NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25434413-952,00.html

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, of course her views are radical and dangerous and it's probably better for the child not to be exposed to them until they are old enough to make their own decisions.

On the other hand, I see parents indoctrinating their children into religion as extremely harmful. I would like to see the same action taken against them.

I think that this is a violation of the mother's right to raise her children as she sees fit. And of her freedom of speech and opinion. As long as she is only committing the imagined crime of ignorance, the courts should have no involvement in what views she is passing on to her children. Otherwise, all parents may have something to fear, unless they toe the government line of acceptable views.

But as always, I defer to the excellent opinion of NSG. What do you think?

Her children should not have to attend history classes in school because such classes teach that the Holocaust actually happened--parents rights, y'know.

I think that this is a violation of the mother's right to raise her children as she sees fit. And of her freedom of speech and opinion. As long as she is only committing the crime of ignorance, the courts should have no involvement in what views she is passing on to her children. Otherwise, all parents may have something to fear, unless they toe the government line of acceptable views.

I'm going to go with this here. Although I am going to point out that it's impossible to 'commit the crime of ignorance' as 'ignorance' has yet to be criminalized anywhere that I am aware of. If it were, though, hoo boy, you think the prisons are over-crowded now...

Her children should not have to attend history classes in school because such classes teach that the Holocaust actually happened--parents rights, y'know.

That's neither as clever nor as analogous as you think it is.

I'm going to go with this here. Although I am going to point out that it's impossible to 'commit the crime of ignorance' as 'ignorance' has yet to be criminalized anywhere that I am aware of. If it were, though, hoo boy, you think the prisons are over-crowded now...



I meant metaphorical crime :$. OP now edited for clarity.

This is risky. The kid will make her/his own mind up after history class anyways.
Also what about taking your kids to other political rallies.
When governments dictate what is legitimate and illegitimate politics I begin to worry.

She should count herself lucky her family isn't going the way of the Campbells (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/14/adolf-hitler-campbell-tak_n_157787.html).

That's neither as clever nor as analogous as you think it is.

It ain't too clever, being the standard sarcasm we see on every thread.

I still think the situation is not different.

The way people look at freedom of speech and stuff is cultural based.

In USA you can have a Nazi club, including the swastikas, hate speeches and so on.

In Germany you would face jailtime when you start the same club over there.

Neither I nor the government have any buisiness in how a mother raises her children to do so would be well rather totalitarian and I predict a bit of a cake and arse party as well

course the state will no doubt soon come to the rescue of the poor child by separating him from his mother (after all we wouldn't want him growing fucked up or anything would we?) which is nothing at all like what goes on in Dubai (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/8020432.stm)

On the other hand, I see parents indoctrinating their children into religion as extremely harmful. I would like to see the same action taken against them.

yes how dare they eat communion wafers and colour in pictures of Jesus

I still think the situation is not different.

The Holocaust is a verifiable historical fact, and as such, objective. Dissemination of such by institutions is not generally frowned upon, whatever ideological differences a person may have with that institution.

Parents who pull their children out of class because they object to the subject matter or method of education used, however, usually do so over subjective matters such as sex education.

I do think that the mother will now video tape the rallies and bring it home for her son to watch, unless she lost custody of the son.

The Holocaust is a verifiable historical fact, and as such, objective. Dissemination of such by institutions is not generally frowned upon, whatever ideological differences a person may have with that institution.

Parents who pull their children out of class because they object to the subject matter or method of education used, however, usually do so over subjective matters such as sex education.

I was talking more along the lines of evolution.

The way people look at freedom of speech and stuff is cultural based.

In USA you can have a Nazi club, including the swastikas, hate speeches and so on.

In Germany you would face jailtime when you start the same club over there.

Germany actually elected Nazis to run it--probably just culture-based.

I was talking more along the lines of evolution.

The teaching of evolution also often carries a more subjective component to it than does teaching about Holocaust.

Germany actually elected Nazis to run it--probably just culture-based.

Uhu, while the laws in the Netherlands and Belgium are not that strict as in Germany about Nazism or denying the event of the Holocaust, you could face some time in a courtroom.

Belgium and the Netherlands never elected Nazis to run their countries.

To give you another example:

The French Jean-Marie Le Pen, the president of the French Front National party, paid a fine of 200,000 Euros for calling the gas chambres a minor detail in the event of WW II.

The teaching of evolution also often carries a more subjective component to it than does teaching about Holocaust.

As stupid as denying the Holocaust is, it is more stupid to believe that the world began six thousand years ago with a garden and a talking snake.

Uhu, while the laws in the Netherlands and Belgium are not that strict as in Germany about Nazism or denying the event of the Holocaust, you could face some time in a courtroom.

Belgium and the Netherlands never elected Nazis to run their countries.

To give you another example:

The French Jean-Marie Le Pen, the president of the French Front National party, paid a fine of 200,000 Euros for calling the gas chambres a minor detail in the event of WW II.

How obtuse--of the Government and Jean-Marie Le Pen.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25434413-952,00.html

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, of course her views are radical and dangerous and it's probably better for the child not to be exposed to them until they are old enough to make their own decisions.

On the other hand, I see parents indoctrinating their children into religion as extremely harmful. I would like to see the same action taken against them.

I think that this is a violation of the mother's right to raise her children as she sees fit. And of her freedom of speech and opinion. As long as she is only committing the imagined crime of ignorance, the courts should have no involvement in what views she is passing on to her children. Otherwise, all parents may have something to fear, unless they toe the government line of acceptable views.

But as always, I defer to the excellent opinion of NSG. What do you think?

That would never happen in America.

His statement or the fine?

Both.

Both.

Sorry, I saw your earlier post too late :)

He repeated that message in the European Parliament recently. There was a big rush around in the media and by the other politicians.

You could think it's obtuse, for many Europeans it's not.

As stupid as denying the Holocaust is, it is more stupid to believe that the world began six thousand years ago with a garden and a talking snake.

Heathen.

Sorry, I saw your earlier post too late :)

He repeated that message in the European Parliament recently. There was a big rush around in the media and by the other politicians.

You could think it's obtuse, for many Europeans it's not.

To be fined 200,000 Euros for a stupid opinion is insane.

To be fined 200,000 Euros for a stupid opinion is insane.

Probably not, because it doesn't stop him :)

Neither I nor the government have any buisiness in how a mother raises her children to do so would be well rather totalitarian and I predict a bit of a cake and arse party as well

I agree.

yes how dare they eat communion wafers and colour in pictures of Jesus

I feel that it is harmful to children to teach them that if they marry a non-Mormon for instance, they will not go to heaven. Or that if they accept a blood transfusion to save their life, they will go to hell. Or that the only acceptable medical intervention is that of prayer. Or the thousands of other directly harmful religious beliefs.

However, I accept that many people would find the beliefs I intend to teach my children directly harmful. And make no judgment on their right to do so.

Probably not, because it doesn't stop him :)

And why should it?

To be fined 200,000 Euros for a stupid opinion is insane.

Some things are here arranged in a weird way. I assume it are all political fights.

I give another example. The Belgian party Vlaams Blok was dismantled because in one of their newspapers a racist cartoon was published.

I certainly do not agree with the cartoon, but blowing up a party for that one is a bridge too far.

But if you understand how politics and courts are working here, then it makes sense. Judges are appointed by the ruling politicians. They make sure that every side (left-, central- or right-winged) is having their puppet. Do I have to tell more?

And why should it?

Well, racism, denying the holocaust, etc... these things are unlawful in most European countries. Either you agree or not, those laws do exist.

I feel that it is harmful to children to teach them that if they marry a non-Mormon for instance, they will not go to heaven. Or that if they accept a blood transfusion to save their life, they will go to hell. Or that the only acceptable medical intervention is that of prayer. Or the thousands of other directly harmful religious beliefs.

so its not the religion part you have issue with its more at best a medical concern?

do you also object to giving children chocolate on Easter as it will rot their teeth or is it only religious reasons that bother you?

However, I accept that many people would find the beliefs I intend to teach my children directly harmful. And make no judgment on their right to do so.

well yeah but would you advocate removing children from religious families if their beliefs happened to come under your idea of harmful?

As stupid as denying the Holocaust is, it is more stupid to believe that the world began six thousand years ago with a garden and a talking snake.

The Holocaust is a verifiable historical fact. You can talk to people who experienced it, people who liberated the camps, and you can access information about people who perpetrated it.

The beginning of the world is different. There are/were no eye-witnesses and the experiment cannot be duplicated. While theories and/or statements about the beginning of the world may be ranked by probability, none of them will be verifiable historical facts the same way the Holocaust is. Given that, I would think that to deny the Holocaust is stupider.

Also, on a related note in the interests of accuracy, Creationists don't believe the world began with a garden and talking snake. That came later. They believe that the world began with God saying 'let there be light.'

On the other hand, I see parents indoctrinating their children into religion as extremely harmful. I would like to see the same action taken against them.

You have this big thing against religion, explain how exactly it is extremely harmful to children.

If we really want to be fair you should be banned for teaching your ideas on religion or really anything to your hypothetical children.

But as always, I defer to the excellent opinion of NSG. What do you think?

I could follow this if the courts were also to outlaw parents from taking their children to any political rallies regardless of what it was about.

The child is more than likely going to be hit with outer views then her mothers and will in time make up their own mind.

This does set a precedent that parents shouldn't being giving opinions to their children.

Also, on a related note in the interests of accuracy, Creationists don't believe the world began with a garden and talking snake. That came later. They believe that the world began with God saying 'let there be light.'

Still utterly crazy, even if your going to judge it by the awesome factor.

Creationism: First there was nothing, then god created the Universe.

Big Bang: First there was nothing, then it exploded.*

*Disclaimer: (Because I just know that one of you assholes will nitpick me ;)) I fully realise that is not what The Big Ban Theory actually says.

Creationism: First there was nothing, then god created the Universe.

Big Bang: First there was nothing, then it exploded.*

*Disclaimer: (Because I just know that one of you assholes will nitpick me ;)) I fully realise that is not what The Big Ban Theory actually says.
It's not what Christian Young Earth Creationism says either.

First their was God, then He created everything else.

It's not what Christian Young Earth Creationism says either.

First their was God, then He created everything else.

Close enough...

Neither I nor the government have any buisiness in how a mother raises her children to do so would be well rather totalitarian and I predict a bit of a cake and arse party as well
Untrue. The government routinely enforced restrictions on how you can raise your children, and generally as a society we support those restrictions. There are limits to the amount of 'corrective force' you can use on your children, for example. There are certain standards you must meet in terms of food, shelter, clothing, access to education and healthcare and so on. You are not allowed to be so drunk or high off your ass that you are unable to care for your children. You are not allowed to let them ride in your vehicle without a seatbelt or carseat. You cannot buy them liquor or cigarettes or porn, or allow them to wander around at all hours of the night unsupervised. To do so opens you up to various levels of liability.

What do all of these things have in common? The welfare of the child, which the Family Court in various commonlaw jurisdictions have been ruling on for ages.

In this case, the mother is prohibited from taking her six year old child to Nazi rallies. Considering the nature of her views, and considering that the opposition to them can get very heated, this seems sensical. I wouldn't take my children to political rallies either with the amount of (generally in our case state sponsored) violence. She is banned from viewing Nazi websites while the child is in her care, and she is not incite racial hatred. (the last is a crime in Canada, btw, I don't know about Australia)

I'm not seeing a real problem with this. She can still teach her children about the superiority of the white man, etc. She just can't encourage her child to beat up little non-whites, she can't 'groom' him with hateful websites, and she can't take him to possibly dangerous rallies.

That would never happen in America.If the mother was putting her child in danger, or inciting her child to commit crimes, you can bet your ass the court would step in, especially in the US.

You hear all the horror stories of courts failing to intervene in time. What you don't hear are the thousands upon thousands of cases decided everyday where the courts must balance the rights of parents against what is in the best interests of the child. Your illusion of non-intervention is exactly that. An illusion.

I'm not seeing a real problem with this. She can still teach her children about the superiority of the white man, etc. She just can't encourage her child to beat up little non-whites, she can't 'groom' him with hateful websites, and she can't take him to possibly dangerous rallies.

and what if she does take the child to a rally? should the state remove the child for something like the danger the rally could pose and what kind of message would that send out?

*cue mass government raids on all the parents who marched against the Iraq war with their kids before yet more raids on those who take children to pop concerts and the like*

so its not the religion part you have issue with its more at best a medical concern?

I also think that it's harmful to impose upon people the kind of sexual and social taboos that the Bible requires. I think it disgusting that people teach their children that females have no right to bodily integrity, that women should have to go around veiled to protect their modesty, that little girls have to have the most sensitive part of their body cut off to be 'clean' and therefore marriageable, that boys have to be genitally mutilated to be acceptable to their god.



well yeah but would you advocate removing children from religious families if their beliefs happened to come under your idea of harmful?

I haven't advocated removing these children either. In fact I believe I stated that it's a violation of the mother's rights to prevent her from teaching her children whatever she wanted short of criminal acts (kiddie porn, teaching them how to break into cars etc etc). I happen to think that imposition of religious beliefs is as harmful as racist or fascist ones in a lot of cases. But that shouldn't give me the right to stop people taking their kids to church.

In this case, the mother is prohibited from taking her six year old child to Nazi rallies. Considering the nature of her views, and considering that the opposition to them can get very heated, this seems sensical. I wouldn't take my children to political rallies either with the amount of (generally in our case state sponsored) violence. She is banned from viewing Nazi websites while the child is in her care, and she is not incite racial hatred. (the last is a crime in Canada, btw, I don't know about Australia)



In Australia we have racial vilification laws that are supposed to prevent racial discrimination. They are very loose though, and have in the past been criticised greatly for their lack of clarity and definition.

