The Shotgun Blog
« Elizabeth May stands firm on marijuana legalization and opposition to mandatory minimums | Main | Canadian actor Tom Green in hospital after assault (UPDATED) »
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Nazi children taken away
Last year in Winnipeg, a 7 year old girl went to school with a swastika drawn on her arm. It was later revealed that the girls mother drew the symbol on her daughters arm to send a message to the school; that she was upset about discrimination against white people at the school, which prominently displayed posters boosting minority pride, but not for white people.
Child and Family Services were called in who went to the home of the girl. Once there, they saw neo-Nazi symbols and flags. On the spot, CFS took the girls 2 year old brother away from his family, the girl was taken from the school and never went back home.
Social workers at the time had this to say.
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.
I find a threat that the emotional well-being "might" be harmed to be quite non-specific. That could be said of nearly every household in Canada.
Since the kids were originally taken more details about the parents have come out; that the mother may have a mental defect, some drug and alcohol abuse, and instability in the home. These points are moot though since they kids were removed from their parents long before these details came out; they were taken because the CFS workers didn't like the beliefs of the parents.
For now it's neo-Nazi's, later it may be people who teach bigotry about Aboriginals, or homosexuals, or another particular group.
Manitoba Child and Family Services are seeking permanent custody of the children, who have been in foster care since being kidnapped from their parents. The custody trial wrapped up on Friday, which a decision still to be made by the courts, which could take weeks or months.
While I do not approve of racist attitudes and beliefs, I also believe in free speech and free thought, even when I disagree with that speech and those thoughts. It is and should not be illegal to be a racist, promote your racism and teach it to your children; if you want to be able to teach your kids your values then you must allow the same for other people.
Posted by Freedom Manitoba on July 5, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink
Comments
Maybe this is a good thing. It'll open the door for authorities to intervene, when parents are suspected of instilling radical islamic ideals in their children. Not.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-05 11:16:52 AM
"Since the kids were originally taken more details about the parents have come out; that the mother may have a mental defect, some drug and alcohol abuse, and instability in the home. These points are moot though since they kids were removed from their parents long before these details came out; they were taken because the CFS workers didn't like the beliefs of the parents."
This is exactly right, Scott.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-07-05 11:23:29 AM
Scott,
I agree with all you say, but I wonder just how the case will be viewed as a precident in the future. On the one hand, the racist views of the parents were enough to take the kids to begin with. But on the other hand, if the decision is to take them permanently it will be based on other factors as well. So it will not be clear that racist views alone are sufficient to take kids away. The only clear precident will be if the kids are given back. But given the other problems the mother seems to have, I'm not sure I really should be hoping for that. The only thing that is clear is that this situation is a mess and the kids will suffer regardless of the outcome.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-07-05 11:48:08 AM
Tyranny at its best is what you have here. The mother made a valid observation in that the state sees nothing wrong with any group practising group pride and group hatred of others as long as the group in question is not white. While I find any form of racism regressive and unacceptable, I abhor such state enforced tyranny. As an individual I am free to discriminate against those promoting racism in any form by refusing to associate with them and shunning them.
It is one thing for the state to remain neutral and not to discriminate against groups or individuals, but it becomes tyranny when the state uses brute force to enforce the ideology it favours.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-07-05 12:55:11 PM
Had the children been taken away as a result of mental defect or abusive parents the state may have been justified. However taking the children away because of radical beliefs seems to be a practice specifically aimed at caucasians. dp and Alain make some very valid points here and the ramifications are yet to be seen. The caucasian community had better start to assert itself or our way of life will be lost in the blender.
But under no circumstances would I promote white supremacy...simply the right to be treated equally and not singled out and treated as "the Great Satan" who us solely responsible for the ills of the world. Because that's just plain bullshit!
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-05 1:11:35 PM
I can see a lot more justification for taking kids away from nazi racist douchebags, than taking them away because their parents are growing a few restricted plants.(Which happens all the time BTW)
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-07-05 1:59:07 PM
Who'll they take kids from next, climate change "deniers."?
Seriously though CFS has good intentions if extreme means. I'm sure they do good work.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-05 2:06:39 PM
Attacker,
I am a free speech absolutist. And in that sense, I agree with the general sentiment of Scott's piece.
It's always amusing to me that small-minded idiots like yourself are unable to separate disparate concepts into distinct elements in your mind; everything is one monolithic worldview.
ie. If you're pro-gay rights, you're a communist. Or if you're pro-marriage, you're a capitalist.
None of these axioms that people like yourself portray implicitly in your arguments actually exist. Nor am I, Terrence, or Janet Marxists.
And if anything, Marxists have never really been pro-gay rights either. Their infestation of feminist and gay rights movements has been part of a politically expedient strategy to maintain relevance, but neither of these movements are a component of, or are endemic of Marxism. They are however "liberal" movements, and if you want to call me a "liberal", I'll proudly wear that badge. I'm suspect Terrence and Janet will be equally un-offended.
Now, run along and go get your next set of thinking points from Limbaugh and Coulter like a good little conservative.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-05 2:56:55 PM
I'm impressed with this Scott Carnegie fellow, though I have to wonder what he's doing writing at such a radically left wing website staffed by gay sex marriage tyrants, feminist authoritarians, and anti-"racism" militants who want to impose radical gay sex/feminist/anti-"racist" entitlements on a majority that doesn't want them - by way of physical force.
Posted by: Attacker | 2009-07-05 1:13:02 PM
This is a "right of center" web site attended mostly by small c conservatives and Libertarians, and yes a couple of Marxists who are into self abuse do drop in. But how you get left wing out of that is a matter between you and your physician.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-05 3:28:37 PM
Okay, free-speech absolutists, here's some questions for you. Do you think teaching white supremacy and antipathy towards non-whites should be considered "damaging"? And if so, do you think it is morally right for society to stand back and watch the minds of two children get twisted up?
Yes, I have the right to free speech, but people around me have the right not to listen and walk away. These kids do not have the option of walking away.
Canada gives Canadians the right to free speech, but it does have the right to place restrictions on the circumstances under which those beliefs are expressed. Is teaching your children hate any better or worse than teaching your kids it's okay to steal, or okay play on the street?
The state has the right to take away children, a strong but necessary power. The alternative is to make all prospective parents take an exam and get licensed before they have children, something which would be a far worse state intrusion in my opinion.
Posted by: cam | 2009-07-05 4:31:54 PM
//Canada gives Canadians the right to free speech//
My mouth gives me free speech, I don't need the Canadian government to do that.
//but it does have the right to place restrictions on the circumstances under which those beliefs are expressed.//
Why does it have that "right"?
//The state has the right to take away children//
Why?
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-05 5:06:29 PM
Cam,
"Okay, free-speech absolutists..."
Some might claim to be free-speech absolutists, but there are none here. Everyone (so far as I know) thinks it is ok to prohibit yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
"Do you think teaching white supremacy and antipathy towards non-whites should be considered 'damaging'?"
Yes.
"And if so, do you think it is morally right for society to stand back and watch the minds of two children get twisted up?"
No. We should do something about it. Anti-discrimiantion education done formally in schools or through other public education processes are good ideas. Taking parents away from kids is a drastic step. It has many more consequences, most of which can be harmful to the kids, and so is not a great answer.
"Yes, I have the right to free speech, but people around me have the right not to listen and walk away. These kids do not have the option of walking away."
True. They also do not have the option of walking away from parental religious instruction, but we don't think putting kids in religious education is a legitimate ground for taking them away from parents. Kids also cannot walk away when parents say that Prime Minister X and political party Y are horrible people destroying the country , but we don't take the kids away then either.
"Is teaching your children hate any better or worse than teaching your kids it's okay to steal, or okay play on the street?"
Probably a bit less worse, but not a lot less worse. But we also do not take kids away from parents when the parents teach their kids it's okay to steal, or okay play on the street. We sometimes do take them away if the parents actually get the kids to steal or let them actually play in the street, but if the parents keep the kids from doing these things and just tell them that they are ok, kids are left with their parents.
In fact, with stealing there are parents with criminal records for shoplifting who have kids who sometimes shoplift, and we don't take the kids away. So your comparison breaks down quite badly.
And for Scott: "The state has the right to take away children" ... "Why?"
If parents are physically beating their kids, I would say that is justification to take them away. If they are neglecting their kids so that the kids suffer from malnutrition and refuse to change I'd say that's justification. Wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-07-05 5:47:51 PM
The state has the right to take away children, a strong but necessary power. The alternative is to make all prospective parents take an exam and get licensed before they have children, something which would be a far worse state intrusion in my opinion.
