# Polygamy - decriminalization



## Chaska Ñawi

Here's an interesting paradox, which is generating a lot of discussion in Canada.

As a result of a research project, a team of law professors has announced that Canada should decriminalize (_not _legalize, just ensure that it isn't treated as a crime anymore) polygamy.  They say that this is necessary to protect women's and children's rights, particularly those of custody and inheritance; they also say that to criminalize polygamy is disrespectful of those cultures where it is accepted.  

Another professor at the same university argues that it is exactly this law treating polygamy as a crime which protects women's and children's rights and keeps men from exploiting them.

There is one community of polygamists in British Columbia who split from the Mormon church over the issue.  Otherwise polygamists in Canada (not many of them) fall into 3 groups:  3 or more people in a permanent partnership (not legally recognized either); people who've remarried without first divorcing; and people who are maintaining more than one household in secret.

Has this been discussed in other countries, particularly those whose citizens have a tradition of polygamy?  What perspectives do you have?


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Chaska,



> Canada should decriminalize (_not _legalize


 That's pretty good double-speak.  It reminds me of the U.S. Army's stated policy towards homosexual members: _
Don't ask, don't tell._

Really, if it's not criminal, then the government would be saying, in effect, "Your personal relations are not the business of the government of Canada, so we shall not harass you for being members of a small minority." Rights of adult members and their offspring can be protected without any reference to polygamy.

As I understand the words, to _decriminalize_ is to create a _de facto _legal status, so which side of the fence are those professors really on?




> to criminalize polygamy is disrespectful of those cultures* where it is accepted*.



Is Canada one of those cultures where it is accepted?
The logic is badly contorted.  Should Muslim countries accept alcohol consumption to show respect for countries * where it is accepted*?   Should Canada smile benignly on clitorectomies, out of respect for cultures that practice them?

Let's see now, two plus two equals......seven? Or is it thirteen?

Polygamy is practiced in the U.S.  It's illegal.  If the practioners don't go out of their way to make their living arrangements a matter of public discourse, they are generally left alone.  That's yet another alternative.


----------



## Fernando

As far as I know, the only countries (I mean, whole countries) that have a tradition of polygamy are Muslim ones. I assume all of them have legalized polygamy.

Spain (Laus Deo) is not one of those countries. Polygamy is not admitted. I assume there is some kind of recognition for repeated marriages in such countries who allow poligamy for foreigners, but Civil Code only gives civil recognition to one for Spaniards.

As a law admitting homosexual marriage has been passed many people is claiming there is no excuse to legalize poligamy, since the relation one man-one woman has been broken.

I can  see little difference between legalization and decriminalization. If you decriminalize people who cheat their husband / wife / creditors, marrying twenty people, you should give him some legal recognition. Shouldn't you?


----------



## GenJen54

Chaska Nawi said:
			
		

> they also say that to criminalize polygamy is disrespectful of those cultures where it is accepted


 
There is an _offshoot religion that takes its roots in the Mormon religion_ here in the US. The problem with this particular sect, however, which resides in a self-barricaded enclave called "Colorado City" in Arizona is that its male members (usually in their forties and fifties) often marry girls as young as fourteen years old in order continue growing their families. This constitutes "legalized" child abuse.

Many of these men have ten or more wives, and have families of up to thirty children. They often trade off their girl children in marriage to other men in the community. Younger men are often ex-communicated during their teenage years and are left to fend for themselves, knowing nothing about the outside world. It is not uncommon for women to have their own "sisters" or cousins as inlaws.

The problem is, the sect claims these practices are all constitutionally protected as part of their "freedom of religion."

I ask: Is it disrespectful to "criminalizse" peoples of a particular "culture" which practices what amounts to child abuse and/or incest in another culture, especially when those practices are brought into the country in which they are deemed illegal?

*Edit:*  I originally had mentioned that this group is a "sect" of the Mormon church.  They are not.  They are an off-shoot religion that adopted the plural-marriage principles of Mormonism, but are not accepted by the Mormons themselves.  An article about this group, and its leader, who is on the FBI's "Most Wanted" list, can be found here.


----------



## Fernando

Who cares if it is or not disrespectful? 

It is the law (and the human rights). The more tolerant a society the better. The limit is the law.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hello GenJen,

Just to clarify,  that is not a "Mormon sect".  Here is a statement from the Mormon Church's web site:



> "This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church."


http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-114-1,00.html


----------



## perrodelmal

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I ask: Is it disrespectful to "criminalizse" peoples of a particular "culture" which practices what amounts to child abuse and/or incest in another culture, especially when those practices are brought into the country in which they are deemed illegal?


