Woody: That's a strong point you make, that imposing a religion upon a child under 18 is brainwashing. I absolutely agree with you.

In fact, I think that the Pledge of Allegiance -- "one nation ... under God" etc. etc., drummed into kids on a daily basis from their first day at school -- is an intrusion upon a child's free will, and places a strong limitation upon their future ability to think broadly. I'd like to know what others think about that.

As for the milarky imposed upon the innocents of Bountiful, it gives me the absolute shudders. Hats off to the courageous Jane Blackmore who survived it, and then found ways of helping others whose lives have been warped by that despicable creep.

The boys could definately sue regarding the labour. Nevermind any contract, there are equitable doctrines that would kick in for sure.

And it's Cranbrook. Not Cranbrooke. sigh.

Woody, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not say anywhere that one can have a religion imposed upon oneself. Neither by one's parents nor a public institution. Mostly what the Charter says is that you have freedoms from some things and rights to some things. If one can make a case that their rights/freedoms have been infringed then one has recourse through s.24 of the Charter. But the Charter only deals with relationships of an individual to the state. If "Winks" wants to run his shit show the way he does, that's not a Charter thing, that's a Criminal thing, and the last time I checked, polygamy is a crime, clearly defined in our Criminal Code. And our government, for what it's worth, oughta shit can the whole bountiful bountiness of it all. Only reason they don't is cause it's such a huge shitstorm for such a small number of people in such a tiny little corner of Canada. Lots o' dollars for such a small thing... That's not my personal take on it but I guess that's Ottawa's. Goddamn Charter case coming down their pipe... and for what? a few hundred hillbillies in butt f*** BC. fugghetaboutit. Again, not my feeling, just my thoughts

Sorry Woody but I must ask: did you actually, upon the coming of age of your children, say to them: "You may now pick any religion amongst these which are offered"? I just can't see that happening. In fact, allow me this imaginary dialogue:

"Daughter, on this day, your 18th birthday... you are an adult. Up until this day I have barred you from attending any bible camp, seance, --mitzvah, and so forth. This day you have become a woman. So now, you may pick, or not pick, amongst the various faiths laid before you..." I'm sorry, I've tired of myself but Woody, if this was your relationship with your children I'd hate to be your grandchild.

BC Mary, I wonder if IMPOSING a religion on someone OVER 18 is still brainwashing. Or, because of the age is that just a strong suggestion? :-)

Mea Culpa folks, I do realize I'm hogging this busy forum at now approaching 1 AM but I guess I feel I gotta check myself...

Though polygamy is a crime under our Criminal Code, with punishments involving prison time, I wonder how our government ("wait and see and whisper and shhh!) as it is might ever enforce such a law in Bountiful. Can "winks" be charged (assuming the case can be made) solely because he's the prophet and king pin? What about his arch-minions? What does one do with them? Jail -em? Re-hab? Suspended sentences? conditional sentences whereby they admit publicly the AREN"T married to Jane, Sarah and Jezebel AND keep a 500m distance? I know I'm being facetious here but a serious practical question is begged: if we, as a society agree that what's going on in Bountiful is unacceptable and against our moral sensibilites, just what the f*** do we do about it??? Jail the leader and announce to the community: "you're free now... to do... what you want to do...and just what is it that you want to do, now that "Winks" is all locked up? Wanna go bowling? Rave anyone? smoke a bowl? Knitting? Oh, Oh I see a smile on Rebeccah's face at the knitting suggestion..."

Sorry. But seriously now... what do we do?

Bravo!

I don't think it's religion itself that should be the topic of discussion. The undeniable fact remains ... the children of Bountiful were and probably are exploited. "Winks" and the other community leaders should be prosecuted under the child labour laws and every single man in that community that married an underage girl should also be prosecuted under the full extent of the law. Regardless of their religious beliefs, it is against Canadian law to exploit children in that way, therefore, the offenders should be punished. I also believe that those people who knew what was going on in Bountiful and let it continue should be prosecuted. It is required of all of us to report the abuse of children, after all.

I have heard teachers who work in the area speak of the situation in Bountiful. Apparently, there were people in the area who attempted to report the situation and they were not listened to. That angers me too. Why didn't anyone listen???? Why was it allowed to go on for so long???? The whole situation makes me sick but I do not believe that imposing a religion on someone else is the most important issue here. What was done (and probably still is done) to those children in the name of religion is what is so deplorable.

jtothemfk on the contrary learning religion was not censured from my children, they associated with and still have many of the same friends from their childhood, amongst them there are different denominations, my children were afforded and encouraged to broaden their knowledge of the complete world around them, I allowed my children more freedom than I would say most parents, they were allowed to attend to any and all bible classes ,Sunday schools, and bible camps, simply put, by allowing them this diversity and access to all religions they were not brainwashed into accepting the scripture and beliefs of anyone or particular religion, they had a cross section and complete overview of the religions that surrounded them, I don’t ever recall their being any one particular religion that interested them, although they were and are still critical of one or two religions, but had an involvement occurred with any particular religion I would have requested they wait until they had reach an age of reasoning (18). Like I stated in an earlier thread, their all good parents and law abiding taxpayers with their own families , therefore something must have been done correct, and incidently they stay in contact with all their parents in-laws and like wise. Now go out and help those that weren’t afforded the same rights as my family and are caught up in this terrible religious mind twisted morass.
Look at the troubled world around us, and in each situation, in one way or another there is religion involved either in the forefront or background, this includes Canada and the States.

spedteacher says

Religion is THE whole and complete problem, and the law is to chicken sh!t to touch it, it's that simple my friend.
Screw around with this religion, and they may all tumble like a house of cards, you should have been paying more attention when Pierre Trudeau hoisted his religous Charter of Rights on us. This is why the law is trying so hard to bring in charges that don' conflict with their religious rights. Look in the charter and see how God is mentioned along with religion (3) times,and how it's mentioned.

The reason this is such a hard question is precisely because we really do want to be free.

That's why the charter was needed to protect these freedoms. Sad perhaps but true, there's no law against exploiting people, unless you use certain well defined kinds of force to do it. Or commit financial crimes, like fraud against them in the process.

If they stand around and let you exploit them, there's not a whole lot anybody can do about it. Even if you do it by such transparently absurd means as telling them God told you to.

I mean, there are people all over the box telling you that God needs your money. I can't imagine a stupider claim, but the cheques just keep rolling in. Try to outlaw stupidity sometime, and see what it gets you.

Anybody else remember the war between the Feds and the Doukabours? Their religion dictated that they avoid being too bound to material possessions, so they would periodically burn their houses and clothes, and just stand there waiting for God to provide, which he usually did, in the persons of the community.

The RCMP confiscated their kids, outlawed religious practices, raided the protest meetings and all they got for it was the chance to be on TV arresting naked Ukrainian mamas with undue force. Looking like ridiculous bullies.

That's what you can expect if you try to tell people they aren't free to have silly beliefs, unless they're the silly beliefs you yourself want them to have.

Bailey says
The RCMP confiscated their kids

Why Bailey? did the R.C.M.P. confiscate those children? You know why, tell the readers here why. What makes it so different today, such as in this particular situation. The law is being an ass, young people are protected and handled different than adults when it comes to law, but when it comes to religion their rights evaporate, is that what you implying, if so then those parts of the charter that state religion (along where it mentions god) must be struck down in order that the children of this country be protected from, being exploited, abused , used , brain washed etc,etc.

Bailey - revised- should have read (hope that is not what your implying.)

When you see civic unrest, be it in Ireland or Iraq, you will also see very young brainwashed kids aping their elders, screaming and throwing stones (or worse).

When some of them get killed we have the typical old Mama's crying their eyes out, and swearing revenge.

It never enters their minds that it they would have left their kids to be kids, then they would still be alive!

In every case some religous faction has pushed the idea that any other religion is false and should be eradicated!

It is really very simple: No religion = No Wars!

BC Mary, I wonder if IMPOSING a religion on someone OVER 18 is still brainwashing. Or, because of the age is that just a strong suggestion? :-)

I'm not quite sure I understand your question, so will just take a run at it. I wasn't actually referring to a religion. It's the Oath of Allegiance which the U.S. imposes upon each school child, that I find disturbing, and which may account for the inability of Americans to understand other nations of the world. That's not education, IMO.

Brainwashing does imply repetition of some external message which is intended to warp the victim's thought process. So perhaps it doesn't make any difference, at what age it happens, except that the child is utterly helpless against it when food and shelter go with the message. By 18, the kids would be hard pressed to sort it out.

Which, now that you mention it, would explain Muslims, the Roman Catholics, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and Stephen Harper's First Christian and Missionary Alliance Church. Good God, have we just discovered the meaning of life?

Sorry, Woody. Is confiscate the wrong word?

As I remember the story, some children were removed and placed in care because their mothers and grandmothers were put in jail for being naked at a religious observance in the presence of television cameras.

Woody ... I was in elementary and high school student when Trudeau was in power lolol but I have had a look at some of the Charter of Rights.

Bailey and Woody ... when the Ministry of Children and Familes takes children from their parents, the term used is "apprehended" or "taken into custody". If we're going to get knit-picky, I guess those are the terms that would be used? And why was it the RCMP and not MCF that apprehended those children???? There are girls who are younger than the age of 14 which is the age of consent in Canada (should be at least 16 if not 18 IMHO) who are being married off and having children. Maybe posters here are right and the "authorities" stayed away from the whole situation because of religion. I still think it's sick and that heads should roll for this. And I don't just mean people from Bountiful. I think that there should be an investigation of the RCMP and MCF in regards to how they have handled this situation as well.

As an aside ... funny coincidence occurred today. Right after I made my first post, there was a knock on my door. It was a JW trying to get me to go to some prayer meeting. (Don't you hate that????) The coincidence gave me a little chuckle anyway.

Woody, I appreciate your commentary and your approach to your own children more fully now with your elaboration and I apologize for being facetious.

With regard to this debate whether the main issue be religion or something other: a difficult question. I've mostly held that when it comes to actual, practiced authority exercised over people in order to attain certain ends, religious dogma is merely a signification and a tool and hints at something else. What really drives us I think is more culturally/psychologically defensive and reactionary than belief in the divinely manifest. Most religious faiths, by my meager understanding, suggest both ends and means all wrapped up in a tidy package, with each complimenting the other, the means fully justifying the ends.

That there are wars fought "over religion" there is little doubt, much evidence. But I maintain that religion (its doctrine, its prescribed and proscribed behaviour and all that comes with the package) is only a guise, or more generously, a signpost. Only the pawns who die and scream for it really believe. I suspect the authourities are guided more pragmatically and by more worldly concerns, accompanied with an unhealthy dash of megalomania -namely power over people and control of resources. The "new" religion is economics.

