The State’s Children

Rod Blaine
#1. July 8th, 2008, at 9:35 PM.

To any newbies who are wondering how, in Canada, a “Liberal” can mean someone who thinks people should lose their freedom of speech and their parental rights if they express views the Liberal Party doesn’t approve of… Here’s a tip that will explain. In other English-speaking countries, “liberal” derives from the Latin liber, “free”, but in Trudeaupia it derives from the Latin librorum ardens, “burner of books”.

Louise
#2. July 9th, 2008, at 4:53 AM.

Who says the stupid mother even understood the full meaning and history of the swastika? There seems to be a lot of mindless presumption in leftdog’s circle.

Sean Pelette
#3. July 9th, 2008, at 5:33 AM.

I hope Dawg does not teach his children to hate neo-Nazis, because if he does, then he would surely be the first to not object when the state comes to take away his kids.

WL Mackenzie Redux
#4. July 9th, 2008, at 6:14 AM.

I guess we have to keep reminding touch hole nanny staters that there is no evidence of abuse or any impropriety by the parents. There are only perceptions and “offence taken” by lefty zealots in authority…and we do NOT allow the state to act against children or citizens based in presumption or “offence” to dissenting ideologies.

Contrary the what the new wave of Canadian soviets believe, we are NOT going to pronounce every thing they take offense to as a “hate crime”.

I disagree with the political ideologies of the parents but I see it as no worse than a kid brought up in any radical setting like communist /unionist parents, Radical islamists, fundamental Christians, radical Marxists etc (Gawd look how Avi Lewis turned out)…where do we stop the state intruding because it’s partisan officers are “offended” by someone’s ideology?

It’s issues like this where I see the battle lines drawn and where the left line up, that convinces me that any leftist is comfortable with totalitarianism.

Whig
#5. July 9th, 2008, at 6:18 AM.

Anyone who invokes the `precautionary’ `principle’ is beyond the pale in any case…

If the writer had any logic at all, he (?) would know that you can’t prove a negative.

But again: this person is on the left, isn’t he?

Blazingcatfur
#6. July 9th, 2008, at 7:47 AM.

Jay that makes you and Margaret Wentes Nazi sympathers according to Lying Jackal logic.

Alan
#7. July 9th, 2008, at 7:51 AM.

To any newbies, conservative also meant preserving the institutions under which the nation is preserved. One of those is the inherent parens patriae powers of the judicial branch of the state. Families have been subject to state oversight for the best part of four centuries to the great benefit of the vast majority of those families and the citizens raised through them. Acting like this sort of thing is new and dangerous as opposed to a fundamental and long standing principle of British government is disingenuous and somewhat mad.

Whig
#8. July 9th, 2008, at 8:35 AM.

“Alan” - you should read your own links.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, this principle was applied sparingly; only during contemporary times has this principle been used - mis-used - to state that the state has absolute rights over parents in regard to raising children.

Again, like the principle of judicial review, it has been twisted and perverted to make the judiciary, in effect, the sovereign level of government.

Alan
#9. July 9th, 2008, at 12:14 PM.

Whig, you should read my own links. It’s the law and has been so for yoinks. By your logic, women shouldn’t have the vote because it’s a 1900s fashion.

Rod Blaine
#10. July 9th, 2008, at 1:52 PM.

Re drawing swastikas: be careful, very careful, that you don’t discriminate against Hindians.[*]

[*] At the risk of sounding like a Phillip Pullman character, I’ve taken to referring to the country as “Hindia”, and its citizens as “Hindians”, to remove any possible lingering confusion with Native Americans. Closer to the original pronunciation (viz “Hindi”). Feel free to follow suit.

KevinG
#11. July 9th, 2008, at 3:40 PM.

Without irony, Alan flanks his “but it’s the law” argument with an example of a law that ought to have been changed and was.

arctic_front
#12. July 9th, 2008, at 4:26 PM.

“until they are absolutely certain Fatima is not being coerced at home.”

Too bad that concept only works against
White kids… if that was ever used against a visible minority, there would be hell to pay. Why is it that Dr. Dawg and his ilk only see what they want to see, and not apply their strange logic universally? You can take little nazi children from white trailer trash, but not the little islamofascist in training? Or the Gore-bot , or Indian kid living on a reserve that is taught to hate anybody white, or that doesn’t recycle?

As was mentioned, Now W.K will be telling the entire blogosphere that conservatives are now ‘outed’ as nazi’s… good grief!

EBD
#13. July 9th, 2008, at 6:52 PM.

