The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Parents influencing children to be racist. Should they be able to maintain custody?
Lucid
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
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?
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
0
Posts
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
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.
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.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
At least sign them up for a Wife Swap or some other like show and pair them up with a darky.
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.
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.
You could say the same thing about teaching them to be religious.
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...
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
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
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?
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I'd ask for a citation, but frankly, I think the mods frown on links to Stormfront.
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.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
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.
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.
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?
No, they have a problem with the inevitable emotional and psychological consequences that would follow by subjecting children to these beliefs.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
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.
On the black screen
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.
Every thread, someone says this.
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.
That being said, I think teaching your kids racial hate is pretty stupid and offensive.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.