“We’re poly, we’re proud and we’re going to continue our efforts to tell Canadians and the world that polyamory is here, is growing and is most likely practiced by someone that you know,” said Zoe Duff, Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association (CPAA) Coordinator.

Sponsored by the CPAA, the conference will begin with a keynote address “Living Honestly and Creating Change” (Samantha Fraser, Toronto) and includes workshops with topics such as: Jealousy and Boundaries in Non-Monogamy – The Arc of the Polyamory Movement (Pepper Mint and Jen Day, San Francisco); How not to be a PolyElite Douchenozzle – Different Strokes and Double Standards (Samantha Fraser, Toronto); Narrative Interviews: Comparing New and Experienced Polyamorous People (Miriam Katz); Centering the Periphery: Finding Space for Polyamory’s Marginalized Identities (Patti Dervyshire, Tiffany Sostar and Melanie Carroll, Calgary); and Creating a Line Family (Richard Gilmore and Elon de Arcana, Seattle/Hawaii).  there will also be a panel discussion on Polyamory and Family Law (moderated by Zoe Duff, Victoria). 

An assortment of recreational activities are available for participants.  The CPAA’s Annual General Meeting will also be held during the weekend.

The CPAA intervened in BC Supreme Court because the language of a 120-year-old Canadian Criminal Code statute – which was aimed at allegedly abusive polygynous practices – captured many of the modern, egalitarian and secular relationships praacticed by polyamorists.  Justice Bauman ruled in November 2011 that the law does not apply to uncommitted polyamorous relationships.  The conference theme of “Claiming our Right to Love” references that confirmation of legaity and celebrates polyamory in Canada.

For more information on the conference visit polyadvocacy.ca or email info@polyadvocacy.ca

The CPAA is on Facebook at  facebook.com/polyadvocacy

-          advocacy for a general population awareness of polyamory;

-          building resources on the national level for legal and political rights;

-          providing resources for local organizers and assisting in their networking and program development;

-          outreach within the sex positive community particularly in the under 30 age group;

-          media and social media networking ;

-          facilitate/encourage research projects to gather demographic data of the Canadian poly community;

-          expand our reference library and database of poly friendly professionals;

-          policy development and long term advocacy planning for marriage rights and equal citizenship

Sessions will be ninety minutes long with fifteen minute breaks and will run from 8:30 to 4:30 pm on Saturday June 1^st.  Longer sessions would be scheduled for the evening of June 1^st or combined with the opening events on Friday May 31^st.  There are no sessions but the Annual General Meeting planned for Sunday June 2^nd.

PolyCon has a preference for Canadian presenters as we want to showcase what is happening in Canada and celebrate the gains achieved while brainstorming on the work ahead. International presenters are however welcome as we are happy to invite our global poly community to share its wisdom.

We encourage presenters to promote their projects, businesses, or other material during their session and at the conference.  However, 90% of any session should be non-promotion material or experiences.  There will be a vendors area available for sales and promotional booths.

Email info@polyadvocacy.ca   for your application.

PolyCon  -  Claiming Our Right to Love

May 31 to June 2, 2013

in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Friday night reception.
Saturday all day workshop sessions and evening events hosted by local poly groups.
Sunday AGM for CPAA membership and poly community leadership networking event.

Registration and more details to follow.  Watch the website for details as they unfold.   www.polyadvocacy.ca
Workshop facilitators, vendors, live entertainers, authors and children/youth activity facilitators interested in participating,please email info@polyadvocacy.ca
Poly community members interested in participating in the planning committee, please email zaeduff@polyadvocacy.ca

I wanted to see if it was possible to send a message through your organization for people to contact me? I was recently interviewed for The Globe and Mail’s article on Polyamory – my show was the basis for the article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/polyamory-threes-or-fours-or-fives-company/article4560587/

I am pro-Polyamory and my goal is continuing the Polyamory conversation in the mainstream.
I hope to hear from you, I would love to spread the word through your organization.
Thanks so much, look forward to hearing from you.

best,
natalia garcia
executive producer/director
www.nataliagarcia.net

(Email posted with permission of the author)

VANCOUVER — March 30, 2012 — At its Annual General Meeting on March 25, 2012, the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association (CPAA) celebrated a successful end to litigation and various accomplishments acting as a voice for the legal rights of Canada’s polyamorous community. The CPAA aims to increase general awareness of polyamory in the coming year and further its role as a resource for polyamory organizers across the country.

At the meeting, which included supporters from across Canada, there was a spirited debate on strategies to increase public awareness about polyamory and its community of predominantly healthy, happy, modern and socially well-integrated families. The CPAA’s new board of directors is representative of its increasingly national advocacy focus, with directors residing in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia.

The AGM noted with much appreciation the retirement of three very hard working members of the association’s leadership team. The organization is “sad to lose them as directors but we are assured of their continued support as members”, says Zoe Duff, a continuing director.

“We have some exciting ideas for events and projects, and an excellent group of members and country-wide supporters who are firmly behind our team,” said Duff. “We’re poly, we’re proud, and we’re going to continue our efforts to tell Canadians and the world that polyamory is here, is growing, and is most likely practiced by someone that you know,” Duff continued.

Incoming director Anlina Sheng points out that while almost all polyamorous relationships are now legal in Canada, “we believe that formalized polyamorous relationships need to be decriminalized as well, and we’re prepared to fight for decriminalization if any polyamorous families or individuals are affected by this law in the future.” Sheng is referring to a ruling by BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman last year.

The CPAA intervened in BC Supreme Court because the language of a 120-year-old Canadian Criminal Code statute — which was aimed at patriarchal polygamy — could capture the modern, egalitarian and secular relationships practiced by polyamorists. Bauman ruled in November 2011 that the law does not apply to unformalized polyamorous relationships.

 For more information on the CPAA, visit http://polyadvocacy.ca or email info@polyadvocacy.ca

The CPAA is on Facebook at http://facebook.com/polyadvocacy

-30-

 Contacts:

Zoe Duff, 250-419-1348, zaeduff@polyadvocacy.ca

Anlina Sheng, anlinasheng@polyadvocacy.ca

 ____________

Background

In a court process called a “reference”, in 2009 the BC government put a question to the BC Supreme Court to test the constitutionality of Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada (the so called “polygamy law”). The Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association (CPAA) intervened in that court proceeding on behalf of polyamory and polyamorous Canadians.

On Nov 23, 2011, Chief Justice Bauman released his ruling on the constitutionality of Section 293 and ruled that the law does not apply to unformalized polyamorous relationships.

It is the CPAA’s position that adults should be free to choose to enter into multi partner intimate relationships without state interference as long as they are freely consenting and there is no criminal exploitation or abuse. Canadians have Charter rights to do so (rights of association, religion, equality, and of life, liberty and security of the person).

Polyamory (“many loves”) is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Among the concepts critical to the understanding of consent and of ethical behaviour within polyamory are gender equality, self-determination, free choice for all involved, mutual trust, and equal respect among partners.

Polyamory is very different in philosophy from the patriarchal polygamy practiced in religious communities such as at Bountiful, BC. Polyamorous relationships may take a great variety of forms and are based on individual choice. In polyamory, women are free to choose more than one male partner and vice versa. And women are among the most active facilitators in polyamorous communities. Polyamory, which tends to be secular, is grounded in gender equality, self-determination, and free choice for everyone involved.

Newsweek Magazine reported that polyamory is a thriving phenomenon in the United States, with over half a million families openly living in relationships that are between multiple consenting partners. It is our experience that there is a similar ratio of polyamorists in Canada’s population. See http://www.newsweek.com/id/209164/.

The CPAA advocates on behalf of Canadians who practice polyamory. It promotes legal, social, government, and institutional acceptance and support of polyamory, and advances the interests of the Canadian polyamorous community generally. It is a non profit society, incorporated in the province of British Columbia.

The CPAA was founded in 2009 and has active members, volunteers, and supporters from across Canada.

For more information or to contact the CPAA, visit http://polyadvocacy.ca or email info@polyadvocacy.ca

The CPAA is on Facebook at http://facebook.com/polyadvocacy

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.

We’ll be asking for community ideas and help, via our own Web site and in other places. And, yes, we’ll fix the forums.

There is a possibility that either the Government of BC or the Government of Canada could take this case to a higher court; experts have suggested that they might want to get a decision that carries more weight throughout Canada, rather than settling for a BC decision. If that happens, we will probably continue along our existing litigation-driven path, and defer any major strategic rethinking. We don’t know how likely it is… but, by doing it, the Governments might be putting their substantial victory at risk.

We thank all the community members who’ve supported us in the last couple of years, and ask for your guidance and support wherever the coming years take us.

More on on the finding and the lack of appeal

Mr. Macintosh hasn’t publicly said why he chose not to appeal, because the issue may come before another court in the future. Although it’s frustrating for us, as a matter of proper legal practice he’s probably right not to explain.

Section 293’s threat has been weakened; it could have been read much more broadly. The lines aren’t as sharply drawn as we’d like, but it applies only to formal, institutionalized multi-partner marriages, clearly not to informal “common law” style relationships.

Still, the CPAA believes that major parts of the finding are legally wrong, and that Section 293 violates the Canadian Charter of Rights. Charter aside, we believe it’s an unwise and harmful law, for our community and for others. Innocent people are at risk, and there are much better ways to address the abuses its supporters are concerned about.

