A friend brought this to my attention, thinking that I might have something to say about it because of my views on free speech. I'll admit, this was a tough one for me, but after thinking it over for a couple of days, I have finally decided where I stand on the issue.
So the basic story is this: the seven-year-old child of a white supremacist drew a swastika on her own arm. When the child went to school the next day, her teacher washed it off. When she went home, her mother drew it back on, this time with permanent marker. Then, the following day when the mother went to pick her daughter up from school, she was greeted by police and child protection officers who informed her that they were removing the child from her care. Shortly thereafter, they also seized her two-year-old son. Both children are now in the custody of the woman's mother, with whom she has strained relations, and she has been permitted (presumably supervised) visitation for two-hours a week.
Now, I think that it is highly unlikely, but not impossible, that Manitoba Child and Family Services have actually removed these children from their mother's home simply because she is a white supremacist. We are told that, "Court documents say the parent's conduct might endanger the emotional well-being of the children, and the children might be at risk because of the parent's behaviour and associations." And also that, "Manitoba's Child and Family Services Ministry says its aim is to ensure the safety of children, and a parent's political views should have no bearing on whether a child is placed in care." Going off of my limited experience with child welfare issues, family service agencies will generally do all that is possible to keep a family together. Even in cases where parents are known to have substance abuse problems and there is documentation of physical abuse, the family service agency will often remove the children only temporarily, giving the parents many (too many, I think) opportunities to redeem themselves. This is why I have a hard time believing that in this case, Family Services really did remove these children just because their mother has abhorrently racist views. Instead, I have a sneaking suspicion that there is more to this story that the mother is conveniently omitting and that Child and Family Services is unable to discuss because the case is still before the court.
If we take the mother on her word, however, and accept her claim that "Apparently a swastika is an evil Nazi symbol and they felt the need to interfere in [her life] and to interfere in how [she raises her] children,” then of course I am concerned. While I hate the idea of any adult being able to feed an impressionable young mind with neo-Nazi filth, I can't accept it, on its own, as being a valid reason to separate a child from his or her parent. Lets face it, if family services got involved in all cases where parents say things that "endanger the emotional well-being" of their children, far fewer children would remain with their biological parents. And, let's be honest, I can think of many people I know myself (and I'm sure you can too) who would have grown up in care had the State been in the business of taking children away from parents prone to racist and/or discriminatory views. It is an unfortunate truth, but racists are not an anomaly in Canada.
As I said, I don't believe that we have the full story on this one, but let's pretend for a moment that we do. What do the rest of you think about a white supremacist's right to raise her own children?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Great post.
Hard to really come up with a comment on this issue given that you so clearly lay things out - and to come out with anything remotely resembling a defense of the mother is to come across as defending people's rights to think stupidly.
What I will say is this: There should be implemented some form of class that is required to take when a woman is pregnant by the father and mother of the child. This class should prove not only to educate the parents but also to give good opportunity for note taking on the mindset of the mother and father. You're required to get a license for a gun, and while I don't think that you need a license to have a child (how impossible would that be to monitor) I definitely believe that raising a white-supremist, racist child is much like sending a loaded gun into a schoolyard.
Nevertheless, it is unfortunate how negative the swastika symbol is and how irrevocably changed the meaning of it has become. I doubt that there will ever be a point at which love and peace will reclaim the symbol as it's own again.
Hey, Alana,
That's such a tough call. It's kind of a catch 22, I think. Going on the discussion of what should be done with a racist parent, impressing such views on his/her children, I want to say that would be grounds for removal of the children from custody. That, then, opens the can of worms regarding freedom of speech and beliefs. So, in that regard, how can we say child services has any right to take the child? From whom else, then, can they remove children? If we removed them from all radicals and extremists, we are then liquefying a country's diverse beliefs and forcing our own moderate beliefs on them--which is against the Charter.
However, when considering the psychological effects of this white-supremacist indoctrination, and their subsequent social implications for the child, I think that removing her from custody is almost perfectly legit. Racism, especially neo-Nazism or white supremacism, is so abhorred by the great majority of the public that this child, if she carries these beliefs with her through life, will be completely ostracized by her peers. The mother, in effect, is ruining the child's life, if I may make such a grand inference.
So, really I've come to no conclusion of what I think about a white supremacist's right to raise her children. This is why I will forever leave law-making and enforcing to others and never take a profession in the area :|
I cross my fingers for that girl that she's as strong-willed as her mother, but in the opposite direction.
Shit, I've got to stop being so wordy. Sorry.
I agree that it does seem a little extreme for child services to take this woman's children away, but I also have to take the side of Jews. 6 million Jews died in the holocaust and even more who weren't even Jewish died by the hands of the Nazis regime. The swastika has become a symbol for evil, and was displayed openly on this child's arm. It's one thing to have a belief and teach your children accordingly, but to write it on your young child's arm for all to see is another.
Remember when Keegstra was charged for teaching his class of school children that the holocaust did not exist? He argued that he should be allowed freedom of speech, but it was ruled that this was not substantial enough, that if they were to rule in his favour it would allow for any speech to be protected, even if it can be harmful. Now the woman and her children is not to this extent, but what child services seems to be establishing is that she may not be harming them directly, but that teaching her children neo-Nazis beliefs and values could be damaging for other children, both emotionally and physically. Children are ego centric, to be seen as better than other children will be conceived as a way of getting ahead, or gaining popularity. Children should most definitely not be taught these evil values.
Taking children away because of parents' political views is not really feasible in all cases, but because of the devastation brought upon the Jews by Nazis was a great threat to humanity. Teaching and publicly expressing Nazis regime is not acceptable by any means.
-Kristen
Alana,
This, as you mention, is a very delicate issue. As a supporter of free speech and free thought the issue to me is clear- free speech with regards to children means that parents must award their kids the space and encouragement to develop their own opinions free of adult bias.
To use a child as a tool of political ideology is not only wrong, it is a clear sign that this mother holds her political beliefs (whatever they may be) above the well being of the child.
It is rather unfortunate that these two children were taken from their parents. Yet the real tragedy would have been to allow the children to grow up in a household that utilizes them as a political statement, particularly when the implications of said ideology cannot be understood by a child
This is not an issue of free speech- it is one of brainwashing.Freedom of speech must be accompanied by freedom of thought, not indoctrination.
Thank you for bringing this case to our attention- it is, in my opinion,opinion, a prime example of an abuse on the right of freedom of speech.
Post a Comment