 
 I think you're confusing polygamy with child abuse and/or incest. A person who practices polygamy not necessarily commits child abuse or incest.


----------



## Benjy

while it's true that practicing polygamy doesn't equate to child abuse the problem is that what passes for polygamy in the states (as far as i am aware and especially in the groups mentioned) almost invariably does involve child abuse.

i speak from personal experience on the matter, i'm not trying to slate anyone.


----------



## GenJen54

Thanks, benjy. You are exactly right. 

I am not confusing “polygamy” with child abuse. As Benjy stated, in the US, this practice has been taken to extremes, and in so doing, has become a vehicle for some people to practice what they deem is “legal” child abuse, by hiding behind the First Amendment (not to mention _from_ the FBI). 

Polygamy as a concept is acceptable in many different cultures. “Decriminalizing” it in those countries where it has been illegal does not necessarily make it legal, just more acceptable. 

Aside from the group described in my first post, there are other groups in the US that practice polygamy, usually taking three to four wives. These individuals, most of whom also share the Mormon belief of “plural marriage,” while not accepted members of the church of Latter Day Saints, practice polygamy in a setting that is for lack of a better word, appropriate (it's still not "legal," but at least their wives are of age and they are not trading female offspring to marry them to other male members of  their "church").

I believe the question that needs to be asked is (and for which I should open a separate thread), which laws should rule: the laws of “culture,” or the laws of the land?


----------



## fenixpollo

perrodelmal said:
			
		

> I think you're confusing polygamy with child abuse and/or incest. A person who practices polygamy not necessarily commits child abuse or incest.


 To add to Jen's comments, polygamy in the Arizona Strip (where Colorado City is located) is practiced in a community in which the elders decide which girls will marry which men; the marriages often occur before the girls reach 18 years of age; the girls do not choose to participate nor do they choose who to marry. It is therefore psychological and sexual abuse of minors. The elders also force out most male children by age 18, since their lifestyle requires a scarcity of males of marrying age.

Cuchu, to accept the LDS line on this group is a little disingenuous. While most members of the LDS church reject polygamy, and the culture of the church has changed over the last century, the fact is that the splinter group of polygamists is a product of the Mormon church. This group is just the last of the holdouts in a conservative religious movement that has traditionally supported polygamy.  And yes, Virginia, polygamy _was_ legal in parts of the United States until recently.


----------



## valerie

In France polygamy is prohibited, while some immigrants from 'black Africa' (l'Afrique noire, not North Africa) are polygams with women in France. This may lead sometimes to absurd situations: When the social services identify such a case, one of the women is obliged to oficially divorce. The family looks for a new flat for her and her children near to the previous one, and the man then has 2 homes instead of 2 oficial women...

Another comment: Someone mentioned that all muslim countries allow polygamy. I'm really not sure this is so. At least I would say this is not common practice in Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia and Turquey. I do not know for other countries. What is for sure is that in Senegal, Burkina Faso and other countries from equatorial Africa do practice polygamy as a social model.

_Please correct my English, thanks_


----------



## Outsider

Polygamy worldwide.


----------



## valerie

thank you outsider, very interesting


----------



## SweetMommaSue

Thank you, Outsider. That was a very interesting and informative article! Many years ago, more than 20(!), I was living with some Iranians who also explained about Polygamy not being officially endorsed, but no more than 4 wives were permitted by Islam.
Thank you, again.


----------



## Fernando

valerie said:
			
		

> Another comment: Someone mentioned that all muslim countries allow polygamy. I'm really not sure this is so. At least I would say this is not common practice in Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia and Turquey. I do not know for other countries. What is for sure is that in Senegal, Burkina Faso and other countries from equatorial Africa do practice polygamy as a social model.



I only said I assumed this. 

Polygamy is polygamy is not common practice nowhere. Normally polygamy means polygyny and it is practised in (mostly) poor countries. A common polygamy would produce:

- A large number of angry, non-married men.
- A large number of wowen and children with just a few men to look for the money.

Traditional islamic approach is to admit polygamy up to four wives and assuming the husband can afford to maintain them.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Cuchu's comments about looking the other way are already happening in the case of the not-Mormon group in Bountiful, British Columbia.  Everybody's known of the situation, already described by GenJen and FenixPollo in respect to other communities, but nobody's interfered unless there's been an actual complaint from a 13-year-girl.  (And in Bountiful, girls are told, according to one girl who left the community, that they won't get into heaven unless they're married by the time they're 13.)

