Canada, too

While the storyline about the FLDS compound in Texas continues, it seems to be losing some of its steam in the US media. This was bound to happen as other headlines became more compelling and as the officials in Texas now have to deal with the outcomes of their raid, such as dealing with the multitude of children who have been taken from their parents and trying to see if there are legal charges to be pursued, instead of charging in to rescue people from the clutches of religious sect.

A news story out of Canada, though, shows that the story is more than a story in the USA. There is a portion of the FLDS group that settled in Bountiful, Canada. I seem to remember that this community is in Western Canada, but, beyond that, I am unable to give geographical help. As the rightly appointed governmental officials look at the FLDS group in their area, the conflict between religion and the law is taking place there as well.

According to the story written by Darah Hansen and Jonathan Fowlie of the Canwest News Service on April 8, 2008: "There's no point in criminally charging alleged abusers in B.C.'s polygamous community of Bountiful until the courts rule on the constitutionality of polygamy itself, a senior Vancouver lawyer has concluded." Apparently, the issue is what kinds of protection are afforded a group on the basis of its religious beliefs. To quote from the article again, "The constitutional question hinges on whether the charter offers protection to polygamists on the basis of religion and freedom of expression."

That dovetails neatly with what I have commented before on this issue - see posts from April 6 & 8. When does the legal code of a land trump the religious practices of a group of people? Or, when do the religious practices take precedent, regardless of what the law defines as legal and appropriate?

It seems that some practices would be considered abhorrent enough by the people at large that those practices would never be sanctioned by the society as a whole. But, who determines where that line is?

If you were the person in charge of making that determination, would you draw the line to favor the legal code or the religious group? Would you cast aside and prohibit the practices of a minority group in favor of the views of the majority?

As always, it is a tough call.