Custody Battle Over White Separatist Twins

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-06-11 12:11am

My comment has to do with the fact they are happy with their racism. Their shirts absolutely piss me off.

General Brock · Post by **General Brock** » 2006-06-11 12:27am

Yes, but they're only 13. They haven't had a chance to learn any better. Its sad, but it's like hating child 'soldiers' in places like Sierra Leone. Dosen't do very much to help them.

A healthier society to grow up in, is what they need. Their mother can't clutch them forever.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-06-11 01:21pm

General Brock wrote: Yes, but they're only 13. They haven't had a chance to learn any better. Its sad, but it's like hating child 'soldiers' in places like Sierra Leone. Dosen't do very much to help them.

A healthier society to grow up in, is what they need. Their mother can't clutch them forever.

What they need is exposure to other races and a chance to see that they are not the enemy. Ideally if the father had got them back he would have moved to NYC or another suitably multicultural city. So the girls could have exposure to other races and cultures. I think racism is alot like religious fanaticism, if you've been raised in that enviroment than thats all you've known and will buy into it. But once you've been removed from the enviroment than you can start to see for yourself how the real world works. Quality education also helps emmensly.

General Brock · Post by **General Brock** » 2006-06-11 09:34pm

Cpl Kendall wrote: What they need is exposure to other races and a chance to see that they are not the enemy. Ideally if the father had got them back he would have moved to NYC or another suitably multicultural city. So the girls could have exposure to other races and cultures. I think racism is alot like religious fanaticism, if you've been raised in that enviroment than thats all you've known and will buy into it. But once you've been removed from the enviroment than you can start to see for yourself how the real world works. Quality education also helps emmensly.

Ideally, if the father were ideal for the task. There is no indication that he is, and I'll give the judge in this case the benefit of the doubt. Racism is just one of many human failings a person may harbour. Their father might very well spend their money on his vices, not their college education. It is better that the girls find more diverse people on their own terms, not those of a father who only shows up after they gained notoriety, and an interventionist judge and state.

The situation of the Gaede twins looks bad now, but consider the Canadian examples of forcebly relocating native children from their families to live in a better, more 'civilized' environment. It seemed reasonable and justifiable at the time, but in most cases simply did not work out because of unforseen and unexpected problems and was a disaster for the children and their families. Or, the Dionne Quints, who became state propaganda tools that made millions for the province of Ontario, taken from their francophhone parents on the pretext that the anglo state could provide better for them.

Not all multicultual cities are bouroughs of multiracial harmony. NYC, NY is a very diverse city with a lot of strife along the lines of race, ethnicity, religion, and class. Children are most influenced at that age by their peer group; there is no guarantee that even under their father's care, and state supervision, they wouldn't seek out racist company, spurred by resentment at state action that took them away from their mother. They'll be to busy resisting and hurting to actually think about the matter.

What seems to be clear is that Lynx and Lamb's mother is better suited to meeting her children's material needs than their father. It is not unusual for children to grow to reject parental values they find undesireable. A strong athiest can come from a religious background, or a devout religious person from an atheist family. It is not a given that the twins will grow up to be staunch racists, or that their music will affirm racism except amongst those who already take it on faith.

Ignoring the material evidence that the mother is a better provider in favour of a more qualitative social value sets a precident for legal anarchy as activist judges with different axes to grind interprest the law as loosely as possible to favour their cause, say against homosexuals, or other religions, as well as for or against racism.

Forcebly removing children from an otherwise stable home, from a parent they apparenty like being with, who is providing an otherwise caring family environment, is tramautic for the child and discredits the humanitarian cause. There are many situations in which the ends would not justify the means, where too many things can go wrong, and this is one of them.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-11 09:37pm

Alyeska wrote:That would require the US government deciding what is and isn't moral behavior even though its legal.

You are not aware that the US government already decides who is and isn't a "fit parent" based on all manner of criteria that have nothing to do with breaking the law?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-06-11 09:39pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Alyeska wrote:That would require the US government deciding what is and isn't moral behavior even though its legal.
You are not aware that the US government already decides who is and isn't a "fit parent" based on all manner of criteria that have nothing to do with breaking the law?

I am. And I also know that it often gets over turned on appeal for various reasons. Some judges tend to be very leary to make rullings on those grounds alone because of this.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-11 09:41pm

Alyeska wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Alyeska wrote:That would require the US government deciding what is and isn't moral behavior even though its legal.
You are not aware that the US government already decides who is and isn't a "fit parent" based on all manner of criteria that have nothing to do with breaking the law?
I am. And I also know that it often gets over turned on appeal for various reasons. Some judges tend to be very leary to make rullings on those grounds alone because of this.

Are you seriously suggesting that all rulings on parental fitness which are not based on criminal acts are in danger of being imminently overturned? Don't be ridiculous; like it or not, judges rule on your fitness as a parent based on many criteria other than "you broke the law". It is quite routine to grant custody based on things like "spent more time with the kids before the divorce" or "has a more stable financial situation" and all kinds of things that have nothing to do with breaking the law.