The Devines (local anti-racism activists) were attacked in their home by neo-Nazis on Monday, and now Alberta Child and Youth Services are trying to block the return of their children to the home.
Get beaten by nazis, lose your kids
Wed, 2010-11-10 12:24
#1
bagkitty
Get beaten by nazis, lose your kids
Wed, 2010-11-10 13:01
#2
Snert
As with a lot of family law, I would assume that whatever is best for the children is all they're considering. Does "outing" [i]suspected[/i] white supremacists create risk? Does postering your neighbourhood with names and pictures create unacceptable risk for children in that home?
Wed, 2010-11-10 13:12
#3
Pogo
I guess Martin Luther King was just lucky that child services didn't come for him. I don't think that the government put the blame on the family. Perhaps they should go to the local law inforcement station and take away their right to serve and protect.
Wed, 2010-11-10 13:12
#4
Funny that the poster who is notorious for constanlty raising the spectre of Soviet style big government appears to be defeding the creepiest kind of Orwellian social control. and No child and youth services do not always act in the interest of the children they frequently act in heavy haned and inappropriate ways that are especially punitive to marginalized people.
Wed, 2010-11-10 13:35
#5
Snert
appears to be defeding the creepiest kind of Orwellian social control.
Social control? You think that CYS is doing this to control the parents? To urge them to just accept racism or something? Anyway, I'm not suggesting that CYS always acts appropriately, but it seems to me that their interest in this would be the safety of children in that home. Is it really your take that they're just trying to punish these parents for something, or control them into... well, what?
Wed, 2010-11-10 13:53
#6
Maysie
N.R.Kissed, while i agree with your perspective, please don't attribute motives to Snert.
Snert, yes, social control. That's what our institutions do. Anyone who falls out of line (and this is very broadly defined and enforced, onto the communities that NRK mentioned) gets a kick. That's what this is.
The logic is oppressive, but it holds. And it sucks.
Wed, 2010-11-10 13:55
#7
Yes Snert and next they should steal the children of union members who are on lawful strikes if any scabs create violent situations. Or maybe all children who live in the worst crime neighborhoods. We could set up nice "boarding" schools for them to protect them from the potential for violence caused by their parents negligence in living in such a low rent ghetto.
Wed, 2010-11-10 14:10
#8
Snert
Yes Snert and next they should steal the children of union members who are on lawful strikes if any scabs create violent situations. Or maybe all children who live in the worst crime neighborhoods.
There's a great article in one of last month's New Yorkers about the guy who's trying to clean up the drug cartels in Mexico. His wife and children are far, far away, because he knows that if you antagonize dangerous people, even if it's done for a good reason, they might strike back.
This couple seem to want to antagonize potentially dangerous people, and they seem to want to do so extrajudiciously. I'm not sure when "outing" people -- and that generally includes even convicted pedophiles -- became something we all support. Do we? Are they doing God's work by speculating on who's a racist and putting up names and photos in their neighbourhood? Or are they basically picking a fight, with their kids in between?
And should CYS be concerned about the safety of these children when their parents basically say "bring it on"? If the answer is "no, they shouldn't" then somebody say so.
Wed, 2010-11-10 14:27
#9
Funny, we haven't heard a peep or a denunciation of this attack by any of the Calgary MPs, including Stephen Harper. Nor have we heard a word from Mr. Law & Order - Vic Toews. I'm just waiting to hear from them on the Markham home invasion which happened yesterday.
Imagine if ARA had broken into a neo-Nazi's home and laid a beating on a couple of these cowardly goons. I can just hear the law and order types in the Conservative Party denouncing it and calling for new laws to crack down on "political" violence.
Wed, 2010-11-10 14:40
#10
I think it's important to remember that in this case the children are under the care of family members.
I agree that this raises some serious concerns about intimidation, and comparisons to the recent declaration that parents should not bring children to demonstrations. And I also know of cases in which a child agency has either acted in a heavy-handed way, or intimidated parents.
Those facts aside, and there is plenty of grey area here, and I wouldn't automatically assume conspiracy. Without getting into the Devine's methods, I sympathize with their intent. But I can also see how someone from a child agency might want to be careful about the safety of children where a violent attack has taken place.
