I didn’t know opposition to Nazism was “Politically Correct.” I thought it was, you know, fucking self-evident.

todd, chile abuse by their parents is the only justification for removing children from their homes. Even that can be nebulous as when a parent administrates corporal punishment on a misbehaving offspring.

Mickey:

These folks are on the wrong end of the PC political spectrum

…BY OPPOSING NAZISM!!!!!!!

In France they can take a child away from the parents if they are Pentecostal Christians, as it is considered a form of child abuse. In Germany they institutionalize children who are homeschooled, because that too is a form of child abuse. The chidren, in almost every western nation are wards of the state and can be removed for almost any cause.

YOUR CHILDREN ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN! They all belong to the state and as Friend suggests, that fact can be traced back to voting liberals into power!

Liberalism is child abuse. In today’s society, children must be able to suvive in a capitalistic world. Raising them to believe that the government will be there to take care of all of their needs is a detriment to their emotional and educational growth. These children need to be taken from these homes and taught proper methods for being productive members of society.

Wait, I mean to say:

Conservatism is child abuse. In today’s society, children must be able to suvive in an evergrowing population but limited supply world. Raising them to believe that they will be able to stand as an individual at the cost of the rights of others is a detriment to their emotional and educational growth. These children need to be taken from these homes and taught proper methods for being productive members of society.

The klan hasn’t killed anyone in decades. I wonder how many whites the Nation of Islam and Black Panther party have murdered? We won’t find out, because blacks killing whites is acceptable, and protected. The Lamestream media won’t report it. Farrakhan, Wright and Pfleger are klansmen, they just wear different outfits. I stand by my comment- take the Obama kids away, they are being abused every day! Not only by Trinity, but by their mother, a Farrakhan/Wright scholar. I shudder to see what those kids will have blossomed into as adults. I guess we’re looking at the new presidents of Wright’s Klan, and Farrakhan’s NOI. Good times!

Read any article about Hurricane Katrina, and you’ll see how much blacks (and white liberals) hate white people. According to “Minister” Farraklan, Whitey blew up the levees in order to drown black people! Google it! Graft, corruption and liberalism are to blame for the Katrina parasites acting like the dependent little stooges they are- but just blame Whtey! Here’s you FEMA check, don’t spend it all on strippers! My point is, many, many blacks blamed white people for Katrina- is that insane? yes, it is. Do (black) people blame it on white people? Why yes, yes they do!

re:Canada, acting like socialist Stalinist, Marxist fascists, by removing kids from their homes–this is what the people of Canada want, so they should stay quiet when the SS Brown Shirts come to take away their babies. America isn’t far behind…

Tough issue! Levant comes across as a total ass (he interrupted and name called and lost his cool); and he probably has the better of the arguments! (Most any cool and tempered debater could have done a far better job with his case). If indeed the child put the swastika on her own arm, then there is probably (you might even claim “obviously”) no case for continued protective custody. If the child did not, then there may be, depending upon the whole circumstances of the case. Children should not be pawns for display of such emotionally charged display of Nazi symbolism. [You can, however make the argument that a swastika was, throughout most of history a "good luck" symbol, ITS TRUE!]. Importantly, such factual details would probably not be “known” with a 6 year old reporter at the time that the initial intake determination for custody was made. The child protection intake system involves taking children into protective custody in proper cases while the investigation is being conducted; with something like a 48 hour requirement for a custody hearing to determine whether continued protective custody is warranted. This piece so clearly misrepresents that procedure by intimating the the initial custodial decision is more permanent, that it (the editorialism of piece) can only be viewed as thinly veiled propaganda. I would suggest that if anyone else wants to find out whether sending their child to school with a swastika display will get similar treatment, be prepared to attend the custody hearing. You may win when you get there, but by doing the act you are asking for the same initial custodial determination. If someone harms the child displaying the swastika, then its the social worker who made the non-custodial response determination whose butt is on the line. Also, who’s the “liberal” here? Obviously Levant wishes to characterize the other guy as the “liberal” (right wing propaganda code for “boogie man”); and himself as the defender of the “conservative” anti-big government main-stream, but his free speech argument is the same one made by the ACLU every day of the year, year after year. “Big government” is the guys who want to amend the U.S. Constitution on issues domestic relations presently reserved for state law, to prevent flag burning (man I wish they’d hurry, I’m sure getting tired of having to beat up flag burners), to establish their religion, and to come into our bedrooms to supervise procreation.

Hello, I’d just like to say that Canada was wrong on this one.
Tired_of_it , you must be a Neal Boortz fan, me too.

now, while sending a child to school with a Swastika (Which, contrary to popular belief is not a symbol of hate, it is simply the Hinduan symbol for “Good Luck”, mirrored). on her arm is freedom of expression, like the Calgary lawyer said, the ignorant, Toronto-Liberal lawyer thinks that because their views are not what most liberals think, they must be wrong.