Video Testimony - Richard Ream (ex-FLDS)

I took a short detour this morning from Courtroom 55 to the room next door, where Inderjit Singh Reyat was to be sentenced after being found guilty last September of perjury in the Air India case. He received a sentence of 9 years in prison, minus 17 months credit for time already served in custody. I make no comment.

*****************

In OUR courtroom this morning, we listened to testimony from a lapsed FLDS member

Richard Ream described a childhood in which, during school days, he “had to be careful about revealing FLDS teachings, because if the separation in the U.S. Between Church and State. I learned about sex through home, and was told that marriage was a sacred bond designated by God through the Prophet. We had no right to choose our wife, and I thought it was crazy that we had no input into the selection just because we were not allowed to put God aside in order to make our own choice. I was fourteen when I made the decision to choose my own wife, but I soon learned that marriage was reserved for the purest and holiest of men, and I was a rambunctious kid.

We were told that marriage could not be broken under any circumstances, and then Warren Jeffs came to town and started breaking up families and marriages, and moving people all over.

I handed over my paycheck every week to my Dad – I didn't keep anything. And we tithed to the church. People who have everything appreciate nothing – people who have nothing appreciate everything. Manual skills were considered more important for the End Times, so they didn't bother giving us a real education.

Today I drive a tractor-trailer. It was easy as a child to drive a car or a tractor. I worked 16-hour days, but I never reaped the proceeds of my work. I had a relationship with a girl at public school in my teens. My parents were upset worse than I had ever seen. Dad spoke to the Bishop about me; the Bishop said I need indoctrination, so I was sent to Salt Lake City. I lived for a year with an uncle, and made it two-thirds of the way through the school year, but I was expelled because of a relationship with a girl. At sixteen I was back home, got my driver's license, and was told by Dad that I was being sent to Canada, to Winston Blackmore's place. I found that Winston could communicate well with adolescents. He really appreciated the force of an attraction between a boy and a girl. It was possible to let Winston know that you liked a certain girl, and then be joined together in marriage by Winston. [So much for the chain of command through God, the Prophet and the Bishop!]

After my brother died, I tried really hard to become a good, upstanding member of the church – I really did. I became a 'model' person because I wanted a wife and kids, and I was honestly trying, but it never came about. My desire to be part of the church began to fade. I wanted to start a family. I don't think I made the wrong choice. At nineteen and a half I walked away. I felt I was in a dead end life.

Warren Jeffs had told me that I would never be assigned a wife. He told too many lies. I was a 19-year-old kid and I called him out, told him he was a liar and a wrecker of families. For the sake of my own life I had to go. Jeffs threw me out. I went through some heavy stress over the conflict in my mind between the principles I had been taught, and the life I wanted to live. I had been taught good principles and I was a little sad to leave all that. I don't know of any society that is one hundred percent righteous. I'm no longer with any organized church.

Life is just like a sandwich – the more you put in, the better it is. I think God has given me more than I deserve. Any time I come home from work and I got my son on one knee and my daughter on the other – don't matter how tired I am, I'll hold 'em till they fall asleep. I've learned to accept God's hand in my life. There's no way you'll ever see me trying to hold a family together with more than one wife.

The Lost Boys case was against Warren Jeffs, who told a church member who owed me money not to pay me for a lot of work I had done, because I was an apostate, and was being expelled. John Jessop was the youngest boy I knew to be expelled – he was thirteen. I don't know how they came up with the name The Lost Boys 'cos I'm very good with directions. Warren Jeffs got this word from God, or outer space, or from whatever planet he lives on, that he should not participate in the case, so we won by default. And I worked with lawyers to stop Warren Jeffs in his tracks.”

***************************

My Comments: I wrote down Ream's testimony as closely as I could, but you'll have to forgive my writer's “adjustments”. It was a real pleasure to hear the story of one young man who had escaped his church and made a life for himself, by deciding for himself what he wanted in life, and not being forced by others in authority over him to do as he was told, for fear of divine retribution or banishment from the group. Somehow, he had taught himself how to think, and that skill is the one most feared by cult leaders.

Throughout his testimony Ream displayed a calm, cool demeanour, a delightful sense of humour, a genuine sensitivity, and a deep love for his family.

For a cogent assessment of the proceedings so far, check out

Expert Witness - Dr. Rebecca Cook

Decriminalizing polygamy would be a breach of Canadian obligations

by Daphne Bramham (Vancouver Sun)

Canada would be breaching its obligations under various international human rights conventions and treaties if it were to legalize or even decriminalize polygamy.

In its most recent report, the United Nations human rights committee described polygamy as “inadmissible discrimination against women and definitely should be abolished,” according to Prof. Rebecca Cook, who chairs the University of Toronto’s human rights law section.

Cook was testifying Thursday in BC Supreme Court in the constitutional reference case to determine whether Canada’s ban on polygamy is a breach of constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and freedom of expression.  

She told Chief Justice Robert Bauman that none of the treaties consider polygamy as anything other than harmful.  As a signatory to the treaties, Cook says Canada is not only obligated to eliminate gender discrimination but also take measures to eliminate stereotyping.  The reason, she says, is that the patriarchal structure of polygamous marriages — which are almost universally men with multiple spouses — “offends the women’s dignity” because it places women in a position of inferiority and is “inadmissible discrimination.”

Under cross-examination, Cook said none of the treaties deals directly with the issue of polygamy, although it is addressed in concluding comments by the committees charged with tracking states’ compliance.  In her summary of committee comments, Cook noted that the trend is toward abolishing polygamy as inherently harmful to the rights of women and children.

Should the court strike down Canada’s polygamy law, Canada would be the only western liberal democracy to decriminalize its practice.  However, it was pointed out by Ludmilla Herbst — a lawyer for the court-appointed amicus curiae who is arguing in favour of decriminalization — that Canada would still have a criminal sanction against bigamy.

********************

My Comment:  As we approach the end of a lengthy list of expert witnesses, Dr. Cook brought a wide breadth of knowledge of International Law and Conventions to the hearing.  The more I hear, the more I wonder what Judge Bauman's reasons will be.  I certainly don't envy him his task. 

Canada's law against polygamy puts into the spotlight just one of the many forms of "relationship" that have gained acceptance since the law was written in the 1890's.  If, as a result of this reference, polygamy and bigamy remain illegal, should not  polyamory and polyandry join them on the list of proscribed activities?

Dr. John Walsh - Mormon Scholar

John Fraser wrote in The Province today:

It would be an "abuse of power" if a woman was forced into a plural marriage, a Mormon scholar told a B.C. court Wednesday, as the case testing Canada's law against polygamy resumed following a three-week break.

Dr. John Walsh, a witness called by a lawyer representing fundamentalist Mormons, testified that Mormon theology decrees that people not be forced into polygamy and that "God would not recognize" the marriage if a woman was forced into such a situation.  "It would be an abuse of power and a deviation from Mormon standards," he said.

Walsh admitted his comments were restricted to the theological doctrines of Mormonism, and did not necessarily reflect what is actually happening in communities that practise the religion.

B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman has been tasked with deciding whether Canada's anti-polygamy law is constitutional.  The issue was referred to the court after two leaders in the fundamentalist Mormon community of Bountiful, B.C., — Winston Blackmore and James Oler — had polygamy charges against them stayed in 2009.

Walsh testified Wednesday that there is no dogmatic statement in the Mormon religion on the age of marriage for women and men.  He admitted under cross-examination he had heard of a girl marrying at the age of 13, but insisted that was a "deviation" and that most Mormons would frown on marriage at such a young age.

Walsh — who has a PhD in religious studies, but described himself as an "independent scholar" who does not work at a university — was allowed to testify as an expert in Mormon theology after his qualifications came under close scrutiny from several lawyers at the trial.


*************************

My Comment:  Dr. Walsh spoke knowledgeably about the schism in the Church of Latter Day Saints that took  place during the 1950's.  It was during this period that positions hardened among the pro- and anti-polygamy groups, so that the church was left with a majority in favour of rejecting  polygamy, and the remainder choosing to continue its practice.  After the schism, too, "placement" marriages (i.e. decisions made by the Prophet about who should marry whom)  were abandoned by mainstream LDS members.


This afternoon, two videos were offered as evidence.  In the first, Brent Jeffs, author of the book Lost Boy, described his life growing up with Warren Jeffs as his father.  He experienced many difficulties, was eventually thrown out of the FLDS, and is now married and a father outside the religion.  We heard him say that his daughter will make her own life choices, and have no decisions thrust on her from above.


The second witness was formerly a wife of Winston Blackmore - #10 until Blackmore married two of her sisters a year later.  She desperately wanted to have a real relationship with her husband, but he rejected her every attempt at emotional intimacy, saying he didn't have time.  After to giving birth to six children with Blackmore, she left the FLDS feeling deeply frustrated by the unfulfilling life life she was forced to live. At one point she told the court that Blackmore had more than 20 wives about 60 to 80 children before she left.  Despite her experience at Bountiful, she told us she believes that the law against polygamy should be struck down.

