# white supremacist Mother has children taken away....



## Sheerin (8 Jul 2008)

Read this in the globe and mail today, and am somewhat conflicted.
*usual disclaimer*

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080707.cowent08/BNStory/specialComment


> Case of the Hitler-loving mom
> MARGARET WENTE
> 
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> ...



Thoughts?


----------



## GAP (8 Jul 2008)

She's a white supremest thru and thru, and makes no apologies for it.....(there's more detail in the Winnipeg Free Press coverage.)

She takes the approach that daddy told her it was a good thing, then it's good enough for her and hers....the only reason it came to light is the swastika on the 8 year old's arm...


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2008)

IMHO, another example of the state dictating norms to families.  I agree with the original article writer's opinion that the mother should have been told "go home until it's washed off".
The government has no place in the bedrooms, kitchens, bathrooms or even dining rooms of the nation.


----------



## Sheerin (8 Jul 2008)

I personally think their views are reprehensible, and part of me is thinking it's good to get those children out of such a hateful environment.  But then I wonder should the government have the right to remove children just because their parents are racist?  
It would be one thing if those woman went out and actively committed hate crimes but did she?.


----------



## Strike (8 Jul 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I personally think their views are reprehensible, and part of me is thinking it's good to get those children out of such a hateful environment.  But then I wonder should the government have the right to remove children just because their parents are racist?
> It would be one thing if those woman went out and actively committed hate crimes but did she?.



Exactly my thoughts.  Plus, comparing this situation with that of Texas, where the removal of children was due to one of them claiming abuse, and the UK, where the child can become a burden on health care, just doesn't compute.  Both of these situations equate to physical harm.  Being a racist?  Sick and twisted yes.  Harmful to someone's physical health?  Not likely (and I mean will this person be harmed simply because of this belief, not if another party comes in and beats them up).


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jul 2008)

A post on Ezra Levant's site made the comparison between that child and one pictured holding a "9/11 was an inside job" sign and wearing the "t" shirt. 

It is OK to be raised by left wing moonbats, but not fascist moonbats? Perhaps the State will start scooping up children who are home schooled because the parents are not certified teachers (an implied outcome of a recent California court case)?

The real problem is "thought" and opinion is subjective while action is not. If the mother had _acted _ on the supremest ideology and killed someone or vandalized a school then the State has all the reason to take action; having repugnant views is subjective and therefore not a reason for the State to intervene.


----------



## MedTechStudent (8 Jul 2008)

Peoples beliefs are their own business whether I agree with it or not.  However, teaching those beliefs to others, especially those too young to understand the controversy involved with them, I think thats wrong.  Then again, is what she is doing illegal?  I don't think this will stick for long.  Is she a bad parent in any other way except her less than admirable moral teachings?  I think she will be given her kids back, and they will grow up to make their own conclusions, the *right* conclusions on people of different ethnicity and color.  I hope.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I personally think their views are reprehensible, and part of me is thinking it's good to get those children out of such a hateful environment.


None of me thinks that.  I think what is really reprehensible is the action of the state.  Agree with her views or not.  Until there are actions, which are harmful of others, then ignore it.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2008)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> Peoples beliefs are their own business whether I agree with it or not.  However, teaching those beliefs to others, especially those too young to understand the controversy involved with them, I think thats wrong.  Then again, is what she is doing illegal?  I don't think this will stick for long.  Is she a bad parent in any other way except her less than admirable moral teachings?  I think she will be given her kids back, and they will grow up to make their own conclusions, the *right* conclusions on people of different ethnicity and color.  I hope.


"Right" conclusions?  Is that a pun?  Or were you being serious?  If you were being serious, I didn't know that any one thought was "right" or "wrong".  Objectively, I mean.  I have opinions on many things, some of which would be considered odd ball (or at least at odds with any current popular thinking.  As one example, I am of the opinion that the Rolling Stones were, and are, a much better band than the Beatles ever could hope.)  I just hope that kids everywhere grow up to obey the law.  I couldn't care less what they think, though I do care what they do (as it affects society, that is)


----------



## Strike (8 Jul 2008)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> Peoples beliefs are their own business whether I agree with it or not.  However, teaching those beliefs to others, especially those too young to understand the controversy involved with them, I think thats wrong.



In that same vein then anyone who is against the military would have a case against any parent in the military who brings their kids out to a Red Friday rally or other such event wouldn't they?  We might not agree with the belief, but is it really our business to tell people how to raise their kids if there is no affect on the child's health or outside agencies?  (Thinking of the health care system and the obese kids situation again.)


----------



## MedTechStudent (8 Jul 2008)

Ya I thought that might be a question.  What I mean is I hope they come to fair, sensible, positive conclusions about about people of color.  Not discriminate against them just because its what mommy told them to do.  And to a degree, I do care what people think, because negative thinking leads to negative actions.  I mean I know there is not much to be done about it, but hey you can still care.  I think that if a vote was taken, most people would say that racism is wrong and equality is "right."  So I guess thats what I mean by the "right" conclusions.

And ya, Rolling Stones are great.  Except that Mic Jagger cheats at guitar, takes the bottom E string off his Telecaster so he can tune it to open A.  Ever wonder how he can smoke and play at the same time?  Still, great band.  And I actually *do* enjoy them more than the Beatles.  



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> We might not agree with the belief, but is it really our business to tell people how to raise their kids if there is no affect on the child's health or outside agencies?



Exactly, which is why I think she will just be given her kids back in no time.
But then again, child services seamed to think it was _their_ business, so I don't really know what's gonna happen.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2008)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> And ya, Rolling Stones are great.  Except that Mic Jagger cheats at guitar, takes the bottom E string off his Telecaster so he can tune it to open A.  Ever wonder how he can smoke and play at the same time?  Still, great band.  And I actually *do* enjoy them more than the Beatles.


You mean Keith Richards, right?
Anyway, you can care, you can protest, you can offer counter-arguments to that parent's beliefs all you want. This IS a free country.  Besides, what belief structures are next to cause parents to lose custody?  That parents teach according to certain religious beliefs that run counter to the mainstream beliefs?
This act by the child services department was WAY over the top.  I mean, who is right?  Who is wrong?  We as Canadians have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we have the criminal code, etc.  Act according to those (and other laws, ordinances, etc) and we all get along.


----------



## MedTechStudent (8 Jul 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> You mean Keith Richards, right?
> Anyway, you can care, you can protest, you can offer counter-arguments to that parent's beliefs all you want. This IS a free country.  Besides, what belief structures are next to cause parents to lose custody?  That parents teach according to certain religious beliefs that run counter to the mainstream beliefs?
> This act by the child services department was WAY over the top.  I mean, who is right?  Who is wrong?  We as Canadians have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we have the criminal code, etc.  Act according to those (and other laws, ordinances, etc) and we all get along.



 Woops, ya thats who I meant.:-\  

See, I thought it was illegal to promote hateful mentality.  Is that not what this is?  Or is it only hate *crimes* that are illegal.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jul 2008)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> Ya I thought that might be a question.  What I mean is I hope they come to fair, sensible, positive conclusions about about people of color.  Not discriminate against them just because its what mommy told them to do.  And to a degree, I do care what people think, because negative thinking leads to negative actions.  I mean I know there is not much to be done about it, but hey you can still care.  *I think that if a vote was taken, most people would say that racism is wrong and equality is "right."  * So I guess thats what I mean by the "right" conclusions.



In some parts of the world, if a vote were taken, then most people would say religious discrimination and subjugation of women would be "right".

Up until the mid 1700's, and even then except in only a small minority of the world, most people would say slavery was "right".

