Multiple wives mean multiple benefits

I think we can all agree that this is ridiculous. What's more, it just whips up anger towards the people who this policy is "helping" not to mention make everyone pissed off at the Labour Party.

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: J. Arthur ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. Arthur:
What's more, it just whips up anger towards the people ...

---

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

The sticky point is refugee status, as it covers people in danger. (Including the chattel wives).

But if the co-wives were accepted, THEY should not be denied benefits.

quote:

---

He should not be allowed to bring more than one wife, and personally, I'd deny him immigration status for that reason.

---

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Edited to add: I am not a Christian. I am an enemy of all patriarchal religion.

And of course I think that Muslims, Jews and even Christians (horrid cat-hating religion) should be entitled to refugee status in cases of danger.

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: lagatta ]

I am not certain where I stand on the issues of polygamy, polyandry, and polyamory, from a legal point of view. There are issues besides whether or not I should be allowed two husbands simultaneously, or one husband and one wife simultaneously. For example, if one member of a polyamorous foursome of two men and two women, for example, has a job with health benefits, should all three of her partners get spousal benefits?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
When it's consenting adults, it's all good, but when you're talking polygamy, the sorts of societies that have it tend to be patriarchal in the extreme.

---

Some monogamous societies are patriarchal in the extreme as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
Think fundamentalist Mormons and the forced marriages of teenaged girls to middle-aged men to be their "plural" wives.

---

I can assure you, regardless of my attitudes towards various forms of polyamory (including polyandry and polygamy), I am 100% against forced marriages of either adults or teenagers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
Polyamorous relationships, open marriages, swinging--none of those my cup of tea, and none of my business if people are into it. But polygamy is about turning women into baby machines for males who wish to prove their fertility to the community.

---

My worry is this: what kind of legal regime are you going to put in place to legalize "acceptable" polyamory while keeping patriarchal polyamory legal?

quote:

---

When it's consenting adults, it's all good, but when you're talking polygamy, the sorts of societies that have it tend to be patriarchal in the extreme. Sineed

---

If you are talking about Islam (which is most likely) ..

quote:

---

...[It has to be added that] polygamy in Islam is a matter of mutual consent. No one can force a woman to marry a married man. Besides, the wife has the right to stipulate that her husband must not marry any other woman as a second wife. 74 The Bible, on the other hand, sometimes resorts to forcible polygamy. A childless widow must marry her husband's brother, even if he is already married (see the "Plight of Widows" section),regardless of her consent (Genesis 38:8-10).

It should be noted that in many Muslim societies today the practice of polygamy is rare since the gap between the numbers of both sexes is not huge. One can, safely, say that the rate of polygamous marriages in the Muslim world is much less than the rate of extramarital affairs in the West. In other words, men in the Muslim world today are far more strictly monogamous than men in the Western world.

Billy Graham, the eminent Christian evangelist has recognized this fact: "Christianity cannot compromise on the question of polygamy. If present-day Christianity cannot do so, it is to its own detriment. Islam has permitted polygamy as a solution to social ills and has allowed a certain degree of latitude to human nature but only within the strictly defined framework of the law. Christian countries make a great show of monogamy, but actually they practice polygamy. No one is unaware of the part mistresses play in Western society. In this respect Islam is a fundamentally honest religion, and permits a Muslim to marry a second wife if he must, but strictly forbids all clandestine amatory associations in order to safeguard the moral probity of the community." 75

It is of interest to note that many, non-Muslim as well as Muslim, countries in the world today have outlawed polygamy.

---

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/poly.htm

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
if the co-wives were accepted, THEY should not be denied benefits.

---

quote:

---

“spouse” means either of two persons who are married to each other

In the definition of “spouse”, a reference to marriage includes a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid.

Sec. 30: Every spouse has an obligation to provide support for himself or herself and for the other spouse, in accordance with need, to the extent that he or she is capable of doing so.

---

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

It is not insane. It is a matter of denying precedents that reduce women precisely to the status of chattel and baggage. Fuck, we have fought that long enough. Some "male feminist" you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I identify as pro-feminist and I assure you that many feminists disapprove of fighting patriarchy by disentitling women deemed oppressed in the religious systems we disapprove of (presumably in order to get at their husbands or imams).

---

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

This from the so-called "feminist" who's pissed off a fair percentage of women on this board by telling them "what's good for them".

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
But I also know many leftist, anti-racist feminists who approve of the headscarf law,...

---

And I know 125,000 Turks who do as well.

