Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 12, 2008 Author Veteran Share Posted July 12, 2008 When people talk about banning swasticas, they clearly mean the Nazi/White Power symbol and not the Hindu one. I don't think it is all that difficult for a court, principal or any other authority figure to tell the difference between these two: The mother has admitted that she is into white power. I severely doubt she is a closet Hindu. Therefore I really don't think it needs to be rehashed in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 It is rather odd that political views are grounds enough to take the children from her. In fact, I feel that the government went a bit too far. I realize that alcohol and drug abuse were also issues, however, political views are still cited as the main reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted July 12, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted July 12, 2008 When people talk about banning swasticas, they clearly mean the Nazi/White Power symbol and not the Hindu one. I don't think it is all that difficult for a court, principal or any other authority figure to tell the difference between these two: The mother has admitted that she is into white power. I severely doubt she is a closet Hindu. Therefore I really don't think it needs to be rehashed in this context. In Germany not only would her children have been removed, she may have been jailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMaster23 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 I'm not defending the idea of Nazism and it was one of the grayest chapters in human history ... HOWEVER ... what ever happend to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to gather and freedom of mind? Seriously .. If they want to have swasticas and neo-nazism sign in their OWN home, it's their right to do it. Child protection had no right to take the children away. If the kid started shouting sieg heil in school .. ok that's a different story as you aren't allowed to offend others in public places. You are allowed to think whatever you like in your own home .. if you hate cookies to the death and put up hate-posters all over in your own place stating how you will personally kill all the cookies in the world .. then that's your right to do so. (Replace cookie with whatever person, persons, race, religion, object, place, country, aliens you like) The government can't tell you what to think nor can they punish your for thinking the things they don't like. Expressing it in public... that's a different story. The swastica on the child arm was a bad mood however it is terrible bad taste and people link it to Nazism which is offence, which isn't allowed in public. It's like drawing an American flag on your forehead with a huge cross on it. You could clame it a sign of your own or just some colours .. but it still offends a lot of people and that isn't allowed in public. The sign removal .. good move The child removal ... bad bad baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad move Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasker Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 (edited) I'm not defending the idea of Nazism and it was one of the grayest chapters in human history ... HOWEVER ... what ever happend to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to gather and freedom of mind?Seriously .. If they want to have swasticas and neo-nazism sign in their OWN home, it's their right to do it. Child protection had no right to take the children away. If the kid started shouting sieg heil in school .. ok that's a different story as you aren't allowed to offend others in public places. You are allowed to think whatever you like in your own home .. if you hate cookies to the death and put up hate-posters all over in your own place stating how you will personally kill all the cookies in the world .. then that's your right to do so. (Replace cookie with whatever person, persons, race, religion, object, place, country, aliens you like) The government can't tell you what to think nor can they punish your for thinking the things they don't like. Expressing it in public... that's a different story. The swastica on the child arm was a bad mood however it is terrible bad taste and people link it to Nazism which is offence, which isn't allowed in public. It's like drawing an American flag on your forehead with a huge cross on it. You could clame it a sign of your own or just some colours .. but it still offends a lot of people and that isn't allowed in public. The sign removal .. good move The child removal ... bad bad baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad move The reason that they took the child away was not about freedom of speech or mind. This happened because the mother was negligent with the child, I think there was drug and alcohol involved apart from the white supremacist beliefs. The swastica was just one of the many charges. Edited July 14, 2008 by Lasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts