Parental Rights

Last week, I read this story about a Canadian woman who lost custody of her children over her racist beliefs. She sent her 7 year old daughter to school with a swastika drawn on her arm. The second time it happened, Child and Family Services came to her home, saw Neo-Nazi symbols and flags, and took the children. That was four months ago, and the state still has custody of the children.

Now, I am not a racist. I definitely DO NOT agree with this woman's "politics, [her] beliefs", as she calls them. However, I also find it hard to believe that her children could be taken away from her FOR her beliefs.

We also saw this in the FLDS case. The children were taken away because the sheriff in the town was looking for an excuse to raid the compound. Texas Child Protective Services got what they thought was an excuse, took all of the children away for a few months, and then had to give them back because they couldn't prove the children were in imminent danger. According to the ruling of the Texas Court of Appeals,

Nor did the Department offer any evidence that any of Relator's pubescent female children were in physical danger other than that those children live at the ranch among a group of people who have a "pervasive system of belief" that condones polygamous marriage and underage females having children. The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger.
Essentially, the children were taken away because of their parents' beliefs. And some people think the state should still have custody of the children!

All of this frightens me. Of course I don't have any weird or hateful beliefs, but a lot of uninformed people think weird things about Mormon beliefs. Who decides what beliefs are acceptable and what beliefs are not?

In 2002, the Swedish parliament included references to sexual orientation in a list of groups protected against persecution in the form of threat or disdain. In 2003, Pentecostal Christian Pastor Ake Green delivered a sermon on homosexuality. As a result, a local member of an LGBT equal rights organization reported him to the police, and he was sentenced to one month in jail under Sweden's law against "hate speech" (he was later acquitted).

Lesser known is another case in Sweden in 2005 where Leif Liljestrom, administrator of a Christian website called Bibeltemplet (The Bible Temple) was sentenced to two months in prison for holding and expressing critical views of homosexuality. He was recently acquitted of all charges.

In 2006, Christian Vanneste, a member of the French Parliament was fined the equivalent of US$4000 under France's "hate speech" law for remarks opposing homosexuality.

Canada, Sweden and France are among the most "progressive" countries in the world.

U.S. Lawmakers are considering H.R. 1592, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as federally protected groups under hate crimes legislation. Given the "progressive" trends in America, is the following scenario feasible?

A church (LDS?) teaches that homosexual activity is a sin. A member of that church (me?) teaches my own children the same thing in my home. Someone else who disagrees with me and this belief reports my teachings to Child Protective Services, who take away my children because of my "hateful" beliefs - maybe not permanantly, but just long enough to "send a message" to other parents who are considering teaching the same thing to their children.

Is it possible? And if so, would you find it acceptable?


39 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's horrible. It's time for a revolt. Maybe when the average Canadian get's their kids taken away, they'll begin to realize, the deck's stacked against them, and they'll take desperate measures. This woman probably wants to die. Might as well die for a good cause--FREEDOM!

Anonymous said...

Not to worry, Stephanie. One key difference: the United States has the First Amendment, and those other countries don't. Another key difference: if I understand "hate crimes" laws correctly, they don't make it a crime to criticize protected groups. Instead they say that if you commit a crime against (say) a gay person because the person is gay, then the penalty is worse. If you just beat someone up, you get charged with assault; if you say "I hate faggots" while beating the person up, you also get charged with the hate crime. There has to be a regular crime involved before there can be a hate crime.

One's position on H.R. 1592 should not be based on the fear that it will criminalize the way you raise your children. Unless "raising your children" includes beating up people for their race or sexual orientation.... Not even Fred Phelps has anything to fear from H.R. 1592.

--David

The Wizzle said...

Hmmm, we have a new, incognito, incoherent commenter! Can you be anymore specific, First Anonymous Guy? :)

I hope this lady gets her kids back, and fast. There wasn't much information about her, and sending your kid to school with a swastika on their arm doesn't exactly reek of good judgement, but neither do a lot of things people do. I definitely agree that it can seem like a very fine, subjective line as to what choices and lifestyles we each embrace and pass on to our children. I personally know lots of people who make any number of choices that could be construed as "abusive" by some people, I'm sure: in addition to the "Mormon doctrinal" issues already mentioned, there's extended breastfeeding (simultaneously making your child gay AND a sex-crazed maladjusted loony!), delayed or non-vaccinating parents, homeschooling, vegetarianism, and of course the people on the opposite sides of all these issues.

I guess if what she did was technically against the law, then that could be where they found their "justification" in taking her children. But then, of course, there is the issue of whether it should have been against the law at all.

