Winnipeg children seized from neo-Nazi father

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]

Well, all I can say is; if you are going to take this thread drift personally, I guess you now have a similar feeling that single moms on welfare get when people broadbrush them.[/b]


Yup I do and that is suposed to make me feel how? And if the stereotyping had been about single mom's I would have said something as well and you would have joined in on the same side. So why is it all right in one situation but not in the other?

Pogo Pogo's picture

I couldn't find any information on the study at the link. I personally think that "what is the best parent type" is such a loaded question that I wouldn't trust any study without knowing the methodology.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

But you know this thread drift about gay parenting is thread drift. The real question is should the state take away children from white supremacists simply because they are racists.

The problem with following that slippery slope is that as soon as the precedent is set it will be used against marginalized groups in society. You told your kid that white people are genocidal and murderous then I guess you can't be trusted with raising your children since you are promoting hatred.

jeff house

quote:


And what would have been said if he cited a "study" that said that lesbian women are the worst?

Presumably, we would not fire off insults, but would examine the evidence to see if it supports the conclusions.

If I were to write that black people have been shown to have relatively low incomes in the United States, that would be true, even though Kobe Bryant and Barack Obama are doing very well economically.

As the Supreme Court of Canada once said:

quote:

It is the blind application of the stereotype to the individual, not the truth of untruth of the stereotype, that makes such a generalization objectionable.


[url=http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1992/1992rcs2-321/1992rcs2-321.html]htt...

KeyStone

It certainly is a curious case. At its most basic form, there seems nothing wrong with taking children away from Neo-Nazis.

But, if we broaden the scope of this, we are removing children from their parents because the state does not find the political views of their parents acceptable.

I am sure some of us find this perfectly acceptable, because in this particular instance, it coincides with our own values. But what if they start removing children, because the parents hate the US? What if they start removing children because the parents are communist sympathizers?

I think people should be free to believe what they want, and unfortunately that means teaching their children what they believe as well. I think it is the government's job to ensure children go to school so that the schools can teach them the truth of these things.

As a side note, the justification for removing the child is allegedly because of drug abuse - but it sounds fishy to me.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Pogo:
[b]I couldn't find any information on the study at the link. I personally think that "what is the best parent type" is such a loaded question that I wouldn't trust any study without knowing the methodology.[/b]

Neither could I find a single mention of the study let alone the conclusions drawn by a fellow babbler. I guess I should just accept this rumour about a study and its conclusions and control my anger about being stereotyped after all rumour has it that single dads don't have good parenting outcomes. I always accept rumours about other groups without being critical especially when it shows the group in a negative light.

Stargazer

quote:


As a side note, the justification for removing the child is allegedly because of drug abuse - but it sounds fishy to me.

Me too. It sounds like that was thrown in as an after thought. And what is drug abuse, exactly? No mention at all of what is meant.

Michelle

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]as a single parent wh\o raised two boys to be fine young men, I can only say fuck off you asshole.[/b]

Could you maybe just chill out a bit? That was totally out of line. I think it's pretty clear that jeff house wasn't claiming that ALL single fathers are bad parents.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Bacchus:
[b]In the Toronto Star today, the mother defends her sending the kid off to school with swastikas as just being proud of her 'scottish' heritage and using symbols for prosperity!

[/b]


Since when were swastikas part of "scottish" or "celtic" culture?

I have a feeling the hundreds of thousands of Scots who fought in World War II would take fucking great issue with that.

-=+=-

quote:


Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]
Since when were swastikas part of "scottish" or "celtic" culture?

I have a feeling the hundreds of thousands of Scots who fought in World War II would take fucking great issue with that.[/b]


Actually use of the swastika was pretty universal among the world's cultures, including the Celts, according to
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Celtic]Wikipedia[/url].

It's one more evil the Nazis visited on us that their use of the swastika has eclipsed everything past cultures invested in it. I would imagine there are few universal symbols like it once was -- now its lost, at least in the West.

There was even a female hockey team in the early 20th century called the [url=http://www.birthplaceofhockey.com/hockeyists/swastikas/pic-edmt-swas%201... Swastikas[/url].

(The woman in this case, however, is obviously using "heritage" to gild racist views for public consumption).

