“Even though our application was rejected, I think the exercise was valuable in familiarizing the judge with polyamory generally, in starting the discussion in the media, and in getting clearer where the prov AG is thinking.”

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.

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.

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.

Hi fellow polyamorists. We’d like to thank you for your contribution to the CPAA 2010 survey. We have already used some of the results in court filings and will continue to use the results as appropriate. Below is a summary of the results which we reported to the court.

Update June 10: links fixed.

The CPAA has filed its evidence with the court. The main thrust of our evidence was to describe examples of Canadian polyamourous families. We filed affidavits with detailed descriptions of five different healthy, functioning poly groups in five provinces. Each group was described by one of its members.

Almost a month ago, we posted the Attorney General’s summary of the polygamy statute’s legislative history, but we didn’t have the supporting documents. We can now give you the whole thing. The record seems silent about the problems most of Section 293′s modern proponents claim it’s needed to address.

Thanks to those who filled out the survey, especially witnesses! The results will help us protect the poly community. Remember, some witnesses still need to contact us.

The CPAA is creating policy statements, and we need to hear from the polyamorous community.

We know Canada’s polyamorists don’t want to be criminalized. We don’t know what else they believe. We need to create a “platform” for the CPAA: positions beyond the Section 293 litigation, as well as positions that my influence how we conduct that case.

The two Catholic organizations have dropped out of the case.