Won’t somebody think of the Nazis?
I heartily support the decision to remove these kids fromm a vile and toxic environment and I would support doing the same for any other white trash, racist skinhead, cracker, scumbag parents who inflict this kind of crippling anti-socialization and intellectual rape on their kids.
And by the same sentiment and rationale, someone somewhere is waxing with an equally vainglorious morality about kids trapped in households with perverse homosexual lifestyles, where they’re taught beastiality and other deviant acts before being sold off to porn merchants. The hate-bigot hat looks like hatred and bigotry no matter who’s wearing it.
So what? I’m right, they’re wrong.
You’re an atheist; you can’t be right.
See how easy this is?
Cite?
Actually, one does not need to go so far as to drag in homosexuals. There are several posters on this board who would gladly take his children from Diogenes for the simple act of allowing his wife to corrupt them with religion.
What have you, been living under a cultural rock for 30 years? It’s one of the most famous scenes from one of the best movies of all time. Here’s the first part of the clip-in Italian, no less!-and here’s how it ends.
Maybe it’s just a coincidence-but if you told the amusing story about how you once tossed a Baby Ruth bar into a pool and everyone panicked assuming it was a turd and they drained the pool etc, etc…I’d cast a dubious eye on that story too. :dubious:
Damn that what you meant by the Princess Leia comment, I guess that was pretty damn similar in a superficial way. Well at least I understand your skeptisim now. My incident was a lot less dramatic and over very quickly. Besides it was only a few handfuls of KKK and not Neo-Nazis. No bridge was involved, just a normal road. It was also at least 5 or 6 cars. Maybe that was what inspired the driver to plow through.
For the record, I never felt like we were on a mission from God, but it was pretty damn exciting.
See this story . It has a LOT of background detail missing from the initial stories - Alleged Winnipeg neo-Nazi mom may regain custody of kids](www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=3bd7d0d6-e631-42e8-8dcf-64314d62a766)
The alleged alcohol and drug use was already mentioned in the articles linked to earlier in this thread. The little girl’s 39 absences is new information, mind you. Still, it’s hardly grounds to remove her, and her brother, from their home and family. This is especially the case if the removal is done in a peremptory, possibly capricious, manner before the mom’s even had a chance to present her “case” to an impartial authority (and not just to some social worker with a bug up her ass).
What if the parents were Black and made their child wear a black glove to school? Investigation shows that they are members of a radical group that believes in the armed overthrow of “white” government and the wholesale murder of whites and let’s add in Asians for “selling-out”.
Should the child be removed? Would the public reaction be different than it is now with the family being white neo-Nazis?
Social workers can’t remove children. A judge has to authorize it.
I guess that depends on how the hate crime laws are written in Canada. There’s no First Amendment there, so it’s not like the US. My guess is that if the circumstances were the same regarding substance abuse and a failure to send the kids to scool, the authorities would have done the same thing. As for public reaction – I don’t know the climate in Canada but in the US, people would be far more approving of doing this to a black family than a white one.
But there’s a big assumption that anyone past a certain age would know what that glove even meant.
These symbols are not equal. The parents’ crime was that they used a symbol the majority of the world links with violence. There is no mistaken what they want. What do Black Radicals want? To kill the White Race? To remove their rights? To treat them as less than human?
How many times in history have black radicals murdered hundreds, let alone millions of white people, using the symbol of the black glove as a rallying point? As a white person, does the black glove fill you with fear? Are you worried that if blacks start wearing black gloves, they are going to round you up and do what Nazis do to groups they don’t like?
I don’t think you would, would you? If not, then the two symbols are not comparable and any conclusions based on simply switching the skin color, and symbols of the two groups are flawed.
In almost every case short of extreme abuse or other extreme situations (hard drug use in the home, etc.) the child turns out worse off for being taken away from her parents.
So this isn’t about the child’s safety. This is about using the threat of taking someone’s child away in an attempt to change their political beliefs.
Not good.
My bad. I wasn’t aware that the law had been found to be unconstitutional. I have learned something today.
Spot on.
You mean someone like Joseph Goebbels?
The situation described in the OP does sound pretty drastic, but we don’t have the full story so I don’t think it’s fair to heap praise or scorn on either party just yet.
Hope you’re not referring to me - I think indoctrinating children with religion is abhorrent but despite that I remain firmly in the camp of “It’s not a crime (and shouldn’t be a crime) to raise your kids any strange, weird, or stuipid way you want, and therefore I can’t do a thing about it. The same way you can’t do anything about me.”*
You’re still a bit off. 
Holocaust denial has never been illegal in Canada. Hate speech is illegal, but
A) There is no specific statutory reference to Holocaust denial (whereas I believe there is in Germany) and
B) The law as it stands (Criminal Code section 319, subsection 2) requires far more for a conviction than just denying the Holocaust occurred. You would have to do so publicly, with malicious intent and in a manner clearly intended to incite hatred. It is, in fact, an exceedingly difficult law to enforce.
As a matter of fact, a prosecution cannot even take place without the specific authorization of the Attorney General of Canada.