So now someone here is trying to argue that a little girl talking about killing all the black people is just typical 8-yr-old behavior? And ironically accusing others of not knowing many 8-yr-olds? This thread is going to be all kinds of mess.
EDIT: So anyway, now seeing that the thread isn't about the OP but something else, fine, I stick by my first statement. Yes, they should be able to maintain custody. That slope is WAY too slippery otherwise.
I'm still having trouble seeing any such slope.
Admittedly, since I'm Canadian and you're not, we're considering the hypothetical in very different terms, but I'm curious as to what looks like a slippery slope to you.
Your notion that kids should be able to be taken away from their parents if the parents are teaching them "values that run counter to the charter" scares the shit out of me man.
Unless, as I'm not Canadian, maybe I'm missing some reference. Like maybe Values of the Charter is its own section, or something, and not some general moral guideline.
So now someone here is trying to argue that a little girl talking about killing all the black people is just typical 8-yr-old behavior? And ironically accusing others of not knowing many 8-yr-olds? This thread is going to be all kinds of mess.
I'm sorry Yar, but not all of us have the great wisdom imparted by being a middle-manager or middle-aged. However, I was stating that little kids talking in a violent or graphic fashion is not particularly out there or a sign of terrible parenting. The genocide and racial element here is what’s the problem (and a particular obsession), so I guess Duffel and I agree. I took him to be talking in a more general sense when he wasn’t.
I'm sorry Yar, but not all of us have the great wisdom imparted by being a middle-manager or middle-aged. However, I was stating that little kids talking in a violent or graphic fashion is not particularly out there or a sign of terrible parenting. The genocide and racial element here is what’s the problem (and a particular obsession), so I guess Duffel and I agree. I took him to be talking in a more general sense when he wasn’t.
Well, I think that even absent a racial element it could still be problematic, depending on what the kid was actually saying. I would hope that if a kid was talking about, say, killing their classmates or the people in their neighborhood, as opposed to people of (x) race, it should still be grounds for a trip to the counselor's office if nothing else.
Also, the degree of "graphic-ness" is important to consider, as well. A kid talking about "punching Bobby's head off" is probably just being a kid - just look at some of our cartoons and scary stories marketed toward that age group (although they should still be taught why saying things like that are inappropriate). A kid talking about "severing Bobby's jugular vein with a hunting knife" has been exposed to some pretty disturbing shit and if it's the parents who were doing it, intentionally, then yeah, there's definitely a problem there which needs to be investigated.
I don't think they should lose the kid for teaching her racist things. They should definitely lose the kid for what, in many places, would be a legitimate threat to their health.
Though I can't speak for what it's like in Winnipeg.
Your notion that kids should be able to be taken away from their parents if the parents are teaching them "values that run counter to the charter" scares the shit out of me man.
Unless, as I'm not Canadian, maybe I'm missing some reference. Like maybe Values of the Charter is its own section, or something, and not some general moral guideline.
Your notion that kids should be able to be taken away from their parents if the parents are teaching them "values that run counter to the charter" scares the shit out of me man.
Unless, as I'm not Canadian, maybe I'm missing some reference. Like maybe Values of the Charter is its own section, or something, and not some general moral guideline.
Though I can't speak for what it's like in Winnipeg.
Partly cloudy and cool.
Section 2 is the one that goes
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Right?
See in America we call that the First Amendment and we take it pretty seriously. As a peace loving, rational, and understanding American, I would rather hang someone with their own intestines than allow them to fuck with it. Its sacred like nothing else.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Which is, in my mind, much more sensible.
Yeah and that's one of the major differences between the US and Canadian/European view of rights. Our politics can be idiotic but on this I absolutely prefer our way.
EDIT: So anyway, now seeing that the thread isn't about the OP but something else, fine, I stick by my first statement. Yes, they should be able to maintain custody. That slope is WAY too slippery otherwise.
I'm still having trouble seeing any such slope.
Admittedly, since I'm Canadian and you're not, we're considering the hypothetical in very different terms, but I'm curious as to what looks like a slippery slope to you.
Well, I think that even absent a racial element it could still be problematic, depending on what the kid was actually saying. I would hope that if a kid was talking about, say, killing their classmates or the people in their neighborhood, as opposed to people of (x) race, it should still be grounds for a trip to the counselor's office if nothing else.
Also, the degree of "graphic-ness" is important to consider, as well. A kid talking about "punching Bobby's head off" is probably just being a kid - just look at some of our cartoons and scary stories marketed toward that age group (although they should still be taught why saying things like that are inappropriate). A kid talking about "severing Bobby's jugular vein with a hunting knife" has been exposed to some pretty disturbing shit and if it's the parents who were doing it, intentionally, then yeah, there's definitely a problem there which needs to be investigated.
I was referring more to the former then the latter. Though it's clearly a very gray area. I mean something such as Saw is something that you could make no argument for being okay for showing to children. However, some eighties schlocky action movie is considerably less damaging than about a million things that are considered okay to show to children. But really the messages society sends to children are god-awful. Violence is one of the last things we have to worry about. Unless you’re going to suggest that having parents show You’ve got Mail to their kids is something that needs to be investigated.
Anecdotally I also question the usage of school councillors because firstly they on general are no better suited to answering or investigating these complex issues than your average H&A poster. And after columbine didn’t we have a major issue with teens getting sent to the councillors for disturbing writings and the like (this was older though – like mid teens or so) being heavily stigmatised, and ostracised when there wasn’t anything particularly wrong with them? Though I don’t have the stats or frequency to recognise when a kid is actually being damaged or the signs. I’m not a psychiatrist. Do you?
Anecdotally I also question the usage of school councillors because firstly they on general are no better suited to answering or investigating these complex issues than your average H&A poster. And after columbine didn’t we have a major issue with teens getting sent to the councillors for disturbing writings and the like (this was older though – like mid teens or so) being heavily stigmatised, and ostracised when there wasn’t anything particularly wrong with them?
Oh, that's still going on. I've heard of kids getting expelled from school, with no warning, hearing or appeal, on the advice of school councillors for being "a danger" for writing a poem or song or fictional short story that includes violence. It's ridiculous.
School councillors and career advisors are the single biggest problem with the education system. They have no training, no clue, no way to relate to kids, nor do they even try. They dispence bad advice after bad advice without any knowledge or understanding of the situations going on. I have yet to hear of one that did more good than harm to the kids that were unfortunate enough to be exposed to them. If I had a say, I'd fire them all and abolish the jobs from the school system - I honestly believe these people would make a more positive contribution to society by being on welfare than in their current positions.
Lets see... They drew Swastikas on their child a symbol that is a almost universal "beat me sign" to little kids. Its the one symbol we all teach our kids is evil and that people who wear it are evil. Kids being kids would(could) beat the shit out of her.
Then they cut her hair until she is bald. When was the last time you saw a bald 8-year old girl outside of a cancer ward? Way to make her stand out in school.
These things make me think the parents do not have the childs best interest at heart.
The whole teaching her racist things is not enough to lose custody however. People have the right to fuck up their kids belief systems a whole lot more than that. Only when those beliefs endanger the child can you intervene.
The rest of us teach our kids strange things too. Take the Idea that chopping down a tree, draging into the living room and decorating it. All to make baby Jesus happy. To a completly neutral outsider it would sound like that kids parents is not playing with a full deck.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
Actually, a swastika is a positive image in the Hindu religion.
Actually, a swastika is a positive image in the Hindu religion.
Indeed, and I think that was even trotted out by the couple in an attempt to defend themselves. Unfortunately the girl's "teehee, kill the darkies" shtick kinda fucked that up for mom and dad.
iTunesIsEvil on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Admittedly, since I'm Canadian and you're not, we're considering the hypothetical in very different terms, but I'm curious as to what looks like a slippery slope to you.
I don't see what being Canadian has to do with the situation or our discussion of it. Richy presented a good argument about the slippery slope. You yourself are trying to say children should be taken away for anything that doesn't jive with a recent political charter. That is some seriously scary authoritarian shit right there. So... if a parent tells their kids that they should speak English and not French, they should be taken away from their parents?
Really though I was thinking of a more practical slippery slope, in which we spend enormous effort trying to decide exactly how racist parents have to be to qualify, in which mistakes are made and kids are yanked from a home because a Hindu is mistaken for a Nazi, where in some regions the local laws go too far on one issue or another, trying to make children wards of the state if their parents oppose teaching certain aspects of sexuality or religion to young children for example. Am I violating their freedom of religion by trying to teach them about Jesus, or am I being hateful and discriminatory against Christians by trying to not teach them about Jesus? Which is less likely to cause a boot to kick down my door and take my children to a government-approved re-education center for treatment? They're my children, I must know!!
