Shut up and pay up, polygamous Muslims tell Ireland

Warped reasoning, abject cowardice and the audacity of Muselmaniacs to demand infidels pay for their own demise:

Warning sounded over polygamous Muslim marriages
08 May 2011 By John Burke via TROP

The government has been told that it may be risking causing offence to Muslims living in Ireland who wish to engage in polygamous marriages.

Senior department officials at the Department of Social Protection said procedures where children born to second or concurrent wives were recorded as illegitimate could cause offence. In a special briefing note prepared for the minister, Joan Burton, the officials warned that Muslim men here may believe that Irish procedures were ‘‘disrespectful’’ to their religion.

Right. Will the Irish respect stoning, FGM, child marriage, honor killings, the murder of  apostates,  killings for blasphemy, polygamy and all the rest by paying for it?

The move follows concerns by the High Court over the acceptance of certain marriages as valid when celebrated in certain countries under so-called ‘native law and custom’.

The High Court’s concern follows a case brought by a Lebanese man last year, in which he sought to obtain recognition for a second concurrent marriage, both of which he had entered into while living in Lebanon.

I n its judgment, the High Court ruled that marriages entered into in certain countries were not valid as they could be polygamous.

However, senior public servants at the department told the incoming minister that the issue could cause problems among the traditional Muslim community here.

The issue raised concerns over the registration of births in such marriages, according to the civil servants.

The officials said that men and women in such marriages could be offended by labelling their children as being born out of wedlock.

‘‘In the case of registration of births, such births will have to be treated as non-marital births and the relevant procedures for registration of such births will have to be followed, including recording of civil status as ‘single’,” according to the memo.

‘‘This has potential to cause offence to couples concerned. They may well view the procedures as being disrespectful of their status, as they may understandably believe themselves to be validly married in accordance with their culture and religious beliefs,” it read.

18 thoughts on “Shut up and pay up, polygamous Muslims tell Ireland”

  1. So, Irish Protestants and Catholics are willing to fight each other, but unwilling to fight to protect Christianity itself.
    How thin Irish culture, nationality and heritage are wearing these days.

  2. God forbid that we should offend them! See what political correctness is getting you? Fight back! Defend yourselves for God’s sake. If you went to their country and DEMANDED your way of life, you know what they would do to you. They would deny you, AND laugh at you! Go ahead and offend them. Why not? They don’t mind offending you. Do not let them take over your country. Your country IS worth fighting for, is it not? Well? Is it? If YOU did anything illegal, you would be arrested! So arrest THEM! Why should they get special treatment?! Use your laws against them! Knock them down a peg or two. Put them back into their places.

  3. I find it difficult to believe that our pc lefty politicians and bureaucrats can be so thick. Offending these awful people is a good thing, not a problem. If we offend them enough they might just go back to their camel dung caliphates of origin and leave civilized people in peace.
    Why does no one ever ask me whether I’m offended by the habits and practices of these disgusting stone-age savages?

  4. Regarding Stephen Ire’s comment above, polygamy isn’t legal anywhere in Canada. However, there is before the Court a challenge to our marriage laws filed by a faction of wingnut mormons in Bountiful, British Columbia. Procedings have been completed, and the decision is awaited. We are very nervous about the outcome, as our illustrious supreme court’s views fall somewhere between those of Michael Moore and Anjem Chowderhead.

  5. Yes, polygamy is legal in Saskatchewan Canada.
    It is also sanctioned and/or recognized by the provincial government under section 51 of their Family Law Act. They have renamed polygamy as “relationship overlap” and married persons are able to cohabit with married or unmarried persons (prior to divorcing existing spouse) and the date of entering into the “subsequent ” marital status is the day they cohabit, with the full force of the law commencing upon the completion of 2 years of cohabitation. Married people then have more than one legally recognized and sanctioned spouse at a time. The marital rights and obligations of the subsequent spouse(s) are subject to the marital rights and obligations of the first in spouses. Married people do not need the consent of the “subsequent” spouse either as the state provides the consent to “become the spouse of a person who has a spouse” unilaterally under their Family Property Act (formerly Married Persons Act) Google “relationship overlap polygamy” to see the Attorney Generals statement that polygamy is prevented by not issuing a marriage license. However, the identical and I mean identical marital status is recognized and indeed forced upon the “subsequent spouses”.

  6. Furthermore, British Columbia (and Canada) for that matter do not have a “challenge to our “marriage laws” filed by a faction of wingnut mormons in Bountiful, British Columbia.” as stated by supre. The challenge is to s.293 of the Criminal Code (anti-polygamy law) In s.293 “multiple marriage” is not a requirement of polygamy. Multiple “civil marriage” is called Bigamy and is covered under s,29, not the polygamy law.
    Also, any decision by the BC supreme court is moot, because Saskatchewan already has case law that allows multiple spouses. This case law is valid across Canada.

