Americans are, in general, I think (please note this is my opinion and do not down vote me for making this observation) more likely to support solutions that appear to resolve the given issue in the most intuitive and seemingly fastest way. While the intention may be good, this rather simplistic view contradicts the reality that subtler, research-based and longer-view solutions are often the wiser choice. Examples of this include things like research into prison sentences and conditions and their relation to recidivism rates; or ideas about parental leave being better for businesses in the long term, despite the short term loss of productivity.
In this particular case, it is an issue of very short-term thinking from the police who do not realize that their draconian tactics, which seemingly are for the best interest of security today, are in fact more likely to engender civil unrest (or emigration, in my case, since I have no appetite for that) in the long run.
Keep in mind the US is always going to be on someone's bad side as long as they assume the role of world watch dog. It's convenient for Norway to wash their hands of any messy killings, but they don't seem to care for the spread of ISIS either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Welfare_Services_(Norway...
As someone said, accused parents in such cases have less rights than Breivik.
Hang on a minute. Here in the US, my tax dollars support your children. WIC and Food Stamps and school lunch programs which come from my tax dollars ensure your infants and children do not starve in case something happens to you or your income. As a parent, you get to claim tax deductions which means more money out of my pocket to cover for the loss of tax revenue. As I see it, your children are not your property. The children belong to the community at large. They are my investment. If you are damaging our collective investment, I very much expect you to be relieved of your duties to take care of my investment.
There has been no country stupid enough to ever make such an outrageous claim, no matter how communist they were.
For starters: Children are not property at all, not their parents, nor society at large. They belong to themselves, they're independent and they are people just like adults, not cattle or objects. Second, parents are the primary agents responsible for their children and if at all possible parents should be the ones to raise their kids. Only in extremely rare cases should children be removed from their parents care, the main reasons are that this is the natural order of things, that parents tend to have their childrens best insterests at heart and that parents are by and far the best placed to relate to their children.
Last but not least: the number of violations per capita of the physical integrity of children placed in 'care' vastly exceeds that of those children living with their parents.
Hueving makes a reasonable point in counter to several things you said. Your snark is sub-optimal.
They are people, not property.
Parents have an obligation to protect their children, and you are attacking that.
Taxation is not an "investment" and does not confer rights. It is non-contractual; it is merely force; it is not entered into voluntarily. You cannot start any valid argument with "Taxation, therefore..." If you don't like paying for WIC and Food Stamps, advocate against those taxes.
Parents have right for due process, right to raise their own children and so on. Children also have some rights, those might colide wiuth rights of parents in some cases.
Problem is that in Norway parents have ZERO rights. Norway have not signed relevant EU treaties for Child Protection. Once children is taken by social servies, there is were little chance for return. SS than bullies parents, forces them to divorce, not even allowed to seek help.
To put it in US context: Imagine Alabama would start abducting children of people who just moved in, because their parenting is not religous enough. All perfectly legal with zero chance to get children back (or sometimes even see them ever again).
This is obviously not true. Norway has laws that safeguard both parents and children, and is in the process of ratifying the relevant Hague convention.
Bear in mind that when you read or hear about these seemingly horrifying stories, you only hear one side of the story. This is due to very strict privacy laws protecting all parties.
So you get the stories about the "unfortunate parents" that do not understand why their child(ren) were taken away. The reality is that you never hear about the abuse or neglect in these cases... and that is the truly horrifying part.
I can agree with that.
> right to raise their own children and so on.
Says who? Why, precisely? Where is this right enumerated and what is its basis?
> Imagine Alabama would start abducting children of people who just moved in, because their parenting is not religous enough.
But the issue with this is religious discrimination and a lack of separation between church and state. The wrongness of this has nothing to do with parental rights.
> Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,
> Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,
And Article 5
> States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.
There are reasons why states can intervene in family life. But those interventions need to be in the child's best interest; and they need to be proportionate.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Article 12
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Also probably a bit of article 16.
Who determines the "appropriate direction and guidance"? What is a "family environment"? When is "interference" arbitrary? As an example, if local custom dictates beating a child mercilessly every other month for absolutely no reason but tradition, that's a good reason for intervention, to me. I don't care about local custom in such a case.
(Also, holy shit, you think honor and reputation are sacrosanct according to the UDHR? I just lost a ton of respect for that document if your reading is correct. Goodbye, journalism.)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/banking/ar...
How alarming! Aaand in the very next sentence:
> The money has been pumped into Ulster Bank, a subsidiary of the state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland which was rescued by a public cash injection of £45 billion five years ago.
Somehow your glorious Times seems to have confused the Republic of Ireland with RBS's subsidiary Ulster Bank.
An analogy should not be necessary. The difference between a country and a subsidiary of one our own country's banks should be quite obvious to you.
However you slice it, Ireland was enjoying a quality of life that could not be sustained, paying for it with EU subsidies, which enabled them to charge less tax than running their state really cost, which they used to lure jobs from the UK. Then when the money ran out, those jobs went to Poland or other lower-cost locations, and they went cap in hand begging to England for more money.
You have no evidence of this, the link you posted earlier was a bailout of RBS. You'll have to do better than that.
EDIT incidentally, if the jobs were lured from Britain why did they ultimately go to Poland?
Ireland joined the EU in 1973. If "subsidies" and "job luring" are the explanation, I'd have expected to see more progress way back then.