I've gone astray from this particular issue of Bountiful and its "lost boys". I feel for these young men and I fear that the fallout for them has been long ignored. If one is not connected or obeisant enough, I guess one is discarded in some manner or other.

I take issue with Woody, however, with his commentary on our Charter. That freedom of religious practice is protected is true. However, section 1 has the potential to deal with situations like bountiful and "Winks". Section 1 is that part of the Charter that allows our Laws to be flexible and influenced by our societal beliefs at any given time (fickle as they sometimes are). What is lacking is the WILL, as I and other commentors have mentioned. I posed the question above, who amongst our fat Parliamentarians wants to take on this monster? And if they do, WHAT do they do? Wrecking a community and tearing apart people's deeply held beliefs and tearing apart families is a HUGE responsibility. I understand and share concerns about child exploitation (but wonder about the dubitable deifinitions of "child" -and don't appeal to the law here folks because laws can be pretty arbitrary and they are created from historicized opinion) but still am at a loss to suggest a solution. We have spoken of "brainwashing" and its affect on children and how awfully wrong it is. ONe assumes that if a person is "brainwashed" they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Am I wrong? Then is it not a fair proposition that "Winks" and his arch-minions have also been "brainwashed" and are thus not accountable? So... do we bite our collective lip and sacrifice an entire community in order to "make things right"?

Good luck trying to stop Catholics from brainwashing their kids.

My recollection is that the RCMP acted on behalf of the Province and the children were taken into custody because the Sons of Freedom sect, followers of Peter Veregrin, did not believe in public education and refused to send their children to public schools.

Kind of a riff on the same theme that residential schools were meant to address among First Nations.

The issue was only peripherally about religion - and certainly not about freedom of religion - which was the reason the Doukhobors left Tsarist Russia in the first place.

SFU has a great collection of literature on the subject, btw

I also wonder what "faith" it is that guides us "enlightened" ones to condemn that which we only partially understand. I'm not trying to be a relativist here. The Enlightenment and advances in science and our understanding of the mind have brought us many things, but it all has not eradicated our "faith" in our own righteousness. It has also bred, over time, a rather unhealthy cynicism. Also, and no less damaging, a blind faith in the "natural order and progression of things". I have friends who, not unlike those who give their will to God, give themselves over to the "natural order of things", more specifically: the idea and belief (or cop out if you prefer) that all things are going according to nature and things cannot have been other than they were, cannot be other than they are, and will not be other than they will be. Sounds pretty zen but again, only a signpost, a giving over, an utter cop-out. What this has to do with the lost boys of Bountiful, well, I'm working on it...

Bailey The purpose and reasoning behind the removal of the children ( by the RCMP) from their parents who were sons of freedom, was to break the chain of violence that was being instilled into the children.
What many people don’t realize is that terrorism was very present here in B.C. and it was disguised in form of religion.
Ill throw this one out there and see what response comes of it.
If this religion had, had the protection of the Trudeau charter as to which the bountiful bunch has ,it would have been be very dangerous and deadly to live in BC and of course with charter protection this
same problem could rear it’s head again,only next time there will be tragic circumstances, but eh, sh!t don’t take my word for it, nothing like first hand experience I always say. Check out the following site about the Doukabours and the Sons of Freedom

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/119_naked.shtml

Sorry that site doesn't care to come up now, GOOGLE "doukabour"

When has terrorism ever been "disguised" as religion? Most acts of terrorism have had an expressed religious purpose, or certainly some element of faith. But I'm quibbling. My main contention with your position is that you are WRONG to blame the Charter for the existence of religion. If one extends your argument (or maybe one not need to extend it) against religious beliefs/practices such as polygamist Mormons and Doukhabours then what you're positing is in favour of the abolishment of religous belief/practice altogether. What "puritan Marxist" demon has a hold of you??

jtothemfk says

No, I never said that, but that's a good suggestion though.

I see this as a failure of the state to protect vulnerable individuals. It's failing to do this because it is afraid of the Charter issues that it will raise. The issue will not be religious rights, it will be the equality guarantee, because if these are Charter-protected arrangements, what's the next step? Let's here it from those who would support a notwithstanding measure if that is the case......

Percy
Don't you think that the real key to this situation - without turning it into another example of the state stepping in as they did with the Sons of Freedom - is to find ways to educate the young people in this isolated community to the opportunities they miss out on because of the ways their parents have chosen to live?

Clearly, the equality section of the Charter is the key to addressing this issue - the women in plural marriages are the ones whose equality is suffering in my opinion - and we need to find ways to help those women make better choices for themselves and their children, both male and female. Approaching this in a juridical fashion is unlikely to work; both because of the religious freedom argument and because of the fact that it will tend to make martyrs of the people against whom the prosecution proceeds.

Whether we like it or not, the alternatives in these sorts of cases are not pretty but using the notwithstanding clause would be, I submit, both counterproductive and, probably, worse than doing nothing. I'd suggest that Blackmore is enough of a politician to turn force majeure clearly to his advantage.

I suppose the other alternative would be to deport the whole colony. But many of these people are citizens and who would take them?

Percy I believe this may be what Amanda Euringer is alluding to in her story, but where are you going to find the politicians who have the gonads to carry this though.

And, woody, if the state does step in and successfully apprehend the children (as they did with the Sons of Freedom kids in the 1950s) it would only be after a protracted series of court battles that would unquestionably go all the way to the Supreme Court.

In the end, it's the welfare of the children where the focus needs to be. Are they better off staying with their families or would they benefit from being taken away and put in some kind of protective custody or foster arrangement.

I don't think there are any good instant solutions to this. One can only hope that there is some way to educate the members of this community about the more pluralistic and less fundamentalist advantages of adopting a more mainstream religious lifestyle. Exactly how you do that is not immediately obvious...to me at least.

Wishfull thinking!
This is a religious cult, and like any religion they shun any outside attempt at changing their lives.

All we can do is to pick up the pieces as the young men drift into our communities.

Not unlike how we have to pick up the pieces of other young people who for whatever reason got a wrong start in life.

It is obvious that it offends many that these sects have different lifestyles, but in all fairness many "recognized" religions have lifestyles that seem restrictive too.

I for one is happy my parent did not find it necessary to circumsize me! so it is a matter of what offends you!

I will bet many guys just secretly are envious, thinking about having a new 14 year old bride every few years?

If this is to be a free country, we shall have to accept the odd "fruitcake" as well

Alcibiades If the state had compassion, if the Minister of child protection or what ever they call themselves had compassion for these children, if they were at all concerned for these girls and boys welfare, yes they would and should act first, and deal with the consequences later, foremost, the very first thing society has to do, is provide protection for its children, one would have to assume, that Pierre Trudeau with all his supposedly knowledge and intelligence would or could have instilled in the charter, protection for children in plain language, instead of mumble jumble bullsh!t that dip sh!t lawyers so much like to do.
And there lies another problem, Lawyers, while Rome burns the Lawyers play. And today, Sunday, all the good sinners go to church-service with their hands clasped to be cleansed so they can turn around to sin again for the next six days, what a crock of sh!t. And mean while the kids continue to suffer. G West, where are your Pro Bono good samaritan buddies on this one.

Gloomy
You're probably right, sadly. Fruitcakes are the cost of freedom I guess.

woody
Pro bono doesn't come into it, alas. Any legal action would have to be taken by the crown...anything G West might say to the contrary. Any volunteer lawyers in this case would be defending Mr Blackmore and his 'freedom of religion' I expect.

You've just seen, in the Eagleridge Bluffs incident, how the courts are used by private companies to stifle public protest and action. Any action by the crown to apprehend children from Bountiful without first referring the issue to the courts would be enjoined in, at most, a few hours or days. If action is going to be taken against this community it can only be as a result of careful planning and organization and an effort to cross every 't' and dot every 'i'.

In my opinion, a far better course would be to refer the question directly to the Supreme Court for adjudication. If you could get them to consider the issue and make a ruling before any action against the individual(s) involved were undertaken it would serve several purposes:
1) Raise the public profile of the issue and get people talking about it, both inside and outside Bountiful;
2) Demonstrate to the community that society is general is concerned about the way these 'families' are raising their children; and
3) Arrive at an understanding about what is possible in cases like these given the Charter;
4) Create an atmosphere in which some other legal remedy, not excluding the application of the 'notwithstanding' clause, would be seen as responsible and necessary.
5) Begin the public phase of actually trying to educate the public about what limits there ought to be in the idea of 'freedom of religion.'

In Germany, which was still a modern democracy last time I checked, sects such as Scientology are considered to be cults and are not permitted.

Cosmo -- Thanks for noticing the oversight. The spelling of Cranbrook has been corrected.

Best,
Trish Mau, copy editor

Alcibiades, you make very credible points.
Yes, its amazing how fast justice can be meted , when the will is there ,case in point, as you state the Eagleridge Bluffs incident.

Edited for possible libel -- Tyee editor

Problem is, the mainstream cults (Catholicism, Judaism, Prostentantism, Sikhism, Hinduism) don't really want to get involved in this case because they know that their members are just as stupid as the residents of these stupid and exploitive cult communities.

So nothing will be done.

I find Bountiful's existence utterly offensive. Men and women being brought up in ignorance, the women then married off to men older than their dads whom they don't like or even find attractive is disgusting The men abandoned to the rest of the country without the tools they are supposed to have is pathetic.

The fact that Bountiful is allowed to exist in a country like Canada is without question beyond the pale. We would never put up with it if some guys in Toronto or elsewhere decided to do the same thing with their kids so why do we put it up with here?

I still say send in a few Princess Pats, arrest Blackmore and his buddies for child abuse and crimes against humanity, divide up his and the church's property to those that suffered under his rule and since we're not allowed to shoot them, draft them into the army and send them to military prison for the rest of their worthless lives.

But that's just my opinion... :-)

What a lot of haters of religion there are here. Your bile is as viscious as that from any fundamentalist Muslim, Jew, or Catholic.

It astounds me that many of you support taking away my right to raise children in my ethnic and religious tradition (liberal Irish Catholic; Woody, there are good Catholics out there you know).

I can support multiculturalism, religious freedom, gay marriage and still cherish my flawed religious tradition and try to change that tradition from within.

All the "isms" have caused great pain and suffering - not just religious ones - I give you Russian Communism and Chines Maoism for starters.

As to the subject at hand. If this ever becomes a charter case, the Bountiful group would probably win as they could show that the 19th century law against polygamy was set up expressly to keep Mormons from emigrating into Canada (in short it was discriminatory).

I'm out of here - your vile comments have actually made me despair.

I dunno, Marta. I guess bile is viscous. Snot is, so why wouldn't bile be similar. Good point. Icky, too.

Same with the "isms" , like you say, bringing pain and suffering. Take your liberalism, conservatism, pacifism, nationalism, amateurism, dogmatism, fanaticism, catholicism, multiculturalism and horticulturalism, all painful. Although only two of them cause suffering, eh?

Damn. This is breakthrough thinking at its finest. Rock on, Mart.

marta says

May be Marta ,but they are not haters of people, a vast difference you must admit.

Flawed that’s an under statement, tell that to boys of Mount Cashal, or the Natives from the Indian residential schools , the cover ups in Ontario, Boston, and who knows how many other places.

OOOH sorry, BCMARY, I misspelled something. You conveniently left out Communism and Maoism out of your list, I note. Rock on right back at ya.

I said flawed, I meant it. Show me a human instituiton that isn't. I believe that the Catholic Church (and Anglican and others) should radically change and atone for what they've done.

And woody - you are haters of people if you steterotype and condemn all religious traditions (I mean the general "you" here not "you" personally)

I note no-one has taken up my point about the law against polygamy not standing up to a challenge.

Frank
You don't really believe that. It's just too damn easy for one group of people who happen to be in the majority to decide that a minority of folks who believe something else are not worthy of having the same rights to due process that they would under other circumstances.

I think a case can be made to prosecute people if they are molesting and maltreating children and I'd wager the RCMP in Creston is doing and has done its level best to make that case. If they can't get enough evidence to bring such a case to the courts then the only other recourse is to ban the practice of plural marriage and you know what that means.

In the end, I think I'm going to have to side with Gloomy - tolerating and respecting the 'rights' of people to behave in ways that the majority of people think are nuts is the cost of true freedom.

I'd still suggest the key to the issue is getting these kids to stay in school long enough to learn to question their parents orthodoxy themselves. In the end, isn't that how most of us were able to establish an independent existence as adults?

Marta, once again, as on the Ignatieff thread, I find myself agreeing with you.

G. West says, "I still think the key to this situation is getting the kids to stay in school long enough to question their parents' orthodoxy themselves."

And just how long a stay in school do you propose will facillitate this remarkable insight--grade nine, ten, first year university, graduate school?

The system is rotten, G. Young women being giving as brides to old guys they don't even know; women being taken from their families and given to more appropriate men; young boys made to work for slave wages. 75 cents to 1 dollar per hour. (This alone is a crime--if not legal, then at least moral).

When the adults are so unbelievably morally corrupted in this community exactly what force do you propose G. West, is going to "get the kids to stay in school long enough....."

Your resolution of the problem, G. West is like saying that cancer can be fixed by getting the patients to understand that solid tumours are aneuploid instead of diploid, like normal cells.

I thought the Tyee editors would delete my insult of Mr. Blackmore. But I'm glad they didn't, as I'm thankful to have had this occasion to offer him this conservative insult.

I'm New to this site and I may have some opinions on other issues but this one sticks in my craw. The thing no one ever addresses in the "bountiful multiple marriage" issue is what happens to the teenage boys who don't have any girls to marry because the old geezers have them. These boys are expelled from the "church" because they might get close to the "girls" and spoil the old mens game. I'm from the Kootenays and I've seen these fellows as they show up in various places, dazed and confused as their way of life has been taken away from them and they're tossed out. I don't Know what the legal ramifications are but this is very sick. Harry

G, the case has already been made. Winnie admitted himself that he and others have married girls under the age of consent in the past. The fact that a child abuser would have a "media day" and promise not to do it anymore is beside the point, he's guilty based on his own freely given confession.

As for the community, ignore the word religion and look at what the purpose of the community is. A bunch of guys give each other their young indoctrinated daughters for sexual purposes while sons are used as cheap child labour and then shunned.

Its a system of organized abuse. I'm surprised other child molestors haven't set up similar communities. What a way to escape prison, have kids, restrict their education, teach them that being a child bride is a good thing and share them with your buddies as your "needs" dictate.

Shut it down and tell the Americans Winston and his cronies are terrorists and need to spend some time in Guantanamo Bay. It would be the best purpose that place ever served.

Truman
I agree with your emotional reaction. I feel exactly the same way. All I'm saying is that it's not simple. Like everything in life, this is complicated.

The Charter has gone a long way to make minority rights and personal freedoms in this country the rule rather than the exception. I'm just trying to point out that freedoms also have costs.

I think the initial mistake on this file happened generations ago - before the Charter was even an issue. The people who now live in Bountiful moved there from Cardston, Alberta to practice polygamy after WW II and set up their commune (which is what it really is). I think the big boom in the community came after the US started to clamp down on Polygamy in 1980 and several 'families' moved here from Colorado.

The government has ignored the problem since then, with the exception of a couple of police investigations and an attempt to prevent some American Mormon women from immigrating to Canada.

Geoff Plant talked a lot about proceeding against them when he was AG and now, with Harper in the PM's office there's going to be another flurry of talk.

DO you have a 'practical' and legal solution you'd like to recommend? Alcibiades posted one suggestion above, did you see that?

Anyway, I'm as upset by what may be going on there as you are; I just don't think solving this is going to be that easy. One thing I do know, ranting isn't going to help. Unless John Les reads the Tyee.

Yeah, G. West, somebody in authority, Premier, attorney general, solicitor general--stands up and says. We have laws against abusing people in this country. We're going to investigate you guys and put you in prison where you belong if we find you've broken them.

Polygamy might be fun for you old perverts, but it's in the criminal code, so we're enforcing it from now on.

And to the big cultists in the mainstream religions who pretend that it's a "freedom of religion" issue: Screw you.

Frank
Look, as I said to Truman above, I'm looking for a solution too. Winston Blackmore's admission that he 'married' an underage woman would be inadmissible in court under the rules of evidence regarding self-incrimination and as long as she's his legal wife she couldn't be compelled to testify against him either.

The RCMP have been trying, on and off, for at least five years, to gather evidence that they can use in court to press a case of child abuse. Clearly there's no appetite to take a case which would allow Blackmore and others to use the freedom of religion justification and claim protection under the charter.

So, what to do? I just don't know. It's a dilemma to me - that's why I'd push the education thing and get as many teachers into the community as possible to try and reach the kids and show them that there's another way of life outside Bountiful.

Truman
Process is important too. On another thread, here at the Tyee we've been talking about exactly that issue and why jury trials are important protections for freedom and guarantees of justice.

We can't just throw out the rules of evidence and the weight of precedent because it seems to be the right thing to do under the circumstances.

G. West says, "Ranting isn't goint to help."

And that's supposed to be some kind of rational chastisement. Uh...we're All ranting here, G. Even you.

And how do you know it isn't going to help? What if everybody was ranting. In fact nothing else WILL help--except ranting.

Jeez, man, ranting got the Yanks out of Vietnam.

But Truman, the Charter has made a real positive difference for minorities and the way the dominant culture treats them. Without the Charter you'd have no problem dealing with the Winston Blackmore's of the world.

And, without the Charter, First Nations wouldn't have been able to extend their land claims; women wouldn't have increased their access to health services and employment equity; Gays would still be in the closet and there would be no opportunity for gay marriage; handicapped people would still have no access to public facilities - to name just a few things that have changed in this country since 1982.

In order to 'deal with' Bountiful it might be necessary to notwithstand the Charter. DO it once and - given the men who are running this province and this country right now - can you guarantee me it wouldn't be done again for a far less positive reason?

I don’t want to turn this into a human rights/religious freedoms question. I think we need to find another way to help these kids, thats all.

Edited for possible libel. -- Tyee editor

And no, BC Mary, Woody is not a hater of people if he hates religion. Maybe it's just those 5 million women the Catholic church is said to have burned at the stake that bugs him. Read: "Cracking the da Vinci Code by Carl Olsen. "During three hundred years of witch hunts, the Church burned at the stake an astounding 5 million women." I've read reports that go as high as 30 million people murdered all toll by this benevolent bunch of robed clowns (Catholic and Prostestant) over the centuries.

West, who said anything about "throwing out the rules of evidence?"

What are you talking about? I'm talking about enforcing the law here, not sending in the secret Vancouver Police brutality squad to arrest everybody and take them to Standley Park and kick the sh-t out of them, eh.

OH! I know the answer,I know what we can do for those kids!
Lets- all- fall- down- on- our- knees- and -PRAY-for- them ! That should fix the problem, shouldn't. ALLELUIA, I CAN FEEL THE POWER GOING THROUGH ME NOW, ALLELUIA, brothers and sisters.

Truman
Frank suggested that Blackmore's own admission could be used against him. The rules of evidence prevent an accused from incriminating himself. Same thing with wives - regarding compelled testimony. Those are rules of evidence. You can't observe them and get a conviction in a criminal trial - therefore the horsemen are still searching for legally admissible and compellable evidence.

Truman, I'm all for the "secret Vancouver Police brutality squad" going on a road trip :-)

Anyway G, there's something god-awful wrong about a country where you can get a court to rule against a teacher strike or a road building protest in a matter of days but you can't stop organized child abuse for 50 goddamn years.

Someone put an NDP sign on Winston's front lawn, I'm sure the powers that be will suddenly find a way to arrest him real fast.

mar-ta, Sh!t now that I feel the power tamora, Im gona find me a rock, no, slate ya know, then go up to dem der hills, dars this wise old bushmen up dar,Winston, I think is his name, and diddling little girls is his game, and Im gona git him to right rules of man on my rock, sh!t I mean slate, din the whole wereold can live by des rules, ok mar-ta. ALLELUIA my little kriters, Ima cuming.

Frank
I agree completely. If you look back over what I've written above here it's obvious that this situation has been percolating away for more than 50 years as you put it. There have a been a progression of governments from WAC Bennett's to Gordon Campbell's including three NDP administrations (Barrett, Harcourt and Clark/Dosanj) among others, who'd failed to step up to the plate.

Because we've been sitting on our hands so long we now have a REAL problem and one that the legal system may not be competent to handle.

That's not my fault and it's not yours either. It is our responsibility as a society to actually find a way (within a system that is flawed and imperfect) to deal with it. I don't know what that is. If it were possible to make a case of criminal child abuse and get a conviction of these characters, I have a strong belief that there are enough RCMP officers who feel the same way we do that they'd be knocking on the door of the local crown counsel office every day. Making that kind of case within a cult community where there is a tradition of paternalism and intense loyalty to a father figure is damned difficult, that's all.

