Its not illegal to treat woman like property. If the women decide they don't want to be treated like property and are forced to stay, then a law has been broken and we can do something. However if the woman allows it to occur, then there is no crime, and no reason to be removing children from the parents.
That is utter bullshit. Your argument justifies ignoring obvious domestic violence against either gender, excuses support for female genital mutilation in Africa and the Middle East, for the caste system in India, for ritual spearing of criminals and the marrying off (real marrying, none of this 'spiritual marriage' horseshit) of 9 to 13 year olds in Australian Aboriginal culture. It is hateful and stupid, and you are hateful and stupid for saying this.
It is also accurate. The law is not now, and rarely has been moral and ethical. The law is what gets enforced, not people's systems of ethics. Hell, Jim Crowe was the law, Segregation was the law, Dredd Scott was the law, SLAVERY WAS THE MOTHERFUCKING LAW.
If some nasty heinous shit is legal, then law enforcement has to let the nasty, heinous shit go on. You want to make it illegal? Fine by me. It would do the world some good. Hell the mandatory arrest for Domestic Abuse has been a Godsend (before Cat jumps on me, I am not saying it is enough, I am just saying it is an improvement on the previous procedure of not doing much).
But the law and what is right and wrong are different things.
The inalienable ones set down by the UN, to which your country is a signatory and of which your country is a major member, which do not place the free expression of religion above the rights of women and children to live free from fear of abuse or actual abuse, to receive a reality-based education, to pursue their own path through life.
Are not those rights listed as guidelines under which governments are supposed to live, not groups of people? And does any Law Enforcement group swear to uphold or enforce these rights? And what are the penalties for violating those rights? I suppose you could make an argument for violating civil rights as a legal charge, as has been done before, but it sounds to me like these are the rights that are supposed to be upheld by a government and as such are limitations on laws and governments, not groups of people. Heck IIRC, most "violations of civil rights charges" are leveled by one branch of a government against another.
If you want to list them as law, there is a different set up, usually penalties, consequences, degrees, and elements of the crimes which violate them.
Could you quote the section from the relevant document?
Edit: Hell, isn't there a big difference legally, between the concepts of Rights and Laws?
I think the real issue is that there aren't better laws in place that can deal with this in a more direct manner.
This.
Abso-fucking-lutely. Of course, you also don't want to be the government of "We repress people because we don't believe what they believe."
I guess it all comes back to South Park, if it violates the "Dude, that's just fucked up" line of behavior.
Well, I'll be honest: I only know very little about this issue. I've read some stuff on the news but that's the extent of my knowledge, so I'm sorry if I'm missing anything when I say that if what someone believes involves sexual molestation and exploitation of children (pregnant 14 year olds? holy hell), then the government can and must repress it.
Cat, how is the burden of proof not on you when you're saying the judge fucked up? They may have had enough evidence to raid, but that isn't enough for removal.
All the judge said- and this is reasonable enough- is that while the beliefs were damaging, CPS presented no evidence they were actually being followed, and almost as important no evidence that most of the children they removed were in danger. If the problem is underage marriages of female children, why did they pull out young adults and VERY young children- and boys?
The bottom line: these people are idiots and most likely abusive, but Texas CPS fucked up, and I'm really not surprised at the ruling.
I don't believe its reasonable to claim that there's 'no evidence' of a sect who's beliefs are well known, who've removed themselves from society to follow said beliefs, and several of whose members have been jailed or arrested for following said beliefs* posing a danger to the children in the sect. The logic is just so specious, it beggars belief. I understand that Texas' child protection laws are crap in their emphasis on immediate danger, but I also suggest that the definition of 'immediate' being used by the judge is far too restrictive to be realistic. I think there were a couple of factors contributing to this decision: the CPS overloaded themselves with cases as a result of the raid, the sect members lied out their asses and backed each other up, which was made possible by them being allowed to contact each other, and I suspect the CPS might not have believed that the definition of 'immediate' wouldn't extend past 24 hours.
t incen: when people say terrible things, its usually a clue as to their mindset. When it happens in every thread, comment is warranted. Trolling is bad, mmk?
*it wasn't just Jeffs in trouble, as i recall. he was just the big'un.
And I'm saying that makes you a terrible, terrible person.
Your criteria for "good person" seems to be pretty much "agrees with me."
If you'd read any of my posts not dealing with you, you'd realise that's not true. But you're not actually reading this thread.
Oh look, you're lying again. Well, at least you're consistent.
Lying? About what? I can be wrong. You can say that what i have said is incorrect and supply evidence that backs it up. However what you cannot say is that i am lying. Unless you believe I know more than I appear to and am intentionally attempting to mislead you.
In this thread, you've repeatedly lied about:
a) the facts of the case
b) how your constitution works, and
c) my arguments - as yours break down, you've more and more frequently accused me of things I didn't actually say. they're all in your head. So, like I said, you're a liar and a slanderer and I'll no longer be responding to anything you write, because you don't operate in this reality.
This has the very small chance of being one of those landmark case scenarios, really. Hopefully it forces the "We don't actually like the rest of America we just happen to live inside of it" groups to be looked at more closely as a whole. These isolated communities, while not always (maybe even rarely) abusive, in their isolation, are capable of getting away with a great deal. They're basically mini-governmental entities that really should be treated as such... at the very least, as towns, at least so far as scrutiny goes.
At a certain number of people living in a location, police need to be able to patrol the area to ensure that laws are being followed there, regardless of private property status, if such isn't already the case.
