Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on February 13, 2010, 06:48:58 PM
-
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.
-
On one hand: This is a highly disturbing developement.
On the other hand: Writing on the child's skin? Really?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
..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 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=B.A.R.F&aq=f&aqi=g6&oq=) 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 (http://www.whatjeffkilled.com/) 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TfBbR6L0M
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...determine that you are being a "poor parent"...
Not quite. There must be abuse or neglect. Poor parenting, in the US, is not enough to justify the state taking jurisdiction over one's kids. Abuse and neglect are actions or lack of actions that have nothing to do with parenting. Abuse and neglect occurs when people either ignore their kids to a degree that endangers the kids or behave towards their kids in ways that are entirely about the parent. Most commonly, that's with sex or violence. In this case, it's (partially) about doing the same thing, but with words and symbols rather than with sex or violence (well, mostly. Seems like there is no shortage of violence in the household.)
-
i keep reading this and getting this twilight zone feeling as i agree with bw. i suspect we may both be letting the reality of us having kids interfere with our ability to grasp the theoretical principles that are motivating others
-
i keep reading this and getting this twilight zone feeling as i agree with bw. i suspect we may both be letting the reality of us having kids interfere with our ability to grasp the theoretical principles that are motivating others
But then, why do *I* agree with you?
-
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.
Fans of sports teams use their kids as human bill boards all the time.
-
Fans of sports teams use their kids as human bill boards all the time.
There is an arguable parental function there. Family entertainment, teaching about sports, etc.
The difference from the case at hand is that here there is no possible benefit whatsoever to the child--it exclusively serves the interests of the parent, while harming the child, or opening the child up to harm.
-
I guess I was just surprised the school officials didn't just send the kid home until the stuff was cleaned off. Though I am curious about what they meant by the conditions at the home.
I guess I was thinking that there are a lot of somewhat dysfunctional families and parents out there. Short of physical abuse, I'm not sure where you draw the line.
-
Short of physical abuse, I'm not sure where you draw the line.
Well, I just got out of a seminar on child abuse/neglect with a family law judge who has been trying to find that line for the past ten years or so.
There is no clear line. That is why there are so many procedural safeguards. I don't think that there are necessarily enough of them, and I don't think that justice is served often enough.
But the fact is that kids should be protected from abuse, and a person can be completely destroyed by abuse without anyone laying a hand on them. If we're talking about puppies and kittens, then yeah, feed 'em enough, keep 'em warm, don't hit 'em too hard works ok. Human children require more than that.
The closest thing to a rule is that when a parent hurts a child or interferes with a child's person or even causes the child extreme emotional difficulty, was that something imposed by the parent in his or her capacity as parent, or exclusively for the parent's (emotional/sexual/physical/financial) gratification? If it's exclusively for the good of the parent and it hurt the child, then it is somewhat likely to have been abusive.
-
I guess I was thinking that there are a lot of somewhat dysfunctional families and parents out there. Short of physical abuse, I'm not sure where you draw the line.
There in lies the problem. Most people aren't sure so, the line gets usually drawn by the control freaks who value "safety and security" more than they do freedom. They like to justify it by saying it's for the children
-
There is an arguable parental function there. Family entertainment, teaching about sports, etc.
The difference from the case at hand is that here there is no possible benefit whatsoever to the child--it exclusively serves the interests of the parent, while harming the child, or opening the child up to harm.
One thing we have to remember is this is Canada, a country that prosecutes people for "human rights" violations for printing demographic data in magazines. (Google Mark Steyn & Ezra Levant)
Expecting a sane, rational, and sensible approach is unrealistic.
Why do I get the feeling that if the parents had sent their kids to school with this sort of thing inked onto their skin, they'd not have lost custody?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.cafepress.com%2Fproduct%2F96273912v5_480x480_Front_Color-Natural.jpg&hash=dc692a482ed0b8e45a8dc55d63a99ddcaea2aae0)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages8.cafepress.com%2Fproduct%2F191107738v4_480x480_Front_Color-AshGrey.jpg&hash=5359d9fc6a52f773633f87e8eda8c37588996fd9)
I wonder if this, "It is battery to send your kid to school as a billboard" idea gets much traction outside the courtrooms of judges who interned at the Children's Defense Fund at Hillary's right hand?
