Polygamists: Authorities Prepare For the Worst in Texas

Rockhead wrote:

This is not about the Native Americans...

This is much different, and I take offense at the reference.

This is about the systematic brainwashing, imprisoning, and impregnating of young girls afraid for their lives...

RH

You will note I rethought and deleted my post that you are responding (this is a topic that upsets me).

You should understand why the experience of the Native Americans concerns me in this example.

This is an unpopular subculture that has been demonized and is thought of as "barbaric" by a large part of society. Their unpopularity is why the officials feel comfortable taking away kids en masse.

This is certainly parallel to the way kids of Native Americans (and others) had their children taken away. The arguments that it is in the children's interest (completely ignoring the wishes or concerns of parents who we have deemed as unworthy or unable to trust) is very much similar between these two cases.

The charges you list are, as of yet, unproven-- and charges of atrocities of unpopular groups; as sufferagettes, homosexuals, Italians and so many other groups know, are often exagerrated or just made up. I am certain from experience that many of the things you hear in the media are incorrect.

The idea that once a subculture has been demonized enough, that you can send the police in to take their kids without evidence that they were abused is very troubling indeed.

0 Replies

We'll wait, none of this is "news".

If you have no firsthand knowledge of the rez, I would tread lightly...

RH

0 Replies

The question I am asking is... at what point is it acceptable for the state to remove children from a subculture?

This is clearly traumatic for both children and families.

Public prejudice, media accounts and even claims from critics are not a good foundation for a justification of this drastic measure since you can find the same claims, by people on A2K about many mainstream religions.

I don't think forcibly removing 400 kids from their families without any real evidence of abuse in most (if any) of these cases is a reasonable response given the damage that being stripped from ones parents will do.

There are a lot of questions and very little understanding of this group. Given the drastic nature of this action... asking for a little perspective is not unreasonable.

0 Replies

I don't disagree.

The government is not prepared for this kind of event. Never has been...

Does not make anything right. Or wrong. Except what has been done to the children.

I have no solution, or I would offer it.

RH

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I don't think forcibly removing 400 kids from their families without any real evidence of abuse in most (if any) of these cases

It is reported on our Tv news that one girl (aged 16) had 4 children.

assume the last child was born at 16 years and (shrug) 9 months.

assuming a reasonable gap of 3 months between pregnancies

That would make her 13? when the first was born.

Many other teenage mothers had one or two children. many had NVER been outside the compound.

This is a clear case of child abuse according to modern expectations and laws.

0 Replies

The FLDS compound had been in Texas for four years before any action was taken. The county sheriff's office has been receiving information about what has been going on there during the four years. It seems caution was taken before deciding it was necessary to put the children under Texas Child Protection Services.

0 Replies

If this is true, then there is strong evidence that one girl was abused.

There are some 400 kids who were taken from their parents. This means 400 kids from toddler to teen that are facing the trauma of being rounded up, taken away from their parents, interrogated and then being left with strangers; the whole time being unable to understand what the hell is going on or what will happen to them.

There is no evidence that any of these kids were abused according to our modern expectations or laws. The rights of these parents and kids were clearly broken-- you shouldn't be able take a child away based solely on their parents religion with no specific evidence that that child is being abused.

This is a disaster for these kids.

Even if all the allegations about this religious community are true (and many allegations against unpopular groups turn out to be untrue), this was not the best way to handle this.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

The FLDS compound had been in Texas for four years before any action was taken. The county sheriff's office has been receiving information about what has been going on there during the four years. It seems caution was taken before deciding it was necessary to put the children under Texas Child Protection Services.

Yes wandel, Officials always act with caution when dealing with unpopular groups.

- They were apparently wrong about the original cause (it seems like it was a hoax; http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/5713823.html)

- The knee-jerk fears that this would turn into a armed standoff (including the SWAT teams on hand) were clearly wrong as members of this community were peaceful.

- The rumors of cyanide stockpiles that were circulated have kind of conveniently disappeared once officials entered the compound.

It seems to me the officials overreacted based on the same fear and prejudice that makes people jump against this group without questioning.

0 Replies

I think that as unsavory as the group is, ebrown has a good point.

0 Replies

Nobody is going against the group without questioning. The allegations of pregnant girls as young as thirteen will be poven or disproven. The genetic tests will help determine who is responsible, if anybody. If no youngsters are being abused, it will come out.

0 Replies

Quote:

It seems to me the officials overreacted based on the same fear and prejudice that makes people jump against this group without questioning.

And had they not reacted? what if said rumours were true?

Damned if you do and damned if you dont.

0 Replies

Mumpad wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
I don't think forcibly removing 400 kids from their families without any real evidence of abuse in most (if any) of these cases

It is reported on our Tv news that one girl (aged 16) had 4 children.

assume the last child was born at 16 years and (shrug) 9 months.

assuming a reasonable gap of 3 months between pregnancies

That would make her 13? when the first was born.

Many other teenage mothers had one or two children. many had NVER been outside the compound.

This is a clear case of child abuse according to modern expectations and laws.

Things like this are exactly why I popped into this thread and asked questions.

I read through 25-30 different press reports of the last 2 days testimony at the hearings and there was no mention of this in any of them. The State's Child Abuse expert stated that there were records found in a safe in the compound that indicated that as many as 20 women/girls had given birth within the compound but the youngest any of those girls was when they gave birth was 17. He testified that there was NO evidence of child abuse in that regard.

And the idea that there are teens that have never been outside the compound is just complete nonsense. The compound didn't exist prior to 2004. How it it possible that you have 13-18 year old girls that have never been outside a compound that is only 4 years old? The math doesn't work there.

These sensationalized stories being broadcast/printed are a part of a feeding frenzy. They are clouding the story more than shedding ligt on what's going on.

0 Replies

as far as "removing children from their mothers and families" is concened , at least some of the children were picked up by sect-members
from their mothers and families to be brought to the texas compound .
so at least some of those children in the compound do not have their real mothers with them in the compound .
a/t todays "globe and mail" (toronto) , at least some of the children were from the "bountiful" compound in british-columbia .
(i'll post the article later)
it seems that in addition to other charges , there will be charges of illegal imigration .

i'm sure , there will be loud cries of "religious freedom" . i wonder if the freedom and free will of the children was ever considered by the members of the sect when they took the children away from their mothers and brought them to the texas compond ?

"religious freedom" is often a nice shield to hold up for protection - but who protects the innocent children in the first place ?
hbg

0 Replies

Quote:

"religious freedom" is often a nice shield to hold up for protection - but who protects the innocent children in the first place ?

Are you really saying that being rounded up and taken away from your parents is good for a child? Can you imagine if your kids were taken from you this way?

The actions of the officials are damaging the children.

Your prejudice against this group you have labeled a "sect" is keeping you from rational thought.

Do you not agree that the kids with a stable loving family and no evidence of abuse should be kept with their parents?

0 Replies

What are we at, two weeks? And the state still can not point to a victim. There is convincing proof that those who were rounded up Short Creek were traumatized by the actions of the state, this is the harm the Texas inflicting today. And for what? On what grounds? What is the good that will come of it? The officials who did this are heavy handed jack -asses. They want what they want and don't care who they hurt in the process.

Short Creek was a failure in every way, it was only when the states renounced their stupid tactics and started working with the polygamy communities that progress was made. Texas has destroyed these efforts for every other state. States officials have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, to be the enemy.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Are you really saying that being rounded up and taken away from your parents is good for a child?

sometimes it is

that's why people like dlowan will always have work - parents don't always do right by their children

0 Replies

I think what you mean to say is that sometimes taking kids away from their parents is better than the alternative (it is always a traumatic event for the child).

But you are missing the main question;

At what point should the state take children away from their parents?

Given the drastic nature of this action, and the consequences to both families and the children themselves, this should be very rare-- and there should be a very high bar. The state should be able to show that the danger to the kids is worse than the damage that will be caused by the removal, before they take this action.

It also upsets me that nothing other than this removal action was tried. Talking with this community to work out how to ensure the welfare of the kids without this damaging removal would have likely resulted in a much less damaging or chaotic outcome.

My concern is that it is this prejudice... rather than real evidence or rational thought, that drove this decision. There is very clearly a lot of prejudice against this group; and already some accusations made against them have proven false.

Think about what it is like for the children involved; to be taken by the state away from your home by strangers and unable to talk with your parents.

The state doesn't always do right by children (particularly children in unpopular groups).

0 Replies

Thanks, ebp, but I said what I meant to say.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

It also upsets me that nothing other than this removal action was tried. Talking with this community to work out how to ensure the welfare of the kids without this damaging removal would have likely resulted in a much less damaging or chaotic outcome.

.

That is because the state wants to chase the community away, the best interest of the children is a trojan horse. The call was their excuse to go in an try to break up the community, it was fundamentally dishonest, both the raid as well as everything that has come after. This is why Texas has done so much harm, it will take decades for other states to overcome the harm that Texas has caused.

0 Replies

epbrown is wondering is it is acceptable to take the children away from their parents (or mothers) .
unfortunately that's what warren jeffs and his sect members did quite frequently !
if anyone thinks that what jeffs did is acceptable ... ... (i don't want to see my answer expunged ; so i'll hold my comments to myself) .
hbg

Quote:

RELIGION: THE BOUNTIFUL CONNECTION

Canadians seized in raid on U.S. polygamist sect
416 children from Texas compound of jailed church leader Warren Jeffs will stay in custody no matter what their nationality, judge says
UNNATI GANDHI

With a report from Associated Press

April 19, 2008

The phone calls would come at any hour.

Warren Jeffs, the now-imprisoned leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, would tell the man on the other end of the line to get his daughter ready. He would tell him she'd been hand-selected to live in the "holy land" - Mr. Jeffs's 1,691-acre Yearning for Zion ranch in Eldorado, Tex. - along with the religion's most fervent adherents, whom he referred to as the "heart's core."

A van, he'd say, would be arriving shortly to pick up their daughter.

The southeastern British Columbia town of Bountiful, a polygamous community with ties to the Texas stronghold, always suspected that their children were among those being lured to Zion, just as their U.S. counterparts were.

Yesterday, confirmation came.

An investigator from the Texas Division of Child Protection Services said some of the 416 children who had been seized from the Texas compound during a raid this month are Canadian citizens.

During her testimony, state investigator Angie Voss did not say how many of the children are Canadian, where they came from or how old they are, but affirmed the children should remain in state custody regardless of their citizenship.

B.C. Attorney-General Wally Oppal confirmed that he was alerted by officials in Ottawa that some of the children are Canadians.

The revelation came on the second day of the extraordinary mass hearing over the state's attempt to strip the parents of custody and place the children in foster homes. District Judge Barbara Walther ruled yesterday that all the children remain in state custody and be subject to genetic testing, after child welfare officials said they've had difficulty determining how the children and parents are related because of evasive or changing answers. Individual hearings will be set for the children over the next several weeks.

The children were removed during an April 3 raid on the sect's desert compound, built around a white limestone temple, because of evidence of physical and sexual abuse, including the forcing of underage girls into marriage and childbearing.

The raid was prompted by a call from someone identifying herself as a 16-year-old girl with the sect. She claimed her husband, a 50-year-old member of the sect, beat and raped her.

The girl has yet to be identified, but Ms. Voss said yesterday a girl matching her description was seen by other girls in the ranch garden four days before the raid began.

Word that Canadian children were among those before the court audibly rattled Jane Blackmore, a resident of Creston, B.C., in the Kootenays. She had been married to Winston Blackmore, the so-called bishop of Bountiful, who has more than 20 wives.

"Warren Jeffs's community is very closed. Even people living in Bountiful don't know who's missing from where," Ms. Blackmore said in a telephone interview yesterday, struggling to keep her voice calm. "They've been suspecting that. There has been suspicion of that happening."

But Debbie Palmer, also a former Bountiful wife, said the idea of giving up one's child to the "holy land" was welcomed by those still part of the sect. She cited the example of one of her nieces, who lives in Colorado City.

"If Warren Jeffs had decided that one of her children needed to be taken away from her and raised in the Texas compound, well then I know she would have given that child up. In Canada, it's the same thing."

Ms. Palmer said the girls are typically between two and 11 years old.

"The phone call comes and he says, 'Be ready to go, someone's going to come get you and then you'll be told what your special mission from God is.'"

The adults at the compound are considered his most loyal followers and the young children the least "contaminated" by the outside world, Ms. Palmer said.

Mr. Jeffs, the breakaway Mormon sect's leader, is currently awaiting trial in a Kingman, Ariz., jail on charges related to the promotion of underage marriages. He previously was convicted of being an accomplice to the rape of a 14-year-old wed to her cousin in a Utah case.

source :
THE CANADIAN CONNECTION

0 Replies

Polygamists: Authorities Prepare For the Worst in Texas

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know