[ 12 June 2008: Message edited by: -=+=- ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Pogo:
[b]I couldn't find any information on the study at the link. I personally think that "what is the best parent type" is such a loaded question that I wouldn't trust any study without knowing the methodology.[/b]

The study link, actually was put up last summer/fall sometime in the feminist forum, but I have no clue which thread it was in. I tried a google search to see if it would come up, it didn't.

The best one could do, I suppose, is search the FF for it.

Le T Le T's picture

quote:


I am sure some of us find this perfectly acceptable, because in this particular instance, it coincides with our own values. But what if they start removing children, because the parents hate the US? What if they start removing children because the parents are communist sympathizers?

Again, what Makwa said before should be reflected upon. This has been standard practice for Child Protection agencies in Canada, and continues to be, with Indigenous people.

The fact that this thread exists and that this particular case has become a hot topic is very telling. The questions about what this means for "parents' rights", etc. are superfluous to the elephant in the room: What if the state treated white people the same way they treat Indigenous people and racialized people?

The flurry of activity by lawyers, pundits and media around this case only highlights the structures of white supremacy and the ease with which these institutions can be kicked into high gear when white people are treated like white people treat people.

The irony is that this has been cast by some as saving children from Neo-Nazi hatred.

ETA: To avoid another thread drift flame out I should make it clear that by saying "white people" I don't mean all white people. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 12 June 2008: Message edited by: Le Tйlйspectateur ]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]

The study link, actually was put up last summer/fall sometime in the feminist forum, but I have no clue which thread it was in. I tried a google search to see if it would come up, it didn't.

The best one could do, I suppose, is search the FF for it.[/b]


Here is a LINK TO THE STUDY.

[url=http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html]A link to a summary of the study[/url]

I apologize for getting pissed off at the unfortunate spin that this article was given.

"The data show that the BEST parenting situation is TWO FEMALES. The next best is one female, one male, and the next best, single female. Worst: single male."

Actually I should have merely objected to his misreporting of a study and drawing outrageous conclusions that are not contained in the study. I will admit that the person citing it was part of the reason for my reaction. Bad enough on most days to have my political beliefs vivified on a progressive board by this individual but when he starts with the misinterpretation and spin of my personal life it got to me. This to be clear is an apology to the board for my language not to the poster who misrepresented the study.

Since this was an article about gay parenting skills he was actually claiming single gay men are the worst parents.

Doug

Here's a followup, about the mother this time:

quote:

It was a Monday in March when the woman's seven-year-old daughter drew a swastika on her own arm and went to school. A teacher who found the symbol offensive washed it off. When her daughter returned home upset, the mother said she retraced the swastika in black ink and sent the girl back to school. But when she tried to pick her daughter up the next day, she found police and child protection authorities waiting.

“There were police officers there and I looked at them and said, ‘Is this because of the drawing on her arm?' And they said yes, the mother recalled.

She said she went home hysterical, terrified they would be coming for her two-year-old son as well. Sure enough, the knock at the door came quickly, and authorities plucked her son from her arms.

“Apparently a swastika is an evil Nazi symbol and they felt the need to interfere in our lives and to interfere in how we raise our children,” she said.


Duh!

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080705.wparentsGTA/... fighting for children defends her "white pride"[/url]

remind remind's picture

From the article:

quote:

“I really think this is about politics and freedom of speech.” They want to silence us. This is government oppression. They're saying it's okay to be proud to be native, it's okay to preach black power, it's okay to say hail Allah, al-Qaeda or whatever, but when you're white and you're proud, it's wrong. You're a racist, you're a bigot, you're nothing. You have no rights whatsoever.”

It is astonishing, maddening, and saddening to see this example of the total lack of any cognative ability to understand that being proud of being *insert racial discriptor* and promoting this, is in fact promoting the reality that ALL people are equal, and that for too long have white people believed they were superior, and have oppressed ALL others, in this false notion of supremacy.

Believing that somehow white "folks" are now downtrodden because ALL peoples are claiming their equality rights can only be viewed as white supremist thinking, no other conceptual framework can be applied.

In respect to her "Christian" father's legacy, if it contained white supremist frameworks, it also contained sexist ones, as the world was onced owned by the white Christian male, and all others, including women, were non-humans. That some still have not gotten over their overblown sense of self worth, is mind boggling, but I guess that is why they believe in a book that says they have the right.

