Mangled Latin...er...Logic

QED
abbr.

Latin. quod erat demonstrandum (hatich was to be demonstrated).

Hmmm...it appears that rational thought has evacuated even the sharpened, legally astute mind of Ezra Levant. In what I can only call the most amazingly mangled bit of illogic and random association I have seen in a long time, Levant manages to pull together same-gender marriage, polygamy, pedophilia, Islam, Sharia Law (civil code applications) and feminism.

Wow - and I thought Bishop Fred Henry's tirade was some kind of record for this kind of nonsense.

First, Mr. Levant's line of reasoning boils down this - it's all one big slippery slope. If we legalize same-gender marriages, the next thing to be legalized would be polygamy. Following the slope further down, we descend into intra-family marriage between brothers and sisters.

Following even further, the fact that Canada has accepted (in some jurisdictions only) the application of limited aspects of "Sharia" law in civil law cases, lends credence (in Levant's diseased little mind) that it is not too big a leap to assume that Muslims will start pushing to have their particular breed of polygamy acknowledged in Canadian law.

Okay, slippery slope arguments are a pretty common line of reasoning in this country lately - Mr. Levant is hardly the first speaker to claim some kind of disastrous consequences as a result of legalizing same-gender marriage.

Let's step back from the precipice of the slope for a moment and examine the relationships that are being asserted.

First, what association exists between same-gender marriage and polygamy? Looking rationally at it there is exactly none. Even to assume that the liberalization of law that would allow same-gender marriage would therefore create a viable argument in favour of polygamous marriage is a weak assumption.

Second, Mr. Levant argues:

If the ban on two men marrying is illegal because it violates the Charter's equality rights provisions, then surely the ban on a man and four women marrying is illegal for exactly the same reason.

Actually, Mr. Levant is missing a key point - the social structures that come with a polygamous marriage are more akin to a tribal hierarchy than a marriage among equals. In other words, such a marriage would inherently violate the rights of the people involved to be equals.

Mr. Levant fears that followers of Islam will begin pushing for recognition of their particular flavour of polygamous marriage. Although I don't pretend to be an expert in Islam, the following article from the Islamonline forum makes a point that underscores my equality notes.

As for the condition, it is the confidence of the man that he can actually be totally just and fair between his wives, otherwise he is not allowed to re-marry. The Qur'an stated: "…but if you fear that you will not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one…" (An-Nisa': 3) In addition, the other conditions of any marriage must also be present, such as the ability to provide for the family and the ability to satisfy the sexual needs of the woman.

Notice the wording - the wording here speaks to treating the wives equally, but not of the wives as equals of their husbands. The equality provisions of the Charter of Rights would no more permit a marriage construct to be unequal than it would permit discrimination based on gender.

I won't go into the notion of common-law polygamy already existing. Nor would I ignore the legal debates around it. The presence of a rather obscure Mormon sect in British Columbia makes this a very real legal debate in Canada. For the government to be examining the options for dealing with this obscure group is hardly surprising - it presents significant legal and ethical challenges. While the supposed marriages in Bountiful may be illegal under Canadian law, we cannot simply throw the lot into prison - there are children involved, and legitimate family ties that must be considered. I doubt strongly that the presence of such a colony presents a solid threat to Canadian law, so much as a conundrum that has had our governments baffled for a long time.

Mr. Levant's objections to the application of Sharia law in Ontario are interesting - if a trifle irrelevant. First of all, there are serious equality considerations involved in Sharia - in that I will agree with Mr. Levant's objections. Having said that, Mr. Levant omits a few basic considerations:

1. The application of Sharia principles can only be done with the consent of all parties.
2. A contract signed under duress or false pretenses is no contract at all under Canadian legal principles. Therefore, if Sharia is used to arrive at a settlement, there is still an avenue of appeal under the duress provisions.
3. Sharia principles can only be applied to disputes under the civil code. The criminal code of Canada remains in force.
4. There are provisions in Canada that permit Jewish peoples to arrive at civil resolutions to disputes using what I believe is called Rabbinical Law. In many respects, this is little different than the Sharia discussion.

While there are aspects about Sharia law that are deeply troubling to a Western mind - especially when one considers the female position, we have to also recognize that safeguards are being put in place to ensure that there are 'safety' valves to (hopefully) ensure that things don't get out of hand.

So - what relationship is there between same-gender marriage and Sharia? None. As a matter of fact, the Islamic view of male homosexuality (in particular) is exceptionally harsh. I don't hear Muslim leaders trumpeting in favour of same-sex marriage, nor do I hear any significant move towards demanding recognition of polygamy echoing around.

Oh yes, Mr. Levant moves further along to manage to add pedophilia to the picture:

Today polygamy is illegal, a crime under the Criminal Code. But then again, so was sex with minors, until an activist court lowered the age of consent to 14.

Ah yes, the great bogeyman of the "activist judiciary". Of course, it adds the spectre of pedophilia back to the discussion - even if only as a shadow. I believe that the ruling that Mr. Levant is referring to was related to laws that effectively criminalized many teenagers for doing what comes decidedly naturally at that age. (Whether this is good judgement or not on the part of the participants is another question - one which this author is no longer qualified to speak on)

In short, Mr. Levant's tirade is a beautiful collection of completely unrelated topics - all of which are parts of a valid political discussion, but none of which are reasonably related to each other.

Where Mr. Levant claims that the prospect of legalized polygamy is sufficient reason to ban same-gender marriage, he suggests some kind of "QED" statement has been made.

Descartes is quoted as having said "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). Perhaps in Mr. Levant's case "Cogito ergo spud" (I think, therefore potato) is more appropriate.