Saturday, January 17, 2009
What's in a name?
Sorry for that facile heading on a deadly serious subject.
Most governments worldwide have given themselves the right to take children away from their parents -- one of the most horrible things anyone can do to a family. And the children concerned are often farmed out to people who do not take good care of them -- which is even worse.
But where children are being seriously injured, there is public support for such a grave deed. It is when the injury is mere speculation -- a common occurrence in Britain -- that there is a need for the actions of the State to be very closely scrutinized at the least. But scrutiny is exactly what many jurisdictions do not allow -- hence the many abuses in Britain -- abuses that eventually grew so bad that the courts concerned WERE opened up to the public at long last.
But that secrecy seems to be still well-entreched in New Jersey, where the children of a family who named a son "Adolf Hitler" were taken away last week. The father is due in court about now.
Secrecy prevents the reasons for the seizure of the children being made known but note that a representative of the "welfare" agency involved has said that: "I’ve dealt with the family for years and as far as the children are concerned, I have never had any reports of any abuse with the children," Harris said. "As far as I know, he’s always been very good with the children."
So it would seem that disapproval of an admittedly idiotic name is the sole reason for the attack on the family concerned. That is a VERY slim reason for breaking up a family and I doubt that it will be sustained through the courts. The seizure of Mormon chidren in Texas last year did not survive judicial scrutiny, either.
There is however a certain Fascistic element in the official action. They know that even if what they do is illegal they will not suffer for it but the family will.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
In the report on this I read, the reporter had found some idiotic psychologist who classified naming your children "badly" as "child abuse."
The problem is, whatever you name your child, they are going to get picked on by other children, regardless. You go to all the trouble of naming them "Ralston William Ficadacia III" and they come home with the nickname of "Stinky."
If the judge upholds the removal of these children based soley on the names (or the political beliefs of the parents - they are white supremacists, you know) then I say we create a registry of "acceptable" names, based on race, religion, and politics of the parents. Otherwise, some darn Christian Fool is just going to name their kid "Mohammed Pedofile Kastanza."
Better we should create a registry of elitist, incompetent judges and bleeding-heart, political hacks! Taking children from their natural parents, without "clear and indisputable" evidence of abuse, should not be allowed, by anyone! Obviously, giving a child a name like this is beyond stupid, but it's not illegal, since (unfortunately) stupidity is not a crime. Names can be changed.
There was a time in Amerika when bureaucrats, self-appointed guardians of everything, actually institutionalized children simply because those children were a bit slower to learn in school. Lives and families were destroyed! That system still exists to a great degree. In many of todays school systems, "guidance councilors", or other incompetent, socialist elitists, routinely label (and actually prescribe dangerous drugs to) children, (ADD, ect.) simply because those children may not behave or learn according to someone else's standards. It is in many cases, still a tragedy!
"create a registry of "acceptable" names,"
Already done in several countries.
And in many others the person registering the child may refuse the name on the spot even if there's no such list based on anything at all.
The family was in the news a few weeks ago because the grocery store wouldn't put the kid's name "Adolf Hitler" on the birthday cake.
So it is obvious the parents are guilty of many things:
- Picking bad names for children. He should have used something more conventional like Dweezle, Moonunit, Eja, Sadam or Osama.
- Feeding kids too much sugar. They were trying to buy a sheetcake - can you imagine how many transfats that could have.
- Living in NJ. There are guns, gays, high tax rates, mobs, you name it. They would be safer living in Gaza.
So it is easy to see why the kids would be removed from such vile, honky parents.
Naming of children is an extreme ego trip for the parents.
I have always advocated that children should not be named at birth by their parent(s),
BUT,
They should acquire the identity solely of their Social Security number.
THEN,
When they reach the age of 18-years THEY should be allowed to choose their "First & middle" names.
Post a Comment