Eliminating Section 293 entirely is still a CPAA goal, but we’ll have to lay a lot of groundwork to do that. And other issues may be as pressing, or more so, for our community.

Hello everyone:

It has been two weeks since the Polygamy Reference court decision was released by Chief Justice Baumann of the BC Supreme Court. I have thought a great deal about the case since then, and communicated with lawyers and people in our legal team about how that decision affects the members of the Canadian polyamory community.

Thoughts only – not advice and not the official position of the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association (CPAA)
These are my thoughts. And they are just that. Thoughts. These words are not intended to be legal advice to anyone. If you want such advice please hire a lawyer to get his or her opinion about the case and how it might apply to your own unique circumstances.

Also these are my personal thoughts. I am not expressing any official policy of the CPAA or anyone else.

In general terms, I think that the decision allows us to do virtually anything the vast majority of polyamorists would want to do.

That is not to say that I agree with all of the court’s conclusions. I think he made errors in his Charter analysis and I think the scope of the prohibition he ultimately defined is still overbroad and unconstitutional. I think this judgment could be overturned on appeal.

But while I may disagree with many of the judge’s points, his conclusion is very positive for our community. His decision makes it clear that polyamorists are not criminals and this is a major step forward for our community to gain social acceptance and become more integrated into mainstream Canadian culture.

The Decision
The judge interpreted Canada’s criminal law against polygamy narrowly so that it only criminalizes non-monogamous relationships that are a) institutionalized b) marriages. The law, he said, protects the “institution of monogamous marriage”. He concluded that the law does not apply to non-monogamous relationships in general.

Of the two terms “institutionalized” and “marriage” the former is the most important, not only because it narrows the second term, but also because the concept of “institutionalized” is clearer than the concept of “marriage”.

The judge discussed three types of institutionalized marriage and they give a guide to what he means by “institutionalized”.

The first type is the institution of two person heterosexual marriage. As the judge discussed, that institution has thousands of years of cultural practice behind it and in Canada 150 years of formal legal definition and sanction. It is clearly an institution.

As to the key elements of that institution the evidence suggests these things:
1) marriage has a community dimension because the marriage affects the wider community and not just the parties to the marriage;
2) the community must in some way formally sanction the marriage through an authority structure;
3) some form of marriage registration must occur so the community can determine a marriage has taken place;
4) the public nature of the ceremony is in part designed to tell others that the parties to the marriage are off-limits for sexual purposes;
5) because the marriage affects the wider community the terms of the marriage cannot be renegotiated by the parties themselves;
6) the parties to a marriage cannot dissolve it themselves; dissolution requires another public ceremony or involvement of third parties
(from paragraphs 227, 1020, 1037-1042 of the court’s decision which is at http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/2011BCSC1588.htm )

The formal sanctioning by the Canadian legal system in the last twenty years of a new form of monogamous marriage – homosexual – which the judge also recognized shows that marriage can be institutionalized by new practices.

The third type of institutionalized marriage discussed by the court was that of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the “FLDS”), a patriarchal, polygynous and fundamentalist sect which broke off from the Mormon church many years ago. That community, although a virtual legal outcast from mainstream culture, has a roughly 150 year marriage tradition and it clearly meets the above criteria of institutionalization.

The FLDS marriage is discussed in the holy books that the community reveres. Specific practices sanction the marriage and the marriage is approved by people of authority in the community. The fact of the marriage is well known in the community. There are rules which prohibit sexual contact outside marriage. More rules authorize expelling people from the community for violation of marriage vows. There are rules and practices for the dissolution of the marriage.

Muslim multi-party marriage traditions are similarly rich in institutional detail and long practice.

According to the judge’s decision, the FLDS and Muslim multi-party marriages are institutionalized and hence prohibited by the Criminal Code. To the argument that the prohibition breached the Charter, he replied that the harm caused by institutionalized multi-party marriage prevented Charter protection.

Application of the decision to polyamorists
Now I apply these points with the facts that I believe pertain to the polyamorous community in Canada.

I see no form of polyamorous marriage in Canada that could be called “institutionalized” within the meaning of the decision. Nowhere in the literature about polyamory filed in the court is there any discussion of such an institution in Canada or the U.S.

There are some polyamorous community values regarding relationship: such as that it is consensual, honest, and gender and sex-orientation equal, but this applies to all relationships, not “marriage”.

There are also community values about personal autonomy and the overriding right of the individual to follow their own path in getting in and out of relationship, while respecting the interests and feelings of others, and those values are incompatible with the institutionalization of marriage as discussed above.

I conclude that given the lack of polyamorous history, sanction or support for “polyamorous marriage” that polyamorous people cannot form the type of marriages that the judge found are prohibited.

I go so far as to say that even if polyamorous people wanted to form such relationships, they cannot. The whole structure of institutionalization that the judge emphasized over and over again as key to his decision is simply lacking in our community.

Could this structure be created by a sect of polyamorists who want to create a specific form of polyamory for their members? Yes, but they would have to create rules of membership in the community, an ideology of marriage or rules of marriage, a process of formalizing marriage, punishments for breaking marriage vows, and ways to dissolve the marriage.

Members of the sect who participated in such “marriage” ceremonies would be breaking the law as the judge defined it. However such a sect if charged with an offence would have the opportunity to raise evidence showing that polyamorous marriage causes none of the harms which the court defined in the Reference case, and hence Charter protections might apply and prevent any conviction.

Given the current Canadian polyamorous community, I believe such a sect would have very few members. But if there are people who really want marriage then they can form that sect and take their chances with the law.

How far can we legally go?
Because there is no polyamorous institution of marriage, how far can polyamorous people go in celebrating and formalizing their relationships? In my view: probably as far as they want.

The furthest would be to have a formal celebration, with vows, and rings, and even to expressly call it a marriage. This is probably not a prohibited form of “marriage” because it lacks the institutionalization discussed above. Specifically, it is entirely ad hoc and personal to the parties. There is no community structure defining any aspect of the marriage, no third party dissolving the marriage, no punishment for leaving the marriage.

Given the fact that marriage is so bound up with monogamy I believe very few people in the polyamorous community would want to use the language and trappings of marriage for such ad hoc celebrations. But as I say, they probably can go that far and not offend the law.

Avoiding use of the word “marriage” or even formally disavowing that the celebration is a form of marriage would remove any legal risk that I can see. These steps may not be necessary, however I would include them if I was involved in such a ceremony.

So I think we can have ceremonies where we celebrate our relationships. We can take vows of love and commitment. We can share rings. We can have contracts about finances, and child rearing, and health care. All of those things occur regularly in common law monogamous relationships.

Borrowing institutionalized structure
An interesting issue would arise should a polyamorous couple want to borrow the institutionalized structure of a group that is not formally polyamorous. For example, say there is a ceremony that is overtly defined as a “marriage”, that also follows Wiccan traditions and which is presided over by an accredited Wiccan official. Or say there was a break-away sect of the Catholic Church led by a former priest who has a congregation and who will “marry” anyone or any number of people, using all the trappings of the Catholic Church.

I think the prosecution could make a strong argument that there was sufficient “borrowed institutionalization” applying to these official purported “marriages” to make them offend the law. Hence any explicitly purported “marriage” conducted by any official from a real community would not be advisable in my opinion. If you want to call your ceremony a marriage, getting any “official” involved increases your legal risk.

Having an “official” from a community preside at a ceremony increases the risk of criminalization, but if you are determined to do that, your legal situation will be better but not absolutely secure if you do not call the ceremony a “marriage” and even better, formally disavow that the process is a “marriage”.

Pensions, immigration, community property, child custody issues
Finally, many people want to know how this case affects issues not related to the formalization of marriage, such as its impact on immigration, pension, community property or hospital attendance privileges for people in polyamorous relationships.

Because the court found that polyamorous relationships that are not institutionalized into a form of marriage are lawful, people in such relationships no longer have to face the chilling argument in child custody, immigration or other matters that they are criminals. That is obviously a very positive outcome of this case.

Further, nothing in this case prevents people in cohabiting polyamorous relationships from entering contracts with respect to most key family issues, such as community property and the care of children, and hospital privileges.

However many issues cannot be resolved by agreement of the parties but must be specifically authorized by legislation, such as immigration privileges or automatic community property or pensions. Laws do grant privileges to people who are legally married, and also many common law monogamous marriages.

Many polyamorous people want those same rights.

The problem is that polyamorous cohabitation is so new that society has not yet worked out how to apply the rights that monogamous couples enjoy to a multi-party cohabitation.

These rights are going to have to be worked out on a case by case basis over time. Gay couples won their battles that way. Over a period of a couple of decades they litigated many cases dealing with child custody, pensions, tax issues, etc. It was only after those other rights and obligations were established—allowing gay relationships to become mainstream—did gay couples ultimately gain the privilege to participate in institutionalized monogamous marriage.

We need to remember that the gay marriage issue was the last major legal issue to be resolved about gay equality, not the first. If there are polyamorous people who want exactly what homosexuals got, who want the right to traditional institutionalized poly marriage, then the first step toward that goal is resolving all issues pertaining to pensions, and immigration in a purely co-habitational context and then some time in the future seek the final step of the legal recognition of polyamorous marriages.

John Ince
Lawyer and Spokesperson for the CPAA (polyadvocacy.ca) December 11, 2011