COLF assistant director Peter Murphy applauded the B.C. Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on polygamy, and said religious freedom can only go so far. Photo by Deborah Gyapong / The B.C. Catholic.Pro-family organizations welcome anti-polygamy decision
By Deborah Gyapong
Canadian Catholic News

OTTAWA (CCN)--Pro-family groups have welcomed a Nov. 23 British Columbia Supreme Court decision that upholds Canada’s anti-polygamy law.

Many news editorials and columns predicted the law might be struck down on religious freedom grounds.

“In my view, the salutary effects of the prohibition far outweigh the deleterious,” Chief Justice Robert Bauman wrote in his 335 page decision. “The law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times. It seeks to protect against the many harms which are reasonably apprehended to arise out of the practice of polygamy.”

“Anything that supports traditional, monogamous marriage is good and I think [the decision] sends a very clear message that our relationships are not exclusively personal and private,” said Catholic Organization for Life and Family (COLF) assistant director Peter Murphy. “They have implications for those with whom we live and for society in general, so for that reason we’re very pleased with the decision.”

The province of B.C. had asked the court whether the anti-polygamy law was constitutional after charges against a fundamentalist Mormon sect were dropped based on concerns they would not stand up to a Charter religious freedom test.

In the B.C. reference, the Attorneys General of B.C. and Canada, as well as pro-family interveners, argued the law is necessary because of the harms to society, especially women and children, through polygamous marriage.

"... the Attorneys General have certainly demonstrated a reasoned apprehension of harm associated with polygyny. Indeed, they have cleared the higher bar: they have demonstrated ‘concrete evidence’ of harm,” Bauman wrote.

Bauman said negative impacts include poverty and the generation of “a class of largely poor, unmarried men who are statistically predisposed to violence and other anti-social behavior.”

“Polygamy also institutionalizes gender inequality,” he said. “Patriarchal hierarchy and authoritarian control are common features of polygamous communities. Individuals in polygynous societies tend to have fewer civil liberties than their counterparts in societies which prohibit the practice.”

Bauman also cited evidence the harms of polygamy are not only “endemic” but also “inherent.”

“This conclusion is critical because it supports the view that the harms found in polygynous societies are not simply the product of individual misconduct; they arise inevitably out of the practice.”

“This is a very positive outcome,” said Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF) Executive Director and General Legal Counsel Ruth Ross. CLF was among the interveners arguing on behalf of the existing laws. “We are pleased the court accepted the strong and convincing evidence demonstrating that polygamy harms women, children, and society and that outlawing it does not compromise religious freedom.”

REAL Women of Canada, another intervener in the case, also argued on the basis of harm. In a news release Nov. 23 REAL Women’s national vice president Gwendolyn Landolt said Polygamy is “contrary to fundamental Canadian values.”

“It reduces women to be chattels rather than equal partners, and is harmful to children, depriving them of the immediacy and intimacy of a father,” Landolt said.

Institute of Marriage and Family Executive Director Dave Quist said the decision “sends a strong message across Canada that further changes to the institution of marriage is deleterious to society and should not be entertained.”

The chief justice noted in his decision that many of the same harms could arise in situations of multiple husbands (polyandry) or polygamous same-sex relationships. Those harms include those to children whose parents’ attention is divided or lower because of less genetic-relatedness, he said.

Murphy said he was personally surprised by the strength of the decision. As for religious freedom concerns, he pointed out religious freedom has its limits.

“The majority of Canadians would readily recognize that a claim to the right to involve oneself in honor killing on the basis of religious freedom would be a reprehensible and odious claim,” he said. “Where one can perceive that such a claim does not advance the good, that’s when we have to say religious freedom has its limits."

“There is no such thing as a freedom which enslaves,” he said. “Can one really speak about religious freedom when we’re speaking of something which so obviously does harm? What does freedom mean in that context. It certainly becomes devoid of meaning.”