Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Parents influencing children to be racist. Should they be able to maintain custody?

LucidLucid Registered User regular
edited May 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Where I live, there's a case going on right now involving children who have been taken away from their racist parents(neo nazi).

Here's an article describing this; http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/05/26/mb-swastika-custody-hearing-winnipeg.html

So, essentially they drew and wrote racist phrases, and nazi symbols on their 8 year old daughter then sent them to school. I have a closer connection to this as my girlfriend works at the school, I've heard accounts of what actually happened(the parents even used to live in her building). Now, the school itself is a very multicultural school, with a majority of students being of mixed minorities.

The children of these people have been taken into the custody of child and family of services, who are seeking to make them wards until they are adults or are adopted/fostered I guess. The parents have been denying this stuff for the most part, but their racism is not able to be covered up as they still act as persecuted white people. The mother even tried using the its not a nazi swastika it's an ancient pagan symbol reasoning. The father has actually accused the 8 year old of lying when she told social services about her racist beliefs(the child is saying things about killing black people, etc.). Besides all of this, they supposedly smoked pot and drank around their children.

So, do the parents have a right to this under any kind of free speech ethics, any merit to that kind of defense? I don't think so myself, but I guess that's what they're trying to argue. It seems ridiculous to me. Should the children be taken from them?

Lucid on
No museum needs another upside-down toilet bowl once it has one.
«134

Posts

  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I've heard about this in the past few weeks. On first glance, the act of drawing racist phrases and symbols probably is what is allowing them to proceed so strongly on this issue. I'd imagine there's a much stronger argument for child cruelty for subjecting their children to the obvious ridicule that these things would draw than if they had simply indoctrinated their kids.

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • GreenleafGreenleaf Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I think the parents have a right to be racist and pass it on to their children. But that's kind of a shitty thing.

  • takyristakyris Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    As much as I hate the idea, the parents should keep the kids... up until the point where they start drawing the racist symbols on the kids, which is weaponizing the kid on a much more direct level than just teaching them to hate black people.

    You raise your kid racist and evil, then I can't justify taking your kid. Slapping swastikas on the kid and sending them to school that way is a pretty clear sign that you are crazy and willing to endanger the kid with said craziness, at which point your kid needs to get away from you.

    Dox the PI wrote:
    takyris, Greek God of blowing shit up.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I don't think you can take a kid away because the parents have some wackass beliefs, but at the point of parents drawing racists symbols on the child, some sort of line has been crossed. Teaching a kid crazy things is one thing, forcing them to act out and subjecting them to virtually guaranteed abuse is quite another.

    It also sounds like there is quite a bit more going on in that household than the racist stuff, so it might not even wind up mattering.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • GreenleafGreenleaf Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I think most people are gonna be on the same boat. Damn those, racists. Damn our freedom to be an outspoken racist.
    At least sign them up for a Wife Swap or some other like show and pair them up with a darky.

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Fuck it. I'll go first.

    I think imparting racist beliefs upon your child, especially to the point that this couple was doing, is tantamount to child abuse and that removal from the home is appropriate.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • TrusTrus Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I think you could make an argument that by teaching your children to be racist you are setting them up for a great deal of emotional and physical abuse (either by classmates now, or adults when they are older) and that could be grounds to take them away.

    qFN53.png
  • AridholAridhol Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I am more concerned with the allegations of alcohol and drug abuse by both parents.
    Both issues are fucking shitty for a child to have exposure to but substance abuse by a parent I think is more directly harmful than racist beliefs.

  • INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    yeah, i'm pretty strongly against removing children from their parents home just on account of we disagree with what the kid is being taught.

    sometimes you just gotta do a thing
  • GreenleafGreenleaf Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Trus wrote: »
    I think you could make an argument that by teaching your children to be racist you are setting them up for a great deal of emotional and physical abuse (either by classmates now, or adults when they are older) and that could be grounds to take them away.

    You could say the same thing about teaching them to be religious.

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    yeah, i'm pretty strongly against removing children from their parents home just on account of we disagree with what the kid is being taught.

