 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6138
Location: slandered, libeled
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Thought this would be interesting to post here.
A map showing the percentage of Mormons in all American counties
No surprise which state comes out on top. Interestingly, Salt Lake City has one of the lowest rankings in Utah, despite being the general public's idea of Mormon Central.
Also, as the article notes, the Midwest has pretty sparse LDS populations.
| Quote: | | As soon as you cross east into the Great Plains, though, you become much less likely to bump into a Latter-day Saint—indeed, you’d have better luck heading all the way back to the more densely populated parts of New England, where Smith and Young many of the other early Mormons were born. |
I wonder how many, if any, of those New England Mormons are descended from people who stayed behind after Smith and Company headed west? Or was there some sort of eastward counter-migration that skipped the midwest on the way over to New England? Or possibly they're just converts.
I'd be interested to see a similar map for Canada. I'm guessing southern Alberta, around Cardston, would be Mormon Central. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 571
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was quite surprised when I went to Mesa Arizona. The mormon temple is right at the centre of the city - it has the location and prominence one would ordinarily associate with a City Hall.
Of course, Arizona is also one of the centres of FLDS settlements - on the north ridge of the grand canyon, which divides them from the rest of the state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6138
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the statisticians involved with that survey wrote in the comments section(replying to a question about whether they inciuded Reorganized Latter Day Saints)...
| Quote: | The Community of Christ, formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, submitted their own data to the 2000 study of the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies. I assume the compilers of this map used the data only for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Occasionally religious bodies with a congregation in one county but not surrounding counties will nevertheless draw adherents from surrounding counties and report them in the county of congregation affiliation rather than residence. That would explain why some counties have higher prevalence, and surrounding counties lower, than the "true" numbers would indicate....more
|
I believe the RLDS were the anti-polygamist schism led by Joseph Smith's son. They've actually evolved into a fairly mainstream and liberal denomination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 571
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I didn't know they were anti-polygamist. I do know part of the schism had to do with them believing the prophet had to be a descendent of Smith's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6138
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | I didn't know they were anti-polygamist. I do know part of the schism had to do with them believing the prophet had to be a descendent of Smith's. |
Yeah, apparently old Joe III and his mom(the first Mrs. Joseph Smith jr.) were quite embarrassed about the old man's sanctified bed-hopping. I read somewhere that they actually tried to deny that he had ever practiced polygamy(which must have gotten a laugh).
| Quote: | Polygamy has never been accepted or taught by the Community of Christ.[48] Smith's son Joseph Smith III and widow Emma Smith challenged the evidence presented and taught that Joseph Smith Jr. opposed the practice of polygamy and was not a polygamist.[49][50][51] Some members of the Community of Christ have accepted the viewpoint of historians that these were indeed taught and practiced by Joseph Smith Jr, but that like some of the prophets of ancient Israel, Joseph Smith Jr had a time when he followed a wrong path.[48] Therefore most members reject these doctrinal development.[7][48]
|
wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6138
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The COC temple in Independence Missouri is pretty freaking space-age.
But then, the one thing I will give LDS denominations is that they've always had highly original architecture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 571
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting. I do know that the church's refusal to ordain African people to the priesthood was decided after Smith's death, by Brigham Young.
Smith ordained several himself.
Interestingly enough, one of the articles I read recently about Mitt Romney pointed out that his grandfather was sent to Mexico to found a polygamist colony at the time when the practice was under threat from the U.S. government. His father's family had to flee back north because of anti-religious policies of the Mexican government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6138
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Smith ordained several himself.
|
Ah, so Mitt Romney isn't the first "Mormon liberal from New England"! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | "butt-hurt"?
Come on. You are just being offensive with this kind of potty-talk. Or do you think people should be ashamed about haemorrhoids or anal sex? |
Comment #36 by Lindsay Beyerstein, #64 by Mighty Ponygirl, and #45 by hp. So "spuriously indignant" if you're too delicate a flower for "potty-talk".
