First a waitress, now Nazis?

[Wondermonkey]

Grenic, what. is. up?

Parents Lose Custody of Their Children for Teaching them Nazi Beliefs

Children who were taught Nazi ideology by their parents were taken to the authorities to have a permanent custody of the kids.

A couple from Manitoba province, Canada lost custody of their children when it was found about their attempts to impose Nazi beliefs and racists feelings on their children. Two children, a seven-year-old girl and a two-year-old boy were removed from their parents and are cared by the local Child and Family Services .

The court ruled in favor of the government authorities, who wanted to preserve the children's emotional well-being from their white supremacist parents.

Winnipeg Free Press announced that the case was revealed after the event happening on March 25, when a girl appeared in school with a sign of swastika and Nazi markings "14/88" on her arms and one leg.

The numbers had a Nazi symbolism with 14 referring to a 14 words slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children", while 88 refer to the "Heil Hitler" words.

The man is known to be a white supremacist, who cared for his stepdaughter and his son. In 2005 he was presumed to be involved in "hate crimes" related to children. He told that he has dedicated his entire life to being a skinhead and is not going to change. His wife, who called herself a "white nationalist", was considered by court to be unfit for parenting.

I have a feeling we played with the parents on Live last night.

[Nuklhed]

Is that a little too much for the government to be getting into? As long as they were not abusing the children, as messed up as it is, they should be free to teach them whatever belief they want.

[Causedawg 83]

I agree with you Nuklhed, although it's not America, it's Canada. That being said, it's not too far off from where we are here in America either.

[KEEZY]

It's true, we did play against them.

Every Christmas, the KKK throws up their cross down at Fountain Square, and for the most part it is allowed because of free speech and all this. It would seem to be an inconsistency if the KKK was allowed to put up a cross, but not allowed to teach it to their children.

Who knows though... If you were putting markings on your children (depending on how they were applied), you could get into some trouble too. I didn't read the article, b/c I'm ignorant and lazy, so I don't know how it went down.

[Causedawg 83]

They're tattooing their kids with the stuff? I missed that part. That's pretty messed up (as if teaching it to your kids isn't).

[KEEZY]

Winnipeg Free Press announced that the case was revealed after the event happening on March 25, when a girl appeared in school with a sign of swastika and Nazi markings "14/88" on her arms and one leg.

The numbers had a Nazi symbolism with 14 referring to a 14 words slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children", while 88 refer to the "Heil Hitler" words.

It could have just been marker or something, and maybe she put it on there. From the sound of it though, this just tipped people off about the Nazi stuff, and wasn't really the main reason they were taken away.

[Wondermonkey]

You're free to believe whatever you want, you are not free, however, to impose those beliefs on anyone, even children.

People that would let those children stay in that house make me glad we have a judicial system, which I'm not glad for very often. While it's a wildly flawed system, without it, idiots would really have a fair shot of running free and teaching their kids discrimination and hate without facing the music.

Now Canadia, while more progressive then us, probably clearly calls this child abuse, I'm not sure.

And yeah, I think the father's name is Clughzilla, and is a homophobic racist prick.

[KEEZY]

Ah, yes.

[Wondermonkey]

If these were Clughzilla's kids, I totally agree with them being taken away. You can't just drop the F bomb and the N bomb in casual conversation.





Each time, we were the authorities, and they were the Nazis.

[laxgod]

Originally Posted by Wondermonkey

You're free to believe whatever you want, you are not free, however, to impose those beliefs on anyone, even children.

Every parent imposes their beliefs on their children it's just some beliefs are more tolerated than others. I certainly don't agree with what these people were teaching their kids but does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to teach that to them? Where do we draw the line? Some people consider Islam to be a religion that teaches hate, does that mean that we should take all kids away from them? It's all a matter of perception.

[Wondermonkey]

Originally Posted by laxgod

Every parent imposes their beliefs on their children it's just some beliefs are more tolerated than others. I certainly don't agree with what these people were teaching their kids but does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to teach that to them? Where do we draw the line? Some people consider Islam to be a religion that teaches hate, does that mean that we should take all kids away from them? It's all a matter of perception.

It's actually not a perception, it's a matter of action. If they wanted to teach their children hate and discrimination, they probably would have been free to do so had they not sent their kids to a public school where those beliefs, with good reason, are not tolerated. Had they home-schooled them they may have had no problem. I don't know though, I don't know all the facts of the case, just what the news reported.

All religion teaches hate and intolerance to some degree, without exception. But Religion is protected, and the last time I checked, White Supremacy was not a religion.

[Causedawg 83]

Originally Posted by laxgod

Where do we draw the line?

It's a touchy subject, but that question right there pretty much sums up my thinking on all this as well.

[Quo]

Originally Posted by laxgod

Where do we draw the line? ...It's all a matter of perception.

This is not jumping on Lax, I'm only quoting him because I agree with Cause in that that (Where do we draw the line?) becomes the crux of the issue.

I differ with the "perception" comment though. To me, it becomes a question of common sense, not perception. If these people are hurting their own kids and trying to raise them in an environment that will lead to them hurting other people, then common sense says there needs to be an intervention.

If there's evidence out there that these people are actually decent people, it will come forward. I just hope the kids get to be placed somewhere where they have a chance to learn the truth.

[Wondermonkey]

Originally Posted by Quo

If there's evidence out there that these people are actually decent people, it will come forward. I just hope the kids get to be placed somewhere where they have a chance to learn the truth.

That's the problem. In the US at least, the foster system is, well, less than adequate to put it nicely. And adoption isn't an option for many that are over the age of 2. So these kids could very well end up in a worse situation than the one they left.

I wonder if it's better in Canada Canadia though.

Canadians?

[Thornes70]

Originally Posted by Quo

This is not jumping on Lax, I'm only quoting him because I agree with Cause in that that (Where do we draw the line?) becomes the crux of the issue.

I differ with the "perception" comment though. To me, it becomes a question of common sense, not perception. If these people are hurting their own kids and trying to raise them in an environment that will lead to them hurting other people, then common sense says there needs to be an intervention.

If there's evidence out there that these people are actually decent people, it will come forward. I just hope the kids get to be placed somewhere where they have a chance to learn the truth.

The problem is, we can not say that what we consider as common sense does not apply to others, only ourselves. After all, a white supremacist could think it is common sense that other races are inferior - it's an argument that can not hold up in court in most cases.

Without knowing the whole story, Lax is actually correct imo to an extent; it is NOT illegal to instill in children a parent's belief - despite how controversial it is... There could've been grounds for child abuse (again, not knowing the whole story), or a number of different issues not mentioned in the article.

Freedom of Speech as we know it in the US must tolerate even the rankest of white stupidemacy, no matter how much we disagree with it... The fine line is when it encites others (maybe the parent's discussions incited the girl to act in a way that might harm another or cause emotional stress in the school? who knows).

Law is law, and you can't say that you have this right, but this person doesn't because they believe differently than you do.