Custody Battle Over White Separatist Twins

[Big Orange]

Those poor girls are really between a rock and a hard place.

As much as I hate to say, but I think the girls are probably more suited to stay with their mother (even though she's a racist fuck). She may most certainly be a terrible moral influence on a her daughters with her racist doctrines, but she is a lot less likely to physically harm them than their violent, drugged up father.

[Alyeska]

A judge can't decide both parents are unfit in divorce court. Its one or the other. Considering what the mother does it legal while what the father does isn't, the judge has only one choice to make.

What a clusterfuck.

No, its the law. This isn't an issue of child services getting involved. Its custody hearings in regards to divorced parents. The judge has to pick one of the two for custody. Its not a clusterfuck at all. The judge can't just say "nope, neither of you get the kids".

[Flagg]

One problem. In the US, being racist isn't a disqualifier for being a parent. If one parent has drug problems while the other is racist, the judge only has one choice here. He can't send the kids to the grand parents or child services. He has to put them in the custody of the racist parent.

Now, if the father can clean himself up, the judge would strongly consider him.

I agree completly. I don't think racism should be a disqualifier for being a parent, but I definately think that when you can choose between a racist parent, and a non-racist parent (who is fit) you should pick the non-racist. Especially in a child custody situation like this one.

[Aaron]

No, its the law. This isn't an issue of child services getting involved. Its custody hearings in regards to divorced parents. The judge has to pick one of the two for custody. Its not a clusterfuck at all. The judge can't just say "nope, neither of you get the kids".

As someone else suggested why not ask the children which parent they would rather be with?

[Big Orange]

But the annoying thing is the father is a drugged up nut and is more likely to beat up the Aryan twins. And as twisted as it sounds, the Neo-Nazi mother would take good care of them since she sees them as the future for "racial purity" or some bullshit like that. But she's also exploiting them as white supremacy propaganda and is filling up their heads with racist junk.

[Aaron]

But the annoying thing is the father is a drugged up nut and is more likely to beat up the Aryan twins. And as twisted as it sounds, the Neo-Nazi mother would take good care of them since she sees them as the future for "racial purity" or some bullshit like that. But she's also exploiting them as white supremacy propaganda and is filling up their heads with racist junk.

A pretty clear cut case for hate speech laws if you ask me.

[Simplicius]

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

State governments do have the power to legislate behaviors for no other reason than a perception of immorality - witness anti-sodomy laws, for example. The "health, safety, and welfare" police powers of the states is commonly acknolwedged to include moral welfare.

So, a state may well be able to craft a law making racism a factor in determining custody. One could apply the use of ideology as a factor (as with religion) in making the decision in combination with a recognition that attempting to curb race discrimination with legislation is common practice as precedent.

Of course, this creates the problem of continuing to strengthen the moral welfare component of the police powers, which is its own can of worms. An acceptable hate speech law would doubtless be an easier solution.

[Flagg]

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

State governments do have the power to legislate behaviors for no other reason than a perception of immorality - witness anti-sodomy laws, for example. The "health, safety, and welfare" police powers of the states is commonly acknolwedged to include moral welfare.

Sodomy laws have been struck down by the SCOTUS.

So, a state may well be able to craft a law making racism a factor in determining custody. One could apply the use of ideology as a factor (as with religion) in making the decision in combination with a recognition that attempting to curb race discrimination with legislation is common practice as precedent.

The simple fact is that a judge can award custody to whichever parent they damned well please, for pretty much whatever reason they choose. So you do not need a state law authorizing it.

Of course, this creates the problem of continuing to strengthen the moral welfare component of the police powers, which is its own can of worms.

Yeap, it's ususally called Theocracy.

An acceptable hate speech law would doubtless be an easier solution.

Inciting violence and making threats is where I think the government restricting speech should pretty much end (barring things like state secrets and things like that). I have no problem with the FBI monitoring these hate groups, and prosecuting them at every chance, though.

[Alyeska]

But the annoying thing is the father is a drugged up nut and is more likely to beat up the Aryan twins. And as twisted as it sounds, the Neo-Nazi mother would take good care of them since she sees them as the future for "racial purity" or some bullshit like that. But she's also exploiting them as white supremacy propaganda and is filling up their heads with racist junk.

A pretty clear cut case for hate speech laws if you ask me.

A good case for it, hell yeah. Problem is, I don't trust my government.