The Founding Fathers of the United States took a vote and decided _timocracy_ (i.e. political rights only accrued to property owners) was "right"

So the idea of "right" is subjective and can change as time and circumstances dictate. What is "wrong" is when people can advance their own subjective agendas through the power of the State and trample our true Rights (Freedom of Speech and Expression, Ownership and unencumbered use of Property, the Rule of Law). Canadians have seen this in examples as diverse as the excesses of various "human rights" commissions, the jailing of farmers who want to sell their own wheat and barley and Residential Schools. Incidentally, if you are in favour of taking the child from the mother, then _by definition /i]  you are in favor of Residential Schools for aboriginals since the principles behind the actions are exactly the same..._


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jul 2008)

Raising a child in a white supremacist environment is no better or worse a home than children raised in hate spewing religious ones.

Will the government go around pulling children out of homes who's parents teach god hates fags or kill the infidel?

Actually that might not be a bad idea..


----------



## MedTechStudent (8 Jul 2008)

All I'm trying to say is this:
1.) I believe teaching easily influenced young children to be racist is wrong.
2.) I would assume the majority of others would agree.

I don't care about the rest of the world, some terrible stuff goes on in it and can only be thankful that we don't live in a place where woman are discriminated against.  And yes humanities opinion of right and wrong changes, but this is how it is right now.  In another hundred years people will look back at 2008 and say "oh wow I can't beleive things were done that way."  All that matters is here and now IMO.

I don't think the government has any right to take her kids away, I never said that they should keep them away from her.  All I said was I think its sick that she is raising them to think that way.


----------



## meni0n (8 Jul 2008)

This is no different from the Kahdr case, only they took it a step further. So knowing what that family did, do you think they should have kept the children when they were teaching them to hate? This is no different. So what happens when this child grows up to be a racist skinhead and then actually decided to get violent? Would you think it was a good idea to hand the child back to the parent?


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> So what happens when this child grows up to be a racist skinhead and then actually decided to get violent? Would you think it was a good idea to hand the child back to the parent?


Heck, go a step further, and have the government raise our kids for us.  Your argument is flawed.  IF that kid turns out to be violent, then I hope that cops get a hold of him, that he is tried, and if convicted, that he serves his punishment, whatever that may be.  Unless you're from Futurecrimes division, you have no idea what will happen with this kid.  Or his mother.


----------



## GAP (8 Jul 2008)

Aside from the arguments going on in support of/objection to...belief systems, one thing that everybody skipped over was the teacher. 

In the news reports I came away with a distinct impression she overreacted (as did the principal). *The whole issue could have been solved by telling the girl to wash it off, etc*. . Instead the social engineering corps got busy and calling the heavy guns, and with all this patting on the back, and knowledgeable nodding, the congratulated themselves for doing "The Right Thing"...


----------



## MedTechStudent (8 Jul 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> In the news reports I came away with a distinct impression she overreacted (as did the principal). The whole issue could have been solved by telling the girl to wash it off, etc. . Instead the social engineering corps got busy and calling the heavy guns, and with all this patting on the back, and knowledgeable nodding, the congratulated themselves for doing "The Right Thing"...



What would you have done?  (No irritation in this question at all I'm just curious.  )



			
				meni0n said:
			
		

> This is no different from the Kahdr case, only they took it a step further. So knowing what that family did, do you think they should have kept the children when they were teaching them to hate? This is no different. So what happens when this child grows up to be a racist skinhead and then actually decided to get violent? Would you think it was a good idea to hand the child back to the parent?



Its already been said, without action there is no crime here.  And as a parent its her right to teach those kids what ever she wants.  It *is* the same as parents teaching their kids to be fanatically religious.  How often do you see doors being kicked down for that?  I don't want these kids to grow up this way, no one does.  However, unfortunately the Charter says she has not done anything wrong.  So that will probably be the outcome.

Besides, we are talking about someone's *beliefs* here.  This is not like she knows she is in the "wrong" and is doing it anyways.  To her, in accordance with her true beliefs she is raising her kids the proper way.  And no one will be able to convince her otherwise.  *Probably*, because _her_ parents brought her up to be that way.  Yes I know thats an assumption but there is defiantly a pattern to this kind of thing.


----------



## GAP (8 Jul 2008)

See Above your post


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2008)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> However, *unfortunately * the Charter says she has not done anything wrong.  So that will probably be the outcome.


So, then, would it have been fortunate if the charter had said that she HAD done something wrong?


----------



## meni0n (8 Jul 2008)

Spreading hatred is a crime. Spreading hatred to your child is not? By minimizing the child`s contact with racism and hatred will minimize the chance that the child will grow up like the parent. At this stage, the kid is absorbing everything from his parents and will eventually determine the beliefs and ideals he will have. 

Let me give you another example, the madras on the afghan-pakistan border are teaching young kids fundamentalist islam and hatred for the west, and many of them actually get recruited either into fighting or suicide bombers. Do you think it`s better to close down the schools or keep them open and hope the police catches them in the act?


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Spreading hatred is a crime. Spreading hatred to your child is not? By minimizing the child`s contact with racism and hatred will minimize the chance that the child will grow up like the parent. At this stage, the kid is absorbing everything from his parents and will eventually determine the beliefs and ideals he will have.


In the article in question, the mother claims to teach her children to respect others.  At least to tolerate them.  She teaches pride in her race.  If she were gay and teaching her kids gay pride say, oh, about 20 years ago, would it have been right to take her kids away?  What of the black parents who teach pride in THEIR race?  Is that ok?  Or is it "hatred" to be proud of some things, but not of others?
For me, pride in one's race is an alien concept (unless you're talking of the HUMAN race, and then only maybe).  I disagree with this woman's beliefs, but I also don't believe that the Q'uran is a divine book.  Yes, I acknowledge that many people DO think it is divine, and they live according to those beliefs.  I have no more right to take kids from muslim homes than I do from the home of this mother.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Let me give you another example, the madras on the afghan-pakistan border are teaching young kids fundamentalist islam and hatred for the west, and many of them actually get recruited either into fighting or suicide bombers. Do you think it`s better to close down the schools or keep them open and hope the police catches them in the act?


madrassas aren't family homes.  Your argument is extreme at best, and inflammatory and irrelevant at worst.


----------



## meni0n (8 Jul 2008)

Why does it have to be different? So if it was taught at home it would have been ok? Sure, the mom says that but why do you believe her at face value? She got something to lose if she says that she taught the children hate. Teaching hate in one place is the same as in another. My argument is not irrelevant, look at the rise of skinhead attacks in Russia and the attacks in Israel. Teaching children hatred and racism especially when they`re so young is a recipe for disaster as they don`t have the objective thinking to differentiate between what`s good and bad in the big context. And yes, I find parents teaching kids PRIDE in their race is a form of racism.


----------



## garb811 (8 Jul 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Spreading hatred is a crime. Spreading hatred to your child is not? By minimizing the child`s contact with racism and hatred will minimize the chance that the child will grow up like the parent. At this stage, the kid is absorbing everything from his parents and will eventually determine the beliefs and ideals he will have.


If you're going to start invoking the Criminal Code you better understand the actual offenses related to hate contained therein:  Sec 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada

As others have said everyone involved over reacted.  Unless the child's health and welfare is immediately and provably endangered, there is absolutely no justification for the State to interfere in how parents choose to raise their child and the values they choose to instill.


----------



## Strike (8 Jul 2008)

Yes, agree that the teacher over reacted.  Call the parent and get her to pick the child up.  Explain to the child why they are in trouble.  You don't even NEED to bring race into it.  "You know dear, some peopl find that symbol very offensive because of its historical context and what it means to them.  Although you might not find it offensive it would be best if you don't do this again, as I'd hate to see you possibly losing friends or getting in to fights over it."  Talk to the mother.  I'm sure the teacher knew of her beliefs.  If the mother is tolerant of others (as claimed) she'd deal with the situation in an appropriate manner.



