Magic Statistics

“I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.” — Robertson Davies

April 9th, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Why doesn’t BC prosecute polygamists?

That question is being asked once again in the wake of the huge bust at the West Texas compound of the polygamist Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS).  Last weekend, child welfare investigators and law enforcement personnel liberated teenage mothers and underage girls who said they had been forced to marry.  Over 400 children have been taken into state custody.  The raid, prompted by a report that a 16-year-old girl had been sexually assaulted at the compound, uncovered rampant and systematic emotional and physical abuse of children and their mothers.

A FLDS colony exists at Bountiful, BC, where polygamy has been an open secret for decades, yet provincial governments have refused to prosecute.  The events in Texas have renewed pressure on Attorney-General Wally Oppal to get off his duff.

The Attorney-General of British Columbia should stop wasting time and start prosecuting individuals in the fundamentalist Mormon community of Bountiful, a former member of the polygamous sect said Tuesday.

Debbie Palmer, who was married off at the age of 15 to a 55-year-old man, said she does not understand why the province keeps studying the constitutionality of the federal law that forbids polygamy rather than testing it by enforcement.

Rather than enforce the law against polygamy, Mr Oppal has elected to refer the Bountiful file to, not one, but two successive outside lawyers for advice.  Both opposed prosecution; rather, they advised court references to assess the law's constitutionality.  Oppal says he favours a more aggressive approach, but has not actually done anything.  Certainly, he is dithering; he may even be stalling.

Don Stuart, a professor of law at Queen's University, said he was puzzled by what was going on in British Columbia.

"I'm not quite sure why it's necessary to refer a normal law enforcement discretion to a committee," Prof. Stuart said.

"Prosecutors are not supposed to proceed if there's no reasonable prospect of success. If there's an evidentiary problem of getting the proper complainant you can understand why they're not proceeding," said Prof. Stuart. "But assuming there's a possibility of getting the evidence I would have thought that referring the matter to a court for a constitutional reference seems rather odd. Especially if the likelihood here is that people are being hurt."

Ms Palmer says that she was forced to marry an older man who already had five wives.  After he died, she was “reassigned” to another polygamous man who abused her.  She finally managed to escape with her eight children.

Previous related posts:

Print This Post Print This Post
April 9th, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Richard Warman litigates again

Fortunately, I can take a break this evening from whining sprucing up my house in order to blog.

Canada’s most notorious serial litigant, the exquisitely hyper-sensitive Richard Warman, has sued the National Post, reporter Jonathan Kay, and several leading conservative bloggers: Kathy Shaidle, Ezra Levant, Kate McMillan, and Mark and Connie Fournier.

The bloggers have all stated they will fight Warman’s suit to the limit and have appealed for financial assistance to that end.  More information on how to contribute can be found at their respective blogs.  Please give generously.

Today’s lawsuit is only tangentially related to the widening scandal now engulfing Canada’s “human rights” commissions.  Although Mr Warman is closely (indeed, much too closely) associated with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, his latest suit is intended to be heard in a real court with a real judge following real standards of law and rules of evidence.

He alleges that the defendants defamed him by reporting that he authored and posted a racist and sexist statement on the internet.  The post was a vile and bigoted personal attack on Liberal Senator Anne Cools.  Based on the IP address and other technical information regarding the origin of that post, one Bernard Klatt testified at a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing in February 2007 that Warman posted that item.  Mr Kay reported that allegation as fact at the National Post’s website, and the bloggers did likewise at their sites.  (The Post apologised and retracted Kay’s blog post the following day, but apparently that wasn’t good enough.)

Warman maintains that the accusation that he wrote the post is false and defamatory.

The case could well turn on technical information.  In a real court, truth is a defence so, if the IP address can be conclusively verified as Warman’s own, he would seem to have no case.  (Indeed, he would be exposed as a liar.)

I find it very interesting that Mark Steyn is not named as a defendant, even though he also stated that Warman wrote the disputed post and even suggested “explicit collusion between the CHRC investigators and their former colleague, Mr Warman”.  Why was Mr Steyn left out?

Previous related post: Is fraud now a “human right” in Canada?

Print This Post Print This Post
|