Posted by: cam | 2009-07-05 4:31:54 PM
You're whole line of thinking is socialist and controlling. No matter how "you" see it the state has final authority which tells me you are public education success story. You're wrong on all counts, go back to the drawing board.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-05 6:07:26 PM
PS Cam, I teach my children to hate socialism every day. Try and take them away from me. Go ahead...give it a try.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-05 6:10:08 PM
I agree totally with Scott. As reprehensible as Nazi beliefs are, we can't get rid of them by kidnapping the children of Nazis. And really, this is what has happened: children have been kidnapped. It won't be long before the state will be knocking on doors like my own because I teach my children that homosexual relations are sinful. The difference is that I'll be ready for anyone who wants to kidnap our children in the name of the state. Over my dead body.
Posted by: Sar Rasmus | 2009-07-05 7:33:15 PM
It is clear that cam is not a parent who has raised children to adulthood to assume that they all end up carbon-copies of their parents. There is no evidence that these children would grow up espousing the same ideas as their mother or parents. Just as there is no evidence that the children would being taught it is okay to attack non whites. Being taught "white pride" is no worse than others teaching "native pride", "gay pride", "women pride", "Asian pride", "Muslim pride", "Christian pride", "Jewish pride" or any other. Yet only whites seem to believe they have no right to do so. Personally I neither feel inferior nor superior to others, but I would never have thought of teaching my children to be ashamed of their heritage.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-07-05 8:03:12 PM
Sorry as I meant to type: Just as there is no evidence that the children were being taught it is okay to attack non whites.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-07-05 8:24:36 PM
//There is no evidence that these children would grow up espousing the same ideas as their mother or parents//
Great point, and I was thinking about this today. Even in my own case, I don't have the same attitude towards certain groups that my parents have, or other family members have.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-05 8:42:16 PM
//If parents are physically beating their kids, I would say that is justification to take them away. If they are neglecting their kids so that the kids suffer from malnutrition and refuse to change I'd say that's justification. Wouldn't you agree?//
I would agree that intervention should happen in these cases. It just makes me feel icky that it's the goverment doing it, since they lack market incentives to do a good job and be accountable.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-05 8:43:49 PM
Scott, exactly and neither do I. I recall my parents having very strong views (wrong ones) about certain groups and yet I rejected such views. Does this mean I was a victim of bad parents? Absolutely not, but it does mean that I formed my own views based on personal experience and observation. Even then I have modified or changed some of these over time after coming to the conclusion that they were incorrect. Image that I, like others, did all this without state enforcement or meddling.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-07-05 8:49:32 PM
I think that many people can overcome bad parenting through their own efforts. If they don't, they should be free to beleive what they want.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-05 9:51:30 PM
Scott/Alain, great comments!
Posted by: TM | 2009-07-05 10:01:58 PM
Uh-huh. Well, I like U-boat simulations; will my children be taken away if somebody sees the swastika on the flags, the crew's uniforms, or the options screens?
The state has no business as a surrogate parent. Given their record of kids that have come to grief under their care--the residential schools being but one example--I should think they would want to distance themselves from child-rearing as much as possible. They suck at it.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-05 10:12:11 PM
I wasn't raised to hate Nazis, I was raised to hate Germans. All Germans. I grew up around veterans of both wars, so the Nazis were nothing more than another group of Germans that needed killing. Fact is, I rarely heard the word Nazi.
I was also raised to hate Englishmen. Being of Irish descent, I had a natural aversion to English blokes.
I was raised to hate Japs, too. I don't know anyone, my age, who wasn't.
I suppose I was also raised to hate educators, merchants, police, doctors, and anyone named Dillman.
Now that I'm older, I've learned to hate a whole new assortment of people. Many of the old group have lost their appeal. I married a German, so that hate sort of faded. I met quite a few Japs, and began to think they've mellowed. I've also decided that Englishmen are pretty much the same as me.
I suppose the moral of the story is, that I was taught to hate, and the target of that hate is irrelevent. Unless the kids can end up in an environment, completely devoid of hate, they might as well stay where they are. I suspect they'll simply be reprogrammed to hate a more suitable group. They'll certainly be taught to hate their parents.
When it's all said and done, they'll really, really hate the system that tore their family apart.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-05 10:16:00 PM
when are we going to admit that hatred is EVIL? It is wrong to teach your child to hate. It stunts them. It limits their horizons. It makes it much more likely that they will get hurt or hurt someone else.
I don't buy the arguement that "first they came for the nazis..." No, I draw a distinction here against the culture of violence and hatred which is contemporary skinhead /odinist culture. It's different from being gay or jewish in that those things are about love and God, respectively. Hate is different. How dare you not notice!!!
Posted by: pride covers shame | 2009-07-05 11:14:34 PM
"I can see a lot more justification for taking kids away from nazi racist douchebags, than taking them away because their parents are growing a few restricted plants."
Then again, pot does make you see things, doesn't it?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-05 11:18:41 PM
"Okay, free-speech absolutists, here's some questions for you."
Oh, goody.
"Do you think teaching white supremacy and antipathy towards non-whites should be considered "damaging"?"
No.
"And if so, do you think it is morally right for society to stand back and watch the minds of two children get twisted up?"
Are you saying that the majority of people alive 70 years ago had minds that were twisted up? Racist ideas are nothing new and it is only in the last few decades that anyone, even educated people, have thought them anything out of the common way. That their minds are being "twisted up" is itself opinion.
"Yes, I have the right to free speech, but people around me have the right not to listen and walk away. These kids do not have the option of walking away."
But they have the right to not listen--a right of which children entail themselves practically by default, as anyone who has ever had children knows. How many kids do you have, Cam? Because the last thing this planet needs is another childless child expert.
"Canada gives Canadians the right to free speech, but it does have the right to place restrictions on the circumstances under which those beliefs are expressed."
Such as shouting fire in a theatre when there is no fire, which can create an immediate and serious hazard.
"Is teaching your children hate any better or worse than teaching your kids it's okay to steal, or okay play on the street?"
Children play in the street all the time; were you ever a child, Cam? And since hate is an emotion, and since the state has no sovereignty over emotion, the answer is that it's better than teaching your kids to steal (which is illegal, immoral, unethical, and does measurable damage).
"The state has the right to take away children, a strong but necessary power."
Necessary, says who and based on what? You may not use emotion to justify your answer.
"The alternative is to make all prospective parents take an exam and get licensed before they have children, something which would be a far worse state intrusion in my opinion."
And the third option is that which the state has been content to take for the last 20,000 years of civilization--let the parents raise the kid however they want and punish people only when they break the rules.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-05 11:26:24 PM
"when are we going to admit that hatred is EVIL?"
Evil consists of acts, not thoughts. Emotions by themselves are ethically neutral--and natural.
"It is wrong to teach your child to hate."
Is it a bad idea? Yes. Is it WRONG? Well...no.
"It stunts them. It limits their horizons."
As does telling them they should always obey the rules, which deprives them of many opportunities. If this criterion alone is your guide, it is insufficient.
"It makes it much more likely that they will get hurt or hurt someone else."
No, people get hurt when people fail to control their hate. Or their fear, or their grief, or even their love. Loss of emotional control is what causes harm, not the emotion itself.
"I don't buy the arguement that "first they came for the nazis..." No, I draw a distinction here against the culture of violence and hatred which is contemporary skinhead /odinist culture."
We did not ask you what you bought, nor what you draw a distinction between. The point of the debate is to tell us why WE should also do those things.
"It's different from being gay or jewish in that those things are about love and God, respectively."
In my experience homosexuality is more about lust than about love. And the historical distrust of Jews by various host cultures had nothing to do with God or how they worshipped Him.
"Hate is different. How dare you not notice!!"
Sounds like you're doing some hating yourself, there, dude. And even a priest will tell you it's okay to hate the sin, provided one loves the sinner.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-05 11:34:29 PM
Shane, I am agreeing with you a lot these days. Excellent comments!
Posted by: TM | 2009-07-05 11:34:47 PM
During the course of the hearings Nazi mom was busted for stealing her own mother's credit card. She has also now asked that the children not be left in her own custody or the custody of Nazi Dad. Anyone that is going to cover their kid in Nazi symbols is also likely to have other things wrong with them, as the folks representing Manitoba obviously figured out. The Libertarians commenting on this thread are semi-illiterate dorks who are, frankly, to dumb to google the details of the case.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-07-06 4:05:38 AM
Then again, pot does make you see things, doesn't it?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-05 11:18:41 PM
Actually I can tell you from past experience that is does not. It isn't an hallucinogen.
You've been on on a great roll Shane. Good to see. :)
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-06 4:59:04 AM
The Libertarians commenting on this thread are semi-illiterate dorks who are, frankly, to dumb to google the details of the case.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-07-06 4:05:38 AM
So the fact that the state took the kids before any of this came to light doesn't bother you?
The prior right of the state to take kids or any of your property is ok with you?
Have you considered that this kind of activity makes the state the author of ALL your rights?
Thanks but no thanks...I'll stay on the dorky side of the fence with the principled people.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-06 5:02:20 AM
The alcohol & drug abuse was part of the story from the get go. Just because you folks missed it doesn't mean it wasn't there. The kid's grandfather had been trying to get the authorities to act on this stuff for about a year.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-07-06 6:26:01 AM
"During the course of the hearings Nazi mom was busted for stealing her own mother's credit card."
Isn't it funny how all of these additional defects and infractions came to light only after the lens of the state was focussed upon them? I wonder how well any Canadian's life would look under a microscope. If somebody gets a parking ticket for speeding, do we take away their kids? What about for simple assault, or downloading songs, or parking in the handicapped parking spot?
"She has also now asked that the children not be left in her own custody or the custody of Nazi Dad."
I see. And if someone asked that they be excused from making further mortgage payments on the grounds of their own personal irresponsibility, how well do you think that would go over? The question remains: Will the state be a better parent than these two? They'd have to be pretty bad parents for that to be true.
"Anyone that is going to cover their kid in Nazi symbols is also likely to have other things wrong with them, as the folks representing Manitoba obviously figured out."
We don't take children away on the grounds that "something else is LIKELY to be wrong with them." In this system, you are expected to prove your case. Or at least you were until numerous government agencies (staffed largely by females, it should be noted) decided that such a high standard of proof was overly burdensome.
"The Libertarians commenting on this thread are semi-illiterate dorks who are, frankly, to dumb to google the details of the case."
"Semi-literate" is both more correct and more euphonic than "semi-illiterate"; the correct spelling of "to" is "too"; and "Google" is a proper noun that should be capitalized, even when used as a verb. Who's semi-literate?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-06 6:30:24 AM
"Actually I can tell you from past experience that is does not. It isn't an hallucinogen."
That's not what I've read, JC. Although pot is certainly not in the same class as LSD and peyote, as well as differing pharmacologically, excessive consumption can cause heightened sensitivity to colors, shapes, music, and other stimuli and distortion of the sense of time. Of course whether the smoker actually experiences any of this depends on both the strength of the weed and amount smoked. It might take several joints to get airborne. And, of course, everyone is affected slightly differently.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-06 6:35:47 AM
And, of course, everyone is affected slightly differently.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-06 6:35:47 AM
That would be fair enough observation. Even "back in the day" I was a lightweight.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-06 8:05:31 AM
if the children went to school with "black power" written om them nothing would have happened.
Posted by: mauser98 | 2009-07-06 8:19:32 AM
@ pride covers shame //It is wrong to teach your child to hate.//
I agree. I also think it's wrong to teach your kids to beleive in fairy tales like Santa Clause and God, but I wouldn't tell people what to teach their kids.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-06 9:30:33 AM
@ bigcitylib //The alcohol & drug abuse was part of the story from the get go//
That is incorrect. I have been following this story since it first appeared. There was no mention of substance abuse or ANYTHING other than the CFS folks saw the neo-Nazi material and took the kids because of it.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-06 9:34:50 AM
Scott, from May 2008:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=3bd7d0d6-e631-42e8-8dcf-64314d62a766
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-07-06 2:23:30 PM
That article proves my point. They were seized becasue of their neo-Nazi beleifs. The other issues came later, says so in the article.
//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,” is a popular reference to Hitler in the white supremacist community.
Police and Child and Family Services quickly went to the family’s apartment and seized her two-year-old brother. While inside, police found “indication of the parents’ neo-Nazi, white supremacist” beliefs,” the report states.//
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-06 4:06:32 PM
You don't have to actively teach your kids to hate. It's something that passes along without any encouragement. It's one of those survival instincts that allowed humanity to conquer some very formidable obstacles. Anyone who has no inclination to it will never survive in harsh environments.
