The ECHR may be about to help circumvent European bans on polygamy
(From the
@ECLJ_Official):
The European Court of Human Rights will rule on a case brought before the court by Khaled Al-Anesi, a Yemeni polygamist who was granted asylum in the Netherlands.
He initially brought his first wife and their eight children to the Netherlands under family reunification rules. He then decided not to request the arrival of his second and third wives, knowing that polygamy is prohibited in the Netherlands, but requested that the five children he had with them be allowed to join him.
The Netherlands refused this new request because of the ban on polygamy, arguing that these children did not need to come to the Netherlands because they already enjoyed good living conditions in Turkey, where they were refugees with their two mothers.
The authorities had already asked him to choose which of his wives he wanted to bring over, along with their children. Which he did. But he is now suing his host country before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for violating his right to respect for his family life, due to the refusal to accept his five other children.
This is the first time that the European Court has agreed to rule on a polygamy case.

It seems clear that the Yemeni man’s intention is to bring his children over and then, in their name, bring over their mothers. If the mothers’ family reunification is requested by their minor children, and not by the husband, it cannot be refused on the grounds of polygamy. The ban would then be circumvented thanks to human rights.
He was welcomed and given financial assistance by the Netherlands when he fled Yemen and he and his wife and eight children benefited from the living conditions of Dutch society. Now he is attacking his “benefactor” and undermining one of the cultural foundations of the country: the prohibition of polygamy.
“The ECHR has so deconstructed and expanded the concept of family, in the name of individual freedom, that it obviously extends to polygamous families and protects them. Thus, for the Court, states should recognize “unusual family relationships” and accept “the fact that there is not just one way or one choice when it comes to leading one’s family or private life".”