So many good bullets today.. Tempest is awesom BTW, but only on the big standup console. WIth a joystick, it loses something...

Supreme court - Yay.. Frivilous fly fear guy - Hope you are happy with your 300K bill.

Why do people not dwell upon the fact that the polygamist groups all all formed with one thing in mind. Its not like they are vegans or rastafarians, they gather and such because they are polygamists and in many cases, pedophiles. The fact that they hide behind the bible to justify their desire to be free with their you know what is the only reason, as you inferred, that they are given any credence, and thats just wrong.

Giorno looks like an inflated version of Harper. I know, I am all about image. It's a sad fault of mine.

I want 16-18 degrees every day, fog and rain at night and sun only during work hours, except for the dappled kind that hits me as I garden or run, through the trees, with a light breeze, that smells of lavender and pine.

Okay, let me get this straight. Using fruit of the poisonus tree doesn't undo something? Hell, using that logic, lets torture until the cows come home!

Procedure matters, Al. I'm with you in that I wouldn't mind seeing the FCLD compound napalmed. But, there's rules to how you do things. Those rules exist such that gov't can't turn into a pogram and burn all the witches. That's a good thing. The legal eagles down in Texas got it right. The CPS folks were on the side of the angels, but they *SCREWED UP*. I don't like the effects much, but the ruling is right(unless you want to throw stuff like Miranda violations out the window).

<blockquote>
If the group had wrapped itself in a veneer of any faith other than Christianity, I can't imagine the case playing out this way.
</blockquote>

<p>
Meaning they would have been more likely to go after them if they were non-Christian, or less likely?

Think Wiccans. More likely or less likely the appeal court in <i>Texas</i> would say moving on the group was wrong?

Ry: are you aware that they can't actually tell which families some kids belong to? This is not about communal living or really even bigamy where the circle is known. It's abuse of teen aged girls under a theory of a man who is jail for promoting those theories. Why is the playing out of those evil theories less of a crime?

I don't know the answer -- I've see quite a willingness of the government to go after nominally Christian groups with guns firing (e.g. Branch Dividians, numerous Mormons). I haven't really seen any recent crackdowns on non-Christian groups, say Scientology, Islam or what have you. Though I'm aware of the possible jurisdictional noncomparability, consider for example sexual and physical abuse in native communities or Islam.

Neither native communites or Islam have that abuse as a core tenent. Cultural and local practices, for example, may support things like female circumcision but that is not pan-Islamic.

Nor is sexual abuse of children pan-Christian, so I don't think that argument washes. Is there an example you can provide, for illustration purposes, of a non-Christian group, cult or organization that you think has been comparatively harshly treated.

Well there is that business about Mohammed marrying Aisha (a six or seven-year-old girl) and consummating the marriage at nine. And Mohammed is considered to have led a sinless life by both Sunni and Shia. There are people in the Old Testament who did some pretty crazy things (Lot's daughters getting him drunk and then taking him to bed, for example) but Lot wasn't exactly the founder of the faith, and he is not considered a prophet.

Aisha, incidentally, is looked up to in the Sunni world as an example for women, less so in the Shia world because she is considered to have rebelled and led an army against the legitimate caliph.

Gee, Al, I never knew i was the Mayor of Simpleton before. What ever would I do without you tellin me?

Duh. Of course I did know that. So? If only a score or so were actually in danger(being teenage girls) why take hundreds of them under the 'accute danger' provision? That makee no sensee, Al. The 9 year old girls were not in any danger, though the 12 year old might be. To take the majority of the kids that they did they needed a ton more evidence, which they could've gotten, and taken it to a judge for a court order. They didn't do that, they went all Wyatt Earp, and now the case falls apart. Who's helped by that, o' great sage?

