Deletedforeverhaha Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Thanks for clarifying that for me! I am now enlightened! Oh and by the way it has EVERYTHING to do with the swastika! You think so? I guess I'm looking at the whole situation from a legal standpoint than the social one. I think it was right for her to be arrested because of how crazy her reaction was but I think the authorities went too far by taking her children... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Scottish people are ****ing mental at times... Fighting hatred and bigotry with hatred and bigotry? Awesome, I'm in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deletedforeverhaha Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Fighting hatred and bigotry with hatred and bigotry? Awesome, I'm in! *laughs* Cheer up, everyone. Stereotypes are sometimes funny even if they're racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeta_immersion Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 just a symbol, give it a rest allready ... political views are many, symbols just as many ... just because at first it symbolized good will and the natzi's made it into some evel does not mean you must single out everyone that has it ... pfff ... history should be embraced not forgatten ... fricking ignorants (tho why did she draw it on the child ... a bit messed up) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsam Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Why oh why are people bent on doing things and try and give it a different spin ? Everyone knows what a swastika stands for. If not then when someone tells you about it educate yourself. When people swastika stands for something really horrible is it that hard to respect others feelings and avoid it ? All of us have had horrible times in our lives and things that can bring such memories back in a flash. We also know how we feel/react when such symbols/objects are waved at us intentionally or unintentionally. So why is it so hard to accept things and move on instead of trying so hard to give it a different spin and making it appear ok ? If everyone practiced a little understanding of others feelings the world would be a much better place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonyman Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 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? I'm hoping you're just some dumb kid who hasn't had any exposure to the loss of innocent life and just ignorant because of that alone. Any loss of life is a tragedy, including the loss of innocent Iraqis, Kurds, and yes, the Jews. 6 million civilian Jews died in World War II alone, because of their ethnicity and religious practices alone. Much more often than not, when a swastika is displayed in western nations, it is used with a Nazi or neo-Nazi context. It is no longer a symbol of peace or anything other than a reminder of the tremendous loss of life that many groups, including Jews, homosexuals, and other "undesireables" suffered at the hands of Nazi Germany. You also make the mistake of confusing genocide with murder. The difference is intent, which is why there are statutes for various types of murder, as well as hate-crime laws and anti-discrimination laws. Intent can mean the difference between a black mark in the history books or a generation of people simply lost, murdered en masse by a supposedly racially and culturally superior people. To say "so what" is to dehumanize all the people murdered under any symbol, whether it be a swastika, a Qur'an, a Star of David, or even civilians murdered under the flag of a sovereign nation. Relevant to the woman in question is the fact that she mentions her use of it to display pride for her heritage. There are many symbols that can be used for the same purpose that do not evoke such feelings of sadness and hatred that the swastika does for millions today. With respect to her admission of intent, there is no question that her use of the swastika is with respect to the Nazi party of Germany. It is a terrible thing to brainwash a child into thinking that this is a symbol of pride rather than what it truly represents, which is murder, genocide, and terror. No child can fully comprehend the meaning of such a powerful symbol, and it is a crime on many levels for her mother to decorate her with one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beastage Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 lol she says hypocrisy... white pride is fine, but when you mix white pride with swastikas, you turn into a neonazi... simple as that. Swastika is a hindu symbol, hindus are not white... so in her case the meaning of swastika can only be applied to the more notorious usage by the nazis. In anyway even if she is just stupid and not really racist... stupid is a good enough reason for not having children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utdarkviper Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 I still don't think they should legally be able to take her kids though... yeah she's stupid, but I think they should have a process where they examine her kids' safety and to see if their parents' beliefs endanger them at all before taking drastic measures such as removing the kids from their parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelic Marge Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 I still don't think they should legally be able to take her kids though... yeah she's stupid, but I think they should have a process where they examine her kids' safety and to see if their parents' beliefs endanger them at all before taking drastic measures such as removing the kids from their parents. I agree, taking children away from their families should be a last resort. Those poor kids don't deserve this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James123 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 (edited) What exactly did she do illegal to warrant her kids being taken away? Are they taking kids away for crazy beliefs now? If so they better make a stop at Tom Cruise's house and make a pick-up. Give the women her kids back, and fire the person who decided it would be a good idea to take them away in the first place. Edited July 12, 2008 by James123 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Ignoring the Swastika would have been a better reaction. You are only giving it more meaning by condeming the symbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevember Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 'media slant' I bet there's a lot more to her parenting