[Aaron]

A good case for it, hell yeah. Problem is, I don't trust my government.

I don't blame you, I don't trust them either. Your current government would likely abuse them as they have umpteen dozen other laws.

[Venomous]

I wish there were more studies done to prove that being raised in a racist household is emotionally unhealthy. For example: If we could correlate racism with a hatred for other races, and then hatred causing hostility and that hostility leading to a "probable" hate crime then alot of these kids could be taken out of racist households. It wouldn't ~ just be a concern when two parents split.

A racist parent could easily argue that although it is their belief, they wouldn't impose it on their children. No studies have been done to prove that any religious belief or other moral belief that parents practice but don't impose, have had any effect on the offspring. We need to understand the true effects of this before we can just guess about the outcome.

[Big Orange]

All I can say is this; I hope these two girls will grow up into two well adjusted adults in spite of their parents eccentric antics, but I wouldn't count on it. But here's food for thought; the children of Nazi leaders more often than not grew up into fairly normal adults (even though some drifted off into early Neo-Nazis movemenst like Heinrich Himmler's daughter).

[Zero]

One thing I don't get at all... freedom of speach doesn't apply to 'obscenity' according to supreme court decisions in the past, but it still applies to hate speach. That's fucking ridiculous. Art doesn't include fucking a blonde girl up the ass, but apparently does include two blonde girls singing praises for Nazi leaders.

[Glocksman]

One thing I don't get at all... freedom of speach doesn't apply to 'obscenity' according to supreme court decisions in the past, but it still applies to hate speach. That's fucking ridiculous. Art doesn't include fucking a blonde girl up the ass, but apparently does include two blonde girls singing praises for Nazi leaders.

'Hate Speech' is explictly political, and political speech is what the First amendment was designed to protect.

[Venomous]

One thing I don't get at all... freedom of speach doesn't apply to 'obscenity' according to supreme court decisions in the past, but it still applies to hate speach. That's fucking ridiculous. Art doesn't include fucking a blonde girl up the ass, but apparently does include two blonde girls singing praises for Nazi leaders.

'Hate Speech' is explictly political, and political speech is what the First amendment was designed to protect.

I have included a link to the Canadian Law on "Hate Speech" which has been challenged and upheld. up.http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/i ... _crime.cfm

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression to all Canadians. However, all Charter rights are subject to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.



In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether or not section 319(2) of the Criminal Code (the crime of wilfully promoting hatred) violates our constitutional right to freedom of expression, in the Keegstra case. James Keegstra was an Alberta high-school teacher who taught his students that the Holocaust did not occur and was part of a Jewish conspiracy. The Court held that, although section 319(2) does limit free speech, it is a reasonable limit consistent with a democratic society, and is therefore constitutional.

Shows it can be done!!

[Alyeska]

Just because Canada can do it does not mean the US can. I would never trust this government to enact a hate speech law. It would be used as a club against those the government doesn't like.

[Glocksman]

That's in Canada.
The US has a very different legal tradition WRT 'hate speech'.

[Glocksman]

And somewhat as a side topic, who wants to bet that Playboy will offer them a small fortune to be a centerfold once they turn 18?

[Alyeska]

Pic
Those girls could use a good fucking up the ass by some black dude.

[Glocksman]

Pic
Those girls could use a good fucking up the ass by some black dude.

When they're of legal age, perhaps.

[Venomous]

Just because Canada can do it does not mean the US can. I would never trust this government to enact a hate speech law. It would be used as a club against those the government doesn't like.

It is sad that the government can't be trusted but I pointed out the Canadian law to show that there are models out there. It is very specific about the groups it protects and, unfortunately, some groups aren't protected under this law. It does specify the attributes of "hate speech" which makes it easier to prosecute the crimes that society would want punished.

I just wanted to suggest that it is possible to distinguish "hate speech" from freedom of speech. It does not have to be defined as "political speech" necessarily. There have been exceptions to the abuse of the first amendment before.

[Glocksman]

A good case for it, hell yeah. Problem is, I don't trust my government.

I don't blame you, I don't trust them either. Your current government would likely abuse them as they have umpteen dozen other laws.

Incidentally you have hit on the reason many US gun owners such as myself distrust any gun control laws that come down the pike.

[Glocksman]

Just because Canada can do it does not mean the US can. I would never trust this government to enact a hate speech law. It would be used as a club against those the government doesn't like.

