Do you have the right to teach your child anything you want?

[LuckyKBoxer]

Personally I am quite glad that it is illegal to spread that sort of belief in my country.

All I can say is that I am quite glad I do not live in your country.

Personally I can do without people that teach racism, or extremism in the name of religion like the taliban etc.

But like I already said, once they have been all killed and gotten rid of where does it go next?....

those that teach for or against homosexuality like was written above?... ok then when that side is all gone whats next?

Sooner of later its going to hit the point it effects me.

Like I said I like that we have laws against physical abuse and assault, sexual abuse and assault, mental abuse and assault, etc. I say stick to those and we should be just fine.

 

[Andrew Green]

if this is wrong, the next step is taking away someone's kids for teaching them that homosexuality is a sin,

that plus a bunch of stuff about how sinners must be put to death and God is punishing the country via Katrina, WTC and other disasters because people are allowing them to exist in defiance of God's Laws would be crossing the line IMO. People doing what Fred Phelps is doing should not be allowed.

or that citizens have the right to bear arms.

Which has what to do with hate speech?

 

[Archangel M]

again...nobody has said it was "ok". Only that thought and speech shouldn't be criminalized, criminal actions should. But as someone has already mentioned, its unclear if this kids beliefs were the sole reason for being taken from the parents.

And popular opinion aside..most of the prisoners in Gitmo were captured in military operations...not for saying "death to America".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'll say this again, do you folks that believe teaching racism and "black people should be killed" is ok think the same way when that hatred is directed in other places. Groups like the Taliban, Al Queda, Nazis. Should people with those beliefs be allowed to teach their children those beliefs?

Yes.

As Evelyn Beatrice Hall said, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (often mis-attributed to Voltaire).

Suppose some teenager decided to follow through on his parents beliefs, he blows up a synagogue because he spent his whole life hearing that the jews are evil and need to be removed. Are you going to say that the parents did nothing wrong and where within their right to pass on their beliefs?

I will not say the parents did nothing 'wrong'. I will say they did nothing 'illegal' (in the USA). People are responsible for their own actions.

That doesn't mean I want those parents to come to my back-yard BBQ, or that they'd be welcome in my home, or even that I'd like them. I suspect I'd despise them.

Personally I am quite glad that it is illegal to spread that sort of belief in my country.

The reason I would be against laws forbidding the passing on of evil beliefs is that my own beliefs may be considered 'evil' at some point in time.

There have been times in the USA when there were 'anti-Catholic' political parties. Those times could come again. Jews are well aware of what happens when being Jewish was considered 'evil'. Now imagine such a time coming again, and I'm persecuted for teaching my evil 'Catholicism' to my children, or Jews are put in prison for teaching Judaism to theirs.

You may find the thought ludicrous. But history shows that it happens. Restrictions on what a parent may teach a child can have unintended consequences. What seems reasonable to restrict today may be your undoing tomorrow.

 

[Andrew Green]

The reason I would be against laws forbidding the passing on of evil beliefs is that my own beliefs may be considered 'evil' at some point in time.

Canadian Law does not leave any openings at current for such events to happen. The laws against hate speech have to do with inciting hatred and violence towards a identifiable group.

Catholicism could not become illegal under that, however a anti-catholicism meeting, depending on the agenda of the meeting, could. If the message was against the doctrine of catholicism no problem, if it was about why Catholics should be killed then it would be illegal.

Hate speech laws "protect" the rights of minorities from threats and acts of violence.

Your examples:

Those times could come again. Jews are well aware of what happens when being Jewish was considered 'evil'. Now imagine such a time coming again, and I'm persecuted for teaching my evil 'Catholicism' to my children, or Jews are put in prison for teaching Judaism to theirs.

Seem to make a case for not protecting hate speech as with those laws in place persecuting those groups, just for being those groups is illegal.

 

[CoryKS]

The youngsters' stepfather is fighting for custody and has filed a constitutional challenge, claiming his rights to freedom of expression and religion have been violated. The children's mother is not attending the trial.

I'd support his freedom of expression with the understanding that I don't want to hear any complaints from him when the girl's fellow students start practicing their freedom of expression.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Canadian Law does not leave any openings at current for such events to happen. The laws against hate speech have to do with inciting hatred and violence towards a identifiable group.

Imagine a time when many people thought that Catholics were teaching their children hatred, that the Pope was the Anti-Christ. If those times came around again, anti-hate speech laws would be applied to Catholics, because people would believe that Catholicism was hate speech.