One of the arguments put forth by the pro-decriminalisation team is that this will make life easier for potential immigrants with more than one spouse.  Given that Canadian immigration practice favours immigrants with doctorates and preferably no dependents, especially aging parents (although these PhDs then have to drive taxis or deliver pizzas unless they wish to completely redo their university education), I can't really see that this is going to change immigration policy.  

The only instance where I could see criminalization being useful is in the case of forced marriage, especially when a minor is involved.  Since there's no enforcement in regard to Bountiful, it seems to me that the law as printed isn't really worth much more than toilet paper.  They might as well go for these men under sex with a minor and forcible confinement (and the latter would be very difficult to prove, as most of these girls are brought up to believe that this is God's will and don't see themselves as being forced into anything).

In addition, I see no reason to make some immigrant from Nigeria serve a jail sentence (automatically handed down for a criminal offence in Canada) just because he has two wives from the old country.  Neither do I see putting members of a polyamory-based family in jail as serving a useful function in society.


----------



## cuchuflete

> One of the arguments put forth by the pro-decriminalisation team is that this will make life easier for potential immigrants with more than one spouse.


Hi Chaska,

I'm not Canadian, so my opinion doesn't matter. But, I'm curious...Is the general good and welfare of Canada well served by making life easier for, and thus attracting, more potential immigrants with more than one spouse?  I would have thought that Canada would want to attract immigrants who find Canada a desireable place to live and work, as it currently is.

I'm having trouble connecting the logical dots.  

Cuchu


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hi Chaska,
> 
> I'm not Canadian, so my opinion doesn't matter. But, I'm curious...Is the general good and welfare of Canada well served by making life easier for, and thus attracting, more potential immigrants with more than one spouse?  I would have thought that Canada would want to attract immigrants who find Canada a desireable place to live and work, as it currently is.
> 
> I'm having trouble connecting the logical dots.
> 
> Cuchu



Cuchu, 'course your opinion matters - I asked for it!

I don't think that the idea was about recruitment - ie, to attract bigamous immigrants.  The idea is apparently to make it easier for refugees and for adult citizens trying to sponsor their father and both mothers for citizenship under the family reunification plan.  However, being the cynic that I am, I think that refugees would be the last people to benefit from any changes.

The only difference between the punishment for a civil offence and a criminal offence here is the jail time.  Under the proposed new law, since bigamy would still be illegal, convicted bigamists would still be subject to fines, community service, etc., but would not be imprisoned.  Still not very helpful to anybody: certainly not the girls forced into early marriage, not refugees, not the people who discovered on Dad's death that he had 3 children with a previous wife ... whom he hadn't divorced before marrying their own mom.

So far I've only read the newspaper articles and listened to interviews with each group of profs - now I think I'd better read their actual research paper when I get some free time.

I think our countries' ideas of what makes a desirable immigrant is worth starting another spinoff thread to parallel GenJen's.  

And alas, you're idealizing us, Cuchu.  The people who see us as a desireable place to live and work aren't necessarily at the top of the list - as witnessed by an expedited list of businesspeople who are buying their citizenship.


----------



## mora

Hello

The idea of multiple wives in Islam was originally a very progressive idea meant to protect women. In a society where a widows without money and single women without fathers to support them were often left to a life of begging, slavery or prostitution, the idea of multiple wives was meant to assist these unfortunate women. The first wife was to be freely chosen, but subsequent wives were to be selected from the this group of otherwise 'unmarriageable' women, with the consent and support of the first wife, and only if the family had the resources to support additional wives. In the west it was viewed as a kind of sexual licentiousness, but originally it was a form of social assistance to the less fortunate.  

In Canada, the meaning of 'decriminalize' is to make polygamy no longer a crime, but the marriage laws would not be changed to permit multiple spouses. A person would still be only able to legally marry one other person. A person who entered into a second marriage without legally ending the first would still be subject to prosecution as a bigamist. 

The situation in Bountiful is one in which some men have several 'wives' which is currently not legal, even though some of those wives are 'common law', that is to say, living as married but without a legal marriage having taken place. I think consenting adults should  be permitted to live in any arrangement they wish, because our secular government should not be criminalizing moral or religious beliefs. 

Abuses that may be occuring in Bountiful are covered by, and will continue to be covered by, existing laws against incest and child abuse. 

