View Single Post
Old 12-22-2011, 06:22 PM
ImaginaryIllusion's Avatar
ImaginaryIllusion ImaginaryIllusion is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,991
Thumbs down Amicus won't appeal BC Decision.

So it's been announced that the Amicus won't be filing an appeal on the reference case, though did not explain his reasoning. There's still a couple days for the AG's to decide if they want to appeal, but at the moment it looks like the court cases are done for the moment.

The upshot of this,...the time we have to work on Polyamory's image has been considerably extended, becoming an ally rather than an obstacle. It also means that the next best way of revising or killing the statute will be the MPs.

CPAA will be re-evaluating what direction to take, and will be looking for input from the community.

No appeal… we need your help on long-term strategy

Dec 21st, 2011 | By jbash

George Macintosh, the court-appointed lawyer arguing against Canada’s “polygamy law”, won’t appeal Chief Justice Bauman’s November 23 finding. The CPAA expected an appeal and is surprised.

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.


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.

Polygamy ruling won’t be appealed
VANCOUVER— From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2011 9:51PM EST

A court-appointed lawyer will not appeal a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that upheld Canada’s ban on polygamy, leaving the federal and provincial attorneys-general only two days to decide what to do next.

The decision announced on Wednesday by George Macintosh, who was appointed in the case to argue that Criminal Code provisions prohibiting polygamy are unconstitutional, does not rule out the possibility of further court action – at least not yet. The provincial or federal attorney-general can still ask for a review of the case in the B.C. Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada if they want to expand the ruling’s application to the whole country.
“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” - Chinese Proverb

-Imaginary Illusion

How did I get here & Where am I going?
Reply With Quote