You're looking at it with your own current understanding and mindset (which is a reasonable one, IMO). But imagine a time when people thought Jews and Catholics were evil - therefore, their 'speech' was evil.

Catholicism could not become illegal under that, however a anti-catholicism meeting, depending on the agenda of the meeting, could. If the message was against the doctrine of catholicism no problem, if it was about why Catholics should be killed then it would be illegal.

You assume the status quo remains the status quo. History shows that it doesn't.

Hate speech laws "protect" the rights of minorities from threats and acts of violence.

Actually, it is my opinion that such laws do violence to the concept of freedom. Silencing a hater from speaking does not make him stop hating. I'd suspect he'll hate more for being forbidden from speaking of his hatred.

I'd prefer freedom of speech, including that of those who hate, to selective suppression of speech which we today consider onerous. The day may come when our own speech is considered that way. When everyone is free to speak their mind, there is freedom. Freedom denied to one is freedom potentially denied to all.

In the marketplace of ideas, it is just as permissible to say 'people of a particular race are bad and I hate them' as to say 'environmentalism is good for trees and people'. That is not to say it is good to say the former. That is not to say a person saying such things won't be subject to repercussions. It does mean that if someone can say such a thing legally, we live in a truly free society. If a man is not free to speak his mind, he is not free.

 

[yorkshirelad]

It's unfortunate that this girl's parents have taught the girl to be this kind of bigot. Under Canadian law what they have done is illegal so they should be prosecuted.

I think the bigger issue is that her parents put her in physical danger, by writing hate speech on her body. Because of this they should be charge with child endangerment also.

 

[Archangel M]

Im wondering just what this kid was saying/doing up to this point. I mean...one day out of the blue she walks in saying this stuff??

 

[Andrew Green]

Imagine a time when many people thought that Catholics were teaching their children hatred, that the Pope was the Anti-Christ. If those times came around again, anti-hate speech laws would be applied to Catholics, because people would believe that Catholicism was hate speech.

They would have to demonstrate that those groups where advocating violence against other groups. Of course this is why separation of Church and state is important. Religions don't agree with each other, and proclaiming one "evil" because it steps on the Dogma of another is not the states place.

What you are talking about is not so much hate speech IMO, but more heresy. Heresy is not a crime anymore.

Heresy can be considered evil by some, but it is different then what is generally considered hate speech in legal documents.

 

[Deaf Smith]

The real question is... Does Obama have the right to teach anything he wants to your child?

Sure that was a very poor thing to put on their child, but the 'government' does the same thing many times and being in a state school, you have no choice but for them to listen to it.

Deaf

 

[Andrew Green]

The real question is... Does Obama have the right to teach anything he wants to your child?

Sure that was a very poor thing to put on their child, but the 'government' does the same thing many times and being in a state school, you have no choice but for them to listen to it.

Deaf

What on Earth does Obama have to do with this?

This is a Canadian story, and regardless of that the President doesn't have a heck of a lot to do with Education even if it where the States. He certainly isn't developing grade school curriculum.

 

[arnisador]

Sure that was a very poor thing to put on their child, but the 'government' does the same thing many times and being in a state school, you have no choice but for them to listen to it.

We homeschool.

In any event, you can always tell your kids your opinion on what the schools are teaching. Here in rural Indiana, most kids know that evolution is a vast left-wing conspiracy, thanks to their parents and churches.

 

[Carol]

Here in the U.S., such speech alone is not criminalized under the law. However, that doesn't make it right....and that does not mean that such speech is without consequence.

Saying a race of people "should die" in the workplace is generally a speedy end to just about any career.

 

[SensibleManiac]

The girl also gave a graphic description of how to kill a black person, telling the social worker about using a spiked ball attached to a chain and then "whipping them until they die."

The worker asked the girl if those ideas "scared her?"

"No, black people just need to die. That's not scary. This is a white man's world," she replied.

Hate speech incites violence.
If I say I hate you its one thing and not illegal, if I say you should die, then that's a threat and illegal.

These people are poisoning their childrens minds by teaching them about graphic violence. Rememeber its illegal for children to view violent films or pornography.
We are talking about the psyche of a child here.

Research the law and child psychology a little and you will see that all the defending arguments are wrong in this case.

We are not talking about someone teaching their children racism, ie, those people aren't as good as we are, which is morally wrong but not illegal.
We are talking about psychological abuse and death threats.

Let me walk around saying that anyone of you should be killed, in the US and see if the law can't get involved for making threats.

 

[Carol]

Let me walk around saying that anyone of you should be killed, in the US and see if the law can't get involved for making threats.