Good point, Anonymous Dave, about the hate *crimes* technicality. It's not illegal in the US to just SAY something against another group of people (race, gender, religion, whatever) although there are consequences that will "naturally" happen, and those are already in place and very stringent, in my opinion, in this country. Take the Presidential/VP race for example: any candidate, or anyone on any candidates staff, in their extended family, or their general ZIP code, says anything that could be construed by anyone else as "bigoted" and they get The Boot. It's not a law, but there's definitely a self-regulating set of mores in place there.

Wait, was I just complaining about people being too touchy about politically correct language? I think I better quit here before I start calling for more defense spending or something...

Anonymous said...

Hi all! A few comments...

Stephanie, while I agree with your post that children should not be taken from their parents due to their beliefs, I do not quite understand where your comments generate from. Of your five or six stated examples, only one of them was even from the United States... and that one was dubious at best. I don't really care about what they do in France, Canada, or Sweden. Well, I do, but not that much :) In Iran, they hang you to death in public for being gay. I'm not sure what that has to do with us.

But back to the Texas incident... It has always been the case that beliefs and actions hold different consequences in the American legal system. For instance, I am legally allowed to hate black people. I am not legally allowed to kill one, because allowing me do that would hurt the general welfare. Just as, I am legally allowed to believe that my daughter is ready to be polygamously married at the age of 10. That does not mean that the State and general society will let me do it. We as a people have determined that there is a legal age of consent, though where that line is drawn varies from state to state. The fact remains that it's a generally accepted idea that children need to be protected from such situations until they're mentally able to understand it themselves.

Do I think the state got a little gung-ho in their "rescue" attempt? Yes I do, though that doesn't mean it was wrong, just not planned and legally thought out all that well. For one thing, you can't go into a compound and take EVERY child because of one or two reported cases. But you can wait, bide your time, and take action on the behalf of individual children. I fully respect the FLDS church's right to believe whatever it wants. But it doesn't have the right in our society to marry children that young. Do I expect another attempt to be made to take these kids away fromt their parents? Absolutely. Mainly because Texas is full of mainstream christian "conservatives," and they generally can't resist the opportunity to trample on the rights of those they don't agree with.

Speaking of, Stephanie, how do YOU feel about gay marriage?

~John

Anonymous said...

You commented on the "progressive" trends in America. It should interest you to know that, on the political ideology scale, we are further to the right than any other industrialized nation. In fact, "look at most of the controversies that divide global opinion, and the United States comes down on the conservative side. America tolerates lower levels of government spending than other advanced countries, and far higher levels of inequality, at least in terms of wealth. One in six American households earned less than 35 percent of the median income in 2002; in Britain, one of Europe's more unequal countries, the proportion of similarly disadvantaged households is closer to one in twenty. America is the only developed nation that does not have a full government-supported health-care system, and the only Western democracy that does not provide child support to all families. America it the only country in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development that does not provide paid maternity leave.

America upholds the right to bear arms, the death penalty and strict sentencing laws: its imprisonment rate is five times that of Britain, the toughest sentencer in Europe. The United States is much more willing to contemplate the use of force in human affairs, even unilaterally, and much more wary of treaties than its allies. American citizens are far more religious than are European citizens, and far more traditional in their moral values. The United States is one of the few rich countries where abortion is a galvanizing political issue, and perhaps the only one where half the families regularly say grace before meals. It has taken a far tougher line on stem-cell research than almost any other country. Some of these positions are "Republican," but most of them enjoy broad-based support... America's center of gravity is to the right of most every industrialized nation."

"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/repub/rightnation.html"

What you term as current "progressive" trends are actually just the inevitable pendulum swing back to a right-based center as as our country begins to peak its head out from the clutches of 30+ years of conservative growth. Except for a brief patch of liberalism in the mid-90's with Clinton (which wasn't really given the constant battle he waged with a decidedly Republican congress), conservatives have dictated this country's policy for a great long while.

Here's some more: http://www.aim.org/briefing/conservatism-in-america/

Don't worry; though Obama looks poised to do well this November and the Democrats look to gain an even bigger margin in both houses of Congress, this is more a reaction to 8 years of entirely TERRIBLE Republican government rather than a decidedly "progressive trend." Once the dust settles over Dubbya's grave, things will go back to normal.

That is, if the Dems don't doink it up this time around. Which, in truth, is the one thing we're REALLY good at. :)

Stephanie said...

Anon John, liberals use "progressive" countries like Canada, France, Sweden as examples for discussions on health care, income redistribution, etc. Why are they not fair game for a discussion on parental rights and freedom of speech, seeing as the far left would like to lead the U.S. down the same path?

Anon John, I already discussed my feelings about gay marriage in the "Elephant in the Room" discussion that you participated in. For a refresher, here is what I said:

My heart hurts for people who struggle with homosexual tendencies. I am not about to condemn them. From my perspective of sins, I am only worried about my own (and perhaps those of my husband and children who directly affect me and my family). But, in terms of other people's sins, that is between them and the Lord.

However, with regard to the proposed amendment in CA, I support it and all other DOMA laws. I feel a strong responsibility to stand up to protect the traditional family structure as outlined in the Family Proclamation (and spoken of often in conference).


I don't hate gay people. That is my general point. I am not interested in the right to teach and preach hate. I am interested in teaching my children what the prophet says (and which I believe), that homosexual acts are a sin. Does the far left distinguish that from hate? I don't think so. Here's an example of far left propaganda coming out of Canada:

Note that in the name of "traditional family values", such candidates are adopting the U.S. Republican strategy of using "wedge issues" to promote the politics of hatred . . .

It's just this kind of unity which is required if we are to block an insiduous right-wing agenda intent on promoting hatred and divisions among us . . .

The election of an even larger number of fundamentalist, bigoted MPs would dramatically enhance the power of the minority who want to restore the patriarchal nuclear family as the only "acceptable" family model . . .

the so-called "Defence of Religion Act" to allow wider promotion of hatred . . .


Sounds to me like this far left (communist) group doesn't see a difference. So, assuming some people in the U.S. see it the same way, and I teach my children that homosexual acts are sinful, then some people will call my beliefs hateful.

I ask the same question again: if I teach these beliefs to my children, am I in danger of being accused of teaching hate? And, if so, would that warrant my children being taken away?

Mainly because Texas is full of mainstream christian "conservatives," and they generally can't resist the opportunity to trample on the rights of those they don't agree with.

I think if this were true, I would probably be on the other side of the FLDS debate.

Stephanie said...

Once the dust settles over Dubbya's grave, things will go back to normal.

Anon #2, I really hope this proves to be true.

big.bald.dave said...

Sounds to me like this far left (communist) group doesn't see a difference. So, assuming some people in the U.S. see it the same way, and I teach my children that homosexual acts are sinful, then some people will call my beliefs hateful.

I ask the same question again: if I teach these beliefs to my children, am I in danger of being accused of teaching hate? And, if so, would that warrant my children being taken away?


Of course some people will call your beliefs "hateful". But as Anon. David rightly mentioned, we thankfully have Constitutional protection of free speech. They have the right to call your beliefs "hateful", just as you have the right to hold those beliefs.

I think it's pretty clear that the government overstepped its bounds in raiding the FLDS compound. The courts have thus far obviously sided with the parents in restoring custody, since the government did not have specific evidence of wrongdoing in each child's case. I'm happy to let this one work itself out in the courts; they tend to get issues like this right eventually.

Anonymous said...

Hi again!

Stephanie, I believe you are mistaken when you say that liberals want to lead us down the same path as Sweden, Canda, etc. Liberals discuss things like health care in those countries to show how it could work here. Does that mean they want to adopt the entire country's political and legal structure? No, that's an entirely too simple misrepresentation of the argument.

In fact, the first amendment, which is what protects your right to teach your children whatever you want in this country, has historically been the bastion of liberalism, just as the second has been trumpeted by conservatives. Liberals generally try to protect free speech, while conservatives generally try to limit it. Think pornography or library book censorship (not saying either of those are good, just using examples). And yes, while liberals have pushed hate crimes legislation at times in this country, a crime has to actually be committed in order for it to take effect. So teaching your children homosexuality is a sin wouldn't be a crime. If you, however, taught them that gays were evil and they went out and beat one up because of it, then, yes, under hate crimes laws you would be held accountable.

I didn't need a reminder of your stance on homosexual marriage. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of complaining about the goverment of Texas taking people's children away because their family's don't prescribe to practices we would consider "traditional," while at the same time advocating a piece of legislation which would take people's right to marriage away because their families aren't "traditional." Forgive me if I wasn't clear enough. And, ironically, I agree with teaching your children homosexual acts are a sin, as I have taught mine the same. I just don't think its right to impose my beliefs on others through the enactment of laws.

Again, I believe you are putting words in the left's mouth when you say we can't distinguish the difference between hate and disagreement. Boiling down issues and people's thoughts to terms of black and white is the purview of your side of the aisle, not mine (the terms axis of evil and flip-flopper originated from the right, not the left, to name a few). Not only that, but they're Canadian words, not American. Just because I'm a liberal doesn't mean I agree with liberals in Canada just like you being conservative doesn't mean you agree with the conservatives in Iran.

I find your use of the term "communist" interesting. Is the group you are quoting truly communist, or are you using that as a blanket term to describe anyone on the far left (you didn't quote the source, so I'm unsure)? If so, is it fair of me to term the far right as "fascist?" Both terms are meant only to stir up fear, and that is a fallaceous argument at best.

