looking for balance

War and Peace: Illusions of partnership at Conservative-First Nations gathering | rabble.ca

2012-02-09T15:13:00.000-08:00

The recent First Nation gathering in Ottawa is an interesting meeting - especially since it was been triggered by the crisis at Attiwapiskat. News coverage revealed a fascinating spectacle with FN leaders in colorful regalia and interesting speeches given by all. However, there is a darker side to all of the pomp and ceremony.

Dr. Pamela D. Palmater, a Mi'kmaw lawyer and member of the Eel River Bar First Nation in New Brunswick, provides important perspectives about the deeper meaning to this assembly and the threat it carries for First Nations. In her perspective, "All you need to be able to read between the lines is to understand their use of code words like "individual opportunity" (destroy communities), "solution to Canada's labour woes" (we are their labour pool), "unlocking the potential of First Nation lands" (transfer to non-Indians) and "maximizing benefits for all Canadians" (Canada gets rich off our remaining lands and resource). "

If you want to learn more about what's really going on, please read Pamela's entire article.

War and Peace: Illusions of partnership at Conservative-First Nations gathering | rabble.ca

The Tyee – Economist Calls Gateway Pipeline an Inflationary 'Threat'

2012-02-04T21:20:00.000-08:00

The Tyee – Economist Calls Gateway Pipeline an Inflationary 'Threat'

Who is the Enemy of the State?

2012-02-02T21:52:00.000-08:00

Canada is a constitutional country that is governed by the rule of law - both our own common law tradition and international law. Nevertheless, the Harper government is willing to promote the Enbridge pipeline even when this project clearly violates indigenous rights that are enshrined in the constitution. And somehow, this Harper government, that is so willing to disregard the very constitution that they are meant to uphold, are branding everyone who opposes the pipeline as an enemy of the State.

Just how much money is Enbridge paying Harper for this incredible service?

In the end, it really doesn't matter. There is no amount of money big enough to compensate for the risk to BC's coastal environment and salmon fisheries. People who have made their livelihoods off this land for centuries already know that and they aren't willing to be bought.

No oil pipeline here: Enbridge Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel in Smithers finds 100% opposition | The Vancouver Observer - Page 1

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/-1614516.htm

Liberal leader Bob Rae calls Harper government '"dictatorial" | The Vancouver Observer - Page 1

The Tyee – How First Nations Are Gearing Up for Legal Battle Against Gateway

2012-01-31T00:05:00.000-08:00

The Tyee – How First Nations Are Gearing Up for Legal Battle Against Gateway

7 Ways to Survive and Thrive in 2012 and Beyond — The Good Men Project

2012-01-27T14:26:00.000-08:00

7 Ways to Survive and Thrive in 2012 and Beyond — The Good Men Project

How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the ‘1 Percent’ | Common Dreams

2012-01-26T19:03:00.000-08:00

A fitting history lesson from 2 of my favorite countries.

How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the ‘1 Percent’ | Common Dreams

Native chiefs overturn deal with Enbridge on Gateway pipeline - The Globe and Mail

2012-01-18T17:24:00.000-08:00

Native chiefs overturn deal with Enbridge on Gateway pipeline - The Globe and Mail

China has our forests, now we're sending our oilfields too | Full Comment | National Post

2012-01-18T16:39:00.000-08:00

China has our forests, now we're sending our oilfields too | Full Comment | National Post

The Income Gap: Unfair, Or Are We Just Jealous? : NPR

2012-01-14T08:54:00.000-08:00

Most people agree - there is nothing wrong with being rich. It's the way government policy and the economy are changing to increase the rate that the rich become richer while blocking the path for everyone else that makes people angry.

The Income Gap: Unfair, Or Are We Just Jealous? : NPR

Should Alberta look east to ship its oil?

2012-01-11T01:39:00.000-08:00

Should Alberta look east to ship its oil?

Enbridge reports leak from U.S. pipeline as Northern Gateway hearings begin - The Globe and Mail

2012-01-10T21:19:00.000-08:00

Enbridge reports leak from U.S. pipeline as Northern Gateway hearings begin - The Globe and Mail

Radicals working against oilsands, Ottawa says - Politics - CBC News

2012-01-09T20:50:00.000-08:00

Why don't we consider upgrading the bitumen in Canada (thereby creating thousands of quality jobs for Canadians), shipping the refined product to the USA (we can use existing pipelines and Canada gets $100/bbl rather than $60/bbl for the refined product) and then we can build a pipeline to Ontario (which removes Canada's reliance on foreign oil imported using supertankers from the Middle East and provides fellow Canadians with a secure source of energy)?

OH NO!! I'm a radical!!

At least according to the current wisdom of Joe Oliver and the Conservative party of Canada.

Radicals working against oilsands, Ottawa says - Politics - CBC News

Enbridge pipeline review - Just who is getting hijacked? - Opinion 250 - News for Northern and Central Interior of British Columbia, Canada

2012-01-09T19:43:00.000-08:00

Enbridge pipeline review - Just who is getting hijacked? - Opinion 250 - News for Northern and Central Interior of British Columbia, Canada

An Open Letter to Joe Oliver | Green Party of Canada

2012-01-09T19:19:00.000-08:00

An Open Letter to Joe Oliver | Green Party of Canada

Protests, Occupy could lead to full-blown Canadian youth movement: experts - Winnipeg Free Press

2012-01-09T19:08:00.000-08:00

Protests, Occupy could lead to full-blown Canadian youth movement: experts - Winnipeg Free Press

An open letter to PM Harper about the Enbridge pipeline

2012-01-06T17:35:00.000-08:00

Dear Prime Minister Harper,

I am very discouraged by your unreasonable and poorly informed support for the Enbridge pipeline.

If your government really cared about Canadians, you would support a pipeline from Alberta to Ontario. This would remove Eastern Canada's dependence on imported oil, create Canadian refining jobs in either Alberta or Ontario, retain more economic value from the bitumen and remove the danger of destroying BC's coastal waters.

The Enbridge pipeline is very bad policy for Canadians. It is bad for Canada's energy security, economy and environment and it unfairly benefits Albertans, who get the vast majority of the reward at the expense of BC and First Nation communities who take all the risk.

I have written several letters on this topic in the past which details each of these contentions and you refuse to answer these concerns.

I am deeply disappointed in your lack of concern for the well being of the vast majority of Canadians.

Sincerely,

Keith Hirsche

1161 Chapman Rd.

Cobble Hill, BC

Harper warns pipeline hearings could be 'hijacked' - Business - CBC News

An Invitation to The Great Conversation - Cathleen Falsani | God's Politics Blog - Sojourners

2012-01-05T12:33:00.000-08:00

An Invitation to The Great Conversation - Cathleen Falsani | God's Politics Blog - Sojourners

Why do I Occupy: Richest CEOs earn 189 times average Canadian - Business - CBC News

2012-01-03T23:20:00.000-08:00

This simple illustration provides an insight into the energy behind the Occupy Movement. Even in Canada, the top 100 CEOs earn the equivalent of the average Canadian salary before the end of January 3rd.

Is there any way to justify this level of compensation? If you take these numbers over the course of an average working lifetime, what is the market saying about the worth of individual human beings?

Richest CEOs earn 189 times average Canadian - Business - CBC News

Northern Gateway: Alberta gets the rewards and BC gets all the risk.

2012-01-03T23:01:00.000-08:00

Latest report shows that the Northern Gateway pipeline means $72Billion to Alberta tar sands producers - and BC takes all the risk for free!

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Oilsands firms would lose without Gateway, study says - Business - CBC News

Global 'happiness index' ranks Canada 23rd - Canada - CBC News

2011-12-30T20:26:00.000-08:00

Interesting concepts - Canada, the country with one of the highest ranking economies in the world ranks only in the middle of the pack in terms of happiness. And Alberta, the richest province in the country is also the least happy province in Canada...

Why doesn't wealth correlate with happiness? What's going wrong?

Global 'happiness index' ranks Canada 23rd - Canada - CBC News

The 99% Versus Wall Street: Stephen Lerner on How We Can Mobilize To Be the Greedy 1%'s Worst Nightmare | | AlterNet

2011-12-28T18:37:00.000-08:00

The 99% Versus Wall Street: Stephen Lerner on How We Can Mobilize To Be the Greedy 1%'s Worst Nightmare | | AlterNet

Compassion Is Our New Currency | MichaelMoore.com

2011-12-22T20:49:00.000-08:00

Compassion Is Our New Currency | MichaelMoore.com

EcoMind: Changing the Way We Think, to Create the World We Want | Truthout

2011-12-22T12:03:00.000-08:00

EcoMind: Changing the Way We Think, to Create the World We Want | Truthout

Worse Than 2008 - Clear signs of a 2012 Depression

2011-12-21T23:18:00.000-08:00

An important reflection on the fragile state of our faith-based economies - and excellent reading for the shortest day of 2011.

It's a good thing that the Occupy Movement has shown us how to build a thriving community by simply meeting the most basic of human needs because this is an option we might need to seriously consider....

Worse Than 2008 - Blogs at Chris Martenson

Building pipelines to export oil might be Nation-Building - but which nation?

2011-12-07T07:04:00.000-08:00

The Conservative government is using an amazing range of rhetoric to sell the Northern Gateway pipeline - which is designed to ship oil from the tar sands to China- to Canadians. In their latest attempts, Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver claims the plan is a priority for "Nation Building". Considering that one of the most famous examples of Canadian "Nation Building" was the railway that connected our Atlantic and Pacific coasts, it might be worth while to look at some of the facts behind Joe Oliver's claim to see if it makes sense.

First, Canada requires 2 million barrels of oil each day to meet our current needs. Canada also has one of the least energy-efficient economies in the developed world requiring 1780 barrels of oil per million dollars of GDP, compared to countries like Denmark who require less than 750 barrels for the same benefit in GDP, which means our overall economy is highly vulnerable to high oil prices. In addition to our oil consumption, Canada currently exports more than 2 million barrels of oil per day to the US for a total of 4 Million barrels of oil per day.

Now comes the problem. Canada only produces 3 million barrels of oil per day and Eastern Canada is completely dependent on 1 million barrels of oil primarily shipped over 9000 km by oil tankers each day from unstable regimes in the Middle East. If oil prices rise suddenly or if these regimes stop exporting this volume of oil or if this steady stream of oil tankers is interrupted, our brothers and sisters in Eastern Canada will literally freeze in the dark.

On top of this problem, Eastern Canada's manufacturing sector has faced dramatic declines in recent years and this has resulted in serious unemployment and a growing gap between the rich and poor. Recent OECD reports indicate these problems are primarily caused corporations moving jobs overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor costs.

Interestingly, these problems are entirely related to high oil prices. First, the Canadian dollar is viewed as a petro-currency because Canada is a major oil exporting country. Higher oil prices over the past 5 years have led to a 40% rise in the value of our dollar and this indirectly raises the cost of employing Canadian workers relative to other countries. Second, higher energy prices also increase the cost of running factories and shipping materials which adds additional burdens to the manufacturing industries.

So, let's review Joe Oliver's claim that building a 900+ km pipeline across pristine BC wilderness that is home to more than 130 First Nation communities to fill 200 oil tankers per year that will ship the oil through one of the most environmentally sensitive regions in the world on the way to China is a nation building priority. Ultimately, this will leave Eastern Canada completely dependent on high priced foreign oil while increasing the value of the Canadian dollar which further erodes the competitiveness of Canadian workers, exporters and tourism industries which will lead to greater unemployment in all of these sectors.

Wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade the bitumen here (generating Canadian jobs) and building a 2700 km pipeline to Eastern Canada to ensure they have a reliable source of energy for their manufacturing industries?

Wouldn't that be Nation-Building?

Environmentalists, aboriginals won't stop pipeline: minister

An open response to Marybeth Hick's parental advice to Occupy protesters

2011-11-29T11:24:00.000-08:00

I must admit that I don't routinely follow the writings of Marybeth Hicks - or most ideological columnists for that matter- but two of my friends have recently sent me one of her columns from the Washington Times (Oct. 20) to review. If you are interested, here is a link to her column.

HICKS: Some belated parental advice to protesters - Washington Times

I won't respond in detail, but I would like to offer my opinion that this column seems typical of the way that journalists on both the right and left of the political spectrum tend to demonize and stereotype people who hold differing viewpoints rather than discuss the specific issues. For example, Marybeth characterizes members of the Occupy movement as young, immature, unrealistic, dirty, smelly, lazy, irresponsible etc. and blames them for their lack of success. She then defends those responsible, successful traders that have earned enough money through their "hard-work" on Wall Street to buy houses in the Hamptons.

Unfortunately, reality tends to be more complicated than she admits. From my experience, a typical Occupy camp consists of a wide range of people. I have met idealistic and informed people of all ages from varying backgrounds who are sacrificing their personal safety and comfort to stand against a system that is destroying our environment and funnelling the profits into fewer and fewer pockets. I have also noticed that there are large numbers of homeless people who are attracted to the movement - perhaps because of the free food and relative safety from police harrasment- and some of them bring their addiction and mental health problems into the camp environment. I have been particularly impressed by the way that the more able camp members tend to reach out and try to support those who have been rejected by our current system - however, in some cases this has not been successful and I suspect that many of the conflicts between police and the Occupy movement have been triggered by the chronic homeless. It's also worth noting how MaryBeth characterizes the Wall Street traders as hard-working rather than considering how many of these traders come from rich ivy league families who were able to get them into the "right" schools where they made the "right" connections that opened the "right" doors and so on. It's also worth noting that many of these wealty traders have made their wealth by gambling with other people's money and while it is beyond any doubt that they were responsible for the major economic crisis of 2008 - where millions of people lost their pension earnings, their pensions, their jobs and even their homes- I am not aware of a single Wall Street trader or bank CEO being sent to jail for their dishonest transactions.

Overall, I feel very hopeful that the Occupy Wall Street Movement will help in bringing a positive change to our current system. Hopefully they will be a part of moving our society back to a place where everyone has a fair chance for success and we can start rebuilding our middle class and our natural environment. In the meantime, you can expect that those who are benefitting the most from our current system will fight very hard to maintain the advantages in wealth and power that they now hold. Much of this will be played out in the media where the elite from both sides of the debate will attempt to stereotype and characterize the movement for their own advantage. Certainly you will see alot of negative reporting - this is because the rich and powerful own most of the media outlets - so I would recommend that you go down to the Occupy camps and meetings to visit with the people personally. During our Victoria Peace Colloquy on Oct 22, we had 3 people from Occupy Victoria come and present their ideas to our congregation. It was a very worth-while event.

I also notice that no matter how much bad press is targetted against the Occupy Movement, the Rich and Powerful said the same things and worse about the early Christians and the early Mormons...

Mormon Polygamy on Trial: The Final Verdict

2011-11-23T15:04:00.000-08:00

After more than 3 months of hearings and 6 months of deliberation, BC Supreme Court Justice Robert Bauman has delivered his final decision. In his opinion, Canada's 1890 anti-poligamy law has withstood the constitutional challenge and it is a criminal offense to have a committed relationship with more than one person at a time in Canada. The only exception seems to be for teenage girls who marry older men. In this case, only the man is a criminal.

The objections the Canadian Polyamory Association have been over-ruled, indicating that polygamy poses so much harm to the rest of society that it can not be tolerated.

It is a very lengthy document and I have not had time to read it.

Here is the official link - What do you think about it?

2011 BCSC 1588 Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada

An open reply to a letter from Joe Oliver on the Northern Gateway pipeline

2011-11-22T00:13:00.000-08:00

The Hon. Joe Oliver

Minister of Natural Resources

Ottawa, Canada K1A 0E4

SJ: Enbridge pipeline proposal is not in Canada’s best interest

Dear Mr. Oliver,

Thank you for your detailed reply to my letter of July 19, 2011. I read your letter with interest and after giving serious consideration to your comments, I have come to the conclusion that the Enbridge Northern Gateway proposal would be a major mistake for Canada.

In my previous letter, I wrote that the profits and rewards associated with selling Alberta’s bitumen to Asia would only benefit the province and the multi-national corporate partners. You rightly objected to this statement by pointing out that there are benefits to the rest of Canada through royalties, equalization payments, etc. However, after considerable research and analysis I have concluded that while there are some benefits to the rest of Canada, a significantly disproportionate share of the benefits go to Alberta and the multi-national corporations. For example, Alberta collected 7.5 B$ from total oil and gas revenue in 2010. By comparison, the Net Profit from only 3 of the 10 major oil sands producing companies (Suncor, Imperial and Cenovus) totalled over 7.0 B$ in the same year. Economic benefit to the rest of Canada is a very small fraction of these totals.

In terms of employment, you indicated that direct and indirect employment from oil and gas production is estimated at 500,000 jobs. While this is significant, it must be put in context. Stats Canada indicates that there were approximately 17,000,000 jobs in Canada for 2010 and less than 5% of these jobs are connected to the oil and gas industry. Even in the province of Alberta, the oil and gas industry only provides 150,000 out of a total of 2,000,000 jobs (7%) and in British Columbia, this sector creates 35,000 out of 2,300,000 jobs (2%). In contrast, tourism and recreation in British Columbia creates more than 250,000 jobs and many of these jobs could be threatened by the proposed pipeline.

You also wrote of the positive balance of trade surplus that is related to oil and gas exports. While this is certainly true, it must also be noted that these same oil and gas exports are largely responsible for the high value of the Canadian dollar relative to the US currency. Unfortunately, our high value ”petro-dollar” causes considerable hardship for any segment of the economy that relies on export or tourism. This has recently been evident in the loss of 48,000 manufacturing jobs during October 2011 and over the period from 2006 to 2010, the manufacturing sector has lost more than 350,000 jobs (Stats Canada).

In terms of job creation, pipelines that are designed to export raw bitumen are not desirable for Canada. For example, former Alberta Premier Lougheed recently stated "I would prefer...we process the bitumen from the oilsands in Alberta and that would create a lot of jobs and job activity ... That would be a better thing to do than merely send the raw bitumen down the pipeline and they refine it in Texas that means thousands of new jobs in Texas. (CBC, 9/13/11). Lougheed’s statement has been confirmed by US House Speaker John Boehner who indicated that the delay of the keystone pipeline meant that "More than 20,000 new American jobs have just been sacrificed in the name of political expediency”. In addition to shipping jobs out of Canada, the Northern Gateway and Keystone pipelines ship bitumen at $64/barrel out of the country where it is refined and sold at more than $90/barrel (2010 average prices). This represents a major share of the oil sands value that should be benefitting Canadians.

In terms of National Energy Policy, these pipelines are not beneficial to Canada. Canada currently imports more than 55% of our oil requirements from Norway and the Middle East. As oil supplies continue to tighten, Eastern Canada’s oil supply is increasingly vulnerable and at the same time your government is focused on providing a secure oil supply for the US and China. Why is their energy security more important than our own?

The foolishness of this proposal is even more obvious when one considers that it requires 900 km of pipeline and 9000 km by oil tanker to move bitumen to China. Shipping oil from the Middle East to Halifax requires an additional 9500 km. By contrast, shipping bitumen from Edmonton to Southern Ontario would only require a pipeline of 2700 km which is less than the 3000 km required to ship the bitumen to Houston, Tx.

The Northern Gateway Pipeline would be harmful to Canada through decreasing Canada’s energy security. By comparison, refining the bitumen in Canada would create Canadian jobs and improve our economy through value-added industries. And as a bonus, it would also be much safer for the environment.

Sincerely,

Keith Hirsche

1161 Chapman Rd.

Cobble Hill, BC

250 929 5586

cc: Prime Minister Harper

Jean Crowder

Elizabeth May

Alison Redford

Christy Clark

Denis Lebel

David Swann

Toronto Firefighters choose to protect First Nation's sacred fire

2011-11-14T22:22:00.000-08:00

At 330 AM on Nov. 14, Toronto firefighters were told to extinguish a fire at Occupy Toronto. After determining that it was a First Nation's Sacred Flame, the fire fighters decided to protect the fire from city officials. This was a tremendous show of respect to the First Nations people and a powerful contrast to the unfortunate events that transpired last week at Occupy Vancouver.

If you want to see a very positive interaction under difficult circumstances, check out the video here.

For another take on the story, check out what CTV had to say.

CP24- Fire crews allow Occupy Toronto fire to burn

More evidence for a major recession in 2012

2011-11-10T11:24:00.000-08:00

During November 2009 I wrote a blog posting offering my opinion -based on oil supply limitations and economic growth projections- that we would be facing another major economic downturn in 2010 or 2011. Over the past 2 years, we have not seen the hoped-for economic recovery, but we haven't exactly seen another major downturn either.

About a month ago, I reviewed the latest IEA data and made a guess that the next major recession would occur in 2012 - once again based on projected oil supply and demand predictions. Here is one more article that supports this possibility.

Unfortunately, I can't see any way to avoid the current climate of economic uncertainty as long as Canada and the US remain completely dependent on easy access to low priced supplies of oil and gas to fuel economic growth. As soon as the economies begin to grow, the growth is stifled by an immediate rise in oil prices - which in turn causes price increases for everything from agriculture to transportation.

There is no way to escape this trap until the US and Canadian governments are willing to make major investments to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and transportation systems and in the expansion of alternative energy generation and the corresponding infrastructure. And as long as our elected officials insist on serving and promoting the demands of the oil companies - I don't see any hope.

BBC News - Oil prices are in 'danger zone', warns the IEA

Occupy Vancouver and the First nation's sacred fire - Truth and the media

2011-11-09T23:30:00.000-08:00

We arrived at Occupy Vancouver on Sunday afternoon. The camp was relatively quiet except for the large number of city workers and VFD firefighters who were walking around the camp. As we asked around, we learned that the First Nations people were leading a march past the various mining companies that are guilty of mining of their land without proper permission or compensation. While I waited, I had a long conversation with a First Nations elder from Northern Ontario who told me that they were in conversations with the fire department about the possibility of lighting a sacred flame in the centre of the camp. Not long afterward, a group of demonstrators led by First nation elders returned to the camp.

We returned to the Occupy site on Monday afternoon. Returning to the First nations elder's tent, we learned that an agreement had been reached to light a sacred flame. Soon preparations were underway to clear a large area in the centre of the site. Once a major tent structure was removed, sand bags were brought to the central location and broken to build a large sand basin to form a base for the flame. All of this was done by First Nation people in direct consultation with firefighters.

Once the site was prepared, people were invited to form a circle around the central location and a First nation elder described the dedication ceremony for the flame. Another elder worked his way around the circle to smudge each participant. Soon the other elder began prayers to dedicate the site and the fire that would follow. This was an event of major significance, particularly for the members of the BC First Nations as the site was on the front lawn of the historic BC court house where so many of their rights had been taken away. This ceremony would mark the first time a sacred flame was lit on the site in more than 100 years.

About this time, Jan and I realized that we had to leave to catch our ferry.

Imagine our surprize the next day as we read the press reports about “The city went to court for an injunction to remove the tents on the site after a brawl broke out on Monday night between the police and firefighters trying to extinguish a barrel fire and some protesters who wanted to keep it alight.”

I find it very difficult to believe that the police and firefighters did not know the significance of the fire – especially after witnessing the elaborate site preparation and dedication ceremony. It certainly seemed to me that they were actively involved in the entire process over the previous 24 hours and it leaves me wondering what happened.

Was there a shift change and no communication about what was going on? Did someone over-rule the decisions made by the on-site firefighters and was this not passed on to the First Nations people? Or was it all an elaborate trap to discredit Occupy Vancouver?

And finally, why have none of the media reports even mentioned the First Nations ceremony or even their involvement in the camp?

After reading and watching the media version of these events, I am very grateful that I took photos of the ceremony or I might not believe it even happened.

First - here are two independent accounts that closely parallel what I personally witnessed:

Occupy Vancouver Media Blog

Fire Department Official Sparks Conflict at Occupy Vancouver | Vancouver Media Co-op

Now the main-stream media spin

Occupy Vancouver protest wins overnight reprieve - British Columbia - CBC News

Court grants Occupy Vancouver 1-week reprieve - British Columbia - CBC News

Occupy Vancouver protesters told to leave after police officers bitten, ammunition stolen - The Globe and Mail

Occupy Vancouver site little changed leading up to fire hazard deadline

And lastly, I attach a link to one of the most offensive, racist and least informed articles I have ever read in a newspaper. I was at Occupy Vancouver for 2 days following Ashlie's death and I can't imagine any characterization that is further from the truth than this column by Stewart Brinton.

http://www.theprovince.com/Ashlie+drug+death+plunges+Occupy+ideals+into+doubt/5686205/story.html

Next Great Recession - probably coming in 2012

2011-10-26T12:22:00.000-07:00

Over a year ago I wrote a blog entry which speculated that the relationship between peak oil and economic growth would result in another major recession - on the scale of 2008 - that would occur in 2010 or 2011. Yesterday I took some time to review the International Energy Agencies data on oil supply and demand and quickly learned that we are living on borrowed time again. For the few quarters oil demand has outpaced supply and the emergency oil reserves held by the industrialized countries are being depleted.

Today I found this interesting article on Limits to Growth which contends that 2012 will be a very bad year due to Peak Oil, food prices, Chinese debt, etc.

Looks like my prediction may have been off by a year or so...

The Oil Drum | Are We Reaching “Limits to Growth”?

Jan's reaction to Occupy Vancouver

2011-10-18T11:36:00.000-07:00

My wife, Jan Porter-Hirsche and I were on the mainland this weekend and while I was busy with other obligations, Jan went downtown to experience day 1 of Occupy Vancouver. These are her impressions...

My impressions visiting “Occupy Vancouver” Day 1: Perfect weather. The energy was vibrant; all ages; a deep and rewarding sense of percolating possibility; a call to generous community. There was a drum circle, a meditation circle, a Kids play zone, a few tents, banners, signs, info centres (ZeitgeistVancouver.com), good looking food, BC Civil Liberties observers, lots of police in casual attitude frequently approached by demonstrators and exchanging friendly greetings. As speaker’s shared messages, the crowd responded not with affirming noise but with silent (hand waving) applause. At the centre an intentionally expansive and inclusive, very patient message crafting process was underway... (As if called to be "loving, hopeful and optimistic!")

Occupy Vancouver Day 3: Still gorgeous weather. More pensive energy, many more tents, far fewer people, but much easier to converse and investigate how well organized this is and how well it is progressing! We also discovered a Uranium company (Boss Power Corp) is suing the BC government for $60 million for interfering in its potential profits (trial begins tomorrow). We were encouraged to join the gathering in support of the families of Missing Women held a couple of blocks away but it was wrapping up as we got there.

Back home today sorting ripening garden veg and apples that Keith is taking to Occupy Victoria today. I need to progress a bit on some research for university but am looking forward to participating and seeing how all this goes!

