Granted it’s Canada, but this is where we’re headed in a decade or two, when not just neo-Nazis, but also families who teach their kids traditional religious morality, will lose them to the state for reasons of political correctness.
I find pride to be among the most anserine of human emotions and cultural and racial pride to be the pinnacle of that mountain of stupidity and yet no matter how despicable I find the idea of racial supremacy and how asinine I find the concept of racial pride I would still rank them below state-sponsored kidnapping in terms of how much they disgust me.
This piece of fine Fox reporting leaves two facts out: the fact that the daughter is living with extended family now - not withering away in some state orphanage; and that the child was not taken for the mother’s beliefs, but for fear of the effects on her child’s wellbeing of those beliefs.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/07/10/swastika-child.html
Drawing a swastika on your child’s arm may be an impression of your free speech, but that means using your child to push your political message; thus exposing it to any form of possible negative sanctions shows a high amount of stupidity - and disregard for your child’s wellbeing.
How would the lovely people at Fox react to a ‘666’ or a perhaps ‘hammer and sickle’ on a child’s arm - or perhaps gang signs? The swastika stands for war, eugenics, racism, antisemitism and genocide - any parent painting it on their child for public viewing is at best a moron, at worst without care for their child’s wellbeing. It’s the state’s duty to ascertain that neither endangers the child. That’s what seems to have happened. Not nice, probably heavy-handed, and hopefully resolved soon.
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
This piece of fine Fox reporting leaves two facts out: the fact that the daughter is living with extended family now - not withering away in some state orphanage; and that the child was not taken for the mother’s beliefs, but for fear of the effects on her child’s wellbeing of those beliefs.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/07/10/swastika-child.html
Drawing a swastika on your child’s arm may be an impression of your free speech, but that means using your child to push your political message; thus exposing it to any form of possible negative sanctions shows a high amount of stupidity - and disregard for your child’s wellbeing.
How would the lovely people at Fox react to a ‘666’ or a perhaps ‘hammer and sickle’ on a child’s arm - or perhaps gang signs? The swastika stands for war, eugenics, racism, antisemitism and genocide - any parent painting it on their child for public viewing is at best a moron, at worst without care for their child’s wellbeing. It’s the state’s duty to ascertain that neither endangers the child. That’s what seems to have happened. Not nice, probably heavy-handed, and hopefully resolved soon.
Makkun[/quote]
I’m not surprised to learn there’s more to the story, especially given that it’s Fox, but I still fail to see how the state has the right to seize a child for her parent’s beliefs or even (legal) actions. I think the basic point still stands. Racism may be evil, but unless the mother is abusing her child or physically starting a race war, it’s not the place of the government to intervene.
What is really offensive to me is how the state will decide which children will be taken from which homes. Why is it OK to take Children from homes where their parents will teach them to hate but they are not taken from homes where they are malnourished because the parents don’t know about proper nutrition, for example.
At least when the parents preach hate there is a chance the child will learn moral behavior even if it is accidental.
The state has no business raising children.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
[…]
I’m not surprised to learn there’s more to the story, especially given that it’s Fox, but I still fail to see how the state has the right to seize a child for her parent’s beliefs or even (legal) actions. I think the basic point still stands. Racism may be evil, but unless the mother is abusing her child or physically starting a race war, it’s not the place of the government to intervene.[/quote]
Well, obviously I don’t know the specifics - and no one should as this case is involving children - but I think the state has a duty to intervene when abuse is taking place. And I can’t blame social workers for becoming suspicious of abuse or negligence when a mother exposes her child to the consequences of having a swastika drawn on her arm.
If I read the story correct all the school did was rub it off after the child innocently painted it on in the first place - that’s imo quite restrained. But by re-drawing it, the mother’s action can be seen as a symptom of disregard for the child’s wellbeing - and that’s when the above duty sets in. And, raising your children to be nazis can be seen as abuse: it will prevent them from normal interaction with society, marginalise them, and make them grow up in a racist and often violent subculture.
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
But by re-drawing it, the mother’s action can be seen as a symptom of disregard for the child’s wellbeing - and that’s when the above duty sets in. And, raising your children to be nazis can be seen as abuse: it will prevent them from normal interaction with society, marginalise them, and make them grow up in a racist and often violent subculture.
Makkun[/quote]
One could say that taking a child out hunting is a “symptom of disregard for the child’s wellbeing,” or taking a child on a boat, or letting the child wear a cross in an area known to be violently anti-Christian.
