Winnipeg children seized from neo-Nazi parents - part 2

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Winnipeg children seized from neo-Nazi parents - part 2

Quote:

The first social worker to interview the girl told court Monday she was alarmed to hear the child describe killing members of minorities in cold, matter-of-fact terms.

“She said you would whip black people with a ball and chain and they die,” testified the social worker. [...]

In testimony Monday, the social worker said that, for 45 minutes, she grilled the girl about her home life and the ink covering her body. “She said the meaning of [the swastika] is that black people don't belong,” the social worker said. “She told me that we have to protect white kids from, quote-unquote, niggers.”

The girl went on to tell the social worker, “Black people just need to die. That's not scary. This is a white man's world.”

The girl's mother has insisted she does not preach hatred, but rather pride in their European heritage.

Could the mother plead "truth" as a defence here?

[url=Source.[/url]">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/custody-battle-pits-white-s...

nussy

The truth? The truth is that the mother propbably scarred that poor child for life. The truth is that the mother should never have unsupervised access to that child.What about the rest of that poor childs family? 

Unionist

I guess I shouldn't have been too ironic. I meant that "their European heritage" is indeed the origin of slavery and murderous racism against people of colour.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Perhaps both the mother and daughter can have therapy at the same time-- if the mother is open to this, and agrees to avoid racist behaviour in the meantime then why remove the child?

I don't see calling for the punishment of the mother and by extension the daughter to be productive in and of itself. The question must return to what is best for the child, primarily. Also to consider what is best for the community because the arrival of a child with a swastika on her arm is traumatizing for the other children as well.

But if we are approaching this from a constructive viewpoint and the mother is cooperating and the main influence was the father in the racist activity then let's step back a moment here from a full public flogging- as offensive as her behaviour was. I am approaching this from the point of view of a possible mental illness. If the mother is able and willing to get help and both are able to see and learn about racism, there is a better way to handle this. There are enough children in foster care and there is no guarantee that yanking this child into foster care on this issue will not actually increase the chance that she will turn to such horrible beliefs.

There are other measures to deal with this other than removing the child from the mother- especially if the mother is cooperative which she appears to be.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
But if we are approaching this from a constructive viewpoint and the mother is cooperating

 

Except that she's not. She's being blatantly dishonest and expecting we're all dumb enough to buy it.

 

"Oh, we're just celebrating our White Heritage!"

 

Fine. We're just "helping your daughter explore alternative lodging options".

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Perhaps both the mother and daughter can have therapy at the same time-- if the mother is open to this, and agrees to avoid racist behaviour in the meantime then why remove the child?

Why would the mother need "therapy"? You have some evidence that she needs it? Or do you think that genocidally-minded white supremacists are just "ill"?

Quote:
I don't see calling for the punishment of the mother and by extension the daughter to be productive in and of itself.

Who is calling for punishment of the mother? She's entitled to her anti-human murderous beliefs. She is simply not entitled to act upon them. Anyone who has tried to inculcate such ideas into the mind of a child has lost the right to rear that child.

Quote:
The question must return to what is best for the child, primarily.

No, the question is what society believes is best for the child. Otherwise, who decides - the child? the parents?

Quote:
But if we are approaching this from a constructive viewpoint and the mother is cooperating and the main influence was the father in the racist activity then let's step back a moment here from a full public flogging- as offensive as her behaviour was.

There's no public flogging. The kids have been removed from the "care" of these characters. My understanding is that they are the ones initiating action right now. If they just go away quietly, problem solved - right?

Quote:
I am approaching this from the point of view of a possible mental illness. If the mother is able and willing to get help and both are able to see and learn about racism, there is a better way to handle this.

I sometimes quip that people who believe in the "free market" must be mentally ill, but I don't really mean it. Do you really mean what you are saying here? Wasn't that the Soviet Union's approach to dissenters? I may wish the parents an untimely end, but are you really able to diagnose them with mental illness based on media reports?

 

remind remind's picture

Oh yes, Europeans invented slavery, unionist!

ETA: Comments about wanting people to reach an untimely end make me very uncomfortable, especially in the context given.