If you'd read any of my posts not dealing with you, you'd realise that's not true. But you're not actually reading this thread.
Oh look, you're lying again. Well, at least you're consistent.
In this thread, you've repeatedly lied about:
a) the facts of the case
b) how your constitution works, and
c) my arguments - as yours break down, you've more and more frequently accused me of things I didn't actually say. they're all in your head. So, like I said, you're a liar and a slanderer and I'll no longer be responding to anything you write, because you don't operate in this reality.
Bye now.
Actually I am reading the thread quite intently because this could prove to have far reaching ramifications. This and DC vs Heller are the two cases i am following most intently at the moment.
A. Being mistaken about the facts of this case, which you could correct me on, is not lying.
B. When have I been mistaken about how the supreme law of our land functions? Better yet when have i lied about it.
C. Oh? Would those accusations be the fact that you can't seem to go more than a paragraph without a personal attack?
Oh and its libel. Given that this is a forum, and archived, it would count as a fixed medium. Slander is applied to the spoken word. Plus you would need to demonstrate something I had said, not written, was both knowingly incorrect and designed to defame the character of whatever you seem to think i have slandered.
So exactly who, or what, have i slandered? Never mind actually id rather keep this on topic.
Why don't these crazy cults have the good decency to set up their compounds in small South American nations like they used to, so we don't have to deal with whatever brand of Kool-Aid that they're drinking?
Plutonium on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
Well they were doing well until somebody decided to get their nose all up in their beeswax!
I don't believe its reasonable to claim that there's 'no evidence' of a sect who's beliefs are well known, who've removed themselves from society to follow said beliefs, and several of whose members have been jailed or arrested for following said beliefs* posing a danger to the children in the sect. The logic is just so specious, it beggars belief. I understand that Texas' child protection laws are crap in their emphasis on immediate danger, but I also suggest that the definition of 'immediate' being used by the judge is far too restrictive to be realistic. I think there were a couple of factors contributing to this decision: the CPS overloaded themselves with cases as a result of the raid, the sect members lied out their asses and backed each other up, which was made possible by them being allowed to contact each other, and I suspect the CPS might not have believed that the definition of 'immediate' wouldn't extend past 24 hours.
See, I think part of the problem (and this probably contributed to the judgment) is that CPS really overreached on the "immediate danger" thing. Again, I'd ask...what is the immediate danger to a girl who is a decade from puberty in this specific case? I'd argue it's none, at least from a life/health standpoint. Yet they grabbed girls who were in no immediate danger of being married off and raped, and separated them from their families anyway (going so far as to put them in foster/group homes). That, right there, is unreasonable. There was no reason that those children had to be removed during the investigation/legal process. If it was determined that the sect as a whole was found to be a danger to them in the future, they could have been removed then. There was zero "immediate" danger.
Other than that, the only fundamental issue I have with the ruling is the assertion that the ranch not be treated as a single household (note that none of the petitioners in this case had children among those who were pregnant). But again, I suppose it's a reasonable conclusion...it just wouldn't be mine. Once that conclusion is reached, there is almost no grounds for removing all the children, and certainly no grounds for removing all the pre-pubescent children.
I'll ask again: can you really explain to me the immediate danger posed to a 4-year-old girl in living with a sect known for marrying off 14-year-old (or perhaps a couple years younger) girls? At all? Sure, there's definitely some long-term danger...from the brainwashing even if not the rape. But for the next couple months while the legal system grinds its way to a conclusion? Anything?
And no, Jeffs is not the only FLDS member to have been charged (or convicted) in relation to underage sex/marriage. Just the high-profile one. There have been several in the past, there will likely be more in the future. Also, even in that specific case the "husband" in question was charged once Jeffs was convicted...they were smart enough to let him testify against Jeffs then use that testimony against him (which they can do, since he was well advised of this possibility and chose to testify anyway).
See, I think part of the problem (and this probably contributed to the judgment) is that CPS really overreached on the "immediate danger" thing. Again, I'd ask...what is the immediate danger to a girl who is a decade from puberty in this specific case? I'd argue it's none, at least from a life/health standpoint. Yet they grabbed girls who were in no immediate danger of being married off and raped, and separated them from their families anyway (going so far as to put them in foster/group homes). That, right there, is unreasonable. There was no reason that those children had to be removed during the investigation/legal process. If it was determined that the sect as a whole was found to be a danger to them in the future, they could have been removed then. There was zero "immediate" danger.
Actually, there is an immediate danger, which a lot of you overlook - the FLDS could have them transfered to another colony, potentially across international borders (remember, one of their largest established settlements is Bountiful, located in British Columbia.) So when you take that into account, it changes the metric significantly.
Other than that, the only fundamental issue I have with the ruling is the assertion that the ranch not be treated as a single household (note that none of the petitioners in this case had children among those who were pregnant). But again, I suppose it's a reasonable conclusion...it just wouldn't be mine. Once that conclusion is reached, there is almost no grounds for removing all the children, and certainly no grounds for removing all the pre-pubescent children.
Considering past behaviors like the Unified Plan, the assumption that YFZ was not a single household is very questionable indeed.
I'll ask again: can you really explain to me the immediate danger posed to a 4-year-old girl in living with a sect known for marrying off 14-year-old (or perhaps a couple years younger) girls? At all? Sure, there's definitely some long-term danger...from the brainwashing even if not the rape. But for the next couple months while the legal system grinds its way to a conclusion? Anything?
See above. The FLDS does shuffle people around to stay one step ahead of the law, which changes things completely.