than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiwai Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Ignoring the Swastika would have been a better reaction.You are only giving it more meaning by condeming the symbol. True, and most kids know when their parents are crack pots - and simply go with the flow until they leave the house. My uncle is a ultra conservative Catholic (and involved with Opus Dei) - believe me, every single one of his kids thinks he is a nut, and all have since left the Catholic church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utdarkviper Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 What exactly did she do illegal to warrant her kids being taken away? Are they taking kids away for crazy beliefs now? If so they better make a stop at Tom Cruise's house and make a pick-up.Give the women her kids back, and fire the person who decided it would be a good idea to take them away in the first place. haha, exactly Ignoring the Swastika would have been a better reaction.You are only giving it more meaning by condeming the symbol. Agreed. Let people believe in what they want, unless it gets to the point where it endangers others, which has not happened in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majortom1981 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 UM do they know that the child drew it on her own arm first? Why take the child away from the mother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironman273 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Agreed. Let people believe in what they want, unless it gets to the point where it endangers others, which has not happened in this case. Unfortunately it has been shown in many situations that the beliefs of white supremacists have endangered many others. If you see a person exhibiting the same characteristics then some action needs to be taken. Otherwise when some minority gets killed or maimed everyone will be asking why nothing was done since all the signs were there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted July 12, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted July 12, 2008 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. The above is a good enough reason. Teaching hate to children is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealDave Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Agreed. Let people believe in what they want, unless it gets to the point where it endangers others, which has not happened in this case. Usually that 'point' is found far too late. Are you going to wait until they kill? Sending a child to school with that symbol on her arm is completely unacceptable. Let alone allow it to happen twice. The mother would have been wise taking the first warning. Is the child going to be preaching to fellow class mates or what? It's really not needed, especially at that age. Children are far too naive and easily mislead. A week later and they could be all turning up with this symbol and victimizing certain classmates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xionanx Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 The irony in all this is that the child welfare agency is practicing the same "Belief Descrimination" that the Nazi's practiced. Regardless, there is probably more to this. They could be looking at the potential "abuse" by proxy. By having your child wear a symbol that invokes negative emotions in people you are subjecting that child to being singled out and ridiculed for beliefs and ideas that they probably dont fully understand. This in turn causes distress and possible abuse by peers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betasp Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Unfortunately it has been shown in many situations that the beliefs of white supremacists have endangered many others. If you see a person exhibiting the same characteristics then some action needs to be taken. Otherwise when some minority gets killed or maimed everyone will be asking why nothing was done since all the signs were there. Unfortunately it has been shown in many situations that the beliefs of white supremacists Christians have endangered many others. If you see a person Christian exhibiting the same characteristics then some action needs to be taken. Otherwise when some minority person gets killed or maimed everyone will be asking why nothing was done since all the signs were there. FTFY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utdarkviper Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Unfortunately it has been shown in many situations that the beliefs of white supremacists have endangered many others. If you see a person exhibiting the same characteristics then some action needs to be taken. Otherwise when some minority gets killed or maimed everyone will be asking why nothing was done since all the signs were there. Although you are right in some instances, there is no way to know when this is going to happen for sure, which is where the line can be crossed from legal to unjust. Think of it this way, if a person has many members of their family die and get kicked out of school, should they be put in a psychiatric facility on suicide watch? Rather, they are watched for mental instability before any action is taken. You can't assume a person is going to get suicidal or go crazy just from bad occurrences, just as you can't assume one person who is a white supremacist is going to harm other, just because of their beliefs. I hope I made sense in projecting my view on the whole thing :) To clarify more, I do think something should be done, but I don't think that at this point it would be right to take the children away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 12, 2008 Author Veteran Share Posted July 12, 2008 'media slant'I bet there's a lot more to her parenting than this. Alcohol and drug abuse was also a part of the equation but that isn't salacious enough for media interest. [Threads Merged] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakehn Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Picture of the woman here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowmatt Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Well it symbolize racism, because is the logo of the nazis hate organization, not matter it is the symbol of the hinduism. Well lets ban the American flag as well because some people use it as a symbol of hate, such as the West Borough Baptist Group. The hindu symbol dates back way before the Nazis, so take it in context when you see it and dont assume its a symbol of hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts