Monogamy, Harm and Citizenship

When it comes to determining whether something is harmful to women, MacKinnon (Reference MacKinnon1993) warns we must be cognizant of the fact that what constitutes harm is defined within a patriarchal framework, that a “cauldron of values ensures nothing for women if it contains only patriarchal values” (Baehr, Reference Baehr2003: 138). In this light, any activity whose very existence relies on the subordination of women can be considered inherently harmful. While the term “polygamy” refers to plural marriages, it is typically associated with marital relationships involving one man and multiple wives (polygyny). The conflation of polygamy with polygyny has constructed a narrative of polygamy in which polyandrous (one wife and multiple husbands) and group marriages (multiple wives and husbands) are ignored and their experiences silenced. Polygamy is a gendered issue, as the majority of polygamous relationships involve a gender imbalance of some kind; however, it is dangerous to suggest that all women are disenfranchised in polygamous arrangements. As Zeitzen contends, there are polygamous societies responsible for “the emancipation of women through education and economic opportunities” (Reference Zeitzen2008: 8). The assessment of polygamous relationships therefore requires an account of social and cultural factors that shape the position of gendered parties within these arrangements rather than relying on universal, monolithic conclusions that conflate all polygamous relationships in this discussion of harm (Campbell et al., Reference Campbell, Bala, Duvall-Antonacopoulos, MacRae, Paetsch, Bailey, Baines, Amani and Kaufman2005: iii).

The language of harm has been a mainstay of feminist rhetoric in support of both polygamy's illegality and proposed legality (Baines, Reference Baines, Baines, Barak-Erez and Kahana2012). This presumption of harm is premised on the reality that the majority of publicly documented polygamous societies are polygynous (one man, multiple wives) and because there remains deep-rooted gender imbalances within the institution of marriage, polygamy has been framed as an inherently harmful familial arrangement (Campbell, Reference Campbell2005, Reference Campbell2010) in which women are treated like “chattels and allocated as concubines into harems” (O'Malley, Reference O'Malley2007). Status of Women Canada's 2005 report recognized the diversity in polygamous relationships, but concluded that the state's primary consideration should continue to be the “social, psychological, and economic impacts” polygamy has on women and children (2005: 80). The report then warned should polygamy be decriminalized, the message both nationally and internationally would be that Canada is ambivalent when it comes to issues of gender equality and child welfare (2005: 81). On the other hand, pro-decriminalization feminists claim that the constitutional ban on polygamy strips the very women and children the state maintains they are protecting from accessing necessary legal and social services (Calder and Beaman, Reference Calder and Beaman2014). Advocates argue that the negative effects of polygamy are cause for decriminalization, as current illegality renders these effects legally invisible, leaving women and children without agency. The assumption here is that should polygamy be decriminalized, the vulnerable in polygamous communities would then have access to already available legal protections.

Interestingly, this language of harm was co-opted by the Harper government on a series of women's issues including state funding of global abortion services (Do, Reference Do2014), laws around sex work (Kennedy, Reference Kennedy2014), polygamous immigration and forced marriage (Blanchfield, Reference Blanchfield2014), and, most recently, the refusal to allow women to wear the niqab while taking the citizenship oath (Milewski, Reference Milewski2015). In all of these examples, prohibitive measures were either adopted or reinforced in the name of protecting women from harm. The purpose of this paper is not to minimize instances of harm experienced by vulnerable parties in polygamous relationships, nor is it to suggest that a harm framework is of no use in deconstructing and analyzing the impacts of polygamous familial arrangements; rather, I argue that relying solely on a harm framework inadequately captures the complexities of polygamy. Moreover, in limiting oneself to a harm framework, the Canadian state's vested interest in upholding a system of monogamous privilege remains unaddressed.

