NationStates Jolt Archive

Remember a while back, some children were removed from their Neo Nazi mother's care? Some new info (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090525/national/racism_child_seizure) has come out about how the social workers in that case determined the children should be removed, and there is now a suit to have the state gain permanent custody of the children. Looking at this new information, what are your thoughts?

The elementary-school-aged child was familiar with Nazi phrases such as "Heil Hitler," used racial epithets and would talk calmly about how black people could be killed, a social worker testified.


"She said you would whip black people with a ball and chain and they would die," testified the social worker, who cannot be identified under Manitoba law.

"She told me that what people don't understand is that black people should die," the social worker said. "She stated that everyone who is not white should die.


"She said that white children are not safe because of 'niggers.' "


The child repeatedly used racial slurs about blacks, Asians, Arabs and other minorities during a 45-minute conversation, the social worker testified, and believed any visible minority was a threat to white children.

Is teaching your children to actively hate, something that should result in those children being removed from your care?

Consider parents who make such comments to their children about homosexuals, transpersons, or really, anyone. When is it opinion, and when is it child abuse?

ah the two sides of free speech, and hate speech (which is just another side of the same coin). However it gets complicated because of children, hmm.. would people make a fuss if they were adults though?

whoa that was WAY over the line.

its one thing to have racist views that your kids pick up and another thing entirely to be teaching your kids the benefits of murder.

i tend to think that a kid will grow up and make up his own mind about such things. as an OLD person i see that most of the people i grew up with had parents with abhorent views--at least some about some group or other--and that they tended to grow up without an overwhelming amount of hatred for these groups.

whoa that was WAY over the line.

its one thing to have racist views that your kids pick up and another thing entirely to be teaching your kids the benefits of murder.

i tend to think that a kid will grow up and make up his own mind about such things. as an OLD person i see that most of the people i grew up with had parents with abhorent views--at least some about some group or other--and that they tended to grow up without an overwhelming amount of hatred for these groups.

^^ This

When a child starts to seriously converse about murder in a casual manner, I think it is worth a second look into maybe separating them from their parents.

When a child starts to seriously converse about murder in a casual manner, I think it is worth a second look into maybe separating them from their parents.Hannibal Lecter may be able to change your mind ;)

Hmmm... I note the parents are declaring freedom of speech and all that...

Quick! Find out where they live and organize a rally demanding that the parents be dragged out and strung up by the nearest lamp post! Freedom of speech after all.

Wow. I'm not even sure how to respond to that level of hatred.

If the parents are fostering the child in an environment where the child believes that murdering members of other groups is acceptable, they are raising that child to be a danger to society and I would agree that custody should be removed.

If the child was just saying things like, "Black children suck," it would be regrettable, but I wouldn't argue for such removal. But this is beyond extreme.

Am I the only one that thinks it would be really nice to have recorded evidence of the girl saying these things instead of just relying on the social workers word?

If you can be arrested for sedition, the government should be able to take your kids away for advocating the violent overthrow of the human race.

There's absolutely no excuse for her behavior. If her kid isn't taken away, then the state has failed.

Am I the only one that thinks it would be really nice to have recorded evidence of the girl saying these things instead of just relying on the social workers word?

I think the social worker's word would be enough to initiate legal action. I would hope that interviews with the actual child would be used in determining whether or not to remove the child from custody.

depends on how she was teaching them to hate minorities. These seems like a reasonable court decision though.

I think the social worker's word would be enough to initiate legal action. I would hope that interviews with the actual child would be used in determining whether or not to remove the child from custody.

If it's as bad as it sounds, then send a black social worker -- there's a decent chance that there'll be sufficient reason within the first minute.

If it's as bad as it sounds, then send a black social worker -- there's a decent chance that there'll be sufficient reason within the first minute.

I really shouldn't laugh at this....

If it's as bad as it sounds, then send a black social worker -- there's a decent chance that there'll be sufficient reason within the first minute.

