White Pride & The Freedom To Believe
The drama is playing out in Manitoba this week, as a mother fights to get custody of her two children back, after Manitoba Child and Family Services removed them from the home. They’ve filed for permanent guardianship.
Mom insists she’s a good mom and hasn’t done anything wrong.
She says it as she sits under a banner sporting the slogan “White Pride Worldwide.”
The reason the children were removed? The seven-year-old girl went to school sporting a swastika on her arm, the words “Hail Victory” and “Aryan Pride” etched in permanent marker, as well as the symbol “14/88″.
It’s a wonderful thing to afford people the right to their beliefs, but within every religion or philosophy there is a slippery slope. It’s one thing to say I’m proud to be white, and quite another to do it while sporting swastikas and symbols that refer to Hitler on my body. Those are symbols with very clear associations, that represent pure evil, and are deeply offensive to people of colour, Jewish people, and also many Germans and people who had family who fought in WWII.
Dismissing the act as ’stupid’ and putting the responsibility on the child for doing it doesn’t quite cut it. Good moms monitor what their kids are doing, for one. For two, the child was exposed to these symbols through activities the mother took her to. And children are children, and must rely on parents to help them understand what’s inappropriate and appropriate. The fact that the child drew the swastika on herself is irrelevant, especially considering the teacher had already washed off the swastika and the mother then helped her daughter draw it on again… In marker.
I certainly hope that nobody falls for the simplistic logic that they have the right to their beliefs. We have laws about propagating hate towards other ethnic or religious groups in Canada, and white pride is being used as the justification for dancing across the line.
This is what I don’t like about some feminist groups. It isn’t about equality for women, it’s about dominance over men. Equality for women is great, but when the push is actually for superiority and dominance, I’m done. We become guilty of propagating the same discrimination we claim we’ve lived with for centuries.
And to put it simply, two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m proud of my Irish/Scottish/English/French/Swiss/American heritage. But in saying that, I recognize it doesn’t make me better than anyone else… just different.
(PS Follow the link to the article and on the right there’s a link to a televised report. Stick with it after the first one and watch the debate. It’s both entertaining and disturbing.)
July 5th, 2008 at 10:38 am
If Mom wants her kid to have her beliefs fine, but there are consequences for her actions. Apparently Mom doesn’t get that.
I wholly agree with you on some feminist groups. I get so irritated when women think that ‘equality’ is the same thing as superiority.
July 5th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
It’s a tricky one, and I consider this case to be right on the line. Ultimately, I feel the mother had a responsibility, based on the clear policy of the school on the matter, to explain to her daughter after the first swastika was washed off that it’s okay to carry your beliefs in your heart but sometimes outward expressions aren’t appropriate - not to draw it on in permanent marker, along with more inflammatory writings. That’s putting your belief system ahead of the well-being of the child, in a situation where they may be bullied/teased/ostracized at school.
I mean, I’ll be honest: If my kids were in a class with a child who had those kinds of symbols on their body, I would be very leery of them playing with the child. I wouldn’t let them go to that home for play dates or attend a birthday party unsupervised, and even then I’m not sure. This is no different than fundamentalists who make their children evangelists for the cause, or scenarios where child services intervene for life-saving medical procedures, despite religious convictions.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:11 am
I have a few problems with this, to be honest, although I’ve not had chance to watch the video yet, and there’s probably a lot I’m missing.
The school issue is fair enough: I’m happy with the idea that a school has a dress-code and is able to enforce it. A child who repeatedly breaks that is going to get in trouble, and a parent who backs them up in that has questions to answer. I don’t think there’s anything controversial about that.
Removing the children from the home, though? Obviously, no sensible person is going to cry too much about this particular case, but the fact that it’s ‘right on the line’ is a test of principles, not a reason to abandon them. And for me, you shouldn’t legislate against belief. You shouldn’t legislate against speech, except in cases of very direct incitement. And you certainly shouldn’t legislate against causing offence. All these actions privilege one set of beliefs over another, and it’s easy enough to go along with that when it’s our beliefs being privileged.