We started to respond to this problem 50 years after we should have. It's not going to go away over night. Next time I happen to be in the barbershop that Dave Barrett and I both
frequent and I have a chance to talk to him, I’ll ask him why he didn’t do something about it when he had the chance.
My view only.

G West explain just what you exactly mean.
I’ll ask him why he didn’t do something about it when he had the chance.

Truman
My statement about ranting! I apologize. I'm as uptight about this as you and Frank are.

I'm no fan of Geoff Plant but I honestly think he tried to find a way to act against these characters and failed to figure out how to do it legally.

I spent a lot of time researching these issues a year ago and I came away convinced there is no easy solution unless the cops get lucky and find a credible witness or two they can get to stand up and testify in open court against these guys.

Wasn't meant to be personal - you go ahead and rant every time you feel like it.

Come on West, answer my question, are ya chicken?
G West explain just what you exactly mean.
I’ll ask him why he didn’t do something about it when he had the chance.

woody
I go to the same barber that Dave Barrett does. I know him in a friendly but casual sort of way.

Bountiful existed in 1972 - 75 while Barrett was premier; in fact, it existed prior to that as well - during the Wacky Bennett years. Although it was much smaller then. From what I've read the practice of plural marriage began long before Winston Blackmore and the other families from Colorado arrived in BC.

If we'd dealt with it then it wouldn't be the entrenched and seemingly intractable problem it seems to be today. I just thought I'd ask Dave if he was even aware the problem existed when he was premier and, if he was aware, why his government didn't act then.

I have a feeling he'll tell me, if I ever get to ask him, that they had a lot of other problems to deal with then that were more pressing.

ok tanks, G West

What rules of evidence are those, G. West?
People are convicted by incriminating themselves all the time. Certainly a defendant doesn't have to answer incriminating questions in a trial if he doesn't want to, but if the prosecution wishes to present evidence that the defendant has indeed confessed to a crime in the presence of someone, that person can be brought as a witness against the defendant.

In Canada it's up to the judge to protect the defendant's right not to be unfairly convicted (pursuant to the Charter of Rights) by his own words. A confession, or self-incrimination can be admissable if it was lawfully recorded and obtained by the police.

There would likely be a "voir dire" without the jury present in which the judge would decide if a confession was made without bribe, threat, duress, oppression or improper conduct of police.

If a defendant has bragged to his neighbours that he burned down his house for the insurance money, his neighbours can be called as witnesses by virtue only of the defendant's freely given confession, and the evidence would be considered as direct evidence of the defendant's guilt.

In the States the police have to "Mirandize" a suspect, regarding his rights, but in Canada a judge will decide if the "incriminating evidence" was properly obtained. And in both countries the protection against self-incrimination applies to COMPELLED self-incrimination, so freely--given self-incrimination will usually be a serious case of indiscretion resulting in pernicious orange-suit syndrome.

The general idea is that nobody will be COMPELLED to be a witness against themselves, but if they want to they can.

And as heart-warming as it would be to see these degenerates in soli-con (for their own protection, you (not you, personally, G.) wouldn't have to use the criminal code. You could use the provisions of child protection.

The prohibition against resolving this issue is furnished by religion--you know--the right to be a complete idiot, and how it would reflect on the big dumber churches, and like that, eh.

Truman
As I said earlier, I'd dearly love to see these guys prosecuted. I'm equally sure that when the RCMP has enough credible evidence to make a prima facie case that the crown will bring them to justice. The Charter arguments are the ones the accused would use to defend a charge of practicing plural marriage, the Charter would be no help if they were prosecuted under the criminal code for sexual abuse, interfering with a minor or the like.

If pee wee changes the age of consent (as he’s planned to do) it might be possible to bring a charge for an incident that takes place subsequent to that change. Now though the police need credible evidence before they can make the abuse charge stick. In my view that's the reason they haven't been charged already.

I certainly agree that the community is suffering from the effects of a kind of brainwashing and that's one of the main reasons that one only finds former members of the community (who are now out from under the spell of the exploiters) willing to open up about what's going on there.

In some ways it's probably not unlike the Branch Davidians at Waco - though not as extreme.

It is a big problem and I hope the police and the crown are working on a way to solve it.

What about your "rules of evidence comment" G?
You forgot to mention it.

Edited for possible libel -- Tyee editor

The way to debrief them from their "brainwashing" as you call it is to bring charges against all of them for failing to provide safe living conditions for their children, not to get some outside agency to ensure that they are educated enough to reject their parents' and community leaders' idea of a normal lifestyle.

But I think you're starting to understand what's going on.

Everybody's hiding from the spectre of challenging the silly religion because so many Canadians believe in the same perverse godology.

Remember these guys are just practising community life as it is prescribed in the New Testiment.

To wit:

Timothy 2--11 and 12

11. Let the woman learn in all silence with all subjection.
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Or:

1 Corinthians 14, 34 and 35
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

And this is just the NEW testament. The old testament includes such a perverse regard for the rights of women and children that I seriously regard it as hate literature. (When god is not busy counselling genocide through his "inspired" mouthpieces, of course).

So these brand davidian-type communities are, in effect, merely taking the bible seriously.

That's the problem.

Truman
I covered the 'rules of evidence' problem, as I understand it, above.

As to the rest of what you post, respecting religion, I'm not sure what you want me to take from that. Clearly the majority of people in this country still pay at least lip service to some kind of religion. Politics, and the law, is the art of the possible and is always limited by democratic reality and the discipline of legal precedent. You're just not going to get the majority of Canadians to agree to dump religion as a feature of decision-making and personal freedom of choice any time soon.

Generally, we're happy to have the protections of a system that permits minorities to exercise some beliefs and practices which differ markedly from the mainstream. Bountiful is an example of a group with whom both of us (and probably 80 - 90% of the rest of Canadian citizens) strongly disagree. Even so, those people are entitled to the protection of the system unless it can be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they have violated the laws of this country.

The problem is to find, from among members of the community itself, individuals who are brave and self-confident enough (and not sufficiently brainwashed) to testify against these people and help stop what we see as criminal activity.

If the justice system had moved against this cult 50 or more years ago we would not be having this problem today. They didn't, and we do. End of sad story, in my opinion.

I wish the RCMP good luck in pursuing this.

Cheers.

MARTA some read for you, in case you over looked it earlier.

Timothy 2--11 and 12

11. Let the woman learn in all silence with all subjection.
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Or:

1 Corinthians 14, 34 and 35
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Marta, no need for me to add to this dialog, it speaks volumes in its self.

Oops, I finally got edited for possible libel. Thanks Tyee editor. Heaven knows I can't afford it. I think I'll cool it. I'm sure I had it coming but I can't remember what I said. And I guess it wouldn't work to ask you to tell me, eh G. (just kidding)

I don't think you're ever going to have the issue resolved by depending on people coming forward and laying charges. There's too much emotional and social inertia involved. Few people have the self-confidence to stand up against the whole community and be ostracized in a way that would cause such psychological stress.

I mean, look at all the people who hide behind phony names here on the Tyee forum. (Albicidiades? claims he does it so as to protect the wimmin from mysogyny. (apparently nobody knows what gender anybody is) Yammer says he's trying to build a better blog, although I did shame him into coming out for a few kilobytes.

I'm rude about religion because I believe that it is a truly evil and wastful distraction, when in fact, nobody has any idea about god, and I include myself. (Surprise, eh, G. I bet you thought I think I know everything). When I was in first year my mother and brother James used to tease me for apparently thinking now that I was in university I would soon know everything.

Cheers to you, too, G.West. Is that George or Gary, by the way?

Trueman Green have a look at this little plum I located in the Canada Revenue Agency site, the religious kooks have made, even the income tax wants eyery one to be religious,I guess the answer is quite simple , when in Rome do as the Romans do.

INTERPRETATION BULLETIN

NUMBER: IT-86R

DATE: September 8, 1975

SUBJECT: INCOME TAX ACT
Vow of Perpetual Poverty

REFERENCE: Subsection 110(2)

This bulletin cancels and replaces Interpretation Bulletin IT-86 issued on
January 18, 1973.

1. Subsection 110(2) of the Income Tax Act provides that, where a person is a
member of a religious order and as such, has taken a vow of perpetual poverty
and, in accordance therewith, has paid over to the order his entire earned
income for the year, and, for the 1972 and subsequent years, his entire
superannuation or pension benefits, he may claim the amount so paid in the
year as a deduction in computing his taxable income for the year.

2. Earned income for this purpose is defined in paragraph 63(3)(b) and
includes salaries and wages as well as scholarships, bursaries and research
grants. It does not include investment income, such as dividends and interest,
and no deduction may be claimed under subsection 110(2) in respect of such
income even if it is paid over to the order. Superannuation or pension
benefits are defined in subsection 248(1).

3. A claim for a deduction under subsection 110(2) must generally be
substantiated by a letter from the religious order, stating that the taxpayer
is a member of the order and, as such, has taken a vow of perpetual poverty
and given to the order his entire superannuation or pension benefits (after
1971) and his entire earned income for the year.

4. In some circumstances, a person who has not taken a vow of perpetual
poverty may arrange or agree that a salary to which he is legally entitled for
teaching or other services will be paid to a religious institution and he, in
return, will receive board, lodging and a small living allowance. Subsection
110(2) is, of course, not applicable in a situation of this kind and the full
amount of the salary earned by such a person must be included in his income.
As an offset in arriving at the amount of his taxable income for the year, the
difference between the salary assigned or paid over by him to the religious
institution and the value of the board, lodging and living allowance received
may be deducted as a charitable donation, subject to the maximum deduction
authorized in the Act of 20 per cent of income for the year. (This deduction
of up to 20 per cent of income for charitable donations is available to all
taxpayers, except those who have claimed a deduction under subsection 110(2)
for the year.)

5. Where a person who has taken a vow of perpetual poverty is paid a salary
for teaching or other services from which he deducts the cost of his board,
lodging and a small living allowance and remits the balance to his religious
order, subsection 110(2) is not applicable as his entire superannuation or
pension benefits (after 1971) and his entire earned income for the year have
not been paid over to his order. As in the previous paragraph, the amount
remitted to the religious order may, however, be claimed as a charitable
donation, subject to the maximum deduction of 20 per cent of income for the
year.

continue

continue
6. Where a school board or other employer is directed to pay the salary of an
employee to a religious institution, income tax and Canada Pension Plan
contributions must be deducted and remitted in the usual way unless evidence
is supplied that the employee is one to whom subsection 110(2) is applicable
for the reason that he is a member of a religious order who, as such, has
taken a vow of perpetual poverty and the salary is to be paid to that order.

