After a full day of legal wrangling, Dr. Angela Campbell was allowed to testify regarding her polygamy research and her two short visits to Bountiful that she made in 2008 and 2009. Under Amicus direction, she testified of her understanding of the importance of marriage in both the LDS and FLDS churches. She also gave a brief summary of the history of plural marriage and the split of the mainstream and fundamentalist Mormon churches.
She spoke about her research work relating to a large scale literature search of the effects of polygamy on women's well being that she conducted for the National Council for the status of women in 2005 and how this led her to begin small scale research projects at Bountiful. She also spoke to her experience in two visits to Bountiful made in 2008 and 2009 and answered questions relative to the interview transcripts that she has submitted to the court.
Under cross-examination, Dr. Campbell stated that she has come to the conclusion that more research is needed, however, she is currently of the opinion that the criminalization of polygamy under Canada's existing laws does more harm than good in the Bountiful Community. The women she spoke to know that polygamy is illegal, but they see the issue as one of honoring the laws of God over the laws of man. Criminalization tends to isolate people in the community from the wider community, breeds fear and prevents people from seeking help when it is needed.
I also believe she correctly perceived that the Blackmore side of the group has made major improvements since the split. However, Winston certainly does not deserve all the credit.
In my personal opinion, Dr. Campbell did not show an in-depth understanding of many issues in Bountiful. Particularly, she seemed to greatly underestimate the problems related to young men who have been pressured to leave the community and the harms that teenage women have experienced in arranged marriages.
I greatly respect her opinion that effective public policy and law should be based on knowledge rather than assumptions - and I respect her willingness to challenge her assumptions and travel to Bountiful.
I also agree with her statements about criminalization and the practice of polygamy. I believe history shows that this path has not been effective, and I don't believe it will change. And again, I respect Dr. Campbell for traveling to the community and speaking to the residents on a person-to-person basis. More dialogue and greater understanding is needed from all participants before the situation will ever improve.
Personally, it was fascinating to see that after a day of effort trying to block Dr. Campbell's testimony, the attorneys conducted an insightful, polite and helpful cross-examination - and court still ended only 30 mins after returning from lunch break. Perhaps we could have saved an entire day?
Women of polygamous Bountiful happy and healthy, academic testifies
Expert to testify at B.C. polygamy case after intense scrutiny over qualifications
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Mormon Polygamy on Trial: Day 6 notes from the courthouse
Reader Beware: This is not an official court transcript - and I am not a qualified court stenographer. While I am doing my best to provide an accurate reflection of events, in most cases I am paraphrasing what was said and errors are likely.
Testimony of Angela Campbell:
Amicus to take Dr. Campbell through the affidavits collected at Bountiful and ask for clarifications - what was she purporting to address, etc.
On FLDS theology: Marriage is fundamental and central to Mormon theology. From mid 19th century, polygamy was understood to be a requirement to reach highest level of celestial kingdom. Polygamy was practiced openly until the manifesto that was necessary for Utah’s statehood, however polygamy continued until early 20th century and actually ended with the 2nd manifesto. At this point, the LDS church split into mainstream and fundamentalism. Fundamentalists believe polygamy is a necessary requirement to reach the celestial kingdom.
Her opinion is that polygamy is still practiced in Bountiful as a religious requirement. She further asked members of the community how they can reconcile remaining monogamous with the scriptural injunction for polygamy. Some believed that an openness to polygamy was all that was required. however, others believed that practicing polygamy was necessary.
Asked how criminalization affected the views on polygamy by the people in bountiful, she answered that their religious beliefs are a higher norm than society values.
When asked about her research objectives - she felt it was best to be transparent and offer her opinion that the state has a requirement to justify why an act is criminalized. She stated that she did not believe that polygamy should be criminalized because the state does not criminalize many other similar sexual practices. This conclusion was based upon her previous research and understandings and she stated this opinion at the conclusion of one of her interview sessions in Bountiful.
Part of her research was to determine how coersion and free choice interplayed in the choices that women made about their marriage and reproduction. Earlier, teen-age marriages were very common, however, recently it has become unpopular for marriages to occur at ages younger than 18. It is her impression that prior to the split, teen age marriages were more common.
In one of her interviews, a mother reflected that her teenage daughter wanted to get married and she did not approve. However, she could not stop the daughter.
Marriages are typically arranged. However, individuals are now making more choices about who they will marry and whether they will be monogamous or polygamous. In earlier times, individuals did not know each other prior to marriages. However, courting is becoming more common and is seen as a more desirable way to achieve a marriage that will last.
Reproduction and family planning: Several women spoke of making choices about marriage and family. WIth respect to reproduction, it is a very high value in the FLDS church to have large families. However, some families were smaller. Several women indicated that they could make choices about contraception and would consult with other women in the community to make contraceptive choices. Often without consulting their husbands. It is recognized that the lives of young women are much more hectic today and it is not possible to have so many children or to have children born so close together.
With respect to children: it is very difficult to not notice the children in the community. She only had off the record informal discussions with the children. There is a deep connection between the children and their biological mothers. However, they see other polygamous wives as Mother X and Mother Y, etc. There was always someone there for their guidance. Children, especially siblings, and those who are half siblings don’t really discriminate. There is sibling rivalry as seen in most households.
In relationships among the adults: Among Sister wives - these were the easiest relationships to hear about because she interviewed women. Many women felt their greatest loss if the marriage dissolved would be the loss of their sister wives. For example if one woman works outside the home, another wife will care for children or do household work. This sometimes results in specialization of labour where women work where they are most interested. Some communal experience evolves in terms of negotiating household finance, etc.
In terms of the hardest things about being in a plural marriage: First, jealousy and competition for husbands resources and affection. Second, competition for space and place. Sometimes it does not work for a family to cohabit and sometimes a woman will want to move to another house. Third, there is a strong negative reaction to one woman disciplining another woman’s child.
In terms of woman’s appearance and dress: There have been changes in the community as to the way that women appear. What was most surprizing is that many women did not appear as FLDS women do in the media. They were dressing in more conventional clothes, some cut their hair. Jewellry is not common, pieced ears, etc. And since these choices are not universal in the community. Some women feel that adopting these practices are stepping outside the boundaries of the faith.
In terms of self-expression and fulfillment: Women are becoming more financially independent - in spite of extreme communal background, there is a tendency for women to pursue education and work that is financially and emotionally fullfilling. Most women pursue conventional feminine vocations, healthcare, teaching, childcare, etc. This way they can work in roles that help the community. Work also included working in nearby towns in service industry, etc.
In terms of education: there is an encouragement for young children to go to school. IN terms of pursuing post secondary education, this sometimes occurs - especially in nearby towns and sometimes in the states. Scheduling education and child reading, often children are born first and then the women have extra difficulties returning to school. However, sister wives sometimes help in enabling this through child care, etc.
Understanding of formal law in Bountiful:
First phase of research was about whether they understood the law regarding polygamy in Canada. Did they understand the prohibition in the law?
By and large, there is a firm understanding that polygamy is criminalized. Some women did not know this before, however, currently this is widely known through law enforcement, media, etc. There is a distinction between de-criminalization and state recognition of polygamy and often this was not understood. Within the community, the opinion is that even if there is a penalty according to the state law, it would not affect their desire to be in a polygamous marriage because their faith is a stronger normative rule than the state law.
Women accessing or not accessing services in the outside towns: There is a willingness for people in the community to go to nearby towns regularly. They are not a self-sufficient community so people regularly go shopping for necessary goods and services. There is complete openness for “benign services” however, there is resistance for women to go for help in cases where the services that are required have a strong link to polygamy. Historically, this was the case in child-birth because the mother would have to identify the father. Transcripts show cases where women are reticent to go to the community for marriage counseling. When asked if women will go for any counseling, reluctance is generally expressed.
Next section: Polygamy outside bountiful:
This section describes a literature review Dr. Campbell performed for a report she prepared for National Council for the Status of Women . Describes social, economic and health related consequences of polygamy for women in a variety of cultures, settings, etc. Provided motivation for the Bountiful research.
What did she find in literature versus what she found on the ground. Literature suggested adverse outcomes for women in polygamy. In many cases, this led to violence among them due to jealousy, cramped space, shortage of resources, etc. First wives are often target because they are assigned and others are chosen. Also some literature suggests valuable relationships among sister wives and also mutual support. In Bountiful, she did not hear about conflicts that actually led to violence. In bountiful she did observe “sisterhood solidarity”.
Risks of insularity: This links to the idea that when the practice is criminalized, there is a tendency for the family structure to be kept secret - by religious dictates and fear of prosecution -this is harmful because individuals are told not to trust people from the outside. This was observed in bountiful. Their practices are seen as object of scorn, etc. Religious isolation was reinforced because they were told not to seek services from outside by their leaders. This was not typical of her recent observations.
Literature suggests that polygynous relationships are unequal because one man can have many wives. The husband was more rights than the woman. That framework can lead to abuse, control and abuse of authority. The literature also suggests that the numbers may not always lead to inequality that the women can exercise some element of control. When asked about the rights and equality of women, Respondents say they feel sorry for the men because they are outnumbered. Women say they want to live in polygamy, because they believe it is right. when asked about the outside perception that the polygamous structure is open to abuse, they agree that when there is abuse, that the abuse should always be handled appropriately through law enforcement procedures.
WIth respect to children : literature suggests that teenage boys will be exiled or shunned by the community by the male leaders to increase the number of girls in the marriage pool. She is aware that affidavits exist that suggest that this was the case. It is not clear to her whether this ever existed and if it did exist, it may have been the result of specific male leaders. She often saw family functions where the numbers of boys and girls seemed relatively even.
Cheryl Milne; CRCC:
About children: on second visit, her observations about a wedding and a slide show, as well as a presentation by the Bountiful children, Dr. Campbell, stated that she knew that these were special occasions and the community was aware that she was coming during these times.
Dr. Campbell confirmed that she has no particular expertise in child development, child raising, education, what curriculum is used in school, determination of child abuse, etc. Her comments in these areas are only as a lay person.
She was not there to present the voices of children in any way.
In some cases, she made observations in her reports about “all those children” etc. can not be used as general statements. When referring to special and intense relationships within the families - she can only speak to the children and women that she observed. She stated that children in the same family, born to sister wives, have intense relationships, this cannot be generalized beyond the people that she observed. Concerning the relationships with fathers, she did not spend much time with fathers and she cannot honestly assess this relationship. She cannot speak to the experience of children with disabilities.
Campbell made observations about educational attainments, etc. She does not have expertise in childhood education, however, she was reporting from literature and relying on those authors.
When she stated that the school curriculum was under state scrutiny - she did not know this first hand but was relying on media reports.
About the choice of a sixteen year old daughter who wanted to marry - she did not get the sense that there was a complete powerlessness by the mother, but it was more of a sense that she could not stop her daughter from doing what she was going to do.
Relating to the YFZ congregation - women spoke frequently about how authorities took children into custody based on “unfounded” claims of child abuse. When asked if this was her opinion - she stated it was based on her conversation with an attorney who represented the women in the Texas case.
Cross-examine by Craig (AG BC)
Bountiful was settled in 1946 by settlers who were descended from polygamous families who came to Canada from Utah at the turn of the last century. Mentioned that the LDS church cracked down on polygamy and there was a split in the mormon church. This is the origin of the FLDS who started in Hilldale and colorado city.
A recent split occurred when warren jeffs assumed the role of prophet in the flds church and half the followers rejected his authority. These now follow blackmore and they are much more liberal.
Dr. campbell has experience with blackmore followers due to their increasing openness. How does she reconcile the statement that there was always some degree of openness in the community with the statement that there was previously more fear of the outside community. She indicated that they would seek help in areas that were not related to polygamy. Is bountiful evolving? she is not sure.
Is more openness occurring now that criminalization is more in the news. She says that it is her understanding that the time period coincides but does not know if this is the cause.
Craig noted that there were charges laid about child rape after the YFZ raid. She clarified that she was aware of child rape charges but she did not believe that these were related to the people who lived at YFZ, rather originated in Colorado city.
Harms relating to polygamy: child abuse, child brides, lost boys, impacts to status of women, negative impacts on children and girls eduction - agreed that literature reports these things.
True that in 2005 did she become concerned that the harms of criminalization were not being considered enough in the analysis of harms. She states that the literature about harms due to polygamy were primarily coming from places that are outside of canada. Was she concerned that there is a lack of primary research on both the harms of polygamy and the harms due to criminalization of polygamy.
in 2005, she stated that there should not be consideration of de-criminalization until there is more first-hand research of the situation. She stated that a richer examination of the actual situation in bountiful was an important element.
Has she publicly advocated that polygamy should be de-criminalized. Yes - she believes that de-criminalization is probably the best path to follow. This chrystalization happened around 2008 after she had visited the community. This was combined with her further research.
She believes that criminalization should not be based on our current assumptions but rather on a more careful study of the issue. She says that she has not intended to make a blanket statement that polygamy should be de-criminalized.
Prior to her 4 days experience in Bountiful, what other information was she aware of? She was not aware of any other primary research on the area.
As a person who has thought deeply and long about this - have you done all you can to gather information about the analysis of harms? yes.
Research methodology - esp. qualitative methodology - is not representative and quantitative data is more representative for extrapolating harms. yes.
On child brides - they were not uncommon prior to split - sure. Were they routine, - don’t know. Would quantitative data be helpful - yes. One woman reported that 24 out of 25 sisters were married before 18. Yes.
If we want to determine what percentage of women who were married as child brides ... want to refer to transcript.
If we wanted to find out more about child brides, could she have asked her survey participants at what age they were married? yes.
Stated that teenage marriages are now discouraged - who discourages this? parents.
Would it be helpful to have information about how many children are married in a given year. yes.
Since unmarried women generally do not have children in bountiful - could you use birth records as a proxy.
yes.
disparity between ages of mothers and fathers on the birth records can be used as a way to determine age differences in marriages and this may be used to talk about power discrepency in the marriages and related to harms associated with polygamy?
yes.
IF records also indicate place of birth of the mothers, and this showed many of the mothers were born in the states - this would be suggestive of immigration patterns -
It might be.
As to the importance of marriage in the LDS and FLDS communities - are marriages a big deal? Does the whole community know about the marriages?
don’t know.
Do you know of any polygamous marriages in bountiful since 2002.
She is not aware.
As far as she knows, child brides and polygamous marriages may be in the past in the community she studied.
They may be.
As for lost boys - could you ask whether anyone was aware of that happening. Did you ask the question - do you know of anyone being expelled from community.
yes, but she did not ask.
Could demographics be used to assess the potential of lost boys -
yes, but she did not do this.
Mentioned small gender imbalance at some social functions.
However, did not take any notes about the gender numbers -
Number of men and women at these settings were roughly equal at these functions - if there were some polygamous marriages - how can this be?
She did not do a headcount -
Craig “Polygamy means more women than men” then among married people in the community, there must be more women than men. Then in a partially polygynous community, there must be more women than men among the married people.
yes - but she did not do a headcount.
On to contraception: Females rights to control their reproduction is an indicator of female equality in literature. The more children that a woman has, the less equality there is in a society.
perhaps.
She stated that birth control is often without the husbands consent. Are there any instances in her transcripts where the husband actually gave consent for the woman to use contraception?
She was not aware of any.
Does this give her pause?
She feels this is indicitive of potential problems.
Does she agree that a woman should have ABSOLUTE CONTROL over her reproduction?
yes.
On to education of women and children:
In studying education outcomes, it would be very useful to have information about drop-out rates, etc. Did you ask about graduation certificates?
No, she did not ask.
Did she ask if the dropped out of school?
no
would this be helpful in addressing harms to community?
yes
Would it be useful to the lordship to know what post secondary education that the children went onto.
yes.
Aware of the recent Quebec report on polygamy? yes - have you read it - no. Is there anything in the English summary that leads you to reconsider your opinion concerning polygamy. No. Are you aware that this has been adopted by the quebec assembly? no.
Concerning the 2008 trip -
did you meet with research associates in montreal. changed planes in western canada and flew to cranbrook. Drove to hotel first in creston. Did all interviews take place at the same place? No, some took place in peoples homes but some interviews were arranged on the spot - on-site.
After her arrival, she got to the hotel late in the afternoon. Contacted some of the people that they had been in touch with. Confirmed a couple of interviews that were set up. Did not interview on that day. However, interviewed someone in Cranbrook on that day, That took about an hour. Then went back to the hotel.
Other interviews were an ongoing process. Primarily met in one space. No interviews during the first year were in a personal home. In second year, interviews were in people’s homes. Interviews varied between 30 and 60 mins generally - times are recorded on transcripts.
They had guides in community at some times. These guides told them how the split had affected the community.
Left the hotel on Friday. interviewed another person while in cranbrook but cannot identify if it is the same person because of confidentiality reasons.
For a five day trip, really only spent 3 days in community. Transcript numbers are not consistent between years.
When she went back in 09; similar number of people interviewed but fewer new people.
In terms of her affidavits - in terms of her research conclusions - it was structured in terms of specific requests.
Is the information about approximately equal people of both genders - was this part of her research? It informed her impression of the community but was not formal research.
Have you read other evidence that has been given to this case. She has read Proff bala and one other and some of Proff Heinricks.
The argument with respect to child brides is that polygamy requires more women than men and that to increase the market for available women there is a downward pressure on the age at which women are targetted for marriage. She if familiar with the theory.
IF international research indicates that this pattern exists around the world, would it be universally proof of a harm of polygamy?
Does the concern exist even if marriages occur at the age of 30? Have you ever considered this in terms of your research? No.
