Showing posts with label muslim polygamy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label muslim polygamy. Show all posts

Monday, February 21, 2011

ALERT! Here they come!


Immigrants involved in multiple marriage watching polygamy test case: imam

Marten Youssef, The Canadian Press


Read'em and weep.

Now might be a good time to remind everyone what Flora and I have been saying for the last 6 years. This is the essay we wrote that former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard backed out of challenging.

Polygamy: Gateway to American Sharia


Polygamy should be prosecuted because it is the largest gateway to the practice of Sharia law in our country today. Fundamentalist Mormons may say polygamy doesn't hurt anyone but that is not the reality reflected in dozens of studies by medical and mental health professionals, worldwide. Polygamy has been studied in multiple countries, with the same results. Polygamy leads to statistically higher negative outcomes for women and children everywhere it is practiced. These outcomes include higher incidences of poverty, molestation, child and spouse abandonment, incest, child marriage, depression and divorce.

We cannot as a free and democratic nation governed by laws allow small groups of people to form operational theocracies, where the rights of women and children are trampled in the name of the religious freedom to keep women in concubinage. How dare we tell the people of Afghanistan that we know more about freedom than they, and then encourage immigrant cultures coming to our country to hold onto, rather than let go of traditions which infringe on the human rights of women. 70% of Muslim women who are first wives say their spouse took the second wife without their knowledge or consent, even though that is never supposed to happen in Islam. How can we as Americans look at the women coming to our shores from countries where they never dreamed of the right even to uncover their faces and say, "Here too, when your husband wants to bring another woman home, there is nothing you can do but live with it, because we are such a tolerant people.” There are more Muslims practicing the felony crime of polygamy in America, using Mohammed as their excuse, than there are Fundamentalist Mormons using Joseph Smith. What do they all have in common? They show a flagrant disregard for U.S. law in favor of their own culture of abuse, justified by their religion.



American Muslim polygamy has only started to grow and yet it already exceeds the estimated 32,000 fundamentalist Mormons engaging in the practice today. It took the fundamentalist Mormons 100 years to get here, yet it has taken Muslims in America less than a single generation to overtake them in numbers.



Refusing to prosecute polygamy will open the flood gates for Sharia based Muslim polygamy to grow to European levels here in the United States, quickly.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Update on Stop Polygamy in Canada Campaign


Please take the time to read this important message from our sister in Canada, Nancy Mereska. I have known Nancy for several years now, and watched as her organization has served the women of Canada, and the cause of freedom there.

Anyone who can possibly send even a little support her way is not only showing kindness, but honestly making a dent in the work to ensure women and children in North America will not have to suffer the indignities of a life born into gross physical servitude and spiritual bondage.


Dear Campaign members and friends of Stop Polygamy in Canada,



Financial Update:



Bank balance at October 31, 2010: $1005

Withdrawal in early November: $950



Hotel, Nov. 20-Dec. 11 $822

Airport fees/charges Nov. 20 $148.31



Donation December 7, 2010 $100



Current balance: $155



There may have been more donations in the last two weeks. I have not been to the bank to check the balance. If I find that more has been donated, I will inform you as soon as possible.



All grocery, part of the airport fees and city transportation fees were taken from my household budget. I had a suite with a small kitchenette consisting of a small refrigerator, sink and a two-burner stove. I was treated to lunch two times during my three-week stay which was much appreciated.



The only real inconvenience was the mice. I discovered one mouse scampering across the floor from under the fridge late one night! I asked for a mouse trap but when I returned that day from court, none had been provided. That night there were two mice and I phoned the desk and was a little more aggressive in asking for a mouse trap. I am not afraid of mice but a bite from one can cause serious health risks! The hotel is undergoing renovations this winter—one of the reasons they are providing a room at such a low rate. I hope when I return later this month the problem will have been rectified! (I did not keep any open containers or food on my little counter top so there were no tracks around my food area. And, I never leave dirty dishes!)



The presentation I was supposed to give to the Vegreville Knights of Columbus on November 8, 2010, was postponed due to the death of one of the members. I was in Vancouver for the December meeting. The January meeting is too close to Ukrainian Christmas so I will not be giving my presentation until February 7, 2011.



I am very grateful to those who have donated air miles for my many trips to Vancouver. Two more campaign members have offered to donate air miles. I will be contacting one of these members for my January 18-21 trip. With our very low bank balance, it looks like the airport fees, city transportation fees, hotel and food will once again come out of my household budget. (This is causing a great strain in my personal life! We are seniors who live below the poverty line.)



There are many people on the Stop Polygamy in Canada campaign list. Some of you have emailed me for instructions on how to donate to the Stop Polygamy in Canada campaign. I’ve given you instructions but the bank balance shows no donations have been made. Donations as small as $5 are welcome! Click on the “to donate” button at www.stoppolygamyincanada.wordpress.com for instructions on how to donate. If you live out of Canada, you can wire your donation to the Bank of Montreal at the address and account # given in the instructions. The privacy acts of Canada prevent me from knowing who is donating, so if you want a personal thank you card, please email me with your mailing address and let me know how much you have donated and I will send you a personal thank you.



Re: tax credit—I spoke with my accountant on our problem of not being able to give out tax credit receipts. She told me there are ways companies can get around giving to a humanitarian cause such as Stop Polygamy in Canada. The donation can be a tax write-off.



Sincerely,



Nancy Mereska, President

Stop Polygamy in Canada

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Day 9 of the Canadian Case


Thanks again, Nancy Mereska from Stop Polygamy in Canada for these very informative and detailed reports on the Canadian Supreme Court proceedings.

DAY 9—Reference s. 293—December 7, 2010
Dear Network:
It’s raining in Vancouver today—nothing unusual for winter I’m told. The forecast is for rain for the next four days. The only reason I’m sharing the weather report with you is that the cloudy skies seemed to set the mood for court today. There were very few attorneys present today and even fewer in the gallery. Two weeks ago when I first arrived, I had a cold but as I did my best to cough quietly into my sleeve, so did other people in the gallery. Last week, a few attorneys were stifling coughs and sneezes. Today, the cold seems to have risen in ranks as his Lordship Chief Justice Bauman had a box of tissues in plain sight and occasionally reached for their assistance as he apparently, too, has caught the Courtroom 55 cold.



Chief Justice Bauman’s first matter of business was to rule that the Vancouver Sun and other media did not err in publishing the excerpts from the videos. And, he is still reserving his ruling on the matter of whether or not he’ll allow reporters to interview people involved in the reference in the causeway outside the courtroom on the last days of the hearing.



Too many attorneys were absent today for there to be any mention of when those last two weeks will be.



Mr. Gerald D. Chipeur Q.C. from the Christian Legal Fellowship introduced their special witness, Dr. Shoshana Amyra Grossbard, Professor of Economics, Editor, “Review of Economics of the Household” after she had taken the witness oath. Dr. Grossbard is employed by San Diego State University and has been a professor of economics for 29 years.



Dr. Grossbard has specialized in the economics of marriage including polygamy in Nigeria. She admitted she had a neutral opinion on polygamy until she became acquainted with FLDS polygamy. Polygamy is a widespread phenomenon. She mentioned African, Asian, American and Jewish polygamy. When asked where one would find Jewish polygamy, she answered “Kurdistan.”



Dr. Grossbard said that Christian polygamy is found in the FLDS in Canada and the U.S.; and, she only found out about those when she studied Bountiful. She explained that polygamy is mainly a cultural event sometimes happening with religion. She explained what she considered central themes of polygamy, themes that make polygamy harmful to women:

· In cultural polygamy (African, Asian) the bride price becomes very “big” but the money is exchanged between the husband and the father of the bride—no money goes to the woman.

· In all polygamy men find ways to limit the freedom of women.

· Female circumcision makes it impossible for the women to experience any sexual pleasure.

· Easy divorce—In Islam, a man only has to repeat “I divorce you” three times and the woman is left alone because her children belong to the husband

· Women cannot choose husbands.

· Early marriage increases the supply of women to polygamous men.

· Purdah—or the isolation of women making it impossible for them to get out of their compounds.

· Ideology of romantic love is not present in these cultures

· FLDS discourage romantic love.

· Polygamous societies limit opportunities for women to be in the labour force.



Dr. Grossbard said she has had no first-hand experience with Jewish polygamy. Traditional Jews de-emphasize romantic love.



Dr. Grossbard talked about France. How in 1980 France allowed African immigration of polygamy but in 1993 stopped allowing it. There are approx. 200,000 polygamous households. France recognized the great harm this was doing to society at large. Services are needed for these people. Social workers are not adequately prepared to deal with polygamy.



Some reports were brought up that I’m totally unfamiliar with so I did not follow very well the thread of the conversation but Dr. Grossbard did say that there is plenty of hard core evidence regarding how the mental health of women in polygamy is affected.



Mr. Tim Dickenson, attorney for the Amicus cross examined Dr. Grossbard. TD & DG for my notes:



TD: Did you conduct field research on FLDS? Did you conduct field research in Canada?

DG: Said she doesn’t do field research. Her research is from secondary data, i.e. data collected by others.

TD: When polygamy is permitted, there will be a greater demand for wives?

DG: Yes. There will be more demand in the marriage market.

TD: What creates greater demand for women is men wanting more than one wife?

DG: Yes.

TD: You have not set out any research that shows there would be more polygamy if it were permitted.

DG: No.

TD: The more commercial a society is, there is less polygamy?

DG: More agrarian societies demand more wives and children. I would not agree with you if you say polygamy would not spread if you were to legalize polygamy.

TD: Referred to a paper titled “The Mystery of Monogamy”—where it is concluded that in poor countries where wealth is based on sections of land not capital, then men seek out wives (polygamy) to produce more children.

DG: That is a purely theoretical paper.



More reference to a report I have not read so was not able to keep up with the questioning. But, Dr. Grossbard concluded that “Men in polygamous societies will manipulate the environment so as to control the women.”



For some reason Mr. Dickenson brought up Valentine’s Day as a celebration of recommitment to monogamy. Dr. Grossbard agreed with him, but there were smiles and muffled chuckles through the courtroom.



The second expert witness for the day was Dr. Zheng Wu of the University of Victoria. He is a demographer who also uses secondary statistics for his research analysis. He was called as a witness for the Amicus side. Oh, dear, YAWN! I was warned by one reporter that if I planned to stay the whole time for the hearing (which I now know is totally impossible) there would be some pretty boring days in court. Well, I felt sorry for Dr. Wu. He obviously is very remarkable in his field of research on marriage patterns, but had nothing on polygamy, used the term common-law marriage and common-law relationship interchangeably not knowing that in B.C. there is a difference—a legal difference. Dr. Wu explained that because his reports are widely distributed, he does not have a legal definition in mind when he talks about conjugal unions in his reports.



SCHEDULING: The expert witness who was supposed to appear tomorrow cannot so the court hopes to get through four of the video testimonies. So the videos will start in the morning; instead of the afternoon. Bring lots of tissue because I’m sure any sniffling I hear in the courtroom will not be just from anyone’s cold.



Until Wednesday, then,



Nancy Mereska, President

Stop Polygamy in Canada

Sunday, December 5, 2010

What is your freedom worth?



By SETAREH SABETY in Nice, France | 14 July 2009 No Revolution

This is just an amazing piece to read. If you have a well developed conscience I'd recommend preparing yourself.

Mind you, I don't agree with all her conclusions, especially that freedom is not worth a single drop of human blood. Our soldiers are walking, talking, living proof that freedom is not free, to any of us here in America, Ms. Sabety. It costs us, and many of our families a great deal;sometimes the ultimate price.

If I could say anything to her at all, I would explain to her that I have stood on the side of the road here in the Texas Hill Country, more than once, with my hand over my heart and my lips quivering as the body of one of our boys comes home to rest.

If you cannot recommend that your own people do what is necessary for their freedom, how can you expect us to believe you really care about democracy? The most cursory and basic review of any successful democracy will show you that Jefferson plainly said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I would suggest Ms. Sabety that unless you find something that is worth dying for, you cannot ever hope to have the freedoms that are worth living for.

Friday, December 3, 2010

Day 8 of the Canadian Case




So while the pro-polygamy side presents a witness that is obviously not an expert, the anti-polygamy side presents an experienced psychologist who testifies that he has treated multiple victims of polygamy for post traumatic stress disorder and dissociative disorders.

Day 8

The court day started with Ms. Ruth Lane on the telephone speaking to the court from Hurricane, Utah, where she resides. Ms. Lane is the woman who objected to excerpts of her video evidence being put out on the internet. She was the tenth wife of Winston Blackmore, and has seven children by him. Although Ms. Lane admits to being on television in the past with her story (she appeared on Dr. Phil), she said, “I don’t share my story with just anybody. I chose to tell my story that it would be open to the public in the court. . .I have no problem with the media are reporting on my story as seen in court. . .”



Mr. Burnett, lawyer for the media, asked Ms. Lane is she had been asked all questions regarding public knowledge of her testimony.



Ms. Lane said, “I am objecting to being posted online. I would not have shared my story if I had known the media would be editing it to their liking.”



His Lordship Justice Bauman reserved his decision on the matter.



Dr. Larry Beall, a clinical psychologist in Salt Lake City who also has a Masters Degree in Education and who is an expert witness for the AGBC appeared in court because his affidavit was challenged by Dr. Matt Davies who is a witness for the FLDS. He was asked by AGBC Attorney Karen Horsman to outline his experience briefly for the court and to explain how he became involved with helping women and children from the FLDS.



Dr. Beall explained to the court that he specializes in the diagnosis of mental problems. He opened the The Trauma Awareness and Treatment Centre in Salt Lake City in 1994. His referrals are mostly from the State and Federal Government and Medicaid. He does interface work within the community, e.g. seminars on trauma in society. Over the years he has worked with approx. 5600 patients with at least 400 of those children.



The State has requirements for treatment of domestic violence. Dr. Beall found that domestic violence victims did not have sufficient life skills to survive. He wrote a guideline manual for helping train those victims for the Division of Workforce Services.



Dr. Beall first became involved with ex-FLDS women and their children by doing some pro bono work for Tapestry Against Polygamy (TAP)—an advocacy group that helps women who are escaping from the FLDS cult. He also receives patients through Diversity—an advocacy group for FLDS lost boys. Before any patient is referred to him, they are assessed by a State-run triage system.



There are a team of workers in his treatment centre that meet for weekly staff meetings, discuss challenges and problems, and make decisions on treatment modes. Dr. Beall has treated eight women of the many who were referred to the centre, all from Mormon-based polygamy groups, some FLDS, some Kingston, some Harmston. He has helped with over 100 assessments. All had core problems showing that the doctrinal teaching of being saved within the confines of their respective cults was there, they had little education, and they had lived under a tight focus of control. Eleven males from Hildale, Utah/Colorado City, AZ were referred to the clinic. Dr. Beall worked directly with six of the young men. The women were treated through 12-16 sessions; the young men, 6-10 sessions.