And I didn't mean to imply that you are a mainstream christian conservative. Certainly they would not include you in that category, given the choice. Most of them don't even believe we're Christian to begin with... You should also know that most of us who consider ourselves liberal in this country would, as the other anonymous guy pointed out, come down on the right side of most issues in a country like Canada.

Stephanie said...

Is the group you are quoting truly communist, or are you using that as a blanket term to describe anyone on the far left (you didn't quote the source, so I'm unsure)?

Anon John - check out the link. I quoted a pamphlet from the Communist Party of Canada.

Stephanie said...

Anon John, I qualified my comments with "far left" and "some people". That doesn't necessarily include all liberals, and it sounds like it doesn't include you (just like I wouldn't include myself in the "far right"/fascist group).

Check out the comment section on any given article on same sex marriage in the U.S., and you will see a slew of comments calling anyone who opposes SSM or homosexual activity bigoted.

Here are a few samples of comments from an article that says that a traditional marriage ammendment will be on the ballot in Florida in November:

Evangelicals should be feeding the poor; administering to the sick; loving and not judging thier brother rather than spreading hatred and intolerance . . .

Teaching children to hate and to fear is much worse than exposing them to homosexuality. I too, am glad I'm not a closed minded bigot . . .

This is yet another attempt by the crazy religious right to try to ingrain their propaganda into our political structure. This amendment envelops our state with hate and bigotry, and serves no other purpose . . .

Stephanie said...

I'm happy to let this one work itself out in the courts; they tend to get issues like this right eventually.

Hmm, BBD. I tend to agree. The ruling I cited should set a precedent for future cases that children cannot be removed from parents for belief, and that should discourage it from happening again (I hope).

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, did you happen to read any of the other comments on this page?

"Women should be with MEN only. Men should be with women!!! For all the rest i think your freaks!!!"

"To all of you that love homosexuality, read Leviticus Chapter 18 in your true Word of God--THE BIBLE!! God hates the homosexual lifestyle in all forms, including same sex marriages! This is not discrimination! GET REAL!!!"

With these kind of people supporting this legislation, no wonder people think they're hateful.

Two other things. Firstly, only crazy nutjobs from either side post on websites like that. What you and I would both term the far left and the far right. Second, if you read the endorsement section of the website this article posts to, it reads like a who's who among evangelical churchs in Florida. I would make the argument that that particular group of christians doesn't have the best track record when it comes to tolerance and love for their fellow man. Check out godhatesfags.com

Sorry bout the communist thing, I completely missed the link. Wish I knew how to do all those fancy html tags. :)

Stephanie said...

Anon John (again), I fail to see the "hypocrisy" in my statements. I am not arguing for/against polygamy or the right of the FLDS to practice polygamy (I oppose it the same as I oppose the redefinition of marriage to include anything other than one man and one woman). I AM advocating for parents to be able to retain custody of their children despite beliefs that some people find offensive - because "offensive" MAY be subjective. And, if a child were taken away from a gay parent because of that parent's beliefs (whatever they may be), I would fight for that parent just the same.

Stephanie said...

Yes, John, I did read the other comments, and I acknowledge that some people are hateful toward gay people. And I really hate it (pun not intended) that those people say things like that so that other people can use those comments to categorize ALL of us who support DOMA laws into one hateful group, which is why in my comment I specifically said "some people will call my beliefs hateful" and identified the group I was quoting as "far left (communist)".

The Faithful Dissident said...

I agree that this story is a bit extreme, and I doubt that she will lose custody of her children for good. If she does, it will surprise me.

In Canada, everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

You can read "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#garantie

Sometimes laws collide with these freedoms (such as in the case of this Nazi woman) and it gets very, very complicated. Read the link at the bottom in relation to child porn, particularly in the case of John Robin Sharpe. I remember when this guy was in the news a few years back and he repulsed me. He still does. And yet, based on the freedoms that Canadians are guaranteed, how can the gov't put him behind bars for writing child porn stories or drawing child porn? (I mean non-photographic porn.) I wonder what Americans think of this case and whether a man like this should be protected under "free speech" or has he crossed the line? What would be his fate in the US? Would he go free or would he be sitting behind bars?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/childporn/

Stephanie said...

faithful dissident, interesting question. I don't see anything in the article that says the pictures he possessed were drawings. It seems to indicate they were actual photographs. Do you have additional information?

I think the definition Canada has made for child porn sounds reasonable: a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means… that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual behaviour… or the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years… or any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years…

Just as comments here have been pointing out that there is a difference between a hateful belief and a hateful action with regard to the law, I think there is a difference between someone having thoughts about children having sex and actually producing a type of child porn. Both are despicable, but only one is actually illegal.