  7. Reply to Stephen Ire:
    I’ve obviously chosen to cross swords with someone who knows much more about this matter than I.
    Are you saying that our case here in Bountiful, BC is an exercise in futility, that the die has already been cast?
    I have always worried about the implications of the SC ruling concerning same-sex marriage; not so much because it allows homosexuals to legally marry one another, but rather because it throws out the definiton of marriage as being constituted by one man entering into a legally acknowledged union with one woman. It seems to my lay mind that in the absence of defining perimiters any and all conjugal relationships must perforce be legally binding, up to and including, let’s say, the union of four women, one man, two armadillos and a toaster. Hence, it appears to me, all polygamous relationships will easily slip beneath the radar.
    Would be most interested to read your views regarding the foregoing.
    Best regards,

  8. If I recall correctly, skB, Kayser Trad has used much the same “argument” as you have worried about above to push for multiple islamic “wives” in oz.

  9. Supr,
    I don’t portend to be an authority on the outcome or the matter. However, unless Saskatchewan “authorities” who authorize multiple conjugal relationships are themselves charged with polygamy, then the Saskatchewan case law will stand across Canada. Current s.293 code makes it mandatory to charge them and that hasn’t happened. (kind of like accessory to the offense) Same sex marriage is not technically related to polygamy and is a different subject matter. The BC reference will eventually (years from now) end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. Meanwhile, the outcome of the reference will be taken into “consideration” in potential polygamy cases. It is noteworthy that not one provincial family law legislator outside of BC came forward in the reference. “Experts” came forward from the USA and elsewhere.

    Since Saskatchewan “allows”, “authorizes”, “provides consent for” and is “party to” allowing married persons to enter into subsequent spousal status (same time is this case/ without divorcing first) they are clearly defying the intent of .293. The provinces and the federal governments intend to continue to allow provinces to contravene the federal criminal code. Multiple marriage, as in receiving more than one civil marriage license covering the same time period involving more than 2 persons, is bigamy under s.290 of the Criminal Code, not polygamy. It is a federal jurisdiction under provincial “management”. If the province charges bigamists, bigamists will claim discrimination based upon marital status, and they will win that legal matter.
    In short, still married persons in Saskatchewan are able to take multiple legally recognized (family law court) spouses if they are “common law marriages”. Common law marriages are conjugal relationships just as surely as civil marriages are. It is illegal to discriminate against persons in Canada based upon their marital status.
    Since the federal government will not and cannot commence criminal charges against the Attorney General of Saskatchwan, (RCMP are under provincial direction of the provincial AG) that provinces multiple spousal legislation will stand. When you connect the legal threads the outcome will be:
    It is discrimination based on marital status to permit still married persons to take additional “authority recognized” marital rights and obligations with others in the same time period (common law marriage/conjugal relationship) but NOT permit them to have additional marital rights and obligations under multiple marriage licenses.
    Yes, the die is cast with the full knowledge of the provinces and federal authorities. AG’s who appeared at the trial balloon that is the BC reference case, were fully aware of Saskatchewan legislation and its defiance of s.293 but chose to not bring it up at the reference. Instead they purposely set off polyamorists, women, civil rights groups, teachers and other special interest groups in a circus of testimonials meant to obscure the real issues.
    The real issues of polygamy center around easily defensible “harms” of polygamy. The “history” of s.293 had apriori reasoning that was most easily observed in certain Mormon culture. The reference case chose purposefully to closely focus on that “reason” for s.293. The actual apriori reasoning for s.293 included the very building blocks of Canadian marital related legal, family and social traditions, rights and obligations of marital status. The BC reference case carefully focused on harms to women and children in “cluster environments”, knowing these abuses are covered under other legislation than s.293. BC intends to introduce new family law very shortly based upon previously held “white papers” and consultations. Saskatchewan family law legislation is included in the model for this new legislation. In other words, the BC government does not want to have to reword its proposed legislation to disallow married persons becoming eligible to take additional conjugal relationships that cover the same time period. Family law lawyers are salivating over “multiple divorce” revenue streams. No fault divorce has curtailed their revenue and new legislation will really help. They “claim” the new legislation will “remove” unjust enrichment cases from the courts and force them into the binding “family law” courts. This, they claim, will streamline common law marriage litigation and treat them identical (as Saskatchewan does) under BC family law legislation.
    BC has been very careful to NOT include in the new legislation the requirement that married persons are NOT eligible to enter into “subsequent marital rights and obligations” until the date of divorce. Quite the opposite in fact.

  10. Justice Bauman of the BC supreme court in very biased in calling polygamy= bigamy in Canada. He is obviously protecting his BC family law legislation that is coming which allows married folks to claim to have simultaneous common law marriages. Sick puppy.

  11. Saskatchewan polygamist legislation obviously is against the law and the Canadian Federal Attorney General must investigate and commence criminal investigation against any Saskatchewan officials who abuse their authority with respect to polygamy and s.293 of the criminal code of Canada.

  12. So, there is no doubt that federal justice people have seen the hundreds of postings about Saskatchewan authorities abusing their authority in declaring cohabit persons to be spouses with full marital rights and obligations to more than one legally recognized spouse at a time. Apparently they have not launched criminal investigations against Saskatchewan justice officials for this criminal act. Does Justice Bauman of BC court intend to suggest that his provincial courts have the authority to override s.293 as well?

Comments are closed.