> And yes, I find parents teaching kids PRIDE in their race is a form of racism.



Right, then let's get rid of multicultural fairs, because ultimately they are teaching children to have pride in their culture, which many times revolves around a specific race.   :


----------



## meni0n (8 Jul 2008)

Culture and race are two entirely different things.


----------



## Strike (8 Jul 2008)

> ...culture, which many times revolves around a specific race.


----------



## meni0n (8 Jul 2008)

Culture :   all the knowledge and values shared by a society. We have people from many different countries that have immigrated to Canada and adopted Canadian culture. Culture is not tied to a race.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jul 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Raising a child in a white supremacist environment is no better or worse a home than children raised in hate spewing religious ones "progressive" one.
> 
> Will the government go around pulling children out of homes who's parents teach god hates fags or kill the infidel? Or 9/11 was an inside job? Or we should honour our troops by wearing red shirts on Friday? Or advocate that Quebec should be a distinct society? Or advocate/deny that climate change is caused by human agency? Or owning guns causes/prevents crime? Or abortion is a mortal sin/a womans right? Or Darwinian evolution is correct/nonsense? Or healthcare should be public/private?
> 
> Actually that might not be a *bad* idea..


----------



## meni0n (8 Jul 2008)

You can also stretch the criminal code :

The article stated: When her daughter returned home upset, the mother said she retraced the swastika in black ink and sent the girl back to school. 

Criminal code:  Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of 
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


The mother knew she was drawing a swastika on her own child and she knew the child was going back to a public place.


----------



## Rodahn (8 Jul 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> You can also stretch the criminal code :
> 
> The article stated: When her daughter returned home upset, the mother said she retraced the swastika in black ink and sent the girl back to school.
> 
> ...



But what is the mother doing.... Nothing but drawing a symbol on her child's arm.... The swastika has been around for over 3000 years and the original definition is on the following link.

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/swastika/a/swastikahistory.htm

Possibly the mother was utilizing the original sentiment of the symbol.... (I know a bit of a stretch)


----------



## meni0n (8 Jul 2008)

She admitted she`s a white supremacist, therefor she knew exactly what she was drawing and that it didn`t mean the original meaning. Having a nazi flag hanging on her wall is kind of a giveaway.


----------



## GAP (8 Jul 2008)

but a swastika in and of itself, is not illegal, just what it represents in respect to the Nazi's ( and even there there are arguments)

PS: the Incas used the swastika design, as did the US Navy (in the design of a barracks)


----------



## Strike (8 Jul 2008)

meniOn,



> Race: any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.


  fm http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race

As for the redrawing of the swastika, I didn't read the Winnipeg article and thus wasn't aware that had happened (my bad).  But wrt the flag IN her home, ON her WALL, how can that be a dead giveaway to a teacher if they haven't been in the house?  To us now it is, since it's been in the paper and the mother admitted it, although she has also admitted to removing it.


----------



## meni0n (8 Jul 2008)

Strike, what I meant by race is white, black, hispanic etc, 

She stated she removed it only because it might alarm the media and replaced it by a white supremacist logo. It`s no different. You can see what her intent was when she redrew it.


----------



## Rodahn (8 Jul 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> You can see what her intent was when she redrew it.



No, I can't see what her intent was (I'm not psychic)... Please enlighten us!


----------



## meni0n (8 Jul 2008)

From the article: 
The young mother carefully folds the red Nazi flag emblazoned with a black swastika that once hung on her living room wall and lays it on her kitchen table.

In its place she has hung a banner that reads “White pride worldwide,” explaining that guests from the media might find it less shocking.

From wiki:
White supremacists frequently consider Jews to be the gravest threat to their cause, because they can assimilate much easier than other ethnic groups.

So white supremacist mom draws a swastika on her child, and you don`t know what her intent was?


----------



## Springroll (8 Jul 2008)

So, we run the risk of losing our children if we do not believe in the "norm's" of society???

 :

I may not agree with the mother's beliefs, but her beliefs are not enough to warrant removing her children from her custody.
Hope she gets them back, and real soon.


----------



## Strike (8 Jul 2008)

Sorry guys.  I need to apologize for getting a little too in the weeds with everything.  I'm pretty sure we all agree that we disagree with this woman's beliefs.  meniOn, pls don't think I'm trying to pile on you.  I'm not.

Back to the debate at hand wrt the Children's Aid getting involved.  Seriously, where do we draw the line?  Beliefs are just that, and don't (or won't) necessarily equate to action.  That's akin to saying all bikers have a tendency towards the illegal, because of the actions of the one-percenters.  A few bikers in here would get a little peeved if we thought that way.  Don't think it's comparable?  Okay.  Another thought...Muslims all have the potential to be terrorists because of the teachings of the Qur'an.

Again, I'm not saying that I agree with this woman's beliefs...far from it.  But to remove a child because you think her beliefs are harming her children.  Please!  When did we all become the thought police?

It's a difficult topic to discuss, especially when it involves someone like this.  But if we were to let something like this happen without raising a few questions, what would be the next thing to be attacked?  Where would it stop?


----------



## Springroll (8 Jul 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> From the article:
> The young mother carefully folds the red Nazi flag emblazoned with a black swastika that once hung on her living room wall and lays it on her kitchen table.
> 
> In its place she has hung a banner that reads “White pride worldwide,” explaining that guests from the media might find it less shocking.



What article did you get this snippet from?
I can't find it in the one posted in this thread.


----------



## meni0n (8 Jul 2008)

Strike, you make a good point. If she didn`t redrew the swastika on her child`s arm, I doubt anything would have happend. But to draw it a second time, it just looks like she was trying to send a message, on her child`s arm. Either she did it to spite the teacher or just because she`s wanted to show how superior she`s really is. It doesn`t matter because the school is a public place and not a place for her shinenigans. 

Springroll

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080705.wparentsGTA/BNStory/National/home/


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> but a swastika in and of itself, is not illegal, just what it represents in respect to the Nazi's ( and even there there are arguments)
> 
> PS: the Incas used the swastika design, as did the US Navy (in the design of a barracks)


Check out the insignia of the 45th Infantry Division (US Army)





Having said that, it is common when one sees a swastika to think of Nazi Germany.  As well, given the mother's statements, it's pretthy clear that she wasn't an Inca, in the US Navy or even a member of the 45th Infantry Division fan club.


----------



## Rodahn (8 Jul 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Check out the insignia of the 45th Infantry Division (US Army)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly, and from my link here is the original translation for the swastika...
The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit svastika - "su" meaning "good," "asti" meaning "to be," and "ka" as a suffix.


----------



## GAP (8 Jul 2008)

They never stated her nationality, her race, nor her military background..... ;D


----------



## meni0n (8 Jul 2008)

Actually GAP, they did state:

It was while she was an army cadet, enrolled at 11 years old, that she met a group of skinheads and her political views were consolidated.


----------



## Springroll (8 Jul 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Actually GAP, they did state:
> 
> It was while she was an army cadet, enrolled at 11 years old, that she met a group of skinheads and her political views were consolidated.



How could she be an army cadet at 11, when the enrollment age has been a minimum of 12 years of age for at least the last 20 years???


----------



## King Elessar (8 Jul 2008)

referring to the Insignia of the 45th Infantry Division, most people don't realize that that is not the Nazi Swastika. the Nazis turned the swastika to a different angle.

i would post the Nazi Swastika but i'm not sure if it would be allowed, don't want to offend anyone by accident so i'll link to a picture and you can click it with discretion.

Nazi Swastika

i really don't know whose side to take on this issue. i agree with Child Services taking the child away, but i agree we shouldn't be forcing our ideals on other peoples children.

but who's to say that child doesn't grow up believing she is far superior to everyone else, and decides to take an extreme act to prove it.

it really is a touchy situation.


----------



## GAP (8 Jul 2008)

> but who's to say that child doesn't grow up believing she is far superior to everyone else, and decides to take an extreme act to prove it.



Does this not apply to Roman Catholic, muslim, Protestant, etc., etc.......White Supremists' do not hold the patent on extreme acts....especially future potential extreme acts...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Jul 2008)

We all have differing beliefs, some are outright wrong, some others totally disagree with and some beliefs are totally out there that we wonder about the person that has those beliefs. As long as the child is loved and cared for then what business is it of the state what the mother believes in. Do we take children from parents that are homophobic? Is that not hatred?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Jul 2008)

It is somewhat interesting that this story is only being commented about on this forum now and not when this saga began, back in March.  But, a cursory search indicates that most of the media coverage (including significant foriegn coverage) was in early June as family court hearings on the matter were approaching.  I guess that it takes a while for public opinion to percolate.

I would agree that the state has no business in deciding on the values that parents inculate on their children, but I also believe that children are not the "property" of parents and should not be subjected to whatever whims or "behaviour" the parents may have, particularly when it may place the child in jeopardy.  Using a child as a billboard for your social values is not parenting.

I have a feeling that most of the comments made on this thread are based solely on the quoted piece in the opening post, however, that was an "opinion" column which following a review of several news article leads me to believe that it was in error in its judgement that CFS took these children from their parents because of the parents beliefs.  As child welfare agencies rarely make public statements because of privacy legislation a lot of the press coverage seems to centre on the mother and her assertion that CFS took the children because of her beliefs, but there were occasional bits of information that gives a different shading to this story.

The following are extracts from news coverage from early last month.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=8628db5b-10a7-4803-908c-d373e17a288f


> Manitoba Child and Family Services agency is prepared to return the seven-year-old girl and two-year-old boy and drop an application for permanent custody, the Winnipeg Free Press reports.
> 
> The deal would involve having the children slowly reintegrated into the home, first on weekends and eventually back to full-time care.
> 
> ...



http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/story/4184940p-4774948c.html


> Describing herself as a proud "white nationalist," this Winnipeg woman with a fringed hair and a freckled nose says *she's worked doggedly in the restaurant industry for years to support her two children while her oft-unemployed husband stayed home with her kids. *
> 
> The day her seven-year-old daughter went to school in March with a swastika drawn on her arm, her mother said she tried to wash it off with nail polish remover but the marking stayed put. Her daughter forgot her sweater a mother gave her to cover her arm.
> 
> ...



http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=575530


> . . .
> Child and Family Services is seeking a permanent order of guardianship based on ongoing concerns about the safety of a seven-year-old girl and a two-year-old boy.
> 
> "*The children may be at risk due to the parents' behaviour and associates.* The parents might endanger the emotional well-being of the children," CFS wrote in court documents obtained by the Winnipeg Free Press.
> ...



While the full details will probably never get into the press it does give an impression that this is a family that would find neighbours called Julian, Ricky, and Bubbles to be too intellectual/liberal for them.  More than an intrusion on their family's beliefs it seems more to be a final intervention by teacher/CFS who over a period of a few years may have seen increasing indications that the children could be at risk.  How often have family service workers been taken to task because they hesitated before intervening with tragic results.


----------



## RangerRay (8 Jul 2008)

Does this mean that parents who put t-shirts of mass murderer, Che Guevera, on their kids will have their kids seized by the State?  Kids who wear Hammer & Sickle t-shirts?  Kids who wear Stars of David?  Christian crosses?  The Crescent?

Thought crimes and pre-crimes...


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Jul 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Raising a child in a white supremacist environment is no better or worse a home than children raised in hate spewing religious ones.
> 
> Will the government go around pulling children out of homes who's parents teach god hates fags or kill the infidel?
> 
> Actually that might not be a bad idea..



Bingo!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr/

dileas

tess


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Jul 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Actually GAP, they did state:
> 
> It was while she was an army cadet, enrolled at 11 years old, that she met a group of skinheads and her political views were consolidated.



Greetings dear fellow members and guests,


Firstly, I don't condone any extreme radical behaviour, after all over 45,000 Canadians died in the fight againt Hitler, and right now we are dying for the fight against radical islam.

Blame it on the Cadet movent eh? Good bloody gawd  ;D Skinhead Army Cadets running rampant in our streets terrorising others, and get a school credit out of it. As Charlie brown would say - 'good grief'.

So with an 'extremist' having their children removed, now what about the radical extreme muslims who have been arrested in Canada and charged, yes plotting all sorts of nasties against their adopted niave Canada?

Will they too have their children removed? I imagine the outcry from our 'selected few' with that one eh??

What is the difference between a Nazi soccer mom, and  a extreme islamic suicide bomber?? Hummm, you decide.

Was this woman charged with anything by the RCMP?

Well than any radical group for that matter then should meet the same fate as the woman, (we can't have a double standard can we) that being radical animal rights, or those promting nudism should have their kids taken away too?? What about that Nutter Sheila who wants the CF recruiting posters banned. Look at her radical behaviour?? Should her grandchildren be banned, after all she is 70 yrs old.

Thats a crazy thought, but whats good for one extreme goose should be good for extreme ganders??  

Taken as tongue and cheek please, but there is a few valid points overall.

 Any one offended, I most indeed, humbly appologise in advance.

OWDU's take on it, digest and discuss at your leisure.

Warm regards to all, and happy days too,


OWDU


----------



## mpo060 (9 Jul 2008)

The promotion of hatred and discrimination grosses me out. As far as I am concerned, it's her responsibility as a Canadian to respect others. People that display symbols of hatred such as the swastika do so in the same spirit as we display our national flag. When I display the good ol' red and white , I do so because I am proud of the values it represents (or maybe just the values that Molson tells me it represents ... it's hard to keep it all straight nowadays). She can downplay the swastika as much as she wants, but the fact of the matter is that the swastika is little more than a rally point for mad haters. Mad hate disgusts me and so does the swastika. 

But my actual opinion on the matter is that this whole debacle has transformed into an Orwellian nightmare. We all know that the state has the right to dictate and enforce public morality, but should they really be able to cause a parent to raise their children in the same beliefs as the mother state? It's a little too dictatorial if you ask me. My final opinion on the matter is that the province had no right to forcibly remove her children. 

In closing: if it were up to me, I'd make sure that every child was raised in accordance with my free-lovin' liberal values.  :threat:


----------



## S.Stewart (9 Jul 2008)

This womans views make me sick, it is not something I would ever teach my offspring. In the same breath taking away her children in my opinion is kind of extreme. There are plently of Fred Phelps of the world, who never face having their kids taken away.

This child is obviously not going to school and preaching messages of hate, by the sounds of it, it is more an issue of how the mother sent the child to school. If it was a problem of the child repeating what they are hearing at home, I am sure it would have bubbled to the surface alot sooner than this.   

IMO if that child is being properly cared for, has all it needs to sustain life and then some, and is happy and healthy then I see no need for the system to cause that child stress by removing them. The act of removing the child away from the home suddenly more than likely will cause more mental anguish and hardship for said child, than anything the mother would have taught at this point. 

A child should not feel they are being punished for the beliefs their parental units hold near and dear.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jul 2008)

I'll make no statement on her qualities as a mother. All I see is Nanny state thought control. You would think they would have learned something from the aboriginal schooling that we just apologised for. I hope she sues the ass off of them.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2008)

This about sums it up.....


----------



## Spanky (9 Jul 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Does this mean that parents who put t-shirts of mass murderer, Che Guevera, on their kids will have their kids seized by the State?  Kids who wear Hammer & Sickle t-shirts?  Kids who wear Stars of David?  Christian crosses?  The Crescent?
> 
> Thought crimes and pre-crimes...


If the highlighted portions of the articles cited by Blackadder are accurate, then I'm sure the kids were removed for more than just a symbol on an arm.  Having t-shirts as described above would not, in isolation, be enough to remove a child.  Most, if not all, schools have codes of conduct.  This will include appropriate dress.  If there is something being worn that is offensive according to the code of conduct, the parent is usually asked to bring in a replacement. If the parent refuses, or in this case re-applies the symbol, the child is not allowed back to school until the code of conduct infraction is rectified.  Calling in the Children's Aid just for a symbol drawn on the arm is an over-reaction, if taken in isolation.


----------



## sigtech (9 Jul 2008)

There would have to be more to this story.
The truth of the matter is my Great Uncle, my uncles and my father now me have all put our life on the line for our Country thus given people freedom of their beliefs so even if we don't like what they have to say , it is there right to say it.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (9 Jul 2008)

As a parent I want my children to be accepting, well rounded, well adjusted, productive, happy kids.  
It boggles my mind that not everyone wants that for their kids.  Teaching hate and supremacy over another colour or culture is very detrimental to that child if you want them to be well adjusted. 

And I think she's a moron to send her kids to school with a swastika, what did she think was going to happen?  
However, if every parent that did something wrong had their kids taken away we would have a whole lot of displaced kids.  

We as parents are allowed to parent our children the way we see fit, unfortunately there is no licence or qualifications to be a parent, and any bonehead, stupidiot can be one and then they can pass on their own bonehead, stupidiot ideas.

Who knows, maybe these kids will grow up to be accepting, well rounded, well adjusted, productive, happy kids DESPITE being raised by boneheads and stupidiots.  After all....we ALL know someone that have overcome bad parenting to become great adults!  

There is hope!


----------



## Rodahn (9 Jul 2008)

Very well stated Engr's Wife.
Chimo


----------



## Dean Thompson (9 Jul 2008)

I teach my son what I believe is factual information. Like how by the year 2020, whites will be a minority in the US, that the Canadian immigration policies need a major overhaul to weed out the undesirables that claim to be "political refugee's" so we can't send them back, and that the government preaches against racial discrimination but is the worst offender with their increasing reverse descrimination against white Canadians. Just recently my son's school had a "fun day" at the beach and were told by the teacher to bring baseballs and gloves and things to play with, and then told "oh, and for you first nation children, you can bring fishing rods if you like". I couldn't believe it when he told me. I laughed in disbelief and my boy kept asking me what was so funny. I see natives with "Native Pride" hats here in BC. There is nothing wrong with pride in your race, but if a white person has a "White Pride" hat on they're immediately labelled as a nazi-loving skinhead. WTF?


----------



## Strike (9 Jul 2008)

Dean Thompson said:
			
		

> I see natives with "Native Pride" hats here in BC. There is nothing wrong with pride in your race, but if a white person has a "White Pride" hat on they're immediately labelled as a nazi-loving skinhead. WTF?



But if you had "Scottish Pride" or "Aussie Pride" or some other thing then there wouldn't be an issue.  When I see something like the "Native Pride" hats, I don't think of race, but culture.  As for reverse discrimination, we bring it upon ourselves, changing the story of the Three Little Pigs so as not to offend Muslims, calling a Christmas tree a Holiday tree (whereas we should really go with the proper historical term of Yule tree  ;D since the decoration WAS stolen from the Pagans after all) and so on and so forth.  We've allowed reverse discrimination ourselves and it's gottent o the point where the very people we have been trying to shelter are shaking their heads at the decision makers and telling them to relax a bit.  The pendulum is still swinging.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (9 Jul 2008)

We all have different cultures and different ethnic backgrounds, we are all of the same race.  The human race.


----------



## tank recce (9 Jul 2008)

ENGINEERS WIFE said:
			
		

> We all have different cultures and different ethnic backgrounds, we are all of the same race.  The human race.



"You see? Even their language is biased - "HUMAN rights..."

(sorry, wrong thread - belongs over in Movie Quotes)  ;D


----------



## axeman (9 Jul 2008)

>

That's great that we are all of the human race now whens Caucasian Pride month, week or day ?  It's fine to say the words that we are all equal  but when men cant have long hair unless your Native or Sikh, not allowed to have ea rings unless your a woman . When all these  are allowed for men  of ANY race  or i can stand up and not being arrested for standing up and saying "WHITE POWER" the same way that any other race can I'll believe that we are equal  but right now we are suffering from the "Oh we are so sorry thought train" going on . Why cant i do exactly the same as any other member of any race or sex ? 

Any way thats my opinion and thoughts . Any dumping on this  will prove what I've said . I dont practice racism and do not condone it but  in the end i can say what I believe in and with the freedoms that we are allowed to enjoy without fear of harrasement and censor . 

 >


----------



## Strike (9 Jul 2008)

axeman said:
			
		

> Any dumping on this  will prove what I've said .



No it won't.  It will just show that some people disagree with you.


----------



## Rodahn (9 Jul 2008)

axeman said:
			
		

> >
> 
> That's great that we are all of the human race now whens Caucasian Pride month, week or day ?  It's fine to say the words that we are all equal  but when men cant have long hair unless your Native or Sikh, not allowed to have ea rings unless your a woman . When all these  are allowed for men  of ANY race  or i can stand up and not being arrested for standing up and saying "WHITE POWER" the same way that any other race can I'll believe that we are equal  but right now we are suffering from the "Oh we are so sorry thought train" going on . Why cant i do exactly the same as any other member of any race or sex ?
> 
> ...



Who has said that you can't have long hair or ear rings? I see lots of guys that have both...... Amongst other things......


----------



## Dean Thompson (9 Jul 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Who has said that you can't have long hair or ear rings? I see lots of guys that have both...... Amongst other things......



Not on duty military members.


----------



## Rodahn (9 Jul 2008)

Dean Thompson said:
			
		

> Not on duty military members.



But that is the choice that axeman, and other members of the military have made. They also have the choice of getting out ,if they do not agree with the existing regulations, then growing their hair long and getting ear rings....


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jul 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> But that is the choice that axeman, and other members of the military have made. They also have the choice of getting out ,if they do not agree with the existing regulations, then growing their hair long and getting ear rings....


The point that they are trying to say is this
We are all equal, and treated as such.  Except....when it comes to race (aboriginal men, for example, can have long hair in the military), and when it comes to gender (women can also have long hair, irrespective of race.)  His point is that these practices are discriminatory, because they discriminate based on gender (an apparent no-no when it comes to the Charter) and race (another apparent no-no when it comes to the Charter).
As for 'reverse' discrimination, what an atrocious grouping of words!  Is it "reverse" simply because it picks on whitey?  :


----------



## GAP (9 Jul 2008)

Is not whitey simply the standard by which others are compared and, if necessary, made exception to?


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> The point that they are trying to say is this
> We are all equal, and treated as such.  Except....when it comes to race (aboriginal men, for example, can have long hair in the military), and when it comes to gender (women can also have long hair, irrespective of race.)  His point is that these practices are discriminatory, because they discriminate based on gender (an apparent no-no when it comes to the Charter) and race (another apparent no-no when it comes to the Charter).
> As for 'reverse' discrimination, what an atrocious grouping of words!  Is it "reverse" simply because it picks on whitey?  :



WRT military members, it is not even reverse discrimination but simple pandering and stupidity. The short hair and no earrings rules were developed responses to the demands of hygene in the field (to reduce the possibilities of disease and transmission of desease vectors like lice) and to allow for the proper functioning of PPE such as gas masks and helmets. Body piercings are another fashion statement which can interfere with operational effectiveness (imagine being in a hot environment like being buttoned up in a LAV or working on a big diesel engine on a ship with that heat flowing into the metal piercing...) and are correctly banned.

