FLDS women seek Texas governor's help

Deseret News ^ | April 13, 2008 | Nancy Perkins

[claudiustg]

SAN ANGELO — A Texas judge on Sunday ordered law enforcement officials to immediately confiscate all cell phones in the possession of FLDS women and children now housed in temporary quarters here. "I just called to say, hi. They are about to collect the phones, I think," one soft-spoken FLDS woman said during a telephone call to another member of the Fundamentalist LDS Church who was outside of the shelter. "I don't like what they're doing."

Several of the women inside the shelters spoke by cell phone to the Deseret News on Saturday to describe the living conditions there. Children could be heard crying in the background of each conversation. The News published an article on Sunday, quoting the women who complained there was no privacy and that their children were getting sick.

FLDS faithful outside the shelter are convinced Sunday's court order is a direct result of the women speaking to the newspaper.

"This is nothing more than retaliation of Child Protective Services to punish those who were disclosing what is really happening behind the walls of this concentration camp," said Don, an FLDS member who asked that his last name not be used. "These are my family members."

[PennsylvaniaMom]

I commented upthread about the style of dress as well. Its not the modesty that is the issue...it is the lack of free will to dress as they choose. All the women and girls wearing the exact same item...per the dictates of their leaders. It is their own burka.

Again no issue with wanting to wear a dress like that...the issue is with being made to.

[Wallace T.]

Slavery is illegal in the US.

Correct. However, the term slavery is applied to people held in captivity by physical force against their will, as occurred in the antebellum South and Border States. There are analogies to slavery in the FLDS society, certainly in the use of intimidation and their lack of exposure to non-FLDS ideas. However, some of the same elements may be found in other social groups as well.

[najida]

First off,
Brad Pitt is gorgeous to look at. Period. That’s all. He’s pretty much the gold standard that many women visualize when reading a book with a blonde hunky hero. I know this from many many a book discussion....as for what... his personality? I dunno, don’t care either.

Secondly, my tagline is a quote taken directly from a male Freeper-friend after an ‘I’d hit it’ thread. And sometimes, its truer than others.

Lastly, as for the dress-—
It was a fashion remark—— about how ugly the dress was.
Period. It’s butt ugly and I know sew costumes, so I’ll also say it’s crudely constructed also (fabric too bulky for the design and cut).

That was pretty much the humor there, and that many of us had been watching the “What Not to Wear” marathon on TV and it translated into seeing a pretty woman wearing a dress that most women normally wouldn’t choose to wear in the Texas heat.

If it was a woman in the grocery store, I’d assume she chose it because she liked it and well, still had horrible fashion sense. But, that’s life. I’m sure that folks see my cherry koolaid hair and wonder about me.

And I’d still say “there goes an ugly dress”.

And now deeper, after thought....the biggest issue was it’s there version of a burka. That’s pretty much it. Not a dress chosen because she’s free to wear what she wants to. It clearly doesn’t match her coloring, fits poorly and doesn’t look very comfortable.....that’s because its a uniform that marks her.

It could be all satin, a designer original and worth more than my years salary. It would still be ugly. So, it’s an ugly dress on many different levels.

And Brad is still cute nekkid.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I’m sure only the ones who have proved their loyalty (i.e. those with full-blown Stockholm Syndrome) are allowed by the men to have cell phones. In this situation, since the men wanted to be in a position to get information about who was saying what to investigators, and wanted to be able to give orders to the women about what they and the children should say and not say, and also wanted to make sure that all the women and children would be aware that any failure to follow orders to the letter would promptly be reported to the leaders just as it was back at the compound, they had to let a few women take cell phones with them. The ad litem attorneys figured out what was going on and put a stop to it.

The women are not under arrest (nor are the men, except the two who actively interfered with the search). However, they are being allowed to remain with the children who are in state custody on terms acceptable to the state, which currently has responsibility for the children. Allowing these women to remain with the children, while at the same time receiving and carrying out orders from the men, and giving all the children the sense that their words and activities continued to be monitored by the male group leaders, is not consistent with the state’s responsibility to care for these children and to work towards getting accurate information from them about what they’ve been subjected to inside the compound.

The women have also used the cell phones to transmit pictures of what they claim are the horrible conditions they and the children are living in. Looked fine to me, given the speed with which the state had to set up accommodations for over 400 children and 139 adult women. What is not fine is making public pictures of children who are in state custody due to suspected physical and sexual abuse. It is also not fine that women inside the temporary housing facilities are participating in a carefully coordinated media PR campaign orchestrated by the male leaders who are the chief suspects in the abuse. It’s not a coincidence that the women chose to put out photos of many children lying under covers in cots in a crowded room, but did not choose to put out photos of obviously pregnant adolescent girls. This sort of selective release of information and images to the media would continue if the women had been allowed to keep the phones while staying with the children.

[najida]

Guard shack at the gate and the threat of beatings don’t count?

[najida]

139 women—— about 25 men (some newbies with one wife) that comes to about 5 wives for most and 1 or 2 for others AND 400 kids means each man averaged about 20 kids or 4 kids per wife.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Every woman should be reunited with her children and taken in by a foster family

That's a lovely idea, but how exactly is the state supposed to accomplish that when the women and children are all constantly changing their stories about who their parents/children are? This obfuscation is being done at the behest of the male leaders, who have trained the women and children to deal with outsiders this way, and until the cell phones were taken, were continuing to reinforce this training.

Of course, when people like you react to this situation by blaming the state, you're playing right into the hands of the male leaders of this sick cult. One of the first things the state did was start interviewing the children and women to try to identify parent-child relationships, but they were prevented from doing so. Accordingly, for now, they've avoiding separating anybody to the extent possible, using just two temporary housing facilities since it was impossible to find one large enough to keep the entire group together. So now the women are complaining that it's too crowded, but if the state tried to relieve the crowding by splitting the group further, over an additional location or two, they'd promptly (AFTER the moves) start wailing that women had been separated from their children (the same children they refused to claim as their own when they were questioned).

[Wallace T.]

The Catholics in Ireland during the times of the Penal Laws were free to adhere to the Catholic religion. However, the Mass was outlawed, as were the Catholic sacraments, and priests and other religious were forbidden by law to be in that country. By and large, Catholics were forbidden to hold more than a small plot of land, own firearms, or enter the professions. Even if Catholic beliefs were not illegal per se, their practice was suppressed and the Catholic Church was shut down, so the right to be Catholic was a legal fiction.

Saying that you would prohibit the marital arrangements and other conventions of the FLDS while permitting its continuance is as much a legal fiction as was Catholic freedom in the Penal Law era in Ireland, even if there is no comparison between Catholicism and the FLDS in terms of theology, practice, or social structure. All that is fine. Would you then extend restrictions on the FLDS against other groups that are more dangerous to society, like Marxists, Islamic extremists, and militant sexual deviants?

I agree that laws against sexual abuse of minors should be enforced to the fullest extent possible. However, the individual crimes should be targeted, not a whole group.

[CindyDawg]

Excusing one sin because someone is sinning in another way is wrong. They all need to be addressed.

[PennsylvaniaMom]

Lets do a little more math...400 kids times $400 each per month in welfare (I am guessing $100 per week per child is $160,000 per month or $1,920,000 per year (and we are not even figuring in the moms’ SSI.

[najida]

Would you then extend restrictions on the FLDS against other groups that are more dangerous to society, like Marxists, Islamic extremists, and militant sexual deviants?.

If they had pretty much a slave compound, engaged in systematic child abuse, were throwing out into society their unwanted boys at a certain age, were engaged in RICO violations and were scamming the Texas welfare system in an organized fashion---

Erm, ah... Yes-- pick one, pick two, pick them all and go with it.

[Wallace T.]

Guard shack at the gate and the threat of beatings don’t count?

If someone were physically restrained and threatened from leaving the FLDS facility, that is coercion. The problem is, as with the Moonies, the Branch Davidians, the Jim Jones cult, etc., it is up to the person whose right to travel and associate as he chooses is violated to make the complaint. Alternatively, if an outsider has actual evidence of this sort of thing going on, they have a duty to report it to the local authorities.

[najida]

OK,
on a personal note-—
What do you believe?

In ONE sentence. And no quoting, no lectures...as a human being, as a man, maybe as a father what do you believe should be done?

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

That's a lovely idea, but how exactly is the state supposed to accomplish that when the women and children are all [sic] constantly changing their stories about who their parents/children are?

The state can accomplish it, with any motivation (to help, rather than just to prosecute).

Or do I detect a suggestion that the state cannot do it perfectly, and thus should not try? What they're doing now is farther from perfect, IMO.

[DoughtyOne]

I still don’t understand how you get past the betrayal of his marital vows thing with Angelina, but okay. I still don’t want to be compared with the guy in any way.

As for the dress, what makes sense to you (and others) doesn’t necessarily make sense in the minds of everyone else. I might agree with you on some points, but the level of sophistication others have can change everything. I do believe women could wear that dress without having to be forced into it. For that reason I think people who get disgusted by that photo are reading far more into it than is warranted by the dress style. You (and some others too)disagree, and that’s okay.

You take care.

[Wallace T.]

Excusing one sin because someone is sinning in another way is wrong. They all need to be addressed.

Fair enough. However, the problem with going after a cult group and not tackling the greater and more disruptive problems with analogous abuses of more powerful groups like leftists, radical Muslims, homosexuals, and black militants gives the appearance that the state is picking on an uninfluential, politically weak group while turning a blind eye on others for fear of riots, terrorism, and bad publicity from the liberal media.

[Elsie]

And Brad is still cute nekkid.

Underneath all these clothes I'm wearing, I, too, am naked!

[najida]

Yeah, but are ya cute? ;)

[Wallace T.]

If my daughter were involved in such a cult, I would beat the snot out of the perverts who would do such a thing.

[greyfoxx39]

I’m sure only the ones who have proved their loyalty (i.e. those with full-blown Stockholm Syndrome) are allowed by the men to have cell phones.

IMO, you have to factor the competition factor into the loyalty. The wives are most likely accustomed to be seeking the approval of the alpha male, and jockeying for position in the harem. What an opportunity for the lucky woman with the phone. It's human nature.

In this situation, since the men wanted to be in a position to get information about who was saying what to investigators, and wanted to be able to give orders to the women about what they and the children should say and not say, and also wanted to make sure that all the women and children would be aware that any failure to follow orders to the letter would promptly be reported to the leaders just as it was back at the compound, they had to let a few women take cell phones with them. The ad litem attorneys figured out what was going on and put a stop to it.

The women are not under arrest

This is NOT a point the defenders of the sect here are willing to address.

(nor are the men, except the two who actively interfered with the search). However, they are being allowed to remain with the children who are in state custody on terms acceptable to the state, which currently has responsibility for the children.

Allowing these women to remain with the children, while at the same time receiving and carrying out orders from the men, and giving all the children the sense that their words and activities continued to be monitored by the male group leaders, is not consistent with the state’s responsibility to care for these children and to work towards getting accurate information from them about what they’ve been subjected to inside the compound.

Entirely correct.

The women have also used the cell phones to transmit pictures of what they claim are the horrible conditions they and the children are living in.

And, why is the media NOT showing the living conditions in the compound? These people lived in dormitories, from all reports. Most likely several children to a room.

Looked fine to me, given the speed with which the state had to set up accommodations for over 400 children and 139 adult women.

What is not fine is making public pictures of children who are in state custody due to suspected physical and sexual abuse. It is also not fine that women inside the temporary housing facilities are participating in a carefully coordinated media PR campaign orchestrated by the male leaders who are the chief suspects in the abuse. It’s not a coincidence that the women chose to put out photos of many children lying under covers in cots in a crowded room, but did not choose to put out photos of obviously pregnant adolescent girls. This sort of selective release of information and images to the media would continue if the women had been allowed to keep the phones while staying with the children.

Excellent post. But, the manipulation of the media is working here at FR as evidenced by the whining about the constitutional rights of all concerned.