but, how do you enforce a polygamy law?

it's not against the law to shack up with multiple people. so, then, it becomes against the law when you take an oath to sacrament the union? this prohibition is supposed to be rooted in puritanism, but all you're doing with it is negating the value of the ceremony. it's just fuzzy logic, through and through.

this case has been a disaster from the start, because the crown pursued the wrong set of charges.

i don't understand why the government would even want to pass laws against polygamy. in a free society, few women would choose polygamy, but the ones that do would be making an informed choice. i don't know how a government can stand there with a straight face and claim it's upholding female autonomy around abortion rights, then tell women they're not allowed to be in a legal, polyamourous relationship. there's a ridiculous contradiction underlying female autonomy, there. the only way this line of thinking makes any remote amount of sense at all is if you bring in this backwards burkean/foucouldian model of male dominance, and all this bullshit about men having some kind of "natural dominance" over women - then you ban polygamy to protect the weaker sex. but, why are we having this discussion in 2019?

and, i don't even want to have the debate about "religious freedom". i don't believe in "religious freedom"; there's a stronger argument for legal polygamy stemming from female bodily autonomy. any feminist able to think the issue through should see that, clearly.

but, what was/is happening in bountiful was/is not a consensual community of non-attached adults, but rather essentially a sex farm for girls. little girls. to conflate this with any meaningful concept of polygamy, or reduce the crime of having sex with little girls to be that you're having sex with more than one little girl at a time, is really kind of disgusting.

so, they should have been charged with an array of crimes that included things like pedophilia, statutory rape, sexual trafficking, etc.

instead, they got a toothless conviction on a law that shouldn't exist, which amounted to a slap on the wrist.

this is closer to what they should be doing. i hope they get a conviction, as insufficient as it is, in the grander scope of it.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/decision-expected-today-in-case-of-child-bride-from-bountiful-b-c-1.4426497

when i hear trans people complain about how a silly technological gimmick is trivializing the "trans experience", my reaction is that they need to chill out a little bit and stop taking themselves so seriously.

relax.

it's not that serious.

and, you sound like a pretentious goof in insinuating that it is.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/in-gender-swap-photo-filters-some-trans-people-see-therapy-1.4426532

the show tonight was enjoyable; i had to get out out of the house, and i knew xiu xiu are always entertaining. the first act suffered from a very weak mix, and the second act was actually maybe the high point, even if i enjoyed it sitting down.

i'll have some reviews later.

for now, i just want to point something out - and tonight was not an isolated occurrence, this is something i've experienced on multiple occasions, and i never know how to get the point across besides to escape: the fact is that if i manage to steal your girlfriend's heart in the course of a few minutes without even trying then she probably didn't actually like you all that much and that frustration, while understandable, cannot be directed at me, however passive-aggressively.

i do this all of the time, and i'm not even trying.

it's a reflection on what exists in front of you; i'm just a prop. honestly.

and, i don't understand why they think i'm even game. really.

should the government wish to involve itself in online speech issues, and this may be beneficial to everybody, it must come with a stringent concept of due process. government agencies investigating complaints must be subject to the rule of law, and actions must be regulated by an active court process. speech is paramount, sacred, and not something to be dangled around as a part of an electoral charade.

while i recognize that this is probably just bait for a culture war, and that legislation of this type is unlikely to pass parliamentary scrutiny in a state that treasures free speech as much as canada, this remains a dangerous line of thinking that the current ruling party is on the wrong side of history on. it is adamantly not the government's role to protect it's citizens from online speech, and any suggestion that it is should be relentlessly savaged by anything that dares to call itself a free press.

this kind of backwardsness has absolutely no place in the canadian legal or political discourse.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-introducing-digital-charter-to-combat-hate-speech-misinformation-1.4424785