People do all sorts of things to/with their children that other people may disagree is “best” for the child’s wellbeing. But parents ought to have wide latitude in raising their own children, and the state’s interaction should be minimal if present at all. There are all sorts of things that can “be seen as abuse.” Which is precisely why the laws about child abuse should speak to specific actions and not empower bureaucrats to make the rules up as they go along.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
makkun wrote:
But by re-drawing it, the mother’s action can be seen as a symptom of disregard for the child’s wellbeing - and that’s when the above duty sets in. And, raising your children to be nazis can be seen as abuse: it will prevent them from normal interaction with society, marginalise them, and make them grow up in a racist and often violent subculture.
Makkun
One could say that taking a child out hunting is a “symptom of disregard for the child’s wellbeing,” or taking a child on a boat, or letting the child wear a cross in an area known to be violently anti-Christian.
People do all sorts of things to/with their children that other people may disagree is “best” for the child’s wellbeing. But parents ought to have wide latitude in raising their own children, and the state’s interaction should be minimal if present at all. There are all sorts of things that can “be seen as abuse.” Which is precisely why the laws about child abuse should speak to specific actions and not empower bureaucrats to make the rules up as they go along.[/quote]
I agree. One could make the same argument against inculcating fundamentalist Christian values. Many people do make the same argument against Islamic values. And what about parents who either can’t or won’t prevent their children from joining violent gangs. In America, what about parents who venerate the Confederate battle flag? The potential for the State to assume custody on the basis of “abuse” is enormous and if they did so the entire child welfare system would be a complete clusterfuck to say nothing about the inherent dangers in allowing the government to dictate ideas and beliefs.
I think most people here are forgetting that Canada isn’t the US.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
One could say that taking a child out hunting is a “symptom of disregard for the child’s wellbeing,” or taking a child on a boat, or letting the child wear a cross in an area known to be violently anti-Christian.
People do all sorts of things to/with their children that other people may disagree is “best” for the child’s wellbeing. But parents ought to have wide latitude in raising their own children, and the state’s interaction should be minimal if present at all. There are all sorts of things that can “be seen as abuse.” Which is precisely why the laws about child abuse should speak to specific actions and not empower bureaucrats to make the rules up as they go along.[/quote]
Valid point - the state’s interaction should be minimal. And that’s the part where I can only speak in in ‘maybes’ as I (and no one else) knows the details of the case. The initial reaction of everyone here was to be sceptical. I come from a culture where the parents would be now awaiting a trial for using nazi symbols - and by painting swastikas on their children would be considered abuse. That’s the background why I’m hesitant to criticise the authorities for this. I guess the Canadian authorities made their decision based on sound guidelines - otherwise they’ll get their arses handed in court.
And - taking your children for a hunting trip or a boat ride may endanger them, but it is not comparable to raising them to be nazis. I thought that this was an easy distinction to make.
Makkun
[quote]nephorm wrote:
makkun wrote:
But by re-drawing it, the mother’s action can be seen as a symptom of disregard for the child’s wellbeing - and that’s when the above duty sets in. And, raising your children to be nazis can be seen as abuse: it will prevent them from normal interaction with society, marginalise them, and make them grow up in a racist and often violent subculture.
Makkun
One could say that taking a child out hunting is a “symptom of disregard for the child’s wellbeing,” or taking a child on a boat, or letting the child wear a cross in an area known to be violently anti-Christian.
People do all sorts of things to/with their children that other people may disagree is “best” for the child’s wellbeing. But parents ought to have wide latitude in raising their own children, and the state’s interaction should be minimal if present at all. There are all sorts of things that can “be seen as abuse.” Which is precisely why the laws about child abuse should speak to specific actions and not empower bureaucrats to make the rules up as they go along.[/quote]
Very well put.
[quote]Wimpy wrote:
[…]
I agree. One could make the same argument against inculcating fundamentalist Christian values. Many people do make the same argument against Islamic values. And what about parents who either can’t or won’t prevent their children from joining violent gangs.[/quote]
I don’t agree - not even the Westboro Baptist crazies raise their children to kill others. Racist violence is an integral part of (neo) nazi culture. And - there is a distinction between the neglect of parents whose children let them (often helplessly) slide into gang culture, and parents who raise them purposefully to join a gang.
Let’s put things a bit into perspective: waving the confederate flag may indicate a revisionist and backward worldview - even a racist one in some cases, but it doesn’t propagate the systematic killing of six million jews and a world war. The swastika does just that, and has absolutely no redeeming qualities. Educating your children towards that may be seen as abuse, and I guess that may be behind the decision of the authorities to intervene.
Makkun
PS: Good point Lixy, it’s not the US.
[quote]makkun wrote:
And - taking your children for a hunting trip or a boat ride may endanger them, but it is not comparable to raising them to be nazis. I thought that this was an easy distinction to make.
[/quote]
So what?! Where does the state get the right to kidnap children from their parents?
If the state has the right to take children because their parents teach them about national socialism, for example, then they also have the right to take them away when they teach them about anarchism or atheism. Where do we draw the line?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[…]
So what?! Where does the state get the right to kidnap children from their parents?[/quote]
When abuse and neglect occur. This case may be abuse.
There is a difference between teaching about national socialism and raising your children to be nazis. You draw the line when the parents start propagating and teaching a violent and destructive lifestyle, which aims to interfere with the life of others. If I’m correct you believe in an anarchist life-style - that’s fine, as long as you don’t impose it on me. National socialism per definition does exactly that. I’m not an anarchist and I believe that society (through the state) has a right to actively defend its values.
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
I come from a culture where the parents would be now awaiting a trial for using nazi symbols - and by painting swastikas on their children would be considered abuse. That’s the background why I’m hesitant to criticise the authorities for this.
[/quote]
Neither Europe nor Canada has ever seen free speech as being important in the way the US holds it to be, speaking generally. Not that this is, directly, a free speech issue. I am inclined to distrust any state-imposed value judgments on beliefs, until those beliefs are turned into action that infringes the rights of others.
Probably not, which is the sad thing. I am not an expert on Canadian family law, but in the US, the government has a lot of power to remove children from families, and there are no repercussions for making bad calls unless the decision was motivated by corruption. So that’s part of the problem… any time the government intercedes, it has an unfair advantage. The parents can lose everything, but the government has nothing at stake. There is little incentive for the institutions to correct themselves in light of defeat.
[quote]
And - taking your children for a hunting trip or a boat ride may endanger them, but it is not comparable to raising them to be nazis. I thought that this was an easy distinction to make.
Makkun[/quote]
Well, you seemed to be making two distinct points: 1) that labeling the child as a nazi puts her in physical danger, and 2) that the belief system is so repugnant in itself that it should not be legal to indoctrinate children into it.
The first assertion can be be addressed in terms of any activity that has the potential to harm a child physically, because it is a content-neutral distinction that looks to the practical effects of a parenting technique. Which is why I brought up the examples I did.
The second assertion I disagree with because, as I stated earlier, I do believe in freedom of thought and speech, and I do not think the state has a legitimate interest in policing the belief systems taught to children - even if most people would reasonably agree that those beliefs are repugnant.
[quote]makkun wrote:
When abuse and neglect occur. This case may be abuse.
[/quote]
I asked “where” does the right come from – not when is it appropriate. If there is no right in the first place then it is never appropriate.
This is a fallacy. There are no such thing as societal values. There are only individual values. How can a state enforce values without violence? One should be skeptical of the values pushed by the state in the first place.
Well,the swastika is an ancient symbol that predates nazism. The star of David is associated with infant male genital mutilation,animal welfare issues,and ritual murder,to a smaller or larger extent.
After universal healthcare happens, there will be mandatory mental health screening in schools and all parents who refuse to put their kids on medication will be charged with child neglect and have their kids taken away.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
After universal healthcare happens, there will be mandatory mental health screening in schools and all parents who refuse to put their kids on medication will be charged with child neglect and have their kids taken away.[/quote]
That’s where we’re headed.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
makkun wrote:
But by re-drawing it, the mother’s action can be seen as a symptom of disregard for the child’s wellbeing - and that’s when the above duty sets in. And, raising your children to be nazis can be seen as abuse: it will prevent them from normal interaction with society, marginalise them, and make them grow up in a racist and often violent subculture.
Makkun
One could say that taking a child out hunting is a “symptom of disregard for the child’s wellbeing,” or taking a child on a boat, or letting the child wear a cross in an area known to be violently anti-Christian.
People do all sorts of things to/with their children that other people may disagree is “best” for the child’s wellbeing. But parents ought to have wide latitude in raising their own children, and the state’s interaction should be minimal if present at all. There are all sorts of things that can “be seen as abuse.” Which is precisely why the laws about child abuse should speak to specific actions and not empower bureaucrats to make the rules up as they go along.[/quote]
Agreed. This is not a welcome development.