A better example would be through the posting of the criminal statutes and/or case law that demonstrate the outlawing of such a blanket statement.

If you do walk around saying that any of us should be killed, sure the law will take interest, because you're directing the threat towards someone. However, a blanket statement like "All (insert race here) should die" is not likely to result in charges.

That's not to say your life If I overheard one of my reports in a grocery store saying "all black people should die" I can legally term him/her for that the next time they show up for work....even though neither one of us were on the job when it happened. If someone calls me for a reference, I can legally say I termed my report because I heard them say "all people black should die" in the grocery store on their day off (if that's the reason why I termed them).

It can also attract some unwanted attention. Scroll back through the threads and find a U.S. story about a 3 year old boy who was named "Adolph Hitler Campbell". The story got legs because of one store's refusal to put that name on a cake that was to be for Adolf's 3rd birthday. The local department of social services was notifed, and the children (who all had Nazi-like names) were taken from their parents a couple months later. The state says that the childrent weren' taken from their homes because of their names. My sister (who is a licensed social worker) agrees that it wasn't because of their names. But she speculates that the names set off a whole slew of warning bells that prompted the state to investigate. And if the parents didn't have all their ducks in a row, then it could be easy to build a case of why the kids needed to be placed in foster care.

In the U.S., public school children have a right to a classroom that is not racially hostile much like a worker has the right to a work environment that is not racially hostile. I would think a student walking in to class with "all blacks should die" written on her would soon find herself seperated from the class for the day. There are laws that state a child has to go to school, so I would imagine that it would not take much of this sort of behaviour for a social worker to step in and investigate the situation.

This is not something we saw in the Adolf Hitler Campbell matter because little Adolf was not old enough for school. Had the young girl in question been a young American instead of a young American...I suspect the outcome would result in some landmark litigation.

 

[Bruno@MT]

if al the muslim parents did was teach him to hate americans? thats ok

if they trained the kid to ACT on that hate, that would NOT be ok.

mind you, i think they are lousy parents, but I dont like the abrogation of parental rights.

if this is wrong, the next step is taking away someone's kids for teaching them that homosexuality is a sin, or that citizens have the right to bear arms.

it is a dangerous precedent

I agree with your reasoning.
I think the main reason for taking away the children that this bordered on criminal neglect. Their parents making them parrot their hate in public in such extreme ways could end up fatal for the kids.

Kinda like in Die hard 3, where McLane had to walk through harlem carrying a billboard that said 'I hate n****s'.

If someone does this **** on their own idea... I don't really care.
If someone makes their kids do this (who cannot be expected to be responsible for their own wellbeing) then this would be a case for child services to take away the kids for willful endangerment, or whatever legalese they used.

 

[Gordon Nore]

A number of people have commented on 'criminalizing' speech in this story. I've read through the article and related articles on the Winnipeg case, and I found no reference to criminal court. CFS is taking the parents to family court.

 

[girlbug2]

Let me walk around saying that anyone of you should be killed, in the US and see if the law can't get involved for making threats.

You'd be another one of many who joined the (unfortunately) legal groups referred to as skinheads and/or neo nazis.

 

[girlbug2]

There can never be such a thing as thought control because there is no such thing as thought police. Thank goodness. I don't think any one of us would want to live in a world where our thoughts could be monitored and reported to the authorities.

The problem with any law which attempts to regulate speech is that speech is merely an extention of one's thoughts. Historically, when a government tries to control what its citizens could say, what was it really trying to do...control its citizens hearts and minds, make them "think correctly". That is, "correctly" according to whatever doctrine the government considered proper.

Saying that parents can't teach their kids whatever they want to teach them, or raise them in whatever belief system that they see fit..is merely another attempt at thought control. Like it or not, people will raise their kids to have all kinds of beliefs which others in the same society will object to; this, despite whatever laws are in place to prevent it. I may strongly disagree with the muslim religion for instance, but nonetheless I would not take away the parents' rights to raise their kids muslim...even though I personally think that by doing so, those parents are setting their kids up to be intolerant and chauvenistic (if boys) and abused doormats (if girls).

Too bad this is a discussion about a Canadian kid, it appears Canada is under the false impression that there is such a thing as legal control of hearts and minds (through controlling citizen's speech with "hate speech" laws). The United States of America gets a lot of things wrong IMO, but one thing we have spectacularly right is our Bill of Rights which guarantees free speech.

And for the record, I hate what those parents did and yes, I believe that it endangered the girl to send her to school that way...on that basis, the government would be justified to remove her from her parents custody. Not on the "hate speech" basis, if this were America.