It’s also easy enough to frame it in this case as ‘this child is being damaged’, which may be true, but again: that’s simply your beliefs trumping those of someone else. The parents obviously didn’t think so; no doubt there are other idiots who’d agree with them. The beliefs are different but the principle is the same: some parents raise their children to believe in Hell, or that evolution is a lie, or to be Tories. Some parents are even legally allowed to mutilate their infant children because of their own beliefs. When I run the world, all these beliefs will find themselves up against the wall, blinking and surprised, right next to the the racist ones…
The whole thing’s a can of worms. For me, the government - any government - needs to stay out of combating ‘beliefs’ and limit themselves to tackling ‘actions’. It might feel safe while it’s just this kind of scum being targeted, but it still means that the principle’s gone, and your beliefs are permissable only so far as they match the beliefs of the people in charge.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:14 am
I can see that side of the argument Steve, and in fact, that’s where Brian falls on this one.
Part of the reason I’m okay with the removal is that the mother has used faulty logic to defend herself. The “my daughter drew it on” thing doesn’t hold up as justification because of the mother’s subsequent actions. This isn’t about freedom of beliefs, this is about teaching your child that there’s an appropriate time, place and manner in which to express them.
I think I’m a bit sensitive on the subject for other reasons. For one, within Canadian courts the issues of beliefs have come up again and again, and rights based on beliefs are losing the battle. This is another reason I’m prepared to say that child services did the right thing - in part, for themselves. There’ve been too many cases where kids haven’t been removed and things have gone wrong that nobody wants to be on the wrong side of those decisions now. Considering the legal groundwork that’s been laid - from everything to private religious schools with clear statements of doctrine losing when they fired a homosexual teacher to the RCMP turban issue, safety has come before beliefs.
The other little nugget for me that feeds this one is the fact that she took the kids to the white pride march in Calgary, and just having some level of awareness of the nature of the events and surrounding events that take place. It makes me uneasy to think of kids being there.
Add in the educational background, and being familiar with how hard it is to address issues coming up with young children, and I can go with erring on the side of caution.
However, unless there’s a lot more that hasn’t been made public at this point, I suspect the children will be returned to the mother. And this is what I ultimately think of the mother - I think she put her beliefs ahead of her child’s well-being. In Canada, there have been cases over forcing medical treatments for JW children. This is a test case, to be sure, and it would be purely fascinating if children weren’t at the center of it. As it is, it’s depressing.
You should watch the video Steve. The debate gets personal and ugly in short order, and both sides make good points.
Oh, and Canada is allowing women to stay in the country to avoid female circumcision or spousal abuse. Guess you could say that in general, the country philosophy is a bit protective.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:10 am
Cheers for that Sandra. I watched the video now - neither of those two come out covered with glory, it has to be said, although the second guy started it. Shame that, after he did, the first guy talked over him, as I’d have liked to hear more of that side of the argument.
As it is … ah, I still disagree. The marches may be an issue - I don’t know. Plenty of parents take their kids on marches, after all, and also (in my eyes) put their beliefs above their child’s welfare. One thing that bothers me is the argument that “the kid could have been placed in danger” - ie that some people wouldn’t like the symbols and might attack her as a result. It’s a seven-year-old girl. Who are these people that would attack a seven year old girl? Even if it’s just other children of the same age, it’s an odd argument: “Your belief isn’t illegal, but other people may respond to it with illegal violence, therefore you’re in the wrong”. Stripped of describing the belief itself, that’s the principle the argument rests on. But nobody would ever say that to Jewish or Muslim parents who sent their child out in traditional clothing (which is an expression of the parents’ beliefs, not the child’s).
I don’t know - I see both sides, and you make some good points, but whichever way I cut it, it seems to come down to the nature of the belief being repugnant but not illegal. You’d get no argument from me about the school: that’s a separate matter. But is it normal to remove a child from their home for violating a school’s dress code, even if the parent encourages it? As the belief itself is legal, can the decision be justified without any reference to it?
July 7th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Sandra,
I hope it’s not a male thing, but I agree with Steve.
It is a very dangerous situation. I live in one of the large European pilgrimage cities of the catholics, and I am anything but. I am open and all and don’t teach anti-religious hate. But still, there are some neighbors who remark upon my lacking religious fervor. What would happen if the wind would change and those neighbors would gain “influence”.
You know perhaps that in Germany persons would be prosecuted for using Nazi-Symbols (in contrast to the USA we never prosecute children younger than 14 years) but I don’t think that family courts could remove children from their parent if there is no neglect. Nazis did that and we are therefore very reluctant to do so. The first guy said it. Where should authorities stop ?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:58 am
I don’t think it’s a male thing at all, and in part, this is why I picked my side of the fence and fell on it firmly - I knew it would encourage some interesting dialogue.
