News Updates

It looks like Papandreou is out.  Berlusconi has agreed to step aside also.  The Dow dropped 390 points today.  Europe is rumored to be on the brink of utter financial collapse [according to correspondent, Chicken Little).
---------------------------------------------

Yesterday, Merril Jessop, 75, got a ten-year prison sentence in Texas for performing an "illegal" wedding ceremony.  I have blogged about this before, but I just have to rub this in!  What in the blazes is an illegal wedding ceremony?  What element of the event is criminal? - the words? -  the arrangement of people in the room? - the ages of the people in the room?  What part of the FIRST AMENDMENT do Barbie and her puppet jurors not understand?

Now, I'm not saying that what Merril did was not inconceivably reckless.  If he had half an inkling that these (alleged) eleven young daughters of his (whom he was surrendering to Jeffs, his colleague in the church's First Presidency) were going to be molested in short order, he should have caught the first train out of town with Carolyin and the rest of his immense tribe.  However, it has also been reported that he picked up a couple of young dames in the bargain, so maybe there was some kind of wink-and-a-nod quid-pro-quo going on.

Nevertheless, I think Merril has suffered enough with the discovery of Jeffs's despicable debaucheries and the monumental humiliation.  I wish there had been some kind of plea bargain opportunity (like in Wendel's case) to avoid prison time.  Maybe he is feeling some sort of mea culpa and wants to fall on the sword.

The galling thing for me is the absurd contention that these fantasy ceremonies conducted in a private setting can constitute a crime in modern, 14th Amendment America.  I understand all the jurisprudence surrounding enticement, grooming, aiding and abetting, complicity, collusion, and so on, but this illegal wedding idea is even more intangible (let alone its being entirely novel in Texas).  In many cases, assisting in some way (even obliviously) with the actions of a criminal can be weighed and deemed criminal in and of itself, but it still seems to me like a huge stretch to criminalize a strictly religious performance - one which involves the utterance of purely religious phrases, and no more physical interaction than perhaps a brief hand-clasp, - one which presumes no legal stamp of approval, no governmental imprimatur.  I weep inside at the thought that no one has the stamina to take this farce to the Supreme Court and get it overturned.  In the wake of the Jeffs disgrace, however, I'd be surprised if any of his cohorts can escape the wrath of a disgusted American public.  Perhaps the prosecution's view is that, despite the informal nature of the ceremony, the young girl participating in it was losing all personal and community-approved freedoms to escape imminent sexual exploitation by the putative "husband".  Yet, if that is the legal standard, you would have to incarcerate the entire community - or maybe just outlaw religion.
--------------------------------------------
In other news, it has been reported that Judge Bauman will render his decision in the British Columbia polygamy reference case in a couple of weeks.  Remember that this anti-polygamy case was not about establishing new, anti-polygamy legislation, it was about whether or not to uphold a 100-year-old, anti-polygamy law that was atrociously crafted and NEVER implemented.  The judge has an unenviable task.  Any ruling is likely to be appealed (see my earlier associated posts here and here and here).

If he rules in our (polygamists') favor, I shall cheer because he will be acknowledging what everyone already knows - that you cannot criminalize informal, multi-partner intimacies in a nation that already solemnizes legal, homosexual marriages.  If he rules that the law can be lawfully applied, I shall laugh out loud because, despite my not wishing any harm on Winston Blackmore's and Jimmy Oler's families, I am DYING to see what the RCMP and the prosecutors think they can do next.  Of the perhaps hundreds of faithful Fundamentalist Mormon families in the Bountiful/Creston area, which ones will they handcuff first?  Will they take the women, too?  I have visions of the 1953 (Short Creek) raid all over again.  Sincerely, I wonder how it is that supposedly intelligent public officials can be so incredibly myopic and stupid.  I guess I'm just naive. 

Perhaps the law of unintended consequences will kick in, as with Bank of America's boneheaded $5.00 monthly debit card fee, or Obama's ill-fated 15-cent Christmas tree tax.

National Knife Ban

NEWSFLASH

CANADIAN COURT BANS KNIVES THROUGHOUT CANADA

Vancouver Clarion (www.vancouverclarion.ca)
by staff reporter Fartu Sharpe, Tuesday, January 11, 2011

In a stunning announcement in Ottawa today, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its ruling in the long-running legal controversy over the criminalization of knives.  Several Canadian provinces have had prohibitions against knives dating back two centuries (since thousands of innocent Canadian settlers were massacred by knife-wielding savages).  These laws have generally been seldom enforced, thus allowing millions to prepare meals and perform important medical procedures.