Not all those Turks are leftists by any means - the military were always enforcers of hardline secularism - and oppressive both of Islamists and the left. I do know some Turkish feminists who agree with the headscarf ban at universities though, although it does give them pause in terms of civil liberties. They agree with it mostly for reasons of personal safety, fearing what will happen to secular women if veiling becomes the norm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
unionist, do you know those people personally? Have you visited Turkey or lived there? I'm talking about people I know personally in Paris, Lyon and elsewhere in France.

---

No, I don't. I just wanted to note that tens of thousands of women demonstrated, in a predominantly Muslim country, against loosening restriction of the hijab. Why did they do that? Because they are right-wing extremists? Because they enjoy persecuting what you call "Islamists" and the "left"? Not according to the reading I've done. They're demonstrating because they're terrified of a return to religious dictatorship and what it will mean for their status as women.

quote:

---

Not all those Turks are leftists by any means - the military were always enforcers of hardline secularism - and oppressive both of Islamists and the left.

---

"Hardline secularism"? Well, whatever, it replaced the Ottoman empire, that hardline non-secular state which subjugated millions beyond its borders and converted people by force and committed genocide. I'll take "hardline secularism" over the alternative any day of the week.

Obviously reading up (quickly - lots of work) on the timeline concerning the Ottoman Empire, the Young Turk Revolution and the Armenian Genocide...

It should be remembered that Muslim rule was overall far more tolerant and less cruel to religious minorities than Christendom was, but those were two religion-based systems and civilisations.

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[QB]I just wanted to note that tens of thousands of women demonstrated, in a predominantly Muslim country, against loosening restriction of the hijab. .... They're demonstrating because they're terrified of a return to religious dictatorship and what it will mean for their status as women.[QB]

---

Wearing a hijab is a mode of self-expression. There are, arguably, circumstances under which it is appropriate to use the force of law to restrict freedom of expression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
But let us be clear about what these tens of thousands of women are demonstrating against: they are demonstrating against the loosening of restrictions on the freedom of expression. They are demonstrating against the freedom of expression.

---

I still say polygamy can't be lumped in with other polyamorous relationships. Basically polygamy is about one man living a frat boy's dream, or perhaps living like a Paleolithic man, spreading his seed far and wide, getting all the sex he wants. Unless his plural wives are bisexual, they'd be sexually deprived most of the time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
polygamy oppresses women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
But does that mean a Canadian immigrant with several wives should choose one to come with him, while abandoning the others? And if he does come with more than one wife, should we not recognize the rights of all of them?

---

I think lagatta answered this in a definitive way - at least to my taste!

quote:

---

I think the law should be made clear BEFORE a polygamist moves here. He should not be allowed to bring more than one wife, and personally, I'd deny him immigration status for that reason.

The sticky point is refugee status, as it covers people in danger. (Including the chattel wives).

But if the co-wives were accepted, THEY should not be denied benefits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
He should not be allowed to bring more than one wife.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Who is bringing whom? Maybe one of his wives is more qualified than him.

---

Women and men should be subject to identical criteria.

quote:

---

And if two of them are qualified as immigrants, should one of them be denied permission on the grounds of marital status? Which one?

---

This debate is on the granting of welfare benefits to polygamous families once they're here (or there, in this case).

...as if that were really a comparable example. Likewise "treating both men & women the same" -- there aren't any polyandrous cultures; polygamy, practically, is polygyny.

Bigamy in the UK is a crime with a 7-year maximum. But depending -- practically -- on your ethnic background, you will not only be able to get away with it, you'll be subsidised (and the "you" is the man), under this law. If criminalising bigamy is acceptable, then subsidising polygamy isn't; and vice versa.

quote:

---

The law in China governs births, not sheer existence; it is not illegal for people to live with more than one child.

---

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:
Subsidize them seperately within the same household, provide a standard living allowance for each individual, in each individual's name, not just to the man with the wives.

---

quote:

---

Once a child comes in to this world, they have rights to certain things in a civilized society. -Fidel

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
Well, Their society -unlike yours- is uncivilized. But we are doing our best to civilize them, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, (soon Iran and Syria), besides these lands that voluntarily let us in to civilize them, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan etc..

---

quote:

---

-Remind

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

Well, Their society -unlike yours- is uncivilized. But we are doing our best to civilize them, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, (soon Iran and Syria), besides these lands that voluntarily let us in to civilize them, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan etc..

---

Shouldn't we civilize ourselves before we preach to others?

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
K, thanks Adam, I was sure I had missed something but had not realized what it was. Wonder what he meant by that, tongue in cheek, or whether it is just a internalized framework that should not exist.