No, no, no. That would move it from social workers to police and murder charges in a federal court. Although if you want to speed things up, you can send a black social worker with an undercover armed police officer. Then we move from courts and social worker to the coroner.

I think the social worker's word would be enough to initiate legal action.

See that's what I just can't agree with. That's a lot of power to give to a person; their say has a direct effect on several people's futures.

I would hope that interviews with the actual child would be used in determining whether or not to remove the child from custody.

I would too, I just hope that they have recorded proof of those words coming out of the child's mouth, or better yet it's proven in court by the child. It's too easy for the social worker to say that the child did in fact say those things.

Hypothetical situation: Social worker interviews child, nothing really comes of it. Social worker sees the house the child lives in and the white power garb, social worker takes matters into their own hands, suddenly the child said racial shit.

See what I mean?

Plus it seems as if this whole case hinges on what the child has supposedly said.

When a child starts to seriously converse about murder in a casual manner, I think it is worth a second look into maybe separating them from their parents.

^ This

There's a big difference between teaching your child racist (sexist, homophobic, whatever) views and teaching them to actively wish to commit violence against said groups (with explicit instructions as to how). The former is a shame, but they will be exposed to alternative views throughout their lifetime and will probably end up making their own opinions. The latter case is dangerous, both to those around the kid and the kid his/herself, who may end up committing an act of violence when they're too young to truely have considered their opinions of their own back but old enough for it to effectively ruin their life (criminal record, juvie, etc...).

Remember a while back, some children were removed from their Neo Nazi mother's care? Some new info (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090525/national/racism_child_seizure) has come out about how the social workers in that case determined the children should be removed, and there is now a suit to have the state gain permanent custody of the children. Looking at this new information, what are your thoughts?


Is teaching your children to actively hate, something that should result in those children being removed from your care?

Consider parents who make such comments to their children about homosexuals, transpersons, or really, anyone. When is it opinion, and when is it child abuse?

Short answer, yes!

is teaching your children to actively hate, something that should result in those children being removed from your care?


yes.

Remember a while back, some children were removed from their Neo Nazi mother's care? Some new info (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090525/national/racism_child_seizure) has come out about how the social workers in that case determined the children should be removed, and there is now a suit to have the state gain permanent custody of the children. Looking at this new information, what are your thoughts?



Is teaching your children to actively hate, something that should result in those children being removed from your care?

Yes, and the same with any Rangers or Celtic fan.

I don't know what to say about this. This mother was actively teaching her kids to hate others and to commit murder. When you do that to your children, they should be removed from your custody.

Is teaching your children to actively hate, something that should result in those children being removed from your care?

Consider parents who make such comments to their children about homosexuals, transpersons, or really, anyone. When is it opinion, and when is it child abuse?To actively hate, perhaps not, but the whole bit about "all black people should die" crosses the line to inciting to violence.

Remember a while back, some children were removed from their Neo Nazi mother's care? Some new info (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090525/national/racism_child_seizure) has come out about how the social workers in that case determined the children should be removed, and there is now a suit to have the state gain permanent custody of the children. Looking at this new information, what are your thoughts?



Is teaching your children to actively hate, something that should result in those children being removed from your care?

Consider parents who make such comments to their children about homosexuals, transpersons, or really, anyone. When is it opinion, and when is it child abuse?
If a radio personality said, on the air, "Black people need to be killed," that would not be protected speech. If somebody stood up at a rally and said, "Black people should die, and here's how we can kill them," that would not be protected speech. If a group decided to hold meeting in which they discussed the various reasons black people should be murdered and how to go about murdering black people, that would not be a protected club.

And those are cases of adults speaking to other ADULTS. We believe that adults are more able to make their own judgments and to rationally evaluate instructions, and our laws reflect this.

So if we're talking about an adult who has been telling a child that black people need to die, well, that's pretty obviously not about "free speech." That adult has been breaking the law.

Hell I would take a kid away from its parents if they were raising it to be a pickpocket, so I sure am going to take one away that is being raised to carry out hate crimes.