It isn't a question of 'is it evil' it is a question of 'was the SOP for dealing with it properly followed to ensure we don't allow people to use the system to attack people they just don't like(Moslems for instance)'. If the peckerheads at CPS had done it right(taken the 12 and older girls) and left the others until they'd presented evidence(including the vileness of the ideology) to a judge so the remaining kids later Good and Justice would have prevailed. Now we're got a case that's going into the crapper and a good chance it is all going to be unprosecutable because of the 'poison tree' doctrine. Which is better, mon'ami?

I don't want these kids to suffer, damnit, but the proper way for doing it has to be observed. We're not a mob, damnit.

I am in fact quite often in support of the Mob when the Mob is correct.

And honestly, ry, do you think that a person who intends to abuse someone who is 12 when not having 12 year olds available would sit on their hands until the 11's had a birthday? Or what about those really tall 10 year olds? They look close to 12...

That's really a bs line, Herr Sean. It's really a question of maturation. What's the line of FCLDS on when a girl becomes a woman? Hell, we're talking about a group based on 'revealed truth'. So, yeah, we'll just assume they'll abuse on down the age chain(even three year olds look good then, right?). No, the mob is freaking stupid on this one. Let's just toss Constitutional protections aside, there's an evil we need to crush.

Look, I'm not stupid enough to fall for that slippery slope argument. I'm surprised that any one of Al's readers is. What a load of shite.

Again, fine, you take the one's who look 'enticing' but why hundreds of children, under an immenint danger provision, including 8 year old boys(what, they're homosexual now too?), that do not, even under such an *idiotic* stretch as "well, 11 year olds look good enough" line, meet the minimums to fall under that provision? Hmmmm?

Ah, well, screw it. We hates it. Screw the law. Screw the Con too. Get a rope. bunch of crazies. Yeah, it's that ridiculous.

Oh, and if a released sex offender is known to only "go for" young boys, it should be quite acceptable to the Mob to ignore him if he moves in next door to a girls only school?

I'm sorry, but if you place yourself into the category of someone who is an abuser of children, your personal preferences in said targets should not come into effect when one who is in power chooses who and who annot be allowed near you. A freak is a freak is a freak.

<i>...Is there an example you can provide, for illustration purposes, of a non-Christian group, cult or organization that you think has been comparatively harshly treated..."</i>

You have turned the question around. The question is whether there is another group that would be so defended.

<i>...Look, I'm not stupid enough to fall for that slippery slope argument. I'm surprised that any one of Al's readers is...</i>

Ry wins the prize! And I wasn't calling you a simpleton so much as confirming that fact - though the XTC reference is quite clever.

Dear god, If I've turned the question around it's because what you wrote was unclear, a black sea of unclarity -- I though you were talking about how they were being treated by the system. Since I all have is examples of is sorta-Christians being so treated _and_ I have reasonable grounds to suspect that lots of other groups have dubious sexuality morality when it comes to children it's hard for me to make the leap that generally and majorly these clowns are getting off lightly.

And I came here this morning to debate Mike Harris who was a two-term premier, not just king for a day; you'd have to be smoking grass to believe that Harper's hasn't come to his senses, working overtime to get that got of respectability on the street.

got=spot? got=maybe bot?

clear?="If the group had wrapped itself in a veneer of any faith other than Christianity..."

clear?="...Is there an example you can provide, for illustration purposes, of a non-Christian group, cult or organization that you think has been comparatively harshly treated..."

OK, maybe not turned it around but I was clear enough. Certainly the Branch Davidians were treated more harshly (armed attacked) but I think they are not in the league of FLDS's as the Branch Davisians put the "ult" in cult. In the late 80s or early 90s a new age group in Barriington Passage, NS was swept by the CAS. The internet being what it is, I can't find any reference to that.

Sean is the googlemeister:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/tribes/tribes6.html

Hmm...What about the Raelians or this fringer. Not any huge move by the CAS in these cases. Maybe I speak out of me arse.

I'm with Ry on the question of procedure. But for purely prudential reasons. Rounding up a couple of hundred kids on limited evidence is really not going to help the kids when the case goes pear shaped.

We have had two warm days in Victoria so far this Spring. I blame George Bush.

