Racist parents lose custody of children

[Perd Hapley]

Is it just me, or is this a terrifying development for ideological/religious minorities in Canada? 

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1167225.html

Racist parents lose custody of children
By STEVE LAMBERT The Canadian Press
Fri. Feb 12 - 4:54 AM

WINNIPEG — A judge has ruled that Manitoba parents who taught their children racist beliefs and drew racial slogans on one child’s skin cannot regain custody any time soon.

"Writing and drawing racist expressions and symbols on one’s child is not just bad parenting. Those interferences with a child’s person are batteries," Justice Marianne Rivoalen wrote in a decision Thursday that grants permanent guardianship of the children to Manitoba Child and Family Services.

"Advocating genocide and the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group are crimes in this country. These children have a right to be protected from these things."

Rivoalen’s decision came two years after the children were seized by child welfare workers after the eldest showed up at her elementary school with racist slogans and symbols drawn on her skin in permanent marker.

[MicroBalrog]

On one hand: This is a highly disturbing developement.

On the other hand: Writing on the child's skin? Really?

[lupinus]

On the other hand: Writing on the child's skin? Really?

I could really care less so long as they aren't harming/mutilating the kid. The concept of the government taking your child when they don't believe your views is troubling.

[jamz]

Taking the kids for their beliefs, no.  Taking the kids because the parents put them in a position to be abused, as would probably happen if you drew highly controversial and unpopular slogans on your kids and sent them off, then yes.

[MicroBalrog]

I could really care less so long as they aren't harming/mutilating the kid. The concept of the government taking your child when they don't believe your views is troubling.

And that is true.

[MicroBalrog]

More about the case:

 WINNIPEG - Two children at the centre of a controversial custody case involving allegations of racism and substance abuse will remain in the care of Child and Family Services, a judge has ruled.

CFS seized a now nine-year-old girl and her four-year-old half-brother in 2008 after the girl was sent to school with a swastika and racist writings drawn on her body.

The girl's stepfather fought for custody of the children, arguing CFS is infringing on his freedom of conscience, belief and association.

In a 34-page decision released Thursday, Justice Marianne Rivoalen rejected the man's Charter argument and ordered both children become permanent wards of CFS.

"Using a permanent marker on a child to publicize cultish slogans and opinions is not just irresponsible ... is not just bad parenting," Rivoalen said. "Those interferences with a child's person are batteries.

"Teaching one's child that 'black people just need to die' is not just reprehensible parenting. Advocating genocide and the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group are crimes in this country. These children have a right to be protected from these things."

White pride supporter

Rivoalen ordered the children remain in the care of the girl's aunt -- her biological father's sister -- and uncle.

At a child protection hearing last June, the girl's stepfather testified he is a white pride supporter and that he doesn't believe in "interracial breeding." He admitted saying people of other races "should be sent back to their own country," but denied allegations he believed they should be killed.

A social worker told court the man's stepdaughter used racial epithets to describe killing black people and said "everyone who is not white should die." Court also heard evidence the man has not sought treatment for his drug and alcohol abuse, has lost jobs for using racial slurs, and rarely works.

Rivoalen said the case was not so much about racism as it was about bad parenting, both by the man and his ex-wife. Rivoalen said the children lived "in squalor and filth" and were exposed to excessive substance abuse and violence. The man shot birds and squirrels and then fed them to his dog in front of the children.

"Now add to this milieu neo-Nazi flags hanging in the windows and neo-Nazi regalia on display elsewhere in the home," Rivoalen said. "This was not a wholesome or nourishing environment in which to raise young children with developing minds and characters."

Rivoalen rejected claims by the man and his ex-wife they held "Odinist religious beliefs" and told their children the swastika was a sun symbol.

"At the time of the children's apprehensions, (they) were both neo-Nazis and white supremacists," Rivoalen said. "They cannot have it both ways. They cannot whitewash that. They have deceived no one."

dean.pritchard@sunmedia.ca

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/02/12/12849346-sun.html

[Sergeant Bob]

That's what the Progressives here want to see in the U.S.A.

Rivoalen said the case was not so much about racism as it was about bad parenting, both by the man and his ex-wife. Rivoalen said the children lived "in squalor and filth" and were exposed to excessive substance abuse and violence. The man shot birds and squirrels and then fed them to his dog in front of the children.

Define squalor and filth. What substance abuse? Cigarettes? Beer? Meth?
I feed squirrels to my cat, should I lose my kids?

[MicroBalrog]

I don't know anything, but wouldn't feeding your dogs or cats raw animal meat in front of your children expose them to the danger of getting whatever diseases the animals have?

[BridgeRunner]

That's what already happens in the US.  Protective services intervene when children are found to be living in persistent squalor or when the parents are unable to parent effectively because of very frequent or constant drug/alcohol use.  

