 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Some of the letters- pro and anti Bountiful - in the Creston Valley Advance are interesting, particularly for the local perspective. Most of these are from about a year ago.
http://www.crestonvalleyadvance.ca/opinion/letters/121283128.html
http://www.crestonvalleyadvance.ca/opinion/117718123.html
http://www.crestonvalleyadvance.ca/opinion/letters/135548878.html
http://www.crestonvalleyadvance.ca/opinion/letters/118942989.html
Needless to say, I don't agree with all of them.
I was surprised to read a piece in the Vancouver Sun from back in December which said BC was considering taking its polygamy ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada, even though they had just gotten the successful ruling in their top provincial court.
(edit)
Actually, to drag this religious exemption question a bit closer to the question at hand, I do support exemptions for things like a demonstrated rule that owning property, or supporting militarism is against one's belief.
I don't support an exemption from supporting social services, pensions and insurance just because a person doesn't happen to be using them. That is not the same as a religious exemption. After all, everyone has to pay school taxes whether or not they have children in the school system, (and I don't think even those who send their kids to private schools should be completely exempt from supporting the public system.
Services like workers comp, EI and CPP have a general benefit to society, not just a direct benefit to the person who has to use it. As well, people always have the right to leave these communities and make use of those services, so I don't think any of these communities can claim to be truly separate from the rest of society.
But it is also interesting to note that there have been clear negotiations between the Hutterites and government in order to put together their exemptions. In this case it all hinges on one guy who waited until he got caught before his lawyer came up with this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | Sorry if I am misjudging, but that is the impression I am starting to get, especially since you can't be bothered offering what you actually feel about this court case, |
Again, your expectation that you get to direct this discussion, and that I have an obligation to answer your questions, is pompous and entitled. You are not the boss of me, and harrumphing because I won't obey you is alternately hilarious and cringe-inducing. For your sake, please stop.
| Quote: | | . . . and have instead started fishing around in other threads to find stuff on me. |
My March 13th post referenced your March 8th comment in the Idiocracy thread. Catching up on TAT and reading other current threads is "fishing around in other threads to find stuff on me"? You vastly overestimate your importance.
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | Oh, and I made a mistake above; it isn't EI or worker's comp which kicks in at a certain level - it is CPP. |
Hallelujah, you finally got one. There is indeed a special exemption specific to the Hutterites*:
| Quote: | | In 1969 they began to seek exemption from the Canada Pension Plan. The following year the federal cabinet decided against granting them exemption, but further negotiations resulted in an act of Parliament in 1974 that freed both the Hutterites and the Amish from participation in the plan. |
But let's look back at the Manitoba construction companies complaints:
| Quote: | | "When the playing field is different and there's advantages that are outside of something we could do, that's when we don't like the competition," |
| Quote: | | "It takes away from companies such as ourselves who are operating under different circumstances or under different rules and regulations." |
So far, the only different rule we have is for CPP, which is not even mentioned in the article. Not having to pay wages? No special rule for the Hutterites; it's just like other partnerships (like the family-owned restaurant example given by the government). Is there some law or regulation preventing those other construction companies from forming partnerships or going the independent contractor route instead of hiring employees? AFAIK, no. Worker's Comp? No special rule for the Hutterites, as no other employer has to pay Worker's Comp for their non-employees. EI? While there are some non-employees whose work is insurable under EI, like hairdressers and taxi drivers, there is no special rule exempting the Hutterites. They, like other independent contractors/self-employed, aren't covered under EI because they are not employees. And it would be the same for those other construction companies if their workers were not employees. The Health and Post Secondary Education Tax Levy? A "tax imposed on remuneration that is paid to employees." Your workers not classified as employees? Then you don't have to pay the tax. Not a special rule for Hutterites.
So yeah. There's CPP. So let's level the playing field, repeal that CPP exemption, and the Hutterites will have to pay, annually, an additional $4,613.40 per worker. Sadly, I doubt that would stop either you or the construction guy in the article from bleating about special advantages and special rules where there are none.
*There is actually another special rule that I've noticed. From the Hutterite link, which seems to refer to S. 143:
| Quote: | | By 1968 an agreement was reached with the federal government that they would pay taxes on a “deemed individual income” basis. The colony’s total income would be divided by the number of adult members . . . |
The Hutterites have been income splitting (between "working" men and "non-working" housewives) for years, something that is still in the proposal stage for non-Hutterites. The recognition, in the ITA, of housework and childcare done by women for their own families, by giving an allocation of income to Hutterite women whose job it is to cook and clean for their families and look after their own children, is unique, I think, to Section 143. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey fork, you don't have to ante up with anything if you feel defensive about it. I was just wondering because you seem to be dancing around - on the one hand sticking to the claim that Blackmore is just making a simple request for a second opinion, yet on the other hand, saying that the government is justified in examining the validity of their beliefs in order to get to the bottom of this tax question .