Unionist

Sorry remind, that wasn't my intent. I was just telling you how I feel about people who indoctrinate children that blacks should be killed.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Perhaps both the mother and daughter can have therapy at the same time-- if the mother is open to this, and agrees to avoid racist behaviour in the meantime then why remove the child?

Why would the mother need "therapy"? You have some evidence that she needs it? Or do you think that genocidally-minded white supremacists are just "ill"?

Quote:
I don't see calling for the punishment of the mother and by extension the daughter to be productive in and of itself.

Who is calling for punishment of the mother? She's entitled to her anti-human murderous beliefs. She is simply not entitled to act upon them. Anyone who has tried to inculcate such ideas into the mind of a child has lost the right to rear that child.

Quote:
The question must return to what is best for the child, primarily.

No, the question is what society believes is best for the child. Otherwise, who decides - the child? the parents?

Quote:
But if we are approaching this from a constructive viewpoint and the mother is cooperating and the main influence was the father in the racist activity then let's step back a moment here from a full public flogging- as offensive as her behaviour was.

There's no public flogging. The kids have been removed from the "care" of these characters. My understanding is that they are the ones initiating action right now. If they just go away quietly, problem solved - right?

Quote:
I am approaching this from the point of view of a possible mental illness. If the mother is able and willing to get help and both are able to see and learn about racism, there is a better way to handle this.

I sometimes quip that people who believe in the "free market" must be mentally ill, but I don't really mean it. Do you really mean what you are saying here? Wasn't that the Soviet Union's approach to dissenters? I may wish the parents an untimely end, but are you really able to diagnose them with mental illness based on media reports?

 

Nice rant -- but did you miss the word possible-- did you miss the fact that the mother is really reaching out because she wants to do anything to get her kids back? Did you miss the mother saying she was wrong?

I said perhaps all through because I am trying to say we do not necessarily have all the facts to judge what is best for the child here. I am going down the road of suggesting POSSIBLE mental illnes here just to show that there is a POSSIBLE side we are not looking at that might need to be considered. I have heard interviews with the mother and I am not convinced that there is nothign to explore or of the absolutes being spread around here. I am not saying that she is a fit mother but I think that discussion will involve more than we currently know. That her behaviour is unacceptable is clear and absolute but that is the only thing that is here-- what we do about it is a little more nuanced if we are looking at an optimal solution rather than law and order-style punishment. Foster homes are no picnic. Many considerations need to be examined- the child's relationship with the mother, the mother's willingness to change, the issue or if there is a mental illness that can be treated here, the role of the father in this, the mother's current beliefs and thoughts about how they can impact her child. No, we do not need to be trying to come up with an absolute answer here for what is best for the child. Obviously if the behaviour was ongoing then there are no options but if it is not, the situation becomes more complicated because we do not throw children into foster care if there are any alternatives-- for good reason.

We don't have to advocate to make things worse for the children just to prove how offended we are of racist behaviour -- or do we?

 

Sean in Ottawa

Snert wrote:

Quote:
But if we are approaching this from a constructive viewpoint and the mother is cooperating

 

Except that she's not. She's being blatantly dishonest and expecting we're all dumb enough to buy it.

 

"Oh, we're just celebrating our White Heritage!"

 

Fine. We're just "helping your daughter explore alternative lodging options".

If that is the mother's current position AND she is not treatable for a mental illness then I am fine with that. But I am not willing to say remove the child without those questions answered.

It is not as if there can't be significant supervision and a reversal of a decision if things are not working.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

We don't have to advocate to make things worse for the children just to prove how offended we are of racist behaviour -- or do we?

I think you and I must be operating from different belief systems.

The seven-year-old told a social worker:

Quote:
“Black people just need to die. That's not scary. This is a white man's world.”

Please explain to me how she would be worse off in foster care?