If a person from another culture which had a different concept of marriage immigrated to Canada, I do not think the dominant culture's 'moral' values should be imposed upon them. Of course, this goes for the everyone, not just immigrants. We live in a multicultural society, tolerance and acceptance of others who have different beliefs is something that I think is very important. Personally, I think what is going on in Bountiful is abhorrant, but I think the governement should concentrate on prosecuting any child abuse or incest, and leave the consenting adults with multiple partners alone. 

Although there are dire predicitions of total moral decay, these changes will affect very, very few people, and make no perceptable difference to life in this country. Life will go on as usual. 

Mora


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Mora,

You write clearly and intelligently, so please don't take this as anything but a question.  



> In Canada, the meaning of 'decriminalize' is to *make polygamy no longer a crime*, but the marriage laws would not be changed to permit multiple spouses. A person would still be only able to legally marry one other person. *A person who entered into a second marriage without legally ending the first would still be subject to prosecution as a bigamist*.



Sorry, but I just don't get it.  Polygamy would not be a crime...but bigamy would be a crime, subject to prosecution.
That leaves me thinking that the decriminalization would be applied only to those already in a polygamous marriage, and who would thus be guilty of bigamy.

Please clarify this for my confused head.

I firmly agree that governments should not muck around in people's private arrangements, so long as these don't involve child abuse or other obvious atrocities.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Civil marriage is a matter of custody, child-support and inheritance rights.  None of these issues are gender-specific, and none of them imply the need for the "moral" precepts about living arrangements which circumscribe marriage conventions within and among religious groups.  Just as moral precepts differ between religions, so do canonical "laws" about marriage.

Civil marriage should be available to any living groupings that exist legally without benefit of marriage.  It's legal for a man to cohabit with more than one woman, and likewise for any woman to cohabit with more than one man.  Same-sex cohabitations have always been legal-- Abe Lincoln was in one for many years, there was only one bed in the household, and no I don't give a rat's ass whether they did anything more than sleep in it.  They didn't make it a public issue.

For reasons of custody, child-support and inheritance rights, it makes sense that some people in legal cohabitations might want to expand the purview of civil marriage to apply to their situations.  I have never been able to understand what the disadvantages of this natural evolution of things might be.  Yes, once gay cohabitations are given the State's imprimatur as marriages, group and incestuous cohabitations are validated by implication.  So what?  How does that invalidate my marriage, which happens to conform to missionary norms?

I'd rather have those aging queens next door have a ceremony and stop catting around, it'll make the whole neighborhood quieter.  And the same principle applies now that I find out there are _three_ of them living in there.

I draw the line at honoring the arrangements of Ewoks, however.  "One big happy family" my fat white Irish _ass!_
.


----------



## mora

*This is an excerpt from the current law:*

_290._ (1) Every one commits bigamy who
(i) being married, goes through a form of marriage with another person,
(ii) knowing that another person is married, goes through a form of marriage with that person....

Bigamy is grouped with polygamy and incest, they are very serious criminal offences in a group called 'offenses against the person'. Bigamy is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The proposal, as I understand it, is to make polygamy/bigamy civil offences, for which one could be fined, the marriages invalidated, but a person would not normally go to jail, and one would not receive a criminal record. Marriage law is, despite our romanticism, essentially a legal agreement related to property and inheritence, and when a person marries more than one person it makes a mess of the those agreements and entitlements- something that would have to sorted out by lawyers...certainly a serious money/property matter, but not a grievous crime against a person, such as incest. The idea is to recognize polygamy and bigamy as less serious offences, and keep the 'real' offenses against a person, such as incest, serious criminal matters. 

This proposal is not to be confused with my own opinion, which is that there is insufficient justification in a multicultural society for keeping polygamy/bigamy as offences of any kind, civil or criminal. 

Hope I've cleared things up, or if not, at least muddied the waters in an interesting way.

Mora


----------



## foxfirebrand

mora said:
			
		

> Marriage law is, despite our romanticism, essentially a legal agreement related to property and inheritence, and when a person marries more than one person it makes a mess of the those agreements and entitlements- something that would have to sorted out by lawyers...


The first part is exactly what I just said.  And inheritance *already* involves a mess that has to be sorted out by lawyers.  I can see trying to solve that "problem" by criminalizing families that produce more than one heir-- how is that different from forbidding more than one spouse.

Finally, serial marriage is legal-- it complicates inheritance too!  Criminalize re-marriage?  Some religions proscribe against divorce-- so it's not such a stretch!  In fact when I lived in Italy some years ago, that was exactly the situation.
.