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | Frankly I was thinking more of times in the past when people have decided to haul out thier pitchforks over issues like this - with the doukhobours, or in the FLDS raid down in the states which involved children being torn away from their mothers - and plenty of other examples , including the BC supreme court's decision on polygamy. |
Clearly you should refrain from engaging in this sort of free-form musing as you're only confusing yourself. You were saying that the "crown devotes its time to discrediting the religion rather than the real questions of whether it forbids private property, and whether Blackmore observed that rule himself . . ." and that it's "spreading the impression that their beliefs aren't real". Why would you be thinking of other situations (some even regarding other groups and other countries !?) in your accusations against the crown in *this* case? Are the gov't lawyers in this case somehow responsible for the supposedly "discrediting" actions and decisions of other lawyers and governments of other countries?
Try to focus. Section 143. Only for congregations. Must be part of religious organization. Must believe in supreme being. Must live and work together. Members can't own property. Questioning whether group is part of religious organization? Legitimate question. Not "discrediting the religion". When Winston's group made the election, they invited legitimate scrutiny of their claim that they are part of a religious organization.
Your butthurtness spurious indignation comes from your belief that the gov't has no right to scrutinize religious beliefs or ask the questions it's been asking. But not only do they have that right, they have an obligation to ask those questions if they're acting in the people's interest. Those lawyers didn't make up the indefensible religion-privileging rule that only the religious can make a S 143 election, but since that's the way the law is written, they have an obligation to ensure that any group that applies under S 143 meets the indefensible religion-privileging rule criteria. And yeah, it's a bit of a mug's game, since there's no such thing as a "real" religion or "real" beliefs, it's all just made-up shit (so LOL at "spreading the impression that their beliefs aren't real"), and the stuff made up on the fly is just as "real" as the stuff that was made up a couple of thousand years ago. It's Winston that you should criticize for bringing Mormons and FLDS into the picture - he's the one that hauled out the Book of Mormon as his source text; the gov't is simply responding to his assertions. (Winston's mistake, if he made any, might have been to haul out the Book of Mormon instead of having the Book of Winston at the ready.) Put as simply as I can make it, if Winston says, "We're a religious group", which is what he said by making the S 143 election, the government gets to counter with, "No, you're not." And you've given no reason why the gov't shouldn't get to say that, just expressed butthutness spurious indignation that they've done so. And you know what? Just because there's no clear legal definition of religion doesn't mean that it's a no-go zone. It's continually being challenged and refined. Like this case:
| Quote: | | In The House of Holy God case the courts had to work really hard to decide whether a charity registered for advancement of religion could be solely engaged in the business of producing and selling maple syrup and maple syrup products. . . The Court noted “In particular, the record does not contain any evidence that the carrying on of a maple syrup business is an element of religious doctrine.” |
| Quote: | | The appellant argues that the maple syrup business is a related business because of a direct relationship between the activities of food production and the objects of the appellant, which require the appellant to carry on the teaching of the principles of Holy God. With respect, this assertion is unsupported by the record. While the objects of the appellant refer to the principles of Holy God, nowhere in the record is there any evidence of what those principles entail. In particular, the record does not contain any evidence that the carrying on of a maple syrup business is an element of religious doctrine. The references to the principles of Holy God that do exist in the record appear to be found only in representations or assertions made by counsel for the appellant in the period that preceded the notice of confirmation of the Notice of Intent to Revoke. |
my bold
Look at the Big Bad Government "spreading the impression" that The House of Holy God's "beliefs aren't real"! And look at the Big Bad Government saying to the Church of the Universe, "You're not a religion", and the judge saying, "OK, fine, we'll call you a religion, but selling pot is still not a religious practice". Also, look at the Big Bad Government in the UK (the guys whose charity laws we basically copied) challenging the presumption of public benefit for charity registration.*
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | Never mind that many people don't even read far past the lede in a story; the quote you pulled isn't a clarification; the top of that news piece says something completely different, and that is the impression a lot of people are going to take away with them. |
You can tell yourself whatever story you like to reconcile the inconsistencies and contradictions bouncing around in your head, but here, again, is your claim:
| Quote: | | My original objection hangs on the difference between "congregation" as a technical tax term, and how we understand the word in a general sense - something that is not pointed out in any of the newspaper pieces. |
my bold
It's right there in black and white in the Vancouver Sun article you provided, "a congregation as defined by the act". It was pointed out that what was being discussed was, as you put it, ""congregation" as a technical tax term" and not "how we understand the word in a general sense". You are 100% wrong to claim that it wasn't there. That people read only headlines or don't read the article or don't understand what they're reading or read something that's not there because what's actually there doesn't align with their beliefs, none of that makes your statement less wrong. And that you shifted goalposts and tried to make this about your misunderstanding of how the text of the article expands on the lede, that doesn't make your statement any less wrong either. It doesn't make what's in the article, "Section 143 of the Tax Act, which describes terms such as congregation" and "a congregation as defined by the act", disappear. It was pointed out in the newspaper article. And, if you are going to claim that it's not, you shouldn't be arguing how you think "a lot of people" will read what's there. What we're talking about is how *you* read it. So if *you* didn't read past the lede, say so; whether other people read past the lede is irrelevant. If *you* are unable to conprehend "a congregation as defined by the act" as "a congregation as defined by the act", say so.
