The recent court decision in Kassel, Germany is part of a growing trend of child protection actions for thoughts, not just physical harm to a child. This has happened not only in Germany, but apparently, in other ‘western’ countries.
In the United States, authorities took over 400 children of the Yearning for Zion ranch from their parents. This number included nursing babies. To point out that the babies were in no danger of being married to anyone almost weakens the outrage. It’s as if people have to justify why babies should be left with caring mothers. The actual harm to infants in being removed from their mothers, because of a possible harm, years later, is foul. And I can only sympathize with nursing mothers who no longer have a child to nurse. The mental pain must have been terrible. The physical pain, almost dangerous because it indicates engorgement which can lead to a breast infection or mastitis.
In Canada, authorities took two children in Winnipegfrom their home because their parents seem to be neo-Nazis. One of those children is two years old. (the children may be returned)
Last year in Germany, officials took Melissa Busekros from her home because authorities said she was mentally ill.
What looks like the beginning of a trend isn’t to protect the children from physical harm, such as a teacher allegedly did to a student: “One of the complaints was that [in the course of a science demonstration] Freshwater used an electrostatic device to burn crosses onto students’ arms.” The protection in the actions in Germany, Texas and Canada weren’t to prevent physical harm, but to protect them from harmful thoughts, ie, their beliefs. Even in the California case concerning credentialing of a person used by a school to teach children at home (an ISP acting as an umbrella school for a family whose children stayed home for their schooling), the judge wrote:
page 5: “A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.” [emphasis added]
In a blog post a couple of years ago, I termed that “Camazotz” from Madeleine l’Engle’s planet of the same name where everything anyone did conformed to schedules and rules.
A Wrinkle in Time, Wikipedia
Camazotz – A planet of extreme, enforced conformity, ruled by a disembodied brain called IT. Camazotz is similar to Earth, with familiar trees such as birches, pines, and maples, an ordinary hill on which the children arrive, and a town with smokestacks, which “might have been one of any number of familiar towns”. The horror of the place arises from its ordinary appearance, endlessly duplicated. Thus, the houses are “all exactly alike, small square boxes painted gray”; this characterization has been compared with the post-war housing developments of Levittown, Pennsylvania. The people who live in the houses are similarly described, with “mother figures” who “all gave the appearance of being the same”
On the USA television network, I’ve watched the “characters welcome” theme continue, and it always makes me laugh. It’s a sardonic laugh, but still a laugh. Characters? Welcome? In real life? Go ahead, pull the other one. What about the derision and scorn that commenters poured on the women from the Yearning for Zion ranch?
- Yearning for Zion Fashion: LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
- Hundreds of women and children in 19th Century clothing flee from Mormon ‘polygamy’ ranch of dark secrets
- Polygamy Garb Born of Rules
Our latent xenophobic streak comes out for all to see when ‘the other’ does something wrong. All of a sudden, it’s a free-for-all to peck them to death like chickens.
In the cases of state organizations defining ‘the other’ as aberrant, I think it looks like ‘we’ (through our social representatives) have decided that ‘the other’ cannot be tolerated. Created equal? Pursue happiness? Proof of actual lawbreaking? None of that appears to matter if you’re ‘the other.’ The anti-’normal’-social aspects of the thoughts of ‘the other’ must be eliminated, not just debated. A first step is to stop the transmission of the thoughts from one generation to the next. Catch the kids.
Other discussions of child-taking for lack of conformity are at:
- Children at risk, Spunky Homeschool
- Some people must be from a different reality, Why Homeschool
- Moving away from a pluralistic society, Green fields and open horizons
- Homeschoolers threaten our cultural comfort, Principled Discovery
HEM
Helen
Tracy
mark
marynix
ann-lahrson-fisher
valerie
sandi
david