The Faithful Dissident said...

The Supreme Court of Canada found him guilty for possessing photographs of children, but had to find him not guilty for his written stories. That was the loophole.

"The ruling angered many family and child advocacy groups who claimed the "artistic merit" defense would open the door to wide-spread distribution of child pornography and limit the abilities of police forces to crack down on actual child exploitation, therefore placing children at risk."

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/John-Robin-Sharpe

The child advocacy groups have an excellent point and I totally agree with them. But are we taking away someone's freedom of speech/expression/conscience by denying them their rights to produce such garbage? Isn't that also wrong?

It's a tough one.

Amy said...

Societies gather and organize themselves for the purpose of providing a purposeful environment where people can function and live without fear. The right to have "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" belong to an individual as long as that individual isn't doing something to harm the society as a whole. I would argue that someone who is perpetuating child pornography, in visual image or written image, is damaging society. Harming it. Child porn creates environments where adults give in to their carnal desires, and fixate on the opposite of virtue and innocence. Any society that allows this despicable vice to perpetuate is no longer providing that safe self-supporting environment, and isn't capable of creating a place where people can live without fear. Therefore I'd argue that child porn, in any form, should be illegal because it threatens the structure of society.

Stephanie said...

Ooh, that is a really good answer, Amy.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Great answer, Amy. Now, if we replace "child porn" with "Neo-Nazism," can we use the same rationalization to clamp down on such behaviour? If I edit Amy's answer a little and say it this way, do you look at the case of the Nazi mother any differently?

"Societies gather and organize themselves for the purpose of providing a purposeful environment where people can function and live without fear. The right to have "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" belong to an individual as long as that individual isn't doing something to harm the society as a whole. I would argue that someone who is perpetuating racism and hate, in visual image or written image (flags, swastikas, etc.), is damaging society. Harming it. Racism/Nazism/Hate creates environments where adults give in to their hatred (often resulting in harrassment, violence, and murder), fixate on the opposite of love, tolerance and acceptance. Any society that allows this despicable vice to perpetuate is no longer providing that safe self-supporting environment, and isn't capable of creating a place where people can live without fear. Therefore I'd argue that racism, in any form, should be illegal because it threatens the structure of society."

Racism and child porn are two terrible, terrible things that we have in all societies. Both harm children, promote violence and abuse, and can lead to horrific crimes such as rape or murder. In fact, hate crimes are not just based on race, but sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Both racism and porn are terrible cancers that should be eradicated from any civilized society. We need to protect children from becoming victims and/or perpetrators of either.

Or should we really do what it takes to eradicate them?

I don't know.

Amy said...

FD, you changed my answer. Therefore you changed the meaning. And, I was only talking about child porn. The words I chose were specifically for pornography regarding CHILDREN. Anything involving adult pornography or otherwise[read: racisim] is a different problem and is going to require a different answer.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I know I changed it, that's what I said. I was just curious as to whether we could apply it to racism or not, since there are some similarities and both have a negative impact on children.

My intention was not to provoke you, but to get the discussion going. Just to make that clear.

Amy said...

oh I'm not provoked. I just think that when you're dealing with issues that concern children, child development, and child exposure its a different type of ball game.

Amy said...

And just to get back to the racism/child custody issue that the post talked about----I think that adults can argue back and forth about what is ok and what isn't. There are people out there that think that LDS communities are hateful and spiteful and are harmful to society because they are slow to open up to outsiders and outside ideas. Obviously I, being a Mormon, disagree. However, I don't think that people who think that way should be destroyed and hopefully they don't think I should be destroyed either. My personal answer to this is that hopefully this issue can be resolved through developing a friendship that focuses on similarities and commonalities rather than differences in lifestyle and ideology. But both sides have to be open to working together before that could take place. Afterall, isn't one of the best cures for racism when both sides start looking at the other as human? As just another person trying to make it through this thing we call life?

Stephanie said...

No, faithful dissident, I don't think we can apply it to racism. Comparing child porn to racism depends on the definition of racism. According to the online mirriam-webster dictionary, racism means

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination


Basically, racism is a belief that one race is superior to another. Compare that to the definition of child porn from Canada in my comment above. Child porn involves an action that hurts or advocates hurt to a child. If "racism" means killing, physically harming, publicly humiliating, or otherwise causing harm or advocating harm to a person, then your analogy might hold water. If "racism" means holding views that someone of another color is inferior (as this woman claims, based on the fact that she is a self-proclaimed white supremacist), then I think your analogy is a stretch.

