The people of Canada are entirely excluded from this power loop by judges who, as our Supreme Court chief justice, Beverley McLachlin, is happy to explain, must never be tainted by electoral politics, even to the degree of being approved by Parliament. Nor, as she has also patiently explained, must they be restricted to interpreting the law as they receive it. Nor, I would think, would she make them accountable to God (though she has yet to rule expressly on that issue). No, they are a law unto themselves.
The word for this is "oligarchy" -- where a faction, in this case of judges, rules a country and writes the laws at its own pleasure. Canada previously aspired to "democracy," in which the people wrote their own laws, through a Parliament they elected and a government they could replace.
He cites the recent Ontario Court of Appeal "Three Parent" decision as the natural next step to polygamy being legalized. I would argue that it already is, inasmuch as it has never been challenged. It is only still listed as a criminal offence for "feel-good" purposes.
Warren finishes with the following warning:
Wake up, gentle reader. If you don't want polygamy in Canada, you had better start making a loud noise. For the internal enemies of our civilization have laid all the groundwork for this coup de grace.
Sorry, David. I think it's already too late.
* * * *
Meanwhile, in Sweden of all places, a judge has rejected two lesbian women’s attempts to adopt their partner’s biological child!!!
Well at least Canada is forward thinking, even if the rest of the world lives in a time warp.
Well at least Canada is forward thinking, even if the rest of the world lives in a time warp.
40 comments:
it is indeed entirely too late. Trudeau was no goof. He was extremely gifted, and entirely determined as so many misplaced charasmatic leaders before him, to re-work the world, make it better, cast back to the purity of Plato and add a dash of all the other theorists, eliminating entirely practical experience with democracy. God he hated English parliamentary muddling...what a mess, the prissy Trudeau must have thought . It also bears mentioning his love for the lice parasite Castro, like PET's little boy today. The murderer of course crafted a Cuba more in keeping with Trudeau and fils' template.
It is an obscenity and a shame that Canadians can be so bereft of book learning, not to mention world experience that they would stumble blindly into rule by a diminishing circle of friends and fellow travellers.
Trudeau turned out to be quite the chess player. He is still yelling "Checkmate!" from the grave.
I see the sky is falling again....
What is wrong with Polygamy?
Serious question.
Well Doug, please state your case for polygamy.
I am taking polygamy to mean the marriage of one to a group consisting of both genders as oppossed to polygany or polyandry.
I don't see why it should be anyones concern if all members are consenting adults. The only valid concern might be about the children as they have no say in the matter. I suspect that children of a polygamous marriage would be no worse off than those from a monogamous marriage and maybe better off in the case of the loss of one of the adults
Well Doug, I can't think of a single reason to deny your concept of marriage the same legal status as as the other types that are allowed now.
I definitely can't think of a logical argument to continue to criminalize polygamy in view of the current legal decisions.
Legalisms aside, look at the kinds of cultures in which polygamy is practiced and imagine introducing such fundamental inequalities into our society, it's unlikely to be a good thing.
it's unlikely to be a good thing.
Well, I've been told the more parents the better as long as it's a loving family.
By the way Joanne I share your concern about the judiciary and Beverly McLacklin in particular. If I understand her correctly she is using the failure of the judiciary in pre WWII Germany to prevent the rise of Hitler and the genocidal laws passed by that regime as reason for her position. Because parliaments can pass laws like "exterminate the Jews" the judiciary should therefore be accountable only to their conscience with reference to an international jurisprudence rather than to the intent and will of the elected government. She is right in that case but dangerous stuff for a democracy in all but extreme situations.
JJ:
I cannot stand the Charter and fought the whole idea back in 1980-81-82 as nothing more than the Americanisation of Canadian politics and law.
However, the Conservative Premiers-of-the-day (including Alberta's) and the Opposition PC Party eventually supported the Charter in exchange for entrenching the the Monarchy in the Constitution - which was a very good idea.
Having said that, it is pretty hard to accept that you "new" Conservatives are crying about it all now, given that ...
(1) Conservative Parties did their best to retain the Westminster ideal of Parliamentary Supremacy back then and lost/compromised;
and ...
(2) It is now (relatively) ancient history
and ...
(3) Most of you bitching about it weren't there or were still in diapers at the time.
Either way, it is too late. PET did more to put us on the way to 51st Statehood than any other PM.
That crazy Albertan Harper is looking to finish the job now ...
or haven't you heard of "Deep Integration?"
Anonymous said: Legalisms aside, look at the kinds of cultures in which polygamy is practiced and imagine introducing such fundamental inequalities into our society, it's unlikely to be a good thing
What fundamental inequalities are you referring to? Unless you are speaking of the sort of polygamy lifestyles that gets splashed all over the news because they are of an abusive and forced situation.
Hate to tell you anonymous... the polyandry/polygamy community in Canada is quite large. These are people who live nice quiet lives - right beside you and me.. they are people who simply have more than one partner... and do so in a consensual open and healthy manner.
I'm not sure what inequities you think a consentual polyamorous relationship has and would love for you to elaborate.
ooopsssss..
..that's consensual
David Warren wears granny panties.
Well I guess we can just keep on making up the rules as we go......
PGP - I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with polyamourous relationships; especially when it comes to raising children, but I cannot see how we can deny them some kind of recognition based on the legal precedents that have been established within the last two years, and the fact that polygamy has never been prosecuted.
O/T -
Joanne I really need your response on the Little Mosque thread at my site. Please.
How can I deny that plea?
"how we can deny them some kind of recognition"
There are no legal precedents that somehow legalize polygamy. There are only associations you choose to make based on your own views.
The "three parent case" allows two biological parents and two adoptive parents to be listed on a child's birth certificate. Doesn't say anything about polygamy.
The same sex marriage removes the gender requirements on marriage since it constitutes discrimination against homosexuals.
There is not, nor has there been any Charter rights that say "if two people can do something, then three can too". There are any number of examples of limiting participation to a specific number of parties, all completely legal as long as you don't also say "and the parties must be of this race, religion, sexual orientation" etc.
There is not, nor has there been any Charter rights that say "if two people can do something, then three can too".
That's fine, but then why does the justice system turn a blind eye?
Oh, and BTW, 3 or more are allowed to do "it" in a swingers club no problem.
Kids are the main reason polygamy is a bad idea. Little Johnny and Suzie seeing Dad or Mom hop in bed with someone else every night makes for a pretty skewed view of how they should treat women or men when they grow up. Why be committed to one person of the opposite sex when your desires are most important. Oh and don't worry about the risk of STD's being exponentially higher the more partners you decided to add to the mix.
I'm baffled when in this country we decided that everything goes except for marriage between one man and one woman. I fail to see the downside in a strong marriage between a man and women and their children yet for some reason every time it's brought up, it's called old-fashioned and traditional (liberal code word for bad).
Spinks, I agree with you on a moral level of course.
The justification for the Three Parent ruling though is that there's more love to go around, and all those parents are protected in case one of them dies. The other two have inherent rights, and they then have the legal authority to make nanosecond decisions re: medical emergencies with the kids etc.
So going along with that logic, and given that polygamy does in fact exist in Canada, why not grant all those mutual parents and lovers legal status for the upbringing of the children? More security and love all around. (Playing the Liberal devils'advocate here).
Or judiciary are mostly fiberal activists. They have never met a right the wouldn't grant or a criminal they wouldn't let go free.
Hi Jo... "" Well I guess we can just keep on making up the rules as we go......""
Not too serious about it....I am and always was opposed to the normalization of homosexual behaviour in our society.
At least as far as having laws enacted and especially laws created by judicial action!
It's like a perfect storm of social decay and activists of all stripes are blowing hard all the time to get the ideal world they think will make their lives better.
Well I think you get the drift....
Do you people ever talk about anything besides le cul?
Joanne -- Didn't take you long to hit the slippery slope, just as I knew you would.
Give me one example, any of you, where a polygamous union in Canada was charged under the Criminal Code.
Here's a woman who was previously in a polygamous union and feels that the lack of prosecution regarding polygamy constitutes tactic societal approval:
Palmer believes polygamy is likely to continue in Bountiful — and elsewhere — unless federal laws are reviewed.
“Until (the law) has been tried… polygamy basically exists in a vacuum. It isn’t legal, but it isn’t illegal either.
“And until they do something about that, people that are living polygamy in whatever part of society can do whatever they want, really.”
Still not sure what your point is here.
It's interesting that lefties get their knickers in a knot if the world accuses them of shirking on Kyoto obligations, but nobody seems too worried about alleged Human Rights abuses here.
Polyamory anyone ?
You sure you're not NDP?
I'm sure I can resolve this apparent inconsistency. Just allow me to throw it in the spin cycle for a moment. BRB.
CWTF - Cook's report was commissioned by the Justice department; not SWC as I interpret the article.
advocating the curbing of freedom of religion
I am not doing that at all. I am saying that if this law has teeth, let's us it. If not, get rid of it. It's useless and hypocritical, and gives a false assurance that there are safeguards.
"Frivolous goverment intervention?" - Is that what you call law enforcement?
There. That came out quite well I think.
CWTF - I'm sure we will. ;)
Boring...
Why do you care? What does it mean to you? Why have you been going on about this for days?
Why have you been going on about this for days?
There's a good progressive for you - even wants to control the subject of your blog. Nanny State knows best.
No. Just a simple straightforward question asked out of curiosity.
"Nanny State knows best"
You mean the Nanny State that wants to save the poor dear faggots from the drudgery of being married?
You mean the Nanny State that wants to put 10 year olds in prison?
You mean the Nanny State that wants to assert itself in the wombs of the nation?
You mean the Nanny State that wants to save the poor dear faggots from the drudgery of being married?
Yup, thats the one.
Post a Comment