life and be mobile and socialize.
The charter was written in the early 80's. The Canada of those days is very different than the Canada of today. We didn't have the level of diversity we do now. We're not dealing with protestant vs. catholic here, but beliefs that are abhorrent to most Canadians.
It's like Americans who cling to the second amendment for their right to carry an AK-47 without putting in context the timeframe of when it was written.
This may not be a popular opinion, but I think it's time to dust off the charter and make a few amendments.
Rights are rights so when the Charter was written is irrelevant.
It is a living document that is open enough to be interpreted.
As for being the third wife: again, where is the harm?
Put up the evidence and, no, saying that you don't like it because you don't like their stupid religious beliefs is not sufficient evidence of harm.
We have laws for assault, sexual assault, etc etc so we do not need the state to impose another law: the "the state doesn't agree with your religion so consenting adults who may or may not be brainwashed can't do this or that, just trust us because we are the state and know better than you" law should be its title.
-
Can't we separate the issue of child marriage from that of polygamy ?
Here's the problem. When children grow up in a polygamist cult and they're groomed to be married off to some elderly cult leader when they turn 18, well....technically it's not child marriage. But think about it.
-
Rights are rights so when the Charter was written is irrelevant.
It is a living document that is open enough to be interpreted.
As for being the third wife: again, where is the harm?
Put up the evidence and, no, saying that you don't like it because you don't like their stupid religious beliefs is not sufficient evidence of harm.
We have laws for assault, sexual assault, etc etc so we do not need the state to impose another law: the "the state doesn't agree with your religion so consenting adults who may or may not be brainwashed can't do this or that, just trust us because we are the state and know better than you" law should be its title.
When a partnership is absolved, we have egalitarian rules that protect both parties regardless of gender with things like division of assets and care for the children. That's the harmful factor you are not considering for the 3rd or 15th wife. She does not have the same rights as the man in the relationship.
Frankly, I have nothing against polyamorous relationships or alternative lifestyles, but you remove the indoctrination factor as though it's has such little bearing. That's incorrect.
When a woman gets into a relationship where she is not granted equal status in the partnership just because of her gender, it makes a difference whether she openly she chose the lifestyle or if she was told since infancy that she will burn in hell if she doesn't.
You keep dismissing that aspect as though it's irrelevant. Freedom of religion already has limits and for good reason. Just because someone's belief system tells them it's ok to do something doesn't mean we need to accept it and 'respect it'.
Hogwash.
-
I think that kicking polygamy in the groin as a legitimate religious (ie, Charter-protected) lifestyle is different from imposing a government ban on adultery, swinging, open marriages, or any other recreational sexual activities that consenting adults might undertake.
-k
This I agree with. And similarly there's a very big difference between a woman who's husband won't allow her to leave the house unless she puts on her niqab and a woman who chooses to wear as a sign of her faith. But somehow people are unable to distinguish between these things.
-
I'm sorry, but you're absolutely wrong. The 'abhorrent' things are already illegal. It's not up to you to decide for other people if they are or are not doing things of their own volition unless you can prove some kind of violation.
Maybe spend a week walking around in a burqa, see what's it's like to start a conversation with the person next to you, try going for a job interview, heck, go out for a bowl of pho...
Then come back and tell me it's not abhorrent to brainwash a woman into thinking this is good for her.
-
If the amendments you favor came into existence, what is your solution for those women who cannot leave the house at all because they cannot be seen in public in a niqab? To me, this still looks like a matter of out-of-sight-out-of-mind rather than supporting female emancipation. It is to me, akin to a law that tells women to stay home if they have visible injuries from their partner's violence.
It will be a difficult adjustment, but I think in the long run it's more important that like France, Canada takes a stance that we will not 'respect' the belief women should not be seen.
-
Here's the problem. When children grow up in a polygamist cult and they're groomed to be married off to some elderly cult leader when they turn 18, well....technically it's not child marriage. But think about it.
Brainwashing is pretty hard to legislate against though. Most religion would be banned under such an edict, I expect.
As would my cult - BurningMan.
-
For female members of these cults, this is not optional. They are groomed for it from when they were born. But then so was the Hitler Youth. No harm there.
-
And why couldn't those women leave the house at all?
Leaving aside whether a woman is forced to wear a niqab or chooses it, if wearing it in public were illegal, she would be effectively banned from malls, coffee shops, sporting events, schools, any public place.
In your analogy a niqab is an injury, which is fine with me... but unlike injuries inflicted by a violent partner, a niqab is self-inflicted. If wearing a niqab is like an injury, then stop injuring yourself.
In the case of women who are forced to wear them through family pressure or outright violence, how is it any different?
I think emancipation would entail getting rid of restrictive traditions, not accommodating restrictive traditions.
I don't think it's possible to get rid of restrictive traditions for someone else. They have to do it for themselves.
Still, I think a woman should be allowed to wear a bag over her head if she wishes. Likewise a Hooters uniform or a chicken suit or any other degrading clothing. She should be allowed to wear her niqab, except under certain circumstances. The idea that people should be allowed to wear their niqab in their ID photo is moronic. The idea that people should be allowed to wear their miqab while testifying in court is unacceptable. The idea that people shouldn't have to show their faces to police officers and other law enforcement agents is ridiculous. But aside from that, a woman should be allowed to wear her niqab if she wishes.
I believe the only truth in the above is that they are allowed to wear them in court. In the other cases, the niqab is removed for photos and for identification by law enforcement; the accommodation is that it is done in private and in front of a woman.
And the rest of us should feel free to point out that wearing a bag on your head is stupid.
Sure, but it would probably be more effective to point out that wearing them is not a requirement of Islam.
The current efforts to rebrand the niqab as a feminist symbol are retarded.
I notice that the more anti-Islamic rhetoric there is, the more women I see in hijabs and niqabs. Could it be that the way women who are visually identifiable as Muslim are attacked is causing them to increase their solidarity through the wearing of these (to them, if not you) religious symbols? Maybe a smarter course of action would be to ignore it and let them realize on their own that there is a better and more comfortable way to dress.
-
It will be a difficult adjustment, but I think in the long run it's more important that like France, Canada takes a stance that we will not 'respect' the belief women should not be seen.
Yeah and that will be easy if we impose a law that ensures they won't be seen.
-
This seems like a case of 'putting away Al Capone for racketeering because it was too hard to prove murder'.
These people are gross for what happens with the young girls, but i dont think polygamy should be illegal, then maybe the bad part of it in this case is an inevitable consequence of the polygamy.
-
In the case of women who are forced to wear them through family pressure or outright violence, how is it any different?
If only there was some kind of Help Hotline she could call......or maybe just the police.
Look, I sympathize with all the women who are forced to wear them for whatever reason - cult brainwashing, family pressure, outright violence, the whole nine yards.....
Breaking free from that is super damn hard. Believe me, I know.
But I agree with BC Cheque - accomodating and normalizing this stone age bullshit should not be an option. And it certainly should not be the ONLY option.
-
Yeah and that will be easy if we impose a law that ensures they won't be seen.
Aren't they already being imposed by a "law" that ensures they won't be seen?
Should our laws protect HER or her idiot family, husband, religion?
-
Aren't they already being imposed by a "law" that ensures they won't be seen?
Should our laws protect HER or her idiot family, husband, religion?
Yep and the counter-argument to that is it's her free will which brings us back to there is no free will when it comes to indoctrination.
-
Yep and the counter-argument to that is it's her free will which brings us back to there is no free will when it comes to indoctrination.
True, unfortunately.
Dia is right on one thing, though. You can't help someone who refuses to help themselves.
It takes beach ball sized lady nuts to leave something like that and not everyone has it in them to do it.
-
This I agree with. And similarly there's a very big difference between a woman who's husband won't allow her to leave the house unless she puts on her niqab and a woman who chooses to wear as a sign of her faith. But somehow people are unable to distinguish between these things.
It's the same as some young lady who thinks her God wants her to marry the old git. Sign of her faith.
-
Funny thing is, that at one time in Canada's history, potlach's were banned.
That's right folks, from 1885 to 1951 consenting adults* were not allowed to meet and exchange gifts. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch_ban
I've been to that museum in Alert Bay a couple of times and it is worth the trip.
My point is that it is easy for the State to make up rules against consenting adults from doing things.
Sometimes they may be enforced and most times not (potlach rules were not very often, sort of like polygamy laws).
The State should only be imposing laws to deal with clear harm.
Just because I do not like someone being brainwashed to dip their new baby in holy water (which is filthy btw) does not mean the State should ban baptisms.
Same goes for male circumcision which, for practical reasons, should be educated against rather than banned (I do not want to see back alley baby **** chop shops after all). I'm fine with FGM being against the law as ideally MGM would also be against the law too (but, again, not practical given cultural traditions in Canada - maybe in 20 years if we are lucky).
Same goes for a host of stupid ideas all brought to us thanks to the stupidity of religion.
That's the way it goes. Can't get everyone to buy into what is good for them (a secular society with no belief in any god(s) being my personal utopia).
So come on, embrace freedom and let consenting adults do what they are gonna do even if it is not fully informed (in our opinions).
* Of course, Indians were not capable of being consenting adults, surely, since they did not even have the right to vote until 1960 (well, they could vote if they gave up their Indian status ...).
-
A potlatch ceremony is not the same as polygamy. False equivocation.
-
Yes it is not the same.
However, why should the state concern itself if, say, five people shack up with each other?
Whether they call themselves married or not - who cares, no ones business.
Sure, only allow one spouse for tax reasons/CPP benefits, child benefit etc but if people wanna shack up then they are gonna shack up.
Prove the harm and charge them but shacking up with people should not be a crime.
-
However, why should the state concern itself if, say, five people shack up with each other?
The state doesn't care.
The state's interest in this is fighting the right of communities like these Latter-Day Fundamentalists to indoctrinate their children into this lifestyle. The state doesn't care if consenting adults want to get frisky in groups larger than 2. The state cares a lot about preventing people from raising their daughters from infancy to believe that God's Plan is for them to make babies for the cult leader.
Refusing to give legal recognition to polygamy is part of that effort. If you can't tell people that it's against the law of the land, can you tell people that it's illegal to raise your kids with that belief?
-k
-
The state doesn't care.
The state's interest in this is fighting the right of communities like these Latter-Day Fundamentalists to indoctrinate their children into this lifestyle. The state doesn't care if consenting adults want to get frisky in groups larger than 2. The state cares a lot about preventing people from raising their daughters from infancy to believe that God's Plan is for them to make babies for the cult leader.
Refusing to give legal recognition to polygamy is part of that effort. If you can't tell people that it's against the law of the land, can you tell people that it's illegal to raise your kids with that belief?
-k
What if you raise your daughter from infancy to believe that God's Plan is for them to make babies for the cult leader in a monogamous relationship?
-
Leaving aside whether a woman is forced to wear a niqab or chooses it, if wearing it in public were illegal, she would be effectively banned from malls, coffee shops, sporting events, schools, any public place.
If wearing a niqab prevents her from doing those things, then maybe she could chose to not wear it when she wants to do those things.
In the case of women who are forced to wear them through family pressure or outright violence, how is it any different?
If we justify allowing niqabs and burqas on the basis that these women might get beat up if they don't wear them, aren't we acting as enablers for the abusers? If we're concerned that women could get beaten up for not conforming to dress codes, shouldn't we be concerned that these women are getting beaten up for other reasons too? Is it possible that these heavily concealing garments are being used to hide bruises?
I believe the only truth in the above is that they are allowed to wear them in court. In the other cases, the niqab is removed for photos and for identification by law enforcement; the accommodation is that it is done in private and in front of a woman.
All of these issues have been fought in court ad nauseum, and there are no shortage of those who believe that the right to wear a bag on your head should supersede other concerns. Regarding court: wearing a mask while giving testimony can be an infringement on the right of the accused to a legal defense. The court can certainly refuse to allow you to testify while wearing a mask if there is any concern that the right to a fair trial is compromised.
Sure, but it would probably be more effective to point out that wearing them is not a requirement of Islam.
I'm not out to convince any person to change the way she dresses. No one person's choice of dress offends me.
However, the underlying idea-- that women need to cover themselves to avoid tempting men into violence-- is offensive and insulting to everyone concerned.
I notice that the more anti-Islamic rhetoric there is, the more women I see in hijabs and niqabs. Could it be that the way women who are visually identifiable as Muslim are attacked is causing them to increase their solidarity through the wearing of these (to them, if not you) religious symbols? Maybe a smarter course of action would be to ignore it and let them realize on their own that there is a better and more comfortable way to dress.
I ignore it in real life when I see it, which is rare here. There's nothing to be gained by getting in someone's face. But here, where we're discussing the idea itself rather than a single persons' personal choices, I see no reason not to point out that the idea is terrible and stupid and disgusting.
I can understand who people raised in the culture accept it. But I feel no sympathy for dumb-ass western women who have come to advocate for the idea as if it were a symbol of "empowerment" or some **** like that. It's not a symbol of empowerment. It is literally a symbol of the idea that women are pieces of meat and that men are animals who will take them if they're not covered up. It's idiotic to try and market it as anything other.
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHTgcz4Z.png&hash=05f1853da2a3632d2bdf0d2efc4f6f0e0b80cbfa)
SO **** EMPOWERED~~~!
-k
-
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHTgcz4Z.png&hash=05f1853da2a3632d2bdf0d2efc4f6f0e0b80cbfa)
-k
That would make a great commercial.
Did you remember to pack enough sunscreen?
-
What if you raise your daughter from infancy to believe that God's Plan is for them to make babies for the cult leader in a monogamous relationship?
While indoctrination of any type is bad, at least in that situation, you won't have a large number of disenfranchised males who are unable to find partners because the cult leaders have taken multiple wives.
-
While indoctrination of any type is bad, at least in that situation, you won't have a large number of disenfranchised males who are unable to find partners because the cult leaders have taken multiple wives.
Ah, so the problem with this is, it's bad for men.
-
Re: polygamy vs. monogamy & women having many babies..
While indoctrination of any type is bad, at least in that situation, you won't have a large number of disenfranchised males who are unable to find partners because the cult leaders have taken multiple wives.
Ah, so the problem with this is, it's bad for men.
Its bad for SOME men and for society in general.
I'm not saying either type of situation is good... its just that one system (polygamy) is just a tiny bit worse than the other system (monogamy, but with women encouraged to be baby factories).
-
http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/judge-to-hear-sentencing-arguments-for-b-c-men-convicted-of-polygamy
This is back in the news. The prosecutor wants to punish the men who are already under the burden of multiple wives...
-
http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/judge-to-hear-sentencing-arguments-for-b-c-men-convicted-of-polygamy
This is back in the news. The prosecutor wants to punish the men who are already under the burden of multiple wives...
Wouldn't that come under the heading of "cruel and unusual"?
-
Wouldn't that come under the heading of "cruel and unusual"?
Still, you can't deny you'd like to try it for a month or so....
-
Still, you can't deny you'd like to try it for a month or so....
I personally know of a couple of groups that have succeeded in living a polyamorous lifestyle for a few years. There are challenges, of course, but it can be done. Also, these are by choice, and everyone gets extra partners, not just the guys.
-
Still, you can't deny you'd like to try it for a month or so....
Being adventurous can be rewarding.
-
Being adventurous can be rewarding.
High risk adventure.... maybe not for me.
-
These guys deserve jail.
-k
-
These guys deserve jail.
-k
Yes, but polygamy itself shouldn't be illegal. If they did something else illegal they should be investigated and charged.
-
I'm not out to convince any person to change the way she dresses. No one person's choice of dress offends me.
However, the underlying idea-- that women need to cover themselves to avoid tempting men into violence-- is offensive and insulting to everyone concerned.
The idea of a hijab is to be discreet, cover your head to god (and men). Most of the major religions have men and women covering their head, like Christianity (nuns, pope, cardinals) Judaism (yarmulke), Sikhism (turbans, veils). You see lots of religious middle-eastern men cover their heads too. Lots of westerners do the opposite, taking our hats off in church/indoors.
The niqab and burka are different, because it also involves segregation of men/women. Saudi Arabia, where the niqab is popular, has different sections and entrances etc. of restaurants and workplaces for men vs women/families. I'm sure similar in Afghanistan. These are the crappiest muslim middle-eastern countries for women and human rights in general. It's where the Islamic extremism & terrorism has bred.
These aren't cultures where women have "choice", that's complete BS. These are the types of places with polygamy and arranged marriages. The women who choose to wear these coverings on their own accord are the exception. If you want to walk around walmart with your face covered I don't care, but for your child in public school or go to court etc. you should be seen.
-
Gotta admire the effort....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/imposter-wife-court-marriage-1.6660517