Fred Derf Veteran Posted June 12, 2008 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) I'm no Nazi, says mom of 7-year-old with swastika Manitoba mother now fighting to get kids back after seizure by province Jun 11, 2008 04:30 AM Steve Lambert The Canadian Press WINNIPEG–She freely admits that her 7-year-old daughter was sent to school sporting a swastika – the Nazi emblem adopted as a symbol of racially motivated hate groups. She says she's not a neo-Nazi, just proud of her northern European heritage. Now she's fighting to get her children back from Manitoba Child and Family Services, and finding herself at the centre of a case that has raised questions about whether children are affected by parental views that may be extreme. In an interview yesterday, the woman, who under provincial law cannot be identified, said her politics are misunderstood. "This isn't, you know, a bunch of ... skinheads running around the streets in neo-Nazi gear," she said. "It's not about that. It's about being proud of who you are and what you are, and I don't have a problem with anybody feeling pride in who they are." School officials called social services in March after the girl showed up with what police call "hate-related drawings" on her body, including a swastika. Child welfare workers removed the girl and a 2-year-old boy from the woman's Winnipeg home. The government is now asking the courts for permanent guardianship of the children. An affidavit from a child welfare worker cites the "behaviour and associations" of the woman and her husband as one reason for the removal, as well as drug and alcohol use. The mother remembers the day her child left for school with a swastika on her body. She wouldn't discuss details but hinted she had not drawn the symbol. "I worked a lot. I'm not going to say I was ignorant to it, 'cause I wasn't," she said. "That's all I'm going to ... comment." The woman says she threw her husband – the stepfather of the girl and biological father of the boy – out of the family home three days after seeing court documents outlining the case against the family. She says she has always worked long hours at her job in the restaurant industry to provide for her children and has never let her politics affect how her kids are raised. She is vague about her political beliefs. "I would never consider myself a neo-Nazi," she said. "I consider myself a proud Scottish chick." She says she does not belong to any group, yet has a personal belief in white pride and talks collectively about a feeling that "people are very ignorant to our politics because of media bias." She also defends the use of the swastika, pointing out that it is based on an ancient symbol for prosperity. She rejects a suggestion that someone seeing it drawn on a child would be unlikely to interpret it as anything other than a Nazi image. So how far can parents go in teaching their children what they think is right? Harvey Frankel, a professor of social work at the University of Manitoba, said earlier this week that the government could face an uphill battle trying to persuade a judge to remove children strictly because of their parents' political beliefs. Manitoba guidelines allow child welfare workers to intervene in any situation where there is concern for the safety or well-being of a child. That could cover instances where the controversial beliefs cause the children problems at school or elsewhere. http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/440948 Update: CANADA - A Winnipeg mother whose children were seized by authorities after she sent her daughter to school with a swastika on her arm says she regrets redrawing the Nazi symbol after a teacher scrubbed it off.The mother, who considers herself a white nationalist, is fighting the child welfare system to regain custody of her daughter, 7, and son, 2. They were taken away after the girl was sent to school with the swastika drawn on her arm. Four months ago, her daughter drew a swastika on her arm and went to school, where her teacher scrubbed it off. The mother helped her daughter draw it on her arm again, an act she regrets. "It was one of the stupidest things I've done in my life but it's no reason to take my kids," the mother told CBC News. Child and Family Services case workers were alerted and went to the family's apartment, where they found neo-Nazi symbols and flags, and took custody of her son. Her daughter was taken from school. In court documents, social workers say they're worried the parents' conduct and associations might harm the emotional well-being of the children and put them at risk. Although she proudly wears a silver necklace that includes a swastika and has "white pride" flags in her home, the mother, who can't be named to avoid identifying her children, denies she's a neo-Nazi or white supremacist. "A black person has a right to say black power or black pride and yet they're turning around on us and saying we're racists and bigots and neo-Nazis because we say white pride. It's hypocrisy at its finest." The mother has been fighting in court for four months to get back her children, who are living with extended family. The mother can see her children for two hours a week. "It's been gut-wrenching. I didn't get off the couch for the first eight days; I just cried. I laid in their bed and held their stuffed animals and just cried. Last few nights, I've been sleeping in my daughter's bed." She's outraged that the police and child welfare authorities could take her children away because of her beliefs. "I'm willing to jump through their hoops," she said. "If they want me to deny my beliefs, I'll tell them that, but at the same time, I'm not a traitor to my politics, my beliefs. I just want my kids back." Case sparks debate The case has sparked questions about whether the state has the right to protect children from their parents' beliefs. University of Winnipeg professor Helmut-Harry Loewen, an expert on hate groups, said while he disagrees with the ideology, he fears taking custody based on beliefs is draconian. "If children are apprehended based on parents' political or religious beliefs, then one is opening a kind of slippery slope," he said. But University of Manitoba professor Harvy Frankel, dean of the faculty of social work, said officials did the right thing. "We should be reassured that this is child welfare practice as it should be." If the two sides can't resolve their differences next week, they'll go to family court, likely in the fall. source Edited July 12, 2008 by Fred Derf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deletedforeverhaha Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Wearing a swastika shows how the woman is proud of her Scottish heritage!? I think she needs to read up on the history behind Swastikas... It was derived from Hinduism and used to symbolize a disgusting, horrific fascist movement. Why is she drawing on her daughter anyways? She can get a poster board for that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cara Veteran Posted June 12, 2008 