Just wondering what you personally feel about it, since I have put my cards on the table. Seems like a simple question to me, but if you see it as an invasion of privacy, fine. carry on with whatever it is that is keeping your attention here.
Again, I think the guy is a fucking crook.
And i am getting tired of this attempt to trip me up on that other issue. The question of whether one is an employee or not is at the heart of it. That is to say, most of us have to comply with some pretty strict definitions of when one is and is not an employed worker and has to pay in to workers' comp, EI, and payroll tax.
And also, yes, I do think fishing around in other threads is getting personal, though I think it speaks more to your obsession, just like the fact that everything you have posted here of late has focused on me, rather than the issue. I could say I am flattered by the attention, but really I am thinking more of the fact that no one is interested in this other than you.
And if you are surprised that Hutterite women work - and no, not just doing dishes - I expect you are the only one for whom that is a news flash. I don't think I have ever seen them NOT working. Not sure what your point is there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | Hey fork, blahblahblah |
Gee, for a minute there, I thought "I'll check in again once this trial resumes, or something else of relevance takes place" meant that you were going to stop telling me to stop talking about aspects of this case which *you* didn't think were relevant (even though they are). And that instead, *you* were finally going to stop talking about things which you have declared irrelevant. Guess not.
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | Not sure what your point is there. |
Obvs. Here, there, or anywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe I did post regarding the issue after that - the letters from the local paper, and the fact that BC was considering taking the polygamy case to the Supreme Court of Canada even though they had just won it.
But do carry on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fork, please put some clothes on. Your boldly naked avatar distracts me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | I believe I did post regarding the issue after that - |
Yeah no. Your March 14th post linking random letters to the editor that offered nothing new or particularly interesting came *before* your March 16th "Hey fork, blahblahblah" post. But let's pretend for a moment that your chronology was correct, and let's also pretend that "something else of relevance (took) place", giving you a reason to "check in again". Those letters don't transform other comments that you would consider irrelevant or off topic if anyone else said them, into relevant comments just because you say them. Or did you actually think that linking those letters conferred some kind of Relevance Aura on all your comments for the week? It's entertaining enough that you fancy yourself as the arbiter of what's relevant or on topic here, but that the one person that should be staying within the parameters of discussion that you set (that would be you) can't manage to do so, and keeps talking about things they have declared irrelevant or pointless or claim not to care about care about takes it to new heights.
Hey, watch me turn this post into something you would consider relevant.
| bshmr wrote: | | fork, please put some clothes on. Your boldly naked avatar distracts me. |
Just between you and me and the internet, that's not a picture of me; I don't look that good IRL. So I've put up a better likeness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Arbiter of what's relevant?"
"Setting parameters of discussion?"
I don't think I'm the one making pronouncements on that, fork . And if you have a problem with me introducing the point that BC is considering taking the polygamy ruling to the federal supreme court, or the opinions of people who live near Bountiful, or even the fact that I agree with you on one or two aspects of this, perhaps you should take it up with a moderator.
And a right-wing religious organization which opposes same-sex marriage, Marxism, and abortion choice (and which supports the teaching of religious dogma in schools) also opposes polygamy? ...in a 10-year-old article?
So what? I am not sure what you expect me to react to.
As I said already, someone should take that ruling to the supreme court because I think the ruling in November was a bad one, and will do more harm than good. If (as was mentioned in one of the letters) Blackmore has already admitted to crimes then it begs the question of why the province hasn't charged him, four months after they got their ruling, and two months after they appointed a new prosecutor.
Had they gone with that ruling and actually done something (and I expect they had enough evidence back in 2009 when they first decided to take this to their top court) it would have been one thing, but to reinforce a criminal ban on people who are completely innocent and still not go after the ones they are targetting just adds insult to injury.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/04/14/bc-... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | "Arbiter of what's relevant?"
"Setting parameters of discussion?"
I don't think I'm the one making pronouncements on that, fork . |
Of course you don't. You're just going to continue to do what you've been doing all along, substituting what you want to be in place of what actually is. So your repeated appeals to "get back on topic", your insistence that a section of the ITA dealing with religious communes is not about religion and that discussing that most obviously relevant, even central, aspect of the case is "pointless and gratuitous", your declaration, late in the conversation about the tax case between you and me, that the topic is polygamy, your trying to redirect the discussion ("So you're not going to bother responding to my question", etc.) when the embarrassment? cognitive dissonance? is too great? None of that is actually there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fork wrote: |
your insistence that a section of the ITA dealing with religious communes is not about religion
|
Actually, I said that it was not about the validity of religion, but rather about the question of whether a religion has a ban on private ownership.