Dr. Beall was an expert witness in the YFZ Ranch trials in Texas. He had no prior exposure to the FLDS until his first pro bono work with TAP.



(Note: For those of you who have been following this campaign from its start in 2003, you will remember that Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff set up a Safety Net Committee in 2004. He invited all who were involved with Mormon polygamy in any capacity to come to the first meeting. Representatives from TAP went to the meeting hopeful that at last Utah was going to take responsibility for the polygamy issue. Direct sources revealed to me that TAP was not allowed to have a voice at the meeting because they were against the practice of polygamy. Proponents of polygamy, e.g. Anne Wilde and Mary Bachelor were given a place at the table, TAP was not! When the raid in Texas happened, Utah spent thousands sending these women and others to Texas to teach social workers there about polygamy.—Enough, I can feel the bile boiling in the pit of my stomach.)



Dr. Beall was queried about various treatment models in psychology and main diagnostic tool manuals. He answered affirmative to all. Dr. Beall explained the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) thread that is common to all he treated. He said the women usually left because they could no longer tolerate the harm being done to them and/or their children; and, the boys/young men left because they didn’t want to be assigned to another “father” or were kicked out because they were deemed rebellious.



All suffered from Adjustment Disorder which includes many symptoms found in PTSD. In PTSD, Dr. Beall explained, memories disrupt daily experience. Many suffer cognitive dissonance which is not a diagnosis but is one level of their trauma. What Dr. Beall states he has witnessed far exceeds the symptoms for cognitive dissonance. The females internalized symptoms such as anxiety, depression, guilt, shame. They exhibited a robotic type presentation where they shut down their feelings. They exhibited no anger. The males exhibited externalized symptoms, angry that they had no survival skills to deal with a world they had been taught to mistrust; angry because they could not compete with the males in the cult; angry because they were taught that mental health problems were a weakness.



To answer Ms. Horsman’s question about Adolescent Development, Dr. Beall explained that adolescence is a time of identity formation. The adolescent must be able to exercise choice. Instead, adolescents in the FLDS and similar cults are taught that if they “feel that something happening by a priesthood leader is wrong, they are told that they are wrong to think that way—so natural feelings of what is wrong are not developed.” Sexual Grooming is the gradual relational conditioning that leads to sexual contact—the illusion is created that the sexual contact is consensual and the teen girl has responsibility in it.



Dr. Beall, “Since the priesthood perpetrator is a representative of God, if the teen girls does not comply, then she is displeasing God.”. . . “It is apparent that the FLDS has a structured sexual grooming pattern.”



Of the treatment models used, many overlap, Dr. Beall explained. The first issue is always safety. They must be taught life skills. A sense of connectivity to their new life must be established; and, most difficult is the cognitive restructuring—helping them think in positives, not negatives.



Dr. Beall is aware of and uses APA guidelines at the National Level.



Dr. Davies claimed in his opposition affidavit that Dr. Beall exhibited “bias” when he referred to FLDS polygamy survivors. Dr. Beall said the victims have been given thinking patterns instilled in them since birth. These people are taught complete compliance, that it is contingent on their very salvation.



Robert Wickett, attorney for the FLDS and James Oler, rose to cross-examine Dr. Beall. He asked Dr. Beall to define polygamy which Dr. Beall defined as one man with more than one wife. RW & DB for notes:



RW wanted to know if DB had retained permission to talk to the court about his cases.

DB said he did not and would not talk about individual cases because he had promised his clients that he would never divulge their personal experiences, but there are major themes that emerged through his observations.

RW wanted to know if DB could produce clinical notes.

DB said he could not and would not under HIPA (privacy law in US—I believe). And, his clients would feel very threatened—life or death situation!

RW brought up the possibility of DB malingering—that is fabricating or exaggerating the symptoms of mental or physical disorders. . .

DB The problem with the FLDS is not one particular trauma, but there is a climate, a climate where the victim does not feel safe; e.g. witnessing violence against another can cause as much trauma to the witness as it does to the victim. Each woman suffered physical and sexual abuse. They felt unwanted sex was abuse, but that is not recognized by the courts.

RW brought up DB using hypnosis on patients to recover memories. He read a passage from Brent Jeffs’ book Lost Boy where it is said DB used hypnosis on him in treatment.

DB said that he does not use hypnosis because he believes it is unethical. He said that the passage in the book is wrong. That did not happen. DB did not treat Brent Jeffs. (I have not read Brent’s book so I do not know who the co-author is.)

RW wanted to know if DB thinks adults can consent to marriage.

DB once again explained that the critical thinking of teen FLDS members is denied. There is conditioning and indoctrination that shapes the way they think. Factors have to be weighed depending on their vulnerabilities.

RW wanted to know what DB’s ideas on the criminal prohibition bein lifted are.

DB said that is out of the scope of his expertise.

RW would not let the question rest.

DB said that there cannot be over of the conditioning of these people and the limits on their being able to make choices.



The attorney for the BCCLA rose to cross-examine.

BCCLA grilled DB on the DSM-4 guidelines and asked if PTSD is the principle diagnosis.

DB explained that PTSD is the principle condition caused by the principle diagnosis of anxiety.

BCCLA wanted to know if PTSD is the central theme in your case references.

DB agreed but said that the guidelines under DSM-4 reference the main identifiers as trauma.

BCCLA wanted to know if the women he had treated expressed fear for their lives and the lives of their children.

DB said they had. “We have treated at our clinic a number of adults who as children were abused.”



The attorney for the BC Teachers Federation rose to question Dr. Beall.

BCTF wanted to know if DB had worked with children from the FLDS.

DB said he had worked with children from the ALTA Academy—Warren Jeffs’ school.

BCTF wanted to know if DB saw any sign that they were taught critical thinking patterns.

DB said they had no training in critical thinking patterns.



Chief Justice Bauman thanked Dr. Beall and excused him from the witness stand.



THEN SCHEDULING MATTERS WERE BROUGHT UP! Court will not sit again until Tuesday, December Dec. 7. Then a Mr./Ms. Grossbard will be cross-examined. I do not have this affidavit. And, Dr. Zheng Wu, a witness for the FLDS will be cross-examined. Dr. Wu is Chair, Sociology Dep’t. University of Victoria. The rest of the week is scheduled for Dr. Joseph Henrich.



December 10 is my last day to be at this part of the reference.



My plans were to return the last two weeks of January for the final statements and summation. BUT it was decided in court today that it will take until the end of January for the evidentiary phase! There was some jostling of dates for the summation phase but some key attorneys were not present to confirm so this will be decided next week. One key attorney rose to say, “Your Lordship, I still want to be married at the end of this process.” This in response to the fact that he will not be available during spring break. There was a chorus of laughter throughout the courtroom. Obviously, there are stressors on everyone involved in this process.



Until Tuesday, then,



Nancy Mereska, President

Stop Polygamy in Canada

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Day 7 of the Canadian Case



On a personal note, I cannot understand at all how the court allowed this woman to be certified as an expert. I have now seen several articles by journalists who are quoting her conclusions, assertions and opinions, without mentioning at all how the crown is shredding her credibility every time she opens her mouth on the stand.

You don't know where Colorado City is, Ms. Campbell? Really? So you don't know about the more than 400 signed and sworn affidavits signed by boys who say they were driven out of that polygamist controlled city and dumped like dogs on the side of the roads? Do you know that community has run over the same number of children "accidentally" in the past 20 years as the entire state of Connecticut, with a population of over 350,000 people, or that there are mounds of untended often unmarked infant graves in front of the town junk yard? Really Ms. Campbell? Really?