-
every once in a while you see a judge with sense. i saw a judge sit through a very ugly child custody case one time . (motivated by money the white trash sperm donor found out that his sons grandpa was rich and sick wanted to ride the gravy train.) after all the land sharking was done he asked to see the kid. he sat the boy down and asked him who fed him? who dressed him? who got him ready for school? did home work with him? the kids answers were all the same. the best question was when he said "son do me a favor go sit in your daddys lap while i think things over." kid did and it was pretty obvious what the final decision was gonna be. kid was about 9 or 10 and judge awarded him to a man who was his stepdad. a single step dad at that having already won custody sole of 3 of his own and this step son from his wife. their mother. interestingly enough the mothers dad paid the legal fees for his son in law to get those kids away from his own daughter. 4 real fine young adults doing well today . i wish i saw it work that well always
-
Fans of sports teams use their kids as human bill boards all the time.
I am guessing that Canada, or Manitoba, has not outlawed barracking for one's favorite team as it apparently has outlawed what was written on kiddo. Many jurisdictions confiscate the tools of the crime. Given the, ah, "depth" of the article, I freely admit to offering a SWAG.
From the final paragraphs
"As the case garnered growing media attention that focused on the allegations of racism, the government took pains to stress other concerns. The father rarely worked and the home was filthy. Neither parent was emotionally equipped to provide a proper home, and the children were so neglected the girl frequently missed school because her parents wouldn’t wake up in the morning.
Rivoalen said those issues were a key factor in her decision." (Italics mine)
it is unclear whether the human billboard incident was the final straw of many.
Is it just me, or is this a terrifying development for ideological/religious minorities in Canada?
Probably not. It is clearly cause for an enjoyable round of recreational histrionics by the usual suspects, though. (Terrifying? PUHLEESE! No wonder the final paragraphs were omitted from the OP.) Nothing in this thread rises above providing the curious a direction to look.
-
It is clearly cause for an enjoyable round of recreational histrionics by the usual suspects, though. (Terrifying? PUHLEESE! No wonder the final paragraphs were omitted from the OP.) Nothing in this thread rises above providing the curious a direction to look.
Nice and succinct. I gotta stop using so many words.
-
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.
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.
Let's put it this way:
A cop has authority over you. He makes you lie there while he draws nazi symbols on your skin with a marker. Does it matter if you believe in those symbols or not? The parent has no right to force the child to wear these symbols on thier skin.
Further, dial back the ad hom, nobody called you a nazi.
-
What an absurd comparison.
Further, dial back the ad hom, nobody called you a nazi.
??? Feel free to point out any ad hom in my post. I'm not the one using implications of racism and misogyny in place of an actual argument.
-
What an absurd comparison.
??? Feel free to point out any ad hom in my post. I'm not the one using implications of racism and misogyny in place of an actual argument.
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.
I'm not sure what you read into BW's post but nowhere did I see her make an attack on you.
-
Fisty may be a lot of things, but he ain't racist or sexist. Implying that he has a problem with rights for blacks or women seems pretty lowdown.
-
Well, now I'm bored.
If whatsisname is going to claim that children do not have basic human rights simply because "[they] don't," then it seems reasonable to point out that others have stated that blacks and women do not have basic human rights simply because they don't.
The argument implicit in that statement is only effective at all if whatsisname rejects the idea that blacks and women, indeed classes of people at all, do not have basic human rights simply because "they don't."
That's logic, that's what that is.
It's also virtually identical to the argument put forth by people who are anti-abortion, a group of people that I believe includes whatsisname.
Also, who said anything about nazis, other than whatsisname? Is no one aware of anyone other than nazis who have denied human rights to people simply by their inclusion in a marginalized group?