A critical citizenship framework provides a useful starting point for analyzing why the Canadian state continues to defend monogamy when the parameters of monogamous privilege are being challenged. Sexual citizenship scholars argue that citizenship is premised on specific ideals of sexuality, and citizens are constantly “sexed” (Bell and Binnie, Reference Bell and Binnie2000; Plummer, Reference Plummer2003; Richardson, Reference Richardson2000; Weeks, Reference Weeks1998), as made evident by legislation including, but not limited to, age of consent laws, tax credits that favour the nuclear family and legal discussions of obscenity. State conceptions of sexual responsibility are used to regulate the bodies of its citizens; those who are “sexually responsible” embody what it means to be an ideal sexual citizen. The work of governing that sexual citizenship performs is the foundation of political membership: “The law's articulation of sexuality is also an articulation of the state” (Harder, Reference Harder2007: 174). Sexual citizenship thus becomes a tool of nation building; the state seeks control over the sexual nature of its members in the name of protecting national identity (Pryke, Reference Pryke1998: 540). Stevens echoes Pryke's sentiments that citizenship rules shape and reproduce specific interpretations of familial reproduction via nationalist discourse, stating that, “the familial nation exists through practices and often legal documents that set out the kinship rules for particular political societies” (Reference Stevens1999: 108). As such, discourses of citizenship, nationalism, and security amalgamate within the family, “the site where state power has penetrated into the most intimate domains of modern life” (van Walsum, Reference Van Walsum2008: 20–21). Monogamous privilege is therefore an integral component in the production and reproduction of state power.

Monogamy is privileged, even celebrated, by our political, legal and social structures, establishing the monogamous couple as the cornerstone for the Canadian family (Rambukkana, Reference Rambukkana2015). Monogamy has not always historically been of primary interest to the state (Carter, Reference Carter2008); however, it has become a means of governing populations through ritual (for example, marriage, divorce, and so forth) and active exclusion (such as refusal of rights and recognition, imprisonment, and so forth). The idea that monogamy is intrinsic to Canadian national identity is internalized, ultimately reinforcing the assumption that monogamous intimacy is “general or at least widespread in the dominant strata of the population” (Foucault, Reference Foucault1988: 74). State favouring of monogamy remains strong despite the fact that the parameters of this relationship form are often challenged by the existence of polygamous families within Canadian borders, increasing divorce rates, serial monogamy, the commercialization of marital infidelity (such as Ashley Madison), the existence of swingers clubs, increased visibility of queer familial arrangements and a pop culture fascination with non-monogamous practices (for example, television shows like Sister Wives, Big Love, and others). These have tested, albeit unsuccessfully, state reliance on the monogamous family unit. Through the normalization of monogamous privilege, the Canadian state is able to simultaneously produce and reproduce a narrative that encourages state allegiance and disciplines sexual behaviour, establishing a space for state influence in the most intimate domain of our individual lives.

In addition to producing a national narrative that is sexualized, this Canadian discourse of monogamous citizenship also reproduces racialized understandings of intimacy. In her examination of racial politics in the United States between 1850 and 1890, Denike contends that the framing of polygamy as sexually deviant was used to further state projects dependent on a culture of whiteness; anti-polygamous language was “instrumental in the consolidation of the racial formations of the Anglo-American nation” (Reference Denike, Beaman and Calder2014: 143). Historically, the so-called monogamous nature of white men was juxtaposed against the perceived sexual prowess of black men, simultaneously championing the white man's ability to marry and care for a single woman and justifying further disciplining of black male bodies. We see a similar narrative in Canada with respect to the colonization of Indigenous populations. While monogamy is now part of Canadian common sense, Cott warns that its privileging was “by no means a foregone conclusion” (Reference Cott2000: 9). Ethnographic scholarship on Indigenous communities residing in Western Canada during the late nineteenth century depict a wealth of intimate familial arrangements including those that were monogamous, as well as polygamous, homosexual and blended (Carter, Reference Carter2008: 5). Conflating monogamy with civility, colonial powers hoping to bring the West into the fold of the Canadian nation began to regulate and penalize non-monogamous practices through the enacting of laws that privileged the monogamous marriage model: “The health and wealth of the new region, and that of the entire nation, was seen as dependent on the establishment of the Christian, monogamous, and lifelong model of marriage and the family” (8). For Denike, this produces a new biopolitical type of racism premised on the assumption that “society must be defended against the threats that lurked within” (Reference Denike, Beaman and Calder2014: 157). The interconnectedness of sexuality and race in these narratives highlight the ways in which monogamy and whiteness are mutually constitutive in state projects; by conflating monogamy, whiteness and civility, states are able to further certain agendas that allocate citizenship based on gendered, sexualized and racialized lines.