7. A member of a religious order who was under a vow of perpetual poverty for
part of the year only (for example, because he took the vow, or was released
from it, during the year) may claim a deduction under subsection 110(2) for
the amount of his superannuation or pension benefits in addition to his earned
income for that part of the year, if the whole of that amount was paid over to
his order. He may not in these circumstances, deduct from his income
charitable donations which he made before he took the vow or after he was
released from it. Alternatively, he may waive the deduction under subsection
110(2) altogether and claim charitable donations made at any time in the year
(including the amount paid to his order) up to a limit of 20 per cent of his
total income for the year.

Trueman Green
Can you just imagine how many Family Allowance cheques land in Bountiful,I wonder who gets them and where do het go?

Good one, Woody. Is this serendipitous or what? I'm going to be starting up my own religion, eh, and now you give me all the income tax information I need. Boy, that Carl Jung was on to something with his stuff about synchronicity! I haven't decided on a name yet though, but I'm thinking mabybe something like: "True-men and women of God." Whatdya think? Get it?--True-men.

And on a more serious note: My apologies to the Tyee for writing potentially libelous comments.

Truman says (among other things) ...

and I gotta ask: what the heck are you talking about? I think you meant this lecture for somebody else, as I never denounced Woody.
And I sure as heck am not going to read "Cracking the da Vinci Code." Blech.

You're right, BC Mary. It was marta who said that Woody was a hater of people if he condemned all religious traditions, not you. My apologies. And she used the caveat that she wasn't referring specifically to Woody.

Marta said, "...you are haters of people if you stereotype and condemn all religious traditions (I mean the general "you" here not "you" personally)."

My mistake occurred because I wasn't paying enough attention. The words "BC Mary" appear right below the commentor's name and I glanced at them and confused who had said what.

I wasn't using the da Vinci article as a bonafide primary research source, but I think the visciousness of the Church by way of Inquisitions, Crusades and burnings at the state are pretty well known.

This article reminded me how much I personally despise religion and exploitaion, and I obviously should have used more care in my pronouncements and accusations.

I was born a RC and went to a cahtolic school till end grade 9. Then the local high school. I don't recall my parents ever forcing me into much of anyhting religeous. But this gang in Bountiful is beyond religion. It's multipul wives to old guys. The governemnt has never had the godnands to do anyhting but let these weirdo's do their thing.One wonders how much border crossing of kids exists. If the present AG gets some changes laid against these prohets who twist religous thought into , let's go get the young girls pregnants and produce lots and lots of kids.

Truman
I think it was Mr Blackmore that you might have wronged, at least according to the thought police. Certainly wasn’t me.

I wasn't suggesting a private citizen would lay the complaint - merely that pursuing a criminal conviction would require some individuals from the community to give evidence in court - unless the police were prepared to run a sting operation which, since we're dealing with minors, would be a problem, I'd suggest.

There's is no way the accused are going to convict themselves so the crown either has to find witnesses or proceed against the accused for practicing plural marriage or for bigamy. Those are still offences on the books but of course the worry is that the accused would use the freedom of religion section of the Charter to walk away.

I do agree that there are plenty of abuses of the special privileges we grant to religions; there are plenty of abuses of charitable status too though. Why, for example, should the Fraser Institute be a charitable foundation and Greenpeace not?

Lots of things need fixing. First job is to get some real democracy percolating again in this country; give people some real choices and find ways to get them involved again.

Truman Green I keep putting an "e" in Truman, maybe Im getting old timers or something, hmm I just saw a lighting bolt, I wonder if it was a message from above, you know, from the big “G” for picking on his FLOCK , dam, I near just about wrote FOCK, best I be on guard as to what I say or Marta will start accusing me next of being a Focker Hater.

I think it’s a hell of a FINE name, literally, but possibly Marta would probably complain to the human rights and have you receive a FINE, its not gender neutral,sigh

Woody - WTF? When the hell have I shown myself to be the thought police?

You know, GWest has admirably tried to outline the conundrum faced by Canadians struggling to reconcile religious freedoms, Charter rights, and the need to do something to protect children from abuse. His posts, and other thoughtful people like him, make this forum worthwhile.

But saying you can hate the religion but not hate the person sounds to me suspiciously like
the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner," thrown at gay people by, yes, the Catholic church (A sentiment I abhor, BTW).

I recommend the interview with Karen Armstrong on Salon for some thoughtful comments on religious belief.

marta
'tip of the hat', thank you.

Marta when the argument is lost and no points can be civilly attained, and all reasoning is beyond your scope, attack the character which you my child of God excel at trying to achieve, on more than occasion you have stated that I Hate religion, now Marta my sweet child of God, could you be so kind as to point out where I have used such a hostile word or term, as hate or hatred, as these words are not and never have been in my vocabulary.
Hate is a word that was invented for and probably by a religious crack pot , weirdo. An example of how low and slimy you religious fanatics will stoop to, you attempt to drag gays into the discussion, when the topic is regarding young people that are being used and abuse by some religious order(s)
The root of this problem and 99% of the problems of the world is Religion. Go ahead try and prove me wrong, you haven’t got a hope in your “HELL”
You and G West are like, lets say a fork is to manure, your a match set.

Woody honey

I don't believe in hell. I am not a fanatic of any stripe. YOU are.

Hate may well have been invented by your imagined religious crackpot in the dim and unrecorded past. Be that as it may.

Religion notwithstanding, hate has a plethora of practitioners in fields well removed from the church door, as, woody, your own somewhat challenged self amply illustrates.

What BCMary thought I might find even remotely interesting or sympathetic in your emissions is a great mystery. You are as much a waste of time as your sometime partner and fellow traveler IAMC.

Well Woody, I fess up that I hate religion. Maybe Marta confused our opinions like I did her's and BC Mary's. This conversation has been a real eye-opener. Regardless of what evils the big cults have perpetrated on humans and no matter for how long, it doesn mean a thing to the rationalizers like marta and G.West.

To some of us it matters that the Torah advises to murder your disobedient son, or that Paul advises women to shut up in the congregation and ask their husbands at home if they want to know anything; that God apparently has a "special" group of people.; or if the jews were ordered to slaughter all the people they came in contact with on the way to their promised land--the first counselling of genocide. Read any Joshua lately?

It doesn't matter if God actually did open up the red sea so his people could pass through or if jesus' promise of "whosoever shall believeth in me shall have everlasting life" is true--or if he really walked on water.

Why does this clown get 2000 years to pull off his magic, anyway.

It doesn't matter to West and marta if these things are true or not. Or if the Priests have been molesting kids for centuries and getting away with it. Or if the Pope during the second world war basically gave the Nazi's carte blanche to do whatever they wanted as long as they left the Vatican intact.

These are immoral, evil things, but no worse than Islam or any other religion.

I think it's a function of the kind of brain you have. Either you want truth and decency or you want to rationalize the benevolence of religion.

I believe that religion is pure evil and I hate it.

Burning people at the stake--doesn't matter.
Quashing free thought for centuries--doesn't matter. Can you imagine the amoung of creative energy that has been wasting by people contemplating Jesus Christ. If Christis god, let him be god. Who needs to worship the goof?

Marta, I suspect that Woody has just as much concern for the well-being of others as you, whether or not he's a hater of religion.

For instance, I think it's my concern that people should not be exploited and lied to that causes me to hate religion.

Come on, you know perfectly well that it's possible to hate people's ideas with hating them personally.

Religion--probably one of the greatest, most vicious oppressors of the human spirit needs to be insulted.

Well Put and Stated Turman Green.

I second that motion!

Please allow children to decide for themselves once they are old enough to form their own opinions.

Some parents assume that they somehow were blessed with ultimate wisdom just because they managed to have children... Not so!

Everybody can see that these young boys in Bountiful were not raised properly, but fail to understand that any kind of influence marks a child for life!

Hitler used that same principle with his "Hitler-jugend", and just like a nice sunday school used every opportunity to make the kids see things his way.

Again everybody can see that Hitler brainwashed his country's children, but the very same people still send their kids off to religious indoctrination???

Suppose a young person wants to join a different religion later on in life? How many religions refuse to accept "converts"?

It is not a matter of YOUR freedom, but of the rights of the child!

Try to get that through your thick head!

Gloomy,
Who, exactly, are you addressing?

Alcibiades
if the shoe fits, wear it!

Gloomy
What is that supposed to mean in the context of this discussion? I still don't think you've done anything but hurl accusations at people you don't agree with about a subject you appear to hold some emotional but so far unsubstantiated views.

How do you propose to eliminate the opportunity of individuals to make free choices? Who is going to enforce this regime of 'no religious indoctrination' for any child?

Will the 'state' step in and do it for us? In the Soviet Union, which was nominally atheist from 1917 until its demise in 1989, religion somehow endured - presumably at the family level. If a nominal police state couldn't achieve your ideal in that period of time, I'd suggest you haven't much hope of doing it now: Certainly not without a police state as odious as the one Stalin instituted in the USSR.

You think the courts are crowded and inefficient now? Think what they’d be like with you taking all your religious neighbours before a judge to get them to stop sending their kids to church.

I’d suggest you’re not doing anything but venting.

G West:
If you would quit speed-reading you would see, that i do not hurl any accusations at anyone!
Nor do i suggest that the state enforce anything to do with religion!
This discussion is about kids who are manipulated by their elders, so my comments are exactly on target!
All i do is to point out that religion as well as certain political factions also manipulate kids!
I see comments that a RC foundation never hurt, but believe me there are thousands who think that Hitlers manipulations of kids never hurt either.
The point is that once indoctrinated you will never realize how your mind has been warped!

My goal by writing here is to try to make a few people realize that they worry too much about their own rights to choose venues for their kids.
What they should worry about is to let the young ones grow up without any brainwashing, from church, state or the media.

Gloomy says
What they should worry about is to let the young ones grow up without any brainwashing, from church, state or the media.
Correct, how can anyone with any sanity dispute this.

The point simply is that nature abhors a vaccum. Kids have to be taught something and as long is this is still a nominally free society no one, repeat no one is going to listen when you suggest that parents don't have a role in teaching values to their kids.

My point simply is that if you don't agree with nominally Christian (or some other religion's) values; then what are you suggesting children should be taught?

Who is going to ensure that no one is secretly inculcating these hated values?

If you can show me where parents should turn when their traditions have been Christian, or Muslim, or Confucian (for example), for gnerations then I'll be happy to sign up.

The point is, I think you're just ranting! In fact, you sound a little brainwashed yourself.

G., I'll just bet that Gloomy has no problems with teaching values, such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or "it is easier for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle," or "don't regard the sliver in your neighbour's eye, but remember the beam in your own," or "there is no greater love than from he who gives up his life for a friend."

These are values; they are not particularly religious values. Religious values are pretending that those popes that are elected by some other old men have somehow been imbued with holiness, and indeed represent god to man on earth, blah blah blah-- or that those Muslems doing the work of Allah (suicide bombings, for instance) will inherit a heaven full of waiting virgins, or that women should not be allowed to handle the Torah because they are unclean; neither should they be allowed to speak in church; or that God created heaven and earth in one fell swoop and all the species at the same time, too.

These things are lies, and destructive to the human neural network because they needlessly distract from enlightenment. (It must be finite, eh)

But I agree with you that it is not constructive to have any legislation barring the indoctrination of youth with these kinds of sinister ideas. You can't legislate against stupidity. But I think Gloomy is doing a good thing, ranting and raving against them. In fact, G, I think it is your duty too and I can't understand why you don't join in. Do you have any idea how rare it is for us to have the freedom to stand up against these disgusting religions. Why not take advantage. It's only been in the last hundred years or so that the various churches are not doing condemnations and burnings and stoning to death of heretics and non-believers, and in some places they still are.

The problem G, I think is that you don't seem to know the difference between right and wrong. Okay, I'm just kidding.

You come very close to suggesting, though, that goodness, decency and "morality" can only be derived from an indoctrination with religious tradition, which I think is untrue.

You wrote: "My point is simply that if you don't agree with nominally Christian (or some other religion's) values; then what are suggesting children should be taught?"

I mean, maybe a parent should just try to teach his/her child how to be a decent person, and drop all the crap about popes, prophets and especially god--an entity about which nobody knows anything.

Truman
What you say about Gloomy may well be correct. Although, in fairness, he also made the following statements:

Does this mean that children should grow up in a state of nature? I think not. Therefore, it is clear that there must be some guiding principles for child rearing and we are back into the problematic area of who will make that determination, in my view.

He also posted this:

Which still begs the question. How will parents, in their important role as caregivers, avoid the 'brainwashing' of the state and the media? What principles will they adopt to actually guide their actions as parents. I'd still suggest, much as I am not a practicing Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, that some important Christian ideals are important to me and, furthermore, I'd like my children to learn them too.

Consequently, as I said above, if we decide to abjure all religious associations forthwith what do we substitute in their place. At the very least, it is something about which a serious discussion, as opposed to a lot of shouting, is an appropriate response.

G West-

Wester the realization here is simple ,people such as you and Marta are programed ,this was carried out when you were young and being of weak and simple minds, you both will carry on with your idiot beliefs until you die, (the after life now thats another story) grow up and face reality, remember those unfortunate people who took there own lives a few years ago when they believed that, behind the Comet Hale- Bopp was a space craft waiting for them, these folks belonged to a religion, so by all means go ahead Wester let your kids-grand kids get affiliated with these religions, I came from a large family between me my brothers ,sisters nephew, nieces , grand nephews, grand nieces there are approximately 200 people ,I would guess easily that 150 have absolutely no religious afilliliations, all my brothers, sisters their husbands and wives were raised Catholics and no, I had no influence over not one of them, I was the youngest by a pretty good stretch and to boot we are a pretty successful family, so you just carry on Wester believing, One more little example for you, Who believes in Santa Clause ? kids do of course we all know this, see how easy it is to sway young minds, oh Im sorry Wester you didn’t know he wasn’t real.

G West

Confucian- relating to Chinese philosopher Confucius( 551-479) or Followers of Confucius or his philosop
Question What has Confucius to do with this discussion or topic?
Im going to be gone for about half an hour for a shower, to cleanse my body of sin,and BO, so Westerly in absence try not to talk behind my back, sorry I forgot you being a God fearing man and all, just wouldn't do that.

I'd really like to know, G., what "Christian values" are important to you?
Please be specific now, or we'll suspect that you're trying to dodge the question.

woody
The point made above by you, and gloomy and truman earlier is that no religious principles should have any role in children's education. That children should not be, as it has been expressed several times, brainwashed.

I agree with this. But, what values ought families to use in place of the principles which animate their old and various religious persuasions? Whether Christian, Muslim, Confucian, Sikh, Hindu, what have you - the list is not meant to be exhaustive.

According to your lights, pardon me if I'm wrong about this, all religions ever do is brainwash young children. Therefore, if we agree that children are not meant to be raised as animals in a state of nature, what values will we inculcate them with?

Who will set the standard? Who will name the rules?

That's all I'm asking. The Soviet Union in the past, and China still to some extent, have taken more or less the same point of view vis a vis religion and have, I believe, tried rather unsuccessfully to create an alternate form of socialistic morality in which children are indoctrinated. Do you agree with this?

Is this the model you support? If we are going to throw out religion as a normative force it seems to me we have to replace it with something.

I'd just like to know what. Are you suggesting Hale-Bopp worship is a viable alternative woody?

Values are important. Just where are we going to get them and how do we get any general agreement on what they are?

You guys are very good at tearing down. Here's a challenge for you - build something up now. Construct a values ethic that will replace the evils of religion and provide a model for all the modern parents who are following this debate and are curious about how to deal with those little problems of right and wrong when they come up.

Truman
I'm on my way to the airport. I'm not dodging your question but I do, in fairness, think you guys ought to answer my question first.

Actually I just learned from my now grown-up kids that they never believed in S. Claus at all..they thought I did and humoured me along. Oh cookies and milk..right on Dad..sure...carrots for the reindeer..uh huh..down the CHIMNEY...wow..oh sure
right on..parents sure are crazy ;-)

G West asked
I'd just like to know what. Are you suggesting Hale-Bopp worship is a viable alternative woody?
G West asked
I'd just like to know what. Are you suggesting Hale-Bopp worship is a viable alternative woody?
G West come on, you know bloody well I wasn’t suggesting anything of the kind, your stalling again.

bob the cat says
(Actually I just learned from my now grown-up kids that they never believed in S. Claus at all..they thought I did and humoured me along)
btc that was to funny :)

woody
Slight delay. The plane I'm meeting is arriving almost an hour later than scheduled.

Of course I was kidding about Hale Bopp. My point simply is that you have to teach kids something - some form of values. Things like how to respect women for example; how not to take advantage of a weaker opponent in a business deal; how to judge right and wrong in a complicated moral dilemma; why we should care about others' misfortunes and help them out if we can; when it is safe to get involved with someone in a sexual way, etc, etc.

These kinds of things, the way we learn values, are not automatic. If we throw out all religion - which has been the source of much of this kind of values discussion and moral guidance for generations - what do you propose to replace it with? How will reach consensus on these matters?

I'm being completely serious and I'm not talking about Santa Claus, although, since there is no religious content left in that character I'm not so sure why he'd be a problem for you.

G west
I mentioned Santa as an example of how simple that children (bob the cat) can be hood winked into believing something, as for kids value you teach kids ,not touch (like a hot stove),not to steal, not to injure, respect the elders, don't use to much toilet paper, pretty basic stuff, and one last thing, teach them to keep a secret eg if you should see how big murdocks piker is don't go and tell every one on the TYEE SITE about it, keep it to your self. GOOD NIGHT YA ALL

Thanks for that woody. I don't disagree but I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Not sure you can expect kids to navigate the shoals of human relationships on just those principles - although it is easier on the toilet paper your way.
G'nite!

Truman Green says

Acording to Jay Leno there has been a misunder standing regarding the 72 virgins, it's not 72 virgins as previously thought but rather only one 72 year old virgin.

Gee West:
You are being dense I believe!
While the 10 commandments are good guidelines, they can be explained simply as that: "guidelines"!
There is no need to rant about heaven and hell in the same breath.

Maybe there was a time when old story-tellers brought wisdom around to simple people, but in our society that is no longer needed, no matter how they disguise themselves.

The average person here has enough wisdom to teach his own child how to behave in a civilized society!

Whereas I doubt that a celibate priest really is that well suited!

Gloomy
Once again your apparent inability to read - or my inability to explain myself clearly - stands between us.

Value systems contain far more than the Ten Commandments. Even reduced to the golden rule, the Christian message requires a lot more explication than you seem willing to contend with.

Moreover, you're the only one who mentions priests continually. Why? I'm perfectly prepared to knock over all religion if you'll accept that complex human relationships require something a little more definitive than 'guidelines' to cover the whole field of ethics and morality.

Geee West:
It may come as a surprise to you, but i am not writing here to convince you of anything!

Having lived a full life, I am only too well aware of the complexities we all encounter on a daily basis.

What I am trying to push across (to anyone who reads this) is that we can care for kids, and help them understand how to cope with the massive influences that Religion, State and the Media constantly shove at you.

and, yes there is room for letting them learn of your personal take on things too, as long as you do not expose them to professional manipulators! (note I did not say Priests)

Maybe there was a time when old story-tellers brought wisdom around to simple people, but in our society that is no longer needed, no matter how they disguise themselves.

The average person here has enough wisdom to teach his own child how to behave in a civilized society!

Whereas I doubt that a celibate priest really is that well suited!

You still haven't told me how were going to establish a hierarchy of values without some kind of moral an ethical guidance.

I don't mean to harp on it, but it's not a trivial question. Most of what the law, morals and ethics subsumes is an outgrowth of religion. If we chuck out all religion, what happens to the morals and ethics.

You've already brought up Hitler and I mentioned the USSR and China. Those states said religion was passé too. Isn't it at least worthy of debate to explore what might be the consequence of going down the road you and woody and Truman seem to favour without giving some thought to the possible consequences?

Anyway, I'm too busy for any more of this today so we'll have to take it up later - if you're interested.

Wha-a-att???? Damn right, G, that is indeed a mystery.

Whatever you think I said, I didn't. Sheesh ... if only you'd pay attention to what I do say, from time to time.

Testing, testing: On May 17, former Constable Ravinder Dosanjh (remotely connected to Basi & Virk) went on trial in Victoria. The trial was reported for 2 days, up to where the Crown received permission to show the interrogation video. Then, nothing more (nothing that I can find, at least). So, if you're paying attention (and I know that you are), can you tell me if the trial is in recess, has been postponed, charges stayed, or is fully completed? If completed, when is Dosanjh to be sentenced? All is forgiven and 6 kisses on the top of your dear head if you can tell me.

Gee west
I am pleased to learn that you indeed have a life!
Yes, you are harping on the same old subject!

My parent did not have any problems instilling good social values into my life, and I am proud to tell you that my kids seem well adjusted too!
All it takes is communication!

True there may be some people who need instructions about how to cross a street, but somehow i doubt that our society needs to write new laws about ethics. If in doubt,go back to the ancient cultures and you will find volumes on that subject.

Believe me we can survive as a culture without the benefit of the manipulators i keep mentioning.

Is this simple enough? just keep functioning but quit relying on outside elements (like church etc.)to do your job of raising your kids

Gloomy
I'm on coffee break here so I'll quickly deal with your latest dodge. If you think moral and ethical behavior has to do with nothing more than knowing when to cross a street I have news for you. And I think there is more than communication involved too. Examples are also pretty important.

On the other hand it's pretty clear you're not really concerned with a serious discussion about ethics and morals and the way our values end up being reflected in the kind of society we have, the way business is done and the kinds of people who get elected as our democratic representatives. I have no problem, as I've pointed out too often to even be funny, in ditching religions of all kinds in the process. I just think that the experiences of the other societies that have done that - say during the 20th century for example - is worthy of some serious analysis.

Obviously, you're not the one to take it up with though.

Sorry to have disturbed your nap!

G West as Gloomy stated all the necessary guidelines are provided for in the 10 commandments. Pretty basic guidelines and simple to, this what I was alluding to earlier in my (Thy shall not use too much toilet paper) thread ,I thought you would have caught on.

Wester in the beginning, no not the beginning of the world but this posting I never advocated to the abolishment of religion, but I simply stated that children under the age of 18 should protected from the mind altering , brain washing effects of religions, then after age 18 participate in a religion if they so wished, no mention was made to what you keep alluding, to the abolishment of religions, this little diversion is simple tactic on your part, but nice try though Perry Mason.

BC Mary
thanks for that. I'm not able to hunt up the post that occasioned that comment from me at the moment - for reasons you'll understand from my remarks to my gloomy friend above - but I will get back to you later so you'll understand where I'm coming from.

I am as mystified as you are about what's happened in the second matter you raise - having noted exactly the same developments and incomplete resolutions to the business at hand as you have. I am looking for more information though.

Glad we seem to have worked out any discrepancies there may have been with regard to where we are both coming from.

Later.

What are you talking about?
Are you trying to tell us that society as such will collapse if we decide to ignore the church?
Please note, that nobody on this tread has advocated to outlaw churces, all you have to do is to ignore them!
Just as you probably slam the door in the face of JW when they come around to preach, do likewise to anyone who makes a living from manipulating our kids (and us)
There is no earthly reason why our ethics or moral values will change because we no longer allow ourselves to be used!

Gloomy - lunch time just very quickly then.
So I guess you didn't post this:

Sounds pretty much that you can't imagine much good coming out of any church or religion - doesn't it.

Was somebody else posting in your name again?

G West let me refresh you as to what BC Mary is referring to ,but due to your handicap( to much praise the lord crap in your noggin)

Hate may well have been invented by your imagined religious crackpot in the dim and unrecorded past. Be that as it may.

Religion notwithstanding, hate has a plethora of practitioners in fields well removed from the church door, as, woody, your own somewhat challenged self amply illustrates.

What BCMary thought I might find even remotely interesting or sympathetic in your emissions is a great mystery. You are as much a waste of time as your sometime partner and fellow traveler IAMC.

See what happens when you piss into the wind Wester, it flies back and gets you all wet, you could say the same for bullsh!t, rather than be wet though, you stink, pew (get it pee-u ) and man do you smell, do go to church this Sunday ,repent ask for forgiveness , there’s gotta be a patron saint for chronic, bullsh!ters to pray to,if not they’ll invent one for you.

No woodster, that's not it. That's merely a response to the earlier post where I'd interpreted what BCMary said about you as being nominally positive.
Go away, you're spoiling my lunch.

G West:
You are too much!
Yes personally I have no use for religion, that even you figured out!
As a message to others: Ignore the suckers, just like I am going to ignore you from now on!
Now you proven that you can cut and paste,next learn how to understand what you read!

Ah Gloomy
That you have no use for religion was obvious!

It has never been at issue.

What was up for debate was whether or not you had the stomach to admit you were actually trying to have it both ways. I'm glad to see you've come in from the cold.

As to the other, central, issues of the questions I mistakenly thought you might have the intellect to actually discuss; I'll find someone who actually thinks to take up that matter with.
Cheerio!

BC Mary.
Here's the source of our misunderstanding re Woody and his bona fides, from the Afghanistan thread some time ago:

Quote:
If I become discouraged, I try to remember Gandhi's words:

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always."

This message has been rejected 3 times by the Tyee Nazi who thinks it is too short. "Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters," it says.

TO which I responded:

And those examples of Woody's wisdom - where do I look for those? I can't recall seeing too many of them lately. Personally, I don't like being called a communist. Do you?

I'm all for Ghandi. DO you know if we could get his principles to take effect in Afahanistan instead of Rick Hillier's and Harper's?

I think the program somehow misconstrues short quotes when you use the 'quote' function without at least 10 additional characters.

It happens to me too.

CHeers

Cheers.

Much ado about nothing I'd say.

Cheers - I'm still digging!

G West says,

Good, I hope you get heart burn, then a good does of the Sh!ts

G West That suppose to say a good dose of the Sh!ts

Wester have you heard the term Fockallagist, this is someone who professes to know everything but in actuality they know Fock all, their referred to as a Fockallagist. You indicate to be knowledgeable of the law, religion, the Constitution, so on and so fourth, yet with all your vast storage of knowledge not once have you made a legitimate suggestion or a proposal that would help those kids from Bountiful, but you criticize whatever suggestion or idea anyone makes or has, but then, that’s typical of a Fockallagist.

Fockallagist!
Woody, you took the word right out of my mouth!

These people do not put forth any arguments, instead they ask question that are of little importance in relations to the subject at hand.

That and betlittling anyone elso on the tread.

My suggestion is to ignore the man unless he smartens up and begins to offer valid contributions!

Gloomy that's a good suggestion.

Gloomy and woody.

Such a pleasant sight.
To see, that is,

The two of you have found
An understanding,
Which affords you both such fulsome pleasure.

Not even a Greek scholar
Would interrupt your reverie

With a maxim this evening.

G, it's off topic but possibly more productive to send you this reminder: have you found any clues about the trial of Ravinder Dosanjh?

Conspiracies, like religion, may be difficult to prove ... but I'm getting a little suspicious that a trial could just go poof! and disappear ... now I'm wishing I knew how to access the great central registry where (surely?) all court cases are recorded each day ... and if a trial did go poof! it would ... [irony warning] ... say so in clear language.

BC Mary
Nothing yet. It may well have been held over for some reason. Perhaps because of the possible relationship to the 'other' matters.
I'll keep you posted when I do know something.
DO you know anyone at the TC?

Thanks for trying, G. Had a brief note from Vaughn Palmer this morning, who says that the trial got under way for a day or two, then was adjourned ... I'm not doubting Palmer, nor am I unappreciative of his response, but questions are whirling around my head.

Surely a trial isn't adjourned without a reason. Surely a good journalist like Vaughn Palmer would have attended that trial. Surely something would have been noted in the daily media.

None of this happened? Isn't it fair to ask: why not?

[continuing ...] G., and all: VP just wrote again to say "We are now checking the court records to see when this goes to trial again ..."

which vindicates The Legislature Raids blogspot. Can't really believe it, but it looks as if "checking the court records" wouldn't have happened, if I hadn't asked VP ... so I'll post more, on that site, as it comes in. Please drop in at http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/ and support the effort, eh?

BCMary
I've reached out to someone at the TC as well, just heard nothing back yet.

If you google Ravinder Singh Dosanjh...on Google "news" you get only one listing...Ian Mulgrew's report of the trial on May 17, 2006.

Where is the press? Why the silence?

The same was true of Basi and Virk's trial date on Jan.6, 2006.

Did Vaughn Palmer actually attend the Ravinder Singh Dosanjh trial or not?

I suggest that on the legislature blogs we start listing the newspapers and the media.... and the names of the politcal reporters who are not attending these court trials. Why are they not attending?

Why are these highly significant events not receiving any coverage?

WHERE THE HELL IS THE PRESS?

....should be legislature raid blogs

lynn
That might be a good idea. I've got nothing back yet from the TC either.

Lynn: I've re-named my blogspot "The Legislature Raids." In the beginning, it accidentally got named "BC Mary" while I was trying to think of a good name. Then the Pacific Gazetteer which I like a lot, listed me as "The Ledge Raids" ... I didn't like that either ... but I did like it formalized (because this is a damn serious matter) as The Legislature Raids so if you Google that, you find my blogspot. Or you can use http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/

And whatever anyone would like to add to it, would be very welcome. It would help me feel that it's a worthwhile effort.

You wrote:

Why are these highly significant events not receiving any coverage?

WHERE THE HELL IS THE PRESS?

My thoughts about the mainstream press is that (a) it's pretty much all we've got, and (b) I really value having a journalist like Vaughn Palmer trying to help us. What we need is to get them on our side (on the people's side). I'd never have found out that Constable Ravinder Dosangh's trial had been adjourned, if Vaughn hadn't volunteered that information ... and he has gone further, to find out when the trial will continue. I'm convinced that the journalists aren't the problem. No, they're not the problem.

The anger, if any, should focus higher up, starting with the Newsroom Editor, and moving on up to the Asper brothers. I bet you could do it, with that gentle insight which demands that people listen to you. Thanks, thanks for caring. It's British Columbia, after all, which is at issue.

Still no reply from the TC!

Nice little conversation you're having about the Basi Boys, but it's called thread hijacking. Just send emails to each other next time please.

Asher
Where's your post then? On the subject at hand I mean. Pretty hard to hijack something that's been abandoned isn't it?

Asher has a point!

This subject may have lost its news-appeal by now, even though CBC ran a documentary update on the situation recently and pointed out the split between the leaders and the large cult in the US.
My guess is that everyone have had his say on this thread, and for a change the diehards ran out of words?
In fact, i find it amazing now many times the same point is being emphasized; as if the writer thinks he just came up with a new angle?
By reading previous posts he would likely find that his views have adequately been expressed (several times).
Yes i could quit reading the posts, but somehow i hope to see new thoughts, not recycled waste of time.

Asher: It's my fault, and I'd be sorry if the situation wasn't so serious.

This wasn't about the Basi Boys, actually: it's about the sudden disappearance of the trial of Constable Ravinder Dosanjh as of May 17 ... any ideas about that?

BC Mary:
Obviously it is an important issue, but you and others have belaboured the point endlessly, and obviously nobody,(even G West) have the answers!
We know about your blog, and anyone interested can write there, fair enough?

I would suggest all those who have advocated and supported religion on this site, have had the wind blown out of their sails, with all the arrests that have occurred in ONTARIO on Friday, therefore no longer have any thing worthwhile to contribute along the lines of this subject.
Saturday on the news, a man from some religious order, made the statement to a reporter that, the government has to (totally) separate its self from church and state( in order to mitigate these situations), such as that, having occurred on Friday. My read of his statement, remove religion from the charter of right of rights and freedom.
On Friday, June 2 on CH there was a 1hr. Documentary of “Leaving Bountiful” regarding Betsy Palmer, who while being pregnant with an 8th child, left Bountiful with her seven children, this documentary was produce in 2001 and was originally aired in 2002, and how has the law and government reacted to this Bountiful situation, since then? It hasn’t .

BC Mary your Blog covering The Legislature Raids is informative and Im sure very much appreciated.

I would think the scrutiny of our democratic process certainly has its link to issues of state and religion... as does the abuse of democracy. These controversial issues aren't all conveniently pre-packaged into nice little separate boxes. Apologies all the same to all offended.

Not to further invoke wrath through hijacking but I would like to add that despite Harper et al coyly trying to intimate that they are above the bias of linking religion to the Toronto situation...that every move he makes will be an attempt to use the issue of religion and his definition of evil in regard to it... to prop up, defend and enthrone their own CRAP version of the religious right.

And now back to Bountiful....

Bountiful is all about religion, gone mad!
Now that some other mad religious fanatics planned to bomb Toronto, it gets too close for comfort!

Whether it has to do with manipulating a cult to allow their elders free pick of young girls, or to plan mass murder is only a matter of degree.

Woody is correct!
Maybe by now they are realizing that religion is evil, and not possible to support?

When things happen on a local level it is easier to grasp, than some far off conflict.

Amen. (no pun intended). ;-)

Not Harper's crew...not the religious right....they think they are on the side of the angels. Harper's intent will be to further entrench religion into the state...just look at Bush's response to terrorism in the US.

What were Harper's final words the other day as he spoke about what happened in Toronto?

"God Bless Canada"

Nothing he says is randomly chosen. Those three carefullly chosen words reveal a big part of his future agenda. It is about time the Canadian public started paying attention.

Yeah right on!
Now we shall see both Harper and Bush, begin to pick at same sex marriages.
Just another way that religion insists on managing/manipulating peoples lives.
I see on another thread that Fiat Lux suggest that a big change will come at 2012; all i can say is not a minute too soon!

Woody, thank you (more than you can guess).

Gloomy, you so-and-so, you're awfully good at knocking others, aren't you. But let me give you a small challenge. Choose a topic you feel is desperately, critically important to the country you live in. Research it. Then set up a blogspot (which incidentally, was suggested by me but endorsed by others, on this very site. Then, when they all fall silent, try to keep going, Gloomy ... not because of a wish to bore people endlessly, but because the topic is still critically important.

Don't you get it, Gloom? The first of the trials even remotely connected to the governance of this country, has simply disappeared into thin air -- and you want this information to stop?

And wouldn't it be natural for me to return for guidance or support to this site, where the idea for a people's press was hatched? What's your problem with that?

How bloody easy for you to sit there wagging your finger that these few remarks aren't to your liking. Jayzus, as if everyone here hasn't waded hip-deep through truly harmful and hurtful comments by trolls of various stripes ... but you, Holier Than Though Gloomy ... consider that I shouldn't be tolerated for the 5 min. it took you to read what's here.

This is so discouraging as what it means to be human, committed, and willing to make an effort. And I don't mean as it relates to me, but as it relates to the public interest which requires an informed public.

Hello BC Mary ;
let me repeat myself:
"BC Mary:
Obviously it is an important issue, but you and others have belaboured the point endlessly, and obviously nobody,(even G West) have the answers!
We know about your blog, and anyone interested can write there, fair enough?"

Now, perhaps you should write an article for Tyee, and then the comments would be appropriate?

To merely hijack a thread for your particular obsession is not the way to gain friends.

As it happens I have on occassions run up against a "blank wall", about some of the things that upset me at that time, and learned this is not exactly a country that has freedom of the press; so i know where you are coming from.

Guess what is causing some to speak up, is that you never seem to stop making your point!

There is a time and a place for everything, and you have used up your time on this subject.

Gloomy
I think it you who has taken up too much space on this thread. I value BC Mary's critical info more than your hissy-fits.

OMG ... many thanks indeed. I started to reply to Old Gloom, but it spiraled downward. I'd much rather think about what you said.

Anyone who has set up a web-site or blogspot has to ask themselves first, last, and always: is this worth doing? does it serve a constructive purpose?

Because the blog puts the blog-owner in a very exposed, vulnerable position, it requires another voice to verify occasionally that yes, it really is OK.

Thanks again.

But the basic questions remain unanswered: what happened to former Constable Ravinder Singh Dosanjh? Can his trial just vanish into thin air?

OMG ... many thanks indeed. I started to reply to Old Gloom, but it spiraled downward. I'd much rather think about what you said.

Anyone who has set up a web-site or blogspot has to ask themselves first, last, and always: is this worth doing? does it serve a constructive purpose?

Because the blog puts the blog-owner in a very exposed, vulnerable position, it requires another voice to verify occasionally that yes, it really is OK.

Thanks again.

But the basic questions remain unanswered: what happened to former Constable Ravinder Singh Dosanjh? Can his trial just vanish into thin air? And if I question why, is this really "inappropriate?"

Hello BC Mary: no need to further insult me, i got the message that you own this site.

B.C Mary:

I am so very thankful you keep us abreast of developments in the case of the raid on the legislature, and on Constable Dosanjh's disappearing trial. Since is conception, I have kept your site bookmarked and check it daily for any news. I sense your complete frustration of trying to get to the truth behind these allegations, only to be thwarted by secrecy. I also share your disappointment at the lack of media coverage on such an important issue. I have not the resources or contacts you have, but rest assured, I would contact you if I ever ran across anything of interest to you on these matters. I am sorry this has been such a solitary effort on your part, but it IS much appreciated if that alone helps. :-)

http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/

Gloomy:

I am sorry you feel slighted that this thread went off topic without your approval. Most threads do veer off topic somewhat. Is it that you don't want this topic discussed? Should we check with you first from now on? Should we wait til the Tyee runs a story on it?

I would be glad to read your comments here on this quiet thread if you were discussing just about anything, instead of coming in just to complain that others are.

OMG, I shall go to bed smiling, tonight. You can't imagine how much you've helped. It was wonderful of you to take the time and trouble to add this note.

It's not that I'm an uncertain or nervous writer, either. It's that creating a blogspot to circulate news or opinions which I feel that the MSM has failed to do ... well, that's a bit scary, in itself ... and feedback helps tremendously.

But see for yourself, you've even improved my manners, so now I can add a message for Glooms, i.e., I did offer to write a story for The Tyee for the 2nd anniversary of the Legislature Raids (as Glooms suggested). But Barbara McLintock had already been assigned to do the story.

Good night all.

Ohmygawd:
As i recall Asher posted a comment about this thread hijacking, and i took the liberty to agree with his opinion!
Maybe it is my style to make relatively short comments, and expect others to understand?

When i see an opinon i agree on, i see no point in elaborating and may simply say that i agree with the poster.

Others obviously feel it needed to regurgitate everything already said, and that is their style.

I see the need for a place to vent views that has not been featured by approved writers, and would suggest that Tyee considers having an open forum, where any topic can be discussed.

This particular thread will disappear shortly anyway, as they all do.
Then where shall you write next?

I too have "pet peeves" that may be of interest to others, and would love a forum here as an outlet for my concerns.

The subject you pursue certainly interest me as i see a typical cover-up.
I have been figthing "the windmills' a lot in my life, and this latest twist by our blessed government should be aired, I agree.

On that subject, I've still gotten nothing more substantive than BC Mary got from Vaughn Palmer.

I think the case has been stayed.

Gloomy:

This thread will probably be gone before you read it...but thanks for your response. We all have our topics of interest and I see you and I are no different. I just wanted to be supportive of Mary, who works so diligently without knowing its effect on the public at large. Hope you don't mind me butting in to defend her cause. I suppose if there was breaking news on this topic, BC Mary would find the thread frequented by those who are most interested. Or perhaps, with any luck, the Tyee will break the news with her help. IMHO, it is not a big concession to give the woman who is doing the digging for all of us. In fact, it is a priviledge we enjoy, to hear what we are not hearing from the media.

BC Mary:
this thread is about to be scrapped, so i hurry to suggest to you, that you consider starting a Yahoo group.

unlike a blog you would receive responses and unlike Tyee it will stay available till you cancel it.

how about it?

Gloomy: Maybe it's a good idea ... but not for me. I'll do better putting my efforts into data collection and keeping the blogspot going. I think the blogspot will become more useful (and demand much more effort), as time goes by and the trials begin.

It was the silence -- the absolute silence -- after all the discussion and encouragement on Tyee which actually got the Legislature Raids blogspot started, which I began to find troubling.

That's now OK and I'll continue working on it, with more confidence.

But thanks ... I'm glad you and I got back on track too.

To return to the Bountiful issue here, I can't help but see what seem to be a couple of contradictions. Can Charter-protected religious rights be the real concern that has prevented legal/police action to end the abuse in this community? If this were the case, then what about other religious groups? There are certainly a number of religious groups active in Canada who have in their traditions practices that are considered unacceptable by Canadian legal standards (spousal abuse and the supression of women's rights are two of the most obvious examples). However, members of these religious groups who live in Canada are still expected to abide by Canadian law, even if it means living their lives or practicing their religions in slightly different ways than they might elsewhere. And this goes on all the time... Why is Bountiful any different?

Statuatory rape is certainly a crime, as is exploiting the labour of children. Both can and should be prosecuted, yet in this case aren't. WHY? I don't think the argument that they are protected by freedom of religion holds much water, as such freedom has generally not been interpreted as constituting impunity from Canadian law. Frankly, the butt**ck BC argument even begins to look good... I can't help but think though, that lack of sustained political will is the real problem.

At any rate, the abuse of children in Bountiful is stomach turning, and if I were the praying sort, mine would be directed to those miserably abused souls. I can't help but think that there must be SOMETHING that can be done. Perhaps the marriage angle? Since marriage is a legal contract, minors shouldn't be able to enter into it. We have made exceptions for marriage in the past, but maybe it's time to re-examine that exemption, especially if doing so could offer some hope for the children of Bountiful.