I'm sorry Yar, but not all of us have the great wisdom imparted by being a middle-manager or middle-aged. However, I was stating that little kids talking in a violent or graphic fashion is not particularly out there or a sign of terrible parenting. The genocide and racial element here is what’s the problem (and a particular obsession), so I guess Duffel and I agree. I took him to be talking in a more general sense when he wasn’t.
Blah, what? I guess... I forgive you? Not sure how to respond.
I don't see what being Canadian has to do with the situation or our discussion of it.
The situation that sparked the discussion happened in Canada, for one. For another, as my exchange with PantsB shows, Canadians and Americans tend to feel differently about issues relating to freedom of speech. As much as I think it's valuable, I don't think it's immune from significant qualification.
Richy presented a good argument about the slippery slope.
Including the part that describes it as "ridiculously dystopian"? Seriously, the system of judicial checks and balances means that the kinds of things Richy mentioned are impossible short of a complete gutting of the legal system, which would bring with them far deeper problems than ones to do with parenting rights.
You yourself are trying to say children should be taken away for anything that doesn't jive with a recent political charter. That is some seriously scary authoritarian shit right there.
Not really. But then, I really like the Charter, so I'm kind of biased.
So... if a parent tells their kids that they should speak English and not French, they should be taken away from their parents?
Not even close. However, if a parent were to, say, forbid her children from speaking French, then I wouldn't have any trouble with intervention. I'd probably even be willing to extend that to any language. I don't think parents ought to have the right to deny their children rights that the government couldn't deny anyone.
Really though I was thinking of a more practical slippery slope, in which we spend enormous effort trying to decide exactly how racist parents have to be to qualify, in which mistakes are made and kids are yanked from a home because a Hindu is mistaken for a Nazi, where in some regions the local laws go too far on one issue or another, trying to make children wards of the state if their parents oppose teaching certain aspects of sexuality or religion to young children for example. Am I violating their freedom of religion by trying to teach them about Jesus, or am I being hateful and discriminatory against Christians by trying to not teach them about Jesus? Which is less likely to cause a boot to kick down my door and take my children to a government-approved re-education center for treatment? They're my children, I must know!!
If a parent's behaviour were transplanted to the classroom, would it violate s. 319 of the Criminal Code? If yes, then it's bad enough to merit intervention. If no, then it's not.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Which is, in my mind, much more sensible.
Yeah and that's one of the major differences between the US and Canadian/European view of rights. Our politics can be idiotic but on this I absolutely prefer our way.
This reminds me of a two case studies from high school law class regarding freedom of speech in Canada. The first case was a man who spouted anti-semitic views and handed out pamphlets talking about how the holocaust was all staged as a way for Jewish people to gain control of the world. He did this on a street corner. The other case was a teacher who taught his students the same stuff. As I remember it, the former had his rights respected while the latter was fired. The difference being that the students are legally required to stay and listen to the teacher. They were a captive audience. People on the street could just walk away from the guy on the street corner while students were compelled to be there. I certainly agreed with that but throwing parents into the mix makes things kinda cloudy for me.
But classrooms aren't homes; teachers aren't parents. The same rules shouldn't apply. Their presence isn't a legal mandate, it's their very reason for being.
Never said they were and never said they should. In fact, I said that since it was a parent/child issue, I'm not sure what should apply. My initial reaction was "Oh that's wrong, get the kids out of there." but then I thought "Hmm, this seems like a bad idea, having the government say what's ok and not ok for parents to teach." Haven't got a clue where I stand on this.
But classrooms aren't homes; teachers aren't parents. The same rules shouldn't apply. Their presence isn't a legal mandate, it's their very reason for being.
Who said anything about the same rules applying? The same criteria, perhaps, but not the same rules.
We should officially update the Nazi swastika with a goatee so we can tell which is the bad one and which is the Hindu one.
One is clockwise, the other isn't.
Edit: Nevermind, I was thinking of the buddhist one (manji)
Edit Again: and I guess counter/clockwise isn't really used, since it is ambiguous.
Yeah, the clockwise/counterclockwise thing is a myth, it can go either way.
Does it even matter? Symbols change meaning over time. Anyone who makes a swastika knows exactly how it would be interpreted, and pretending otherwise just makes them look more idiotic then before.
Sentry on
[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?'
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
We should officially update the Nazi swastika with a goatee so we can tell which is the bad one and which is the Hindu one.
