theweaselking points to the British Columbia Supreme Court's ruling on its polygamy case.
-B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman rules that the ban against polygamy is constitutional
-The Judge says the law violates the religious freedom of fundamentalist Mormons, but the harm against women and children outweighs that concern.
Read it as you will:
- Expressing disapproval for the out-group was more important than respecting enumerated civil rights.
- Mormons are so evil that it's necessary to suppress unrelated minorities just to punish them.
- The Court decided that civil rights have to be ignored when a minority of people expressing them behave badly. For the children.
In any case, it's hard to think of a right as a right when your courts have a policy of ignoring it when they don't like its policy implications. C'est la vie. Maybe next time.
[For the record, I don't say this with any hint of superiority. In our recent Heller decision here in the US, all nine SCOTUS justices agreed that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, but four liberal justices still dissented from the final decision, claiming that something as trivial as a Constitutional right couldn't restrain D.C. from completely banning the possession of functional arms, even in the home. And that's just one example I happen to be particularly familiar with. I'm not about to go throwing any stones over the northern border.]