 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
VOTD, I am re-posting the actual section of the Criminal Code that I posted in the Age of Consent thread, for reference here, along with an explanation that I posted further down that thread.
| Quote: | Section 153(1.2) reads:
A judge may infer that a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including
a) the age of the young person;
b) the age difference between the person and the young person;
c) the evolution of the relationship; and
d) the degree of control of influence by the person over the young person.
Section 153(2) defines a "young person" as a person over fourteen years of age or more but under the age of 18 years.
Someone violating that clause will receive as much as ten years in jail. |
| Quote: | - If the young person is 14, the relationship is more likely to be found exploitative than if the person is 17.
- If the age difference between the young person and the other person in the relationship is great, say 16 and 45 it is more likely to be found exploitative than if the age difference is relatively small, say 15 and 21.
- If the relationship has evolved over time, you know knew each other for six months, dated for two months before sex and so on, then it is less likely to be found exploitative. If the sexual relationship just sprang into being overnight, it is more likely to be found exploitative.
- If the other member of the relationship holds significant control or influence over the young person, the relationship is more likely to be found to be exploitative. If the relationship is found to have equal influence or control between partners, then the relationship is less likely to be found exploitative. |
There is more than one consideration in a finding of an exploitative relationship.
_________________
"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 |
|
 |
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So suppose I'm 40, and I have a 14 year old girlfriend. She's happy, I'm happy, but at any moment a judge could decide that our relationship is exploitive, and that I need to go to jail for a while?
More importantly, there's no way for me to know this until such time as I'm charged and it's decided then, by an individual's interpretation?
I had always believed that an important component of law was that a citizen should reasonably be able to know whether they were obeying the laws or weren't. How, in this situation, could I ensure that I'm not one phone call away from being charged with a crime?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look, we had this discussion in another thread. I would suggest we take it back there if you really want to have it (again!) rather than derail this thread any further.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You don't think that laws concerning older adults having sex with adolescents is relevent to a discussion of Bountiful?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | So suppose I'm 40, and I have a 14 year old girlfriend. She's happy, I'm happy, but at any moment a judge could decide that our relationship is exploitive, and that I need to go to jail for a while?
More importantly, there's no way for me to know this until such time as I'm charged and it's decided then, by an individual's interpretation?
I had always believed that an important component of law was that a citizen should reasonably be able to know whether they were obeying the laws or weren't. How, in this situation, could I ensure that I'm not one phone call away from being charged with a crime? |
Before you are ever going to go to court on something like this, the police have to convince a judge that they have reasonable grounds to believe that your relationship is exploitative, on the above criteria. As part of their investigation, they will probably come talk to you and your girlfriend. You will know there is an investigation. So no, a judge isn't going to decide "at any moment" that you are in an exploitative relationship. But you can avoid even getting to that stage by, oh, not having an exploitative relationship.
Because the decision isn't going to be made on just one factor. As the section of the Criminal Code says, the determination will be made on the basis of all the circumstances of the relationship. If, in your example, your girlfriend were to get on the stand and testify that you had an equal partnership in your relationship, and that the relationship evolved over time, then that will greatly reduce the chance of a conviction. Of course the bigger the age difference gets, the less able you will be to convince police officers not to bring it to a judge, or to convince a judge not to convict because it becomes harder and harder to believe that there is no exploitative quality to the relationship.
The part you seem to have a lot of trouble with is that this is not a mandatory presumption of exploitativeness. But permissive presumptions play an important role in criminal law. Getting rid of all of them would make the system much more rigid, and eliminate the capacity of the system to take individuality into account.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | As part of their investigation, they will probably come talk to you and your girlfriend. You will know there is an investigation. So no, a judge isn't going to decide "at any moment" that you are in an exploitative relationship. |
But at that point, if the decision has been made to proceed, there wouldn't really be anything I could do. That's what I was getting at. One minute we're both happy, the next minute our relationship is being investigated. True, it might be several months before a judge declares me a sex offender, but the die is cast.
| Quote: | But you can avoid even getting to that stage by, oh, not having an exploitative relationship.
|
And this is what fascinates me.
To me, this is like saying "But you can avoid going to jail by, oh, not being unpatriotic".
Notwithstanding a situation in which I'm a cold, calculating predator, how am I supposed to know whether or not my relationship would or would not satisfy some vague legal definition of "exploitive". Sure, our ages differ. Should I KNOW, then, that our relationship is likely to be interpreted as exploitive and simply avoid it? What if I look at the criteria, and I believe in my heart of hearts that the relationship isn't exploitive, but the judge who hears the case disagrees?
If the law simply says I cannot have a sexual relationship with a 14 year old then I don't have to second guess, nor does a judge have to interpret, nor is there any room for bias in that. It's a matter of looking at a birth certificate.
| Quote: | | The part you seem to have a lot of trouble with is that this is not a mandatory presumption of exploitativeness. |
Sort of. More refined, the problem is that, to me, it's like having a sealed envelope that gets opened one day and inside it says either "No Problem" or "He's a sex criminal who should go to jail", and a person cannot open this envelope until after they've committed themself to be bound by what's in it.
I've seen a lot of criticism of the idea that a judge should be able to decide, on the spot, whether a person's actions are "terrorism" and punish them accordingly. It's that same sentiment: "how can someone reasonably obey the law if the law gets made up on the spot, each time?"
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6136
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TS, thanks for posting that. I must say, though, that some of the criteria would seem to actually work toward the benefit of the men in Bountiful.
| Quote: | - If the relationship has evolved over time, you know knew each other for six months, dated for two months before sex and so on, then it is less likely to be found exploitative. If the sexual relationship just sprang into being overnight, it is more likely to be found exploitative.
|
If a girl has spent her life in one polygamous community, she would likely have known for many years the man that she eventually ends up betrothed to. And since such relationships are the norm in that subculture, and the girl has probably seen all of her older female relatives involved in such, it might become harder to argue that she didn't know what she was getting into when she married the guy.
Other than that, I share Magoo's concern with the ambiguity of the law as written. "Having an exploitative relationship" is not really the same sort of thing as "driving through a red light", because in the latter offense, there is unanimous agreement on what a red light looks like and what it's supposed to mean(at least among anyone licensed to drive a car). But different people are going to have different ideas about what constitutes an exploitative relationship. I realize that the "exploitation" criteria is regarded around here as being more progressive than the age test, but I'm not so sure. I think it might give a bit too much power to individual judges to arbitrarily impose their personal biases and prejudices on the people involved in relationships. Whereas with the age test, imperfect though it may be, at least everyone knows exactly what the law means from the get-go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Quote: | | Apparently, they have a phrase that refers to living off government support while at the same time condemning the government as evil. "Stealing from the beast", or something like that. Apparently, they justify themselves by saying that they're helping to undermine the evil government by taking its money. |
Are you sure you're not mixing them up with Anarchists and other radicals who want to smash the state (but let's wait until after cheque day)?  |
Gosh, Mr. Magoo--given how progressive you are, I'm and amazed that the analogy which sprang to your keyboard was some lame Red-baiting about Anarchists rather than some parallel that actually happens in the real world, such as big corporations and the wealthy taking big subsidies out of the government they want to drown in the bathtub.
No, really, you could have knocked me over with a feather. Why, Mr. Magoo of all people indulging in an off-topic comment with no content or apparent purpose other than trolling and flame-bait.
My world has just been turned upside down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm equally gobsmacked that you'd take a few minutes out of your busy day to chastise me for it!
I'm also amused to note that red-baiting now includes anarchists. I thought the term was enough of sad little anachronism as it was, but now it appears it's going "big tent". Well, the more political opinions become sacred, the better, I say!
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5472
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Especially in the situations where the church leaders are the husband, would not being an influential member of the church that has controlled the girls' entire lives be considered enough of an authority influence? Did the girls really have much of a a choice in agreeing to the arranged marriage, to make the claim that "they need what they were getting into"? For that matter, does having known the person prior to the marriage being arranged really constitute much of an evolution of the relationship? It doesn't seem like the arrangement is squeaky clean and untouchable outside of legislation regarding polygamy and age of consent.
And really, would you feel a whole lot better about the situation if they waited until the girls were 16 to marry them off? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Especially in the situations where the church leaders are the husband, would not being an influential member of the church that has controlled the girls' entire lives be considered enough of an authority influence? |
I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't that same power relationship make sex with adult parishoners coercive as well?
There's a woman in the U.S. who's currently suing some rich, holy-roller preacher type on the grounds that her sexual relationship with him was exploitive, for exactly that reason. He was the priest, so what could she say? I mean, besides pointing out that the Bible forbids adultery, even if one of the participants is a very important televangelist and such.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is why the fourth criterion is important. You have to take a contextual approach to determining the nature of the relationship, and in this case it would include looking at the relationships of authority within the community.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6136
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Especially in the situations where the church leaders are the husband, would not being an influential member of the church that has controlled the girls' entire lives be considered enough of an authority influence? |
Yeah, if we were talking about Warren Jeffs, or anyone else occupying an official leadership position in the church, it would be an open-and-shut case, according to the law. But I was wondering about cases where the guy's position as an authority figure is a little more ambiguous.
| Quote: | | an influential member of the church |
This would seem to be bit of a tougher case to make, if the guy didn't have an actual position of authority. Because just as you can have influential members of a church, you can also have influential members of the community in general, and everyone's idea of an "influential member" is going to vary.
But if it WOULD be that easy to get convictions for sexual exploitation, I have to wonder why the cops are hemming and hawing about this. I don't quite buy Anne Cameron's hypothesis that it's because the victims are female, since I've known of other cases where men have been charged, and convicted, of this sort of thing, and those cases were considerably lower profile. I suspect the reason that the authorities haven't moved on this is because they dread the idea of lawyers sitting around a courtroom having the exact sort of discussion that we're having here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6136
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | And really, would you feel a whole lot better about the situation if they waited until the girls were 16 to marry them off? |
Not really. But at 16, a person is free to have sex, get married, and leave home if she so chooses. And, barring cases where the male is a teacher or something like that, I'm not sure how much I'd want to whittle down that principle of autonomy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6136
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | SAN ANGELO, Texas - Copies of search warrants released Friday showed police seized dozens of journals and other materials, some documenting marriages and births, from a West Texas polygamist sect.
The list of documents seized also refers to a "cyanide poisoning document," but offers no other explanation.
The records include a list 80 pages long of items taken from the grounds of the Yearn for Zion Ranch in Eldorado owned by the breakaway Mormon sect known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
|
| Quote: | | Among the items seized were computer equipment, family photo albums, letters, school and medical records, including some that listed the name of the 16-year-old girl whose call prompted the weeklong raid. But her name was identical to that of several girls in the sect. |
| Quote: | Authorities defend raid
On Thursday, state and local law enforcement authorities defended their decision to leave the sect alone for four years after it moved in.
For four years, an informant fed Sheriff David Doran information about the polygamist.
But those milling about the 1,700-acre compound would scatter whenever he and a Texas Ranger visited, leaving them without the concrete evidence they needed to open a criminal investigation, Doran said.
“I have no regrets because we never received any outcry, a complaint. There was no evidence of illegal activity nor an offense in plain view,” he said. “You can always suspect something, but until you get something that puts you on that property, there’s not a whole lot you can do.”
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24068619/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
granny
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 217
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| voice of the damned wrote: | | Quote: | | And really, would you feel a whole lot better about the situation if they waited until the girls were 16 to marry them off? |
Not really. But at 16, a person is free to have sex, get married, and leave home if she so chooses. And, barring cases where the male is a teacher or something like that, I'm not sure how much I'd want to whittle down that principle of autonomy. |
Are the young women giving 'free and informed consent'?
Obviously one didn't.
Does polygamy exist where it doesn't involve coercion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6136
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Are the young women giving 'free and informed consent'?
Obviously one didn't.
|
Obviously, polygamy can co-exist with sexual coercion, as it might very well have done in the case you reference. But that wouldn't neccessarily correlate to age. If we accept that a 16 year old can freely enter into a monogamous sexual relationship, I don't see why we have to assume automatically that she can't freely enter into a polygamous one.
| Quote: | | Does polygamy exist where it doesn't involve coercion? |
I don't know. But I'm not sure why I should assume a priori that every single polygamous relationship involves coercion.
