Another example of government intrusion...
A Canadian mom has lost her children because she sent her daughter to school with a swastika drawn on her arm. The mom, it appears from the news reports, is a "white nationalist". Yes, yes, I know... neo-naziism is not an acceptable ideology to most people, myself included, but the question remains, do you remove children from their home because their parents are racists? Local news reports describe the mother as distraught at the loss of her two children and summarizes the two sides of this debate with the following quotes:
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."
Does the government have the right to take away children whose parents teach them unpopular, incorrect, or even hateful traditions? Who decides what's unpopular, incorrect, or hateful? Canada isn't the US but as the FLDS case shows, the trend is the same all over... the government, the Nancy Grace media, or whoever has the most money sets the social agenda ,decides morality, and increasingly, defines parental rights. Holding one's family for ransom until one conforms is social engineering at it's best and Western governments are increasingly using this vicious form of sociological terrorism.
Note to John Leo, we are no longer one step ahead. The thought police have overtaken us.
