Actually Obama's now pro FISA, anti DC gun ban and pro faith based charities. And after his trip to Iraq, my guess anti troop withdrawal
I say Obama = Bush 3rd term. Or....just another politician? Take your pick.
I don't think it's fair to say Gyapyong, et al. are "down with" children going to school with Swastikas scribbled on their arms. The issue is not whether that's a good thing, in any way, but whether it merits removal of the child from her household.
Damian:
It's child abuse. Yet the commentators I noted think that nothing should be done to stop it. Standing by and letting a bad thing happen to a child--or urging that people do that--is condoning it.
Incidentally, I like your more nuanced approach. I agree that it's not an easy line to draw. But draw it I will.
This is a tangental comment, but I need to rant.
Putting aside that Barack Obama seems to be firmly camped in the centre-right political arena anyway, the reflexive fear that so many people seem to have of his liberalness, otherness, blackness or, most importantly, non-existent Muslimness, amazes me. And not simply because it's ridiculous on its face. I can actually buy that, given the political realities of that crazy nation called America.
No, this complaint all comes down to Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and "islamic terrorism". I think I can say, with complete objectivity, that no one has done more to foster and achieve OBL's goals than George W. Bush. OBL and Al-Qaeda scored one giant success in 2001, but it has been all the responses and overreactions to that success that has won him all his goals. Greater recruitment for AQ, greater resentment of America around the globe, greater destabilization of the middle east, thousands more dead Americans and dead allies, an America trapped in two quagmires of wasted money and blood, oil prices vastly increased (and plenty of lost time and money to invest in solving this problem), fractured global governance and comity, the removal of the only regional rival to Iran, the removal of a powerful secular middle east dictator and enemy to AQ, the creation of a new battlefield nation in which to train and recruit terrorists... I could go on.
OBL and Al-Queda were clever and lucky and managed to sting the US. It's unlikely they could do it twice, but even so, despite the tragic loss of life that occurred, it was merely a sting to such a huge, powerful, populous nation. The Bush administration, on the other hand, has brought America to its knees and realized all of OBL's dreams. OBL could not have done even a fraction of this himself, even with the most sustained terrorism campaign.
Which brings to my point, that it's insane - insane - to be afraid that Barack Obama is some sort of Manchurian candidate. Rather, this is clearly the current President. I am not suggesting Bush is actually a saboteur in league with Al Qaeda, but rather stating that his achievements are indistinguishable from one.
The thing that people fear from Obama has *already happened* and a lot of people don't seem to even see it.
Boggling.
Are you sure you have published books and articles?
I have a hard time believing that.
"Damian:
It's child abuse"
That has yet to be decided by a court.
Beacause we all know the children wont have any ill feelings for the Govt that took them away from their parents.
What bad thing was happening??
Oh right a political point of view.
Come on D, I like reading your blog, you really think parents teaching their children a differnt poltical view point = child abuse?
So I take it then you will leading the charge, to ensure every child is removed from every home, that has a different poltical view?
Robert: Sending a kid to school used as a human billboard for hate is way over the line.
Nice to sanitize Nazism as simply "a different political point of view," by the way. Whew. So, for example, teaching kids that gassing Jews is OK is just another politics. Nice. What happens when pedophiles start calling their practices a "politics?"
Perhaps we just have different child-rearing standards. One has to draw the line somewhere. This is where I draw mine.
It's not child abuse. You only imagine it is. That's what's happening here; a child is being taken away because of an imagined potential for harm and not because of any actual harm or even actual threat of harm .
Sean:
You know, I think I'm the pragmatist here, instead of the ideologue. : )
This isn't a matter of principle. It's a matter of getting a kid away from raving lunatics. I'd support the same action if the parents were pedophiles, or arsonists. I'd welcome intervention if the parents were teaching them how to wear a suicide belt for Allah.
Nazism isn't a politics. It's a psychosis. Only psychotics send kids to school with swastikas painted on their bodies.
Teaching kids to hate is harmful per se. It seems to me, based upon the precautionary principle, that it's up to you to prove otherwise.
Who says that the child was removed from the house because of the swastika? The white-supremacist mom. Childrens services is not allowed to discuss the case.
buckets:
You're right. Good point.