The extreme racism, the small animals, and the teaching kids to break the law are just icing, and likely not necessary for agency involved to make its case.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

I could really care less so long as they aren't harming/mutilating the kid.

I figure putting swastikas on the kid(s) could easily entail harm to the kids from those of non-libertarian persuasion.

[Sindawe]

..but wouldn't feeding your dogs or cats raw animal meat in front of your children expose them to the danger of getting whatever diseases the animals have..

OH NOOSS!!!  The trogs were feeding their pets a B.A.R.F diet.

I've tried with my herd, but the cats have no interest if it don't come from a bag, pouch or can.  So meat based kibble is better than fattly liver disease.

Never mind what the cats might eat when out of doors.

...neo-Nazi regalia on display elsewhere in the home...

OH NOOSS!!!  neo-Nazi regalia!!!  One small step from display of the Gadsden banner of revolt!



This is the another step of the camel into the tent.  Though these parents may be repent to those of of a correct-thinking libertarian bent, how long until OUR mind set and teaching become anathema to those "in charge"?

If it not already...

I figure putting swastikas on the kid(s) could easily entail harm to the kids from those of non-libertarian persuasion.

So should we teach our (hypothetical in my case) children to bow to the wishes of the narrow minded and ignorant?

Swastika banned today, crucifix tomorrow.  Lest the young face attack from the small minded.

[Perd Hapley]

So there is more to the case.  That's good.

Still, the judge said some thoroughly unacceptable things.

"Writing and drawing racist expressions and symbols on one’s child is not just bad parenting. Those interferences with a child’s person are batteries," Justice Marianne Rivoalen wrote in a decision Thursday that grants permanent guardianship of the children to Manitoba Child and Family Services.

"Advocating genocide and the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group are crimes in this country. These children have a right to be protected from these things."

Not your place to say so, your honor. 

[lupinus]

I figure putting swastikas on the kid(s) could easily entail harm to the kids from those of non-libertarian persuasion.

And the same could be said for ANY symbol. Having the right to display the images you agree with means others have the right to display those you may not agree with.

[BridgeRunner]

Not your place to say so, your honor. 

Yes.  It is.

"Battery" against one's children is permissible for disciplining them.  "I wanted to turn my kid's body into a billboard for the purpose of publicizing my beliefs" is pretty clearly outside the scope of discipline.

Further, where advocating genocide (etc) are crimes, it IS a parent's duty to not expose their children to those crimes.  Now, I'm not sure about the "wilful promotion of hatred" part.  That is problematic.  However, teaching your kids to murder people--yeah, that is pretty abusive.

[BridgeRunner]

And the same could be said for ANY symbol. Having the right to display the images you agree with means others have the right to display those you may not agree with.

The issue is not whether or not it is ok to display controversial images.  The issue is whether your kids have a right to be free of you placing messages on their bodies for purposes unrelated to their care and discipline.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes.  It is.

"Battery" against one's children is permissible for disciplining them.  "I wanted to turn my kid's body into a billboard for the purpose of publicizing my beliefs" is pretty clearly outside the scope of discipline.

Further, where advocating genocide (etc) are crimes, it IS a parent's duty to not expose their children to those crimes.  Now, I'm not sure about the "wilful promotion of hatred" part.  That is problematic.  However, teaching your kids to murder people--yeah, that is pretty abusive.

Why?

The issue is not whether or not it is ok to display controversial images.  The issue is whether your kids have a right to be free of you placing messages on their bodies for purposes unrelated to their care and discipline.

Well that's an easy question.  Children have no such right. 

[BridgeRunner]

Huh.  Ok, well, maybe where you live that is the case. 

However, in the US and Canada, yes, actually, children do have rights.  Including the ones the judge in this decision alluded to.   

[Perd Hapley]

When I speak of rights, I'm usually speaking of the rights themselves, not the legal recognition of same.  Courts frequently recognize rights that don't exist. 

But I'm still wondering how writing on one's own children with "permanent" marker is battery, or how teaching them to (hypothetically) murder people can be legally recognized as the kind of abuse that warrants the attention of the state.


To reiterate, I don't object if the state is acting on grounds of substance abuse or unsanitary conditions.

[BridgeRunner]

When I speak of rights, I'm usually speaking of the rights themselves, not the legal recognition of same.  Courts frequently recognize rights that don't exist.

Well, see, the way it works is, the judge has to operate under the law.  Unlike you, he doesn't get to invent it.  And in the law the judge is operating under, children are not objects to be used in whatever manner their parent or guardian feels like imposing upon them. 

And this business about children not having rights is pretty illusory.  Rights are a philosophical construct, extended into laws.  You can exclude a group of people (like small people, young people, black people, female people, etc.) from your construct, but to insist that somehow your philosophical construct is more real than one that say, does recognize the existence of certain rights in all people, is pretty silly.

