Tinted Lenses

How bias distorts perception and shapes social interaction.

Steve Livingston is a social psychologist based in Toronto. See full bio

March 10, 2009, Law and Crime

Parents as Propagandists (Part One)

When do a family's values become a community's problem?

I have been following with some interest a case from one of my hometowns: Two children, 2 and 7, were removed from their mother's care by Winnipeg's municipal Child and Family Services (CFS) last March after the 7-year-old girl came to school with numerous symbols of "white pride" drawn with permanent red and blue marker on her skin. Reportedly among these symbols were:

A swastika, an ancient symbol that is arguably inextricable in our modern consciousness from its use by the German National Socialist ("Nazi-Sozi", or "Nazi") Party in the 1930s and 1940s
"14", a reference to the 14-word slogans "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" and, alternately/additionally, "because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth" coined by David Lane, a prominent member of a defunct American neo-Nazi organization (The Order) linked to murder and terrorism in the early 1980s. This was written in combination with...
"88", a reference to one or more of the following: Lane's essay on the "88 Precepts" of an society based upon "Natural Law"; a 88-word excerpt from chapter 8 of the first volume of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf; and/or shorthand for the phrase "Heil Hitler" (where each 8 represents an H, i.e., the 8th letter of the alphabet)
"Aryan Pride", referring to the concept of a (superior) Nordic race. "Aryan" originally was a linguistic signifer for speakers of Indo-Iranian languages, but the term was co-opted by (pseudo)scientific racial theorists and, like the swastika, is now difficult to detach from its use as an excuse for German racial purity laws. At any rate, I suspect most White Pride enthusiasts would not ethnically identify with peoples of the Middle East -- many claim allegiance to some specific modern European country, or else a vague, pan-European heritage.

According to CFS documents, the child also had missed 39 days of school, allegedly because the parents preferred "sleeping in." Officials were concerned about the extent of alcohol and drug abuse in the home, and had previously investigated the husband on suspicion of hate crimes involving underage children. The mother, known as D.G., has publicly denied any connection to white supremacism, instead referring to herself as a white nationalist, and blamed the markings on her husband, known as J.P. -- from whom she separated, seemingly in an attempt to regain custody of her children. D.G. posted on numerous "white pride" websites under the nickname "AryanPrincess1488", including Resistance Records and Stormfront.org, wherein her "homepage" linked to the National Socialist Party of Canada. She again blamed these postings on her husband. D.G. wears a necklace decorated with a swastika, and reportedly decorated her home with the famous black-on-red Nazi flag and a banner that read "White Pride WorldWide." Next to DVDs of cartoons, there sits a copy of Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, which centers on the 1934 Nazi Party rallies. However, D.G. is reluctant to call herself a neo-Nazi -- rather, she is a "proud Scottish chick." (Never mind what side Scotland fought on during WWII.)

CFS officials, while tight-lipped about many details, insist that they intervened based upon concerns for the children's physical and mental health, and that the political ideology of the parents was more or less incidental to their concerns about the home environment. D.G. frames it differently, in terms of her ideology: the removal of her children was motivated by the state's desire to control undesirable thoughts, and not by any tangible problems with the children's welfare -- in other words, that the CFS intervention was a punishment for thoughtcrime. There is no abuse to be concerned about, as she sees it: she was raised to have "pride" in her heritage, and this pride is both justifiable and worthy of passing along to her children. To deny her this right is to deny both her freedom of speech and, worse, the freedom to raise her own children.

Many media commentators rushed to agreement: this was yet another case of political correctness gone too far, that it was in fact indicative of state-mandated intolerance (on the part of liberals) sold under the Canadian brand of multiculturalism. The state should not act in loco parentis unless absolutely necessary, said these commentators, and the teaching of distasteful racial ideology does not meet a reasonable threshold for intervention. The inevitable slippery-slope was invoked: if we allow interventions because of prejudice, then where do we draw the line? Surely we cannot restrict all speech that could be insulting or hurtful, because no matter how innocuous the statement, there is someone who will be (or will gainfully pretend to be) insulted and hurt.

So, from a psychological standpoint, was the action by CFS warranted? I'll have more to say about that in Part Two of this posting.

Until then, I am interested to read about your thoughts. For the sake of clarity, let's temporarily ignore the allegations of substance use and school absenteeism, and focus on the aspect of prejudice. Should the evidence of indoctrination into the ideology of white pride -- or some similar ethnic/political/religious ideology -- suffice to warrant an investigation of child abuse? At what age of the child should we cease to be concerned about such indoctrination? What ideologies meet the threshold of concern? Is the state ever justified in telling us what we can say to our own kids?