Which isn't the same thing as saying that I support the legalization of polygamy. Even if it's not coercive in every single case, there could be other problems with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6136
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
For what it's worth, YouTube has a bunch of videos of a rally in Utah, in which numerous female teenagers and adults talk about how happy they were growing up in polygamous families. In the ones I saw, they seemed to be genuinely satisifed with the lives they've lived. Everyone can draw their own conclusions, I guess.
I don't know how to post a YouTube link. You can do a search on "Jessica at polygamy rights rally" to see one of the more articulate speakers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3078
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Polygamy, in and of itself, is of no interest to me, any more than any other marriage situation. Polygamy does not necessarily involve girls as young as fourteen being married off to old geezers, nor does it necessarily involve marrying girls off to their cousins and uncles.
I think it might have been Oprah who had a couple of families of polygamists where the men and their several wives each were all adult, and obviously educated and fully aware of their situation. Nothing to get in a froth about there.
When it comes to "position of authority", well, according to some of the women who have left Bountiful, the teachings of this particular group include the idea that the only way a woman can possibly go to heaven is to be married to a man who will as good as invite her there. And if a man's place in heaven is dependent on how many wives and children he has left behind, obviously the woman's rank once she gets there is dependent on the same thing, so if you want to attain high rank in heaven do not complain when you become the twelfth wife of some old crock.
If you're only fourteen or fifteen when he kicks the bucket you might have a long wait for this exalted position but not to worry, the elders and authorities will see to it you're assigned to some other guy.
With creepy Warren Jeffs in the slammer it seems as if there's a good chance Winston Blackmore will wind up leading this large congregation which seems to be living in three, or maybe four different towns, most of them below the 49th. Winston likes to come across as a jolly guy, and who knows, maybe he is. He is also very smart. I'm not sure he's intelligent but I never am when religious wing-nuttery is a factor. But smart, yes. crafty, in fact.
When the politicians and other authorities weasel around the issue by maundering about the constitutional challenge and blah de blah of polygamy they are really saying Oh well, it's only girls and women who are being exploited, no cause for alarm, folks, move along, nothing to see here.
Polygamy is not the issue.
Rape and incest are the real issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6136
Location: slandered, libeled
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6136
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | SAN ANGELO, Texas - After hours of lawyers popping up with similar objections and questions, a custody hearing for 416 children seized from a polygamist sect finally turned to whether they were abused: A child welfare worker said some women at the sect’s ranch may have had children when they were minors, some as young as 13.
The testimony came late Thursday, the first day of a court hearing to determine whether the children, swept up in a raid on the ranch two weeks ago, will remain in state custody. Child welfare officials claim the children were abused or in imminent danger of abuse because the sect encourages girls younger than 18 to marry and have children.
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24199519/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
... just finished watching the lawyer from Texas defending these folks, and I gotta say...
[sarcasm] That's the thing about these X-ians -- they're all child abusers. We need to have a constitutional amendment to keep them away from our kids. [sarcasm?]
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4003
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I glanced at a few moments of this last night. I had been ignoring the obvious, which this pointed out. Suddenly, insight.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=851753&page=1
Hundreds of 'Lost Boys' Expelled by Polygamist Community
Authorities Believe a Fundamentalist Mormon Group Is Expelling Boys to Continue Polygamy
June 15, 2005 --
| Quote: | At least 400 teenage boys have fled or have been kicked out of their communities along the Utah-Arizona border, forbidden from returning home.
Known as the "Lost Boys," they once belonged to a secretive sect known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which broke from the Mormon Church because its members wanted to practice polygamy.
The Lost Boys believe that polygamy is directly related to their exile.
... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6136
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Police in Colorado Springs have arrested a woman for investigation of making a false report to authorities that may be connected to the Fundamentalist LDS Church's raid on the YFZ Ranch in Texas.
The woman allegedly has a history of making calls while pretending to be a young girl.
Rozita Swinton, 33, was arrested on a warrant charging her with false reporting to authorities, a misdemeanor, the Colorado Springs Police Department confirmed in a brief statement issued late Thursday. Swinton was arrested at her home on Wednesday in connection with an incident that occurred in Colorado Springs in February, police said.
|
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695271689,00.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Deseret News article starts off with "may be connected", "allegedly", etc., but by the end of the article, appears to have secured a conviction:
| Quote: |
"She really did have us convinced," said Joni Holm, who has sheltered children who have left the FLDS Church. She also spoke to the woman.
