"White Pride" children taken away.

[Jorian Drake]

ah, good to know that as even being a catholic knight I am not a fundamentalist christian, nor is the pope

 

 

edit: and about the kiddo here, i am not sure if it was a failure to get it away from the mother

Edited July 5, 2008 by Jorian Drake

[Laozi]

quit lording your knighthood over us like we're just the common rabble, it gets old fast Jorian.

[Jorian Drake]

quit lording your knighthood over us like we're just the common rabble, it gets old fast Jorian.

Don't be jealous, i am sure 95% of the forumites around here have a better payment than me anyway, it's not like i would be Sean Connery, or any other english knight

[Laozi]

yeah, but it gets hard to know Jorian the person when its Jorian Super Death Tiger Karate Knight all the time, you put up a wall like with the characters in a Jane Austen book.

Edited July 5, 2008 by Laozi

[Jorian Drake]

yeah, but it gets hard to know Jorian the person when its Jorian Super Death Tiger Karate Knight all the time.

I never mentioned anything about a "Super Death Tiger Karate" (or did even thought about somesuch)

 

define "all the time"

 

 

 

As far I remember, i posted my background a bit more than a year ago, since then the most you can see around here from my activity is that some people got new avatars from me, and even my signature was changed since quite a while

 

 

PS: please stop trolling

[Guard Dog]

I am a little dismayed that so many of you have no trouble with this. The example trotted out earlier was that teaching fundamentalist christiatinity was akin to child abuse and many of you would have no problem with children in such a household being removed to "save" them. Here is the problem. When a government assigns itself the duty of "thought police" and that is EXACTLY what this is, then it also becomes the final arbiter of what is or is not acceptable thoughts or beliefs. Granted the policy of the body politic usually reflects the mood of the citizenry but I would remind you all that what is acceptable beliefs today may not be tomorrow and any government once it gains a power lawfully or otherwise never lets it go. Suppose a plurality of citizens embraces fundamentalist christianity and uses this same power you appluad today to eradicate all non christian thought by seizing the children of parents they deem not devout enough? Political correctness is a highly impermanent thing but government power is forever. The next time you see a government agency strong arming citizens who comitted no crime in this way, ask yourself if you would like to be on the receiveing end before you applaud or support the action.

[WITHTEETH]

...Political correctness is a highly impermanent thing but government power is forever. The next time you see a government agency strong arming citizens who comitted no crime in this way, ask yourself if you would like to be on the receiving end before you applaud or support the action.

Your absolutely right. I still believe its child abuse though. My only remedy is that comparative religion or philosophy of religion like become required classes. Unbiased classes that educate in the public school system. Also to talk more publicly about religion, having open ended discussions. Its always good to have someone so keen on politics guard dog. Edited July 5, 2008 by WITHTEETH

[Gorth]

PS: please stop trolling

Words of wisdom...

 

Although if you introduce a subject in a discussion, be prepared that it may be addressed one way or another

 

@Guard Dog: I think it's a grey area, but one thing I would consider is whether or not the teachings of the parents are unconstitutional or not.

 

E.g. would you sit by the sideline when people teach their children that midgets and miniature people are not real humans and are only good for dwarf tossing competitions?

 

What about homes where kids are tought that people with skin colour xyz is trash and should be run over whenever you see them?

 

Homes where kids are tought that people who either have or don't have a certain faith should be burnt at the stake. Preferably at night because the "misguided" authorities are compromised by the "enemy"?

 

What if the parents put their kids in training camps in the desert of Nevada, where they learn to become suicide bombers, so they can blow up government buildings once the parents tell them it is time to fight the system?

 

I can sort of understand why it must be frustrating for those watching by the sideline.

[qt3.14159]

PS: please stop trolling

Words of wisdom...

 

Although if you introduce a subject in a discussion, be prepared that it may be addressed one way or another

 

@Guard Dog: I think it's a grey area, but one thing I would consider is whether or not the teachings of the parents are unconstitutional or not.

 

E.g. would you sit by the sideline when people teach their children that midgets and miniature people are not real humans and are only good for dwarf tossing competitions?

 

What about homes where kids are tought that people with skin colour xyz is trash and should be run over whenever you see them?

 

Homes where kids are tought that people who either have or don't have a certain faith should be burnt at the stake. Preferably at night because the "misguided" authorities are compromised by the "enemy"?

 

What if the parents put their kids in training camps in the desert of Nevada, where they learn to become suicide bombers, so they can blow up government buildings once the parents tell them it is time to fight the system?

 

I can sort of understand why it must be frustrating for those watching by the sideline.

 

You know, the U.S. has come a very long way since the 60's. A lot of racial barriers have been broken down. Did we manage it by taking away people's kids and telling them they weren't allowed to believe what they believed? No. We managed to make a difference by punishing real acts of cruelty, and enforcing integration so that the kids that were growing up would be directly exposed to those their parents told them to "hate". And that is the way you change society - slowly, one generation at a time.

 

There will always be those that hold on to their whackjob ideals, and try to teach their children the same, but if the government steps in directly, all that will happen is that those whackjob views will be reinforced as true. It is much more likely that a child will realize that their parents are crazy if you leave them to experience the world on their own. I mean, really, don't we all think our parents are crazy? I know my kids think I am!

[Hurlshort]

Ok, the fact that the girl missed 39 school days is enough to have the child taken away by protective services here. What you have is a situation where the authorities probably went "We want this child out of that home" and then they went out of their way to find enough evidence to pull them out.

 

I'm not entirely sure on Canada law, but in the US it is a parents responsiblity to ensure their child is attending school or being educated in some way. At my school, and every other one that I've been at, if a student misses too many days we send the police out to investigate the home.

 

So while the nazi stuff is clearly the motivating factor, the absences and drug use are the evidence that probably allowed the authorities to act.

 

What a lousy newspaper article, really. They are misrepresenting the information to make the mom seem sympathetic.

[Dark_Raven]

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.

True. Be damned if white people had a White pride and White History Month. The cry of racist would be shouted out.

[Cycloneman]

To this article:

Waah, these racist parents got their kids taken away.

 

Ugh, christ. You have the right to be racist, sure. But allow me to ask you a question: is there any point where the right to raise children is mentioned, in any major document? If these "white pride" parents had applied to adopt, would they have gotten a child? **** no, and you know it. So why, just because these children have the misfortune of being biologically related to their parents, should they be left with them?

[random n00b]

You have the right to be racist, sure. But allow me to ask you a question: is there any point where the right to raise children is mentioned, in any major document?

Hahaha. Are you familiar with the concept of "Rule of Law"? The state can't act in excess of legislation in any case.

 

The right to breathe isn't mentioned specifically in the Constitution, either.

 

 

If these "white pride" parents had applied to adopt, would they have gotten a child? **** no, and you know it. So why, just because these children have the misfortune of being biologically related to their parents, should they be left with them?

That means **** and has zero to do with this. Should parents be made to submit to adoption screenings and in the case of failure, have their children taken away?

[Hurlshort]

I think people are missing the point...the children were taken away because of excessive absences in school and drug and alcohol use in the household.

 

The Nazi stuff just raised the giant red flag for the authorities.

 

The article was misleading and one-sided, further investigation made it pretty clear what happened.

[Volourn]

."..the children were taken away because of excessive absences in school"

 

Not enough. I've known students/chidlren who had missed excessive amounts of school without the school even phomning the aprents let alone getting the police involved. heck, I was one of them when school started to bore me.

 

 

"and drug and alcohol use in the household."

 

depends how excessive it is. Drugs and alochola re different. Afterall, alcohol is LEGAL so you cna't lose chidlren over drinking soemthing LEGAL. now, if that alcohol is being abused and is effecting teh child (ie. parent is phsyically abusing the child due to being drunk or whatot) then yeah.

 

As for drusg, little different, since they are illegal. but, i seriosuly doubt you would lose your child because you got caught with some heroin (if you actually got taken to court for it instead of pleading out).

 

I say you shouldn't only lose your chidlren *if* the alcohol/drug ABUSE is really effecting your child negatively.

 

You mostc etrainly shouldn't lose your child just because your sharing 'unpopular' beliefs even if they (imo) are immoral.

[Cycloneman]

You have the right to be racist, sure. But allow me to ask you a question: is there any point where the right to raise children is mentioned, in any major document?

Hahaha. Are you familiar with the concept of "Rule of Law"? The state can't act in excess of legislation in any case.

 

The right to breathe isn't mentioned specifically in the Constitution, either.

Because the constitution is the only major document outlining human rights in the world? Beyond which, raising children is CLEARLY a conditional right since you can lose it (by having your children taken away)

 

 

If these "white pride" parents had applied to adopt, would they have gotten a child? **** no, and you know it. So why, just because these children have the misfortune of being biologically related to their parents, should they be left with them?

That means **** and has zero to do with this. Should parents be made to submit to adoption screenings and in the case of failure, have their children taken away?

Should children be made to suffer with terrible parents (such as these) merely due to an accident of birth? Are you for punishing people for being born to the wrong set of parents?

Edited July 6, 2008 by Cycloneman

[random n00b]

Because the constitution is the only major document outlining human rights in the world?

The Constitution is the only one that has any enforceability value locally. National Sovereignty.

 

 

Beyond which, raising children is CLEARLY a conditional right since you can lose it (by having your children taken away)

By that rationale, you can also lose your right to live, since cops can gun you down. Flimsy.

 

The fact that a right isn't a fundamental human right does not give the state carte blanche to violate it arbitrarily, which is the concept that you don't seem to grasp.

 

 

Should children be made to suffer with terrible parents (such as these) merely due to an accident of birth? Are you for punishing people for being born to the wrong set of parents?

Keep the emotionally-charged blather out of this, please. There's a reason why the state must circumscribe its actions to what is prescribed by law. No amount of appeals to emotion justify an exception to this rule. "Being terrible parents" isn't a crime by itself. Edited July 6, 2008 by random n00b

[Azarkon]

There are few things I detest more than Fascism (which the Swastika exemplifies). Yet, if I had to resort to thought control (which this case essentially boils down to) in order to defeat Fascism, I'd seriously consider whether I've already lost. Simply put, the State has no right to punish a person for a crime he did not commit, even if the ideology he subscribes to makes it likely that he'd commit it. Just as I wouldn't call for pedophiles to be thrown in jail simply because they are sexually attracted to children, I wouldn't call for fascists to be "quarantined" simply because they might be a bad influence. Don't get me wrong - there are certain times when restrictions to free speech are called for (ie hate speech in public areas, libel against another person, inciting of violence) because of their blatant disruptive effects on society, but this is not one of them. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want so long as how they act out those beliefs are in accordance to the rules of the land. All men should be equal before the law, regardless of their creed.

[Darque]

Beyond which, raising children is CLEARLY a conditional right since you can lose it (by having your children taken away)

By that rationale, you can also lose your right to live, since cops can gun you down. Flimsy.

 

[Hurlshort]

."..the children were taken away because of excessive absences in school"

 

Not enough. I've known students/chidlren who had missed excessive amounts of school without the school even phomning the aprents let alone getting the police involved. heck, I was one of them when school started to bore me.

 

How old were you? The girl is 7 years old, schools are a lot more vigilant about 2nd graders than they are middle and high schoolers.

 

Did we all know she was a 2nd grader? Wow. That's young, I hadn't even really thought about that yet.

[qt3.14159]

Should children be made to suffer with terrible parents (such as these) merely due to an accident of birth? Are you for punishing people for being born to the wrong set of parents?

 

Yes, take this child away from her horrible parents who have weird ideas and are too lazy to take her to school! I'm sure she'll be *much* better off in a state institution or with a foster family that sees her as another paycheck.

[Hurlshort]

Yes, take this child away from her horrible parents who have weird ideas and are too lazy to take her to school! I'm sure she'll be *much* better off in a state institution or with a foster family that sees her as another paycheck.

 

Weird ideas - not grounds for removal

 

Too lazy to take to school - grounds for removal

[qt3.14159]

Yes, take this child away from her horrible parents who have weird ideas and are too lazy to take her to school! I'm sure she'll be *much* better off in a state institution or with a foster family that sees her as another paycheck.

 

Weird ideas - not grounds for removal

 

Too lazy to take to school - grounds for removal

 

No, it's not. It's grounds for investigation into the household and if the authorities find some other reason to remove the children, then fine. But not sending your kids to school is not a reason to get them taken away. IF it were possible to ensure that kids taken away from their parents would receive better care wherever they wound up, you might be able to talk me into it... but state care and foster care are both horrible systems where kids are often seriously abused by the people they are placed with.

[Hurlshort]

I'm just saying this is the letter of the law, I'm not talking about any moral argument between birth parents and foster homes (the children are staying with a maternal aunt, by the way.)

 

The 2nd grader missed 39 days in a year, that is two full months, and it didn't specify if that was the entire 180 day school year either. The law looks at that as an unfit home. Some judges may let it slide if there is a clearly good reason, but most judges looking at the whole picture here will gladly yank the children out of the household.

 

So the moral of this story is if you want to raise your children as fascists, make sure they attend school regularly.

[Gorgon]

Children should not be forcibly removed unless there is evidence of abuse or neglect, mostly because the alternatives are so poor. I have some first hand experience here. A member of my extended family was some decades ago an alcoholic and was at that time unquestionably an unstable influence in bringing up two children, long story short social services got involved and decided that the children should be removed. The following months the children lived underground on the run with their parents until a deal could be struck where the rest of our clan promised to take on responsibility for their well being.

 

This is not even the first time I've heard of it, it seems to happen on a regular basis. Children placed in foster homes run away all the time as well.