Polygamy Charge (single count?)

[neilsimon]

IN reality though, half your age plus 7 isn't a truly bad calculation for people to date by any means. 70 year old men don't need to date 20 year olds or vice versa, none the less, it seems stupid to regulate dating ages, yet we already do, and people are far too often showing that they cannot do so responsibly.

People don't dive responsibly, we regulate it, people don't drink and drive responsibly we regulate it, courts allow predators off the hook from irresponsibly preying on little kids (16 is little to a 60 year old lets be real).......we don't regulate it.

Trust me I despise the fact it might need to be regulated, it's a gross concept, but yet, look at what is being defended, and often allowed under other BS claims.

I hate the entire "government needs to tell people how to not be piles of crap" laws that we already have, but it's make some stupid law, or let people off the hook when we use Carrs Landing solution (one I am not overly against....just be right)

Okay, so you weren't joking, or am I reading it wrong again?

Honestly, adults should be free to have sex with any other consenting adult. We have no place sticking our noses in that, not least because we know where that leads (buggery, homosexuality, infidelity, and other "crimes against nature" laws). And lets be honest, this case isn't about adult women having sex with an older but equal (no significant power imbalance) man. Consenting adults should be free to fornicate fearless of forbidding laws.

Driving regulations are largely their for the safety of others, not just or particularly the driver. In that case, we do not give the driver full control because of the potential physical harm they could do to others if they make poor decisions. Now, there are exceptions to that, but by and large, we let people make stupid decisions rather than enforce a police state. For with the erosion of freedom when it comes to deciding with whom we have sex, it won't seem too absurd to start regulating with who we associate, who we can vote for, etc. It's starting to sound like 1984 to me.

Lets be bloody honest though, the changes you are proposing will do nothing to curb the behaviours of these men. They already break the law without a second thought. Why would they care if you change the age of consent? It has never bothered them before, it certainly won't bother them in future.

[Veovis]

Honestly, adults should be free to have sex with any other consenting adult. We have no place sticking our noses in that, not least because we know where that leads (buggery, homosexuality, infidelity, and other "crimes against nature" laws). And lets be honest, this case isn't about adult women having sex with an older but equal (no significant power imbalance) man. Consenting adults should be free to fornicate fearless of forbidding laws.

Driving regulations are largely their for the safety of others, not just or particularly the driver. In that case, we do not give the driver full control because of the potential physical harm they could do to others if they make poor decisions. Now, there are exceptions to that, but by and large, we let people make stupid decisions rather than enforce a police state. For with the erosion of freedom when it comes to deciding with whom we have sex, it won't seem too absurd to start regulating with who we associate, who we can vote for, etc. It's starting to sound like 1984 to me.

Lets be bloody honest though, the changes you are proposing will do nothing to curb the behaviours of these men. They already break the law without a second thought. Why would they care if you change the age of consent? It has never bothered them before, it certainly won't bother them in future.

So you feel that driving regulations keep others safe but a 60 year old man manipulating 16 year old girls into long term rape scenarios is "safer" than speeding? does it protect those other people ?

I'm joking about it yet not....sadly, I find it disgusting that we may actually need such an extreme to simply make such a gap that predators cannot escape massive punishment.

Should we need it? NO, do we, I really really fear that outcome may be real.....and it is an offensive thought isn't it. That's the sad fact of it. To need something like the 7 rule is a reflection that our society simply does not function at all.

Yes people should be able to choose a partner...."age known no bounds"....yet already we have laws that state age does, maybe a graduated scale the of a different sort? Suggestions? Brainwashing children to accept rape isn't "consent" and never can be no matter what religion they hide behind. These horrid people will exist you are correct, however like I said, should they go "missing" perhaps police no longer need investigate in those areas where this happens. (this is also a horrid option)

So is there a solution to horrid old men doing this to young women, because lets be real there (if any) are not much for religious communes with 60 year old women plowing the crap out of a pile of young men in the guise of "religion" out there. (highschool maybe but not religion----bad joke)

[Veovis]

And the worst of all.

Can you imagine if the Supreme Court validates his claim for what is really happening........(it's not a choice the way it is occurring)

[neilsimon]

...
So you feel that driving regulations keep others safe but a 60 year old man manipulating 16 year old girls into long term rape scenarios is "safer" than speeding? does it protect those other people ?

Can you please point to where I said that it is either appropriate for a 60 year old man to manipulate or have sex with a 16 year old girl? That is currently illegal if the older party is more than 5 years older and in a position of power. But that didn't stop these men. Your desired change to the law would do absolutely nothing. It wouldn't make it more illegal (after all rape is rape) and won't make it more likely to be prosecuted.

I'm joking about it yet not....sadly, I find it disgusting that we may actually need such an extreme to simply make such a gap that predators cannot escape massive punishment.

It would make no difference, but would make at least one encounter I had with a lady illegal (she was older than your equation would allow, I guess that would make me a rape victim then, sure didn't feel like a victim then or now).