I, like Nancy, am genuinely looking forward to the upcoming testimony of an authentic expert in psychology and research, Dr. Larry Bealle.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Day 7 Reference s. 293

A message from Nancy Mereska of Stop Polygamy in Canada and her latest notes on the Canadian Supreme Court case.

It turns out I erred on the timing of the presentation to the court via telephone by the video-recorded witness who is objecting to her video being published by mainstream media. We will hear from her tomorrow morning, not today as I had reported yesterday.



Today, Professor Angela Campbell was still on the witness stand. The Canadian Council for the Rights of the Child and David Asper Centre attorney, Cheryl Milne cross examined Professor Campbell. CM and Prof C, respectively for my notes:



CM: Wanted to know if Prof C had lived in the community of Bountiful during her research.

Prof C: No.

CM: Wanted to know if Prof C has any particular expertise in child development or in child education or any expertise to be able to detect child abuse.

Prof C: No.

CM: Wanted to know if Prof C was in Bountiful to present a voice for the children.

Prof C: No. Prof C said that she saw well over 200 children but did not do a head count.

CM: Took issue with paragraph 50 of Prof C’s affidavit were she said, “Children within a family born to different sister wives also often have rich relationships” and she gave for an example the fact that they call each other brothers and sisters, whereas in mainstream society, they would be half-sisters or half-brothers. CM said to Prof C and to the court that that constituted a very general statement.

CM: Also, pointed out paragraph 53 where Prof C said that she “spoke to few men.” This paragraph contradicts her statement on the stand yesterday where she said she spoke to no men.

Prof C: Clarified that she interviewed only women, not any men.



Craig Jones, Lead Attorney for the AGBC rose to cross-examine Prof C:

Craig: Wanted to know if Prof C knew where Hildale was, where Colorado City was, and when the YFZ Ranch in Texas was established.

Prof C: Said she thought Hildale is in Utah, said she did not know where Colorado City was nor did she know when the YFZ Ranch was established.

Craig: Wanted to know if Prof C knew what caused the split in Bountiful.

Prof C: Said she did not know.

Craig: Wanted to know what Prof C knew about the convictions of the men that came out of the raid on the YFZ Ranch.

Prof C: Said she did not know that any charges came out of the raid.

Craig: Wanted to know if Prof C knew about child brides, lost boys, the status of women, and the negative impacts the FLDS has on children and women.

Prof C: Yes.

Craig: Wanted to know if Prof C had become concerned about literature being too negative on the issue of criminalization of polygamy.

Prof C: Yes.

Craig: When did you conclude that decriminalization should happen?

Prof C: Said that she decided in late 2008 that the prohibition around polygamy has not been thoroughly investigated. But she cannot say that she concluded that polygamy should be decriminalized.

Craig: Wanted to know what other research she had investigated from Canada.

Prof C: Said she was not aware of any.

Craig: Did you ask any of the 22 women you interviewed at what age they were married.

Prof C: No.

Craig went through four major harms identified with FLDS polygamy: child brides, lost boys, impact on status of women, and education.

Craig established with Prof C that in Bountiful a child born out of wedlock is non-existent. So, if we have the record of the age of the mother and the age of the father, wouldn’t that be a fair quantitative analysis of whether or not there were child brides?

Prof C: I don’t know.

Craig: If the records show that the place of birth of the mother is in the U.S. and she ended up married in Canada, wouldn’t that be indicative of child trafficking if the woman was a teenager when she married?

Prof C: Yes.

Craig: How many polygamous marriages are you aware of since 2002?

Prof C: Said she was not aware of any.

Craig: Craig went through the issue of lost boys and asked Prof C if she asked about lost boys.

Prof C: No.

Craig pointed out that Prof C had said on the stand that she had attended a community event and the proportion of males to females looked about even. He wanted to know if she was observing polygamous families.

Prof C: I don’t know. I didn’t do a head count.

Craig went into the harm of the impact on the status of women. He asked Prof C if she wouldn’t agree that the higher the reproductive economy (fertility rate) means the lower their (the women’s) equality. Meaning the more women married to the same man producing children, etc.

Prof C: Agreed.

Craig: Said that Prof C was aware that often birth control was not a decision of the husband, that women hid it from their husbands. Asked Prof C is she agreed that women should have absolute control over their reproductive rights?

Prof C: Yes.

Craig went into the harm of the lack of education in the community. It would be useful to know the dropout rate. He asked Prof C if she knew how many received their Dogwood Certificate (high school diploma in BC).

Prof C: No.

Craig: Would it be useful to His Lordship to know in assessing harm, how many Bountiful students received their Dogwood Certificate?

Prof C: Yes.



Craig developed a more accurate picture of the actual time Prof C spent in Bountiful interviewing women. The time, it turns out, is substantially less than what was established in testimony yesterday. (I took a rest from writing and did not calculate the time)



The same line of questioning was followed by the attorney for the AG of Canada. Then an attorney for West Coast LEAF cross examined. She cited a passage in an exhibit not open to the public due to confidentiality and wanted to know is Prof C had interviewed any young women aged 15-17. Prof C said she had not. Prof C said that the women in the group she interviewed have more choices than they did before the split. Prof C said that she interviewed one girl from the Jeffs side twice but would not give her age or any details about her.



Finally, the gruelling fact-finding mission of finding out there were, indeed, no facts was over and Prof C was excused from the witness stand. I do not know how Prof C held her demeanour so professionally during the examination by so many attorneys. Although she looked drawn at times, she answered the many questions as best she could and with honesty. That’s all any court can ask of any witness.



Tomorrow Dr. Larry Beall, expert witness for the AGBC, who is a clinical psychologist in Salt Lake City and who has provided clinical treatment to over 30 former residents of polygamous communities, will be on the witness stand. One of the great pleasures I have had in running the Stop Polygamy in Canada campaign is becoming aware of great people like Dr. Beall. I have been honoured with articles, essays, and research papers over the years that, at times, have left me in tears of joy that there are professional people out there who know and understand the workings of the polygamy cults; and, who have had experience in helping people who have made their way out.



I would like to share with you some points I see as specific highlights from the research paper, “Polygamy: The Impact of Modern-Day Polygamy on Women & Children,” by Larry Beall, Ph.D. (Quotes in point form)

· “. . .it takes an unusually strong and resourceful woman to successfully leave a polygamist group.”

· she “. . .reached the limits of her capacity to continue enduring intolerable conditions for her and her children.”

· “. . .the basic structure of polygamy is authoritarian and secretive.”

· “When the author uses the word ‘cult’. . .there are certain elements of cults he has observed through the lives of its survivors with whom he has worked. . .Three of those elements are (1) doctrinal teachings and practices, which because of their emotionally, physically or sexually abusive nature, would be judged by society outside the cult, as destructive, harmful, and /or criminal; (2) coercion or force by its leaders to insure compliance in the cult’s members, and (3) secrecy to prevent influence from the outside society to maintain isolation of its members.”

· Dr. Beall lists the “(p)rominent characteristics of polygamous cults”

1. “All control belongs to a central figure.”

2. “Revelation from God dictates the words and acts of the central figure.”

3. “Independent thinking and outside information are shunned.”

4. “Relationships with others outside the cult are prohibited.”

5. “Non-constructive attitudes toward education.” Note: Dr. Beall’s explanation of this trait is one-half page long!

6. “Adaptation to mainstream society is punishing.”

7. “Gestapo Mentality.”

