7 Year-old Girl White Supremacy

Disturbing evidence is coming out at a child welfare case in Winnipeg on Monday, where the parents of two children are accused of teaching them that black people and other minorities deserve to die.

Seven year old girl went to school with a swastika on her arm. The teacher scrubbed it off in the afternoon but the girl showed up again the next day with another one, along with other white supremacist symbols drawn on her body.
KamikazeCricketsays...

This is just like parents indoctrinating their kids into religion by telling them that they are going to hell for doing anything slightly wrong. In both cases it is downright child abuse.

I'm not sure why this is newsworthy, though. This kind of crap happens ALL THE FREAKING TIME in the south especially, where most likely both are going on.

quantumushroomsays...

Obamarx is trying to sneak a radical left winger onto the Supreme Court. Should he succeed this will affect both the USA and Canada far more than these racialist nitwits.

I could be wrong, but Canada has no First Amendment; Canadians are valued less as individuals than in non-socialist nations. Therefore these Canadian children belong to the State first and their parents second.

Lummsays...

>> ^quantumushroom:
I could be wrong, but Canada has no First Amendment; Canadians are valued less as individuals than in non-socialist nations. Therefore these Canadian children belong to the State first and their parents second.


Well, of course Canada has no First Amendment. You see Canada is a whole different country from the U.S., and has its very own laws. However, the rights guaranteed in the US First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, etc) are guaranteed to Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms). It doesn't even end in North America - there are countries around the globe that also guarantee these rights.

As for the case, there were other issues that made the home unfit for children (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/05/27/mb-custody-hearing-swastika.html) that simply were not brought up in this media story.

I apologize to those who have qm ignored for quoting.

atarasays...

Thanks for pointing that out, Lumm - it was exactly the same point I was going to make. The media has been focusing on the fact that the mom and step-father were allegedly teaching their children racist views, but there were also factors that made the home unfit: drug abuse and a certain level of neglect (one story reported that the stepfather never went to pick up the two-year old boy from daycare because it was too cold one day.)

In Canada, certain aspects of speech are protected. However, speech that incites violence or hate against certain groups is illegal. Thus, if the racist charges are proven, then the mom and step-father can be found to have been teaching their children to do illegal things (hate speech).

I am uncomfortable with the state deciding what it is and is not proper to teach your children (and who gets to draw the line: creationism? atheism? parents who believe vaccines give their kids autism?), but in this case, according to the law, it's the hate speech by the kid's guardians that is illegal, and CFS is removing the kids from an environment where illegal activities were taking place.

volumptuoussays...

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> ^volumptuous:
If parents can teach their children the lessons of Christ, they can teach them the lessons of Hilter.

Right. Because the only difference between Hitler and Jesus was facial hair.


My point was, that if parents want to teach their children a shitty system of beliefs that has historically ended with millions of dead people, while teaching people to hate all non-believers, then what difference does it make who their idol is?

MarineGunrocksays...

^Except 99% of Christians are not taught to hate non-believers.

What difference? The crusades happened nearly 1000 years ago. When is the last time you heard of mass murders for Christian beliefs?

I can not believe you seriously compared Jesus to Hitler and said that there's no difference in following either of them.

turboj0esays...

I have to agree with what Volumptuous said here. "If parents can teach their children the lessons of Christ, they can teach them the lessons of Hilter."

Everybody has their prejudices. Historically rooted, prejudice is a state of being, its not individual acts. This new definition of racism is exactly what is being created here. Should we blame the mother? No! Blame the people that raised HER. This little girl doesn't know that she will carry this her entire life.

What is society's overall mission?

volumptuoussays...

>> ^MarineGunrock:
^Except 99% of Christians are not taught to hate non-believers.
What difference? The crusades happened nearly 1000 years ago. When is the last time you heard of mass murders for Christian beliefs?
I can not believe you seriously compared Jesus to Hitler and said that there's no difference in following either of them.


I didn't compare the two. I wouldn't compare them either. One was a living human being, the other a figment of peoples imagination. And it's not about following them, it's about society having any say over what individuals teach their children. If indoctrination is in order, then what difference does it make whatever fucked up piece of nonsense is drilled into kids heads? It just shouldn't be fucking done at all. (Yes, I'm one of those types who thinks that indoctrinating children into religious beliefs is a form of child abuse)


btw:
Last time I heard about mass murder for Christian beliefs was around 2003.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret

KamikazeCricketsays...

>> ^MarineGunrock:
^Except 99% of Christians are not taught to hate non-believers.
What difference? The crusades happened nearly 1000 years ago. When is the last time you heard of mass murders for Christian beliefs?
I can not believe you seriously compared Jesus to Hitler and said that there's no difference in following either of them.


How about the ongoing conflict in north Ireland? It's not mass murder but there is that abortion doctor was just murdered over christian beliefs, in a freaking church no less! Let's also not forget about all the lynching in the American south for much of the 20th centruy which often involves burning a motherfrickin christian cross to incite terror and symbolize the idea that God wants white christian people to kill everyone else.

quantumushroomsays...

Well, of course Canada has no First Amendment. You see Canada is a whole different country from the U.S., and has its very own laws. However, the rights guaranteed in the US First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, etc) are guaranteed to Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms). It doesn't even end in North America - there are countries around the globe that also guarantee these rights.


Please don't compare your leading brand Charter to the Constitution, as the former is woefully inadequate for a people that value freedom.

You can be arrested in Canadia for preaching that homosexuality is wrong. Big fans of Orwell, eh?

I apologize to those who have qm ignored for quoting.

Please add yourself to the list. Your limited commentary services are neither requested or required.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More