"Teaching kids to hate is harmful per se. It seems to me, based upon the precautionary principle, that it's up to you to prove otherwise."
"I'd welcome intervention if the parents were teaching them how to wear a suicide belt for Allah."
One could infer from your comments here that you'd be in favour the authorities inviting some Canadian Muslims in for a chat to "prove otherwise", as you say. Further, it would seem as though you'd support the removal of the children if the chat did not meet with official approval. However, I strongly suspect that you will disabuse me of whatever notions my inferences have brought to mind.
I'm all ears, as they say.
I think that the investigation was entirely warranted. As buckets says, we don't know the full story because children's services can't tell us. But if the kid was being brought up to believe psychotic Nazi doctrines, then I'd go for full removal.
Thing of the children, fergusrush.
That's "think of the children." Haloscan has removed the edit button, apparently all over the world.
Buckets is right, as for hte "prove it" point, that's barking stupid.
The child arrived with swastikas on it's body.
There is no "prove it" needed in this case.
The problem (that we know about) isn't that hte kid is white, it's that the parent is drawing symbols of psychotic hatred on it's body and sending it off to school.
Isn't sending a kid to school with a swastika on him the equivalent of a 'Kick me' sign. The kid gets beat up because the parent is a total moron. I think it's one thing to talk racist crap in the house, it's another thing all together to set your child up as a target.
"Teaching kids to hate is harmful per se. It seems to me, based upon the precautionary principle, that it's up to you to prove otherwise."
Hmmm. On that logic we should be removing the children of Islamists, blacks who raise their children to loathe "whitey", environmentalists at the further reaches of the movement who see humanity itself as a disease, aboriginal people who have choice things to say about their lot in society, children of ardent Catholics and fundamentalists who are taught to hate abortions and the people who perform them....
From the stories I have read these poor kids have pulled a losing ticket in the lottery of life. Having your parents draw on you - regardless of the content of that drawing - sucks. It may be child abuse of a sort. But so is forcing your daughter to wear a headscarf.
Line drawing is tough work made all the tougher when politics or religion are in the mix.
Now, when you want to apply the precautionary principle you have to look at the harm inflicted versus the harm prevented. Taking a child, especially a very young child, away from his or her parents causes very deep and often lasting harm. It is possibly the very worst thing you can do to a child.
If the objective is the protection of the child creating the psychological trauma of forced separation from the child's parents should be the very last resort.
Were there no better alternatives? Begining with soap and water and calling the parents into the school for a rather blunt conversation. Moving up to a quick court order - and I suspect most judges would provide one in an instant - requiring counseling and no writing on the kids or Mum or Dad spends a couple of nights in jail.
These are not perfect solutions but they beat the heck out of yanking the kids.
(In a less legalistic age a sharp slap on the side of mum's head accompanied with "What the Hell are your thinking." might have done the trick.)
Hmmm.
I stopped reading here.
I still think that when all of this settles it's going to wind up that the Child protection people have more to go on than just the drawings...
Also I do enjoy the continued support of various conservatives for their aryan brethren.
"Thing of the children, fergusrush."
I agree, Dawg, the children should come first.
Gee, I feel as though you've left something out.
In a less legalistic age a sharp slap on the side of Jay's head accompanied with "What the Hell are you thinking." might have done the trick.
Fixed.
Just kidding, Jay. Now, shut up, you pot-addled blowhard.
I agree with Jay: headscarves and swastikas are equally vile symbols of hate. Also, Malcom X was as bad as Hitler.
No wait, on second thought I don't agree. Are you really sure you can't draw a line there somewhere, Jay? Because pretty soon you're going to be comparing sexual abuse with good night kisses, and still be unable to find a difference.
Adam, you have my point precisely...now please explain it to Ti-guy who is, apparently, a bit reading challenged. Line drawing is hard and particularily hard when you are depriving children of their parents and parents of their children.
(I would think that an imposed headscarf is a profound symbol of some parts of Islam's hatred and fear of women so, yes, I am willing to equate the two.)
Meanwhile, Ti-guy, sadly, living as I do amidst forests of the best pot in the world, I can't smoke the stuff. One hit and I two minutes to comatose. But I don't think Mark should go to US Federal prison for twenty years for selling seeds to eager Americans.
Commenting by HaloScan