If the mother appears in court with overwhelming evidence that she has become fit to raise a child, then of course the court can look at that in the future. I have heard of no such evidence. Instead, the lawyer is reported as trying to raise a Charter argument as to the parents' freedom of conscience etc. This is evidence that both parents are still unfit, wouldn't you say?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Many considerations need to be examined- the child's relationship with the mother, the mother's willingness to change
 

But what would she change? To her, she's just taking pride in being European. That whole business about n**gers and swastikas and black people dying so that white children can be safe is probably just some fiction the child dreamt up. The fact that it seems to align with racist paraphernalia found in the home is just an unfortunate coincidence.

Quote:
did you miss the fact that the mother is really reaching out because she wants to do anything to get her kids back?

Anything except be honest.
If she would step up and say something along the lines of "Yes, I taught my daughter those things and yes I encouraged her to hate POC and yes I understand how wrong that is, but I'm committed to learning and changing" then I might have some sympathy. But if she wants her daughter back, I think she's going to have to go through the tough work of being a grownup, and nothing less. This game of pretend, wherein she pretends that this is all just some accident she had nothing to do with isn't exactly inspiring confidence in her ability to parent.

remind remind's picture

Okay unionist, ever been in foster care? Know anyone who has been? It is not some light at the end of the tunnel for most children.

Putitng aside the very public reports of what happens to some children in foster care, and what happens includes death sometimes, I have worked with children who have been in foster care and what some go through is beyond belief. One I worked with was forced to eat a shit, her own shit as a matter of fact, sandwich,  while 2 others I knew were locked out of the house until bedtime, they went outside right after breakfast such as it was, and then were locked out for the day. They usually went to friends parents houses for their other meals and they did not want their plight reported as they actually considered it the best foster home they had been in. At least they were ignored, and not abused, as far as they were concerned.

And this follow up comment of yours is equally disquieting to me:

Quote:
Sorry remind, that wasn't my intent. I was just telling you how I feel about people who indoctrinate children that blacks should be killed.

You say, " I may wish the parents an untimely end, but are you really able to diagnose them with mental illness based on media reports?" and  apparently feel it is okay to say they should die early, so I ask; how is that different from the parents who believe blacks should die?

Unionist

Remind, I have no interest in discussing this issue with you.

remind remind's picture

Of course not, inconvienent pointings out must be ignored or over looked, as being somehow "different" or not to be talked about.

But fine, no problem, no need to discuss it further, my point stands in this thread, just as it did in the one with Jaku where he refused to respond too!

Michelle

Can I just interject to request that we not use excessive quoting?  It's not necessary to quote huge long posts (with quotes from earliers posts within the quotes) and then respond beneath it.  Just quote the relevant part you're responding to.

RosaL

Unionist wrote:

I guess I shouldn't have been too ironic. I meant that "their European heritage" is indeed the origin of slavery and murderous racism against people of colour.

 

 

You too, unionist? 

European culture was certainly affected by the racism that "went along with" (I'm being purposefully imprecise) colonialism and the slave economy - or, more precisely, some European cultures - but calling "European heritage" the origin seems problematic for many reasons. I should be working so I won't develop this. My point is that if even unionist has "gone over", I don't know what I'm doing here ....

 

Unionist

RosaL, I always appreciate when you drop in, but in case it escaped your notice, Europe was the cradle of the murder and disenfranchisement of the Aboriginal people of the Americas; of the enslavement and commodification on an enormous scale of the West African people; of wholesale slaughter of nations and ethnic groups of their own, including almost all my immediate family - and it is this "heritage" which these Nazi scum parents are "celebrating". I have no interest in having any academic argument. I know very well that slavery in one form or another (such as enslavement of enemies conquered in war) precedes those examples. But nothing can compare to them in savagery and enormity of scale.

If you choose to misunderstand my meaning, go ahead, but please do so after asking for clarification, not before.

Do you agree with me that parents who teach their children that "blacks should be killed" have forfeited the right to live with those children? So far, we have several babblers who apparently feel that the child-parent relationship is so sacred that we should be more worried about foster care than that.

Unionist

Michelle wrote:

Can I just interject to request that we not use exces

Ok.

 

jas

As Unionist points out, the mother has a right to have whatever beliefs she wants. She's not mentally ill just for having them. Imo, though, if she is looking after her children in every other respect and there is no physical or emotional abuse (I recognize the latter is arguable, for some people) then I would think the kids are still better off with racist Mom than with strangers. Foster care is rife with its own problems. There are just as many horror stories, sometimes it seems more, in foster care situations as there are in family of origin. I don't believe the mother is "lying" to get her kids back. She is still openly white supremacist/white "pride" whatever, but has acknowledged that how she expresses that is dangerous and will get her in trouble. She is acknowledging that she made a stupid error in drawing everyone's attention, through their children, to her stupid beliefs. And now she is doing everything she possibly can - as she states, "I'll jump through whatever hoops they want me to " - to get them back. Because that's more important to her than her racist beliefs.

As with any other child apprehension situation, and provided the children do indeed want to go back, she should be allowed another chance to prove that she can take care of them according to socially acceptable guidelines.

Unionist

I'm no advocate of foster care. It's obviously something one would never do to children if there were a viable alternative. Adoption would work for me. Brilliant minds may come up with other options.

All I'm saying is that there must be overwhelming evidence of fitness before these kids are returned to the parent(s) who did this to them. The burden of proof is now on the parents, not just "I'll say anything you want, just give them back". If the argument is, "well, they should stay with the parents because they have nowhere better to go", then that's not a good enough argument. We certainly wouldn't say that if they were being deprived of the physical necessities of life. Why is it more tolerable when they are being indoctrinated with murderous opinions? That's the issue as far as I see it.

 

Fidel

This is an extreme case. A far greater number of children are removed from their birth parents due to poverty and the conditions poverty creates for the family/single parent.

It's at that point where money is produced by the system for care of the newly created foster child. And then the systematic abuse begins, sexual and otherwise. Some foster parents - but certainly not all - will take in several children for reasons other than their love of children. In any event, these are not natural parents of the children.

So part of the real solution, imo, is to help more parents living in poverty to care for their children by ensuring they have adequate resources. Canada has some of the highest rates of child poverty in the developed world after too many years of old line party rule in Ottawa. Child poverty is a crime against everyone and has no place in a modern society. Poverty in general has no place in a modern society. And I've come to the conclusion years ago that our two rotten old line parties are just not concerned about poverty at any rate.

 

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

This is an extreme case.

 

No kidding. But did you have an opinion on this extreme case, given that it's the topic of this discussion?

 

oldgoat

a: I think bringing up such flaws as may exist in the foster care system is a red herring, but to pursue it briefly, I've some association with that system, and it's not the unrelentingly Dickensonian nightmare some would suggest.  That's another thread though.

b: Professionally speaking, there's nothing to suggest these parents are mentally ill.  Lots of parents with mental health diagnosis raise lovely children very successfully, with varying degrees of support.  (which they welcome I might add)  What these parents are, is extreemly nasty.  That's not a diagnosis, and it's a lot bigger obstacle to good parenting.

c: It's been mentioned about they're having a right to a point of view as long as they don't act on it.  Listen to their daughter.  They're acting on it!  They are absolutely causing harm to their offspring by aggressivly passing on an objectively reprehensible, destructive and maladaptive lifestyle/belief system.  The kids meet the legal definition of being "in need of protection" and should be removed.

Now, can the parents genuinely change their views?  Maybe, I haven't a clue. Depends I suppose on what circumstances got them so scarred and twisted inthe first place.  I've heard of some pretty hard case being reformed, so one should always hold out hope. Obviously, that option should be looked at by the child welfare authorities, but in my mind they made the right decision here.

Michelle

I don't think he was saying that at all.  Let's not make this personal.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
If the argument is, "well, they should stay with the parents because they have nowhere better to go", then that's not a good enough argument. We certainly wouldn't say that if they were being deprived of the physical necessities of life.

 

So in your personal opinion, and for what that's worth, you would have children removed from their mothers bosoms due to poverty. Youre no longer talking about the extreme case mentioned in post#1 - youre now encouraging people to agree with your own broad generalizations of poor people in general.

Watch your step in this thread, because I'll be "turning you in" to the babble feds if you persist, mr. "This children bullshit has to stop!" Yes, I remember your comments in that thread, too.

Fidel

I dont think he meant what he said either. At least I hope not.

Unionist

Can anyone show me the EXIT back out of the looking-glass? I feel as if I've just stepped into an alternate universe.

Thanks for the comments, oldgoat, which obviously come from a lot more experience with the system than mine do. It had occurred to me to wonder why, if foster care is the seventh circle of hell, I've never heard of calls to abolish it.

 

RosaL

Unionist wrote:

RosaL, I always appreciate when you drop in, but in case it escaped your notice, Europe was the cradle of the murder and disenfranchisement of the Aboriginal people of the Americas; of the enslavement and commodification on an enormous scale of the West African people; of wholesale slaughter of nations and ethnic groups of their own, including almost all my immediate family - and it is this "heritage" which these Nazi scum parents are "celebrating". I have no interest in having any academic argument. I know very well that slavery in one form or another (such as enslavement of enemies conquered in war) precedes those examples. But nothing can compare to them in savagery and enormity of scale.

If you choose to misunderstand my meaning, go ahead, but please do so after asking for clarification, not before. 

 

I know that. I just don't think it was because of their "heritage". I don't think it was because they were "Europeans" (or "white"). This isn't in any way to diminish the horrors of what happened - just to dispute the causes, not in the interests of academic debate but of a better world. 

I agree, though, that I posted too quickly. I should have asked you to clarify and I should have been clearer myself. I'm sorry. 

Quote:

Do you agree with me that parents who teach their children that "blacks should be killed" have forfeited the right to live with those children? So far, we have several babblers who apparently feel that the child-parent relationship is so sacred that we should be more worried about foster care than that.

It scares me a little. People with my political beliefs have had their kids taken away in the past. So it scares me. On the other hand, I am not a liberal. I don't think people should be allowed to advocate slavery or murder or genocide - and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to bring their children up in it. 

Fidel

There do exist support groups for surivors of foster care abuse in Canada, many of them native children. Foster care does have its [url=http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?k=15566&id=3f601e... stories[/url]

 

There was another case in Ontario recently where care of a little girl was handed to a couple of dregs, who then murdered her. Tortured her to death actually. But at least she didnt have to endure growing up in poverty living with her natural birth mother.

 

 

 

Ghislaine

Foster Care is not the "seventh circle of hell", there are many families who volunteer for this underappreciated and extremely difficult task. (imagine caring for an abused child as your own for 6 months and having a social worker come to take them back to their birth parents with little to no info as to whether the original situation had improved and not being able to see that child any more). However, as Fidel and remind pointed out, Foster Care has huge issues beyond the extreme shortage of people volunteering for this role. While raising these issues is a bit of a red herring in the context of this case, it has to be remembered that apprehension and foster placement must be a last resort. Unionist, keep in mind as well that the choice is not between adoption or foster care. Foster care is temporary care for when the province has not received permanent guardian status from the courts. Normally, birth parents have a few opportunites to change whatever issues caused the apprehension the first place. Adoption is not an option legally until  a child is in permanent care. This is to respect the natural parental rights and give teh parent(s) a chance. In my experience as a child protection worker, this involved substance abuse counselling and/or anger management most of the time. The worst cases involved "denying the physical necessities", ie poverty.

In this case, there are other issues at play from all of the reports. The burden of proof is the "balance of probabilities", rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. So, it must be proven to this extent that the best interests of the child were harmed. While political/religious views are obviously and rightly protected - this case borders on emotional abuse by encouraging violence. I worked on a case where an 11 year old was not only taught how to roll a joint by mom, but how to load a gun by boyfriend - as well as how to fry a cat in a microwave.  I agree with the social workers' actions in this case, as teaching a child violent genocidal views is emotional abuse.

Fidel

I think Canada's near bottom of the barrel child poverty statistics are a good reference point for understanding why bad things happen to children of poor families in this country. Our governments dont believe in helping poor families to raise children properly. In too many cases theyre "thrown up." Poverty in Canada is a vicious cycle that needs outlawing. I will agree that the situation in Canada is better than in that bastion of economic Darwinism to the south of us. I dont know for how much longer though if our stooges continue handing the country off to American interests.

Unionist

[url=Parents">http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/05/26/mb-swastika-custody-h... blamed daughter for racist remarks, said she was famous for lying[/url]

Quote:

They told the social worker their daughter often makes things up, and was famous for lying, the worker testified. The parents also said the girl had likely drawn some of the symbols on her body herself.

When the social worker asked why the girl was able to talk about certain things, like hurting people or killing people of colour, the stepfather said it was probably something she'd heard in a private conversation and was probably a joke, the hearing was told.

And this:

Quote:

The girl told the social worker that her mother used to read her stories but had stopped when she met and married a new man, the social worker testified.

"She was not a nice mommy anymore," the social worker quoted the girl as saying.

The girl said she started missing school because her mom and stepdad didn't wake her up on time. She told the social worker that her stepfather made the rules in the house, that he was angry and would get drunk, and that he didn't make meals, or change her brother's diaper often enough.

The girl said she used to have non-white friends before her stepdad came along, but after he was in her life, the girl's mother told her, "If you have a friend who's not white, I won't be your mom anymore," the social worker testified.

Maybe the mother was the victim of abuse as well?

 

Fidel

More than likely. Theyre not saying much about the family. I think the situation with poverty in Canada can be compared to people who find rotten food in the back of the fridge and are completely bewildered as to why it happens. It was perfectly good food at one time.

Refuge Refuge's picture

I agree with the apprehension. 

The racist viewpoints in my view are just a distractor.  If a mother or father were telling any child that it was okay to kill people or a certain person, and describe how, I would consider that abusive.  If a mother or father were to tell their child if you do that I won't be your mom anymore I would consider that abusive.  If a mother or father were angry and/or drunk to the point it scared the child I would consider that abusive, (and a little off topic but if a mother or father were denying the physical neccesities of life when they had access to such things for their children I would consider this abusive as well and this is how I read Unionists statements).

Fidel

So youre saying children in Canada have rights? Like the right to a roof over their heads, food every day, the right to have clothes on their backs, and a short list of other necessities? What if free markets just dont produce these basic necessities of life for every family? Is this the right time and reason to remove children from their natural birth parents?  

I agree that children should have well defined rights, and that someone in authority should be guaranteeing that those rights are enforced in all cases, whether it's before the children are removed from their natural birth parents as well as in cases where charges of the state are handed over to total strangers for the rest of their growing up years. ie. foster parents.

Unionist

I agree with your comments, Refuge, and thank you very much for not interpreting my statements as if I advocate taking children away from poor families. Now you'll understand what I meant by my trip through the looking-glass. Thank you also, Michelle, for not reading my posts as if I was advocating genocide of the poor. It is really so much appreciated, I just can't tell you.

I hope babblers are understanding better the fact that these "parents" must not be allowed within poisoning distance of children. In a properly organized society they would be locked up for spewing their murderous views. In the meantime, if we have laws to take their children to a safer place, we must use them, or else be responsible for the consequence.

Fidel

[url=http://www.canadiancrc.com/UN_CRC/UN_CRC.aspx]About the UNCRC[/url]

 

[url=http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Ottawa_Citizen_Senate_Comm...'s treatment of its aboriginal children is "a national total disgrace,"[/url] Senator Romeo Dallaire said in 2007

 

 

Refuge Refuge's picture

Fidel wrote:

So youre saying children in Canada have rights? Like the right to a roof over their heads, food every day, the right to have clothes on their backs, and a short list of other necessities? What if free markets just dont produce these basic necessities of life for every family? Is this the right time and reason to remove children from their natural birth parents?  

I agree that children should have well defined rights, and that someone in authority should be guaranteeing that those rights are enforced in all cases, whether it's before the children are removed from their natural birth parents as well as in cases where charges of the state are handed over to total strangers for the rest of their growing up years. ie. foster parents.

I am not sure if this comment was directed at my post or not.  If it was, I did not comment at all on children's rights.  I only commented on what I think are abusive acts by parents.

Fidel

Refuge wrote:
I am not sure if this comment was directed at my post or not.  If it was, I did not comment at all on children's rights.  I only commented on what I think are abusive acts by parents.

Well I took it to mean that you were talking about children's rights to the basic necessities of life. If people are having a difficult time providing those necessities, then I think there's a problem. In fact, it is a problem across Canada. Kids need bringing up not throwing up, and I'm not surprised at all when I read about isolated horror stories like this one. There is never much published by our alleged news media about the everyday subsistence of children living anywhere below the poverty line. Our elected politicians and fascist-lite new media dont seem to care that there are families struggling to make ends meet or that there are hundreds of thousands of children relying on food banks across Canada.

Second-hand policies for neoliberal capitalism are producing most of the decay and rot that we're seeing in this country. That's a  more profound statement than pointing an occasional finger of blame at the "evil" people, those abominable products of a socio-economic ideology gone awry around the world where tried since 9/11/73.

Unionist

So, don't worry about the Nazis raising kids in their own image, because of all the child poverty out there which is a more important problem.

What a cop-out.

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

So, don't worry about the Nazis raising kids in their own image, because of all the child poverty out there which is a more important problem.

What a cop-out.

Did you really believe anyone would disagree with you that Nazification of children is not a good thing? Youre a true champion of children's rights, for sure. Of that I have no doubt. I think you must be amazed with how these seemingly safe topics of the tabloid variety can suddenly become serious discussion.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

 

Did you really believe anyone would disagree with you that Nazification of children is not a good thing?

The question here is whether these children, in these circumstances, should be forcibly removed from the "care" of their parents. On that point, there is a legitimate discussion and debate going on among everyone (except you), even though everyone opposes "Nazification of children". You won't participate in that discussion, except in a tangential way, by launching an obscene attack against me that I advocate tearing children away from poor parents. Do you shape your opinions by reading mine and then trying to find a flaw - or when you can't, just outright attacking?

Read everyone else's posts here. Learn how to address a topic. We all agree that children should not be mistreated. We also hear you say that in every single thread (except, perhaps, the ones about the Church's tender mercies).

Do you think these kids should be left with their parents, or do you think the state should forcibly keep them away until the parent(s) have proved, to the state's satisfaction, that the harm they have done can never recur?

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Do you think these kids should be left with their parents, or do you think the state should forcibly keep them away until the parent(s) have proved, to the state's satisfaction, that the harm they have done can never recur?

Why do you waste our time with this nonsense if youre only interested in the who and the what but never the why? That's what I'd like to know. Some of us have minds of our own and refuse to be prodded like sheep into bleeting out your pre-wrapped optional answers reduced to yes, or, no, or even, maybe. Has anyone ever mentioned you have dictatorial tendencies?

Unionist

I don't care "why" these parents have turned into child molestors. The children must be protected.

Do you need to know "why" rapists and murderers became that way before you act to protect their victims?

As for pre-wrapped answers, I don't have any favourite political party that provides any to me, so I'm forced to (shudder) think these things through all by myself.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
I don't care "why" these parents have turned into child molestors. The children must be protected.

Do you need to know "why" rapists and murderers became that way before you act to protect their victims?

It would seem to me that if these kiddie "9/11's" have been happening for some time that some one, some where might be interested to know how these wicked monsters abusing children are created in the first place. Isnt that what Noam Chomsky is telling us to avoid questioning and assume we know already wrt those other kinds of terrorists? I think you choose who will do your thinking for you from time to time.

Quote:
As for pre-wrapped answers, I don't have any favourite political party that provides any to me, so I'm forced to (shudder) think these things through all by myself.

Just dont ponder any of the hard questions, like who or what conditions created these people, because I think you might grind the gear box. Better to write it off to those evil-wicked people need some mastering, for sure.

Here's your pre-packaged dichotomy thrown back at you:

If someone comes running to tell us the factory is churning out bad widgets, do we scramble to round up the useless widgets, or do we fix the part of the factory that's not working properly? OR, do we simply SMASH the factory and start over?

 

Unionist

So, Fidel, you won't tell us if these kids should stay with their Nazi parents - but you're going to tell us the conditions that produced these two individuals. Let me guess: 140 years of old-line party rule? It's deep, it's nuanced, and it helps the child welfare authorities and the courts work their way through this difficult situation.

 

jas

Well, I would want to know why people hate others, abuse, rape and murder others. Isn't that the most important part? There are always causes. Finding out what the causes are would eliminate future problems stemming from those causes. I think the best way of looking at antisocial behaviour is to find out what psychological and emotional problems it stems from in an individual, or if it's a pattern across a group, then in that group. And then to look at where social and other factors may be causing or aggravating those.

I would actually be really interested in what it is that "white pride", white separatism, white supremacy does for its members, and what is lacking in their lives or their social reality that they feel they need something like that. Because I guess belonging to a group like that would give one a sense of power, a sense of "pride" - however misguided - a sense of safety in numbers, and also a sense of belonging, but belonging without real responsibility as, I think we can guess, there is no realistic "revolution" for them on the horizon.

But I would agree that it's probably not the Canadian stooge-ocracy alone that is causing this.

Ghislaine

Fidel, child poverty is a huge issue - you are right. And I can say with 100% certainty from experience that children are removed from their (usually single mothers) parent(s) due to poverty - ie substandard or lack of housing.

That is not the topic here. Nor, is the other horrible issue involving removing Native children from their parents at a much higher rate than necessary. That issue should be discussed in the Aboriginal forum, not national news.

What we are discussing here is the principle of whether teaching children to be racist is emotional abuse, or whether teaching children to be racially violent is emotional abuse, etc.  I don't believe for a second that poverty causes racism, as it appears you are trying to state. I think that is an offensive notion to low-income people.  This case could just as easily occur with a wealthy couple of white supremicists and the issues we are discussing here would be the same. 

I support the actions of the child welfare workers involved. If there is an element at play of the mother just going along with the new boyfriend's views, then I hope she leaves him and gets her children back that way.

Anyway, Fidel - if babble ever gives out awards you are the hands down winner for veering off-topic with your posts.

 

Hoodeet

There is the interesting and rather problematic issue of the mother's subservience to the father. (Or is he the stepfather?)  According to court testimony relayed by the CBC, the mother didn't inculcate racist ideas in her children until the father (?) arrived with his white heritage ideology and his neonazi program.    They are poor, marginalized people.  Should the courts not be examining the undue influence and sway of the male parent, who might well have imposed his views on his wife as well as on the kids?

Everyone keeps talking about the mother's blame, but I am yet to see the real cause addressed.

And I agree that placing children in foster care is a huge gamble on their physical and psychological safety.  Deal with the parents first, or else oblige them to take their children to special deprogramming classes. (Which might result in their becoming quite schizophrenic....)   The other option is to give the parents their rights and allow the kids to stay in a loving home and wait for them to grow up and become integrated into society (and hope they don't join the armed forces or the police), just like the majority of good Germans who were Nazi Youth members as late as 1945 (including Ratzinger).    

My ideal solution would be simply to keep them under social workers' close watch for signs of actual abuse - i.e., subject them to stricter guidelines and keep the threat of removal present.  I bet that, given the authoritarian bent of the father, there will be "strict punishment" meted out which can be grounds for prosecution of the parent, which would take the problem out of the house.

 

 

Unionist

Hoodeet, perhaps some updated information might better inform your comments:

1. The children were seized in March 2008.

2. The parents (birth mother and stepfather) are separated.

3. Child and Family Services is in court seeking a permanent guardianship order, based on emotional abuse evidence.

4. The mother has moved out of province. She is not attending the Court of Queen's Bench proceedings, and she is not represented by legal counsel. She does not appear to be legally challenging the CFS request. The stepfather is in court, with counsel.

As for "blaming the mother", who here is doing that? I raised the question above as to whether the mother was the victim of abuse, but with the separation that may be less of an issue. Regardless, the issue that I'm discussing and that I care about is that these children must not be returned to either parent (and they haven't been with them for 14 months now) until there is overwhelming evidence that the abuse will not continue.

Agreed?

 

Pages

Topic locked