Bernd, it’s very interesting about German law. Would the parent be prosecuted for using Nazi symbols in this case, since they participated in drawing them on the child? In that case, with the parent charged, wouldn’t the child have been removed on that basis? Just curious. It would be interesting to know how this might play out elsewhere.
Steve, I was thinking of persecution from other kids as a potential variable in putting the child in harms way. Not much of a compelling argument on its own, but perhaps a variable in the decision. I mean, if “kate” is so proud, why is her identity concealed? Presumably to protect the identity of her children. So, now it’s important for her children not to be known as neo-Nazis? Because the only people who would know her are people her kids went to school with, etc. And her kid can wear these symbols in front of them but mom doesn’t want them knowing what her beliefs are?
I’m confused.
At a guess, without knowing the full case, they’re using the same type of logic that would apply for removal of kids from recognized cults and things of that nature.
But like I said, I expect the kids to be returned. Fascinating case, though, if you can get past how repulsive the idea of a kid with swastikas on her body is.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Hi again. I know you’ve got a new post up, so no worries if you want to bring this one to a close shortly. And I don’t want to bang on too much. (”Too late!”)
I’m in the weird position of agreeing with pretty much everything you’ve said, but still coming down on the other side. The mother’s ‘contradictions’ and explanations - yeah, I agree. But that’s not a reason to take her kids into care. It might be if it masked a dark, ulterior motive, but I’d want that motive made explicit, and I’d want to be convinced it constituted genuine abuse. I’d also want to feel the ruling would have been made if the belief hadn’t been white supremacy, but something less obviously repugnant to most people.
Similarly with the cult comparison (and, like you said, I know you’re just guessing). I wouldn’t actually want kids taken away from a cult either, assuming they weren’t being abused or at risk of being abused. I mean, in my heart, I would, but I don’t think society should go down that road: it’s a forced default to the norm. Where would you stop? There are children in some households being raised to believe women are subordinate, homosexuals deserve to die and if you have sex with someone outside marriage you’ll be tortured for eternity, along with hundreds of astonishing scientific illiteracies. And yet many of them send their children out swathed in these beliefs, and not only are they not condemned for it, it’s considered offensive to suggest they shouldn’t. Talk about putting parents’ beliefs over their children’s welfare: male circumcision on religious grounds. To a non-religious person like myself, that’s simply mutilation of a non-consenting baby. People don’t bat an eyelid. And yet you tattoo one infant…
But as much as I hate all that, I wouldn’t legislate against (most of) it. The acid test for me is that, if a belief is legal, any legal decision must be made without reference to the content of that belief. So there must be a general principle that can be applied to people if they act a certain way: that’s the basis of justice. And in this instance, I just don’t see it.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I don’t mind at all. Your point about circumcision is an interesting one. Of course, it’s believed to be better for health reasons.
I’ve been watching to see if there’s a verdict yet, and so far, nothing’s been reported. I understand your points about the cults as well. It’s such a difficult question. I honestly don’t know where you draw the line with some of these things, and my impression has been that they’re taken case by case, but I’ve certainly never heard of one like this before, and I’d really like to know what all was going on at school.
I mean, to be honest, I’m surprised the school removed the swastika, even if they disagreed with it. Just based on my own experience working with kids, I’d be reluctant to physically interfere in that manner. And, of course, I’m prepared to say that if mom wanted to protest the school’s decision she should have moved her child to another school.
What I wonder is if the children will be returned with conditions, such as not putting symbols on their bodies when they’re going to school/daycare. From the pov of child and family services, a conditional return will probably be a victory in their eyes, and probably what they were realistically hoping for. But I really want to see the commentary…
July 7th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Heading off-topic, but circumcision … little scientific evidence either way, I believe. Low risk of mortality/morbidity from the operation itself, and little-to-no medical benefit - unless, it has to be said, you lived a few thousand years ago and didn’t have much acess to running water. These days, it’s not done, in the main, for medical reasons; it’s done, against the tacit advice of many medical bodies, because of a culture the child hasn’t consented to be a part of. You could tattoo a child with a message of your choice without any lasting damage: both procedures are effectively the same violation of its rights in order to serve yours.
But I digress. It will be interesting to see the results, like you say. I’ll keep an eye out. Which is technically my second vaguely-penis-related double entendre of the post.