Wilf Day

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080705.PARENT05/TPSto... beams with pride as she recounts how her daughter, at just seven years old, is able to write and recite "the 14 words," a well-known phrase in white supremacist circles about the preservation of the white race.[/url]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words]Wikipedia:[/url]

quote:

It refers to the 14-word slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children," and also the 14-word slogan: "Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth."

She's proud of brainwashing her child?

quote:

The children have been placed in her mother's care by the state, although relations between the two are strained because of the woman's political views.

Perhaps granny feels the same way I do.

quote:

the problems began this year, she said, when her daughter's teacher was clearly uncomfortable with the family's politics.

More likely the girl's teacher must have had to keep biting her tongue in front of the junior Nazi all year.

quote:

The young mother carefully folds the red Nazi flag emblazoned with a black swastika that once hung on her living room wall and lays it on her kitchen table.

In its place she has hung a banner that reads "White pride worldwide," explaining that guests from the media might find it less shocking.


PR hint number one: don't tell the press that you have been trying to manipulate them.

jas

Here is an update on this story: Father challenges seizure of children by authorities

 

I thought I had seen a more recent article in the past few weeks about the Mom, but can't find it now. Here's an older one stating her apparent regret at redrawing the swastika on her child's arm.

 

 

remind remind's picture

Who knew that white supremacy was a religion?

And what are the other child protection findings that will not be heard if he wins his human rights action?

Charter Rights

ohara wrote:
Seems to me that drawing swastikas on your child's body and then sending her to school constitutes abuse.

 

Is it any more abusive than smearing ash on a child's forhead in remembrance of Ash Tuesday? Or holding them underwater in the ritual of Baptism?

If we consider families in general, then ALL children are "brainwashed" by their parents to some degree. The indoctrination into the family belief system, behavior and social norms is all geared to make children "like us". We demand respect of our children and conformity at the very least to our familial expectations.

The use of thought or belief systems as a reason to remove children from homes is a violation of their rights. The state does not raise our children for us and we should really fear if this case is allowed to proceed unchallenged. Once the state gets control of thought and can justify making children wards of the state when they do not agree with their parents' belief systems, then all in society are all doomed to become automatons. Freedom of expression and of thought is a fundemental right and the state cannot in my mind, remove children when those freedoms are being expressed in their homes - even if it is contrary to the mainstream thinking.

If we allow such infringement, then we must equally examine the political, social and religious indoctrinations taking place in all house holds and bar those that would threaten our children from thinking differently. Alas this would even include indoctrination into socialism principles of love, respect and understanding.

Unionist

Charter Rights wrote:
The state does not raise our children for us and we should really fear if this case is allowed to proceed unchallenged.

Really?

The law in Canada and many other countries requires you to hand over your child during a large part of their waking hours, for at least a decade of their formative years, to the state (or some state-approved substitute institution). During that time, they are indoctrinated in a state-approved syllabus. That includes learning things that the parents may find offends against their beliefs. If you refuse to hand over your child, you most certainly will have your child taken away from your care (again, with certain approved exceptions such as "home school" abominations).

I'm fine with those laws, and I know of very little opposition to them in progressive circles (or anywhere else for that matter).

I don't believe parents "own" their children, and I certainly don't believe they own their minds. I trust society to raise children, for better or for worse, ahead of parents. I guess that's an ideological divide.

Refuge Refuge's picture

But it is oh so boring when you talk about the real reasons for apprehension.

Quote:

First Article

 The investigators also raised child protection concerns not related to the parents' beliefs.

Quote:

Second Article

And while David Matas, senior legal counsel for B'nai Brith, has argued that indoctrination to racial hatred is a form of child abuse, it seems even Winnipeg CFS disagrees. The agency won't discuss the case, but a spokesperson insists "a parent or guardian's religious, political or other views do not determine if a child is in need of care."

In fact, most family lawyers, law professors and child services professionals contacted by Maclean's say while agencies sometimes overreach, they don't intervene solely on political grounds. Thatcher could not be reached for comment, but a case file obtained by the Winnipeg Free Press mentions concerns about drug and alcohol use, "the parents' behaviour and associates," and allegations the girl had missed dozens of days of school - all disputed by her mother

It sounds like the neo nazi beliefs may only be related to the parents behaviour and assosiates as the cause of the behaviour.  Not necessarily that the belief itself or being around these people is wrong but what these people are doing around the child and to the child may in fact constitute abuse.