"I was positive. She sounded like a little girl. I thought she was real," she told the Deseret News.
Jessop spoke to the woman pretending to be the teenage girl in numerous phone calls, . . . |
(emphasis added)
And while the phone call gave police probable cause to move in, I doubt that it's the reason for the decision to remove the children:
| Quote: | | It was that phone call that led a Texas judge to order the removal of all 416 children from the YFZ Ranch on allegations that they were at risk for abuse. |
More likely it was the discovery of 16-year-olds with children:
| Quote: | Court documents noted that among the children there was a 16-year-old girl who had given birth to four children. . .
Police have said there are several pregnant teenagers among the girls taken from the ranch. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Upthread, Magoo and VOTD raised the question of whether or not Bountiful members could even be charged with polygamy, since they only legally marry one woman:
| voice of the damned wrote: |
What I'm not clear on is at what point having multiple sexual partners crosses over into polygamy. The "marriages" at Bountiful aren't legally formalized, so they can't be charged with entering into multiple marriage contracts. So, if and when they are charged with polygamy, what will be the specific offending behavior?
Let's say a guy is married to one woman, with whom he has sexual relations. He also has sex with his live-in maid, with his wife's approval. So far, no laws are being broken. But suppose that one day they guy's buddy comes over, announces himself to the the chief deity and Pope of his own church, and performs an impromptu wedding ceremony on the three sex partners. Are the three from that point onward guilty of polygamy, even though they are living the exact same way as they were the day before, and the marriage ceremony has no legal standing?
I don't mean this as a defense of polygamy, which I oppose wholeheartedly, even in cases where it doesn't involve child sexual abuse. It's just something I've always wondered about the laws against it. What actions exactly constitute the crime? |
The Globe and Mail had an article today, "What's so difficult about prosecuting polygamy?", by Grant Huscroft, a "Professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario". (I can't find the whole article on-line). He does focus on the constitutional question:
| Quote: | | Now, there is no doubt that plausible arguments can be made that the prohibition of polygamy infringes the Charter. But equally plausible arguments can be made that it does not. . . The Attorney-General's only legitimate concern is whether there's a substantial likelihood of obtaining a conviction based on the available evidence. . . Those charged with committing the crime are free to contest the constitutionality of the law should they wish to do so. |
. . . but even given his specialization, shouldn't he first establish that there is a law being broken before moving on to his area of expertise? Yet here's how the article begins:
| Quote: | | B.C. Attorney-General Wally Oppal is having a difficult time in dealing with the Bountiful colony. The good folk of Bountiful are, by all accounts, practising polygamy in open contravention of Canadian criminal law, but the chief law officer of the Crown does not know what to do. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3078
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't "adultery" used to be against the law?
I mean, Winston Blackmore has a point when he says every time a married man commits adultery he's doing the same thing the polygamous do, only he does it without the blessing of God.
Well, I don't know about God and blessings and such, but seems to me to be cherrypicking if you go after the openly polygamous and do nothing to the adulterous.
I abhor the sexual abuse of children and the forced marriage , or even coerced marriage this sect seems to favour, but if all concerned are mature adults, and they don't mind, or even actually rather like the situation, then it's none of my bizness.
But let's not then expect the rest of society to pick up the tab for the 40 or more kids!!
This mess couldn't survive if the Ministry of Children and Families stopped paying welfare for these kids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This mess couldn't survive if the Ministry of Children and Families stopped paying welfare for these kids. |
That or the kids couldn't.
Religious types who believe they're following God's instructions aren't usually swayed from the Shining Path by silly little secular details like "no more social assistance". Not that I disagree with you in general, but I just think this one would come out of those kids' hide, not the "elders".
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chester
not crazy about trees
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2520
Location: Saskatoon
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i doubt that the bountiful people apply for social assistance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3078
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Au contraire , dear Chester. It has already been established that, in fact, most of the plural families in Bountiful receive social assistance.