But who knows? It may indeed be a direct attempt to silence them, or it may just be a worker not wanting to take the risk of making a bad decision.
Whatever the case, and right or wrong, it certainly will intimidate people who might be politically active. Even so, I think that is secondary to child safety.
Wed, 2010-11-10 15:38
#11
remind
"child safety" such a tenuous and useful tool of the state.
If the CAS and people in general were really so concerned about "child safety", in a real way, not because they are a weapon for the state to use, then we would not be having toys, soothers, and other misc. things that babies and children come in contact with, which are full of lead paint (again), cadmiun, BHP's, formeldahide (sp) and other such toxic substances.
Nor would we be having children going hungry and live in poverty in Canada. And many other numerous examples where the state, and CAS, exhibit the truth they really do not give a shit about children and that children are merely a useful tool for them.
As such it is my opinion that the state and the CAS are just using them as a societal control mechanism in the manner of 'won't you think of the children' propaganda shedding.
Personally I reject this framing of "child safety" as primary.
Wed, 2010-11-10 15:38
#12
Looks like there's a history of this: from Oct. 9, 2009 Calgary Sun:
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/michael_platt/2009/10/05/11304...
"Daddy, I wish I were a Jedi, so I could fight the Nazis."It'd be cute as pie if weren't for the 20-slab of cinder block laying on the living room floor, amid the toys and games.
It sounds like a boyhood game when the six-year-old son of Jason and Bonnie Devine offers to defend his family from the Nazis. It isn't and he's totally serious.
Smashed windows and spray-painted slogans of hate are a regular part of life for the four Devine children.
"He asked if the police are going to get the Nazis and then said he wished he was a Jedi, so he could fight them," said Jason.
The cinderblock arrived just before dawn on Saturday, through the front window of the family's southeast townhouse.
At the same time, a smaller rock crashed through an upstairs window, heavy curtains preventing shards of glass from showering the young children sleeping inside.
"It may have been a slingshot, or something like that," said Jason.
"The curtains stopped the glass."
And on the front door, in red spray paint, there's a hastily drawn Swastika and "C-18," which stands for Combat 18, the name of a violent British neo-Nazi group.
"We were all deep asleep, when all of a sudden there was this 'crash, crash, crash' noise -- at first you think you're dreaming and then you realize what's happening," said Jason.
"You think, 'they're coming inside,' but then you find it's just this." He holds up the hefty chunk of concrete.
Anyone else would be horrified. Jason and Bonnie seem more annoyed that a window of their Radisson home is once again covered in plywood because the cowards came back.
Saturday's attack is the third time the Devines have been the target of a hate crime, and not because they are from a particular race, country or religion. Life in Calgary could be peaceful, if they chose it to be.
Wed, 2010-11-10 15:55
#13
I don't like the editorializing at the end which puts the blame all on them, but that is an enlightening article which certainly puts things in perspective.
Wed, 2010-11-10 16:04
#14
remind
I concur with the mother:
Bonnie, her two youngest play-wrestling on the couch beside her, doesn't hesitate. It's a question she's clearly contemplated long before this writer arrived at her spray-painted front door."As a mother, my first instinct is to protect my children -- but that's also the reason I fight and will keep fighting," said Bonnie.
"I'm not going to have my children live in a world filled with hatred and racism."
Wed, 2010-11-10 16:19
#15
Cueball
I denouce this.
Wed, 2010-11-10 16:39
#16
"white-pride activists" ????!!!
Like that was as legitimate an avocation as being an anti-racist activist. And the reporter simply states that "the last two crimes" - uh, nothing much, just fire-bombing a family home - "are unsolved".... without even asking what the police are doing about this, and why not? Almost as if it were a known and accepted situation in Calgary. Live here at your own risk.
On the other hand, crusaders probably shouldn't have children, or at least should send them off to a safe haven while in the thick of a fight. The world was filled with hatred and racism, and a lot of other bad things, before she ever got pregnant, and i'm pretty sure she knew that she wouldn't be able to fix it all by the time her babies reached school age.
This isn't exactly the same as living in an unsafe neighbourhood because you're poor, or excluded. There is a choice here, which the adults have the power to make and the children do not.
Wed, 2010-11-10 17:04
#17
RevolutionPlease
Take away rich people's kids because they are prime candidates for home invasions.
Wed, 2010-11-10 17:44
#18
Child services thought the children were a risk of being harmed and removed them to their grandmothers. Is the risk of harm enough to justify removing them from the home ? Not sure really.
The part that confuses me is them posting pictures in their neighbourhood "outing" people they claim are neo-Nazis. What sort of reaction were they expecting or hoping for when they did this ?
Wed, 2010-11-10 17:51
#19
The kids are allowed to go home now.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/11/10/calgary-invasion-devin...
Wed, 2010-11-10 18:08
#20
Snert, yes, social control. That's what our institutions do. Anyone who falls out of line (and this is very broadly defined and enforced, onto the communities that NRK mentioned) gets a kick. That's what this is.
I know what you mean, However, you might also keep two points in mind:
1. Any CAS I have heard of is short-staffed and struggling with their budget. They do not usually go looking for trouble; they have enough on their plate already. Although a few staffers seem to be unusually worried, to my mind, about second-hand smoke.
2. Most teachers are left-of-centre. Most social workers are too.
Wed, 2010-11-10 18:22
#21
I don't agree with your assertions Wilf (with qualifications - see last line). I think that used to be the way things were pre and even mid Mike Harris, but now? Having some ex friends who work in the CAS and social work (most of them working for Ontario Works) I listened to them rant on and on about people, their kids and exactly how far they went to ensure the parents couldn't get any money, or special benefits, simply because they were poor and these people felt they didn't deserve to have kids. They went even farther and made up frivolous reports just to get these single parents in trouble. It was disgusting listening to their racist, classicist rants (and worse because one of them was a teenage single parent who did a lot of coke after she had the baby. But that didn't stop her hypocrisy and her desire to punish these women).
One of them left Ontario Works because it was too right wing for him, and good for him for doing that.
Granted I'm focusing on CAS and Ontario Works people. I am sure their are left leaning people in the John Howard Society and places like that. I just don't think there are too many who work directly for the government.
Wed, 2010-11-10 19:03
#22
Cueball
Snert, yes, social control. That's what our institutions do. Anyone who falls out of line (and this is very broadly defined and enforced, onto the communities that NRK mentioned) gets a kick. That's what this is.I know what you mean, However, you might also keep two points in mind:
1. Any CAS I have heard of is short-staffed and struggling with their budget. They do not usually go looking for trouble; they have enough on their plate already. Although a few staffers seem to be unusually worried, to my mind, about second-hand smoke.
2. Most teachers are left-of-centre. Most social workers are too.
Hey! Maybe an organization that is short staffed and struggling with their budget is incompetent in handling their portfolio. And maybe, since they are, they should cut back until they are doing a case load that only includes cases where there is clear evidence of harm caused by the parents.
Wed, 2010-11-10 19:12
#23
During the 60's my living room window had rocks thrown threw it because my Dad was a grass roots organizer during the bitter Steel raid on Mine Mill. You are claiming that because the issue was so volatile all the children should have been taken away from activists on both sides of the raid.
I think these people should take better security precautions if their children are going to continue to live with them but it is a far leap from that view to the state walking in and taking the children. Has anyone been charged with the actual assault yet?
Wed, 2010-11-10 19:44
#24
Cueball
Even in cases where the state order children removed and placed with foster parents (grandparents are common by the way) they don't usually take custody of the children, just give them away to other people. I am not clear what the point of making this distinction is?
The state ordered that the children were not to be with their parents? Same difference.
Wed, 2010-11-10 19:45
#25
The state did not walk in and take the children in this case. They were with grandparents. And according to the story it was for the duration of an investigation, and that they children were allowed home one it was complete.
Wed, 2010-11-10 19:55
#26
They're showing their kids that there are things worth suffering and dying for. That's a very valuable thing to give a child and it's extremely rare in this society.
Wed, 2010-11-10 19:57
#27
@ Cueball
Be that as it may, if it was a question of ensuring the safety of the children I'd rather see them err on the side of caution.
