Winnipeg children seized from neo-Nazi father

He brainwashed his kids with hate. That is abuse in and of itself. I read this earlier and was going to post it. What a disgusting way to bring up your kids - hate, hate, hate....

I know. As I read ohara's post I was thinking of the singing white supremest family. That's just as deplorable (yet somehow okay).

Then there is Jesus Camp..... same shit, different spin.

Can you see where this is going?

Who did the Human Rights Tribunals target first?

Neo-Nazis.

Who came next?

Gay-bashers.

After that?

Bigoted religious critics.

If this case establishes it is okay to remove children from a racist household, then it should follow it is okay to remove children from homophobic households, and then from those households who teach overtly bigoted views of other religions.

And I would imagine, in the courts view, the welfare of children overrides the Charter -- so the homophobic and devoutly bigoted could not plead freedom of religion.

Interesting times.

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

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Ohara, I'm just as disgusted as you are with the parent(s) in this case, but I don't think it is that easy. And I do think it sets a bad precedent.

Who is to say what beliefs are abuse or dangerous? Shit, the Bountiful people are doing just fine and it's been alleged that little girls are being married to old men.

There is a much bigger issue here. What is abuse? Who determines what abuse is? Where is the line drawn? These questions have to be considered.

Is it abuse to be poor and not be able to feed your kids? Is poverty grounds for taking kids away? What if a parent refuses to work, is that abuse?[/b]

---

Stargazer, you raise some really important questions in regards to this case. As a trained child welfare social worker, I think it could qualify as emotional abuse. The standard of proof within child welfare law is "the balance of probability", which is much less rigorous than the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" required in criminal law.

However, removing children from neo-nazis does worry me in terms of the slippery slope where The State would need to define which ideologies are considered out of bounds to instill into children.

This is a tough one, as every province's legislation firmly supports parental rights (which is often ignored in the case of Aboriginal parents).

In our [url=http://www.gov.pe.ca/law/statutes/pdf/c-05_1.pdf]province's legislation[/url], section 3 is relevant:

quote:

---

A child is in need of protection where:

[...]
(e) the child has suffered emotional harm inflicted by a parent, or by another person, where the parent knew or ought to have known that the other person was emotionally abusing the child and parent failed to protect the child;

(g) the child is at substantial risk of suffering harm within the meaning of clause (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f);

---

I think that section g would apply to this case and could be used. I fully support the free speech rights of everyone - neonazi or not - as individuals, but children have special rights based on their developmental requirements and dependency.

Freedom of religion is not a defense re: contreventions of Secion (h) at the above link.
However, I don't think removing this neo-nazi's children would cause religion per se to be viewed as causing emotional harm.

It will be interesting to see where this case goes.

Good to hear. But I wonder why children's welfare organizations do not have the courage to remove children from parents trying to brainwash them anti-LGBTQ or misogynist propaganda, as many do under the guise of "religion".

quote:

---

But I wonder why children's welfare organizations do not have the courage to remove children from parents trying to brainwash them anti-LGBTQ or misogynist propaganda, as many do under the guise of "religion".

---

So do I Kevin, so do I.

BCG:

quote:

---

But I don't trust state mechanisms, as they almost always work against people that we on babble would be more likely to support and agree with.

---

Quite true, its a catch-22 for the left, of course many of us support greater state interventionism, of course not by THIS state [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

I'm sure there are some people out there who would claim, and would get audience for claiming, that children raised by same-sex parents are being raised in an "abusive" situation. Arguing this from a homophobic perspective is typical.

---

I don't disagree that hateful people would try to claim this, however I don't think they'd have much luck misrepresenting teaching children an understanding of same-sex relationships as teaching children to hate (towards straight people???).

quote:

---

The solution is not to remove the child but to change the homophobic world.

---

But this starts with the children; and ensuring they aren't raised to hate.

Ghislaine:

I want to thank you for the insightful comments. You've shared the outlook from which your approach comes, and it appears very honest. I want you to know that I very much disagree with your ideology on this point and would like to see the notion of "parent's rights" over children to be abolished; let it be replaced with a concept that recognizes both the supremacy of the rights of children, and the fact that parent's and their children are a part of society and not a separate sphere. I just thought, since you were very upfront, that I should be as well. That said I've found the information and perspective you've shared very helpful, especially with regards to your professional knowledge of these matters.

quote:

---

I think I will conclude that these children should not be removed solely based on risk of emotional harm due to racial hatred. Like the current cases regarding free speech, it is too much power to give the state such a subjective definition. Homosexual parents could fall victim to such a precedent, or Muslim parents - based on the interpretation.

---

I have to ask, since it has been mentioned earlier in this thread as well: how exactly could homosexual parents "fall victim" to an understanding that teaching children to hate is child abuse? I don't disagree about the potential for this to interfere with the "parental rights" of some Muslim parents (or any parents belonging to an exclusive organized religion). I just really don't see the connection you've implied here between Nazis and homosexuals; I am honestly not trying to be difficult or misrepresent you, I just feel I am missing something... [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

I did not mean to imply at all that I think that it is emotionally harmful for children to be raised by homosexual parents.

---

Thanks for clearing that up. You are probably right about "religious" folks interpreting "homosexual values" as unhealthy. If this was approached under the laws governing spreading hatred could this conflation be avoided? I guess it proves what BCG said, you cannot trust a hateful state to police the spread of hatred!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Is it abuse to be poor and not be able to feed your kids? Is poverty grounds for taking kids away? [/b]

---

They've been using these rationalizations for taking Aboriginal kids away for decades. It's a long standing tradition. People are only getting nervous because it's happening to a white kid for a change.

What Makwa said.

quote:

---

Ghislaine:
The article did mention that the social workers allege drug and alcohol abuse, which would (and should be) grounds for removal. But if this is the case - why would they even bother mentioning the alleged racial hatred?

---

My guess is that there are overtly white supremacist families doing this shit all the time, but the media jumped on this for it's slightly more extreme content and the story's obvious qualities to sell papers.

quote:

---

Ghislaine: She also states that the swastika for them is not a symbol of neo-nazi ideology, but of pride in European heritage...

---

Just for everyone to know, as I had a brief dealing with the organized white supremacy movement in Toronto in the early 90s. That statement from the mom is a classic neo-nazi line that they practice to say to the mainstream audience. This is their version of acceptable discourse, and for the most part, people believe it. Don't.

quote:

---

Didn't we go down this road already with the Doukabours?

---

Interesting, I thought their terrible crime in the eyes of our repressive state was their belief that,

"To accumulate private property and to retain it separately from others - means to act contrary to the will of God and His commandment." (Leo Tolstoy on the Doukabours)

Thank you Pogo for giving a perfect example of what BCG meant (i think) when she said,

quote:

---

But I don't trust state mechanisms, as they almost always work against people that we on babble would be more likely to support and agree with.

---

That is unless you actually meant that the Doukabours were persecuted for spreading hatred as in the cases we've been discussing; I know a little on the subject as it relates to the story of my own family and I didn't think this was a motivating factor in the seizure of the Doukabour children but if I'm missing something please let me know.

ETA: Oops, I referenced the wrong person for a quote, and fixed it! Sorry.

[ 11 June 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I also worry about the assertion that drug and alcohol abuse is a good reason for taking children away from their parents. Who decides where the line is drawn between abuse and simple partaking?

With illegal drugs, public perception of that line is "any use at all". So someone who lights up a joint on the occasional weekend is a drug abuser and therefore should have their kids taken away?

Alcohol "abuse" is even more suspect. What constitutes alcohol abuse? Occasionally getting drunk? (Some AA zealots would say yes.) Having a couple of drinks every evening? Getting trashed every Friday night and sober the rest of the week? Any alcohol at all?

Who decides what is "use" and what is "abuse"? The CAS worker? I don't know if I like that - the CAS is notoriously biased against poor families when it comes to the "anti-social" vices. If I'm a lawyer who ties one on every Friday night with my white collar buddies in a bar on Bay Street, I'd be much less likely to have the CAS interfering in my life than I would if I were a single mother on social assistance who has one too many once a week.

I don't really have a huge problem with these parents getting a knock on the door from CAS when the kid is coming to school with swastikas drawn on his or her limbs.

But really, what's the difference between raising your kids to hate Jews, and raising your kids to hate gays, or to see women as second class citizens? Shall we take away the children of all parents who take them to religious organizations that preach this sort of ideology?

I think not.[/b]

---

Michelle, I know that here on PEI- drug and alcohol use on its own is not grounds for removal in the Act. The section that I linked to above plus the section regarding neglect would have to be invoked. No where in the Act are drug and alcohol use or abuse specifically mentioned. Basically, for a social worker to get involved, there would have to be abuse or neglect
[i]as a result of substance abuse[/i]. Once intervention is underway, drug and alcohol treatment would be required as part of a case plan. Clean urine tests for a set period of time would be required for intervention to cease.

Within my experience, marijuana or alcohol use on their own are not seen as grounds for intervention and are seen as relatively harmless when not abused (harder drugs are).

This is all based on my limited experience here however and I am not sure about Ontario. I know your province is quite different as there are religiously named Children's Aid Societies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]What Makwa said.

Just for everyone to know, as I had a brief dealing with the organized white supremacy movement in Toronto in the early 90s. That statement from the mom is a classic neo-nazi line that they practice to say to the mainstream audience. This is their version of acceptable discourse, and for the most part, people believe it. Don't.[/b]

---

No I definitely was not falling for that line! I meant the elipse that follows to mean:

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

I'm sure there are some people out there who would claim, and would get audience for claiming, that children raised by same-sex parents are being raised in an "abusive" situation

---

Luckily, it is possible to study questions like this, and to arrive at answers which are informative.

For example, recent work in California involved asking young adults who had been raised by gay parents whether they were satisfactorily raised.

Another study measured the rates of unemployment, incarceration, drug addiction, and similar sociological data, for people raised by gay parents.

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.

It's not an absolute answer, but it is pretty compelling, so far.

[url=http://www.amazon.com/Families-Like-Mine-Children-Parents/dp/0060527579]...

Well, frankly, it is my opinion that the father, who apparently wrote the slogans and signs upon the little girls body in permanent marker, sees the little as his object to do with what he wants.

And undershadowing this is perhaps the fact the wife wanted out and was too afraid to get out, as she certainly has used this as an excuse to kick his ass to the curb, because if, as it appears he does, believes this little girl, his step daughter, is an object of his possession one has to realize he most likely treated his wife as an object too, to do with what he would.

The little girl has also missed 39 days of school this year because her parents did not want to get up and get her ready.

quote:

---

The development came after the mother -- who cannot be named to protect the identity of the children -- recently separated from her husband, an admitted white supremacist who has made a series of disturbing online posts in recent months.

"He's a bigot. And I have no tolerance for bigotry or ignorance," the woman told the Free Press in an interview yesterday.

---

Having said this, I am not sure if this is really the case though, as:

quote:

---

Fromm said the children's mother has been in ongoing correspondence with his association seeking help.

"They seem like well-adjusted, normal people," Fromm said.

"I think if children are being sexually molested or starved [by their parents], that's wrong and the state has a right to look at that. But because the parents have unusual or non-mainstream beliefs, shouldn't put them at risk."

Fromm is a disgraced former teacher who was fired from the Ontario College of Teachers in 1997 for links to neo-Nazi groups.

The Ontario man, who calls himself an advocate for "white nationalists," said he met the parents in Winnipeg last December at a three-hour group meeting focusing on Fromm's involvement in court cases in Alberta and B.C. about hate speech.

---

Oops forgot the link

[url=http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=575235]national Post[/url]

[ 11 June 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

It looks like the mom is going to get custody of her kids ... but we probably won't know for sure until the 23rd.

[url=http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=3bd7d0d6-e631-4... Winnipeg neo-Nazi mom may regain custody, etc.[/url]

[By the way, Buddhists use a left-handed swastika, not a right-handed one. They're easy to tell apart if you know what you're looking for.]

CFS in Manitoba is no stranger to controversy. Most of the issues, however, relate to the (mis) treatment of FN kids. Makwa's remark isn't really all that off at all.

More about CFS and related agencies in Manitoba: the corporate and for-profit media in this province tends to give HUGE, detailed and lengthy coverage of child-custody issues when it involves FN agencies that have taken over the administration from non-native agencies, like CFS.

This particular case is a rather rare counter-example of the general trend of covering FN agencies (only) in a negative light. Edited to add: the Manitoba CBC online still has nothing about this story.

[ 11 June 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:
[b]Whether or not I'm correct about that I want to point out that eliminating child-ownership rights on the basis that parents' teach their children to think and act contrary to the Charter of Human Rights is simply not the same thing as "say(ing) that our (the state's) beliefs are right and your (the parents') beliefs are wrong."[/b]

---

Is the content of the Charter of Human Rights debateable?

[ 11 June 2008: Message edited by: Pogo ]

quote:

---

Pogo: Is the contents of the Charter of Human Rights debatable?

---

Section 43 of the Criminal Code allows parents and persons acting in the place of parents to use physical punishment on children. This law treats spanking as "reasonable". Other countries, in particular Sweden which has done a great deal of public education and innovation in this area, do not allow this.

The important part, in regard to the Charter, is that a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada agreed, in January 2004, with upholding Section 43. A minority of the Supreme Court "disagreed with this judgement and held that section 43 violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

So, yea, sometimes the (meaning of The) Charter is debatable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]

Section 43 of the Criminal Code allows parents and persons acting in the place of parents to use physical punishment on children. This law treats spanking as "reasonable". Other countries, in particular Sweden which has done a great deal of public education and innovation in this area, do not allow this.

The important part, in regard to the Charter, is that a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada agreed, in January 2004, with upholding Section 43. A minority of the Supreme Court "disagreed with this judgement and held that section 43 violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

So, yea, sometimes the (meaning of The) Charter is debatable.[/b]

---

Okay then is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms debateable? It is bit of a rhetorical question, but assuming that we are allowed to question the rules under which allow ourselves to be governed, should we restrict the discussion of these questions between parent and child.

quote:

---

I am sorry if you find this hard to bear.

---

Nice comment and you were doing so well until then. No I am not a homophobe are you? And have you stopped beating your wife and chidren yet?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]I accept your gracious apology.[/b]

---

I guess I was mistaken in thinking you had a modicum of reading comprehension.