Boss vs BC: (http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/newsrelease/7953 or http://www.bosspower.ca/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=439683&_Title=Boss-Power-Lawsuit-Against-Province-of-B.C.-will-Proceed-to-Trial)

Why is our Government so willing to build pipelines to ship our jobs out of the country?

2011-10-08T11:41:00.000-07:00

Once again, Peter Lougheed - the architect of Alberta's Conservative dynasty is speaking out about the management of Alberta's oilsands. He argues that Alberta is the owner of the resource and should get its' fair share. The natural resources should provide jobs and benefits for the people of Alberta and the rest of Canada.

Why do Stephen Harper's government and the Alberta neo-conservatives disagree?

The Tyee – Nikiforuk: Yes, Refine Oil Sands Crude Right Here

Response from Minister of Natural Resources: Hon. Joe Oliver

2011-10-04T23:19:00.000-07:00

About 2 weeks ago I received a reply to my open letter to Stephen Harper about the economic and environmental cost of our current National Energy Policy (2010). The reply has come from Joe Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources) and it appears that someone has read at least part of my letter.

In fact, they rightly call me on my statement that states that "selling Alberta's bitumen to Asia will only benefit Alberta and its' multi-national corporate partners". I would have been much more accurate if I would have stated that "selling Alberta's bitumen will overwhelmingly benefit Alberta and their corporate partners" while the rest of Canada bears the majority of the risks.

It also seems that Mr. Oliver - or whoever answered my letter - also missed the part where I stated that I am Albertan by background and that I have a long career in the oil and gas industry. Otherwise, I think they would have written less or taken the time to be more accurate. More on this in my upcoming reply.

For the time being, here is the response from Minister Oliver's office.

Mr. W. Keith Hirsche
1161 Chapman Road
Cobble Hill, British Columbia VOR 1L7

Dear Mr. Hirsche:
The Prime Minister's office has forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence of
July 19, 2011, regarding Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway Pipelines project
(the Project) and the need to move towards a sustainable energy future.

You indicated that the profits and rewards associated with selling Alberta's bitumen to
Asia will only benefit the province and its multinational corporate partners. However, there
are numerous benefits associated with Canada's oil and natural gas industries. According to
Statistics Canada, in 2010, Canada's petroleum exports (e.g., crude oil, petroleum products
and natural gas) accounted for 21 percent of all exports and are a key component of Canada's
merchandise trade surplus with the outside world. This surplus benefits all Canadians.

In addition, the oil and gas industry provides an important source of revenue for governments
via royalties, federal and provincial land taxes, and land sales. The four provincial
governments that control most of Canada's oil and natural resource production (Alberta,
Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador) also contribute billions
of dollars each year to Canadian provinces in the form of equalization payments.

Oil and natural gas are used to produce thousands of products, from petrochemicals to
building supplies to plastics. Direct and indirect employment from Canada's upstream
oil and gas industry is estimated at 500,000 jobs.

Currently, Alberta's oil sands account for 52 percent of Canada's oil production. The
Canadian Energy Research Institute estimates that, over the next 25 years, the Canadian
oil sands industry alone could generate more than 900,000 jobs and inject more than
$2.1 trillion into the Canadian economy. Clearly, benefits from Alberta's oil sands
development accrue all across Canada.

With respect to the Project, given its complexity and interest in it from Canadians and
First Nations groups, the Honourable Peter Kent, Minister of the Environment, referred
the Project for a panel review. The Project will be thoroughly reviewed by a three-member
Joint Panel (the Panel) to satisfy the requirements of both the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act. The Panel's broad environmental
assessment mandate covers the review of the pipelines, the terminal, the docking facilities
at Kitimat, and the marine transportation portion of the pipelines project.

The Panel recently issued its hearing order and will commence community hearings in
January 2012, followed by final hearings in June 2012. The Panel's review is open to all
interested parties, and information on participation is available on the Panel's Web site
at www.gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca. The Panel's findings will include an
environmental assessment report, including recommendations, for Minister Kent and,
subsequently, a determination of whether the Project is in the public interest. If the Panel
finds the Project in the public interest, the Government of Canada will make the final
decision regarding whether the Project can proceed.

You also noted a concern regarding tanker traffic associated with the Project.
I would like to stress that safety, security and environmental stewardship are of paramount
importance for transportation regulation, including tanker traffic in Canadian waters. Under
federal and provincial law, tankers are free to travel to and from British Columbia ports and
do so currently, safely importing and exporting crude oil and petroleum products.

The shipping of crude oil and petroleum products by tanker is governed by the Canada
Shipping Act, which is administered by the Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of
Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities. Should you have any other questions or
comments on matters related to tanker traffic on the British Columbia coast, I recommend
you contact Minister Lebel directly.

Finally, regarding the need to move towards a sustainable energy future, the Government
is committed to growing Canada's clean energy advantage. In fact, the ecoENERGY Retrofit
- Homes program was recently renewed to allow homeowners to make their homes more
energy-efficient. Earlier this year, Budget 2011 announced the ecoENERGY Innovation
Initiative, a new program that supports energy technology innovation with a view to produce
and use energy in a cleaner and more efficient way. These initiatives are key components of
the government's action to achieve real emissions reductions, while maintaining Canada's
economic advantage and its ability to create jobs for Canadians.

Thank you for writing on these important matters.
Yours sincerely,
The Honourable Joe Oliver, P.e., M.P.

The CONservative CON game.

2011-08-16T21:50:00.000-07:00

The Republican party in the USA have been pioneering research into ways to persuade people to vote for them - even when it goes against their own self interest. After years of research, they have determined that the best way to get your vote is to bombard you with images that affect you on an emotional level, rather than at an intellectual level. The Harper Conservatives and their allies have adopted these same techniques and are using them successfully to promote their political fortunes. Now Ezra Levant is using this same technique - probably with government support - to convince you that the out-of-control tar sands exploitation is actually a good thing.

The only way to counter this type of psychological con-game is to understand the way it is being played. This website, created by tanker free BC exposes Levant for the Con-man that he truly is.

Open Letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper : Shipping bitumen to Asia is not in Canada's national interest

2011-07-19T16:31:00.000-07:00

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Dear Prime Minister Harper,

I recently read that an agreement has been reached by Canada’s Energy ministers that would declare that shipping oil from the tar sands to Asia is in Canada’s National interest. I am shocked and appalled that this conclusion could be reached by our provincial and federal ministers. As someone who was born and raised in Alberta and spent my career in the oil and gas industry, I am aware that oil from the tar sands is a resource that is owned, regulated and controlled by the province of Alberta and not the Federal government. In fact Alberta has fought a long and difficult battle against the Federal government to guarantee this resource, and any associated revenues, remain in Provincial control.

From this fundamental constitutional arrangement, it is clear that the profits and rewards of selling Alberta’s bitumen to Asia will only benefit the province of Alberta and their multi-national corporate partners. It will create jobs for some and immense profits for a privileged few. On the other hand, the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and the associated tanker traffic through BC’s Coastal waters will endanger British Columbians and one of the most beautiful and fragile ecosystems in the world. How can this be in Canada’s national interest?

In a world where we are quickly depleting conventional reserves of oil and gas, it is critical for Canada to play a leadership role in moving towards a sustainable energy future. Whether you personally believe in the science of global warming or the oil industry’s corporately- funded propaganda, the rest of the world is seeking to decrease carbon emissions and move towards higher levels of energy efficiency and sustainability. Your Government’s unquestioning support of Alberta’s oil and gas industry over all other provinces and economic sectors is costing Canadian jobs and our economic security. This has been clearly demonstrated in the 2009 TD Bank, David Suzuki Foundation/Pembina Institute economic study and report entitled “Exploration of two Canadian greenhouse gas emissions targets: 25% below 1990 and 20% below 2006 levels by 2020”

There is an alternative to selling Alberta’s bitumen to Asian and American markets. The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and the associated tanker traffic are clearly not in Canada’s National Interest. Canada deserves better leadership than this.

Sincerely,

W. Keith Hirsche

1161 Chapman Road, Cobble Hill, BC V0R 1L7

(250) 929 5586

cc: Jack Layton - Leader of the opposition Rich Coleman -BC Energy Minister

Christy Clark: Premier of British Columbia Jean Crowder - MP Cowichan

Elizabeth May - Leader Green Party of Canada MP Saanich Gulf Islands

Joe Oliver - Minister Natural Resources (Canada )

A real world perspective on the tar sands debate

2011-07-16T17:15:00.000-07:00

As in most conflicts, the first victims in the battle over the Alberta tarsands are people who have little in the way of resources to fight back. However, they are taking real action in ways that cut through all the rhetoric of our usual debate about the needs of the economy vs the environment.

For some important perspective and inspiration, this article on the the tarsands healing walk is well worth reading.

Please read this - it's depressing - but it's for your own good

2011-07-16T16:27:00.000-07:00

It's been three years since we left our jobs in the oil and gas industry and embarked on this seemingly random and unexpected journey into the greater world beyond. It's been three years, and I still can't decide what I want to be when I grow up. That can be pretty depressing.

However, in the big picture, I am still confident that we made the right decision. I still don't know what my role is, but I know in my bones that things are going to have to change. Our precious economy teters on the brink of oblivion - and more importantly, the degradation of our natural world is accellerating unchecked.

To put all of this in perspective, take the time to read this article. As stated by Derrick Jensen, "If your experience is that your food comes from the grocery store and your water comes from the tap, then you are going to defend to the death the system that brings those to you because your life depends on them. If your experience, however, is that your food comes from a land base and that your water comes from a stream, well, then you will defend to the death that land base and that stream."

Reading this article could save your life - and certainly the lives of your children.

Why Stop at Massive Economic Growth when Infinite Growth Is within Reach? « Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy

2011-06-14T10:59:00.000-07:00

W0w - I finally see the light!!!! Infinite economic growth is possible and ecological/environmental constraints are only a pesky illusion!!!

Why Stop at Massive Economic Growth when Infinite Growth Is within Reach? « Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy

Harper Conservatives ‘hypocrites’ on oilsands: Alberta

2011-05-23T21:42:00.000-07:00

This fascinating article from the Calgary Herald poses an interesting range of opinion. First the Obama administration is beginning to pressure the Harper Conservatives on the oilsands - even beginning to wonder whether a moratorium on new development might be in order. Apparently, this is prompting the Harper government to threaten to implement regulations for the oilsands unless the Alberta PCs implement something first.

For the Alberta PCs, this is a menacing threat - Stelmach will not tolerate Ottawa (remember Harper and most of his cabinet are actually from Alberta) interfering with their tarsand operations. Besides, they claim they are confident that Alberta is already providing world class oversight and monitoring on this amazing resource. And beyond that, the Harper Government (TM) is not doing enough to help Alberta with its world-class PR campaign - including lobbying offices in Washington DC and beyond - to sell the world on the tar sands development.

On top of all this, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is complaining that the Stelmach PC government is already ruining their ability to make money in the province and unless this improves, they might leave and ruin Alberta's economy.

Let's take a reality check here....

The tar sands are out of control. Their ongoing development contributes more GreenHouseGas emissions than many industrialized countries and in terms of energy balance, they are a very poor choice as an energy source (yielding only 3 barrels of oil for every barrel of oil equivalent invested). In spite of passionate claims to the contrary - Alberta's monitoring and regulation programs have been proven to be woefully inadequate. From Harper's conservatives to Stelmach's PCs, there is far more tax payer money being spent in a PR campaign (for more information on this, just review the Bruce Carson scandal) promoting the unregulated exploitation of this resource than there is on monitoring, regulation or enforcement. Not only that, Alberta is giving royalty holidays on projects until their capital investment is paid off - so companies are operating essentially risk-free - and even when royalties are collected, they are based on bitumen prices which are about half of the world oil prices. American companies and American workers are benefiting from the upgrading jobs and world oil prices. The failure of the Alberta PC government to collect the fair share of profits for the people of Alberta is one of the biggest reasons that the Alberta government can't afford to pay for health care or infrastructure development. If you don't want to take my word for it, just compare the royalties collected by the Norwegian government to what Alberta collects.

Even PC founder and former Alberta Premiere Peter Lougheed is on record in calling for a moratorium on future developments.

Let's get real here. The Alberta government, under pressure from CAPP, and with help from the Harper Conservatives are stealing from the people of Alberta and from the Canadian people. All we are getting are a few good paying jobs and environmental destruction of the boreal forests at a rate that has never been duplicated in human history.

And if you think that multi-national oil companies are going to stick around to clean up their mess when the most profitable oil sand mining areas are depleted - why don't you take a quick look at the history of the Sydney tar ponds.

Harper Conservatives ‘hypocrites’ on oilsands: Alberta

Peak Oil: A Chance to Change the World | Common Dreams

2011-05-17T11:37:00.000-07:00

I might be accused of being a pessimist - or perhaps being overly critical - and this might be a fair accusation. Nevertheless, I find myself incredibly frustrated by the actions of some of my colleagues in the oil and gas industry. Exxon-Mobil is probably the easiest example to criticize. For one thing, they are the biggest and the best at what they do. Among my complaints, they have made the largest investments in funding pseudo science to refute global warming - much like the big tobacco lobby of a few decades ago. They have also used their money and influence to overturn Canada's environmental safeguards that would have slowed down their tar sand mining operations and even to attack Alberta's provincial government for requesting slightly higher royalty payments.

OK - in fairness, I guess corporations exist to maximize profits and these pseudo-persons, from a legal perspective, are not encumbered by conscience. From this perspective, Exxon is just doing its' job.

That being said, I find it sad to hear that their current CEO is being invited as an inspirational speaker at university commencements.

And this alternative commencement address - given a few minutes after Exxon's heart-warming words - offers some small beacons of hope for an alternative future ahead.

Peak Oil: A Chance to Change the World | Common Dreams

80% renewable energy possible by 2050: U.N. - World - CBC News

2011-05-09T11:39:00.000-07:00

In a world facing the challenges of declining oil and gas reserves coupled with climate change, it will take massive investments in renewable energy and infrastructure to make significant changes. Fortunately, there are countries interested in creating an alternative and sustainable future.

Unfortunately, Canada is continuing to subsidize the oil and gas industry rather than take a leadership role in this critical move towards sustainability. This leaves us with the least energy efficient economy in the industrialized world at a time when energy prices are moving towards record levels.

Will we ever have the necessary motivation for political change?

80% renewable energy possible by 2050: U.N. - World - CBC News

$4 Gas: Get Used To It : Planet Money : NPR

2011-05-05T21:54:00.000-07:00

A repeat of 2008?

$4 Gas: Get Used To It : Planet Money : NPR

The Canadian Economy will soon suffer from Harper's out-of-touch energy policies

2011-05-03T16:45:00.000-07:00

Stephen Harper claims to be "business friendly" - his critics might even call him "corporation friendly". This is generally observed in terms of his government's plans to reduce corporate taxes while burdening consumers with unpopular HST programs and decreasing public services like health care because there isn't enough money to fund them. Harper justifies this by saying that these corporation friendly actions are needed to insure that companies will invest in Canada and create jobs which will grow the economy.

However, it is important to note that a Harper government isn't friendly to corporations that seek to develop important new economic sectors. Even when these companies would provide many quality jobs and even reduce our economic dependence on declining (and increasingly expensive) supplies of fossil fuel.

When it comes to carbon taxes or cap and trade systems to benefit the environment, the Harper conservatives claim these measures would ruin the economy and threaten countless jobs. Economic analysis shows that this economic slow-down is caused because the carbon management systems simulate high oil prices - and this causes the economy to shift away from fossil fuel usage. Fortunately, government raises money with these systems that is typically used to fund alternative energy systems, public transit etc. This new industry and transportation development creates new jobs that ultimately grow the economy. For a good example of this, just look at Denmark.

Harper's extreme loyalty and complete allegiance to the oil and gas industry leaves Canada completely vulnerable to high oil prices - which are inevitable as oil production slows on a global level. Lagging behind the rest of the world on renewable energy and environmental protection will ultimately handicap Canada's economy far more than any carbon management regulations.

Green energy sector not cheering Tory majority - The Globe and Mail

Their man has a majority; now oil patch wants elbow room - The Globe and Mail

Life under a Jack Layton government - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News

2011-04-27T18:08:00.000-07:00

Is this too much to hope for??

Life under a Jack Layton government - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News

Politics of a Failing Economy - and the Environment

2011-04-21T07:00:00.000-07:00

Governments often claim that taking action against climate change would destroy the economy. This is because a carbon tax effectively raises the price of oil and gasoline and higher energy prices flow through the economy. In turn, this causes higher prices for everything else, which reduces demand and slows down the entire economy.

Interestingly, this is only half-true. In countries which have implemented carbon-reduction programs, like Denmark and Germany, their governments have implemented carbon taxes and then used the money from taxes to create jobs in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors. They stimulate the economy and also protect their economies from inevitable raises in oil prices (oil is after-all a non-renewable and depleting resource).

Canada has not done anything like this - instead the government has invested millions of tax-payer dollars to promote the oil and gas industry and create suspicion about climate change science.

This article gives some insight into how they have done this and the type of people who have been involved.

From the April 21, 2011 CBC article PMO warned ethics watchdog on Carson (which is linked below)

"Giorno's letter outlined to Dawson [Canada's ethics commissioner) the steps the PMO had taken to address the potential conflict of interest with Carson and the grant request from the newly-created think tank, the Canada School of Energy and Environment.

Carson, who continued to work for Harper for a month after the email before returning to the institute, said the email was sent in error by his office there.

The Harper government subsequently approved a $25-million grant for Carbon Management Canada, another research institute chaired by Carson."

"Last month, the Prime Minister's Office called in the Mounties to investigate allegations Carson may have illegally lobbied the government in 2010 on behalf of a water-filter company employing his girlfriend, a 22-year-old former prostitute.

When that story broke, Harper and his senior staff all said they had no prior inkling there was anything amiss about Carson.

The relative hail of mail to the ethics commissioner about Carson adds another bizarre twist to the unfolding saga of the convicted fraudster who became one of Harper's most trusted advisers."

"Carson promptly left to become head of the Canada School of Energy and Environment, but had barely unpacked his bags in Calgary when Harper called the 2008 election and insisted his trusted adviser return to travel on the campaign plane. As soon as the campaign was over, Carson returned to Calgary to resume his position at the institute.

But six weeks later, he was back in the PMO to advise Harper during the coalition crisis that threatened to topple the newly elected Conservative government."

"Carson returned to the Calgary institute, which was supposed to be a co-ordinating agency for clean energy research.

The agency was set up as a private corporation and funded entirely with a $15 million grant from the federal government.

Almost immediately, Carson rewrote the mandate of the agency from that of a research institute to a centre devoted to promoting the Alberta oilsands and helping the Harper government navigate the politically treacherous climate change issue.

Sources say Carson was also officially retained as an unpaid adviser to the federal Environment Ministry.

That's when the third letter about Carson landed on the desk of the federal ethics and conflict-of-interest commissioner."

So - next time you find yourself at the gas pump paying over $1.00/litre for gasoline - you have Stephen Harper and Carson to thank. Their far-sighted and publicly funded work has insured that you will pay nothing but higher prices for gasoline for the forseeable future - because they have done a tremendous job in stifling any efforts to move from an oil based economy .

And when the next economic collapse comes about - after oil prices have reached $150/barrell or so - you can thank them all over again.

PMO warned ethics watchdog on Carson - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science | Mother Jones

2011-04-20T13:33:00.000-07:00

We live in a world with increasing complex problems and we are steadily losing the ability to reach consensus in moving towards solutions. A good friend once told me that all of our decisions are made with our emotions and our reasoning is only a way to justify it to ourselves.

Looks like he was right!

This excellent article not only provides an explanation to commonly observed interactions -especially relating to political issues- and more importantly it offers ways to deal with the breakdown of communication.

A couple of simple rules for speaking with someone of differing perspectives:
1. frame your points based on values that they understand instead of trying to argue about facts
2. Recognize and admit your own emotional responses/biases and try to minimize statements that will trigger an emotional response in the other person.

Overall, a fascinating article that should be required reading for every human....

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science | Mother Jones

The Politics of Truth

2011-04-13T10:21:00.000-07:00

I must confess that Canada's democratic process deeply saddens me. With our British parliamentary system, appointed senate and appointed judiciary, Canada has less democracy than any other industrialized country. The leader of the party that obtains the most seats in the election automatically becomes prime minister and then exercises more power than any other head of state - outside of monarchies or dictatorships.

On top of that, we seem to have inherited a distinctly American method of governance and campaigning. The current conservative party runs attack ads against the leader of the opposition on a non-stop basis - in spite of the fact that our election campaigns are only 30 days long. In the last election, the Conservative government broke the laws set down by elections Canada on campaign spending and has been no consequence.

And even worse, we have only one leadership debate in the entire election cycle where the misleading statements, half-truths and outright lies told by the various leaders can be examined and compared. That debate, which was held last night, contained a spectacle of leaders delivering facts about various events; the conservative attempt - under Stephen Harper - to form a minority coalition government in 2004, spending plans in the conservative budget and discussion about the way the Harper government has ignored the limited checks and balances in Canada's democracy. In response to all of these criticisms, Stephen Harper outright denied and misled on one point after another.

Now it is true that all politicians attempt to spin the facts to avoid responsibility - and it is true that I haven't voted conservative - at least since Preston Manning left the Reform party leadership - but I honestly believe that Harper is going to unprecedented lengths of outright dishonesty in order to maintain political power. If you don't believe me, take a look at the fact check below.

Of course, he does have a disadvantage. Reality seems to have a liberal bias (and I don't mean the Liberal party).

Reality Check: Fail Archives - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News

To dream the possible dream - Real change could bring the prospects for hope

2011-04-10T08:54:00.000-07:00

Most days I seem to be mired in doom and gloom as I see the predictable and completely avoidable rise of oil prices and the slightly more subtle hints that the second round of the 2008 economic collapse is lurking just around the corner. It saddens me terribly to witness how the Great Recession did nothing more than speed the consolidation of wealth into the hands of the privileged few at the expense of the dwindling middle class and the rest of the huddled masses. Tired of rhetoric about how organized labour is destroying the economy, the Green movement is a plot to steal your money, take your job and ruin the economy and how the government can't afford to pay for health care or any basic services, I can get pretty depressed.

Nevertheless, deep-down, I believe that there is another way. I truly believe that humankind can live on this planet with some semblance of compassion, justice, and peace - including our relationship with the natural world. That's why articles like this one excite me. It not only confirms my hope, but it provides details about another way to live and exist.

This is the first step in any real change. We must be able to see some vision of the road ahead - we can't move from our present course unless we have some hint of what the alternatives might look like.

It's only impossible if we think it is.

Or as Jesus said - "the Kingdom of Heaven is within you" and "Change your way of thinking - the Kingdom of Heaven is near" .

And If We Were to Change ... Everything | Truthout

Energy Descent Action Plans - a primer | Energy Bulletin

2011-04-09T11:49:00.000-07:00

It is temping to think that daily life will continue to go forward without significant change without much conscious effort on our parts. Life is busy with all the little details and it is tempting to think that if changes are needed, our political leaders will have the wisdom and foresight necessary to prevent any major disruptions. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case.

We are clearly facing an unprecedented combination of events - peak oil, climate change, challenges to the food systems and the resulting economic instability and international instabilities - that will impact North American society in profound ways over the next generation. Once again, a natural reaction might be to hide from these frightening possibilities - but sadly, what you can't see can still hurt you - and your children.

In light of this reality, it is very helpful to know what we are up against and what we might be able to do in order to soften the force of the collision between our wishful fantasy -life will go on into the future as it has in the recent past- and the natural constraints that are lurking just around the corner.

Energy Descent Action Plans - a primer | Energy Bulletin

Oil prices top $110 US on Libyan unrest - Business - CBC News

2011-04-07T15:42:00.000-07:00

Get ready for the next stock market collapse - probably within the next 6 to 12 months.

Oil prices top $110 US on Libyan unrest - Business - CBC News

Mormon Polygamy on Trial: April 1 courtroom notes

2011-04-01T22:58:00.000-07:00

AGC- Reimer

It is AGC contention that polygamy poses significant risks for individuals and for society. The harm comes from multiple marriages, not multiple sexual relationships.

The driving forces are the interpretation of section 293 and the apprehension of harms. AGBC took court through the charter analysis. AGC generally agrees with AGBC and does not wish to do the charter analysis again. However, AGC would like to highlight some areas which were not covered adequately by AGBC.

The first area is related to the relationship between the charter and international human rights law. There are a few points of relevance. For example, international human rights law does not support any contention that polygamy is not protected by freedom of religion. Fundamentally, international human rights law confirms that polygamy is harmful to individuals.

Relating to the issue of vagueness - the test for finding a law constitutionally vague is very high. It must be argued that the law is so vague that it is not possible to have a reasoned legal debate. Past history has already shown that the law can be debated in terms of marriage.

The arguments against s 293 on the basis that it is discriminatory are similar to the arguments that have been used to promote incest. In a case where a father contended that it was his right to have sex with his daughter, it was argued that the law was discriminatory. The court upheld that it was discriminatory and correctly so because it protected people and genetic health of the offspring.

Ended at 10:15

Christian Legal Fellowship

CLF will highlight 3 arguments.
there is binding supreme court of canada authority that it is proper to define marriage as being between 2 persons.

They will take the court through the same-sex marriage reference from 2004.

The power to define marriage as being between 2 persons is from the 1867 marriage act and this cannot be repealed
That section 293 does not violate the charter on its face such that a section 1 balancing is required.

Addressing section 293 of the criminal code, one of the first issues is of practicing a conjugal union. We must ask ourselves what it is to practice any form of polygamy or any form of conjugal union. If you look at 293 1.a, our position is clear. All forms of polygamy is prohibitted by s. 293 and this applies to all forms of marriages and common law unions. When the practice of law act was passed it is prohibited for anyone who is not a lawyer to practice law. Because it is argued that it is possible for lawyers to interpret the case law.

In the analysis of section 293, it is important to note that people are married any time they consider themselves married or represent themselves to the community as being married. There is no need to read it down, there is no need to have additional restrictions. All forms of polygamy are harmful, or potentially harmful. It harms women, children and men. It is socially and politically harmful. It deprives the public from the goods and predicatbility of marriage as being defined as the conjugal union being between 2 persons. The offences should not require the elements that it involves a minor, gross imbalance of power, coercion, etc. These are useful aggravating elements for sentencing.

Turning back to the 3 points:
reference 3, same sex marriage: this we submit is a very useful reference for the court for a number of reasons. The first is that it is supreme court of marriage, that it is supreme court of canada authority and that it is about marriage. The court took 22 pages to address a very significant issue. There were as many lawyers there as at here and they distilled the resulted down to 22 pages. They answered 3 questions and declined to answer the 4th.

If you look at the question that has been asked in the conclusion. Is the act ... in the exclusive act of parliament. Answer was yes - it is law according to the act.

Is it consistent with the charter of rights and freedoms to allow persons of the same sex to be married. Answer is yes.

Does the act determine that religious officials perform same sex marriage if it goes against their religious beliefs? the answer is yes?????????

the court ultimately concludes and we propose that this answers the questions that are before the court today. We believe that the definition of marraige as being between 2 persons is consistent with the charter of rights and freedoms.

If not, it allows an individual to define what marriage means to them. It is not on the table to question whether the number is limited to 2 persons or not. all the definitions of marriage are limited to 2 person. Otherwise it could be argued that any number of people could be allowed to marry.

We submit that the definition of marriage and the number of persons that are allowed to marry in this society are not open to debate.

JB: But in this case, each marriage is 2 person. It is just that there are multiple marriages.

CLF: True, this is why section 293 is important to prohibit multiple marriages. There are no defined sanctions in the other marriage act. Section 293 of the criminal code is needed to penalize multiple marriage. It is possible to prosecute other marriage offences under the criminal code. Because of bill 30 reference - which we make specific refernece to in our argument in authority number 4 of our additional book of authorities. Justice wilson dealt with a very compelling argument. Ontario had decided to give catholic schools in ontario funding.. Other christian schools and other religions decided to challenge this politically. The question was asked whether it was constitutional to fund one religion and not fund another. The decision was made that if one religion was funded that all other religions must be funded equally. However, ....

the argument that you are hearing this morning is that parliament has the right to define marriage as being between 2 person however, you can not prosecute people for polygamy because of their right to freedom of religion. This would involve a restriction on parliaments criminal code powers. The number of persons is clearly part of the definition of marriage that was set by parliament and this can not be challenged by the courts. It is like parliament has selected the voting age to be 18. It is not open for courts to question this - unless parliaments actions in this case were colored.

The third point is simply this. Once the evidence of harm has been established. this is from the supreme court of canada in the dairy cases. once the parliament of canada has determined, in good faith, non-colourable, established on facts that are before parliament and before the court...

We want to highlight one case that is an anomaly. It is called the bedford case and it is in the west coast leaf book of authorities. there is a recognition of the need to show deference. In the malmo levine case and reference which was cited by my friends. The detailed analysis finds that the decision promotes harms and we submit that the fact were not adequately addressed. we believe it is an outlier and inconsistent with the acts of other courts. The outcome from malmo levine should clearly indicate that the court should submit to parliament in the case of polygamy. What has come out of this, that there is so much evidence of harm here, is that we are being asked to set policy which should be done by parliament. we submit that this is because of the bedford case which we firmly believe is anomalous and will be appealed.

We argue that the honus is on the amicus to prove that there is a violation of the charter and we contend that there is nothing in section 293 that is a violation of any of the charter rights that anyone has.

We are not saying that section 1 never comes into play - however, in this case, there is no problem on the face of this charter. the violations only occur when you consider how the act is applied.

In the same-sex marriage case, there was an argument that there would be problem relating to changing the definition of marriage. That there would be a problem when people were asked to perform same sex marriage who did not approve of these. Or marriages will be performed in houses of worship where it did not fit the beliefs.

People have said that if you change the definition of marriage, then our freedom of religion will be violated. officials will be required to perform marriages that go against their religious beliefs. given the expansive protection under section 2 of the charter, (freedom of religion) this will not occur.

You have not been given a case from bountiful - there may be a case where individuals who come from bountiful in the future that may come before the court and argue that their charter rights are found to be violated - and at that time it may be appropriate to determine a section 1 balancing at that time. That is the right time to determine this question. It is not the right time to consider changing how many people may be in a conjugal union.

In terms of our reply. We point out that the amicus and the interveners concur that parliament has the right to define marraige. we have seen nothing from the amicus or the other challlengers that would convince you to disagree with our position. Nothing has been shown to prove that someting is wrong with s 293 on its face. If there is anyting proven that could violate a charter right - this is not the question that has been asked and we urge you not to answer it.

We would like to bring your attention to 2 expert witnesses. First is shoshana grossberg - she was not a hired gun - she was trained in economics under prize winning professors. She studied economics in terms of family and especially relating to polygamy. She started off neutral and through her research, she has proven that it is economically harmful to women, children and society. In societies that have embraced polygamy, it has been shown to be detrimental to the economic, social, psychological, emotional well being of women.

The second witness - relating to the lost boys - has shown that the only way that a polygamous society to function is to dispose of young boys. The impact to the individual boys who are excluded is real to them and even if it is just one boy, it justifies the actions that parliament has taken.

We acknowledge the right to freedom of religion. We do not ask the court to dismiss freedom of religion claims lightly. IN this case, we do not believe there are any significant violation on freedom of religion with section 293. For those who are trapped in polygamy - they believe that this is a violation of their freedom of religion - and we must have compassion for them. However, this does not mean that the law is not valid.

This is because no one can claim that slavery or any other action that limits people’s dignity and rights can be justified under the charter by freedom of religion.

BCTF Robin Trask?

Written closing submissions will be followed. There have been significant harms against children and against children’s education. Then time will be spent reviewing the harms to children’s education.

Turning to elements of the offence. We agree that parliament was concerned with the harmful effects of polygamy and meant to address this. We agree that it is not correct to criminalize women and children who are victims of this offence. We submit that each wife has only taken one husband - therefore they are not guilty of this offence. It is only the man who has multiple marriages. The plain meaning is that only those who enter into more than one marriage is guilty of the offense. Therefore women are not guilty of the offense because they only have one husband. The correct interpretation of these offense was used by the crown when charges were laid against 2 men in 2009.

We agree that there is ambiguity and that that courts have a long history of reading-in or reading-down. Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether it is reading down or reading in. Sometimes it is said that the court is interpreting what parliament intended.

One example is from a case in manitoba where a 15 yr old child wanted to refuse a blood transfusion on religious grounds. ...

The BCTF contends that section 293 should be interpreted as prohibiting exploitative polygamous relationships. In this case, we believe that it is in conformance with the charter.

There is a need to balance charter rights - our focus is on the harms to children and their educational opportunities. The evidence in this hearing confirms that there have been significant harms of education. Rose McDermot evidence showed that girls in polygamous societies are less educated and many boys are ostracised.

DR. Beal was an expert in his field on the psycological impact of polygamy. Dr. Beal testified that in the FLDS community there is alot of indoctrination for the children in school. There was an hour each day for religious education. The children did not develop critical thinking skills in their education.

There is a difference between certified teachers in public and independent schools. It is vitally important to understand provincial curriculum before we can understand the harms that may have occured for the children in the bountiful independent school. An understanding of the charter of rights and freedoms is part of the grade 6 curriculum.

In terms of inadequate instruction in the independent schools in bountiful. From Truman Oler - testifying about his experience growing up in Bountiful. His experience is representative of the harms that children are experiencing in Bountiful. From Truman: the boys were taught to leave school to work at a young age. They were taught to obey their priesthood authority - everything that they are told - and this goes against the requirement for critical thinking. Truman testified that he received significant religions instruction in school and witness 4 confirmed that warren jeffs tapes are played in school.

Truman testified that they were never taught anything about the charter of rights and freedoms other than the right to religious freedom. This one right took away all their other rights and freedoms.

We have serious concerns about the letter of permission that has been written to allow a young woman to teach in the Bountiful school. we have concerns about the inspections - they are performed by a small organization of inspectors of religious schools. We are very concerned that the inspectors have never reported anything about the marriage of young girls.

The oversight process is currently inadequate to protect the rights of the children of bountiful to have an adequate education. Students from bountiful are unaware that their opportunities for further education is limited because they do not have a dogwood certificate.

Evidence from witness 4 gave evidence about a 15 yr girl who was married to a 40 yr old man and no one reported this from the school.

considering the harms to education, we feel the court should heed the words of truman oler. He stated that it is not right to take away the rights of boys and girls to think for themselves.

Going back to the beginning of the submission - on paragraph 7 - the flds only wants polygamy de-criminalized and not legalized. If they are successful, immigation rights and marriage rights could be futher challenged in response. It could make immigration law itself susceptable to a charter challenge.

We say that in considering whether or not there is a breach in section 2a. It has already been established that it is right to limit freedom of religion when it interferes with other peoples rights or harms others. It cannot limit the rights of children to have an adequate education.

We agree with AGC and CRCC on Canada’s international obligations - and we reference the UN convention on the rights of the child - where it indicates that the state parties recognize the rights of the child to have an adequate education. The rights of the child must be considered and not just the rights of the adults. Section 29b the state parties agree that the child must be educated relating to human rights and freedoms. The education of the child must be towards leading a responsible life in a free society with respect and the friendship of all people, ethnic groups, etc.

REAL Women : Jonathon Baker

Interveners should not duplicate. Both attorney generals have already entered 600 pages and real women adopt those submissions. Hard cases and great cases make bad law. These cases may result in a rule of law that goes too far or not far enough.

If this were a case, instead of a reference and the accused were a perfect husband with 4 perfect wives and 20 perfect children, all the harms might not be in evidence. THe amicus warns that the prohibition of polygamy goes too far. Polygamy is not in itself harmful. The harms are already considered to be crimes and they should simply be prosecuted as such.

This is not about viewing a case - with a perfect polygamous family or the most evil polygamous prophet. The court has studied the issue from all sides and should be able to decide whether the law goes too far or not far enough.

the court is able to prevent making bad laws because it has heard form all the evidence. IN terms of the reference questions:

we submit that 293 is consistent with the charter. The harm is in the polygamous relatioship itselt - because of where it leads. We have heard the evidence.

it is not important to consider whether there is abuse, or imbalance of power, or minors. The crime is in polygamy itself.

It is like a law against conspiracy - not suggesting that this law applies to polygamy - but these laws are to stop the harms before they occur.

the court has received more information about polygamy than any other court in history.

Prof. Witte has shown that polygamy has been prohibitted throughout the ages - incest, dissolution of family wealth, etc.

Simple truth is that polygamy puts enormous burdens on the state and institutionalizes inequality of women.

Real Women agree with the claims of AGC and AGBC and that section 293 passes the Oakes tests.

the evils of bountiful include child brides, loneliness of children, expulsion of young boys, old men demanding from young girls. We should not legalize this and see what happens. We have already seen the harms.

If the only evidence before court came from bountiful, then it might be possible to dismiss the town as a cult and determine that the evidence is not valid. However, this is not the case. The social science data predicts that this is the predictable outcome of a polygamous society.

In the view of REAL Women of Canda - whose aim is advocate for the equality of women and place the family in the highest importance - we view that polygamy profoundly violates these aims.

West Coast LEAF
We will be reviewing to the written closing submission and some of the cases in the joint open authorities, etc. and one case in the supplemental book of authorities. Each will be addressing the court.

Ms. Gaffar - s. 1 and international law and some of the evidence of harm.

Beginning with the concept of reading down. S 293 is valid when it is read down to apply to exploitive polygamy. Will respond to the brief submitted by the amicus. Amicus sets out that there are 3 interpretations offered by defenders (AGBC, AGC and WCLEAF). Reading down requires that the text of the law can bear the narrow interpretation. Before the court can read down, there has to be some hint in the text itself that the reading down is justified. We hold that this is incorrect and not the way that reading down works. S 293 existed before the charter proclamation, but we get to assume that parliament intended to leave S. 293 intact when the charter was proclaimed.

Start by reviewing 3 inter-related concepts. Relies on constitutionality in its implementation. No breach must be found before reading down can be started. It is an interpretational exercise as to how to read the law.

Principle of constitionality - if legislation can be read in two ways - one of which is constitutional and the other is not, it is the right to the court to read the legislation in the way that it is consistent with the charter.

In a case about counseling records in the hands of another party - the court went against the majority opinion. Must of the commentary asked whether it was right to go against the majority opinion. several provisions in the bill are subject to various interpretations - some of which go against charter rights - however, we determine to read the legislation in ways that are consistent with the charter.

Courts should assume that parliament intended to create constitutional legislation and in cases were this may not be the case, the court may choose to interpret the legislation in a manner that is consistent with the charter.

How does the court approach charter analysis?: Relating to parents and guardians rights to apply corrective measures in disciplining their children. In section 1, it is fairly general, every person has a right to use force etc --- it is a general measure --- Justice McGlauchlin says - there was much evidence concerning the disciplining of children - she reads-in as to how this should be applied. In para 40 and 43 - what Mdm Justice Mcglachling says - Justice Arbor says legislation is too vague - however, the evidence provides a common core for interpretation in this case - to consider reasonable in light of the evidence is the work of the court. In para 40 she upholds the consitutionality by changing the age (over 2 and under 12) and interprets that teachers have less right to use force than parents. The court must in my respectful submission apply an interpretation that is constitional in this case.

West Coast Leaf contends that the law can be read down through the judge’s discretion in defining the term “any form of polygamy” to mean in practice “an exploitive form of polygamy” because this is what the law is intending to do in terms protecting women and children from harm. Even though the language is not in itself equivical, the conflict between protecting the rights of women and children and the rights of people to practice polygamy leaves the possibility

The Amicus contends that the polygamy law should be struck down because other laws already capture the harms associated with polygamy. The law has been framed by parliament to protect society from specific harms - in cases where no harms are present, there has been no offense.

2nd lawyer:
No charter right can protect someone who infringes on someone elses charter rights. Freedom of religion cannot allow someone to infringe of another’s charter rights. While beliefs are broadly protected, there is less protection for actions that offend other peoples actions or beliefs.

West Coast Leaf contends that the religious rights to practice polygamy to cases where the rights of women and children are also protected. The issue comes down to whether the law protects the rights of adults to perpetuate an abusive and exploitive practice. In Multani case, the reconciliation of rights comes down to section 1 - freedoms of religion is not an absolute right. Therefore there must be a balancing of rights between the rights of exploitive polygamous husbands must be balanced against the charter rights of women and children.

West Coast Leaf suggests that the analysis come under section 1 rather than section 2a is because of the obligation towards ohnness, proportionality, etc.

There is a differentiation between protection of religious practice versus religious belief. There is a broad and expansive protection for religious freedom, but the religious protection is broader for beliefs than it is for practices. This is confirmed in the BR case. This also stands for the proposition that there is a narrower spectrum of protection for practice than it is for belief.

The religious freedom protection under section 2a do not protect the men who practice exploitive polygamy as a religious practice. Especially under charter right of equality that provides equal rights for women and children.

Sincerity of belief can be questioned when there is a pervasive climate of indoctrination and control that shapes the persons ability to freely choose. Especially in a community that reinforces patriachal rule and religious heiracrchy.

At section 7, one must question whether the state has the potential to infringe on the security of the person and the person’s liberty, etc. If someone were imprisoned under section 7, this could be challenged. However, s 293 protects the rights of women and children.

Amicus argues that s 293 infringes on the right of the person to make fundamentally private choices. West Coast disagrees. Section 7 does not protect the right to exploit another person.

The state has no place in the bedroom of the nation - to regulate the sexual behaviour of the person. However, there is a right to protect the rights of women in intimate relationships. Section 7 should be interpreted to protect the rights of women in these relationships. For example, women have a right to control their reproductive choices, women have the right to know that they will not be reassigned to another husband. Section 7 cannot be used to protect polygamous husbands from exploiting their wives.

To be in accordance with fundamental justice, it must not be vague, etc.

Section 293 as it stands is too broad and too vague because it was written at at time when individual rights were not understood and it was implemented for an unjust purpose.

In terms of the amicus contention that section 293 is arbitrary, WCL suggests that the law is designed to protect society from harms that are reasonably apprehended.

There is insufficient evidence that the criminalization of polgyamy causes harm to the community.

The Amicus contends that 293 violates section 15 rights of equality because it discriminates against specific families and religions. Where the WCL intends to read-down the law to target exploitive polygamy, this does not violate equality rights.

The intention of all charter rights is to promote human dignity. Human dignity is an essential value of all the charter rights. There is no infringement of human dignity where a law protects people from exploitation. The concept of human dignity within the charter analysis cannot be used except where it promotes equality - which is the very purpose of section 15 of the charter.

The state has an obligation to protect equality rights - section 293, read down, does this.

Ms. Gaffar: Will be dealing with points raised in the closing arguments of others. Will analyze the balancing of competing charter rights under section 1.

The position of WCL is that some charter rights should be limited. This will fulfill the re

Begin by considering ... under section 1. Then discuss the weighing exercise. Then discuss harms - those beyond the obvious ones. Then respond to some aspects of consent.

Not re-inventing the wheel. It is the underlying consideration of what is reasonable in a free and democratic society. Relating to the OAKES tests - the court must be guided by the inherent dignity of the person, commitment to social justice, equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, etc.

Should go back to fundamental underlying principles. As an example, going to the Keegstra decision which involved a prosecution under the hate propagation part of the code. At the section 1 stage - it is important not to loose sight of factual circumstances of the object at hand ... the contextual approach to bring into sharp relief the right or freedom that is truly at stake in the case and is more conducive to finding a fair and just compromise between the 2 competing values under section 1. The concept of reading down is the most fair and just compromise in balancing competing rights.

The evidence shows that certain harms are plausible. Challengers say that it was not been proven conclusively that this is always the case. It is not necessary to prove that the harms are always present/ Polygamy feeds and engenders inequalities. There are institutional harms relating to polygamy. In the context of women and girls, there are more systemic harms that are related specifically to polygamy. WCL did not engage in a witness by witness examination of the harms alleged by specific witnesses. Rather provide a broad summary. When a man is allowed to have mulitple partners and women cannot, this causes inequality. It internalized differences in gender roles between men and women. Husbands can execute increased control over women and girls. The evidence has demonstrate that in certain polygamous communitys there are rigid demands for obedience - in cases of geographic isolation, social isolation, etc. institutionalize indoctrination. This exercise in control creates a cult or a cult-like environment where polygamy is required for the elevation of the group’s leaders. The girls and women are commodotized and used as tools for bargaining and elevation in the group. Families can be reassigned to different men. Choice is denied as to when or who to marry. This creates a sexual aristocracy. This can flow from the evidence of dr. henrich and shackelford. Age of brides is driven down and so forth.

what is of particular concern, there is an increasing age gap between the older husbands and younger brides - this creates an immediate imbalance of power.

The power control exercised by men over women and girls creates an environment that is conducive to sexual abuse. Women and children experience psych abuse as a result of living in polygamous unions. Not all harms that flow or are associated from polygamy are defined as harms in the criminal code. Psych harms provide a valid grounds for criminal sanction.

As for consent - it would be incorrect to dismiss the WCL as dismissing the women who appear to consent to polygamous unions. We are asking the court to examine the situation under which consent is given. Free consent may be given in some situations but not in others. It is not a case of I consent therefore i am. It is a complicated concept involving many factors.

As for the OAKS test - the first aspect concerns the objective. Is it pressing and substantial. the objective is the prevention of harm to women and children in polygamous relationships. The amicus indicates that the objective of protecting women and children is wildly overwrought and it is detached from the evidence. The equality of women and girls is a legitamate obective in hte jurisprudence. It is not detached from the evidence.

The amicus states that the objective of protecting women and children from harm is meritourious. The imposition of a criminal sanction is predicated on the notion that a particular activity is a harm or causes harm. An example is s 465 of the criminal code - the conspiracy to commit murder - Murder - or a death is not an element of the offense. There does not have to be a death for the offense to have been present.

In the Irwin toys example, decision regarding advertising to children 13 yrs old and younger. Supreme court states that absolute precision in the law seldom occurs. The task of how legislation applies to a specific case is a necessary element of interpretation.

When determining the objectives of competing provisions, it is important to look at the domestic as well as the international legal context. WCL argues that if there is a breach of a specific charter right - the right to have differences protected - the determining of whether a difference ...

The public interest in protecting equality rights and the public interest in protecting contract rights outweigh the rights of Mr. markowicz to protecting his religious freedom.

In a reference to the keegstra decision, the court states that generally speaking the international human rights obligations undertaken by Canada are consistent with the human rights obligations that underly the charter itself.

The objectives relative to pressing and substantial concerns: In determining pressing and substantial concern, womens equality has been identified under the charter and under international law. The harms described in the evidence from the yearning for zion seizure is sufficiently current for our purposes. In any event the harms, such as under-age marriage, or that every women is able to freely give consent, have been violated in recent times. There is also evidence that when there is increased scrutinity, that the harms are decreased only to return when there is less scrutinity.

Turning to minimal impairment. The amicus and other argue that there are other legal provisions to deal with the harms. There have already been arguments relative to the sharp provision. Amicus argues that 293 is too broad and a variety of relationships have been captured.

WCL recommends that reading down section 293 provides a compromise and this gives the best balancing of rights while mitigating the harms.

IN the AGBC and AGC submissions, the AGBC says properly interpreted, the act does not apply to polyandry and same sex relationships. Applying the law to only polygynous men does not help. THe harms of polygamy are felt by society whether they are felt in any particular relationship. If polgyamy is harmful ,it is not necessary to seperate good and bad polygamy. AGC says 293 only applies to state marriages. All practice of polygamy exposes society to harms.

To say that it is not necessary to parse into good or bad polygamy is contradictory. ABGC seeks to interpret in a way that overlooks polyandrous or polyamorous relationships. Both AGs take an approach that does not seek to attenuate the harms to the charter claimant. This overlooks the need to minimally impair. Saying that it will not apply to polyamory or victims, etc because you can interpret it this way. We say the best mechanism for this is to read it down. Giving the example of the drinking and driving laws - it is considered that D&D is a dangerous activity but we have not criminalized it completely. We have set a line of 0.08 before the act is illegal. It is not sufficient to have a drink and then drive to have broken the law. You have to be impaired before you have broken the law.

Finally, the effects - the salutary effects of the objective in our submission outweigh the delitarious effects of any limitations of rights. Systemic or institutional polygamy mandates unequal roles in marital, economic, social roles. The salutary effect of having a criminalization of exploitive polygamy ...

The pausity of prosecution does not reflect the seriousness of an offence. We have heard alot about the difficulty of getting victims to report. We argue that reading down the offence will assist in enforcement. Exploitive behaviour has already been defined in the criminal code. If all polygamous relationships are not criminalized, then people in good relationships will not be fearful to report exploitive activites that they witness. This is about the wall of silence - these crimes against women and children are related to a wall of silence. It is important to break this down.

From the Amicus, they state that there is a loss of religious freedom in upholding section 293. There is some evidence that as long as people are open to the idea of obeying polygamy, you can choose to remain monogamous. Reading down protects religious freedom because it allows polygamy, as long as the polgyamy is not exploitive. There is no loss of freedom to have more than one spouse, there is only a loss of freedom to be exploitive.
From the Keegstra reference -

the alleged delitarious effects are clearly outweighed by the need to protect women and children. As such the provision can be justified if read down.

Mormon Polygamy on Trial : March 31 courtroom notes

2011-03-31T17:01:00.000-07:00

AG Canada final arguments:

Final argument comes down to whether there is a reasonable apprehension of harm due to polygamy. This is confirmed by the trend towards polygamy prohibition in states where it has previously been allowed. It is also unanimously accepted by international treaty organizations who argue that polygamy induces inequality against women and it should be abolished where ever it exists.

Professor Cook was accepted as an international expert in human rights law, particularly specializing in women’s rights. She confirmed that polygamy goes against a number of international treaties that Canada has signed and the treaty bodies have given States guidance as to how to bring their policies into harmony with the treaties. They have clearly stated that polygamy violates the dignity of women. Equality of treatment in terms of marriage makes polygamy inconsistent with the rights of women and it should be abolished wherever it exists. As recognized in Prof. Cooks testimony, treaty bodies have stated that polygamy has such serious emotional and economic consequences for women and their children that it should be abolished.

All of the evidence, from social sciences, history and human rights treaties confirm the same sets of harms consistently repeated. Harms against women and children and the exclusion of young men. Professor Cook pointed out that there is a global trend to prohibit polygamy. It is not allowed in any other Western country. Bigamy is consistently prohibited and this is a clear recognition that polygamy or multiple marriages should be eliminated. Prof. Cook also looked at the balancing between prohibiting polygamy and other charter rights and observed that there is little support for using religious freedom to support any practice that goes against women’s equality. There is no precedent for supporting polygamy.

While the treaties do not specifically mention polygamy, they give general comments that are very clear in condemning the practice of polygamy and advocate for its abolition. All of the evidence clearly recognize harms, and the same harms, as being related to polygamy.

The last piece of the puzzle is the historical piece. Prof. Witte spoke about the history of marriage and specifically polygamy and its prohibition in the Western tradition. From Ancient Greece, to Rome through Christianity and the Western tradition, polygamy was consistently prohibited. It has been a long standing prohibition that pre-dates Christianity by several centuries. The prohibition of polygamy has been consistently linked to its harms - the objectification of women, impoverishment, rights of women, etc. Harms to children have also been recognized throughout history. Harms to young mention - ostracism - have been recognized. Harms against good citizenship, etc. These harms are still seen today.

The Amicus does not challenge Prof. Wittes evidence. They simply say that it is not tailored towards section 293. THis is correct - but he was giving a far broader context that has been based on harms that have been recognized for hundreds of thousands of years in Western tradition. The Amicus has suggested that this law should be compared to laws against sodomy etc and should be thrown out. Prof witte argued that this is not comparable because sodomy is a victimless crime while polygamy has victims - the women and the children. Prof Witte also said that the analogy to same sex marriage can not been used because polygamy is firmly linked to harms that have been consistently recognized in the social science and international treaty communities.

The question that the lordship has to answer is whether there is a reasonable apprehension of harm relating to the practice of polygamy. The body of evidence shows that there is a reasonable apprehension of harm. In order to conclude that there is not a reasonable apprehension of harm, the amicus would have to convince you to disregard the large body of evidence from the social sciences, from history and recent evidence from Bountiful.

Dealing with the original purpose of S. 293 - AGC would add that the prohibition of polygamy was a reflection against a long standing prohibition of polygamy that was based on its harms which were very reasonably apprehended.

As for the interpretation of S. 293 - the modern approach requires that the words be read in view of the original intent and in its’ modern context. The Amicus and others who oppose the law say it should be read in its broadest context and then argue that it is over-broad. AGC argues that this is not correct and the interpretation should be more focused.

What does S 293 prohibit? AGC prohibits multiple marriages. It prohibits polygamy and by definition, it prohibits multiple marriages. It is not about multiple relationships, not co-habitation based common law relationship, it is not about multiple sexual partners or about morality. The evidence supports that there are harms associated with multiple marriages and the provision prohibit these - or conjugal unions. AGC says that marriages and conjugal unions are the same thing. The act was introduced in 1890 as a provision dealing with marriage. It is a section that deals with other marriage offenses - such as bigamy, or procuring a feigned marriage , falsely solemnizing a marriage, etc. all of these offenses are dealing with marriage. If you look at the language of section 293, Going to polygamy provision from 1892 - everyone who practices by mutual consent or by any religious sect or celebrating any such ceremony that sanctions any such relationship is guilty of the offense. All of these terms have a distinct meaning in the context of marriage. Even consent is a way to enter into marriage - or a matrimonial relationship. You consent to be married. It is clear when you look at the language of 293, it is clearly about marriage. It is not about the consent to live together, it is about entering into a marriage.

Justice B. You would not infer consent? For example, living together for a long time?

AGC: No - consent must be objective. It must be married. For example, a previous precedent where a couple lived together for many years and had four documented children it was determined that they were not in breach of s 293.
The intention is to prohibit multiple marriages. This can be done by entering into multiple civil marriages in Canada or outside of Canada. It can also be done through multiple customary marriages. This is because there are harms documented with multiple marriages.

JB: Wouldn’t these same harms be present in multiple unmarried relationships?

AGC; this might argue that S293 is too narrow. If harms are documented in multiple unmarried relationships then parliament may need to add additional prohibitions.

Currently S293 is the same as the bigamy prohibition. In addition, s293 also includes marriages that come from outside of Canada. The second branch ...

JB: Isn’t it really clear that the original act was targeting Mormon Marriages?

AGC: We think that they were clearly trying to prohibit all multiple marriages and they were afraid that the bigamy law would not capture the mormon marriages. When we look at the case law, they are not normally charged with multiple marriage but are charged with multiple co-habitation.

looking at the case law, the courts have consistently held that 293 only prohibits multiple marriages. It does not prohibit conjugal union. This term is often used as synonymous with marriage. It is not used in legislation other that refers to common law relationships. Conjugal unions are not the same as conjugal relationships. Conjugal unions are the result of marriage. Common law relationships are not unions.

JB: Aren’t these things pretty much used in the same way? Is this just sloppy?

AGC; this is not uncommon, there is often slippage in the language. Going to the case law from 1891 - in the 3rd paragraph, it shows that both partners were married to other persons and that they were cohabiting. On appeal, the defense argued that the law was intended to prohibit marriages. It was not a law regulating morality. The parties must be married and there must be some form of marriage contract.

Going to the Bear Shin Bones case from 1892, the evidence showed that the man had been married to two women according to the customs and practices of the blackfeet people. There was some form of implied contract. Unless there is some form of contract where the parties accept each other as husband and wife. In this case, the court found that there was a form of contract binding on them. relating conjugal union and the meaning thereof, it is stated that it must be more than the man and woman co-habitating together.

One other case, which is not in the authorities, is the case of Trudeau vs the King. Trudeau was charged under the act of being married to another. This woman had married another man in 1914 because her first husband went to war and did not come back. She charged him with polygamy - in terms of what was contemplated regarding marriage and conjugal union. The prevailing idea is to limit plural marriages or unions. The recognition is that the act is intending to prohibit multiple marriages.

JB: Is this from Justice Walsh - Doesn’t this say that it captures both polygamy and polyamory?

AGC; Yes it does

AGC: In this case, miss colhust and mr wright were living together while they were both married to other people. They were living together as man and wife and they had 4 children together. They were clearly cohabiting and had children together. However, the court clearly decided that the court never had any intention to prohibit immorality but was patterned after the Edmunds act and was designed to capture spiritual marriages.

12:25: This might be a good time to break.Discussion about whether there will be enough time for the day.

Court will resume at 1:45.

Court Resumes 1:48 : AGC continues:

As for the interpretation of S. 293 - there are passages in the parliamentary debates regarding the foreign Muslim marriages in addition to the Mormon Celestial marriages. From Ali vs. Canada - this is a case dealing with the admissibility of a man having 2 wives from Kuwait immigrating into Canada but he was denied because of the criminality of polygamy. As to the interpretation being given from the Amicus and other, the Amicus argues that this should be read as conjugal relationship which is any committed sexual relationship. This is actually a common-law relationship and interpreting this as a conjugal union is not supported by the language. It is changing the very words that is in the legislation. It somehow reads in a broader meaning into conjugal union. In a decision of ... vs ... is a useful discussion of the ways that marriages are formed. One of the ways of forming a marriage is solely by consent. There is a long quote from blanshard and hansel. Two essentials have to be present: 1. a legal capacity to marry and 2. an agreement to marriage. A merely maritious relationship between two persons who appear to be husband and wife is not enough. It has to be more than the consent to live together or the consent to have sex - it has to be the consent to marry. The parallel to common-law relationships is strictly not supported by the courts.

The interpretation that the amicus is proposing is to read common-law relationships into section 293. In the modernization of benefits and relationship act - which amended many acts including the criminal code. in the criminal code, there is a definition of a common-law partner as someone who have lived in a common-law conjugal relationship for a period of more than one year. S 293 was never designed to consider common-law relationship and to read this in is inconsistent with its action and it is unprecedented to read in something that was intended for marriage that is not marriage.

in brief on the interpretation - AGC suggests that 293 should have a focused interpretation that is supported by the harms that have been identified relative to polygamy. AGC will not give other groups the time to speak but may be back later today or tomorrow.

Oltheis, Milne, etc. on behalf of CCRC and David Asper Center.

Ms. Milne: regarding the division of the argument - milne will take 30 minutes and Oltheis the remainder. Milne will offer an analytical approach and finally international laws regarding children.

Regarding the constitutionality of 293 it is their submission that the law is constitutional except in one example. Our submission is focussed on the practice of polygamy as practiced in the FLDS communities where there are clearly harms to children. It is contended that the Amicus has sought to down-play the FLDS experience and hold up the other American examples to highlight the freedom, education or other positives. In regarding the testimony of Dr. Batchelor, in the cross examination, it was held out that great progress had been made since she has been working with the group. She also observed that before working with them, there was not a concept of under-age marriage, consent or “good polygamy”. Regarding the testimony of Angela Campbell, she stated that she did not have any experience or training in child development. She also had a very short observation time of the children and it was during special occasions like weddings, etc. We contend that her observations are purely lay observations of special occasions and should not be given any consideration.

We agree that the government has not taken necessary steps to protect the children in this community. Mr. Jones demonstrated that there was complete acquiescence by the community. We would contend that the community was actually complicit and the State was simply acquiescent in these examples. In terms of school inspections, a child needs protection if it is likely that a child is going to be physically or sexually abused and the parents are not willing to protect them. The recent examples show that the school was completely unwilling to do anything to protect the children. From the Nelson affidavit - there are a series of paragraphs concerning potential sexual exploitation of children in the community. There was a decision that there was no chance that prosecution would not be successful and it was not in the public interest to prosecute. This is also related to the understanding that there would not be sufficient witnesses and evidence - even considering the presence of birth records. This decision was an example of the government failing to do anything to protect the children. As to the contention that other laws are sufficient to protect the children from harm - however, this is after the fact. There is a submission from BCCLA and the Amicus that we should have a forced marriage offense, however, we contend that there are more abuses than simply forced marriage and this will not address it properly. In BCCLA submission, it is contended that the person has a right to make profoundly personal decisions to act according to what is right and good. CRCC contends that this simply ignores the children and the children’s rights. The infringement of children’s rights in the polygamous communities are irreversible and life-long. They are not simple harms - all children are not simply the recipients of the benefits that adults choose to give them. This act needs to be interpreted in context of the charter rights or children and the international treaties on children’s rights. The state has an obligation to protect the children’s rights to equality and religious freedom - this overlaps with the fundamental interests of the children. The evolving capacity approach is threaded in the UN charter on children's rights. In terms of the submission, the abuses suffered by the children in these communities and the coercive force placed on these children must be interpreted regarding the mandate of the state to protect the children's rights. The evidence in these cases exhibit a fundamental harm of children’s rights.

The proper approach is one of minimum protection - this is in the UN charter of the children’s charter of right - this is a more robust interpretation of children’s rights. This has been used in terms of children’s medical rights and physical punishment of children. Two aspects are really important. One is the theme of evolving capacities. From Peter Newell, handbook regarding implementation of the treaty of childrens right. The first thing is in terms of the best interest of the child. If all actions concerning children, whether taken by legislation, courts, etc. everything should be done in terms of the best interest of the child. This community has performed a series of actions that are clearly not in the best interest of the child. Using the concept of evolving capacity has removed the requirement to use specific age limits, etc. Rights of the child should be linked to the child’s rights to freedom of thought, religion, etc. in accordance to their evolving capacity. What we currently have is an example of adults exercising rights on a child’s behalf, and not honoring the evolving rights of the child in these actions. From Dr. Beal, in particular, he addresses how in terms of adolescent development that the community has really harmed this sort of development and not allowed the children to exercise their own evolving thoughts and development. Professor Beaman’s evidence was around agency and choice and she said that this did not apply to children. The community exercises a suppression of choice for the children of the community that goes beyond marriage to choices about education, professions, etc.

Secondly, as a justification for limiting adults rights - the violation of childrens rights has been consistently demonstrated to be the result of the parent’s choice to live polygamy. When religious institutions or practices consistently deprives people, in this case children, it is the obligation of the State to intervene. The final point is in respect to the BR case, regarding the case of a blood transfusion for a child - it was pointed out that the child had a right to live long enough to decide if she was a jehovahs witness or any religion and that she had the right to have a blood transfusion so she could live long enough to make these choices.

State parties should take all actions to protect the children from all forms of abuse when the parents are not able or not willing to protect them from this abuse.

Mr. Oltweis: will address 3 issues - hopes to be done in half hour. First is regarding limitation of charter rights - esp. in cases where rights impact the development of another. The second is regarding criminal sanctions against a minor. Third is how we suggest that the court approach these matters.

Concerning the scope of charter rights, we say that charter rights are limited before we come to a section 1 analysis. The better view is that the practice of religious rights infringe other individuals physical or psychological integrity (this comes from the morgenthaller case) -

No conduct that infringes on another persons security or safety of the person can be protected by charter rights. Where the conduct is per se harmful - like terrorist attacks that are done in the name of religion - it is a waste of the courts time to go through a charter-rights process. In the case of children, it is up to the parents to decide by reflection if they are doing their best to protect the rights of the child. The constitution protects both the content and form of expression - except where the form is one of physical violence - this is never protected by the constitution. As to why it matters to do the analysis in the way - it is related to the way the charter is meant to be used in our country. The charter has real value in terms of stating how we hold these rights above the right of the state. When the process is purely academic, it leads children rights to be ignored.

Careful reading of Supreme court of canada case law suggest that the lordship does not have to balance the right to religious freedom at a section 1 time. In previous examples of religious freedom, the religious acts in question were not inherently harmful. In the Maltani case, it was already decided that the Kirpan was not harmful. In the case of the polygamists, it is already decided that their actions are harmful.

IN the previous blood transfusion case, this was not the majority judgement, but the balancing was under section 1. We contend that the balancing should have occurred at a different time. In the case at bar, sheena’s condition was not so urgent that the children’s aid society did not have time to file a court injunction. There was no dispute with the course of law - as will be shown, this case was used as precedent in another case. From the judgement - just as there are limits to human expression, there are also limits to section 2a. while freedom of belief might be broad, there is a narrower scope as to religious practice. We disagree with Mr. Jones as we believe that narrower scope must be held to practice because actions cause the actual harms. The practice of polygamy in a communal setting, has been shown to cause harms to children that have not been limited by state protection.

As a challenge to the reverse onus case, the court said that imprisonment was sufficient to ... This case recognizes that the principle of evolution of moral capability ... The evidence in this case shows that children who become partners in polygamous marriage are victims and not criminal. In this case, s. 293 would criminalize these children and we contend that this should not be the case. Mr. Jones said that we can rely on the common sense and prosecutors that children will not be prosecuted for these offenses. We contend that the harm to the child is committed when the charges are laid. We also contend that relying on the prosecutors and judges is not sufficient. The protection of basic rights should not be dependent upon the proper action of the crown - this is not sufficient. If there is any prospect that the crown can lay charges, there is a chance that they will.

As to how we think the justice should answer the questions before him. Regarding the second question: What are the necessary elements in the offence? Without limiting this question, is it necessary that case involves minors, that there is a gross imbalance of power, etc.

First the court has a discretion to decline to answer this question and it is appropriate for the crown to decline. This is in fact, judicial legislation and we say it is most prudent to decline for the following reasons:
In responsive to the evidence - respecting constitutionality - it is up to the challengers to show that it is not constitutional
Section 2 of the constitution act says that the constitution is supreme and where laws infringe on the charter they are stricken down. It is not necessary that the entire law should be stricken down.
It will provide responsive and legal guidance for law enforcement to proceed with charges under S 293
This would also guard against parliamentary in-activity. In the context of minority governments, it is far to dangerous to the rights of the children. There must be some form of law for the protective reasons that we have outlined.

Mr. Mattice (Beyond Borders)

Beyond Borders exists to eliminate the practice of adults and children crossing international borders for the purposes of sexual abuse. Internationalization of child sexual abuse complicates the prosecution of these laws because of the international complication. When ever the perpetrator or the victim are in different jurisdictions it is always thought to be the obligation of the other jurisdiction to prosecute the abuse. It is their contention that polygamy greatly increases the risk of child sexual abuse. Protecting children from sexual abuse is one of the purposes of the current law.

In terms of defining violations or non-violations of charter rights should not be relegated to a section one balancing. For example, if someone claims that murder is protected under religious freedoms, section 1 balancing is not needed. This is because human rights can not be looked at in isolation any more than one can look at the human body as a collection of parts. One can not decapitate the head in order to improve the health of a finger.

There is a contention that the anti-polygamy legislation is not consistent with the charter rights of the polygamists. However, this is not as important as it is to consider whether the law is consistent with overall human rights - including the rights of the children. The rights of the security of the person stand against the threats of physical punishment and suffering as it is against the actual physical punishment. The fact the state action increases the threat of abuse ...

The charter binds not just legislatures, it also binds the courts. The current law lessens the risk of children’s sexual abuse. Two of the basic tenets of our legal system are the protection of children and harm prevention. Principles of belief, expression, etc. are themselves principles of fundamental justice. It is not enough to say that the restriction violates some of the principles of section 7 - it is more important to look at the principles of section 7 as a whole. If it turns out that the polygamy law violates section 7 of the charter but it also turns out that rescinding the polygamy law violates the rights of the children. Would this mean it has to go to a section 1 balancing. Section 1 cannot be read to say that it guarantees each individual right and freedom -

all the charter rights are demonstrated to be consistent in a free and democratic society by the very definition of the charter itself. This hypothetical situation between the rights of the polygamists and the rights of the children does not force a section 1 balancing. It must first be decided that the rights of the polygamists outweigh the rights of the children. Without this finding, a section 1 balancing to determine the reasonable accommodation. In our view, the rights of the child must outweigh the rights of the polygamist. In a contest between the rights of adults and the rights of the child to be protected from sexual abuse. In our submission, the protection of children from sexual abuse must outweigh the rights of the polygamists. The rights of children should be given over the rights of adults.

The prohibition against polygamy is a protective measure against childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse laws only go into effect after the child has already been abused. The anti-polygamy law should reduce the likelihood of this happening. Childhood sexual abuse is a protection of the present against the future.

Court adjourns at 330.

Layton would slash oilsands subsidies - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News

2011-03-31T13:32:00.000-07:00

Speaking as a 3rd generation Albertan who worked for 30 yrs in the oil and gas industry, I fully support Layton in his comments. Why are we paying multi-national oil companies to exploit our natural resources and at the same time, falling behind the rest of the world in developing renewable energy sources?

Someone needs to speak out about this before it gets too late. With the convergence of peak oil and climate change, our children deserve the kind of leadership that is being offered here.

Layton would slash oilsands subsidies - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News

Key to U.S. energy security is decreasing oil demand, not increasing oilsands supply | Pembina Institute

2011-03-30T13:07:00.000-07:00

Interesting that this emerges from President Obama and the Pembina institute the day after my most recent rant...

Key to U.S. energy security is decreasing oil demand, not increasing oilsands supply | Pembina Institute

Why $100 per barrel oil prices are bad for Alberta - and everyone else

2011-03-29T20:48:00.000-07:00

Here we are in early 2011 facing oil prices in excess of $100.00. The last time this happened was mere months before the economic collapse of 2008. One might think that this will usher in a new time of prosperity for Alberta and its’ massive oil sands. However, this will not be the case.

The reason why this is bad for Alberta, and everyone else, comes down to more than simple economics. The reality is that it takes energy to produce energy. For example, in the early days of the oil industry if you invested the energy equivalent of 1 barrel of oil into finding, producing, shipping and refining oil from a conventional oilfield, you would yield somewhere close to 50 barrels of oil in return. In today’s industry, with the biggest and most accessible fields long since depleted, you can still yield somewhere between 7 and 10 barrels of oil for every barrel invested. Based on this return, you can quickly see that if oil is $20/barrel, as it was through most of the 1990s, the oil companies could realize a profit between $120 and $180 for every $20 invested - before royalties and after the infrastructure is paid out. Beyond the financial considerations, this profit in terms of barrels of oil provided the energy required to build our modern industrial economy.

In comparison, oil sands production is much more energy intensive. Whether it is massive mining operations or in-situ steam injection projects, when one barrel of oil energy equivalent is invested in an oil sands project the resulting yield is between 1.5 and 3 barrels of oil. When oil prices are $100 per barrel, this is still economically attractive. For an investment of $100 the profit is between $50 and $200. This is very comparable to the financial returns from conventional oil. However, the energy balance is not nearly so favorable providing less than two barrels of oil to power the rest of our industrial economy.

Another way of looking at this is to convert the energy obtained from a barrel of oil to more understandable units like 1700 kiloWatt hours. Once we make this conversion, we see that conventional oil at $20/barrel gives us an equivalent cost of about 1 cent per kWh compared to nearly 6 cents per kWh for the oilsands. In terms of driving, fuel costs are less than 2 cents per kilometer for the average car when oil prices are $20/ barrel but the price increases to 6 cents/km for the oilsands case. This increase in energy cost translates directly to every facet of our life - including transportation, food production and even tar sands mining and rehabilitation. Many of our industries, like the automotive sector, simply can't tolerate energy prices in this range - 2008 proved that already.

As the conventional energy sources are depleting, there is simply going to be much less energy to power the rest of our current lifestyle. A bigger percentage of the available energy will be needed to produce, transport and refine the remaining oilsand reserves. This will add further escalation to the energy prices. Naturally, this will negatively impact food production and transportation in a very significant way.

The bottom line is that we must shift our economy to be more energy efficient. Let’s use the low cost energy of the remaining conventional oil reserves to build a renewable energy infrastructure, more energy efficient buildings and public transportation instead of using it to produce low quality and very dirty oil. Before it’s too late.

Mormon Polygamy on Trial: Live streaming of the BC polyamy trials

2011-03-28T10:03:00.000-07:00

If you would like to monitor the courtroom live - please follow this link.

CBC.ca Player

Oil tops $105/bbl - watch for economic fallout ahead

2011-03-22T22:54:00.000-07:00

With the instability in the middle East, together with the struggle to maintain production at current levels, watch for serious economic instability in the next 6 to 12 months. Now we will see how much of the 2008 Great Recession was caused by sub-prime mortgages and how much was actually caused by $140 bbl oil prices.

Fasten your seatbelts.

Oil tops $105 on supply questions - Business - CBC News

World food prices hit record high: UN - World - CBC News

2011-03-03T09:47:00.000-08:00

Having ignored oil supply limitations - the real cause of the 2008 economic collapse - and refusing to learn lessons from our history - like making serious efforts to reduce our dependence on cheap oil, we seemed condemned to repeat them.

World food prices hit record high: UN - World - CBC News

Mormon Polygamy on Trial: the dark side of polygamy

2011-02-20T08:53:00.000-08:00

More information about the dark side of Mormon polygamy - at least as practiced by the FLDS - has come to light in the BC legal system. New evidence from the Eldorado, Texas compound has revealed that fathers of 12 and 13 year-old girls drove them to Texas and delivered them as brides to FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs. This raises two very disturbing questions. Why would the 49 year-old Warren Jeffs want to marry 12 and 13 year-old girls? and What parent in their right mind would subject their daughters to this type of abuse?

While this sort of behaviour is not typical of the fundamentalist Mormon movement, it certainly receives the most attention. Probably justifiably so. Whether this new evidence will enter the constitutional reference hearing is still open for debate. It is another open question as to how this would impact the decisions around the general application of Section 293 which outlaws any polygamous relationships (polygyny and polyandry) that may exist - even among consenting adults.

Girls married to U.S. polygamist: docs - British Columbia - CBC News

WikiLeaks Cables: Saudi Arabia Cannot Pump Enough Oil to Keep a Lid on Prices | Common Dreams

2011-02-11T11:19:00.000-08:00

Well - leave it to WikiLeaks - but finally we have the confirmation that so many people already knew. Saudi Arabia does not the reserves that have historically been reported (for OPEC quota reasons) and they can not produce enough oil to keep prices down when demand escalates - or in other words - when the economy recovers.

Those who believe the Canadian tar sands can fill the gap are in for a big surprise. When the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil was invested into oil exploration, production, refining and shipping in Saudi Arabia it would yield more than 10 barrels of oil in return. When that same barrel of oil (energy equivalent) is invested in the Alberta tar sands it generally yields less than 3 barrels of oil in return. This reduction in the "net energy" profit margin will undoubtedly result in higher prices for oil sands production which in turn will rapidly increase the oil price for the rest of the economy.

There is another way of looking at this. The USA consumes about 22 million barrels of oil per day. Assuming the energy balance of the current Saudi Arabian fields, it requires about 2.2 million barrels of oil to find this oil, get it out of the ground, refine it and ship it to the USA. Therefore the real oil consumption for the USA has been about 24.2 million barrels per day.

In the tar sands it would take approximately 7 million barrels of oil (energy equivalent) to produce this same 22 million barrels of oil. That means the total USA demand becomes 29 million barrels per day rather than 24 million - an increase of more than 20%. In addition to this, it would require more than 100 million barrels of water per day to produce and refine this oil.

In reality, this is simply not possible. The optimistic target for the tar sands is about 5 million barrels of oil per day - and this is at the price of horrific environmental degradation. In addition to this, as energy prices climb, the cost of developing - never mind remediating - the tar sands will likely price themselves out of the market place.

Even if it were possible to produce the tar sands at this scale, the CO2 emission increases - due to the heavier nature of the crude - will increase much faster than the energy cost - and the atmosphere simply cannot tolerate that.

We simply have to find a way to move forward with less reliance on hydrocarbon resources. That is where our investments must go.

WikiLeaks Cables: Saudi Arabia Cannot Pump Enough Oil to Keep a Lid on Prices | Common Dreams

CO2 Emissions - Porter-Hirsche's from 2001 to 2010

2011-02-10T20:41:00.001-08:00

Proportional with our reduction in energy consumption, our CO2 emissions have also fallen. However, it is important to point out that in British Columbia our electricity comes from hydro so we do not consider these emissions. In addition to this, a portion of our heating comes from firewood, which is also carbon free.

At this point in time, we are only considering CO2 from our vehicles. The reduction is from 10.2 to 8.5 tons for the family.

Energy Consumption: The Porter-Hirsche's from 2001 to 2010

2011-02-10T20:21:00.001-08:00

Well, the numbers are in and we have managed to reduce our energy consumption again for 2010. Our total energy usage for the family has reduced from 72,800 kWh/yr to 58,900 kWh/yr (These totals do not include energy costs related to food, material purchased or embedded energy).

The overall reduction is about 23% over last year. This is mostly due to reduction in home heating costs (32% decrease which may be due to a milder winter). Electricity usage dropped by about 25%, mostly due to monitoring usage using a real-time monitoring system and turning-off un-necessary appliances. Transportation dropped by about 20%, which is entirely due to more fuel efficient vehicles (since we drove almost the same number of total kilometers as last year).

Mormon Polygamy on Trial : January 28 summary and media reports

2011-01-29T13:36:00.000-08:00

After hearing from the individual witnesses, the cold light of statistical analysis is used to highlight the teen-age mothers and sub-standard educational opportunities that have strongly affected life in Bountiful. One ray of hope is that the FLDS appear to be honoring their 2008 commitment to cease underage marriages and the Mormon Hills school (on Winston Blackmore's side of the split) celebrated their first grade 12 graduation in 2010. Perhaps this provides some cause for hope -

CBC News - British Columbia - Polygamous town had many teen moms, court told

Data supports hard truth about brides in Bountiful

Mormon Polygamy on Trial : Summary and Media reports January 25 - 27

2011-01-29T13:31:00.000-08:00

The BC Supreme court hearing on the constitutionality of Canada's anti-polygamy law is nearing the end of the evidence gathering phase. The earlier weeks were dominated by expert witness testimony. Witnesses from this past week are primarily residents of Bountiful BC who have chosen to speak out in favor of their life style. The wide range of media reports from these testimonies show how far the Bountiful FLDS culture is out of step with the wider North American society (15 yr old girls marrying 40+ yr old men, blatant disregard of immigration laws, etc. ) and they also show a wide range of reaction to these practices (from shocked disbelief to outright condemnation).

There is also an interesting counterpoint to the Bountiful example, as shown by Mary Batchelor and other independent Mormon Polygamists who choose to live in a more conventional and less isolated lifestyle.

Barbara Kay: The Stepford Wives of Bountiful B.C. | Full Comment | National Post

Bountiful woman said marriage of teen to her husband was 'revelation from God'

Polygamist’s wife testifies society’s bias ‘affects my everyday life’

CBC News - British Columbia - Plural wives recount marriages to older men

CBC News - British Columbia - Anti-polygamy law 'frightening,' wife says

First anonymous witness for FLDS testifies at polygamy hearing

The terrible choice: Child bride or plural wife?

Opinion: Child brides forced to make a marriage choice

Mormon Polygamy on Trial : Summary and media reports for Jan. 17 - 19

2011-01-20T20:05:00.000-08:00

The past few days at court have focused on the more personal side of the debate. Brenda Jensen, daughter of Harold Blackmore and Truman Oler (my cousin and friend) spoke about their experiences growing up in Lister and Canyon BC (now mostly called Bountiful - thanks to Winston Blackmore). They tell a heart-breaking story of family conflict and stressed relationships. This goes back to the beginning of the community, as Brenda's family actually purchased the land that would become Bountiful. Conflict with his younger and more charismatic uncle Ray Blackmore eventually led to Harold's family re-locating to Colorado City, Arizona when Brenda was in her teens.

Truman spoke of the difficulties associated growing up in the "big house" that his father Dalmon built for their family. With more than 45 siblings, it was very difficult to find individual time for every child. Truman also spoke of his personal journey with his faith - and the decisions that led to him leaving the FLDS religion. Most hauntingly, Truman spoke of the pain and hardships that have come about as a result of the split that has divided the Bountiful community - and every family involved in it - into two rival factions. Truman's mother is on the more conservative side, led by Warren Jeffs, and she has left him with the impression that she considers it would have been better if he had not survived his birth.

Truman has been cheated and exploited by community leaders over the years. To his great credit, he has risen above all of this and he and his wife are raising two boys of their own. He is determined that they will not lack attention from their father. In view of all that has happened, what Truman most wants is to be able to return to the house where he grew up and simply be accepted as a brother, a son, and a friend.

Lonely childhood recalled at B.C. polygamy case

Former Bountiful resident tells court of childhood marked by loneliness, lack of love

Naturally, there are two sides to every story - The two most recent witnesses are from more liberal and independent expressions of fundamentalist Mormonism. These women came from Utah to share their personal stories with the court and they provide a sharp contrast to the stories that have come out of Bountiful and Colorado City.

Wife delights in closeness of her polygamist family, court told - The Globe and Mail

Utah woman defends polygamy in B.C. court

Mormon Polygamy on Trial : January 19 courtroom notes

2011-01-19T20:55:00.000-08:00

Note: This is not an official transcript - I was typing as fast as I can - and there are undoubtedly many errors in spite of my best efforts to give a fair representation of the proceedings....

Professor Steve Kent: Witness called by STOP Polygamy in Canada

Professor of sociology: sociology is the study of social hierarchy in society. Class and so on.

Discipline overlaps with other disciplines. political science, psychology, etc.

Submitted as an expert witness - qualifications reviewed:

Adjunct professor in religious studies at u of a.

undergrad from university of maryland majoring in sociology. masters in history of religion, another religious studies degree from mcmaster. phd in religion and modern western society.

fellowships and awards from 1981 to present. Some are research grants and some are teaching awards. many course he teaches deal with comparative religions. taught a course in qualitative research methods. taught courses on religious sects which include fundamentalist mormonism.

teaches grad course which include materials on fundamentalist mormonism.

written several articles in peer reviewed journals. one specifically deals with fundamentalist mormon communities. conducted research into the history of fundamentalist mormon communities in north america.

“harms, human rights and harms of mormon polygamy” article written in 2009/2010.

consultations and testimonies: on 19 occasions in ireland, canada, united states, etc. given expert witnesses. taken and taught courses on qualitative research methodology. worked with a grad student, marla peters, who did research on bountiful. been collecting material on fundamentalist mormonism since 1978. started pulling information together on fundamentalist mormonism for a book on child abuse in alternative religions. research has been in the category of historical sociology. information taken from primary sources, archives,

has not done first hand interviews from people from fundamentalist mormon communities. Most people who have done interviews in these areas have an “in”. They have been mormons or have relatives in the mormon communities. If you are allowed into the groups, you have to be suspicious about why they have been allowed in for interviews.

Other groups, like the children of god, have been known to condition interview candidates so they will present the group in the best possible light.

Without an in - into the actual group, he is doubtful that he would be able to be useful. Therefore he felt it would be helpful to gather information on the group from what is already out there.

sociology of religion, including sociology of alternate religions flds polygamy as practiced in the flds communities, history of flds, including the harms in those communities, qualitative research methodologies.

No cross-examination

witness allowed as expert.

author of affidavit ex 55.

references to polygamous communities is understood to mean polygamous fundamentalist mormon communities.

most of the research methods are qualitative.

validity and reliability in qualitative research: occurs in part when researcher get complimentary and consistent information from a variety of sources. i.e. triangulation.

the more consistent information is from different sources, the more likely that the information is true.

general description of flds communities: flds under warren Jeff's est. up to 10000. colorado city,. bountiful. alred group - AUB - pinesdale montana about 1500. Kingston's, based in salt lake - about 1500 members. TLC under jim harmston in manti - members about 200 or 300. centennial park is a splinter of colorado city. tom green is small independent group. another group in utah that lives in caves.

detrimental impact of polygamy on people who live in these communities. what type of research have you done? what sources did you consult? where did information come from.

to do that, will rely on footnotes: tom Compton book (on the plural wives of joseph smith), fanny stenhouse book - from apostate in 1874. Ann eliza young - former bride of brigham young. 1915 article in an academic journal on incest on mormonism. detailed book on the alreds from 2007 which speaks about marriages which involve mothers and daughters. articles from salt lake tribune. combination of books, old historical books, media articles, etc.

conclusions on this section of the report - in a number of groups, there have been incestuous celestial marriages. mothers daughters, etc. marriages get re-arranged and people end up marrying cousins, uncles, etc. From supreme court of utah, there are step daughter marriages cited.

Genetic disorders and unmarked children graves: consulted works from former members - from flora jessop, materials from Phoenix new times (which broke the story on genetic disorders),

the major disorder is fumerocy disorder is especially high in the flds among the jessop and barlow branches of the families.

evidence on fumerocity disorder is fairly conclusive. also evidence of birth defects among the Kingston's. fumerocy is a deficiency that affects the crebs cycle and it does not allow brains to form. half the brain are water in some of these births.

in the Kingston's there are two vaginas or two penises or there are no sexual organs.

many of these groups do not register births or deaths and have their own graveyards. it is very difficult to get information.

janet bennion gives clues in her book - about child with retardation - only a little inkling but clue that something is going on.

missed a section.....

history of short creek, biographies of warren jeffs, theologic sources, and other sources.

dealing with lost boys: what research have you conducted?

used ... different media from new york times to salon. quoted from books from former members. all the books from young men that i was able to get ahold of. daphne branhams book. reports in la times. slc tribune. wall street journal. relied on alot of media accounts.

on working conditions: long article in a newspaper from around salt lake about kingston clans. kingston clan has major corporate involvement. many members work for this trashy little company. in canada - on the winston blackmore company - there are two reports which fine the black more company for unsafe working conditions. pattern seemed to be that the flds has lots of construction companies - boys are assigned to these work camps. sometimes boys misbehaving in the states would get sent to canada to work in winston’s lumber related companies.

some of these harms occur in societies that are not polygamous. why focus on the flds communities.

most of these harms are structurally based. everything i read and just base logic suggest that since the birth rate is about 50 50 - the young men will eventually become competition for marriage partners. very clear accounts from flds in hilldale and co city was to establish police force to keep young men and young women separate and if possible, run the young boys out of town. in one instance, young man gave a young woman a ride in pick up. police stopped them and beat young man up. later charged with assault.

welfare fraud and dependence on the state.

sources consulted include - history by a local person to start source. went back to old apostate sources from 1870s, spent most of time talking about current activities through different sources, groups work welfare system - called bleeding the beast - children of god used the term spoiling egypt. the group is hostile to society but is willing to use the resources because the group is special or chosen. used sources from national post, wallstreet journal etc. used sources from bennions book - said that women were impoverished and women used food stamps, shop lifting, etc. also tom green was required to pay back over 10000 for welfare fraud. largest case was conducted by the Kingston's. Kingston's are a fairly wealthy group but members live in poverty.

polygamy as a threat to the democratic state - fundamentalist Mormonism challenge to free and democratic society.

historical material included testimony from early flds us government investigation from prior to short creek raid. tracked down all major american court cases about polygamy. used hardly any of that material in here. been collecting books for years but also went online. people send emails because of his work. also getting material from google.

is it customary to use media reports.

there is a debate among the social sciences. some say that you should not use media in social sciences. however, media always lead the way. they are at trials in the communities, etc. researchers do not have the opportunity to be there. all major academics in this field use media account.

on threats to the state, based on flds communities in utah and arizona. in addition to reliance on welfare and services (like schools, etc). to be anyone of rank in the town, you have to be a male in good stead with the leaders of the town. all the major jobs were held by polygamists in the town. if someone was experiencing difficulties, who could you go to. sam roundy, who was a police man for many years had several reports of sex abuse and did not refer them to anyone for help.

for democracy, you need educated people who know who to go to someone for help and you have to be able to get hope from these sources.

in a recent book chapter, has written that polygamy should continue to be criminalized.

cross-ex by leah (ag bc)

assist court by giving authoritative material : two books about colorado city - used book by biceline - orangish red cover - the polygamist history of colorado city arizona.

in terms of early history of polygamy in western canada: edited by B. Y. card and howard palmer. history of mormonism in canada. the mormon presence in canada (collection of essays - 5 are about polygamy).

any other texts?

carmon hardy - a solemn covenant - daphne branham's book is most approachable and is by far most comprehensive. “secret lives of the saints”

in terms of settlement of bountiful: nothing is better than daphne branham’s book. she interviewed alot of people who others had missed. many were involved in this procedure. best source that i have seen.

Cross-ex by mr. wickett (flds)

on page 4 of report: in my opinion, polygamy involves serious violation of human rights. when you use phrase polygamy - what do you mean.

i really mean polygyny. one man with several wives. polygamy can mean either genders.

in your report, do you really mean polygyny?

yes.

in paper you wrote in 2006, polygamy, children and human rights, - entered paper into evidence - is this first writing on subject?

yes

dealt with many of subjects reported today. abuses are from evidence from certain plg mormon groups.

paper coming out with information about same sex marriage and polyamory. believes that these things should not be affected

from first paper, should justice take a pen and write “plg as practiced within certain fundamentalist mormon groups”

yes - as far as i am concerned yes.

because what you have researched is based upon reports about certain fundamentalist mormon groups.

yes.

research has involved reading books, journals and media reports about this groups?

yes.

did you start with the working premise that these groups cause harm to society?

yes - that is fair.

in selecting material that you were reading, were you selecting material that supported your hypothesis that these groups cause serious harms in the usa and canada.

yes - i had a hypothesis that i was trying to prove.

the material that you chose to read was intended to prove your hypothesis - to be clear - ?
yes

in picking up on this question of sources - had a student go through 96 footnotes and tallied that 25 are newspaper articles and 29 were books. also cited academic journals and 1 medical report. in the breakdown on books - is this a fair categorization?

what you say sounds accurate

next exhibit -

tallied up 25 articles - in earlier references you said why you think these are accurate

media accounts from reputable newspapers are generally reputable accounts

in terms of welfare fraud and dependence on the states - one conclusion is that these examples from 3 plgy groups suggest attitude of entitlement - the rest of society (gentiles) should pay for them. first paragraph is about kinstons where a multi-millionare of 70 M$ was required to pay back thousands to the utah government. from wallstreet journal?

yes

next was from thomas green case?

yes.

source was a reuters report - and also the case report - Mr. green is not a member of these groups but independent?

yes - he is independent

next point - refers to colorado city and hilldale. source is from article from salt lake trib.

yes.

first 2 cases are kingston and green and 3rd is from an entire community. am i right in thinking that the 3rd case is what leads to your conclusion that god has ordained their practice and that gentiles should pay for it.

refers to article - points out that one kingston got away with it but 2 others were not so lucky. there were a few involved.

yes - but these are just a few individuals not a community.

your thinking is that if a few people are convicted of fraud then that permeates the entire community?

in the case of green, it was not green who received welfare but it was his wives.

in the case of green, only green was convicted?

yes

(wickett) From US senate hearing, by harry reid - presented evidence from flora jessop - who said that the average household received 8 times assistance of average family. facts show that only two households received assistance... in comparison data from arizona communities, it showed only 44% households received food stamps as opposed to 78% which had been claimed. Only one family had been accused of fraud. public perception is that welfare fraud is prevalent but the evidence shows that his is not supported by the evidence. reports show that the sect teaches self-reliance. do you consider these sources as valid?

yes - i consider this valid but contrary evidence. but it does not consider the school funding, the airplanes, the cars used by mormon leaders, etc.

nonetheless, if this article is correct, would you agree that there is not a fundamental problem with welfare fraud. Does this not highlight a problem with using nothing but media sources.

Return from break at 11:45

Mr. W. referring to an article from salt lake trib from 1998. would have known a great deal of information about sexual abuse because was a doctor. source was a AP online article from 2008. continued that even if it was reported to law enforcement would have been reported to someone like sam roundy nothing would have been done. hospitals, etc, were prisons for female dissidents. referring to account from daphne branham article - which said that flora jessop stated that if she were caught when she was leaving hilldale arizona, she would have been committed to a mental institution in flagstaff arizona which was standard procedure. Turning to Dr. barlow, was he a general practitioner.

yes

you noted that he was accused with abuse charges

yes

are you aware of what happened to these charges?

if think he was involved with the YFZ charges - i don’t know?

then are you saying that you don’t know what is actually happening here?

I am saying that see this section very differently - i am only highlighting area where more research is needed.

you are here not to give opinion, do you think these things are definitive? do you not have to bring healthy skepticism to this?

yes.

in reference to the claims about the psych hospital in flagstaff, you would know if there is an institution in flagstaff?

i would not know

reading “are women committed to psych facilities as means of locking up dissident women in flds - and you compare this to stalinist facilities in communist russia. “ does it not seem ludicrous that police from the flds could get people locked up in a facility in the state of arizona without intervention of health care professions? psychiatrists from the state mental facility for example.

These are not actual police, these police are polygamous themselves, they have broken their oath to support the state.

is it not fair to say that you have chosen these sources because they support your case but you have not verified these sources.
i stated them because if these statements are true, then these are very serious human rights violations.

Is it not true that your research methods have been seriously criticized by many academic researchers?

some people may have criticized by work

they have criticized your work. that is a fact. referring to an article on brain-washing that occurs in the church of scientology. I am not here to debate scientology, but rather methodology. refers to another professor, quotes a critique of kents work which criticize his conclusions and his methodology. reads from professor dawson “indeed for good reasons, a sociologist normally treats the work of competing religious groups, apostates and disaffected members with some critical response” goes on to describe the accepted practice of triangulation - data should be gathered from members and ex-members, group members, followers... information must be triangulated and considered from several different sources.” do you agree that this is important in social science research?

yes - this is fundamental

Would you not agree that you have not followed this process in the affidavit in the document that you have given to the court today?

In response to this - quoting that professor dawson and professor kent were expert witnesses in a civil suit against the church on scientology in edmonton. professor dawson was reportedly under contract to the church of scientology at the time.

if a university researcher is conducting research in a community were members can be punished for giving information, it is a very delicate business to get information from members of these groups. i had no entry point. it is very difficult to get the information because you put the people at risk. the likelihood of getting critical information if it puts the subjects a potential risks. if it puts members at potential risk, you cannot get ethics approval on it.

For members who have left the group, then there information should be more reliable because they are not under the threat of punishment.

not necessarily - i have been having trouble determining if information is reliable.

getting alot of discussion about the paper, the rebuttal, etc. and how these will be marked for identification - especially from mr Samuel's who is STOP attorney.

Dr. Kent, you have heard discussion between lordship, mr. Samuel's and me.

MR. Wickett - I have completed my questions

Dr. Kent: I would like to clarify

Mr. Samuels: I would like to give Dr. Kent opportunity to clarify.

Dr. Kent: there is a 10 year gap between what Mr. Wickett gave as information about what I gathered from the media reports. there may have been a change in the behavior of the flds and this may have been due to public pressure from the media reports.

court reconvened at 2:00:

Ms. Darter (Witness number 7)

witness originally gave affidavit as anonymous. later decided to appear waiving anonymity. AGBC commented that affidavit was sworn with “we” rather than I. Mr. Wickett explained that it was originally sworn as a group affidavit rather than individual.

AG Canada also had a number of concerns that there are several aspects in the form of the affidavit - as it was originally drafted as a group affidavit. for example - it refers to “as a father” when she certainly cannot testify to this.

Why did you abandon anonymity in this case when you originally took it?

There is always some risk in speaking in public, however, since this is a historic case, recognized that this presented an important opportunity to present a perspective that might not otherwise be seen.

Did you grow up in a particular religious faith?

Brought up as an independent fundamentalist mormon.

was your family polygamous?

yes, my father had 2 wives. there were 32 children in total. her mother had 15 children. her father had rather traditional roles. for a time, the entire family lived in one house. when they later obtained the means, they purchased an additional house. When her father become ill, they purchased two houses side by side to care for their father and the mothers live as neighbors today.

Since they are not part of any church, they had sunday school in their home where they would read from the bible and book of mormon and other religious texts. her father or her mother would teach. sometimes they would go to the neighborhood lds church for primary.

In your faith, do you believe in arranged marriage?
No, I do not.

AG Canada (Mr. Cameron) objects- has given wide latitude in terms of the affidavit. however, the beliefs that the witness grew up with are not in the affidavit and should not be allowed.

Justice Bauman - this is not my strict understanding. if she were appearing as an expert witness, this might be well founded. however, I will allow this in this case.

Mr. Wickett - in the case of the lay witnesses that have appeared on behalf of the crown, they were given a wide latitude in the telling of their story.

Justice Bauman: this is correct, I will allow this.

Mr Wickett: Did your family participate in communal property?

No - however, this is a choice for members of our faith. I just do not choose to participate in this. 
What is your educational background?
graduated high school at the local public school.

What do you do for a living?
Have worked in the mortgage industry, participated in a cleaning business with a sister wife.

She was 20 when she was married - as was her husband. Their fathers were working on the same project and her brother was a friend of her current husband. She now lives in a household with 2 other wives. She has 7 children of her own and the oldest is 20.

She chose plural marriage because of her upbringing. She wanted to have the same things in her own family as she saw growing up.

the third wife came into family about 10 years ago.. how did his come about?

she was in a marriage that did not work out. I had a strong feeling or belief that she would be a good fit in our family. i spoke to the other wife about it and she agreed. we talked to our husband about it and he agreed. so we prayed about it - and she prayed about it. would this be good for everyone in the family - that’s how we approached it.

She is not affiliated with any specific church. we encourage our children to attend other fundamentalist churches, they attend lds churches, christian churches. 18 yr daughter has read the koran. we encourage them to find their own beliefs and hope that they might choose plural marriage, but warn them that this is a more difficult path.

of the biological children, the oldest is attended a state run virtual college. the rest are i public school?

How are important decisions made?

we discuss everything and try to come to an agreement. sometimes if one person has a very strong opinion, the others will yield to this. in terms of the children, the major choices are made between the biological mother and the father.

in terms of the children, the father tries to spend one on one time with each child independently. he spends time with each child on their birthday - makes effort to know the personality of each child.

plural marriage is a very sacred and deep principle for me. it is what i chose. some siblings did not choose to live plural marriage. in spite of that, we continue to get together and we love each other. does not believe that they wont get to the same heaven. it would just be the best thing for me.

if you were to leave the marriage?

since i am a legal wife, i would have to get a divorce like anyone else. nevertheless, we are all free to leave if we so choose.

Why did you choose to do this, even though it is against the law in utah.

some laws exist which it might be better if they did not exist.

if plural marriage were decriminalized in utah, would this have an impact in my life?

it would certainly have an impact in my life. it would also have a positive impact on the lives of many people of many cultures that live this way and it would make it easier for them to get help. her son has a dream to play in the nfl and is afraid that this might not be possible because his parents are polygamous. (this may not be realistic but it was a concern for him.

Cross ex. by Leah Greathead from AGBC.

Q: On the last point, concerning son and football, noticed that a darter is a professional basketball family who plays professional basketball in utah and comes from a polygamous family. is that right?

A: yes - he is well-known

Did you appear before the notary public alone or with anyone else.
A: I appeared with one sister wife

was your husband there?
A: no

was this presented on behalf of your entire family?
A: yes - on behalf of myself, sister wives and husband

did everyone agree to what was in the affidavit?
A: yes

what did you write?
A: its kind of a mesh, but “everyday we make the choice to live this way ...” paragraph 25. however, they all worked together on the affidavit.

at beginning of questions, you testified that you had been out in public and done some public speaking.

A: yes

when you use the term polygamy, you use the term to mean one husband and more than one wife?
A: yes

were you doing public speaking in an effort to de-criminalize polygamy?

A: public speaking was to university groups, social services, etc. to encourage better understanding. sister wives and husband were on oprah. believes that decriminalization of polygamy would be the best outcome.

are you generally aware of polygyny in the state of utah? you mentioned that you went to other flds churches, which were they?

A: AUB

are you aware of flds?
A: yes

the alred group?
A: they are the aub

the kingston group, tom greens group?

A: yes i am aware of these

as a an independent fundamentalist mormon, do you considered yourself a mormon?
A: we share alot of common beliefs, but because that church began to excommunicate members who practice polygamy, i am not a member of that group.

do you have a patriarchal structure of your family?

A: we joint parent. we don’t get caught up on that.

you said that in terms of children, you said that the father and mother have the final say. what if they disagree, who would have the final say?

A: it would depend on the issue.

regarding mr. thomas green - he is an independent fundamentalist mormon - and he married a number of teenage girls - some as young as 13 -

A: yes, i am aware of that and i strongly disagree with that and there are laws against it that should be enforced.

regarding kingstons - are you aware of teenage brides?
A: somewhat aware of that

Do you share ownerships of your homes?
A: yes - however, in terms of a broader community, like the united order, we do not practice that.

Is your name on the title of your home?
A: I think so - not sure -

how about your sister wives?

A: no, does not think so, however, they have businesses and the same rights.

in ann wildes video, she said it is not necessary to obtain permission of other wives before the husband takes another wife. do you agree with this
A: no. in terms of fundamentalist beliefs there is a wide variety of opinions.

did you work with mary batchelor and ann wild.
A: yes - to fund raise for an abuse shelter

you mentioned that you are legally married and if you left that you would need a divorce, what about your sister wives?

A: they are not legally married and would not need a divorce. however, it is my belief that they should still be taken care of and their children should be taken care of. it would be very painful for everyone involved, especially the children.

Cross-ex of AG Canada
you testified that you considered that all of the wives are married to your husband. did you go through a marriage ceremony with all the wives?

A: yes

what was this like?

A: like almost any marriage ceremony. you make promises to love, honor etc.

relative to marriage ages:

A: both were 20 when married. second wife had been in another plural marriage that did not work out. she was 29 and her husband 30 when they were married.

in affidavit, you testified that if polygamy were de-criminalized, it would make it more difficult to hide abuses that occur in some of these relationships. What did you mean by this?

A: In one family, a house was vandalized by teenagers who wrote “polygamous bitches” on their house. the family did not call police for fear of prosecution. When Ms. Darter was a teenager, she was confronted by an exhibitionist when she was walking with a non-polygamous friend. The fried called the police to report the incident but she was afraid to contact police for fear she would get her family in trouble. however, her parents encouraged her to talk to police and it went well, but the fear was real.

In your relationship, is your husband free to take another wife?
A: yes

are you free to take another husband?
A: If I chose to do so, and if it was in by belief system and it was my desire.

would you still be in your current relationship?
A: no.

court adjourned at 3:00 pm

Mormon Polygamy on Trial : January 18 courtroom notes

2011-01-18T13:22:00.000-08:00

January 18, 2011 Court Notes (please note that this is not an official transcript and I am not a professional stenographer. There are likely many errors in spite of my best efforts)

Testimony of Truman Richard Oler -

Karen Horsman from AG BC direct examination:

Understands that the court proceeding is to determine whether section 293 prohibiting polygamy is constitutional under Canadian law. After careful review, confirms that the affidavit is the same as the one that he swore. The affidavit contains information about his experiences growing up in Bountiful.

Truman is the son of Dalmon Oler and Memory Blackmore - sister of Winston Blackmore. Dalmon had six wives and memory was the second wife. Memory had 15 children and Truman is the 13th - he is 29 years of age. Truman is the full brother of Jimmy Oler.

Truman grew up in Canyon and was raised in the big house that Dalmon had made for his family. It was the biggest house in the community at the time that it was built. Not all of the wives lived in the big house all the time. On occasion, some of the mothers would move away and then come back. Truman stayed in the big house for his whole life in Bountiful. Truman was 16 when Dalmon died.

Truman went to church in Bountiful on every Sunday. There were also Saturday morning “work day” meetings. These meetings were required.

Once you turned 12, you were allowed to go to the priesthood meetings. At the meetings, they spoke about the work - how well they were doing financially compared to those who left and went to make their own living outside. There was also talk - not only in priesthood and also in church - how you needed to be sheltered and how you needed to train your children to be filled with the holy spirit every minute of every day. How you needed to be ready to give your heart and soul to the priesthood and the prophet at any time.

The men were taught that they were supposed to look up to their priesthood head - of your area - and do whatever you were told by them. Also that the duty of the man was to be willing to drop everything and do gods will at any point. Rulon jeffs was the prophet during Trumans younger years. Winston was the bishop and everyone was to check in with him. he was the number one man in canada and the representative of the prophet.

The role of the woman in the community had several main themes. If the man was old enough and married, that if a woman was placed with a man she was supposed to do whatever he wanted. They were supposed to have children - this was taught to them from the time they were children. From the age of 15 or 16, the girls wanted to be married and have children. The women were taught to look after the men.

As he was growing up, Truman was taught that marriage was something that they needed to do to get into the highest degree of heaven. you would have to be ready to marry anyone who was chosen for you. You could not get to the highest degree of heaven unless you had more than one wife. this was taught from the time they were very small. They were taught that there was no choice in marriage.

At home, at church and at school, you were taught that you should want to do whatever you were told to do. There were two choices - if you lived the way you were taught you would go to the highest level of heaven. If you chose to live another way, then you would be damned and go to hell. For a small child, the second choice was no choice at all.

As for marriage assignment - whenever the guys were deemed good enough or for the older guys if they were giving more money to the church - for the younger guys, when they reach 18 or 20 you had to be ready to accept anyone that they gave you because you had no choice and you had no idea who they would choose to give you. Truman saw cases where men were told that they were to marry someone, that if they rejected the woman, then they would be kicked out. IF they did not whole-heartedly do whatever they were told then they would have to leave. Often the young men were already ready to leave by the time this happened. They were always taught that the prophet would know God’s choice as to who they would marry and tell them. Looking back, it seems clear that winston had a lot to do with who would marry who. One prophet could not even know all the people in Canada, their ages and so on. From Truman’s perspective, Winston must have had alot to do with it.

Growing up, Truman was taught to stay away from people outside the community. They would prosecute them for what they did. They were the only people on earth who would be lifted up and everyone else would eventually be killed and swept off the earth.

Growing up, Truman was aware of the Utah communities that followed the same prophet that they did. People often went back and forth between the communities - especially from Canada for the April conferences in Utah. Girls from Canada would go down to be placed with men in the states and girls from the states would be brought to canada to be placed with canadian men. People would also travel to visit with family members. Young men would often be sent to other communities for work missions. Sometimes young men from the states would be sent to canada because they were being rebellious in the states and they would be placed with canadian people who it was thought that they could help keep the young men from doing the wrong things.