In its protection of the state from threats within, this system of monogamous citizenship is also used to shape the sexuality of the immigrant foreigner seeking access. Honig (Reference Honig2001) examines how narratives of xenophobia and xenophilia are used to frame the sexual values of immigrant populations as threatening to the national population. Immigration produces “foreignness,” which for Honig is a simultaneous source of stability and instability for the nuclear family. Immigrants are encouraged to utilize Canada's family reunification program but then framed as a potential threat to the Canadian family and society at large. In this light, immigration control is not solely about protecting the state from potential risk, it also acts as a mechanism for “constructing, enforcing and normalizing dominant forms of heteronormativity while producing figures as supposed threats” (Luibhéid, Reference Luibhéid2008: 296). The state therefore ascribes membership to those whose values correspond with so-called national ideals of family, marriage and sexuality.

Through a critical citizenship framework, we are able to deconstruct and analyze the work of governing monogamous privilege performs for the Canadian state. This framework draws attention to the state's vested interest in the continued regulation of polygamous bodies despite societal challenging of the parameters of monogamous privilege and the use of an anti-polygamous narrative to reinforce specific conceptualizations of sexual intimacy, gender and race. In analyzing state treatment of polygamous immigration in the cases of Bountiful (a settlement of several Mormon fundamentalist groups) and the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, it is evident that there is perceivably more at stake should our current system of monogamous privilege be challenged than simply the protection of women and children from harm.

Bountiful and the Canadian State

Despite s. 293's longstanding tenure in the Criminal Code, actual prosecution of those engaging in polygamous relationships has been rare. In fact, prior to the 2005 investigation into Bountiful, no Canadian had been indicted for polygamy in over sixty years (Campbell, Reference Campbell2010; Carter, Reference Carter2008).Footnote ³ The Provincial Government of British Columbia's appointment of special prosecutor Richard Peck in Reference Peck2007 to investigate the activities of those living in Bountiful resulted in Peck's recommending that the constitutionality of s.293 be reviewed. In response to Peck's recommendations, the Supreme Court of British Columbia reviewed and upheld s.293, Justice Bauman concluding that polygamy threatens “women, children, society and the institution of monogamous marriage” (Reference re. Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, sec.1.5). Interestingly, the framing of polygamy as a foreign practice was present in this reference decision. Polygamy has historically been labelled anti-Canadian, a familial arrangement that undermines the institution of marriage, the Canadian family and society at large (Campbell, Reference Campbell2010: 347). Justice Bauman echoed this by highlighting the perceived threat decriminalizing polygamy would present for Canada's immigration system, claiming that easing polygamy laws could result in the “rapid production of certain immigrant groups” (Reference re. Section 293, sec. 4.557). Bauman contended that the ban on polygamous immigration lacked the legislative muscle to protect Canadian borders from such an increase. Apprehension was therefore not solely grounded in concerns for what this would mean for those vulnerable parties involved in polygamous arrangements within Canadian borders, it was also about protecting the Canadian nation from unwanted outsiders using state programmes to advance “non-Canadian” values.