----------



## Fernando

I can see some confussion here. Polygamy (at least the more usual, Muslim or former-style-Mormon polygamy) is not a multilateral agreement. The husband marries the other wife, but there is no agreement for the previous wives. This way the husband forces the previous wife and children to share house, goods and expectations (inheritance, common goods) with the new wives and eventual children. 

In our society, if the man copulates with someone he is not married to (Spanish "fuera de tiesto") it has no consequences except in the case of births. He shall feed the children. I mean HE, not the marriage as a whole.

I assume you are for a "multi-lateral" (all agreed) polygamy. This kind of relationship is unknown to me as a permanent way of life in Laws History.

Apart from the total mess for inheritance purposes, the members of the couple are never in the same situation. You can joke about menage-a-trois. but the usual way is one member of the couple imposing the other a new member.

If you are thinking other kinds of associations, comuna-like, the (very rich and wide) Roman-inherited Law system gives you associations, partnerships and so on. You do not need marriage to solve all that.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Fernando said:
			
		

> You can joke about menage-a-trois. but the usual way is one member of the couple imposing the other a new member.


 Not even knowing you, I can guarantee you are not speaking from experience. In fact I'd be surprised if you even knew someone who belonged to a more-than-two-person marital unit. What makes you believe you can define things you have no experiential connection with? Mutual consent to associate in an intimate living arrangement is not "the usual way?" That's what you're saying, but by what authority I can't imagine. 

Sometimes it's the female partner who wants to bring a close friend of her own, another woman, into the relationship. That shoots your suppositions down, especially if it happens as often as the other way around. I suppose you're up-to-date on whether that's the case?
.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hi Mora



			
				mora said:
			
		

> Hello
> 
> The idea of multiple wives in Islam was originally a very progressive idea meant to protect women.In a society where a widows without money and single women without fathers to support them were often left to a life of begging, slavery or prostitution, *the idea of multiple wives was meant* *to assist these unfortunate women.* The first wife was to be freely chosen, but subsequent wives were to be selected from the this group of otherwise 'unmarriageable' women, with the consent and support of the first wife, and only if the family had the resources to support additional wives. In the west it was viewed as a kind of sexual licentiousness, but originally it was a form of social assistance to the less fortunate.


Let me a comment about what I have puth in bold, you say that as if Islam had invented that "idea" of multiples wives as something new, but history tells that polygamy was practised and abused before Islam, what is more, it seems (who really knows for sure) the idea was to restrict the number of wives not to increase it.


Besides, you ignore many other connotations, you just give one approach. Do you really think the reasons for taking a second or third wife were always due to that noble purpose of social assistance? I ask this because it seems it is what you imply in your post.

Edited to ask Cuchuflete: did I drift from the topic?  
_Thanks for asking, Ana Raquel.  Interesting sub-text.  It seems very much part of a pertinent reply to the questions in the first post._


----------



## Fernando

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Not even knowing you, I can guarantee you are not speaking from experience. In fact I'd be surprised if you even knew someone who belonged to a more-than-two-person marital unit. What makes you believe you can define things you have no experiential connection with? Mutual consent to associate in an intimate living arrangement is not "the usual way?" That's what you're saying, but by what authority I can't imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> foxfirebrand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it's the female partner who wants to bring a close friend of her own, another woman, into the relationship. That shoots your suppositions down, especially if it happens as often as the other way around. I suppose you're up-to-date on whether that's the case?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you have wisely guessed, my experience in menage-a-trois is (unluckily enough) very limited.
> 
> My experience, in fact, comes from the lack of experience. I do not know nothing involved in a polygamy-like association. I do not know none who knows none involved in a PLA. I do not know none who knows none who knows none involved in a PLA. So I can say that, in Western countries, polygamy is NON EXISTANT (not only in law, but in practice). So, if your experience comes from "Once, I happened to know a group of six lesbians who happily lived together and involved a male through a democratic process" let me say that one case is NO case.
> 
> The ONLY wide, comparable and present polygamy case is the Muslim case (or Mormon, for Western countries).
> 
> But FOR CERTAIN I can say that in Muslim countries is that way. I can not imagine king Saud asking his wives if he should or not marry his 356th wive.
> 
> FOR CERTAIN in Muslim countries who marries is the HUSBAND. The other wife, legally, means nothing. I assume that, in common practice, the former wife will be informed and even asked for consent. But, theoretically, the woman means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> foxfirebrand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it's the female partner who wants to bring a close friend of her own, another woman, into the relationship. That shoots your suppositions down, especially if it happens as often as the other way around. I suppose you're up-to-date on whether that's the case?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If, in Muslim world, the female partner wants to bring a close friend:
> 
> 1) She is not supposed to have sex with her friend and she IS NOT TO MARRY her friend. Her HUSBAND will marry her friend. The two women will be very good FRIENDS in the future.
> 
> 2) Her husband can say: "When the hell freezes".
> 
> My comments were non-sexists. Why this would change something?
> 
> You say "especially if it happens as often as the other way around." Can you share your statistics on the topic?
> 2)
Click to expand...