So if we're talking about an adult who has been telling a child that black people need to die, well, that's pretty obviously not about "free speech." That adult has been breaking the law.

What law has been broken?

The mother is not being charged with anything.

What law has been broken?

The mother is not being charged with anything.

Depends on what she si teaching her child. Is she advocating murder and violence ?

Depends on what she si teaching her child. Is she advocating murder and violence ?

The child has learned that minorities are unsafe, dangerous, and should die...sounds like it.

So what crime is this?

Some day, the sciences of genetic manipulation and nanotechnology will allow for the rewriting of someone's DNA and this technology will fall into the wrong clow...er...person's hands and people like these parents will wake up one day the race they hate most. :D

What law has been broken?

The mother is not being charged with anything.
And she won't be, I'm guessing.

Nevertheless, IF she did teach her child that black people need to be killed, and IF we were pretending that this was a USA case, then that speech most definitely would not pass the Brandenburg test, which states that a State may bar free speech if it is "inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The three key elements would be intent, imminence, and likelihood. Intent and likelihood are no-brainers; the mother clearly intended for her child to believe that black people should be murdered, and the parent-child relationship makes it 100% likely that these words would be taken seriously and have direct impact on the child's behavior. So the only part that would be even remotely debatable would be the "imminence" aspect. And, myself, I'd say that telling your little kid that black people want to kill them and that black people need to die first isn't just likely to provoke imminent violence...it's INTENDED to create imminent violence. The entire point of that kind of scare tactic is to prime the listener for immediate action, by making them fear for their life.

The child has learned that minorities are unsafe, dangerous, and should die...sounds like it.

So what crime is this?

Tell us Neesika. You're the one with legal knowledge here.

It doesn't seem like a crime to. Hate speech is, after all, protected. It does seems unfair to be teaching a child to think like this though.

The child has learned that minorities are unsafe, dangerous, and should die...sounds like it.

So what crime is this?

Maybe incitement to a criminal offense.
Depends on exactly what was said and how it was said.

Actually, (Via the Almighty Wiki), "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

So, freedom of speech can be limited by law if the limit can be justified as being reasonable in a free and democratic society.

This has been used to defend censorship of obscenity, so I think teaching a small child that black people need to die could absolutely qualify.

"Under section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to promote genocide."

"Under section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith." Of course, this case doesn't involve public inciting, so I don't think this particular code would apply, but I'm not sure on that.

See that's what I just can't agree with. That's a lot of power to give to a person; their say has a direct effect on several people's futures.

That's their job.

I would too, I just hope that they have recorded proof of those words coming out of the child's mouth, or better yet it's proven in court by the child. It's too easy for the social worker to say that the child did in fact say those things.

Hypothetical situation: Social worker interviews child, nothing really comes of it. Social worker sees the house the child lives in and the white power garb, social worker takes matters into their own hands, suddenly the child said racial shit.

See what I mean?

Plus it seems as if this whole case hinges on what the child has supposedly said.

Anyone in a government position can hypothetically abuse that power. Hence the reason I said that a social worker's word should be enough to initiate action, but not be enough, in and of itself, to remove the child from custody. A deeper investigation would be necessary for that.

only going by what was written and not seeing the transcripts of what the child said.

is it 'hate' that is being shown or only that 'this is what the child knows'?

And she won't be, I'm guessing.

Nevertheless, IF she did teach her child that black people need to be killed, and IF we were pretending that this was a USA case, then that speech most definitely would not pass the Brandenburg test, which states that a State may bar free speech if it is "inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The three key elements would be intent, imminence, and likelihood. Intent and likelihood are no-brainers; the mother clearly intended for her child to believe that black people should be murdered, and the parent-child relationship makes it 100% likely that these words would be taken seriously and have direct impact on the child's behavior. So the only part that would be even remotely debatable would be the "imminence" aspect. And, myself, I'd say that telling your little kid that black people want to kill them and that black people need to die first isn't just likely to provoke imminent violence...it's INTENDED to create imminent violence. The entire point of that kind of scare tactic is to prime the listener for immediate action, by making them fear for their life.
It's certainly an interesting argument. The only thing I could think of in Canada would be incitement to genocide, but it's been very narrowly interpretated. I don't think it would stick.

