Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

Blogging from Bountiful: Winston Blackmore in his own words

by kadyomalley on Thursday, January 8, 2009 7:15pm - 23 Comments

“If you are married and minding your own business, looking after your family and the two of you are virtuous people, should some other virtuous woman(I will add who is old enough to make her own choices in life)want to join your family, and all are agreed, then whose business is that.  No one is hurt, no society is hurt,no family is broken, no vows are violated. Celestial implies virtuous.”

-Winston Blackmore, December 10 2008

It hasn’t been updated since his arrest, but even so, Winston Blackmore’s  blog makes for fascinating reading, particularly in the context of his comments to the media earlier today. You can also check out back issues of The North Star, his self-published newsletter, on his website.

Tags: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Steve Wart

    Kady are you visiting BC?

    Section 293 is a very weird law. It says “any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time” is punishable by up to 5 years in prison, “whether or not it is recognized as a binding form of marriage”

    Potentially affects a lot of folks here (not my sort of folks, but hey, each to his or her own).

    Why in blazes isn’t the government prosecuting him under child protection laws? Could it be that it’s easier to extract DNA evidence from women and children than it is to get them to testify? As witnesses they aren’t subject to protection from unreasonable search and seizure of evidence.

    I can’t see the BC Civil Liberties Association stepping in here, since it would probably be anathema for them to be seen siding with a patriarchal oppressor like Blackmore, but the law does suck.

    It seems to me if you’re going to prosecute someone, the law should match the moral justification. Otherwise it’s just government gone bad.

    • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

      Actually, if you read the article I wrote in 2007, you’ll see that the BCCLA has taken a position similar to yours.

  • Mike Horn

    In BC religous communities have always been posing tough ?s. Resistance to goverment or military intrusions have fuelled several confrontations. I think that’s partly why the Province was holding back, but a) Boutiful stands out from other closed communities and b) the charges laid in Texas last year were bound to press the issue in Boutiful. Especially when we heard reports of Americans finding refuge there. That being said, I really hope that BC learns from the clumsy mass child siezure that Texas carried out. The paradox of religous communities is they tend to raise issues of individual rights and freedoms.

    • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

      Well, so far, it seems that they have: no children have been taken into the custody of child services, and there are no provisions to prevent either man from continuing to live with their respective families.

  • Arnie M.

    I do not like what Blackmore stands for nor his marriage concepts. But what I do not understand is why our society would be quick to accept it if Blackmore was gay and had 20 live in partners.

    Same thing if a single heterosexual man has a different partner every night …. that is 365 girls a year …… no one would object.

    The ultimate would be the bi-sexual who splits his encounters with boys and girls 365 times a year , wears a condom and smokes only marijuana (no cigarettes) .

    Our society accepts these things readily enough , even endorses them , but one man Blackmore having several wives …. him bad.

    You have to thinks about that for a while ……..

    • Jack Mitchell

      “if a single heterosexual man has a different partner every night …. that is 365 girls a year …… no one would object.”

      One person in particular would not object.

    • Mike Horn

      Dude! If you’re out scoring with a different woman every night for a year solid, someone u know will object. Theoretically, bachelors and bachelorettes can get away with serial polygamy but only if it’s done decently and with good manners.

      • annie

        it would not matter as long the different partners your having are not underaged and your being smart by protecting yourself and the partners. there’s the danger of std’s and morals.

  • madeyoulook

    Honest question about our legal system.

    Defendant contests on basis of freedom of religion. That may or may not work, and even if it does the popular outrage, if any, may lead to the use of the notwithstanding clause.

    If freedom-of-religion does not “work” for this defendant, what are the legal possibilities in contesting on differential application of the law and discriminatory prosecution? Oh sure, it’s fine to leave Ahmed to his four wives and Nabil to his three, but you go and pick on me and my family… Does that sort of thing work in criminal court?

    • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

      Hopefully, an actual lawyer will happen by this thread and provide a more informed response, but from what I understand, the everyone-else-is-doing-it-why-pick-on-me gambit is not a legitimate type of affirmative defence, although he *could* try for jury nullification, which almost never succeeds, although it does remain an option in Canada. I’ll be curious to see who takes his case – that might give us some idea of what his strategy may be.

      • Ed

        The problem with that Kady (and I’m sure you already know this) is that I can proclaim myself a lawyer and, perhaps, trot out some fairly good “legal” (lawyerly?) cadences to “prove” my credentials, but neither you nor anyone else has any idea what truth abounds behind the screen. Welcome to Oz. Nothing here is real – except you of course. I am right about that last part, yes? But then again, by now, nobody’s listening.

    • Mike T.

      The fact that others may or may not have been charged with a crime in similar circumstancs is no defence to your own crime.

      There is an idea circulating int he less reputable areas of the blogsphere along the lines of “the reason they won’t prosecute polygamy for Christians is because muslims do it too and muslims get so much better treatment, special status blah blah blah hate hate hate.” I usually refrain from strong language, t the only apt term for this belief is “utter bullshit”. I realize some people have come by this belief through honest ignorance, but it smacks of ignorance and hate. I urge everyone to act responsibly and decry the notion at every opportunity.

      • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

        It’s particularly stupid when you consider that, until this week, not a single person has been charged under the current anti-polygamy law, despite the fact that it has been on the books for over a century.

        • madeyoulook

          Au contraire, Kady, the zero-prosecution rate of a century-old law exposes the current prosection all the more to the why’s-everybody-always-pickin’-on-me defense.

      • madeyoulook

        Good on you Mike T. I guess that means you have already reported the infraction to the Criminal Code confessed to by certain Ontario residents who have openly proclaimed their polygamy, and/or the aiding and abetting of same? Thank you for being a shining example, “decry[ing] the notion at every opportunity.” Please pass along the investigating officer’s name, so we may also register our complaint in support of yours. This would certainly remove the BC defendant’s opportunity to plead discriminatory prosecution.

        • Mike T.

          Dude, you said you had an honest question, and that was the answer.

          Until this week, the AG in BC wasn’t prosecuting anyone of any race or religion for polygamy. You only need one test case to go trial to test the constitutionality, having multiple defendants could lengthen proceedings. They’re already up to their eyeballs in investigating Bountiful, it seems a reasonable place to bring the first case.

          I really don’t think the law is going to be around long enough for people to make claims of special treatment.

          • madeyoulook

            “Over a century” not long enough?

            I must misunderstand the Criminal Code. Didn’t realize that no charges or prosecutions should take place in one province when a case (applying the same provisions of the Criminal Code) is underway in another. Good thing there’s only one solved case of first degree murder going on at any one time.

            My point is not to allege favoritism for certain polygamists over others. My point is we should either revoke a law or apply it to everyone. Else there will be commentary along the lines of your “BS” above, and it will be difficult for you to honestly label it so.

          • Mike T.

            There is certainly quite a bit you don’t understand, this being one of them. REad where the post above says not ‘case’, but ‘test case.’

          • madeyoulook

            Why yes, I freely admit there is stuff I don’t understand. Like having a “test case” for a law that, per Kady, is over a hundred years old! Justice is not only blind, it’s crippled! “Pick on” one single polygamist without any tangible proof you’re going after others, and, test-case shmest-case, this guy’s got his wah-wah human rights complaint handed to him on a silver platter.

            “Of COURSE they’re persecuting our peaceful community from the BC interior — we don’t issue fatwas.” I need help understanding why this is the sort of PR we want to hand this defendant.

          • Mike T.

            There is no requirement that a multitude of defendants from all origins and backgrounds be tried concurrently in order for the case to be legitimate. There are definitely human rights at issue here, but the fact that the first people charged were christians not muslims is in absolutely no way one of them. While cases of malicious prosecution do exist, “I can point to other instances where I believe this has happened, and as far as I know charges were not laid” doesn’t come close to meeting the bar. Anywhere close.

            The validity of the 100 year old law is currently in dispute. Freedom of religion only became an effective constitutional right in 1985. Add on a few years for cases to get to the Supreme Court and make it clear the Charter of Rights was a serious document. So the late 80s is really the time period we are looking at. Quite frankly, it’s a minor crime with a strong likely constitutional defence – not the kind of thing the police want to spend loads of time on no matter what the race or creed of the offender. Then in the course of an investigation in Bountiful, the AG finally decided to lay charges and test the case. You’d really have to look very very hard to make that into some ‘Muslims have special rights’ argument.

  • Tam

    Are the wives all willing partners?

  • Arnie M.

    (Tam asked ….. Are the wives all willing partners?)

    I think you nailed it Tam. I think that is the moral (and legal) question here.

    If a secular older man announced he desired many wives , preferably young girls , how many takers would he get. ?? I suggest none !!

    But if that man used a religious dogma claiming the more wives he has , the higher his “Godhood” will be and used religion to convinced innocent girls they will receive a heavenly blessing …….

    This man is using the tactics of a cult , surrounded by religion , and uses the religion to insulate himself from the law.

    I am sure the wives of Blackmore will testify they are willing , simply because they are brainwashed and do not know any different. Is this illegal ? That is the question.

  • Dennis

    Polygamy legal in Canada. ( Saskatchewan)
    Section 293 of the criminal code makes it an offence to be the spouse of more than one person at a time ( conjugal relationship) Blackmore did no more than have more than one “spouse” in a conjugal relationship at the same time. In Saskatchewan the below case illustrates that it is legal to be married and have a common law spouse at the same time. The judge ruled that Polygamy and bigamy do not apply to married persons who have a common law spouse while married. Even if one of them does not want to be the others common law “spouse” the courts will say they are..and no Po Polygamy is not illegal in Saskatchewan. .so, if its not illegal to be a married spouse and a common law spouse at the same time, then Winston Blackmore has done no more than the below case illustrates. If Saskatchewan does not charge Polygamists maybe the FLDS people ought to move to Saskatchewan? A common law marriage is the same legally in Saskatchewan as a civil marriage. The Family Property Act there allows a person to have as many legal spouses as they wish. Why then does BC prosecute /persecute people who also have more than one spouse? It is not known yet if a person can can a “celestial union” while married to another(s) but Saskatchewan law says they can have multiple spouses so I guess they could practice Polygamy in Saskatchewan as existing case law allows it. Judges public comments confirm a person can have as many spouses as they wish without being indicted for Polygamy. Part of Polygamy laws in Canada makes it illegal to “assist” in creating multiple conjugal unions, but in Saskatchewan the judges do it and no-one charges them!

    http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=winik&language=en&searchTitle=Saskatchewan&path=/en/sk/skqb/doc/1999/1999canlii12517/1999canlii12517.html

    “Maureen Winik and Randy Wilson shared enough of the characteristics of a common-law relationship for Maureen Winik to be found to be his common-law spouse. As the formation of a common-law relationship does not require the solemnization of a marriage, there is no risk of violating the criminal sanction against bigamy. The formation of a common-law relationship is not hindered by the existence of a subsisting marriage”

Previous

Next

From Macleans