Winnipeg children seized from neo-Nazi parents - part 2

103 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2009-05-27 09:34

Sean in Ottawa

I'd say that most of the thread is whether the children should be automatically removed based on this. I don't think you would find much of a debate over whether teaching children racist behaviour is abuse: without doubt it is. However, what is the best response given the fact that the family has already broken down with the father, who was seen as the prime instigator of racist views in the house gone. I also support that child welfare workers are involved and monitoring and I support having the option of removing the children. I do not support that this would be automatic. I am also concerned that simply removing the children withotu attempting to educate the mother and the children could create a family mythology that could further support racist views into the next generation. If the mother is open to having some kind of therapy for her and her children along with exposure to anti-racist views then this MAY be the best option.

I am concerned with the idea that we are not taking this seriously enough or do not consider the views vile enough if we do not immediately advocate removal of the children from the mother. For the most part the much maligned children's services actually do a good job and ought to be able to make a decision based on all the presented facts. This is not tolerance for racist behaviour but an understanding that automatic knee-jerk reactions are not solutions any more than are automtic sentencing for crimes, a right wing prescription.

If the woman is not telling the truth at this point or continues the behaviour then the children should be removed but in the short term this is something that can be monitored by children's services and the school. Then if it does not work then the removal of the children can go ahead as the last resort which is what that measure needs to be.

Wed, 2009-05-27 09:37

#53

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

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 [b]14 months now[/b]) until there is overwhelming evidence that the abuse will not continue.

Agreed?

If all the above is true, then I agree completely. As well I appreciate this door that can remain open:

"until there is overwhelming evidence that the abuse will not continue"

Provided there is adequate monitoring to see if there are changes that might support that door then this does look like the last resort is reached.

Wed, 2009-05-27 09:48

#54

Unionist

Small correction: The male is apparently the stepfather of the girl (who would now be 8) and the biological father of the boy (who was 2 at the time).

Wed, 2009-05-27 09:49

#55

nussy

The mother does not have a lawyer. The father has filed an affidavit showing he plans to argue he has a constitutional right to raise his children according to his beliefs

The father is fighting for his rights according to his beliefs? That alone should shut the door. If thats not overwhelming evidence what is?

Wed, 2009-05-27 09:53

#56

Snert

I think you head down a slippery slope any time you begin to blame one adult for the genuinely held beliefs of another.

In a truly abusive situation, a person could feel compelled to "play along" with some odious beliefs and actions, but if the abuse is no longer present, we would expect someone in that situation to breathe a sigh of relief, wouldn't we? "Thank God I no longer have to pretend to believe in White Power, just to escape that abuse!!'

This woman seems to have her own beliefs at this point. It's entirely unimportant whether he introduced her to these ideas, or someone else did, or she came to them on her own. The point is, she's free to question those beliefs any time she chooses, and to repudiate them if she wishes, but she's not. To say that this is all HIS fault is to infantilize her.

Wed, 2009-05-27 09:59

#57

Unionist

Just in case you enjoy [i]ad hominem[/i] arguments, you may all be interested to know that such worthies as Ezra Levant, David Duke, and various fanatic pro-life Christian organizations all sprang to champion the parents' cause last year. I won't soil babble with the links, you can find them yourselves - but listen to what the [url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/07/13/... Post[/color][/url] said in an editorial last year:

Quote:

A thought experiment: Would those who support the decision of Manitoba’s child and family services case workers to take away the Winnipeg woman’s children also have supported an intervention to strip the Khadrs of their children when they were living in Ontario in the 1980s and 1990s?

The fact that such an intervention would be unthinkable — one can only imagine the headlines: “Children of Muslim activist seized: ‘They took our babies because they said we are too religious,’ says grief-stricken mother” — should make us wonder at the motives of Winnipeg’s child-protection workers in this case. They clearly are not acting on any universal child-protection principle that they would dare apply in most instances of parental hatemongering. Rather, they are acting in this case only because it so happens that the hatemongering mother happens not to be a member of any politically correct minority group. That is to say, she’s a white Christian. How’s that as a basis for permanently separating a mother from the child she bore?

You see, these lowlifes fail to mention that Omar Khadr has been separated from his family for seven years, with the active cooperation of successive Canadian federal governments.

