Polygamy Law, Decriminalization, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

November 8, 2011
Notice: Release of Judgment in Reference re: Criminal Code, s. 293 (Polygamy Reference) - November 23, 2011

The Court’s Reasons for Judgment in Reference re: Criminal Code, s. 293 will be released by Chief Justice Bauman and posted on the court’s website on Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Prior to the public release of the Reasons for Judgment, there will be a lock-up for registered media representatives. Details about the lock- up procedure are described below:

Media Representatives Lock-Up Procedure

Media Representatives Undertaking

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court/

WATCH LIVE: Polygamy hearing arguments

March 28 to April 9, 2011
B.C.'s Supreme Court hears closing arguments about Canada's law against polygamous marriage. Court is in session 10 a.m. - noon and 2 - 4 p.m. PT.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/03/28/bc-supre...

A judge has approved the use of TV cameras and web cameras to cover the final arguments of the polygamy trial.

On Monday, a lawyer for CBC and Global BC appeared in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver and argued that there was a strong public interest in the case.

Dan Burnett told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman that most of the parties in the case were consenting to cameras and only one or two were taking no position.

The judge called it an “exceptional case” and agreed to allow the cameras but asked that there be a 10 to 15 minute delay in broadcast to provide what he called a safety net.

Court heard that there will likely be two TV cameras and two smaller web cameras. The cameras are expected to be focused on the judge and the lawyer making the arguments.

TV cameras have been used in at least one other courtroom proceeding in B.C. in the past but it’s believed to be the first time web cameras will be allowed inside a courtroom, Burnett said outside court.

He called the ruling a “very big deal” since it allows more or less live coverage of a major trial.

A CBC application for cameras in the courtroom at the outset of the trial was rejected by the judge.

Most of the evidence in the case has already been heard.

Final arguments are expected to begin March 28 and run for two weeks.

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/cameras+green+light+polygamy+trial/42385...

Opinion: Polygamy's on trial? How about monogamy?
By Pete McMartin, Vancouver Sun

I am batting .500 when it comes to marriage. I struck out in my first time at bat, and was lucky enough to knock it out of the park in my second.

There is nothing remarkable about this. I have plenty of company. My present wife was divorced. Many of our friends and colleagues have divorced. So many of my children’s friends come from broken homes that my children, who have known only one set of parents, are oddities among them. Three of my siblings’ marriages ended in divorce — none of them “amicably,” as they say in Hollywood — and my parents, who were miserable together for much of their lives, should have divorced but did not. One did not do that back then. Pity.

One does so now. In its October 2010 study, the Vanier Institute of the Family reported that in Canada, four in 10 first marriages end in divorce. It found also that among married families, about 20 per cent of children live with only one parent, hardly a ringing endorsement of marriage as a safe haven for child-rearing.

Not surprisingly, the Vanier’s findings suggest a growing disaffection for marriage as an institution.

Its traditional raison d’etre — to provide a stable environment in which to raise children — is losing its hold. The study found that while the divorce rate had fallen, so had the marriage rate, and for the first time in Canadian history, there were more unmarried people over the age of 15 than married people. There were, also for the first time in Canadian history, more married couples without children than married couples with children. And the fastest growing type of relationships among Canadian families with children?

Common-law.

These findings do not necessarily mean the institution of marriage has lost its way. It does mean, however, it has lost its old relevance. We don’t look to it to provide financial stability as we once did: Most couples now postpone marriage until they establish their financial stability first. Young couples also no longer see wedlock as a guarantee of familial happiness.

And who could blame them? The landscape of the traditional monogamous marriage is littered with wrecks. We’ve made a mess of it.

No wonder, then, that the idea of marriage would mutate. We are now a country that recognizes and accepts same-sex marriages, and accepts that those marriages are suitable platforms for child-rearing. The same legal rights have been granted to common-law relationships, too, where commitment, and not a certificate issued by the state, is the binding principle.

But then why should the state have any say in the relationships adults wish to form? As one of us famously said: “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation ... and what’s done in private doesn’t concern the Criminal Code.”

Back then, in 1967, it was a young Pierre Trudeau as justice minister proposing to decriminalize, among other things, homosexuality, and lo and behold, the nation survived. The nation, I’d suggest, is better for it.

And yet here we are today, embarking on a trial to determine the legality of polygamy. The critics of polygamy — as that institution is epitomized in B.C. by the Kootenay backwater of Bountiful — have a litany of social harms they say is associated with it, and want the century-old law upheld and applied.

The argument is, essentially, that those alleged social harms are endemic to the institution of polygamy, and that one necessarily flows from the other.

That is for the B.C. Supreme Court to decide, though I expect that whatever its decision, the case will eventually find its way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Meanwhile, I can’t help but ask:

What use has the government made of all its many other existing laws that are perfectly suited to punish the alleged aforementioned social harms inherent in polygamy — laws relating to confinement, or consent, or underage sex, or forced marriages, or rape, or sexual, physical and mental abuse, or school attendance and school standards? Why prosecute an idea and not an action? After all, we don’t ban driving to save lives. We prosecute those who drink and drive to save lives.

This isn’t an argument for polygamy: It’s not my cup of tea. I have enough trouble pleasing one wife.

But it is an argument for the proper application of the Criminal Code. Punish crimes where you find them, not by sexual or matrimonial preference.

Because if we must, and we believe that by outlawing polygamy we will, at a stroke, do away with abandonment, confinement and physical and sexual abuse in those communities, shouldn’t we, if only to extend that logic, be looking at criminalizing monogamy, in which the vast majority of the above crimes are committed?

pmcmartin@vancouversun.com

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Opinion+Polygamy+trial+about+monogamy/3...

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

B.C. polygamists 'branded as outlaws,' court hears
By Keith Fraser,

The Province

Postmedia News November 24 2010

VANCOUVER — Residents living in the controversial southeastern B.C. community of Bountiful are being "branded as outlaws," says the lawyer appointed to represent their views in a court case that could force Canada to rewrite its laws against polygamy.

Lawyer George Macintosh argued in B.C. Supreme Court Wednesday that many of the women in Bountiful, populated by a breakaway Mormon sect, entered into their multiple marriages with full consent due to a deeply and sincerely held religious belief.

"These women, they grew up believing this was the best way to live," he said.

Macintosh is the so-called amicus curiae, or friend of the court, tasked with arguing on behalf of those who oppose Section 293 of the Criminal Code, the country's anti-polygamy law. The constitutional reference case to determine if the law infringes guaranteed freedoms began this week in Vancouver.

The lawyer noted that there were "horrendous tales" of suffering and misery which unfold in monogamous marriages, including spousal and child abuse.

Women in polygamous relationships face the same dangers, he said, but the main difference is that in polygamous settings there is a great deal of reluctance to report crimes out of fear that victims will be prosecuted because polygamy is seen to be illegal, said Macintosh.

"There is a barrier between that community and the rest of us," he said. "Section 293 brands them as outlaws, and the stigma of criminality does nothing except hurt the people who are living there as their religion directs them to live.

"Section 293 in 1890 was about stopping Mormons and aboriginals, because a Christian marriage was in 1890 a monogamous, man-woman union."

Since Monday, lawyers for various interest groups have decried what they say are social harms arising from multiple marriages.

However, Macintosh told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman that 99.9 per cent of people in Canada have never had anything to do with polygamy, and have never met someone in a polygamous marriage.

"The conventional wisdom about polygamy is somewhat vague," said Macintosh. "It is very often resting on a foundation of ignorance, or of bias, or of condescension — that's exactly where constitutional protections have to kick in."

He said the polygamy law will not pass constitutional muster.

"It's somewhat presumptuous for many of us with conventional views to dismiss out of hand what people in Bountiful actually think and believe."

Macintosh said the problem of young girls, 15 and 16 years old, getting married to much older men was a different issue, and said he would address that later.

Earlier Wednesday, the court heard from several groups, including the B.C. Teachers Federation, arguing that the law was needed to protect the rights of women and children in polygamous settings.

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/life/polygamists+branded+outlaws+court+hears/...

© Copyright (c) The Province

The Secret World of Polygamy B.C. Supreme Court opens debate on polygamy

Vancouver Sun Polygamy page.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/polygamy/index.html

A clip from the Vancouver Sun News Paper. November 18, 2010 9:42 AM

Video: Polygamy Laws — Is polygamy legal or illegal in Canada?
The Supreme Court of B.C. will decide whether polygamy is legal or illegal. Columnist Daphne Bramham and editor Fazil Mihlar discuss the issue.

View: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/polygamy/Video+Polygamy+Laws+polygamy+l...

Start Monday, 22 Nov. 2010

Is monogamy the root of all equality?
An examination of the effects of polygamous marriage suggests it's bad for everyone in society, not just women

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/jul/26/religion...

Link to that actual document - Thanks to Vancouver Sun News

http://www.vancouversun.com/pdf/affidavit.pdf

After reading the said affidavit. I must also note that in any case that involves rights and freedoms of humans, the reference to humans as animals is appalling. One of the authorities being used by the Ministry of Attorney General references to humans as animals and compares primate behavior to humans. This reference case is about whether consenting adult have the constitutional right to choose what form of committed relationship they may enjoy. The fact that most women have a brain and know how to use it, and do use their independence in this day and time to get what they want, seems lost on the research. Yes recent history(last 2000 years) has shown that men controlled women. Mostly for control of the people so as to not let powers of good and righteous men and women grow, good men know that a good woman that raises good children rule the world. Rulers know that if you limit the growth of good people, then they will have less contend against the evil they wish to do.

It is a good read, most a specially the instructions from the Ministry of Attorney General representative,

“5. I was contacted in March of 2010 by Craig Jones of the British Columbia Ministry of Attorney General. Mr Jones described the Reference case to me and asked if I would be interested in studying the question of polygamy and its purported harms and preparing a report. Mr. Jones emphasized to me, and I understand, that my duty in preparing the report and, if called upon, in testifying, is to assist the Court and not be an advocate for any party. Mr Jones emphasized that I should follow the evidence where it leads and draw those conclusions I consider merited. He asked that if there were issues upon which scientific opinion diverged, I should note the dissenting views.”

Give both a good read.

Carl,

Groups apply to intervene in B.C. polygamy case

CTV.CA
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100129/bc_polygamy...

The Canadian Press

Date: Friday Jan. 29, 2010 8:21 PM ET

VANCOUVER — Several groups, including a children's rights group, are hoping the B.C. Supreme Court will consider their opinions in an unusual legal test case aimed at clarifying whether or not polygamy is a crime.

The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children and the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association, which supports multiple marriage, are among 16 groups and individuals wanting to provide their input to the B.C. Supreme Court when it weighs the legality of the federal polygamy law.

B.C.'s attorney general launched the constitutional reference case after polygamy charges were dropped last October against the two leaders of a polygamous sect in the community of Bountiful, B.C.

Winston Blackmore and James Oler, who lead two separate factions of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a breakaway sect of the mainstream Mormon church, no longer face criminal charges but they have also applied to intervene in the case.

Blackmore, who's been accused of having 19 wives, says the law violates his charter right to religious freedom.

The Canadian Association for Free Expression is also seeking status in the case, as well as the B.C. Teachers' Federation, whose concerns revolve around two provincially-funded schools in Bountiful it alleges subjects students to sexual and educational abuse.

Nancy Mereska, who founded the group Stop Polygamy in Canada following her own experience as a young and abused Mormon wife, has applied as well.

Bountiful has been the subject of RCMP investigations since 1990, not only because members of the community openly flout the federal law barring multiple marriages, but due also to allegations that teenage girls have been married to middle-aged men or sent to the United States to marry older men in sister sects.

The province appointed a special prosecutor to review the possibility of charges, and that special prosecutor recommended against it, recommending instead a reference case to determine whether the law would withstand a constitutional challenge.

Former attorney general Wally Oppal then appointed a second special prosecutor who did recommend charges, but the B.C. Supreme Court ruled Oppal didn't have the jurisdiction to do so, and dismissed the charges.

Current Attorney General Mike de Jong then launched the court reference case, rather than appeal.