One could extrapolate your views to children of Greens in this country, particularly after the Victorian bushfires. A lot of people feel great anger, believing that controlled clearing and burning, which was banned thanks to campaigns by the Greens could have prevented the tragedy of Black Saturday. Many would like to see the Greens charged, or even strung up. Do we say that Greens parents should not take their children to political rallies because of the possibility of violence and extremely heated opposition to their views?

and what if she does take the child to a rally? should the state remove the child for something like the danger the rally could pose and what kind of message would that send out? If she disobeys a court order, yes she could be facing charges, and the removal of her children. That's how it works.

*cue mass government raids on all the parents who marched against the Iraq war with their kids before yet more raids on those who take children to pop concerts and the like* No. The Family Court does not make nation wide or even state wide proclamations applying to all parents. It makes case-by-case determinations based on the particular facts in question. Feel free, however, to continue being hysterical.

In Australia we have racial vilification laws that are supposed to prevent racial discrimination. They are very loose though, and have in the past been criticised greatly for their lack of clarity and definition.

One could extrapolate your views to children of Greens in this country, particularly after the Victorian bushfires. A lot of people feel great anger, believing that controlled clearing and burning, which was banned thanks to campaigns by the Greens could have prevented the tragedy of Black Saturday. Many would like to see the Greens charged, or even strung up. Do we say that Greens parents should not take their children to political rallies because of the possibility of violence and extremely heated opposition to their views?

Read above.

You do not know all of the facts that were presented in court that caused the court to make this determination. You'll note that former involvement in a Nazi organisation was ruled to not pose a danger to another woman's children. A good case would have had to be presented to the court for why these restrictions should be in place.

It could be as simple as a probation order, by the way. What I mean is...in some situations where a parent has been found to have put their child in harms way, or neglected them in some manner, they can retain custody as long as they respect probation conditions set out by the court. Those conditions can included a prohibition on drugs or alcohol, or even a restriction as to who the parent can socialise with.

The case is Hoover v. Hoover, so apparently her husband took her to court over the matter, made his case on a balance of probabilities, and she was unable to refute it. This is not a pronouncement on what all parents are expected to do or not do.

Read above.

You do not know all of the facts that were presented in court that caused the court to make this determination. You'll note that former involvement in a Nazi organisation was ruled to not pose a danger to another woman's children. A good case would have had to be presented to the court for why these restrictions should be in place.

Yes it is true that we do not have all the facts. On the face of it, it does appear to be a rather radical decision.

It could be as simple as a probation order, by the way. What I mean is...in some situations where a parent has been found to have put their child in harms way, or neglected them in some manner, they can retain custody as long as they respect probation conditions set out by the court. Those conditions can included a prohibition on drugs or alcohol, or even a restriction as to who the parent can socialise with.

Fair enough, but as you said we would need more facts. I would like to be sure that the child was in physical danger before we curtail this mother's rights.

The case is Hoover v. Hoover, so apparently her husband took her to court over the matter, made his case on a balance of probabilities, and she was unable to refute it. This is not a pronouncement on what all parents are expected to do or not do.

True, and I never suggested that. I have hypothesised about the potential implications of a decision like this, however. But as you say, we will have to wait and see. The decision merely leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Parents who pull their children out of class because they object to the subject matter or method of education used, however, usually do so over subjective matters such as sex education.

What exactly is subjective about the functioning of the human reproductive system or the statistics of condom effectiveness?

What exactly is subjective about the functioning of the human reproductive system or the statistics of condom effectiveness?

It is knowledge, and, according to the Bible, it was Man's desire to attain knowledge that caused his suffering (note: Adam and Eve still banged around before the Apple). ;)

It is knowledge, and, according to the Bible, it was Man's desire to attain knowledge that caused his suffering (note: Adam and Eve still banged around before the Apple). ;)

And they never used condoms. :p

What exactly is subjective about the functioning of the human reproductive system or the statistics of condom effectiveness?

I'm not really sure. :tongue:

And they never used condoms. :p

Then they had knowledge, and the pregnancy rate for humans increased world-wide. Proof that sex-ed causes more pregnancies.

Then they had knowledge, and the pregnancy rate for humans increased world-wide. Proof that sex-ed causes more pregnancies.

What more needs to be said really. :D

What more needs to be said really. :D

Nothing, except that Satan promoted sex-ed, and education in general, for that matter.

Ergo....

Nothing, except that Satan promoted sex-ed, and education in general, for that matter.

Ergo....

Therefore, all teachers and researchers are devil worshippers and do his bidding.

Therefore, all teachers and researchers are devil worshippers and do his bidding.

http://pro.corbis.com/images/42-17303928.jpg?size=572&uid={6F298258-142D-4CE5-8421-D0662D30AAAD}