It was quite common for girls from the states to get married to men in Canada. Several of Truman’s sisters were married to men in the states. Truman lived for 3 months in colorado city during a time when he was trying to figure out what he wanted to do with his life. he did it as a self-test because he knew that the people that he would live with were on the straight and narrow path. while he worked with them, he attended all of the church meetings - saturday, sunday and even monday morning. he stayed with a brother-in-law and stayed on their straight and narrow path. He wanted to see if he would want to live the rest of his life like that and he decided that he did not. Truman called his brother Jim, who suggested that he talk with Warren Jeffs - where he said that he needed to go back to work on the logging crew in sundrie. truman did not want to be stranded in colorado city - whatever the prophet woudl have said, he would have to do. Jim came down to the states to get him and shortly after coming back to canada, truman left the church.

Truman had been out of the community for a bit and learned that people outside theh community were not that evil. After he learned this, he began to lose his faith in the church.

Truman does not remember spending any extended periods of time with his mom - especially one on one attention because there were so many children in the house. It was basically the same for all the other kids. they were taken care of and watched mainly by their older brothers and sisters. Truman’s mother worked as a school teacher and this took alot of her time. he remembers spending more time with his father - who would take the boys to help with work around the farm, as a mechanic and to work for other farmers in the valley. He only remembers celebrating a few birthdays - mostly in his early teens. On a couple of occasions, they had birthday breakfasts. One time he remembers getting a birthday cake. This didn’t happen every year and there weren’t many presents because this was a wordly tradition.

Truman remembers, from his perspective, that the wives were not as happy and holy as they often say. As a small child, he recalls his mother and the other ladies complaining about what the other wives were doing. the women were not treated equally and the mothers treated their own children better than the children of other mothers.

Truman was educated in the bountiful elementary school from kindergarden to grade 9. only members of the religious community attended the school. He doesn’t remember getting any practical education in bountiful. Going to school, it was never brought to their attention that they were going to need education later in life. he wasn’t told that he would need a grade 12 education to get into college. he doesn’t even remember being told what a college was. there was no career planning. the mentality was that there was no need for schooling - all they needed to know was how to make fence posts. That is what he did after he dropped out of school. every morning there was an assembly which was the main religion class. however, there was a second one during the day. there were reading assignments to read from the religious books. the boys and girls went to the same classroom. when the boys started getting to the age where they were interested in girls, they began to separate the boys and the girls to opposite sides of the classrooms. boys and girls were not supposed to talk to each other and they were not supposed to be alone together. even brothers and sisters were not supposed to be alone together in the same room. They were not taught that they were not supposed to marry someone that they were related to. Boys were to treat girls like they were dangerous poisonous snakes - it was taught in church and even more so at school. Brothers and sisters were not supposed to do anything together without adult supervision.

The bountiful school only went to grade 10. they were taught that they only needed to count to 175 because that is the number of fence posts that are shipped in a bundle. Truman dropped out in grade 9. his 2 younger brothers went back to school - however, at the end, they decided the last year at school was a waste of time. it is possible that they already had the attitude that they would not need school so they didn’t apply themselves. after grade 10, girls would often be placed with a man at the age of 16 or 17. Once in a while, younger girls would be pulled out of school to be placed with a man and they would not come back.

truman started working for Jr blackmore and sons. this company was owned by winston. he was 13 years old and at this time the company made posts and holes for fencing. At the same time, they had a farming operation with cattle and hay. They tried a number of other things, like buying a grain elevator, mattress factory, grocery store, etc. but these operations did not work out. The people from the church community would come and take advantage of the businesses through credit and not pay for it. When truman started working, he went out on crews to make fence posts during the summer. after quitting school, he made fence posts full time. Then he started working in the blackmore mechanic shop in kitchener near creston. his brother jim was the head mechanic for jr blackmore and sons at that time. Truman did not like working under jims direct supervision. He was only 15 or 16 at the tme and all the other mechanics were much older. he preferred to work with guys his age so he asked to go back out and make fence posts. This was seen as being a bit rebellious because jim told him that he was needed in the shop. around the same time. truman had asked to play on the creston community hockey team and this was denied. He was always living in the big house and he wanted to go and live in one of the crew houses where the other young men were living. After asking Jim, the was told that this would be considered. however, finally truman went out to work on fence posts without asking.

Finally jim assigned him to a logging crew in sundrie to operate machinery where he could use his mechanic ability to get the most out of the logging equipment. He worked in sundrie for 5 or 6 years. during this time, the blackmores began having financial troubles and the olers started seperate companies.

For wages, the young men got about 20 every two weeks (85 hrs). working full time, he was given 60 every two weeks. after leaving school, he received 100 every two weeks until he was 18. While working for blackmore and sons, he would be given checks to sign and cash but he never received the money himself. he doesn’t know what happened to the money but suspects that winston had control of it. he would not be given his 100 for the 2 weeks if he did not sign over these checks.

initially blackmores made fence posts for one of the mills in sundrie. when they started logging, they stopped making fenceposts. the young men stayed in several crew houses in one location. All the young men who worked there were from bountiful.

Concerning tithing; everyone was expected to pay ten percent of everything they owned to the church. at other times, they were expected to give back half of all the money that they were given to pay the back taxes. This was called a time of famine. no one was allowed to go out and get something to eat, instead they were to eat food that they had stored at home.

after the split, warren said that every male above the age of 18 had to pay $1000 to help pay for court cases that they were fighting in the states. if you did not pay, you were looked at differently. it was supposed to be voluntary, but it you did not pay, someone would start asking you what was wrong. men who were more diligent with paying these contributions would often get more wives. Individuals mostly did not have much for personal resources.

Truman did not pay the “famine fees” - (one half of his pay) and he did not pay the $1000 that warren wanted. his mother tried to cover for this so people would think that he was on the straight and narrow. (break at 11:15)

Reconvened at 11:30

During the time of the split which occurred in the bountiful community after warren Jeff's became prophet, truman was living in canyon, in the big house, as was his mother and much of the family.

warren accused winston of doing something wrong and tried to demote him from being bishop. everyone stayed together at first after Jim Oler was initially given the title of lead oler of canada. Jim then became the lead speaker at meetings and everyone continued to go to church. not long after, winston started having his own meetings and proclaimed himself a prophet of sorts. family members ended up on both sides of the split and they were no longer allowed to talk to each other or do anything together. this was one of the main things that led truman to question. what they were doing did not seem to be anything god-like or christ-like. it was nothing like the love your neighbor that they were taught. Truman was on the Jimmy oler side and there was alot of talk about all the things that winston was allowing and how these things were wrong. some of the women were beginning to cut their hair and wear jeans, etc.

after truman left warren’s side, he was able to associate with the winston side. however, all the winston group spent all their time complaining about the way that the winston side were doing everything wrong. whenever truman goes down to lister, he leaves feeling sad that they are holding on to the old ways and old grievances and they are not moving on to what they could be.

Recounting a conversation with jim oler about how he might be able to get a wife, truman relates that jim took him aside to one of the rooms in the big house and told him that if he was willing to make an extra step that he would be able to get a girl placed with him soon. that extra step was to make sure that you weren’t lagging in any areas, that you didn’t miss any meetings, etc. not long after this, truman decided to leave and not be involved in the church any longer. at this point in time, truman did not want to face the fact that he would not be able to accept just anyone that they might choose for him. after this, he made the decision to leave. he was in his early 20s.

In making the decision, it was very difficult. Growing up, everything he knew about was in the community. there was no way to imagine what it might mean to leave. when he got older, he saw how many of the older boys had to leave and be began to imagine that this was something that he might eventually have to do. he would have to leave all of his family behind - those who were still involved in the church. This was one of the major difficulties. on of the hardest things that that when all you know is in that lifestyle, you are never taught what it might mean to have your own car, your own house, to be your own person. He had no idea of where to go. The number one factor was that his grandma told him that - because he was on the verge of leaving - and he could not see anywhere that he could go because he was leaving both the teachings and the people - but his grandma told him that no matter what he did he would always have a place to come back. this meant so much to him because he now knew that he had a place to go. That was Lorna Blackmore.

One of the hardest things he faced going out was that he still believed that this was the one and only true church. he was now a goner. however, once he made the decision, he felt like something was lifted off his back. he felt like he could not live his life in there and even though he thought he was going to go to hell, he knew that he could not live his life there anymore. Lorna had lived in the community herself and had left before.

When truman was growing up, it was not very common for people to leave. after the split, there were already a few who left before him and they gave him support until he was able to get out and meet other people and do things. this made it easier. Several people began to leave the teachings, especially those who have followed winston. Only a few have left the warren side - he can only think of a few who have left. since warren took over, things started to get more enclosed. before they were under the direction of winston, even before the split, and even more after. people have lost lots of respect for him over things that he has done with his work and other areas. they are leaving the teaching and beginning to learn more about the world around them.

Truman is now married and has two young sons. Becoming a parent, has changed him so much, especially the way the kids in bountiful were and the way they are now. it was the women's responsibility to take care of the kids. the men went out to work and did not spend any time with their children. he can’t see why the men would have so many children if they don't want to take care of them. he can’t see anything more important than spending time with his children. He can see the children’s need and how his wife needs a break from time to time. when he was growing up, the women never had this chance. they were always having babies and there was no time for anything else.

Truman saw with his own eyes how one of his older brothers came home from a period away with work and he picked up one of his younger children who immediately cried because the child did not even know who his father was. Truman can’t imagine what it would be like if his boys did not know who he was.

His mother, memory, still lives in bountiful. the only contact that truman has with her is if he calls her. even when he does, he is not treated well and does not feel like calling again. when he see her or talks to her he can’t understand the way she is or the way that she does things. he wishes that his mother could somehow see that he is a good person. he doesn't;t hurt anyone or break any laws. in spite of this, she looks at him like he is lost. she says that it would be just as well if he was dead. she once told him a story, after he had left, that she had a still born child and she told it in such a way that it made him feel that she wished that he was that child. His mother has no interest in the way that he went back to school. Most of the time, his own mother treats him like he is a stranger. She doesn’t even ask about her grandchildren. she seems to think that it is like the end of the world.

Truman is tired of talking about and thinking about his childhood years in bountiful. However, he agreed to be involved in the court hearing because when he has the experience of trying to contact his family, he hears about their lives and it is heartbreaking to him. The enclosed state that they have come to - no television, limited computer access - he is hoping that his presence here may get back to some of his relatives on the inside. He is hoping that someday he might be able to go back to the house that he grew up in and be accepted as a son, a brother and a friend. He doesn’t believe that many of his relatives - especially those at the top - are living a very good life at the benefit of others. They can’t even see the harm that they are doing. most of them involved are very good hearted people who for the most part are among the best people he knows but they just don't know what they are doing or the harm they are causing and they think they are doing it in the name of God.

to take a young child's ability to think away from them is something he can’t comprehend. Winston often speaks about the charter of rights and freedoms - especially relating to the freedom of religion. the teaching of that one right takes away all the the other rights in the charter. it just doesn’t feel right to him that children should have to go through what he went trough - and all for no reason.

testimony completed at 12:05

No cross-examine from Mr. Wickett

Amicus thanks Mr. Oler for coming to court and providing his testimony-

Mormon Polygamy on Trial : January 17 courtroom notes

2011-01-17T12:50:00.000-08:00

Please note: this is not an official transcript. There are likely many errors in the transcription, in spite of my best efforts and limited typing skills....

Brenda Lynn Jenson

Previously provided a video testimony and has come to court to provide information about living in a polygamous community. Brenda is the daughter of Harold Blackmore from his second wife. Her mother was 32 when she married Harold. Originally just considered themselves “religious polygamists” now are FLDS. Sees the FLDS as a segregation of the polygamists. She was born in Cranbrook and grew up in Lister on a 80 acre farm. Now renamed to Bountiful by Winston. Her father was a staunch Mormon who filled a mission, etc. As he studied the scriptures, he came to believe that the anti-polygamy manifesto was a political act and not a revelation. Came to understand that living polygamy was a necessary requirement to become a “good mormon”. When he and his brother read and prayed about the doctrine of polygamy, eventually his first wife gave him permission to take a second wife but the only person she would consider was her sister. Her sister originally refused, she already had filled a LDS mission, had a teaching career and was successful on her own. Eventually, Harold and Gwen convinced her to go along.

Harold and Gwen were originally living in Rosemary Alberta. Lister was selected because of its remote location and the proximity to the US border. In the course of their studies, they found the polygamist community in Colorado city and became connected with them. Joseph Musser was the prophet at the time.

All together, Harold had 15 children as a result of two marriages. Brenda lived in Lister until she was 14. Growing up, it was cold, lonely, isolated and hopeless. People were not nurturing. Being too close to your children would make it too difficult for parents to give up their children when the priesthood requested them. The children were to be empty vessels. The priesthood would get a revelation from god to assign the girls to specific men who would lead them to salvation. Brenda had no right to make a choice of her own or any preferences of who she would like to be with. She was not to have any preference or thoughts about a career or any decision in life. The priesthood men, or the prophets were to make all the decisions. For her growing up years, LeRoy Johnson was the main prophet. The priesthood leaders wanted the children to have no contact with people from the outside community. They were taught that people on the outside did not understand that the polygamists were called of god and that they would do anything possible to stop them from following god’s commands. They were taught that outsiders would attack them, kill them in their sleep, rape the women, etc. This is why it was so important to keep everything secret.

Growing up, she was familiar with the Eldon Palmer, Ray Blackmore, Dalmon Oler and the harold blackmore families. During her growing up years, she was in awe of colorado city because this is where the prophet and the priesthood leaders lived. She was also aware of polygamous families who lived in and near salt lake city. Many of the priesthood leaders had big homes there - partly because young men would travel to salt lake on work missions. People in bountiful payed big tithings to leaders in colorado city. Young men were taken to the USA for work missions and young women were taken to the states for marriages. People were assigned to whichever roles or tasks that the priesthood leaders determined would be the best for the overall community. When Harold’s family moved to colorado city, it was very significant because that meant there were 15 children who could be married into that community as a new bloodline.

Leroy johnson had several counselors who also had authority to make assignments, etc. Priesthood leaders came at least once per month. Priesthood meetings were held and the men of the community were instructed on what they should do and then the fathers would come home and teach their families. Usually 4 priesthood leaders would come at one time. Ray Blackmore became the first leader for the bountiful community, reporting directly to the priesthood leaders and the prophet. Violence was common in Bountiful because obedience was very important. Children as young as 2 years old were expect to obey immediately so they would not be a burden on the community. Physical violence was common with the children, smothering down (holding the had over the mouths of crying children), spanking, isolation, etc.

THe united order was implemented supposedly for the benefit of everyone. It was meant to be the “equalizer”. People would pay everything in and their needs were to be cared for. For brenda, it was like the book animal farm. Some pigs were worthier than others. Some people are blessed far more than others in the polygamous society. There is a pecking order - some families are treated better than others. If you belong to one family, it didn't matter what you did if you belonged to the right or the wrong family. When she was growing up in lister, she was lost in the crowd of many children. She did not have the experience of being important or sought out. She was one of many. There was mass discipline, mass conformity, etc. THere was no desire for a single person to become an individual.

The church owned the children. as a parent, you were to prepare to give the children over. When she was growing up, when a girl turned 16, the parents were to take the girl to the priesthood leaders and turn her over to them. THere was to be no more parental influence. In more modern times, the parents are told that the children are always considered to belong to the priesthood and god rather than the parents.

Girls were turned over at 16 in order to provide the maximum number of child bearing years. Women were given no choice about when or if they could have children. if a woman did not have children, she was not worthy.

different levels of priesthood were present. when she was growing up, a male had to have the priesthood before he could get married. priesthood meetings were a very important time for men to get council from the prophet about how to raise their children, treat their wives and what they should do. Harold frequently attended priesthood meetings in co city and on many occasions, the leaders were drunk and spoke with no respect about which girls were coming up, who would get who, etc. This was very difficult for harold because he was a very devout man.

Obedience was the most important thing that they could do to prove how devout they were in their support of the priesthood. you had to be obedient all the time, no matter what it cost you. not matter what happened to you, it was the will of god. if you were obedient, the priesthood would welcome you into heaven. It also meant extra wives and this is important because you needed 3 wives to gt to the highest level of heaven.

the lessons began at birth and were reinforced every day. obedience was required to prevent the child from exploring anything on their own. you had to follow rules about your education, what you wore, who you spoke to, etc. Growing up, they were taught over the pulpit and this was reinforced by their parents on a daily basis. Every sunday, the priesthood leaders would teach the community from the pulpit. school was another place to reinforce obedience. repercussions were severe in school if you asserted any rights of your own. it was usually physical violence or isolation. sometimes you were sequestered away with a worthy adult until they submitted. you had to be obedient without any hesitation.

if you did not obey, you would be excommunicated or you would be placed with someone who would teach you the right ways. Beatings were common with younger children. young women who didn’t show enough obedience were assigned with a partner who had proven themselves capable in controlling their wives and children.

Brenda experienced physical abuse and terrible emotional abuse. She never felt like she was good enough. She felt like she did not have a parent accessible to her. she had no one to do to. when things happened to her that she did not understand or explain, she was told that she deserved whatever happened. it was her fault because she had not done what was right. there was terrible hopelessness because there was nothing that you could do, there was no place to go and no one who would help you.

brenda was home-schooled. her mothers had both been home-schooled. her father had won a case that because both mothers were teachers and they should be able to do this. The children were taught that this was for their benefit because they would not be mocked and ridiculed by other children in the public schools.

For a period of time, the palmers lived in creston and their children went to public schools. Shortly, a school was opened in lister so all the children would go to school together. this was the children would nt be exposed to any outside influences that would confuse them.

The community used an old “rum-running” trail to go back and forth from the states. Harold was assigned eventually to go to short creek to help “build up the kingdom”. harold was in construction and the people in colorado city were living in poor housing. harold and gwen went first and started work. When the family went to the states, they used the back trail in the middle of the night to avoid crossing the border. Brenda was 14 when she went to colorado city. During her time in lister, she had more freedom - she could wear jeans and shirts. as soon as she arrived in co city, she had to start wearing the traditional dress of the flds women. she felt terrible - she did not like the restrictions that she had to conform to. In canada, she enjoyed riding horses but in co city, women were not allowed to ride horseback, go swimming or anything. She was allowed to read books in her family but not outside the home. she once took a book to school and it was ripped up.

school in short creek was almost like going to church on a weekday. there was a tremendous amount to correction and critiquing. the curriculum was totally administered from someone in the community. teachers were frequently recent high school graduates -mostly men -who were just recycled back.

when she approached marriageable age, she was terrified. if she did one little thing wrong, she knew that she would be assigned to the worst possible man. When she approached 15 or 16, she would have to go past the priesthood leaders to shake hands at the end of the meetings. She was aware that the priesthood leaders would ask young men and women to stand aside after shaking hands - with no prior warning - and you could be asked to stand aside to be married within the hour.

Her brother had been on a work mission in the hammond home. a sister had been the 11th wife of hammond. her brother came home from a work mission and told brenda that she would be the 13th wife. The sister had terrible difficulties trying to adjust to marion hammond. hammond was a very cruel man and would frequently lash out. Eventually, her father told her that she would not have to marry hammond - however, the sister decided that if she did not marry him, she would lose her salvation - so she married hammond. When brenda was told to marry hammond, she told her father that she did not want to marry him, and her father backed her. This was the happiest day of her life that her father would back her.

It was a very difficult decision because she felt like she was going against everything that she knew. it was like going against God and everything that she knew. It was not usual for parents to back their children in decisions like this. the blackmores had already began to question what the priesthood leaders were saying. their words were good but their actions were terrible. The priesthood leaders had ultimate power. people could be expelled from their homes, losing their families and everything that they had.

Her family eventually left the short creek community. harold was terribly disillusioned with the priesthood leadership. he was very sincere in his beliefs and very devout and he recognized how the leaders frequently destroyed people’s lives without any thought or feeling. eventually harold got a bleeding ulcer and needed medical care. he was taken by station wagon to the hospital - however, he had to have an escort by a priesthood leader to defer questions. the nurse told the driver to speed up because they were losing harold and the priesthood leader told them to slow down. this forced him to face the reality because he was not obedient enough - he questioned too much - and he would be allowed to die. this eliminated any traces of hope that anything good would come from the community. he realized he made a terrible mistake and he decided to leave. they wanted to move far away, but several children were already married into the community. they finally decided to move somewhere in utah that was about 30 miles from co city. this was in the spring of 1968. they slept on the ground for the summer until they could afford some properties, raw materials and build a small shelter. She went to her senior high school year in hurricane utah. eventually almost all the brothers and sisters came out from colorado city and left the group.

Harold was also a teacher in co city. he tried to open a gas station to help the family. they were desperately poor. the priesthood would not allow this because he was not obedient enough. anyone who tried to do something independent was punished in this way. Bountiful was their family farm but when the family moved to colorado city, the farm was transferred to the united effort plan. you had to turn over everything you had to the priesthood. the only right that they were taught about was the right to freedom of religion. this allowed them to live polygamy. as part of the obedience, they were told to keep sweet. never point out a harm that was done to you, never ruffle the peace. put it on the shelf meant to put away anything that was done to you and not let it bother you or anyone else. anything that was done to you were to be put on the shelf to fester rather than seek resolution.

All of the marriages that brenda was aware of were all placement marriages. no one that she remembers had had a choice in who they would marry. IN the early teachings, in her household, women had a say over whether another wife was added to the family. In other families, this was not the case. anything that they were told was the will of god and could not be questioned.

Brenda eventually chose to marry and she had a very happy marriage. She had 3 daughters and this was her choice. she had seen the emotional and financial desolation that results from very big families. she wanted her children to know that she would always be there for them and that she would always back them. she wanted them to know that they were always loved.

growing up, she was taught that her role in life was to please her husband and have as many children as possible. if they did this, they would please the priesthood and this would please god. if they were to study, it was to be the scriptures. any interest or talent that was used outside the community was flaunting yourself and not being true to god.

with her own children, she taught them that dreams were important and that there was no such thing as failure. failure was only a learning step. she taught her children that no one owned them.. her role, along with her husband were to help them accomplish everything that they possibly could.

in the flds community, some people were sent outside the community to get education for teaching certification, or other education, so that they would give credibility for the community. sometimes it was a punishment for a woman to be send to school because they would be told that they would not have any other children.

By the time harold left the flds, he continued to live polygamy with gwen and her sister. THey had grown to love and support each other through everything and they continued to be a loving supporting family for their children.

Growing up, brenda was sexually abused as a child. she had been told that it was her fault, it was not reported and nothing was done about it. As an adult, she did report this because it needed to be resolved as part of the healing process.

If one of her daughters chose to join the flds and enter into polygamy, brenda would warn her that she was giving up her freedom, entering slavery, entering harms way, etc. she would want her to do her research and find out what it is all about. however, after all of this, she would still love her daughter and she values freedom of choice.

Brenda believed that polygamy is harmful on every level. you are not supported emotionally or in any way. you are not good enough. men and women are segregated and men rule because they have the priesthood and women do not.

Cross-ex by Mr. Wickett:

Brenda left lister in 1968 when she was 14 yrs old. Her entire family left the flds when she was 17. Brenda is a member of the HOPE foundation. however, she does not consider herself to be an activist against polygamy.

In 2009, she gave an interview - handing over into evidence and to brenda asking if this is her - do you recall being interviewed by a reporter from christian week?

no

do you know that oler and blackmore were charged with the crime of polygamy in 2009?

yes

reading this interview, do you remember saying “Brenda Jenson would welcome the legalization of polygamy”?

does not remember stating exactly this - however, she agrees with the context that if polygamy is legalized, then women would have a legal outlet from these relationships. If it was legalized, and women were going to leave these relationships, they would have more rights and would get out of the relationship what they put into it.

You said that the religion you grew up in was polygamy. were you not fundamentalist mormon?

when we were growing up, we were taught that we were following the original teachings of joseph smith. they were the chosen people who lived the original teachings. however we did not see themselves as mormons. We were not mormons.

Other than the flds, are you aware that there are other fundamentalist mormons - both organizations and individuals who practice polygamy?

yes

do you have any estimate of how many other people fundamentalist mormon families are in north america?

no

did you father remain a believer in the prophet joseph smith?

no - he did not. he believed that the ideas were utopian and did not work in the real world. He remained a believer in polygamy if everyone was like minded. he continued to be a polygamist. her father continued to love both of his wives and he learned to love his children after they left the cult. he cared enough about brenda to tell her that she did not have to get married and he loved her sister enough to tell her the same.

would you not allow that your father loved you that much and that other parents in the flds love their children in the same way?

I would allow that - however the strict teachings of the flds do not allow a healthy or normal family life. it is not possible in a polygamous society.

Are you speaking this from your perspective in the flds society? Is it possible that polygamy can work in other circumstances?

I can only speak to what i know

Cross-ex ended at 12:05 - court adjourned for the remainder of the day.

Mormon Polygamy on Trial : Day 16 Summary and Media links

2011-01-12T22:38:00.000-08:00

Media reports from Professor Witte's testimony.

History on the side of monogamy: Academic

Far from being a religious relic, marriage has enduring value

Tradition of monogamous marriage traced in polygamy hearing

Mormon Polygamy on Trial : Day 16 courtroom notes

2011-01-10T21:05:00.000-08:00

Unofficial transcript - warning - there are likely many omissions and errors in the recording.

Jan 10, 2010 - Witte (pronounced like woody)

(commenced 10:03) Craig Cameron lawyer for AG Canada: seeks to qualify in marriage, history, family law and religious freedom.

Mr. Wickett from FLDS and BCCLA are not present.

John Witte Jr. -Received his education at Harvard. historical marriage, family law, religious freedom and legal history.

Currently professor of law at Emory law school. Emory law school has 50 faculty and 250 students. Emory is one of top 5 universities in US.

Witte co-founder of religion and law center at emory. teaches graduate courses in criminal law and family law. courses in comparitive religious liberty and the law.

Currently director of the religion and law center at Emory. The center specializes in the area of the religion and law. Issues of religion and human rights, sexuality, etc. Recently work on religion and the pursuit of happiness. Primarily focused on Abrahamic traditions but also attempting to include more information from eastern religions.

What approach does center take on its work. Seeks to be interdisciplinary, international and Inter-religious.

about 22 disciplines are represented.

Looks for comparison and flashpoints between various cultures and religions. Looking at aspects of individual freedom.

Attempt to give an open lectern to any voice that has a valid argument.

Center is non-partisan, non-aligned with any causes, etc...., The center itself is not associated with any individual causes but members can testify as experts in various cases.

Try to forgo any source of funding that expects pre-ordained results. Only want funding that allows for serious research into valid causes. Money will be sent back if benefactor expects results to move towards a specific outcome.

Editor or co-editor of several publication on law and religion. One is on marriage, religion and family. This series of publications is only on the issues of marriage, religion and society. Other publications are on religion and the state.