The court will consider two questions: First, is section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which bars polygamy, consistent with the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

And second, what role does the law have in governing relationships between both consenting adults and relationships with people who are not yet adults?

Chief Justice Robert Bauman has yet to review the applications for intervener status, and no court dates have been set.

Dec. 11, 2009
Participation in the Polygamy Reference – Information regarding how to take part in the proceeding concerning Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code, the criminal prohibition against polygamy, is available here

http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/criminal/info/polygamy_reference.html

Participation in the Polygamy Reference

On Oct. 22, 2009, British Columbia's Lt.-Gov.-in-Council referred two questions to the B.C. Supreme Court for hearing and consideration pursuant to the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68, s. 1. Both questions concern Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code, the criminal prohibition against polygamy. That section reads:

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.

(2) Where an accused is charged with an offence under this section, no averment or proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into, agreed to or consented to is necessary in the indictment or on the trial of the accused, nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse.

The following questions have been referred to the court for hearing and decision:

(1) Is Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?

(2) What are the necessary elements of the offence in Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada? Without limiting this question, does Sec. 293 require that the polygamy or conjugal union in question involved a minor, or occurred in a context of dependence, exploitation, abuse of authority, a gross imbalance of power, or undue influence?

A reference amicus (a "friend of the court") George MacIntosh, QC, has been appointed to oppose the positions taken by the attorneys general of British Columbia and Canada. The mandate of the amicus is as follows:

To advance any argument he considers appropriate in support of the answer “no” to question (1) of the reference, and to participate fully in the hearing of this matter to that end and for the purposes of appeal;
To advance any argument he considers appropriate regarding question (2), particularly arguments in opposition to, or distinct from, those advanced by the Attorney General B.C. or Attorney General Canada;
To make or respond to any motions or arguments he considers appropriate and consistent with (a) and (b) or as directed by the court.
Should any persons or groups wish to participate, the chief justice has directed that they, by Jan. 28, 2010, file and deliver a notice of motion applying for leave to be added as a party or intervener, along with an affidavit setting out the following minimum information:

The person or group’s interest in this matter.
If a group, a description of its membership.
An outline of the person or group’s position or anticipated argument with respect to the reference questions.
A description of the amount and types of evidence, if any, the person or group would expect to present to the court.
A description of whether and to what extent the person or group would seek to participate in the hearing.
The material must be filed at the Vancouver registry of the B.C. Supreme Court, 800 Smithe St., Vancouver, B.C., and delivered to each of the following:

Craig Jones
Supervising Counsel, Constitutional & Administrative Law Group
MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
1301-865 Hornby St
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2G3
Fax: 604 660-6797

Deborah Strachan
Senior Counsel, B.C. Regional Office
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
900-840 Howe St
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2S9
Fax: 604 666-6314

George K. Macintosh, QC
Reference Amicus
FARRIS, VAUGHAN, WILLS & MURPHY LLP
2500-700 W Georgia St
Vancouver, BC V7Y 1B3
Fax: 604 661-9349

Should you wish to not directly participate in the proceeding, you may nevertheless wish to contact counsel for the attorneys or the amicus to discuss the presentation of evidence or argument through those parties.

A copy of the chief justice’s decision of Dec. 4, 2009 can be accessed at the court’s website at the following address: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/16/2009BCSC1668.htm.

PROVINCE TO SEEK SUPREME COURT OPINION ON POLYGAMY

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2009AG0012-000518.htm

VICTORIA – Attorney General Michael de Jong released the following statement today regarding polygamy:

“I have today asked legal counsel for the Ministry of Attorney General to request the B.C. Supreme Court’s direction on two reference questions on polygamy (Sec. 293, Criminal Code of Canada).

“After discussion with legal counsel, I have come to the conclusion that to appeal the court’s ruling quashing the decision to proceed with the recent criminal prosecution would be inadvisable while questions persist concerning the constitutionality of Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

“Until Canadians and the justice system have clarity about the constitutionality of our polygamy laws, all provinces, including ours, face a lengthy and costly legal process in prosecuting alleged offences. With that in mind, I have instructed counsel not to appeal the Sept. 23 B.C. Supreme Court decision and, instead, to proceed with the reference questions I will be submitting to the court.

Read the news reports and stories, also read the actual words.

The Actual Words
http://sharethelight.ca/b2/?p=247

Chris Selley: Another wrenching social issue punted to the courts
Posted: December 21, 2009, 9:30 AM by NP Editor

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/21/...

Canadian politics, Full Pundit, Chris Selley
Modern Canadian politicians aren’t much for big, important debates — Meech Lake is often portrayed as a sort of extended psychotic episode. They’re even less for big, important moral debates. Same-sex marriage was a dispiriting affair in which left-leaning politicians dismissed the reservations of millions of reasonable Canadians as mere troglodytism, and in which a Roman Catholic prime minister flatly rejected constructive proposals — such as offering civil unions to all couples, and leaving the definition and recognition of “marriage” to churches, families and the wider community — in furtherance of his own progressive bona fides. (Fat lot of good it did him.) And heaven help anyone who proposes reestablishing a legal framework for abortion, as the Supreme Court suggested Parliament do some two decades ago.

Like it or not, the next one is fast coming down the pipe. The British Columbia Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments on the constitutionality of Section 293 of the Criminal Code, our remarkably sweeping prohibition against multiple-partner conjugal arrangements — i.e., polygamy. Vancouver lawyer George Macintosh has been appointed to argue that the law is unconstitutional, while the provincial attorney-general’s office and the federal Ministry of Justice will argue for its propriety. Applications for intervenor status are currently being accepted from everyone from Fundamentalist Mormons to Muslim and feminist groups and (hubba hubba!) militant polyamorists.

Normally, I’m not one for judges deciding legislation. That’s Parliament’s job. In this case, however, B.C. attorney-general Mike de Jong had few options. Prosecutors have long refused to press charges against obvious offenders under Section 293, suspecting they wouldn’t survive a freedom-of-religion challenge under the Charter. Wally Oppal, Mr. de Jong’s predecessor, disagreed and searched far and wide for a legal opinion to back him up. But when he finally found one, the courts quashed the charges he’d laid against Winston Blackmore and Jim Oler — rival leaders of the Fundamentalist Mormon compound in Bountiful, B.C. — on grounds he’d inappropriately interfered with the judicial process. Courts don’t like deciding laws in the abstract, but the current exercise before the B.C. Supreme Court sure beats a drawn-out appeal of that decision or just ignoring the problem for another decade or so.

Our timorous elected officials will still get their turn, of course, and it will be gratifying to watch them squirm if Section 293 is struck down. Will they try to craft new legislation that targets polygamy’s attendant social ills — subjugation of women, shoddy education, sexual exploitation of minors, abandonment of unwanted male children — without specifically targeting Fundamentalist Mormonism? Good luck. Will they pull an R vs. Morgentaler and just ignore it, allowing polygamy to fall into an abortion-esque limbo? Or will they invoke the notwithstanding clause?

And if it’s upheld, what then? Section 293 promises imprisonment not just for polygamist leaders such as Messrs. Blackmore and Oler, but for just about anyone associated with such a lifestyle. I’ve never seen any reason to do away with the law proactively, considering the sorts of things the few polygamists in Canada do to their children, but it is clearly too broadly drafted. Criminalizing an entire community is not a good way to unearth its most loathsome secrets.

On the bright side, the political stakes aren’t nearly as high as they were for same-sex marriage. Polls show a whopping majority of Canadians consider polygamy immoral, and I suspect that if the courts clarify that the law only applies to people who pretend to actually be married — and not to those who just like to live and sleep with a bunch of different people concurrently — that majority will only increase. Opinions on legalization vary widely within ideologies and political camps, so it’s difficult to see how any party could “score points” by defending the practice.

Still, there are other wrenching, contentious moral debates to come — euthanasia, almost certainly, but potentially also other religious rights cases: blood transfusions for Jehovah’s Witnesses, hijabs on soccer fields, or the powers our human rights commissions hold to pronounce on such rights. Aside from the epochal implications for the residents of Bountiful, the polygamy question is a good test. Is Canada still capable of expressing its abhorrence of damaging lifestyle practices through the law? Time starts now.

National Post
cselley@nationalpost.com

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/21/...
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Justice agrees to lawyer's appointment
Saturday, December 5th, 2009 | 7:20 am

http://www.kelowna.com/2009/12/05/justice-agrees-to-lawyers-appointment/

Canwest News Service

B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman agreed Friday to the appointment of Vancouver lawyer George Macintosh as an "amicus curiae" in the reference case to determine whether Canada's anti-polygamy law is constitutional.

Macintosh will be paid by the B.C. government to argue that the law is unconstitutional. He will be up against lawyers from both the B.C. attorney-general's ministry and the Canadian justice department and will be able to introduce evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses and make any motions or arguments that he deems appropriate.

The decision is the first step in an unusual and unprecedented case. It is the first time in B.C. and possibly Canada that a constitutional reference will be heard in a trial court. Normally, a reference case is argued before an appellate court and no evidence or witnesses are called.

Bauman also directed that any interested persons or groups that wish to intervene should be notified by Dec. 15 and invited to participate. They must file with the court an application to an intervenor setting out their interest in the matter, who they are, how they wish to participate, what their anticipated arguments will be and how much evidence, if any, they are likely to present.

In his written ruling, Bauman said that he anticipated that both Winston Blackmore and James Oler would be intervenors. They were arrested and charged in 2008 with practising polygamy.

B.C. polygamists argue against reference case
Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 | 5:40 am

http://www.kelowna.com/2009/11/18/b-c-polygamists-argue-against-referenc...

Canwest News Service

VANCOUVER – The lawyers for Winston Blackmore and James Oler were in B.C. Supreme Court Tuesday arguing that the attorneys general for B.C. and Canada can't do a reference case on the constitutionality of the anti-polygamy law in the manner they propose.

B.C. Attorney General Mike de Jong announced last month that rather than going to the Court of Appeal, the case would be the first to be done in the B.C. Supreme Court and, possibly, the first to go to any trial court in the country.

If it goes ahead, it will allow for government lawyers, a court-appointed lawyer – an amicus – to call evidence including witnesses.

It would also allow interveners to do the same.

Blackmore and Oler are the two leaders in the fundamentalist Mormon community of Bountiful and their lawyers argue that they – not an amicus – should be arguing the case and be fully funded.

Blackmore's lawyer Joe Arvay and Oler's lawyer Bob Wickett also argued that Chief Justice Robert Bauman should reject the government's recommendation to appoint George Macintosh as an amicus, who would primarily argue the case that the polygamy law is unconstitutional.

Vancouver Sun

Bauman agrees to appointment of Vancouver lawyer in polygamy reference case
Friday, December 4th, 2009 | 11:40 am

http://www.kelowna.com/2009/12/04/bauman-agrees-to-appointment-of-vancou...

Canwest News Service

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Bauman agreed Friday to the appointment of Vancouver lawyer George Macintosh as an"amicus" in the constitutional reference case to determine whether Canada's anti-polygamy law is constitutional.

Macintosh will argue that Criminal Code Section 293, which prohibits having multiple spouses, is unconstitutional and ought to be allowed. He will be making the case against the combined forces of the B.C. attorney general's ministry and the Canadian justice department.

The decision is the first step in an unusual and unprecedented reference case. It is the first time in B.C. and possibly Canada that a constitutional reference has been heard in a trial court where lawyers for both sides can call witnesses.

Bauman also directed that any interested persons or groups that wish to intervene in the case should be notified and agreed that they would be heard. In his written ruling, Bauman said that he anticipated that both Winston Blackmore and James Oler would participate as intervenors. Blackmore and Oler were the two leaders from the fundamentalist Mormon community of Bountiful who were charged with one count each of polygamy. Those charges were quashed by a B. C. Supreme Court justice and rather than appeal her ruling, Attorney General Mike de Jong decided to pursue a reference case.

Hand

Would really enjoy updates from your perspective on this fight. This time around ~ not much hitting American news. (trundles off to find info)

Cheers!