white supremacist Mother has children taken away....

[Springroll]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[meni0n]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

The development came after the mother -- who can't be named to protect the identity of the children -- separated from her husband, an admitted white supremacist who has made a series of disturbing online posts in recent months.

It could bring a sudden resolution to a case that has made headlines around the world.

The man is the young boy's father and girl's stepfather.

. . .
According to a Child and Family Services case summary, case workers were called to a city elementary school on March 25 after the little girl showed up to class with disturbing markings on her body.

"There were symbols written and drawn on (the girl's) arms and one leg in permanent red and blue marker pens," the summary states. The markings included a swastika symbol on her arm, the words "Hail Victory" and "Aryan Pride" and the number "14/88," a popular reference to Hitler in the white supremacist community.

The children are under the jurisdiction of Child and Family Services, but are residing with their aunt and grandmother, the mother said yesterday.

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.


The couple married in 2005 and bore a son only months later, after the woman brought a daughter to the relationship she'd had already with another man. The relationship was wrought with financial difficulties and brushes with the criminal justice system -- with the couple parting ways in 2007.

After reuniting, the relationship ended again this spring, after the mother said she read reports filed by the CFS about her children following their seizure. While the Winnipeg woman acknowledges her beliefs are controversial, she said it doesn't mean authorities have a right to remove her kids. She also says she doesn't believe in violence against racial or religious minority groups, though she states her European heritage sets her apart from other racial groups.

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.
. . .
Constable Pat Chabidon confirmed the father was recently interviewed based on allegations he was involved in "hate crimes involving children."

Police had questioned him regarding similar concerns in 2005, Const. Chabidon said. No criminal charges have been laid at this time, but police turned the file over to CFS, Const. Chabidon said.

The mother of the children is also named in the CFS application as being unfit to parent, based on her relationship with her husband. He is the young boy's father and the girl's stepfather.
…
Sources say a search warrant was recently executed at the family's home in Winnipeg. Several items, including a computer, were seized.

"There are also concerns about parental drug and alcohol use in the home," CFS wrote.

The case -- being heard in child protection court -- was adjourned yesterday to June 23.

That will allow the child's mother time to retain her own lawyer, rather than be represented by the same counsel as her husband, according to court documents.

It's not clear why they can't be represented by the same lawyer.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This about sums it up.....