Testing The Boundaries

June 17, 2008
6:15 AM CST

“One other thing I think a conservative believes is that the parents, not government, are and should be responsible for the upbringing and behavior of their children.” —Lyn Nofziger

It’s a fine noble sentiment, and obviously one I subscribe to absolutely.

And then there are the Nazis:

Child and Family Services recently seized two young kids from a Winnipeg home based on concerns their father—an alleged neo-Nazi—was filling their heads and marking their bodies with messages of hate, the Free Press has learned.

The government agency is seeking a permanent order of guardianship based on ongoing concerns about the safety of the seven-year-old girl and two-year-old boy. A Court of Queen’s Bench case is ongoing, with the next hearing set for today. The Free Press is not publishing the names of the parents to protect the identity of the children.

“The children may be at risk due to the parents’ behaviour and associates. The parents might endanger the emotional well-being of the children,” CFS wrote in court documents obtained by the Free Press.

Winnipeg police confirmed their involvement in the case, which came to a head in late March when school officials raised concerns about the little girl. A source familiar with the case said she showed up one morning in class with disturbing scrawlings on her body, including a swastika and the common white-supremacist tag of “14/88.”

The number 14 refers to a familiar slogan containing 14 words—‘We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.’ The 88 represents the letters HH (the eighth in the alphabet) to mean “Heil Hitler.”

Const. Pat Chabidon confirmed the father was recently interviewed based on allegations he was involved in “hate crimes involving children.” Police had questioned him regarding similar concerns in 2005, he said.

And here’s where the fun begins.

Let’s not even go into a discussion of the existence of a law which contains the phrase “hate crimes involving children”, for the moment, and let’s forget that this precise scenario is taking place in Canada, because it, and ones like it, happen here as well. Instead, let’s just look at the thing from a philosophical perspective.

One of the most uncomfortable parts of living in a free society (not modern-day Canada; yet another topic for another time) is that the principles of freedom are seldom tested by decent people—mostly because decent people understand that along with freedom comes responsibility, and a self-imposed duty to stay within the boundaries of decency, except in the last resort.

Well, to some people [cue Nazi marching songs] the boundaries of decency are set a little differently, and thence the testing of tolerance begins.

We all know that freedom of speech does not include the ”Fire in the theater!” scenario, because of the actual harm which may follow. Yet we also know that Nazis are terrible people who, if left unchecked and unpunished, do horrible things to anyone not part of their little group. So we know that this repulsive ideology is a potential threat not only to individuals (Jews, Blacks, whoever) but also to society as a whole.

But I’ve never seen an asterisk on the First Amendment which states “except for Nazis”, although one can argue that there should be one thus labeled. We all know, however, that this is a dangerous precedent, because if you outlaw “hate crimes” like Nazism, the door is opened for any other -ism or philosophy to be likewise circumscribed.

It’s just unfortunate that in order to protect our general freedoms, we often have to take the side of the loathsome—and few are more loathsome than Nazis—in order to protect the principle. And the uncomfortable part of living in a free society is that you always run the risk of allowing the seeds of your own destruction to flourish, because, let’s face it, objectionable philosophies do not generally include “freedom of” anything in their principles.

This is why the Europeans generally try to be as free as possible, except where Nazis are concerned. Having had first-hand experience of said foul people, they have no qualms about drawing a line around that particular philosophy.

The point, though, is that we are not Europeans. Our society and laws are much stronger than theirs, and (so far) we have been able to tolerate hatefulness because it’s been confined to a few on the fringes.

At some point, however, we may have to start putting asterisks on the Constitution, and I just hope I’m not alive to see that day.

Society & Culture | Constitutional Principles | 1st Amendment |