Flip it. Does Canada remove children from Black Nationalist, Afro-supremacist parents? What about Arab supremacists?
:smack:
Jeez, between ‘preview’ and ‘post’ fifty people said what I said, only better.
I need to learn to be quicker on the draw.
I have been reading this thread, generally agreeing that stupid idiots are free to be Nazis if they wish, and the government had no cause to remove those children. Then you had to being up the FLDS…
I have been doing some research and thinking on the FLDS over the past few months, and the amount of brainwashing that goes on, and the total ruin of those children’s lives. While I recognized the almost non-existent legal grounds for that raid, I was happy to turn a blind eye. That group is dangerous and abuses children.
But, based on my reaction to this Nazi thing, I have to confront the questions. I don’t believe that the FLDS, Nazis, Black Panthers, whoever should be held to a different standard - I’ve long believed that any idiot is free to participate in America, no matter how abhorrent their views.
At what point does it become “abuse?” Is there a real difference between the FLDS and some random Nazis because of their size? At what point does “group” become dangerous “mob”. I like to think the right of parents to raise children is black and white - no abuse, no interference. But the FLDS, man…
As a aside, I was happy to note this morning that Warren Jeffs became very ill in jail recently. I hope he dies a horrible death… [/hijack]
My question was about a swastika, indistinguishable 'tween Hindu and Nazi when drawn on an arm. If your problem is with the swastika, then I hope you’d have similar concerns about a Hindu child with a drawn swastika - if the concern is about the symbol. If the concern is about the Nazism, it’s a moot point, as the woman isn’t a Nazi, by her own words.
Woah, there. The kid is with extended family, not a stranger’s foster home.
The biggest difference I see is that this girl was in school. She was not isolated within a compound. There are people, like teachers and social workers, who can get a look at her and determine whether or not she’s being abused. I think they are wrong, so far, but at least they are there where they can see her on a daily basis.
I don’t really have much of an issue with the FLDS polygamy thing, it’s the seclusion thing and teaching their children complete falsehoods about a society they never get to see that worries me. Informed consent is impossible without information. And when you live on a compound with a school and doctor’s offices and whatnot all enclosed, there are no checks on parental abuse. Literally no one sees these kids to see if they have bruises or mental issues, other than the people allegedly abusing them and their co-conspirators.
I’m going to retreat. I will apparently convince no one and everyone is dead sure I am wrong. You also will fail to convince me as I know to my core that Neo-Nazis should not be tolerated anymore than the Mafia. We are at an impasse.
I only posted this to admit that your chorus has won and** I have lost**. I stand nearly alone in my unreasoned hatred of Nazis and Neo-Nazis. I accept my defeat and hopefully you will understand why I am raising the white flag.
Jim
In the early years of the Nazi Party the SA regularly disrupted *socialist * and *communist * marches and gatherings. Be careful what you wish for. Legitimizing thuggish behavior only gives more power to the thugs.
Heh, I was just poking at begbert2 a bit, for poking at Canada where the US has quite notably done the same sort of stuff. 
But to make a more serious point - I think the terms in this debate are misconstrued.
We do not know from the article why exactly Child services moves to remove the kids. The assumption is that it was because mom is a Nazi. Now, I would agree with others that simply being a Nazi (or an FLDS member, or whatever) isn’t grounds for the state to take any actions. You are free to believe in whatever hateful (or controversial) religious or political thing you want.
Thing is, we do not know whether the parent in this case was engaged in acts which could put the kids at risk. From the article, the drawing of a swastika incident caused social workers to go to her place, where whatever they found there allegedly gave them cause for concern:
But we are not told what if anything gave them this opinion. Was it merely Nazi symbols and the like? If so, I would agree that it was an over-reaction on the social services part.
Similarly, merely believing in whatever the FLDS believes isn’t sufficient to legitimately cause the state to intervene - but nor should controversial beliefs act as a shield where there are legitimate reasons to suspect actual abuse of some sort.
In short I agree with the consensus - no special cases; but that cuts both ways – being a member of some minority, religious or political, is not a license to abuse your children.
No one said you have to like them. You just have to tolerate their right to have their viewpoints.
This was very graceful. You are to be commended.
But keep in mind, the problem is not that you hate nazis and neo-nazis. The problem is that your position argues for punishing people for what they think and say, not what they do.
You mentioned the mafia - let’s look at that. Suppose we have a guy. Luigi Capone, who proudly proclaims himslef the long lost grandson of Al Capone. He also proudly announces that he’s a mobster; just recruited.
But he’s never committed, aided, or been accesory to a crime. Ever.
What should we do with this guy? Should we throw him in jail? Of course not. The issue isn’t what he thinks he is, what he believes, or even what he calls himself; it’s what he does. It doesn’t matter if he dresses like a thug, walks like a goon, talks like a hood, and calls himself a heavy - until he breaks a law, he’s still just another innocent man, with all the rights of an innocent man.
The same thing goes for nazis. Nazis that run death camps and commit war crimes and commit acts of infamy - hang 'em. Shoot 'em. Rake 'em over the coals. “Nazis” that wear swastikas and publish hate literature and parade around -all legally- are innocent and have all the rights of the innocent.
And it’s still okay to hate them. You can even wear your own symbols of hatred, public hate-filled vitrol about them, and hold parades of your own decrying them. But that’s as far as it goes. Because they have as much right to hate as you do.
That’s the discernment you can’t seem to draw — the difference between being a Gambino and carrying out a hit.
In What Exit’s first link from page 1, one Ezra Levant expressed things in a wonderfully concise way:
Exactly! (Oh, please note that Ezra is very likely Jewish - Ezra? Levant? Trust me)
BTW, my last post was very near the bottom of the first page of this thread (#48) and may not have been noted as much as I think it should have (quite modest I am!). I said words to the effect of 'since there are large number of white racist, Aryan type, white power practitioners (or sympathizers) out there (as pointed out by dangermom), there’s no way that the resources exist to remove the kids from all their homes. Hence, by definition, that practice will of necessity not be applied to all who “deserve” it. Whether a white racist’s kids are removed or not becomes rather arbitrary, or at least not uniformly enforced. There’s just not enough foster homes and the like for the kids. As a result, then, the practice of removing kids from that type of family cannot be applied uniformly. It is, therefore, inherently unfair and unjust.
All due respect, but I think that the fact that we could take some but not all children away from racists is completely irrelevent. If the only reason you’re not oppressing all the racists is because you lack the organizational capability to do so, that doesn’t change the fact that somebody else can pick up where you left off and use the same rationales and legal loopholes which you are using to oppress some of the racists, to enable them to oppress jews, blacks, atheists, christians, jocks, intellectuals, whoever–to the best of their ability.
I would say that the first clause appears to be an accurate characterization and that you should never be proud of bullying someone for the sake of showing that you have more power than they.
You should probably consider the wise words of Yoda concerning anger and hatred.
If you have to become a Nazi to oppose Nazis, then you have lost the battle, suffering self-inflicted wounds.
As to the CFS actions, I strongly suspect that the two year old has already been more seriously harmed by the irresponsible and unjustified removal from the home than he ever would have been growing up among nutcases with all the peer pressure he would have encountered to challenge their beliefs. (And there is no reason to assume that the mother (described as “young”), would continue to hold those beliefs throughout his childhood.)
What’s sad is that this could have been a time for introspection for this mother. A chance to see what happens first hand to people who are minorities and have the power of the government turned against them.
To see that innocent or not, rules or not, even the laws…if the government says you’re guilty, then you are. Your rights are what they say they are.
I’m sure she believed when <insert minority group here> complained about the government treating them unfairly, she believed either they deserved it or were lying…because the only bad people need fear the government.
Yet here she is; her children taken. Herself on the outside of society looking in. This should be that moment when she gets it. When she realizes that all it takes is to not be ones in charge to make you the ‘sub-human’, without rights and that if all treat each other equally then ‘they’ can’t single you out because you are not alone.
I fear however, she will not see it. I fear she will use it to convince herself that the world is out to destroy the white race and it will steel her resolve to fill her children with even more hatred.
…and that is the real tragedy.
I remember that, that as great! My favorite part though was when Princess Leia blew up your apartment building with a grenade launcher. That rocked! :rolleyes:
Assuming this is a true story and not just the retelling of a movie scene as a personal anecdote, you should have been arrested, charged and jailed for the maximum time the law allows. The 1st Amendment (I know the woman in the OP was in Canada, and so this doesn’t apply) exists not to protect popular speech, but to protect unpopular and even abhorrent speech. If I had been there, I would have tried to get your license number and pushed as hard as I could have for you to be arrested. I hate neo-Nazis and the KKK as much as you do, but I love my rights more than I hate their beliefs. The only way to ensure MY rights is to ensure EVERYBODY’S rights.
Oh, as to the swastika question:
The master speaks.
I may be wrong but doesn’t the First Amendment refer only to the government? I would think that private citizens can protest a march/speech/etc as long as no laws are broken.(Driving a van through a crowd should qualify as law breaking.)
Well…Nazi beliefs could be constructed as being a form of emotional abuse. Also, I know from one of my friends, (who was raised in a White Supermatist family) that the whole WS/WN scene can be VERY dangerous. Like guns etc.
Hahaha, what a card. You’re a funny one. :rolleyes:
That is right, I made up a story in which I was a minor player to a minor event that as far as I know has never occurred in a movie, about an act that I was pretty damn sure the board would condemn.
That post made a whole lot of sense. Sorry, I was going to stay out of the thread, but I am not use to being called a liar, especially in such weaselly terms.
By the way, what was I, a passenger in the van going to be charged with anyway? I would guess that only the driver was in any serious danger of charges.