Monday, January 12, 2009

Daphne Bramham's analysis provides no simple answer?

I've found the Article, "ANALYSIS: POLYGAMY - Why don't the Bountiful, B.C., charges include sexual exploitation? The answer is simple" - Daphne Bramham in two papers, neither of which was the "Vancouver Sun," for whom she writes. Seriously, I'm not kidding you. I didn't see one thing to make the answer be simple, I read the article twice and started to get a headache looking for it.


Maybe I'm just dense, which on occasion, I am, but I didn't see it, so perhaps one of you readers could go to the article, and see if the answer is indeed simple. I think she's pleading that it would hurt the children by impoverishing their fathers. I'm not sure.


Sphere: Related Content

2 comments:

ztgstmv said...

I'm assuming this airhead was speaking about the fact that the women and children are already happy and simply don't complain against their husbands and fathers to authorities, and so haven't been able to get a witness, which is a prerequisite in Canada before bringing charges (unlike Texas and Utah). Of course the airhead wrote the title without checking the Text. She's probably got article titles confused with one of the other slander pieces.

The Pharisee said...

Could be, one could hardly blame Daphne for the Headline, or, maybe we could. It appeared in the another paper with exactly the same Headline.