If your religion thinks poligamy is OK, then there is no court in Canada that will ever be able to convict you, as religious freedom is guaranteed under our 1982 Charter of Rights. The other part of the problem is if you are getting the young kids married at under the age of consent for sex, than that is another story. Someone wondered regarding one male ,one female proportion. Many of the younger males are tossed out of the sect in the USA and Canada.
Hundreds of "Lost Boys" that were turfed for the tiniest infractions, left to fend for themselves from as young as 13 and 14 years old. One lost boy was kicked out for rolling up his sleeves( you must be fully clothed from neck to ankle), plenty got booted for talking to girls, etc etc. Its a very sad story if you take the time to study it.
If it is not illegal for someone to have several sexual partners, and it is not illegal to have multiple spouses - one at a time, then I see no reason for a law against having multiple spouses cocurrently.
BTW. The Criminal Code trumps any so called religious edict.
Criminal Code PART VIII: OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION Offences Against Conjugal Rights Polygamy 293. (1) Every one who
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into
(i) any form of polygamy, or
(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,
whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
You can have as many common-law spouses as you want. It does seem odd that there is no prohibition on multiple common-law spouses but a criminal offence to have more than one married spouse.
That said, societal structures DO require a commonality of values. Our's is based upon monogamous marriages. If that unravels we really don't know what will be all the impacts.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Hollywood</cite>That said, societal structures DO require a commonality of values.</blockquote>Now there is a can o' worms... Many of our most recent immigrants bring their values to this country and seem to want to ignore the existing communal values. That includes multiple spouses, barbaric rites (female circumcision)... Perhaps another thread.
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability, unless they have a propensity to wear black berets.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: smjpilot</cite><blockquote><cite>Posted By: Jimmytufish</cite>any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time</blockquote>Does this mean threesomes are illegal?</blockquote>
I guess it depends on how closely you intrepret "at the same time".
Society's values are evolving constantly. Seventy-five years ago Canadians would have found it shocking if people lived together without being married.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: defiantscribbler</cite>Society's values are evolving constantly. Seventy-five years ago Canadians would have found it shocking if people lived together without being married.</blockquote>
Indeed. Also, divorce, interracial marriage,would have been a bigger deal in previous decades.
Maybe the statement by Trudeau, for the government to stay out of "our" bedrooms was a pretty smart statement. We know from experience, governments, and their need to have laws covering everything. So we have a law covering poligamy, and we have a law with rights to freedom of religion! We have some religions, where poligammy is allowed, and therefore no prosecution of poligamists, because the law violates their constitutional rights. All this gathering of 460 children in the U.S. is because the way the sect is living, there is going to be a court case that their lifestyle is "abusive" to unprotected children. The emphasis is , of course, on the fact that we know the government has an obligation to protect! I am sure that in 5 years this will still be before the courts, and that having 400 kids removed from their parents will make those kids stronger in the long run.