Fascism or Paternalism?
This article brings up a point I've long wondered about.
A bit of background. As a kid living in Texas, the Confederate
battle flag always seemed to me to be a symbol of confederacy and
independence, not
the Confederacy, not racism, not
secession, not agrarian economics, etc. It always seemed to me like
it was a symbol that meant loosely coupled, minimal, non-local
government and placed an emphasis on local government and personal
responsibility.
Sure, there were hicks and idiots who flew the flag and held racist
and anti-government sentiments. But, I always thought that was not
a causal dependence but a coincidental correlation. Those hicks and
idiots, just like more rational people, honestly felt like they
were responsible for their own life ... i.e. they were largely
independent. It just so happened that some of these people were
also racist and stupid.
Growing up in Texas, hanging a Confederate battle flag in your room
or in your truck was no big deal. Even my friends who didn't share
my opinion of the symbol didn't care one way or the other. It was
just a fact of life that many people had those flags.
As I grew older, however, it was made clear to me that my opinion
of what the symbol means is an extreme minority opinion. And most
people regard it definitely as a purposeful expression of hatred
and oppression. Hence, regardless of what I think the symbol means
to me privately, I decided that there were too many opportunities
for people to misunderstand what I was saying if I flew that flag.
So, I don't fly it even though, to me, it's not at all a symbol of
hatred or oppression.
With that background, I can talk clearly about this episode where a
girl and her mother inked a swastika on the girl's arm and the
government forcibly removed the child from the mother's
custody.
My initial tendency is to say that such government intervention is
tantamount to the thought police and a clear human rights
violation. I don't care what symbol you ink into your arm, wear
around your neck, or hang on your wall, as long as you're not
committing a crime, the government should not take such extreme
measures. The "slippery slope" mentioned in the article is
inapplicable because a slippery slope starts with something
acceptable and slides down to something unacceptable. Removing a
child from its parents' custody when no laws have been violated is
not acceptable, even if the beliefs of the parents
might bias the child toward pathological
behavior.
Now, I wouldn't object to some attempts to educate the mother and
(especially) the daughter (since there are some belief systems that
will only go away when those idiots that believe them die
off).
Another issue might crop up. Perhaps the swastika has been banned
in Winnipeg as it is in Germany. If that's the case, then the
mother and daughter did violate a law and should be punished
accordingly. However, laws like that are just fundamentally stupid.
(No offense intended to the German government and people; but come
on. If you ban the symbol, you give it more power than it already
had. Don't you know that?)
The real question is: Is there a relatively objective method for
distinguishing between distasteful but largely benign symbolism and
dangerous instigation or advocation of violence or sedition?
The reason this article brings that up is because the mother is
willing to facetiously deny her beliefs if the government will
allow her to take custody of her daughter. But, in defense of the
state, a facetious denial of nazism just to get her daughter back
would indicate to the government that this woman has no intention
of caring for the well-being of her daughter at all! In fact, as a
mother, that facetious denial would indicate that she is willing to
martyr her child to those nazi beliefs.
Such a predisposition to sacrifice her child's well-being for the
sake of a set of beliefs might well mean that the mother really
isn't a fit mother and (practically) the rest of society will end
up suffering if she regains custody of the child.
A better response from the mother would be to clearly explain that
her nazi symbolism, in fact, is a purely rhetorical political
statement rather than an accurate indication of the type of
government she wants, expects, and will work towards. This is most
often the case, anyway, whether the advocate knows it or not.
Advocates of stupidity like nazism (or any -ism, to be honest,
because all -isms are idealist nonsense) are usually so ignorant of
what they're actually advocating that they really could not
possibly want, expect, or work towards such a non-existent,
platonic ideal.
If she were to fully explain this to some court and make a serious
attempt to educate herself and her child on how the symbols are
perceived to the population at large, then I suspect we could
regard her as a fit mother even if her beliefs lie very far to the
right.
Good communication is the responsibility of both the speaker and
the audience. I once had a mentor who said I left too much of the
communication burden on those to whom I spoke. I continually
disagreed and held firm to my belief that communication is
precisely and evenly spread across all the participants. If a
listener is lazy and doesn't commit, then they should be held
accountable. Likewise, if a speaker is lazy and doesn't commit,
then they should be held accountable.
So, it seems to me that the state, the aggressor in this case, has
the responsibility to listen to the mother, find out whether she
really is a dangerous right-winger willing to martyr her daughter,
and if not, actively participate in the communication by making it
clear to the mother and daughter what these symbols have come to
mean. -----