Canada: Land Of A Thousand Wives OR Instructions On How To Become A Canadian Polygamist

The Guess Who: Canadian

“American Woman”; ‘American Woman‘ (1970) [Live In Toronto 2003]
Burton Cummings wants you to feel his emo.

.

Canada Doesn’t Allow Multiple Marriages…

.

…but there’s this one community in southern British Columbia where you can marry as many people as you like. It’s a large “C” Cult made up of American Mormon Fundamentalists who moved here because Utah, and America, made polygamy illegal and the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City said “okay, sure, like, whatever.” Since the community (Cult) was “outed” a few years ago as being a haven for polygamy the citizens of British Columbia and the rest of Canada have been wondering “WTF? How come no one’s been arrested? Why are they allowed to marry as many people as they want, and I’m stuck with this deadbeat loser who can’t even put a new Goddamn bag in the milk jug?!?” Since then it has been reported — several times over the past several years — that the Cult’s primary belief is the Husband is God’s messenger on Earth and women must obey His every whim and desire. So how can a progressive country like Canada — what with our laws and women’s rights and free Lithium and such stuff — allow something like this to continue?

Most people think it has something to do with The Government being afraid the case might go to the Supreme Court as a Charter Challenge because they’d lose over Freedom of Religion issues, thereby making Polygamy all out legal. But that’s not why nothing has been done to free those women from the Cult. The problem is… ready? The problem is it’s illegal in Canada to be married to more than one person at a time. The State that is Canada decides who gets married to whom based on you and your loved one going to the Court House and signing a piece of paper. Bango wango, you’re married. Show up tomorrow with another significant other and, wango bango, they say “nope, not a fucking chance, you’ve already got one”.

Bountiful, British Columbia is the home of a Cult based on Mormon philosophies, one of which is that Men get to marry as many women as they want including, sometimes, cousins and other close relatives. These girls/women then become slaves for the rest of their lives… not “virtual slaves”, real ones. They get an elementary education, if their fathers want them to, then they’re sold or bartered off inside the Bountiful Community or across the American border to other Fundamentalist Mormon communities. Girls as young as 14-years old are given as gifts to men ten, twenty or thirty years older than the young girls. And it’s ‘legal’ because no one shows up at the Court House to sign any papers and these girls have been Trained to not talk to any Outsiders. There can be no polygamy in Canada because Canada doesn’t recognize your marriage to your second, tenth, twelfth or fiftieth wife. Kind of Orwellian, isn’t it? Polygamists live in Canada but Polygamy is Illegal in Canada, therefore there are no Polygamists.

There you are. Maybe not so convoluted after all. There’s also a large Chapter of this Cult in America that has warehouses of guns, ammo, a huge fortified compound and a desperate belief their leader is the Messiah — not “a” Messiah, “the” Messiah. Good times. This is a PDF of a petition to get the governments of British Columbia and Canada to save the young girls from a lifetime of sexual abuse and slavery… print it off, sign it, pass it around and mail it in.

.

.

About Gabriel

I’ve lived in fifty-two places. I've been paid to pick stones out of fields, take backstage photos of Britney Spears, and report on Internet privacy issues. My photos have been published in several newspapers, and a couple of magazines.
This entry was posted in America, American Politics, Canadian Charter of Rights, Canadian News, Canadian Politics, Conservative, CSN:AFU Aboot Canada, Humor, Humour, Punk. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Canada: Land Of A Thousand Wives OR Instructions On How To Become A Canadian Polygamist

  1. puddlejumper says:

    Isn’t that how it is in most places though? It’s illegal to marry twice (without divorce in between) in Scotland but NOT illegal to co-habit with however many people you choose.

    It is also “technically legal” to claim welfare benefits where a polygamous marriage which has been legally obtained in another country where it is permitted exists.

    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2006-11-07a.103.6

    This always got to me a bit as state interference. Should the state really be able to decide how many partners a person has? Isn’t this a matter where individual rights and freedoms come in?

    I’m obviously totally with you where there is abuse going on in any form. But that should apply to all marriages and should be dealt with quite separately from whether polygamy should be allowed.

    Surely as long as the state makes these “marriages” fall outwith the realms of spousal legal protection there are going to be individuals or organisations who exploit that? Could it be that these women are forced into silence not because the state isn’t stopping the marriages but because the state doesn’t recognise them in the first place?

    Therefore it would make more sense to legalise them and thus give these women the same legal protection from abuse as any other married women in any civilised country has?

    To me it seems crazy to recognise any civil partnership i.e. not church sanctioned but a legal agreement to protect property, but NOT recognise that this could in theory affect three or more co-habiting people.

    (male or female)

    – actually what is Canada’s position on same sex partnerships?

  2. feartheseeds says:

    There was a movement, albeit pretty stunted, a while back to push for legalizing polygamous marriages, but it was aboot a week past the vote that kind of legalized gay marriage and everyone was just sick and tired of the whole thing.

    Officially Canada was the first country to schedule votes on same sex marriage but we were beaten on making same sex marriages legal by at least one of those little Euro Countries… maybe Denmark. We were also first or second when it came to ordaining homosexual ministers in the Anglican Church. The thing is these Bountiful people are getting married, this isn’t just cohabitation. There is a religious ceremony, vows are exchanged and she becomes His forever and ever. It’s that last step, the approval of the State, which is missing and which is keeping these women hostages and slaves… and I use that word purposely.

    I’m not necessarily judging Polygamy in the post, but I am judging the BC and Canadian legal systems as having failed these girls completely.

    It’s legal in this country, at least it was until a year ago, for a man of any age to have sex with a 14-year old girl. We were actually becoming a stop on the Internet Sexual Predation Tourism Carousel. The thing was the politicans didn’t get serious aboot changing the law until a man came up from the States to “hook up” with a 14-year old boy. For generations men could have sex with tiny, young, barely teenage Canadian girls, but once it got gay… well, that’s just crazy talk.

    I think legal consent now is 15, but with a clause which says it’s okay for an 18-year old to have sex with a 15-year old.

    Basically Canada is working towards legalizing polygamy, just not right now — not so soon after the same sex thing — which is why no one in Bountiful will ever see a court room. I’d say another decade for polygamy, and I’d say the girls of Bountiful are lost (and the boys who are being indoctrinated to believe their sisters are chattel as well ).

    WordPress tagged your response as a Spam so I just found it. Thanks for coming around…

  3. puddlejumper says:

    14. Sheesh. Thats young. I get what they are doing saying yeah okay a 15 year old and an 18 year old shouldn’t be prosecuted but when you get older men taking advantage…

    Cults in themselves seem to me to be dangerous things and I agree with you that its the indoctrination of the boys as much as the girls that keeps them so. The difficulty from a legislative point of view is how do we manage people’s human rights. Where children are involved its easier for the state to step in to protect people but where highly influential charismatic people take advantage of people who for whatever reason in their lives are susceptible to it (and lets face it I think most people will have been through stuff in their life that if some guy came along at just the right point and said ‘hey..this will make everything all better’)

    How do you legislate without risking the states interference over who has a sound (enough) mind to decide how they should live their life?

    It’s a minefield. And I agree, meanwhile there are kids and men and women who are vulnerable being exploited.

    And I’m always coming round. I just have been quieter of late…

  4. dumbwaiter says:

    Age of consent in Canada is 14, while the age of sexual exploitation is 18. Section 159 of the criminal code specifically outlaws anal sex until the age of 18, unless you’re married, although the superior courts of Ontario (1995) and Quebec (1998), have ruled that part of the code unconstitutional.

    The current government is attempting to raise the age of consent to 16 years of age, while maintaining the 2 year age close in age exemption.

  5. feartheseeds says:

    They’ve been trying to bump the age up for years… I have no idea why it has taken so long. This is from Justice Canada’s website:

    What is Canada’s age of consent?

    The age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity involves exploitative activity, such as prostitution, pornography or where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. For other sexual activity, the age of consent is 14 years.

    Are there exceptions to this?