The adoption of a narrative of “foreignness” thus accomplishes two things. First, it allows the state to incorporate monogamy into discussions of Canadian national identity; the betterment of the nation relies on a system of monogamous practice, despite the fact that polygamy continues to exist within Canadian borders. As stated by the Office of the Prime Minister in 2009, “It is these values [gender equality, dignity and the rule of law] that unite us as Canadians … The practice [polygamy] represents a clear challenge to those unifying values” (Mayeda, Reference Mayeda2009). Opposition often adopts a tone of Western superiority, advocating for the “Christian rejection of polygamy,” as the allowance of polygamy in Canada will inevitably lead to “unfettered religious practice” and acceptance of barbaric non-Western activities including forced marriage and female genital mutilation (Campbell, Reference Campbell2010; Javed, Reference Javed2008a, Reference Javved2008b). Second, this narrative permits a focus on polygamous groups rather than the practice of polygamy itself. The public and political framing of Bountiful as inherently harmful suggests that domestic violence and gender inequality are unique to polygamy; rather than using Bountiful to spark a broader discussion on the pressing issue of gender-based violence, polygamy has consistently been identified as the root of the problem. This was made evident by Peck's statement that, “Polygamy is the underlying phenomenon from which all other alleged harms flow and the public interest would best be served by addressing it directly” (Levitz, Reference Levitz2007).Footnote ⁴ While Bountiful consists of Christians living within Canadian borders, polygamy continues to be framed as an external, cultural threat. The Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act took this a step further by painting polygamy as deviant non-Western behaviour that “good Canadians” would not engage in and as an external threat to Canadian values.

Constructing the Unwanted Polygamous Foreigner

The Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act (Bill S-7), aimed at “protecting Canadians from barbaric cultural practices such as child, forced or polygamous marriages and gender-based family violence” (Alexander, Reference Alexander2014), received Royal Assent on June 15, 2015. Included in the act is an amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) that states, “A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of practising polygamy if they are or will be practising polygamy with a person who is or will be physically present in Canada at the same time as the permanent resident or foreign national” (Canada, 2015: s 2). As a result, the act permits immigration officers to deport non-citizens suspected of practising polygamy without a Criminal Code conviction or finding of misrepresentation and to refuse family reunification to those sponsored spouses believed to be in a polygamous arrangement. Simply put, permanent and temporary residents can be deported regardless of tenure on Canadian soil should they be suspected of engaging in a polygamous relationship within Canadian borders. Conservative MP Candice Bergen described this as a clear message to immigrants that, “Polygamy is illegal. It is not allowed and it is not tolerated in any way, shape, or form” (Bergen, Reference Bergen2015). Then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander reinforced this language of cultural foreignness, stating, “Our stance is clear: women and girls in Canada deserve the full protection of the Canadian law. When people try to bring these barbaric cultural practices here, our Conservative government has one response: that is not our Canada” (Alexander, Reference Alexander2014).

While restrictive immigration and refugee policies are not unique to the Harper government, the act is but one in a legislative pattern of this particular government imposing a “number of extreme sanctions on various categories of ‘offenses’” aimed at appeasing their social-conservative base (Jeffrey, Reference Jeffrey2015: 226). Sanctions, including the act as well as a nationwide crackdown in 2011 on “marriages of convenience” and the creation of a national tip line to report “fraudsters”, and the 2015 Anti-Terrorism Act highlight an agenda of moral regulation focused on the recruiting and naturalizing a specific version of the Canadian immigrant family. Further restrictions to immigrant familial practice premised on the assumption that the current state of polygamous immigration requires emergency action that goes “beyond normal parameters of political procedure” (Watson, Reference Watson2009: 26), have been framed as a way to protect our country from undesirable migrants while maintaining the integrity of our immigration system. Moreover, the Harper government used this language of security to sell their agenda to both immigrant and non-immigrant voters alike: “It [the Harper government's immigration and refugee agenda] appeared to be based at least partly on fear, and even more on indignation about ‘phony’ refugees, ‘queue jumpers,’ ‘part-time Canadians,’ and other perceived malfeasance that required additional punitive measures” (Jeffrey, Reference Jeffrey2015: 225). As such, the Harper government constructed meanings of difference through these legislative measures that have ultimately shaped the claims of those seeking access and the subsequent policing of these claims.

