All entries by this author

No appeal… we need your help on long-term strategy

Dec 21st, 2011 | By

George Macintosh, the court-appointed lawyer arguing against Canada’s “polygamy law”, won’t appeal Chief Justice Bauman’s November 23 finding. The CPAA expected an appeal and is surprised.

We don’t have legal standing to bring our own appeal. Unless the Attorneys General decide to take this to a higher court, we don’t see any way to attack Section 293 directly in the near future.

The good news: without litigation setting an agenda for us, we can set our own, taking a fresh look at what Canada’s poly majority needs. We’re free to think about the long term, and we’d like your help.

If we really are done in court for now, in the coming weeks and months we’ll look at where the CPAA should go next: what our principles should be, where our priorities should lie, what services we should provide, what strategies we should use, who our allies should be, how we’ll be funded, and how we should organize ourselves. We can reinvent the CPAA completely, if that’s what needs to be done.
[continue reading…]



Most of us in the clear… for now

Nov 23rd, 2011 | By

The decision is in. Although the law was upheld, the judge’s interpretation means that most of the poly majority isn’t criminalized. However, those who have formalized their commitments aren’t out of the woods.

There’s more in our press release and in the judge’s reasons.

Our thanks go out to all the community members who’ve supported us. The CPAA is in this for the long haul. We will continue our work, on appeal, in Parliament, or wherever it takes, until all loving, healthy polyamorous relationships are fully accepted in Canada. And we’ll still need your help.

We are, of course, still and always available for interviews at +1 778 786 8010.



CPAA Reacts to BC Supreme Court Decision

Nov 23rd, 2011 | By

CPAA Relieved That Polyamorist Relationships Are Not Criminalized

VANCOUVER — November 23, 2011 — The Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association (CPAA) is relieved by BC Chief Justice Robert Bauman’s decision today clarifying the interpretation of Canada’s anti-polygamy law.

“Polyamorists are relieved they can be in loving egalitarian conjugal relationships without criminal sanction,” said CPAA legal counsel, John Ince, “Common law relationships are clearly not prohibited. Polyamorists who are dealing with immigration or family custody issues for instance now need no longer worry about being considered to be criminals”.

Many polyamorous women, as well as men, have multiple partners, and polyamorists think men and women have equal freedom to define their relationships. The CPAA says the decision will relieve most polyamorists but, alarmingly, will harm those who make certain formal commitments.

[Click title for more]



Ready for the decision

Nov 22nd, 2011 | By

The CPAA, and Canada’s poly majority, are digesting todays’s decision. The Court posted it at

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/2011BCSC1588.htm

John Ince, our lawyer and a CPAA Director, will be in the lockup at the courthouse. He’ll be available for press interviews at 10:00 AM.

The CPAA press hotline is at +1 778 786 8010.

Phone spokespeople will be available from 10:00, although it may take until 10:30 or so for us to have a clear reaction on the phone. We’ll also be watching email.

We’ll be blogging and tweeting as appropriate. We’ll update this post with a direct link to the decision when we have it.



Decision November 23

Nov 8th, 2011 | By

The Court has announced that the judgement will be released at 10:00 (AM, Vancouver time), on November 23, 2011. The reasons for decision will posted here at that time: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court/recent_Judgments.aspx There will be about an hour and half of supervised early access for the parties’ counsel and the media, but any counsel or media people who participate will not be allowed to communicate with the “outside world” until release time.
[continue reading…]



30 to 1 or 500 to 1, we dwarf Bountiful. Why is it about them?

Dec 1st, 2010 | By

Among those affected by the “polygamy law”, polyamorists are the ones with the numbers.

So who chose Bountiful to be the public face?

Most polyamorists don’t think of ourselves as “polygamous”, but the law does. The “polygamy law” says modern, secular, egalitarian conjugal polyamorists should go to prison.

For every polygynous family in Bountiful, Canada has dozens, maybe hundreds, of polyamorous families. At a minimum, there are about as many of us as there are Muslim polygynists… who also vastly outnumber Bountiful. We may outnumber even Muslims… by as much as 15 to 1. Invisibility hurts us… and it’s not deserved.

Click the headline for details.



S.293 reference starts. We give you ALL the documents

Nov 21st, 2010 | By

Oral arguments are beginning. We’re celebrating the first live action in the reference case by opening up our internal archive of court documents. This includes practically every court document filed by every party to the case.

Here’s the Google Docs folder.

As far as we know, this is the only complete and unbiased collection of these documents available to the public, short of going down to the courthouse.

[2010-12-08: Archive now maintained by the AGBC]



CPAA does NOT ask for immunity…

Sep 7th, 2010 | By

Apparently there’s some confusion in the media.

The CPAA has not asked, does not have any plan to ask, and has never planned to ask, for immunity from prosecution for our witnesses in the Section 293 reference case. We’re also not asking to give any kind of anonymous evidence.



Winding up the policy consultations

Aug 26th, 2010 | By

It’s time to start getting the rest of the policy statements adopted. If you have any changes or objections, post them now. We are taking comments from the entire community. You do not have to be a CPAA member, you do not have to be a CPAA volunteer, and in fact you don’t even have to be poly.



FAQ: The Litigation, the Law, and the Charter

Jun 16th, 2010 | By

Here’s our FAQ on the section 293 litigation, s. 293 itself, how it connects to the charter, our position, our reasons for participating in the case, etc.