The bottom line: these people are idiots and most likely abusive, but Texas CPS fucked up, and I'm really not surprised at the ruling.
Basically it's the same kind of wonderfuckery that spawned the OJ trial.
CPS went in without the benefits of hindsight or foresight. Basically, when they went into the YFZ Ranch, they really did expect to be greeted as liberators.
CPS went in without the benefits of hindsight or foresight. Basically, when they went into the YFZ Ranch, they really did expect to be greeted as liberators.
Personally id be careful operating under that assumption regardless of the circumstances. It just seems like the kind of thing that never goes as planned.
So, joining this debate as a total outsider, who has only followed the links to the Press articles...
But, as a foster carer in the UK, and as a child protection trainer of people working with children (abused and not abused) in the UK, here's what I think:
what is the immediate danger to a girl who is a decade from puberty in this specific case? I'd argue it's none, at least from a life/health standpoint.
Grooming. Pure and simple. The conditioning that you will be "married off" at 14, to someone significantly older than you.
there is almost no grounds for removing all the children, and certainly no grounds for removing all the pre-pubescent children
To protect them from the risk of further abuse. Child abuse does not always start as full on rape, it escalates, with the child being slowly exposed to abuse, that grows over time.
Sure, there's definitely some long-term danger...from the brainwashing even if not the rape. But for the next couple months while the legal system grinds its way to a conclusion? Anything?
So, when do you remove them? Do you allow their systematic grooming to continue unabated, just because they have yet to be sexually abused? No, you have to remove the children as soon as you know there is a significant risk to their well being. Children deserve to be treated with love and respect, not treated as objects
LewieP's Mummy on
For all the top UK Gaming Bargains, check out SavyGamer
Yeah. those are the two things I was going to say, McD : the grooming process and the high likelihood that large numbers of those girls would simply disappear progressively throughout the legal process. Grooming especially though, because its one of those processes that's prosecuted commonly. I'm rather shocked that either that argument wasn't made, or that the judge didn't think it had any applicability. As LewieP's Mummy says above, if not now, then when? Do you just spy on them until they hit menarche/puberty and then do a grab'n'run? How much more damaging would that be?
Unfortunately, as noted, the US is -rife- with abusive behavior. Most of our culture is built around some form of harmful training or idealogy that has at least abusive concepts built in. This is also true for most if not all cultures, but we're a conservative country that thinks we're liberal so we tend to be very defensive about it.
This is especially true with the religion thing, and the ownership of children thing.
People are very protective of their right to fuck their children's heads up so that they can be intellectual failures just like themselves.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Unfortunately, as noted, the US is -rife- with abusive behavior. Most of our culture is built around some form of harmful training or idealogy that has at least abusive concepts built in. This is also true for most if not all cultures, but we're a conservative country that thinks we're liberal so we tend to be very defensive about it.
This is especially true with the religion thing, and the ownership of children thing.
People are very protective of their right to fuck their children's heads up so that they can be intellectual failures just like themselves.
Hey there's a similar set of people who save their children from such failures you know. Especially when the concepts being taught by society at large were the fucked up ones.
Hey there's a similar set of people who save their children from such failures you know. Especially when the concepts being taught by society at large were the fucked up ones.
Republicans also used to be the progressive party.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Hey there's a similar set of people who save their children from such failures you know. Especially when the concepts being taught by society at large were the fucked up ones.
Republicans also used to be the progressive party.
And Bud Light used to be less taste, more filling.
I mean, there still are those types of people out there today.
Obviously you need to leave room for improvement, but that doesn't mean you have to let thousands of children fall through the cracks to do so.
I'm certainly not suggesting everyone have the same life, but there needs to be a higher minimum of opportunity granted to children, and some sort of "maximum self-contained population" limit so that people can't form unofficial towns without police being able to check up on things like they can with real towns.
There is nothing to gain from near-absolute isolation from birth.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Obviously you need to leave room for improvement, but that doesn't mean you have to let thousands of children fall through the cracks to do so.
I'm certainly not suggesting everyone have the same life, but there needs to be a higher minimum of opportunity granted to children, and some sort of "maximum self-contained population" limit so that people can't form unofficial towns without police being able to check up on things like they can with real towns.
There is nothing to gain from near-absolute isolation from birth.
I'm surprised there isn't some kind of body that handles population placement and towns and such.
Heh, I don't think it would be very practical, there's enough bureaucracy surrounding development works as it is. I mean, yes, it would be rad if there were a better way to avoid ghettos and building on floodplains and over good quality ag land, but urban growth and decay is very strongly controlled by the local economy, rarely the other way 'round. People go where the money is and build there, and its... usually a good thing, on balance.
The Cat on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Heh, I don't think it would be very practical, there's enough bureaucracy surrounding development works as it is. I mean, yes, it would be rad if there were a better way to avoid ghettos and building on floodplains and over good quality ag land, but urban growth and decay is very strongly controlled by the local economy, rarely the other way 'round. People go where the money is and build there, and its... usually a good thing, on balance.
I guess I'm talking more about investigating the reasons behind the concentration of people and making sure to tell them 'sorry, you can't congregate together just so you can molest women.'
Of course, that would be ripe for abuse so it's good thing no such thing exists.
Since consolidating everything under my firm, but benevolent leadership is not currently an option, sadly. We have to approach these issues piecemeal. Our first problem is we cant stop people from congregating in little communes like this. Its private property after all. As long as nothing illegal is going on, the police really cant do much. Our second problem is that we do not enforce parenting standards. Our third problem is we really do not give parents the ability to enforce their rules after a certain age. Our forth problem is religious zealotry.
