White Supremacist Loses Then Regains Children

Early last week, a story came out of Manitoba that two children were seized by authorities because their father was a neo-Nazi.  From the story, the girl, 7, was sent to school with Nazi and white supremacist symbols and propaganda written on her arms and legs.  This triggered a call to Child and Family Services (CFS), who took custody of the boy, 2, and his sister.  A couple of days later, it was reported that the woman would regain custody because she had separated from the father.  In the second story, it was also explained that the children were not removed solely based on the neo-Nazi behaviour of the father, but that the girl had missed 39 days of school because "her parents sleep in and don't want to get her ready or take her".

Now, before the news of the mother regaining custody came out, the only reason for the children's removal was the fact that the parents were white supremacists.  According to CFS, that lifestyle put the children at risk (from associates) and that the parents could cause emotional harm.  The information about the girl missing school was included after the fact, almost as an afterthought.

Before I continue, I would like to state that I find white supremacy, neo-Nazism, or any other form or belief that one race is superior to another deplorable.  Call it "pride", call it "honour", call it whatever you want.  Ultimately it argues that one group is superior to another on a solely racial basis.  This can easily be disproved, and only serves to undermine the basic fact that we are all people, part of the same species (to get scientific for a moment) evolved from the same cradle of humanity.  We are all equal, regardless of colour.

Also, not taking your kid to school for any reason is unacceptable.  Not taking them because you don't want to get up is bad parenting.  That would be, in my estimation, sufficient grounds to remove a child from the home (as would writing on your kid in permanent marker).  However, since that wasn't the primary argument given, I will look at the other reason.

As Canadians, we have The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees us (among many other things), a freedom of belief.  Note that the freedom is "of belief", not "of belief in logical or rational arguments".  Just because a belief is misinformed, damaging, hateful, spiteful, or plain evil does not mean a person is not allowed to have it.  (Acting on said belief is a completely different matter.  But in this case the actions were only part of the reasoning given.)

If the father had not written on his daughter, and they had taken her to school regularly (both actions are reason enough, in my mind, for removal), would CFS still have grounds to take the children?  When you review the reports, the primary concern wasn't the missed school days or the writing on the arms and legs; it was the beliefs they were teaching their kids.

And that's why I am torn.

As I said above, the beliefs they harbour are disgustingly misinformed examples of ignorance.  However, just because they are disgusting and misinformed doesn't mean they don't have the right to have them.  And arguing from a purely logical place, don't parents have the right to teach their children the beliefs they hold?  From a simplistic standpoint, is what they did any different than the Catholic parent who has their kid wear a crucifix to school, or the Jewish parent who takes their kid to synagogue?  No, neo-Nazism isn't a religion per se, but it is a belief structure, and no matter what I may think of its message, I regrettably have to concede that they do have the right to believe it.

I feel the need to re-iterate my position.  CFS did the right thing by removing the kids.  Writing in marker on your kid, or refusing to take them to school are grounds for that, in my mind.  However, the way it was presented in the media was the CFS was also doing it because the parents were white supremacists, and that last fact, despite my feelings about the beliefs themselves, was not grounds for removal, and was likely a violation of their rights under the Charter.

You can read more SciFi Dad at Tales From The Dad Side.

Comments

[kgirl]

Whoa - seriously?
Regardless of how you may interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I think it's incredibly dangerous (not to mention offensive) to compare the swastika of a neo-nazi to the Star of David of a Jew. I also wonder about your own personal politics and priorities when you equate the seriousness of teaching a child to hate with absenteeism or -gasp!- writing on her with a marker.

[Gabriella]

Eeekk...as a Catholic parent trying to teach her child the values of her religion I really don't think you can compare my daughter wearing a crucifix to school and the little girl in question wearing swastikas on her arm to school. Correct me if I'm wrong but as a Catholic or any other religious affinity I'm definetly not teaching her to hate all other cultures & religion other than her own. I understand where you're coming from but I don't think you can even begin to compare a swastika to a crucifix or the Star of David as Kgirl wrote above.

[toyfoto]

In the U.S. we would call this a freedom speech issue. Speech of this kind is protected unless it leads to riotous behavior. I know it's difficult to fathom why abhorrent words should be protected, but it really comes down to the idea that majority rule has the potential to be devastating.

Whenever news stories hit our heartstrings, we really should step back and see the bigger picture. Bad parenting in and of itself isn't a crime; nor should it be. Who among us would be immune to prosecution? Nobody's perfect.

The truancy is the bigger concern in my estimation. It might be tempting to say writing on kids in permanent ink is abusive. But really it's neither - abusive nor permanent. We've written on our kids with marker ... or let them scribble on themselves. There's no real harm in the act of that. What if you wrote Obama for president?

Now had it been a tattoo? Different story.

[kittenpie]

I suspect that all reasons were considered together here - but to the media, the truancy is jut not juicy, while the neo-nazi aspect plays big, and sure got your attention. Hard to know for sure without seeing the actual CPS reports, of course, but I would suspect it was just the good story that made the information come out in that order.

And I have also heard lots of parents say that they will write their phone number on their kids' arms in a Sharpie when they go out to crowded places. Not a bad idea, you know...