Received many awards and grants that led to projects under law and religion center. Some are joint venture projects with benefactor providing funds and emory providing scholarship.

Received funding from Pew foundation of 3.2 M$ in yr 2000 to do project on sex, marraige and family in the religions of the book and the other on children. Both projects were designed to sponsor a major interdisciplinary and inter-religious research effort to yeild 20 public forums, workshops, etc. and a major international conference. Out of project produced 32 volumes to date. the child project has same design and produced 24 volumes. each designed to look at the subject from ground up to look at how the tradtions of jewish, muslim and christian faiths compare to what is now known from modern sciences (pscych, sociology, etc).

religion culture and family- recently wrote a book on these issues - shifting models of marriage in the west from sacramental of medieval times, to culminating in the contract of marriage. overview. translated into 5 languages.

Written 180+ book chapters and publications. Tries to write 10 to 15 articles per year and a book per year.

Written extensively on religion, rights and liberties. Religious freedom questions under US constitutional law with comparison to other traditions.

Studies free exercise rights and whether a person’s freedom of thought, conscience and belief require exemptions under state law. recognizes both importance of and limitations to rights and exemptions. Looks at limitations on religious freedom claims that do harm to others and harms to democratic society.

Previous research is linked to the report on polygamy and monogamy in that this question is always present in the study of marriage history. Had not previously studied polygamy systematically.

qualfies as expert in legal history, religious freedom, religion and family law, diadic marriage law and the history of polygamy prohibitions.

Amicus : Professor Witte is not familiar with areas Canadian law. His expertise does not extend to Canadian legal history.

Primary duty is to assist the court and not be an advocate of any position.

testimony starts 10:40

Task included 4 things:

1. history of dyadic marriage in the west - starting at 5 or 6th century BCE in the west

2. look at treatment of polygamy in the west especially at law - why was polygamy specifically singled out against other sexual practices

look at the rise of impediments in the pre-contract phase as an impediment of subsequent engagement or marriage.

look at claims that have been made historically to engage in polygamy regardless of criminal prohibition of the same.

Report was structured in terms of chronology first - then identify major watershed periods where ideas where challenged and in transition.

More than 2500 yr tradition of treating marriage as dyadic relationship between man and woman.

started with rome in 6 Century BCE to 6C CE. Also unearthed biblical material and the early interpretation by church fathers from 2 to 6 century CE. looked at Catholic church justification where sources were taken from roman law.

looked at reformation era where common law was separated from canon law (post henry VIII - Witte reminds us that the English reformation was caused by a dispute over marriage sovereignty) and traces the emergence of prohibition against polygamy into criminal law in 1604.

ALso spent time working through enlightenment philosophers who looked at traditions vs natural law.

looked at the american story - how america perpetuates the history of western teachings on monogamy. also looks at history of those who sought religious exemption of criminal prohibitions against polygamy (mormons and also others).

Professor attempted to summarize to the very nub the concepts of monogamy and polygamy.

What were overall conclusions?

Western tradition has taught for 2500 yrs that marriage is a dyadic union between a man and a woman. in some jurisdictions, extended recently to same sex unions. consistently concluded that polygamy is not a valid union. after 9th century, polygamous unions became a serious capital offense - leading to execution in some cases. Thought that polygamy resulted in serious harms to women, children and society and could not be risked.

In fist section of the report, most important GrK and Roman period writings include a repeated core understanding of marriage that is then rationalized by philosophers - marriage is between man and woman - first by engagement contract and then by marriage contract. most often celebrated by party or celebrations. elaborate economic contracts are often between the engagement and the marriage. these contracts often survive past death or divorce. understood as a public and private institution that is consensual between the man and woman and also between the families. divorce requires a further contract and public acknowledgement.

The goods of marriage for the couple provides mutual friendship, support, love and mutual protection against wandering sexually. protection from assaults and also the only way to produce “legitimate children” and legal inheritances.

also thought to produce public goods because the household provides for the internal welfare and teaching for children. aristotle says man is a political animal but politics begins in the household.

roman marriage law began to formulate towards monogamy before the time of christianity - in the time of caeser augustus - and began to focus on crimes that undercut the goods that marriage provided to the community. singled out were adultery, incest and polygamy. these were un-natural ways of reproducing. Roman law created prohibition against polygamy among Jews, and north africans many yrs before christianity. initially, if parties were polygamous, they could not testify in court, hold military positions, hold political positions, etc. in 9th century, polygamy became a capital crime and was considered such until the 19th century. polygamy considered dangerous to society.

in what ways did greeks see dyadic marriage as useful for the state. saw dyadic structure as the only place were men and women could have equal offices and play equal roles to “complete each other” and to provide role models for children, etc. This balance creates children who can see how mercy and justice, equality and charity can be balanced. Aristotle saw this marriage as the first school of justice.

why are greek and roman thinkers relevant to today? Greeks and romans are forefathers and foremothers of our current democratic state. architects of western organized society. roman legal code is 1000 yrs old and deals with complex legal issues. Putting greek and roman law side by side shows that roman law incorporates concepts from greek philosophy. provides the source for church canon law and western law.

Prior to speaking to biblical foundations, explain to what extent the bible is in line with the greek and roman laws.

Bible is very consistent with greek traditions even though the hebrew bible was not influenced from the greek traditions. they developed independently but track similar teachings. preference towards monogamy are pre-biblical and pre-christian in origin.

the normative push of the biblical text is toward monogamy. starting in genesis, from 6 BCE, teachings are that 2 will become one flesh. Adam is incomplete without a woman. god creates a woman for adam and man becomes complete. therefore a man will leave mother and father and cleave unto his wife. Genesis 2:6 is echoed 6 times in the biblical text. overall, the biblical texts use a running metaphor of marriage as like the relationship between jahweh and his covenant people. It stresses the union of two - not 3 or 4 or 5.

IN new testament, marriage is used as a metaphor of the relationship between Christ and his church.

Problem is that there are about 12 stories of great biblical heroes who participate in polygamy. the church fathers, in his opinion, took the stories of woe within these great households as evidences of the harms from polygamy.

Two of those stories are famous and have been repeated by lawyers up to the 20th century. First is the story of Jacob who wanted to marry Rachel but was tricked and given Leah first. he was then in an incestuous relationship and and polygamous relationship. leah fertile and rachel not. leah lords this over rachel. concubines are then given to jacob to further the conflict. Then gives example of judah who has sex with his daughter in law. reuben has sex with his mother in law. there is sex, intrigue, slavery, violence associated with this story (*I’m pretty sure that this is a fairly good representation of what Witte said - however, there are a few mistakes in the story* for example, the first polygamist mentioned was a son of Adam, not Jacob. He also didn’t mention Abraham himself as the prototype patriarch polygamist, It is also difficult to say how Jacob marrying two sisters constituted incest - however, Isaac was told to marry his first cousin - and there was considerable incest (on the cousin level) in the early Jewish genealogies*)

the second example is from the story of king david. david’s psalms still very popular. david is polygamous and is inflamed in his passions. notwithstanding all his wifes and concubines, he falls for bathsheba. takes bathsheba during mestration - against torah. then david has bathsheba;s husband - uriah - killed. eventually leads to rape, incest, in david’s family and eventually leads to civil war. these stories can be seen as cautionary tales as to how polygamy leads to serious harms - perhaps ultimately violence and civil war.

10:35: the notion that polygamy is a cause of many harms has been seen as the valid reason to prohibit polygamy for more than 15 hundred yrs. Calvin also used these harms as a reference against polygamy.

Taking an argument from 13th century thomas aquinas - weaving philosophical insights with his own observations, makes an argument in a apologetic text against jews and other non-christians. First notes that humans produce fragile, dependent offspring that are dependent for long periods of time on parents support. Second, notes that humans do not have a “rutting season” with a following season of calm unlike other animals. Third, argues that human males must be induced to care for their offspring. females bond to their child naturally through pregnancy and nursing. men can be induced to care children only if they are convinced that they are his own offspring. If there was a unknown helpless child abandoned on the road, a woman would naturally pick it up and care for it but 99 men out of 100 would simply walk by and abandon the child (Witte seems to be paraphrasing something from Aquinas)because of these 3 facts of human sexual nature, humans have produced a system of pair bonding. aquinas allows that same investment and certainty can occur in polgyamous household. however, from natural justice, children are harmed because they do not have enough opportunity to bond with their fathers. their fathers have a long series of children. It also violates the rights of the wife because it violates the womans rights to mutuality and leaves her in a perpetual state of competition with other wives. this become the anchor argument of the enlightenment. the arguments becomes that hte child has the right to be raised by the natural parents that gave it birth, The woman has the natural right to her husband and not to be relegated to the position of slave in her household.

how did the enlightenment thinking differ from christian thinking?

beginning with john locke and others - enlightenment is post christian and sometimes anti christian. seeking by design to create a new school of thought. their arguments are now formed on philosophical grounds and not theological grounds. They seek to develop a philosophcial argumet based on natural law, philosophy, natural justice, etc. Many of them have rejected christianity as a working idium of thought. many were also working on a principle of human rights, etc. they use a differnent methodology but come to the same conclusions that polygamy is a cause of harm to women, children and society.

Justice bauman - does this invariably refer to polygyny rather than other forms of polygamy.

W; yes - they did not have these linguistic refinements available. whether using bigamy or polygamy, were assuming multiple wives for one husband.

Christianity recognized that marriage was monogamous and that is was an institution that had economical, social and sacramental aspects. Christian marraige was greco-roman marraige with a twist - because it had a push towards greater equality for women. in conrinthians, paul states that each has a right to the body of the other. in ephesian, it states that each one has an obligation to care for the body of the other.

Major enlightenment thinkers on the topic of polygamy and why they are significant for our western tradition. to take out a few who speak with authority on common law. First, henry Home - a lord of the scottish high court and a philosopher - offered several critical opinions in family law, marriage and sexuality - that were also on a-religious grounds. Why is polygamy a dangerous institution? gives a list of harms caused by polygyamy - it is bad for children because they do not have resources at their disposal. 25 children produced from 5 men gives more resources than 25 children by 1 man. Polygamy is a patriarchal fraud that renders women as indentured slaves who are in perpetual competition with the other wives. one wife is singled out as favourite and this leads to jealosy, competeition and eventually violence. It is bad for men, because it inflames a mans passion - ineviteably, if a man is allowed to have 2 wives, he will always want to take on a 3rd and 4th and 5th wife. Then the women will retailite by sleeping with other men and this will bring illegitamate children into the household.

Next is david hume - who is anti-christian - says that not one reed of christianity should stand unless it is backed up by other reasons. However strongly supports monogamy and condemns polygamy. it inevitably leads to a bad education for children. Humes was awre of polygamy because of knowledge of the british colonies. Humes states that the man will go to great lengths to confine, isolate and render their wives unattractive to other men to keep them under control.

William haly from cambridge gives a utilitarian justification - on the harms of polygamy - produces competition between the wives, corrupts the natural affection of the husbands, degrades women because they become simply instruments of pleasure for the males. the community gains nothing - while the man gains more children, each woman only has the same number of children as if each one had a single husband. if each women were divided into a single family, each woman would have more resources and children would have better care, support and inheretences.

Jeremy bentham says in regard to polygamy in general, it is not of the least service to mankind. not to either sexes the one that is abused or the one that is abused. the children do not have the same benefit of the attention of their parents. it is also bad for men because their passions are inflamed and once they have an additional wife, they will always desire more. Men’s desires, once unleashed, will not be tamed.

If we want to respect rights, dignity, etc. it is critical to support monogamy and criminalize polygamy.

These enlightentment arguments find their way into commonlaw writings about polygamy. This leaves monogamy as law and polygamy as crime.

Common law draws on a variety of sources including Anglo Saxon laws until the 7th century. after 1066, confirmation of saxon laws with additional of norma laws which came from roman laws. these laws are complemented by a body of canon law from the caltholic church. All of these systems prohibited polygamy. Two complementary systems from the 12th to the 16th century supported the ban on polygamy. after henry the VIII, whose break from the catholic church was related to marraige jurisdicion, marriage became the juristiction of the state alone. Since 1600s, there is a very firm capital crime prohibition against polygamy. When a man held more than one wife- whether bigamy or polygamy - , he could be convicted of a capital crime and put to death. The english common law prohibitions, from 1604 king james courts, were carried into the american colonies. after 1776, when english authority was cast aside, each state independently adopted criminal prohibtions against polygamy or bigamy. Jefferson instituted a comprehensive marraige law that included polygamy as a capital crime.

Regarding rights, responsibilities and obligations of marriage under common law - in 19th century efforts were made to describe marriage in terms that did not include theological canon law. Marriage becomes a status - this is more than a simple contract. Common law jurists go back to same formulations as roman law. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman presumably for life. triggers a set of natural rights and duties. man has duties to wife, wife has duties to husband that are over and above all other relationships. Parents have duties to children. these duties remain after death or divorce. presumption that spouses are required to care for each other first, and their loved ones. Marriage is a status that once acquired it cannot be removed. it is entered into by consent, but once entered into, it’s responsibilities are not negotiable.

Expanding on notion as both a private and public institution- this is an ancient teaching. It depends upon a contract, depends on mutual consent between the parties, private in these respects. However, also public responsiblity in terms of pro-creation, nurture and education for civil life for children, negotiated means of controlling distribution of wealth. This is celebrated by public announcements so that the public could weigh in on the validity of the unions. It is also a warning to all others against sexual advanced by others. society is invested in marriage - involves husband and wife, parents of partners, governments, religious institutions.. Divorce is also regulated - it is a public instition and it is a public decision on whether a marriage is dissolved. this is absolutely essential to society. these laws are essential - we might be inclined towards pair bonding and care for children but we are “wobbly” in these commitments. We need the stability of state law to insure we behave in the way that we should and do not simply follow our natural proviliclivities.

Lock saw this as part of the classic liberal understanding of a liberal society. Marriage is fundamental to the nation state. It performs a layer between the individual and the State. If marriage is not nurtured by the state, you lose the nurture of children, you lose the caring of husband and wife, you lose the means of conveying inheritance and property.

Court reconvenes at 2:02

Mr. Cameron: Can professor Witte comment on what the term conjugal union meant during in the formation of the common law.

Justice Bauman - is this necessary - I asked about the definition of polygamy.

Amicus - this would have been helpful earlier but not possibly now

Justice Bauman - can I get this information from the Brandize brief? - continue-

Cameron: Going back to the formation on the common law, polygamy and bigamy prohibitions go back to the 19th century -

Witte - No - it goes back to the 7th century. then it was continued up until the 19th century where we left off before lunch.

Prior to the Mormons - all of the states after the revolutionary war had to decide if they would adopt the pre-revolutionary laws. They all adopted prohibitions against bigamy universally until the mormons.

These bigamy laws were commonly used when one party to a marriage abandoned their spouse and went to another state. Or they were used when one party went overseas abandoning their spouse. If they were found-out, they were prosecuted and sent back.

Couples who lived together without legal marriage were charged with fornication, adultery or prostitution. Common-law marriages became a defense to these charges when couples were charged with these offenses would claim that they thought their previous marriage was dissolved - spouse died for example - and they had been living together as if married in this belief.

Congress passed anti-polygamy laws because they had jusistiction over the territories that were not yet states. After the Mormons announced their practice and preaching of polygamy, they determined that a law was required over the territories that was consistent with the laws that were over the states.

Can you comment on the rhetoric in the anti-polygamy laws?

There was ugly rhetoric on both sides of the debate. One must be aware of the context of the day. This was during the civil war, it was during the women’s property movement, this was during slavery, this was during the time when the native americans were being “reservated”. Many of the laws of the day used ugly rhetoric of this nature.

Concerns were related to the exploitation of women, the priviliging of the rich men over men who did not have capital, exploitation of women in the household - favoring of some and discrimination against others. concerns about coercion of the young, especially young women, and exposing children to violence and stresses in the household.

In speaking to common-law prohibitions on polygamy and the mormon challenge. Because of the distinctive placement of mormons in the 19th century, congress put in place its own laws for polygamy. when these laws were resisted, additional laws were put into place. in 1887, congress passed a law after armed conflict between mormon officials and federal marshalls, additional laws were put into place that confiscated the property of the mormon church until polygamy was abolished. after 1886, the mormon prophet, wilford woodruff received a new revelation that prohibited polygamy. After this, a small group of fundamentalist mormons have broken away from the main church and continued to practice polygamy. (*I know I did not get all of Witte’s own words recorded properly transcription, but it should be noted that he made several objective and verifiable factual errors in his narrative on the history Mormon polygamy - this is consistent with some of his later confusion on the subject. For anyone interested in his level of misunderstanding, the official transcript should be out in a few days.*).

Relating to the Green case (1980?s), a fundamentalist mormon was married to 9 wives, two of them under the age of consent. Some of the girls were under the age of 13. Green attempted to use the claim that the polygamy law violated his constitutional right to religious freedom. The Utah supreme court decision stated that whoever violated the anti-polygamy statute for religious or for secular reasons is liable for prosecution. The polygamy law serves the state’s rights to protect the vulnerable - in this case women and children. The religious freedom objection is not sufficient to balance the prevailing harms.

Judge Bauman comments that it is interesting that the Utah supreme court took such a short time to look at this item that we are taking months to discuss.

Witte: there are 4 sets of harms that are consistently identified with polygamy.
1)harms against women
-vulnerable women - orphans, etc are subject to stat. rape. arranged marriage, etc
-commodification of women - women are sold into marriage, women fathered into polygamous homes
-isolation of women - confining them to their homes, confining to small communities, women are bound in their homes - sometimes physically and sometimes through impoverishing them into bondage in the homes
-enslavement of some women and deification of other - jealously, scheming, etc
-objectification of women - they become vessels of procreation without the long term meaningful relationships
-impoverishment of women - women are not given opportunity or incentive to bring in their own resource. the spreading of one pot over too many women and children. Problems with legacy - post death provision is inadequate because the estate must be divided between many heirs.
-polygamy betrays fundamental ideals of companionship, women are unequal to each other and to their husbands. in modern language, polygamy offends the dignity of women

harms against children
Vulnerable to the years of discord and violence in the marital home. this is due to the inevitable violence and jealousy, intrigue and strife in the homes. Like in king davids household, these patterns frequently repeat
-harm to the development of democratic citizenship abilities. A child with a mother who is oppressed or virtually enslaved cannot develop these skills
-economic harms because of smaller child support
-harms the natural rights of the child

harms against men
One harm is often repeated is that richer, older men take multiple wives even if they are inferior in integrity or moral qualities, etc.
-polygamy causes the austracism of younger men
induces in them a false appetite in patriarchy, becoming a law unto themselves
-polygamy inflames the lusts of men - he is never satisfied with a second wife, he will always want more
-deprives a man of the bond of fellowship of mutual love. a man and woman should find their “other half”. refers to greek ideals (he does not go so far as to call soul mates - but this is certainly the context). Men in plyg rlationships are precluded from this benefit they are degraded because they can not find their other “half”.

4) harms against society
forms of violence, stat rape, sex assault, assault, are consequence of polygamy in society
polygamy has a second harm because it produces impoverished women, lacking opportunity to leave home, in post divorce or death women cannot cope independently. Men leave modest legacy and have limited resources for alimony and child support and this leaves women and children as a burden on society. Society often has to pay through welfare, etc.

Cross-examination: Only from Amicus (starts at 2:40)

On page 11 of report: paragraph 29 speaks of prohibition of polygamy - in 1604, parliament declared polygamy a capitol crime punishable by secular courts alone. To identify these laws- (hands out copies of the act of 1604) is this the law that you are speaking of?

W: yes - i believe it is.

A; Hands out the 1828 version of the law - is this the version you are speaking of

W: yes - i believe it is

A: a further consolidation was made in 1861 (hands out copies)
W: it is the same law

A: Law is repealed by the 1925 and 1967 legal provisions

W: for the 1925 repeal, it is my understanding that this only removed the statutory punishments. I don’t know what happened in the 1967 revisions.

A: Would France and the laws of France be considered the western legal tradition?
W: yes, france would be considered in this tradition

A: Would Belgium, france, luxemborgh be considered western
W: yes - all western european countries are part of this tradition. prior to the protestant reformation, they were all subject to canon law. After this period, i focused on england only. I do not claim to be able to speak about the divergence of laws of the continent.

A: In the laws of the continent, the definition is that one cannot enter into a marriage prior to the dissolution of the first.
W: yes, this would be a violation in the pre-contract phase of a marriage. It is a secular equivalent of the polygamy law.

A: are you familiar with the case of Hyde and Hyde in england. - you reference it in your report.
W: This is a case of where a mormon case trickled into an english court.

A: Are you familiar with this case?
W: I have not read the case recently. I did not cite the case elsewhere.

A: To summarize the opinion of the case, from the probate and divorce of England, the case involved a mormon couple married in Utah. Husband left the faith and went back to england. His wife did not. In england, he attempted to dissolve the marriage in an english court so he could re-marry. the english court did not recognize the husband’s case. The marriage was not considered valid because it was contracted in a state where polygamy was considered legal. The decision stated that the court only dealt with Christian marriage.

W; argued that something had to be wrong - polygamy was always against the law in the US territories. Witte challenged the amicus lawyer that something was wrong - confused or in error. Amicus stated that he was just reading from the decision. Witte objected again.

Finally Justice Bauman intervened that the English Hyde v Hyde case was from 1856. Witte accepted this and did not comment further.

A: marriage is more than a contract - it also creates a specialized status in all christian nations. it is of common acceptance on a universal basis and in christendom it is considered as being between one man and one woman. Would you consider this to be the standard statement on the definition of marriage until recently in canada?

W: Do not have ability to speak on laws of canada. however, this is identical to language used in a US supreme court case. this is kind of language is frequently used.

A: did you not testify on a supreme court case in ontario on same-sex marriage?
W: yes

A: going to court transcript - “when i refer to the west.... it is my understanding that these laws go back to canon law. when i refer to canon law, i am referring to christian law... divided into RC and protestant .... canon law dominated western legal understanding ... “ are these statements true?

W yes

A: In the 2005 transcript from the Supreme court of Canada case on same-sex marriage, you described the legal roots of marriage, development of marriage in christian tradition, early christian thought on marriage , explained how 19th century american law was influenced by protestant views of marriage. is this not what you are doing here?

W; yes

A: is not the western christian tradition informed by roman and greek law together with enlightenment philosophies.
W: yes

A: Quoting something by Witte that goes something like “ neither my scholarship or this document is a theological definition. however, it is necessary to examine religion and law considering the overwhelming influence of religion on marriage law.” is that true
W: yes

A: regarding the halperin case (same sex marraige case in ontario from 2005) - from the decision Witte gave the history of the framework of marriage in north america and the west - he sets marriage as the framework for procreation and being between two sexes.That is only reference to Witte’s work in the decision - do you know of any others.

W: no - i have not read the decision

A; from the decision, on page 22 - uses the reference from the Hyde v Hyde case. discusses how “this came at a time when the society was homogenous in shared christian values. this is no longer the case”. This is part of the decision of the supreme court of canada in the same-sex marriage case.

W: have you spoken about polygamy the past. given a radio interview with a ? adrea ??lucene?

A; not academically - but once

a; goes to emory law website information -
w; i have not seen this

a; is this your webpage?
w; yes - i will accept it is

a; quotes reference stating how polygamy is not legal but it may be in the future.
w; i have not seen this - not being evasive - just haven’t seen it

a; you will see that this is a 2008 Q and A interview - Q: you have been following the case about the raid in texas. do any of the legal issues there concern polygamy? will there be any charges on the basis of polygamy “ A: (from Witte) i doubt it - however, i suspect that the charges will largely be on abuse of women, underage marriage, child abuse, etc. Does this sound familiar?

w: yes - I could have said that

a; reading from Witte’s document “there has long been documentation of 30000 mormon fundamentalist and now there are muslim communities as well. rarely are these laws prosecuted because of the constitutional freedom of religion questions that it will undoubtedly raise. “ (or something like that...) Did you say that?
w: generally agrees it is possible

a; reading from interview “the rational used to be from a biblical basis ... it is harder to press that case today given the first amendment prohibition against the promotion of religion.” Did you say this?
w:yes - or at least it sounds familiar.

a: regarding reynolds decision - and considering other marriage laws in the USA - Were not inter-racial marriages illegal in many states?
b: yes

a; misagenation law struck down in 1886 and reynolds case from 1879. was not adultery also on the criminal code? and fornication on the criminal statute books? but you do not speak to these issues in your report

w: i do speak about adultery because of harms caused to women and children. there are also harms caused by no-fault divorce. these harms are very similar to those caused by polygamy.

a sodomy was also illegal in most states?
w; yes until lawrence case in texas

a; from texas of statute, laws against sodomy were deemed unconstitutional because it violated other statutes. in the lawrence case, the majority held that - from the Baur’s case - that because a state’s governing majority has held something is morally wrong does not mean that it should be illegal. Justice Scalia dissented - “the texas statutes seeks to further? or express? the moral values of the texas majority” from majority decision states “no legitimate state interest should violate freedom of the individual in these matters .. end of moral laws... “

A: did you cite the lawrence case.

w; no - sodomy is now considered to be a victimless crime, polygamy has victims - the women and the children. the victims are women, children, men and the state. it is now understood that same sex couples receive many of the same goods as heterosexual couples. it is still a dyadic marriage. with new forms of reproductive technology - children can even be born to same sex couples. putting sodomy aside, which some consider immoral - or morally repugnant.

moral repugnance is a legal term - mala in se - something bad and in and of itself - something grossly unnatural. Now the umbrella term for something like polygamy - or incest or bestiality. these things are the cause of over-riding harms.

a: turning to same sex marriage debates - in halperin case - and appreciate it has shifted - AG canada was, at that time, seeking to uphold the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman - Canada now embraces same sex marriage. in the usa, this debate rages on. Is this true.

w; yes this is changing state by state. 38 states now have prohibitions against same-sex marriage.

a; from a online article by witte - do you accept it is your article? \
w; yes

a; quoting from Witte’s article; “states have reduced marraige to a individual sexual contract between individuals. states have allowed parties to define their own status and obligations. criminal prosecutations for adultery, fornication, etc. have long ceased. Many states are hard pressed to resist the next logical step to same sex marriage. Is this true?

w; yes -

w; as social science literature has demonstrated, today's easy-in and easy out form of marriage (from no-fault divorce, lump sum payments, etc) has led to the feminization of poverty.

a;

Mormon Polygamy on Trial : Day 15 Summary and Media links

2011-01-07T19:48:00.000-08:00

Dr. Rebecca Cook, distinguished professor of international law from University of Toronto, was called by the AG of Canada to testify as an expert witness regarding Canada's international treaty obligations to uphold the anti-polygamy law. Dr. Cook pointed out that several international committees are focused on eliminating systematic and structural discrimination against women. Many of these committees have explicitly referred to the "structural asymmetry" of polygamous marriages because the vast majority of cultures allow men to have multiple wives but do not allow women to have multiple husbands. On at least two occasions, Professor Cook cited the inequality inherent in patriarchal marriage systems that allow husbands to have more than one wife. She also stressed that Canada, as a signatory country to at least 5 relevant international treaties, is obligated to take any and all measures possible to eliminate all structural systems of discrimination that stereotype women as being inferior to men. She also testified that there is a discernible and systematic trend in the recommendations made by the international committees to prohibit or restrict polygyny in countries where it is practiced.