I also think there is a difference between a symbol or logo and a pictoral depiction. Displaying the logo for NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) in one's home would not be illegal, but displaying a picture of a man and boy engaged in sex would (or should). Similarly, displaying a swastika is not the same as displaying a picture of a hate crime. I wouldn't want any of the above in my home, and sometimes I wish we could do something about the men involved in NAMBLA, but as long as they keep it to beliefs and ideas and don't cross the line to child porn and molestation, they are protected. And, actually, I think it should be that way. Despicable, yes. Illegal, no.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I think that the reason why Canadian authorities took this woman's kids away from her is because they view Nazism as a precursor to hate crime. I agree that racism (the hate ideologies and opinions in themselves) is not the same as child porn because in order to make child porn (at least in the photographic sense), children have to be harmed and with racism, it can be contained to just ideas. However, racism and hate ideologies are usually what leads to hate crimes.

So, I think that these Canadian authorities are not taking the kids away simply because of the racism she's teaching them, but because they see it as a preventative measure before the kids potentially get brainwashed, become troublemakers in Canadian society, and potentially commit hate crimes. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I can see where they're coming from.

Plain and simple racism (having the idea that someone is inferior because of skin colour, etc.) is something that we can't change. We can't force someone to change their mind and opinions. But what I was getting at is that racism (particularly Neo-Nazism) often goes beyond ideology and involves violence, etc. Neo-Nazis aren't just people with crazy ideas who keep it to themselves. They are aggressive, violent, and have taken many innocent lives around the world. How many Neo-Nazis do you know who are hardworking, well-behaved, contributing members of society? It goes beyond just having racist ideas.

Interestingly enough, the birthplace of Nazism has stricter rules concerning the display and expression of it than places like Canada or the US. It's illegal to display the swastiska or the "Heil Hitler" raised arm, for example. The Neo-Nazis there have their rallies (I narrowly missed one one day during one of my stays in Germany) and the police make their usual arrests for the public display. You could say that they are being denied the right to free speech, but you can also say that it's a preventative measure to make sure that the rallies don't get out of hand, which they sometimes do, where innocent people have been killed and where minorities have to live in fear just going out in the street. That's a huge cost of freedom of speech.

So, I honestly sympathize with both sides of this case of the Canadian woman and her kids. I don't entirely like the idea of her losing her kids, but I also see what the gov't thinks it's trying to prevent: more brainwashed, non-contributing, hate-mongers that Canada doesn't need.

Canada is a society comprised of every culture you can think of, like the US, and although racism certainly exists in Canada, it's not as evident as in the US. Just crossing the Canadian-US border with my family (comprised of Hispanic minorities), we've been absolutely shocked several times by the way that we were treated by US authorities based on ethnicity. My mother (Mexican), after over 30 years in Canada, has never experienced racism there like she did just crossing the border into the US -- and she's a Canadian citizen! So, like I said, although racism DOES exist in Canada, Canadians (perhaps naively) want to believe that we can keep racism out and that it can be eradicated so that Canada remains a society of multi-ethnic groups living together in harmony.

Naive of Canadians, perhaps, but I have to say I like to see people taking racism seriously.

Stephanie said...

faithful dissident, racism is a serious issue. And so is taking children away from their parents. Here is a summary of Canada's hate speech laws. Note particularly that it says The Criminal Code provisions are intended to prohibit the public distribution of hate propaganda. Private speech is not covered by the provisions.

For example, "advocating genocide" includes publicly arguing that members of an identifiable group should be killed. Wilfully promoting hatred can only be committed by communicating statements other than in a private conversation. And inciting hatred is only prohibited if statements are communicated in a public place.


So, as wrong as this woman's beliefs (and stuff hanging in her house and drawing a swastika on her daughters arm) may be, they are far from illegal.

It seems to me that you are answering my questions. 1 - yes you see it is possible, and 2 - you may find it acceptable. How did I draw that conclusion? Well, despite the fact that what this woman did was not illegal and was indeed her own beliefs protected by Canada law, you can justify it:

I think that the reason why Canadian authorities took this woman's kids away from her is because they view Nazism as a precursor to hate crime.

However, racism and hate ideologies are usually what leads to hate crimes.

So, I think that these Canadian authorities are not taking the kids away simply because of the racism she's teaching them, but because they see it as a preventative measure before the kids potentially get brainwashed, become troublemakers in Canadian society, and potentially commit hate crimes.

I don't entirely like the idea of her losing her kids, but I also see what the gov't thinks it's trying to prevent: more brainwashed, non-contributing, hate-mongers that Canada doesn't need.

So, like I said, although racism DOES exist in Canada, Canadians (perhaps naively) want to believe that we can keep racism out and that it can be eradicated so that Canada remains a society of multi-ethnic groups living together in harmony.


I guess my big question is this: who are these Canadian authorities who decide that this woman's Nazi beliefs are a precursor to hate crimes? To decide that they are "preventing" hate crimes by taking the kids away? Who gets to make these kind of decisions? Pretty powerful people, considering that the law doesn't seem to support their conclusions or actions.

All right, so given that these are your statements, and that the LDS church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, even in a progressive country like Canada, and some groups (Communist Party of Canada) call those beliefs "hateful" and "bigoted" (because they lump anyone who doesn't fully embrace homosexuality into one big hateful group), how far of a stretch is it to substitute the following?

I think that the reason why Canadian authorities took this woman's kids away from her is because they view the Mormon belief that homosexual acts are a sin as a precursor to hate crime.

However, opposition to homosexuality and other hate ideologies are usually what leads to hate crimes.

So, I think that these Canadian authorities are not taking the kids away simply because of the disapproval of homosexual behavior she's teaching them, but because they see it as a preventative measure before the kids potentially get brainwashed, become troublemakers in Canadian society, and potentially commit hate crimes.

I don't entirely like the idea of her losing her kids, but I also see what the gov't thinks it's trying to prevent: more brainwashed, non-contributing, hate-mongers that Canada doesn't need.

So, like I said, although discrimination against homosexuals DOES exist in Canada, Canadians (perhaps naively) want to believe that we can keep discrimination out and that it can be eradicated so that Canada remains a society of multi-marriage groups living together in harmony.


Sure, it's a stretch, but I think that if you can approve of Canada taking away the woman's children based on her racism, you could approve of Canada doing the same thing to a Mormon family who teaches their children that homosexuality is a sin - particularly if the "Canadian authorities" in charge with all the power to decide whose beliefs will lead to hate crimes and whose won't subscribe to the kinds of ideas supported by the Communist Party of Canada.

I've been to Canada once. I crossed the border with my husband while I was in Michigan to go to the temple in Canada. Once in Canada, we were lost and stopped to ask for directions. NO ONE would help us. They either ignored us (as the man in the gas station window did) or spoke french to show they wouldn't speak to us in English. We eventually found our way to the temple (the members in the temple were kind). It left a bad taste in our mouth for Canada. I wish I could agree with you that Canada is such an inclusive society because the people I encountered sure didn't seem to like white Americans.

Or maybe the people I met while across the border don't really represent the whole of Canada just like the people you met on the border don't really represent the whole of the U.S.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Of course I wouldn't agree with authorities taking away kids from Mormons based on homosexuality teachings, but I can understand why some people assume that we are indoctrinating our kids with hate. Unfortunately, many Christian groups treat homosexuals in a way that makes people suspicious of all Christians and anyone who considers homosexuality a sin. So while I don't agree with it, I can understand why people can assume that Mormons fill their kids' heads with hate propaganga towards homosexuals.

If you crossed the border from Michigan into Canada to go to Toronto temple, you probably drove through my home town (or the border crossing just south). There are very few people who speak French in that area of Canada and no one would approach you in French first. You have to go much further northeast in Ontario or into Quebec for that. Never in all my life can I ever remember being spoken to in French in that area of Canada, unless you initiated a conversation in French with a bilingual gov't agent. So I have no idea why you experienced what you did. To say that Canadians don't like white Americans is pretty much saying that Canadians don't like themselves because most Canadians are white and look and sound pretty much like Americans. Perhaps if you ever go back to Canada, you will realize it's not the norm, just as I know that our experience at the US border isn't the norm. Most of the Americans I know (many of whom are relatives) are wonderful people. But all of our experiences with racism have occurred in the US, which is curious. When my dad (white Canadian) married my mom, they drove through the US and at the border crossing in Texas, the border agent looked at my mom and asked my dad whether she was "for his kitchen or his bedroom." And even now when my mom crosses the border, she is often asked "where were you born?" which is a totally irrelevant question because they should be asking citzenship. She has a Canadian passport and none of my white-looking relatives are ever asked that question.

Amy said...

FD, maybe Americans are just more extreme when it comes to forms of racism. Like we'll accuse someone of racism whether they are consciously thinking that or not. When we were in London it was pretty interesting to see how one regularly ran into the social class distinctions based on jobs---the secretaries usually had a different accent than the businessmen, and the accent of the fast food workers was different from the secretaries. And of course prestige and distinction seemed to go along more with the businessmen...in America any kind of obvious distinction like that (picture skin color rather than speech accents)would bring on claims of racism, etc. But over there its just a given that someone who speaks that way probably had a certain level of education, and thats it and therefore gets jobs that correspond.

Your story of the comment "kitchen or bedroom" made me think of what I call Small Town Mentality. Its too bad your family had to suffer that, its so ignorant.

Anonymous said...

Amy reveals that she is not a conservative when she says, "The right to have 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of expression' belong to an individual as long as that individual isn't doing something to harm the society as a whole."

Here are some of the problems with that statement:

1. Going to war with Great Britain would definitely harm our society as a whole. Yet a person absolutely has a First Amendment right to advocate for such a thing.

2. I would agree with many on this site who believe that a lot of rap music is harmful to society as a whole. Yet it, too, is rightfully protected by the First Amendment.

3. "Harmful to society" is WAY too subjective and vague to be used as a free-speech and free-expression standard. Hardcore feminists think that the use of the word "he" as a generic pronoun harms society as a whole. A lot of evangelical Christians think the Book of Mormon harms society as a whole. I wouldn't go that far myself, but I would definitely say that the blatant racism and anti-Catholicism of Bruce McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine was harmful to society as a whole. I believe absolutely that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter harm society as a whole. Yet I would never advocate that we give our government power to shut down any of this speech.

Amy, you might even believe that some of what I have to say is "harmful to society as a whole"--but I bet you don't actually think the government should have the power to prevent me from saying those things. Or do you?

I want to stress here that in making a statement like the above, Amy reveals that she is not a conservative. If she were a conservative she wouldn't place the emphasis on the potential for individuals to harm society as a whole. Instead her analysis would start from the potential for unchecked government power to do harm to both the individual and the society. Why do we protect freedom of speech? The true conservative answers: Because we recognize that the harmful effects of individual misuses of that right are far less than the harmful effects of a government with the power to regulate speech. That's why (ideally at least) we limit such governmental power strictly to those cases where speech can be shown to cause immediate and clearly demonstrable harm (e.g., inciting a riot or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater).

No true conservative would ever argue that we outlaw child pornography because "someone who is perpetuating child pornography, in visual image or written image, is damaging society." Instead the conservative would argue that child pornography is outlawed because it involves immediate and clearly demonstrable harm to the children depicted in it.

I'm not saying Amy's argument is fallacious--it is at least coherent, though I definitely disagree with it. I'm merely saying that it's not conservative. (Neither is it consistent with the political philosophy of this nation's founding.) I think it would more properly be called government-authoritarian.

FWIW, on this particular issue the positions of the true conservative and the classical liberal are pretty much identical.

--David

Amy said...

Great analysis on my statement David. I completely stand by it, regardless. And I do identify with the conservative party because I agree with the MAJORITY of the conservative ideals. (just wanted to make that clear in case anyone reads your comment and is confused about whether I am conservative or liberal)

Regardless of philosophy, I believe pornography, ESPECIALLY child porn, harms society. And society has a duty to protect itself from the inside as well as outside.

*I hear the far off crashing sound of this thread taking a turn from the post itself towards the age-old argument of conservatism vs liberalism*

Stephanie said...

David, Amy was specifically referring to child porn - not some nebulous "free speech", belief, or talk. Physical child porn. You are taking her comment out of contxt by applying it to all of your examples (all of which are about speech). When someone thinks about children and sex, it is a belief. When they write those thoughts down in explicit language into a physical form, Canada calls that child porn (and I agree).

Stephanie said...

Although I get the whole point about the harm being to individuals rather than society as a whole.

Anonymous said...

wow -interesting comment thread. I feel that what Anon Dave said is key - who decides what harms society as a whole? This is a completely nebulous concept. "harm" is different to everyone - for instance, I feel that Wal-Mart does immense harm to society as a whole. As does fast food, and mass consumerism. In fact, I think that is what politics is all about. People with different points of view try to promite their ideas of what harms society and what helps it - and then to legislate those ideas. Though this is what politicas has become, it is NOT what it should be. The constitiution and the bill of rights were developed to ensure that our governmental representatives, with their benevolent ideas of right and wrong did NOT force said ideals upon their subjects for the greater good of society. Instead, the business of the government should be to ensure that society governed with as much universal equality as possible, while ensuring that the saftey and rights of its' people are intact.

Stephanie said...

Rick, exactly - which is why taking kids away from parents who have hateful beliefs (or beliefs that are considered hateful by one person or group of people) is so wrong. As you said, "who decides what harms society as a whole?" People who want to enforce "universal equality" by removing children from parents with hateful beliefs (or perceived hateful beliefs), are violating the safety and rights of its individuals (to parent with their own beliefs).

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, exactly--which is why denying the benefits of marriage to gay individuals who desire them is so wrong.

David

Stephanie said...

David, that is a good point. I am not interested in denying benefits to gay couples - don't civil unions accomplish that?

Stephanie said...

Actually, in the case of California, as far as I understand it, California's domestic partner law grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. So, even before the CA Supreme Court declared "gay marriage" legal, it doesn't appear that gay couples were really being denied any "benefits".