Neo Nazi looses custody Battle

[Zor]

CBC

The Manitoba government has won permanent guardianship of two children whose parents were accused of teaching them neo-Nazi beliefs.

A Court of Queen's Bench judge has ordered that the boy and girl remain in the custody of Child and Family Services (CFS), which has placed them in foster care with a relative.

The court also dismissed a constitutional challenge from the father, who argued the government violated his right to raise the children according to his beliefs. He is the stepfather of the girl, now nine, and the biological father of the boy, now four years old.

'This is communism, state-sanctioned theft of children to punish their parents based solely on an alleged belief system.' —Mother of seized children

To protect the identities of the children, no one involved in the case can be named.

The children were removed from their home in 2008 after the girl showed up at her elementary school with racist writings and symbols on her skin.

The government agency argued the children were emotionally harmed and were also being raised in squalor and suffering from neglect.
Girl described how to kill: social worker

During the trial of the custody issue last year, social workers testified the girl had said her parents hated people who were not white and talked of racial violence.

Social workers testified she used racial epithets to describe blacks, Asians, aboriginals and other minorities. One worker told the court the girl calmly described how black people could be killed with a ball and chain.

The father admitted to using Nazi salutes and telling the children that only white people belong in Canada. But he told the court his beliefs do not amount to racism and he never preached violence.

The mother, who now lives in another province, attended court infrequently, saying she could not afford the travel. In June, she testified that her estranged husband wasn't fit to be a parent, saying he was a heavy drinker and had been suicidal.

She also accused social workers of putting words in her daughter's mouth and said she never preached hatred to her children. The mother testified she wanted to co-operate with CFS officials in an effort to one day regain custody.

At one point, the mother appeared in court in shackles after being charged with a number of fraud-related crimes.
Appeals planned

In an email to CBC News on Thursday, the mother said she supported the decision not to grant custody to the father, but does not support a permanent order. She intends to appeal the decision.

"I deny any allegation of abandonment and will state that based on the judge's writings that she had made up her mind prior to the final arguments," she wrote.

"If she had paid attention to the evidence as opposed to [hearsay] from third parties speaking for a child that had no voice at the trial [and who were] never present in my home, then I believe her decision would be different.

"This is communism, state-sanctioned theft of children to punish their parents based solely on an alleged belief system. The social workers have stated that it is not their job to investigate the accusations through evidence, that [hearsay] is all that they need.

"Apparently the judge was in agreement with that. I am already working on my appeal."

The father's lawyer said they will review the judge's decision and plan an appeal. She described her client as being "very disappointed" with the verdict.

The father immediately loses any visitation rights with the children. Up until Thursday, he was allowed one supervised two-hour visit a week with them.

I see this as definately the right move. Neo Nazis (especially scumbags like these) are completely unfit to raise children in my opinion.

Zor

[mr friendly guy]

The father admitted to using Nazi salutes and telling the children that only white people belong in Canada. But he told the court his beliefs do not amount to racism and he never preached violence.

How the fuck do they get that claim? But then I see they live in squalor and they are most probably the Canadian equivalent to bogans.

[wolveraptor]

'This is communism, state-sanctioned theft of children to punish their parents based solely on an alleged belief system.'

Yes. Absolutely. That is the accurate definition of communism. State-sanctioned theft of children to punish their parents based solely on an alleged belief system (which we totally admitted to, so calling it "alleged" is a real stretch, but nevermind that).

[K. A. Pital]

'This is communism, state-sanctioned theft of children to punish their parents based solely on an alleged belief system.'

Yes. Absolutely. That is the accurate definition of communism. State-sanctioned theft of children to punish their parents based solely on an alleged belief system (which we totally admitted to, so calling it "alleged" is a real stretch, but nevermind that).

I think anything the Nazis fear they call communism.

[Tanasinn]

Well, after the LAST time communists came knocking on the fascist door, one can hardly be surprised.

[Liberty]

Hm. So maybe you should say children should definitely be taken from their parents if they (the parents) are teaching them (the children) to harm others? Or possibly even just to hate others? I've been thinking about this issue since the homeschooling thread here a week or two ago. So maybe:

A. Christian parents teach their children that salvation is necessary to go to heaven and that abortionists kill babies. They tell them that it is justified to kill abortion doctors or blow up abortion clinics, because it saves lives. They urge them to grow up to do such things as "God's work." Therefore, the children should be removed.

B. Christian parents teach their children that salvation is necessary to go to heaven and that abortionists kill babies. They also teach them that Jesus never condones violence. Therefore, the children should not be removed.

But what about:

C. Christian parents teach their children that salvation is necessary to go to heaven and that gays are living lives of sin. They teach their children that homosexuality is an abomination against God. However, they also teach that Jesus does not condone violence.

I think it can be hard to define the line. But in this case, the case of the above article, the line was definitely crossed.

[wolveraptor]

Ultimately the government will only be able to step in when they actually notice that something's amiss. In this case, it wasn't just the indoctrination: the children were being raised in a shitty environment, with a possible drunk for a dad. Also the values that they were teaching are more blatantly offensive to society than homophobia or being pro-life. I think it'd be much harder to prove that "this kid is totally gonna grow up to kill abortion doctors!!!11" since a parent is very unlikely to put it in those terms.

[Sidewinder]

I think anything the Nazis fear they call communism. :lol:

I expected the answer to be "Jewish conspiracy" or something. (Historical Nazis weren't above collaborating with the Communists if it served their interests, as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact demonstrated. Of course, it says a lot when historical Nazis thought logically more often than their 21st century counterparts.)

[Alyrium Denryle]

Hm. So maybe you should say children should definitely be taken from their parents if they (the parents) are teaching them (the children) to harm others? Or possibly even just to hate others? I've been thinking about this issue since the homeschooling thread here a week or two ago. So maybe:

A. Christian parents teach their children that salvation is necessary to go to heaven and that abortionists kill babies. They tell them that it is justified to kill abortion doctors or blow up abortion clinics, because it saves lives. They urge them to grow up to do such things as "God's work." Therefore, the children should be removed.

B. Christian parents teach their children that salvation is necessary to go to heaven and that abortionists kill babies. They also teach them that Jesus never condones violence. Therefore, the children should not be removed.

But what about:

C. Christian parents teach their children that salvation is necessary to go to heaven and that gays are living lives of sin. They teach their children that homosexuality is an abomination against God. However, they also teach that Jesus does not condone violence.

I think it can be hard to define the line. But in this case, the case of the above article, the line was definitely crossed.

I would say that teaching hate, because it often leads to violence even if disavowed, crosses that line.

[Serafina]

I think anything the Nazis fear they call communism.

I expected the answer to be "Jewish conspiracy" or something. (Historical Nazis weren't above collaborating with the Communists if it served their interests, as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact demonstrated. Of course, it says a lot when historical Nazis thought logically more often than their 21st century counterparts.)

Well, communism was just as bad as the jews in the eyes of german nazis.
Also, communism is inherent in these ideologies - the italian fascists did not despise their jews until Mussolini was sufficiently influenced by Hitler, but they certainyl despised communists all the time.

[Darth Wong]

I think it can be hard to define the line. But in this case, the case of the above article, the line was definitely crossed.

I think it's important to admit that there can be a line. All too often, political debates are defined by the extremist notion that we have to use absolutes, and that it's wrong to frame things in such a manner that one is forced to draw a line in the sand at some point. Better to go all or nothing than to draw a line in the sand, or so the thinking goes. It's a naturally extremist point of view and it's unfortunately very commonplace.