8. “Violence is a necessary strength.”

9. “Emotional expressions are undesirable.” (I have to make a personal experience note here from my early days of my marriage in mainstream Mormonism. My little 2-year-old niece was killed by a car on the streets of Provo, Utah. We had to bring her little body to Canada for burial. At the funeral, someone was kind enough to bring me a chair as I stood with my husband in the family receiving line that led to her open coffin. I was the only one crying. I was beside myself with grief. I had baby twin boys. My husband chided me that if I had enough faith that she had gone directly to the celestial kingdom because she died before the age of 8—the age of accountability in the Mormon religion—I would not be crying. Good God!)

10. “Personal desires are unwanted.”

11. “Polygamous cults are a caste system.”

12. “Attitudes toward women as property/possessions.”



The only reason an expert witness is called to the stand in a hearing such as this is because his/her affidavit has been challenged by the “opposing” side. Dr. Beall is appearing because his affidavit has been challenged. He issued his responding affidavit to the challenge today. Tomorrow promises to be a nail-biter.



Thank you, all, for your kind attendance to my amateur court notes; and, your comments—good or critical—they are welcome, because it means I have struck a chord for good or ill and you are thinking—thinking about polygamy and its impact on not only its victims, but on society. Remember that laws in a free and democratic society are legislated for the common good. I’m confident that we will see s. 293 upheld.



Nancy Mereska, President

Stop Polygamy in Canada

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Day 5 of the Canadian Case


Thank you, Nancy Mereska with Stop Polygamy in Canada for these terrific updates!

Day 5

Background: It appears that one of the witnesses whose video (excerpt) interview was appended to the Vancouver Sun article last week has lodged a complaint saying they did not know the video interviews were going to be broadcast publicly. The videos have been distributed to several media and the Regina Leader-Post has posted some on their website.



Craig Jones argued that these witnesses have volunteered. There are 14 affidavits with attached videos. The Court considered the videos to be personal information. There was no permission obtained to broadcast the videos. Copies have been distributed to several other media. No advance notice was given to the participants that the material would be broadcast. Mr. Burnett (lawyer for the Vancouver Sun) takes the position that access equals publication rights. The property of the exhibit remains with the owner of the exhibit. There has to be a distinction between access and publication.



Chief Justice Robert Bauman interjected and said “. . .when they are filed in the Court, they are the property of the Court.”



Mr. Craig Jones disagreed and cited the Dagenais/Mentuk ruling in which it was said that there should be generous access to evidence; the court should be fully open to the public; the media should be able to describe what happened in the video. Craig made reference to the CBC ruling of earlier in the week. He said that the video supporting evidence is coming before the court as an exhibit. Should the content be downloaded to the internet with unregulated and unlimited use?



Chief Justice Bauman said he made ruling on CBC application to video the proceedings relating to the press broadcasting evidence before it is processed in court. He is not ruling on any suggestion that the press misrepresented itself.



Mr. Craig Jones argued that we are on the cusp of an age where we may have attempts by parties to put in competing video evidence and have it published. . .There has to be a distinction between a person’s videoing their evidence and it being broadcast to the world. No permission was given for this.



Chief Justice Bauman reiterated that evidence is property of the court.



Mr. Jones said that the court is the custodian of ecidence. There is an accountability question. What is the extent of public access? Is there re-victimization of those who are volunteering their evidence?



Chief Justice Bauman asked if not the onus is on the person supplying the information to apply for a publication ban? Where does the law say that the media have to ask permission to publish evidence they have in hand?



Mr. Jones brought up “privacy.”



Chief Justice Bauman said that the Vancouver Sun has lawfully obtained copies of the evidence. That no conditions were inposed on the Vancouver Sun and use of the videos. Here we are doing the expo facto—after the fact—argument.



Craig Jones said that there was no notice given to the witness. Where is the fairness in that? The witness must be able to consent to being broadcast. The media have access but not publication rights to videos. Any authorized recording may be used for another purpose but the applicant must obtain permission of those being videoed. The affidavit of Karen Horsman speaks to the difficulty of getting permission.



Chief Justice Bauman wanted to know the distinction between video and actual appearance. Is that the question.



Craig Jones said that the privacy issue is the issue. These witnesses should not be penalized because they willingly assisted the court.



There was discussion of other types of “media” evidence appended to affidavits such as books, research papers and copyright issues. I lost track because, of course, I am not familiar with the court decisions involved, etc.



Mr. Burnett argued before the court on behalf of the Vancover Sun. He argued that the person who brought the complaint has been very open about their involvement with the FLDS culture in the past even appearing the the Dr. Phil show and being quoted in various media. This person has talked openly on other media about under-aged girls being married, even revealing the number of wives an FLDS leader had.



Mr. Burnett went on to say that if a publication ban is put in place on the videos, certain factors have to be weighed such as if there is some rist to a fair trial with open publication of evidence; what is the reality of how publication will affect the witness; the privacy argument must be addressed; and, that openness and transparency in the court is important especially in a case of national significance such as this.



Mr. Jones rebutted with the fact that no one can underestimate the value of seeing and hearing a witness. All discretionary orders denying freedom of the press must meet a two-part test: absence of harm and consent rules. He emphasized that the witnesses were not informed that excerpts of their video testimonies were being broadcast.



Chief Justice Bauman said he would reserve his judgment until Monday.



Mr. Jones asked if he could make an interim injunction on any further publishing of the videos.



His Lordship Chief Justice Robert Bauman said he was not going to make any interim orders.



So, given that court does not resume until Tuesday, at 10:00, in room 55 of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, we will have to wait and see what the ruling will be.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Relativism needs a shakedown



Polyamorists decry anti-polygamy law
WENDY STUECK

Canada’s law against polygamy contravenes the religious rights of a polygamous group and was originally enacted to criminalize a religious practice, says a lawyer for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Read full story Here.

The Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association defines polyamory as the practice of having emotionally intimate, sexual relationships within groups of three or more people. Conjugal polyamory refers to polyamourous relationships in which three or more of the parties live in the same household.

Random thoughts...

Relativism needs a shakedown. Just because you want to be all flowery and non judgmental doesn't give you the moral right to condemn children to a "lifestyle", which will undoubtedly expose them to higher rates of abuse, neglect, poverty and especially molestation.

Every civilized society has a right to decide how they want children protected. It's not hateful or judgmental to say to someone, "No, you can't do that because we know it harms children; and if we find you doing it, we will put you into a jail."

That's why it's called civilization, because the law holds people to a standard of behavior towards it's weakest members, namely children, the elderly and the infirm.

If Canada throws it's children to the sexual predator wolves here, then G-d help their civilization, for eventually they will have none.

No Justification or Explanation



Criminal sanction against polygamy offends guaranteed rights, FLDS tells Vancouver hearing

By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun

"As for former members who will testify to abuses and bad experiences, the opening statement makes clear that the church will not "seek to justify or explain their mistreatment."

Read more Here.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Muslim or Mormon Just SAY NO!


Homa Arjomand
homawpi@nosharia.com
www.nosharia.com
416-737-9500

This Conference will emphasize on the effects of globalization of political Islam on Women’s Rights, the question with polygamy, the Niqab and Honour Killing. As well as the problems of legal pluralism and cultural relativism with respect to women’s rights and discussion on separation of religion from the State.

In order to cover all these issues, I will start my speech with a case of a victim of polygamy, child trafficking as well as forced and arranged marriages in Canada; the obstacles and challenges they face with no hope to overcome them unless we progress our laws and regulations to one secular law for all and alter the legal pluralism and cultural relativism for integration.