Expert Witness Dr. Rose McDermott

 Journalist Keith Fraser (The Province) wrote today:

As the rate of polygamy increases, the lives of women and children and the conditions in the countries in which they live all worsen, a political-science professor testified Thursday.
Dr. Rose McDermott, a political science professor at Brown University in Rhode Island, told the polygamy trial that she had conducted a statistical analysis of polygamy around the world.

She told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman that as the rate and degree of polygamy increases, the age in marriage of women declines, the rate of maternal mortality increases, life expectancy decreases and the birthrate increases.

The rate of births to women aged 15 to 19 increases, along with the rate of sex trafficking, female genital mutilation and domestic violence, she said.

“I remind the court that domestic violence includes marital rape and other forms of assault.”

McDermott said polygamy’s effect on children is that the rate of primary and secondary education for both boys and girls decreases, especially at the secondary level.

The practice of multiple marriages also has an effect on the nation state, said McDermott.
“As polygamy increases the degree of inequity in family law increases, meaning the degree to which women are not treated equitably before the law increases.”

The degree and number of civil liberties declines along with the degree and number of political rights, she said.

During McDermott’s cross-examination, George Macintosh, a lawyer appointed by the court to martial the forces opposing Canada’s polygamy law, pointed out some findings from a website the professor relied upon for her statistical analysis.

Macintosh pointed out that the website concluded that there was no evidence polygamy was a national issue in Canada, let alone a cultural or regional occurrence.  The practice of polygamy in Canada appeared to be extremely minimal or non-existent, he said.
“That would accord with your knowledge of Canada,” asked Macintosh.
“Yes,” replied McDermott.
“Monogamy (in Canada) is the rule and widespread?” said Macintosh.
“Yes,” said McDermott.

Asked by Macintosh how many people practice polygamy in Canada, McDermott said she was not aware of any credible numbers, but pressed for a figure she said there were 10,000.
Macintosh asked where she had got the figure and McDermott replied that she heard it from a media source.

**********
My comment:  Dr. McDermott stated that she has been researching polygamy and polygyny for ten years, and to be fair, her mandate for this appearance was to present to the court a world view of the harms of these practices.  Her presentation on the global perspective was indeed persuasive.

After a week devoted to opening statements by all the parties involved, we have now had three weeks of testimony in this polygamy reference.  Witnesses have included experts on statistics, sociology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology - and people who have lived the polygynous experience for many years.  To this point, the proceedings have challenged me in many ways - intellectually, emotionally and physically.

We now take a break for the holidays, and Court reconvenes on Wednesday 5th January.  I send you all my good wishes for health and happiness in the New Year.

Dr. Shackelford - expert witness for the Amicus Curiae

Men with multiple wives not the only ones who abuse: expert at polygamy trial

By Keith Fraser, The Province

A Michigan psychology professor on Wednesday told the polygamy trial that men with multiple wives have no corner on the market of violence against their spouses.

Dr. Todd Shackelford, a professor at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, made the comment while testifying for the forces that wish to decriminalize polygamy in Canada.

Under questioning from lawyer Tim Dickson, a so-called amicus curiae, or friend of the court, Shackelford told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman that his specialty was evolutionary psychology.He said his research in the last 20 years has focussed on conflicts in monogamous relationships and in particular men’s aggression against their partners.

Shackelford told the judge that male sexual jealousy in monogamous relationships was a “very good predictor” of all sorts of consequences, including violence, psychological abuse and rape.

He said male jealousy was the “leading predictor” of men killing their partners.

He admitted he hadn’t done research into polygamy or polygyny, the latter of which is the practice of one man having multiple wives, but noted that all relationships have both conflict and cooperation.

“Polygyny doesn’t have the market cornered in the negative correlates and consequences” in relationships, he told the judge.Shackelford questioned some of the conclusions about the    social harms of polygamy drawn by a witness for the attorney-general of B.C., which wants to uphold the law.

The judge’s job is to decide whether the law, which has been in place for more than 100 years but seldom has been prosecuted, is constitutional.  The issue was referred to the court after two leaders in the fundamentalist Mormon community of Bountiful had polygamy charges against them stayed in 2009.

********

Dr. Shackelford teaches evolutionary psychology at Oakland University in Detroit. His c.v. is impressive, and he is recognized as a world expert on male aggression in monogamous relationships. 