We could just make is to any parents have to take a test to get a license. Any unlicensed children would be taken away to be raised by the state. Of course this would cause a massive disruption of their lives, lots of emotional trauma, and lead to bigger issues later in life.
Sure we could remove homeschooling as an option, which would give these kids a bit broader view on the world. However public school barely qualify as an education anymore. Children are actually learning more through homeschooling even if its tainted by their religions own brand of crazy. Public schools also suffer from brainwashing children with their own patented brand of crazy so its not like you have a crazy free option here.
Sadly we cant stop parents from mind fucking their children, or mind fucked women from thinking its ok to be treated like an object. Not without violating their free practice of religion. Sadly our laws really do not have statutes for long term mind fucking as a form of abuse. It would be to easy to abuse in any case.
Heh, I don't think it would be very practical, there's enough bureaucracy surrounding development works as it is. I mean, yes, it would be rad if there were a better way to avoid ghettos and building on floodplains and over good quality ag land, but urban growth and decay is very strongly controlled by the local economy, rarely the other way 'round. People go where the money is and build there, and its... usually a good thing, on balance.
I guess I'm talking more about investigating the reasons behind the concentration of people and making sure to tell them 'sorry, you can't congregate together just so you can molest women.'
Of course, that would be ripe for abuse so it's good thing no such thing exists.
In the city of Oxford, Ohio it is illegal for more than five women to live together without a man to supervise them. Except that the logic of the person whose grant the school and city don't want to lose by canning that law is "protect" rather than "supervise", but yeah.
Sure we could remove homeschooling as an option, which would give these kids a bit broader view on the world. However public school barely qualify as an education anymore. Children are actually learning more through homeschooling even if its tainted by their religions own brand of crazy. Public schools also suffer from brainwashing children with their own patented brand of crazy so its not like you have a crazy free option here.
This varies hugely. Every school I've ever been to was public and I successfully learned all kinds of things like physics, chemistry, geometry, history, how to sew, photography, etc. etc. etc. There's a reason why school-district plays such a huge role in property-values.
Agreed there are still school districts that have held strong and do still teach children. However our national averages are plummeting, teachers are working harder and harder just to get kids to pass standardized tests so they do not get fired, parents are not stepping up and helping schools teach children, its an epic clusterfuck worthy of its own thread.
The problem is that the bad areas are getting worse, and the good areas are being drug down. Fixing the issue would require massive overhaul, hard choices, and would not be cheap. The problem is the parents are against it all the way. Demand their little jimmy who at the tender age of 16 cant read beyond a 4th grade level, never goes to class, and when he gets expelled its a witch hunt because the teachers all hate him because they are (racist,sexist,ageist, threatened because hes obviously a genius, prejudiced against his religion, hating him for no reason, singling him out,)
The list goes on and on. Parents are not working with teachers, they are not pushing their children to learn, and they do not want to have their taxes raised to get the quality of materials schools need. Ugh.
Detharin on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Heh, I don't think it would be very practical, there's enough bureaucracy surrounding development works as it is. I mean, yes, it would be rad if there were a better way to avoid ghettos and building on floodplains and over good quality ag land, but urban growth and decay is very strongly controlled by the local economy, rarely the other way 'round. People go where the money is and build there, and its... usually a good thing, on balance.
I guess I'm talking more about investigating the reasons behind the concentration of people and making sure to tell them 'sorry, you can't congregate together just so you can molest women.'
Of course, that would be ripe for abuse so it's good thing no such thing exists.
In the city of Oxford, Ohio it is illegal for more than five women to live together without a man to supervise them. Except that the logic of the person whose grant the school and city don't want to lose by canning that law is "protect" rather than "supervise", but yeah.
The fact that there is a law like that in the US still depresses me.
Heh, I don't think it would be very practical, there's enough bureaucracy surrounding development works as it is. I mean, yes, it would be rad if there were a better way to avoid ghettos and building on floodplains and over good quality ag land, but urban growth and decay is very strongly controlled by the local economy, rarely the other way 'round. People go where the money is and build there, and its... usually a good thing, on balance.
I guess I'm talking more about investigating the reasons behind the concentration of people and making sure to tell them 'sorry, you can't congregate together just so you can molest women.'
Of course, that would be ripe for abuse so it's good thing no such thing exists.
In the city of Oxford, Ohio it is illegal for more than five women to live together without a man to supervise them. Except that the logic of the person whose grant the school and city don't want to lose by canning that law is "protect" rather than "supervise", but yeah.
The fact that there is a law like that in the US still depresses me.
Well I mean it's the kind of law you're talking about. I'm just saying we have those kinds of laws, and thus can have more.
I can't actually formulate enough coherent words to express my outrage at that law. Enough that there's at least 1 State I now have no intention of visiting, ever. Mind you, I probably wouldn't be allowed to travel there independently, cos I haven't got a willy!
LewieP's Mummy on
For all the top UK Gaming Bargains, check out SavyGamer
On an aside, their are laws on the books, and laws that are enforced. Currently either Clark County or Nevada (i forget offhand) has a law on the books making it illegal to have sex with the woman on top. There are quite a few weird laws that are still around.
On an aside, their are laws on the books, and laws that are enforced. Currently either Clark County or Nevada (i forget offhand) has a law on the books making it illegal to have sex with the woman on top. There are quite a few weird laws that are still around.