    The Criminal Code provides what is often referred to as a “close in age” or “peer group” exception: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to engage in sexual activity with another person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency

    http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/clp/faq.html

    Bumping the age of consent up a few years might afford a little more protection to some of the girls in Bountiful, but I’d be interested to find out if some of the prostitution laws wouldn’t also lend some protection… like “living off the avails of others”… the Bountiful girls are definitely being sexually exploited, and there are laws in provinces such as Alberta where a girl-prostitute under a certain age can be held by the police against her will, so saving the Bountiful girls — who are progammed not to talk — wouldn’t be determined on them actually stepping forward.

  6. Spinks says:

    What takes so long is the fact the Liberals wouldn’t vote to raise the age of consent when they were in power. They’re still against raising it and in a minority government situation where things have to go through a Liberal dominated Senate, it takes a while. This one is a no brainer. Too bad so many of our politicians seemingly have no brains. Thanks for raising this important issue.

  7. feartheseeds says:

    When I wrote this post I honestly thought the law had already been changed… I really should have looked it up. But I know I remember the Conservative Justice Minister Vic Toews saying this was supposed to be a priority last year (I did look that up). Is the ‘pro-sex with 14 and 15-year old children’ lobby really that strong? As long as there’s a “Close In Age Exemption” I’m not sure I understand what the delay is. The only thing I can think of is this is a part of a larger Crime Bill which the Opposition doesn’t want passed for the sake of being the Opposition.

    “The Tories have accused Dion’s Liberals of slowing nine government anti-crime bills in the House of Commons and the Liberal leader acknowledged part of the reason behind his new platform is the prospect that justice and crime may be a major issue in the next federal election.”
    Thursday, March 15, 2007; CanWest News Service

    Age Of Consent FAQ’s: [here]
    1. What are the “sex” laws in Canada…
    2. How Canada compares to the world…
    3. Why you don’t want to be born in Tonga…

  8. puddlejumper says:

    I’m going to risk getting flamed here but I think there is a point being missed. I don’t think it’s an issue of having an “age” of consent. Some kids I think are capable of making an informed decision on whether they should be having sex at 14. On the other hand others probably aren’t emotionally mature enough even at 21.

    The problem that the authorities are trying to address is not the situation where two teenagers who think they are in love should be considered criminal because the state has decided the are below the arbitrary age limit. The issue is that sex has the potential to be used to exert power and that there are adult men (usually, almost always men) who would abuse their position of trust to get easy sexual relief.

    Surely it would be better to increase sex education, make sure young men and women are given proper emotional preparation for what is lets face it one if the most driving human appetites.

    By saying it’s pro child sex its a risk of becoming really melodramatic. You could say it’s pro not criminalising teenagers for natural urges.

    Whether there should be some sort of framework introduced to prevent dirty old men from abusing that is a good question but criminalising teenagers isn’t the answer.

    Women who are able to approach agencies for contraceptive and sexual health advice (unworried about legal implications) are much more likely to be in a position to make an informed choice about sex.

    Like I said before its about informed consent and the difficulty lies in measuring that. Young women reach physical maturity much earlier than they used to but live in a society where sex is full of ambiguity. We (the adults) use it to sell cars and to control relationships and a whole multitude of things aside from the primary function of procreation.

    In Scotland the age of consent is 16 (for all sexualities) but across the water from me in Northern Ireland the age is 17. In France it is 15. In Spain 13.

    The problem with raising the age is that it then puts limits on teachers, parents, youth workers etc as to how much information they can give young people.

    The women in your original article are being abused but not just through sex. They (presumably) are being kept from influences outside of the ‘cult’ and it is this that is imprisoning them not the age of consent.

    Also..I read the article FAQ and still don’t get why you don’t want to be born in Tonga. Sex isn’t in itself bad. In countries with a low life expectancy it can be a matter of survival. Women are much less likely to suffer birth complications if they have their children early. Its a culturally specific thing.

  9. feartheseeds says:

    “I’m going to risk getting flamed here…”

    I’d never think of it, and I’d never allow it. Plus I think you’re capable of dealing with any flaming which might sneak through. I’ve seen you in action.

    .
    “…but I think there is a point being missed. I don’t think it’s an issue of having an “age” of consent. Some kids I think are capable of making an informed decision on whether they should be having sex at 14. On the other hand others probably aren’t emotionally mature enough even at 21.”