Again - the central issue is a ban on private ownership, the justification being religious belief.
And more importantly, whether the guy who got caught observed that rule himself.
Not the same thing at all. And that is why I think the crown's tactic of trying to invalidate the religion is overreaching, irrelevant, and discriminatory.
I mean, they could have just as easily hauled the catholics in there to say Blackmore's schismatic group wasn't a real religion, and it would have had as much weight. Using the LDS Church as an authority in this is absurd. They have nothing to do with this, and are strongly biased in wanting to discredit the FLDS.
Are you sure you don't have any personal opinion about this trial or its outcome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fork wrote: |
your insistence that a section of the ITA dealing with religious communes is not about religion
|
Here's but two quotes:
| Quote: | | In other words, the argument has nothing to do with the question of whether the trust or the community are religious, . . . |
| Quote: | | No, I don't think the question of whether the community is religious or not is relevant. . . |
Even though the election under dispute is only available to religious communes. And even though the reports of the trial say that that's what the government lawyers are arguing. Like I said, substituting what you want to be in place of what actually is. It's right there, in black and white, in the law and in the newspaper articles, and you're insisting it's not there. You know, there's the kind of belief where people believe things that haven't been proven one way or the other, like a belief in god, and, so long as you're not expecting everyone else to participate in your little fantasies, have at it. And then there's the other kind of belief, the kind that's unshakeable and impervious to evidence, like Ken Ham's idea of creationism. Your belief that the government isn't arguing what it's arguing, despite all those newspaper articles to the contrary, and despite easy access to the actual wording of the law, that goes in the latter category.
| Quote: | | Again - the central issue is a ban on private ownership, the justification being religious belief. |
Wrong. In several ways. One being that you don't get to take Section 143 and say that one part of it is the central issue and other parts are irrelevant. Claimants must meet *all* the requirements. Whether you want it to be so or not. BTW, are you still into believing that Winston's name on the shares of that Blackmore company means that they're his and not the "congregation's"? How about that Section 143 is an "exemption"? How about that the Hutterites doing construction work in Manitoba are getting "real tax and deduction breaks"?
My favorite quote of yours, so far, has to be:
| Quote: | | You know, I want to see these oppressive, lying, child abusing gangsters locked up as much as anyone else here. But I want to see it done based on their actual crimes, not because some people want to portray them as a bunch of illegitimate freaks. |
You hate on the Hutterites because of their frugality and think there oughta be laws punishing them for pooling their resources and being able to afford "very fine vehicles and top-of-the-line equipment". (And you think the crown is being "discriminatory"?!) You make things up whole cloth (Blackmore getting "caught claiming extra dependents", for one example). You have proven yourself utterly incapable of explaining the laws that you think Blackmore has broken, even aspects that you haven't dismissed as irrelevant, such as the question of ownership in the determination of whether the commune permits members to own property.
And yet the way you see yourself is wanting to see Blackmore, and other unnamed "gangsters", locked up "based on their actual crimes"? All kinds of awesome there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now where did I say I hate the hutterites? Where did I say anything about punishment? Where did I say anything about laws against pooling resources? Nowhere.
I'm just saying there's a difference between getting an exemption because it is against one's religion (re - private ownership) and being excused from paying into CPP, EI, and education payroll taxes simply because you don't use those services. I think I made my argument on that point, and the point of ecomomic advantage as well.
And no, the question of religion is not the relevant point here, in that the main question is whether the community of Bountiful allowed their members to own private property. Seems to me there is ample evidence they did. For that and other reasons I think the crown's attempt to discredit their beliefs is off-base, and they haven't proven a thing by hauling in someone from another religion.
Similarly, when a JP here in Saskatchewan tried to claim a religious excemption from doing his job, the crown didn't try to invalidate his beliefs; they just established that he was doing a secular job and had to obey the law. In this case, it seems to me the first question is whether they actually observed the rule, not whether their religion is real.
The first is a valid question; the second, at least regarding a belief with an established pedigree, is not, and is no business of the state. It is no more valid than if they tried to prove that someone was not a human being (a tactic that has been used against women and non-white people).
I expect that if this ever comes to charges of assault or child abuse, the argument will be that religious dogma does not trump criminal law.
And yes, I feel Blackmore's shares are his own. I'll wait to see what the judge says about that.