It is sad that the government can't be trusted but I pointed out the Canadian law to show that there are models out there. It is very specific about the groups it protects and, unfortunately, some groups aren't protected under this law. It does specify the attributes of "hate speech" which makes it easier to prosecute the crimes that society would want punished.

I just wanted to suggest that it is possible to distinguish "hate speech" from freedom of speech. It does not have to be defined as "political speech" necessarily. There have been exceptions to the abuse of the first amendment before.

There are exceptions, but those mostly consist of speech aimed at a particular person, not a class or race in general.
While I find April Gaede's beliefs repugnant, she has the abolute right to hold them as long as she doesn't cross the line to violence.

[Venomous]

]

There are exceptions, but those mostly consist of speech aimed at a particular person, not a class or race in general.
While I find April Gaede's beliefs repugnant, she has the abolute right to hold them as long as she doesn't cross the line to violence.

I agree with you there! If she doesn't incite or promote harm against another race or ethnic group she should be entitled to speak her mind. From the title of the thread she is advocating separatism and in some countries that goes on all the time. Quebec for example.

[General Brock]

I'm inclined to agree with Glocksman on this one. The girls lives cannot be that great under either parent. If they are indeed successful entertainers, then I suspect both parents have an eye on the money they've made. Particularly the father, whose implied lifestyle might need a little more cash than he seems capable of earning himself.

While I would trust neither, even with the Coogan law, the mother seems more reliable. Asking the girls to decide which parent they would prefer would probably mean staying with the mother anyway; she's been the custodial parent for most of their lives and they know nothing about their father - except, assuming there is some accuracy to their mother's divorce testimony, he wasn't very pleasant to live with.

Having the state step in to send them to an institution - where they will be subjected to other children with problems and perhaps even marked for bullying as racists - will do them no good. I've read enough stories in the news of child welfare screwups, and would never, ever trust child to the state and foster care except as a last resort. Sending them to other relatives dosen't guarantee their welfare; those people might also be racists, or have other problems. They haven't indicated any desire to intervene, either, from the story.

As the girls grow older they will begin to form their own opinions of the world, including racism. It would not surprise me if the pressure of being propaganda tools and the quality of racist company turn them off racism, and perhaps even their mother. They will have a better chance of learning non-racist ways in an economically secure home where there are fewer penalties for being rebellious.

State intervention on the grounds of anti-racism would be a disasterous precident for individual rights. Society is better off when people are free to think for themselves and reason things out from freely available soources of information. Society dosen't legally enforce racism anymore, because most people knowledgeably decided it wasn't socially beneficial. Laws are not enforced by state dictat alone; there has to be broad public sympathy for laws or there will be defiance, thru apathy and resentmant, as well as principle.

Removing children from their parents is no small decision; punishing the parents - and the children - for politicaly incorrect dissention alone is not sufficient reason. An extreme example would be Argentina; the military junta was a staunch American Cold War ally whose leaders were trained in the School of the Americas. What happens in the periphery of imperialism can trickle down home. Racists may not be likeable, but their ideas are defeated through reasoned, open public discourse, not ideologically, politically correct statism. That sort of blind power is too easily hijacked and perverted by those who seek only power and advantage.

The best interests of the children will keep that child in the safest, most stable environment possible. That appears to be with their mother, who appears to be managing their material needs effectively, and the judge decided accordingly.

Venomous mentions Canada's hate speech laws; I actually disagree with Canada's hate speech laws; they certainly weren't applied to the reprinting of the Mohammed cartoons by the Western Standard. To me, it was Muslim baiting by people who don't like Muslims. Others 'reasoned' that it wasn't. It may be the democratic majority opinion as well; the arbitrary 'reason' of the mob - or just the the media spinners.

Hate speech laws may have put holocauset denial out of the public spotlight, but did next to nothing to debunk it. Visibly martyring such causes only makes them stronger. If you can't touch it with a ten foot pole, you can't whack it with the pole either.

It may be emotionally satisfying to some to silence those they disagree with, but to do so in such an arbitrary manner is counterproductive to real social maturity.

As for suggestions to the girl's sexual futures... not my business to comment on such things, but I will say that Alyeska's comment is remniscent of the bad-old-days lockeroom jokes suggesting lesbians only need forced hetrosexual intercourse.