Dawg wrote: “Nazis scribbling swastikas on their kids and sending them of to school? The usual suspects are down with that.” -

This, IMO, is a deliberate mischaracterization. To state that supporting the right to freedom of belief means that one is “down with” every particular example of what free individuals think is ludicrous. One can’t know what everyone thinks, even if you could meet everyone.

The onus is on those who argue that the state should be able to remove a child because of his parents’ political beliefs to say which particular political beliefs should justify a child’s removal. Otherwise they are advocating that the state have massive thought-control powers based on one arbitrary example of hate that’s supposedly self evident.

It’s not. Alan’s statement that “families have been subject to state oversight for the best part of four centuries to the great benefit of the vast majority of those families” passes the buck in that same way; he;s saying “a-ok” to state removal of children based on the political beliefs of parents, but saying that’s justified says nothing whatsoever about which particular political views should be considered sufficient justification for taking kids from their families, and in fact it doesn’t even allude to the issue.

If one thinks Pol Pot was a great man, and then the kid parrots that view in the lunchroom, would that suffice for the kids removal? How about if the parent stands on a float waving a photo of a man who masterminded the murder of three hundred Canadians, in the same city as the victim’s families live, as happened in the Vancouver area? Isn’t that a little more, uhh, pointed politically than a little loser symbol on a kid’s arm?

How about if you tell your kids that polluters are mass murderers who must be stopped by direct (unspecified) action — should social services take them away? How about if you send your kid to school wearing a t-shirt with a photo of Jerry Hannah on it?

It’s one thing to say “well obviously kids shouldn’t be sent off to school promoting/displaying the hateful views of their parents”, it’s another to step up to the plate with a list of which specific political expressions justify the removal of one’s children by the state. Or does the list start and stop with the tired, stale, pathetic little symbol of losers, the swastika?

fergusrush
#14. July 9th, 2008, at 8:51 PM.

I asked Dawg, on his blog, if his statement meant that he’d be in favour of some Canadian Muslims being asked to “prove otherwise”. Strangely enough, he has yet to answer that question.

Blunt But true
#15. July 10th, 2008, at 2:20 AM.

Frankly, Dawg was very clear if somewhat colloquial in his expressed opinion. Y’all should work on your reading/comprehension skills!

Alan
#16. July 10th, 2008, at 3:58 AM.

Wow. I missed that parens patriae disappeared and that it never has really been that important…except for its enshrinement at the heart of family law in the “best interests” test and its application for yoinks. Aint’ blogging great! Never a lack of a misunderstanding to answer a vague indignity.

Whig
#17. July 10th, 2008, at 6:17 AM.

*Whig, you should read my own links. It’s the law and has been so for yoinks.*

Yoinks? Alan, I didn’t put up any links…

*By your logic, women shouldn’t have the vote because it’s a 1900s fashion.*

wha?

Whig
#18. July 10th, 2008, at 6:55 AM.

EDB

i’d say any sixty-plus man - John Barlow - who goes around calling himself “Dawg” (or still uses the term “down with”), well…

Dr.Dawg
#19. July 10th, 2008, at 9:18 AM.

It’s a question I’ve already answered, several times, and I grow tired of repeating myself. If a kid were being taught how to don a suicide belt, I’d support state intervention.

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.

Rod Blaine
#20. July 10th, 2008, at 12:12 PM.

I accept Dr Dawg’s challenge. I’d remove the kid once it was shown they were starting to internalise and act on the parents’ beliefs (which doesn’t inevitably happen. Exhibit A: A certain decade forty years ago), and that this is certain or likely to have caused [*] unlawful harm to others.

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.

Dr.Dawg
#21. July 10th, 2008, at 3:02 PM.

Rod:

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.

fergusrush
#22. July 10th, 2008, at 6:58 PM.

“It’s a question I’ve already answered, several times, and I grow tired of repeating myself. If a kid were being taught how to don a suicide belt, I’d support state intervention.”

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?

Dr.Dawg
#23. July 11th, 2008, at 2:18 AM.

I don’t believe that Muslims teach their children to hate, simply by virtue of being Muslims. Next question.

Flea
#24. July 11th, 2008, at 7:12 AM.

The state acts to remove children from families espousing a long discredited, militarily defeated racist German ideology.

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

fergusrush
#26. July 11th, 2008, at 10:03 AM.

“I don’t believe that Muslims teach their children to hate, simply by virtue of being Muslims. Next question.”

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?

fergusrush
#27. July 11th, 2008, at 10:09 AM.

By the way, Dawg, if you should choose to evade the question or perhaps give another “nuanced” answer, I will understand completely. And we can put this aside till another day.

Dr.Dawg
#28. July 11th, 2008, at 10:39 AM.

will you come out and say that the same rule should be applied to the Khadrs?

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