Have you considered this in terms of the lost boys? Yes.
Are you aware of the international literature that gender imbalance is correlated with increased crime and anti-social behavior - no.
If you were aware of this and if polygamy causes this harm, should this be a concern? yes.
Craig: Follow up questions to conclude.
Did you do focus groups on both trips. Yes; the first year there was one FG on the third of five days. The second year, there were 2 on days 4 and 5. On the second trip, there were several individual interviews and then the focus groups.
Turn attention to Bountiful Voices article:
On page 200, participant 1 says I was 18 when i got married. Of my 25 sisters, there were only 2 or 3 who were over 18 when they were married. Yes - that is what appears to be correct.
AG Canada: Cameron (same guy with parents from Germany)
Trimmed cross examination from 1 hr. to 5 mins (2:05)
Verify specific points about trips to Bountiful.
Who determined specific timing? She did. How long did it take to plan the timing for the trip - It took about a month to coordinate the trip.
For 2009, there was some attempt to coordinate the trip with some community events. She aimed to accomodate the trip to match these events. The timing was somewhat dictated because of commitments during the academic year.
Did she ever arrive in the community unannounced? yes, several times she arrived in the community and no one was at the arranged place. Meetings often happened on an ad hoc basis and there was no real fixed schedule.
Did she attend any church services? Yes, one.
Did someone grant permission for the trip? yes - however, she does not remember who granted permission.
From which contact did how many interviewees arrive (his words)? In 2005, how many interviewees contacted her? About 4 or 5. She did not interview all the people who contacted her.
She has contacted people who had spoken both for and against polygamy in public. Approximately 7 or 8 people people she spoke to had spoken out publicly. Of the remaining interviewees, most of these people were met on site - however, she is not aware of any firm connection between the remainder group and the ones who were connected. It is possible that all the women had some contact.
She did not speak to any community leaders before she arrived on the first visit. She also was not aware of who was married to whom when she made arrangements -
Is it likely that some of the initial contacts were married to male community leaders? It is likely.
Did she meet any of the male community leaders? Only on the second visit. She did ask permission to attend church. Did she discuss her project with him? No. Did she ask permission from any male leaders? No.
(finished at 2:15)
West Coast Leaf (ms. Gafar)
She did not interview any young women aged 15 to 18 for her research project.
When the lawyer reviewed the transcripts, it was very apparent that there is more freedom of choice after the split than to before. Campbell confirmed that this is true.
Campbell also confirmed that there is a distinction between Blackmore’s group and the groups in the USA in terms of a woman’s ability to make decisions. The FLDS are more conservative, it is difficult to determine if things have improved on the Jeffs side. Since there is little contact between the two groups, it is difficult to say whether someone from the Winston side can know anything about what is happening on the other side.
Dr. Campbell interviewed only one person from the FLDS side of the split - and this same person was interviewed on both of her visits. No other woman from the FLDS side showed any interest in speaking to her.
Reader Beware: This is not an official court transcript - and I am not a qualified court stenographer. While I am doing my best to provide an accurate reflection of events, in most cases I am paraphrasing what was said and errors are likely.
Testimony of Angela Campbell:
Amicus to take Dr. Campbell through the affidavits collected at Bountiful and ask for clarifications - what was she purporting to address, etc.
On FLDS theology: Marriage is fundamental and central to Mormon theology. From mid 19th century, polygamy was understood to be a requirement to reach highest level of celestial kingdom. Polygamy was practiced openly until the manifesto that was necessary for Utah’s statehood, however polygamy continued until early 20th century and actually ended with the 2nd manifesto. At this point, the LDS church split into mainstream and fundamentalism. Fundamentalists believe polygamy is a necessary requirement to reach the celestial kingdom.
Her opinion is that polygamy is still practiced in Bountiful as a religious requirement. She further asked members of the community how they can reconcile remaining monogamous with the scriptural injunction for polygamy. Some believed that an openness to polygamy was all that was required. however, others believed that practicing polygamy was necessary.
Asked how criminalization affected the views on polygamy by the people in bountiful, she answered that their religious beliefs are a higher norm than society values.
When asked about her research objectives - she felt it was best to be transparent and offer her opinion that the state has a requirement to justify why an act is criminalized. She stated that she did not believe that polygamy should be criminalized because the state does not criminalize many other similar sexual practices. This conclusion was based upon her previous research and understandings and she stated this opinion at the conclusion of one of her interview sessions in Bountiful.
Part of her research was to determine how coersion and free choice interplayed in the choices that women made about their marriage and reproduction. Earlier, teen-age marriages were very common, however, recently it has become unpopular for marriages to occur at ages younger than 18. It is her impression that prior to the split, teen age marriages were more common.
In one of her interviews, a mother reflected that her teenage daughter wanted to get married and she did not approve. However, she could not stop the daughter.
Marriages are typically arranged. However, individuals are now making more choices about who they will marry and whether they will be monogamous or polygamous. In earlier times, individuals did not know each other prior to marriages. However, courting is becoming more common and is seen as a more desirable way to achieve a marriage that will last.
Reproduction and family planning: Several women spoke of making choices about marriage and family. WIth respect to reproduction, it is a very high value in the FLDS church to have large families. However, some families were smaller. Several women indicated that they could make choices about contraception and would consult with other women in the community to make contraceptive choices. Often without consulting their husbands. It is recognized that the lives of young women are much more hectic today and it is not possible to have so many children or to have children born so close together.
With respect to children: it is very difficult to not notice the children in the community. She only had off the record informal discussions with the children. There is a deep connection between the children and their biological mothers. However, they see other polygamous wives as Mother X and Mother Y, etc. There was always someone there for their guidance. Children, especially siblings, and those who are half siblings don’t really discriminate. There is sibling rivalry as seen in most households.
In relationships among the adults: Among Sister wives - these were the easiest relationships to hear about because she interviewed women. Many women felt their greatest loss if the marriage dissolved would be the loss of their sister wives. For example if one woman works outside the home, another wife will care for children or do household work. This sometimes results in specialization of labour where women work where they are most interested. Some communal experience evolves in terms of negotiating household finance, etc.
In terms of the hardest things about being in a plural marriage: First, jealousy and competition for husbands resources and affection. Second, competition for space and place. Sometimes it does not work for a family to cohabit and sometimes a woman will want to move to another house. Third, there is a strong negative reaction to one woman disciplining another woman’s child.
In terms of woman’s appearance and dress: There have been changes in the community as to the way that women appear. What was most surprizing is that many women did not appear as FLDS women do in the media. They were dressing in more conventional clothes, some cut their hair. Jewellry is not common, pieced ears, etc. And since these choices are not universal in the community. Some women feel that adopting these practices are stepping outside the boundaries of the faith.
In terms of self-expression and fulfillment: Women are becoming more financially independent - in spite of extreme communal background, there is a tendency for women to pursue education and work that is financially and emotionally fullfilling. Most women pursue conventional feminine vocations, healthcare, teaching, childcare, etc. This way they can work in roles that help the community. Work also included working in nearby towns in service industry, etc.
In terms of education: there is an encouragement for young children to go to school. IN terms of pursuing post secondary education, this sometimes occurs - especially in nearby towns and sometimes in the states. Scheduling education and child reading, often children are born first and then the women have extra difficulties returning to school. However, sister wives sometimes help in enabling this through child care, etc.
Understanding of formal law in Bountiful:
First phase of research was about whether they understood the law regarding polygamy in Canada. Did they understand the prohibition in the law?
By and large, there is a firm understanding that polygamy is criminalized. Some women did not know this before, however, currently this is widely known through law enforcement, media, etc. There is a distinction between de-criminalization and state recognition of polygamy and often this was not understood. Within the community, the opinion is that even if there is a penalty according to the state law, it would not affect their desire to be in a polygamous marriage because their faith is a stronger normative rule than the state law.
Women accessing or not accessing services in the outside towns: There is a willingness for people in the community to go to nearby towns regularly. They are not a self-sufficient community so people regularly go shopping for necessary goods and services. There is complete openness for “benign services” however, there is resistance for women to go for help in cases where the services that are required have a strong link to polygamy. Historically, this was the case in child-birth because the mother would have to identify the father. Transcripts show cases where women are reticent to go to the community for marriage counseling. When asked if women will go for any counseling, reluctance is generally expressed.
Next section: Polygamy outside bountiful:
This section describes a literature review Dr. Campbell performed for a report she prepared for National Council for the Status of Women . Describes social, economic and health related consequences of polygamy for women in a variety of cultures, settings, etc. Provided motivation for the Bountiful research.
What did she find in literature versus what she found on the ground. Literature suggested adverse outcomes for women in polygamy. In many cases, this led to violence among them due to jealousy, cramped space, shortage of resources, etc. First wives are often target because they are assigned and others are chosen. Also some literature suggests valuable relationships among sister wives and also mutual support. In Bountiful, she did not hear about conflicts that actually led to violence. In bountiful she did observe “sisterhood solidarity”.
Risks of insularity: This links to the idea that when the practice is criminalized, there is a tendency for the family structure to be kept secret - by religious dictates and fear of prosecution -this is harmful because individuals are told not to trust people from the outside. This was observed in bountiful. Their practices are seen as object of scorn, etc. Religious isolation was reinforced because they were told not to seek services from outside by their leaders. This was not typical of her recent observations.
Literature suggests that polygynous relationships are unequal because one man can have many wives. The husband was more rights than the woman. That framework can lead to abuse, control and abuse of authority. The literature also suggests that the numbers may not always lead to inequality that the women can exercise some element of control. When asked about the rights and equality of women, Respondents say they feel sorry for the men because they are outnumbered. Women say they want to live in polygamy, because they believe it is right. when asked about the outside perception that the polygamous structure is open to abuse, they agree that when there is abuse, that the abuse should always be handled appropriately through law enforcement procedures.
WIth respect to children : literature suggests that teenage boys will be exiled or shunned by the community by the male leaders to increase the number of girls in the marriage pool. She is aware that affidavits exist that suggest that this was the case. It is not clear to her whether this ever existed and if it did exist, it may have been the result of specific male leaders. She often saw family functions where the numbers of boys and girls seemed relatively even.
Cheryl Milne; CRCC:
About children: on second visit, her observations about a wedding and a slide show, as well as a presentation by the Bountiful children, Dr. Campbell, stated that she knew that these were special occasions and the community was aware that she was coming during these times.
Dr. Campbell confirmed that she has no particular expertise in child development, child raising, education, what curriculum is used in school, determination of child abuse, etc. Her comments in these areas are only as a lay person.
She was not there to present the voices of children in any way.
In some cases, she made observations in her reports about “all those children” etc. can not be used as general statements. When referring to special and intense relationships within the families - she can only speak to the children and women that she observed. She stated that children in the same family, born to sister wives, have intense relationships, this cannot be generalized beyond the people that she observed. Concerning the relationships with fathers, she did not spend much time with fathers and she cannot honestly assess this relationship. She cannot speak to the experience of children with disabilities.
Campbell made observations about educational attainments, etc. She does not have expertise in childhood education, however, she was reporting from literature and relying on those authors.
When she stated that the school curriculum was under state scrutiny - she did not know this first hand but was relying on media reports.
About the choice of a sixteen year old daughter who wanted to marry - she did not get the sense that there was a complete powerlessness by the mother, but it was more of a sense that she could not stop her daughter from doing what she was going to do.
Relating to the YFZ congregation - women spoke frequently about how authorities took children into custody based on “unfounded” claims of child abuse. When asked if this was her opinion - she stated it was based on her conversation with an attorney who represented the women in the Texas case.
Cross-examine by Craig (AG BC)
Bountiful was settled in 1946 by settlers who were descended from polygamous families who came to Canada from Utah at the turn of the last century. Mentioned that the LDS church cracked down on polygamy and there was a split in the mormon church. This is the origin of the FLDS who started in Hilldale and colorado city.
A recent split occurred when warren jeffs assumed the role of prophet in the flds church and half the followers rejected his authority. These now follow blackmore and they are much more liberal.
Dr. campbell has experience with blackmore followers due to their increasing openness. How does she reconcile the statement that there was always some degree of openness in the community with the statement that there was previously more fear of the outside community. She indicated that they would seek help in areas that were not related to polygamy. Is bountiful evolving? she is not sure.
Is more openness occurring now that criminalization is more in the news. She says that it is her understanding that the time period coincides but does not know if this is the cause.
Craig noted that there were charges laid about child rape after the YFZ raid. She clarified that she was aware of child rape charges but she did not believe that these were related to the people who lived at YFZ, rather originated in Colorado city.
Harms relating to polygamy: child abuse, child brides, lost boys, impacts to status of women, negative impacts on children and girls eduction - agreed that literature reports these things.
True that in 2005 did she become concerned that the harms of criminalization were not being considered enough in the analysis of harms. She states that the literature about harms due to polygamy were primarily coming from places that are outside of canada. Was she concerned that there is a lack of primary research on both the harms of polygamy and the harms due to criminalization of polygamy.
in 2005, she stated that there should not be consideration of de-criminalization until there is more first-hand research of the situation. She stated that a richer examination of the actual situation in bountiful was an important element.
Has she publicly advocated that polygamy should be de-criminalized. Yes - she believes that de-criminalization is probably the best path to follow. This chrystalization happened around 2008 after she had visited the community. This was combined with her further research.
She believes that criminalization should not be based on our current assumptions but rather on a more careful study of the issue. She says that she has not intended to make a blanket statement that polygamy should be de-criminalized.
Prior to her 4 days experience in Bountiful, what other information was she aware of? She was not aware of any other primary research on the area.
As a person who has thought deeply and long about this - have you done all you can to gather information about the analysis of harms? yes.
Research methodology - esp. qualitative methodology - is not representative and quantitative data is more representative for extrapolating harms. yes.
On child brides - they were not uncommon prior to split - sure. Were they routine, - don’t know. Would quantitative data be helpful - yes. One woman reported that 24 out of 25 sisters were married before 18. Yes.
If we want to determine what percentage of women who were married as child brides ... want to refer to transcript.
If we wanted to find out more about child brides, could she have asked her survey participants at what age they were married? yes.
Stated that teenage marriages are now discouraged - who discourages this? parents.
Would it be helpful to have information about how many children are married in a given year. yes.
Since unmarried women generally do not have children in bountiful - could you use birth records as a proxy.
yes.
disparity between ages of mothers and fathers on the birth records can be used as a way to determine age differences in marriages and this may be used to talk about power discrepency in the marriages and related to harms associated with polygamy?
yes.
IF records also indicate place of birth of the mothers, and this showed many of the mothers were born in the states - this would be suggestive of immigration patterns -
It might be.
As to the importance of marriage in the LDS and FLDS communities - are marriages a big deal? Does the whole community know about the marriages?
don’t know.
Do you know of any polygamous marriages in bountiful since 2002.
She is not aware.
As far as she knows, child brides and polygamous marriages may be in the past in the community she studied.
They may be.
As for lost boys - could you ask whether anyone was aware of that happening. Did you ask the question - do you know of anyone being expelled from community.
yes, but she did not ask.
Could demographics be used to assess the potential of lost boys -
yes, but she did not do this.
Mentioned small gender imbalance at some social functions.
However, did not take any notes about the gender numbers -
Number of men and women at these settings were roughly equal at these functions - if there were some polygamous marriages - how can this be?
She did not do a headcount -
Craig “Polygamy means more women than men” then among married people in the community, there must be more women than men. Then in a partially polygynous community, there must be more women than men among the married people.
yes - but she did not do a headcount.
On to contraception: Females rights to control their reproduction is an indicator of female equality in literature. The more children that a woman has, the less equality there is in a society.
perhaps.
She stated that birth control is often without the husbands consent. Are there any instances in her transcripts where the husband actually gave consent for the woman to use contraception?
She was not aware of any.
Does this give her pause?
She feels this is indicitive of potential problems.
Does she agree that a woman should have ABSOLUTE CONTROL over her reproduction?
yes.
On to education of women and children:
In studying education outcomes, it would be very useful to have information about drop-out rates, etc. Did you ask about graduation certificates?
No, she did not ask.
Did she ask if the dropped out of school?
no
would this be helpful in addressing harms to community?
yes
Would it be useful to the lordship to know what post secondary education that the children went onto.
yes.
Aware of the recent Quebec report on polygamy? yes - have you read it - no. Is there anything in the English summary that leads you to reconsider your opinion concerning polygamy. No. Are you aware that this has been adopted by the quebec assembly? no.
Concerning the 2008 trip -
did you meet with research associates in montreal. changed planes in western canada and flew to cranbrook. Drove to hotel first in creston. Did all interviews take place at the same place? No, some took place in peoples homes but some interviews were arranged on the spot - on-site.
After her arrival, she got to the hotel late in the afternoon. Contacted some of the people that they had been in touch with. Confirmed a couple of interviews that were set up. Did not interview on that day. However, interviewed someone in Cranbrook on that day, That took about an hour. Then went back to the hotel.
Other interviews were an ongoing process. Primarily met in one space. No interviews during the first year were in a personal home. In second year, interviews were in people’s homes. Interviews varied between 30 and 60 mins generally - times are recorded on transcripts.
They had guides in community at some times. These guides told them how the split had affected the community.
Left the hotel on Friday. interviewed another person while in cranbrook but cannot identify if it is the same person because of confidentiality reasons.
For a five day trip, really only spent 3 days in community. Transcript numbers are not consistent between years.
When she went back in 09; similar number of people interviewed but fewer new people.
In terms of her affidavits - in terms of her research conclusions - it was structured in terms of specific requests.