Yeah, most of these laws would be struck down quickly if anybody actually tried to enforce them. There are still all kinds of fun ones on the books in most states.
Yeah. those are the two things I was going to say, McD : the grooming process and the high likelihood that large numbers of those girls would simply disappear progressively throughout the legal process. Grooming especially though, because its one of those processes that's prosecuted commonly. I'm rather shocked that either that argument wasn't made, or that the judge didn't think it had any applicability. As LewieP's Mummy says above, if not now, then when? Do you just spy on them until they hit menarche/puberty and then do a grab'n'run? How much more damaging would that be?
I'll address both individually. The "grooming process" bit I'm not buying as an immediate danger. If a girl has been being groomed for the last 4, 6, 8 years (and yes, I agree she has) then there's little difference whether or not it continues for another 4-6 months while the legal system works its mojo. If the entire environment in the home is found to be a danger due to this grooming process (which leads to underage marriage), then she can be removed at that time. I'm just not seeing a couple extra months of "grooming" on top of the several years she's already gone through as any "immediate" danger warranting immediate removal.
Now, the idea that the kids would simply be shuffled out of the state? That's a legitimate concern. But then I ask whether there are any laws concerning that...I'd hope that if you as a family are under investigation for child abuse, and you start making your kids disappear to other households or other states, that some sort of law or regulation would kick in. If not, then that's something that needs to be fixed. Also, if we don't already have it there needs to be a bit more cooperation between child-protection offices in different states...simply moving across state lines should not be enough to avoid having the issue dealt with. This goes even for international borders...British Columbia is hardly Botswana, and I'd hope that if Texas's CPS office called whatever the equivalent is in B.C. (assuming there is one...but again, it's hardly Botswana) that they'd continue to pursue the issue there.
Basically I'd suggest that if the latter point is a weakness in the current system, then it's that weakness that needs to get addressed...I'm not comfortable with throwing the rules out the window based on a special case (which this certainly is). Legal systems don't deal well with that.
Considering past behaviors like the Unified Plan, the assumption that YFZ was not a single household is very questionable indeed.
Oh, I certainly agree. I'd personally consider it a single household, and I agree that failing to do so is questionable. But it's also hardly obvious, and it's perfectly reasonable that a court of law might come to the opposite conclusion.
On a side note, going back to the actual ruling, here's a part that I actually have a serious problem with.
While there was evidence that twenty females had become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen, there was no evidence regarding the marital status of these girls when they became pregnant or the circumstances under which they became pregnant other than the general allegation that the girls were living in an FLDS community with a belief system that condoned underage marriage and sex;[7]
Where footnote 7 goes on to detail that it's not sexual assault for an underage girl to have sex with a spouse. So is CPS actually being asked to prove a negative, here? Or was the court simply punishing them for not having their paperwork in order? What "evidence" are they asking for as to the marital status of these girls? A sworn statement as to whether or not they are married? Followed by asking them for a copy of the marriage certificate (as the law clearly states they must be legally married)? Given that this sect is known for keeping their marriages out of the legal system (due to the polygamy if not the bride being underage), I'd say it's reasonable to presume that the girls are not legally married unless they provide a marriage certificate. As for the "circumstances," I'd assume they're referring to whether or not the father was more than three years older (another exception to the sexual assault law)...again, given the history of this sect I'd say that unless the mother is willing to name an appropriately aged father so a paternity test can verify, it's reasonable to assume that this is not the case, either.
And besides, the latter is an affirmative defense anyway...which means that the "father" must argue it in court. From what I can tell, legally unless a girl is married then it can pretty much be assumed to have been a sexual assault.
I guess I'm just not sure what the hell the court wanted, here.
Sure we could remove homeschooling as an option, which would give these kids a bit broader view on the world. However public school barely qualify as an education anymore. Children are actually learning more through homeschooling even if its tainted by their religions own brand of crazy. Public schools also suffer from brainwashing children with their own patented brand of crazy so its not like you have a crazy free option here.
This varies hugely. Every school I've ever been to was public and I successfully learned all kinds of things like physics, chemistry, geometry, history, how to sew, photography, etc. etc. etc. There's a reason why school-district plays such a huge role in property-values.
A lot of it is funding, and a lot of it is how the district is run itself. Some districts are a farce and deserve to be dissolved. Some districts only exist for preservation of the district and not to actually educate students. Some districts have the audacity to actually lobby to shut down independent charters that actually don't suck and only make the district look bad.
I'll address both individually. The "grooming process" bit I'm not buying as an immediate danger. If a girl has been being groomed for the last 4, 6, 8 years (and yes, I agree she has) then there's little difference whether or not it continues for another 4-6 months while the legal system works its mojo. If the entire environment in the home is found to be a danger due to this grooming process (which leads to underage marriage), then she can be removed at that time. I'm just not seeing a couple extra months of "grooming" on top of the several years she's already gone through as any "immediate" danger warranting immediate removal.
I'd suggest a combination of 'its the principle', the clear-and-present-danger sort of thing (living in a house with a crackhead mother for four years and not getting hooked doesn't mean you won't get hooked while she's being prosecuted for neglect), and the fact that drawing a line between 'enough brainwashing' and 'not enough' is, well, impossible. Kids pick stuff up so fast, especially when they're young. And in my experience, there's no believer like a pre-teen believer. They're scarier than reformed converts...