In its 4-to-3 decision the Court upheld British Columbia's ban on knives and ordered all Canadian subjects to bring all of their knives to local government collection centers within 10 days, or face a $10,000.00 penalty and a five-year prison term.

Chief Justice Hadabad Papercut, writing for the majority, reasoned,

" . . . if it can be shown [and it has been amply demonstrated] that knives are sharp and can kill people, then it is the opinion of this Court that they represent too great a danger to life as we know it.  Thousands of innocent Canadians have died or been permanently disfigured by knives.  Knives are inherently evil.  Knives have almost assumed a life of their own.  It is not beyond the realm of logic to conclude that some knives lie awake at night plotting to maim or kill their next victim.  We celebrate this opportunity to bring justice to our great land and we now encourage the RCMP to arrest knives and anyone possessing them whenever they are discovered."

In a vehement reaction to the ruling, lawyers for the Canadian Civil Liberties Union protested that knives are no more guilty of harming people than automobiles.  Speaking on behalf or the CCLU, chief litigator, Eli O'Reilly, complained,

"How are people going to be able to cook?  How will people be able to cut their food? It seems to me that the size of government will have to grow exponentially just to provide sufficient police officers to watch every Canadian.  Surely it is not realistic to hunt down every knife in the country?  I can see the provinces stationing a Mountie in every home just to watch people to see if they own or use a knife. It is PEOPLE who do bad things - NOT inanimate objects like knives and broccoli. Where will it stop?  Pretty soon, they will outlaw automobiles, because far more people have been killed or injured by cars than by knives. Plus, cars can be downright mean when they want to be!"

Canadian teen singing sensation, Justin Bieber (shown above in a threatening pose), who was recently outed as being a knife-lover, was visibly shaken when he heard the news at his California home today.  Bieber expressed fear that what he perceived to be an "insane" ruling from the Canadian Court would gain traction in the States, where the Obama/Bernanke administration already plans to take away people's guns and home-grown vegetables.

"Two Forms Of Polygamy"

The forces of good and evil are amassing on either side of the simmering polygamy war in Canada. You know I'm already cracking up about some aspects of this "reference" case, aspects like:

1. You are guilty of polygamy if merely accused. The law itself is SO POORLY written and so constitutionally defective, it ought to fall - on its face.
2. The polyamorists are saying that their kind of multiple partnerships is more healthy than that of polygamists. They want to be exempt from the law.
3. If the STUPID polygamy law is upheld in the reference's decision, it will inevitably be challenged again and tested very shortly afterwards.
4. There are so few polygamists in Canada, the vast majority of the amici and affiants are from south of the border.
5. Even gays ridicule the law - see this post.

Anyway, in my browsing around on this topic, I discovered the following statement from British Columbia's Attorney General, Craig Jones.

Jones's (unenviable) job is to defend the anti-polygamy law. Defending it is such a fantastical exercise, he clearly had to cook up some very creative reasoning. Let me quote some of Jones's lunatic contortions of logic:

'At one extreme, "polygamous" in the zoological sense describes an organism that will engage in mating behaviour with more than one partner in the course of its reproductive life. By this standard, most Canadians are "polygamous" and most "polygamy" is innocent.'

OKAY, JONES, WE ARE WITH YOU SO FAR! Let's read on as he argues . . .

'. . . the prohibition in s. 293 should be interpreted as follows:
. . . Section 293 prohibits . . . marriage-like relationships involving more than two persons that purport to be sanctioned by an authority having power or influence over the participants . . '

. . . WHAT? "AN AUTHORITY" LIKE GOD ?????????? Are you grasping this tortured hairsplit? Let's hear his punchline . . .

'8. The Criminal Code prohibition was and is addressed to the overwhelmingly dominant form of polygamy, [he's talking about Fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims] and the one most closely associated with demonstrable and apprehended social harms: that is, a patriarchal polygyny that is intergenerationally normalized and enforced through more or less coercive rules and norms of non-state social institutions. Section 293 leaves the balance of multi-partner human sexual behaviour, that which is unrelated to the harms the prohibitions seek to address, unaffected.'

I get it now - promiscuity in the form of casual polygamous behaviour is healthy, innocent and worthy of Canada's full legal protections (like prostitution now is), whereas informal plural marriages inspired by deeply-held religious beliefs and Biblical doctrines are reprehensible and "criminal".

So, here is where I get horribly confused - if "most Canadians are polygamous" (at least approx. 18 million of the 33.5 million Canadians), then how can Winston's and Jimmy's form of polygamy (practiced by scores of people) be the "overwhelmingly dominant form" ??? (Canadian math?)

Moreover, if the bad "form" of the two forms of polygamy is the one that purportedly involves higher "authority" and "patriarchy", shouldn't all religious, monogamous marriages also be outlawed; - AND, shouldn't all monogamous partnerships (legally-solemnized or not) - where the male is thought of as the "head-of-household" - be prohibited, too?

Message to A.G. Craig Jones - - - GO BACK TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND RE-TAKE ALL THOSE CLASSES YOU SLEPT THROUGH !!!! Only then will you be able to competently teach all those year-long classes to the Mounties, where you will try to explain all of the convoluted nuances of figuring out which polygamists are the good, innocent ones, and which ones are the bad, incarcerable ones.

Tar Baby, Eh?

In my short, cynical life, I have seen some public officials get a wild hair about a particular thing and then over-act. I watched a documentary yesterday about ex-Beatle, John Lennon. Richard Nixon and his administration were nervous about John Lennon's ability to marshal sentiment and support for anti-war groups and left-wing activists. They hatched a plan to silence Lennon by revoking his visa and deporting him back to Britain. Needless to say, the plan failed. Lennon had the emotional support of hundreds of millions of fans, and the deportation plan was craven and disingenuous. Lennon eventually became a legal permanent U.S. resident and lived out the rest his (woefully short) life in New York City. Nixon went down in political flames and shame.

I won't say that Canadian polygamists are as popular as the Beatles, but some Canadian politicians are as stupid as Richard Nixon, eh? Perhaps driven by the likes of Wally Oppal, Jancis Andrews, Daphne Bramham and Nancy Mereska, some Canadian observers and officials have taken up the anti-polygamy crusade and are gearing up for the polygamy showdown of their shallow lives. A TV reporter remarked to me recently that he found such crusades too full of "negative energy". What kind of person wallows in "negative energy" 24/7/365 ??? Does negative energy survive into the next life?

People acted shocked when Warren Jeffs was un-convicted. Why? His prosecution was a big set up in the first place. Perhaps the only surprise was that a Court, which not long ago upheld the criminalization of fantasy weddings, now recognized the absurdity of imprisoning a cleric who solemnized a wedding for a couple whose marriage would eventually be unsuccessful.

So, what do we think will ultimately be the result of the "reference" battle before the British Columbia Supreme Court? Which outcome will shock us the most? (See the intelligent discussion and a link to an excerpt of a conference on the subject:)

Canadian Constitution Foundation 2009 Conference

Or watch Martha Bailey on YOUTUBE - [Note also the comments from Nicholas Bala (Queens University Law Professor), who argues that group sex (commercial or non-commercial) should be permitted, while religious plural marriages should not, because the group sex generally does not produce as many children.]

The last thing I would want to see is that the Canadian Charter of Freedoms be muzzled in favor of prosecuting Canadians who enjoy an alternative lifestyle. COME ON, PEOPLE !!! Gay relationships and MARRIAGES in Canada are legal and commonplace. The polygamists are not seeking legal recognition or status for their relationships as did the gays. They want only to be left alone.

The question of prosecuting "polyga-bigamy" is an exquisite migraine. It is a tar-baby for any foolish public official who wants to take it on. I say "BRING IT ON !!!". This debate has awakened a different Canadian faction - a literal army of Canadian "poly-amorists" -- people who share multiple bed-or-life-partners for generally NON-religious reasons. Will they too be marched off to prison?

I can see it now (almost a Joan of Arc or Martin Luther tribunal) - the judge asks the defendant, "Do you believe in Joseph Smith or Mormonism? Did you sleep with this person for religious or erotic reasons. Be careful how you answer, because how you answer the question will determine whether you go free or go to prison for ten years!"

EVEN IF the decision were to go against the polygamists, what then ??? I assume that Canada would prosecute Winston Blackmore and Jimmy Oler - but for WHAT ??? Is it the religion that defines the crime? I know there are a lot of stupid public officials in Utah and Texas, but has Canada lost its mind altogether? Does Canada want to get stuck to this tar baby?

This is like watching a three-ring circus where most of the observers don't realize it is a circus. Murderers often experience regret once they have been incarcerated and are no longer abusing substances or rage. Will our public officials finally have regret and contrition when they realize that brutalizing a generally innocent minority was not the purpose for which they were elected or appointed?

"In the days when the love of men shall wax cold for one another, see that thou be not found with thine hands on a tar baby, lest thou be consigned at the last day to a state of eternal disgrace and shame, eh !!. Renn II, 24:7"