Is the information about approximately equal people of both genders - was this part of her research? It informed her impression of the community but was not formal research.
Have you read other evidence that has been given to this case. She has read Proff bala and one other and some of Proff Heinricks.
The argument with respect to child brides is that polygamy requires more women than men and that to increase the market for available women there is a downward pressure on the age at which women are targetted for marriage. She if familiar with the theory.
IF international research indicates that this pattern exists around the world, would it be universally proof of a harm of polygamy?
Does the concern exist even if marriages occur at the age of 30? Have you ever considered this in terms of your research? No.
Have you considered this in terms of the lost boys? Yes.
Are you aware of the international literature that gender imbalance is correlated with increased crime and anti-social behavior - no.
If you were aware of this and if polygamy causes this harm, should this be a concern? yes.
Craig: Follow up questions to conclude.
Did you do focus groups on both trips. Yes; the first year there was one FG on the third of five days. The second year, there were 2 on days 4 and 5. On the second trip, there were several individual interviews and then the focus groups.
Turn attention to Bountiful Voices article:
On page 200, participant 1 says I was 18 when i got married. Of my 25 sisters, there were only 2 or 3 who were over 18 when they were married. Yes - that is what appears to be correct.
AG Canada: Cameron (same guy with parents from Germany)
Trimmed cross examination from 1 hr. to 5 mins (2:05)
Verify specific points about trips to Bountiful.
Who determined specific timing? She did. How long did it take to plan the timing for the trip - It took about a month to coordinate the trip.
For 2009, there was some attempt to coordinate the trip with some community events. She aimed to accomodate the trip to match these events. The timing was somewhat dictated because of commitments during the academic year.
Did she ever arrive in the community unannounced? yes, several times she arrived in the community and no one was at the arranged place. Meetings often happened on an ad hoc basis and there was no real fixed schedule.
Did she attend any church services? Yes, one.
Did someone grant permission for the trip? yes - however, she does not remember who granted permission.
From which contact did how many interviewees arrive (his words)? In 2005, how many interviewees contacted her? About 4 or 5. She did not interview all the people who contacted her.
She has contacted people who had spoken both for and against polygamy in public. Approximately 7 or 8 people people she spoke to had spoken out publicly. Of the remaining interviewees, most of these people were met on site - however, she is not aware of any firm connection between the remainder group and the ones who were connected. It is possible that all the women had some contact.
She did not speak to any community leaders before she arrived on the first visit. She also was not aware of who was married to whom when she made arrangements -
Is it likely that some of the initial contacts were married to male community leaders? It is likely.
Did she meet any of the male community leaders? Only on the second visit. She did ask permission to attend church. Did she discuss her project with him? No. Did she ask permission from any male leaders? No.
(finished at 2:15)
West Coast Leaf (ms. Gafar)
She did not interview any young women aged 15 to 18 for her research project.
When the lawyer reviewed the transcripts, it was very apparent that there is more freedom of choice after the split than to before. Campbell confirmed that this is true.
Campbell also confirmed that there is a distinction between Blackmore’s group and the groups in the USA in terms of a woman’s ability to make decisions. The FLDS are more conservative, it is difficult to determine if things have improved on the Jeffs side. Since there is little contact between the two groups, it is difficult to say whether someone from the Winston side can know anything about what is happening on the other side.
Dr. Campbell interviewed only one person from the FLDS side of the split - and this same person was interviewed on both of her visits. No other woman from the FLDS side showed any interest in speaking to her.
Reader Beware: This is not an official court transcript - and I am not a qualified court stenographer. While I am doing my best to provide an accurate reflection of events, in most cases I am paraphrasing what was said and errors are likely.
Mormon Polygamy on Trial : Notes from Day 5
Reader Beware: This is not an official court transcript - and I am not a qualified court stenographer. While I am doing my best to provide an accurate reflection of events, in most cases I am paraphrasing what was said and errors are likely.
Attorneys from STOP Polygamy in Canada and others have objected to Professor Campbell’s qualifications to testify. Required lengthy introduction by the Amicus and cross-examination by the court as to her credentials.
Amicus reviewed Campbell’s credentials: Angela Campbell professor of law at McGill University and director of faculty of comparative law. Comparative law compares across jurisdictions and cultures. Fields of interest in research and teaching include family law, criminal law and heath issues. Published paper in 2005 for National council for Status of Women in Canada on the legal, social and economic implications for polygamous women in Canada. Follow on paper concluded that there was insufficient primary information available on the ways that women experience polygamy in plural marriage communities. Dr. Campbell was later contacted directly from women from Bountiful who had found her contact information on the status of women website. They insisted that her research would affect them directly and they deserved to have input into the process. From this request, Dr. Campbell sought funding from SSHRC in 2006 to undertake qualitative empirical research to study the lived experience of women in polygamy. This enabled her, and her research team which included a sociological trained assistance, to conduct peer reviewed research (included 2 to 4 reviewers) between 2006 and 2009. Previous experience included work as a research assistant on a qualitative study of the way that Hasidic Jewish women experience their lives within that tradition. She described how quantitive studies, which acquire large sets of data and look for detailed statistical relationships, differ from qualitative studies which seek detailed interviews and examination of specific individuals to obtain personal perspectives. Dr. Campbell’s experience with interviewing Hasidic (small, strict religious community in Montreal) women proved to be an important factor to obtain funding for this FLDS study.
In funding application to SSHRC referred to legal literature which asserts that Interviewing people who are affected by law is an important part of conducting legal research. She has accepted that there are not sufficient statistics available for a detailed quantitative study. While Dr. Campbell’s past experience included interviewing women for qualitative analysis, she requested a grad student from sociology/anthropology department who was trained in designing qualitative studies. While it was not possible to get a grad student, she obtained the assistance of a “stellar” undergrad student that was recommended by the McGill faculty. Dr. Campbell has published a peer-reviewed article about women in Bountiful called “Wive’s tales” which studies how a scholar should conduct research in a polygamous community that is seen as hostile to the outside community.
When funding was available, Dr. Campbell initially contacted women from Bountiful who originally contacted her. Once this was done, she contacted additional women who had previously spoken out against the community. She attempted to avoid the pit-fall of speaking to community leaders - called the gate-keeper model - which goes against the feminist model for research as this person could control who she would speak to and what they might say. Gatekeeper model would also re-enforce the patriarchal model of authority by having to ask permission of some male figure head. Over two visits, totaling 12 days, interviewed 22 different individuals - two of which had left unhappy polygamous marriages. Funding was primarily from SSHRC. While studying polygamy in Bountiful, she has also studied the health, social and economic effects of polygamy in a variety of cultures and geographical locations. She has published two peer reviewed articles on her research experiences in Bountiful. Currently she teaches courses on family law and on empirical research methods.
Amicus asserts on the basis of these qualifications that Dr. Campbell is qualified to give opinion evidence as a legal scholar on the interface between the practice of polygamy and the legal prohibition of polygamy in Bountiful.
Cross-examination of Professor Campbell by lawyer from STOP Polygamy in Canada
Established that she is not a tenured professor, and she has no specific qualifications in anthropology, ethnography, sociology, psychology, archeology, etc.
Considers her work to be primarily in the area of law bordering on sociology.
for her experience in interviewing women in the Hasidic community that she interviewed 5 to 10 witnesses.
Lawyer referred to Dr. Campbell’s articles including Voices from Bountiful and Wive’s tales and some articles published by her supervising professors on the Hasidic study - which was published previous to her involvement.
Lawyer referred to letter from SSHRC which pointed out that Dr. Campbell had no formal training in sociology or performing qualitative sociology study research methods. She had to rely on a undergrad student to help design the research plan for the interviews. Questioned on whether there are differences between qualitiative research study designs for ethnography, sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc. she said she had consulted many standard texts on interview design, etc. She was further questioned on whether the interview design was structured or un-structured and whether either interview style provided more reliable information. She offered the opinion that she did not have a strong opinion but felt that a semi-structured approach was the best as it leveled the playing field between interviewer and interviewee.
She was further questioned on whether she was familiar with the best interview techniques for conducting studies in communities who have a culture of secrecy and intentional deception. She was further questioned as to whether she was familiar with the masters thesis of Marla Peters who had lived and worked in Bountiful during the 1990s and the assertion that Ms. Peters thesis determined that there was considerable secrecy and deliberate deception in Bountiful. The Lawyer further pointed out that she did not live in the community for an extended period of time and he further asked if she was aware of the best way to proceed in a community that has this type of deception. When asked if she felt that it was appropriate for a researcher to believe the statements that were given to her in interviews from people in a secretive and dishonest community, she felt it was reasonable to believe the statements - given proper reflection and analysis. She was asked if she was familiar with the definition of a cult and how research should be conducted in cult communities. Then she was asked if she thought Bountiful was a cult before she went there for her research. She replied she did not know at the beginning, however at the present time, she does not believe the members who she spoke to during her interviews would qualify as being members of a cult.
The Lawyer pointed out that Dr. Campbell and her student had frequently referred to a Dr. Cresswell during their research study design and asked if she felt that Dr. Creswell as an authority - which she did. He then referred to one of Cresswell’s publications that stated that these types of interviews should only be done with extensive and prolonged engagement for phenomenological studies of this type. He then asserted that she did not have extensive and prolonged engagement with the subjects and therefore was not qualified to make informed statements. She agreed that she does not have experience in quantitative analysis or in statistical analysis and cannot comment on how to design a study to insure there is adequate sample size, etc.
If a researcher wants to draw general conclusions across a population, is it necessary to perform quantitative research? Yes.
Could you extrapolate the information you gathered from the interviews to the rest of Bountiful? No - it is only applicable for the women that she interviewed.
Is she familiar with software packages used in these types of studies? yes, but she did not use them.
Does she agree that documents can be used for triangulation to verify information given in interviews? For example, did she use vital statistics data to confirm whether women under 16 yrs of age were no longer being married? No.
One of the threats in obtaining objective information is when the researcher has pre-existing opinions going into the study. She agrees. In her paper called Bountiful Voices, she states that her research is not quantitative nor completely representative of experiences in Bountiful. She also acknowledged and agreed with statements from her own publications that she did not screen applicants and there is no way to know whether women came of their own free will or if they were telling the truth about polygamy or if they were intimidated or afraid. However, in her work she felt the interviews offered a sound representation of women that she interviewed within the Blackmore faction - and when pressed on this, confirmed that this is her opinion. However, she felt this could not be extrapolated to the other side of the community or to polygamy in general.
When asked, she confirmed her preference for open-ended questions vs. pointed or closed questions - unless there is a need for specific information. She confirmed she is aware of the danger of using leading questions in interviews in that she would get the responses that she was looking for. She also offered that she believed it was important to share some personal information with the participants however, she did not believe that she was leading the interviewees or coaching them with what she wanted to hear. Dr. Campbell offered that she did tell the participants her opinion that the constitutionality of the polygamy law was in question and that the intention of the law was unclear.
In her publication “Wive’s tales” she outlined her opinions about power structures in the community - as this was based upon media reports and other information she had read and heard about Bountiful. However, she now has different opinions about the power-structures on the Blackmore side of the community after her first-hand visits. When asked about the limitation of doing research within focus groups, she outlined how more dominant people in the groups will overshadow women with differing or dissenting opinions. This prevents less dominant group members from giving their opinions. She further stated that she did not ask if the women who contacted her had been directed by their religious authority because she felt this question would insult them. Dr. Campbell was aware of these risks prior to going to Bountiful.
DId she come into the project with pre-conceived ideas about the criminalization of polygamy? At the time of the research, she felt it was an open question. Did she have firm views about whether the legal situation as it currently stands is acceptable. She did not have firm views - felt that further research was needed.
In her funding application, she highlighted parallels to same-sex marriage and offered that the current legal approach to polygamy is based upon classical Judeo-Christian ideas of marriage rather than compelling factual information about the situation in Bountiful.
STOP Polygamy (Mr. Samuels) lawyer’s questioning of Dr. Campbell ended immediately after lunch break.
the transcript of the examination was placed into evidence.
Leah from the AG office began questioning Dr. Campbell regarding her qualifications to testify as a qualitative researcher. It was confirmed that she has had experience with qualitative research in the field of public health and ethics on hospital boards. It was further determined that she spent about 20 hrs. per week working with Hasidic women in Montreal and was involved in approximately 10 interviews - 3 of these interviews she conducted on her own. Leah further determined that Dr. Campbell’s work on the hospital board was focused on the analysis of ethics rather than research methods.
In Dr. Campbell’s publication, it states that it is possible that women in Bountiful are reluctant to seek outside help, based on the sample that she interviewed. Leah contended that she could not generalize this outside the 22 women she mentioned because she had previously said that she could not generalize the data. Prof Campbell indicated that she felt she could generalize the “possibility” of reluctance to contact outside help due to the information she received in the interviews. It was further established that Dr. Campbell’s travel days had to be deducted from the time that she spent in Bountiful. During her stay in Bountiful, Dr. Campbell was free to walk around -sometimes alone and other times with her two research associates. In the most recent visit, she noted that some women were wearing Jeans, rather than the traditional clothes. Leah asserted that she could not know what the women wore the for the remaining 360 days of the year and Dr. Campbell agreed.
Leah asked whether Dr. Campbell’s aim was to allow the 22 women to give voice to their experience living in Bountiful - rather than attempting to speak for them. Dr. Campbell agreed. Leah then read from the interview transcripts about whether husbands could go with their polygamous wives to hospital when they are giving birth or whether there would be fear of criminal prosecution. The respondent affirmed that it used to be like this, but now things were better.
Then Leah went to another part of the transcript where the interview topic moved towards whether women in Bountiful felt able to access counseling and other services in Creston. Some of the transcript left the impression that Dr. Campbell was using leading questions and the subjects were just agreeing with her. Dr. Campbell said that these were only examples of cases where she was attempting to confirm what she had heard from other interview respondents.
Leah then went on to give several examples from the interview transcripts where women indicated that while there may be some fear and resistance, that several interviewees felt that outside services were available to people in the community and several people in the community used these services (counseling, nurses, health care, etc). Leah argued that the testimonies that she chose actually indicated that women in Bountiful could freely come and go as they pleased and felt completely comfortable accessing help from services outside the Bountiful community. However, Dr. Campbell pointed out that general services like grocery shopping, going to a doctor, etc. were not a problem, but other areas that are linked to polygamy - like marriage counseling, law enforcement, mental health, etc could be a different matter.
Leah asked Dr. Campbell to read a section of an interview transcript where she had given her opinion as to the purpose and intention of the polygamy law. In this segment of the interview, she had given her opinion that the polygamy law would be difficult to uphold considering that Canada does not criminalize adultery or having more than one sexual partner generally - only criminalizes when the relationships are seen as life-long commitments. She had also offered her opinion that the intention of the law was to ensure that the husband would have enough economic means to support all the women and children.
As to a statement that Dr. Campbell had made about the apparent well-being of the children in Bountiful, Leah contended that she had no expert qualifications in this area to make an expert opinion and Dr. Campbell agreed.
In her reports, Dr. Campbell had stated that women below the age of 16 were no longer being married in the community. Leah again pointed out that this was not verified by birth records and other data and questioned whether this really was the case.
Leah then questioned Dr. Campbell regarding the interviews from the two women who had left Bountiful as a result of unhappy plural marriages. One of the questions began to approach the identity of a witness and this was ruled out of order. Then Leah pointed out that no one could know if all the plural wives were married to one man or not and prof Campbell agreed - so the results may not be representative.
Lawyer for AG Canada then addressed questions to Proff. Campbell.
He asked whether Dr. Campbell has taken a public position on the issue of polygamy in Canada. She answered yes - if meaning through the articles she has published. He then brought forward copies of 3 newspaper articles from the Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette and National post where Dr. Campbell had offered statements. These articles were then submitted into evidence.
The Amicus then objected that interveners, who are not the primary parties in the court, had not objected to Dr. Campbell on the basis of her previous submissions and therefore in the interest of time, further motions to examine the witness should be restricted to the admissibility of specific evidence.
The Lawyer for CRCC then approached to cross-examine Dr. Campbell as to her qualifications to make sweeping general statements - especially regarding issues relating to children. The Amicus objected, stating that there would be opportunity to cross-examine later. Justice agreed.
Then the lawyer for the attorney general of Canada objected to the court hearing information from Dr. Campbell as an expert witness, stating that she was not qualified. Dr. Campbell was asked to leave the witness box while the court heard arguments relating to her admissibility as an expert witness.
The AG Canada asserts that Professor Campbell is not qualified to speak as an expert witness because her testimony is related to subjects outside of her areas of expertise. He argued that the affidavits that Dr. Campbell collected are admissible and can stand on their own merit without the “glosses” that the professor might add. It was further argued that no weight should be given to Prof. Campbell’s written reports because they might add un-merited weight to the decisions. Harm can be done to the trial process when people testify as experts who are not qualified because it can be misleading. Case law indicates that over-reaching by expert witnesses is one of the major causes leading to reversal on appeal. Arguments were provided that expert witnesses are only admissible when there is considerable chance that important facts might be missed by the general public. Care must be taken to distinguish between generalists who are speaking outside their primary speciality and those who are speaking as experts who are speaking within their speciality. He further pointed to a case by MacIntosh where he stated that just because someone does research and teaches on a specific subject does not qualify them to give forensic evidence.
The Amicus has put professor Campbell forward as a witness qualified to give testimony who can offer opinion on the interface between the polygamy law and polygamy in Bountiful.
AG Canada argues that there is no standard definition for legal scholars. He further argued that Dr. Campbell has insufficient knowledge to perform literature searches and qualitative research methods or ethnography. Professor Campbell does not have sufficient expertise to offer opinion on the women in Bountiful, in the Blackmore group or even for the 22 women that she interviewed.
He stated that Dr. Campbell does not have qualifications to speak to FLDS theology - reading a book allows one to have an opinion but does not make one an expert.
Further argued that Dr. Campbell has stated that her work was designed to allow women in Bountiful to express their own stories in opposition to the opinions of the broader community. However, while she has stated that her work cannot be representative because of the limited sample size, she has allegedly made broad generalizations from comments made from a small number of participants to represent the entire community.
AG Canada argued that paragraphs where Dr. Campbell is speaking from outside of her expertise far outweigh paragraphs where she is speaking from her expertise. AG Canada would not object to Angela Campbell speaking as a lay-witness from her experience in Bountiful rather than an expert witness.
There is clearly a very high weight on the value of “expert witnesses” as opposed to everyone else.
(Will each expert have to rise to the same standard???)
Karen Horsman, AGBC, then gave a short submission regarding the inadmissibility of Dr. Campbell as an expert witness- preferring to simply admit the affidavits that she collected. Ms. Horsman further stated that the transcripts themselves are ambiguous and Dr. Campbell offers her personal interpretation on top of these transcripts. She has no relevant expertise in being able to interpret these affidavits over anyone else and for this reason, she should not be qualified as an expert.
STOP Polygamy in Canada also made a submission to disqualify Professor Campbell. Their submission does not take a position as to her admissibility as a legal scholar or to the admissibility of the interviews she obtained. However, STOP objects to her right to make general statements from the research. STOP does not object to using qualitative evidence in making court decisions - however, they have strict definitions as to how this information can be used in the court and making generalizations based on the information. They provided a precedent from Justice Doherty that give guidelines on how qualitative studies can be used
Techniques to assure reliability:
what extent is the expert using accepted methodology that is honored in that field
what extent does the expert honor accepted boundaries that have been established in the field
Conducting interviews using a strict and structured interview
Care in making questions that are not leading
Care in making sure that questions are understandable to a broad segment of the public
Triangulation using outside data to check veracity
Exclusion of individuals who have a motive to be less than honest in their answers
Extensive peer review should be done at each study level - pre-study, question and study examination, post, study, co-authors, funding bodies, etc.
All of these topics give weight to the reliability of the evidence drawn from qualitative studies in a specific field.
Dr. Campbell is not a psychologist, anthropologist, ethnographer, or formally educated in qualitative study methods.
Not only did she not spend as much time in Bountiful as Ms. Peters and even less time than one would expect for a study of this nature. She took few, if any steps, to perform triangulation to verify her results. The observations that Professor Campbell made cannot be generalized outside the women she interviewed - therefore her observations add nothing to the voices of Bountiful’s women over what is recorded in the transcripts. Her comments add nothing of merit because they don’t come from any relevant expertise. The court has a gate-keeping role to keep this information from the court records.
Amicus defense:
Dr. Campbell has unique expertise of all expert witnesses in terms of actually interviewing women in Bountiful. She has also clearly performed a detailed literature study of polygamy across cultures. Professor Campbell clearly has special knowledge from her first-hand experience in Bountiful over other witnesses.
Expert Witnesses must have outstanding information in a specific field - this may come from academic or practical experience.
Supreme court has said “Practical experience and common sense often combine to give the most important type of expert testimony.”
Mr. Samuel has stated that expert witnesses do not require academic qualifications. In some cases, extensive practical experience will outweigh academic. There is a relatively low threshold for admission of expert witnesses. Any shortcomings should go to weight and not admissibility.
From Mohan test:
Proff Campbell’s research is highly relevant because it speaks to the experience of women in Bountiful. Bountiful is polygamy made real - so Dr. Campbell going into the community is very important
She is the only academic witness giving testimony from first hand experience in Bountiful. BCAG noted that Dr. Heinrich has used statistical information from the FLDS side of the community - however, Amicus noted that this evidence does not include the blackmore side which would otherwise not be included. Her role as an expert witness is no different than any other expert witness - however, she does have first-hand experience from the women in Bountiful
Dr. Campbell has developed more than sufficient expertise through practical experience in her academic career, she engaged in an extensive study of qualitative studies and consulted with experts in the field of designing academic studies.
her publications have been extensively peer review and her success in receiving funding demonstrates her qualifications in obtaining and analyzing this information.
Also relevant that other scholars, including Dr. Beaman in this proceeding rely on the references from Dr. Campbell. In her affidavit she has spoken to the importance of Dr. Campbells research.
Another witness has quoted professor campbell’s research, who is testifying for STOP Canada, performs a very similar
Professor Bala - from STOP Canada addresses Dr. Campbell’s research method and states that her research does not provide any way to assess the reliability of the information and there is concern that women who do not have positive experiences will not speak out. Nevertheless, her work is still a significant study. While some of the women may have been requested to speak out on behalf of the positive merits of polygamy - this is full of speculation. Professor Bala makes extensive projections saying things like “there is some evidence that criminal prohibition and threat of prosecution may slowly be reducing the instances of Polygamy in bountiful” however, his only evidence is from Angela Campbell’s study.
Several of the most important and relevant recent publications, including those made by experts who testify for the parties opposing Dr. Campbell, find significant value and quote extensively from Professor Campbell’s work.
By the very nature of this case, there is extensive opinion evidence being submitted. While it is contended that Dr. Campbell is not qualified to give opinion or give a review of the social science literature because she is a lawyer and not a social scientist. However, many of the witnesses, including Dr. Bala are also lawyers who are doing social science literature reviews and giving this as evidence. They are also lawyers rather than social scientists - and the Amicus does not protest against this.
The AGBC brief contains over 35 papers from “expert witnesses” and this includes all of Dr. Campbell’s papers.
The Amicus stated that the AGBC has systematically fought against witnesses giving testimony from the Bountiful Community. They would not allow Blackmore to come to the hearing and give evidence and they have systematically resisted any attempt for the FLDS community to give testimony.
The Justice qualified Professor Campbell as an expert witness.
Attorneys from STOP Polygamy in Canada and others have objected to Professor Campbell’s qualifications to testify. Required lengthy introduction by the Amicus and cross-examination by the court as to her credentials.
Amicus reviewed Campbell’s credentials: Angela Campbell professor of law at McGill University and director of faculty of comparative law. Comparative law compares across jurisdictions and cultures. Fields of interest in research and teaching include family law, criminal law and heath issues. Published paper in 2005 for National council for Status of Women in Canada on the legal, social and economic implications for polygamous women in Canada. Follow on paper concluded that there was insufficient primary information available on the ways that women experience polygamy in plural marriage communities. Dr. Campbell was later contacted directly from women from Bountiful who had found her contact information on the status of women website. They insisted that her research would affect them directly and they deserved to have input into the process. From this request, Dr. Campbell sought funding from SSHRC in 2006 to undertake qualitative empirical research to study the lived experience of women in polygamy. This enabled her, and her research team which included a sociological trained assistance, to conduct peer reviewed research (included 2 to 4 reviewers) between 2006 and 2009. Previous experience included work as a research assistant on a qualitative study of the way that Hasidic Jewish women experience their lives within that tradition. She described how quantitive studies, which acquire large sets of data and look for detailed statistical relationships, differ from qualitative studies which seek detailed interviews and examination of specific individuals to obtain personal perspectives. Dr. Campbell’s experience with interviewing Hasidic (small, strict religious community in Montreal) women proved to be an important factor to obtain funding for this FLDS study.
In funding application to SSHRC referred to legal literature which asserts that Interviewing people who are affected by law is an important part of conducting legal research. She has accepted that there are not sufficient statistics available for a detailed quantitative study. While Dr. Campbell’s past experience included interviewing women for qualitative analysis, she requested a grad student from sociology/anthropology department who was trained in designing qualitative studies. While it was not possible to get a grad student, she obtained the assistance of a “stellar” undergrad student that was recommended by the McGill faculty. Dr. Campbell has published a peer-reviewed article about women in Bountiful called “Wive’s tales” which studies how a scholar should conduct research in a polygamous community that is seen as hostile to the outside community.
When funding was available, Dr. Campbell initially contacted women from Bountiful who originally contacted her. Once this was done, she contacted additional women who had previously spoken out against the community. She attempted to avoid the pit-fall of speaking to community leaders - called the gate-keeper model - which goes against the feminist model for research as this person could control who she would speak to and what they might say. Gatekeeper model would also re-enforce the patriarchal model of authority by having to ask permission of some male figure head. Over two visits, totaling 12 days, interviewed 22 different individuals - two of which had left unhappy polygamous marriages. Funding was primarily from SSHRC. While studying polygamy in Bountiful, she has also studied the health, social and economic effects of polygamy in a variety of cultures and geographical locations. She has published two peer reviewed articles on her research experiences in Bountiful. Currently she teaches courses on family law and on empirical research methods.
Amicus asserts on the basis of these qualifications that Dr. Campbell is qualified to give opinion evidence as a legal scholar on the interface between the practice of polygamy and the legal prohibition of polygamy in Bountiful.
Cross-examination of Professor Campbell by lawyer from STOP Polygamy in Canada
Established that she is not a tenured professor, and she has no specific qualifications in anthropology, ethnography, sociology, psychology, archeology, etc.
Considers her work to be primarily in the area of law bordering on sociology.
for her experience in interviewing women in the Hasidic community that she interviewed 5 to 10 witnesses.
Lawyer referred to Dr. Campbell’s articles including Voices from Bountiful and Wive’s tales and some articles published by her supervising professors on the Hasidic study - which was published previous to her involvement.
Lawyer referred to letter from SSHRC which pointed out that Dr. Campbell had no formal training in sociology or performing qualitative sociology study research methods. She had to rely on a undergrad student to help design the research plan for the interviews. Questioned on whether there are differences between qualitiative research study designs for ethnography, sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc. she said she had consulted many standard texts on interview design, etc. She was further questioned on whether the interview design was structured or un-structured and whether either interview style provided more reliable information. She offered the opinion that she did not have a strong opinion but felt that a semi-structured approach was the best as it leveled the playing field between interviewer and interviewee.
She was further questioned on whether she was familiar with the best interview techniques for conducting studies in communities who have a culture of secrecy and intentional deception. She was further questioned as to whether she was familiar with the masters thesis of Marla Peters who had lived and worked in Bountiful during the 1990s and the assertion that Ms. Peters thesis determined that there was considerable secrecy and deliberate deception in Bountiful. The Lawyer further pointed out that she did not live in the community for an extended period of time and he further asked if she was aware of the best way to proceed in a community that has this type of deception. When asked if she felt that it was appropriate for a researcher to believe the statements that were given to her in interviews from people in a secretive and dishonest community, she felt it was reasonable to believe the statements - given proper reflection and analysis. She was asked if she was familiar with the definition of a cult and how research should be conducted in cult communities. Then she was asked if she thought Bountiful was a cult before she went there for her research. She replied she did not know at the beginning, however at the present time, she does not believe the members who she spoke to during her interviews would qualify as being members of a cult.
The Lawyer pointed out that Dr. Campbell and her student had frequently referred to a Dr. Cresswell during their research study design and asked if she felt that Dr. Creswell as an authority - which she did. He then referred to one of Cresswell’s publications that stated that these types of interviews should only be done with extensive and prolonged engagement for phenomenological studies of this type. He then asserted that she did not have extensive and prolonged engagement with the subjects and therefore was not qualified to make informed statements. She agreed that she does not have experience in quantitative analysis or in statistical analysis and cannot comment on how to design a study to insure there is adequate sample size, etc.
If a researcher wants to draw general conclusions across a population, is it necessary to perform quantitative research? Yes.
Could you extrapolate the information you gathered from the interviews to the rest of Bountiful? No - it is only applicable for the women that she interviewed.
Is she familiar with software packages used in these types of studies? yes, but she did not use them.
Does she agree that documents can be used for triangulation to verify information given in interviews? For example, did she use vital statistics data to confirm whether women under 16 yrs of age were no longer being married? No.
One of the threats in obtaining objective information is when the researcher has pre-existing opinions going into the study. She agrees. In her paper called Bountiful Voices, she states that her research is not quantitative nor completely representative of experiences in Bountiful. She also acknowledged and agreed with statements from her own publications that she did not screen applicants and there is no way to know whether women came of their own free will or if they were telling the truth about polygamy or if they were intimidated or afraid. However, in her work she felt the interviews offered a sound representation of women that she interviewed within the Blackmore faction - and when pressed on this, confirmed that this is her opinion. However, she felt this could not be extrapolated to the other side of the community or to polygamy in general.
When asked, she confirmed her preference for open-ended questions vs. pointed or closed questions - unless there is a need for specific information. She confirmed she is aware of the danger of using leading questions in interviews in that she would get the responses that she was looking for. She also offered that she believed it was important to share some personal information with the participants however, she did not believe that she was leading the interviewees or coaching them with what she wanted to hear. Dr. Campbell offered that she did tell the participants her opinion that the constitutionality of the polygamy law was in question and that the intention of the law was unclear.
In her publication “Wive’s tales” she outlined her opinions about power structures in the community - as this was based upon media reports and other information she had read and heard about Bountiful. However, she now has different opinions about the power-structures on the Blackmore side of the community after her first-hand visits. When asked about the limitation of doing research within focus groups, she outlined how more dominant people in the groups will overshadow women with differing or dissenting opinions. This prevents less dominant group members from giving their opinions. She further stated that she did not ask if the women who contacted her had been directed by their religious authority because she felt this question would insult them. Dr. Campbell was aware of these risks prior to going to Bountiful.
DId she come into the project with pre-conceived ideas about the criminalization of polygamy? At the time of the research, she felt it was an open question. Did she have firm views about whether the legal situation as it currently stands is acceptable. She did not have firm views - felt that further research was needed.
In her funding application, she highlighted parallels to same-sex marriage and offered that the current legal approach to polygamy is based upon classical Judeo-Christian ideas of marriage rather than compelling factual information about the situation in Bountiful.
STOP Polygamy (Mr. Samuels) lawyer’s questioning of Dr. Campbell ended immediately after lunch break.
the transcript of the examination was placed into evidence.
Leah from the AG office began questioning Dr. Campbell regarding her qualifications to testify as a qualitative researcher. It was confirmed that she has had experience with qualitative research in the field of public health and ethics on hospital boards. It was further determined that she spent about 20 hrs. per week working with Hasidic women in Montreal and was involved in approximately 10 interviews - 3 of these interviews she conducted on her own. Leah further determined that Dr. Campbell’s work on the hospital board was focused on the analysis of ethics rather than research methods.
In Dr. Campbell’s publication, it states that it is possible that women in Bountiful are reluctant to seek outside help, based on the sample that she interviewed. Leah contended that she could not generalize this outside the 22 women she mentioned because she had previously said that she could not generalize the data. Prof Campbell indicated that she felt she could generalize the “possibility” of reluctance to contact outside help due to the information she received in the interviews. It was further established that Dr. Campbell’s travel days had to be deducted from the time that she spent in Bountiful. During her stay in Bountiful, Dr. Campbell was free to walk around -sometimes alone and other times with her two research associates. In the most recent visit, she noted that some women were wearing Jeans, rather than the traditional clothes. Leah asserted that she could not know what the women wore the for the remaining 360 days of the year and Dr. Campbell agreed.
Leah asked whether Dr. Campbell’s aim was to allow the 22 women to give voice to their experience living in Bountiful - rather than attempting to speak for them. Dr. Campbell agreed. Leah then read from the interview transcripts about whether husbands could go with their polygamous wives to hospital when they are giving birth or whether there would be fear of criminal prosecution. The respondent affirmed that it used to be like this, but now things were better.
Then Leah went to another part of the transcript where the interview topic moved towards whether women in Bountiful felt able to access counseling and other services in Creston. Some of the transcript left the impression that Dr. Campbell was using leading questions and the subjects were just agreeing with her. Dr. Campbell said that these were only examples of cases where she was attempting to confirm what she had heard from other interview respondents.
Leah then went on to give several examples from the interview transcripts where women indicated that while there may be some fear and resistance, that several interviewees felt that outside services were available to people in the community and several people in the community used these services (counseling, nurses, health care, etc). Leah argued that the testimonies that she chose actually indicated that women in Bountiful could freely come and go as they pleased and felt completely comfortable accessing help from services outside the Bountiful community. However, Dr. Campbell pointed out that general services like grocery shopping, going to a doctor, etc. were not a problem, but other areas that are linked to polygamy - like marriage counseling, law enforcement, mental health, etc could be a different matter.
Leah asked Dr. Campbell to read a section of an interview transcript where she had given her opinion as to the purpose and intention of the polygamy law. In this segment of the interview, she had given her opinion that the polygamy law would be difficult to uphold considering that Canada does not criminalize adultery or having more than one sexual partner generally - only criminalizes when the relationships are seen as life-long commitments. She had also offered her opinion that the intention of the law was to ensure that the husband would have enough economic means to support all the women and children.
As to a statement that Dr. Campbell had made about the apparent well-being of the children in Bountiful, Leah contended that she had no expert qualifications in this area to make an expert opinion and Dr. Campbell agreed.
In her reports, Dr. Campbell had stated that women below the age of 16 were no longer being married in the community. Leah again pointed out that this was not verified by birth records and other data and questioned whether this really was the case.
Leah then questioned Dr. Campbell regarding the interviews from the two women who had left Bountiful as a result of unhappy plural marriages. One of the questions began to approach the identity of a witness and this was ruled out of order. Then Leah pointed out that no one could know if all the plural wives were married to one man or not and prof Campbell agreed - so the results may not be representative.
Lawyer for AG Canada then addressed questions to Proff. Campbell.
He asked whether Dr. Campbell has taken a public position on the issue of polygamy in Canada. She answered yes - if meaning through the articles she has published. He then brought forward copies of 3 newspaper articles from the Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette and National post where Dr. Campbell had offered statements. These articles were then submitted into evidence.
The Amicus then objected that interveners, who are not the primary parties in the court, had not objected to Dr. Campbell on the basis of her previous submissions and therefore in the interest of time, further motions to examine the witness should be restricted to the admissibility of specific evidence.
The Lawyer for CRCC then approached to cross-examine Dr. Campbell as to her qualifications to make sweeping general statements - especially regarding issues relating to children. The Amicus objected, stating that there would be opportunity to cross-examine later. Justice agreed.
Then the lawyer for the attorney general of Canada objected to the court hearing information from Dr. Campbell as an expert witness, stating that she was not qualified. Dr. Campbell was asked to leave the witness box while the court heard arguments relating to her admissibility as an expert witness.
The AG Canada asserts that Professor Campbell is not qualified to speak as an expert witness because her testimony is related to subjects outside of her areas of expertise. He argued that the affidavits that Dr. Campbell collected are admissible and can stand on their own merit without the “glosses” that the professor might add. It was further argued that no weight should be given to Prof. Campbell’s written reports because they might add un-merited weight to the decisions. Harm can be done to the trial process when people testify as experts who are not qualified because it can be misleading. Case law indicates that over-reaching by expert witnesses is one of the major causes leading to reversal on appeal. Arguments were provided that expert witnesses are only admissible when there is considerable chance that important facts might be missed by the general public. Care must be taken to distinguish between generalists who are speaking outside their primary speciality and those who are speaking as experts who are speaking within their speciality. He further pointed to a case by MacIntosh where he stated that just because someone does research and teaches on a specific subject does not qualify them to give forensic evidence.
The Amicus has put professor Campbell forward as a witness qualified to give testimony who can offer opinion on the interface between the polygamy law and polygamy in Bountiful.
AG Canada argues that there is no standard definition for legal scholars. He further argued that Dr. Campbell has insufficient knowledge to perform literature searches and qualitative research methods or ethnography. Professor Campbell does not have sufficient expertise to offer opinion on the women in Bountiful, in the Blackmore group or even for the 22 women that she interviewed.
He stated that Dr. Campbell does not have qualifications to speak to FLDS theology - reading a book allows one to have an opinion but does not make one an expert.
Further argued that Dr. Campbell has stated that her work was designed to allow women in Bountiful to express their own stories in opposition to the opinions of the broader community. However, while she has stated that her work cannot be representative because of the limited sample size, she has allegedly made broad generalizations from comments made from a small number of participants to represent the entire community.
AG Canada argued that paragraphs where Dr. Campbell is speaking from outside of her expertise far outweigh paragraphs where she is speaking from her expertise. AG Canada would not object to Angela Campbell speaking as a lay-witness from her experience in Bountiful rather than an expert witness.
There is clearly a very high weight on the value of “expert witnesses” as opposed to everyone else.
(Will each expert have to rise to the same standard???)
Karen Horsman, AGBC, then gave a short submission regarding the inadmissibility of Dr. Campbell as an expert witness- preferring to simply admit the affidavits that she collected. Ms. Horsman further stated that the transcripts themselves are ambiguous and Dr. Campbell offers her personal interpretation on top of these transcripts. She has no relevant expertise in being able to interpret these affidavits over anyone else and for this reason, she should not be qualified as an expert.
STOP Polygamy in Canada also made a submission to disqualify Professor Campbell. Their submission does not take a position as to her admissibility as a legal scholar or to the admissibility of the interviews she obtained. However, STOP objects to her right to make general statements from the research. STOP does not object to using qualitative evidence in making court decisions - however, they have strict definitions as to how this information can be used in the court and making generalizations based on the information. They provided a precedent from Justice Doherty that give guidelines on how qualitative studies can be used
Techniques to assure reliability:
what extent is the expert using accepted methodology that is honored in that field
what extent does the expert honor accepted boundaries that have been established in the field
Conducting interviews using a strict and structured interview
Care in making questions that are not leading
Care in making sure that questions are understandable to a broad segment of the public
Triangulation using outside data to check veracity
Exclusion of individuals who have a motive to be less than honest in their answers
Extensive peer review should be done at each study level - pre-study, question and study examination, post, study, co-authors, funding bodies, etc.
All of these topics give weight to the reliability of the evidence drawn from qualitative studies in a specific field.
Dr. Campbell is not a psychologist, anthropologist, ethnographer, or formally educated in qualitative study methods.
Not only did she not spend as much time in Bountiful as Ms. Peters and even less time than one would expect for a study of this nature. She took few, if any steps, to perform triangulation to verify her results. The observations that Professor Campbell made cannot be generalized outside the women she interviewed - therefore her observations add nothing to the voices of Bountiful’s women over what is recorded in the transcripts. Her comments add nothing of merit because they don’t come from any relevant expertise. The court has a gate-keeping role to keep this information from the court records.
Amicus defense:
Dr. Campbell has unique expertise of all expert witnesses in terms of actually interviewing women in Bountiful. She has also clearly performed a detailed literature study of polygamy across cultures. Professor Campbell clearly has special knowledge from her first-hand experience in Bountiful over other witnesses.
Expert Witnesses must have outstanding information in a specific field - this may come from academic or practical experience.
Supreme court has said “Practical experience and common sense often combine to give the most important type of expert testimony.”
Mr. Samuel has stated that expert witnesses do not require academic qualifications. In some cases, extensive practical experience will outweigh academic. There is a relatively low threshold for admission of expert witnesses. Any shortcomings should go to weight and not admissibility.
From Mohan test:
Proff Campbell’s research is highly relevant because it speaks to the experience of women in Bountiful. Bountiful is polygamy made real - so Dr. Campbell going into the community is very important
She is the only academic witness giving testimony from first hand experience in Bountiful. BCAG noted that Dr. Heinrich has used statistical information from the FLDS side of the community - however, Amicus noted that this evidence does not include the blackmore side which would otherwise not be included. Her role as an expert witness is no different than any other expert witness - however, she does have first-hand experience from the women in Bountiful
Dr. Campbell has developed more than sufficient expertise through practical experience in her academic career, she engaged in an extensive study of qualitative studies and consulted with experts in the field of designing academic studies.
her publications have been extensively peer review and her success in receiving funding demonstrates her qualifications in obtaining and analyzing this information.
Also relevant that other scholars, including Dr. Beaman in this proceeding rely on the references from Dr. Campbell. In her affidavit she has spoken to the importance of Dr. Campbells research.
Another witness has quoted professor campbell’s research, who is testifying for STOP Canada, performs a very similar
Professor Bala - from STOP Canada addresses Dr. Campbell’s research method and states that her research does not provide any way to assess the reliability of the information and there is concern that women who do not have positive experiences will not speak out. Nevertheless, her work is still a significant study. While some of the women may have been requested to speak out on behalf of the positive merits of polygamy - this is full of speculation. Professor Bala makes extensive projections saying things like “there is some evidence that criminal prohibition and threat of prosecution may slowly be reducing the instances of Polygamy in bountiful” however, his only evidence is from Angela Campbell’s study.
Several of the most important and relevant recent publications, including those made by experts who testify for the parties opposing Dr. Campbell, find significant value and quote extensively from Professor Campbell’s work.
By the very nature of this case, there is extensive opinion evidence being submitted. While it is contended that Dr. Campbell is not qualified to give opinion or give a review of the social science literature because she is a lawyer and not a social scientist. However, many of the witnesses, including Dr. Bala are also lawyers who are doing social science literature reviews and giving this as evidence. They are also lawyers rather than social scientists - and the Amicus does not protest against this.
The AGBC brief contains over 35 papers from “expert witnesses” and this includes all of Dr. Campbell’s papers.
The Amicus stated that the AGBC has systematically fought against witnesses giving testimony from the Bountiful Community. They would not allow Blackmore to come to the hearing and give evidence and they have systematically resisted any attempt for the FLDS community to give testimony.
The Justice qualified Professor Campbell as an expert witness.
Mormon Polygamy on Trial: Day 5 Summary and media coverage
Day 5 was scheduled to hear testimony from Amicus Expert witness, Professor Angela Campbell. However, Dr. Campbell did not formally testify. Instead, the entire day was spent with the lawyers from STOP Polygamy in Canada, The Attorney General of BC and AG Canada trying to prevent her speaking as an expert witness.
Professor Campbell has impressive academic and profession credentials. She has conducted a small study of the situation in Bountiful, which produced two peer reviewed articles. She is also the only expert witness who has actually traveled to the community.
Questions from the lawyers raised some concern about Professor Campbell's small study sample (only 22 women) and whether this sample is representative (which it isn't). They also raised concern about Dr. Campbell's study design, her qualifications as a social scientist (which she is not), and whether she is completely objective (which she probably isn't).
Nevertheless, I am saddened by the proceedings. Professor Campbell was not given the opportunity to report the results of her studies and offer her first-hand perspective on her work - which included an earlier literature study on the world-wide effects of polygamy on women from all cultures. Even if her conclusions are misleading or unjustified, I believe the Chief Justice and the people in the court, together with the able efforts of the competing attorneys, will not leave her testimony unchallenged.
To me, it seemed like censorship - and if all the expert witnesses are held to the same standard, it will be a very short hearing.
Perhaps the Judge had a similar opinion - as he will allow Dr. Campbell to testify today (one day to report findings which had been scheduled for 2).
Crown wants to keep polygamy testimony off the web - CTV News
Opinion: Expert undergoes grilling over qualifications in B.C. polygamy case
Expert to testify at B.C. polygamy case after intense scrutiny over qualifications
Professor Campbell has impressive academic and profession credentials. She has conducted a small study of the situation in Bountiful, which produced two peer reviewed articles. She is also the only expert witness who has actually traveled to the community.
Questions from the lawyers raised some concern about Professor Campbell's small study sample (only 22 women) and whether this sample is representative (which it isn't). They also raised concern about Dr. Campbell's study design, her qualifications as a social scientist (which she is not), and whether she is completely objective (which she probably isn't).
Nevertheless, I am saddened by the proceedings. Professor Campbell was not given the opportunity to report the results of her studies and offer her first-hand perspective on her work - which included an earlier literature study on the world-wide effects of polygamy on women from all cultures. Even if her conclusions are misleading or unjustified, I believe the Chief Justice and the people in the court, together with the able efforts of the competing attorneys, will not leave her testimony unchallenged.
To me, it seemed like censorship - and if all the expert witnesses are held to the same standard, it will be a very short hearing.
Perhaps the Judge had a similar opinion - as he will allow Dr. Campbell to testify today (one day to report findings which had been scheduled for 2).
Crown wants to keep polygamy testimony off the web - CTV News
Opinion: Expert undergoes grilling over qualifications in B.C. polygamy case
Expert to testify at B.C. polygamy case after intense scrutiny over qualifications
Monday, November 29, 2010
Polygamy on trial: First expert witness will offer controversial testimony
Daphne Branham's excellent summary of the first expert witness. With links to affidavits and resources.
Polygamy on trial: First expert witness will offer controversial testimony
Polygamy on trial: First expert witness will offer controversial testimony
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Marriage, Religion and the State : A Mormon history (Part 8)
RLDS/Community of Christ (1910 to Present)The RLDS have consistently followed a tradition of monogamous marriage from their origin in 1860 to present day. Notwithstanding this fact, there have been significant changes in doctrine and practices relating to marriage, sexual and gender equality in the organization.
The first movement toward policy change occurred in the 1960s when Sora tribesmen encountered the church in India and wanted to become members. The Sora people were traditionally polygamous and this presented a major difficulty for a church that had defined so much of its identity on opposing polygamy. The problem was complicated further due to strict cultural elements in the Sora tribe; if a husband divorced a wife to join the church, she, along with her children, would be left destitute. After long deliberation, President W. Wallace Smith announced a revelation during the April 1972 World Conference that allowed the church to admit polygamous families under specific restrictions. This revelation caused strong debate and intense controversy among the conference delegates, however, it was eventually accepted as inspired counsel to the church. The document, now known as Doctrine and Covenants Section 150 reads “Monogamy is the basic principle on which Christian married life is built. Yet, as I have said before, there are also those who are not of this fold to whom the saving grace of the gospel must go. When this is done the church must be willing to bear the burden of their sin, nurturing them in the faith, accepting that degree of repentance which it is possible for them to achieve, looking forward to the day when through patience and love they can be free as a people from the sins of the years of their ignorance1” This prophetic guidance affirms the doctrine of monogamous marriage and continues to condemn polygamy as a sin, while at the same time allowing polygamous families to join the RLDS church. Restrictions were placed upon the new members which prohibited them from taking additional wives2. Over the years, since this practice was instituted, polygamy has disappeared in this segment of the Sora community.
While the RLDS tradition has consistently opposed the idea that polygamy is a divine ordinance, there has been a gradual acceptance of the probability that Joseph Smith Jr. originated a system of plural marriage among his closest followers. During the early 1980s, RLDS historian Richard Howard completed a thorough examination of the available evidence and concluded that “Joseph Smith’s theological and doctrinal speculations created the secret, elite, polygamous reality at Nauvoo, beginning about 1844... Joseph saw disaster approaching when the church, threatened by the defection of his councilor in the First Presidency, William Law, was coming under hostile public attack during the spring of 1844. Joseph Smith tried to enlist Nauvoo stake president William Marks to deter the advance of polygamy. Smith, however, was slain before any progress materialized3” In spite of this growing recognition, the RLDS church has maintained the position taken by Joseph Smith III, that if his father was guilty of practicing polygamy he was wrong.4.
In 1984, even greater changes occurred in the RLDS community when the church approved a revelation that opened priesthood ordination to women. The revelation, recorded as Doctrine and Covenants 156, reads “I say to you now, as I have said in the past, that all are called according to the gifts which have been given them. This applies to priesthood as well as to any other aspects of the work. Therefore, do not wonder that some women of the church are being called to priesthood responsibilities. This is in harmony with my will“. This revelation, received by Prophet/President Wallace B Smith, created serious controversy at conference and it was ultimately opposed by a large percentage of the conference delegates. Accepted as revelation with a majority vote, the RLDS church became one of the first American denominations to ordain women to the priesthood.5 Sadly, about one third of the membership left the church and this defection led to the formation of the Restorationist LDS and the Remnant LDS movements.
The RLDS church has made several attempts to understand the dilemma of homosexuality in the church. During 1978, the RLDS First Presidency began questioning whether the previous 1961 Standing High Council memorandum, entitled “Homosexuality and Other Sexual Perversions”, was the most appropriate stance for the church. A committee was instituted to study the issue and this resulted in a new High Council memorandum on “Homosexuality” that was released in 1982. This report clearly differentiated between homosexual orientation, “a condition over which a person may have little or no control” and homosexual activity which is “considered immoral and cannot be condoned by the church”. The statement continued to affirm the worth of all persons; “homosexuals as well as heterosexuals” are children of God and have full claim upon the acceptance ... and care of the church”. The guidelines counsel that practicing homosexuals should not be admitted to the priesthood, as these acts were compared to heterosexual promiscuity. The statement highlighted the importance of marriage in relation to the life of homosexual church members and the document “ affirms that Christian marriage is a sacred covenant relationship, ordained of God between a man and a woman. The sacrament of marriage has a long theological and ecclesiastical history, and the symbolism is exclusively heterosexual.” The marriage definition continued to state that “ Homosexual unions are not and should not be considered marriages in the sacramental sense.”
In 1997, President Grant McMurray called for a new vision for the church which centered on a “Christ-centered theology of peace and justice”. With this new direction, the 2000 World Conference enacted legislation to change the name of the church from the RLDS church to the Community of Christ (CofChrist). Soon afterwards, in a 2002 World Conference Sermon, President Grant McMurray admitted that some exceptions had been made through the ordination of some sexually active homosexual men and women.6 In response to this address, a statement was released that reaffirmed a 1982 Standing High Council statement that prohibited the ordination of sexually active homosexual members “while the church continues to seek God’s direction and engages in process that honors our community and the principles of common consent that govern us”.
President McMurray’s announcement led to a World Church Leadership Council in September of 2002. The summary of the retreat recognized that the church had been called to create a loving and respectful dialogue on the divisive issue of sexuality. Stating “if the church is to be faithful to the demands of the gospel it will often be called beyond the boundaries of certainty to explore its implications in a complex world. We are deeply committed to seeking God’s direction and embodying the life and ministry of Jesus in our own personal ministry and in the lived-out witness of the church.”, the church leadership embarked on a path to explore existing concepts about homosexuality in the context of church and international culture. World events continued along with this exploration within the church. Several countries, including The Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003) and Canada (2005) legalized same-sex unions. During 2005, an addition was made to the church administrators handbook specifying that CoChrist ministers were not authorized to perform same-sex marriages, even in jurisdictions where these marriages are legally valid. A committee on Homosexuality in the Church reported the results of a 5 year study at the 2007 World Conference. These findings included common values which included the inestimable worth of each person, noting that some say that lack of love, acceptance and tolerance is immoral while others say that homosexual behaviours are immoral and those who engage in them are to be loved but not fully accepted in the church. It was clearly recognized that the church cannot find unity on these issues through purely human efforts, but only through the power of the Holy Spirit7. Further guidance from the First Presidency was given in May, 2009 stating “To allow Community of Christ priesthood officiate in same-sex marriage, when our policy does not allow it, during a time in which the church still is sorting through this divisive issue, would only cause further division and reduce participation in the discussion process”.
Leading up to the 2010 conference, it became obvious that the church was heading towards a potentially divisive meeting. Of a total of 28 resolutions submitted to the World Conference, 21 were either for or against same-sex marriage or ordination. A series of talking points were circulated which included, “ The principles of the gospel apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. Repentance implies the act of being personally responsible for choices; Christian freedom never allows one to live as he or she selfishly pleases.” and “We are acutely aware of the pain and frustration of individuals and groups who view same-sex marriage from various personal, scriptural, theological, legal, and sacramental perspectives. Matters of human sexuality are so deeply imbedded in our individual, social, and cultural identities that it is difficult for people to separate examination of related issues from their underlying sense of self. Because preserving one’s sense of self-identity is a fundamental need of human beings, consideration of human sexuality, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage issues easily becomes emotionally charged and conflicted. Further, consideration of such issues in an international community of faith, with the added complexities of diverse customs and languages, must be done with great care, understanding, and sensitivity."
As the date for World Conference neared, President Stephen Veazey presented a revelation in January, 2010 regarding sexuality and other divisive issues. Concerning sexuality and marriage, the document stated “6 a. As revealed in Christ, God, the Creator of all, ultimately is concerned about behaviors and relationships that uphold the worth and giftedness of all people and that protect the most vulnerable. Such relationships are to be rooted in the principles of Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness, against which there is no law.b.If the church more fully will understand and consistently apply these principles, questions arising about responsible human sexuality; gender identities, roles, and relationships; marriage; and other issues may be resolved according to God’s divine purposes. Be assured, nothing within these principles condones selfish, irresponsible, promiscuous, degrading, or abusive relationships”. Recognizing the complexity of dealing with this controversial issue across a diverse international church, the inspired counsel also stated “A worldwide prophetic church must develop cultural awareness and sensitivity to distinguish between issues that should be addressed by the World Conference and those that are best resolved nationally or in other ways.... d. Where possible and appropriate, convene national or field conferences to provide opportunities for broader dialogue, understanding, and consent. In those gatherings, let the spirit of love, justice, and truth prevail.”.
After almost a week of respectful and passionate discussion in priesthood quorums and in the general assembly, on April 14, 2010 the World Conference delegates voted to receive President Veazey’s document, now Doctrine and Covenants 164, as inspired counsel for the church. With the acceptance of Section 164, all 21 legislative issues concerning sexuality were removed from the conference legislative sessions. The church will now begin planning conferences to consider these issues in jurisdictions where they can be discussed by the membership. It is probable that policies may diverge between countries as it is not possible to discuss issues of sexual orientation in many jurisdictions.
1 Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants Section 150
2 http://www.cofchrist.org/sacraments/marriage/fielding.asp
3 Restoration Scriptures, p. 191
4 http://www.cofchrist.org/ourfaith/faq.asp The Sacrament of Marriage b Harry Fielding cofchrist.org
5 http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg13.htm
6 Same-Sex Marriage and Homosexuality Issues in the Church An Overview of Relevant Policies, Doctrine, and Resolutions p. 3
www.cofchrist.org/wc2010/Legislation/EducationalMaterials.pdf
7 2007 World Conference, the church received the report by the Committee on
Homosexuality on the Church. (See Appendix E)
8. Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants Section 164
Friday, November 26, 2010
Mormon Polygamy on trial - Press coverage and summary from Day4
Day 4 saw opening statements by lawyers representing the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints and the Canadian Polyamory Association.
The FLDS Lawyer clearly wanted to separate the authoritarian patriarchal structure, and the specter of abuse in the FLDS community from the practice of polygamy. He argued that Polygamy is the only thing on trial. Whether people choose to believe in a divinely inspired prophet and live their lives according to his revelations is a matter of conscience and personal choice, not state policy. He also pointed out that Mormons have been practicing polygamy since the beginning and persecution is nothing new to the followers of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
The CPAA also rejects the current polygamy law. Polyamorists are almost the mirror image of the FLDS - they advocate full gender equality - both women and men can have multiple partners, reject discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and they honor sexual freedom while living within respectful and committed relationships. The CPAA position quickly highlighted problems with the positions of the BC and Federal Attorneys General. The BC attorney general suggests that polygyny (1 man with multiple wives) should be illegal while polyandry (1 woman with multiple men) should not. This would mean that 3 polyamorist lawyers living in one Vancouver household would be legal (if it was 1 woman 2 men) but the polyamorist lawyer family living next door would be criminal if two of the lawyers happened to be women. He did not begin to mention the problems this would raise when sexual orientation and gender identification issues are included. As for the Canadian AG position, he pointed out that if one group of lesbian lovers decided to hold a party to celebrate their relationship, they would be law-breakers but another group who did not do this would be legal.
If Canadians are not prepared to make people criminals on the basis of the way they choose to live their sexual lives, then it is very difficult to imagine how prosecutors can enforce section 293. On the other hand, if Canadians are ready to allow government to regulate this most deeply personal aspect of human relationship, what does this say about our society?
On the other hand, the CPAA strongly rejects the patriarchal and authoritarian structure of the FLDS and they don't want to be identified with them. Asking how the 2 groups can be distinguished, the CPAA lawyer offered three test questions:
1) do you believe that men have more rights and authority than women?
2) do you practice polygamy as part of your religious beliefs.
3) do you live in a community that is separated from the broader society.
I would offer that only one of these questions is a valid test. The history of radical Christianity shows that several sects - including the Ranters, Seekers, early Quakers, Perfectionists and even the Mormons during the time of Joseph Smith - practiced a form of complex marriage. This practice included both polygyny and polyandry and it was based on the belief that Christian salvation freed the soul from all sin. It was also consistent with the communal ideal as exemplified by the early Apostles in Acts 2. These radical believers saw that possessions separated us from God and from each other.
If possession is a bad thing, leading to jealousy and idolatry, is there any difference between possession of goods and possession of people?
As for living in communities, does this mean that members of the Federation of Egalitarian Ecovillages, who endorse polyamory as a founding principle, are breaking the law because they choose not to live in a city?
Is it right to call a polyamorist a criminal if they see their lifestyle as a part of their spiritual practice, but a secular polyamorist upholds the law ?
As for the abuse of authority in the FLDS - that is responsible for tearing apart families, isolating and terrifying individuals, treating women like commodities, discarding young men and enslaving both men and women to build up incredible wealth for a privileged few in the name of religion - that really should be punished to the full extent of the law.
On the other hand, if the polygamy law is upheld, does it have any hope to address these problems?
Not if history is any indication. Mormon polygamists have been jailed, disenfranchised, driven by armed mobs, subjected to state-endorsed extermination orders, had their church dissolved and assets seized, and yet polygamy - with all its attendant abuse of authority- still continued. Mormon polygamists may go into hiding, migrate to more favourable locations and separate themselves from the outside world, but they will not stop practicing their faith. Unfortunately, legal prosecution seems to make them stronger, more insular, consolidated and afraid of the outside world. It confirms that they are God's chosen people and strengthens their belief in their Prophets and their way of life.
If we really want to do something to help the women and children in Bountiful, maybe we should try a different approach.
Should some kinds of polygamy be legal, but not others?
Polyamorists decry anti-polygamy law - The Globe and Mail
Multiple-marriage advocate tests the waters on polygamy law - The Globe and Mail
Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association » A right to live with those we love
The FLDS Lawyer clearly wanted to separate the authoritarian patriarchal structure, and the specter of abuse in the FLDS community from the practice of polygamy. He argued that Polygamy is the only thing on trial. Whether people choose to believe in a divinely inspired prophet and live their lives according to his revelations is a matter of conscience and personal choice, not state policy. He also pointed out that Mormons have been practicing polygamy since the beginning and persecution is nothing new to the followers of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
The CPAA also rejects the current polygamy law. Polyamorists are almost the mirror image of the FLDS - they advocate full gender equality - both women and men can have multiple partners, reject discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and they honor sexual freedom while living within respectful and committed relationships. The CPAA position quickly highlighted problems with the positions of the BC and Federal Attorneys General. The BC attorney general suggests that polygyny (1 man with multiple wives) should be illegal while polyandry (1 woman with multiple men) should not. This would mean that 3 polyamorist lawyers living in one Vancouver household would be legal (if it was 1 woman 2 men) but the polyamorist lawyer family living next door would be criminal if two of the lawyers happened to be women. He did not begin to mention the problems this would raise when sexual orientation and gender identification issues are included. As for the Canadian AG position, he pointed out that if one group of lesbian lovers decided to hold a party to celebrate their relationship, they would be law-breakers but another group who did not do this would be legal.
If Canadians are not prepared to make people criminals on the basis of the way they choose to live their sexual lives, then it is very difficult to imagine how prosecutors can enforce section 293. On the other hand, if Canadians are ready to allow government to regulate this most deeply personal aspect of human relationship, what does this say about our society?
On the other hand, the CPAA strongly rejects the patriarchal and authoritarian structure of the FLDS and they don't want to be identified with them. Asking how the 2 groups can be distinguished, the CPAA lawyer offered three test questions:
1) do you believe that men have more rights and authority than women?
2) do you practice polygamy as part of your religious beliefs.
3) do you live in a community that is separated from the broader society.
I would offer that only one of these questions is a valid test. The history of radical Christianity shows that several sects - including the Ranters, Seekers, early Quakers, Perfectionists and even the Mormons during the time of Joseph Smith - practiced a form of complex marriage. This practice included both polygyny and polyandry and it was based on the belief that Christian salvation freed the soul from all sin. It was also consistent with the communal ideal as exemplified by the early Apostles in Acts 2. These radical believers saw that possessions separated us from God and from each other.
If possession is a bad thing, leading to jealousy and idolatry, is there any difference between possession of goods and possession of people?
As for living in communities, does this mean that members of the Federation of Egalitarian Ecovillages, who endorse polyamory as a founding principle, are breaking the law because they choose not to live in a city?
Is it right to call a polyamorist a criminal if they see their lifestyle as a part of their spiritual practice, but a secular polyamorist upholds the law ?
As for the abuse of authority in the FLDS - that is responsible for tearing apart families, isolating and terrifying individuals, treating women like commodities, discarding young men and enslaving both men and women to build up incredible wealth for a privileged few in the name of religion - that really should be punished to the full extent of the law.
On the other hand, if the polygamy law is upheld, does it have any hope to address these problems?
Not if history is any indication. Mormon polygamists have been jailed, disenfranchised, driven by armed mobs, subjected to state-endorsed extermination orders, had their church dissolved and assets seized, and yet polygamy - with all its attendant abuse of authority- still continued. Mormon polygamists may go into hiding, migrate to more favourable locations and separate themselves from the outside world, but they will not stop practicing their faith. Unfortunately, legal prosecution seems to make them stronger, more insular, consolidated and afraid of the outside world. It confirms that they are God's chosen people and strengthens their belief in their Prophets and their way of life.
If we really want to do something to help the women and children in Bountiful, maybe we should try a different approach.
Should some kinds of polygamy be legal, but not others?
Polyamorists decry anti-polygamy law - The Globe and Mail
Multiple-marriage advocate tests the waters on polygamy law - The Globe and Mail
Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association » A right to live with those we love
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Mormon Polygamy on Trial : Day 4 of the BC Charter case
Notes from (Day 4)
FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) attorney
Section 293 requires the crown to prove that a person lives with 2 or more people in a relationship that is binding on the person's conscience for some period of time.
Referred to a legal precedent of a 1891 test case on section 293 from Quebec, where 2 people were living with people who there were not married to. In the Judge's findings, he stated that the law (section 293) only applied to “Mormons and their like”, The object was taken from the Edmunds act and was not designed to suppress immorality. It was only designed to suppress Mormons. There must be some form of ceremony binding on the people involved. It does not prohibit behaviour of living with more than one person, or having sex with more than one person or having children with more than one person. The Section strikes at the motivation for engaging in the behavior - a commitment binding on the conscience.
Highlights the polygamy definition given by the AG BC because BC is the enforcer of the law. AG previously said “Section 293 prohibits marriages or marriage like relationships that include a ceremony performed by someone purported to have authority having power or influence over the parties that is binding on the conscience.” AG now says “Polygynous marriage performed by someone purported to have authority binding on the conscience of the individuals. The violation of the law cannot depend on the action of a third party. It must be a voluntary act of the participants only.
293 is a crime of status. It prohibits people from participating in an act that is otherwise lawful, only because it is performed by more than 2 persons.
The fundamentalist LDS community is following a form of mormonism that originated with Joseph Smith and has been unpopular and persecuted since the beginning. They believe that they are led by a prophet who receives revelations from God. They recognize that if they are forced to change their beliefs and actions to those of the greater society then they will lose their religion. The FLDS does not seek to justify the abuse that people have suffered in the FLDS community and believe that those abuses should be investigated and prosecuted - if necessary. Refutes the idea of some experts that suggest the people are “somehow brain damaged” and incapable of giving consent.
The FLDS (not including Blackmore’s followers) has requested a headcount to disclose that the community is comprised of 550 people 183 are over 18, all but 68 are married or previously married. 115 are married. 65 are monogamous and 50 are polygamous. 16 affidavits are presented to show social harm. Most are from Americans.
FLDS will provide positive affidavits from people living in Bountiful. Some of the married witnesses were married at 16 or 17. The church now holds that marriage should not occur before 18. Will also provide a male witness that has willingly left the community and is happily adjusted and keeps in touch with this family (who is that????). Problems arise in the community but they are afraid to access help because they are afraid of jail or that the family will be ripped apart. The anti- polygamy law forces them to separate from society. If polygamy were de-criminalized (not condoned or approved), it may ameliourate the harms caused by polygamy because they would be more able to find help for problems that occur in Bountiful.
Canadian Polyamory Association (CPAA)
CPAA will hold comments to secondary targets of the law. The concept of reading down allows for a surgical deployment of the law. The AG has decided not to do that - rather planning to use a blanket approach. CPAA holds this blanket approach is contrary to the constitution and goes against the deepest beliefs of Canadians. Supports the comments of the Amicus and will not repeat them.
Patriarchal beliefs suggest that only men have the right to have multiple partners. This is also a broader problem because men have all the power in the entire community. Because of this obvious trait, the media and others focus on this old-fashioned power imbalance. However, the BC AG has determined to focus their attention to a much broader community - including the polyamorists.
The difference between the 2 communities: In Polyamory, men and women have equal rights - including full gender equality .2 . No religious tradition - 3. Polyamory occurs outside closed communities. Polyamory is not attracting negative social stigma.
Surprized when the AG did not take a surgical approach.
BC AG initially followed an interesting idea that the law should only apply to the known historical forms of polygamy. Since homosexual pairings were not known at that time (1890s), then the law does not apply to them. Also multi-men for one women was not widely known, the law could not hold to them. All polygamy groups at that time had a long religious tradition.
CPAA does not understand why the law does not distinguish on this basis.
Currently, with the AG position, if there is a household in Vancouver where all 3 partners are lawyers - one man and two women - they are breaking the law. However, if there is a house next door with one woman and two men they are not breaking the law.
If another household has 3 lesbian members and they have a party to celebrate their relationship in some public way, then according to the AG of Canada, they are criminal. If there is another gay multi-partner family that does not have a party, they are not criminals. This is deeply disturbing to the polyamorous community.
Section 293 has deeply draconian elements. It applies to the relationship itself. It can break up loving families and is as deep an intrusion into the most personal elements of an individual’s life as can be imagined.
All the evidence of harm comes from a deeply patriarchal family structure. There is no evidence that other forms are harmful. Some contention of social harm states that men and women are genetically different. If men are allowed freedom in their sexual choices then we would naturally evolve to a patriarchal polygynous society. There is no proof for these conjectures and these same sort of evolutionary arguments are used when there is no real argument. They have also has been used to disenfranchise and denigrate women.
The crown has not done any surveys or interviewed any individuals who have been harmed by polyamory. CPAA believes if the AG had done the research, then it would have refuted the claims on which they are basing their case.
Polyamory is based upon a desire to experiment with new forms of relationships. In that experiment, they are exploring human emotions like jealousy and finding joys in their partners having other relationships.
Section 293 criminalizes individuals and implies a risk that the State can intrude and break-up families. AG argues that it must use a blanket approach because it cannot distinguish between patriarchal and polyamorous relationships.
Can be distinguished with simple questions:
Do you believe that men and women have the same rights and freedoms?
Are your beliefs based upon long religious established traditions?
Currently, if a man and 2 women show up at the border and give the same address, are they breaking the law? Now they would have to ask if the people are room mates or whether they are having sex.
The attempts of the AG to use a blanket approach against polygamy violates fundamental Canadian values about diversity, ability to socially experiment and the freedom to live the way we choose in our own households.
FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) attorney
Section 293 requires the crown to prove that a person lives with 2 or more people in a relationship that is binding on the person's conscience for some period of time.
Referred to a legal precedent of a 1891 test case on section 293 from Quebec, where 2 people were living with people who there were not married to. In the Judge's findings, he stated that the law (section 293) only applied to “Mormons and their like”, The object was taken from the Edmunds act and was not designed to suppress immorality. It was only designed to suppress Mormons. There must be some form of ceremony binding on the people involved. It does not prohibit behaviour of living with more than one person, or having sex with more than one person or having children with more than one person. The Section strikes at the motivation for engaging in the behavior - a commitment binding on the conscience.
Highlights the polygamy definition given by the AG BC because BC is the enforcer of the law. AG previously said “Section 293 prohibits marriages or marriage like relationships that include a ceremony performed by someone purported to have authority having power or influence over the parties that is binding on the conscience.” AG now says “Polygynous marriage performed by someone purported to have authority binding on the conscience of the individuals. The violation of the law cannot depend on the action of a third party. It must be a voluntary act of the participants only.
293 is a crime of status. It prohibits people from participating in an act that is otherwise lawful, only because it is performed by more than 2 persons.
The fundamentalist LDS community is following a form of mormonism that originated with Joseph Smith and has been unpopular and persecuted since the beginning. They believe that they are led by a prophet who receives revelations from God. They recognize that if they are forced to change their beliefs and actions to those of the greater society then they will lose their religion. The FLDS does not seek to justify the abuse that people have suffered in the FLDS community and believe that those abuses should be investigated and prosecuted - if necessary. Refutes the idea of some experts that suggest the people are “somehow brain damaged” and incapable of giving consent.
The FLDS (not including Blackmore’s followers) has requested a headcount to disclose that the community is comprised of 550 people 183 are over 18, all but 68 are married or previously married. 115 are married. 65 are monogamous and 50 are polygamous. 16 affidavits are presented to show social harm. Most are from Americans.
FLDS will provide positive affidavits from people living in Bountiful. Some of the married witnesses were married at 16 or 17. The church now holds that marriage should not occur before 18. Will also provide a male witness that has willingly left the community and is happily adjusted and keeps in touch with this family (who is that????). Problems arise in the community but they are afraid to access help because they are afraid of jail or that the family will be ripped apart. The anti- polygamy law forces them to separate from society. If polygamy were de-criminalized (not condoned or approved), it may ameliourate the harms caused by polygamy because they would be more able to find help for problems that occur in Bountiful.
Canadian Polyamory Association (CPAA)
CPAA will hold comments to secondary targets of the law. The concept of reading down allows for a surgical deployment of the law. The AG has decided not to do that - rather planning to use a blanket approach. CPAA holds this blanket approach is contrary to the constitution and goes against the deepest beliefs of Canadians. Supports the comments of the Amicus and will not repeat them.
Patriarchal beliefs suggest that only men have the right to have multiple partners. This is also a broader problem because men have all the power in the entire community. Because of this obvious trait, the media and others focus on this old-fashioned power imbalance. However, the BC AG has determined to focus their attention to a much broader community - including the polyamorists.
The difference between the 2 communities: In Polyamory, men and women have equal rights - including full gender equality .2 . No religious tradition - 3. Polyamory occurs outside closed communities. Polyamory is not attracting negative social stigma.
Surprized when the AG did not take a surgical approach.
BC AG initially followed an interesting idea that the law should only apply to the known historical forms of polygamy. Since homosexual pairings were not known at that time (1890s), then the law does not apply to them. Also multi-men for one women was not widely known, the law could not hold to them. All polygamy groups at that time had a long religious tradition.
CPAA does not understand why the law does not distinguish on this basis.
Currently, with the AG position, if there is a household in Vancouver where all 3 partners are lawyers - one man and two women - they are breaking the law. However, if there is a house next door with one woman and two men they are not breaking the law.
If another household has 3 lesbian members and they have a party to celebrate their relationship in some public way, then according to the AG of Canada, they are criminal. If there is another gay multi-partner family that does not have a party, they are not criminals. This is deeply disturbing to the polyamorous community.
Section 293 has deeply draconian elements. It applies to the relationship itself. It can break up loving families and is as deep an intrusion into the most personal elements of an individual’s life as can be imagined.
All the evidence of harm comes from a deeply patriarchal family structure. There is no evidence that other forms are harmful. Some contention of social harm states that men and women are genetically different. If men are allowed freedom in their sexual choices then we would naturally evolve to a patriarchal polygynous society. There is no proof for these conjectures and these same sort of evolutionary arguments are used when there is no real argument. They have also has been used to disenfranchise and denigrate women.
The crown has not done any surveys or interviewed any individuals who have been harmed by polyamory. CPAA believes if the AG had done the research, then it would have refuted the claims on which they are basing their case.
Polyamory is based upon a desire to experiment with new forms of relationships. In that experiment, they are exploring human emotions like jealousy and finding joys in their partners having other relationships.
Section 293 criminalizes individuals and implies a risk that the State can intrude and break-up families. AG argues that it must use a blanket approach because it cannot distinguish between patriarchal and polyamorous relationships.
Can be distinguished with simple questions:
Do you believe that men and women have the same rights and freedoms?
Are your beliefs based upon long religious established traditions?
Currently, if a man and 2 women show up at the border and give the same address, are they breaking the law? Now they would have to ask if the people are room mates or whether they are having sex.
The attempts of the AG to use a blanket approach against polygamy violates fundamental Canadian values about diversity, ability to socially experiment and the freedom to live the way we choose in our own households.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Summary of Day 3 of the BC Supreme Court Polygamy charter question
Opening statements continued today. First on the agenda were parties that supported the BC Attorney General’s position that Section 293, which prohibits polygamy, is constitutional. These groups included the Canadian Coalition on the rights of children (CCRC) and the Asper Center for constitutional rights, Christian Legal Fellowship, BC Teacher’s federation (BCTF), Beyond Borders and STOP Polygamy in Canada.
The afternoon saw the opening statements from groups who determined that Section 293 is unconstitutional. The Amicus, who is presenting the Crown’s primary argument against the law, began the proceedings. He was followed by Doug Christie from Canadian Council for Free Expression and the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA).
For more complete details (from my personal perspective), please see the following post. If you want to see what the press is reporting, you can go to the following links.
CBC News - British Columbia - Polygamy laws unconstitutional, lawyer says
Abused sisters stand as witnesses to harms of polygamy
Polygamy law is unconstitutional, B.C. court told - The Globe and Mail
Polygamy: Legal in Canada | Macleans.ca - Canada - Features
The afternoon saw the opening statements from groups who determined that Section 293 is unconstitutional. The Amicus, who is presenting the Crown’s primary argument against the law, began the proceedings. He was followed by Doug Christie from Canadian Council for Free Expression and the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA).
For more complete details (from my personal perspective), please see the following post. If you want to see what the press is reporting, you can go to the following links.
CBC News - British Columbia - Polygamy laws unconstitutional, lawyer says
Abused sisters stand as witnesses to harms of polygamy
Polygamy law is unconstitutional, B.C. court told - The Globe and Mail
Polygamy: Legal in Canada | Macleans.ca - Canada - Features
Notes for Day 3: BC Supreme Court Polygamy charter question
Opening statements from Canadian Coalition on the rights of children (CCRC) and the Asper Center for constitutional rights, Christian Legal Fellowship, BC Teacher’s federation (BCTF), Beyond Borders and STOP Polygamy in Canada. All are in favor of Section 293.
Opening statements from The Amicus, who is presenting the Crown’s primary argument against the law, followed by Doug Christie from Canadian Council for Free Expression and the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA).
CCRC is primarily focused on the rights of the child. Their position is that it is the government’s obligation, under UN Charter commitments. to insure the rights of children are upheld. Polygamy in a communal setting adversely affects the rights of children and if Section 293 is properly upheld it would be constitutional because polygamy produces undue risk to children. However, they do not believe the law should apply to multi-partner relationships, like polyamory, that involve consenting adults.
Their position is that Polygamy as intended in section 293 applies to polygyny (one man with more than one woman) that occurs in a communal setting. This core definition of polygamy is supportable in a criminal setting. The current law says that everyone involved in the relationship is guilty, however, they contend that anyone who is under 18 when they are married cannot be liable. “Only people wielding power should be charged, not those vulnerable to it”.
They further argue that polygamy directly harms girls rights. Their reports highlight connections between polygamy, child brides, trafficking of girls and forced marriages. There is also heightened risk of physical, sexual and psychological abuses. In North America, as practiced by the FLDS Mormons, the church leaders decide who gets married, who will marry who, etc. This causes major age differences between the husband and wife, which often results in power imbalances. Girls also lose their rights to contraception, their right to an education and they often must care for children of their sister wives. Boys are forced to work early, forsaking education, and the profits go to the community. They provide their work to the community, and receive only a small allowance, in hopes that they will be given a wife. Boys and girls are also prohibited from associating so the church leaders can have more power over the girls. Men who oppose the church leadership have their wives and children taken from them and assigned to “more faithful” followers.
CCRC contends that their evidence shows that polygamy is the center point of a structural system that enables church control of marriage, exploitive reproductive practices, exploitive labor practices and cessation of education.
Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF)
The Lawyer from CLF provided two affidavits and three supplemental reports and then began with “Three months ago I toured the Sultan’s harem”. He continued to explain that polygamy was responsible for disintegration of the family and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They have several expert reports which they contend will show that polygamy is abusive of all women, young and old because it limits their free will. Polygamy also has tremendous negative effects on the “lost boys” who must leave the community. It is also a fraud on society because it harms the benefits of marriage.
CLF claims that the courts should only determine if polygamy is harmful and then turn the matter over to parliament to create laws rather than allow the courts to interpret existing laws. Public policy cases, like this one, goes to the harm that is caused by polygamy. Therefore parliament, and the criminal code, should have the right to regulate and define marriage. Some argue that the individual has the right to define what marriage means to them. They argue the Supreme court has already determined, in a case that involved consensual incest between adults, that the individual does not have the right to define marriage.
CLF also brought forward international conventions, treaties and declarations regarding the rights of children that Canada is committed to follow. They concluded that while they generally uphold the importance of religious freedom under the constitution, and while they trust that the FLDS are sincere in their beliefs, they believe that there is a clear limitation to these rights when there is harm to others.
BC Teachers Federation (BCTF)
BCTF stressed the importance of balancing charter rights, however, they are particularly interested in children’s access to quality education. BCTF defines polygamy as “polygyny as it is practiced in Bountiful”.
They argue that Canadian fundamental rights support democratic values, public order and well being of citizens, therefore section 293 does not infringe on these constitutional rights. They further assert that freedom of religion is not a stand-alone right and must be balanced with other rights. Furthermore, the rights of one person cannot undermine the rights of another and the rights of one person cannot undermine the rights of all persons that the charter was designed to uphold.
BCTF argued that this is more than a theoretical case, more than 400 children are attending the schools in Bountiful and their rights are engaged. Proper balancing of rights of the women and children is required in assessing the impact on other rights that may be compromised in Section 293.
STOP Polygamy in Canada
STOP’s position is consistent with the BC AG. Polygamy, as practiced by the FLDS, harms women, children, boys. and deprives them of their Canadian rights. It runs counter to the values of a democratic society. Section 293 is not the state over-running a religion or the rights of one religion over-running another. Polygamy forms authoritarian societies and these societies over-run individual rights.
Their expert witnesses include a professor who has studied the historical anti-polygamy cases from the US and determined that they were not specifically targeting the Mormon church (on a personal note - I don’t know how this is possible), a family law professor who considers the effects on women and children, an expert witness from Edmonton who has studied the lost boys, and a doctor from New York who has documented higher rates of depression and other harms in polygamous Muslim families relative to monogamous ones.
STOP believes that Section 293 passes the Oakes test - in preserving the values necessary for a free and democratic society.
This marked the end of openings for parties that aligned with the attorney general position.
Amicus opening statement:
This reference is not about approving polygamy: If 293 is struck down, as it must be as a matter of law, then being polygamous no longer makes someone a criminal. A polygamous marriage, no matter how defined or how it is made up no longer exposes someone to prison. If 293 is unconstitutional, the state is still not supporting polygamous marriage in any manner. Example of gays and lesbians is significant. In 1969, homosexuality was de-criminalized and it took 20 years before gay marriage was recognized.
The case is also not about polygamy itself. It is about Section 293. If the law is bad, it should be struck down, notwithstanding one’s views about polygamy. Polygamy is a federal crime, not a provincial one, however, the BC AG indicated that polygyny is a crime while other forms are not and the AG for Canada says that the law applies to both polygyny and polyandry. Amicus agrees with Canada’s definition after a very detailed study of the existing law. Law criminalizes any time more than two people are in a relationship. This was the original intent of the statute; ie. enshrined marriage as between two people.
Section 293 criminalizes the women as well as the men. Generally speaking, the Law does not intend to criminalize the victims. Section 293 did not treat women as victims but rather as co-defendants. The BC AG presents a modern argument to justify why the law was passed but this is not the way the law reads. Section 293 in 1890 was about stopping Mormons and aboriginals because Christian marriage was defined as one man and one woman. This was the legal definition of marriage in Canada until 2005. .
Rejects the idea that a prosecutor can determine how to use the law wisely. The law criminalizes any union of any kind that includes 3 or more people. The Crown does not even have to prove the intention of sexual relations. Issues of young women and girls will be addressed separately. BC AG contends that women in these relationships are brain-washed and cannot truly give consent. Amicus contends that many women in these relationships want to enter into these relationships freely in the same way other people choose to enter into monogamous marriages. Many of these women grew up believing that this is the best way to live - believing just as strongly as many people believe monogamous marriage is the right way. Since most people do not experience polygamy first hand, opinions are often founded on ignorance, bias, prejudice, etc. This is why constitutional protection is needed.
Constitutional protection is never needed to protect people who agree with the mainstream.
Second conclusion from evidence: There are tremendous tales of suffering in monogamous marriages that go wrong. There is physical and sexual abuse, abuse of alchohol and drugs, abuse of children, etc. That abuses exist in monogamous and polygamous settings is not the question. The operative difference in polygamy is that there is a greater reluctance to call on the authorities. If Monogamous marriage were illegal, people in these marriages would have a great reluctance to call on authorities for help because they are already criminals by virtue of their marriage. Section 293 places a stigma of isolation around the very people the law intends to help.
Amicus also recounted how Canada has liberalized many facets of human sexual behavior. This includes homosexual relationships, swingers, adultery, common-law marriages, etc. Criminalization of this one facet increases the insular nature of these communities. Women who choose polygamy are stigmatized.
Expert Witnesses, including professor Campbell, have interviewed many women in Bountiful and she has studied the FLDS theology extensively. Her findings include the degree of choice that women in Bountiful can exercise regarding marriage choices and reproductive choices. Expert witnesses also include legal experts and psychologists who have worked with FLDS people and studied all legal aspects - including early Mormon legal actions.
Addressing the second legal question - in terms of what constitutes an offense to the law - there are no limitations regarding consent, sexual conduct, type of relationship structure, etc. Any form of multi-person relationship clearly contravenes the law. Elements of the offense do not include involvement of minors, undo influence, lack of consent, imbalance of power, abuse of authority, etc. The language in the act actually punishes those who consent - not those who do not. Reading these elements into the law dramatically intrude on the legislative function.
The Amicus will advance freedom of religion - as this was the focus of the 1890 act. Section 293 contravenes freedom of religion for fundamentalist mormons and as well as for Muslims and Wiccans. However, Mormons are the only ones who require polygamy to reach the highest heaven.
The law does not penalize group sex, no fault divorce, adultery, etc. However, it does seek to prohibit committed group relationships. Many of the harms associated with polygamy are also present in these areas but are not penalized. The code assumes that all monogamy is good and non criminal and this is not true.
The section deprives people the fundamental freedom of choice in terms of their most intimate human relationships. The criminal ban was implemented to curtail a practice that was seen as disgusting by mainstream Christian society of its day. The professed objective of punishing morality are imposed by the secular state over a specific religion.
The law was not instituted with the protection of women in mind. Women at the time were not even persons. The act does not protect women as it criminalizes women for giving free consent in these relationships. Polygamy is not inherently harmful to children. Children are harmed in all forms of relationships. Section 293 penalizes all forms of this type of relationship rather than one where children are involved.
Freedom of association - prevents polygamous activities and criminalizes polygamous groupings. The Amicus does not take the position that polygamy allows a group to perform an action that is illegal for two individuals - abuse or underage marriage for example. However, the law must not criminalize an act that is otherwise legal only because it is performed by a group. The current act says you can enter a marriage like association with one person but no more. While the advocates of the law can’t agree in the definition of polygamy or the elements that are worthy of prosecution, the Amicus believes that the law should be taken as what it says or it will lead to arbitrary enforcement.
AGBC named 4 harms.
harm to moral fabric and democratic processes.
just because monogamy is deeply ingrained does not mean the law must enforce this.
Actually discriminates against polygamous people
Law not originally intended to protect vulnerable people. The idea that gender inequality exists in polygamous relationships but gender inequality never exists in monogamy is disputed.
social harm to the externalities - for example early sexualization of young women and surplus young men. These were ignored in the formation of section 293. As for the early sexualization, it is not in the section at all.
Section is not aimed at targeting bad polygamous relationships because it punishes all polygamous relationships. Penalizes victims and wrong-doers the way the section reads. Enshrines monogamy as the only approved form of marriage.
These types of harms that occur in polygamy also occur in monogamy.
AGBC says 293 it is necessary because it is associated with other ills. However, it penalizes all relationships no matter how beneficial they might be -
There have been only 2 convictions under the 100 yr history. Last one was 1937. AG says law is needed to reduce harm involved with growing polygamy however, there has not been an increase in polygamy in spite of the fact that it has not been prosecuted. People who practice will do it whether it is against the law or not - and it does not appeal to a large number of people in our society. If it did, it would have grown far faster.
Beyond Borders:
Section 293 is unconstitutional if it does not specify that the relationship contains any elements of abuse, imbalance of power, etc.
Polygamous communities often have older men with many young girls. The converse does not occur. The younger girls are conditioned to consent to these relationships and then later feel partially responsible, shamed, etc. Marriage is a lifetime decision, but children cannot adequately make these decisions.
Expulsion from the community presents a threat against those who would inform against the leadership of the community. The leadership consists of elder males. It is predatory. A child needs a feeling of belonging and this leads a girl to see older males as desirable.
To the extent that section 293 infringes upon the constitution, it is justified because of the harm to young girls. Polygamous arranged marriages remove the freedom of choice from young women in order to fulfill religious expectations.
Fundamentalist communities have excessive values on loyalty and deferral to authority. Beyond borders focuses on the nexus of polygamy and child sexual abuse. however, they support the constitutional status of the current law.
Douglas Christie - Canadian council for free expression (Ontario)
Founded for advocating for freedom of expression. Reason for intervention: Freedom of religion and believes that this is a wedge issue that will impact the freedom of many other segments of society beyond polygamy.
Section 293 is contrary to sections 2A and B and cannot be saved by section 1.
All of the factors necessary for reading down section 293 make it an overly convoluted and impossible to enforce.
As in the case of Big M drug mart, one should have the right to have beliefs and the right to manifest these beliefs in terms of worship and practice. Also the right to teach and promulgate.
Section 293 may actually exacerbate the harms that polygamy causes (isolation, etc).
In all cases, governments have much deeper pockets, can hire more experts, etc. than private individuals can. State has over-riding power - and has the power to determine what is a power imbalance for others. There is a danger in leaving the power of defining what is exploitation to bureaucrats. Exploitation exists in all types of relationships. It is best to use existing measures to combat child abuse and other offenses. The criminality of polygamy actually reduces the probability for people in the community to report offenses like child abuse.
Intrusion of the state into religious matters, which is opened by this case, may open the door to wider religious persecutions by the secular state.
BC Civil liberties:
Opening position statement: Reference called court to answer 2 questions. First is statutory conviction. BCCLA adopts submission of the Amicus. Before considering the constitutionality of a provision, it must be determined what the interpretation actually means and the original intent of parliament. The proper analysis of the offense, is intended to capture a broad range of conduct including polygyny, polyandry and consenting relationships between more than 2 individuals.
The BCAG interpreting 293 as polygyny with some form of ceremony is aspirational - reading down is not viable with the language that is suggested here. These arguments for reading down are pointing out the need to re-write the entire act in parliament.
BCCLA says that section 293 breaches the individuals charter rights of liberty and security of the person in ways that are contrary to fundamental justice. Will focus primarily on section 7, in terms of security of person, personal autonomy, privacy, ability of people to choose their most intimate relationships and what seems good to them.
It is important for the court, on a reference rather than between parties to look more broadly in framing the argument. Personal autonomy is most important in determining
Legislative record does not disclose that the original intent was to protect women and children. Parliamentarians of the day found polygamy disgusting. There may have been some background concern for women and children, however these are not as we understand them today.
The section opposes freedom of choice in personal relationships. It holds Patriarchal and demeaning views of women - suggests that women cannot make their own choices.
The state has means that are far less intrusive than an outright ban on plural relationships. There is no denying that harms have been caused - however, these harms occur in all manner of relationships. Section 293 is an over-broad law to address these harms which are already prohibited with other laws.
Canada is a society that tolerates and encourages family difference. Canada accepts legally married couples, common law couples, blended families, etc. Wrong to single out these plural relationships unless there is specific harm in them.
Opening statements from The Amicus, who is presenting the Crown’s primary argument against the law, followed by Doug Christie from Canadian Council for Free Expression and the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA).
CCRC is primarily focused on the rights of the child. Their position is that it is the government’s obligation, under UN Charter commitments. to insure the rights of children are upheld. Polygamy in a communal setting adversely affects the rights of children and if Section 293 is properly upheld it would be constitutional because polygamy produces undue risk to children. However, they do not believe the law should apply to multi-partner relationships, like polyamory, that involve consenting adults.
Their position is that Polygamy as intended in section 293 applies to polygyny (one man with more than one woman) that occurs in a communal setting. This core definition of polygamy is supportable in a criminal setting. The current law says that everyone involved in the relationship is guilty, however, they contend that anyone who is under 18 when they are married cannot be liable. “Only people wielding power should be charged, not those vulnerable to it”.
They further argue that polygamy directly harms girls rights. Their reports highlight connections between polygamy, child brides, trafficking of girls and forced marriages. There is also heightened risk of physical, sexual and psychological abuses. In North America, as practiced by the FLDS Mormons, the church leaders decide who gets married, who will marry who, etc. This causes major age differences between the husband and wife, which often results in power imbalances. Girls also lose their rights to contraception, their right to an education and they often must care for children of their sister wives. Boys are forced to work early, forsaking education, and the profits go to the community. They provide their work to the community, and receive only a small allowance, in hopes that they will be given a wife. Boys and girls are also prohibited from associating so the church leaders can have more power over the girls. Men who oppose the church leadership have their wives and children taken from them and assigned to “more faithful” followers.
CCRC contends that their evidence shows that polygamy is the center point of a structural system that enables church control of marriage, exploitive reproductive practices, exploitive labor practices and cessation of education.
Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF)
The Lawyer from CLF provided two affidavits and three supplemental reports and then began with “Three months ago I toured the Sultan’s harem”. He continued to explain that polygamy was responsible for disintegration of the family and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They have several expert reports which they contend will show that polygamy is abusive of all women, young and old because it limits their free will. Polygamy also has tremendous negative effects on the “lost boys” who must leave the community. It is also a fraud on society because it harms the benefits of marriage.
CLF claims that the courts should only determine if polygamy is harmful and then turn the matter over to parliament to create laws rather than allow the courts to interpret existing laws. Public policy cases, like this one, goes to the harm that is caused by polygamy. Therefore parliament, and the criminal code, should have the right to regulate and define marriage. Some argue that the individual has the right to define what marriage means to them. They argue the Supreme court has already determined, in a case that involved consensual incest between adults, that the individual does not have the right to define marriage.
CLF also brought forward international conventions, treaties and declarations regarding the rights of children that Canada is committed to follow. They concluded that while they generally uphold the importance of religious freedom under the constitution, and while they trust that the FLDS are sincere in their beliefs, they believe that there is a clear limitation to these rights when there is harm to others.
BC Teachers Federation (BCTF)
BCTF stressed the importance of balancing charter rights, however, they are particularly interested in children’s access to quality education. BCTF defines polygamy as “polygyny as it is practiced in Bountiful”.
They argue that Canadian fundamental rights support democratic values, public order and well being of citizens, therefore section 293 does not infringe on these constitutional rights. They further assert that freedom of religion is not a stand-alone right and must be balanced with other rights. Furthermore, the rights of one person cannot undermine the rights of another and the rights of one person cannot undermine the rights of all persons that the charter was designed to uphold.
BCTF argued that this is more than a theoretical case, more than 400 children are attending the schools in Bountiful and their rights are engaged. Proper balancing of rights of the women and children is required in assessing the impact on other rights that may be compromised in Section 293.
STOP Polygamy in Canada
STOP’s position is consistent with the BC AG. Polygamy, as practiced by the FLDS, harms women, children, boys. and deprives them of their Canadian rights. It runs counter to the values of a democratic society. Section 293 is not the state over-running a religion or the rights of one religion over-running another. Polygamy forms authoritarian societies and these societies over-run individual rights.
Their expert witnesses include a professor who has studied the historical anti-polygamy cases from the US and determined that they were not specifically targeting the Mormon church (on a personal note - I don’t know how this is possible), a family law professor who considers the effects on women and children, an expert witness from Edmonton who has studied the lost boys, and a doctor from New York who has documented higher rates of depression and other harms in polygamous Muslim families relative to monogamous ones.
STOP believes that Section 293 passes the Oakes test - in preserving the values necessary for a free and democratic society.
This marked the end of openings for parties that aligned with the attorney general position.
Amicus opening statement:
This reference is not about approving polygamy: If 293 is struck down, as it must be as a matter of law, then being polygamous no longer makes someone a criminal. A polygamous marriage, no matter how defined or how it is made up no longer exposes someone to prison. If 293 is unconstitutional, the state is still not supporting polygamous marriage in any manner. Example of gays and lesbians is significant. In 1969, homosexuality was de-criminalized and it took 20 years before gay marriage was recognized.
The case is also not about polygamy itself. It is about Section 293. If the law is bad, it should be struck down, notwithstanding one’s views about polygamy. Polygamy is a federal crime, not a provincial one, however, the BC AG indicated that polygyny is a crime while other forms are not and the AG for Canada says that the law applies to both polygyny and polyandry. Amicus agrees with Canada’s definition after a very detailed study of the existing law. Law criminalizes any time more than two people are in a relationship. This was the original intent of the statute; ie. enshrined marriage as between two people.
Section 293 criminalizes the women as well as the men. Generally speaking, the Law does not intend to criminalize the victims. Section 293 did not treat women as victims but rather as co-defendants. The BC AG presents a modern argument to justify why the law was passed but this is not the way the law reads. Section 293 in 1890 was about stopping Mormons and aboriginals because Christian marriage was defined as one man and one woman. This was the legal definition of marriage in Canada until 2005. .
Rejects the idea that a prosecutor can determine how to use the law wisely. The law criminalizes any union of any kind that includes 3 or more people. The Crown does not even have to prove the intention of sexual relations. Issues of young women and girls will be addressed separately. BC AG contends that women in these relationships are brain-washed and cannot truly give consent. Amicus contends that many women in these relationships want to enter into these relationships freely in the same way other people choose to enter into monogamous marriages. Many of these women grew up believing that this is the best way to live - believing just as strongly as many people believe monogamous marriage is the right way. Since most people do not experience polygamy first hand, opinions are often founded on ignorance, bias, prejudice, etc. This is why constitutional protection is needed.
Constitutional protection is never needed to protect people who agree with the mainstream.
Second conclusion from evidence: There are tremendous tales of suffering in monogamous marriages that go wrong. There is physical and sexual abuse, abuse of alchohol and drugs, abuse of children, etc. That abuses exist in monogamous and polygamous settings is not the question. The operative difference in polygamy is that there is a greater reluctance to call on the authorities. If Monogamous marriage were illegal, people in these marriages would have a great reluctance to call on authorities for help because they are already criminals by virtue of their marriage. Section 293 places a stigma of isolation around the very people the law intends to help.
Amicus also recounted how Canada has liberalized many facets of human sexual behavior. This includes homosexual relationships, swingers, adultery, common-law marriages, etc. Criminalization of this one facet increases the insular nature of these communities. Women who choose polygamy are stigmatized.
Expert Witnesses, including professor Campbell, have interviewed many women in Bountiful and she has studied the FLDS theology extensively. Her findings include the degree of choice that women in Bountiful can exercise regarding marriage choices and reproductive choices. Expert witnesses also include legal experts and psychologists who have worked with FLDS people and studied all legal aspects - including early Mormon legal actions.
Addressing the second legal question - in terms of what constitutes an offense to the law - there are no limitations regarding consent, sexual conduct, type of relationship structure, etc. Any form of multi-person relationship clearly contravenes the law. Elements of the offense do not include involvement of minors, undo influence, lack of consent, imbalance of power, abuse of authority, etc. The language in the act actually punishes those who consent - not those who do not. Reading these elements into the law dramatically intrude on the legislative function.
The Amicus will advance freedom of religion - as this was the focus of the 1890 act. Section 293 contravenes freedom of religion for fundamentalist mormons and as well as for Muslims and Wiccans. However, Mormons are the only ones who require polygamy to reach the highest heaven.
The law does not penalize group sex, no fault divorce, adultery, etc. However, it does seek to prohibit committed group relationships. Many of the harms associated with polygamy are also present in these areas but are not penalized. The code assumes that all monogamy is good and non criminal and this is not true.
The section deprives people the fundamental freedom of choice in terms of their most intimate human relationships. The criminal ban was implemented to curtail a practice that was seen as disgusting by mainstream Christian society of its day. The professed objective of punishing morality are imposed by the secular state over a specific religion.
The law was not instituted with the protection of women in mind. Women at the time were not even persons. The act does not protect women as it criminalizes women for giving free consent in these relationships. Polygamy is not inherently harmful to children. Children are harmed in all forms of relationships. Section 293 penalizes all forms of this type of relationship rather than one where children are involved.
Freedom of association - prevents polygamous activities and criminalizes polygamous groupings. The Amicus does not take the position that polygamy allows a group to perform an action that is illegal for two individuals - abuse or underage marriage for example. However, the law must not criminalize an act that is otherwise legal only because it is performed by a group. The current act says you can enter a marriage like association with one person but no more. While the advocates of the law can’t agree in the definition of polygamy or the elements that are worthy of prosecution, the Amicus believes that the law should be taken as what it says or it will lead to arbitrary enforcement.
AGBC named 4 harms.
harm to moral fabric and democratic processes.
just because monogamy is deeply ingrained does not mean the law must enforce this.
Actually discriminates against polygamous people
Law not originally intended to protect vulnerable people. The idea that gender inequality exists in polygamous relationships but gender inequality never exists in monogamy is disputed.
social harm to the externalities - for example early sexualization of young women and surplus young men. These were ignored in the formation of section 293. As for the early sexualization, it is not in the section at all.
Section is not aimed at targeting bad polygamous relationships because it punishes all polygamous relationships. Penalizes victims and wrong-doers the way the section reads. Enshrines monogamy as the only approved form of marriage.
These types of harms that occur in polygamy also occur in monogamy.
AGBC says 293 it is necessary because it is associated with other ills. However, it penalizes all relationships no matter how beneficial they might be -
There have been only 2 convictions under the 100 yr history. Last one was 1937. AG says law is needed to reduce harm involved with growing polygamy however, there has not been an increase in polygamy in spite of the fact that it has not been prosecuted. People who practice will do it whether it is against the law or not - and it does not appeal to a large number of people in our society. If it did, it would have grown far faster.
Beyond Borders:
Section 293 is unconstitutional if it does not specify that the relationship contains any elements of abuse, imbalance of power, etc.
Polygamous communities often have older men with many young girls. The converse does not occur. The younger girls are conditioned to consent to these relationships and then later feel partially responsible, shamed, etc. Marriage is a lifetime decision, but children cannot adequately make these decisions.
Expulsion from the community presents a threat against those who would inform against the leadership of the community. The leadership consists of elder males. It is predatory. A child needs a feeling of belonging and this leads a girl to see older males as desirable.
To the extent that section 293 infringes upon the constitution, it is justified because of the harm to young girls. Polygamous arranged marriages remove the freedom of choice from young women in order to fulfill religious expectations.
Fundamentalist communities have excessive values on loyalty and deferral to authority. Beyond borders focuses on the nexus of polygamy and child sexual abuse. however, they support the constitutional status of the current law.
Douglas Christie - Canadian council for free expression (Ontario)
Founded for advocating for freedom of expression. Reason for intervention: Freedom of religion and believes that this is a wedge issue that will impact the freedom of many other segments of society beyond polygamy.
Section 293 is contrary to sections 2A and B and cannot be saved by section 1.
All of the factors necessary for reading down section 293 make it an overly convoluted and impossible to enforce.
As in the case of Big M drug mart, one should have the right to have beliefs and the right to manifest these beliefs in terms of worship and practice. Also the right to teach and promulgate.
Section 293 may actually exacerbate the harms that polygamy causes (isolation, etc).
In all cases, governments have much deeper pockets, can hire more experts, etc. than private individuals can. State has over-riding power - and has the power to determine what is a power imbalance for others. There is a danger in leaving the power of defining what is exploitation to bureaucrats. Exploitation exists in all types of relationships. It is best to use existing measures to combat child abuse and other offenses. The criminality of polygamy actually reduces the probability for people in the community to report offenses like child abuse.
Intrusion of the state into religious matters, which is opened by this case, may open the door to wider religious persecutions by the secular state.
BC Civil liberties:
Opening position statement: Reference called court to answer 2 questions. First is statutory conviction. BCCLA adopts submission of the Amicus. Before considering the constitutionality of a provision, it must be determined what the interpretation actually means and the original intent of parliament. The proper analysis of the offense, is intended to capture a broad range of conduct including polygyny, polyandry and consenting relationships between more than 2 individuals.
The BCAG interpreting 293 as polygyny with some form of ceremony is aspirational - reading down is not viable with the language that is suggested here. These arguments for reading down are pointing out the need to re-write the entire act in parliament.
BCCLA says that section 293 breaches the individuals charter rights of liberty and security of the person in ways that are contrary to fundamental justice. Will focus primarily on section 7, in terms of security of person, personal autonomy, privacy, ability of people to choose their most intimate relationships and what seems good to them.
It is important for the court, on a reference rather than between parties to look more broadly in framing the argument. Personal autonomy is most important in determining
Legislative record does not disclose that the original intent was to protect women and children. Parliamentarians of the day found polygamy disgusting. There may have been some background concern for women and children, however these are not as we understand them today.
The section opposes freedom of choice in personal relationships. It holds Patriarchal and demeaning views of women - suggests that women cannot make their own choices.
The state has means that are far less intrusive than an outright ban on plural relationships. There is no denying that harms have been caused - however, these harms occur in all manner of relationships. Section 293 is an over-broad law to address these harms which are already prohibited with other laws.
Canada is a society that tolerates and encourages family difference. Canada accepts legally married couples, common law couples, blended families, etc. Wrong to single out these plural relationships unless there is specific harm in them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