But I'm still wondering how writing on one's own children with "permanent" marker is battery,

Battery is the harmful or offensive touching of another.  There is an exception for parental authority.  Parental authority can involve reasonable use of force for discipline or other parental functions.  Using another person as a political billboard is not a parental function. 

Seems the father is claiming they violated his rights freedom of expression.  Sure, one has a right to freedom of expression.  And one has a right to parent as one chooses.  But turning your kid into a political billboard is an exercise of freedom of expression, not of parental authority.  It's an offensive touching, and it's outside the scope of the parental exception.

Kids are not property, and while it's perfectly ok to scrawl whatever political message you want on your back fence, sorry, your children are not available for that purpose.

or how teaching them to (hypothetically) murder people can be legally recognized as the kind of abuse that warrants the attention of the state.

Because it hurts them.  Again, it is an abuse of parental authority.  This one doesn't involve fun things like the common law of battery, but it still hurts them.  A lot.  You have a right to hold whatever opinions you want on the topic of how awesome it is commit heinous crimes, but you are not allowed to hurt your kids because you enjoy the idea of heinous crimes. 

To reiterate, I don't object if the state is acting on grounds of substance abuse or unsanitary conditions.

I don't know the procedures in Canada, but I'm guessing that all the issues need to be addressed in the final order.  Clearly there are multiple independent bases for the decision.

[De Selby]

So there is more to the case.  That's good.

Still, the judge said some thoroughly unacceptable things.


Not your place to say so, your honor. 

Wait, it's not a judge's place to say that something is or is not a crime???

Encouraging the kids to commit crimes doesn't help your case in America as a parent either.

[Sergeant Bob]

When I speak of rights, I'm usually speaking of the rights themselves, not the legal recognition of same.  Courts frequently recognize rights that don't exist. 

But I'm still wondering how writing on one's own children with "permanent" marker is battery, or how teaching them to (hypothetically) murder people can be legally recognized as the kind of abuse that warrants the attention of the state.

Judicial activism. The Progressive way to snake in laws without having to let that Constitution get in the way.
Progressives are not confined to any one party either. (Not to infer you don't know this)

[gunsmith]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TfBbR6L0M

[Perd Hapley]

Well, see, the way it works is, the judge has to operate under the law.  Unlike you, he doesn't get to invent it. 

Yes, obviously the judge must follow the law. I simply pointed out that I was discussing actual human rights, not the Canadian interpretation of the concept. As you must know, rights are an ideal that laws should aspire to, not something that laws create or define.   

And this business about children not having rights is pretty illusory.  Rights are a philosophical construct, extended into laws.  You can exclude a group of people (like small people, young people, black people, female people, etc.) from your construct, but to insist that somehow your philosophical construct is more real than one that say, does recognize the existence of certain rights in all people, is pretty silly.

Well, I guess if you're going to twist my words into anything you want them to say, there's not much point in continuing. Of course, I could respond in kind, and call you a Nazi and such, but such smear tactics bore me. 

Have a nice day.

[jamz]

Really, the state allows you any parenting rights until a jury of your peers might determine that you are being a "poor parent", in which case they will step in and remove the kids from the environment.

Question is, where is the poor parenting threshold in this case?

I think what they are getting at is the threshold of any type of poor parenting is when you put your kids at an unacceptable risk, with a certain amount of needlessness being part of that unacceptability, and that drawing controversial and highly unpopular slogans on your kids exposes them to the level of unacceptable risk.  Hence the state stepping in.

The origin and message of the writing is completely aside, the fact that the action could generate risk for the kids is the issue.

[MicroBalrog]

Now, you understand, I am in complete agreement with you that the government should regularly not intervene on ideological grounds. My gut reaction is to doubt whatever a social worker says about a case.  That said: even ignoring the ideological moments of this case, there are reasons why this sort of behavior is not to be allowed.

Outside the narrow confines of ideological anarcho-capitalism and certain radical ideologies, children do in fact have a variety of rights, which are recognized both in law and in most political philosophies. Parents are not in fact allowed to do whatever they want with their children. Even where parents are allowed to spank/hit/control the lives of their children, the amount of control is limited by law. There's all manner of disturbing and disgusting things parents are not, in fact, allowed to do to their children.

Even if we accept, for the purposes of argument, that spanking your children should be legal, children retain a right, limited though it may be, to their own bodies. Inherent in that right is the right not to be used as a human billboard.

Furthermore, while I personally think it is best to maintain a legal system that errs in favor of retaining the child with the family, a parent that is not capable of providing a reasonably-hygienic environment for children to grow up in, to routinely feed their children and to provide for their education – either by sending them to school or homeschooling them – should not be a parent. These are legitimate concerns that the legal system can and should address.

I have criticisms of the Canadian legal system – but this specific case is not about that. IANAL, but these parents would have probably (IANAL) faced some legal issues even had they lived in Texas or Vermont.