NationStates Jolt Archive

Linky (http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/440948)

She freely admits that her 7-year-old daughter was sent to school sporting a swastika – the Nazi emblem adopted as a symbol of racially motivated hate groups.

She says she's not a neo-Nazi, just proud of her northern European heritage.

Now she's fighting to get her children back from Manitoba Child and Family Services, and finding herself at the centre of a case that has raised questions about whether children are affected by parental views that may be extreme.

The government is now asking the courts for permanent guardianship of the children.



Now, this issue came up during the seizure of children from the polygamist compound in Texas...at what point can you declare the beliefs of parents or guardians inherently abusive, absent any other forms of actual abuse?

Child services also cite alcohol and drug abuse, perhaps as an aside, but it seems clear that the trigger was the swastika. If the main case is based only on the assumed racism or political views of the parents, is this a valid reason to remove the children?

Linky (http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/440948)



Now, this issue came up during the seizure of children from the polygamist compound in Texas...at what point can you declare the beliefs of parents or guardians inherently abusive, absent any other forms of actual abuse?

oy isn't that a whole big fucking can of worms.

oy isn't that a whole big fucking can of worms.

Well I'd think you'd like that sort of thing...it certainly has my interest.

I doubt the case will succeed on the basis of political/racist belief...child services will push the drug and alcohol abuse. However, even then, the parents are generally given a chance to reform themselves rather than permanent custody going to the government.

Now, in the polygamist case, it was being argued that the boys were being 'groomed' to be abusers. If no abuse actually happened, would the 'grooming' be abuse per se?

If you are being 'groomed' from childhood to hate, is this abuse, or parental prerogative?

no its not child abuse to be racist.

unless your child is of a race that you hate, i suppose

the child wearing a swastika to school should be handled the same way as a child being sent to school with obsenities on her clothing.

if she is keeping her child healthy and sending her to school, the authorities should mind their own business.

Linky (http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/440948)



Now, this issue came up during the seizure of children from the polygamist compound in Texas...at what point can you declare the beliefs of parents or guardians inherently abusive, absent any other forms of actual abuse?

Child services also cite alcohol and drug abuse, perhaps as an aside, but it seems clear that the trigger was the swastika. If the main case is based only on the assumed racism or political views of the parents, is this a valid reason to remove the children?

I'm staying away from this one.:cool:

Linky (http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/440948)

She freely admits that her 7-year-old daughter was sent to school sporting a swastika – the Nazi emblem adopted as a symbol of racially motivated hate groups.

She says she's not a neo-Nazi, just proud of her northern European heritage.

Now she's fighting to get her children back from Manitoba Child and Family Services, and finding herself at the centre of a case that has raised questions about whether children are affected by parental views that may be extreme.

The government is now asking the courts for permanent guardianship of the children.


Now, this issue came up during the seizure of children from the polygamist compound in Texas...at what point can you declare the beliefs of parents or guardians inherently abusive, absent any other forms of actual abuse?

Child services also cite alcohol and drug abuse, perhaps as an aside, but it seems clear that the trigger was the swastika. If the main case is based only on the assumed racism or political views of the parents, is this a valid reason to remove the children?

She says she's not a neo-Nazi, just proud of her northern European heritage.

So proud that she uses an ancient sanskrit symbol? :confused:
Does she dress her in a hijab to celebrate her christian beliefs? :p

Sarcasm aside.

It sounds as if the mother is unfit as such. If for nothing else, potentially putting her kid in harms way (whether physical or verbal).

It sounds as if the mother is unfit as such. If for nothing else, potentially putting her kid in harms way (whether physical or verbal).

I dress my kid in ugly clothes. Am I unfit for putting my kids in harms way?

Urgh.

I'm really unsure what the right answer is - or even if there is a right answer - but I'm leaning towards believing that, while raising your child to be a racist is despicable and pathetic, it's not "abuse" per se, and it's not the government's place to remove the children if they are otherwise happy and healthy. That's a heck of a tough question, though.

oy isn't that a whole big fucking can of worms.

Well I'd think you'd like that sort of thing...it certainly has my interest.

I doubt the case will succeed on the basis of political/racist belief...child services will push the drug and alcohol abuse. However, even then, the parents are generally given a chance to reform themselves rather than permanent custody going to the government.

Now, in the polygamist case, it was being argued that the boys were being 'groomed' to be abusers. If no abuse actually happened, would the 'grooming' be abuse per se?

If you are being 'groomed' from childhood to hate, is this abuse, or parental prerogative?

I think you need to look at this from the view point of criminality quite simply. Its not against the law to be a racist. It is against the law to hurl racist abuse (UK law btw...). So to separate the kids from the family just for *being racist* is an indication of how bad child protection agencies can really fuck things up. Of course if it is illegal to be a racist in 'your' country then seizure is legitimate.

Regarding the boys - the grooming might not be abuse per se but it is surely encouraging an illegal act??

"Manitoba guidelines allow child welfare workers to intervene in any situation where there is concern for the safety or well-being of a child."

That child is going to be physically and verbally assaulted with that drawn on her. The child does not know any better, and the mother is failing at teaching the child the consequences of having symbols that people associate with hate drawn on her. The mother even admits she isn't home most of the time. I understand that she has two children and bills to pay, but there comes to a point where she needs to be a mother, and she failed at that. I say the removal was justified.

I dress my kid in ugly clothes. Am I unfit for putting my kids in harms way?

Right, so perhaps I hadn't quite shaken off all my flippancy...


I was refering more to the send the child out with a swastika. That was extremely likely to offend.

Right, so perhaps I hadn't quite shaken off all my flippancy...


I was refering more to the send the child out with a swastika. That was extremely likely to offend.

And geeky kids get abused physically and verbally all the time at school, sometimes very extremely. Is that the fault of the parents who either dress, or teach their children to be geeky?

This is a seven year old child, mind...in grade one or two. Kids that age from my experience have no idea what a swastika is. But they know cheap WalMart shoes when they see them, and ridicule accordingly.

Linky (http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/440948)



Now, this issue came up during the seizure of children from the polygamist compound in Texas...at what point can you declare the beliefs of parents or guardians inherently abusive, absent any other forms of actual abuse?

Child services also cite alcohol and drug abuse, perhaps as an aside, but it seems clear that the trigger was the swastika. If the main case is based only on the assumed racism or political views of the parents, is this a valid reason to remove the children?

No. The mom's a douche, but she's well within her legal rights. I think for a government to take away a kid because the mom supports an ideology they disagree with is a violation of freedom of speech. That doesn't stop the mom from being a douche.

No. The mom's a douche, but she's well within her legal rights. I think for a government to take away a kid because the mom supports an ideology they disagree with is a violation of freedom of speech. That doesn't stop the mom from being a douche.
Yeah, I agree 110%. The mother is stupid and doesn't seem to really understand what a swastika means. Even if she did, she and the kid can wear whatever they please. I reject the idea of Fashion Police.
However, if the mom is addicted to drugs and alcohol she should have her child removed from her care on those grounds.

"Manitoba guidelines allow child welfare workers to intervene in any situation where there is concern for the safety or well-being of a child."

That child is going to be physically and verbally assaulted with that drawn on her. The child does not know any better, and the mother is failing at teaching the child the consequences of having symbols that people associate with hate drawn on her.
Read my geek example, and tell me how the two are qualitatively different enough to justify removal in the one case and not the other.


The mother even admits she isn't home most of the time.She works full time. It appears the children's father was likely the caregiver. I'm rarely home too, being a full time student. I see my kids five hours out of the day...shockingly though, they are in school the same hours as I.

Most working parents aren't 'home most of the time' and manage to raise their children just fine. So what exactly is your point?


I understand that she has two children and bills to pay, but there comes to a point where she needs to be a mother, and she failed at that.
Holding different political opinions than you is failing at motherhood? How exactly? You have escalated to 'you fail at parenting, let's take your children' very fast.


I say the removal was justified.
On what grounds again?

And geeky kids get abused physically and verbally all the time at school, sometimes very extremely. Is that the fault of the parents who either dress, or teach their children to be geeky?

This is a seven year old child, mind...in grade one or two. Kids that age from my experience have no idea what a swastika is. But they know cheap WalMart shoes when they see them, and ridicule accordingly.

Right, you caught me. It was a poorly thought out abortion of a thought that I probably should have not posted, but for the minor diversion from the accounts I'm doing at the moment.

I won't tried to squirm and justify. I'll just say I was wrong :)

Yeah, I agree 110%. The mother is stupid and doesn't seem to really understand what a swastika means. Even if she did, she and the kid can wear whatever they please. I reject the idea of Fashion Police. Although you are not allowed to wear whatever you please at school.

At most, you'd think the child would have been disciplined for the symbol, and a parent/teacher/administrator conference held.

Right, you caught me. It was a poorly thought out abortion of a thought that I probably should have not posted, but for the minor diversion from the accounts I'm doing at the moment.

I won't tried to squirm and justify. I'll just say I was wrong :)

That's okay, someone else took up this train of thought and I'll pummel them instead :)

That's okay, someone else took up this train of thought and I'll pummel them instead :)

What... really..?

I only had it in the first place to try and legitimise a third rate joke :confused:

shes a dumb because its the symbol for luck among other things but she says its not a Nazi thing so thats that

I dress my kid in ugly clothes. Am I unfit for putting my kids in harms way?

you monster!

"Manitoba guidelines allow child welfare workers to intervene in any situation where there is concern for the safety or well-being of a child."

That child is going to be physically and verbally assaulted with that drawn on her.
True, the girl will more than likely be assaulted. But the government doesn't pick up every kid in the country that gets into a fist fight, now do they? I think that what the Manitoba guidelines means, is that if there is concern for safety of a child in it's own home..

This is ignorance on the mother's part for several reasons I'm sure we can all conclude, but it isn't abuse. I don't think they had the right to take her kids because of the mother's lack of intelligence to teach her kids any better. I could teach my kids that flicking people off is a symbol of pride for my heritage, but does that stop the fact that it's actually used for bad 99% of the time? I would AT LEAST tell them it's other meaning, and if she would've done the same instead of just claiming how much she was just a proud Scottish chick, she wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

True, the girl will more than likely be assaulted. In grade one or two? This is in Canada remember. Your scenario is extremely unlikely.

But the government doesn't pick up every kid in the country that gets into a fist fight, now do they? I think that what the Manitoba guidelines means, is that if there is concern for safety of a child in it's own home.. Exactly. You don't remove a child from the home because other people might ridicule or bully that child.

This is ignorance on the mother's part for several reasons I'm sure we can all conclude, but it isn't abuse. I don't think they had the right to take her kids because of the mother's lack of intelligence to teach her kids any better. I could teach my kids that flicking people off is a symbol of pride for my heritage, but does that stop the fact that it's actually used for bad 99% of the time? I would AT LEAST tell them it's other meaning, and if she would've done the same instead of just claiming how much she was just a proud Scottish chick, she wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

Next we'll be taking children away from stupid parents.

It seems to me like there isn't sufficient cause for removing the kid from the home, but that doing nothing would also be the wrong reaction. Wouldn't this kind of thing generally be handled at school, in Canada or in any other country? Sending the kid home/to the principal's office, and calling the parents in to have a chat?

It seems to me like there isn't sufficient cause for removing the kid from the home, but that doing nothing would also be the wrong reaction. Wouldn't this kind of thing generally be handled at school, in Canada or in any other country? Sending the kid home/to the principal's office, and calling the parents in to have a chat?

Yup.

I'm quite interested in how child services came to be involved rather than the school.