In the following case, some changes are made to protect the client’s identity:

Farideh, at the age of 14, was sent to Pakistan with her mother and uncle in the summer of 2001. She understood that she was going for a vacation but soon after their arrival, she found out that she was to become the second wife of a clerk. She said from the time her uncle’s wife told her about the marriage to the night of her wedding, she cried and tried to burn herself. But she was left with no choice and it took 9 years before she was able to return to Canada at the age of 23. By this time, she had two sons 6 and 3 years.

Now her father is pushing her to sponsor her husband. Farideh indicated she would rather die than sponsor her abuser. In a Risk Assessment Check List, she specified the following abuse: pushed, pulled, grabbed, slapped, punched and kicked, objects were thrown at her. And in the section OTHER she described in one full page how she was chained to the ground with her baby in her arms to care for, without food and water for hours. All this was while she was breast feeding her baby. She also described how her husband knocked out two of her front teeth and broke her nose.

In the part of the Sexual Abuse portion, Farideh indicated there was persistent pressure to consent to rape, and she described how she was beaten while her husband performed sex and then he would throw a glass of holy water over her to purify her. All this abuse was to make her more submissive.

Farideh returned to Canada because her mother was dying.

At the hospital, she met a nurse in which she claims changed her life. She was told by her family members that she cannot go against Allah’s wish because Allah was testing her, and her husband is her destiny.

History of Farideh’s background:

Farideh was born in Ontario and had never been outside of her community. Farideh never had any friends outside of her culture even when she was attending public school. After school, she attended a Madreseh school which is an Islamic School. She never participated in any of the school’s activities, never attended any field trip; never went to a movie theatre, never wore pink, red or purple coloured clothes even though those were her favourite colours. Her biggest dream was to attend her graduation when she finished grade eight. And that never happened.

The obstacle Farideh faces:

Farideh will not be able to pay market rate for rent and she will not be qualified for subsidized housing as her children are not Canadian. She will not be qualified for subsidized day care for the same reasons. She is supported financially by Ontario Work which is social welfare but her financial support will be discontinued if she does not resolve the child custody matter soon. She will not be eligible for legal aid certificate in order to hire a lawyer as the abuser is living outside of Canada. And soon if she does not find a way out of this international legal system she will be prosecuted for abducting her own children.

Social obstacles:

Farideh will be forced to distance herself from all members of her community, relatives and her family for the safety of her children and herself which means she will have to leave behind all she had known in her childhood and early youth. She will be disowned by her family members as her action to seek help for separation will not be taken lightly by the members of her community. There are other hidden burdens that she needs to overcome, because of her action: no-one in the community would be willing to arrange any marriage with her siblings. Her brothers might be able to marry a girl from the community but there is no chance for her sisters.

Among members of the community, Farideh is considered a rebellious, a very bad example for all the other girls. However despite, all these obstacles, Farideh has made up her mind to go for separation and save the future of her children, with no money and community support.

Regarding the legal barrier:

If Farideh is forced by the legal system to send the children back to Pakistan, then she needs to make a huge decision. If she returns back with the children, she will face a harsh punishment, not only from her husband but also from the legal system in Pakistan. She knows there are women in Pakistan whose noses were cut off by their husbands or their father, or have no ears because they were not obedient or did not
honour the family wishes. She knows in Pakistan murderers can get out of prison with a small amount of money.

Farideh will be facing a long painful legal battle. Her situation is not as simple as child custody, child support and divorce. In her case the husband is living in Pakistan, he is not Canadian and Canadian law does not apply to him at all. The children were born in Pakistan. Her marriage was performed in Pakistan. Therefore nothing much can be done at the Ontario Family Court system.

Farideh is not the only Canadian child of misfortune. There are countless other Canadian children whose civil rights are violated and no-one has ever been put in the spot light for this violation of children’s rights.

In Farideh’s case, no one has been charged for what they have done to this child: that she was taken to Pakistan at very young age and forced to marry and live in a polygamist relationship: that she was left there with a man more than three times her age to be sexually rapped, physically injured and go under tremendous torture.

Our expectation in Canada should be for the Canadian government to arrest and jail Farideh’s father and all the ones involved in crimes committed against Farideh, at least under Child Trafficking Act as shamefully there is no criminal act for forced and arranged marriages or early child bride or even polygamy in Canada.

But even with the Child Protection Act in place, the system has failed Farideh for not protecting her rights, for not questioning her parents upon their return to Canada about their missing child; after all they went out of the country with the child and returned without her.

The system managed to fail her without questions asked by any of its concerned citizens. No-one from Children Aid Society ever knocked at her parents’ house and asked about the missing Farideh, no school teacher ever questioned the authorities about all those missing children, among them Farideh.

The question is how the government of Canada could neglect Farideh and all the other children like her while there is the Child Protection Act in place? How could the Child’s Civil Rights be totally violated in the presence of all involved members of society and involved authorities but no-one speaks out against it?

It is certainly not an error in the legal documents.

The violations of children’s civil rights was done simply by implementing a legal policy in such a way that a horrendous crime would be considered an affront to humanity, and the responsibility of the State to enforce this policy. Canada has put in place legal pluralism and cultural relativism which is totally in contradiction
with the Universal Rights of the Child and Freedom of Individuals. Under this policy minority rights and religious rights over take the individual rights.

So crimes against Farideh became invisible and not a crime at all. It is consider part of Farideh’s culture and religion to be taken out of school forcefully, cross the boarders, pass five oceans to her parents’ country and forced to marry so young, in a polygamist relationship. It has been said to the members of the greater society that under no circumstances, under Child Protection Act, this harsh and inhuman life
journey of Farideh could have been prevented. And we are supposed to believe what we have been told by the legal system.

This unbearable cruelty to children and women should not be tolerated and must be condemned strongly. Zero tolerance is needed to put in place for all repressive laws and regulations. We need to come forward in full force against any policies that pursues cultural and social segregation, and against any practice that undermines the right and well-being of the child.

No doubt when people hear about the case of Farideh, humanity will rise up and help will come from every avenue. I am convinced that Farideh’s legal problem will be resolved if not by “lawyers without boarders” then by other kind and caring individuals who have heart and compassion for humanity. But this is not the
main aim of this conference.

The aim is to help all the vulnerable children and women living in these isolated communities, these communities that are surrounded by thick invisible walls. These walls were built there from the moment the legal pluralism and cultural relativism were implemented in Canada. The federal government adopted multiculturalism as its official policy in 1971, to the disadvantage of women and children, and patronized
more the religious and ethnic groups. The Multiculturalism Act was passed by Parliament and proclaimed in 1988. This broad, unclear act needs to be amended immediately before the life and safety of more women and children are put in jeopardy.

The reality is that these invisible walls needs to be demolished and replaced by one secular progressive law for all. Only then can the act of Child Protection be effective and no child will be mistreated.

Right now under the legal pluralism and cultural relativism and under the name of freedom of religion, the Mormon sect can openly engage in polygamy where children as young as 14 can become the wives of one man (as many as 180 wives, I was told or even more in order to become part of the God) and political Islam can find enough legal ground to establish Sharia law in Canada. It was not too long ago that we challenged Sharia Court in Ontario and managed to overcome faith based arbitration for family disputes. That means we closed one gate only but there are many other gates open allowing 7th century traditions to hunt and hurt women and children. And it is not practical to fight these violations one at the time.

Under this policy, women and children are left at the mercy of the sheik, imams, priests, rabbi, old traditions, 7th century customs and religious institutions. As a result there are two or more sets of values and rights in Canada, one being Canadian law and the other being the law of the sect or cult of a community. The only way it can be described is “ a state within state”. Women and girls are forced to comply with those laws and regulations and the ones who resist as Farideh did, will face harsh punishment. If they are lucky, they might be flogged, raped, pulled out of school, separated from all their siblings, disowned by community and family members or forced to marry, but the misfortunate ones will face death by honour killing, if not by stoning. All these are happening in our back yard.

One must not fail to remember, the reasons why these young brave girls were slaughtered in the name of honor killing is because they all refused the interference of religion and the backward culture in their private
lives. They were at the forefront of the battle for individual rights verses collective /(minority rights) or lets say religious rights.

Aqsa Parvez 16 in Mississauga, Khatera Haidery 20 in Calgary, Aminat Magomadova, 14 in Calgary, Jaswinder Kaur Sidhu 25 known as Jassi, in British Columbia, Rona Amir Mohammad and her three stepdaughters, Zainab Shafia (19), Sahari Shafia, (17) and Geeti Shafia (13) from Kingstown Ontario. All these victims have been tried and sentenced to death according to family beliefs and culture, and murdered by members of their own family, for not honouring the rules of inhuman traditions and culture. These killings are shamefully honoured, respected and guarded legally, and financially supported by the Canadian government under the policy of multiculturalism and cultural relativism.

These brave girls wished to control their own way of life and lost their lives for what members of the greater society have been benefiting for the past centuries. The most basic rights, the right to individual independence, the right to the necessities of a normal life, the right to have protection of body and mind
against any violation, the right to education, the right to socialize and have a social life. Their thirst for these basic rights put them in a death role by the culture and religion of their parents. And we as members of the greater society kept our distance and did nothing to protect their civil rights.

The reality is that honour killing, polygamy, child bride, forced marriage and arranged marriage and stoning have great ties with the growth of the anti-women culture and religious movement, in particular Islamic movements in the West. As soon as the advocators of this movement find the tiniest room to penetrate into legal system, more women will be subjected to violence and brutally slaughtered for refusing to follow the traditions of their families’ culture. It is hurtful to say that Canada under the policy of multiculturalism and cultural relativism has legally provided political Islam and all other organized religious sects, lots of ground
to grow.

It is time to stand up firm and build a political campaign that promotes a political solution. The banner of this campaign must be integration and the concept of the equal and universal rights for all citizens, irrespective of their country of origin, race, gender or religion; verses legal pluralism and cultural relativism.
Only then we can end all these horrendous crimes against women and children living in these communities.

In response to question of the Niqab and Burqa one needs to tie these two types of veils to rise of political Islam. These types of veils are used for advertising and promoting the agenda of political Islam movement, in the West and so far have served its political desire and political needs.

In fact these types of veils have become the banner of Islamists movement.

It should not come to anyone’s surprise to witness not only niqab and burqa but also the hijab being burnt by women at the forefront of every demonstration in countries where political Islam gained power. Women have every right to see this piece of cloth as a tool of oppression as they have witnessed it, lived with its degrading laws and suffered a great deal.

They know the only way out is to make religion stay a private matter for individuals, separate from the State. Not water it down.

The Niqab existed in only marginalized the Arabian Gulf region and came to light after Islamic movement organized itself as state in Iran. The only difference is, back then it was enforced upon women only in a small uneducated isolated rural area, but now these types of veils are willingly adopted by advocators of the Islamic movement, the ones who enjoyed sitting on benches of universities and successfully achieved a degree that could not have been possible if there was not an on going struggle for social progress, freedom, equality between men and women and justice for all, at that time of their study, they were not wearing niqab or any other hijab as political Islam was not yet in power, therefore no recognition of this flag
was needed then.

Wearing Niqab or Burqa has nothing to do with their Islamic faith. Niqab or Burqa is a flag of Islamists on rise for the expansion of Political Islam on the international arena, socially, culturally, and religiously on a macro level. And for it, they need to stay in the spot lights of the media every day if not for every hour of the day, the Islamist’s existence needs to be acknowledged, in every household either by act of terrorism globally or by the outcry over the caricatures of Mohammad or over the halah meat at elementary schools cafeteria, or upholding Islamic fashion under the Eiffel tower, or over space to pray during lunch hours at
schools, universities and work places or else the followers of this movement will stop the traffic in the heart of France and England and line up to pray. Of course in all these mocking shows, the niqabist will be seen in first rows. And when they realize there is no more audience, then it is time to show up at public places
such as schools, courts or even at election polls in various countries dressed in full niqab and if they are confronted then the niqabists file a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal. We need to ban Niqab totally from our society, the same way we banned the fascist flag.

As for other forms of the veil (hijab), women should have rights to wear them or not. However when it comes to public sectors such as schools, courts, hospitals, libraries, police stations, the veil should be prohibited totally.

The Islamic veil in any shapes and forms must be banned for children under the age of 18 and prohibition of veiling children must become part of child protection act.

Banning the niqab will certainly push back political Islam and that will help the women’s movement to promote their progressive agenda which is advancing total equality in every avenue possible.

*Thank you Dr. Susan Stickevers for forwarding this amazing speech. GO CANADA!

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Canadian Supreme Court Case Begins Monday



And here would be the "temple bed", complete with pop up crib railings, found outside tiny Eldorado, in Schleicher County. Doncha gotta wonder if Texas shared that tape of a twelve year old little girl being raped on that uh, alter, with the help of two of Warren's concubines?

Does society have to tolerate all the rituals of any religion to be practiced? Did Warren Jeffs have an inherent or intrinsic right to rape a little girl in the name of Joseph Smith or of his god?

I know the Office of the Attorney General here in Texas contributed over 50 lbs of written and electronic media evidence, in aid of Canada on this case, to show what was happening in the purest form of fundamentalist Mormon polygamy in North America.

Ron Skolrood, a constitutional lawyer in Vancouver, said
"Does the law address real social evils today? Or is it, as the challengers would say, an antiquated law that really has no relevance today?"

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/life/Polygamy+trial+starts+tomorrow/3862116/story.html#ixzz15uNwIaEs

G-d Bless Canada!

I sure hope everyone is praying for their women.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Sharia is a killer. Choose Life for Asia!




Mr. Asif Ali Zardari,
President of Pakistan
President House, Islamabad, PAKISTAN.

Spare the life of Asia Bibi


Dear Mr. President Zardari,


Americans Against Abuses of Polygamy joins local human rights organizations, international women’s groups and religious minorities in calling for Pakistan to urgently repeal its Blasphemy Laws. We also appeal to the authorities to guarantee the safety of Asia Bibi and her family from the rage of local extremists, as well as investigate the violent persecution of the Christian community in the Punjab.


Allowing Ms. Bibi to be killed for the crime of believing in a different G-d than Allah is completely barbaric and will do nothing to show Americans that Pakistan should share a place of honor within the civilized world. On the contrary, it will simply contribute to the growing awareness in America, and other freedom loving countries, that Islam itself is a danger and a threat to us all.


If you want us to believe that Islam is truly "a religion of peace", I would very respectfully suggest that your country take immediate measures to protect the life and property of religious minorities dwelling among you, starting with Ms. Bibi and her family.


We will be watching to see how serious your government is about stopping the spread of "radical Islam", or whether officials in your country are simply lying about their real intentions, while spreading this disease of barbaric hate and intolerance for minorities even more.


Sincerely,


--
K. Dee Ignatin
Executive Director
Americans Against Abuses of Polygamy
TripleAP@gmail.com
www.PolygamyIsAbuse.com
www.tripleap.blogspot.com
Abuse is not a religion: http://tripleap.tumblr.com

Pakistan: Ensure safety of Asia Bibi and her family and repeal Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws

The International Solidarity Network, Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML) is deeply shocked that a court in Nankana Sahib, Pakistan, has sentenced a 45-year-old Christian woman, Asia Bibi, to death on the charge of having committed “blasphemy”. Although illiterate, she has been accused of denying the institution of prophet-hood by citing copious examples from the key texts of Islam.

We join local human rights organizations, international women’s groups and religious minorities in calling for Pakistan to urgently repeal its Blasphemy Laws. We also appeal to the authorities to guarantee the safety of Asia Bibi and her family from the rage of local extremists, as well as investigate the violent persecution of the Christian community in the Punjab.

Asia Bibi is a farm worker in a village of Ittanwali in Nankana, about 75 kilometres west of Lahore. By Asia Bibi’s own account, her women co-workers tried to force her to embrace Islam on 8 June, 2009. This led to a discussion on the religious beliefs of the two communities and following a heated exchange between her and three Muslim women, the complainant Qari Muhammad Sallam, with the testimonies of these women, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on June 19, 2009, under sections 295-B and C of the Pakistan Penal Code. Both sections state punishment by life imprisonment or capital punishment. Following the judicial process, Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by an additional sessions court in Nankana district. Mrs Bibi was also ordered to pay a fine of 300,000 Pakistani rupees (£2,180). Now the family is appealing against the judgment in the Lahore High Court. SK Shahid, Asia Bibi's counsel, said that he has filed an appeal with the Lahore High Court against the lower court's judgment. "How can we expect from a non-Muslim to follow beliefs of the Muslims?" he asked. Various human rights groups are also likely to become party to the appeal, calling for the repeal of the judgment.

Mrs Bibi said that during the investigation held by Special Prosecutor Muhammad Amin Bokhari, she begged for pardon as she had never heard of the crime of blasphemy before. Mrs Bibi explained that she has not had access to a lawyer in jail and even on the day of her final verdict she was not accompanied by a lawyer. In court she was made to put a thumb print on the papers she was unable to read.

The Blasphemy laws have not only curtailed citizens’ freedom of expression, but have also been misused by violent religious extremists to commit grave acts of violence against others and to spread religious intolerance. In several cases the law has been used to settle personal scores and rivalries. Incidents of mob violence against non-Muslims, especially Christians, have also increased in this part of Punjab over the last few years, engineered by local extremists groups to give impetus to their religious and political base.

Blasphemy Laws in their present form were promulgated arbitrarily by the military dictator, Zia al-Huq, more than twenty years ago. Those who have worked to overturn false charges of blasphemy have themselves become the target of violence. A former Lahore High Court judge, Justice Arif Hussain Bhatti, was murdered by a religious extremist in 1996, reportedly because he acquitted a blasphemy case. A number of lawyers and journalists have also been harassed for defending people accused of blasphemy and campaigning against the Blasphemy Laws.

17 November 2010
Submitted on 11/17/2010
in

* South Asia
* Pakistan
* Fundamentalisms
* Blasphemy Laws
* Religious minorities
* WLUML/allies

We are asking you to take 5 minutes out of your day to write to the president of Pakistan and ask that the life of this woman be spared.

What you can do
Action needed:
Please send letters to:

Addresses:
Mr. Asif Ali Zardari,
President of Pakistan
President House, Islamabad, PAKISTAN.
Fax: +92-51-9207458 Email address:ppp@comsats.net.pk or publicmail@president.gov.pk

Mr. Yousaf Raza Gillani,
Prime Minister of Pakistan,
Prime Minister Secretariat, Islamabad, PAKISTAN.
Fax: + 92-51-9204632, 9221596 or Fax: +92-51-9206907

Mr. Shehbaz Sharif,
Chief Minister of Punjab,
Chief Minister Secretariat,
90 – Shahrah-e- Quaid-e-Azam,Lahore, PAKISTAN.

Mr. Syed Masood Kausar,
Federal Minister for Law and Justice,
Pak – Secretariat, Islamabad, PAKISTAN.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

So she called her imam...



This is an excellent essay written by Dr. Susan Stickevers, M.D. about one of her personal experiences with Muslim American polygamy, and reprinted here with her very kind permission.


35 year old Fatima thought she had it all.

As a proud naturalized American citizen who immigrated to the US at age 7, Fatima realized that she had accomplished more in the United States than she could ever could have as a woman in her native Pakistan.

As a physical therapist with a masters degree, she commanded a high salary - higher than her husband's. Her seven year old son excelled in school, she lived in a comfortable home in a suburb of NYC, and she considered herself to be happily married to a wonderful Moslem man named Muhammad whom she had met through a matchmaker 9 years ago.

Fatima felt secure about her career, her future, and her marriage - until Muhammad returned home from a visit to his family in Pakistan and announced that he had married his 17 yr old cousin. He announced to a stunned Fatima that he intended to send money from their joint bank account to Pakistan on a regular basis to provide for his new wife's financial support. Muhammad told Fatima that he eventually planned to bring his young bride to the US so that she could live with them.

Fatima was familiar with Sharia law regarding polygamous marriages. Muhammad was supposed to have asked her permission before he took a second wife.

He had not consulted her about his intention to marry a second time, so she called her imam. Her imam wearily informed her that she was one of many American Moslem women who had been duped by their husbands, and now there was nothing that could be done from a standpoint of Islamic law. Her imam informed her that she should simply learn to cope with Muhammad's decision to take another wife. Fatima found the prospect of sharing her husband, her home, and her finances with another woman to be intolerable.

Fortunately polygamy is illegal in NY State, and Fatima's attorney successfully used the threat of invoking NY anti - bigamy statutes to assist Fatima in gaining sole custody of her son, sole ownership of her home, and generous child support in her uncontested divorce settlement. Despite the fact that she has a substantial income which exceeds her husband's, Fatima is not required to make a monetary payment to Muhammad.


Susan M. Stickevers, MD

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Muslim Polygamy in America



Watching this, or interviews with the Browns of TLC's Sister Wives, one comes away with the same explanation from the ladies of the doctrine of submission. 'It is my god's will so I will live in submission to it, even though I admit it hurts me and creates pain in my life that even I can't explain or understand.'

And both seem to have the same answer, too. "My suffering will be rewarded by my god, and it is not for me to question my god's prophet for making me suffer, so I must submit and learn to keep sweet, it is making me a better person."

So I guess life will be better when they're dead?

That's some high goals, girls.

And while they fit very nicely into Sharia law, they have no place in a free country for women. You do not have the right to raise little American girls to submit to the felony crime of polygamy, in exchange for their spiritual salvation.


Those aren't constitutional goals, so good luck with that at the SCOTUS.

Abuse isn't a recognized religion.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

AAAP PSA

This is a new thirty second AAAP public service announcement available to radio stations anywhere in the country. You can access the audio by clicking on the following link:

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA


Those of us concerned that there are an estimated *50,000 practicing Muslim polygamists in America, must call on "moderate American Muslims" to actively work to reform Islam in America and insist it conform with the civil protections provided to citizens by the Constitution of the United States, since that is where every American citizen is supposed to invest their fealty.

Muslim Sharia law is inconsistent with the Constitution and must not be tolerated in any form within cloistered Muslim American communities.

Holding women in concubinage is against U.S. law and may also involve human trafficking, especially from Pakistan and some African nations.

*Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90857818