People have the right to take those risks on for themselves. I don't want to make assumptions about the Devine's decision or circumstances, but I don't think it would be fair for me to make that decision for my children, and expose them to violent and terrorizing situations. If I thought there was a chance of them being in danger and I had the opportunity to get them to a safe place I would take that opportunity.
I know this has all sorts of implications about intimidation and state control, and that this case sends a chilling message. I acknowledge all of that upthread. None of that trumps the responsibility of a parent to keep children safe whenever possible, at least in my opinion.
Wed, 2010-11-10 20:02
#28
Maybe an organization that is short staffed and struggling with their budget is incompetent in handling their portfolio. And maybe, since they are, they should cut back until they are doing a case load that only includes cases where there is clear evidence of harm caused by the parents.
If only. I see many family situations where the CAS will not act because, although there is clear evidence of harm, it's not serious enough harm to cross their threshold. They close their file with a warning letter. Or it takes several phone calls reporting a child in need of protection before they even find time to make a home visit. As I said, short-staffed.
Wed, 2010-11-10 20:19
#29
Cueball
@ Cueball
Be that as it may, if it was a question of ensuring the safety of the children I'd rather see them err on the side of caution.
People have the right to take those risks on for themselves. I don't want to make assumptions about the Devine's decision or circumstances, but I don't think it would be fair for me to make that decision for my children, and expose them to violent and terrorizing situations. If I thought there was a chance of them being in danger and I had the opportunity to get them to a safe place I would take that opportunity.
I know this has all sorts of implications about intimidation and state control, and that this case sends a chilling message. I acknowledge all of that upthread. None of that trumps the responsibility of a parent to keep children safe whenever possible, at least in my opinion.
This is ridiculous. Asserting that people have to be able to provide safety for the children inside their own homes to protect them from criminal gangs of robbers and vandals who break into their homes and attack them is absurd.
If I made a stink about mafiosos running amok in Toronto, and they send a hit squad over to intimidate me, this is my fault?
If anything, the state should be providing protection for the whole family.
Wed, 2010-11-10 21:27
#30
@ Cueball
It's not ridiculous at all. As I said I recognize that this sends a potentially threatening message, and I can understand that the Devines must have felt some outrage at being told they couldn't bring their kids home, especially since they were the ones who were attacked.
I am just saying that if I thought my children might be in a dangerous situation and I had the opportunity to get them out of harms way there is no question what I would do. If I had any other option I wouldn't wait for someone else's protection.
I won't judge the Devines' decisions because I don't know their circumstances.
With respect to what the government did, I also don't know everything that went into their decision. I am just saying that I can understand why they might want to check out the situation to make sure it was safe.
And right or wrong, it seems they did that pretty quickly. The attack took place Sunday night; they completed their investigation and the children are free to go back home today.
Wed, 2010-11-10 21:30
#31
RevolutionPlease
2. Most teachers are left-of-centre. Most social workers are too.
I heartily disagree. Centre at most. People don't understand how much work there is to be done.
Wed, 2010-11-10 21:32
#32
If anything, the state should be providing protection for the whole family.
There, that's a useful idea. I've been wondering where the police were. The kids were taken away to safety while the investigation continued - okay, fine. Now, the investigation is complete. great! So, so who's behind bars? Is the whole family safe?
Wed, 2010-11-10 22:15
#33
Cueball
@ Cueball
It's not ridiculous at all. As I said I recognize that this sends a potentially threatening message, and I can understand that the Devines must have felt some outrage at being told they couldn't bring their kids home, especially since they were the ones who were attacked.
I am just saying that if I thought my children might be in a dangerous situation and I had the opportunity to get them out of harms way there is no question what I would do. If I had any other option I wouldn't wait for someone else's protection.
I won't judge the Devines' decisions because I don't know their circumstances.
With respect to what the government did, I also don't know everything that went into their decision. I am just saying that I can understand why they might want to check out the situation to make sure it was safe.
And right or wrong, it seems they did that pretty quickly. The attack took place Sunday night; they completed their investigation and the children are free to go back home today.
Sorry, if there were other reasons other than the danger of the Devine's "activism" then the Alberta authorities had every chance to disclose those. There isn't any need for you to speculate on motives that have not been evidenced to excuse their actions. Indeed, a critical problem with the CAS is that their process is not transparent.