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2008 As much as I may not agree with her viewpoints, it doesn't sound like the children were in any danger. I feel that the Government in this case is wrong and should return this woman's children unless they have some evidence that there has been abuse or neglect, simply having radical political views isn't abuse or neglect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasker Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Well it symbolize racism, because is the logo of the nazis hate organization, not matter it is the symbol of the hinduism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted June 12, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted June 12, 2008 In Germany she may have been jailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cara Veteran Posted June 12, 2008 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2008 Well it symbolize racism, because is the logo of the nazis hate organization, not matter it is the symbol of the hinduism. In fairness, I don't think this applies but check out the Wki on the symbol, it's actually quite fascinating... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted June 12, 2008 Author Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2008 As much as I may not agree with her viewpoints, it doesn't sound like the children were in any danger. I feel that the Government in this case is wrong and should return this woman's children unless they have some evidence that there has been abuse or neglect, simply having radical political views isn't abuse or neglect. "An affidavit from a child welfare worker cites the "behaviour and associations" of the woman and her husband as one reason for the removal, as well as drug and alcohol use" The article then went on to say that the government would have trouble convincing a judge if their only accusation was the political beliefs of their parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted June 12, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted June 12, 2008 In fairness, I don't think this applies but check out the Wki on the symbol, it's actually quite fascinating...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika Well to be fair one has to look at the proper source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism To the above it does matter. To the world the Swastika =Nazism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obsolete_power Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I don't think this woman deserves what she got. PEOPLE, f-ing get over yourselves already with this Nazi bull-doodoo. It's just a symbol....who cares what it represents?? Unless that symbol causes physical harm to anyone, why should it matter? Last time I checked, drawing a bunch of lines wasn't illegal....Stupid world full of stupid people we live in! If I ever hear another person complain about the Nazi regime I swear to God I will kill him myself. Jewish people will forever remind the world about what was done to them....over 60 years ago....that should be a hint ....60 YEARS AGO! Move on with your lives and stop acting like you are innocent yourselves.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cara Veteran Posted June 12, 2008 Veteran Share Posted June 12, 2008 "An affidavit from a child welfare worker cites the "behaviour and associations" of the woman and her husband as one reason for the removal, as well as drug and alcohol use"The article then went on to say that the government would have trouble convincing a judge if their only accusation was the political beliefs of their parents. I read that part, however it seems to have been pushed aside to the other portions, I would venture to say had that been their primary case it would have been open and shut. :) Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the use of the symbol in the modern era, still I think things need to be handled properly. For example, drinking alone (unless to excess) shouldn't be justification either. If I had children, thank God I don't, one could come into my house, open the liquor cabinet and think we're a bunch of drunks when in actuality the bottles in there have been in there for a very long time since they only come out for social gatherings. (Or really hard days) If they are abusing the children or getting drunk, high on drugs, then yes, they have a case and it should be made on that, not political associations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obsolete_power Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Well to be fair one has to look at the proper source.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism To the above it does matter. To the world the Swastika =Nazism Yeah Nazism, which doesn't exist out in the open anymore! So who the hell cares now? It's just a bunch of memories of horrible events in the past, forget them and stop reminding the world of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightmarE D Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Well to be fair one has to look at the proper source.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism To the above it does matter. To the world the Swastika =Nazism Not everyone in the world associates the symbol with Nazism. The symbol is actually thousands of years old and it's still a religious symbol in parts of the world. The original symbol is different than the Nazi one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deletedforeverhaha Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 over 60 years ago....that should be a hint ....60 YEARS AGO! Move on with your lives and stop acting like you are innocent yourselves.... Quite respectful, aren't you? We're taking things for granted that didn't exist 60 years ago and you're just going on about how it's just a symbol. Let's also "move on" with all the world wars and every person who died in all those ridiculous "conflicts." Let's also tear down every memorial since we should just move on and live in the present. How would you feel if you heard that from someone 60 years from now? You just escaped a genocide and raise your children well and then overhear one of their classmates saying, "Who cares about what happened 60 years ago?"... How would you feel? The symbol is actually thousands of years old and it's still a religious symbol in parts of the world. It's a Hindu symbol. As much as I may not agree with her viewpoints, it doesn't sound like the children were in any danger. I feel that the Government in this case is wrong and should return this woman's children unless they have some evidence that there has been abuse or neglect, simply having radical political views isn't abuse or neglect. You got to love when people's disagreements over social policy turns into a legal policy that infringes on people's rights. Even though I support protecting her rights, I still think that she should be looked down upon socially. She's drawing on her kids... Who draws on their kids?! On top of all that, a Nazi symbol? Give me a break... It's quite unfortunate to see her get tangled in the legal system... Socialism...mmmmm... The article then went on to say that the government would have trouble convincing a judge if their only accusation was the political beliefs of their parents. Those political beliefs must have derived after thinking of illusioned thoughts while being drunk or high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sikh Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Wearing a swastika shows how the woman is proud of her Scottish heritage!? I think she needs to read up on the history behind Swastikas... It was derived from Hinduism and used to symbolize a disgusting, horrific fascist movement. Why is she drawing on her daughter anyways? She can get a poster board for that... From Hinduism, it means good luck. We have 2 on the cement outside of our door so good luck is in the house. If you tilt it to the right 45 degrees, then its the Disgusting symbol that is stood for hitlers movement and all that nonsense. Thank you. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo003 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Before anyone else starts with any crap just read thru this. http://history1900s.about.com/cs/swastika/...tikahistory.htm I am Hindu and I am not going to tolerate any bad mouthing about it. And about this lady who wants? her daughter to wear this and go to school, it's just freaking stupid. I don?t like Nazi, never had and I hate that symbol like any other American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deletedforeverhaha Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 If you tilt it to the right 45 degrees, then its the Disgusting symbol that is stood for hitlers movement and all that nonsense. Yup. Swastika =/= Hindu Swastika. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qdave Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 it's not only a hindu symbol. It is also a slavic symbol. It used to be on the money of the russian empire, as well as clothing of the red army in the 20's. This case is probably because as pointed out they are alcoholics and/or druggies. But if it is because of the swastika that was on the daughter then this country should be drowned in the Arctic Ocean :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cormier6083 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I am Hindu and I am not going to tolerate any bad mouthing about it. That is like me saying " I'm Catholic, and nobody better talk bad about the catholic church." but whatev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deletedforeverhaha Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 That is like me saying " I'm Catholic, and nobody better talk bad about the catholic church." but whatev Hehe, let's not start biting at people's passionate practices of religion. Better to ignore than start a flame bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Parents pass on their views to their children; that's always been the case. But surely children should not be taken away because of the political views of their parents? If the parents were inciting illegal acts I could understand it but that isn't what this case is about. We should never get to a stage where political views have to be sanctioned by the state. I know it mentions drug and alcohol use but that sounds like a pretext, as otherwise millions more children would need to be taken into care as well. This is as absurd as the restrictions regarding Nazism in Germany. We need to learn and be accepting of the past, not try to hide from it. Obviously racial / religious hatred and incitement to violence should be dealt with but people should be able to hold whatever beliefs they want, however distasteful to others. Unfortunately we're seeing anti-incitement laws being used to censor people's beliefs / views, which is counterproductive and leads to further radicalisation of those persecuted by the restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo003 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 ^ I agree, I am sorry I wan't trying to start anything like that. I was just saying that before anyone does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deletedforeverhaha Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 @theyarecomingforyou However, that's a libertarian point of view. Some people don't really like people having that type of freedom and prefer to see everyone have uniform political views and not go against the grain. You're right though. Censorship is absolutely counter productive except in cases of when certain groups of people want to get more power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs_Angel_D Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 The article doest state she hinted at not being the one who drew the symbol on her child. I may not agree with a persons political beliefs however that is no reason to remove someones child(ren) from them. Clearly the drugs and alcohol are being used as leverage and are not the outlying problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sikh Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Ok, both of our(neo and I) point is, Dont just say "swastika is bad, get rid of it period". No, you have to understand, it has nothing TO DO WITH RELIGION(masked). Its a symbol for good luck. Always has been with Hindu's. Our religion says nothing about wearing it or havnig pride or etc. Its a symbol, so relax. Neither of Us is makin it into a religious issue. Thank you very much. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obsolete_power Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Quite respectful, aren't you? We're taking things for granted that didn't exist 60 years ago and you're just going on about how it's just a symbol. Let's also "move on" with all the world wars and every person who died in all those ridiculous "conflicts." Let's also tear down every memorial since we should just move on and live in the present. How would you feel if you heard that from someone 60 years from now? You just escaped a genocide and raise your children well and then overhear one of their classmates saying, "Who cares about what happened 60 years ago?"... How would you feel? Having memorials has nothing to do with living in the past or present. Memorials are in place to honor the people involved which died for their country. But people act like idiots when someone brings up swastika....Why do people make such a big deal out of it? Yes many innocent people died but really, that still happens every day. Innocent Iraqi's die all the time because of the Americans but nobody thinks to even mention it. But of course when something bad happens to the Jews they all scream murder and all of a sudden it becomes international news! Where the **** is the justice? Killing millions of Jews was a horrible thing that happened but so what? MANY innocent people still die today so why should the Nazi genocide be any different than this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts