Thursday, 6 January 2011

25 Wives!!!

I came across this article today, (Thank You Nancy)

All I can say is.....Well, I can't say it here....25 wives, how does a man deal with 25 women??


BY KEITH FRASER
THE PROVINCE
JANUARY 6, 2011

A Mormon scholar told the polygamy trial Wednesday that it would be an "abuse of power" if a woman was forced into a plural marriage.

The comment was made during the cross-examination of Dr. John Walsh, a witness called by a lawyer representing fundamentalist Mormons.

During direct examination by lawyer Robert Wickett, Walsh told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman that Mormon theology decrees that people not be forced into polygamy.

Under questioning by Eva Ross, a lawyer for the B.C. attorney-general's ministry, Walsh told the judge that "God would not recognize" the marriage if a woman was forced into polygamy.

"It would be an abuse of power and a deviation from Mormon standards."

Walsh admitted his comments were restricted to the theological doctrines of Mormonism and do not necessarily reflect what is actually happening in communities that practise the religion.

Court has heard evidence that many underage fundamentalist Mormon women have in the past been coerced into marrying much older men.

Walsh testified that there is no dogmatic statement in the Mormon religion on the age of marriage for women and men.

He admitted under cross-examination that he had heard of a girl marrying at the age of 13, but insisted that was a "deviation" and most Mormons would frown on marriage at such a young age.

Walsh, who has a PhD in religious studies and describes himself as an "independent scholar" who does not work at a university, testified as an expert in the theology of the Mormon religion.

The judge also heard videotaped testimony from Ruth Lane, the 10th wife of fundamentalist leader Winston Blackmore, who described how her marriage became progressively more difficult as Blackmore accumulated more wives and children.

When she left the Bountiful man in 2005, there were 25 wives and between 80 and 100 children, she said.
Two of the wives were 15-year-old girls, she added.

The judge has been asked to determine whether or not the polygamy law is constitutional. The trial is expected to finish by the end of January.


Wednesday, 5 January 2011

The Canada Case Starts Up Again


Things are about to get very interesting at the constitutional reference hearings to determine whether Canada's polygamy law is legal.

When the hearing resumes Wednesday, the first witness for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints will testify before Chief Justice Robert Bauman in B.C. Supreme Court.
The FLDS is the largest religious group to practise polygamy in North America.

John Walsh is being put forward as an expert and he will outline the religious basis for what is called either plural or celestial marriage within the Mormon tradition as he has done on several occasions in Texas when FLDS men were on trial for bigamy and charges related to sex with under-age girls.

His affidavit doesn't indicate that Walsh has any personal opinion about polygamy.
However, in a piece published on an internet site called All About Mormons, Walsh makes it clear that he does.

“There is no doubt in my mind that your attitude toward plural marriage will determine your place in eternity,” he writes.

Those who choose 'plural' or 'celestial' marriage have a chance at the highest realm of heaven – the celestial kingdom – while those who don't may find themselves alone for all eternity.

Walsh calls it “the natural order of things” that men would have multiple wives (polygyny) and women would not have multiple husbands (polyandry) because polyandry would not result in the greatest number of children.

“When a man is limited to only one wife, some women will have the choice of marrying a worldly, carnal man or remaining unwed,” Walsh writes. “If men were eternally limited to only one wife each, some women would never have the opportunity for exaltation.

“Plural marriage remedies these penalties by enabling every woman the opportunity to have a righteous husband, enjoy the blessings of motherhood and fill the measure of her creation.”
He goes on to dismiss suggestions that women should have multiple husbands.
“If sexual gratification were the primary purpose of marriage and sex (i.e. Satan's perspective), then a woman having multiple husbands would be the preferred method from a biological perspective.”

Over the next four weeks, it's mostly polygamists and former polygamists who will testify. Many of the FLDS witnesses will not be seen and their names will not be disclosed because of Bauman's order allowing anonymity so that what they say can not be used in future prosecutions.

However, James Oler, the bishop of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has waived anonymity.

Oler was charged in 2009 with one count of polygamy along with former FLDS bishop Winston Blackmore. Listed on Oler's indictment were the names of three women. Blackmore's indictment listed 19, although in a video affidavit filed in this case one of Blackmore's former wives says that he has had 26 in total and has 136 children.

It was after those charges were stayed because the court ruled that they had been improperly laid, Attorney General Mike de Jong asked the court to determine whether the law itself is valid.
In addition to hearing from current FLDS members, Bauman will hear from Carolyn Jessop who has written two books about her experience within the FLDS, her dramatic middle-of-the-night escape and life outside the group.

Also testifying last this month will be Brenda Jensen, whose father founded the community in Bountiful.

dbramham@vancouversun.com

Monday, 3 January 2011

An Expert Speaks

As your well aware, Canada is facing a monumental decision in the next few months as to the legality of the polygamist lifestyle in it's borders.  As a very interested observer of this landmark case I will attempt to keep you up to date on the pertinent issues of this case.  A very good blog to gain more insight on the issues at hand is here: http://stoppolygamyincanada.wordpress.com/

I submit an excellent treatise on some of those issues following.


Department of Justice Canada

Research Report

Polygyny and Canada's Obligations under International Human Rights Law

September 2006
Prepared by:
Rebecca J. Cook, M.P.A., J.D., J.S.D., F.R.S.C.
Faculty Chair in International Human Rights
Co-Director, International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Programme
and
Lisa M. Kelly, B.A., J.D. candidate
Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

I. INTRODUCTION

The term “polygamy” can refer to the simultaneous union of either a husband or wife to multiple spouses. As a general term, polygamy therefore includes the practices of bigamy, polyandry, and polygyny.

The term “bigamy” is typically used in domestic legislation that prohibits marriage to more than one person simultaneously. While this report will not examine Canada's domestic legal prohibition of bigamy or polygamy in depth, domestic legislation is useful for clarifying terminology. According to the Criminal Code, bigamy occurs when a person who is already married marries again, marries more than one person simultaneously, or marries someone that he or she already knows to be married.[1] Significantly, the Criminal Code does not provide an express definition of polygamy. The principal difference between bigamy and polygamy, however, as described in the Criminal Code, is the fact that bigamy requires a “form of marriage” as defined in section 214, where polygamy does not.[2] In its 1985 report on bigamy, the Law Reform Commission of Canada also provided its own definition of polygamy:
. . . polygamy consists in the maintaining of conjugal relations by more than two persons. When the result of such relations is to form a single matrimonial or family entity with the spouses, this is regarded as polygamous marriage.[3]
By focusing on the formation of a “single matrimonial or family entity” without requiring the actual legal validity of the form of the multiple marriages (as is usually the case for bigamy), the Law Reform Commission's definition thus included those polygamous unions where subsequent marriage ceremonies may be solely religious or customary in nature. It is this focus on subsequent de facto religious or cultural marriages that is central to the legal prohibition of polygamy. Prohibiting bigamy alone, with its requirement of multiple de jure marriages, would fail to address the lived reality of these de facto marital unions.

Within the Canadian context, there is no evidence of polyandrous polygamy, wherein a wife is simultaneously married to multiple husbands.[4] In contrast, there is evidence of polygynous unions, wherein a husband has multiple wives. For precision, this report will mainly use the term “polygyny” throughout. Given that polyandrous unions are not permitted in systems governed by Islamic law, Fundamentalist Mormon teachings, nor generally under customary norms, the term “polygyny” more accurately reflects the majority of polygamous unions and the international human rights norms with which they conflict.

In analyzing Canada's commitments under international human rights law, this report will consider Canada's obligations to respect freedom of religion as well as guarantee equality between men and women. Although polygyny, as practised in Canada and elsewhere, engages freedom of religion arguments, it is important to note the distinction at law between religious belief and religious practice. While Canada is not entitled under international law to restrict religious belief, it is entitled and in fact obliged in some circumstances to restrict religious practices that undermine the rights and freedoms of others. Courts have decided that the right to manifest one's religion can be limited for legitimate purposes including the protection of health,[5] the promotion of secularism and the protection of gender equality.[6] Even within Canada's own constitutional framework, as Lorraine Weinrib has noted, although “Charter interpretation must be consistent with the ‘preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians,' the reading of all Charter guarantees must effectuate their equal guarantee to men and to women.”[7]

Amidst this international and domestic law commitment to gender equality, this report will outline how the practice of polygyny violates women's right to equality within marriage and the family, amongst other rights, using the sources of international law identified in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (I.C.J.) as a guiding framework:

Art. 38.1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
  1. International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;
  2. International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
  3. The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
  4. Subject to the provisions of Article 5, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

Under international human rights law, there is a growing consensus that polygyny violates women's right to be free from all forms of discrimination. Where polygyny is permitted through religious or customary legal norms, it often relies on obedience, modesty, and chastity codes that preclude women from operating as full citizens and enjoying their civil and political rights.[8] Within this framework, women can often be socialized into subservient roles that inhibit their full participation in family and public life. The physical, mental, sexual and reproductive, economic, and citizenship harms associated with the practice violate many of the fundamental human rights recognized in international law. State practice indicates that a complete legal prohibition of polygyny is the norm in most domestic systems including all of the Americas, Europe, countries of the former 

Soviet Union, Nepal, Vietnam, China, Turkey, Tunisia, and Côte d'Ivoire, amongst others.[9] In addition, there is a marked trend toward restricting the practice elsewhere, particularly through judicial and/or spousal permission requirements. These restrictions reflect not only the socio-economic problems associated with polygyny, but also a growing recognition of women's right to equality.

The right to gender equality has been central to the evolution of post‑World War II international human rights law. Initially, human rights declarations and conventions adopted a negative sense of gender equality by deeming sex a prohibited ground of discrimination. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration),[10] the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Political 

Covenant),[11] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the Economic 

Covenant),[12] all relied on the norm of sex non-discrimination. Within this non-discrimination framework, there are variations that may import positive obligations on States parties. Article 23(4) of the Political 

Covenant, for example, requires States parties to “take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage, and at its dissolution.” The term “ensure” is typically interpreted within the treaty context as imposing a positive duty on States parties to achieve the stated goal.

In addition to these international instruments, various regional human rights treaties also operate under a general non-discrimination framework. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention),[13] the American Convention on Human Rights,[14] and the Arab Charter on Human Rights[15] all prohibit discrimination on the ground of sex, but do not extend this to ensure de facto equality in family and public life.

In contrast, the object and purpose of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (the Women's Convention)[16] reveals a clear commitment to transformative equality. In its General Recommendation no. 25 on temporary special measures, CEDAW noted that the Women's 

Convention aims to:
eliminate all forms of discrimination against women with a view to achieving women's de jure and de facto equality with men in the enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.[17]

In this sense, the Women's Convention extends beyond a non-discrimination framework that would protect both men and women from sex-based discrimination through its recognition of the particular discrimination women face. Its Article 16 provision on equality within marriage and family relations calls on States parties to “take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations” in order to ensure “a basis of equality of men and women.” In doing so, the Women's 

Convention not only articulates a commitment to women's rights within the family, but also expresses a transformative sense of equality by outlining the reciprocal marital responsibilities men and women should share.

Amongst regional human rights instruments, the African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights[18] and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa[19] both share a similarly transformative approach to equality. The African Charter not only prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex,[20] but also requires States parties to:
ensure the elimination of every discrimination against women and also ensure the protection of the rights of the woman and the child as stipulated in international declarations and conventions.[21]

Building on this, the preamble to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People's Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa reaffirmed:
the commitment of the African States to ensure the full participation of African women as equal partners in Africa's development.

Thus, both the African Charter and its Protocol express a commitment to eliminating all forms of discrimination against women and ensuring their effective participation in family and public life.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Children's Convention) includes a non-discrimination clause (Article 2) and extends the guiding principle of the best interests of the child. Article 3 states that:
1.   In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

This provision requires that the “best interests of the child” will always be a “primary consideration.” In this sense, there is a positive obligation on States parties to give children's best interests primacy beyond simple non-discrimination

In order to achieve these goals, several of the leading international human rights treaties established committees that monitor state compliance with their respective treaty obligations. The Women's Convention established the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) to monitor whether states' laws, policies, and practices have been brought into compliance with the Women's Convention. 

Similarly, the Political Covenant established the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the Economic Covenant established the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and the Children's Convention established the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

These committees, which meet once to three times per year, assess reports from member states on what the states have done to bring their laws, policies, and practices into compliance with their treaty obligations. After considering and discussing country reports with representatives of the reporting states, committees issue 

Concluding Observations on those reports, which assist countries in discharging their future reporting obligations.

The committees have also developed helpful General Comments or General Recommendations on specific articles that explain the content and meaning of specific rights. Where committees are capable of hearing complaints from individuals or groups from consenting countries (HRC, CEDAW), or undertaking inquiries into alleged violations in consenting states (CEDAW), the opinions that committees form in response also contribute to the content and meaning of rights by showing how a right or a group of rights apply to particular facts.

Several of these treaty bodies including CEDAW,[22] the HRC,[23] the CESCR,[24] and the CRC[25] have expressly stated in their concluding observations that polygyny violates the rights articulated within their respective treaties. In addition, both CEDAW and the HRC have condemned the practice in their General 

Comments and Recommendations. In its General Comment no. 28 on Equality of Rights between Men and Women, the HRC stated:
It should also be noted that equality of treatment with regard to the right to marry implies that polygamy is incompatible with this principle. Polygamy violates the dignity of women. It is an inadmissible discrimination against women. Consequently, it should be definitely abolished wherever it continues to exist.[26]

Echoing this statement that polygyny violates women's equality and dignity within marriage, CEDAW noted in its General Recommendation no. 21 on Equality in Marriage and Family Relations that:
Polygamous marriage contravenes a woman's right to equality with men, and can have such serious emotional and financial consequences for her and her dependents that such marriages ought to be discouraged and prohibited. The Committee notes with concern that some States parties, whose constitutions guarantee equal rights, permit polygamous marriage in accordance with personal or customary law. This violates the constitutional rights of women, and breaches the provisions of article 5(a) of the Convention.[27]

While there is a growing consensus that polygyny thus violates women's right to be free from all forms of discrimination, this consensus fractures somewhat at the notion of immediate prohibition given the deleterious effect this may have on existing polygynous marriages and those unions that may have helped poor women and to a lesser extent children of polygynous marriages.

This report will argue that these transitional concerns can be addressed through family law measures providing for mandatory child support and the availability of relief on relationship background regardless of whether there is a legally recognized marriage. In moving to develop consensus around the prohibition of polygyny, it is important to be sensitive to the place of women within their particular context and recognize the importance that religion and culture may have within their individual lives. As with many cultural or religious practices that are harmful to women, the means chosen to abolish polygyny, if they are to be effective, need to be sensitive to the context in which women live. It is important to recognize throughout, however, that a lack of consensus regarding the optimal means of addressing polygyny does not dilute the growing consensus that polygyny is a form of discrimination and therefore a violation of international law.

For the rest of this article and original article click Here

Friday, 31 December 2010

Sharia Law Secretly Accepted In The UK

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”
The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.
In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.
In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.
Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.
Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”
Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”
There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.
Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

Monday, 27 December 2010

Polygamy In The UK...A Start


Polygamy UK: This special Mail investigation reveals how thousands of men are milking the benefits system to support several wives

He cut a smart figure in his grey suit and crisply ironed shirt. The 6ft tall Somalian bowed to the judge, calling him 'Sir', before begging for his wife, Fatima, and their teenage son to be allowed to stay in Britain. 
Fatima, with a black khimar veil covering her hair and shoulders, sat quietly next to her husband. 
In her late 30s and wearing open sandals, she lowered her dark eyes as the details of the unconventional life she and her husband, Abdi, led in the West London suburb of Shepherd's Bush unfolded at a busy immigration court. 
Multiple marriages in Britain were first declared illegal in 1604
Multiple marriages in Britain were first declared illegal in 1604
The judge listened in silence. Perhaps he knew from past experience what was coming next. Abdi went on to reveal that Fatima was not his only wife. 
Indeed, he was a self-confessed bigamist who had a second, much younger wife and a 13-year-old daughter by her. They both lived nearby. 
'I visit them regularly,' said Abdi, 51, who arrived in Britain in the 1990s and works in an old people's home. 'I have done nothing wrong. In Somalia, it is normal to have two wives  -  even three or four. Fatima is still my wife and she should not be deported.' 
He was unable to produce wedding certificates or valid official documents to prove where, or when, he had married both women, therefore raising questions over the validity of the unions, under either Somali or British law. 
Yet his story, unravelling at an ordinary weekday hearing at Taylor House, an asylum appeals' centre in North London, is just one example of the growing phenomenon of multiple marriage in Britain. 
Officially, such unions are punishable by up to seven years in prison. They were first declared illegal in England and Wales in 1604, when the Parliament of James I took action to restrain 'evil persons' marrying more than one wife. Parliament ruled that anyone found guilty of the crime would be sentenced to death. 
In the four centuries since, bigamy (having two wives) and polygamy (more than two) has been frowned on by the state, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. 
Yet it is clear that officialdom is turning a blind eye to such marriages. 
A recent review by four Government departments  -  the Treasury, the Work and Pensions Department, the Inland Revenue and the Home Office  -  has concluded that 1,000 men in the United Kingdom are now polygamists, although some say the figure is higher. 
Baroness Warsi has warned that politicians have failed to tackle the problem of polygamy because of 'cultural sensitivity'
Baroness Warsi has warned that politicians have failed to tackle the problem of polygamy because of 'cultural sensitivity'
What is more, the review found, a Muslim man can claim state support of more than £10,000 a year to keep his wives, if the wedding took place in one of those countries where polygamy is commonplace, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia and across huge tracts of Africa. 
For example, a man can receive &£92.80 a week in income support for wife number one, and a further £33.65p for each of his subsequent spouses. 
Therefore, if he has four wives  -  the maximum permitted under Islamic teachings  -  he can claim nearly £800 a month from the British taxpayer. 
Controversially, a polygamist is also entitled to more generous housing benefits and bigger council houses to reflect the large size of his family. He is also able to claim £1,000 a year in child benefit for each of his growing brood. 
The Government insists that polygamy has declined in Britain since the 1988 Immigration Act, which made it harder for men to bring second, third or fourth wives to the UK. 
However, it's little wonder that critics claim our generosity simply encourages more Muslim men to keep several spouses. Supporters of polygamy claim the Koran states unequivocally that a Muslim man can marry up to four women so long as he treats them equally. 
But the Taxpayers' Alliance, a lobby group, has complained: 'Polygamy is not officially condoned here, so why should British taxpayers have to pay for extra benefits for men to have two, three or four wives?' 
Last week, Baroness Warsi, a Tory spokesperson for community cohesion who is British-born of Pakistani parents, waded into the argument, warning that politicians have failed to tackle the problem of polygamy because of 'cultural sensitivity'. 
The respected Muslim peer told the BBC: 'We've just avoided either discussing or dealing with the matter head on.' 
Baroness Warsi, a Muslim herself, urged the Government to bring in laws demanding the official registration of 'Nikah' or religious Islamic marriage ceremonies, which often take place secretly in private houses with 'an imam and a couple of witnesses there'  -  and which are used to get round our marriage laws. 
So how do the polygamists get away with it here? Firstly, it needs to be understood that the generous benefits system allows any man and the partner he lives with to claim benefits together  -  even if the woman is not officially registered as his wife. 
If they do marry, to avoid breaking Britain's bigamy laws, such men often engage in a ceremony with their second or third wife in a Nikah secretly in their own homes and never register the union officially in this country. 
Another technique is for the man to divorce his first wife under British law while continuing to live with her as his spouse under Islamic law. He then gets a visa for a new wife to enter the country and can legally marry her here. 
Moreover, our politically correct immigration rules state that if a husband has divorced his first wife under British law  -  and even if that divorce is actually suspected to be part of a plan to set up a polygamous household  -  a second wife from abroad must be allowed to come and live here. 
During this investigation, I spoke to health workers and benefits officers who have seen at first-hand the scale of polygamy in Britain. 
An NHS district nurse working in Tower Hamlets, East London, explained that it was now commonplace. He said he knew of a Bangladeshi-born male patient with two wives and 13 children aged between three months and 15 years. 
'The women have council flats, each paid for by the local authority. The elderly husband collects benefits for both women, who are in their 30s. The wives speak very little English, but they are in and out of each other's flats and are friends. 
'On more than one occasion when I have been called to the flats to give treatment to the old man, I have heard them talking in the kitchen and even taking each other's children to the park.' 
The male nurse said this family set-up was not unusual. 'I know of others that comprise of one husband, a number of wives and numerous children. 
'It is not difficult to conclude that if there were no state benefits, a man could not afford to live like this, especially here in London. 
'The system is at fault. The men want more wives for their sexual pleasure, but also because it is lucrative.' 
Yet there is another issue to be raised. Are the Government figures of around 1,000 foreign men living polygamously a gross underestimate? 
Recently, a senior imam in Finchley, North London, said there are at least 4,000 men involved in such marriages. 
Meanwhile, to show just how far some men have stretched the teaching of the Koran, another senior Islamist, Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, has revealed a case of a man living here with five wives. 
But what, indeed, of the wives living in polygamous marriages themselves? 
In an age of supposed sexual equality, how can they accept what many will feel is the degradation that goes hand in hand with polygamy? 
Not surprisingly, few dare to speak out publicly for fear that they will be ostracised by their families. 
But one 34-year-old mother who lives in the Bangladeshi community of East London rang the Mail because she said she wants to reveal the truth of what is happening. 
Sitting in her kitchen in Newham, she reeled off a list of male relatives and friends who have two or three wives. 
What is more, the woman  -  who does not want to be named for fear of attacks on her and her family  -  said that polygamy is tacitly encouraged by our benefits system, where few questions are asked or checks made. 
The woman, whom we will call Kaela, arrived in Britain with her mother and younger brother when she was 11. 
They were following her father, who had come to Britain from a poor province called Sylhet, seeking work in the food factories of West London. 
Kaela learned English, went to a local comprehensive and, at 19, fell in love with a Bangladeshi-born boy who had also arrived in this country as a youngster. 
They married, set up home in a small council flat and soon had two children. Kaela worked hard for her family. With a clutch of GCSEs, she became an adviser to the Bangladeshi community on issues such as welfare, housing and education. She now works as a parttime civil servant. 
Yet, two years ago, her husband suddenly disappeared back to Bangladesh and, in an Islamic Nikah ceremony, married a 19-year-old second wife who has since given birth to his son. 
'My husband has a British passport and plans to come back into this country with his two-year-old boy and his new wife. 
'He has not given me a penny. He knows that the State will provide for us. He has told me to tell the authorities I have been deserted and claim income support, housing benefit and council tax.' 
But what of his second wife? Kaela suspects the shy teenager without any English will be brought into Britain on a tourist visa, pretending to be her own son's nanny. 
'I have seen it happen before,' Kaela explains. 'I know of one man living in East London who has two wives here, each with a flat, and a third wife in Bangladesh. Between the wives, there are five children under 13, all living in this country. 
'The first two women look after the third wife's child. So who pays to keep this enormous family? The State, of course. 
'I have an uncle who lives near Heathrow who has two wives. They are all together in a big five-bedroom house, with off-street parking. It is a council flat and the rent is paid from housing benefits because he does not work. 
'The first wife, who is 60, claims pension credit and carer's allowance to look after his old mother, whom he has brought here as a dependent from Bangladesh. 
'His much younger second wife claims income support for herself and child benefits for their three children of school age. We are talking about hundreds of pounds a week to keep this family going.' 
Kaela says there are myriad tricks used to bring second wives into Britain. Apart from the 'nanny ruse', new female partners enter the country using tourist visas, student visas or work permits. They simply overstay the visas, which are normally for six months, and stay in Britain, often hiding away in their husband's home. 
But women suffer as a result of polygamy, says Kaela. 'The first wives get depressed because they are so ashamed of their husband taking a second or third wife. 
'Many wives have been here for years, but have never been allowed to learn English or even go out of the house alone. They have no one to turn to for help.' 
No one knows such anguish better than Sameera, a well-spoken, middle-aged woman living in one of our multi-cultural cities, whose 55-year-old husband found a second wife after 30 years of marriage. 
He went on holiday to his homeland of Pakistan where, without Sameera's knowledge or consent, he married a 26-year-old cousin. 
'I fainted when I heard,' says Sameera. 'The fact that he's married a girl young enough to be his daughter has upset me so much. 
'I cried. I felt like my mind was exploding. The ground had just fallen from me. Why did he do it? It shouldn't happen.' 
Astonishingly, though, Sameera has been forced to welcome the new wife into her house. 
The alternative, she says, would be the breakdown of her relationship with her husband and, possibly, the loss of her home. In other words, she might be thrown on to the streets. 
Yet despite such emotional cruelty, there are those who say polygamy should be legal in multicultural Britain. A leading Muslim academic at Cambridge University has claimed that men are biologically designed to desire more than one woman and that, therefore, polygamy should be legalised. 
Meanwhile, a primary school teacher in Birmingham recently spoke publicly about his contented life with two wives and six children, all living in the same house. 
Even a prominent female member of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain  -  set up in 1992 to debate Islamic issues  -  has claimed that she knows of many very happy polygamous marriages in Britain. 
'I am aware that this practice is taking place, and there are couples who are quite satisfied with their relationship, and they would like it to carry on and be protected by law,' she proclaimed. 
Back at the immigration appeals centre at Taylor House, which heard the case of Somali-born polygamist Abdi, a Home Office lawyer took me aside and whispered: 'This man's not the only husband doing this. 
'Last week, there was one man who was born in Pakistan and arrived to settle here only four years ago. He brought in one wife legally. They arrived as asylum seekers. The next wife came in on a student's visa. The third pretended to be visiting relatives in Southwark, South London. She had a sixmonth tourist visa but overstayed and was about to be deported. 
'She ended up here, begging to remain in Britain with her husband.' 
As for Abdi, I spoke to his son after the case adjourned as he waited for a bus with his mother, Fatima, while his father went back to work. The polite, intelligent-teenager is studying at college and hopes to become an engineer. 
He came to Britain with his mother (who speaks only a few words of English) as asylum seekers from Somalia several years after Abdi had made the journey alone seeking a job, money and a better future. 
'I knew my father had a second wife,' the teenager said with a friendly smile. 'That is not unusual in Somalia. I want to stay in Britain, and so does my mother. Our lives should not be shattered because of this.' 
But British taxpayers footing the bill may beg to disagree.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1154789/Polygamy-UK-This-special-Mail-investigation-reveals-thousands-men-milking-benefits-support-wives.html#ixzz19KyHW2fS