The language of the act is not population specific; however, its focus on practices such as forced marriage, female genital mutilation and polygamy, combined with its tone of Western superiority targets specific groups of immigrants assumed to be engaging in these activities. The fact that Bountiful was able to exist without legal intervention for close to fifty years, along with the state's low prosecution record of polygamous offences, suggests the state has been relatively lax on the issue of polygamy until it was realized that specific groups of immigrants, particularly Muslims, might import this familial practice.Footnote ⁵ This sudden revelation of a perceived foreign threat and the subsequent resistance towards an otherwise allowed practice is reflective of the right to faith-based family arbitration debates in Ontario in the early 2000s. While Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals had been legally settling familial dissolution disputes for over ten years, faith-based arbitration was banned in Ontario after Muslim leaders advocated for the allowance of tribunals (Zine, Reference Zine2012). As Zine contends, this continued focus on demonizing certain Muslim cultural practices has been justified by governments calling for the protection of women's rights. Arguably hypocritical in the context of the act, as the Harper government's track record as advocates for women's rights left much to be desired, restrictive policy measures targeting specific immigrant groups are rationalized using a harm framework. In both policy initiatives, governments used the protection of women from harm as justification for enacting legislative bans on “foreign” cultural practices deemed anti-Canadian.

The act is therefore framed as a way to protect women and children living within Canadian borders from being victimized by those who fail to adhere to Canadian rules and values. After prioritizing state protection of women and children from cultural-based violence in their 2013 Speech from the Throne, multiple ministers reinforced this message including then Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Peter Mackay, “Our Government has been clear on its stance against polygamy and other barbaric practices that constitute gender-based violence”; then Minister of Labour and Status of Women Kellie Leitch, “This new legislation reaffirms our Government's ongoing efforts to end violence against women and girls”; and then Minister of Health Rona Ambrose, “I am proud that our Government continues to take strong action to ensure the equality, safety and security of women and girls in communities all across Canada” (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2014). Further, those members of Parliament (MPs) critical of the act were accused by the government of failing to take seriously the issue of violence against women, as was demonstrated by former Conservative MP Roxanne James who stated:

In addition to using a narrative of harm to justify the prohibitive measures outlined in the act, the Harper government also relied on this rhetoric to demonize opposition while simultaneously positioning themselves as the sole protector of women and children.

While the bill was heavily debated in the House of Commons, it is worth noting that none of the criticism focused on the actual activities outlined in the act. Simply put, no one was publicly critical of the criminalization of these practices, including polygamy. In fact, state treatment of female genital mutilation, forced marriage and polygamy were rarely discussed, the Conservative party opting to frame it as an issue of gender-based violence instead. Rather, critics took issue with more superficial details. Parliamentary debate focused primarily on three issues: use of the word “barbaric,” the government's broad focus on non-citizens and legislative redundancy. The term “barbaric” has been a longstanding tool of colonialism used to justify unjust treatment of certain groups deemed barbaric, backwards and uncivilized, and to further the divide between the Western (read: civilized) and the non-Western (read: uncivilized) world (Mohanty, Reference Mohanty2003). As explained by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women:

This was echoed by Avvy Yao-Yao-Go, Director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, who stated, “It [the act] mocks the practice of polygamy elsewhere as a sign of cultural inferiority while ignoring the fact that polygamy, both formal and informal, is being practised in Canada by some Canadians and that all too often marriages break down in Canada due to infidelity and/or abuse” (quoted in Duncan, Reference Duncan2015).