If you are content with having non-accountable persons making decisions about important personal matters behind closed doors because Big Brother knows best, what can I really say?
All that a CAS worker needs to prove is that they were "acting in good faith" in order to be immune from liability for their decisions.
Wed, 2010-11-10 22:39
#34
"The point of criminal activity is irrelevant," he said. "The point is, simply, is a child at risk? And that can be from any number of factors."
The fascist bastards wouldn't be hanging on to my kids for very long, they could be sure of that.
Thu, 2010-11-11 09:19
#35
Snert
If I made a stink about mafiosos running amok in Toronto, and they send a hit squad over to intimidate me, this is my fault?
No. But if you choose to expose your kids to that, you share a bit of the blame for a negative outcome.
If you go skydiving with your child strapped to you and your parachute doesn't open, are you in any way responsible for their death? Or would the blame rest 100% with that parachute?
Thu, 2010-11-11 09:34
#36
FFS it isn't skydiving. That is a stupid analogy.
Thu, 2010-11-11 09:38
#37
remind
Wrong analogy snert, the more appropriate apple vs apple would be:
If you were out driving in your car and a drunk driver hit you, after running a red light, thereby injuring your child, is it any of your fault? Answer "NO".
This blamming the victims oif hate crimes, the Devines, is a bunch of hooey. It should not be accepted under any circumstance.
You can bet if "peace activists" started throwing chunks of cement through military personel windows, in Calgary it would be PPCLI windows, they would not be taking children of said PPCLIers away, nor would they have even thought about it.
Thu, 2010-11-11 09:41
#38
Exactly right remind.
Thu, 2010-11-11 09:47
#39
Snert
FFS it isn't skydiving. That is a stupid analogy.
Just for the record, most analogies will involve two things that aren't the same thing. That's kind of what an analogy is.
My point was only that skydiving represents a risk. Taking a child skydiving means exposing that child to that risk.
Antagonizing skinheads -- by "outing" them the way people "out" pedophiles in their neighbourhood -- is a risk, and no matter how much you may agree with combatting racism, doing this with kids in your home is similar to skydiving with them strapped to your chest: you're exposing them to that risk too.
This isn't a case of people being targetted because they visit schools to talk about racism, or maintain a website of anti-racism resources or some similar thing. These are people who -- somewhat questionably, IMHO -- have taken it upon themselves to speculate on who's a "neo-nazi" and try to publicly antagonize them. Frankly, I'm surprised that there's even support here for this postering/outing business. I think my neighbour might be a pedophile. Do you support me putting up some posters in my neighbourhood? If he reacts to this, will I be in any way responsible for the outcome?
Thu, 2010-11-11 09:53
#40
Wrong analogy snert, the more appropriate apple vs apple would be:
If you were out driving in your car and a drunk driver hit you, after running a red light, thereby injuring your child, is it any of your fault? Answer "NO".
Not quite exactly. For apples and apples, you'd have to drive your car, with the kids in back, deliberately following a drunk driver, then cutting him off. (The military personnel analagy is probably accurate.)
Come on, these are not innocent, ignorant bystanders, just minding their own business. And it's not fair blaming Snert for being on the children's side. I'm not a big fan of using minors as political ammunition, either.
Thu, 2010-11-11 10:12
#41
remind
No snert, your analogy is all washed up...full stop.
Moreover, no one has indicated they have "speculated" about anything. Other than you.
In fact, should they have misrepresented anyone in said posters, there would have been huge legal battles over defammation, eh. That there hasn't been indicates quite clearly they know exactly who the white supremists are and correctly identified them as such in their posters..
Again, you are off base with your final pedophile analogy, if he reacts to your posters by violence, he is fully in the wrong, if he takes you to court, well then there has been the appropriate level of reaction.
eta:
absentia, please point out just where I blammed snert for being on the side of the children? Fact is you can't, as I didn't.
Nor is there anything presented in the links about this story that suggests they have "used" their children for anything political.
And I am not going to go on further, as of yet, as I am taking a break from victim blamming for a bit.
Thu, 2010-11-11 10:21
#42
As tempting as it is to ask questions about the Devine's responsibility that's not really the issue, and it is kind of a pointless exercise because we we could argue hypotheticals and comparisons until doomsday.
I think the real question is whether the child agency was justified in stopping the return of the children from their grandparents until they had a chance to make sure the home was a safe place for a child (like maybe checking to see that the doors were still secure after the first attack, that beds were away from exterior walls).
Is the house safe? That's the question.
To make this about the Devines' rights and responsibility is to make that the main issue, and I don't think it is. I'm not going to try to find blame on their part, but by the same rule neither am I going to put their rights over that of a vulnerable and innocent child.
This is a highly conflicting issue, and I don't think anyone is denying that, but to confuse the two issues and make it all about them is really just to let ego get in the way.
If the child agency made a mistake, and they may have, that overzealousness is certainly tempered by the fact that they did their business quickly and the children are now home. I'm not saying a agree entirely with what they did because I don't have all the facts, but I certainly understand.
Thu, 2010-11-11 10:35
#43
Snert
Moreover, no one has indicated they have "speculated" about anything. Other than you.
Didn't you read the story?
One of the adults was Jason Devine, who as a member of Anti-Racist Action Calgary has in the past posted pictures of suspected white supremacists on his blog. More recently, he and his wife had put up posters in their neighbourhood "outing" people they claim are neo-Nazis.
Thu, 2010-11-11 10:44
#44
Okay that I agree with. I would not go around posting pictures of suspected anything, unless I knew without a doubt they were in fact pedos. I agree that if you don't have the proof then don't do it. But in this piece there is nothing that explains how and why they target these people.
But that is a separate issue. I do not believe that these kids should be taken away at all. This is not the same as the couple who sent their kids to school with Nazi symbols written on their bodies in permanent ink.
Thu, 2010-11-11 10:49
#45
remind
Shall we ban back yard pools? Or take people's children away because they have 1?
Because more children have died this year from drowing in a backyard pool, than at the hands of 'evil and negligent' anti-racist activists.
So, it would be correct to say back yard pools put vulnerable and innocent children at risk and all because their parents want to show off their superior wherewithawl.
Now...if we add cottagers and other watersports vacationers to the people who put their innocent and vulnerable children at risk needlessly, and take them away before summer, seeing as how dozens of children have died this year by drowning, we could save a lot of children's lives.
Thu, 2010-11-11 11:16
#46
remind
Moreover, no one has indicated they have "speculated" about anything. Other than you.Didn't you read the story?
One of the adults was Jason Devine, who as a member of Anti-Racist Action Calgary has in the past posted pictures of suspected white supremacists on his blog. More recently, he and his wife had put up posters in their neighbourhood "outing" people they claim are neo-Nazis.
Yep I did, and covered that by indicating there are NO slander/liable law suits against them, nor has there been...which is the best proof there is that they know who is a white supremist, and who isn't in their community. Especially given the number of years they have been active in said community.
But having said that, no one has a right to take violent actions against them, full stop. Those that do are in the wrong.
To me, this is like blamming women for their own rape because they wore "provocative" clothing, or have had sex with more than 1 partner. If only we had covered ourselves better, or refrained from having sex, we would never have endangered ourselves, kinda thinking is really off base.
Thu, 2010-11-11 11:21
#47
Le T
So, once upon a time I used to post on this internet msg board that took the existance of structual opression as a precondition for conversation. Since that's obviously not the case here, just humour me for a second and assume that CAS, the police, the media and politicians don't just have the best interest of the children at heart but are in fact part of a complex system of oppression.
What this story illustrates is the privilege of choice. These white folks are choosing to join the fight against racism and are being treated the same way as POC and Indigenous Peoples in a racist, colonial society. They are being physically attacked by nazis, they are having their children taken away (or threat of) by CAS, the police are not investigating crimes against them, the politicians are silent, and the media blame them for the obvious action of other people.
The interesting thing is that people (the media, Snert, ect.) suggest that these folks just stop doing what they are doing. And the truth is is that they could choose to stop and all of this would go away. The same is obviously not true for POC and I.Ps. So when we ask these parents to just stop what they are doing for the saftey of their children what we are really saying is "Hey stupid white people, why aren't you taking advantage of your white privilege, like me?!"
So--and I know this is going to be a bit confusing for some--to blame these folks for their situation is an inherently racist arguement.
Thu, 2010-11-11 11:39
#48
Snert
But having said that, no one has a right to take violent actions against them, full stop. Those that do are in the wrong.
That's absolutely correct. I'm not at all suggesting that they somehow "deserve" restribution.
But their actions make retribution a very real risk. Just like choosing to jump out of an airplane is a very real risk. And I think adults have the right to accept both of those risks, if they wish.
But I'm still not convinced that CYS was out of line in wanting to make sure that the risk these adults and their hobby brings to the home is not an inappropriate amount of risk for the children.
Thu, 2010-11-11 12:15
#49
@ Le T
...and the poor, regardless of colour.
There was a case not too long ago in Regina of a landlord running a substandard apartment. No smoke detectors, and so on. When it wound up in court it didn't matter that he was to blame for the situation and that they had paid him rent. They were out on the street because the place was unsafe.
He claimed of course that he was helping them because the vacancy rate was so low that they would otherwise be on the street. Perhaps he was telling the truth.
I think there are two aspects to the problems here:
The chronic one - of course cops should be protecting them from the real villains, and our society would be much better if those priorities were recognised.
And the acute one - realizing that cops are not likely to do that and we are not yet living in that more enlightened society, workers sometimes make the best decision they can to protect someone, even if it is not a perfect one.
Not to say that that is what happened here, but in situations where it is clear that the perfect solution is simply not going to happen, sometimes people have to do what they can.
Thu, 2010-11-11 12:57
#50
bagkitty
@Snert:
I am not surprised that the CBC is using the phrasing "suspected" white supremacists. I mean who really wants to sit in a courtroom facing Doug Christie arguing over a defamation suit? At the same time, when an individual is observed participating in the so-called "White Pride World Wide Day" rallies (March 31) as part of the Aryan Guard (or it's cute little splinter group White European Bloodlines (W.E.B.)) contingent, I think it is fully justified to raise the point that they are publicly aligning themselves with white supremacist filth. Given the documented history of violence these groups have engaged here in the "heart of the New West", it is a matter of public concern and ARC does a major public service by keeping track of and exposing these individuals.
It is more than a matter of the poor sartorial choices they are making.
Surrounding yourself with the symbolism of Nazism, participating in white supremacist rallies, adorning yourself with Nazi and other white supremacists tats, spewing racist talking points to the media, having a criminal record for violent attacks... well you might be able to have a lawyer launch a defamation suit against a media outlet for not using the qualifier "suspected", but I think a fair minded individual can be forgiven for dispensing with the qualifier.
Thu, 2010-11-11 13:09
#51
Refuge
okay, I am not really following this very well. I don't really need to make an analogy of what this is like because well, these are neo nazis who are willing to use violence. What if they went after a Family of Colour who moved into their neighbourhood? Should those parents have their children taken away because they moved into a mainly white neighbourhood and should expect retribution because they are POC? Or went to the same school as the neo nazi's children or went to the same grocery store? It makes no sense. The neo nazis are wrong for using violence be it against the people they normailly target (non whites) or against people who are trying to stop them and the recruiting of more people (most likely the reason for the outings - so that people understand the context of what the neo nazis are saying). Whether it be POC or their "allies" people who have their children taken / kept away because the neo nazis see them as potential targets because they believe that everyone should be treated equal is ridicoulous.
I don't know if the CAS are purposefully doing this as talked about or if it is just a stupid misplaced worker who doesn't understand the ramifications of what she did and where such a rule could be taken further. I do know that just because this child is white and can hide makes it no more fair to have their child taken away the a child of colour who can't hide but their family is a victim of the same people for the same or similar reasons.
My child is FN and if I were to move into a neighbourhood where there were neo nazis and I were to not hide the fact he was FN (because I am white) would I be at risk of losing my child if the neo nazis didn't like his presence there and came after my family? Would CAS say, well you shouldn't do FN activities so openly because it antagonizes the neo nazis and creates a danger to the family and thus the child.
Like what? Really?