Deborah Gyapong, for one:
Christians especially have to take note of the dangers in this [taking the kids from their Nazi parents], as disgusting as white supremacists are. You see, there are many within the politically correct, secular fundamentalist crowd who think that religion--any religion, but especially the Christian religion---is hateful and therefore a form of child abuse if religious beliefs, particularly creationism or sexual morality views, are passed on to children. I could just imagine soon some social worker taking away children because they wore a crucifix around their neck and calling it an emblem of hate.
For Deborah (and Ezra, but my readers want me to stop writing about Ezra) its not really about the kid's rights. Its all about the parents.
Because you should be able to cover your kid in hate symbols, use them as a billboard for your far-right political message, and then send 'em out the door and expect things to turn out just A-Okay. Because you own your kid, and its okay to physically mark them in the course of religious indoctrination.
I suppose Deborah would fall into line behind any couple whose religious beliefs require that they douse their kid in gasoline and send them to play with matches.
30 comments:
This is a well-put argument.
Randomly chosen snippet from Gyapong (from link):
"I run into this among journalists. For them there can't possibly be any arguments against same-sex marriage, or abortion. It's a matter of equality in the first instance and a matter of a woman's right to choose and have control over her body. Period. Only a nutcase or a defective human being could possibly not agree with them.
So they don't bother to develop arguments. They just resort to ad hominems because they really do believe that anyone who disagrees is a bad person who must be motivated by evil."
Wow, that's pretty bad journalism. I wonder if she could have crammed in any more baseless assertions and outright falsehoods?
Again...these types never argue their positions. They assert and fabricate.
Whatever point she had disappeared behind a wall of deception.
It would be interesting to know exactly what, in Gyapong's opinion, might justify removing children from their parents.
"Because you should be able to cover your kid in hate symbols, use them as a billboard for your far-right political message"
Change "far-right" to 'far-left' and look back on various demos against the war, against the oil-men, against Bush, or whatever, and I can see no difference.
Also, the busy-body urge to interfere between parents and their children knows no bounds.
I think the journalist quoted by 'Ti-guy' deserves a Pullitzer!
David Duff
Well, that's dumb.
Is it acceptable or alright for any parent to adorn their kids with symbols of hatful ideologies? Of course not. I find it disgusting. Let the school suspend
But do I want the government to have the power to take kids away from their parents if they are found with a swastika (Nazism) or hammer and sickle (Communism) marking - or a "9-11 was an inside job" (Leftwing-Lunaticism) t-shirt? No chance.
Symbols never hurt anyone. It was the suspension of REAL rights that led to the Nazi's reign of terror. That's something BCL ought to keep in mind before supporting fascist style tactics of cracking down on ideological views - even ones we detest.
"Let the school suspend..."
..the child as a matter of school policy.
(Forgot to finish that thought.)
Ben,
THe parents have already sent the kid to school that way. That is exceedingly reckless behavior and, I would suggest, shows that they are willing to endanger their child.
BCL, Long time no see my friend, Here is my problem, where does it go from here, will we take GW deniers children from them. How about the children of Communist sympathizers. How about the children of the fundamentalist Christians, how about the children of the Kadhr family. I personally find the whole white supremest movement and Nazism repugnant but I do not think we should be taking their child away, Slippery slope BCL.
Kingston,
We take children from parents who endanger them. Nothing political about that.
Your totally correct BCL, we do take children away from their parents who are be physically abused, who are not be provided the necessities of life, i.e. food and clothing etc. In all my research on this article I cannot find that to be the case. I just think it is dangerous to go down this road. If you read this story from the beginning the child put the symbol on herself and the school made her wash it off, she then went home and her parents put it back on, more then likely in a case of they cannot tell me what to do. Anyway as always just my thoughts
One line of the linked-story that should be noted is: Manitoba's child and family services agency, although it can't discuss the specifics of the case.
We don't know much here except the mother's side of the story, and she is naturally interested in making this all about the swastika and not about other issues. But the swastika's probably only the tip of the iceberg.
Right, Buckets, and most earlier stories say the child "showed up" with markings on her body. Probably the claim that she drew themself is from the mother. Not that this matters. It can't be good for a kid's physical well-being with to show up on the playground with a swastika drawn on their arm. Good way to precipitate a beating. Hugely irresponsible on the parents part.
It can't be good for a kid's physical well-being with to show up on the playground with a swastika drawn on their arm. Good way to precipitate a beating. Hugely irresponsible on the parents part.
Okay then, so you would support the state's policy of snatching children from their parents if they are found with a swastika. Not because the swasticka represents a vile and hateful ideology (which it does) but because permitting one's child to adorn any ideological symbol that is controversial enough to put them in any danger should be against the law. That about right?
So what if a parent sends their kid to school with a "I support same-sex marriage" t-shirt. There are parts of this country where that could get a harrassed, if not assaulted. Frankly however, I doubt anyone would reasonably say that the parent's should have their kid taken away, even though it could be reasonably argued that they were put in danger.
Ben,
If the parents were adorning the child with symbolism controversial enough to endanger the kid's physical well-being, then yes.
Until the Nazis used this symbol, the swastika was used by many cultures throughout the past 3,000 years to represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck.
Did the mom make a bad call? For some she certainly did.
If there is child abuse or neglect then the authorities should act, but when they act on thought crimes heaven help the average citizen.
If a young black-skinned child had the black power fist on their arm -I doubt that child would be removed from their parents.
If the parents were adorning the child with symbolism controversial enough to endanger the kid's physical well-being, then yes.
I find that incredible. If a Jewish family send their kid to school with a star of David in a strongly antisemitic community, you'd support the government snatching the child?
What if the symbol takes the form of a relgious peice of clothing - like a muslim girl's head scarf or a christian child's cross necklace? If Islam or Christianity happens to be "controversial" enough in the community, it could definitly put them in danger. But rather than blame the scumbags who beat kids up, you would punish the parents for allowing their kids to practice their religion in a public forum.
I find it very disturbing that people such as yourself are willing to sacrifice our democratic freedoms so readily. It just goes to show that fascist ideals are not limited to Nazism.
BCL, I find this pretty disturbing:
"If the parents were adorning the child with symbolism controversial enough to endanger the kid's physical well-being, then yes."
So, we're now saying that adorning your child in symbolism "controversial enough to endanger the kid's physical well-being" is grounds to have your kids taken away from you!?!? Who gets to determine what constitutes "controversial enough"??? As Ben says, wearing a t-shirt supporting same sex marriage is "controversial enough" to get a kid beat up. So, for that matter would be wearing a Star of David at a lot of schools. Or a turban. I'm pretty sure wearing a Turban at a lot of schools would be enough to get your butt whooped. Should we take the children of all Sikhs away from their parents?
If "letting your kid go to school in that is gonna get them beat up" is the new norm for taking a child away from their parents, I'm afraid we're going to have to put about half the kids in the country in foster care. This is the very definition of the slippery slope, imho.
"torture is wrong when it's against a journalist or political activist"
Oh yes, quite so ... absolutely ... er, but on the other hand ... let's not be too hasty ... I mean, there are *some* politicians you'd just love to use the pliars on ... then there's Mark Steyn, personally I'd give him a Pullitzer, too, but I suspect there might be one or three visitors here who couldn't clamp the electrodes on fast enough!
Anyway, give me time to think on it a bit longer - "I have a little list" ...
I'm getting really, really sick of defending people I detest.
Is that what you think you're doing here? Defending someone?
If you want to defend the neo-nazi mother who marks up her kid with a swastika, then I suggest you contact your MLA or MP, the Manitoba's child and family services agency and any number of other organisations that think this is an outrage.
I'm constantly astounded by people who think defending freedom means arguing with people who don't necessarily agree with them. What a bizarre understanding of rights and freedoms and of what's required to actually guarantee them.
But then, it never really is about defending freedom with certain types; it's about being seen to defend freedom; the actual leg-work required is someone else's responsibility.
LK,
If parents kept sending their kids into beatings/harrassment at school, the school could not in conscience keep the kid around. Nor would a suspension really solve the problem, because if the parents were persistant then the kid would go without an education. What's more important, the parents' right to political self-expression via their kids body or the kids education/safety?
I mean, if its a safety issue its a safety issue. Do you not think it appropriate to take the child away when the parents are repeatedly putting the child in danger? Think it through.
BCL,
Of course, this was a one time incident from all I've read, and there's ZERO mention of the kid ever getting beaten up, so, think it through. You're arguing that a child should be taken away from their parents for repeatedly exposing a child to school yard beatings based on a case in which the child was apparently never beaten up, and the parent didn't do anything repeatedly.
LK,
You might want to read a little bit more. The husband of the pair was questioned previously re "hate crimes involving children", although not charged. I have no idea what that involved.
LK,
And I am assuming you would have preferred the school wait until something actually happened?
BCL,
I like reading a lot of blogs, it's good to read about a subject from both sides. Somewhere in the middle is where the truth is found.
"LK,
And I am assuming you would have preferred the school wait until something actually happened?"
Should we start putting people in prison before or after the crime?
duffandnonsense,
While we're making lists, I suggest if we're going to take kids away from their parents we ought to start making a list of symbols they can and can't let their kids wear.
So, nix on the swastika, I think we're all behind that.
Now, a Cross, Star of David or Islamic crescent? Can a child wear any of those, or is it context driven. Is it that a child at a Jewish school can wear a Star of David, and a child at a Catholic school can wear a cross, but not vice versa (for fear of getting beat up and being removed from your parents).
What about the hammer and sickle? Acceptable symbol or no? What about a CCCP hockey jersey? Acceptable, or "we're taking your kids away" worthy? A pink triangle? Heck, what about pink on boys at all? If a parent lets a boy go to school in a pink shirt should child services intervene? It's not out of the question that he'll get beat up. They're arguably putting the kid in harms way for letting him wear pink. What if a boy wants to get his ear pierced? Can he stay with his parents if it's the left ear, but not if it's the right (or vice versa... and yeah, I know no one really pays attention to what ear it is anymore!).
Is it just "symbols" that are worthy of severing a parent's connection to their child? What about dress generally? Plenty of kids I see out and about are wearing clothes that would make Britney Spears blush. Arguably this puts them in heightened danger of the many wackos out there. Should we have a designated skirt length beneath which your children will be removed to foster care. Is it the knee, or an inch below the knee?
Taking a child away from their parents is the nuclear option of child protection. It's often warranted, but I fail to see how a symbol, ANY symbol, could possibly warrant such a response.
BCL,
I don't know, is it really so totally unreasonable for us as a society to "wait until something actually happens" before taking a child away from their parents?
I'd bet there are hundreds of prisoners in Gitmo who wish the Americans had "waited for something to actually happen" before rounding them up and throwing them in prison. Surely you're not of the American conservative mind set that says it's crazy to wait until the terrorist commits a crime before locking them up?
Am I the only one shocked to see BCL basically coming out in favour of preventative detention?
We think your kids might get beat up, so we're going to take them away.
We think you might pose a threat to national security, so we're going to lock you up.
Is it really much different?
Ti-guy:
I'm constantly astounded by people who think defending freedom means arguing with people who don't necessarily agree with them. What a bizarre understanding of rights and freedoms and of what's required to actually guarantee them.
I suspect you are thinking of a different defintion of the word "defend". I was using it in the context of a discussion:
to support (an argument, theory, etc.) in the face of criticism; prove the validity of (a dissertation, thesis, or the like) by answering arguments and questions
Wheras you took it in the context of taking action to preserve something:
to ward off attack from; guard against assault or injury (usually fol. by from or against): "The sentry defended the gate against sudden attack"
I apologize if I was unclear. And I take your point about the need to do more than argue.
BCL:
You know, we do have laws on the books that protect people from being assaulted. If thugs want to beat up kids fo any reason, we can prosecute them under the criminal code. And if schools are having a problem keeping their students safe, they should take the necessary steps to address the problem. It's not the government's place to prosecute anyone for being too "controversial."
I apologize if I was unclear. And I take your point about the need to do more than argue.
No problem.
My Lord - er, Kitchener, that is - you're absolutely right, we must have a list, lists are what keep governmental bureaucrats in the style to which the desperately wish to grow accustomed.
So, as to body adornments for children I would instantly support the Star of David, that being my Christian name (my irony detector just went off!). As for a hammer and sickle, I would have the parents sent to the Gulag and the child for, er, re-education. Pink triangles would only be permitted on a boy if he wore a skirt, and on a girl if she grew a moustache.
Any child wearing a "Yes We Can" button would be canned! Girls below the age of 16 would have to wear full Arab dress especially the head covering to cut down the decibel level that appears to be inseperable from young girls. After 16 they would have to wear the shortest skirts possible and see-through blouses. (Come on, fellas, this is a liberal site and us playground lurkers have rights, too, you know!)
Any child wearing a tattoo on any part of their body will have the offending limb removed by surgery, with or without anaesthetic depending on the crassness of the design - this will be part of their Aesthetics 101 class. Further lessons in this vital area of a child's upbringing will include the forcible ripping off of any studs, rings, badges, etc, from whatever part of their body they have been inserted.
There, I think that covers most of it.
David Duff
Post a Comment