Taking down the crucifix was a sop in the general direction of po mo secularists. Charest has now said it is not going to happen. I've read about half the executive summary of the report and, frankly, I expected something with a little more bite.

My four year old rehearses with Chicken Invaders. Sadly this has meant that, somehow, I have acquired a high score of 2,600,000 and lost a couple of hours of my life.

Harumph. Was I too subtle or too obvious?

The question for me is less about whether these arranged/forced marriages and polygamous relationships are freaky, and more about the brazen way in which the children were taken from their homes. From the NYT article on the polygamists: <i>The caller was never found, and investigators now suspect that the call was a hoax.</i>

So someone with an axe to grind calls in an anonymous tip. No one checks it out but the Feds pick up the ball and run with it, trampling everyones rights in the process.

And it is interesting to note that none of the girls that were forcibly removed from their homes AGAINST THEIR WILLS for their "protection" are asking the "protectors" to continue "protecting" them. Probably because it is in their will to return to their homes, their family, their way of life. And perhaps because the alleged abuse isn't nearly as widespread as Child Protective Services have made it out to be. If those 12 and 14 year old girls have it so terribly bad, you would think at least one would have stepped up and shared her horror stories.

Have there ever been any cases of underage marriage, multiple wifes, or 50+ men marrying 12 year olds that didn't involve offshoots of the Mormon Church?

And I would thank you all to pat me on the back for my exuberant use of quotation marks.

<i>"...If those 12 and 14 year old girls have it so terribly bad, you would think at least one would have stepped up and shared her horror stories..."</i>

I think this goes far too far. You can insert any form of abuse or discrimination into that statement and come up with the appropriate glib remark. Knee jerk reactionaryism, with all due respect.

I wasn't mad, Al. Do you know how long I've looked for the right time to drop that XTC title into a discussion like that?

"I'm with Ry on the question of procedure. But for purely prudential reasons. Rounding up a couple of hundred kids on limited evidence is really not going to help the kids when the case goes pear shaped." That's the whole point the whole time!

Polygamy in the GTA (dated May 24, 2008).

<i>I think this goes far too far. You can insert any form of abuse or discrimination into that statement and come up with the appropriate glib remark. Knee jerk reactionaryism, with all due respect.</i>

Perhaps you are right, and I'll continue to mull that over. I didn't mean to simplify their circumstances, nor was my intention to gloss over the seriousness of the allegations of abuse. I personally find the thought of a 50 year old marrying a 12 year (and having sexual relations with her) to be more than mildly disturbing. Some do not. Some of those "some" that do not apparently include 12 year old girls who, when faced with freedom from their "captors", willingly return to their situation. Obviously the psychological factor (ie hell-bound if you desert the group) for these kids is more than I can ever hope to grasp. But surely the Dept of Family Services would have made it clear to these children that if they wanted out of their situations, now is the time do so. And if they were victims of abuse, now is the time to talk about it without fear of retaliation.

Is it really that far-fetched to think that those involved with this group are okay with their circumstances? That they actually might be happy?

Or have I simply gone far too far again?

And Dice-K may have eight wins before June, but HOWDY DOODY is pitching complete game shutouts, baby. A 6-1 record for everyone's favourite hillbilly sophomore!

I'm back on the Jays wagon.

Temujin, thats why we have legal ages at which a person can marry, be involved with another in a sexual way, drive, vote etc. Because they aren't emotionally/mentally/physically ready for such things, whether they think they are or not.

I am sure most 15 year old boys think that they can jump behind the wheel and scoot down the highway just fine. But we and they are all safer because we keep all of them, including the percentage low or high that are not ready, from doing so.

The other issue at hand can be described in laymans terms as brainwashing. If from birth you are told to believe in something by people you trust, who follow the same rules as they are teaching you to follow, you tend to go along with it. Happy smiley parents cavorting in and out of the sack with a whole whack of other badly dressed happy smiley parents. Seems normal if you don't know what the rest of society does.

