Girl told police her parents praised Hitler for killing

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/ ... :b24936410

So sad! That poor child has been so influenced. I hope one day she can get over her racism.

Hrmph, oh then according to that, the people "that don't belong here should be shot or killed"? ^^ Why not start with yourself? <.< I reckon most canadians are immigrants or of immigrants descent. <.< (Heh, the only "locals" are the first nations, pretty much)

Gee -.- i swear, this kind of thing persists like a bad rash that doesn't want to go away. (On another note, it should be noted that neo-nazis are still running rampant <.< )

'Running rampant' my arse. That is just what the media wants people to think, which is why they focus on stories like this. Think of all the custody battles out there that don't make national news headlines.
I in fact find it a little disturbing that someone can (possibly) have their children taken from them on account of their political views.

This is a very disturbing story. I deplore the views of these parents, and I am greatly disturbed by the idea of a young mind being exposed to such an intellectually and socially hostile environment. But I feel a deep sense of disquiet and unease at the removal of this child from the family home (and the apparent disintegration of the family unit in the wake of this), and the chain of events that initiated the involvement of child protective services (the child arrived at school with inked on and removable icons drawn on her arms).

This kind of situation presents a conundrum. Ideally children would not be exposed to the kind of environment where Adolf Hitler is praised, but ideally children would remain with parents who lovingly provide the essentials of life. I do find it rather disturbing that some scribbles on a kid's arm can cause the involvement of child protective services.

I think it is good that she is taken away from her parents. She is with an aunt anyway. Her parents are nuts. Nobody that nuts should be warping a child. Children should be protected against stuff like that. Just because someone is a biological parent doesn't mean they are the best people to be looking after a child.

I was not aware any psychiatric evaluation had been conducted on the parents. Unless by "nuts" you mean "holds views that you personally dislike".

It doesnt matter what I believe, but that is emotional abuse of a young child. Being indoctrinated with these beliefs is likely to cause the child harm in her life, and she will likely spend many years trying to make sense of the world she lives in, having been given such a strange introduction.

Young children shouldnt be indoctrinated with stuff like that any more than they should be introduced to sex by an adult during childhood. It is called childhood for a reason... a time for growing and learning, not being injected with dogma and hatred. Children are vulnerable, they are not little adults.

It is not the first time a child of a neo-nazi family has been in a custody battle. The twins in america who do neo-nazi rock concerts... their grandmother tried very hard to take them from their parents care, believing her daughter was not fit to raise them.

I think it is far more disgusting to allow a child's mind to be played with in such a manner than it is a violation of the rights of the parents.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story ... nipeg.html

That's exactly what I was thinking. No matter how reprehensible one's views may be, that shouldn't be just cause to have your children taken away from you. Maybe the government should take kids away if their parents really love immigrants, too.

On the contrary, your beliefs are foundational to your assessment of these peoples' beliefs as "nuts".

Likely to or will?
Many religious people would say the same about raising children outside their particular religion. Some people say the same about raising children within any religion. At what point does teaching your children your "world perspective" become something the state should declare illegal child abuse? Who's standards do we apply in choosing what values parents may attempt to instill in their children?

Who decides what views they should or should not be exposed to, and the point at which the parents' general right to do this ends and illegal child-abuse begins? Should we start removing children from those who teach their children their views on homosexual marriage? Or do we only consider issues where there is a clear majority view, illegal child abuse to teach contrary views on?
It is called childhood because it is a convenient word to communicate with. When and where children were widely being taught non-whites were despicable, inferior and rightly slaves, as a matter of course, children were still seen as different to adults, had different rights and were deemed in effect to have a childhood. Neither the word childhood, nor the concept informs us what children ought not be taught.


The parents' rights are only one aspect, and themselves have utility beyond the parents. In a free society, the rights of parents to teach their children socially or politically unacceptable ideas, constitutes an important check on potentially dangerous social engineering. Children themselves have rights to be raised by their parents.

It is by no means a simple a matter. It might seem quite uncontroversial to you in a particular time and place, that this view the parents propound is so "wrong" that it is abuse to teach it to a child, but there are currently people who hold the same view about your contrary view, and see it as social engineering and mass indoctrination. At what point does someone's subjective political/social views become illegal child abuse? Who decides which view points are legal?

This reason (not referenced or given in the earlier article and still buried beneath more sensationalist claims about the parents' political/social views), is good cause to seriously consider a child's care arrangements with a view to initiating changes.

When a view is simply controversial and unpopular, and when teaching it to children constitutes child-abuse is a much less simple issue, and does not actually appear to be the real issue here at all according to this other article that you've linked to. Whether the media or the prosecution is driving this sensationalist sideshow, it's not helpful.

^ I dont know. I just think that if you can look at the killing of millions of Jewish people, gypsies, gay people, disabled people and other non white ethnic groups taken in cattle trucks to death camps ... I react with a feeling of revulsion and I guess I dont understand all these "Hitler was A Great Guy" people.

I am sorry your assessment of these kind of belief systems is that they are valid and that people should be able to teach their children that Hitlers death camps were ok, but I dont, I used the word "nuts" in my initial assessment of these beliefs and I stand by them.

I am sorry you have to resort to this kind of pathetic personal attack when you feel threatened by someone disagreeing with your assertions.

How is it a personal attack? Ok maybe I have misjudged your post, but still, you dont seem at all have registered that here is a parent teaching a child that it is good to kill non-whites... Im pretty sure you dont agree with this at all, which is why I dont know what your point even is. In fact it is you who are attacking me because I have intolerance for white supremacy and neo-nazism, whereas I know I am not alone in this.


I know non-white people who have been attacked by skinheads, so it is certainly an issue that should concern society.

It is all very well for people to say that these people have a perfect right to raise their children in a white supremacy environment, but the very people who are fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening are relatives of the child- its extended family. Not only social services.

hmmm, I see the problem with indoctrinating kids like that, I mean, often it is said that parents screw up their kids, and that without neonazi's indoctrination, I somehow have felt few times that parents who screw up their children probably shouldn't be allowed to have children in the first place, perhaps for the sake of social stability and order, though we would get somehow into the issue of eugenics I suppose. I, being somehow of a misanthrope believe that having children is pointless and I personally mantain that probably it is better not to have any, and with the issue of parents educating their kids with things like that, I would say it can be problematic and dangerous for other kids of their generation, which is worrying.

And well, stupid, or whatever parents having children is quite sad.

Whereas_I_actually_said


At what point does teaching your children your "world perspective" become something the state should declare illegal child abuse? Who's standards do we apply in choosing what values parents may attempt to instill in their children?
At what point does someone's subjective political/social views become illegal child abuse? Who decides which view points are legal?


How_so? Have_I_pretended_you_hold_a_view_you_have_already_stated_you_do_not_hold,_for_the_purpose
of_attempting_to_insult_you_personally? I_thought_I_had_stuck_to_the_subject_matter_of_the_discussion_respecting_that_your_views_are_as_
you_have_stated_them.

Aha.