white supremacist Mother has children taken away....

[Sheerin]

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

E-mail Margaret Wente | Read Bio | Latest Columns
July 7, 2008 at 6:44 PM EDT

There are plenty of bad parents in the world. But how bad do you have to be before they take your kids away?

In Manitoba, thought crimes can make you bad enough.

Three months ago, child-welfare officials removed a seven-year-old girl and her two-year-old brother from their home because their parents are white supremacists. The trouble started when the girl showed up at school one day with a swastika inked on her arm. The next day, when her mother came to pick her up, she was greeted by welfare workers and police. The kids are in protective custody until the case is heard in court.

Mom isn't shy about her beliefs. She used to have a Nazi flag hanging on the wall, until she replaced it with a banner that reads “White pride worldwide.” She's proud that her daughter is already able to recite the slogan of white supremacy. (“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”) Even so, she claims that she is tolerant of other people – just a proud white nationalist who believes in the natural superiority of the Nordic races. “I really think this is about politics and freedom of speech,” she says. “This is government oppression.”

Some people are applauding the child-protection service. Parents have no right, they say, to send a kid to school inked with symbols of racism and hate, where she will doubtless frighten other little tykes and spread her poison everywhere. These people have a point. But couldn't the school just send her home and tell her not to return until she washes it off?

One hates to side with Aryan Nation, but the mom is right. Simply teaching your children odious and creepy beliefs is not enough to lose them to the state. If it were, we'd have a good case to apprehend the offspring of, say, Tom Cruise.

In other respects, our swastika-loving mom seems to be a reasonably good parent. After she lost the children, she dumped her husband, an unemployed devoted skinhead whom she herself describes as a “flamboyant bigot.” There was no evidence at all that the children had suffered any harm. The case for taking them away was based only on the possibility that the parents' conduct and associations might endanger their well-being.

This isn't the first time children have been seized because the authorities disapprove of their parents. We've just witnessed a mass debacle in Texas, where 450 kids were removed from mothers who belonged to a polygamous cult. You don't have to be a fan of polygamy to be appalled at the separation trauma inflicted by the state. In that case, the courts were appalled too, and quickly sent the kids home.

Back in 2002, child-protection workers in Ontario seized five children from their loving but devoutly religious Christian parents, who happened to believe in spanking. The kids were well-adjusted (at least until police and social workers arrived) with no signs of physical or emotional abuse. But the prevailing orthodoxy of the day declared spanking to be automatically abusive, so the kids had to go. (The parents got their children back when they promised to cease and desist.) The varieties of abuse that shock the conscience of the state are always changing with the times. A couple of centuries ago, parents who told their kids that God did not exist were thought to be every bit as wicked as we think people who love Hitler are. Today, it's all right to be an atheist, so long as you don't go in for Nazis or spanking.

But woe betide you if your kid's too fat. In Britain, obesity has been a factor in dozens of child protection cases. Last year, social workers threatened to seize an obese eight-year-old from his mother because she couldn't get him to stop eating. (He stood just over five feet tall and weighed 217 pounds.) Perhaps genetics or an underlying medical condition were to blame – but the authorities preferred to blame Mom. The moral of the story? Don't get on the wrong side of moral panics, or you might get trampled.

Thoughts?

 

[GAP]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.  

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.  )

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.