Now, the idea that the kids would simply be shuffled out of the state? That's a legitimate concern. But then I ask whether there are any laws concerning that...I'd hope that if you as a family are under investigation for child abuse, and you start making your kids disappear to other households or other states, that some sort of law or regulation would kick in. If not, then that's something that needs to be fixed. Also, if we don't already have it there needs to be a bit more cooperation between child-protection offices in different states...simply moving across state lines should not be enough to avoid having the issue dealt with. This goes even for international borders...British Columbia is hardly Botswana, and I'd hope that if Texas's CPS office called whatever the equivalent is in B.C. (assuming there is one...but again, it's hardly Botswana) that they'd continue to pursue the issue there.
I'd like to think that the process would be relatively smooth, but extradition proceedings are another layer of legal time and overall expense that the state would probably strongly discourage for anyone short of a murderer. I'd guess that the CPS would want to avoid even having to ask, because their bosses would say no. Especially for so many people.
Basically I'd suggest that if the latter point is a weakness in the current system, then it's that weakness that needs to get addressed...I'm not comfortable with throwing the rules out the window based on a special case (which this certainly is). Legal systems don't deal well with that.
Sure, but I guess I don't have much faith in the Texas legal system pursuing it that far. Still, at least they're not Mississippi.
Then again, this raid wouldn't have happened there, for all the wrong reasons...
Where footnote 7 goes on to detail that it's not sexual assault for an underage girl to have sex with a spouse. So is CPS actually being asked to prove a negative, here? Or was the court simply punishing them for not having their paperwork in order? What "evidence" are they asking for as to the marital status of these girls? A sworn statement as to whether or not they are married? Followed by asking them for a copy of the marriage certificate (as the law clearly states they must be legally married)? Given that this sect is known for keeping their marriages out of the legal system (due to the polygamy if not the bride being underage), I'd say it's reasonable to presume that the girls are not legally married unless they provide a marriage certificate. As for the "circumstances," I'd assume they're referring to whether or not the father was more than three years older (another exception to the sexual assault law)...again, given the history of this sect I'd say that unless the mother is willing to name an appropriately aged father so a paternity test can verify, it's reasonable to assume that this is not the case, either.
And besides, the latter is an affirmative defense anyway...which means that the "father" must argue it in court. From what I can tell, legally unless a girl is married then it can pretty much be assumed to have been a sexual assault.
I guess I'm just not sure what the hell the court wanted, here.
This is my main beef, yes. Suddenly the burden of proof jumped through the roof, as soon as these people were involved. These religious people.
Haha jesus christ I didn't think a law like that could exist in the US.
I remember when a Florida district finally ditched a law banning high heels on a Sunday, or something similar. And the sale of ice-cream that day, too. And sex toys are still illegal in Alabama, you have to sign a full-page form swearing solemnly that you won't use your new vibrator for sexual purposes before you can take it home. Kind of makes me laugh even harder at people who thought the fifties were the pinnacle of civilisation :P
Posts
It is also accurate. The law is not now, and rarely has been moral and ethical. The law is what gets enforced, not people's systems of ethics. Hell, Jim Crowe was the law, Segregation was the law, Dredd Scott was the law, SLAVERY WAS THE MOTHERFUCKING LAW.
If some nasty heinous shit is legal, then law enforcement has to let the nasty, heinous shit go on. You want to make it illegal? Fine by me. It would do the world some good. Hell the mandatory arrest for Domestic Abuse has been a Godsend (before Cat jumps on me, I am not saying it is enough, I am just saying it is an improvement on the previous procedure of not doing much).
But the law and what is right and wrong are different things.
Are not those rights listed as guidelines under which governments are supposed to live, not groups of people? And does any Law Enforcement group swear to uphold or enforce these rights? And what are the penalties for violating those rights? I suppose you could make an argument for violating civil rights as a legal charge, as has been done before, but it sounds to me like these are the rights that are supposed to be upheld by a government and as such are limitations on laws and governments, not groups of people. Heck IIRC, most "violations of civil rights charges" are leveled by one branch of a government against another.
If you want to list them as law, there is a different set up, usually penalties, consequences, degrees, and elements of the crimes which violate them.
Could you quote the section from the relevant document?
Edit: Hell, isn't there a big difference legally, between the concepts of Rights and Laws?
This.
Abso-fucking-lutely. Of course, you also don't want to be the government of "We repress people because we don't believe what they believe."
I guess it all comes back to South Park, if it violates the "Dude, that's just fucked up" line of behavior.
Well, I'll be honest: I only know very little about this issue. I've read some stuff on the news but that's the extent of my knowledge, so I'm sorry if I'm missing anything when I say that if what someone believes involves sexual molestation and exploitation of children (pregnant 14 year olds? holy hell), then the government can and must repress it.
I don't believe its reasonable to claim that there's 'no evidence' of a sect who's beliefs are well known, who've removed themselves from society to follow said beliefs, and several of whose members have been jailed or arrested for following said beliefs* posing a danger to the children in the sect. The logic is just so specious, it beggars belief. I understand that Texas' child protection laws are crap in their emphasis on immediate danger, but I also suggest that the definition of 'immediate' being used by the judge is far too restrictive to be realistic. I think there were a couple of factors contributing to this decision: the CPS overloaded themselves with cases as a result of the raid, the sect members lied out their asses and backed each other up, which was made possible by them being allowed to contact each other, and I suspect the CPS might not have believed that the definition of 'immediate' wouldn't extend past 24 hours.
t incen: when people say terrible things, its usually a clue as to their mindset. When it happens in every thread, comment is warranted. Trolling is bad, mmk?
*it wasn't just Jeffs in trouble, as i recall. he was just the big'un.
In this thread, you've repeatedly lied about:
a) the facts of the case
b) how your constitution works, and
c) my arguments - as yours break down, you've more and more frequently accused me of things I didn't actually say. they're all in your head. So, like I said, you're a liar and a slanderer and I'll no longer be responding to anything you write, because you don't operate in this reality.
Bye now.
At a certain number of people living in a location, police need to be able to patrol the area to ensure that laws are being followed there, regardless of private property status, if such isn't already the case.
The whole sovereignty thing and all.
See, I think part of the problem (and this probably contributed to the judgment) is that CPS really overreached on the "immediate danger" thing. Again, I'd ask...what is the immediate danger to a girl who is a decade from puberty in this specific case? I'd argue it's none, at least from a life/health standpoint. Yet they grabbed girls who were in no immediate danger of being married off and raped, and separated them from their families anyway (going so far as to put them in foster/group homes). That, right there, is unreasonable. There was no reason that those children had to be removed during the investigation/legal process. If it was determined that the sect as a whole was found to be a danger to them in the future, they could have been removed then. There was zero "immediate" danger.
Other than that, the only fundamental issue I have with the ruling is the assertion that the ranch not be treated as a single household (note that none of the petitioners in this case had children among those who were pregnant). But again, I suppose it's a reasonable conclusion...it just wouldn't be mine. Once that conclusion is reached, there is almost no grounds for removing all the children, and certainly no grounds for removing all the pre-pubescent children.
I'll ask again: can you really explain to me the immediate danger posed to a 4-year-old girl in living with a sect known for marrying off 14-year-old (or perhaps a couple years younger) girls? At all? Sure, there's definitely some long-term danger...from the brainwashing even if not the rape. But for the next couple months while the legal system grinds its way to a conclusion? Anything?
And no, Jeffs is not the only FLDS member to have been charged (or convicted) in relation to underage sex/marriage. Just the high-profile one. There have been several in the past, there will likely be more in the future. Also, even in that specific case the "husband" in question was charged once Jeffs was convicted...they were smart enough to let him testify against Jeffs then use that testimony against him (which they can do, since he was well advised of this possibility and chose to testify anyway).
Actually, there is an immediate danger, which a lot of you overlook - the FLDS could have them transfered to another colony, potentially across international borders (remember, one of their largest established settlements is Bountiful, located in British Columbia.) So when you take that into account, it changes the metric significantly.
Considering past behaviors like the Unified Plan, the assumption that YFZ was not a single household is very questionable indeed.
See above. The FLDS does shuffle people around to stay one step ahead of the law, which changes things completely.
CPS went in without the benefits of hindsight or foresight. Basically, when they went into the YFZ Ranch, they really did expect to be greeted as liberators.
Personally id be careful operating under that assumption regardless of the circumstances. It just seems like the kind of thing that never goes as planned.
But, as a foster carer in the UK, and as a child protection trainer of people working with children (abused and not abused) in the UK, here's what I think:
Grooming. Pure and simple. The conditioning that you will be "married off" at 14, to someone significantly older than you.
To protect them from the risk of further abuse. Child abuse does not always start as full on rape, it escalates, with the child being slowly exposed to abuse, that grows over time.
So, when do you remove them? Do you allow their systematic grooming to continue unabated, just because they have yet to be sexually abused? No, you have to remove the children as soon as you know there is a significant risk to their well being. Children deserve to be treated with love and respect, not treated as objects
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
This is especially true with the religion thing, and the ownership of children thing.
People are very protective of their right to fuck their children's heads up so that they can be intellectual failures just like themselves.
Hey there's a similar set of people who save their children from such failures you know. Especially when the concepts being taught by society at large were the fucked up ones.
Republicans also used to be the progressive party.
And Bud Light used to be less taste, more filling.
I mean, there still are those types of people out there today.
I'm certainly not suggesting everyone have the same life, but there needs to be a higher minimum of opportunity granted to children, and some sort of "maximum self-contained population" limit so that people can't form unofficial towns without police being able to check up on things like they can with real towns.
There is nothing to gain from near-absolute isolation from birth.
I'm surprised there isn't some kind of body that handles population placement and towns and such.
I guess I'm talking more about investigating the reasons behind the concentration of people and making sure to tell them 'sorry, you can't congregate together just so you can molest women.'
Of course, that would be ripe for abuse so it's good thing no such thing exists.
We could just make is to any parents have to take a test to get a license. Any unlicensed children would be taken away to be raised by the state. Of course this would cause a massive disruption of their lives, lots of emotional trauma, and lead to bigger issues later in life.
Sure we could remove homeschooling as an option, which would give these kids a bit broader view on the world. However public school barely qualify as an education anymore. Children are actually learning more through homeschooling even if its tainted by their religions own brand of crazy. Public schools also suffer from brainwashing children with their own patented brand of crazy so its not like you have a crazy free option here.
Sadly we cant stop parents from mind fucking their children, or mind fucked women from thinking its ok to be treated like an object. Not without violating their free practice of religion. Sadly our laws really do not have statutes for long term mind fucking as a form of abuse. It would be to easy to abuse in any case.
The situation sucks on all fronts.
In the city of Oxford, Ohio it is illegal for more than five women to live together without a man to supervise them. Except that the logic of the person whose grant the school and city don't want to lose by canning that law is "protect" rather than "supervise", but yeah.
This varies hugely. Every school I've ever been to was public and I successfully learned all kinds of things like physics, chemistry, geometry, history, how to sew, photography, etc. etc. etc. There's a reason why school-district plays such a huge role in property-values.
The problem is that the bad areas are getting worse, and the good areas are being drug down. Fixing the issue would require massive overhaul, hard choices, and would not be cheap. The problem is the parents are against it all the way. Demand their little jimmy who at the tender age of 16 cant read beyond a 4th grade level, never goes to class, and when he gets expelled its a witch hunt because the teachers all hate him because they are (racist,sexist,ageist, threatened because hes obviously a genius, prejudiced against his religion, hating him for no reason, singling him out,)
The list goes on and on. Parents are not working with teachers, they are not pushing their children to learn, and they do not want to have their taxes raised to get the quality of materials schools need. Ugh.
The fact that there is a law like that in the US still depresses me.
Well I mean it's the kind of law you're talking about. I'm just saying we have those kinds of laws, and thus can have more.
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
*edit* Aha, Snopes had the story.
Anyway, even if such a law existed, it couldn't be enforced without committing career suicide.
Yeah, most of these laws would be struck down quickly if anybody actually tried to enforce them. There are still all kinds of fun ones on the books in most states.
I'll address both individually. The "grooming process" bit I'm not buying as an immediate danger. If a girl has been being groomed for the last 4, 6, 8 years (and yes, I agree she has) then there's little difference whether or not it continues for another 4-6 months while the legal system works its mojo. If the entire environment in the home is found to be a danger due to this grooming process (which leads to underage marriage), then she can be removed at that time. I'm just not seeing a couple extra months of "grooming" on top of the several years she's already gone through as any "immediate" danger warranting immediate removal.
Now, the idea that the kids would simply be shuffled out of the state? That's a legitimate concern. But then I ask whether there are any laws concerning that...I'd hope that if you as a family are under investigation for child abuse, and you start making your kids disappear to other households or other states, that some sort of law or regulation would kick in. If not, then that's something that needs to be fixed. Also, if we don't already have it there needs to be a bit more cooperation between child-protection offices in different states...simply moving across state lines should not be enough to avoid having the issue dealt with. This goes even for international borders...British Columbia is hardly Botswana, and I'd hope that if Texas's CPS office called whatever the equivalent is in B.C. (assuming there is one...but again, it's hardly Botswana) that they'd continue to pursue the issue there.
Basically I'd suggest that if the latter point is a weakness in the current system, then it's that weakness that needs to get addressed...I'm not comfortable with throwing the rules out the window based on a special case (which this certainly is). Legal systems don't deal well with that.
Oh, I certainly agree. I'd personally consider it a single household, and I agree that failing to do so is questionable. But it's also hardly obvious, and it's perfectly reasonable that a court of law might come to the opposite conclusion.
On a side note, going back to the actual ruling, here's a part that I actually have a serious problem with.
Where footnote 7 goes on to detail that it's not sexual assault for an underage girl to have sex with a spouse. So is CPS actually being asked to prove a negative, here? Or was the court simply punishing them for not having their paperwork in order? What "evidence" are they asking for as to the marital status of these girls? A sworn statement as to whether or not they are married? Followed by asking them for a copy of the marriage certificate (as the law clearly states they must be legally married)? Given that this sect is known for keeping their marriages out of the legal system (due to the polygamy if not the bride being underage), I'd say it's reasonable to presume that the girls are not legally married unless they provide a marriage certificate. As for the "circumstances," I'd assume they're referring to whether or not the father was more than three years older (another exception to the sexual assault law)...again, given the history of this sect I'd say that unless the mother is willing to name an appropriately aged father so a paternity test can verify, it's reasonable to assume that this is not the case, either.
And besides, the latter is an affirmative defense anyway...which means that the "father" must argue it in court. From what I can tell, legally unless a girl is married then it can pretty much be assumed to have been a sexual assault.
I guess I'm just not sure what the hell the court wanted, here.
A lot of it is funding, and a lot of it is how the district is run itself. Some districts are a farce and deserve to be dissolved. Some districts only exist for preservation of the district and not to actually educate students. Some districts have the audacity to actually lobby to shut down independent charters that actually don't suck and only make the district look bad.
Basically fuck some of these school districts.
I'd suggest a combination of 'its the principle', the clear-and-present-danger sort of thing (living in a house with a crackhead mother for four years and not getting hooked doesn't mean you won't get hooked while she's being prosecuted for neglect), and the fact that drawing a line between 'enough brainwashing' and 'not enough' is, well, impossible. Kids pick stuff up so fast, especially when they're young. And in my experience, there's no believer like a pre-teen believer. They're scarier than reformed converts...
I'd like to think that the process would be relatively smooth, but extradition proceedings are another layer of legal time and overall expense that the state would probably strongly discourage for anyone short of a murderer. I'd guess that the CPS would want to avoid even having to ask, because their bosses would say no. Especially for so many people.
Sure, but I guess I don't have much faith in the Texas legal system pursuing it that far. Still, at least they're not Mississippi.
Then again, this raid wouldn't have happened there, for all the wrong reasons...
This is my main beef, yes. Suddenly the burden of proof jumped through the roof, as soon as these people were involved. These religious people.
heh, i made a rhyme.
I remember when a Florida district finally ditched a law banning high heels on a Sunday, or something similar. And the sale of ice-cream that day, too. And sex toys are still illegal in Alabama, you have to sign a full-page form swearing solemnly that you won't use your new vibrator for sexual purposes before you can take it home. Kind of makes me laugh even harder at people who thought the fifties were the pinnacle of civilisation :P