Magoo, you're absolutely correct. It is, of course, the kids who would suffer. I'm sure the patriarchs would sit down and eat first, and the kids would have to wait , then get beggar's portion of what was left over.
That's the part that really does sear my hide. I don't care, really, if those old farts have a dozen wives as long as the women are not coerced or forced. And I don't think Winston is far off the mark with his comparison to affairs, adultery, and such.
It's a rat's nest and Wally Oppal is about as much help as a wet toilet seat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chester
not crazy about trees
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2520
Location: Saskatoon
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anne cameron wrote: | Au contraire , dear Chester. It has already been established that, in fact, most of the plural families in Bountiful receive social assistance.
|
well knock me over with a feather! i thought that these cults would stay very far a way from government programs so as to not jeaporadise the indoctrination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VOTD mentioned that near the beginning of this thread too.
Bleeding the Beast
| Quote: | | Bleeding the Beast: An expression used by some fundamentalists as a rationale for accepting assistance (i.e., financial grants, WIC, TANF, food stamps, housing, medical assistance, etc.) from governmental agencies that may otherwise not be trusted. Occasionally, the same term may be used to justify abuse or exploitation of such systems. Within certain groups it is taught that “bleeding the beast” will assist God in destroying the “evil” U.S. government and is considered a righteous endeavor. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chester
not crazy about trees
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2520
Location: Saskatoon
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ok, now i'm pissed off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There was a piece in the papers about a month or two ago about immigrants to Canada sponsoring more than one wife to immigrate too, and passing the cost of maintaining their several wives off on social services as well.
I don't typically have a problem with other adults' sexual arrangements, and like Anne, I couldn't care less if some guy is getting a leg over with 9 women, but since it's pretty much a given that one man, assuming he's not a rock star, pro athlete or CEO, isn't going to make enough money to support several wives and children, it eventually comes down to the rest of us paying to help some guy amass his own private fuck-harem.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Magoo, doesn't a harem imply, erm, fucking? It seems rather redundant to call it a fuck-harem.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, but I wanted to say 'fuck'. In case anyone thought it was about raising big families or something. 
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6136
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Magoo, doesn't a harem imply, erm, fucking? |
Well, according to Wiki...
| Quote: | Contrary to the common belief, a Muslim harem does not necessarily consist solely of women with whom the head of the household has sexual relations (wives and concubines), but also their young offspring, other female relatives, etc.; and it may either be a palatial complex, as in Romantic tales, in which case it includes staff (women and eunuchs), or simply their quarters, in the Ottoman tradition separated from the men's selamlik.
|
Of course, that's just the Muslim usage of the word. It's taken on new connotations as it's been adopted in the west, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6136
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting info from a blog, given the recent debate on another thread...
Prairie Fire Journal wrote:
| Quote: | I mentioned in the previous post that the 79th Texas Legislature amended the marriage law in 2005 raising the the minimum age for parental consent from 14 to 16 years of age. Well I went to reading Baker's Legal Pages and was astounded to find a whole bunch of amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Penal Code, and additional amendments to the Family Code concerning marriage relationships. Stiff felony punishments were added where there were none before. Is it just a coincidence that these particular legislative tweaks to the law occurred soon after the arrival of the FLDS in Texas? Reminds me of some Jim Crow-era laws passed by various Southern legislatures. While the laws had the look of general applicability, they were designed to target a specific group. Here's the link to read for yourself.
|
From the blog's comment section...
| Quote: | You are correct, the laws were passed quickly in 2005 just before the legislative session ended just because the FLDS was coming to Texas. The main sponsor of the bill even said so, they were modeled after laws passed in Utah against this sect.
|
I don't know what the overall political angle of this blog is. I just posted this because it was the only info I could find about the Texas legislation, which someone else on another message board had mentioned.
http://texaslastfrontier.com/prairie_fire_journal/blog1.php/2008/04... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6136
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More interesting stuff, from the blog...
| Quote: | I'm not a supporter of religion of any kind, but I can't help but feel that there's something really rotten smelling about the recent raid on the FLDS ranch outside of El Dorado, Texas. Was the raid really about possible child abuse and underage marriages, or is there more to it than that?