 

He is the editor of the journal Evolutionary Psychology, and is member of the editorial boards of several other academic publications. He gave his evidence in a clear and authoritative manner, and challenged some of the evidence given a few days ago by Dr. Joseph Henrich.

When BCAG counsel Craig Jones stood to cross-examine the witness, a spirited give and take of exchanges took place. Jones suggested that one could extrapolate behavioural characteristics of men in monogamous situations to include those of polygamous men. Shackelford reiterated that he had never studied polygamous communities. After careful questioning by Jones, however, he began to accept that perhaps evolutionary concepts were valid in polygamous communities as well as in the monogamous world. 

By the end of the cross-examination, most of the responses offered by the professor were “Yes”, “Indeed” and “Yes indeed.”

Dr. Lori Beaman

Not enough research done to determine if polygamy is harmful, professor says

Written by Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun December 13, 2010 3:41 PM

There hasn't been enough research done on Canadian polygamous communities to draw any conclusions about whether the practice is harmful, according to professor Lori Beaman.
Beaman teaches classics and religious studies at the University of Ottawa and holds the Canada Research Chair in contextualization of religion in a diverse Canada.

She testified Monday in B.C. Supreme Court in the constitutional reference case to determine whether Canada's polygamy law is valid.

While she noted that there have been several autobiographical accounts of former members of fundamentalist Mormon communities, Beaman says in her affidavit that assessing harm from that would be akin to extrapolating harms of monogamy by taking the accounts of people who have had abusive marriages.

Among the problems she cites in assessing harm is that much of the research has been done in “social, political, religious, economic, legal and cultural contexts distinct from those of North America.”
Her affidavits goes on to say, “Cultural context, rather than marriage type, may be more important for understanding harm.”

Based in research done by Angela Campbell, a McGill law professor who testified earlier in the trial, and others, Beaman suggests that women in the fundamentalist Mormon communities have been wrongly stereotyped as having no choice or being brainwashed.  Brainwashing, she says, has “been   largely discredited as a valid way to see those who belong to minority religious groups.”

Beaman, who also has a law degree, suggests that rather than stereotyping, society ought to assume that all members of minority religious groups “choose to be or remain involved in religious groups.”
“Such a position does not negate taking seriously allegations of abuse or underage marriage, for example, but assumes that the religiously committed have capacity as agents to make decisions.”
Not doing that, she says, means taking “a patriarchal position which treats religious minorities as being without the ability to make decisions. It assumes that we have the right to impose a particular worldview 'for their own good' on an assessment of their religious practices that is not based on empirical fact.”

*******************************************

BCAG (B.C. Attorney General) counsel Jones spent two hours in cross-examination this morning and this afternoon, and ever so gently deconstructed her arguments one after another.   He ended with the question "Would you not agree that your research on this matter has been woefully inadequate?"  I did not hear a reply. 

Court will not take place tomorrow, since the Chief Justice has another engagement.  It will meet again on Wednesday morning at ten.

The trial continues this week before adjourning for a Christmas break.

Dr. Joseph Henrich

Today in court was taken up with the testimony and cross-examination of Dr. Joseph Henrich, a noted scholar who is a member of the departments of psychology, economics and anthropology at the University of British Columbia. He holds the Canada Research Chair in Culture, Cognition and Coevolution. His evidence was given with the aid of a Powerpoint presentation, and was extremely thorough – a clinical academic approach after the emotional testimony of yesterday.

His evidence lasted for almost three hours as he spoke to the harms of polygamy, and the societal problems caused by this practice. He pointed out that humans are heavily reliant on their culture for learning, and that marriage is a pair bond regulated by rules. All marriage systems reinforce the concept of pair bonding as an important element of human psychology. Marriage is about couples and couples are about marriage.

He spoke of the origins of the concept of monogamy, which took root in ancient Greek society at a time when equality and democracy were being developed. (Wealthy men in Greece, however, could still get around the rule by importing sex slaves.) From Greece it moved to Rome, and thence to Europe; it has more recently been adopted in much of the world. Eventually, monogamy was adopted by the Christian church, together with concepts of sexual purity, (although the kings and prophets of the Old Testament had been polygamous).

Monogamy was a cultural evolution, and offered fertile conditions for gender equality. In polygamous societies there is low male investment in wives and children, whereas the opposite is true of monogamy.

Dr. Henrich made use of many graphs and diagrams during his presentation, far too many for me to discuss here, but he gave us many points to ponder in the ongoing discussion about Canada and polygamy.

I encourage you to go here for further information.

There will be no court session tomorrow. We begin again on Monday December 13^th.