Framing polygamy as a “barbaric” practice simultaneously reinforces racist stereotypes and fuels xenophobia aimed at specific racialized communities. It also suggests that polygamy is culturally determined and can therefore be curbed by restricting access to those polygamous cultural groups seeking citizenship. Former NDP MP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe addressed the government's conflation of polygamy and culture, questioning, “Could the parliamentary secretary tell me what culture is in Bountiful?” (Blanchette-Lamothe, Reference Blanchette-Lamothe2015). Considering political and social discussions of polygamy include, but are not limited to, Indigenous populations (Carter, Reference Carter2008), Bountiful (Calder and Beaman, Reference Calder and Beaman2014; Campbell, Reference Campbell2010), Muslim populations (Rambukkana, Reference Rambukkana2013), and queer-identified families (Barker and Langdridge, Reference Barker and Langdridge2010; Klesse, Reference Klesse2007), it is misleading to suggest that polygamy is culturally specific. It is equally as problematic to suggest that a specific cultural community can therefore be targeted both outside and within Canadian borders. This conflation of culture and barbarism reinforces whiteness, as white Canadians are framed as a cultureless population while immigrants of colour engage in culturally problematic behaviour: “The assumption that people of colour are governed by cultural dictates is not only dehumanizing, it is also depoliticizing because such thinking often leads us to neglect the power of “noncultural” forces in shaping reality” (Volpp, Reference Volpp2000: 96). The language of the act is therefore hypocritical, as it glosses over the complexities of polygamous living in Canada by targeting specific “barbaric” cultures accused of practices that counter Canadian values and refusing them citizenship.

Critics have also taken issue with the act's broad focus on non-citizens, referring to both permanent and temporary residents. As Sharryn Aiken explains:

The government's targeting of non-citizens means that all non-citizens regardless of time spent in Canada can be subjected to the punishments outlined in the act and can be stripped of the right to due process reserved for Canadian citizens. The result is what Aiken refers to as a “two-tiered system of justice” that deprives partial and non-citizens of any type of legal agency and fails to deal with potential “fallout from this expanded scope of inadmissibility” (Aiken, Reference Aiken2015). While the Canadian state prides itself on its accessible immigration system, the act reinforces the reality that when the state believes that lines of citizenship need to be drawn, power imbalances between Canadian-born and non-Canadian born citizens are reinforced. Citizenship is not a uniform status equally applied to all; the act further distinguishes between citizens, potential citizens, partial citizens and non-citizens.

Finally, parliamentarians have questioned the necessity of the act, specifically with respect to polygamous immigration. In addition to polygamy being formally criminalized in the Criminal Code and the Civil Marriage Act, the federal government's manual OP2: Processing Members of the Family Class (OP2), an assessment manual for immigration officers, explicitly states that polygamous marriages are not permitted (Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2006, s.6). As outlined in OP2, failure to account for all partners and children at the time of application can lead to refusal of the application or deportation if the application is approved and then later proved invalid. More importantly, if and when polygamous families are able to successfully “cheat” the system, they are held accountable through the Canadian justice system. Is it necessary then to have such legislative redundancy when it comes to polygamy? Liberal MP Adam Vaughan raised this question, stating, “If we make murder illegal three times, as polygamy has now been made illegal twice, and impose national and provincial standards that are already in place, therefore reinforcing the law by making a redundant law even more debated, are there any areas where redundancy is effective?” (Vaughan, Reference Vaughan2015). Rather than using a narrative of fear mongering, critics propose the government rely on anti-polygamous language already enshrined in current law and policy and turn their attention towards “actually enforcing these laws and the assignment of resources to address problems faced by immigrants and other victims” (Duncan, Reference Duncan2015).

One question that has not been sufficiently raised is whether polygamous immigration is as serious of problem as the Harper government suggests. As to whether there has been a significant increase in reported cases of polygamous immigration, the numbers are vague. Citizenship and Immigration Canada does not track the number of people who have either been deported or lost their permanent residency status specifically because they were found guilty of engaging in polygamy; rather, they monitor misrepresentation as a single category (Gaucher, Reference Gaucher2014: 194). This makes it difficult to pinpoint the actual rate of polygamous immigration. When questioned about the lack of empirical data, then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander responded, “Dozens of settlement agencies across this country have identified dozens, and potentially hundreds, of cases of polygamy so far without even really looking into this in detail” (Alexander, Reference Alexander2015). The empirical backing for the act is therefore questionable, as it is based on conjecture and anecdotes about polygamous immigration. Rather than provide evidence that supports the claim that polygamous immigration is on the rise and warrants a third type of legislative action, the government has relied on narratives of polygamy, foreignness and citizenship to muster parliamentary support for the act.