Native or female service members are not magically immune to disease, chemical weapons or high velocity metal fragments, so allowing deviation from dress and deportment standards evolved to protect soldiers and armies does not help them in any way, but simply places them (and us) in danger.

To be respectful of our service member's cultures can be done in ways that are compatable with operational effectiveness (a wider selection of faiths in the Chaplain's branch, CF websites devoted to how black/women/Sihk/gay/native/ukranian/etc. contributed in the past, or other ideas I havn't thought of), and which don't discriminate against anyone.


----------



## Springroll (10 Jul 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Native or female service members are not magically immune to disease, chemical weapons or high velocity metal fragments, so allowing deviation from dress and deportment standards evolved to protect soldiers and armies does not help them in any way, but simply places them (and us) in danger.



I am curious as to how someone's long hair would place all of us in danger? There are strict regulations in place as to how their hair must be. 
I don't have long hair, but I fail to see how "jane's" long hair in a tight bun or braids will put any of us at risk.


----------



## Strike (10 Jul 2008)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I am curious as to how someone's long hair would place all of us in danger? There are strict regulations in place as to how their hair must be.
> I don't have long hair, but I fail to see how "jane's" long hair in a tight bun or braids will put any of us at risk.



Wet hair held up in a tight bun or french braid all day can get pretty rank pretty quick.  Ask anyone who worked on ship prior to our being allowed to wear our hair down (albeit in a braid).  Bugs, sand, and any manner of things can get caught up in there and cause a few issues.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jul 2008)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I am curious as to how someone's long hair would place all of us in danger? There are strict regulations in place as to how their hair must be.
> I don't have long hair, but I fail to see how "jane's" long hair in a tight bun or braids will put any of us at risk.


It probably doesn't, but that's not the point (I think).  The point is that while "jane's" long hair is not an issue, "john" cannot have long hair, unless he is a member of a certain race.  Of course, this is counter to the Charter, specifically article 15:
   15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Just sayin', is all.


----------



## CountDC (10 Jul 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Perhaps the State will start scooping up children who are home schooled because the parents are not certified teachers (an implied outcome of a recent California court case)?
> 
> Often home schoolers are threatened with this by School Boards and Child Protective Services.  That is why more and more home schoolers are not even notifying the schools that they are homeschooling.


----------



## Springroll (10 Jul 2008)

I think, on the topic of the ministry getting involved, that after so many bad things have happened, and been reportedly been due to their lack of investigation, that now they jump at even the slightest of accusations.

A prime example happened to myself just a few months ago.

My 10 yr old daughter was sick with the flu, so I stayed home with her and my oldest(13yrs) son walked my youngest(7yrs) to school(its on his way to his middle school). End of the school day came and the school called me at home to ask how my youngest was getting home. I said to her that I was home, was unable to leave my daughter( vomiting and the runs..poor thing), but that I lived close enough for my youngest to walk. They sent him and he arrived at my house about 10 minutes later. Two weeks later I receive a call at work from the Ministry of Child and Families needing to investigate my son walking home from school alone. I set up the appt for a week later(during spring break since i was going to be on leave then). I then got off the phone and did my research. There is no law saying how old a child must be to be able to walk home (I live 0.2km from the school). When she came for the appointment and asked me for 2 references on my parenting, like a neighbour or family member, and even went so far as to call them. All this because my little guy walked 0.2km home from school. She called me a few weeks late telling me that she found no grounds to be of concern for the ministry, and at that time I told her that the ministry needs to start focusing their energy on more important cases and investigations, like those where they child is at serious risk of abuse...not because mommy made her 7 yr old walk a short distance home. Now, I will have a ministry file on this for the remainder of my life...and I am so happy about that (can you sense the sarcasm?? lol)


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2008)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I am curious as to how someone's long hair would place all of us in danger? There are strict regulations in place as to how their hair must be.
> I don't have long hair, but I fail to see how "jane's" long hair in a tight bun or braids will put any of us at risk.



If a person becomes ineffective due to disease or injury, they place a larger burden on the remainder, consume valuable resources and are therefore placing the remaining personnel at risk. In the case of disease, they can also spread the disease to the remainder of the unit/crew/flightline. To allow deviations from policies and customs developed to _prevent_ such occurances is just foolishness, _regardless_ of the reason for allowing these deviations. (If it was suggested that males soldiers of Nordic descent were allowed to wear their hair in long braids like their Viking ancestors I would be just as opposed...)


----------



## CountDC (10 Jul 2008)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I am curious as to how someone's long hair would place all of us in danger? There are strict regulations in place as to how their hair must be.
> I don't have long hair, but I fail to see how "jane's" long hair in a tight bun or braids will put any of us at risk.



You and Jane are infantry, Jane in front of you and her long her in tight bun comes apart falling in her face, Jane does not see trip wire, BOOM, you and Jane no more.

ok, it's extreme but could happen.

We have all seen the women with long hair and strands pulling free - these do present a hazard in various cases as they can get caught in things - vehicle fan/belts are other samples, that places the members or others at risk.


----------



## Springroll (10 Jul 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> You and Jane are infantry, Jane in front of you and her long her in tight bun comes apart falling in her face, Jane does not see trip wire, BOOM, you and Jane no more.
> 
> ok, it's extreme but could happen.
> 
> We have all seen the women with long hair and strands pulling free - these do present a hazard in various cases as they can get caught in things - vehicle fan/belts are other samples, that places the members or others at risk.



Is it not part of the regulation to have all loose strands properly pinned back???
If so, then she is going against regulation.

I see what you are saying, though.


----------



## Rodahn (10 Jul 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> It probably doesn't, but that's not the point (I think).  The point is that while "jane's" long hair is not an issue, "john" cannot have long hair, unless he is a member of a certain race.  Of course, this is counter to the Charter, specifically article 15:
> 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
> Just sayin', is all.



I agree with the above, I believe that the "special interest" groups who wish to join the military should abide by the regulations that are in place for all members. In my aged opinion it is another example of pandering, to said groups, and even more-so of political correctness gone awry. As Thucydides so eloquently pointed out the regulations are there for a reason. I was simply pointing out that people have a choice... Either way!


----------



## 2 Cdo (10 Jul 2008)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I think, on the topic of the ministry getting involved, that after so many bad things have happened, and been reportedly been due to their lack of investigation, that now they jump at even the slightest of accusations.
> 
> A prime example happened to myself just a few months ago.
> 
> My 10 yr old daughter was sick with the flu, so I stayed home with her and my oldest(13yrs) son walked my youngest(7yrs) to school(its on his way to his middle school). End of the school day came and the school called me at home to ask how my youngest was getting home. I said to her that I was home, was unable to leave my daughter( vomiting and the runs..poor thing), but that I lived close enough for my youngest to walk. They sent him and he arrived at my house about 10 minutes later. Two weeks later I receive a call at work from the Ministry of Child and Families needing to investigate my son walking home from school alone. I set up the appt for a week later(during spring break since i was going to be on leave then). I then got off the phone and did my research. There is no law saying how old a child must be to be able to walk home (I live 0.2km from the school). When she came for the appointment and asked me for 2 references on my parenting, like a neighbour or family member, and even went so far as to call them. All this because my little guy walked 0.2km home from school. She called me a few weeks late telling me that she found no grounds to be of concern for the ministry, and at that time I told her that the ministry needs to start focusing their energy on more important cases and investigations, like those where they child is at serious risk of abuse...not because mommy made her 7 yr old walk a short distance home. Now, I will have a ministry file on this for the remainder of my life...and I am so happy about that (can you sense the sarcasm?? lol)



Springroll, if said ministry saw fit to investigate because your son had to walk an entire 200m without accompanying him, then as a society we are truly doomed. I walked to and from school, by myself no less, from 4 years of age until I finished highschool. From kindergarten to grade 8 my school was 2.5 KILOMETERS from home, and it was never an issue. I really think we are turning our children into mindless, pampered drones, and the government is firmly behind this atrocity.


----------



## Springroll (10 Jul 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I really think we are turning our children into mindless, pampered drones, and the government is firmly behind this atrocity.



I agree whole-heartedly!
We can't discipline our children because it is child abuse, they can't walk to school a short distance because it is "too far" for them etc, etc.

Remember when times were simpler. Saturday morning would come around, you were up at the crack of dawn eating your cereal and watching cartoons. Once that was done and you were washed up and dressed, you were out all day playing in the neighbourhood until the street lights came on??? That was a time when the government did not involve themselves in such petty issues.


----------



## Blindspot (10 Jul 2008)

Springroll said:
			
		

> All this because my little guy walked 0.2km home from school. She called me a few weeks late telling me that she found no grounds to be of concern for the ministry, and at that time I told her that the ministry needs to start focusing their energy on more important cases...



I think if I knew I would have a file with the ministry for the rest of my life, I would be a little more rude than you were. I would have said I walked 1km to school and back home 3 times a day when I was a seven, my mother walked 5km and my grandmother walked 50 km.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 Jul 2008)

The discussion in this thread has oft strayed from the topic of the opening post to a discussion about unfair application of dress regulations (particularly hairstyles) in the CF.  Perhaps the mods should split this off.

But here I go, wading into it anyway.  This is not a new discussion and in fact was probably the most common point brought up when I conducted "Diversity Training" back in the 90s.  Though women in field units were relatively common by then, turbaned Sikhs weren't and braids for soldiers of aboriginal ancestry were just being authorized. 

The close cropped look affected by soldiers is not new and while there was “some” basis for its adoption (and codification in regulation) as a means of preventing disease, it is not the whole story, nor was it probably the primary reason.  Military fashion (including hairstyles) has usually been a conservative reflection of civilian styles, though often with a lag of a few years.  I found this quote from a noted costume historian, "In the perspective of costume history, it is plain that the dress of any given period is exactly suited to the actual climate of the time."   

We put people into uniforms for reasons of identification and tradition.  Generally, adopting a similiarly conservative hairstyle also suits that purpose.  That a short hairstyle is easier to keep clean is an added benefit, one that was also evident to civilians who adopted it.  It should be mentioned that standards of personal cleanliness in the past (whether military or civilian) were not at the level practised today, nor was it as easy to keep clean back then even if one wanted to.

I've tried to find some of the reference material I used back then when discussing this topic but it may have been trashed in a subsequent move.  In essence the point I would try to make was that we want male soldiers to look (and act) like (small c)conservative males, females to look like conservative females; if someone (either male or female) has valid, traditional religious or spiritual reasons why they should deviate from that norm, then we want them to look like a conservative practitioner of that relgious or spiritual tradition.    It has often been discussed about the religious basis for Sikhs' dress and hair; the authorization of braids for Aboriginals was based on a legimately recognized "spiritual" (religious?) tradition of long hair.  Acknowledging that the military needs more than males of white, European, Christian descent is not pandering or accomodating; it is recognizing reality.

I tried to find something on the net about the historical basis of short military hair styles that I could quote in my argument, but found nothing that particularly suited.  Here however a couple of things that may give some perspective.



> In August 1914, I was a full Lieutenant of twenty-six.  It was to take the experiences of the 1914-18 war to show me what was wrong in the Army.   My battalion mobilized at Shorncliffe.  The mobilization scheme provided, amongst other things, that all officers’ swords were to go to the armourers’ shop for sharpening. It was not clear to me why, since I had never used my sword except for saluting.  But of course I obeyed the order and my sword was made sharp for war.  The C.O. said that in war it was advisable to have short hair since it was easier to keep it clean; he had all his hair removed with the clippers by the regimental barber and looked an amazing sight; personally I had mine cut decently by a barber in Folkestone.  Being totally ignorant about the war, I asked the C.O. if it was necessary to take any money with me; he said money was useless in war as everything was provided for you.  I was somewhat uncertain about this and decided to take ten pounds with me in gold.  Later I was to find this invaluable, and *was glad I had not followed his advice about either hair or money*.


That was the perspective of a young Subaltern in the Royal Warwickshire Regiment by the name of Montgomery.  Wonder what became of him?

http://badgersforward.blogspot.com/2008/03/prince-harry-and-military-culture.html


> Last fall I worked with a British Army Captain and we discussed this very issue. According to him a *British Army officer would never have a "high and tight" or shaved head because it indicates that one cannot afford a proper haircut.* He told me only a "squadie" would have such a haircut. Additionally he said the Blues and Royals have a tradition of even longer hair than the norm.
> 
> Of course extremely short hair has not always been the norm in the US Army, in fact it is a recent phenomenon.


The highlighted sentence may even be a partial explanation why soldiers of past times had such atrociously bad haircuts.  It was cheaper to crop it short, (even when you had to put on a powdered wig in the fashion of the day).


----------



## Springroll (10 Jul 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> I think if I knew I would have a file with the ministry for the rest of my life, I would be a little more rude than you were. I would have said I walked 1km to school and back home 3 times a day when I was a seven, my mother walked 5km and my grandmother walked 50 km.



I try not to be rude to people...especially those who have the power to have my children taken away from me. If I had been rude, they would probably come up with something, like I neglect them because I go to sea, or some sort of horse s**t like that.

Too bring this back on to the topic, as much as we may not agree with the mother's beliefs, we can not allow the government to be so quick on the draw to remove kids from their parents. That, in and of itself, will hurt the children far worse then what we choose as our belief system in our homes.


----------



## MedTechStudent (10 Jul 2008)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I try not to be rude to people...especially those who have the power to have my children taken away from me. If I had been rude, they would probably come up with something, like I neglect them because I go to sea, or some sort of horse s**t like that.
> 
> Too bring this back on to the topic, as much as we may not agree with the mother's beliefs, we can not allow the government to be so quick on the draw to remove kids from their parents. That, in and of itself, will hurt the children far worse then what we choose as our belief system in our homes.



+1

Not to mention, parents who smoke in cars with their kids in the backseat and the windows up don't get their kids taken away, and thats actual physical damage being done.  

Why should they be able to do it here?


----------



## 2 Cdo (10 Jul 2008)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I agree whole-heartedly!
> We can't discipline our children because it is child abuse, they can't walk to school a short distance because it is "too far" for them etc, etc.
> 
> Remember when times were simpler. Saturday morning would come around, you were up at the crack of dawn eating your cereal and watching cartoons. Once that was done and you were washed up and dressed, you were out all day playing in the neighbourhood until the street lights came on??? That was a time when the government did not involve themselves in such petty issues.



I remember it quite well. Out the door around 8, down the road to the "beach". Maybe show up around noon for a quick bite then back out to the woods for the rest of the day catching frogs, snakes and all kinds of other critters that terrified my mom! ;D Funny enough, we all survived and prospered without our lives being "organized" by play dates and music lessons and all the other extra crap parents thrust at their kids today.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (10 Jul 2008)

Winnipeg 'white pride' mother regrets redrawing swastika on child's arm 

A Winnipeg mother whose children were seized by authorities after she sent her daughter to school with a swastika on her arm says she regrets redrawing the Nazi symbol after a teacher scrubbed it off.