Should we need it? NO, do we, I really really fear that outcome may be real.....and it is an offensive thought isn't it. That's the sad fact of it. To need something like the 7 rule is a reflection that our society simply does not function at all.

Our society largely does function quite well with the existing law. There really is little need to change it. We don't have masses of older men or women seducing lots of young, but legal, girls and boys. It's just not a major problem in our society on the whole and dealing with those fringe cases should not punish or reduce the freedom of those who are doing nothing wrong.

Yes people should be able to choose a partner...."age known no bounds"....yet already we have laws that state age does, maybe a graduated scale the of a different sort? Suggestions? Brainwashing children to accept rape isn't "consent" and never can be no matter what religion they hide behind. These horrid people will exist you are correct, however like I said, should they go "missing" perhaps police no longer need investigate in those areas where this happens. (this is also a horrid option)

Our law puts the age of consent at 18 where there is a position of power involved. At that point we are dealing with adults, who, while they may be poorly informed, are allowed to make their own decisions. It is regrettable and I might agree that we should have laws around that where there is a significant position of power, or institutionalisation occurring, where we would add to the age of consent (though there may be grounds to challenge that on the basis that the people involved were adults and so it is discrimination based on age, but I am not a lawyer) and maybe even add laws around sexual coercion through indoctrination, but that would be hard to word.

So is there a solution to horrid old men doing this to young women, because lets be real there (if any) are not much for religious communes with 60 year old women plowing the crap out of a pile of young men in the guise of "religion" out there. (highschool maybe but not religion----bad joke)

Are there solutions? Probably, but this suggestion of yours almost certainly won't make anything we currently want to prosecute illegal. All it will do is destroy healthy relationships which already exist.

To tackle this issue, we need to accept that these men will try to have sex with young girls and women, despite what the laws are. No law which is targeted solely at these men is likely to work. All we can do is try to find a solution which makes it harder for them to get willing accomplices, because without them, these men would have a much harder time committing such screwed up acts.

Let me be clear, I am aware that plenty of predominantly women have been abused, or in abusive relationships based on an age or power imbalance. I am not in the least little bit arguing that these situations should not be dealt with, but I question the appropriateness of using a law which is rather ham-fisted to start with, and making it so that it limits the freedom of ordinary and happy citizens, rather than trying to find a more nuanced approach which allows us to recognise the abuse and rape which occurs in relationships which may not come under the statutory rape banner, and treat it with the severity it deserves.

[Veovis]

Let's make this simple.

Would you like the rape of young girls to stop Neilsmom or not?

How do you solve it other than telling everyone else how to keep it going?

You aren't talking about real issues that exist, you could state that upon evaluation a licence (much like green card frauds are investigated) could bee allowed. You seem to desire the open "get the youngsters" culture that these people use as predators.

Enjoy the Corral this Thursday, but I've got different standards of "consent" than you it seems.

(you also neatly ignored the small yet real fact that the opposite can happen.....you a teacher by chance?.....does Neil know about his friends?)

[Jflem1983]

So does anyone on here know what the penalty for polygamy is under our laws

[Osoyoos_Familyof4]

They've been trying to pin rape on WB unsuccessfully for more than 10 years. And even if they got a rape conviction it would be one man in a community of many.

It would be a quicker and better strategy to legislate manditory regulated education and a boatload of social service support in Creston to create an atmosphere whereby the community itself has a paradigm shift.

[dontrump]

why did it take this long to bring this dingbat sex pervert into a court of law? why did it take this long to convict him? and why is not in a federal prison for life?

[neilsimon]

Let's make this simple.

Would you like the rape of young girls to stop Neilsmom or not?

Of course. Rather bizarre question to ask based on my previously stated position. Your proposed change to the law would have no impact on young girls whatsoever as it would make no difference to anyone under the age of 18.

How do you solve it other than telling everyone else how to keep it going?

Sorry, I don't understand your question. How does that solve it? It does nothing more to solve it that your absurd half age plus 7 idea.

You aren't talking about real issues that exist, you could state that upon evaluation a licence (much like green card frauds are investigated) could bee allowed. You seem to desire the open "get the youngsters" culture that these people use as predators.

What? Where have I suggested anything of the sort? I'm just not about to impose my morality on adults, who have made conscious and reasonable decisions.

Enjoy the Corral this Thursday, but I've got different standards of "consent" than you it seems.

Where are you getting this from? I guess we do though since I think that adults who are not unduly influenced, should be free to have sex with other consenting adults, where you feel the need to impose your own morality on them and decide that a 31 year old can't actually really give consent when they decide to have sex with a 50 year old and that it has to be rape (because that's what statutory rape is, no matter how either party feels about it).
By the way, I'm happily married, to a woman younger than me. Which I'm sure is no surprise to you, but then again, a month is hardly that much of a difference.

(you also neatly ignored the small yet real fact that the opposite can happen.....you a teacher by chance?.....does Neil know about his friends?)

You keep portraying me as if I'm some sort of predator or such. I find this absurd and frankly odd. But, I guess I was a lecturer and I never had even the least little bit of interest in any of my students, even those who were older than me.

Frankly, you seem to be trying to suggest that I somehow support the kind of behaviour that went on in this case. I do not and can't see where you are getting that idea.

Anyway, can you explain to me, keeping in mind that the men in this case were more than willing to break the law, how would your proposed change to the age of consent have prevented the rape of underage girls?

[Jflem1983]

Hard to believe u can have 125 kids in Canada. It be common knowledge . Yet somehow you are not in jail . 125 kids . 125 kids ...

[youjustcomplain]

Hard to believe u can have 125 kids in Canada. It be common knowledge . Yet somehow you are not in jail . 125 kids . 125 kids ...

Well, it's not illegal to father 125 kids. That's one reason.

[Snickerdoodle]

Not sure where everyone is thinking that 18 is the age of consent? Hasn't been for over 20 years - Its 16 years old - you know only old enough to drive a car with a co-passenger as an instructor, but old enough apparently to decide to be bride number 17 to a 60 year old man.

As well the 5 year rule is only applicable to minors.

This cult, cuz thats what it is hiding behind what every cult's pr spin is "Religion"... preys on minor females (remember its not plural husbands, and the boys are tossed aside like trash). And they know the laws very very well... Technically they didn't break any of the laws of consent... so they have to go after the plural marriage. (Much like Al Capone wasn't arrested for murder, but on tax evasion.. sometimes you got to use what you can get the easiest)

Maybe we should be looking at the root cause, ah age of consent being too low, instead of focusing on the marriage aspect - as we know, for the most part people don't care what two consenting ADULTS do together... the unfortunate part of this is 16 isn't an adult except when it comes to sex.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/othe ... p/faq.html

"Close in age exceptions
A 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 5 years or older than the 14 or 15 year old, any sexual activity is a criminal offence.

There is also a "close in age" exception for 12 and 13 year olds. A 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than two years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 2 years or older than the 12 or 13 year old, any sexual activity is a criminal offence.

Sexual exploitation

A 16 or 17 year old cannot consent to sexual activity if:
•their sexual partner is in position of trust or authority towards them, for example their teacher or coach
•the young person is dependent on their sexual partner, for example for care or support
•the relationship between the young person and their sexual partner is exploitative

The following factors may be taken into account when determining whether a relationship is exploitative of the young person:
•the young person's age
•the age difference between the young person and their partner
•how the relationship developed (for example, quickly, secretly, or over the internet)
•whether the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person

[neilsimon]

Not sure where everyone is thinking that 18 is the age of consent? Hasn't been for over 20 years - Its 16 years old - you know only old enough to drive a car with a co-passenger as an instructor, but old enough apparently to decide to be bride number 17 to a 60 year old man.
......
A 16 or 17 year old cannot consent to sexual activity if:
•their sexual partner is in position of trust or authority towards them, for example their teacher or coach
•the young person is dependent on their sexual partner, for example for care or support
•the relationship between the young person and their sexual partner is exploitative

The following factors may be taken into account when determining whether a relationship is exploitative of the young person:
•the young person's age
•the age difference between the young person and their partner
•how the relationship developed (for example, quickly, secretly, or over the internet)
•whether the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person

It wouldn't be hard to argue that in this case the men were in a position of trust or authority and that the relationship was exploitative. That's why I used 18 as the cut-off.
The age for marriage isn't the same as the age of consent, though I believe that these women were not seen as being married in the eyes of the law and so whether they are his bride or not in his mind, it was still rape until they were 18, in my understanding.
In my opinion, we should probably raise the age of marriage to 18.

[Osoyoos_Familyof4]

Now we're moving from argument into solution: GREAT

Moving the age of marital consent (with or without parental consent) to age 18 is an excellent start. I also think the drop-out rate in school should be 18, not 16, and we need to come up with enforcement that has teeth.

A crackdown on "schooling/education" with a non-partisan educator would also be a good start. In my opinion the enforcement of your child having reasonable attendance could be tied to the welfare/child tax credit system in that if your child doesn't attend school the parent will be penalized financially.

We need social services in Creston to be increased with social workers who respect their beliefs but will protect the children from exploitation.

But mostly we really have to negotiate and play-ball with this community in a respectful manner. They have the means financially to pack it up and move should they feel persecuted too harshly. This is a real risk, and it's happened to other FLDS enclaves in the USA. What happens after a "raid" is that they moved to Mexico and South America where authorities didn't care. OR, they became increasingly militaristic when they built their compounds in the Dakotas and Texas and armed themselves for war. This is a desperate situation that does no good for anyone. We must negotiate with WB and allow polygamy between the adults if that is their choice, but no marriage legally or celestially until 18.

If we set the stage for the 18 year old girls to have education and some basic knowledge about women's rights and reproductive rights we "may" be able to convince some of them to leave the community to make other choices.

[Jflem1983]

Hard to believe u can have 125 kids in Canada. It be common knowledge . Yet somehow you are not in jail . 125 kids . 125 kids ...

Well, it's not illegal to father 125 kids. That's one reason.

How could a man support that many kids . This is tax fraud . The wives are collecting as single mothers .