Baby taken into care over fears it could be radicalised

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Well I'm glad you know them all, that's curious.here's the deal when you engage in terrorist activity all those rights go away, bye bye and that's the way it works here and quite frankly should be the case across the board.

We have a saying going into court which is "never second guess what the judge might do". I've never come across anything like this, so of course I can't say with certainty. But my thoughts are, even if a Judge ruled in this manner, the case would be lost on appeal for reasons previously stated. It might fly on a 'child endangerment' petition depending on the circumstances.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: TechniXcality

Please don't talk about me as if I'm not here.

And not only that, I did directly speak to you and you didn't respond, then I went on to agree with another poster,please don't make demands of me only so you can flatter yourself and appeal to the gallery, I'll post as I see fit thank you. Your above post pretty much says when it comes to extremist or suspected extremists you haven't seen those cases. Ok so then why are you making declarations about how "in the U.S" that wouldn't hold up? Meh

a reply to: TechniXcality

Wow. Flatter myself, appeal to the gallery, and make demands of you.

You're going need to do this without me.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Duly noted, why didn't you respond to me directly, when I had messaged you directly instead you want to act like I'm not reconizeing you and talking about you"as if you aren't here" but that's completely inaccurate, that is not what happend go to page two and view it yourself,so I drew conclusions based on that. Furthermore you still haven't explained the here "in the U.S" declaration how we handle extremists trying to join Isis and their children. If you don't wish to participate that's fine, but you were making accusations and requests that were completely false( the premise). I can only assume the reasoning for that, and if I am wrong I apologize.

a reply to: stumason

I would like to believe that people truly have the best interests of the child in mind

But I don't trust, in this time of rising anti -Muslim ugliness that some people wouldn't just love to be able to start removing some people's kids from their homes

Because, you know: radicalization

Which pretty much means being raised Muslim for some

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: beansidhe

Beansidhe, with all due respect, if you are not stopping them you ought to be. There's no case to be made that someone has a right to join the ranks of IS. # them and the horse they rode in on, the other part I agree about protecting the child. Sometimes from the outside looking in it is hard for folks to understand Americans, in the same respect this is hard for me to understand some of the viewpoints mainly the OPs that makes a case for the freedom of extremists.

Hi Tech,

I don't think we do stop them (I say 'we', I mean 'they' ) from leaving the UK, but maybe someone with more knowledge than me can correct me.
If they want to go away and fight in a war, well that's their choice. But if they plan to fight against the UK, well hell mend them if they try come back.
Join IS if you want, just don't come complaining when it all goes tits up, as it undoubtedly will.
I was responding really to the child part, since that's where my professional interest lies. The Daily Mail won't have even half of the facts in this case, and they won't care either they just like to 'outrage' people and sell their crappy paper.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Of course - I'm basing my opinion on things I just read - in the Daily Mail My brain feels dirty - and a little bit slower

Exactly!

a reply to: TechniXcality

The subject matter appears to have been lost between you and I, and it's become me and you. I don't want to play that game, I hope you understand.

But what I actually said was, and I quote

I don't think this would hold up if challenged in a higher court in the U.S.

A 'declaration', on the otherhand would be: This would absolutely without question NOT hold up in U.S. court.

Just saying.

If there is substantial evidence that the parents were about to take a child into a war zone where there was a strong possibility for loss of life or injury, then the case would likely be upheld, like having a child in the car when driving while intoxicated, is criminal child endangerment.

But I was basing my comments on the conjecture that the "child would be radicalized", in which case, I don't believe it would hold up here.

Does this mean a Jewish Judge could remove a child because "they might become Catholic"? Or a Muslim Judge could remove a Christian child because he might grow up to join the military? Or a Christian Judge removes a baby from atheist parents, because the child might grow up to be an atheist? I hope you see my point.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
But I was basing my comments on the conjecture that the "child would be radicalized", in which case, I don't believe it would hold up here.

Just to reiterate, in case that has been lost here, that isn't the reason they would have been taken because that too won't hold up in court. They were taken for the more prosaic reasons of child endangerment.


The line about radicalisation comes from the Daily Fail - an awful paper at the best of times and barely a worthy toilet roll at the worst.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I don't know why people are having trouble with this - that isn't the reason they were taken away, that is the Daily Mail and it's shoddy journalism.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
But I was basing my comments on the conjecture that the "child would be radicalized", in which case, I don't believe it would hold up here.

Just to reiterate, in case that has been lost here, that isn't the reason they would have been taken because that too won't hold up in court. They were taken for the more prosaic reasons of child endangerment.


The line about radicalisation comes from the Daily Fail - an awful paper at the best of times and barely a worthy toilet roll at the worst.

I was in fact off looking for the 'real reason' when I saw your post. The Daily Mail has rearranged the focus for it's usual sensationalizing agenda. Of course taking a small child into a war zone is child endangerment, and they should be prevented from doing so. More than likely they were given a choice to remain with the child, or go it without him.

