By Rick Hiebert. All Rights Reserved. Used By Permission
The fundamentalist Mormon sect in B.C. that has allowed its male members to practice polygamy for years has been told, again, that what they are doing is illegal in a B.C. Supreme Court ruling today.
Justice Robert Bauman ruled that laws against polygamy should remain in place in B.C., in part, because of the harm that can and does happen to women and children in such relationships.
I’m posting in haste, as I am at work, so i can imagine that either Bene D or I might have more to add on what might prove a very sigificant ruling later…
UPDATE: The lawyer for the polygamist Mormons thinks that the ruling includes several outs that will preserve the status quo–that the Bountiful activities are “illegal”, but the government is practically unable to stop it–in this National Post story
Bene D, if you want to Update…absolutely, be my guest!
But don’t feel obliged, either
(It’s a case of ‘How much can I write before my boss comes back…’ 
)
In passing…I can note that I once did a story on this group and their polygamy and got to interview the “head wife” of one of the group’s leaders…really surreal experience, to say the least…
Thanks for getting this up. And before the boss got back:^)
It would be interesting if you could revisit some of that interview…
Next stop – the Supreme Court of Canada.
The primary concern of the BC court was that Canada’s 121 year old polygamy law would not be used to prosecute child brides and the ruling also noted s 293 minimally impairs religious freedom.
Chief Justice Robert Bauman of the B.C. Supreme Court:
“This case is essentially about harm. … This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage”
“Polygamy’s harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists.”
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/2011BCSC1588.htm#SCJTITLEBookMark2948
The Bountifull looks, on one hand, a very independant and self-sufficient community with nice homecooked meals for large amounts of persons.
It seems to operate as a separate community from the rest of society.
I read the above article about what happened in France with absentee fathers, welfare, etc.
Are the persons in Bountifull relying on welfare like the ones in France?
France was not always as tolerant as it seems to be now.
My ancestors were French Heuguenots that were part of a mass exodus from France around the 1700s which crippled France’s economy.
It took time for their economy to recover.
A Heuguenot Magazine in the Central Vancouver Library mentioned that France is 99% Catholic and 1% Protestant.
In the past there were more.
See book ‘Passion for Survival’ by Linda Layton is about this.
There were forced conversions to Catholicism of Heuguenots who were Calvinists otherwise known as Reformed and or Protestant.
I think I was reading something in the Central Vancouver Public Library about John Calvin as well.
His name was Jean Cauvin before the spelling changed.
He was influenced by Martin Luther when ‘Lutheran Winds’ blew into France.
He had a number of health problems and a reputation for being anti-semetic as well.
Albert Bonk who is a Jewish person who converted to Christianity did a talk about conditions for Jews living in France as well.
One photo showed two older persons who had acid thrown into their eyes.
He mentioned about Jews being put into the worst apartments.
Some with no windows resulting in rain soaking their mattresses through and through.
France has changed and is hasn’t.
Getting back to Canada now
If our laws were in favour of Polygamy what would the results be as far as who gets into the country?
France is 99 % Catholic? Was this magazine 100 years old? Current sources give scarcely more than 50 %.
Hiski:
It was in a Heuguenot Magazine on the 3rd floor of the Vancouver Central Library.
It is where all the magazines and church newspapers are.
The Magazine is no longer on the shelf and there is no replacement.
I did not look at the date of the magazine.
At the time I looked at it was around 2004 or so
The date probably was not 2004 and did not seem to be replaced might’ve been the reason for its’ removal.
Maybe the magazine is no longer published which can happen