"White Pride" children taken away.

[Oerwinde]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../National/home/

 

So basically, a woman in Manitoba had her kids taken away because her daughter drew a swastika on her arm at school and when people objected, she supported her daughter. Now I'm no supporter of white supremecism, but this seems to be a freedom of speech issue here. Sure she's teaching her children some bad things, but thats really not much different from fundamentalist christians teaching their kids that gays are bad, or muslims teaching that jews are bad, and you don't see people's kids taken away for that.

 

Freedom of expression is something I feel strongly about, I'm very anti-censorship etc. and despite not sharing this womans views, I believe she has every right to express them and expose her children to such beliefs. If her children aren't morons, as they mature and grow up in a multicultural environment, they'll see the flaws in the teachings.

 

 

This also brings up something else that has bothered me. If someone opened a business that only catered to Japanese, Korean, Mexican, Black, etc. this would be seen as something unique and interesting, where if someone opened a business that catered only to whites, it would be considered racist and wrong. Much like if you wanted to start say a club that only allowed a female membership this would largely be accepted, yet a men only club would be decried as sexist. Why does it seem like in todays society you can be proud of who you are as long as you aren't a white male?

[Tigranes]

Not responding to your post as a whole oerwinde, but:

 

If her children aren't morons, as they mature and grow up in a multicultural environment, they'll see the flaws in the teachings.

 

I must disagree with that. Doesn't mean that I'm saying parental influence will screw with their head forever, but people aren't some sort of rational beings able to completely transcend their upbringing and formative years. Whether the injunction was right or not is certainly up for debate, but the mother's actions on her children do have significant consequences, if not absolute and total.

 

Edit: Having read the article, I find it amusing (and sad) that her actual views and the views she was teaching her daughter were not elaborated on. Are they actually Nazi by admission, or what is their association with the symbol? I mean, you can be 'proud' to be White and be far away from drawing swastikas. What are their actual views? Have they even bothered to find out, or they just went SWASTIKA?

[Walsingham]

I have a lot of time for anti-censorship, but in my view teaching extremist views is LESS responsible than teaching your kids how to make bombs (for example). You are constructing a worldview that leads to violence. In any event in this country hate speech and the incitement of hatred is illegal and should remain so.

[WITHTEETH]

when do the parents rights end and the rights of children begin? I personally think thats child abuse, and I also think fundamentalist Christianity is child abuse. Both beliefs will leave children in the dark when it comes to reality. My view is that society turns a blind to pop beliefs.

[Hell Kitty]

The thing about "freedom of speech" is that it doesn't mean the freedom to say whatever I want, wherever and whenever I damn well please.

 

The thing about "white pride" is that it's never just about being proud to be white, it's being proud because you're better than all those other races who should probably go back to their own countries. Since when does the swastika mean only "I'm proud to be white"?

 

I'd say the mother redrawing the swastika before sending her kid to school has something to do with it, like sending your children out to preach hate or some such, rather than simply being neo-nazi.

 

If someone opened a business that only catered to Japanese, Korean, Mexican, Black, etc. this would be seen as something unique and interesting, where if someone opened a business that catered only to whites, it would be considered racist and wrong.

 

You're going to have to give some examples for this to make any sort of sense. Why would something be considered "unique and interesting" based solely on it refusing to do business with those outside certain groups?

[qt3.14159]

when do the parents rights end and the rights of children begin? I personally think thats child abuse, and I also think fundamentalist Christianity is child abuse. Both beliefs will leave children in the dark when it comes to reality. My view is that society turns a blind to pop beliefs.

 

Pretend for a moment that it is possible that what fundamentalist christians believe is true (just for a minute)...

 

IF it is true, then YOU are the one abusing your child by not teaching them to follow God's laws and condeming them to a life of misery and an eternity in hell.

 

You cannot begin preaching that indoctrination is abuse, because eventually YOU will be in the minority and it will be your children being taken away.

 

Remember when you take away someone else's rights, you're also taking away your own.

[Hurlshort]

when do the parents rights end and the rights of children begin? I personally think thats child abuse, and I also think fundamentalist Christianity is child abuse. Both beliefs will leave children in the dark when it comes to reality. My view is that society turns a blind to pop beliefs.

 

Pretend for a moment that it is possible that what fundamentalist christians believe is true (just for a minute)...

 

IF it is true, then YOU are the one abusing your child by not teaching them to follow God's laws and condeming them to a life of misery and an eternity in hell.

 

You cannot begin preaching that indoctrination is abuse, because eventually YOU will be in the minority and it will be your children being taken away.

 

Remember when you take away someone else's rights, you're also taking away your own.

 

There is a big difference here between teaching your children to follow God's laws, and teaching your children to condemn those who don't.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...but thats really not much different from fundamentalist christians teaching their kids that gays are bad, or muslims teaching that jews are bad, and you don't see people's kids taken away for that.

 

Yeah, well, maybe children should be taken away for that - it's just another form of child abuse.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

IF it is true, then YOU are the one abusing your child by not teaching them to follow God's laws and condeming them to a life of misery and an eternity in hell.

 

There is no proof to back this assertion, although there is plenty of evidence that preaching hate can lead to tragedies.

Edited July 5, 2008 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Darque]

This is sad.

 

While I don't agree with what the mother was teaching her kids, they were her kids and it's her right to teach them as she sees fit.

 

This is no different than teaching someone religion, or any other ideology.

[Laozi]

...but thats really not much different from fundamentalist christians teaching their kids that gays are bad, or muslims teaching that jews are bad, and you don't see people's kids taken away for that.

 

Yeah, well, maybe children should be taken away for that - it's just another form of child abuse.

 

 

 

I dunno if you can really classify it like that, is it child abuse because you don't agree with it or that it might be detrimental to the child in the long run. In that case people could be just as likely to call a young man's parents child abusers for contributing to his effeminate nature. You wouldn't want to be taken aways from your parents for something like that, would you?

[Gorgon]

I'm afraid the much quoted idea that 'free speech is not a license to slander', is not terribly accurate. In a sense it is, everyone from the crackpots to the neo Nazis are allowed to spread their gospel and no 'holy cow' is exempt from being attacked. All as long as it is part of a public debate or some manner of generalized expression of ideas and beliefs.

 

If it's not free, then it isn't. There are no two ways about it, you must allow the good with the bad.

[Hurlshort]

Heh, the one quote where the woman said she was turning to beer and cigarattes for consolation cracked me up. It just completed the mental image of this household.

 

We actually had a similiar discussion awhile back about a student who was wearing a pro-life T-Shirt and was asked to remove it. The problem with the parenting here is that the child is becoming a distraction in the classroom and the parents are supporting that distraction. My job would be much easier if every dumb ass parent understood that the school and the classroom are not a forum for their personal politics.

[Meshugger]

This leaves me outraged. I see this as the state behaves as the 'Big Brother'-thought-police in this case.

 

The authorities has nothing to do with what the child's parents currently believes in. They may be hindus, anti-abortionists, nazis, wahabbists or militaristic-vegans, but their opinion is their opinion of their own. As long as the child is taken care of, and loved by it's parents, and show no sign of mental or physical abuse, NO one has the right to take their children away from them.

 

Never, EVER.

[Sand]

While I find such teachings abhorent, it is no less valid belief system than any other. The children shouldn't have been taken away, but at the same time I agree with Hurlie that children should not be used as political statements and be duly punished for being a disruption in the classroom. However, taking the children away from a parent is too extreme.

[Volourn]

Once again, the Law/Government/society oversteps. Absolutely disgusting.

 

"The thing about "white pride" is that it's never just about being proud to be white, it's being proud because you're better than all those other races who should probably go back to their own countries."

 

And? Big deal. It's no different than 'Black pride'. Heck, Black History Month is one of the most bigoted, hateful, disgusting (non violent) things we get stuck with. And, it's allowed. But, White History Month would totally be unacceptable and considered racist not honourable.

 

Back to the main issue, while I dissaprove of what the parents are doing in this case; they should be elft alone. Heck, I dissaprove of a lot of things that aprents teach their children. Doesn't give people the right to take away chidlren.

 

That should only occur if the children are physically in danger, or the parents are extremly verbally, and emotionally absuing them which isn't the case here.

[Gorgon]

Black pride is an obvious counter movement, that said, had the dice fallen another way and Africa developed faster there is no indication that the plantations would not have been manned by white slaves. Bigotry is not limited to the majority.

[Gorgon]

The Black Power movement has blacksploitation and James Brown so it wins hands down though.

[random n00b]

When the state starts telling people what they can and what they can't teach to their children, it is a Bad Thing.

[random n00b]

There is no proof to back this assertion, although there is plenty of evidence that preaching hate can lead to tragedies.

And yet, correlation does not imply causation.

[Hell Kitty]

A number of articles about this collected here:

 

http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.com/2008...zi-parents.html

 

"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," is a popular reference to Hitler in the white supremacist community.

 

Other concerns were expressed, including the fact the little girl had missed 39 days of school this year. She told authorities that's because her parents sleep in and don't want to get her ready or take her to school. Authorities also expressed concerns about alcohol and drug use in the home.

 

A Canadian legal expert said this is the first time in years she's heard of children being taken from their home because of their parents' beliefs.

"Not all children raised by neo-Nazis are going to be seized," said Karen Busby, a constitutional law professor at the University of Manitoba.

"There must be something more extreme. A presence of physical violence, perhaps the presence of abuse of the mother or drug or alcohol abuse.

[Jorian Drake]

Pretend for a moment that it is possible that what fundamentalist christians believe is true (just for a minute)...

explain "fundamentalist christian" please

[Laozi]

You know, someone who thinks stuff like women experience pain during child birth because Eve tempted Adam with the apple.

[qt3.14159]

Pretend for a moment that it is possible that what fundamentalist christians believe is true (just for a minute)...

explain "fundamentalist christian" please

 

Fundamentalist Christians generally believe that the Bible is true word for word and without much symbolism or need for adaptation to current cultures.

 

However, what they are is not the point. I only used them as an example because the person I was responding to used them. For my point, you can to take any group whose beliefs are in opposition to your own and apply the same argument. No matter how illogical their beliefs may seem to you, they make sense to the people who believe them. If you are willing to let their rights be taken away, you'd better be prepared when someone decides YOUR beliefs are wrong.

[Oerwinde]

Pretend for a moment that it is possible that what fundamentalist christians believe is true (just for a minute)...

explain "fundamentalist christian" please

 

When I say "fundamentalist christian" I tend to think of the whackjob christians like the southern baptists who protest gay funerals and such. I know not all fundamentalist christians are like that, but the bible has some pretty awful crap in it that is ok if its looked at as something to be interpreted, but fundamentalists view it as absolute fact.