Of course the same rules should apply. They’re public policy rules.

Neither do I, Dawg. But as Jay has pointed out, the Khadrs certainly seem to teach just such a thing, and from the criterion you stated earlier, the burden of proof should be on them, if you are going to be consistent. I was coy myself earlier in not naming them outright but I thought you would know where I was leading you. This is a wee bit like pulling teeth but you did say “Next question”, so here we go: given the relative paucity of information available to the public in this “white supremacist” case compared to the facts made public about Khadr Sr.’s ties to al-Qaeda and his sponsoring of his son to attend training with them, and given the fact that you made your teaching-hate-is-harmful-per-se statement in reference to the supremacists and how they should be treated, will you come out and say that the same rule should be applied to the Khadrs? That they should be treated in exactly the same manner? Yes or no? If not, why is the white supremacist, on less evidence available to the public, deemed by you to deserve to be made to “prove otherwise” while the Khadrs may skip away without having to do so?

And, arguably, there are a fair number of schools of Muslim thought which suggest that the Prophet and the Koran are to be taken literally which, I am afraid, is not “Good for the Jews or the Christians”.

Plus, I think you have to admit that mainstream Islam is not quite down with a modern view of women. And I also think you would have to admit that there is some evidence (such as the alleged honour killing in TO) that the wearing of the hajib is not entirely voluntary. So what was Dad teaching his son such that the son has now been charged as well?

The state does nothing to protect children from families espousing a genocidal, racist ideology expressed by forcing girls into head scarves.

You’re being coy, Dawg, so I’ll be very plain: you said, and I quote, “Teaching kids to hate is harmful per se. It seems to me, based upon the precautionary principle, that it’s up to you to prove otherwise.”

Now, being taught to hate is not the same thing as “being taught how to don a suicide belt”, I’m sure you’ll agree. So your answer above is disingenuous because that was not my question to you. I said that one could logically infer from your statement that you support the idea of parents having to explain themselves and to “prove otherwise” if they are thought to be teaching their children to hate, and I asked if you’d extend this notion to Muslims. Surely they’d not be excluded? Yet you have not answered that question, to my knowledge. If you have, could you indulge me and repeat your answer?

OK, never mind the stupid sarcasm, let’s wait for the investigation, then. I have my default position: so do you. The woman’s husband was a semi-sane lowlife—maybe she’s different.

Think of the children, Rod.

Not only harm caused by the kid him/herself (which may be considerable, true. Exhibit A: Columbine) but also if s/he becomes a foot soldier in a larger movement, in which case you would have regard to to size and strength of that movement (Exhibit A: the millions of Mmmmmm… Methodists across the world who are willing to interpret John Wesley’s doctrine of “Onward Christian Soldiers” as a call for armed struggle).

So, if the kid was simply echoing mom’s/pop’s dinner-table rantings about how “9/11 was an inside job” and “Where’s John Wilkes Booth when you need him?”, you’d apply some – what’s that term again? – “common sense” and leave as is.

On the other hand, if the kid seemed likely to actually join the millions of Canadian Nazis who regularly post on the Internet, who parade with impunity through Toronto and Calgary waving placards that say “Behead those who insult Hitler”, and who head off to Palestine to kill Jews with the Neo-SS guerrillas… well, yes, then pack her/him off to a special residential boarding school where proper Enlightment values can be instilled.

[*] Blainespeak for “has caused, is causing, or is likely to cause.” The future pluperfect saves govprint some ink or pixels.

But let me turn that one around. Would you? If so, where would you draw the line? Since I’m the one being asked that question, it’s only fair that you do so as well.

EBD meanwhile misunderstands the point I was making. I didn’t use ” are down with that” to mean “agree with Nazi views.” I used “are down with that” to refer to “OK with instilling Nazi doctrines into small children without state interference.” Glad we cleared that up.