The love and peace movement only lasted five or six years, and was a complete failure. By the time I hit my teenage years, we were already making crude jokes about the hippies.
If you want an example of the value of blind hatred, look at how quickly the Islamic movement is sweeping through the world's population. They know how to put hatred to good use. If we really love our way of life as much as we claim to, we'd better take a lesson from these guys.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-06 4:54:54 PM
Scott, this part doesn't:
"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."
The drugs and alcohol abuse were mentioned as part of the reasoning behind the seizure back in early 2008. Gawd what is it with you Libertaranians and the Nazis?
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-07-06 5:30:37 PM
bigcitylib, that came AFTER the kids were already taken.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-06 5:34:03 PM
What is it with libs and the facts? The kids did not miss 39 days of school. This, and many other details, were complete fabrications. Show some evidence, before you blurt out all these accusations.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-06 6:56:58 PM
Liberals always argue with emotion and are rarely bothered by facts or reality. They are the bane of any society.
The government has no right to intervene until a crime has been committed. Period!
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-06 7:13:08 PM
Fact Check, thank you for the intelligent response.
I don't believe my argument falls apart. Because CFS has a mandate to consider when a child's well-being may be in danger due to any number of reasons, I don't see how CFS could ignore the case of children who were being taught and encouraged to steal by their parents even if the children didn't act on those beliefs. I think if there were evidence, CFS would be legally allowed to apprehend the children. Similarly, if CFS found that parents were encouraging their children to play unsupervised on a busy street, CFS could also have grounds for apprehension whether or not they had evidence children had actually acted on their parents wishes. Having evidence that parents encouraged it should be sufficient grounds. The problem is finding the evidence which usually only presents itself after the damage has been done, and the same could be said for hateful beliefs. They are just ideas and beliefs until the child has the will to act on the beliefs.
Also, you said "we don't think putting kids in religious education is a legitimate ground for taking them away from parents." The state does not prohibit religious teaching, but hatred in the guise of religion is not legal or socially acceptable, and therefore extreme Christian or Muslim beliefs could technically violate some of Canada's hate laws and, if there was enough evidence, CFS would be able to intervene.
In the case of this white supremacist family, the parents made an unusual effort to advertise their beliefs and therefore the authorities likely felt it had no choice but to intervene due to the amount of evidence and overt nature of the parents beliefs.
I agree also that the public education system should continue to offer anti-racism education, but it seems irresponsible to rely on these classes to counteract hateful beliefs children are constantly being exposed to at home. The primary caregivers are still the most powerful socializing agents a child can have. The child's attitude towards his school, his teachers and classmates could be prejudiced by the beliefs instilled by his/her parents before the education system even has a chance at having a positive effect.
Posted by: cam | 2009-07-06 10:45:10 PM
The child's attitude towards his school, his teachers and classmates could be prejudiced by the beliefs instilled by his/her parents before the education system even has a chance at having a positive effect.
Posted by: cam | 2009-07-06 10:45:10 PM
Unfortunately our education system has become a breeding ground for socialist conformity and it is not to be trusted any more than the CFS. I teach my kids at every opportunity to take responsibility for themselves and assert their individual rights.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-07 5:06:09 AM
cam- When I think about all the vile, worthless trash that my kids had to endure in the public school system, I really wish I'd home schooled them.
School teachers are the lowest form of filth. My kids have had nazi teachers, flaming gay teachers, drug addict teachers, alcoholic teachers, and pedophile teachers. Worst of all, every one of them was a flaming NDP. Not one of them could have made it in the private sector, and not one of them was qualified to teach the subjects they were assigned.
I made damn sure my kids understood they had to conform to the idiotic standards presented to them. I also made sure they understood the only place these standards apply is in the classroom.
Until our education system is restructured, we're going to see more, and more home schooling. This social meddling is the final straw for many people.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-07 10:39:34 AM
I had a British Phys Ed teacher in junior high. A kid in my class drew a swastika on his arm, trying to be cool. The teacher told him to wash it off, because we spent five years fighting the nazis. He washed it off, and the matter was closed.
Those were the days.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-07 10:42:37 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.