OK, OK, picky picky.
I was kind of assuming the public element in my description anyway, as well as the malice. Yes, I was using shorthand for it!
Bah, humbug.
[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
Except, those substitutions don’t really fly because all the Nazis stood for was conquest and the hatred of Jews. There is no way, none, to spin that into an acceptable form of “alternative government.”
EDIT: Plus, the girl is 7. It is fucked up to send her to school with a swastika on her arm and use her as a pawn in hate-filled Nazi games and not expect repurcussions.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, no. There’s quite a few gypsies, gays, catholics et al who would disagree with your statement, only they’re a bit dead. Their ideology was a basic case of “you’re with me or against me,” with a twist of “and in some cases I don’t give you the option of being with me.”
But add me to the pile of “so long as it’s all mouth, neonazis are entitled to their own branch of stupidity.” Has the mother done something illegal? No? Then why is she being punished?
[QUOTE=RickJay]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Good summary; just one picky disagreement - it’s the consent of the provincial Attorney General which is needed, not the federal one.
[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
Good summary; just one picky disagreement - it’s the consent of the provincial Attorney General which is needed, not the federal one.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the clarification… my mistake.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Social workers can’t remove children. A judge has to authorize it.
[/QUOTE]
You might want to do a bit of research before making blanket statements of the law like that. In Manitoba, which is where the case under discussion in the OP comes from, social workers can apprehend children without prior judicial authorization. See The Child and Family Services Act of Manitoba, s. 21:
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Neo-Nazis should not be tolerated anymore than the Mafia.
[/QUOTE]
Umm. . .there is no Mafia.
Back on topic, if the state took ownership of every child whose parents’ views differ from what I approve of, the foster system would far exceed the prison system in number of participants. And what will be done with these kids? I sure as hell don’t want one.
[QUOTE=Full Metal Lotus]
Well, as long as they don’t reproduce..
Those kids are HURT by that up bringing, and YES I do claim that any parenting program that involves warping a person for life should not be allowed, and if it happens those kids should be taken away. As soon as you can show that the tenets of the promise keeper or any other right wing fringe group is / are valid, I will send my daughter to live with the manson clan or what ever screwwball hate/fear addicts are are handy.
FML
[/QUOTE]
Are you against Christianity? or any organized religion for that matter? All organized religions lead children to believe in something which they have not decided for themselves. It also leads them to believe that other religions are wrong. Any religion that is introduced to a child at a young age will “warp” them in some way.