Saturday, November 26, 2011

Backlash

It seems the backlash is already brewing.  B.C. Chief Justice Bauman contorted himself into upholding one of the world's stupidest and most tyrannical laws.  Many Canadian observers and commentators are taking note of this decision, and it is sinking in that Bauman's choice is questionable at best.  The common thread in these critiques is a touch of bewilderment that such an intelligent jurist could reach such bizarre conclusions.  It isn't that his explanations weren't articulate and reasoned - it's just that he is wrong and out of touch.  You cannot criminalize private, consensual-adult associations and intimacies in a modern, Western nation.  You daren't even try.  It isn't even clear what he means in some cases.  Let me show you with one simple excerpt from Bauman's ruling just how myopic he truly is:

"Having found a reasoned apprehension that polygamy is associated with numerous harms, it follows that criminalizing the practice is one way of limiting those harms, . .  ."

So, clearly the criminalization of the practice for the last 100 years has successfully limited the harms associated with the practice of polygamy, right?  !!!!!!!!!!!!!  Okay, follow along with me here.  If that kind of logic is the best grounds for the passage of criminal legislation, then we should criminalize the practice of divorce, right?  After all, divorce devastates the lives of millions every year.  The same thing is true for guns and knives, so we should ban them, too, right? We should ban cars and chemicals (both of which kill tens of thousands per year). We should ban single-parenting or the promiscuity that causes it.  The list never ends, but some shrill little posse of haters and colluding politicians has decided to criminalize a rare and specific practice which to my knowledge has not been the cause of a single domestic violence fatality in the Americas in over 100 years.

A friend pointed out to me another incongruous aspect of this ruling that I had ignored.  Bauman stresses the salutary benefits of S.293 in that it endeavors to protect women and children from "harms".  Feminists must surely view this a little dimly since polyandrous unions would also be criminalized.  What about the four poor, subjugated men who find themselves in a plural marriage with one overbearing woman?  Don't they deserve to be protected from all this harm and danger, too ?????

The ambiguity and pomposity of Bauman's reasoning leaves us all wondering how the criminalization he champions could ever be implemented.  Please read the following articles:

A-confused-judicial-treatise-on-polygamy/
Canada-doesnt-need-a-law-banning-polygamy/
We-have-as-many-double-standards-on-polygamy-as-solomon-had-wives/
Polygamy-ruling-offers-road-map-to-avoid-prosecution-lawyer/
State-shouldnt-interfere-in-consensual-adult-relationships/

The hater-harpies are dancing and celebrating what, to them, appears to be a pivotal victory.  The long-awaited day has arrived when law-enforcement can storm the homes of the Fundamentalist Mormons and round up the criminal adults in 'multiple conjugal groupings'.

Fast forward to the arraignment:

"Your Lordship, these three people were found in the same house sewing and doing laundry.  We have good reason to believe that they have formed a multiple conjugal grouping, otherwise termed 'religious polygamy solemnized by a religious ceremonial ritual overseen by one of their informal clerics'. We ask that they be denied bail because of the extreme flight risk."

In the history of the world, there have been entire nations which have been seduced into insanity and self-destruction by false ideals and bigotry.  Let's hope that Canada wakes up in time.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

WHAT AN IDIOT !!!

Yesterday I got word that British Columbia's Chief Justice Robert Bauman published his decision upholding S.293 (Canada's anti-polygamy law), stating that 'there is no such thing as so-called “good polygamy”'.

This approach is certainly the more judicially convenient and politically palatable one for him to take. From a practical perspective, however, has he thought through what comes next?  Will they round up all the women and then put the kids in orphanages?

Bauman also says that the original spirit and purpose of S.293 was to "protect the institution of monogamy".  I find this utterly disingenuous.  First, the institution of monogamy in Canada must surely be highly susceptible to change in light of the relaxed gender requirement as of 2005.  Secondly, the tens of thousands of polygamists and polyamorists in Canada have had no impact on the institution of monogamy to date, and their continued existence will be no more relevant than before.  It appears that Bauman was taken in by some of the spurious theories of the hater-nasty tribe.  He even falls for the "not-enough-women-to-go-around", "zero-sum" lunacy!

Sorry, but I am now persuaded that this judge has either no backbone or no brain.  At least now he can wash his hands of the entire matter.  After reading some of Bauman's reasoning, I am persuaded of the following:

1.  He is educated and articulate.
2.  He had his mind made up before the Reference proceedings were over.
3.  Having decided to rule that polygamy was "inherently" harmful, he had to massage the arguments to support and 'back into' his pre-determined conclusion.

The problem with deciding to prohibit polygamy because of the "inherent harms" associated with it is that you cannot prosecute the (intangible) "institution of polygamy".  You can only prosecute the human actors who espouse the abstract concept of polygamy.  This is just like my earlier point about knives.  Knives are far more tangible and are (admittedly) inherently dangerous - they wound and kill people, but no judge in his right mind would ever dream of outlawing knives.  I shall quote some of Bauman's argument so that you can further see the bizarre fallacy of his reasoning (emphasis mine):
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
' . . . . S. 293 prohibits more than two individuals from associating with one another in a conjugal union. As seen above, the criminal law does not prohibit a whole range of activities that can be characterized as polygamous, such as:

(a) Serial monogamy, through divorce and remarriage (de facto polygyny, as it is sometimes called from an evolutionary psychology perspective);
(b) Having sex or affairs with any number of partners while in a conjugal union with an unknowing and unconsenting partner (that is, adultery);
(c) Having sex with many partners at the same time;
(d) Having children with more than one partner, whether as a result of conjugal union, one night stands or even group sex; and
(e) Raising children by more than two adults, such as through blended families, including where one or more adults are unrelated to the children.

Yet, while the law is tolerant of these behaviours, S. 293 criminalizes three adults from agreeing to form a conjugal union together. Section 293 prohibits their association together as a conjugal union. While polygamous activities are not prohibited, s. 293 criminalizes polygamous groupings

------------------------------------------------------------------ 
What the HELL is a "polygamous grouping"?  What kind of tortured logic is that?  How do you dispatch the Mounties to a polygamous household to check for that - (especially if the women live in separate residences)?  If all of the multiple-sex-partner activities listed above are "not prohibited" by S.293, then what will the exact nature of the charge be?  This judge (like the law-enforcement community in Utah) has painted himself into a corner where his framing of the crime of polygamy is essentially as a 'thought crime' -- "Have sex for the wrong reasons, and we will imprison you!"  I predict that there will be no more successful convictions now under (the freshly upheld) S.293 than there were in the last 100 years.

I hope that George Macintosh will be financially supported by the province to take the case to the Court of Appeals.  If not, then I can't wait for them to try to prosecute the first family for polygamously grouping.  After all, if it is a "group" crime, they'll have to arrest the women over 18, too.  That will go over real well !!!  They don't remember the 1953 Short Creek raid, do they?

WHAT AN IDIOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Read this brilliant article concurring with my thoughts.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Today's the Day

Today's the day when Justice Robert Bauman will issue his decision in the polygamy reference case addressing whether Canada's (S.293) law forbidding polygamy is in violation of Canada's charter of rights and freedoms.

I pity the poor guy.  The hater-witches are not wrong - Warren did molest the young wives.  Does this mean that all polygamists must go to prison?  The law says that you are guilty of polygamy even if you didn't have sex with any of your partners, and even if you don't even intend to have sex with them.  What, then, constitutes "a partner"? - someone with whom you study at the library?

I have said it twice before, so now I'm belaboring, but I think there are three potential outcomes in this decision (one of which I'm not sure is even available to Justice Bauman):

1.  S.293 is constitutional (and doesn't violate the Charter). 
2.  S.293 is unconstitutional and is now void.
3.  The B.C. parliament must craft a more legally sound anti-polygamy statute (I don't think he has the option to order this, but we'll see).

So, folks, picture me now, sitting at my desk, grinning from ear to ear in anticipation of the announcement around lunch-time today.  How fortunate I am to be happy with whichever decision comes down. Why? - because we win either way!

If S.293 is upheld, will they go and arrest Winston and Jimmy today, or will they wait until the case is appealed before the Canadian Supreme Court?

If Winston and Jimmy are prosecuted under this stupid law, what will be the nature of their crime? - "You had more than one sex partner, and you had religious thoughts in your mind during the same approximate time period"?

If, by some stroke of fate, Justice Bauman orders the law to be rewritten, I, Renn Oldsbuster, will personally demand to be part of the rewriting team.  I will take a sabbatical from my company and go to Vancouver and show those Members of Parliament how it's done (and vastly simplified from the original): -

Polygamy
S.293 Revised, 2012
(1) Every one who has sex with more than one person in a ten-year period is guilty of an indictable polygamy offence, and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(2) It shall be a defence to the indictment if the accused can show either that:
   a) All of the partners were of the same sex as the accused, or
   b) All of the intimate activities were engaged in solely for recreational purposes, or
   c) No sexual intercourse occurred, or
   d) None of the participants was a member of any religious congregation at the the time the sexual intercourse occurred.
-------------------------------------------
That ought to work, don't you think?
-

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Shameless Advertising


I don't even know what to say about this . . . . or this >>>>>

I guess this is what your tithing money is used for.

Who needs missionaries when you have this kind of advertising?

Clearly this is what Peter, James and John had in mind in 1829 when they restored the Melchizedek priesthood through Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. 

Labels

10th Circuit 13th Amendment 14th Amendment 1953 Short Creek Raid 1st Amendment 6th Circuit Abortion Abraham Addam Swapp Admiralty adultery Affordable Care AG - Craig Jones AG - Mark Shurtleff Ahmedinejad Al Sharpton Alan Dershowitz Albert Nock Alex Jones Alina Darger Allen Keate Allen Steed Amnesty Anders Breivik Andrew Napolitano Angela Corey Anteater Anthony Weiner Anti-bigamy Apocalypse Arm of flesh Arnold Schwarzenegger Ashton Kutcher Assad atheism B.C. Supreme Court bailout bailouts Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Barack Obama Barbie BarefootsWorld.net Belief vs. Practice Ben Bernanke Benghazi Bernie Machen Bestiality Betty Jessop Big Love bigamy Bill CLinton Bill Medvecky Blacks and the Priesthood blood Blood Atonement Bolshevik Revolution Book burning Bountiful Boyd K. Packer Branch Davidians Breitbart Brigham Young Brown v. Herbert Bruce R. McConkie Bruce Wisan Canada Canada Reference Carolyn Jessop Casey Anthony Caylee Anthony Chapter 13 bankruptcy Charles Darwin Charlie Hebdo Charlie Sheen Chick-Fil-A Chief Justice Robert Bauman Child-bigamy Chris Serino Christine Durham Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Church Police Civil War Clark Waddoups CNN cohabitation collaboration Colonia Lebaron Colorado City Communism Conrad Murray Conservative Constitution Country Music CPS Craig Barlow Craig Jones Creston Crimea crooked judge cultural genocide Czar Nicholas D+C 101 Dallin H. Oaks Dan Cathy Darwin Darwin's Black Box Darwin's Doubt Darwinian Darwinism Darwinists David Boies David Koresh David Leavitt Davis v. Beason DCFS Debra Weyermann decertification Decriminalization Democrat Denise Lindberg Depends Deuteronomy 28 Diaper Disodium Guanylate Disodium Inosinate DNA Doctrine & Covenants DOMA Don't Ask Don't Tell Donald Trump Dr. Drew Pinsky Dr. Seuss Dream Mine Dred Scott Drew Pinsky Drones Edom Edomites Egypt El Baradei Elaine Tyler Eldorado Elijah Abel Elissa Wall Enabling Act Entitlement Ephraim eradication Eric Holder Ernst Zundel escape European Union Eurpoean Bailout Eustace Mullins Evolution Ex Parte extradition Ezra Taft Benson FBI Federal Reserve Felony FEMA camp Feminazi First Amendment Flagellum flatulence FLDS Flora Jessop Florida Flying Circus Food waste fornication Fourteenth Amendment Free-Agency Fundamentalist Mormon Fundamentalist Mormons Gadianton Robbers Gary Herbert Gathering Gay Gay Marriage General Conference genocide George Clooney George W. Bush George Washington George Zimmerman Germany Gerunds Glue-sniffing Gordon B. Hinckley Grant Morrison Greece Greg Abbott GritsForBreakfast Gun-Control guts H1N1 Handbook of Instructions Harry Reid Harvey Hilderbran hatred HB-99 HBO Health Care Reform Heber C. Kimball Hildale Hillary Clinton Hippies Hitler Hoax Holding Out Help Holding Out Hostages Holly Madison Holocaust Homeland Security Homeschooling homosexuality Hoole Hosni Mubarak House of Cards Hubris Hugh Hefner Human Nature Hypocrisy hypocrite Idumea illegal aliens Illegal Ceremony IMF Immigration IN TIME incest Intelligent Design International Monetary Fund Iowa Supreme Court Iran Irony Irrevocable Clause Isaac Jeffs Jacob Zuma Jaimee Grubb James Dobson James Rosen Jamie Dimon Jan Brewer Jane Blackmore Janet Yellen Jeff Ashton Jeff Buhman Jeffs Jerrold Jensen Jerry Sandusky Jesse Barlow Jesus Christ Jew Jim Jones Jimmy Oler Joe Darger Joe Paterno John Boehner John Daniel Kingston John F. Kennedy John H. Koyle John Hyrcanus John Kerry John Singer John Swallow John Taylor Jon Krakauer Jonathan Turley Jonestown Massacre Joni Holm Jose Baez Joseph Compton Joseph Henrich Joseph Smith Joy Behar JP Morgan Chase Jubilee Judea Judge Barbara Walther Judge Bauman Judge Clark Waddoups Judge Dee Benson Judge Donald Eyre Judge James Brady Judge Robert Shelby Judge Terry Christiansen Judge Waddoups Julian Assange June 26th Jury Justice Christine Durham Justice Nehring Justice Robert Bauman Justin Timberlake K Dee Ignatin Kathy Jo Nicholson KD Ignatin keep sweet Keith Dutson Ken Driggs Kendra Keystone Kops kidnapping Kiev Kimberly Conrad Kingston Kirk Torgensen knife Kody Brown Lab rats Lance Armstrong Larry Beall Las Vegas Laura DuPaix Laurie Allen Lavar Christensen Lawrence decision Lawrence v. Texas LDS LDS Church Lehi Police Liberal Liberals library Lifeboat Lindberg Lost Boys Love Times Three Lukumi Lyle Jeffs Main Street Plaza Mancy Nereska Marilyn Monroe Mark E. Petersen Mark Shurtleff marriage license Marxist Mary Batchelor Merrianne Jessop Merril Jessop Michael Behe Michael Dorn Michael Jackson Michael Zimmerman middle-class Migraine Relief Mike de Jong Mike Noel military miscegenation missionaries Mitt Romney Modern Pharisee Monkeys monogamy Monosodium Glutamate Monty Python Mormon Mormon Church Mormon Matters MSG Mubarak murder Muslim polygamy Musser Nancy Pelosi Naomi Jeffs Natalie Malonis National Debt National Enquirer Natra-Bio natural selection Nazi Next Generation Ninth Circuit Nobel Peace Prize Norway NSA Obacle Obama Obamacare Obaminacare obesity Occupy Wall Street Oligarchy Open Marriage Orrin Hatch Osama Bin Laden Pakistan Palestine Papandreou Paris France Parker Douglas patriarchy Paul Murphy Paul Ryan pharaoh Planets Planned Parenthood Playboy mansion plural marriage polyamory polygamist polygamous polygamous grouping polygamous sect polygamy polygamy reference Polygamy Task Force Predictor Presbyterian Presidential Election promotional video Promulgate Prophecy Proposition 8 Prostitute Protection of Marriage Punk'd Quantitative Easing race card Rand Paul rape Raymond Jessop Reassignment Recession Reconciliation Relief Mine Religion religious test Rep. John Lewis Rep. Mike Noel Resurrection Revelation 18:3 Reynolds decision Richard Dawkins Richard Nixon Rick Santorum Rights riots Robert Mueller Rocky Ridge Rodney Holm Rodney King Roe v. Wade Ron Paul Rothschild Rozita Swinton Ruby Ridge Rulon Allred Russia Safety Net Salmonella Samaria San Angelo Sargon Sarin Saudi Arabia Schleicher County Sean Reyes Seattle Second Amendment Senator Kevin Van Tassell Shalmaneser Shannon Price Shoshana Grossbard Shutdown Siamese Signature in the Cell Silsby Silvio Berlusconi Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Sister Wives skin color Slippery Slope Socialism Sonny Hostin Soviet Union Spencer W. Kimball Star Trek Stars Stephanie Colgrove Stephen C. Meyer Steven Conn stimulus Stromberg-Stein Survival Suspect Class Swine Flu Syria Tapestry Ted Stewart Teen pregnancy Temple Teresa Jeffs termites Texas Texas CPS Texas FLDS Texas Rangers The Fall of Reynolds Theodore Olson Thirteenth Amendment Thomas S. Monson Thurgood Marshall Tiger Woods Timothy Geithner Timothy McVeigh Titanic Tito Valdez TLC Todd Shackelford Tom Green Tonia Tewell Trace Gallagher tracting Trayvon Martin trickle-down economics Trip-Wire Trust TSA twins TxBluesman Tyranny U.S. Bankruptcy. Franklin D. Roosevelt U.S. Supreme Court UEP UEP Trust Ukraine Uncommon Dissent Uniform Commercial Code Universe University of Oslo usury Utah Utah A.G. Utah Amendment 3 Utah Attorney General's Safety Net Utah bigamy statute Utah Legislature Utah Supreme Court Vera Black Vermont Vladimir Putin Waco Wally Bugden Wally Oppal Warburg Warren Jeffs weapon words Wendell Nielsen Whistleblowers Wilford Woodruff William Dembski William E. Jessop Willie Jessop Winston Blackmore Wisan Woodrow Wilson Worf WTC 7 Xenarthra Yams YFZ YFZ Raid YFZ Ranch Zombies