One is clockwise, the other isn't.
Edit: Nevermind, I was thinking of the buddhist one (manji)
Edit Again: and I guess counter/clockwise isn't really used, since it is ambiguous.
Yeah, the clockwise/counterclockwise thing is a myth, it can go either way.
Does it even matter? Symbols change meaning over time. Anyone who makes a swastika knows exactly how it would be interpreted, and pretending otherwise just makes them look more idiotic then before.
So you're saying India is full of Nazis? Because they use the Swastika in many buildings and temples as a motif.
We should officially update the Nazi swastika with a goatee so we can tell which is the bad one and which is the Hindu one.
One is clockwise, the other isn't.
Edit: Nevermind, I was thinking of the buddhist one (manji)
Edit Again: and I guess counter/clockwise isn't really used, since it is ambiguous.
Yeah, the clockwise/counterclockwise thing is a myth, it can go either way.
Does it even matter? Symbols change meaning over time. Anyone who makes a swastika knows exactly how it would be interpreted, and pretending otherwise just makes them look more idiotic then before.
So you're saying India is full of Nazis? Because they use the Swastika in many buildings and temples as a motif.
Meh. I think I'm mainly referring to North America, as my knowledge of Indian architecture is limited.
Sentry on
[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?'
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
I mean, I see where you're coming from,, I'm not an idiot. I would definitely agree that most people in North America would associate the Swastika with Nazis. I just want to make sure that people know that that isn't the only use of the symbol.
I understand what you're saying, Sentry. If you get a swastika tattoo and shave your head, you fucking know the reactions you're going to get, and if you get all indignant when a jewish guy gives you a dirty look because "It's a hindu symbol, maaaaan", you're full of shit. Which is basically the same as the situation in the OP.
But if you're an indian student who comes to America with a swastika pendant and a poor grasp of history, you can get away with ignorance for a few days maybe before someone says "listen, about that...". At that point, you can attempt to keep wearing it because it has meaning for you, but the dangers you face have been disclosed, and you're going to have a real struggle on your hands.
I mean, I see where you're coming from,, I'm not an idiot. I would definitely agree that most people in North America would associate the Swastika with Nazis. I just want to make sure that people know that that isn't the only use of the symbol.
Right. I mean, I think that it just depends on how salient the symbol is or ingrained in another culture. People who only know it from the Nazi's are ONLY going to associate it with that, no matter what kind of protest the person displaying it mounts. Sort of a when in Rome thing, I guess.
Sentry on
[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?'
I understand what you're saying, Sentry. If you get a swastika tattoo and shave your head, you fucking know the reactions you're going to get, and if you get all indignant when a jewish guy gives you a dirty look because "It's a hindu symbol, maaaaan", you're full of shit. Which is basically the same as the situation in the OP.
But if you're an indian student who comes to America with a swastika pendant and a poor grasp of history, you can get away with ignorance for a few days maybe before someone says "listen, about that...". At that point, you can attempt to keep wearing it because it has meaning for you, but the dangers you face have been disclosed, and you're going to have a real struggle on your hands.
I dunno. If I saw a brown dude with a swastika I think I'd assume it was a religious/spiritual symbol because the alternative is pretty ludicrous.
I understand what you're saying, Sentry. If you get a swastika tattoo and shave your head, you fucking know the reactions you're going to get, and if you get all indignant when a jewish guy gives you a dirty look because "It's a hindu symbol, maaaaan", you're full of shit. Which is basically the same as the situation in the OP.
But if you're an indian student who comes to America with a swastika pendant and a poor grasp of history, you can get away with ignorance for a few days maybe before someone says "listen, about that...". At that point, you can attempt to keep wearing it because it has meaning for you, but the dangers you face have been disclosed, and you're going to have a real struggle on your hands.
I dunno. If I saw a brown dude with a swastika I think I'd assume it was a religious/spiritual symbol because the alternative is pretty ludicrous.
Which is good, but there exist the kind sof people who do not know the symbol's history and are inclined to swing first and ask questions never, because as Sentry points out, the common meaning is... well... common.
Perhaps a better argument is in order. If a hindu family business starts up in Localtown, USA and they construct a building with a swastika plaque on the front, do you think that would go over well, even with full knowledge of the symbol's history explained by the business owners? I'm not saying it makes sense or isn't silly, just that it still holds far greater meaning in the western world as a symbol of a reprehensible ideology.
There's a large amount of "being offended on behalf of others" thought piggybacking in play here. If my wife bought a jacket with a swastika patch (in addition to other hindu symbology), would it offend me in the slightest? Not at all. But I'd still probably suggest she not wear it out, because it's too hard to defend.
I don't really read the Onion. Around the election they got SHOVEITDOWNYOURTHROATDEMOCRAT all over the place, so I took it off my bookmarks. Even so I think the line from Kaz was funnier, goin in cold. The image of two loving hopeful parents searching to improve a child's life... after a hateful racist child. That really cracks me up.
We should officially update the Nazi swastika with a goatee so we can tell which is the bad one and which is the Hindu one.
One is clockwise, the other isn't.
Edit: Nevermind, I was thinking of the buddhist one (manji)
Edit Again: and I guess counter/clockwise isn't really used, since it is ambiguous.
Yeah, the clockwise/counterclockwise thing is a myth, it can go either way.
Does it even matter? Symbols change meaning over time. Anyone who makes a swastika knows exactly how it would be interpreted, and pretending otherwise just makes them look more idiotic then before.
So you're saying India is full of Nazis? Because they use the Swastika in many buildings and temples as a motif.
The Hindu symbol is a mirror-reversal of the swastika, actually.
Posts
Admittedly, since I'm Canadian and you're not, we're considering the hypothetical in very different terms, but I'm curious as to what looks like a slippery slope to you.
Unless, as I'm not Canadian, maybe I'm missing some reference. Like maybe Values of the Charter is its own section, or something, and not some general moral guideline.
On the black screen
I'm sorry Yar, but not all of us have the great wisdom imparted by being a middle-manager or middle-aged. However, I was stating that little kids talking in a violent or graphic fashion is not particularly out there or a sign of terrible parenting. The genocide and racial element here is what’s the problem (and a particular obsession), so I guess Duffel and I agree. I took him to be talking in a more general sense when he wasn’t.
Also, the degree of "graphic-ness" is important to consider, as well. A kid talking about "punching Bobby's head off" is probably just being a kid - just look at some of our cartoons and scary stories marketed toward that age group (although they should still be taught why saying things like that are inappropriate). A kid talking about "severing Bobby's jugular vein with a hunting knife" has been exposed to some pretty disturbing shit and if it's the parents who were doing it, intentionally, then yeah, there's definitely a problem there which needs to be investigated.
Though I can't speak for what it's like in Winnipeg.
Partly cloudy and cool.
Section 2 is the one that goes Right?
See in America we call that the First Amendment and we take it pretty seriously. As a peace loving, rational, and understanding American, I would rather hang someone with their own intestines than allow them to fuck with it. Its sacred like nothing else.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Which is, in my mind, much more sensible.
Yeah and that's one of the major differences between the US and Canadian/European view of rights. Our politics can be idiotic but on this I absolutely prefer our way.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I was referring more to the former then the latter. Though it's clearly a very gray area. I mean something such as Saw is something that you could make no argument for being okay for showing to children. However, some eighties schlocky action movie is considerably less damaging than about a million things that are considered okay to show to children. But really the messages society sends to children are god-awful. Violence is one of the last things we have to worry about. Unless you’re going to suggest that having parents show You’ve got Mail to their kids is something that needs to be investigated.
Anecdotally I also question the usage of school councillors because firstly they on general are no better suited to answering or investigating these complex issues than your average H&A poster. And after columbine didn’t we have a major issue with teens getting sent to the councillors for disturbing writings and the like (this was older though – like mid teens or so) being heavily stigmatised, and ostracised when there wasn’t anything particularly wrong with them? Though I don’t have the stats or frequency to recognise when a kid is actually being damaged or the signs. I’m not a psychiatrist. Do you?
School councillors and career advisors are the single biggest problem with the education system. They have no training, no clue, no way to relate to kids, nor do they even try. They dispence bad advice after bad advice without any knowledge or understanding of the situations going on. I have yet to hear of one that did more good than harm to the kids that were unfortunate enough to be exposed to them. If I had a say, I'd fire them all and abolish the jobs from the school system - I honestly believe these people would make a more positive contribution to society by being on welfare than in their current positions.
Then they cut her hair until she is bald. When was the last time you saw a bald 8-year old girl outside of a cancer ward? Way to make her stand out in school.
These things make me think the parents do not have the childs best interest at heart.
The whole teaching her racist things is not enough to lose custody however. People have the right to fuck up their kids belief systems a whole lot more than that. Only when those beliefs endanger the child can you intervene.
The rest of us teach our kids strange things too. Take the Idea that chopping down a tree, draging into the living room and decorating it. All to make baby Jesus happy. To a completly neutral outsider it would sound like that kids parents is not playing with a full deck.
Really though I was thinking of a more practical slippery slope, in which we spend enormous effort trying to decide exactly how racist parents have to be to qualify, in which mistakes are made and kids are yanked from a home because a Hindu is mistaken for a Nazi, where in some regions the local laws go too far on one issue or another, trying to make children wards of the state if their parents oppose teaching certain aspects of sexuality or religion to young children for example. Am I violating their freedom of religion by trying to teach them about Jesus, or am I being hateful and discriminatory against Christians by trying to not teach them about Jesus? Which is less likely to cause a boot to kick down my door and take my children to a government-approved re-education center for treatment? They're my children, I must know!!
Blah, what? I guess... I forgive you? Not sure how to respond.
One is clockwise, the other isn't.
Edit: Nevermind, I was thinking of the buddhist one (manji)
Edit Again: and I guess counter/clockwise isn't really used, since it is ambiguous.
Including the part that describes it as "ridiculously dystopian"? Seriously, the system of judicial checks and balances means that the kinds of things Richy mentioned are impossible short of a complete gutting of the legal system, which would bring with them far deeper problems than ones to do with parenting rights.
Not really. But then, I really like the Charter, so I'm kind of biased.
Not even close. However, if a parent were to, say, forbid her children from speaking French, then I wouldn't have any trouble with intervention. I'd probably even be willing to extend that to any language. I don't think parents ought to have the right to deny their children rights that the government couldn't deny anyone.
If a parent's behaviour were transplanted to the classroom, would it violate s. 319 of the Criminal Code? If yes, then it's bad enough to merit intervention. If no, then it's not.
This reminds me of a two case studies from high school law class regarding freedom of speech in Canada. The first case was a man who spouted anti-semitic views and handed out pamphlets talking about how the holocaust was all staged as a way for Jewish people to gain control of the world. He did this on a street corner. The other case was a teacher who taught his students the same stuff. As I remember it, the former had his rights respected while the latter was fired. The difference being that the students are legally required to stay and listen to the teacher. They were a captive audience. People on the street could just walk away from the guy on the street corner while students were compelled to be there. I certainly agreed with that but throwing parents into the mix makes things kinda cloudy for me.
Does it even matter? Symbols change meaning over time. Anyone who makes a swastika knows exactly how it would be interpreted, and pretending otherwise just makes them look more idiotic then before.
Meh. I think I'm mainly referring to North America, as my knowledge of Indian architecture is limited.
But if you're an indian student who comes to America with a swastika pendant and a poor grasp of history, you can get away with ignorance for a few days maybe before someone says "listen, about that...". At that point, you can attempt to keep wearing it because it has meaning for you, but the dangers you face have been disclosed, and you're going to have a real struggle on your hands.
Right. I mean, I think that it just depends on how salient the symbol is or ingrained in another culture. People who only know it from the Nazi's are ONLY going to associate it with that, no matter what kind of protest the person displaying it mounts. Sort of a when in Rome thing, I guess.
Which is good, but there exist the kind sof people who do not know the symbol's history and are inclined to swing first and ask questions never, because as Sentry points out, the common meaning is... well... common.
Perhaps a better argument is in order. If a hindu family business starts up in Localtown, USA and they construct a building with a swastika plaque on the front, do you think that would go over well, even with full knowledge of the symbol's history explained by the business owners? I'm not saying it makes sense or isn't silly, just that it still holds far greater meaning in the western world as a symbol of a reprehensible ideology.
There's a large amount of "being offended on behalf of others" thought piggybacking in play here. If my wife bought a jacket with a swastika patch (in addition to other hindu symbology), would it offend me in the slightest? Not at all. But I'd still probably suggest she not wear it out, because it's too hard to defend.
This is the funniest thing I think I've ever read in my entire life.
???
I don't think I understand the question.
I don't really read the Onion. Around the election they got SHOVEITDOWNYOURTHROATDEMOCRAT all over the place, so I took it off my bookmarks. Even so I think the line from Kaz was funnier, goin in cold. The image of two loving hopeful parents searching to improve a child's life... after a hateful racist child. That really cracks me up.