A family who is catholic would not qualify but a family who tries to do an exorcism on their disabled child using burning wax and smothering with a pillow would be abuse.  It is not the belief in catholisism that would cause the apprehension but the belief in catholisism would cause the exorcism which would cause the apprehension.

 

remind remind's picture

Well, refuge, the act of exorcism, causing death, might well come down to religious freedom, in a few short years if things continue the way they are.

Refuge Refuge's picture

That would suck.

jas

Charter Rights wrote:
If we consider families in general, then ALL children are "brainwashed" by their parents to some degree. The indoctrination into the family belief system, behavior and social norms is all geared to make children "like us". We demand respect of our children and conformity at the very least to our familial expectations.

The use of thought or belief systems as a reason to remove children from homes is a violation of their rights. The state does not raise our children for us and we should really fear if this case is allowed to proceed unchallenged. Once the state gets control of thought and can justify making children wards of the state when they do not agree with their parents' belief systems, then all in society are all doomed to become automatons. Freedom of expression and of thought is a fundemental right and the state cannot in my mind, remove children when those freedoms are being expressed in their homes - even if it is contrary to the mainstream thinking.

Indeed, the children were taken for reasons of other concerns, as well, as the above article notes. Here's what a site called Anti-Racist Canada opined:

Quote:
We do have to admit we're not of the same opinion when it comes to the actions taken by the authorities in this matter. There are those of us who feel that the ideology espoused by "Nazi Dad" and his wife constitute child abuse and justifies the actions taken by Child and Family Services. Then there are those who feel that this action could have a a ripple effect; if the state decides so and so are bad parents based upon their political and social beliefs, who's to say that the state won't also feel that they should dictate how we should raise our children as well.

From the blog, a news article cited:

Alleged Winnipeg neo-Nazi mom may regain custody of kids, Winnipeg Free Press wrote:
A Canadian legal expert said this is the first time in years she's heard of children being taken from their home because of their parents' beliefs.

"Not all children raised by neo-Nazis are going to be seized," said Karen Busby, a constitutional law professor at the University of Manitoba."  "There must be something more extreme. A presence of physical violence, perhaps the presence of abuse of the mother or drug or alcohol abuse.

"Parents do have the basic right to raise their children as they see fit. They have free expression rights, liberty rights and religious rights. When do these views cross the line into harm, causing emotional harm to the children is really up to a child psychologist to decide."

But I guess sending your child to school covered in hate symbols, like a walking advertisement for the parents' beliefs, is crossing the line between freedom of belief and child abuse.

remind remind's picture

Is the swastika a symbol of "hate" per se?

Unionist

It's a symbol of Nazism per se (except in India, for example, where it has other cultural associations).

remind remind's picture

Which actually does not answer my question.

jas

When it's used in a Nazi context, yes.

Unionist

Why does "hate" have to be the defining issue? How about idolization of white supremacy, naked aggression, and mass murder? This is not about "hate". If I raise my children to hate oppressors and exploiters, I am not abusing them or relinquishing my parental privileges.

That's why I didn't answer your question, remind. It was the wrong question.

remind remind's picture

No, I do not think it was the wrong question at all. it is a question about whether or not a symbol that can be considered to be spreading hate. And yes this action is clearly about the children being apprehended in part because the parents were considered to be indoctrinating them into "hate"

These parents are not mass murders, nor do we know if they are naked aggressors,  they might  idolize white supremacy, as indicated by their use of a symbol that is recognized to stand for such, and public commentary, but even then that would be their choice to idolize it, or not.

Some people idolize the mass murdering naked aggression of the Catholic Church, are they any different than these people? While others idolize the mass murdering, naked aggression of the Israelis Zionist governments, are they any different than this couple? And still others idolize the USA, the most mass murdering, and naked aggressors currently in the world, are they any different than this couple?

 

 

jas

Well, my answer would be that the three examples you use, of the crimes of Catholicism and the Inquisition, I presume, Zionism, and the U.S. military, none of those are examples of a specific group of people being singled out for murder based on their ethnicity, skin colour, or faith. So, that is murder in the name of imperialism, but not a "hate" crime.