As always, I'm facinated with the subject in terms of these kinds of teachings actually perhaps constituting a form of child abuse. The slippery slope of approaching it from that direction seems obvious, but I can't shake my feeling that it should be labelled thus.

Then again, children raised in loving, nurturing, open-minded homes can still grow up to be skinheads...

You would think that if it was as clear as you've explained it, Bottle, that the most radical elements of the White Power movement would be languishing in jail. I have to conclude then that quite unfortunately, free speech can cover even this level of really sick fucking shit.

Actually, (Via the Almighty Wiki), "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

So, freedom of speech can be limited by law if the limit can be justified as being reasonable in a free and democratic society.

This has been used to defend censorship of obscenity, so I think teaching a small child that black people need to die could absolutely qualify.

"Under section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to promote genocide."

"Under section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith." Of course, this case doesn't involve public inciting, so I don't think this particular code would apply, but I'm not sure on that.

This kind of speech has never been limited under section 1. You're right that ss. 318 - 319 provide exemptions for private conversation. There is also a religious defence further on.

Human rights tribunals, on the other hand, have been able to hand down serious fines and other remedies in hate speech cases.

None of which I can see applying here. I think everyone is pretty wary of policing the way parents raise their children outside of obvious abuse.

Remember a while back, some children were removed from their Neo Nazi mother's care? Some new info (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090525/national/racism_child_seizure) has come out about how the social workers in that case determined the children should be removed, and there is now a suit to have the state gain permanent custody of the children. Looking at this new information, what are your thoughts?



Is teaching your children to actively hate, something that should result in those children being removed from your care?

Consider parents who make such comments to their children about homosexuals, transpersons, or really, anyone. When is it opinion, and when is it child abuse?

Manitoba? If the couple is Canadian, the US Constitution does not apply to them. They have to abide by whatever the Canadian equivalent is. If they don't like obeying Canadian laws, they should have moved to another country.
You can demand benefits from living in a country while at the same time flaunting its laws.

Remember a while back, some children were removed from their Neo Nazi mother's care? Some new info (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090525/national/racism_child_seizure) has come out about how the social workers in that case determined the children should be removed, and there is now a suit to have the state gain permanent custody of the children. Looking at this new information, what are your thoughts?

The woman is clearly mental. It's not a free speech issue, it's more a medical one.

The woman is clearly mental. It's not a free speech issue, it's more a medical one.

No doubt faggots are on the shit list in her household, hush you.

Manitoba? If the couple is Canadian, the US Constitution does not apply to them. They have to abide by whatever the Canadian equivalent is. If they don't like obeying Canadian laws, they should have moved to another country.
You can demand benefits from living in a country while at the same time flaunting its laws.

Um. Hi. We are Canada. We have something called a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees free speech much the way it is protected in the US. The mother is not being charged with anything. Her children are being removed from her care, obstensibly because of drug abuse and other such things, though it seems flimsy at best. The implication of this case is that teaching a child to actively hate others could be considered 'child abuse' under provincial regimes.

Now that you're caught up, can you please post something that makes sense? For instance, what fucking laws you are referring to. Thanks.

And she won't be, I'm guessing.

Nevertheless, IF she did teach her child that black people need to be killed, and IF we were pretending that this was a USA case, then that speech most definitely would not pass the Brandenburg test, which states that a State may bar free speech if it is "inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The three key elements would be intent, imminence, and likelihood. Intent and likelihood are no-brainers; the mother clearly intended for her child to believe that black people should be murdered, and the parent-child relationship makes it 100% likely that these words would be taken seriously and have direct impact on the child's behavior. So the only part that would be even remotely debatable would be the "imminence" aspect. And, myself, I'd say that telling your little kid that black people want to kill them and that black people need to die first isn't just likely to provoke imminent violence...it's INTENDED to create imminent violence. The entire point of that kind of scare tactic is to prime the listener for immediate action, by making them fear for their life.

You completely stole this argument from my head. I believe there would be a case because of the level these parents went to. People like this truly sicken me. Some people will never change.

This kind of speech has never been limited under section 1. You're right that ss. 318 - 319 provide exemptions for private conversation. There is also a religious defence further on.

Isn't that sickening? The "religious defence" I mean.

How fucked up and lunatic is it, that superstition is considered a DEFENSE for saying dangerous shit?

"Yes, your honor, I did say things that were a direct threat to the safety and well-being of others. But I did it because magical spirits told me to."
"Ahh, well then, as long as you did it because of some bogus magical froo-froo, that's fine. Carry on."

It's certainly an interesting argument. The only thing I could think of in Canada would be incitement to genocide, but it's been very narrowly interpretated. I don't think it would stick.

The Canadian laws I quoted have been used to uphold bans on SWEAR WORDS.

While I agree with you that it's unlikely the same laws will be used to uphold a ban on incitement to murder, I also think that's a symptom of how unbelievably fucked up Western culture is. It's like how a movie gets Rated R if there's nudity, but you can blow up a thousand people and still be PG-13.


As always, I'm facinated with the subject in terms of these kinds of teachings actually perhaps constituting a form of child abuse. The slippery slope of approaching it from that direction seems obvious, but I can't shake my feeling that it should be labelled thus.

I wouldn't worry about whether or not it is abuse, I'd stick to it just being an imminent threat to the PUBLIC. That's the point of the laws we're talking about, after all; it's not about whether hearing those words hurts the listener, it's about whether hearing those words causes the listener to become a danger to others.

In this case, that is unquestionably so. Personally, I would be absolutely shocked if the child in this case hasn't already been violent toward black children.


Then again, children raised in loving, nurturing, open-minded homes can still grow up to be skinheads...

Irrelevant. Children who grow up in loving, nurturing, open-minded homes sometimes slip and fall and are hurt. That doesn't mean we decline to prosecute parents who shove their children down the stairs.


You would think that if it was as clear as you've explained it, Bottle, that the most radical elements of the White Power movement would be languishing in jail. I have to conclude then that quite unfortunately, free speech can cover even this level of really sick fucking shit.
That's a really weird dichotomy. Why on Earth would you think that? Racism is alive and well in our culture ("our" meaning "generalized Western"), so it's equally likely that the laws aren't being interpreted this way...YET.

Remember, for centuries the US Constitution was interpreted as being perfectly compatible with slavery. That whole bit about how "all men are created equal" would seem to be pretty explicit, right? Yeah, well, judges managed to find the word "white" hidden in the margins of that sentence somehow. And a lot of those judges weren't actively racist themselves, they were just going with the status quo.

In this case the status quo also include our beliefs about parental rights. The notion that CHILDREN have rights, and are not simply the property of their parents, is extremely new and still very radical in many places. The notion that a child's rights can trump their parents' authority is something that absolutely scares the ever-living shit out of a lot of people, and there is tremendous pressure to oppose that kind of thinking. The notion that the government can interfere with a parent's "God-given" right to do whatever they want with their offspring is, likewise, very strongly opposed because it threatens a very very well entrenched status quo.

whoa that was WAY over the line.

its one thing to have racist views that your kids pick up and another thing entirely to be teaching your kids the benefits of murder.


Much as I hate to side with any perspective that results in limits to free speech or breaking up families (both of which are anathema to me) I have to go with this.

If a couple of parents want to raise their kids to be race-hating neo-Nazis then as repugnant as I find that to be, it's not our place to interfere...

...but if we're talking about training their kids to be murderers, then that's well beyond protected speech for one thing, and certainly not good for the community when these kids become murder-ready adults.

It reminds me of photos of Hamas babies photographed with AK-47s and explosives as if looking like an infant martyr were just adorable. It's all the same.