A 12 year old girl is not fit emotionally or mentally to make such a weighty decision for themselves and it is the part of the "mob" as ry describes us, or society more like, to protect them from such bad decisions.

Sean, since you bring up the "we have laws for a reason" argument, I'll link to this piece by Michelle Catalano in which is points out that Texas has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the US. Stunning though that Protective services does not go sweeping into thousands of homes each year in that state. Also, there was no discernment with regards to which teenagers were removed from the ranch. Hundreds of kids were forcibly removed despite there being no evidence they were in any immediate danger. So much for following the laws!

<i>Happy smiley parents cavorting in and out of the sack with a whole whack of other badly dressed happy smiley parents. Seems normal if you don't know what the rest of society does.</i>

Exchange the word "homosexual" with the word "parents" in that statement, and you have exactly the same argument made by those who are against gay marriage (including the 'badly dressed' part, heh!). If those happy, smiling polygamists make the choice of their own free will, then I don't really give a crap what they do.

<i>A 12 year old girl is not fit emotionally or mentally to make such a weighty decision for themselves </i>

That may be true in most cases. And no doubt those children have been conditioned by their upbringing to accept certain practices as godly and righteous... certain practices which I find horrifying. It doesn't change the fact that the State of Texas really, really, really fouled the whole thing up.
They took every single child away from the ranch, regardless of whether the child was pregnant, married, engaged, or in any immediate physical danger. And when given the opportunity to flee from their situation, none of the abused chose to do so.

If anything, it's going to drive this group further into isolation, firm up their faith in their cause, strengthen their convictions, and actually increase the risk of abuse to these children.

Again, still mulling this over. Ergh.

<a href"=A 12 year old girl is not fit emotionally or mentally to make such a weighty decision for themselves">Four game sweep</a> completed on Monday? Oh please may it be so!

I still can't believe that no one has congratulated me for working in a half-dozen XTC references in a single comment.

The praise for Harris overwhelmed me. Bit of a ball and chain on that point.

Tem: PErsonally, I don't care if people are homosexual, heterosexual, polygamist or mongamist. Thats all personaly choice and to fall back on the old style British law, you can do what you want so long as what you do doesn't affect someone else in a negative way.

However. And thats a big however.

Its not like there are (as far as I know) communes of homosexual persons who raise children to accept the fact that it is their duty to at the age or 12, 13 or whatever, assume the sexual lifestyle of the adults around them. And to fall back on a previous comment, if there were, they would be rained down upon like the servants of satan by the Texan authorities even more soundly than the polygamists, unless of course they clouded their cult under the veil of some form of pretend christianity to defend their actions.

And after five and a half hours of no retort, I hereby claim victory.

Ha! I blow on your claim of victory and knock it over.

Simply put: we all want the kids taken away from what amounts to a brainwashing situation.

*BUT* you can't do it willy nilly, without doing all the paperwork correctly, and without the okay of the courts that oversee the process to prevent abuses. Only in extreme cases are there provisions, the immediate harm provision, to take those for whom waiting on the courts was not going to be enough. They took 400+ kids. You can't say, not with a straight face you can't, that all 400 were in dire, accute danger. you simply can't because that was not true. Danger? Si. Accute? Blow me.

Otherwise, what's to stop 'the mob' to take anyone's kids when 'the mob' decides what the family is doing is 'icky'? It has to be universal and utterly crushing your righteous indignation over 'threats to children' into the dirt to provide protections from zealots. It's very Blackstone(let the guilty go free to protect the innocent). Otherwise, dude, you're playing in the same sandbox as freakin' McCarthy and I'm glad you're North of the Border.

<i>Blow me.</i>

Classic.

With a straight face I can say that I do not for a minute doubt that there is a high level of probability that if a leader of such a cult said "they have stolen all of our children 12 and older, they are coming for the rest, time to drink the koolaid" they would. Therefore, collect them all up, show them what the real world is like, let the courts sort it out later.