Polygamy Heads West

March 2nd, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

H/t Holly for the following link: David J. Rusin wrote an article for Pajamas Media about polygamy. It seems that this barbaric custom is heading West. To make matters worse, some Western governments are quietly condoning the practice, which sometimes results in one big drama.

Myra Morton approached her sleeping husband on the morning of August 5, 2007, with pain in her heart and a gun in her hand. Once the smoke had cleared at the couple’s upscale home just outside Philadelphia, a man would lie dead, a family secret would be exposed, and a spotlight would shine on the emergent phenomenon of Islamic polygamy in the Western world.

The slaying took place just hours before Jereleigh Morton was scheduled to leave for Morocco on a mission to impregnate his other wife, Zahra Toural. Niqab-clad Myra, a convert to Islam two decades earlier, acceded to his bond with the younger woman, whom he had met online in late 2006. Privately, however, the 47-year-old mother was shattered, recording her dismay in a journal and lamenting to friends that she no longer received attention. Myra even mailed a letter to immigration officials falsely claiming that Toural had terrorist ties and should thus be prohibited from entering the country. Her husband’s plan to conceive is apparently what sent her over the edge.

That’s a sad story of course, but in the end, as David points out as well, polygamy didn’t commit this murder, “Myra Morton did.” The question is how serious is this problem of polygamy in the West? Does it truly happen on quite a grand scale, or are we talking about only, say, five families?

The prevalence of polygamy among Muslims living in the West remains a matter of debate. Here is a sampling of what has been reported: As many as thirty thousand Muslim families in France include more than one wife. There are fifteen thousand in Italy and several thousand in Great Britain. Estimates for the United States typically run into the tens of thousands. Even Australia has been forced to crack down on Muslim men looking to meet potential second wives via the internet.

And some of the countries involved are more than tolerant:

Two nations have apparently skipped the “discourse” and moved straight to capitulation. Following a yearlong review, the British government has ruled that husbands can claim benefits for multiple wives, as long as the marriages are legal in the countries where they were conducted. Specifically, guidelines issued by the Department for Work and Pensions regarding the jobseeker’s allowance state: “Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate (£92.80). The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65.”

A similar arrangement exists in parts of Canada. According to the Toronto Sun, “Hundreds of [Greater Toronto Area] Muslim men in polygamous marriages … are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say. Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Act Law, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.”

Cultural Imperialism… these days we’re not exporting our culture to other countries, no, backwards Arab countries and peoples are exporting their culture to us. And we’re, seemingly, willing to accept it all.

The men involved should be deported immediately, same goes for the women. They want to have more than one wife? Fine, go back to Saudi Arabia.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Jancis M. Andrews
    March 3rd, 2008 at 03:14
    Reply | Quote | #1

    What is so incredible in Canada is that the federal government ratified the Protocol on the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women on 18 October, 2002, and is legally obligated to uphold its provisions. This Convention states that polygamy contravenes women’s equality rights, keeps them in poverty and also harms their children. So why is Canada ignoring its own signature? We are governed by a bunch of lying misogynists who have no conscience whatsoever. Don’t trust the Canadian government!

  2. A. A. B.
    March 3rd, 2008 at 12:35
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Jancis M. Andrews,
    The province of Ontario is not the same as the Canadian federal government. I think Québec qould be more strict on this.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.