Anyway, if the above "slippery slope" argument, based on Islamophobia, pro-imperialism, and whitewashing of Nazism appeals to anyone, let me know.

Wed, 2009-05-27 10:17

#58

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

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 [b]14 months now[/b]) until there is overwhelming evidence that the abuse will not continue.

Agreed?

This case is about permanent guardianship, therefore if the mother loses custody now, she loses it forever - regardless of what she may do to change her views/parenting style in the future. Once the province obtains permanent care, they are free to put the children up for adoption (although an 8 year old will have an extremely difficult time being adopted and will most likely spend the next 10 yrs in various foster home and group home situations). The mother loses all parental rights in this case to the province, which has the right to grant these rights to a qualifying adoptive family.

Wed, 2009-05-27 14:17

#59

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

So, Fidel, you won't tell us if these kids should stay with their Nazi parents -

Well you, al-Q, and Noam Chomsky all refused to comment on whether or not the American inquisition's torture was effective in that other thread, so I'm holding out on you here in kind.

You can waterboard me all you like, but I wont be a talkin' sieg HEIL?!!

Wed, 2009-05-27 15:51

#60

remind

hell, let's have the state raise all children then we would not have any being indoctrinated into religions, nor forced circumcisms, children would not have have to worry about being raised in a impoverished home, nor with having parents who may be too harsh or too lienent. This way there is equal opportunity education for all too.

Wed, 2009-05-27 15:59

#61

Fidel

What about the feds living up to their end of the bargain since signing a UN convention for children's rights? The question to their own answer is staring the feds right between the eyes. Child poverty in Canada is roughly the same today as it was in 1989.

Wed, 2009-05-27 16:15

#62

Unionist

It must feel strange sharing opinions with Ezra Levant, David Duke, the Canadian Family Action Committee, Lifesite News, and the National Post. They too feel that mum and dad know best and the government should keep its hands off childrearing. If the choice is between the state and some Nazi scum, I'll choose the state every time.

Wed, 2009-05-27 17:17

#63

remind

Me too! Let the state raise each and every child, as the state knows best!

Wed, 2009-05-27 17:43

#64

nussy

Let the state protect the defencless children. They deserve no less.

Wed, 2009-05-27 17:49

#65

remind

All children are defenseless!

Wed, 2009-05-27 18:45

#66

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

It must feel strange sharing opinions with Ezra Levant, David Duke, the Canadian Family Action Committee, Lifesite News, and the National Post. They too feel that mum and dad know best and the government should keep its hands off childrearing. If the choice is between the state and some Nazi scum, I'll choose the state every time.

Do Ezra and the WhigO'Tories all support Ottawa having abdicated their obligations to a UN convention on children's rights?

Why do I get the strong impression that you share same sentiments with those rightwing children's rights gladios?

You cant send these people back to the factory - theyre in the system and have certain rights themselves now. Sure, take the kids away by all means. But your increasingly Americanized state widget factory is still broken.

And our largest corporatized state trade partners are still good to go with the torture. sieg HEIL!!

Wed, 2009-05-27 20:01

#67

nussy

remind wrote:

All children are defenseless!

Young kids are yes.

Wed, 2009-05-27 20:37

#68

martin dufresne

God forbid that children should act as racist as we do when we bomb politically incorrect civilian populations into oblivion... for their own good, of course!

Wed, 2009-05-27 21:38

#69

Fidel

Bootstraps<=>poor families with kids

Poverty never hurt anyone!!

Poverty is grad school of hard knocks!!

Poverty is nature's way of making old men and women of children before their time.

2nd-hand neoconservative ideology is rot and decay. It's rust

Wed, 2009-05-27 23:25

#70

jas

Well, I'll trust the court to decide in this case if the abuse, quite beside the Nazi ideology, was severe enough to warrant permanent wardship, but if neo-Nazis aren't fit to raise kids because of their beliefs, then they shouldn't be having babies. If, in every case, the state deems Nazi ideology an unsafe environment for children and the parents unfit to parent, then neo-Nazis should, by law, be sterilized. I mean, why allow unfit people to produce offspring who will automatically have to become wards of the state?

I wonder who else might be unfit to parent because of their beliefs?

Wed, 2009-05-27 23:51

#71

Fidel

Minister of the Interior: "Padre, these are subtleties. We're not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime--and. . .with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian: ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the very heart at the thought even of killing a fly! Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works."

The Ludovico Technique anyone?

Thu, 2009-05-28 00:04

#72

Unionist

jas wrote:

I wonder who else might be unfit to parent because of their beliefs?

Red herring, big time. If a seven-year-old came to school saying that all Christians should be killed because the world belongs to the Jews/Muslims/whoever, I would remove that child from the environment that inflicted that hatred upon them. The question you should be asking is: Which groups in Canada, other than extreme Nazi white supremacists, teach their children that people of the wrong colour or religion should all be murdered, that one mustn't sit next to them, etc.?

Thu, 2009-05-28 01:21

#73

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Which groups in Canada, other than extreme Nazi white supremacists, teach their children that people of the wrong colour or religion should all be murdered, that one mustn't sit next to them, etc.?

Whigs 'n Tories?

I know that's not the answer you were fishing for. But we still have dozens of "Indian" reserves across Canada. Whole nations of people were segregated onto miserable strips of land along the trans-Canada highway decades ago. And the feds removed some of their mothers and grandfathers from their birth families and gave them to complete strangers to use and abuse as they would. [url=http://www.danielnpaul.com/chptr1.html]We Were Not the Savages[/url]

Thu, 2009-05-28 11:31

#74

Ghislaine

What about religious families who preach horrible misogynist views and force their daughters into basically a tent and forbid them from showing their hair at school?

Thu, 2009-05-28 11:31

#75

Unionist

remind wrote:

Are you advocating here for all Zionist children be removed from their families too?

"Zionist children"? What's that?

Thu, 2009-05-28 11:39

#76

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

What about religious families who preach horrible misogynist views and force their daughters into basically a tent and forbid them from showing their hair at school?

I don't put teaching a kid Nazi and genocidal opinions on the same plane as teaching them to be Muslims (because that's apparently your problem) or circumcising the boys (because someone else here thinks that's a crime against humanity). It's impossible to generalize about these things. I have confined my comments to this one particular case in Winnipeg and what we know about it. I have clearly said that the issue is not the beliefs of the parents. And if a parent forces their kids to wear wraparound clothing or turbans or crucifixes or skullcaps, I may not approve, but it's none of my business and it's not what society recognizes as child abuse. As for preaching horrible misogynist views, that's pretty well 95% of families right now, only it's a matter of degree.

Thu, 2009-05-28 11:44

#77

remind

Unionist wrote:
jas wrote:
I wonder who else might be unfit to parent because of their beliefs?

Red herring, big time. If a seven-year-old came to school saying that all Christians should be killed because the world belongs to the Jews/Muslims/whoever, I would remove that child from the environment that inflicted that hatred upon them. The question you should be asking is: Which groups in Canada, other than extreme Nazi white supremacists, teach their children that people of the wrong colour or religion should all be murdered, that one mustn't sit next to them, etc.?

Are you advocating here for all Zionist children to be removed from their families too?

Thu, 2009-05-28 11:58

#78

nussy

Its amazing how some topics take twists and turns that have nothing to do with the origanal story. Some preach the same mantra no matter what the topic is.

A Unionist said lets confine it to this on particular case.

Thu, 2009-05-28 12:07

#79

Snert

I think there could be some merit in considering other, similar cases, if only to highlight what I think is the source of a lot of inaction in cases like this: the fear that if we let the State take away someone's children for teaching them that POC need to die, who'll defend us if the State wants to take away OUR kids for some opinion we hold?

Thu, 2009-05-28 12:15

#80

nussy

Wearing a burka or wearing a turban hardly remotely compares with painting your child with a swastika and sending her to school.

Thu, 2009-05-28 12:19

#81

remind

As I said let's take all children away and have the state raise them, because I think teaching misogyny is every bit as bad as the alleged teaching of the parents in question here, millions of women die every year because of misogyny, and those who trivialize it IMV are not doing their own cause any favours.

Also unionist, by your standards, in respect to your comments regarding Olivia's marching in a parade, then children of Zionist's are filling the same pro forma you are ascribing to, here, when you believe pro-Nazi's children should be taken by the state. As are Zionists not teaching their children that people of the wrong religion, region, and ethnicity deserve to be killed when they support and uphold the actions of Israel against Palestinians, to their children? One could even say they are extending it, the hate they are spewing, to other's children as well.

Thu, 2009-05-28 12:53

#82

jas

nussy, it was you who suggested that the father's neo-Nazi beliefs alone should "shut the door" on him. Or on his case.

nussy wrote:

The father is fighting for his rights according to his beliefs? That alone should shut the door. If thats not overwhelming evidence what is?

Overwhelming evidence for what?

Thu, 2009-05-28 13:31

#83

remind

nussy wrote:
A Unionist said lets confine it to this on particular case.

Why in hell would we confine it to this instance alone? In a precedent setting case like this, we need to, examine the full and far reaching effects of what this precedent would mean, legally wise for parents and children.

I wasn't just going off an a extreme tangent when I was sarcastically responding in this thread by indicating what other children could, and would be targeted, if such a precedent as this was set. It cannot be set for 1 demographic, it must, and will be, set for ALL demographics under Canadian law.

This means if I, and others who share my convictions that religion being taught to children was child abuse, under this now being attempted law, we could have said children removed from the home. Or indeed, as I noted in respect to circumcising, if many started to push this was child abuse, which it is IMV, and used this attempted law precedent to bolster their position, then either said children would not be having them, or the state would have to step in to remove the children who have had them. Or if could even be religion specific, that this or that religion/spiritual belief was deemed to be abusive to children, and so all children from that religion/spiritual belief must be removed if their parents teach them about it or include them in ceremonies or worship. And yes, we could even extend it to teaching misogyny to your children is child abuse.

Such a law being introduced has very far reaching impacts and implications.

Having stated this does not mean that I think the parents actions, on which this precedent setting case is founded, were correct either, however, I do not believe taking their children away from them forever, is correct either.

Thu, 2009-05-28 14:13

#84

Caissa

Remind,

Have you ever asked a circumcised man whether he thought he was abused?

Thu, 2009-05-28 14:31

#85

Unionist

remind wrote:

This means if I, and others who share my convictions that religion being taught to children was child abuse, under this now being attempted law, we could have said children removed from the home. Or indeed, as I noted in respect to circumcising, if many started to push this was child abuse, which it is IMV, and used this attempted law precedent to bolster their position, then either said children would not be having them, or the state would have to step in to remove the children who have had them.

First of all, no law is being proposed here - don't know what you're talking about. Two small kids were removed from an abusive situation 14 months ago, and now there are proceedings to make that permanent.

Secondly, if society ever comes to share your viewpoint that male circumcision is child abuse - or that teaching religion to kids is child abuse - then of course, at such a time, society would and should act to halt that abuse. Trouble is, you haven't won anyone over to your viewpoint yet.

What you seem to be saying is that even though parents abuse their children (whether under your expanded definition, or under the narrower terms of the case in question here), they must not be separated from their parents. That's a hard position to understand. Parents have legal duties with respect to their kids. They don't have inalienable "rights" to treat them any way they want. Under some circumstances, they lose their right of custodianship. Each case depends on its own facts. To lay down a blanket rule saying that kids can't be separated from their parents is pretty scary.

Thu, 2009-05-28 14:52

#86

Snert

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/05/26/mb-swastika-custody-h... put blame on daughter for racist remarks, custody hearing told[/url]

Isn't that lovely? Rather than taking responsibility for what they did, the parents are now BLAMING THE SIX YEAR OLD.

I bet she's the one buying all those skinhead flags and Nazi memorabilia too. It's a wonder they even want her back, seeing as they're just regular folk trying to get along, and she's a tiny little neo-Nazi liar.

Thu, 2009-05-28 15:34

#87

remind

Snert, that was already mentioned by unionist above. And unless you wat to go into a discussion about all that that article implies, one would do well to avoid indicating someting that was said 3 weeks after the fact a year and a half ago, as if it was being said now.

Thu, 2009-05-28 16:58

#88

remind

Caissa, yes actually I have, lots and lots of them, both while in action ;) and as a conversational off side, though most did occur in latter arena. :D

Have some male viewpoints on this if you do not think there are lots of men out there against it! And I think it is equal to female circimcisions too!

http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm

Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
An international network of attorneys now addresses the multi-faceted issue of male genital mutilation, euphemistically termed circumcision. Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC) is a non-profit organization founded to secure equal protection for, and broaden judicial and public recognition of, children's inherent legal and human rights to physical integrity and self-determination, regardless of gender. The medical profession, in particular, has perpetuated the tragic disfigurement of baby boys' genitals and will be challenged by an organization of legal professionals whom they cannot afford to ignore.

Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)
A rapidly growing organization of physicians who are opposed to routine neonatal circumcision. These doctors recognize that no one has the right to forcibly remove sexual body parts from another individual. They also believe that doctors should have no role in this painful, unnecessary procedure inflicted on the newborn.

INTACT
Intact's purpose is to end non-therapeutic male infant circumcision. Intact works to this end through increased public awareness, legislation, and litigation. Intact also seeks to have male infant circumcision internationally recognized as a human rights violation.

The International Coalition for Genital Integrity
The International Coalition for Genital Integrity is an alliance of organizations dedicated to protecting the normal anatomy of males, females and the intersexed, and supporter of the Genital Integrity Resolution. ICGI was formed to coalesce the many activist organizations, each with a specific focus, into one, common voice. Added to them are organizations and companies who also agree that every human has a right to a whole and intact body. Organizational members include healthcare professionals, psychologists, researchers, attorneys, journalists, ethicists, academicians, and citizen activists dedicated to ending unnecessary genital cutting.

Unionist, you well know I said legal precedence. And as you also know, legal precedences become the rule of law applications for all further endeavours along the same lines. It is why the international community is watching too!

I stand by my position these children should not be removed forever, other things should be happening first.

I also stand by my position that circumcising, of any type, is abuse. Does that mean I want the children removed? No, it means I want the practise stopped. Just as I want religious indoctrination of children stopped and the teaching of misogyny. Through education, and support services, not by yanking children out of homes and away from those with whom they share DNA, forever.

And unionist, you apparently understand what it is like to lose family, even extended family, as you mention your trauma of it happening to you, often, and it has clearly impacted your reality and ideology of today, but yet that is what you want these children to have happen to them.

Thu, 2009-05-28 18:06

#89

Slumberjack

After WWII, large segments of German public institutions underwent denazification processes, and subsequently, for better or worse, those institutions and the German people on the western side of the curtain became our allies. If the parents, or at least the mother were to undertake and complete a process to shed all of the hate filled ideology that she seemed intent on passing to her children, and became a productive member of the wider society around her, then I see no reason why there needs to be a permanent seperation. Part of that process, indeed the beginning of it, involves owning up to and bearing full responsibility for what has already transpired.

Thu, 2009-05-28 18:16

#90

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
My goodness! This thread is all over the road....

Yes, and inadvertently, they've created a welcoming atmosphere for your trips.

Thu, 2009-05-28 18:19

#91

Fidel

oops! Dogs about

Thu, 2009-05-28 18:19

#92

Fidel

My goodness! This thread is all over the road, from neo-nazis threatening to takeover Canada to genital mutilations.

[url=http://www.aafp.org/afp/990315ap/1577.html]Poverty is the most frequently and persistently noted risk factor for child abuse[/url] (US source)

Quote:
[url=http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/poverty-and-child-neglect.html]Some Poverty and Child Neglect Facts[/url]

  Approximately 1.1 million Canadian children, or 16.4%, are living in poverty (Campaign 2000's 2002 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty1).

  In 1998, 19% of Canada's children lived in poverty: persistent poverty affected 12% of children (Save the Children Canada, 20012).

  Many Aboriginal communities exist in conditions of extreme poverty and unemployment. More than 70% of Aboriginal households live below the poverty line, while unemployment ranges from 50 - 90% (Health Canada, 19963).

  Neglect of children and youth is more closely tied to poverty than child abuse (Crittenden, 1996, p. 1624).

"Spirit, are these yours?"

"They are Man's. This boy is Ignorance, this girl is Want. Beware them both, but most of all, beware this boy!

Thu, 2009-05-28 18:19

#93

Unionist

remind wrote:

And unionist, you apparently understand what it is like to lose family, even extended family, as you mention your trauma of it happening to you, often, and it has clearly impacted your reality and ideology of today, but yet that is what you want these children to have happen to them.

Hmmm. My family were murdered by Nazis. These kids have been rescued from the clutches of Nazis.

Good parallel. Thanks for that.

Thu, 2009-05-28 18:29

#94

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

remind wrote:

And unionist, you apparently understand what it is like to lose family, even extended family, as you mention your trauma of it happening to you, often, and it has clearly impacted your reality and ideology of today, but yet that is what you want these children to have happen to them.

Hmmm. My family were murdered by Nazis. These kids have been rescued from the clutches of Nazis.

Good parallel. Thanks for that.

That's entirely off topic. Besides, various Whig and Tory governments have harbored thousands of actual Nazi war criminals from justice for decades and decades. Liberals and Tories want us all to know that Nazis and other dregs of the world are more than welcome in Canada.

Thu, 2009-05-28 21:27

#95

sanizadeh

I apologize if this question has been discussed before: My understanding is that the male parent in question is the stepfather of the girl. Has the biological father of the girl stepped forward to claim custody? That option might be preferrable to foster care.

Thu, 2009-05-28 21:37

#96

Unionist

sanizadeh wrote:

I apologize if this question has been discussed before: My understanding is that the male parent in question is the stepfather of the girl. Has the biological father of the girl stepped forward to claim custody? That option might be preferrable to foster care.

He has been in court all week, but doesn't appear to be seeking custody - he waived custodial rights 6 years ago.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/05/28/mb-biological-dad-cus...

Thu, 2009-05-28 22:12

#97

Unionist

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mom-in-swastika-case-has-on... has online history of hate[/color][/url]

Quote:
The couple who sent their seven-year-old daughter to school with white supremacist slogans drawn on her skin once set up a pro-skinhead website that was the subject of a criminal complaint. [...]

Song lyrics on the site advocate hatred of Jews, blacks and gays.

The lyrics also glorify General Heinz Guderian, father of the German army's Second World War blitzkrieg tactics.

In the site's “Rants” section, diatribes target the mentally challenged and aboriginals. [...]

She is also an avid commenter on Web forums at Resistance.com, a “pro-white” site, where she has posted comments expressing hatred of Jews.

But the mother insists her indelible online fingerprint can be misunderstood without context.

“A skinhead is just a working-class white person,” she said, referring to the roots of skinhead culture in England during the 1950s. “Just because some skinheads want to go gay-bashing doesn't mean we all do it.”

She has been an self-professed skinhead from age 11 and said she remains one today despite her kids being taken away. [...]

She said she may have let racist remarks slip in front of her children from time to time, but said it was never with malicious intent.

“I might have come home and said something like ‘That stupid nigger at 7-Eleven asked me for ID again and now I've got to go back,'” she said. “Or it could be like, one of my best friends, I make fun of him for being a Pollack. He calls me a Scottish bitch, you know.”

Please recall that she's the good one of the two.

Thu, 2009-05-28 22:18

#98

Fidel

I think she's a good candidate for the Ludovico technique.

Thu, 2009-05-28 23:13

#99

genstrike

These two assclowns are really giving Winnipeg a bad name.

Fri, 2009-05-29 11:46

#100

Stargazer

Winnipeg rocks. These two people aren't a reflection of Winnipeg.

That being said, and after reading all of the issues raised in this thread and the previous one, I am leaning towards unionits point of view. This woman, and her creepy husband/boyfriend are child abusers. When you draw swaztika's a a kid's arm and send them to school like that you are inviting a lot of retaliation towards that little girl. This girl would have had no issues with other races if it wasn't for her parents. Now thanks to them she will grow up to be as screwed up as they are. I realize foster care is not ideal (sometimes not even close) but who the hell thinks setting up a six year old for this shit is fit to be a parent?There is likely not much of a chance that the mother is going to change her positions.

The bottom line is, this kid will be going to school with a bunch of different races. How is she going to handle that under the "care" of her parents? She won't be able to and my thought is that using your child as a walking billboard for hatred is cause to remove them until that woman seeks counselling. This isn't just a case of white supremist teachings, it is also a case where the mother actively used her small daughters body to promote her own hatred.

Fri, 2009-05-29 12:14

#101

genstrike

Well, I would argue that we are a pretty racist city (although mostly not that kind of racist). But still, it sucks to have every story about Winnipeg in the national media over the past couple weeks to start with "Nazi mom from Winnipeg..."

And from what I recall of the media coverage, it's not just the fact that they are Nazis that this is happening. The parents are also just plain bad parents - getting drunk and not feeding the kids supper, not waking them up for school, doing drugs in front of the kids, that kind of thing.

Pages

Topic locked