Stop the Slide
All Things Canadian asks the question
Paul Martin would use the notwithstanding clause to prevent polygamy?
I'm not so sure.
Polygamy may not be on the Liberal agenda right now, but we find an attitude in some Canadians an apathy towards stopping it. A fellow blogger has written me with his views that I will share with the couple of other people who read this blog.
The Conservative position is enhanced when you have Liberal supporters like James Bow admitting the following in an e-mail to me. I've added the emphasis to make it clear that there are Liberal supporters that would allow the charter to protect any deviation in our society, even if they conflict with traditional Canadian values. This is exactly the, "slippery slope" Conservatives are trying to prevent.
One question
Paul Martin said
today:
Polygamy is against the law and will always be against the law. So, if
the courts rule in favour of polygamy....
Paul Martin would use the notwithstanding clause to prevent polygamy?
I'm not so sure.
Polygamy may not be on the Liberal agenda right now, but we find an attitude in some Canadians an apathy towards stopping it. A fellow blogger has written me with his views that I will share with the couple of other people who read this blog.
The Conservative position is enhanced when you have Liberal supporters like James Bow admitting the following in an e-mail to me. I've added the emphasis to make it clear that there are Liberal supporters that would allow the charter to protect any deviation in our society, even if they conflict with traditional Canadian values. This is exactly the, "slippery slope" Conservatives are trying to prevent.
I'm not saying that polygamy is something to be feared, and there is nothing the state can, or should, do to prevent consentual polygamous relationships. However, I am saying that Stephen Harper is fearmongering, by making the analogy between same sex marriage and polygamy and using it as an excuse for the state to not respect same sex marriages. If you have any problem with somebody disparaging the validity of consentual polygamous relationships, it should be with Stephen Harper,who brought it up in the first place with the express desire to make polygamy the bogeyman on which to prevent the recognition of same sex marriages....James
posted by Derek Richards at 6:28:00 PM
1 Comments:
You know, if you wanted to have a quote for your blog you should have either said so in your e-mail, or you should have posted a comment on my blog. My response then would have been pretty much public domain. By writing me a private e-mail asking me about my position, I thought that my response was equally private. That's somewhat deceptive, but that's neither here nor there. At least you quoted me accurately. Perhaps, for better context, you should also quote the e-mail that you wrote to me in the first place, wherein I'm left to believe that you are accusing me of insulting polygamists.
You should also note that I say that the state can't do anything about consentual polygamous _relationships_. That's different from polygamous _marriage_, which the state _can_ do plenty about. When I'm talking about polygamous relationships, I'm talking about polygamous people operating out of sight of the law, with one legal marriage, and a whole bunch of under-the-table relationships.
I remember reading a book about an immigrant from West Africa, who got around the monogamy requirement in entering Canada by having his second wife claim that she was the first wife's sister. What can the State do about this? Unless one of the wives complain, very little. And if the wives are happy with the relationship, what should the state do about it?
But the state is under no obligation to extend marriage recognition to more than one wife. Under the law, polygamists are as free as any other citizen or landed immigrant to marry whomever they choose -- they just have to do so one at a time. Under the law as it now stands, homosexuals are unable to marry whom they love the most. That's how the law discriminates against same sex couples, but doesn't discriminate against polygamists. That's what will prevent the Charter from forcing the state to recognize polygamous marriages. There is no slippery slope here.
You are also making assumptions by claiming that I am a Liberal supporter. I'm no fan of Paul Martin, as you can see from various posts on my blog, including Why the Martin Administration Deserves Defeat. I have not voted Liberal in a federal election since 1997. In 2000, I voted Conservative. In 2004, I voted NDP. Provincially, my last vote was Green. My own personal opinions cannot be taken as reflective of the Liberal party, but could be taken as reflective of Canadians in general.
Thank you.
Post a Comment
<< Home