Congratulations. There are a few things we disagree on, even if I do agree with you about the substance of the relevant section of the income tax act. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3140
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If it isn't private property why did he call his company "blackmore and sons"??? I mean, I know it appears as if every child in the community is the fruit of his loins, but not so...and "blackmore and sons" certainly suggests ownership.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6195
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, something or other is happening again on this front.
| Quote: | The B.C. government has now cleared the way for a special prosecutor to lay polygamy charges linked to the RCMP investigation in the southeastern B.C. community of Bountiful.
|
| Quote: | Attorney-General Shirley Bond says the province will not ask a higher court to review last year’s Supreme Court decision that found the law violates the right to religious freedom, but the harm that polygamy causes to women and children outweighed that violation.
|
So, I guess the fact that they're not asking for a higher-court review means that we'll soon be seeing the cops hauling off the polygamists of Bountiful for another round of prosecution.
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think they are making a major mistake by not asking the Court of Appeal to look at it. The trial court will not be bound by the reference decision on constitutionality, and may decide to completely retry the issue. If there was a BCCA decision, the trial court at least would be bound.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
@ T.S.
If Blackmore is charged, he has the option of taking it there.
As for B.C., I am not surprised they didn't , given the time and expense, and the fact many people see them as dragging their feet already.
But if it does go there, It would be best if some of the intervenors (not just polyamorists, but representatives of cultures in which polygamy is the norm) could have the opportunity to participate again.
Of course, if they could manage to lay an actual abuse charge, there would be no need for the challenge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | Now where did I say I hate the hutterites? Where did I say anything about punishment? Where did I say anything about laws against pooling resources? |
Like butthurt, hate on is slang, and different from hate. But the answers to your questions are, in order, upthread, upthread, and upthread.
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | I'm just saying there's a difference between getting an exemption because it is against one's religion (re - private ownership) . . . |
Your insistence on referring to divvying up income and paying taxes on one's share as an "exemption" is probably the most stunning illustration of how uneducable you are on this topic. It was pointed out to you, even before I entered the discussion, that this is not an exemption.
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | . . .and being excused from paying into CPP, EI, and education payroll taxes simply because you don't use those services. . |
Wrong. "Simply because you don't use those services" is not the reason why they are "excused" from paying into those programs. We went through the reasons, and those reasons don't change to accomodate the limitations of your ability to understand them.
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | I'll wait to see what the judge says about that. |
Yeah, so you keep saying. I can't see how waiting will make a difference, since you are not processing new information. I can tell you right now what'll happen. If the judge rules against Blackmore, you'll feel vindicated, even though the reasons for the decision will have no relationship to what you're arguing here since your arguments have no basis in law. If the judge rules in Blackmore's favour, you'll say he got an "exemption" and be puzzled as to why the judge couldn't see something so obvious as the "fact" that Blackmore owned the shares of his company, and therefore didn't practice communal ownership. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anne cameron wrote: | | If it isn't private property why did he call his company "blackmore and sons"??? ...and "blackmore and sons" certainly suggests ownership.... |
I could name my company Anne Cameron of Tahsis Inc., and yes, that would suggest ownership, but hopefully, no court would make you pay my taxes because of it. So the name of the company doesn't really carry a lot of weight.
Ownership for legal purposes can get quite complicated, and can mean different things depending on the context. For an example, sometimes people will try to avoid probate by having someone's name added to their assets (houses, bank accounts). The two cases discussed here are superficially similar: a father transfers investments to joint accounts with his daughter, the daughter is given power of attorney, the father retains use and control of the accounts, and pays tax on the income. Yet, in one case, the father was considered to have gifted the assets to his daughter (funnily enough, the one where the father writes to the financial institutions that he is *not* gifting the funds to his daughter), and she owned them on his death, and in the other case, the assets were considered to be part of the estate, and ownership didn't transfer to the daughter. So someone can have their name on an account or property, or even own it in the sense that they have use and control over it, and it may or may not mean that they own it for inheritance purposes or for tax purposes. And just because it's decided that you own the asset for inheritance purposes doesn't necessarily mean you own it for tax purposes.
In Blackmore's case, I think he can probably argue that he is just acting as a trustee when he confiscates everyone's income and doles out stuff as he sees fit. If his group meets all the other requirements (congregation, etc.), then all the group's property is considered to be the property of the trust. The wording of the tax law:
| Quote: | | . . . the property of the congregation is deemed to be the property of the trust |
| Quote: | | . . . where the congregation is not a corporation, its council, committee of leaders, executive committee, administrative committee, officers or other group charged with its management are deemed to be the trustees having control of the trust property; |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look fork, I figured out awhile ago that we probably don't see this situation in exactly the same way (even though you declined to say what you actually think about Blackmore's case). That difference of opinion doesn't bother me.
I have been trying to focus on the issue of polygamy, and this trial, as it relates to Blackmore and the community of Bountiful.
If you think I am off-base and can't be educated perhaps that is a sign you should just start focusing less on me and more on the issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3140
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This mess has been allowed to continue for years. My feeling (and it is a feeling, not a reasoned opinion), is that it could have been stopped long ago IF successive governments hadn't preferred to let sleeping dogs lie content and happy. There are several women who have left Bountiful and their stories, while each is individual and thus unique, are amazingly similar in many details. And I don't understand why what they have said, openly and publicly, has not been used as "evidence" against some of the patriarchs and criminal charges brought to bear.
If even half of what these women claim is true, what's happened is a disgusting abuse of women and children.
Then there are the "lost boys" and what THEY have said about the way that place has been run.
So why have ALL parties who formed government preferred to tip toe around ignoring what could be evidence?
They wouldn't even have to take the lid off the Pandora's box that "polygamy" is, there are other charges, serious charges , which could be brought to bear.
But I guess as long as it's just women and children being treated like chattel the nabobs and Phillistines won't move. Now if the patriarchs at Bountiful had treated a judge that way...or even a real estate agent... or used car salesman... more might have happened.
I hope at some point one of the ones who have managed to leave will bring suit against the government for allowing the abuse to continue. It seems to me the "lost boys" have a really strong class action suit to bring against the government of the province of B.C.
But what would I know, I am not a lawyer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blackmore's uncle was in government - an MP, and first head of the Social Credit in Canada. According to this listing (although there is no citation) he lobbied to have a specific reference to mormonism removed from polygamy law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Horne_Blackmore |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3140
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wasn't Solon Low also a polygamist supporter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Don't know. Sorry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3140
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, he was born in Cardston, which was named after a guy called Card, and who was one of the first Bountiful patriarchs... and I believe he was raised a "pluralist" although I don't have any links to cite for that... founding member of Social Credit and foaming at the mouth anti-semite... but then so was Winston's uncle... blamed the Jews for everything.
We're having such crap weather here today maybe we can blame that on the Jews, as well...according to Solon they were the blame for everything else... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: |
Look fork, I figured out awhile ago that we probably don't see this situation in exactly the same way . . . That difference of opinion doesn't bother me. |
You're completely wrong when you assert that we don't see this situation in exactly the same way. What you're saying there is that we agree in the main, and that it's just in the details that there's difference. We are not agreeing at all; we are very far apart. I've already explained this, but apparently it didn't take. So here's the same point, albeit on a different topic:
| Quote: | The other day, I was engaged in a debate with a 'conservative' Christian about same-sex marriage. A self-professed 'liberal' Christian interjected with a comment about Jesus Christ's message of redemption and radical love for all. I can't recall with precision what words I used, but I rebuked him (without being supercilious, as far as I can tell) for presenting as evidence an argument based on demonstrable fictions. "Whoa - friendly fire bro," he replied to me, with genuine surprise. "I'm on your side!" It was kind of him to include me, an atheist, in his definition of 'we' and not identify me as 'other' in the manner typical to many believers. I really wanted to say, "you're right" - but I couldn't. Mr. Friendly Fire and I probably agree on many political and social issues. But on the most fundamental aspects of reality and epistemology, he and I are parsecs apart. Our shared values derive ultimately from utterly incompatible views about the very nature of the universe and reality.
Let's dispense with the sophomoric terminology of "sides" off the bat. We're not playing a game of dodge ball, nor should we adumbrate this discussion in the frame of "us vs. them" antagonism. My intent is to prove that though the 'progressive' believer may share ideological similarities with the rationalist, we are far more different than alike. We can't be lumped in the same category or forced into the same tent based on passing agreements because, at the core, we aren't the same at all. |
my bold
Same thing with you and me and this tax case. On the fundamentals, we're not even remotely in agreement. And if the "difference of opinion" didn't bother you, even viewed in the "meh, minor details" way you erroneously perceive it, you wouldn't feel the need to persist in claiming that you agree with me.
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | (even though you declined to say what you actually think about Blackmore's case). |
Actually, that's all I've been talking about. What I haven't been doing, and what you seem to very much want to do, is to do away with any reasonable, rational discussion of the charges against Blackmore, and engage in bigotry-fueled speculation as to what the outcome will be or should be.
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | I have been trying to focus on the issue of polygamy . . . |
And failing spectacularly. You haven't stopped talking about the tax case, even as you were claiming that the issue was "polygamy in Canada" (March 5th was the beginning of that particular bit of silliness, I think).