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | I think we can both agree this is a trial about tax law. This is about Blackmore's actions, and perhaps his religious dogma, not whether they are a religion or not. Why even bring the LDS church into court to testify against another church which they think is illegitimate? |
No, we can't agree. You can't even agree with yourself. If this is a trial about tax law, that doesn't mean it's not a trial about whether they are a religion or not. The one does not follow from the other. This post is already too lengthy, so I'm going to save what I was going to say about how much, and how fundamentally, we disagree on this, for a later post. I will say, that for you, this trial is not about tax law, not about S. 143. It's about preserving religious exceptionalism and gettin' Winston on some incoherent and vague accusations of swindlin'.
*Along with S 143 being only available to religious communes, and the presumption of meeting the public benefit test for advancement of religion for charities, here's another example of religious exceptionalism in tax law. Usually, if you receive consideration for an amount you give, it's not a gift. But the CRA had adopted a policy that carved out an exception for religious instruction. So fees for religious lessons are a gift, but fees for swimming lessons aren't, apparently just because:
| Quote: | | It is not open to the Minister to determine that a payment that is not a gift as a matter of law will nevertheless be treated as a gift for income tax purposes. If that is what the Minister has done by adopting the impugned assessing policy (and I express no opinion on that point), then the policy is wrong in law and cannot stand. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 571
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually Fork, the accusation made in the lede - that Blackmore is just the partiarch of a large family - is quite different from the question of whether or not he can establish a claim under section 143. The statement implies that his religion is not real at all.
So no, the bit about being defined as a "congregation under the act" is not a clarification. You think otherwise? Fine, but I disagree.
Likewise, the bringing the LDS Church into court has no bearing whatsoever to Blackmore's claim. It is a separate organization.
I'm not sure why you keep harping on section 143. I have read your posts on it, and I have said nothing to dispute it. I just don't think BLackmore is going to make his case.
Sure the government has the obligation to see that religious organizations comply with the law. I don't think I ever said otherwise. But that is the extent of it. Sorry, but I don't think the government gets to decide whether a spiritual community's beliefs are real or not - especially one with an almost 200-year old pedigree.
And especially not when the appeal isn't really about the validity of the religion at all. It has to do with whether they had no private property. The fact that Blackmore paid labourers, filled out T4s, and made them sign their cheques back to him should settle that question clearly enough. THis whole other line of attack is pointless and gratuitous.
(edit)
I think I have said enough times that I think this case IS about tax law. It is about one guy getting caught by Revenue Canada on his personal and business taxes and trying to find a loophole. What this has to do with the beliefs of members of his community (who had no part in his tax claim) I don't know.
Do these other issues of what I see as discrimination by the press and the Crown concern me? Absolutely. I expect some innocent people are going to catch some of the fallout from Blackmore's greed and arrogant behaviour. But it is an entirely separate issue.
I expect and hope that he will lose his appeal - on the grounds that there is no procription against public property, and even if there were, he has broken it.
For that matter, you still haven't told me your position regarding the validity of his claim, or if you even have one - though I asked. You seem far more concerned with my position than anything going on in that courtroom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | I'm not sure why you keep harping on section 143. . .
For that matter, you still haven't told me your position regarding the validity of his claim . . . |
I agree that you have not understood a thing I've said on this thread. Or, for that matter, the explanations of the case contained in the articles you linked to.