While the act was introduced as a measure to protect women and children living within Canadian borders from harmful practices, critics question the government's definition of harm. Those opposing the act agree that polygamous familial arrangements can create abusive environments for vulnerable parties; however, they warn of the potential harms this act can present for the very individuals the government is claiming to protect: “As much as this bill purports to protect women, it will actually lead to serious harm and the potential to disrupt families and affect children” (Aiken, Reference Aiken2015). Similarly, former NDP MP Laurin Liu warned, “Victims of polygamy could be criminalized, children could be deported and families could be separated. The Conservative government claims to want to help women, but it is doing nothing to ensure that women have access to the services they truly need,” and NDP MP Robert Aubin highlighted, “Bill S-7 deprives women who are conditional permanent residents of provisions that protect them from deportation if their spouse proves to be a polygamist. What is more, the bill imposes criminal sanctions on minors … which can seriously harm their future since they would have a criminal record for the rest of their lives” (Aubin, Reference Aubin2015). The architects of the act claim to protect those vulnerable parties from abuse, yet these same parties are susceptible to other harms including, but not limited to, deportation, familial separation, and criminalization. With citizenship on the line, the act arguably makes these parties even more vulnerable; without any type of legal agency or guarantee of state protection, those women and children who are in abusive polygamous relationships could be less likely to come forward.

These measures also harm women in polygamous familial relationships by denying them agency and ignoring the possibility that not all women who engage in these practices identify as oppressed. Labelling these practices as inherently harmful suggests that a woman would never freely choose such an arrangement: “They must be coerced, or have false consciousness, or be unable to exercise agency due to their socialization. In other words, they do not know any better” (Beaman, Reference Beaman, Beaman and Calder2014: 10). This is particularly evident when referring to women in non-Western countries, reinforcing the problematic narrative that the “third-world woman” is ignorant, poor, uneducated, tradition-bound, victimized, and in need of saving by the Western world (Mohanty, Reference Mohanty2003). Narratives of culture, harm and women therefore often “coalesce around women's bodies and incorporate racial judgments” (Volpp, Reference Volpp2000: 90), reinforcing the moral superiority of white populations and, ultimately, white womanhood.

In addition to further harming women and children in polygamous relationships, critics have highlighted the harmful impacts the act will have on national discussions regarding gender-based violence. Former-NDP MP Jinny Jogindera Sims addressed these impacts stating, “Gender-based violence is a serious issue, and all of us know there is enough research to show that it crosses all social, ethnic, and cultural boundaries. We always excuse it when we put the word ‘cultural’ in front of it, that somehow it only happens in other countries and not across our communities” (Sims, Reference Sims2015). Former NDP MP Laurin Liu echoed this sentiment, “We know that violence against women is committed throughout Canadian society, not just within cultural communities … We must find solutions that help women who find themselves in such situations in Canada. We are convinced that this bill is not an appropriate response to the serious problem of gender-based violence, which, I repeat, is not a cultural problem” (Liu, Reference Liu2015). In its restricting gender-based violence to something that non-Canadians do, the act sidesteps the issue of gender-based violence within Canadian borders, an issue that continues to warrant attention with high rates of missing and murdered Indigenous women, domestic violence and sexual harassment in the workplace. In using specific cultural groups as scapegoats, the government is sidestepping the issue of gender-based violence within Canadian borders, denying victims of any agency or resources to improve their situation. While the government claims that the primary motivator behind the act is the avoidance of harm, it presents consequences for the same parties it claims to protect. The government's definition of harm therefore warrants attention; moreover, it is worth asking whether protection from harm is truly the goal of this particular piece of legislation.Footnote ⁷