The mother, who considers herself a white nationalist, is fighting the child welfare system to regain custody of her daughter, 7, and son, 2. They were taken away after the girl was sent to school with the swastika drawn on her arm.


Four months ago, her daughter drew a swastika on her arm and went to school, where her teacher scrubbed it off. The mother helped her daughter draw it on her arm again, an act she regrets.


"It was one of the stupidest things I've done in my life but it's no reason to take my kids," the mother told CBC News.


Child and Family Services case workers were alerted and went to the family's apartment, where they found neo-Nazi symbols and flags, and took custody of her son. Her daughter was taken from school. 


In court documents, social workers say they're worried the parents' conduct and associations might harm the emotional well-being of the children and put them at risk.


Although she proudly wears a silver necklace that includes a swastika and has "white pride" flags in her home, the mother, who can't be named to avoid identifying her children, denies she's a neo-Nazi or white supremacist.


"A black person has a right to say black power or black pride and yet they're turning around on us and saying we're racists and bigots and neo-Nazis because we say white pride. It's hypocrisy at its finest."


The mother has been fighting in court for four months to get back her children, who are living with extended family. The mother can see her children for two hours a week. 


"It's been gut-wrenching. I didn't get off the couch for the first eight days; I just cried. I laid in their bed and held their stuffed animals and just cried. Last few nights, I've been sleeping in my daughter's bed."


She's outraged that the police and child welfare authorities could take her children away because of her beliefs.


"I'm willing to jump through their hoops," she said. "If they want me to deny my beliefs, I'll tell them that, but at the same time, I'm not a traitor to my politics, my beliefs. I just want my kids back."


Case sparks debate


The case has sparked questions about whether the state has the right to protect children from their parents' beliefs.


University of Winnipeg professor Helmut-Harry Loewen, an expert on hate groups, said while he disagrees with the ideology, he fears taking custody based on beliefs is draconian.


"If children are apprehended based on parents' political or religious beliefs, then one is opening a kind of slippery slope," he said.


But University of Manitoba professor Harvy Frankel, dean of the faculty of social work, said officials did the right thing.


"We should be reassured that this is child welfare practice as it should be."

If the two sides can't resolve their differences next week, they'll go to family court, likely in the fall.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jul 2008)

ENGINEERS WIFE said:
			
		

> But University of Manitoba professor Harvy Frankel, dean of the faculty of social work, said officials did the right thing.
> 
> "We should be reassured that this is child welfare practice as it should be."



I'd bet big money that this same professor would state he was opposed to the Residential School system......

Using the power of the State to enforce subjective beliefs or systems of idiology will simply backfire in the end (the people who use and support the system never consider that "other" groups can get their hands on the levers of power). The Weimar Republic had many laws similar to our current "hate crime" laws and enthusiasticly used them against the _Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei_. When _that_ party gained power in 1933; they had ready made tools in the form of these laws to persecute _their_ enemies and extend _their_ power...


----------



## CountDC (11 Jul 2008)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I agree whole-heartedly!
> We can't discipline our children because it is child abuse, they can't walk to school a short distance because it is "too far" for them etc, etc.
> 
> Remember when times were simpler. Saturday morning would come around, you were up at the crack of dawn eating your cereal and watching cartoons. Once that was done and you were washed up and dressed, you were out all day playing in the neighbourhood until the street lights came on??? That was a time when the government did not involve themselves in such petty issues.



Remember quite well - those were the good old days - the old man with his belt, broom stick, fist, 2X4, baseball bat, hockey stick, or anything else he could get his hand on beating the crap out of who ever was in his range when he blew(I got the record - 11 hits across the back with the broom before it broke, 10 more for breaking the broom!). Seems the pendulem has swung too far now - back then the government did nothing, now they do too much too quick. We had them come visit us once after I dropped my son off at day camp. I dropped him off on my way to work and the staff was late again (I paid extra for early drop off and they were not even there for the regular drop time). One of the workers came over to complain that my son had brought a peanutbutter cookie the day before with him - wanted to spend forever going on and on about it.  As I was already late I cut her off, said it won't happen again, ask that they be on time the next day and left.  Some how that meant that I was abusing my son?!?


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Jul 2008)

Kind of related, but not really.  I'm in the midst of a pitched battle with Sirius satellite radio Canada.  I currently have a US account, as I got in early on the fad, before Sirius Canada existed.  I looked in to getting my subscription switched over to the Canadian service.  I'm told if I do that, I will longer be able to hear Howard Stern, as the CRTC has decreed that Canadian sensibilities may be upset by the content, or some such drivel.  I was under the impression I was allowed to listen to whatever the hell I want in the privacy of my own home/vehicle.  The thought police are out there, and they're dangerous.  Needless to say, my monthly subscription money will continue to go South for the foreseeable future.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Jul 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Kind of related, but not really.  I'm in the midst of a pitched battle with Sirius satellite radio Canada.  I currently have a US account, as I got in early on the fad, before Sirius Canada existed.  I looked in to getting my subscription switched over to the Canadian service.  I'm told if I do that, I will longer be able to hear Howard Stern, as the CRTC has decreed that Canadian sensibilities may be upset by the content, or some such drivel.  I was under the impression I was allowed to listen to whatever the hell I want in the privacy of my own home/vehicle.  The thought police are out there, and they're dangerous.  Needless to say, my monthly subscription money will continue to go South for the foreseeable future.



The Howard Stern Chanel is on the Sirius canada chanel lineup. I'll have to try it and see if it works when i go home at lunch.


----------



## Springroll (11 Jul 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> One of the workers came over to complain that my son had brought a peanutbutter cookie the day before with him - wanted to spend forever going on and on about it.  As I was already late I cut her off, said it won't happen again, ask that they be on time the next day and left.  Some how that meant that I was abusing my son?!?



A peanut butter cookie?
OMFG!!!
I guess providing a treat for your child is not permitted either. 
It was probably due to a peanut allergy in the group, but wanting to dwell on it is ridiculous! 
Then to proceed and call the ministry?? 
What a waste of resources and tax money!!

Kat, I feel for ya! Love listening to Stern as well. 
I am definitely tired of others telling me what I can listen to, or how to raise my kids!
I don't mind being told to do cleaning stations though....hehe


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (11 Jul 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Kind of related, but not really.  I'm in the midst of a pitched battle with Sirius satellite radio Canada.  I currently have a US account, as I got in early on the fad, before Sirius Canada existed.  I looked in to getting my subscription switched over to the Canadian service.  I'm told if I do that, I will longer be able to hear Howard Stern, as the CRTC has decreed that Canadian sensibilities may be upset by the content, or some such drivel.  I was under the impression I was allowed to listen to whatever the hell I want in the privacy of my own home/vehicle.  The thought police are out there, and they're dangerous.  Needless to say, my monthly subscription money will continue to go South for the foreseeable future.



Hey Kat, I think you are right.  Listen to what you like.  
Just DON'T give your Sirius radio a swastika and send it to school it could get you in trouble ;D And have it taken away.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Jul 2008)

Update to my last:  Apparently Howard is on the lineup now, so THAT point is moot.  I would still have to buy a different receiver and pay the associated fees, as US units are not compatible.  So my face is now red, and I sidetracked the thread for nothing.  Back to Doc Martin and red suspender chat.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2008)

>Spreading hatred is a crime.

The problems inherent in allowing ideas to be criminalized are far more dangerous than any particular idea.  The assumption that only reasonable people will ever control the levers of power is subjective (what is "reasonable"?) and unsound (history demonstrates).  At least ideas can be opposed by other ideas where the exchange is permitted.

For the small minority who might actually be cheering on the state in this one, how far are you prepared to take that?  What fraction of the population do think can be deemed unfit parents if the well-meaning apply their minds to it?  And what would you do with them and their ability to procreate?


----------

