Re: They call it ‘celestial’ marriage. A court just called it polygamy, July 25

They call it ‘celestial’ marriage. A court just called it polygamy, July 25

I am so glad to hear of the guilty verdict in this case. Religious freedom should never trump basic human rights.

It seems that Bountiful bishop Winston Blackmore thinks only men get to have rights. What about the rights of women to choose who to marry and when to marry?

A few years ago, when this issue was in the news, a female reporter asked a man from Bountiful if women in his community could have more than one husband. He looked shocked and said that would be wrong.

So equal rights for women are wrong in his mind?

Ellen Grant, Toronto

Lady Justice stands a bit taller today, her scales balanced in favour of the harms done to women and children by the practice of polygamy.

The guilty verdicts for both Winston Blackmore and James Oler for polygamy will go down in infamy.

The Polygamy Reference Trial of 2010-11 ended with B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Bauman’s decision that Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which proscribes the practice of polygamy, is constitutionally sound.

That laid the groundwork for evidence to be gathered against these two former bishops of Bountiful.

It has been a gruelling process for all involved, with the patience of activists wearing thin and the victims thinking justice had failed them. Finally, we have all exhaled.

I do not think a constitutional challenge, as threatened by Blackmore’s lawyer Blair Suffredine, will get very far.

Nancy Mereska, founder, Stop Polygamy in Canada, Two Hills, Alta.

Abuse took place under our noses, DiManno, July 26

Rosie DiManno draws an interesting correlation between children who are married off by their parents to be raped by an older man and Omar Khadr, who was carried off by his parents to be shot and then tortured.

These children are not wives or soldiers; they are children and victims of the twisted minds of their parents.

Of course, if the Canadian government contributed in any way to the mistreatment of these children, it must make amends.

The Canadian government was complicit in the torture of a child named Omar Khadr and it is tragic that some journalists and politicians still maintain the charade that he was anything but a child.

Bill Harrison, Toronto

It was only a matter of time before someone added the “if” factor to the Khadr decision. If the indignity and abuse of rights inflicted upon Omar Khadr warrants a government response of $10 million, then what about . . .

And, today, Rosie DiManno launched the “if file.” It’s a good beginning. Since much of our law is based on precedent, then the government and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau owe us an explanation about why Mr. Khadr received justice and the hundreds of abused women in Bountiful do not.

That’s only the first in a long list of required explanations, which include Indigenous abuse of rights, historical abuses such as the imprisoned Canadian Japanese during the Second World War, abused seniors . . . the list is a long one.

Many Canadians praise our government and its leader for their decision regarding Mr. Khadr. I’m one of them. But with praise comes responsibility and accountability that extends far beyond a one-off redress of abuse.

Canadians are entitled to this complex reply. Is the Khadr case an announcement of more to come? If so, how will the choices be made, along with the price tags applied? If not, why not? How will Canada justify addressing one case of abuse and not another?

Don Graves, Burlington

Canadians should be rejoicing the fact that, after decades of ignoring its own laws, the government prosecuted Winston Blackmore for his crime of polygamy and convicted him of abusing women and children.

However, this victory is overshadowed by the fact that the government was complicit in his long reign of abuse. Blackmore’s argument that he thought having multiple wives is legal in Canada because no one took him to court makes legal, if not moral, sense.

History shows that the Canadian government suffers from moral timidity because of the chilling effect of religion on constitutional law. It therefore refused to charge him with polygamy and stop his criminal behaviour.

That despicable negligence is what is most shocking and disturbing about this case and calls into question Canadian values. The government knew what to do but hesitated because it feared transgressing the Charter’s freedom of religion. That’s religious legal abuse.

Surely, it’s a moral perversity when the welfare of women and children has to be sacrificed in order to protect Canada’s freedom of religion.

That’s a devil’s bargain that reasonable Canadians should resist.

Tony D’Andrea, Toronto