It's no secret that the State of Texas has been itching for a confrontation with the FLDS ever since their arrival in Texas in 2003. The problem wasn't with their isolationist or patriarchal behavior. If that was the case, then every Christian fundamentalist in the state would have to be rounded up. Mennonites in my part of the world require their girls and women to wear funny costumes, while the boys and men wear regular clothes. I'm sure that the FLDS doesn't have the market cornered when it comes to strict patriarchal religious dogma. If allegations of child abuse are grounds for raiding a church's property and executing a wholesale roundup of all of its members, then why aren't all the Catholic churches and schools in America padlocked and all their occupants warehoused? Why aren't SWAT teams sent into Amish enclaves to rescue those women and children who are subjected to a harsh patriarchal lifestyle?
The state's aversion to the practice of polygamy is what this is all about. The allegations of abuse are just the excuse used by the state to justify this broad use of police powers. The protectors of traditional marriage had to take decisive action. Is it just a mere coincidence that some of the buses seen hauling away FLDS women and children belonged to the local First Baptist Church? What about the use of Baptist volunteers to help with the mass roundup? Is the State of Texas so strapped for resources that it was necessary for CPS to use manpower and transportation provided by a Baptist church?
|
I recall noticing the First Baptist buses, but didn't really try to connect the dots like this guy is trying to do. I wonder if anyone else is pursuing this angle to the story.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5jr5z6 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6136
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The blog is giving extensive coverage to this issue. He seems to be framing the issue as local evangelicals using the state to halt the political ascension of the FLDSers, thus protecting their own power base.
| Quote: | In the aftermath of the Texas FLDS raid, there's been much commentary about the fear local folks in Schleicher County had about the FLDS bringing enough of its followers into the county to eventually take control of the local government. What most of those commentators seem to miss is the fact that Schleicher County and other similarly sized counties in Texas have long had their local governments controlled by good ol' boy evanngelical bubbas.
I live in a rural West Texas county with a population of about 4500, similar in size to schleicher County. Due to the evangelical control of county government, the county had been dry for at least the past 60 years. If you wanted to buy beer you had to drive 45 miles one way to get it. In the mid-1980s things got a little better when a small town 15 miles away in an adjacent county voted in package sales of beer, wine and liquor. This is but one example of evangelical social control in my county.
|
| Quote: | Heaven forbid that some fringe religious group should come in and build beautiful homes and a magnificent white temple, or ... perish the thought ... take control of local government. That would totally disrupt the order of things. From my vantage point, that couldn't be any worse than what I now have to deal with. In fact, it might be a good thing that evangelicals get a taste of what they've been putting others through for decades.
|
Bit of a different perspective, in any case, and from fairly close to the centre of the action.
http://texaslastfrontier.com/prairie_fire_journal/blog1.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chester
not crazy about trees
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2520
Location: Saskatoon
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| internicine fundy religious wars? i have to admit this makes me a little glad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boy howdy! Someone send them that boatload of small arms that got turned away in Zimbabwe!
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| voice of the damned wrote: | | He seems to be framing the issue as local evangelicals using the state to halt the political ascension of the FLDSers, thus protecting their own power base. |
From the Prairie Fire Journal:
| Quote: | | Is the State of Texas so strapped for resources that it was necessary for CPS to use manpower and transportation provided by a Baptist church? |
Possibly, yes. Faith-biased initiatives. The evangelicals may not be using the state; it could be that they are the state. I wonder if having evangelicals provide social services in the community is a new development, or if there already was a system in place where the gov't was starving its own (CPS) and diverting resources to religious groups to deliver social programs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane Demorney
Bazinga!
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 4746
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
An interesting take by Lyn Cockburn...
A sordid mistreatment of women
| Quote: | Back in the day, before Golda Meir became Prime Minister of Israel, she was a member of the Israeli parliament. When there was an outbreak in assaults against women at night, a minister in the cabinet suggested a curfew to keep women in after dark. "But it's the men who are attacking the women," Golda responded. "If there's to be a curfew, let the men stay at home, not the women."
There is an obvious present-day use for such logic. Look south to Texas where, on April 3, 416 children and their mothers were ripped from the only home most of them have ever known.
They were crammed into makeshift shelters like homeless people - which, of course, is exactly what they now are. Children crying, babies screaming, mothers bewildered and shaking in fear.