Linky (http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/440948)



Now, this issue came up during the seizure of children from the polygamist compound in Texas...at what point can you declare the beliefs of parents or guardians inherently abusive, absent any other forms of actual abuse?

Child services also cite alcohol and drug abuse, perhaps as an aside, but it seems clear that the trigger was the swastika. If the main case is based only on the assumed racism or political views of the parents, is this a valid reason to remove the children?

No. The school ought to have spoken to the parent concerning what I imagine is a putatively unacceptable symbol to display, however, the political beliefs of the parent should have no ramifications upon whether they retain their child or not.

One big difference between this case and the Texas polygamy one is that the children in the FDLS sect were being homeschooled and hence not exposed to worldly ideas. This child in the swatiska case is going to a public school.

Most of the issues can be addressed with education.

Now, as for the grounds, the cause is in direct violation of section two of the charter of rights and freedoms, wherein the mother is guaranteed right of association. There is zero proof of any alcohol or drugs, and it's not uncommon to find alcohol in a Canadian home, especially since alcohol is legal and there is no proof that either child has been given alcohol.

Also, what ever happened to a nice stern note?

One big difference between this case and the Texas polygamy one is that the children in the FDLS sect were being homeschooled and hence not exposed to worldly ideas. This child in the swatiska case is going to a public school.

Most of the issues can be addressed with education.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about homeschooling here, so I'm going to ask for clarification.

Another proof that this totalitarian institution euphemistically called "Child Protection Service" needs immediately to be dismantled and their members need to be held responsible for their abuse of power. Apparently this "thought police" has no other purpose but destroying families and persecuting religious and ideological dissidents.

If the main case is based only on the assumed racism or political views of the parents, is this a valid reason to remove the children?

No. Never. Parental rights over children is THE greatest right. The only reason to take children away from their parents is actual abuse and endangerment. Political and/or religious dogma do not count as that.

Another proof that this totalitarian institution euphemistically called "Child Protection Service" needs immediately to be dismantled and their members need to be held responsible for their abuse of power. Apparently this "thought police" has no other purpose but destroying families and persecuting religious and ideological dissidents.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is hardly a solution. For every case they fuck up like this, there are all too many real cases of abuse they are missing...getting rid of them entirely would be a catastrophe.

In grade one or two? This is in Canada remember. Your scenario is extremely unlikely.
I didn't even look at the location, what a bad habit of mine. But either way, kids in grades one and two probably don't/won't know what a swastika is, so I was referring to later school years, given she kept going to school with swastikas on her.
Next we'll be taking children away from stupid parents.
Hey, if they're willing to take this woman's kids away from her for this, who knows?
Another proof that this totalitarian institution euphemistically called "Child Protection Service" needs immediately to be dismantled and their members need to be held responsible for their abuse of power. Apparently this "thought police" has no other purpose but destroying families and persecuting religious and ideological dissidents.
Oh, so since they make a bad decision once means we should wipe out the whole system? Let's take time to think about how very few things we would have in the world if you used that same train of thought.

I don't think they were right in this instance, but that's no reason for them to be wiped out as a whole. There are many cases when they absolutely need to intervene. I'd honestly rather have them take away kids for both good and bad reasons that to have them not exist at all.

Hey, if they're willing to take this woman's kids away from her for this, who knows?
Yeah, sadly I wasn't speaking tongue in cheek.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about homeschooling here, so I'm going to ask for clarification.

Sorry, I should have been clear.

I was implying that with a public education, the children would be exposed to a standard curriculum, and thus exposed to ideas that would show them how racist views don't fit into the modern world.

Sorry, I should have been clear.

I was implying that with a public education, the children would be exposed to a standard curriculum, and thus exposed to ideas that would show them how racist views don't fit into the modern world.

Fair enough, but keep in mind that in Canada, homeschooling is monitored, and parents must use the provincial curriculum in order for their child to get credit:)

Fair enough, but keep in mind that in Canada, homeschooling is monitored, and parents must use the provincial curriculum in order for their child to get credit:)

That is true.

One big difference between this case and the Texas polygamy one is that the children in the FDLS sect were being homeschooled and hence not exposed to worldly ideas. This child in the swatiska case is going to a public school.

Most of the issues can be addressed with education.

Now, as for the grounds, the cause is in direct violation of section two of the charter of rights and freedoms, wherein the mother is guaranteed right of association. There is zero proof of any alcohol or drugs, and it's not uncommon to find alcohol in a Canadian home, especially since alcohol is legal and there is no proof that either child has been given alcohol.

Also, what ever happened to a nice stern note?

How do you know there was zero proof of drugs and alcohol? I'm sure that the child services didn't think a child wearing a swastika was evidence for drug abuse. Could there not have been evidence for drug and alcohol abuse that the Child service organization had found in the past?

How do you know there was zero proof of drugs and alcohol? I'm sure that the child services didn't think a child wearing a swastika was evidence for drug abuse. Could there not have been evidence for drug and alcohol abuse that the Child service organization had found in the past?

Use is not the same as abuse. Even if the adults use it, as long as it doesn't directly affect the children, how is it grounds for removing children?

I wonder... how many Canadian parents consume/use alcohol? I wager there are quite a few. I know people who used drugs as parents and the child didn't turn out messed up.

How is it grounds for removing the children? Surely if the alcohol use is, then many, many more children should be removed from their homes. And drugs? I wonder, just how easy is it for a child to get their hands on legal drugs? Pretty easy if they know where the parents keep their medicines.

After all, it's entirely possible to be addicted to legal drugs; OxyContin anyone? Or any number of sleeping aids, like Imovane.

ehm... I didnt say use I said abuse... I think I did anyway.

ehm... I didnt say use I said abuse... I think I did anyway.

Exactly my point.

Take a look at this.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/440948

An affidavit from a child welfare worker cites the "behaviour and associations" of the woman and her husband as one reason for the removal, as well as drug and alcohol use.

Emphasis mine.

What we have here is use. Not abuse. Something that is a key difference. Use doesn't automatically mean abuse.

Also, removal on the grounds of association directly violates this:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Note the bolded part. They're removing children because of who the mother associates with. Unless CFS can prove that it is harmful, there are no grounds.

Honestly, if this is what they're removing children for, I should have been removed from my home.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter

Now if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the children are in a dangerous situation, then CFS is in its right. It does set a dangerous precedent because if children can be removed for this, what else would be legitimate grounds?

Exactly my point.

Take a look at this.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/440948



Emphasis mine.

What we have here is use. Not abuse. Something that is a key difference. Use doesn't automatically mean abuse.

Also, removal on the grounds of association directly violates this:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Note the bolded part. They're removing children because of who the mother associates with. Unless CFS can prove that it is harmful, there are no grounds.

Honestly, if this is what they're removing children for, I should have been removed from my home.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter

Now if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the children are in a dangerous situation, then CFS is in its right. It does set a dangerous precedent because if children can be removed for this, what else would be legitimate grounds? Perhaps it was creating a dangerous environment for the children. We can't really tell just from the article.

As much as I hate the thought of kids being taught to hate, I would say no. True abuse should be coming from neglectful behavior (ignoring), and of emotional verbal stunting (always criticizing) and of course the obvious physical and sexual. Outlawing this will just give excuse for the Government to cite child abuse on political belief. Can you imagine what would happen?

Perhaps it was creating a dangerous environment for the children. We can't really tell just from the article.

No we can't. The details are skimpy at this point. If they had valid grounds of actual possible harm against the children themselves, like the Texas case, then there would be room for CFS to do its thing but because they're not saying how it affects the children, they don't have a leg to stand on.

shes a dumb because its the symbol for luck among other things but she says its not a Nazi thing so thats that



you monster!

In the artical I read she called it "an ancient symbol of prosperity" and said she wasn't a Nazi, but believed in "white pride" and was a "proud Scottish chick". She also stated that she didn't draw it, but was aware of it and let it go. Also that the child's step-father had been tossed out of the home.

While I don't think this sort of thing by itself should warrent the removal of a child from a home, I think it should raise some red flags with the school, both for the mental process of the child and the mother.

Now, this issue came up during the seizure of children from the polygamist compound in Texas...at what point can you declare the beliefs of parents or guardians inherently abusive, absent any other forms of actual abuse?

Child services also cite alcohol and drug abuse, perhaps as an aside, but it seems clear that the trigger was the swastika. If the main case is based only on the assumed racism or political views of the parents, is this a valid reason to remove the children?

I would say that, in general, it is not child abuse to raise children with backwards, bigoted and stupid ideologies. The points at which child abuse might be reached are if parents are committing or encouraging criminal or delinquent behavior, or if the ideology being forced upon/fed to children causes them significant and serious emotional and mental distress.

I always find it hilarious when people wear the swastika to show "European pride". There are many reasons to be proud of all the rich culture and history of Europe--a brief period of time where the continent was terrorized and carved up by a madman with mommy issues is really not one of them.

Plus, wasn't the swastika originally a Native symbol?

And geeky kids get abused physically and verbally all the time at school, sometimes very extremely. Is that the fault of the parents who either dress, or teach their children to be geeky?

This is a seven year old child, mind...in grade one or two. Kids that age from my experience have no idea what a swastika is. But they know cheap WalMart shoes when they see them, and ridicule accordingly.

There is a difference in intent, though. Sending a child out wearing a swastika, or the confederate flag, or some other nonsense is meant to provoke a reaction--the mother is using her child to promote racism, and that puts the child in the way of potential harm. Should it be illegal? Disgusting, but no, not illegal.

Another proof that this totalitarian institution euphemistically called "Child Protection Service" needs immediately to be dismantled and their members need to be held responsible for their abuse of power. Apparently this "thought police" has no other purpose but destroying families and persecuting religious and ideological dissidents.

THIS is an instance of where CPS has overstepped their bounds, but I disagree heartily if you think it is "typical" of their operation. In the majority of cases CPS errs on the side of the keeping the family together--they usually wouldn't even look at a case like this. I had a student who was beaten, deprived of food, severally emotionally and mentally abused by his father for over two years, and CPS never did more than a random house check, which the house always passed even when the child had visible bruises.

Linky (http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/440948)



Now, this issue came up during the seizure of children from the polygamist compound in Texas...at what point can you declare the beliefs of parents or guardians inherently abusive, absent any other forms of actual abuse?

Child services also cite alcohol and drug abuse, perhaps as an aside, but it seems clear that the trigger was the swastika. If the main case is based only on the assumed racism or political views of the parents, is this a valid reason to remove the children?

No, it's not valid.

And geeky kids get abused physically and verbally all the time at school, sometimes very extremely. Is that the fault of the parents who either dress, or teach their children to be geeky?

This is a seven year old child, mind...in grade one or two. Kids that age from my experience have no idea what a swastika is. But they know cheap WalMart shoes when they see them, and ridicule accordingly.

So, are you basically suggesting that it's acceptable for a mother to let her child wear a swastika?

And, more importantly, are you actually comparing it to cheap shoes? If so, I think you're... a little confused.

its deemed "politically incorrect" to remove a parent from THEIR child. Sadly the child is seen more as an obejct then a human being who will follow the footsteps of their adult role models.

If you have a drunk abusive father you are far more likely to be drunk and abusive yourself. same if they are nazi, hippie, uneducated or anything else you can name.

The question to me is at what point can a state run facilitie (home) be better then the failing parents? Such a question depends how bad are the parents and how good you believe the home is (or addoption if possible). I would say repeated physical abuse or neglect is definetly over the line but racism is close.

oy isn't that a whole big fucking can of worms.

Biggest can of worm I've seen.