The Judge apparently had compelling reasons to believe they would take the child, and acted on behalf of the child, which is what courts do.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

a reply to: stumason
the Daily Mail isn't journalism - shoddy or otherwise

It's propaganda - and this story is aimed at a certain audience. So, the facts as they present them don't enter into it - agreed

It's still worth the time to argue against its intended message - which is - this is somehow the beginning of something acceptable

the story is also in the Telegraph - by the way

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

And in the Telegraph, with a much better standard of journalism, it says:

More than 20 children have been removed from their families or made wards of court amid fears they are being radicalised or could be taken to Syria.

The youngsters, aged 16 and under, have all been subject to orders in the family courts following concerns from the police or local authorities that they are at risk from Islamists.

It is part of a growing number of cases being taken to the courts following the rise and lure of Isil, one of the country’s most senior judges said.

Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, has now issued guidance to the courts on how to deal with “radicalisation cases”.

Up to eight cases have already been handled specifically connected to Syria and involving more than 20 children.
Cases have included situations where parents have tried to take their off spring to Syria while in others the children themselves have tried to travel.

Some were deemed so serious that the children were placed in foster care while in other judgments, the youngsters were made wards of court.

Linky

So, it puts it into much better context. None were removed because of "radicalisation" but rather a myriad of reasons - some whose parents had tried to take them, others who tried to go under their own steam after being enticed online. None are being persecuted over their beliefs, but rather to protect them either from their idiot parents or predators online who are grooming them.

a reply to: stumason

So, it puts it into much better context. 

Yes, I know - I read it :-)

I stand by my point - that being that the dear readers and believers of the Daily Mail at times deserve a helping hand from those of us that understand what's really happening in a story, as opposed to leaving them with the distorted information they would prefer to believe - and so gobble up like candy

See? You and I aren't arguing

:-)

Or did you not get that some folks think taking children away from Muslim parents sounds like a good idea?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Yeah, I know we're not arguing - sorry if you thought I was.. I was just posting the Telegraph article and delving into the various reasons for the Courts actions for the purpose of the thread.

Anyone who reads the Daily Mail and genuinely thinks it is a fair/balanced needs some sort of "help", that's for sure.

a reply to: anxiouswens

The real problem I could see with this family is that they are trying to take a baby into a country so unsettled that hundreds of thousands of "refugees" are being pushed into the rest of the world. If it's unsafe for these fighting-age men, how is it safe for a baby?

originally posted by: anxiouswens
This article was taken from Daily Mail www.dailymail.co.uk...

"A baby is among more than 20 children who have been made the subject of court orders amid fears they could be radicalised by Islamists.

Judges have issued care or wardship proceedings involving at least 11 families amid concerns their children could be taken or lured out of the country to join Islamic State.

The youngest – a one-year-old – was part of a family of nine Britons from Rochdale who were caught trying to sneak into Syria from Turkey in April...."


Whilst I understand that children need to be protected from being radicalised I really don't know how well this sits with me. That child is going to grow up without its natural family and surely that is storing up repercussions for the future when the child is older. If the child isn't radicalised now then I would say there is a greater chance they will be radicalised when they are older because they will be so resentful towards the British establishment for taking them away from their mother and father.

By the same token I don't know why we keep stopping these families and individuals from leaving. If they feel that their calling is in Syria with the so called caliphate then surely a better way is to just let them go but remove any right for them to return. Do our government think that just because they have stopped them going they are going to miraculously have a change of heart when they are forced to stay in a Country they no longer want to belong to.

I also worry about the people who are now in our prisons for suspected terrorism plots etc. They will have a long time in prison to plot even more atrocities in their minds and to help to radicalise other prisoners, or even become more radicalised from other prisoners. The minute these individuals are let out then they will always be a danger in my opinion.

I'm not suggesting I know the answers to this problem but I just have a feeling this is storing up even more problems for the future. What do other people think?

So; are they going to do this to those radicalised politicians and social commontators who advocate for these hate based laws ??

originally posted by: anxiouswens
This article was taken from Daily Mail www.dailymail.co.uk...

Whilst I understand that children need to be protected from being radicalised I really don't know how well this sits with me.

So; should children also be protected, using the same law, from radical right wing politicians who will certainly do their best to bring their kids up with the same politics as themselves ??

Should children also be protected, using the appropriate laws, aginst those spewing anti welfare hate speech ?? I thought hate speech was illegal now. ?

Is not anti individual welfare hate speech also a form of discrimination?

Example, anti individual welfare hate speech seeks to take welfare off individuals but we see examples of corporate welfare being extended every day, reductions in tax rates, handouts to banks in trouble, cheap utilites, grants from the govt, subsidies for training etc etc.

originally posted by: AzureblueSo; should children also be protected, using the same law, from radical right wing politicians who will certainly do their best to bring their kids up with the same politics as themselves ??

If you cannot see the difference between politicians and individuals passing - or attempting to pass - their political leanings to their kids and (say) someone being encourage and persuaded to kill people for religious reasons then you are a lost cause.

My uncle had strong socialist views, but he never suggested I started to kill people.

a reply to: paraphi

Pfft nice attempt at telling us all socialists just kill people.