mother loses kids

[Mags 112]

Children should not be taken from their mothers except under the most extreme of circumstances. This is not one of them.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Different country. Different sets of rules. It obviously works for them considering their living standard and quality of life.

Edited July 12, 2008 by A.J.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think it rather depends if it was only the 'swastika' on the arm that persuaded the authorities to take the children away. One would hope not - although as political statements go it's not exactly one that is full of love and caring. As for the judgement that she is better qualified to look after her children than many other parents - well, that all depends on where the 'median of care' line runs I guess.

[indianheart 2]

it's all about intent now isnt it?

the origin of the swastika is not from the nazi's but stolen from hinduism...The swastika is considered extremely holy and auspicious by all Hindus

It is also seen as pointing in all four directions (north, east, south and west) and thus signifies stability and groundedness.

the nazi's left the world with a false impression of the swastika

[MrsCat 6]

Canada obviously does not have an anything goes first amendment for clowns like that to hide under. So if she is teaching her kids ####### then she should have them taken away from her.

Canada does have something like the first amendment - its called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and within that is the right to free expression. These are rights guaranteed against actions of the government. So yeah, I would think this would be covered there. I think what's wrong with this is the proportionalism. Taking away someone's kids for drawing a swastika doesn't seem proportional to me.

[Heracles 417]

Different country. Different sets of rules. It obviously works for them considering their living standard and quality of life.

..

Nothing Fascist about it. I think you will find that most OECD nations out there do not have such an open ended, anything goes, 1st Amendment. So yes a mother sending their kid to a public schoo covered in racist symbols is not acceptable.

Canada obviously does not have an anything goes first amendment for clowns like that to hide under. So if she is teaching her kids ####### then she should have them taken away from her.

Canada does have something like the first amendment - its called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and within that is the right to free expression. These are rights guaranteed against actions of the government. So yeah, I would think this would be covered there. I think what's wrong with this is the proportionalism. Taking away someone's kids for drawing a swastika doesn't seem proportional to me.

Is it as open ended as America though? Back in Aus she could be charged, as racism is illegal.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Nessa 23]

#######? that's insane

[MrsCat 6]

Canada obviously does not have an anything goes first amendment for clowns like that to hide under. So if she is teaching her kids ####### then she should have them taken away from her.

Canada does have something like the first amendment - its called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and within that is the right to free expression. These are rights guaranteed against actions of the government. So yeah, I would think this would be covered there. I think what's wrong with this is the proportionalism. Taking away someone's kids for drawing a swastika doesn't seem proportional to me.

Is it as open ended as America though? Back in Aus she could be charged as racism is illegal.

I wish it was, but its not. There are a few limitations on free expression - to be charged with a hate crime they would have to prove 1) the criminal act itself, and 2) the intention or motivation to commit the crime. It isn’t enough that someone has said something hateful or untrue; the courts will only find someone guilty if they contravened the Criminal Code if they did it deliberately.

Describing this as hatred would be tough. Now if this was a Jewish teacher, she knew that and tried time #2 to cause harm to the teacher, then this might be a hate crime. But even then, it would be hard to prove the intent, since she's not really saying anything.

[Jesti 0]

So sad

[aidan80 9]

Children should not be taken from their mothers except under the most extreme of circumstances. This is not one of them.

Then what is? Fascism is an extreme circumstance in my opinion. I agree they should have taken them and they shouldn't allow her access to those children again until at the very least she's been examined by a physicist. People seem to forget those right wing animals murdered countless millions and would do the same again if given the opportunity! The evils of Fascism and Nazism should be eradicated where ever possible!

[MrsCat 6]

Children should not be taken from their mothers except under the most extreme of circumstances. This is not one of them.

Then what is? Fascism is an extreme circumstance in my opinion. I agree they should have taken them and they shouldn't allow her access to those children again until at the very least she's been examined by a physicist. People seem to forget those right wing animals murdered countless millions and would do the same again if given the opportunity! The evils of Fascism and Nazism should be eradicated where ever possible!

Surely you mean psychiatrist not physicist. Since I am not sure that a physicist will be able to tell her more than how to split atoms or P = (m) x (v)

Fascism is an extreme belief not an extreme action. While the values that it embraces are reprehensible and despite how much society frowns on these views, they are only views. To state that someone who believes in Nazism must be a murderer deep down inside and just waiting for an opportunity is completely delusional. This family is entitled to their beliefs and any symbols which reflect that. There was no harm to the child here, which is something that the State in this instance seem to have forgotten.

I hope she files a Charter claim that this action was against her Charter rights to practice which ever set of ideological values represent her and her family.

Edited July 15, 2008 by cattattude

[Caladan 19]

Raising one's kids to be bigots should not be a crime. A bar from polite society, yes, but not a crime.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"It was one of the stupidest things I've done in my life but it's no reason to take my kids," the unidentified woman told CBC News.

She's right, though. It really isn't a good reason to take her kids.

I agree it isn't a good enough reason to take the children away without at least some concrete evidence of physical, or other abuse.

Perhaps the rationale was that the children's home environment wasn't suitable for her children. I guess it depends how politically active this woman was... Neo-nazism doesn't exactly attract balanced people.

[MrsCat 6]

"It was one of the stupidest things I've done in my life but it's no reason to take my kids," the unidentified woman told CBC News.

She's right, though. It really isn't a good reason to take her kids.

I agree it isn't a good enough reason to take the children away without at least some concrete evidence of physical, or other abuse.

Perhaps the rationale was that the children's home environment wasn't suitable for her children. I guess it depends how politically active this woman was... Neo-nazism doesn't exactly attract balanced people.

Maybe, what the story left out was that it was a brand that the mother burned into the child's arm. Now that would be abusive and enough for social services to take the kids away.