 

 

Unionist

Parents do not own their children. Adult assholes can adorn themselves with Nazi symbols if they want to. When they do that to another human being, especially a child without power to consent or refuse, they should be stopped using the full force of the law. "Hate" has nothing to do with it, except perhaps that their behaviour exemplifies hatred of children.

jas

Well, a hate crime definition may be needed here as, otherwise, your argument would apply to parents sending their kids to school in t-shirts with peace signs on them, or biblical or religious symbols or references. Maybe Mom and daughter were having fun one morning painting flowers and peace signs on their arms with face paint. I'm sure no one at school would object to it, but your argument would suggest that a peace sign on a child's arm might be considered child abuse.

remind remind's picture

Yes,  I can agree with all of that that for sure unionist, but then we are going down the slope of disallowing parents the pleasure of indoctrinating  children born to them into religions, or anything else that carries a racial, cultural, or soci-economic bias, for that matter. As that is where I see this type action as going/leading. And even though I dislike the indoctrinating children into any form of religion, for example, and consider it child abuse, I am not sure that is where we should be going, as to me it smacks of Hitler's state baby factories.

And the case can be made that indeed children are the "possessions" of their parents, until and unless the state wants to pay for everything in respect to a child's needs and accept complete responsibility for them, as opposed to charging the parents or holding them responsible for  a child's criminal actions, as some suggest should happen.

Jas, I would say indeed that the actions of Israel are against an identifiable group of people. As were the Catholics actions. And the point can be made for the USA as well, when was the last time you saw them attacking by military force a white "Christian" European country? Yugoslavia does not count either. Nor of course do the World Wars.

And good point on the signs painting Jas

 

Unionist

Children are not the property of parents. If a parent tattooed "I love Adolf Hitler" on their child's forehead, I would remove that child from that home. Not so for the Pope or Stephen Harper or B. Netanyahu. It's not about our beliefs. It's about verdicts passed by humanity.

Slumberjack

There's a marked difference between the slope of interference and legitimate rescue of emotionally and psychologically abused children.   Nazi ideology is a defining line by any conceivable measure.  It beggars belief and reason, and can't be reconciled with the natural emotional bonds between parents and children in a unique circumstance such as this.

Jingles

Quote:
When they do that to another human being, especially a child without power to consent or refuse, they should be stopped using the full force of the law.

How many males here were circumcised?

Growing up, I had to go to attend and participate in weird Catholic rituals. This is an organization responsible for the death of millions. I was "confirmed" well before I had any clue about what those freaks were all about. No one seized me from my home.

Now, I agree that white supremecist parents are scumbags, but I know many people whose beliefs, (while not part of that particular organization or ideology), closely mirror those of the neonazis. Shit, read the comments section wherein Canadians reveal their thoughts about the Tamil community. Are their beliefs really any different? I hear every day from white Canadians their views on the Native Canadians. They have never been visited by the child protective services.

While having no sympathies for the morans in the story, it does smack of a very selective application of outrage. If that kid went to school with a Cleveland Indians shirt, somehow I doubt she would have been sent home.

remind remind's picture

Excellent points Jingles, especially the circumcizing, what a travesty it is, not only for boys, but for girls who are/were forced to too.

Unionist

Equating circumcision with Nazism - I guess I have a lot to learn.

Jingles

*sigh*

You were the one saying

Quote:
Children are not the property of parents. If a parent tattooed "I love Adolf Hitler" on their child's forehead, I would remove that child from that home.

But if the parent chooses to permanently disfigure their child's genitals, for whatever reason, that's okay? As long as their is no symbolism involved?

Frankly, I agree with Dawkins that all religious indoctrination is child abuse. But the state will never remove children from homes, even in abuse situations, if religion is involved (Visit beautiful Bountiful BC!).

I also have a hard time believing these people are "Nazis". If they are Nazis, then goth kids are really vampires. What they are is ignorant. They are weak, stupid, and gullible, and could probably be convinced to believe just about anything that satisfies and stokes their egos. "Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth." Tell someone they're beautiful, special, better than the rest, and you can get them to do and believe anything.

Meanwhile, the real Fascists remain unchallenged while everyone focusses on the people at the very bottom of the pile.

remind remind's picture

No unionist, you are trying to skew the reality and truth of it.

It indeed is equating circumcision to making other serious choices for children who cannot make informed consent choices for themselves, and thus cannot consent or refuse, and thus are impacted forever into the future based upon their parents personal beliefs being imposed upon them.

After all it was you who stated that parents do not own children and thus should not undertake actions that a child cannot give consent to, or refuse, and if they do it is child abuse.

Surely, you are not suggesting that some have a right to impose, while others do not?

remind remind's picture

oops cross posted with jingles.

Unionist

What a way to trivialize an issue. Male circumcision equated to writing Nazi slogans on a child's body. With all due respect, such an equation is offensive. If you're serious about it, then I'll bow out of this discussion. Of course, what am I talking about, you're always serious about everything, aren't you.

 

remind remind's picture

Trivialize?

At least slogans can be washed off, and neo-nazis shown the error of their ways.

Unionist, in a equal society, you can't allow some segments of society's parents to be allowed to make choices for their children, that should not be done without the child's ability to give informed consent, in particular in respect to those that have such far reaching impacts, and not allow the same for others, bottom line.

Unionist

So as long as Muslims and Jews (for example) are allowed to have their male children circumcised, then parents have to be allowed to send their kids to school wearing swastikas and other Nazi symbols? But if we banned both, you'd be fine with that?

And you object to me accusing you of "equating" the two? Would you like some time to look up the word "equating"?

 

remind remind's picture

We are talking strictly here about your point of parents not owning children and being able to take actions upon them that are harmful to them, without their informed consent. And I believe it should be applied to all parents if it is applied to one segment. Not making a choice between, or for, the 2 examples given.

Take for example the case of the boy in Minnesota whose religious parents did not want him to have chemo. I agree with the court's decision. Those parents do not have a right to harm their child for socio-religious reasons, and deprive him of his informed consent to make the best choice for himself. And I rank male and female circumcizing fairly close to this other medical case. Granted there is not death involved as a result, but indeed there is far reaching and life long psycholigical and perhaps medical effects occuring, with some, and perhaps many.

Unionist

Your reference to female circumcision is a red herring, unless you've detected some previously unknown instances of that in Canada. Where, when?

As for male circumcision, it's just an expression of cultural preference on your part. Calling it "harmful" to children is a bit of a ridiculous exaggeration, wouldn't you say? Maybe you should advise the [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6502855.stm]World Health Organization and UNAIDS[/url] of your findings, so they can reverse gears and stop preaching male circumcision?

As I said, the world has passed a verdict on Nazism. It's not in the same league as the Catholic Church or Israel or Washington or whatever. It's no longer a matter of opinion. And it's very wrong to confuse such matters.

 

remind remind's picture

Your link applies only to adult males who can make their own choices for their own health measures. Not babies and not children.

The choice to have bits cut from your body should be one's own, parents do not have that right because they do not own their children. Not even if they believe it could, at some point in the future, assist them medically.

ETA: Could you imagine the, completely justifiable, outcry, if parents started hacking off their little girls breast buds because they might get breast cancer in the future because it runs in the family?

Slumberjack

Personally, I'd support a law that criminalized all bodily mutilation performed upon children.  If they decide later on at the age of consent to have pieces of themselves sliced off, then so be it.  Our society, in what seems to be it's everlasting stupidity, continues to sanction these barbaric practices.  We're not yet at a place where harmful superstitions can be seen for what they are.  In comparing religious practices with Nazism, the respective genocidal actions have been put to the historical record, both are similar in their barbarity, although mercifully, the worst of what Nazism produced had a shorter life span than the other.  All children who are physically harmed by religion, or emotionally scarred by Nazism should be protected by the state.

Jingles

Quote:
As I said, the world has passed a verdict on Nazism. It's not in the same league as the Catholic Church or Israel or Washington or whatever. It's no longer a matter of opinion. And it's very wrong to confuse such matters.

The Catholic church is responsible for the deaths off millions, and their influence continues to this day (the Pope's endorsement of Israeli Fascism is but the latest incarnation). Their psychotic murder spree has proceeded unhindered since the 16th century. I don't think that the German version was anything other than an outlier in the historical procession of supremacist mass murder. The Nazis did a lot in a short period of time, but their ideology was anything but unique.

Anywhoo, the dumbasses at the center of the story are irrelevant. They are nothing. The real fascists happily go about their business while we argue about the minutia of symbolic body paint.

Pages

Topic locked