    For some reason, I'm not. And I realize this will put me in a minority, and honestly, I'm not even sure I could defend it. The only thing I can say is... there's no test you have to take before you become a parent, but since your fuck ups can so profoundly destroy and individual, I think there is a compelling interest in the state not letting that happen.

    Maybe if I had ever seen a neo-Nazi where that was their ONLY flaw...

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • TrusTrus Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Greenleaf wrote: »
    Trus wrote: »
    I think you could make an argument that by teaching your children to be racist you are setting them up for a great deal of emotional and physical abuse (either by classmates now, or adults when they are older) and that could be grounds to take them away.

    You could say the same thing about teaching them to be religious.

    The potential emotional/physical abuse as a nazi > the potential emotional/physical abuse for being religious

    qFN53.png
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Trus wrote: »
    Greenleaf wrote: »
    Trus wrote: »
    I think you could make an argument that by teaching your children to be racist you are setting them up for a great deal of emotional and physical abuse (either by classmates now, or adults when they are older) and that could be grounds to take them away.

    You could say the same thing about teaching them to be religious.

    The potential emotional/physical abuse as a nazi > the potential emotional/physical abuse for being religious

    Not to mention, up here in Canada, we have a slightly more active hate crimes system and teaching racist beliefs would probably lend one's children more likely to fall under that legislation, as opposed to religious indoctrination.

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • BelketreBelketre Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Trus wrote: »
    Greenleaf wrote: »
    Trus wrote: »
    I think you could make an argument that by teaching your children to be racist you are setting them up for a great deal of emotional and physical abuse (either by classmates now, or adults when they are older) and that could be grounds to take them away.

    You could say the same thing about teaching them to be religious.

    The potential emotional/physical abuse as a nazi > the potential emotional/physical abuse for being religious

    Possibly, but there is little difference in the level of racism/exclusion/hatemongering between a neo-nazi and a zionist jew. Why do people only take issue with one side of the extremist coin?

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    you're right man, that is a head scratcher

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Besides the normal racist stuff, when talking with scocial workers, the 8 year old girl actually said black people need to die, and has even described graphic ways of killing them. So, that could be considered child endangerment, as it could jeopardize her safety if acted upon, or other people she possibly could commit acts upon. She has to get these ideas from somewhere, I haven't ever really heard of children thinking of killing other humans without any kind of adult coercion.

    No museum needs another upside-down toilet bowl once it has one.
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Belketre wrote: »
    Trus wrote: »
    Greenleaf wrote: »
    Trus wrote: »
    I think you could make an argument that by teaching your children to be racist you are setting them up for a great deal of emotional and physical abuse (either by classmates now, or adults when they are older) and that could be grounds to take them away.

    You could say the same thing about teaching them to be religious.

    The potential emotional/physical abuse as a nazi > the potential emotional/physical abuse for being religious

    Possibly, but there is little difference in the level of racism/exclusion/hatemongering between a neo-nazi and a zionist jew. Why do people only take issue with one side of the extremist coin?

    I'd ask for a citation, but frankly, I think the mods frown on links to Stormfront.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • JurgJurg In a TeacupRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I don't think that children should be taken away on the basis of "we don't like what's being taught." It sets an unhealthy precedent. While reasonable people think it's wrong to teach children racist beliefs, there is no assurance that the powers deciding these things can always be reasonable. See: The backlash against teaching children evolution in schools, and some of the local legislation stemming from that debate.

    sig.gif
  • GreenleafGreenleaf Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Trus wrote: »
    Greenleaf wrote: »
    Trus wrote: »
    I think you could make an argument that by teaching your children to be racist you are setting them up for a great deal of emotional and physical abuse (either by classmates now, or adults when they are older) and that could be grounds to take them away.

    You could say the same thing about teaching them to be religious.

    The potential emotional/physical abuse as a nazi > the potential emotional/physical abuse for being religious

    Oh, I don't know. I think the Jews had a heaping help of emotional/physical abuse from the Nazi's back in the day.
    But I get what you're saying, and I agree. I'm just saying that both teachings come with ramifications, despite the difference in degrees.

  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The basis isn't that the government of Manitoba is taking issue with the beliefs being taught. The basis is that the beliefs being ingrained (literally) into the children will cause emotional and psychological trauma, thus constituting abuse or neglect on behalf of the parents.

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • BelketreBelketre Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    Belketre wrote: »
    Trus wrote: »
    Greenleaf wrote: »
    Trus wrote: »
    I think you could make an argument that by teaching your children to be racist you are setting them up for a great deal of emotional and physical abuse (either by classmates now, or adults when they are older) and that could be grounds to take them away.

    You could say the same thing about teaching them to be religious.

    The potential emotional/physical abuse as a nazi > the potential emotional/physical abuse for being religious

    Possibly, but there is little difference in the level of racism/exclusion/hatemongering between a neo-nazi and a zionist jew. Why do people only take issue with one side of the extremist coin?

    I'd ask for a citation, but frankly, I think the mods frown on links to Stormfront.

    Yea, underhandedly attempting to accuse me of being a neo-nazi is pretty cool.

    People who dont think Arabs are human are racist. People who think everybody not of their kind are "cattle" are racist. Hardly something that can be debated against.

  • GreenleafGreenleaf Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    The basis isn't that the government of Manitoba is taking issue with the beliefs being taught. The basis is that the beliefs being ingrained (literally) into the children will cause emotional and psychological trauma, thus constituting abuse or neglect on behalf of the parents.

    So they don't have a problem with the belief being taught, but they do have a problem with what it is making them believe.

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Belketre wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Belketre wrote: »
    Trus wrote: »
    Greenleaf wrote: »
    Trus wrote: »
    I think you could make an argument that by teaching your children to be racist you are setting them up for a great deal of emotional and physical abuse (either by classmates now, or adults when they are older) and that could be grounds to take them away.

    You could say the same thing about teaching them to be religious.

    The potential emotional/physical abuse as a nazi > the potential emotional/physical abuse for being religious

    Possibly, but there is little difference in the level of racism/exclusion/hatemongering between a neo-nazi and a zionist jew. Why do people only take issue with one side of the extremist coin?

    I'd ask for a citation, but frankly, I think the mods frown on links to Stormfront.

    Yea, underhandedly attempting to accuse me of being a neo-nazi is pretty cool.

    People who dont think Arabs are human are racist. People who think everybody not of their kind are "cattle" are racist. Hardly something that can be debated against.

    Woah woah woah... again with all the citations. Easy buddy, it's not a thesis.

    But hey, I'm sure the eight people that fit your description are really able to compete with the 926 separate hate groups operating in the United States alone (SPLC.)

    Come to think of it, do you think that's why people pay more attention? I mean, I can't really remember the last time the Zionists burned down a black church... but I'm sure that's some how relevant to you, right?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Greenleaf wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    The basis isn't that the government of Manitoba is taking issue with the beliefs being taught. The basis is that the beliefs being ingrained (literally) into the children will cause emotional and psychological trauma, thus constituting abuse or neglect on behalf of the parents.

    So they don't have a problem with the belief being taught, but they do have a problem with what it is making them believe.

    No, they have a problem with the inevitable emotional and psychological consequences that would follow by subjecting children to these beliefs.

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    Fuck it. I'll go first.

    I think imparting racist beliefs upon your child, especially to the point that this couple was doing, is tantamount to child abuse and that removal from the home is appropriate.

    I feel like I disagree, with this child's case being the exception. It's been mentioned already but there's casual racism being handed down and there's...this.

    But to get back to the simple racism thing, I would have to ask you to explain exactly where the abuse part comes in. Racism is obviously wrong. It's somewhat actionable as a philosophy depending how far you take it. It creates a drain on social happiness through whatever interactions the racist will have with other races. It will create some cognitive strain on the part of the believer due to dissonance with reality. But, you know, I can think of several philosophies like this.

    Maybe even more of a net negative, and more actionable. Say, like the philosophy currently heading one of America's major national parties(ambiguous political burn!)

    It would also be helpful to specify the degree of racism you feel is needed to constitute abuse enough to take the kid away. Just so we're on the same page and not reading things in each other's posts that aren't there.

  • joshua1joshua1 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I have to say, i think that that any indoctrination of any kind is wrong.

    Im not saying religion or what any particular view point is bad etc etc, but you don't OWN your child. You rear it, and hope you do a good enough job that they can find their own way in the world. Sure, share your beliefs with your child, but don't tell them that it is the only way about it. Im grateful that my parents had this mindset, and decided against baptism, but when we asked about it, informed us what christianity was, what islam was etc etc. My sister even almost chose to be baptised when she was in high school, but then decided against it at the last minute. She realised that she was going to do it because her friends were and the pastor suggested it, but not for her own sake.

    This is also a very sensitive issue with my gf, because when i ask her *why* our potential children have to be baptised, the only thing she can think of is "because its the done thing!" and gets very flustered that she is having trouble defending her argument cogently.

  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    joshua1 wrote: »
    I have to say, i think that that any indoctrination of any kind is wrong.

    Im not saying religion or what any particular view point is bad etc etc, but you don't OWN your child. You rear it, and hope you do a good enough job that they can find their own way in the world. Sure, share your beliefs with your child, but don't tell them that it is the only way about it. Im grateful that my parents had this mindset, and decided against baptism, but when we asked about it, informed us what christianity was, what islam was etc etc. My sister even almost chose to be baptised when she was in high school, but then decided against it at the last minute. She realised that she was going to do it because her friends were and the pastor suggested it, but not for her own sake.

    This is also a very sensitive issue with my gf, because when i ask her *why* our potential children have to be baptised, the only thing she can think of is "because its the done thing!" and gets very flustered that she is having trouble defending her argument cogently.


    Couldn't say it better myself.

  • LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    joshua1 wrote: »
    I have to say, i think that that any indoctrination of any kind is wrong.

    Im not saying religion or what any particular view point is bad etc etc, but you don't OWN your child. You rear it, and hope you do a good enough job that they can find their own way in the world. Sure, share your beliefs with your child, but don't tell them that it is the only way about it. Im grateful that my parents had this mindset, and decided against baptism, but when we asked about it, informed us what christianity was, what islam was etc etc. My sister even almost chose to be baptised when she was in high school, but then decided against it at the last minute. She realised that she was going to do it because her friends were and the pastor suggested it, but not for her own sake.

    This is also a very sensitive issue with my gf, because when i ask her *why* our potential children have to be baptised, the only thing she can think of is "because its the done thing!" and gets very flustered that she is having trouble defending her argument cogently.

    Every thread, someone says this. <3 to all you who have reached this conclusion.

    What if this weren't a rhetorical question?
  • INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    government doesn't really have more claim to your child than a parent does, though o_O

    sometimes you just gotta do a thing
  • LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    That's an inane comment. The child is a person, not a possession. Of anyone, or anything. It has rights, and it has responsibilities. And others have responsibilities towards it.

    What if this weren't a rhetorical question?
  • desperaterobotsdesperaterobots Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I'd probably say, yes, they should keep their kids if they're influencing their kids to be racist. Because if I say it's not okay, then I'm also saying it's not okay for parents to influence their kids to distrust all religions, which I think is the healthiest thing ever.

    Drawing shit on a kid and sending it to school is insane, though, regardless of the nature of the content. If someone scrawled a recipe for chocolate cookies on their kid and sent them to school I would expect the kid to be removed from their care. Because, dudes, what.

  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited May 2009
    I really do not see a difference between the damage this does compared to Christianity. The message is different, the result is different, but the severity of the injury to potential I think is identical.

    That being said, I think teaching your kids racial hate is pretty stupid and offensive.

  • CherrnCherrn Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Racial indoctrination is a horrible thing (see Prussian Blue, urrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh), and I definitely think something should be done in cases where a child's core philosophy is based purely on hatred, but I don't know what could be done.

    Taking away children due to their parent's belief system is all up in dat slippery slope. Sure, we could start evaluating parental capabilites based on specific criteria related to personal belief, but to what end? The core of the problem seems to lie in the notion that such an upbringing effectively removes any semblance of choice from the child, i.e. indoctrination, and that having a warped perspective from childhood could potentially endanger this person later in life. Either way, the only method of "rehabilitation" is to explicitly tell the child that his/her parents are WRONG, which probably brings its own share of psychological trauma.

    More often than not, it's a lose/lose situation. There's only so much you can do to prevent people being racist assholes.

    All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Oh yeah, allowing the government to take away kids because they disagree with the ideas the parents are teaching them is an excellent idea.

    He should be taken away because they're using him as a political tool with no regard for his well-being, not because of what the symbols mean.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I think passing on racist beliefs is abuse. The way society is moving right now is that racism is wrong and cannot be acted on. In the case noted in the OP, with the girl having things written on her and such, that's teaching action based on racist views.

    In regard to the case of the OP, in that specific case mind you, the child should be taken from her parents on account of the other crap going on. Teaching your kid to think things about other people is one thing. Sending them to school with shit all over them is another.

    Edit - The way I see it as abuse, the kid may grow up and keep quiet or not act on the beliefs often, but that will mean s/he is doing it feeling like the non-whites or whatever are the cause of their "oppression." They won't grow up thinking, "Hrm, y'know what, it IS wrong." It hasn't worked in America, where we're 50 years on this shit having to have stopped legally.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • ArasakiArasaki Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The whole freedom of speech thing works both ways.

    That said, drawing and writing racist remarks and nazi symbols on your child then sending them to a multi-cultural school is endangering your child somewhat, which could provide a case.

    My only regret is that I didn't drink every pub dry and sleep with every woman on the planet.
  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited May 2009
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Oh yeah, allowing the government to take away kids because they disagree with the ideas the parents are teaching them is an excellent idea.

    He should be taken away because they're using him as a political tool with no regard for his well-being, not because of what the symbols mean.

    Well, I was about to say this is really on to something. The fact that a child is being used as propaganda sounds more like an acceptable reason to make a law against it.

    However, the markings placed on the child don't sound that much different than a kid wearing a cross, or prayer beads, or even a veil. I've met more kids than I'd like to count who preach what their parents tell them is right more forcefully than the parents ever would. I think this is destined to be another situation where either no line is drawn, and we all feel bad for letting racism go (unlikely in the US), or we lay down the law and have to awkwardly pick a spot that we feel is "immoral enough to legislate."

    Aren't we really screwed either way?

  • AtomikaAtomika YOU ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU ARE A BARNACLERegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Like Chernn said, it's a pretty slippery slope, but I could hear an argument comparing the indoctrination of racism (at a practiced level, as displayed in the OP) to that of religious indoctrination, even that of a relatively benign nature.

    When I was a kid in school in the South, I was ridiculed and harassed because I had no problem admitting that the Bible was full of contradiction and that most Baptists I knew were ignorant hypocrites. A thing that is generally considered the majority report in most reasoned parts, but here it was like bizarro world or that Twilight Zone episode where the girl fucks up her face to fit in with all the hideous monsters.

    Passive osmotic indoctrination generally can't be helped in any family situation; people pass stuff on to their kids whether they try to or not. Likewise, the way my granddad talks about "those goddamn gooks" shooting at him in Korea is a completely different animal than someone drawing swastikas on their kids and sending them out into general circulation after having memorized the "How to Kill Darkies" handbook.

    But yes, I guess I could tepidly support an argument against, say, religious marketing or implementation directed at minors, regardless of parental consent.

  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited May 2009
    Arasaki wrote: »
    The whole freedom of speech thing works both ways.

    That said, drawing and writing racist remarks and nazi symbols on your child then sending them to a multi-cultural school is endangering your child somewhat, which could provide a case.

    I dunno. Something seems wrong about this. Can we allow some belief systems to express themselves, but restrict others, depending on what we think is offensive?

  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited May 2009
    But yes, I guess I could tepidly support an argument against, say, religious marketing or implementation directed at minors, regardless of parental consent.

    Religious marketing at children is a supermassive industry. I don't see any way it's even remotely possible that marketing aimed at children will ever be legislated in this country, ever.

    I think it would be easier, although unfair and morally incorrect, to extend some 'Hate Crime' laws to apply to parenting.

«134
Sign In or Register to comment.