But, you know, it's not too late. You can still focus on the issue of polygamy. All's you gotta do is talk about polygamy instead of the tax case. Nobody's forcing you to make "irrelevant" and "off-topic" comments about the tax case.
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | If you think I am off-base and can't be educated perhaps that is a sign you should just start focusing less on me and more on the issue. |
It wasn't about you until you made it about you, falsely accusing me of attacking you rather than your arguments, and blathering on inanely about things other than the substance of my arguments. While you haven't yet squealed, "ad hominem!", I suspect this sort of misunderstanding is at the root of your conflation of focusing on your argument with focusing on you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh for heaven's sake, fork. I don't know why you are getting your knickers in a knot about it.
I agree with you about the substance of the law; I disagree with you about some of the interpretation of this case. Including the fact that in most legal cases involving the extent of religious power the main argument is not whether or not a church exists.
And this IS about polygamy, because not only does this case get to the heart of the motivation and manipulation of how that community works, the outcome of this trial will probably have more influence on the future of Bountiful than any criminal case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anne cameron wrote: | This mess has been allowed to continue for years. My feeling (and it is a feeling, not a reasoned opinion), is that it could have been stopped long ago IF successive governments hadn't preferred to let sleeping dogs lie content and happy. There are several women who have left Bountiful and their stories, while each is individual and thus unique, are amazingly similar in many details. And I don't understand why what they have said, openly and publicly, has not been used as "evidence" against some of the patriarchs and criminal charges brought to bear.
If even half of what these women claim is true, what's happened is a disgusting abuse of women and children.
Then there are the "lost boys" and what THEY have said about the way that place has been run.
So why have ALL parties who formed government preferred to tip toe around ignoring what could be evidence?
They wouldn't even have to take the lid off the Pandora's box that "polygamy" is, there are other charges, serious charges , which could be brought to bear. |
Looking at just the women, what, besides polygamy, would you see as illegal, where charges could be laid? Hasn't that been the problem with charging Blackmore, that, as far as what's been happening with adult women, there's nothing illegal there other than polygamy? And nothing that we don't allow the wider community to engage in if they so choose? I think the question here is not, "What nasty shit is Blackmore doing to the women", but "What nasty shit is Blackmore doing to the women that we don't let other guys get away with?" There's a level of cultural acceptance of misogyny, and Blackmore should only be prosecuted to the extent he exceeds it.
As for the kids, from what I can see, there are two lines of attack the government could pursue. The first is statutory rape. If there are underage pregnant girls like in the FLDS case, then yeah, why isn't the government investigating and laying charges? Even with a less rock-solid situation, going on the girls' testimony ("I was married off to Old Goat when I was 13"), you run the risk of having them be coached to lie, but what are the chances that all of them could lie consistently and successfully, or would agree to do so? I think it would still be worth doing, and we're long past the time where the government could use the excuse that they're still investigating. But as you have noted in the past, Blackmore is a crafty old git, so it could be that he waits until the girls are 16. And pre-2008, he only had to wait until they were 14. So maybe the government has not been able to find any cases of illegal sexual activity because Blackmore is careful to stay within the law. I'd also add in as factors which might make determining the ages of the girls difficult, the secretiveness of these communities and moving the girls between Canada and the US. In short, I don't think it's clear that the government is turning a blind eye to the sexual abuse of minors.
The other approach is schooling. Groups like Bountiful, FLDS, Hutterites, they all recognize the importance of, well, ignorance in keeping up their numbers. Given a range of options, the number of people that would choose a life as a domestic or farm labourer isn't enough to ensure the continuity of the group. In Bountiful, there are two schools, both of which receive government funding despite not meeting curriculum requirements (my first post on this thread, page 1, linked to a Daphne Bramham article on the Bountiful schools). This one seems like a no-brainer. Pull accreditation and funding from schools which don't meet requirements, and ensure that all children attend an accredited school until the age of 16, or whatever the legal dropout age is for the province. But I think the government looks the other way on this because they don't want a repeat of what happened with the Doukhobors. They'd rather just wait until Blackmore works his way up to compliance (the 2011 article says Mormon Hills, which is Blackmore's group's school, was certified to issue diplomas beginning 2011). In Alberta, there have been attempts to raise the dropout age from 16 to 17, and the Hutterites, who appear to be allowed to pull their kids at 15, have said that "they would not comply with the provisions of such an act." So it's not just the Bountiful group that would be targetted if education laws were enforced, and it's that implied threat of rebellion from these groups that convinces governments to sacrifice the kids and ignore their rights for the sake of an uneasy peace.
Are there other things that the lost boys and women who left the community have said that could be used as evidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding the school:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/schoo...
Yeah, I know it's the Fraser Institute, which is certainly biased in favour of private schools, and the article includes the province's assessment as well, but it isn't quite so cut and dried.
It also begs the questions of success ratesand adherence to standards in public schools, and more importantly, what such a zero-tolerance measure would accomplish in dealing with the actual problem.
Last edited by 6079_Smith_W on Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3140
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't really give a fat rat's ass whether a person has one, two, three or four partners/wives/husbands/wotzits. I find it funny that so many people are so dead set against polygamy while indulging in adultery.
I'm not going to enter into a nit-picking exchange or play "yabbut" with anyone, there's been too much of that in this thread already. I am quite convinced, perhaps incorrectly, that if what we were discussing was a community of Moslem, Buddhist, or Gypsy polygamists hell itself wouldn't be big enough to hold the many and various attempts all levels of government would have made to put a stop to it. If the situation at Bountiful involved dark-skinned people it would have been stopped long ago.
The cross-border issue has me wondering if the border guards are blind; groups of "lost boys" walking across the border unhindered, car loads of teen-aged girls going over the border in either direction and not returning... and for years nobody asks "Huh?"
No, I do not think ANY political party has done due diligence and Yes, I do think fraud has been practised.
There should be an Information Centre or Shelter or...SOMETHING... funded so that those wishing to flee, or those exiled could be given all the help they need to get away from the situation. Society could have done more, should have done more, ought to do more, and probably won't do a damned thing because the best predictor of future behaviour is an examination of past behaviour and , after all, it's only women and kids who are getting the short and shitty end of the stick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anne cameron wrote: | If the situation at Bountiful involved dark-skinned people it would have been stopped long ago.
|
I'm not so sure if that is true. That is to say, if there was an actual community built I am sure it would not - could not - be conveniently ignored, but on the other hand, there are plenty of polygamous relationships which are under the radar. One high profile example is the fact that in the Shafia murder trial it was not reported that the family was polygamous until well into the trial. His murdered first wife was simply refered to ambiguously as his "first wife".
Part of my complaint about the law is that, although I see the risks, we are not just talking about mormon fundamentalism here.
I do know that in Britain, now that marriage law is under the radar microscope, muslim polygamy is probably the most prominent example that is being brought up as an argument for accommodation.
So while I don't deny the strong influence of racism and sexism I think there are some forces trying to temper it as well.
Last edited by 6079_Smith_W on Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3140
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We mostly agree...but, then, we almost always do agree, don't we... and where we don't see exactly eye-to-eye the differences don't interfere with the on-line friendship. I find it "interesting" and "very nice" that we have the chance to make friends and hold conversations with people we will probably never see face to face...and I very much welcome the opportunity to exchange ideas, thoughts, philosophies with people from other areas and backgrounds, it gives us all a chance to stretch our minds and consider other outlooks.
I think racism is deeply imbedded in this country, and we're generations away from dealing with it in any positive way. Multiple partners, to me, seems to be the least telling influence on the Bountiful case... but the brain washing and abuse has been given the blind eye treatment for far too long. Sometimes I wonder about the political old boys network and the fact that good old wotzisname is related to a couple of guys who were very politically involved both provincially and federally. But , somehow, I haven't found the energy to really study that particular aspect of what I laughingly call my conspiracy theory brain.
Have a good one! It is NOT raining in Tahsis today. Thank you, Gawd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes you too, and thanks for the good thoughts. And I agree about the psychological control. I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem if that lifestyle was a free choice, and there wasn't so much evidence of coercion, abuse and manipulation in that community.
Again, while polygamy is something I don't really understand, I think there is a big difference between what is happening in Bountiful, and someone coming to Canada from another culture where it is the norm.
We just dodged the big snowstorm that swept across the prairies, and it is windy, dusty, and around the freezing mark. Supposed to drop to -11 in the next few days, a change from the +20 is was the day before yesterday. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3140
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ohmigawsh, minus eleven? I guess I'd better stop whining and mewling about our weather, although I've done a lot of bitchin' about it this past winter...a couple of weeks back we got yet another dump of white shite and when I went outside (griping and moaning every step of the way of course) there in the otherwise unbroken snow were the pug marks of a very large cougar.
That explained to me where all the feral cats had gone!
But the deer have shown up again, that probably means the big cat has moved on. The deer sort of evaporate when the cat shows up...
Minus eleven.
Obvious question...why do you stay there?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Because it's the most beautiful place on earth, of course! Did I mention it was +20 the day before yesterday? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6166
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sunshine.
I've lived on the West Coast. It warms up for a couple of weeks in the summer, when all the natives point in terror at that yellow disc in the sky, then either run in fear or burn cop cars in ritual sacrifice.
Foggy, cloudy and damp vs. sunny and a character-building chilliness?
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3140
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, c'mon, now, we get more than a couple of weeks of warmth. Why last year alone we had an uninterrupted months of heat. On two different occasions I actually almost began to sweat.
And we know what that yellow thing in the sky is. It's the Mother Ship.
I cannot abide white shite...my toes get cold when that stuff slops up over the edge of my sandals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6195
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Authorities in a pair of polygamous Utah-Arizona border towns have supported a campaign of intimidation against the unfaithful, denying them housing and municipal services and allowing members of the dominant religious sect to destroy their crops and property, the U.S. Justice Department said in a lawsuit.
The federal civil rights case was filed Thursday against the towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., where most residents are members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, run by the group's jailed leader Warren Jeffs.
|
| Quote: | In one case of law enforcement misconduct, according to the suit, officers rounded up all dogs and shot them in a "slaughter pit" outside town on specific orders from Jeffs.
The suit also says officers regularly allow sect members to victimize non-members by destroying their crops, vandalizing property and trespassing.
Federal officials also say officers have made traffic stops and arrests without cause, kept underage brides from running away and prevented children of non-FLDS members from using a public playground.
|
Must say, it would be interesting, though not neccessarily in a pleasant way, to be a religious minority in a town controlled by the FLDS.
link
_________________
I hear words I never heard in the Bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree VOTD.
By the way, the case reconvened a week or so ago for closing arguments. I didn't post it because I figured it was best to just wait for the ruling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6195
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | A school in Bountiful, B.C., with links to jailed polygamist leader Warren Jeffs has abruptly closed its doors, with most of its students now relying on home-schooling in a community that has long been accused of using classrooms to indoctrinate children rather than educate them.
Bountiful Elementary-Secondary School shut down without explanation in September, the province's Education Ministry confirms, and nearly all of its former students are being home-schooled. The school, which received provincial funding for some grade levels, had an enrolment of 265 students last year.
|
| Quote: | Sutherland said most of the students are now enrolled in a local home-schooling program known as Homelinks, which connects parents and children with certified teachers who work with families to craft an educational program for each student. Professional teachers evaluate students' work, but most of the instruction still occurs at home.
Several dozen children are technically registered at local schools, but nearly all of them are home-schooled. In those cases, it is entirely up to parents to teach and grade their children. They have access to resources, such as curriculum documents and computers, from the school, but are not required to use them.
Nine former Bountiful Elementary-Secondary School students are enrolled in a separate government-run online learning program, Sutherland said.
|
It's not clear to me if the first and second paragraphs in that last quote are describing two separate programs, or one.
CBC
_________________
I hear words I never heard in the Bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6195
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Taking a trip down memory land, re-reading this thread. It would seem that things have changed in regards to the BC government's approach since fork posted this back in 2008.
(April 7 2008 7:51 PM)
| Quote: | Despite all the problems, Mormon Hills School retains Group 1 accreditation and funding for its Grades 1-7 programs. It succeeded in qualifying for Group 3 accreditation for Grades 8 and 9, which means it currently gets no funds for those programs but is on track to get Group 1 certification and funding. And it is seeking Group 3 status for its new Grade 10 program.
It retains those certifications even though the community makes no secret of the fact that children are taught that unless they practise the criminal offence of polygamy, they will not get to the highest realm of heaven. The school has the government seal of approval even though its students are taught strict obedience to their leaders in everything, including whom and when to marry.
Why? Because beyond the requirements to teach the provincial curriculum, the only limits the B.C. Independent School Act places on schools is that they "must not offer programs that in theory or in practice will promote or foster doctrines of racial or ethnic superiority or persecution, religious intolerance or persecution, social change through violent action, or sedition."
|
_________________
I hear words I never heard in the Bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 591
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that second (older) article is about Blackmore's school, which is still open, for now.
I'm guessing that the Jeffs school closed for lack of funding. It may be better, if it means that families have to have some direct contact with the outside world.
Also, there is still no ruling in that tax case, as far as I know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6195
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Texas prosecutors Wednesday moved to seize the ranch of a polygamist sect where more than 450 children were earlier removed in a police raid and its leaders jailed on child sex abuse charges.
Prosecutors described their motion to seize the sprawling 1,600 acre ranch as the “final chapter of the state’s nearly five-year effort to pursue widespread criminal misconduct at the YFZ Ranch.”
They argued that sect leaders aimed to “establish a remote outpost where they could insulate themselves from criminal prosecution for sexually assaulting children.”
|
link
_________________
I hear words I never heard in the Bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics