Canadians seize children because of mother's political beliefs
We read:
"Manitoba Child and Family services was in court Monday to argue for permanent guardianship of a girl and boy, after the girl was sent to school sporting a swastika -- a symbol typically associated with racially-motivated hate groups.
The children's mother denies she has done anything wrong. "I think I'm a pretty good mother. I've raised my children to have pride in themselves. That's all I've ever done." she told CTV News, as she sat beneath a banner with the slogan "White Pride Worldwide."
Child services was called to a city elementary school in March after the girl, 7, arrived at school with a Swastika, the words "Hail Victory" and "Aryan Pride" written on her arms and one leg in permanent maker. The number "14/88," a reference to Hitler, was also written on the little girl. The 14 refers to the number of words in the slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." The 88 stands for HH and means "Heil Hitler."
Police and officials from the department went to the family's Winnipeg home and seized the girl's two-year-old brother, and in the process discovered what they said was evidence of the parents' neo-Nazi beliefs.
The mother of the children has maintained she is not a neo-Nazi, but is simply proud of her northern European background and describes herself as a "white nationalist." She said her daughter drew the swastika on her own arm after taking part in a "white pride" racist march in Calgary. When the girl's teacher washed the symbol off, the mother and daughter drew it on again with a marker.
The mother said drawing the swastika was stupid, but insisted the act harmed no one and her beliefs are a family matter. "It's OK to be proud to be a native, it's OK to preach black power," she said, before adding, "But when you're white and you're proud, it's wrong."
Source
Black pride is fine but white pride is to be severely punished? Where does the criminalization of political beliefs end? Speaking ill of homosexuals could cause you to lose your kids next? In Canada it would be no surprise. In the USA even the ACLU has on occasions defended the rights of neo-Nazis to express their beliefs.
11 comments:
Perhaps the Canadian authorities don't like the reference to Hitler's Germany, (their opinion) because it makes people realize that's exactly what Canada is becoming.
You can bet that if this woman had professed her belief in, or admiration of communism or radical islam, there would be no problem.
Perhaps it's not just America's southern border where we need a strong fence!
As much as the woman disgusts me, she is right. People should be free from the thought police.
If this was a Muslim, atheist, or black power fanatic nothing would have been done. In fact the school probably would have had a share and tell day of how important it is to encourage radical beliefs.
It was in 1977 that SCOTUS rules that the Nazi party could march in Skokie, Il. And the fun part of the decision was that Skokie, was where a lot of Jewish survivors of Nazi Germany settled after WWII.
Myself I would have let them march, but I wouldn't have given them police protection on the march. Lets see, a couple of hundred Nazi's against a thousands of Jews with baseball bats, now that is something that I would pay to see!!!
Mobius
Let's see, 10,000 jewish prisoners against 300 German guards. How did that work out again?
Mobius,
You've obviously misunderstood the idea behind freedom of speech/expression.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Mobius!
One question.
Are you suggesting that the government should be making political decisions about which groups of people should be surrendered to the violence of the mob?
Pax,
InFides
Mobius, you forgot to meantion that a large number of the jews in Skokie were members of the Socialist Workers Party, and the American Communist Party.
Up until 1940 or so, the Jewish people were taught that they should always obey authority. Some would die, but the “people” would survive. Then came Hitler’s final solution and everything had to be changed. In the Warsaw Ghetto, the Jewish people fought back with enough strength of arms that the only way that the German army would win, was with artillery, they leveled that section of the city. But before that, the Jews did whatever they were told to do by the government. Some of the pictures of the Jews being herder into the death camps, showed the German army guns, not cocked. If just a few had fought back, it might not have mattered in the end, but there would have been less German guards to prosecute after the war.
I do believe in free speech, but I don’t believe that I have to right to speak anywhere I want to! And if I am stupid enough to demand that I get to speak in an area that hates me, I don’t have the right to demand FREE police protection for me. What the Nazi’s did in Skokie would be equal to the KKK wanting to march in Watts or Harlem. A really dumb idea with only one purpose, to get some free publicity. Now if there wasn’t FREE police protection, or if they had to pay for their own licensed security guards, there wouldn’t have been a march.
Mobius
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Mobius!
"I do believe in free speech, but I don’t believe that I have to right to speak anywhere I want to!"
How odd. If you are not free to speak anywhere in public for fear of reprisals or physical violence then you do not possess free speech.
How exactly do you possess free speech if it is not, in fact, freely expressable? How do you possess free speech if the government or a mob can simply intimidate or beat you into silence? Consider that if, indeed, it is acceptable for a hostile group to menace you into silence in one public space what is to prevent them from menacing you into silence in every public space?
"And if I am stupid enough to demand that I get to speak in an area that hates me, I don’t have the right to demand FREE police protection for me."
That depends. So long as all permits are treated equally with regard to costs for the permit your rights are no different. What the government can not do is charge groups with which it disagrees a different set of costs or impose different permit restrictions. (Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement, 1992)
The state has not only the right but the obligation to protect its citizens from physical violence simply because others disagree with their speech. As long as the permit is issued then you have the same rigths as anyone else.
(National Socialist Party v. Skokie,1977) "...it is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear."
Society possesses only those rights it can and will defend. If the government is prepared to say that your rights are not worthy of protection because some others disagree with your viewpoint then the government has failed in its primary function, to protect the rights of its members.
You should be very careful tossing overboard the rights of any of your fellow citizens, no matter how much you may dislike them, because someday the worm will turn.
Pax,
InFides
Infides,
"You should be very careful tossing overboard the rights of any of your fellow citizens, no matter how much you may dislike them, because someday the worm will turn."
Indeed, the worm has already turned. Just look at our society today & think of how much we as a nation have lost in the last 232 years. Hell, look at what's been lost in the last 20 years. And if the democrats win the election and all 3 judges of the current SCOTUS that "may" retire actually do, I dare say that more freedoms will be lost. Today one cannot publicly critcize another without a scandal of some sort no matter how true the crticism may be. Well all I can say is if another person ever thinks they would take my child away for some bullshit like the Canucks have dreamed up, my child would be an orphan as I would go down fighting before I let that happen.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello McNasty!
Well said.
It seems to me that the problem is that people are so anxious to 'help' their fellow man that they are unwilliing to consider the possiility that their neighbor may may prefer to do things differently.
I am much more afraid of the people who are trying to help me than the tyrants who are trying to rule me. A tyrant's hunger may eventually be sated but those who will save me from myself and insist on helping me despite my oppostiion to their interference in my affairs will never be satisfied with anything less than my total submission to their benificent ministrations.
The loss of my freedoms, whether at the hands a totalitarian thug or at the hands of an all smothering, nannying government which only wants to help, does not matter to me as I lost my freedoms either way.
If it is any consolation to you this loss of personal freedom over time seems to a be a natural occurrance in all Western societies. Government becomes progressively more oppressive until society ruptures, usually violently, and the citizens reform their society with an initially limited government and then the process repeats.
These days the argument in the Western world is no longer about what inalienable freedoms we will possess in perpetuity but merely how fast our freedoms will be taken from us and whether they will be aliented in large amounts or by small, almost inperceptable increments.
Ayn Rand, a woman of inestimable abilities, summed it up best when she said, "I do not want to rule and I do not want to be ruled."
I have reached the point such that I do not want to be helped by anyone any more. Much like Greta Garbo I want to be left alone.
Pax,
InFides
Post a Comment