white supremacist Mother has children taken away....

[Springroll]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.