Am I the only one that thinks it would be really nice to have recorded evidence of the girl saying these things instead of just relying on the social workers word?

I know what Jack Bauer would do.

The Canadian laws I quoted have been used to uphold bans on SWEAR WORDS.
Sorry, which laws? You mentioned the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which are constitutional guarantees, but not laws in the sense you're using it...and you've mentioned sections 318 - 319 of the criminal code, both of which are extremely new criminal laws.

Do you mean that there have been other laws that were passed banning swear words which were upheld under a constitutional section 1 analysis? That's the only thing that makes sense...and yet, the Charter is not that old either...so I suppose I'm going to have to ask you to be specific.

While I agree with you that it's unlikely the same laws will be used to uphold a ban on incitement to murder, I also think that's a symptom of how unbelievably fucked up Western culture is. It's like how a movie gets Rated R if there's nudity, but you can blow up a thousand people and still be PG-13. Oh hell yes, this annoys the fuck out of me. Violence? OK! Breasts? OMG SOCIETY WILL CRUMBLE!


I wouldn't worry about whether or not it is abuse, I'd stick to it just being an imminent threat to the PUBLIC.
Which would be a terrible argument, no offence. People aren't going to be roused to fear the threat a...what is she, six? Anyway, they aren't going to be roused to fear the threat a six year old poses to the public...not if the standard is imminency.

If the goal is to get his child away from her fucked up racist mother, then the abuse angle is important. If the goal is to punish the mother, then sure, the hate speech angle could be pursued...but it's going to be a tricky one.

That's the point of the laws we're talking about, after all; it's not about whether hearing those words hurts the listener, it's about whether hearing those words causes the listener to become a danger to others.In this case, that is unquestionably so. Personally, I would be absolutely shocked if the child in this case hasn't already been violent toward black children. I think it's about both. Personally, I feel terrible that these kids are raised to be so angry and fearful for their own survival. What kind of childhood does a kid have when they're taught about the benefits of murder, the inevitability of racial ruin, etc etc? It's one thing to revile a person who goes out and chooses these beliefs...it's quite another to look at a child who had no choice in the matter, and not feel sympathy for the situation she is in.




Irrelevant. Children who grow up in loving, nurturing, open-minded homes sometimes slip and fall and are hurt. That doesn't mean we decline to prosecute parents who shove their children down the stairs. But that's the thing...is this abuse? You've focused on the danger to others, and stayed away from this question. It's entirely relevant if we're also talking about the dimension of this level of racism being child abuse or not.


That's a really weird dichotomy. Why on Earth would you think that? Racism is alive and well in our culture *snip*
Sorry, I'm used to talking about how the law is. Now, I'm not familiar with the US law you brought up, so I was willing to listen to your interpretation of it, but still found it lacking for the reason I mentioned. I'm not saying I disagree that it perhaps SHOULD be interpreted that way, but I was focusing on how it likely IS being interpreted. I don't have any arguments with what you said after that.

The child has learned that minorities are unsafe, dangerous, and should die...sounds like it.

So what crime is this?Well, over here it would be Volksverhetzung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung).

The Canadian laws I quoted have been used to uphold bans on SWEAR WORDS.

While I agree with you that it's unlikely the same laws will be used to uphold a ban on incitement to murder, I also think that's a symptom of how unbelievably fucked up Western culture is. It's like how a movie gets Rated R if there's nudity, but you can blow up a thousand people and still be PG-13.Depends on how "Western" is defined. In Germany (which is included in just about every modern definition of "Western culture" I can find), it's quite the opposite. I routinely see nipples on posters in subway stations (usually for theater productions) or on TV well before 10 pm. Violence, on the other hand, tends to get cut as much as possible. I've spent years wondering what happened to the one marine that gets bumped off via nerve gas in The Rock because the German prime time version cuts everything from after he goes after Nicholas Cage to the point where he lights the flares.
Another example is Age of Conan. Both the American and German versions had to have content removed or edited. The German version lacks a lot of killing moves, while the American one omits bare nipples.