Lots of weird shit here today, feel like I warped into FD in some threads.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Agreed, but that's not the way it works in Ontario if you're disabled. We give the disabled much higher social benefits than those who are merely in need. (I guess the disabled are more deserving, plus the rest of them are being given a stronger incentive to take a job -- any job.)
So a spouse or partner wants to get on their disabled partner's budget, not get benefits in their own name. More money, which they obviously need badly.

---

Different provisions are available for the disabled through a program called In Unison, which essentially seperates daily living needs from requirements associated with the disability.

quote:

---

I think he was being sarcastic. For future reference, adam stratton, that's why ironic racism isn't okay on babble. Too easy to misunderstand. -Michelle

---

Yes I was, Michelle. Next time I will express myself without resorting to ironic racism.

quote:

---

Different provisions are available for the disabled through a program called In Unison, which essentially seperates daily living needs from requirements associated with the disability. -slumberjack

---

Right. (And you have backed it up with the link).
This disparity of allowances between disabled and non-disabled poor is an antiquated -and nowadays- discriminatory approach.

As for those that "can work" vs those that are perceived to not to be able to work....the line is blurry.

When you have an Social Services department that has a standard "denied" form for all applicants wishing to go from Ontario Works to ODSP, then you set the system up for failure.

When the disabled are disabled for mental illness reasons, there are tons of judgemental moments, by the public, as to why these "physically" able bodied people can't work.

When you have women who's ex husband's drag them through court for years over child support, property and other divorce related issues, it's hard to find a job that will allow you time to deal with the court dates and the stress.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

Well, Their society -unlike yours- is uncivilized. But we are doing our best to civilize them, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, (soon Iran and Syria), besides these lands that voluntarily let us in to civilize them, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan etc..

---

quote:

---

Disabled people CANNOT work. there is no reason why they shouldn't enjoy a reasonable standard of living.
Others can work. They just don't. There's no reason why they shold enjoy the same standard. J. Arthur

---

Your premise is based on who can or cannot work. Your logic seems to be that those who can work should receive less because they can work but they are too lazy. Therefore we have to punish them.

Does one's ability to work make him/her less hungry than a disabled person? less needy of sheltering their children?

People have the same needs. For the disabled, there are special provisions. As simple as that.

Now tell me, J. Arthur, what is the difference, aside from this premise of yours that because they can work and are too lazy to do so, we have to punish them. Isn't that what you are saying ?

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. Arthur:
Disabled people CANNOT work. there is no reason why they shouldn't enjoy a reasonable standard of living.

Others can work. They just don't. There's no reason why they shold enjoy the same standard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rural - Francesca:
I would 'beg to differ' that the disabled, at least in Ontario, have an adequate standard of living.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

Does one's ability to work make him/her less hungry than a disabled person? less needy of sheltering their children?

---

There aren't enough jobs to go around. Nobel economists have admitted this much, that unemployment is a game of musical chairs. And conservative work for welfare programs of the 1990's were basically a failed experiment. Look it up.

I've had many of my agencies offer such information that the parents who volunteer in the schools etc, are these parents.

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. Arthur:
I agree with you -- some sort of volunteer works should be mandatory for employable people receiving government benefits. There should be training available also. But there should not be an option to do nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. Arthur:
I agree with you -- some sort of volunteer works should be mandatory for employable people receiving government benefits. There should be training available also. But there should not be an option to do nothing.

---

That would be Workfare, and perhaps if they got paid minimum wage for the time, were protected with Workers Compensation for on the job accidents, and the time contributed to EI eligibility.....

.....and day care was provided, along with transportation......

quote:

---

I agree with you -- some sort of volunteer works should be mandatory for employable people receiving government benefits. There should be training available also. But there should not be an option to do nothing. J. Arthur

---

You didn't get it, J.

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. Arthur:
You seem to be quite fascinated with me and I'm not sure why. Wherever I go, there we are...

---

And then you post this crap that is right wing drivel. Sure lets force poor people to work for free. That's usually called indentured servitude something no progressive person would be advocating.

Offering a person a hand up with real services is a fine idea it is the fucking big stick you keep wanting to beat people over the head with that is the problem. Mandatory work for welfare is slavery given that welfare rates don't even cover the cost of housing and food in the Lower Mainland.

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. Arthur:
Nobody is forcing anyone to work. Where did I say anyone was forced to work.

People should be quite free not to work IMO.

---

But anyway: Do you think Canada should support men who have several wives this way, despite the bigamy law, or that we should abolish the bigamy law?

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. Arthur:
I would support not giving them money in the first place. Public money should not go to this.

---

Not sure what this has to do with the UK, multiple wives, or multiple welfare benefits for same.

I have made up my mind, however, that I am going back to the UK, but first I am going to marry 15 wives. Applications accepted here.

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: J. Arthur ]

Like i was saying, politicians could let absolute poverty rise to incredible levels. They choose not to and downplay existing poverty levels as much as possible for the sake of political expediency. Things like le slice and revolutions happen when things get so bad.

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
No, it is not a separate issue, how about it can be a separate issue when there is NO patriarchy left anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Yes we live in a patriarchal society and it isn't going to disappear anytime soon

---

quote:

---

I was speaking from a merely philosophical viewpoint because I wonder what is the inherent moral wrong. If three women want to cohabit as a family unit do you think this is somehow inherently wrong? Their combined resources might allow them to overcome some of society's gender barriers or at least give them a combined income large enough to raise a family.

---

And why do 3 women who cohabit together to have a combined income need a male put into the equation? Answer they don't. Your example has nothing to do with polygamy, I would sugesst that polygamy today is a result of patriarchy and would not exist if patriarchy did not.

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

In Papua New Guinea polygamy is tolerated, as customary, and is intensely resented by the few politically vocal women. It seems to be one of those things that work out exactly as you'd think...imagine being the first wife of a man who has got rich enough (usually through politics) to buy another wife, and is the kind of man who would do that. Almost all female-female domestic violence is among wives of the same man.

("Buy"? That's the term Papua New Guineans use. And it has the connotations you would think it has.)

There have been complaints, but I've been considering some sort of intervention for a while anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boarsbreath:
Uh, who decides what's legal in, say, Pakistan? You on their side?

---

Should the Brits deny them their rights as children? Or, should the polygamists and their children be sent back to the wonderful country of origin? You know, those countries where the US shadow gov, Brits and Saudi friends waged anticommunist jihad in the 1980's-90's? Just sayin'

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

This issue is only about whether the state treats multiple marriages, for the purpose of benefits, as legitimate, including the bit of giving the "wives" benefits to the husband. To do that while outlawing bigamy (not just bigamous weddings) is obviously incoherent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boarsbreath:
This issue is only about whether the state treats multiple marriages, for the purpose of benefits, as legitimate, including the bit of giving the "wives" benefits to the husband. To do that while outlawing bigamy (not just bigamous weddings) is obviously incoherent.

---

I think it would be incoherent if British labour governments had disallowed child support for multiple other children of bad parents ie. second or third marriages of wife-abusing, child-abusing, substance-abusing, or parents who were derelict of family obligations, that sort of thing. But they don't, and I don't believe Canada does either.

One of my workmates has multiple wives. He brought the eldest one here, and every summer goes to visit the others, sometimes impregnating them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boarsbreath:

What I meant was that just because something is legal in a place someone comes from is no reason to impose it on them, or even to allow it, here. Indeed the contrary, if anything!

---

quote:

---

Exactly. It's like applying Sharia Law to marriage or divorce issues, or not allowing Jewish men to deny their wife a get. If these people qualify to come here, they should abide by Canadian law. If they can't, they should find some theocracy more suited to their tastes. -unionist

---

Thought this topic deserves its own thread, I her take the liberty of commenting.

Whatever religious contract people engage into, it is their private business. We do have human rights and other laws that supercede such contracts, as the case for all private contracts: If they offend an existing law, they are deemed nil and without effect.

If one is against religion, per se, that is another story.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
If you "grandfather" the multiple wives; that is, if you disallow polygamy here but allow men who married multiple wives elsewhere to claim more benefits here, then you are leaving a very large loophole, by which men living here can go to a country that permits polygamy, marry a bunch of women, and bring them back here, BC.

---

Well, Canadians aren't having enough kids to replace the people we have. And after twelve years of Liberal government failure to perform even their colonial administrative duties properly, the feds were stuck with several hundred thousand unprocessed immigration applications.

Add to this the fact that Central Asia and several other nations have been held back from progress by several attempts to colonize and install puppet governments by the western world in the latter half of the last century through to the present day. It will take time to undo the damage done by Britain and our largest trading partner propping up theocratic feudalism and militant Islam in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, and inadvertently through meddling in Iran and Iraq since the 1950's. What comes around goes around.

quote:

---

I disagree with providing additional support, of any type, for an additional spouse, and I would be up in arms if such a thing was attempted here. Remind

---

quote:

---

So said those who opposed paying Canada pension to same sex survivor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
So said those who opposed paying Canada pension to same sex survivor. Simply because they do not like the "arrangement".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

So said those who opposed paying Canada pension to same sex survivor. Simply because they do not like the "arrangement".

---

You are welcome to lobby for a change in legislation whereby you can marry up to 12,000 spouses of any gender and have them qualify for survivor benefits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
It almost sounds like you're saying we should have polygamy to compensate for bureaucratic failures and because the US helped found Al Quaida.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I disagree with providing additional support, of any type, for an additional spouse, and I would be up in arms if such a thing was attempted here.

---

quote:

---

apples to oranges, we are talking additional spouses here not same sex Equality Rights. -Remind

---

We are talking oppositions to marital arrangements -whether same sex or different genders.

Besides having a feminist call for deprivation of women, who may well be victims themselves. A far cry from Remind who supports a woman for presidency of the USA, simply because she is a woman.

[ 07 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

We are talking oppositions to marital arrangements -whether same sex or different genders.

Besides having a feminist call for deprivation of women, who may well be victims themselves. A far cry from Remind who supports a woman for presidency of the USA, simply because she is a woman.

[ 07 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

We are talking oppositions to marital arrangements -whether same sex or different genders.

---

Canadian law doesn't recognize polygamous unions - and I support that law. I also support not treating "spouses" in polygamous "arrangements" as spouses for any legal purposes (pension, welfare, benefit plans, etc.).

Canadian law did not recognize same-sex marriages before 2005, and I opposed that law. I (and many others in the union movement) fought for same-sex benefits in collective agreements before either the courts or the legislators recognized them.

Call me bigoted and Eurocentric, but I have a strong feeling that polygamous relationships are not the finest expression of women's emancipation. In any event, I'll be having a word with my MP if he ever is deranged enough to support changing that law.

ETA: Of course, the fact remains that any person who individually meets Canada's entry requirements, either as an immigrant or a refugee, must of course be treated with full equality for all purposes (including social welfare if need be). But that's a separate issue.

[ 07 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

According to Islamic law a husband cannot have more wives than he can afford to support in the first place.

Moreover, there could be 5 adults living in the house, surely at least one of the 5 adults can find work of some sort?

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
We are talking oppositions to marital arrangements -whether same sex or different genders.

---

quote:

---

Besides having a feminist call for deprivation of women, who may well be victims themselves. A far cry from Remind who supports a woman for presidency of the USA, simply because she is a woman.

---

I am not calling for the deprivation of women. I am stating a polygamous relationship should not be recognized in any way shape or form.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Canadian law doesn't recognize polygamous unions - and I support that law. I also support not treating "spouses" in polygamous "arrangements" as spouses for any legal purposes (pension, welfare, benefit plans, etc.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Did you read the article slumberjack in respect to responding to just the OP? There are NO state sanctions. According to Islamic law a husband cannot have more wives than he can afford to support in the first place. Moreover, there could be 5 adults living in the house, surely at least one of the 5 adults can find work of some sort? I disagree completely with the whole thing, right from polygamy all the way up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:

Does this mean you wouldn't support a payment made out to the individual woman, thereby not necessarily reflecting any 'spousal arrangement?'

---

I don't understand your question. What kind of payment are you talking about, and to which "individual woman"?

quote:

---

I am not calling for the deprivation of women. I am stating a polygamous relationship should not be recognized in any way shape or form. -Remind

---

Here is what you wrote:

quote:

---

I disagree with providing additional support, of any type, for an additional spouse, and I would be up in arms if such a thing was attempted here. -Remind

---

additional spouses -in the context we are discussing- are women. You disagree with additional support.

quote:

---

And I have never supported Hilary Clinton as a matter of fact. So please do stop putting beliefs of mine in where you have not a fucking clue. -Remind

---

I apologize.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
The women wouldn't just to have to have a separate bank account but a separate residence completely, with said bigamist husband unable to share any time in said house(s).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I don't understand your question. What kind of payment are you talking about, and to which "individual woman"?
I thought my statement was extremely clear. If you want to posit a particular hypothetical example, go ahead and describe it and I'll try to respond.

---

Who are these women? Did they enter Canada legally as individual applicants? Are they refugees or immigrants or what?

If they're legal, they are entitled to the same support (no more or less) as any other entrant.

If they are in a polygamous relationship, they of course would be treated as unmarried.

If they are sharing resources in a way that the law cares about, they should be treated like any people who are sharing resources that the law cares about.

Meanwhile, they (all members of this polygamous clan) should be calmly told what the laws of Canada are and the penalties for violating them.

[ 07 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]