And Thursday, a Texas court agreed to hear arguments on whether the state can place these children into foster homes without giving their families individual hearings.
This is a textbook case of punish the victim.
<snip>
In the meantime, Meir had the right solution.
It is those very 55-year-old men who should have been taken away from the Texas ranch in busloads. Or, better yet, make them walk. |
rest at link...
_________________
Scissors cuts paper. Paper covers rock. Rock crushes lizard. Lizard poisons Spock. Spock smashes scissors. Scissors decapitates lizard. Lizard eats paper. Paper disproves Spock. Spock vaporizes rock. And as it always has, rock crushes scissors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3078
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder if the BC gov't is leery of moving against the child abusers at Bountiful because of the history and the legacy of the treatment of the children of the Radical Sons of Freedom Doukhabours? Children were wrenched from their families by armed Mounties and taken to New Denver which had started as a leprosarium, and then was used to warehouse severely mentally disabled children and adults. The "dooks" were housed there, behind tall crusader wire fences topped with barbed wire and "educated". Kids who might well have spoken only Russian or Ukrainian at home suddenly had to cope with English. Kids used to a completely vegetarian diet were suddenly faced with a meat-based diet, and their religion, which forbade the taking of life, had taught them it was a sin to eat the flesh of an animal because animals were, like people, the creation of God.
Parents were not allowed on site to visit their kids, they had to visit through the fence, on weekends only. Kids who refused to eat the meat went hungry until the weekend when parents and family members brought them familiar food and passed it through the fence.
It was horrific. But it broke the family solidarity and altered the future of the Sons of Freedom, who had become an undeniable pain in the ass.
Their main "sin" was in believing they could force the provincial and federal government to abide by promises made when they were "invited" to come to the Kootenays. Of course, the promises were very quickly broken. Most Doukhabours sighed and continued a communal pacifist lifestyle but the Sons of Freedom went into overdrive, blew hydro lines, wrecked the rail lines, and oh, sin of all sins, paraded naked in front of the jails and courthouses.
They, too, were heavily patriarchal but I've never heard of polygamy being part of their belief system. I have heard of teen girls being told to marry older men whose wives had died, leaving young children.
Eventually, the New Denver experiment was halted. I'm not sure how many years it was in operation and I don't know how many kids were detained there, or for how long. But the rate of social problems among young people who were forced to remain there sky-rocketed and divorce and alcoholism surfaced for what I'm told was the first time.
And then, of course, we have the example of what has happened to FN who were jammed into Residential Schools, which ran in BC from 1863 to 1984 and were as effective as cholera in destroying the family unit.
And mustnt forget the shabby treatment given to Jehovah Witnesses... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1141
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | since it's pretty much a given that one man, assuming he's not a rock star, pro athlete or CEO, isn't going to make enough money to support several wives and children, it eventually comes down to the rest of us paying to help some guy amass his own private fuck-harem. |
Hate to point this out, but it would theoretically be possible for the women in such a relationship to work for a living.... just saying that it's not a given.
_________________
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution."
Emma Goldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3078
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think a few women do work outside the confines of Bountiful. But when education is limited, and the dress code demands women look as if they are waiting for the wagon train, there probably aren't a lot of jobs available for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Hate to point this out, but it would theoretically be possible for the women in such a relationship to work for a living.... just saying that it's not a given.
|
Theoretically, yes. In practice? Not common enough to worry about, really. Bottom line is that when men want themselves a breeding pool of youngsters, the taxpayer pays for that.
Besides, if the wimminfolk are working out in the corrupt, secular world, and earning their own upkeep, well, that's not exactly "Bleeding the Beast", is it?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3078
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And holy ole baldy, what if the start to get uppity ideas and begin to think devil worshipping thoughts like "I want more than this for my daughter", and satan inspired thoughts like "I want my daughter to go to university".
Why, then we'd have to go to "blood atonement" and we sure don't want anyone on the Outside to hear about that!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chester
not crazy about trees
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2520
Location: Saskatoon
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anne cameron wrote: | | the dress code demands women look as if they are waiting for the wagon train |
gord, that's funny  |
|
| 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