----------



## cuchuflete

Mora said:
			
		

> Hope I've cleared things up, or if not, at least muddied the waters in an interesting way.


 Most certainly you have...


----------



## foxfirebrand

Fernando-- you dwell a lot on Muslim situations, but I was talking about the original topic, decriminalization of polygamy in North America.  I focus on cohabitations that do not have legal marital sanction.  I say I see no reason why they should not.

You say "unfortunately" you have no experience of this-- I invite you to count your blessings instead.  Guys who complain in earnest that they are not getting some of that "double trouble" they keep hearing about make me chuckle sardonically.  Enough said!

"In western countries Polygamy  is NON  EXISTENT," you say-- this isn't true, especially if you're adressing my topic of cohabitations.  I have been in communes and living groups where "ownership" of your own bedspace was taboo, and considered the root of social evil.  The sexual politics of such outwardly-serene places becomes utterly Byzantine-- small wonder the Love-Generation vogue went promptly on the decline.  But alternative living styles existed in Victorian times and the repressive McCarthyite 1950s, and this whole topic sets me to wondering what Jerry Lee Lewis's cousin Jimmy Swaggart (no, not the one he married) is up to lately.  If you live in the U.S.A., a quiet, discreet _ménage_ is humming along somewhere in an apartment near you, let me reassure you of that.

And the quieter the better-- me, I'm street legal and copacetic with the Law in all respects, even the horticultural enablement of freelance botanicals of pharmacological efficacy.  Oh yeahhh....
.


----------



## cuchuflete

Reading, and enjoying, all of this, I think there are two related issues. I'll be very simplistic...it comes easy to me.
The child abuse, in all its varieties, is bad, illegal, and should be dealt with sternly.

As to multiple partnerships--*it's none of the government's business.*

Inheritance, property rights, etc.--already a mess, and could be cleaned up somewhat with some not very difficult word changes. In Canada that might happen. In the U.S., the fanatics are too numerous and powerful, or at least loud, to make that likely.


----------



## valerie

Fernando said:
			
		

> ...is the Muslim case (or Mormon, for Western countries).
> ...in Muslim countries
> FOR CERTAIN in Muslim countries ...
> If, in Muslim world, ...




Fernando,

You insist in generalizing to the whole muslim world, as if such thing existed. If you want to talk about Saudi Arabia, or Burkina Faso, please do it, I think this would be more respectful than your current practice.
You can also reread the wikipedia article given by outsider in this thread

Thank you


----------



## cherine

Fernando said:
			
		

> The ONLY wide, comparable and present polygamy case is the Muslim case (or Mormon, for Western countries).


Fernando, I don't want to look as if "attacking" you. But i'd only wish to remind you that polygamy is a social question, more than religious.
Many African countries, that are NOT muslim, know polygamy. And that's why I said it's a social thing and not religious. Another example is the Pre-Islamic societie*S* where People used to have more than one wife, they even INHERITED their fathers' wives (not their mothers, the other wives  )
Islam changed this: Polygamy is to be permitted but in a way restricted. I enjoyed the "discussion" between Mora and Ana Raquel


			
				 Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> ... history tells that polygamy was practised and abused before Islam, what is more, it seems (who really knows for sure) the idea was to restrict the number of wives not to increase it.
> ... Do you really think the reasons for taking a second or third wife were always due to that noble purpose of social assistance?


You're right Ana, Islam didn't "invent it". And yes, men are no angels and they don't take second wives for utopic purposes.

I'd also like to add another thing : polygamy is not exactly the common practice many people think it is, and i'll speak of my country. Yes many men take second wives, and sometimes third or even fourth, but many many others have only one. My father, all my uncles, my neighbors, my friends.... are all monogamus (and those are only a sample of a very wide society)

So to get back to the topic of the thread : if any of the men with two or more wives set foot on Canadian soil, will he go to jail ? This would shock many of these persons not aware of doing something *illegal* in *another* country. Can't the Canadian law permit these people to keep their form of live as long as they don't offend anyone and don't commit any abuses, like child abuse ?
And please don't think I'm pro-polygamy, every woman is -by nature I think- very anti-polygamy  I'm just considering the situation of such people with a bit, just a bit, of compassion 
Interesting thread


----------



## Fernando

Any of my post (not in this particular thread, but in any thread) does not intend to attack anyone.

My point is that Muslim world is the only wide part of the world when polygamy is accepted in the laws. I could attack polygamy in those tibetan tribes which practise polygamy but it would have not very much application.

Cherine, I perfectly know and I agree with you that:

- Neither Mohammed or Kuram or Islam invented polygamy. Polygamy pre-existed and Islam simply did not abolish it. I agree it is more "social" than religious. As a matter of fact Catholicism thinks marriage is a sacrament while I am not so sure in Islam case. 

- In those countries (specially in Africa) where Islam is stablished, it supposed a huge progressive advance on the situation of women. I have mentioned that Mohammed (correct me if I am wrong) limited the number of wives and required the husband had to be able to support the wives and children.

- Valerie, Muslim world is, I agree, a huge generalization (as Hispanic America or Western world or Europe). The social and even religious difference between Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Morocco, let alone Turkey, are huge. Anyway, I think my generalizations (basically that marriage is one man with several wives and not an all-equal agreement) is fair.

- I have said yet that polygamy is not commonplace neither in the Muslim world, nor everywhere, both for demographic and economic reasons. Spaniards have many contacts with Morocco and we know it is this way.

Said this, my point of view is:

Any Arabian (as an example) moving to Canada (or Spain) YET MARRIED with more than one woman should be allowed to keep married. 

If any of the Canadian-resident women wants to divorce I can not see how Canadian law could avoid her to do it. Effects in S.Arabia depends on the Arabian law.

If one Muslim (or African, or whatsoever) Canadian wants to marry more than one woman, I think he should not be allowed to do it.


----------



## Fernando

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> You say "unfortunately" you have no experience of this-- I invite you to count your blessings instead.  Guys who complain in earnest that they are not getting some of that "double trouble" they keep hearing about make me chuckle sardonically.  Enough said!.



Maybe because of my poor English I do not understand nothing. I am not being ironic. I do not understand what do you want to say. My comment intended to be a joke. I know many (99%) men who would love a M-à-T. I know none who would like to marry more than one. 

This is a joke: As a matter of fact I could say I know just a few who would love to be married ONCE.



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> "In western countries Polygamy  is NON  EXISTENT," you say-- this isn't true, especially if you're adressing my topic of cohabitations.



I am not addresing cohabitations, I am addressing polygamy.



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> I have been in communes and living groups where "ownership" of your own bedspace was taboo, and considered the root of social evil.  The sexual politics of such outwardly-serene places becomes utterly Byzantine-- small wonder the Love-Generation vogue went promptly on the decline.



Is this an argument pro or against polygamy? I am confused.



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> But alternative living styles existed in Victorian times and the repressive McCarthyite 1950s, and this whole topic sets me to wondering what Jerry Lee Lewis's cousin Jimmy Swaggart (no, not the one he married) is up to lately.



This comment is too local to me. 



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> If you live in the U.S.A., a quiet, discreet _ménage_ is humming along somewhere in an apartment near you, let me reassure you of that.



Ohhhhhh! So, you, depraved imperialist yankees! I am sooooooo scandalized! You are going to die in Hell, amongst fiiiiiiiiires!!!!!!!!!!!

By God's sake. We are not children. There is a little difference among m-a-t and polygamy.

And please, notice I live a bit far from US.


----------



## cherine

Fernando said:
			
		

> Any of my post (not in this particular thread, but in any thread) does not intend to attack anyone.


I know that 



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact Catholicism thinks marriage is a sacrament while I am not so sure in Islam case.


In its own way, Islam considers marriage as "sacred" : The relation between the man and his wife is to be base on mutual respect, cooperation in all matters of life and children education... Divorce is permissible in Islam but if people give a non-superficial look they'll find it's not as easy or superfluous as it may seem. (but we're not discussin this here, so we'll skip the details)



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> ... I have mentioned that Mohammed (correct me if I am wrong) limited the number of wives and required the husband had to be able to support the wives and children.


You're not wrong. (only that in Islam it's not Mohammed who limits or not, it's God. But this too is not the topic) And it's not only about being able to "support" but being able to be "fair" between the two wives and to treat them equally (which is practicly impossible, and that's why the non-superficial look (again, yes  ) shows that polygamy is not that superfluous or easy thing either)


----------



## Ana Raquel

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> As a result of a research project, a team of law professors has announced that Canada should decriminalize (_not _legalize, just ensure that it isn't treated as a crime anymore) polygamy


 

After checking the meanings of both _decriminalize_ and _legalize,_ I have to conclude that they mean the same. 

Did we start from a flawed premise? Or, do you know if that team of professors have differenciated those two words? 

Who has the link, please?


----------



## Fernando

In Spanish law there is a slight difference. The typical example is prostitution. It is decriminalized (no prostitute is to be prosecuted) but not legalized (State do not endorse it, you can not subsidide it or give it as an option to unemployers). Practical consequence: Prostitutes do not pay taxes.

Anyway, as stated before, I think the difference is so slight we should not use such an edged knife: For usual language decriminalize = legalize. If you admit polygamy you should give it some legal protection (the same as marriage).


----------



## fenixpollo

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> After checking the meanings of both _decriminalize_ and _legalize,_ I have to conclude that they mean the same.
> 
> Did we start from a flawed premise? Or, do you know if that team of professors have differenciated those two words?
> 
> Who has the link, please?


It's semantics, Ana Raquel.  The effect is the same.  However, when you _legalize_ something, you say you approve of it; thereby implying that you accept it.  When you _decriminalize_ something, you say that you don't disapprove of it; but without implying that you accept it.  

This is just my opinion (and not strongly held), so feel free to differ with me on this.


----------



## Ana Raquel

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> It's semantics, Ana Raquel. The effect is the same. However, when you _legalize_ something, you say you approve of it; thereby implying that you accept it. When you _decriminalize_ something, you say that you don't disapprove of it; but without implying that you accept it.


Yes, yes, I understand you, but those proffesors are talking about removing a law in some time later, I think, not just about influencing the opinion of people about poligamy. So, if the law desappears, the poligamy will be legal and legal things have regulations, haven't they?  Confused


----------



## cherine

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> So, if the law desappears, the poligamy will be legal and legal things have regulations, haven't they?  Confused


I think that this may be the idea : if you just say that something is not criminalized you don't have to put regulations for it. On the contrary, if you give it legal status you'll need to put all the necessary regulations.
Just a thought


----------



## mora

Hello

Further clarifications, or more mud:

My comments regarding multiple wives in Islam relates to the original intent in the Koran, not to the manner in which it is practiced today. Some Islamic countries (Tunisia for one I believe) outlaw polygamy. In many other countries, the practice is virtually unknown. Many Muslims are deeply offended by the practice in some wealthy countries such as Saudi Arabia of taking ridiculous numbers of wives, in excess of 4, and not as directed by the Koran. 

It seems it is difficult to explain to people who have different legal systems the concept of 'civil' offences and 'criminal' offences. Civil offences are things like most traffic offences, for which the usual penelty is a fine, but a person does not normally go to jail, or have a jury trial. They are still offences, they are still against the law. Criminal offences are more serious crimes, for which jail is more likely than a fine. When we say 'decriminalize' we mean to shift the offence from the group of very serious 'criminal' offences and put it in the class of 'civil' offences, but it would still be not legal, it would just be treated less severely. 

This use of the word 'decriminalize' is understood in Canada, but I think it is a very local use of the word, it does not mean what a non-Canadian would logically assume, that is 'to make something no longer a crime.' It means 'to make something a less serious offence'. When we are talking about making something no longer a crime at all, we say 'legalize'. 

At the present time, we do not permit immigrants with  multiple spouses to emigrate to Canada. Some of the people in this group are refugees, and the proposal  to change the law was in part to assist these people. A person would not be permitted to marry more than one person in Canada, but a person who was already married to more than one person in a country where this practice is legal would be permitted to come to Canada with their family unit intact. It is just an idea being considered, it is not likely to happen any time soon. 

Mora


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Thank you, Mora.  I realize now that I should have started this thread with clarification on the difference between civil and criminal offences.

One further clarification - conviction of a civil offense does not result in a criminal record, while conviction of a criminal offence does.

Canada also decriminalized marijuana use and possession recently.  Its use is, of course, comprehensively criminal in the U.S.  This has led to an interesting extradition hearing:  the American government wants us to extradite a pot grower, who's been shipping pot to American customers via his website, to face criminal charges for growing and shipping (not trafficking).  As one person pointed out, "Are we now going to extradite all Canadian female drivers to Saudi Arabia for trial and sentencing, because it's illegal for them to drive there?"

I do not suspect that we will see the status of polygamy in Canada being examined any time soon - it certainly isn't one of the main issues on the election trail.  Frankly, I wish the government would re-examine its position that we have no migrant workers instead.


----------

