JimC
The immigrant Christian couple in Norway you referred to broke the law on corporal punishment and the law applies to everyone in Norway regardless of religion. Some of your questions are answered here... http://www.newsinenglish.no/2016/01/11/norway-defends-its-child-welfare-laws/ BTW, about 50 other countries have implemented the same law (not the UK or USA.) I have some sympathy with the couple because they were immigrants and were ignorant of the law
Christian Apologist
As anyone knows, there is a great deal of discretion given to law enforcement and prosecution in the execution of such laws. One would think that for a first offense especially, the authorities would act to educate the parents with a warning over future drastic action, with children being seized only if they were in clear danger otherwise. Per the link I provided, the couple's religious beliefs were specifically objected to by the responsible party filing the complaint, and the children were thereafter seized straightaway. Also note that there was an outcry that received publicity over the discriminatory application and enforcement of the law, after which the state eventually rescinded their decision. One would not expect them to have done so unless the complaint had merit. Obviously had there not been a publicly-known outcry the couple would have had their children taken from them permanently through prejudicial enforcement of the law.
JimC
Of course there is discretion and rights of appeal, and a free press and freedom of information and many other aspects which are only found in advanced democracies. Sometimes children are taken into care unnecessarily, sometimes they suffer or even die because they weren't taken into care. Being a social worker is a very difficult job in my opinion. Ideally, children are only taken into care temporarily until it's safe to go back. However, I think you (or rather the religious source that popped up in your google search results) are claiming this is a case of religious persecution. If it is then thank democracy it's so rare and no one was burnt at the stake. But as I already explained, the immigrant Christian couple in question had broken the law on corporal punishment. To turn a blind eye just because they are Christian would also be wrong. http://www.newsinenglish.no/2016/01/11/norway-defends-its-child-welfare-laws BTW, about 50 other countries have implemented the same law (not the UK or USA.) I have some sympathy with the couple because they were immigrants and were ignorant of the law. In their home country of Romania the idea that it's morally wrong to smack children would not occur to them.
Christian Apologist
I never suggested turning a blind eye, nor to the right--and indeed duty--of individual nations to enact welfare laws in the interest of children and to enforce those laws. However, it can also be extremely traumatic for children to be separated from their parents and one cannot assume that foster care or state institutions will offer better care in most circumstances, and in fact there is ample evidence that such children are likely to experience abuse and neglect in those circumstances as well. That's why social services try to work hard with biological parents to improve the children' lot in circumstances that are less disruptive and traumatic than removal from their home and parents unless absolutely necessary for their immediate health and safety.
There was never any indication that the children in question weren't loved by their parents--only that the parenting tactics were inappropriate. A warning from the social worker ought to have been more than adequate to bring the parents in this case into compliance.But of course that isn't what happened. A specific complaint was brought against the parents that they were "too religious." That was what the state representatives felt that they couldn't "correct" without their removal from the home--hence their removal on a discriminatory basis with the law merely providing a pretext for such, and all of the trauma that resulted from their doing so.
The matter with the Romanian couple should have been corrected by education and a warning to comply before further drastic action was taken, had the law been enforced fairly with the best interests of the children being the focus. Sadly, that isn't what happened.
JimC
It can indeed be traumatic for children to be taken from their parents and sometimes a child is better off with an imperfect parent than a foster parent. Sometimes children are taken into care unnecessarily, but on the other hand sometimes they suffer or even die because they weren't taken into care and social workers are criticised on the front pages. Being a social worker is a very difficult job in my opinion. Ideally, children are only taken into care temporarily until it's safe to go back. You can argue the Norwegian authorities are over zealous in their methods of child protection but there's nothing to suggest religious discrimination just because the family in this case you selected are overtly religious. It's all very well saying the parents could have been “warned” but the children had to be interviewed and it was their evidence that led to the baby being removed the next day. You can read the government’s position here... http://www.newsinenglish.no/2016/01/11/norway-defends-its-child-welfare-laws
Christian Apologist
The fact that the children were put into custody primarily because of a complaint about their religion IS the core issue, as explained in this link previously: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/11/norwegian-government-seizes-children-citing-parent/
You say the parents could have been “warned” and the children had to be interviewed and it was their evidence that led to the baby being removed the next day, and you provided a statement of the government’s position - but the article I linked to above--from a general news source by the way--points out otherwise.
JimC
You haven't responses to the details of the case. You ignore the core issue, which is the general zealousness of the Norwegian child protection agency. Religion is not the issue (unless you're saying Christianity requires children to be smacked) and you seem unaware that the Washington Times is religiously sponsored and does not provide a “general view”. I wonder if you've mistaken it for the Washington Post?
Christian Apologist
You would have us believe that the core issue is the "zealousness" of the Norwegian child protection agency yet ignore what actually occurred. That agency acted in extreme measures as a direct result of reported complaints regarding the religious perspective of the parents. How would you have us believe otherwise? OF COURSE the Norwegian authorities--after the fact--will claim that they reacted for any other reason but the one they actually did. They have no higher power to answer to and they seek self-preservation first and foremost, and given their perspective it's completely understandable. You choose not to engage in honest dialog for the same reason. As far as biased perspectives are concerned, note my point above.
JimC
The zealousness of the Norwegian Child Welfare Agency (Barnevernet) is the issue because there have been several cases of children potentially taken into care unnecessarily. Obviously those cases were not highlighted in your Christian media sources because the families were not Christian. So what occurred in this case has not been ignored here – it has been explained to you. You say the Norwegian Authorities have no “higher power” to answer to but of course they do. Because it's a democracy they report to the highest of powers – the population. That's how the laws are made or changed. Perhaps you are suggesting children were/are safer in authoritarian, unelected regimes. I don’t think so.
Christian Apologist
The same can be said of any outrageous or corrupt action of any government claiming to be "democratic" anywhere! They are all--in theory--answerable to "the people!" However, it isn't "the people" who step up and lay a hand to correct such abuses. If there is any response at all, it is by some other functionary who--again--claims to be acting on behalf of "the people!" That's how the laws are made or changed.
I would like to think that functionaries in an ideal democracy which truly responded to the interests of "the people" stepped in to correct a wrong, without concern over bad publicity over the obvious outrageousness of the act not playing a part, but I believe I'm a little more realistic in my understanding of how such matters usually play out. And, of course, I never suggested that "authoritarian unelected" regimes would be a better choice, even as the Norwegian authorities acted as if they were sovereign unto themselves as if they were answerable to no one but themselves!
JimC
Surely you need evidence to back up your claim that these children were seized just because their parents were Christian. And even the. You'd need evidence that this was policy or standard practice. For example, there are people wrongly arrested in every democratic country, who are then released. Mistakes happen. Many of those people are Christians. That doesn't mean they were arrested because they were Christian. Contrary to your assertion, public opinion is vital to what happens in a democracy and a key indicator for a democracy is freedom of the press and social media. The counter-argument is that people in a democracy can have too much power and be responsible for the downfall of political parties or governments because of freedom of information!
No comments:
Post a Comment