To finish up my last post, I'm going to refer back to your drive-by comments on the Hutterites because, far from being thread drift or a tangent, it succinctly captures the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind your objections regarding the economic aspect of this case:
| Quote: | | Not to speak ill of Hutterites' but they tend to have very fine vehicles, and top-of-the-line equipment. I don't think the religious excuse should necessarily apply in their case either, when so many other independent farmers do not enjoy those kind of breaks. |
| Quote: | | I know it's a bit of a tangent, and I don't mean it as a slight against Hutterites, but I question how an exemption for their economic structure is valid, when it doesn't apply to other communities, and other people who decide they don't want to deal with money, property and private ownership. |
You suffer from this misconception that there's some kind of tax break or exemption or loophole in this law. You're flinging these words around without any apparent understanding of what they mean. How would you propose we assess the income of Hutterites other than having them divvy it up equally? Assign it all to one Hutterite? If you were in a 50/50 partnership with someone, would you think you were getting a tax break or an exemption, or taking advantage of some loophole, if you “only” had to report 50% of the business’s income? And that you had some edge over a sole proprietorship? Seriously, what kind of special advantage do you think these people getting that you think they shouldn’t?
Never mind, because there isn’t any. Your feeling that they’re getting away with something, and they’re using the extra moola to buy “very fine vehicles” and “top-of-the-line equipment” is irrational and rooted in petty jealousy. It’s akin to the kid that blows his allowance on junk every week, and when he sees his sibling buy something expensive with the allowances they’ve saved up for months, figures there must be something unfair going on for them to be able to afford the purchase. Don't worry, you're not the first to come up with this:
| Quote: | | Among the most blatant discriminatory pieces of legislation in Canadian history were Alberta’s Land Sales Prohibition Act (1942-1947) and the Communal Property Act (1947-1973). The former restricted Hutterites’ abilities to purchase land. The latter required new Hutterite colonies to be at least 40 miles from other colonies, and to also seek permission to purchase land from a provincial Communal Property Control Board. The justification for the regulation was ostensibly that farmers could not fairly compete with Hutterites to purchase land (due to Hutterites’ corporation tax status as well as their supposed low standard of living). |
Did you catch the parallel there? How other farmers can’t *fairly* compete because living a Spartan lifestyle frees up all this money to buy land/very fine vehicles/top-of-the-line equipment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 571
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you're not going to bother responding to my question about what your actual position is on this court case?
You're more interested in digging back a couple of pages in order to find something else to throw at me?
Not that the Hutterites is the real issue here, but it isn't qute as simple as your claim about living frugally or collective vs individual taxation. They do in fact get some real tax and deduction breaks, coupled with the benefits of a large pool of communal finances. Call it what you want, but it has been a perennial issue of contention:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2010/11/07/man-hutteri...
But really, my guess is this isn't about my comment regarding the Hutterites; I'm sure my punctuation would have been the issue if nothing else was handy.
Seeing as everyone else has probably fled the room, I may as well just ask: are you at all interested in discussing the issue - polygamy in Canada, or is this just an exercise in trying to prove me wrong?
(edit)
Speaking of which, while we have been nattering, I notice there has been no press on this trial for a month now. Have they adjourned? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6138
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Seeing as everyone else has probably fled the room |
I'm still here. But I have to confess, I've kinda lost track of who's arguing what in this debate about taxation. Not a criticism of the participants, just that my brain doesn't process some discourse as well as others.T he "micro" issues, eg. Hutterites, are pretty interesting.)
| Quote: | | Speaking of which, while we have been nattering, I notice there has been no press on this trial for a month now. Have they adjourned? |
Well, this is from February 10th..
| Quote: | The evidence proved more voluminous than anticipated. Judge Diane Campbell has extended the trial by another week.
|
So, if it was extended a week, that must mean it wrapped up around February 17th or so. Maybe the judge is in the process of crafting her ruling?
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 571
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| voice of the damned wrote: |
I'm still here. But I have to confess, I've kinda lost track of who's arguing what in this debate about taxation.
|
You and me both, which is kind of why I was asking for an opinion.
I can tell you, I hope Blackmore loses this case on the grounds that his business holdings were his own, and that even if his community did forbid private property (and there is no clear evidence they do, and plenty that they do not) he made no attempt to follow that rule.
And I mentioned my feelings about his secrecy, control, manipulation and abuse. Not signs of culpability in themselves, but they certainly colour my opinion of the man. Would a leader who really cared for his community pull shit like that?
Just my opinion. Some may feel otherwise.
