Get beaten by nazis, lose your kids

Wilf Day wrote:

Maysie wrote:

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.

Only if you consider liberal apologists and defenders of the status quo as "left of centre"

Historically and traditionally social work has been liberal interventionist approach to social problems i.e. the well meaning liberal social worker determines what a person or communities problem is and they decide what is best for or what is needed by the group that is on the receiving end of the intervention. This is inherently partriarchal and oppressive and rarely acknowledges the broader systemic issues people face. Despite some critique of this narrative within some social work schools this remains the dominant paradigm and method of operating. These beliefs are represented and upheld within most social work agencies. One should always be aware of people whose identies are strongly tied up with being a "helper" or a "good person" they will frequently be blind to their own ability to harm others whom they have power over. Never underestimate the damage that can be done by well meaning liberals.

If you listened to Martin Luther King's speaches you will note that he was subject to numerous threats to himself and his family.  I think there needs to be a distinction over a danger that would go away if the police were able to prevent lawless behaviour.  There is something wrong about having families broken up because we cannot prevent thugs from being thugs.

Yes the Mexican drug czar is able to shield his family at government expense and at his call.

Quote:

I see so people who stand up to local drug lords and crack houses in their neighborhood are responsible for the outcome

To some degree, yes.

Um, don't we have police and a justice system for this? Is there some really good reason why I should be knocking on the door and getting in their face?

Quote:

Hiding in your basements and hoping someone else calls the police.

Nothing wrong with calling the police. Any reason the Devines couldn't do that?

People who rat out the mob are asking for the bullet coming their way. You are a really sad and pathetic little internet Gollum, aren't you.

I love it! Internet gollums. Keep up the good work, C.

clap clap

Quote:

People who rat out the mob are asking for the bullet coming their way.

And the people who run with the bulls in Pamplona are asking to be gored.

Aren't they??

I'm NOT saying that they deserve it. I'm not saying that they're moral sinners and should be punished. But seriously... they're NOT asking for it??

"Gee, I'll just get a li'l drunk and run around with some 2,000 pound enraged cattle, and if I get hurt it's 100% [i]the bull's fault[/i]. That bull has NO RIGHT to harm me!"

Snert, part of the equation is why are they standing up to the neo-nazis.  To me neo-nazi are by definition a community evil and people should be expected to stand up to them and government resources should be used to support them, not discourage them.

I know of someone who bought a house and with considerable work made into their home.  One day the Hell's Angels bought the house next door.  Vicious dogs, loud parties, late hours and all that entails.  Their lovely home was basically destroyed and I think they moved at considerable cost to themselves.  If instead they had stayed and stood their ground should child services come and take their kids for protecting their property?  Is there a difference between protecting your property and standing up for your community?

And Cueball, no name calling.

Bacchus wrote:

I would think it would depend entirely on what the 'neo-nazis' did in their neighbourhood. If they were doing nothing but living there (no scenes such as the hells angels ones described above) then yeah the devines were stupid and possibly wrong about who they outed.

 

If they were active in their neo nazis activities in their neighbourhood then Im less worried about the devines actions, although everyone prob already knew what they were then

From said break in and beating up they were active in their neigbourhood, if they were wrong or not active they would nit have resorted to the violent tactics neo nazis are known for.

Bacchus wrote:

Refuge wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

I would think it would depend entirely on what the 'neo-nazis' did in their neighbourhood. If they were doing nothing but living there (no scenes such as the hells angels ones described above) then yeah the devines were stupid and possibly wrong about who they outed.

 

If they were active in their neo nazis activities in their neighbourhood then Im less worried about the devines actions, although everyone prob already knew what they were then

From said break in and beating up they were active in their neigbourhood, if they were wrong or not active they would nit have resorted to the violent tactics neo nazis are known for.

Hmm they could just be people who tend to react violently to criticism (I hesitate to just say rednecks). Ive seen the same reactions to people being asked (or falsely exposed) as child molesters, frauds, rapists and drug addicts/dealers.

Either way they were obviously doing more than just "living there" if they broke into and beat up someone who lived in their neighbourhood. Either way the family should not have had their children kept from them for that.

In Calidonia some some of the major organizers were or were involved with neo nazies and some of the residents did not know that.  When it was exposed a lot of them put two and two together (that's why they talked about how the FN live off their tax dollars, that is why they talked about two tiered justice) and they lost a lot of their support.  They don't always come right out and say white power and kill all the non whites but they do peddle a lot of propoganda, which if you are not aware they are connected with neo nazis you might not recognize as hate speech because it is hidden, that is why they call it propoganda.

People who understand these issues or think about them may be able to spot it at ten yards but some who just get up and go to work don't always connect the dots until it is exposed.

walk down the street and get mugged, not your fault

walk down the street and attempt to break up a random fight and get punched in the head? Well you didn't punch yourself but you did put yourself into a risky position.

now do the same thing while holding your childs hand, i bet that the vast majority of people who might consider breaking up a fight would not do so if they had their child in hand.  nor would most antagonize violent people and put their children at risk, but hey they have an important point to make so lets not worry about reality.

But it can't be as simple as that, it has to be racism.

To be fair, part of the analysis is about how the people involved were not taking advantage of white privilege, so racism is part of the discussion.

The children were voluntarily sent to their grandparents, so the activists are taking steps to protect their children.  The question is about the enforced separation.

Snert's analysis says that the neo nazis have the same moral agency as a bull.  They have no control over their actions and no responsibility for the consequences.

If he wants to complain about that interpretation he can PM me.

It's vigilantism and other than trying to antagonize the people who they say are neo-nazis, what is the point of putting up the posters?  We're they hoping someone would take some action against the accused?

At least the guy who caught the flower thief and put him in a van had some video evidence of the crime (I still think it was dangerous and pushing the boundaries of an acceptable citizens arrest) where in this case they are doing this outing, shaming, call for action entirely on their own for their own purposes - of course I understand they believe they are doing this for the good of everyone but really it's a only feud between the Devines and the people who they named in the posters.

Can I put up a poster on a telephone pole with a picture of a neighbour that says - This guy fucks children!  What kind of reaction would I expect from the person named and his neighbours who see my poster and do I bear no responsibility for the reaction my poster generates?

Bagkitty

Anti-racist activists do alot of good but being some kind of neighbourhood vigilanties is not one - I don't care what the person is accused of doing.  Call the police if you have evidence of a crime

I have no doubt the same nazi fucks would consider a slow death for me to be too good if they knew anything about me but my emotions play no role in my view on this subject.

Because they are legal activities cue. And in fact they should have had the devines charged with harassment or even stalking. But of course they are cowardly so thats not going to happen.

But that doesnt make the devines right though getting back to the original thread, it also should not mean their kids are taken away

Why fucking not? its called a right to free speach. If people dont like it they can sue. Not in your world though. Its ok for people who out Nazi gangs to be beaten up and have their kids taken away by the government, but not ok for Nazi's to sue for defamation. In your world they get to put the boot in whenever they want. They aren't limited by Liberal niceness, doncha see?

Why aren't you asking why these defamed people are not suing? They are not suing it seems. Why? Because nothing said about them was untrue. Instead, they use violence and intimidation. Just what kind of people do you think we are talking about here?

What is really scary here is how many so called progressive people are coming on to this board and finding ways of blaming anti-racist activists and siding with the punks.

absentia wrote:

So... the bottom line is:

An activist in a just cause is, by definition, innocent of any consequences from hir activism, even if s/he knows exactly what to expect and goes ahead anyway. An activist in a just cause has the right to sacrifice hir children's safety to that cause. Nobody else has the right to try to remove those children from harm's way, or criticize the parents for putting those children in harm's way. Got it.

But i still wonder where the Calgary police are.

This sounds very close to the they are asking for it comment.

Just so that I am clear - when you are being an activist you are not expecting to have your house broken into and you are not expecting to be beaten.  Just because a person doesn't invoke their white privilege so that they don't have to face the same consequences that a Family of Colour would face does not mean they are sacrificing their safety, it means they are trying to make the world a safer place for everyone else.

We are not talking about a family who laid their child down in front of a tank.  We are not talking about a family that chained their child to a tree during logging operations.  We are talking about a family that is trying to confront racism in their neighbourhood so that it can be a safe place for anyone to move into, not just white people.  They did not do anything illegal.  They had proof of the persons ties to racism and let others know of this.  The key to neo nazis and racism is silence and secrecy and they were willing to expose that to make their neighbourhood a safer place, a place that has a stance against racism.  Or should they have waited until a Family of Colour moved into the neighbourhood and the neo nazis started attacking either legally or illegally before they exposed these guys as neo nazis.  Racism is not an issue you say, well we will just wait until someone comes along to provoke the racism, it is an issue that needs to be dealt with when the seeds are beginning and having a neo nazi in your neighbourhood is a pretty big seed.

Van Goghs Ear wrote:

I just don't understand what good thing they thought would happen or could happen as a result of putting up these posters around their neighbourhood?

See above for the stamping out the seeds of racism before they start to spread.

Bacchus wrote:

Nope its just that anyone into 'shaming' , 'outing' or taking the law into their own hands has no place on a progressive board, they belong on FD

I am pretty sure that the neo nazis felt no shame about their ties.  I am pretty sure they were angry they were outed because one of the ways that they can spread racism, doubt and misunderstanding is through subterfuge and propaganda where they distance themselves from what is perceived to be racism (things like two teared justice and oppression by- fill in the non white group here) and they did nothing illegal by putting up posters in the neighbourhood.

I support your stand Bacchus but I also understand Refuge's point about kids in the neighbourhood being recruited into the movement by nazis blending in with everyone.

Bacchus wrote:

Sorry its vigilantism, exactly the same sort as was practised on them.  They espouse violent confrontation, and so do the nazis who also put up posters denouncing people.

 

I find them exactly the same

I see them espousing confrontation of racism not violent confrontation.  Here is the group they are a part of several times on the site they list that there will be confrontation of racism but they will be non violent.  The outing of the racists are dealing with their behaviour and do not even hint at any form of retaliation - just an awareness of what people are believing.

absentia wrote:

Refuge wrote:

absentia wrote:

So... the bottom line is:

An activist in a just cause is, by definition, innocent of any consequences from hir activism, even if s/he knows exactly what to expect and goes ahead anyway. An activist in a just cause has the right to sacrifice hir children's safety to that cause. Nobody else has the right to try to remove those children from harm's way, or criticize the parents for putting those children in harm's way. Got it.

But i still wonder where the Calgary police are.

This sounds very close to the they are asking for it comment.

Does it? How? I'm just restating what's been said over and over again. Not blamming the Devines for anything. Might wonder about the wisdom of choosing activism and parenthood, but i understand that would be wrong.

You answered your own question it is wrong to wonder about the wisdom of choosing activism and parenthood, that is very close to they are asking for it comment.

absentia wrote:

And yet again, asking about the police, their part in all this.

From what the article states they were not there for the posters, as this is not an illegal act.  They are there to investigate the home invasion and the assault, as this is an illegal act.

Cueball wrote:

Parenthood is activism. Ridiculous that anyone should assert that parents should not espouse the values of the world they want their children to live in. What kind of line of reasoning is this?

Wish they had a thumbs up smiley.