So the article started out like this:
VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - A special prosecutor has recommended Canadian courts be asked to rule on the constitutionality of the country's long-standing laws against polygamy, officials said on Wednesday.
And then it went on to talk about a particular group in British Columbia that has been known to practice polygamy, which has had several accusations of sexual abuse of women, especially minors, in their community. Both the US and Canada have been trying to work together to find some way of bringing leaders of the community (known by the name "Bountiful") to justice for the sexual abuse that has taken place there. The fear in Canada has been that if the matter of the community came before the Court, the current law against polygamy would be struck down over "freedom of religion."
"Polygamy is the underlying phenomenon from which all the other alleged harms flow, and the public interest would best be served by addressing it directly,"
said the lawyer who was in charge of reporting to BC's Attorney General on how to proceed in addressing the issue of the polygamous community.
All other harms? Really? Just out of polygamy? I think there some seriously faulty analysis here. Does an "abnormal" marriage practice necessarily mean that those engaged in that "abnormal" marriage are automatically victims of sexual abuse? How about a thought-experiment where we wonder what a plural marriage would look like if all partners involved were equal in status, with not one gender having power over the other? What would happen if the marriage were outside of a religious context?
I wonder about this because I am perplexed by the fact that apparently BC doesn't think it can prosecute those who are perpetrating abuse in that community, they are afraid of the "religious freedom" justification. Is our legal system so weak that evidence of sexual abuse couldn't stand up to a claim to that abuse being religiously justified? To me it seems that the "underlying phenomenon" here is the unjust use of power by some members of the community to perpetuate a culture of patriarchal silencing that does not make safe space for women to speak of abuse or claim a right to their own human flourishing - and I can imagine that, although difficult to achieve, that could happen even if the marriages in that community were polygamous.
Regardless of stances on this particular issue, or the particular situation in Bountiful, I think it is interesting to think on whether or not "deviant sexual behavior", as these marriages seem to be perceived as, is really all that deviant. Monogamous heterosexual relationships are wrought with abuse too, but I don't see any reports of an Attorney General's inquest into how to bring those offenders to justice. Can we imagine a world where the type of relation(s) a person is engaged in is not as important as the quality of relation? Maybe then we could believe that heterosexual marriages are not the only places where people can be happy? (so asks the single girl) Maybe single people, polyamorous people, and various other "sexual deviants" can have quality, life-giving relationships too! Amazing!
"Polygamy is the underlying phenomenon from which all the other alleged harms flow, and the public interest would best be served by addressing it directly,"
said the lawyer who was in charge of reporting to BC's Attorney General on how to proceed in addressing the issue of the polygamous community.
All other harms? Really? Just out of polygamy? I think there some seriously faulty analysis here. Does an "abnormal" marriage practice necessarily mean that those engaged in that "abnormal" marriage are automatically victims of sexual abuse? How about a thought-experiment where we wonder what a plural marriage would look like if all partners involved were equal in status, with not one gender having power over the other? What would happen if the marriage were outside of a religious context?
I wonder about this because I am perplexed by the fact that apparently BC doesn't think it can prosecute those who are perpetrating abuse in that community, they are afraid of the "religious freedom" justification. Is our legal system so weak that evidence of sexual abuse couldn't stand up to a claim to that abuse being religiously justified? To me it seems that the "underlying phenomenon" here is the unjust use of power by some members of the community to perpetuate a culture of patriarchal silencing that does not make safe space for women to speak of abuse or claim a right to their own human flourishing - and I can imagine that, although difficult to achieve, that could happen even if the marriages in that community were polygamous.
Regardless of stances on this particular issue, or the particular situation in Bountiful, I think it is interesting to think on whether or not "deviant sexual behavior", as these marriages seem to be perceived as, is really all that deviant. Monogamous heterosexual relationships are wrought with abuse too, but I don't see any reports of an Attorney General's inquest into how to bring those offenders to justice. Can we imagine a world where the type of relation(s) a person is engaged in is not as important as the quality of relation? Maybe then we could believe that heterosexual marriages are not the only places where people can be happy? (so asks the single girl) Maybe single people, polyamorous people, and various other "sexual deviants" can have quality, life-giving relationships too! Amazing!
No comments:
Post a Comment