And thanks for the link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3078
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If I were to start, say, a trucking company and call it "Anne Cameron and Daughters" would anybody suspect it was actually the property of my entire congregation, or that it really belonged to the community?
I admit I am prejudiced in this case. I hope they nail his fat airse to the wall, but I do wish he was being made to answer for the decades of abuse and exploitation the girls and women have been made to endure.
I look at a picture of him, bloated and smug, and the curse of the writer kicks in, I almost immediately flash on my granddaughters and the thought of one of them forced to endure "marriage" with that walking embodiment of self indulgence almost causes me to gag. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 571
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@ ann cameron
You and me both. As hard as it is to make a case, rape, child abuse and other similar offenses are really what should be on the table.
I still think this is important though, because although it's not a crime to con someone into obeying you blindly, I think things may be quite different if Blackmore winds up having his financial control of that community broken.
It speaks to his arrogance, IMO, because from what I see, there was probably a way for him to set himself up in financial control and still offload much of the burden onto paying for community resources, if he bothered to make the effort. But he didn't.
He might be able to con people into signing over all their wages to him, but he is going to have to answer and pay for the privilege. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | Not that the Hutterites is the real issue here, but it isn't qute as simple as your claim about living frugally or collective vs individual taxation. They do in fact get some real tax and deduction breaks, coupled with the benefits of a large pool of communal finances. Call it what you want, but it has been a perennial issue of contention:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2010/11/07/man-hutteri...
|
Wrong. Again. The charge of unfair advantage from the construction companies is baseless and has no merit, just like your comments about the Hutterites, and just like the rationale that underpinned what is now rightly viewed as the blatantly discriminatory Land Sales Prohibition Act and Communal Property Act, which I referenced in my last post. There is no special tax break that the Hutterite construction companies are getting, no special exemption from payroll taxes (which is what is being talked about in your link), as the government's response makes clear:
| Quote: | | The provincial Finance Ministry regards the Hutterite businesses as standard partnerships, no different from, say, a restaurant jointly owned by family members who cook, wash dishes and wait tables. “Any company has the option of setting itself up in this way,” says Richard Groen, a director at the province’s taxation analysis branch. |
My bold.
Or, as your article says:
| Quote: | | An official with the Manitoba Finance Department said adult colony members who work for colony businesses are not considered employees. Instead, they're more like self-employed agents who share in the profits of an enterprise. |
So what are you proposing, that independent contractors (maybe all the self-employed) be made to pay into EI and Worker's Comp and those other employee programs? That employers should be able to opt out of EI and Worker's Comp? That another blatantly discriminatory law be created that targets only Hutterites and leaves other independent contractors alone? Those construction companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They are the ones demanding an unfair advantage. They want their workers to be employees when it comes to decision-making and profit-sharing, but independent contractors/self-employed when it comes to payroll taxes. Well, either their workers are one or the other; they don't get to pluck the benefits from both categories. There is nothing stopping those construction companies, nothing, from structuring their business so that their workers are independent contractors instead of employees. The tax treatment for independent contractors is not specific to the Hutterites and an independent contractor not paying into EI is no more a "real tax and deduction break" than a self-employed person not paying into EI is a "real tax and deduction break".
And what, pray tell, would you do about "the benefits of a large pool of communal finances". Would you make communes illegal? Once again, you're allowing your animus towards a group to cloud any sort of rational analysis.
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | You're more interested in digging back a couple of pages in order to find something else to throw at me? |
1) You didn't seem to mind on *this* page when your comments on the Hutterites were revived. Nor do you seem to have a problem with commenting on old comments. In the Idiocracy thread, you popped in to weigh in on comments from 2007 which were not part of the current discussion.
2) Your comments on the Hutterites are not "something else", as I already explained. You're looking at the Hutterites the same way you're looking at the Bountiful group, ie. deciding at the outset that there must be something they're getting away with, and creating some offense which has no basis in law and no coherent justification.
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | So you're not going to bother responding to my question about what your actual position is on this court case? . . .
Seeing as everyone else has probably fled the room, I may as well just ask: are you at all interested in discussing the issue - polygamy in Canada, or is this just an exercise in trying to prove me wrong? |
Well, I already have proved you wrong. Over and over. But . . .which is it? Are you demanding that I explain the court case to you for the umpteenth time, only to have you ignore/not understand what I'm saying? (Number one, I am under no obligation to answer your questions, and repeatedly asking me suggests that you feel you are entitled to a response, which is kinda pompous, and number two, I'm certainly not going to entertain the idea of expanding on a topic when you seem incapable of grasping the foundations.) Or are you demanding that our discussion, yours and mine, change from the S. 143 court case to polygamy? In which case, if you don't want to talk about the court case any more, then just stop. talking. about. it. It's as simple as that. Don't keep talking about it and then trying to portray my responses as somehow off-topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 571
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know, fork, we are getting way off topic, and, I suspect, trying the patience of anyone else reading this.
FYI, independent contractors DO have to pay into EI when they reach a certain level - A bit over $10,000, I think - not just the employee portion, but the employer contribution as well (because for some arcane reason, one does not exist without the other). I know this because I pay that myself, and it fucking sucks. But it is the law for most of us.
So sorry, but there are actually some expenses that they do not pay. Again, it is not simply a question of breaking it down as a group.
And as for communal finances, my point was that it does represent a distinct advantage over smaller operators. Infer what you want. I didn't say anything about a ban, but when something becomes an unfair economic advantage, I think it has to be considered.
And no, I suppose no one is holding a gun at your head forcing you to answer my question about where you stand on this court case (because I think you are dancing around) .
But I don't really care. I just think it would be a shame if you wasted your weekend trying to firgure out how to craft a comeback on this ultimately irrelevant thread. I don't think anything we say here is going to affect what the judge decides about Blackmore's culpability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fork
Utensil
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1283
Location: Left . . . of the plate
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 6079_Smith_W wrote: | | You know, fork, we are getting way off topic, and, I suspect, trying the patience of anyone else reading this. |
Nope. It's on topic. And I explained how it was on topic, how your slagging of the Hutterites relates to your slagging of the Bountiful group. None of that gets us any closer to a conviction in a tax case or a polygamy case or an abuse case. And like I said, if you think it's off-topic or you don't want to talk about it any more, you're free to stop anytime.
| Quote: | FYI, independent contractors DO have to pay into EI when they reach a certain level - A bit over $10,000, I think - not just the employee portion, but the employer contribution as well (because for some arcane reason, one does not exist without the other). I know this because I pay that myself, and it fucking sucks. But it is the law for most of us.
So sorry, but there are actually some expenses that they do not pay. Again, it is not simply a question of breaking it down as a group. |
I agree that you are ignoring or did not understand my point, or the entirely correct position of the Manitoba government.
| Quote: | | And as for communal finances, my point was that it does represent a distinct advantage over smaller operators. Infer what you want. I didn't say anything about a ban, but when something becomes an unfair economic advantage, I think it has to be considered. |
 Jesus. "Would you make communes illegal?" was sarcasm, hyperbole, a rhetorical question. You're actually considering it? And over some wrong-headed belief in an advantage that is actually available to everyone? Would you also legislate against things like saving instead of spending, the prudent use of resources, or more efficient methods of production because it will confer an "unfair economic advantage"?
| Quote: | | But I don't really care. |
Of course you don't. That's why you keep commenting. Why don't you show how little you care by responding again.
| Quote: | | I just think it would be a shame if you wasted your weekend trying to firgure out how to craft a comeback on this ultimately irrelevant thread. |
Good thing I didn't then.
| Quote: | | I don't think anything we say here is going to affect what the judge decides about Blackmore's culpability. |
Is that why you're commenting in this thread, because you think the judge in the tax case is reading it and being influenced by it? Lulz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 571
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well clearly I am mistaken. I looked at your signup date and assumed I was dealing with someone with some interest other than trolling.
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, and have instead started fishing around in other threads to find stuff on me.
Criticize me all you want, but at least I have been straight up about where I stand.
I'll check in again once this trial resumes, or something else of relevance takes place.
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. But I would expect most provinces have pretty strict rules about when employers must collect worker's comp. I have been in situations where we were required to pay it even though we were operating as a collective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 571
|
| 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: 571
|
| 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: 571
|
| 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: 571
|
| 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: 571
|
| 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: 571
|
| 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: 3078
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: 6138
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: 571
|
| 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: 571
|
| 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: 3078
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: 571
|
| 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: 3078
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: 571
|
| 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: 3078
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: 571
|
| 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: 571
|
| 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: 3078
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: 571
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
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