On a side note, the media reports tend to ignore some interesting items that came out under cross examination. First, none of the international treaties or agreements specifically refer to polygamy or polygyny. All of these bodies specifically refer to the elimination of all structural systems that systematically discriminate against women - and since polygamy tends to do this, she automatically considers it is a subset under these restrictions. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that many more Canadian women are discriminated against and suffer a loss of dignity at the hands of monogamous patriarchal systems than those who suffer under polygamy. For example, the Catholic church, LDS Mormons, fundamentalist evangelical Christians, conservative Jews and most Muslims all practice religious systems that uphold men as the head of the household and restrict women from leadership roles in their religious communities. Members of some cultural groups within Canada are actively practicing arranged marriages, invoking dowry obligations and in extreme cases, enforcing these structural inequalities through "honor killings". Almost all of these patriarchal communities are not polygamous - yet they are certainly problematic for discriminating against women.

International law, in itself, seems to be a paradox. Professor Cook often compared Canada's laws against other countries like Australia, the UK, France, Belgium and the USA. She argued that none of these countries have legalized polygamy so it would be extremely unusual to do so. However, it turns out that the UK and Australia only have a law against bigamy and have never explicitly criminalized polygamy. The Amicus even presented information from the same authoritative texts that had been quoted by professor Cook that suggested that these countries may not even consider polygamy to be a criminal offense under the bigamy prohibitions. They are even questioning whether to drop the bigamy offense. In fact, Canada is the only country that has federal laws against bigamy and polygamy. If we dropped section 293, the anti-polygamy law, we would have exactly the same protections as the UK and Australia. It is also very difficult to understand how to compare legislation and international committee recommendations for countries as diverse as Canada, Uzbekistan and South Africa. The same committee general recommendations that criticize polygamy in Uzbekistan seem less concerned on the criminalization of homosexuals. Where would Canada stand on that?

Dr. Cook also conceded that there is no police to enforce international laws. The system is honor based - States, like people, should follow through on their commitments. If not, they should be "ashamed - and no country wants to be a pariah".

Finally, Dr. Cook conceded that the world community is not really paying much attention to women's issues on the international stage - lamenting that most of the diplomatic efforts are focused on issues like global warming. And I'm sure everyone will agree that international shame and embarrassment have been very effective in persuading Harper's government to honor Canada's Kyoto treaty agreements.

If the collective international action on global warming, genocide and war crimes are any indication of the effectiveness of international law, I confess that I really can't take international law very seriously.

Polygamy on the decline worldwide: Law professor

Polygamy hearing: Evidence so far shows polygamy inherently harmful

Polygamy subject to rights law: Prof

Decriminalizing polygamy would be a breach of Canadian obligations - Think Tank

Mormon Polygamy on Trial : Day 15 courtroom notes

2011-01-07T12:37:00.000-08:00

Reader Beware: This is not an official court transcript and I am not a trained reporter. There are likely many errors in this transcript - perhaps more than others in the series because the witness and the lead lawyer for AG Canada did not speak very clearly. Also, there was a tremendous amount of detailed legal discussion that seemed very repetitive and is difficult for someone like me, who is not fluent in legalize - especially the international dialect - to understand.

AG Canada called Professor Rebecca Johnson Cook as an expert witness specializing in international human rights law - especially in issues relating to women.

Relative to qualifications, Dr. Cook received a doctorate of law from Columbia university in 1994. her doctorate focused on the women's convention - aimed at eliminating all types of discrimination against women. Her Msc was also focused on issues of discrimination against women. She was called to the bar in washington dc.

Currently she holds the chair in international human rights law at university of toronto. She teaches international women’s right, reproductive and sexual rights law, etc. these are graduate level courses. The course on international women’s rights includes a class on polygamy.

In addition to being a professor international law, she is also a professor of medicine, teaching medical ethics.

SHe also teaches a course at an academy of human rights in washington dc on international women’s rights. she has taught at his academy since 2005. She has also been teaching and doing research on health and human rights at a university in south africa. She is also supervising a student at that university on youth student rights.

She is on the editorial advisory board for a major journal for international human rights. She is also on the advisory board for a major mexican journal for human rights.

She is on several academic and political advisory boards relating to health and human rights laws. She is also associated with the World Heath Organization - mostly concerned with pregnancy related deaths and mortality. She was made a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada in 1999. This honor signifies that she is recognized by her peers to have made a significant contribution in her field. There are significant responsibilities with this position to insure that your scholarship continues to make additional contributions to your specific field. She is the author of more than 50 book chapters, more than 110 published papers, etc.,etc. Many of these publications have been translated into other languages. All of these publications are related to human rights law, and the State’s obligation to protect the human rights of women and children.

Her research on polygyny was designed to study the structural discrimination against women in marriage. It enabled her to think about another form of discrimination against women that states could protect against. The only other report that she is aware of was written by lisa kelly on the role of polygamy in hiv aids.

Canada has tendered Dr. cook as an expert in human rights law and polygyny. There is no objection to her qualifications as an expert.

She is prepared to assist the court in understanding and not to act as an advocate. She had assistance from Lisa Kelly, a former student who is doing her doctorate at harvard. Dr. Cook is solely responsible for the contents of the report.
In making the report, she was asked to address the harms of polygyny as viewed from the perspective of human rights law, the treatment of polygyny in international human rights laws and the obligation of canada with respect to these laws.

she first addressed the harms of polygyny, next she looked at state practice regarding polygyny - how states feel obligated to address. further looked a immigration restrictions. looked a Canada's obligations to insure marriage equality, rights to health and security, children rights, etc. also looked to arguable limitations, including freedom of religion. looked at canada;s obligation to comply with international agreements.

she uses the term polygyny - polygamy is gender neutral. human rights law only deals with polygyny (one man taking many wives).

In referring to polygyny, she is referring to one man taking several wives. this asymmetrical relationship in the marriage is what they are looking at. she looked a solemnized and unsolemnized marriages.

The first major conclusion is the patriarchal structure that allows a man to take many wives and does not allow the converse is the inherent wrong.

these inherent wrongs include harms to women’s physical and mental health, material harms in these relationship and the harms to children in polygamous relationships. The international treaty bodies recognizes these harms as reflected through international law.

the dominant practice among states is to prohibit polygyny through criminal or family law. recent criminal prosecutions have ?not? been successful - despite religious freedoms.?

canada is obligated to oppress polygyny as part of their obligation to protect the equality of women.

regarding Principles of international law: sources of international law, according to art 38 of international court of justice. general practices of law, international conventions, international ...

International conventions are at the top of the hierarchy. international treaties, covenants and conventions are interchangeable.

relative to treaty based international law is developed by the bodies that have been established under international conventions.

Canada has ratified several treaties and is obligated to take all appropriate measure to implement the treaties. There is a committee for each convention that monitors how states have come into harmony with their specific convention. each of those bodies monitors states on an annual basis on how the specific state has made progress in implementing the specific treaty. The treaty bodies make general comments to guide states in implementing the treaties.

The other type of international law is customary. it is evidenced by general practices that states follow out of a sense of legal obligation. This sense of legal obligation is often defined by jurists.

in preparation of the report, Dr. Cook reviewed general recommendations of treaty bodies relative to polygamy, concluding observations on state reports which deal specifically with polygamy, also reports from committees on cultural rights and traditional practices. They also reviewed some law review articles and some of the social science literature. The concluding observations on state reports were most heavily weighted.

All of the material that she studied concluded that polygyny was harmful. Patriarchal structuring of family life offends women’s dignity. this term is used specifically in several reports. Human rights law is directly focused to maintaining the dignity of persons. this phrase is used in several international conventions on human rights.

regarding the women’s convention - in the general recommendation 21 - in para 10 - the committee specifically said that polygynous marriage directly contravenes women’s rights, economic standing, etc. and these marriages should be discouraged. Significantly, gen rec. also notes that states that allow polygyny marriages contravene statements in their constitutions that guarantee equality for people. polygyny is clearly considered a form of discrimination that considers women inferior and this is very significant.

Human rights cmtee general comment 28 on equality rights between men and women states that equality of treatment to men and women regarding rights to marry makes polygamy inherently wrong. considers this to be inadmissible discrimination against women that should be abolished where ever it exists.

each cmtee has a different way to define the specific harms.

why have international treaty bodies called for abolition of polygyny? as you look at concluding observations of the human rights cmtee and women's cmtee consistently question and raise concerns about the inherent wrongs and harms of polygyny. HRC sees inherent wrongs in terms of the asymmetry and an offense to women’s dignity. women's’ committee thinks not only about the unequal structure leads to negative stereotypes that diminish what they think they can do in the family and in the community.

Justice Bauman asks “ are these simply guidelines or are they legally binding?”

Dr Cook - all the concluding observations specifically deal with polygyny - these guidelines are persuasive and are not strictly rule of law.

however, trends in these conclusions often reflect what is evolving as customary in international law.

appropriate time for a break (10:05) - returned at 10:20

Going back to general comments on the recommendations of the committees - these general comments determine the meaning of a particular theme in the treaty. they are somewhat more binding that a recommendation. three principles are law creating and the fourth is law determining. these recommendations are law determining and get used in a way that ultimately can become law creating. they are used in international and domestic courts and also regional human rights courts and other treaty bodies as references. the domestic analogy is not like being under a statute because they are non-binding. there is a distinction between hard law and soft law on the international stage and there is a range of debate about how “hard” these laws have become.

international law has no police force. it is enforceable out of a sense of obligation to keep the pacts that you have made. the international equiv. of a police force is shame. this is important because if countries do not keep the obligations that they agree to, then they are shamed on the international stage and no country wants to be a pariah.

regarding associated harms of polygyny as identified by international treaty bodies, are primarily articulated in the reports to state bodies and also in concluding observations. the first area is in terms of the mental health harms which have been identified - family stress, low self esteem, depression, and increased likelihood of physical harms. these harms are also noted by the UN special reporter as harms articulated.

More specific about types of harms - in terms of the harms identified by UN in terms of violence against women - the ability of men to take a second wife means the first wife must be more obedient. the threat to take a second wife is used as a way to control women.

polygyny is termed a harmful traditional practice that exposes women to increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases like hiv. this is noted by the UN general assembly committee on hiv aids.

in terms of harms relating to competitive co-wife relationships, harms have been identified relating to inheritance rights and the way that this affects children.

in terms of material harms, treaty bodies have recognized in a state report regarding the economic strain on polygynous relationships. this is particularly serious in societies that are increasingly urbanized because you need cash. In agricultural settings, marriage is not in a cash setting as it is in an urban setting. in an urban setting, it is more difficult for each wife to get what they need.

the problem of internalizing harmful gender stereotypes is recognized by several bodies. the denial of family life from the lost boys have also been identified by some of the international bodies. another report references depriving children from much-needed parental guidance. It is also noted that children from polygamous families (in cmtee on rights of child) that are neglected or deprived of access to fathers and this leaves them vulnerable.

regarding state practices on the practice of polygyny -

generally speaking it falls into distinct categories
general prohibition
regulation on polygyny practices through other - like religious court bodies
restriction on immigration on polygyny families

regarding outright prohibition, criminal law is often used to prohibit. family law is also used are non-legal measures such as is education, rural outreach programs etc. these programs have be be justified as being effective in eliminating polygyny

the majority of states prohibit polygyny or bigamy by criminal law - on on increasing basis, in africa, states are outlawing polygyny. In french countries, it was shown that the family law courts were not guaranteeing equality of men and women. previously, laws were based on protecting women and the state from fraud. more recently, laws are being interpreted to protect children.

in australia, there was a movement to recognize the legal status of polygyny. in 1992, it was recommended that this should not be done in order to protect the equal rights of women.

in france, polygyny families were initially allowed to immigrate to france. in 1993 it was decided to ban these families from immigrating. in 2003, the prohibition of polygyny was constitutionally included for one of their territories.

in turkey, polygamy has been outlawed there and also in tunisia. in tunisia, under islamic law it is stated that polygyny is only allowed if you can be fair to all wives - now the rational is that it is impossible to be fair to all wives.

in western asia - the observation of reports indicate that criminal prohibition exist in these countries but the bodies are recommending that they enforce these prohibitions.

there is a discernible and growing trend towards the prohibition of polygyny. in south africa, restrictions on polygyny have been justified because women in polygamous and monogamous marriages needed to be treated equally in terms of inheritance law.

in terms of countries where polygyny is not prohibited, there are increasing levels of requirements that the first wife must be notified and agree or this becomes grounds for divorce with divorce benefits. there are also authorization requirements that the government must authorize the taking of a subsequent wife. it is often dependent on the financial requirement to maintain additional wives. restrictions on polygyny make it more difficult to have these types of unions.

in 2007, there was a challenge in Indonesia to spousal and legal restrictions and these restrictions were upheld. in Morocco, a family law initiative in 2004 did not outright prohibit of polygyny but it was explicitly forbidden where it was not possible to treat all wives equally.

in many african countries, you can either marry according to civil law or in a parallel traditional or religious law system. often polygyny is restricted in civil law, men will then marry one wife in the civil law system and then take another wife in the non-civil law system.

The women's committee noted with concern - which is the diplomatic language for condemning - the pattern of using parallel law systems because this undermines women’s equality rights.

in terms of immigration laws and policies - polygyny is a bar to immigration in most western states. in france this is very significant. in 1993 the law was changed to bar polygyny families because polygyny wives and children could not access the medical system, the family benefit system, etc. these families were forced to live in very small urban households and this was very stressful and problematic. this ultimately led to france banning immigration to these families. there is still work to be done in protecting the rights of pre-1993 polygyny families.

Currently not commented on in treaty bodies, canada and australia only allow the first wife of a polygyny family to be considered for immigration potential. The man cannot automatically select the second wife - he must show that he has officially divorced the first wife before he can bring the second.

Criminal conduct is the basis for exclusion under most immigration laws and since polygyny is illegal, it makes this an effective bar against immigration of these families.

as for Canada's obligation under international law - canada is obligated to take all appropriate measures to eliminate polygyny. this is different from taking any appropriate measures. this obligation comes from the wording of the women's convention and other international human rights treaties. what’s important is that the burden is put on the state to justify why the measures are appropriate. the ultimate arbiter is the women's committee itself as to whether a particular measure is appropriate.

what do they view as all appropriate measures? for measures to be appropriate, for example, they have to address the ways that polygyny denies women their rights and they have to address the rights of women in polygyny relationships and they have to address the underlying stereotypes in the system. they have to address equality and the rights of women in the existing unions.

have many states felt obligated to criminalize polygyny as part of these appropriate measures.?

yes - many states have felt that criminalization of polygyny is an appropriate measure.
the specific obligation is the elimination of polygyny and the more general obligation is the obligation to eliminate inequality against women and the more general obligation is the elimination of negative stereotypes against women.

you can't really abolish polygyny unless you address collateral discriminations - these include the dismantling of structural forms of discriminations in families and before the law.

obligations in terms of stereotyping as a form of discrimination is a very significant aspect of the women's convention. the obligation is to address prejudices and cultural stereotypes that foster the inferiority of one sex relative to another. Anything that suggests that women are restricted to specific family roles and social roles is a matter of concern. international law regarding negative gender stereotypes has progressed significantly in the past few years. there is a parallel development in international law regarding these negative cultural stereotypes is a significant development in parallel to the actions on polygyny. most recently the european court, in a case against russia, looked at a military case of discrimination against women.

there are also obligations to insure equality in marriage and family life to make sure that a the duties and benefits of marriage are not unequal. States have been called upon to make sure that women are treated equally in marriage and family life. marital forms which distribute duties and rights unequally between the sexes has been recognized by the committees as violating women's rights in marriage and family life.

the comtee on cultural, social and family rights requires states to insure access to health care services. where polygyny allows multiple sexual partners, it increases risk to STDs. a significant goal of the women's cmttee is to reduce this risk to women. there are also mental health factors because women are less able to develop their own plan for their life. in terms of children, children's rights cmtee has looked at the problems of early marriage and early pregnancies. when women have children at less than 18 yrs of age, there is a significantly increased risk of death in child-bearing. since early marriage increases this likelihood this is discouraged.

(now 12:20 : court adjourned till 2:00)

Report also discusses the obligation to balance the elimination of polygamy with the obligation to protect religious freedom, protect family life, protect rights to privacy, etc. How do the international courts balance these items?

In a case before the international committees, there is an example called DB vs UK where a child of a second polygyny wife petitioned to force the uk to allow her mother to immigrate into the country. this was done on the basis of the right to have her family together. the committees determined that the ban against polygamy was a reasonable reason to over-come her claim to have the family unified.

IN a case from Mauritius, it was determined that the obligation to eliminate polygamy was of greater force that the free-exercise of religion.

Two cases from Utah also have come before the panels and it both of these cases were decided against the free exercise of religion in favor of prohibiting polygamy.

What trends have you identified in international human rights relative to polygamy.

There are clear trends to eliminate polygyny as a clear form of discrimination against women. This pattern of prohibition against polygyny is a clear

there is a discernible trend to prohibit or uphold bigamy and polygamy convictions against claims for freedom of religion.

are you aware of any recent cases where a state has decriminalized polygamy. No.

it would be contrary to the existing international trend to decriminalize polygamy.

(2:10) Friendly cross-examination from diane gaffar from West Coast Leaf

On para 8 and 9 in her report - in the introduction she discusses various international treaties which are applicable to this case. However, Canada has ratified all the treaties or made accession all of these agreements.

There is no formal legal difference between ratifying or acceding directly to a treaty. in both cases, states are obligated to take all reasonable measures to implement the treaties.

While not all treaties are legally binding, it is fair to say that all countries are bound by treaties.

On the core obligations to state parties under general recommendations for the SEDAR treaty (on page 3) on para 10 - state parties are obligated to not allow acts or omissions that perpetuate discrimination against women. Discrimination can occur through the failure of states to implement laws to protect rights of women or to fail to enforce relevant laws.

If a state party fails to enact some kind of prohibition against polygyny, it would be non-compliance with 2 different treaties.

In article 2, this focuses on general obligation to eliminate discrimination and article 5 focuses on the obligation to eliminate stereotyping. There are family rights, religious rights, cultural rights, privacy right, etc. that must be balanced against anti-discrimination rights and in all cases, the obligation to eliminate polygyny has been given the higher priority.

Dr. Cook objects that the right to privacy is not part of these rights have been considered inferior to the discrimination rights.
If a country enters a reservation, they reserve the right to exclude a certain part of the treaty until the country has brought their laws up to a standard where they are in compliance with the treaty.

If a state determined that their constitutional right to freedom of religion was of more importance that certain elements of the treaty, could they enter a reservation to exempt them from certain paragraphs of the treaty. - yes

The patriarchal structure of family life that allows a man to marry more than one woman while not allowing women to do the same violates women’s equality rights.

patriarchal structure means that the man is superior and the woman is inferior in family life.

the object and purpose of the women's convention is to address direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and structures that lead to discrimination. State parties should take all appropriate actions to modify the cultural conduct of men and women with a view to remove patterns that treat women in an inferior way or according to pre-determined cultural roles.

in a study of wife abuse among sunni muslim women in america it is concluded that women are disempowered because of the threat that the husband may be able to take another wife. This is worse in rural communities because of isolation. Women and girls are limited in their self-expression because of the need to conform to specific gender cultural roles and norms.

Cross-ex from Robin from the BCTF

Questions relating to the rights of the child. In paragraph 61 to 67 in her report, harms to children in polygamous unions are identified. Early marriage for girls and exclusion of boys, higher levels of family disfunction, drug use, neglect by fathers, etc. are mentioned.

Keeping in mind the harms, are there other elements that can be engaged? Art. 19, : state parties - other harms such as subjecting children to violence, sexual abuse, etc. allowing these to occur are also in conflict with these treaty positions. Underage marriage is a form of sexual abuse? yes

Polygynous unions stereotype women into inferior roles and female children internalize these observations into their internal self-perceptions. This conflicts with treaty obligations.

Cross-ex ends @ 2:40

Cross-ex by Amicus:

On page 2, paragraph 8, four main treaties have been selected as important relating to polygyny. None of these 4 treaties actually contain the words “polygyny” or “Polygamy”.

This is correct.

On these committees, the vast majority of members are women.

None of these treaty bodies have comprehensively studied polygyny as a separate subject, however, they have systematically responded in a comprehensive way when it comes before the committee.

Dr. Cook is on the board of directors of the board of reproductive rights. This board has put forward a report called on the “rights to bear”. On the summary assessment on the 2nd page, it states that polygamy has been discussed frequently in the CEDA committee however, they have not systematically and exclusively analyzed polygamy.

There is no general recommendation entitled “polygamy or polygyny” from any of the committees.

There is much more diplomatic traffic around subjects like global warming than there is about women’s rights and polygyny is a subset of women’s rights.

International treaties have not addressed any differences between polyamory and polygyny. They have not made any comment at all about polyamory.

In the last report on Canada’s treaty obligations, there was no concluding statements relative to polygamy.

Canada has been directly compared to the USA, Australia, France and the UK. These countries are seen as being comparable in terms of state practice. Regarding the criminal code prohibitions on bigamy and polygamy from these various countries, the United Kingdom only has one item in their criminal code from offenses against the person in 1851. The UK court has decided from this law that the bigamy law prohibits polygamy as well. However, this law does not distinguish between solemnized marriages and people living together. In the conclusion of the appraisal of England’s bigamy law, it states that if the couple does not enter into an official marriage, then no offense is committed.

AG BC objects that the witness is being asked to testify outside of her stated expertise. She has been asked to discuss international law and not the nuanced elements of English law.

Amicus objects that the witness has been asked to compare Canada’s laws against international law and in this case has brought to us comparisons with the laws of England, France, etc. The question is therefore precisely in order.

Justice Bauman allows the question as being in order and calls for a 10 minute break for Dr. Cook to review the associated text (3:10).

Court reconvenes at 3:20

Document (chapman text on english bigamy law) is entered into evidence.

Chapman text argues that the legal prohibition against bigamy is designed to prohibit fraud and deception where as polygamous unions which do not deceive are not subject to this law. This law was the predecessor to Canada’s bigamy law.

Dr. Cook states that she is not an expert in English Law and she is not willing to answer the question.

Amicus points out that Australia has very similar language and culture to Canada.
Dr. Cook agrees.

Regarding legislation in Australia, it is an offense to commit bigamy. In Australia’s consolidated marriage act of 1961, it states that a person who is married should not go through a marriage with another person. Australia, like England, has only one law that deals with the issue of bigamy. Australia has released a recent significant report on multiculturalism and the law. In the section on marriage and other relationships - the Australian law reform commission considered polygamous marriages and rejected that polygamous unions should be legalized or considered as a valid marriage. However, the same report concludes that further consideration should be given as to whether the offense of bigamy should continue to be considered a criminal offense. Especially when no parties are deceived.

Regarding the laws of Switzerland, Belgium and France, there is a provision that one can not enter into a second marriage until the first one is dissolved. In the Swiss law, it states that the first marriage must be resolved before a second marriage can be contracted. The laws of Luxembourg are also considered and in these laws it states that polygamy is legally recognized in about 50 countries.

It is correct to say that one way of determining if a practice is contrary to international law is to consider how frequently a law is prosecuted.

Dr. Cook seems to generally agree

In Canada, there have only been to prosecutions of the polygamy law in the past hundred years. Is this significant?

Dr. Cook questions what is meant by significant.

In the UN special recontour? report, Dr Cook had quoted that women are compelled to be obedient in some marriages through a “threat that the husband may take another wife...”. However, in the remainder of this quote, it lists the threat that the man may take another wife, threaten that he may divorce the wife, etc. In Canada, divorce is not illegal.

State parties have a great deal of flexibility to choose ways to eliminate discrimination, so long as the ways that they choose to use are effective. This is determined by the committee members.

International treaty bodies have been consistent in requiring states to protect the rights of women who are in pre-existing polygynous relationships. The state has an obligation to protect women by not recognizing polygynous legal unions and also the right insure women have the rights to resources to leave. Does not the continued criminalization of polygamy make it more difficult for women in plural unions to access help.

Dr. Cook argues that this is not always the case.

Amicus quotes from a text called “polygamy in a monogamous world” by amy? and hoffman? that was cited in Dr. Cook’s report. Asking if this is a well-researched book on the subject of the effects of polygamy on women, Dr, Cook responds that this is a well-researched comparative law book on polygamy but but it does not come from an international law perspective.

Providing Dr. Cook with a copy of the book, and turning to the section on international human rights law, the Amicus reads that “the criminalization of plural marriage can also prevent plural wives from accessing necessary assistance without risking prosecution for herself and her community”.

Dr. Cook does not agree with their conclusion on this item. She does not believe that they have an adequate understanding of the way that international law works.

The Amicus then turns to a human rights report from Uzbekistan and then reads that in the concluding observations inequalities persist between men and women in many areas of life. The committee further states that the criminal code criminalizes sexual relations between adult males.

Professor Cook then reasserts that she is not qualified to talk about specific countries.

Amicus asks whether Canada is considered by the international committees to have a serious systemic problem with polygamy.

Dr. Cook responded: No, not serious but “grave” (she mentions something about a scale of wording in the international agreement where the existence of any polygamy in Canada would be considered “grave” on this scale.)

Amicus; Referring to recent Canadian law reform report reads that polygamy in canada is a marginal practice that is culturally foreign and recommends decriminalization.

Dr. Cook responds that she does not agree. Any presence of polygamy in Canada may be seen as a grave concern to international committees.

Amicus: is there is any mention of polyamory in any international law.

Dr. Cook: no mention of polyamory exists in international law.

Amicus then refers to another paper entitled “Lawyers - everything you know about polygamy is wrong (or something like that)” that was quoted in Dr. Cook’s report and asks about their conclusion that suggests that polygamy should be decriminalized in Canada.

Dr. Cook does not agree with their conclusion - does not state why.

Amicus points out that the only polygamous community in Canada is Bountiful. Dr. Cook says that there may be more. Maybe Muslims. But she does not know. but there might be.

Amicus ends questions at 4:10. no further questions for Dr. Cook.

court dismissed.