Of course, if you're going to read attacks in anything I say, there isn't a whole lot I can do about it, other than get bored, I guess. It's getting old.
-
Voting, driving, deciding what to eat for dinner, getting married, smoking a cigarette, owning property, holding a job, on and on and on and on. Children do not have the basic human rights that adults have.
Now, if you want and confuse that reality with racism/sexism, impugning someone's character in the process, then go right ahead. Just don't expect the rest of us to go along with that "logic".
-
In what reality? What court, where, had accepted this doctrine that children have no rights whatever?
-
Children do not have the basic human rights that adults have.
thats a perspective often held by those who have not yet spawned, well after they become independant. while living off mom and dad they commonly think they have extra rights
and while i certainly intend not to make this a habit i second microbalogs question
-
Little Johnny: I want to eat chocolate cake for breakfast!
Mother: You know better than that. No cake for breakfast, eat your cereal.
Johnny: Who are you to tell me what I can and can't eat?! I have rights and you'd better respect them!
Mother: Ya know, you're right. I don't get to tell you how to live your life. Cake it is.
;/
-
Both sides here are arguing to absurdity, a bit. The one side here is not saying that "children have no rights whatever", the other is not saying that children have every right that adults do (they obviously do not; contracts, voting, alcohol, etc.). One side is arguing that children have fewer rights than adults, which is true. Though children also have rights that adults don't (or shouldn't). A child has the right to have his/her parent feed them, clothe them, etc.. Whereas adults
can't [shouldn't be able to] demand such things when able to care for themselves.
This thread will go nowhere while both sides continue to mis-characterize or reduce-to-the-absurd what the other side is saying.
-
Children do not have the basic human rights that adults have.
No, children are not allowed to exorcise some basic human rights because they do not yet have the ability to do so responsibly. It is the parents job, and right, to teach them to do so responsibly when they are old enough to do so.
That does not mean they do not have those rights, it merely means they are not yet in a position to exorcise them. However, not being able to exorcise ones human rights does not mean those rights do not exist.
-
I really don't understand what is controversial here. I'm not saying children have the right to do whatever they want. But nowhere – nowhere in the civilized world – is there a legal doctrine stating that children are the property of their parents. At a minimum, children have a right to their own bodies in the sense that parents are not normally allowed to (for example) tattoo the children or beat them with baseball bats, or kill them. Throughout most of the world, children are at least formally guaranteed a long list of other rights.
-
I'm not suggesting that you be allowed to commit crimes against a child, murder them or assault them or whatnot. Whether children have adult rights or not is independent of whether it's a crime to attack them.
-
I'm not suggesting that you be allowed to commit crimes against a child, murder them or assault them or whatnot. Whether children have adult rights or not is independent of whether it's a crime to attack them.
I'm not sure what this idea of 'adult rights' has to do with the current thread.
-
Some people seem to be confused, thinking that children have all the same rights that's that adults have. This is simply not true, there's a laundry list of things adults have right to that children do not. I called these 'adult rights' to differentiate them from the smaller set of rights that children have. That's all it is.
-
I really don't understand what is controversial here. I'm not saying children have the right to do whatever they want. But nowhere – nowhere in the civilized world – is there a legal doctrine stating that children are the property of their parents. At a minimum, children have a right to their own bodies in the sense that parents are not normally allowed to (for example) tattoo the children or beat them with baseball bats, or kill them. Throughout most of the world, children are at least formally guaranteed a long list of other rights.
Are pierced ears on a toddler abuse? Is Circumcision? Really stupid looking hair? Che T-Shirts?
-
I would certainly agree that children do not enjoy the same breadth of legal rights as do adults. I also believe that children enjoy certain inalienable rights merely by virtue of being human.
-
Are pierced ears on a toddler abuse? Is Circumcision? Really stupid looking hair? Che T-Shirts?
Is hitting a kid with a hand abuse? How about a switch? A 2x4? A leather whip? A chain? A loop of barbed wire?
Parents have the right to parent, but not to use their kids for their own gratification. The line between the two is not always immediately clear. One thing that often helps clarify which side of the line an action belong on is the other circumstances in the home. Squalor+truancy+substance abuse+parents who are disinclined to get/keep work paint a reasonably clear picture of whether these parents' actions are part of parenting their kids or part of using their kids for their own gratification.
That's why there's a two-step process: determining if the case meets the threshold where the court has a obligation to take jurisdiction, and then looking at the situation as a whole and determining what action needs to be taken. We don't want courts just looking at the whole picture right off the bat: the court has no right to see the whole picture. Once the need for the court to step in is established, then looking at the whole picture can help clarify if the parents are crossing some serious boundaries in their behavior towards their kids.
Look, I find child protection proceedings are horrifying as anyone here. Possibly more so, considering that my family was once the subject of allegations made to CPS (they were dismissed as unsubstantiated; the report was ludicrous, and based in part on ideological disagreements of the kind APSers may well be concerned about). But children are not objects to be used as a parent wills, and stepping in prevent abuse and serious neglect--including the sorts of things that occurred in this case--is one of the legitimate purposes of government.
-
No wonder the final paragraphs were omitted from the OP.
Had I made any pretense of posting the entire article, there might be some reason to claim that the final paragraphs were "omitted." I copy-pasted the article's thesis. I linked to the article. So much for your specious implications.
And just as a matter of full disclosure, I did not read the entire article, and even if I had, it said nothing about the drug aspect of the case. The comments by the judge were objectionable enough to make it worthy of discussion.
Now let's take just another look at that OP. I asked the question, "is this a terrifying development for ideological/religious minorities in Canada?" As it turns out, it doesn't seem as bad as the early reports I heard. Naturally, this reasonable approach will be ignored in the effort to portray me as a slobbering loon.
I'm not sure what you read into BW's post but nowhere did I see her make an attack on you.
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.
My defense of parents' rights, and disbelief in one particular right that some ascribe to children was, maliciously, twisted into some wholesale denial of the rights of children, with women, blacks and others thrown into the mix. It may not be an "attack," but I didn't claim it was. I'd call it more of a dirty trick.
Concerning your last post, though, Jamis, I'm confused. Are you saying that my failure to respond to ad hom with ad hom was ad hom? ???
-
My defense of parents' rights, and disbelief in one particular right that some ascribe to children was, maliciously, twisted into some wholesale denial of the rights of children, with women, blacks and others thrown into the mix. It may not be an "attack," but I didn't claim it was. I'd call it more of a dirty trick.
Oh, for pity's sake. It was neither of those things. Get over it.
-
OK. It seemed like it to me, but I will gladly take your word for it. I is now over it.
-
Look. I am a firm believer in individual rights. If you choose to be an IT expert, to go to college, to have a proper nine to five job, that's your right. It is also your right – if you so choose – to avoid work, to live in squalor and filth, to lie on the floor of your own home, covered in lice. As far as I am concerned, it should be your right to smoke, to consume alcohol – and even (if I made the call) – to use drugs.
But once you've chosen to have a child, rather than use contraceptives or give him away for adoption, you must contend with the fact that it is your obligation – morally and legally – to provide and care for this child. We should accept that there exists a wide variety of lifestyle choices, religions, cultures, that a parent may make. It should be accepted – in my mind – that you may send this child to a Montessori school, or unschool him, or homeschool him. But what you are not allowed to do is to completely ignore your obligation to this child. You are not allowed – for example – to introduce your child to gratuitous amounts of vodka, or glue-sniffing, or whip him with a steel wire. You are to either homeschool the child or to provide for his schooling elsewhere – 'the child doesn't go to school because I can't be prevailed upon to get up in the morning' is not within the legitimate bounds of parenting. Neither is exposing a child to your alcoholic, drug-addled lifestyle. Again – there's a difference between consuming alcohol or drugs and being a complete worthless junky. A very big difference.
Children, being human beings, have rights. Usually – USUALLY! - the best way to enforce these rights, to ensure the children are provided and cared for, is the family unit. But sometimes it's not clear if the child's rights are being secured, and for this reason the law needs to step in.
-
Is hitting a kid with a hand abuse? How about a switch? A 2x4? A leather whip? A chain? A loop of barbed wire?
I asked you first. :P
-
I asked you first. :P
So you expect a Jew to answer a question with something other than a question? :P
-
maybe? :angel:
-
Alright
Are pierced ears on a toddler abuse? no
Is Circumcision? no
Really stupid looking hair? probably not
Che T-Shirts? no
hitting a kid with a hand abuse? probably not
How about a switch? maybe
A 2x4? yes
A leather whip? yes
A chain? yes
A loop of barbed wire? yes
-
Hmm, circumcision seems a whole lot more, ah, indelible than pmt marker, and is also for the parents' gratification. The kiddos sure don't seem to enjoy the deal.
I think that by the standard you are using, the anti-circumcision screamers will have the juice to challenge in court the practice.
And somewhere in there is the practice of female circumcision... :O
If (either male or female) circumcision is OK, why not other body modifications to the rug rats? Oh, pierced ears are already OK, how about those big ol' hunks of wood in the ear lobes? Maybe a stud in the nose? Wacky implants to make you kid look like a critter? A tattoo? ???
I dunno, I think that "pmt" marker is pretty mild relative to permanent body mods, circumcision included.
-
ear rings aren't gonna get you beat up by other kids
-
Quick question:
Would it be child abuse if I raised my children to be members of militant Islam?
Would it be child abuse if:
I wrote on their skin in permanent marker "*expletive deleted*ck Whitey" or "9/11 was Awesome".
Told them all Christians, Jews, Catholics, Atheist, Infidels needed to killed, which they then started to spout in class?
Same thing right?
Just like writing "Jets" on your child's face in grease paint at a football game is the same as drawing a swastika in permanent marker before school. ???
These people sounded like horrible parents all around aside from all the racist crap, it just made them bigger targets. Why is everyone all worked up about it again?
-
So you expect a Jew to answer a question with something other than a question? :P
Hah! I got a kick out of that one.
-
See, I think piercing a baby's ears is abuse. Circumcision is just a more accepted (than female genital) form of genital mutilation. Ya see where I'm going with this?
What I do believe is, it is better to err on the side of freedom than to arbitrarily pass laws against "things we don't like".
Done.
-
See, I think piercing a baby's ears is abuse. Circumcision is just a more accepted (than female genital) form of genital mutilation.
I agree with you. But it isn't so much about what you or I think, but about a combination of parental intent + a community standard.
For whatever reasons, in this country, we have accepted that mutilating the genitals of baby boys is an allowable health-enhancing practice, and that ear-piercing for baby girls is an acceptable form of grooming.
We haven't accepted that mutilating baby girls' genitals is ok and we don't allow tattooing of children. Culture matters in these things, but a grooming/health practice that is not common is certainly a grey area.
When an act conforms to cultural norms, it is easier to presume that it is undertaken in the role of parent, acting as custodian of the child and for the child's well-being. When an act is less orthodox *and* has less or no relation to health or grooming *and* interferes with the child's person *and* is done without the child's acquiescence *and* appears to be done SOLELY for the benefit of the parent, then greater scrutiny is warranted. Very often cases with this kind of issue also have other major red flags, like squalor, truancy, substance abuse, violence, unstable or non-existent housing, etc.
I'm sorry, but you cannot reduce everything to absolutes. Life has nuance, and there is always going to be tension between one person's rights and another's.
-
For whatever reasons, in this country, we have accepted that mutilating the genitals of baby boys is an allowable health-enhancing practice, and that ear-piercing for baby girls is an acceptable form of grooming.
We haven't accepted that mutilating baby girls' genitals is ok and we don't allow tattooing of children. Culture matters in these things, but a grooming/health practice that is not common is certainly a grey area.
When an act conforms to cultural norms, it is easier to presume that it is undertaken in the role of parent, acting as custodian of the child and for the child's well-being.
Pretty much what I was thinking. Using a sharpie on junior and getting the kiddos yanked by the state is a legal action done at the behest of / in support of local cultural norms and not necessarily something that is codified in law or meets some legal standard.
Two points:
1. I am not so leery as some others on this board about letting locals determine how their community is run. I see federalism as a good thing, for this and other reasons.
2. I would prefer some of these sorts of pseudo-judicial culture/norm policing efforts done by means of social pressure and not the legal system. Every time Something BadTM happens, some loser thinks we need yet another law to cover that circumstance.
"The Greatest Liberty Of Subjects, Dependeth On The Silence Of The Law...As for other Lyberties, they depend on the silence of the Law."
----Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan
(Gotta love the creative spelling of the old writers. Liberty/Lyberty in the same book.)
-
ear rings aren't gonna get you beat up by other kids
Dressing up your kid like a nerd can get them beat up also, but it would be hard to find someone who calls that abuse or bad parenting.
-
the difference is that putting the kiddies in their junior skinhead gear can get em beat by folks outside their peer group. or otherwise subjected to punishment of a non physical nature. you could get your kids dead.
-
...at the behest of / in support of local cultural norms and not necessarily something that is codified in law or meets some legal standard.
Those are not two different things. Cultural norms often dictate what the law is or how it applies in a given situation.
-
the difference is that putting the kiddies in their junior skinhead gear can get em beat by folks outside their peer group. or otherwise subjected to punishment of a non physical nature. you could get your kids dead.
Death is one thing, but you don't need to do anything for your kid to be subjected to beatings by folks outside their peer group. All that takes is some bully. I don't like what they did, but I have a feeling that part of it wasn't the only reason the took the kids away.
-
likely but its the reason that folks will chose to get twisted over. a classic example of how folks need to serve their agendas and the kids are secondary
-
likely but its the reason that folks will chose to get twisted over. a classic example of how folks need to serve their agendas and the kids are secondary
True, but parents do that over lots of things that have an effect on the kid. (Little League baseball parents come to mind) This one is just a lot more distasteful.
-
an a former coach and umpire i can says its only marginally worse than some of the morons that i saw at lil league. and women were the worst
-
an a former coach and umpire i can says its only marginally worse than some of the morons that i saw at lil league. and women were the worst
:laugh:
Wow, you are in the cross hairs.
-
the kids are great! so are most of the parents. but the bad ones are very bad. and i don't want to punch some kids dad out. am not allowed to punch out mom or grand ma
-
Sounds like what I remember and my parents have said. I have a distinct memory of seeing a parent with a rule book opened up behind the backstop arguing with the umpire. My parents have said since that they would have pulled us out of it if we hadn't been having so much fun.
The only time I remember it affecting the actual game was one umpire who called strikes just below the ankles. Guess where his son the pitcher was really good at throwing?
-
i wouldn't mind a guy with a rulebook. i hate drunks abusing kids. and it being your kid gets you very lil slack from me. i really wanted to pop a few of the women. did catch one of the dads and have a talk.
-
I'd love to read everybody's conclusion and start with mine
and hope nobody will be offended, please mind that as a European the
concept of free speech is lost on me and that I know zilch about American
or Canadian laws or their constitution. I think we are talking about a medical issue
and not a matter of free speech or opinion . Maybe I'm way off but as a parent
I thought I go to school one afternoon to pick up my son and see another child
with a swastika and/or racist words written with a permanent (!) marker on her/him.
(and I think the meaning of the words are not the first issue but the fact that somebody needs to express his believes by writing on a childs body with a permanent marker)
I would think that the person who did this is, wait for it :
I n s a n e and should be diagnosed as such, maybe with psychosocial disorder, I don't know.
Which would mean that he'll become a ward and be put into the hands
of a legal guardian or better incarcerated into a mental institution so he can't harm
children anymore. Can we agree that writing on a child with a permanent marker is harming the child?
As a ward he is of course prohibited of parenting.
I don't know if that's possible in Canada.
-
I'm curious to know why folks keep harping on the permanence of the marker. It's not actually permanent, you know.