    Kids are kids, not small adults. They don’t get to vote, they don’t get to drive and they don’t get to be sex objects for adults. You can have all the sex education you want from kindergarten on up, but a twelve-year old child is still a child whether they’re in Tonga or in Toronto or Glasgow and twelve-year old kids are not ready to have sex with anyone of any age, be it physically or mentally. In fact most people are never ready for sex at any age, that’s why there’s alcohol which either prepares you or comforts you afterwards. But those children under a certain age must be protected from predators who are out there and desperate to fuck someone’s naked child.

    .
    “Surely it would be better to increase sex education, make sure young men and women are given proper emotional preparation for what is lets face it one if the most driving human appetites.”

    You can’t force a child to see and understand sex from the perspective of an adult. Sex education does not protect girls and boys from predators, all it does is tell the kids certain tabs fit into certain slots. Making it illegal for a thirty-year old man to have sex with a 14-year old child protects the children. The point of the “close in age exemption” is to prevent teenagers from becoming sex criminals for acting out their high school fantasies with each other. No one is saying, necessarily, that kids shouldn’t fuck around. It’s that they should be protected from people wanting to take advantage of their naivete.

    .
    “Women who are able to approach agencies for contraceptive and sexual health advice (unworried about legal implications) are much more likely to be in a position to make an informed choice about sex.”

    No one in Canada, pharmacist or doctor, would ever consider denying a teenager birth control. I think there might be some concerns depending on the extreme youth of the child, like if the child is in the 12-year old range. But Canadian teens have access here to birth control, condoms, and even abortions pretty much on demand (there are no legal restrictions on abortion in Canada).

    .
    “The problem with raising the age is that it then puts limits on teachers, parents, youth workers etc as to how much information they can give young people.”

    No. The age of consent does not preclude information sessions in Health Class, over the Internet, in the doctor’s office or at the YM/WCA. At least not here. Sex Ed starts very early in the Education System here, much earlier than the current age of consent. Raising the age of consent, again, is not a ban on a teenagers sexuality. It’s a ban on predators.

    .
    “Like I said before its about informed consent and the difficulty lies in measuring that. Young women reach physical maturity much earlier than they used to but live in a society where sex is full of ambiguity. We (the adults) use it to sell cars and to control relationships and a whole multitude of things aside from the primary function of procreation.”

    The problem with “informed consent” is an “informed” young teenager is an oxymoron. But what I’m writing aboot is not aboot how women are sexualized at a younger age, although this has cooled recently with the deaths of Britney and Hillary. It’s aboot young girls being used as sex slaves inside a Cult and there’s very little the government can do to stop it from happening. Except, maybe, increase the age of consent a few years and use existing anti-prostitution laws to offer these girls some protection.

    .
    “The women in your original article are being abused but not just through sex. They (presumably) are being kept from influences outside of the ‘cult’ and it is this that is imprisoning them not the age of consent.”

    I’m proposing using the age of consent laws as a means to freeing these girls, not on banning them from having sex.

    .
    “Also..I read the article FAQ and still don’t get why you don’t want to be born in Tonga. Sex isn’t in itself bad. In countries with a low life expectancy it can be a matter of survival.”

    No, again, sex in itself is not wrong. But any culture in which a child is fair game for an adult is wrong. That’s where more sex education should be focussed, in protecting children from the warped cultural shit that third world nations are allowed to get away with in the name of “Cultural Relativism” (and second and first world as well… like Canada’s Bountiful, British Columbia). And like in South Africa where, for a long time, there was a belief in many regions that having sex with a virgin would cure AIDS. So groups of men would line up and fuck the neighbour’s 9-year old child or even year-old babies. That was a pretty culturally specific thing as well… which got stopped through education and public shaming.

    .
    “Women are much less likely to suffer birth complications if they have their children early. Its a culturally specific thing.”

    Cultural tendancies are a pretty weak excuse for children having children sired by adults. Women are much less likely to have birthing complications if they have access to clean water and hospitals. Neither Tonga (12-years old) nor Spain (13-years old) are third world nations and have both clean water and modern hospitals so I’m not sure of the rationale behind their age of consent laws. Sex with someone so young in this country is considered, and rightfully so, pedophilia…

    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s