I'm not sure where you're going with your arguments that it was all based on "EU subsidies" and "luring jobs", but since others may read this I wanted to correct the record.
edit: it is true that the UK lent money to the Republic of Ireland in order to bail out UK banks with massive exposure to the property bubble - a bubble created in large part by the reckless practices of those very same banks. That loan has to be paid back by Irish tax payers.
Yeah, if only the British haven't raped their freedoms, they'd be playing the victim totally virtually.
Something something nanny state.
Crime prevention and offender rehabilitation are not the goals of modern American policing and the modern American prison system respectively. Profit is.
I'm saying that as a German, mind you.
A lot of the stories I'm aware of are hearsay, but it's not exactly easy to get reliable accounts about this kind of thing. One example is that in Eastern Europe in the early stages of WW2 the Wehrmacht soldiers would allegedly often not care much for the orders regarding the jews (they were just regular soldiers after all, often ones that had been soldiers before the nazis came to power) and would initially often be greeted with sympathy because the locals thought they came to kick the Soviets out. But then the Wehrmacht would often soon be followed by the SS who would of course be far less friendly to the civilians.
As far as I can tell, things generally got progressively worse throughout WW2 as the older soldiers died out and were replaced by younger soldiers who had been raised under the nazi rule and were thus far more likely to just follow the orders and believe the ideology.
An extreme example of this is the last ditch attempt at the end of the war where they tried to raise a militia of what were essentially still children to protect the mostly defeated fatherland against the "invaders".
I think it helps to remember events like the Christmas truce in 1914 when thinking about WW2: yes, the nazis were far worse than any of the powers in the Great War before that, but initially a lot of the soldiers were simply German soldiers, not "nazi" soldiers. And even those that would eventually "earn" that label would often do so for far more complex reasons than just being "evil demon soldiers".
For example, the idea of racial supremacy (which was popular in many other places than Germany at that time, btw) coupled with the economic changes caused by the seizure of Jewish properties, horrible as it was, meshed well with the less educated and less well-off segments of the population. If your life is in the gutter, it can be very uplifting to be told you're special because you're part of the master race. Especially if that is combined with a clear enemy (the treacherous Jews sabotaged the wealth you deserve) and what at that moment superficially seemed like a change for the better (look up the opinions of other European leaders about Hitler in the years before WW2 if you find the time -- it's pretty disconcerting).
Basically, Hollywood tropes aside, I doubt that there were as many hardcore nazis as you'd think. There were a lot of war crimes and a lot of crimes against humanity, of course, and the Holocaust is one of the worst things that happened in the last century, but I don't think you need to be a truly evil person to do unspeakable things -- and IMO that's the real lesson here.
As a German I'm anxious about the direction the US (in particular) is heading, not because I worry they could become Hollywood-style "evil" but because it's so easy to end up in a situation where you don't even realise what you're contributing to until sufficient time has passed. I'm certain most people who ended up contributing to the horrors of the Third Reich had no idea what they were doing even if from the perspective of today you'd think it must have been crystal clear to them at the time.
Your last two paragraphs really touched on the heart of my curiosity, since the aformentioned documentaries I saw did convey what you described about "normal soldiers", their experiences and the changes their society underwent is as you say a critical piece of understanding how to avoid it, one which we're taught very little about (at least in my American education.)
Either they are outnumbered enough to not be able to make a difference, or they're in the majority and thus complicit in those immoral acts because they allow the minority (of "bad" cops) to go by unpunished.
Which one is it? Is there something else at play that's preventing the majority (of "good" cops) from fixing the problem?
If this makes the "cops who care" uncomfortable, they should put the blame squarely on the "cops who don't care" not on me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
The police do not have a duty to protect you [nytimes]. Why do you have a duty to help them?
[nytimes] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
(If you intend to downvote, please kindly leave a note as to why I am wrong.)
"it's the sort of cynicism that leads to [...] making sure your rights are respected"
I like to think of it as maintaining a preemptive strategy. I don't like this, but the world we live in is unfair and full of assholes who don't play by their own rules.
> How can you describe it as a strategy for "making sure your rights are respected"?
A man who faces no wars carries no battle scars.
> It is on its face an attempt to make the question of whether you have rights or not a no-impact detail.
Your total lack of knowledge about Northern Ireland is showing. Try walking down the Falls Road or Shankill in Belfast, and see if you see a homogenous community (for bonus points, go into any bar in the area flying either a Irish or UK flag proudly, and see if you find much agreement about segregation or firearms). I had a friend in school in Ireland whose family moved from Belfast (in late 1990s!) because he and his brothers were badly beaten for being Catholic. But I'm sure that was a mistake, as they were an ethnically homogenous population.
Disarmament was a critical and controversial part of the peace process.
Also, there are parties on both sides of the divide who are still armed; it's just the largest and most politically engaged groups who are no longer armed.
Whereas the case for firearm ownership in the US is ostensibly to call to arms a militia to overthrow a tyrannical government, what has actually happened is the populace are too busy shooting each other to realise tyranny.
Although, I think, to believe what I just wrote requires a bunch of biases and leaps of faith with regard to rates of violence governmental tyranny. I'm reading Steven Pinker's 'The Better Angels of Our Nature', which is doing a good job of highlighting that, even in the US, violence has decreased over time.
Edit: a word
What I think you mean to say is "populations that are treated with equal discretion and respect by police, and, when they are very young, by school discipline."
Otherwise someone might think you are a racist.