Donate SIGN UP

Should The Children Of Islamic Radicals Be Taken Into Care?

Avatar Image
anotheoldgit | 13:17 Mon 03rd Mar 2014 | News
64 Answers
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 64rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
More populist extremism which does nothing but inflame the situation, and alienate moderate muslims. Small wonder the impressionable flock to their fundamentalist groups.
A publicity seeking stunt IMO and in answer to your question no I would never advocate removing children from their parents over their religious beliefs unless those beliefs could be shown to be detrimental to the health and well being of the child.
The answer as far as I am concerned is for all children to be educated in state run schools with no religion on the agenda.
The more these children are integrated into a western civilised society the less likely they are to become radicalised.
I see the benefits to the children and society but it is a dangerous area adding reasons for authorities to remove a child from it's parents. I think one still needs to judge each case on it's merits and decide when something becomes child abuse. Maybe if the parent is a known fanatical they may mean most times the ok is given to remove the child, but it ought not be automatic.
Question Author
chrisgel

/// I would never advocate removing children from their parents over their religious beliefs unless those beliefs could be shown to be detrimental to the health and well being of the child. ///

Don't you think that perhaps blowing themselves up when they become a little older isn't reason enough?

And it would certainly be detrimental to their health.

/// The answer as far as I am concerned is for all children to be educated in state run schools with no religion on the agenda.
The more these children are integrated into a western civilised society the less likely they are to become radicalised. ///

Surely you are not really naive enough to believe that are you?
Question Author
Old_Geezer

I don't think it is being suggested that it becomes automatic.

/// The Mayor wrote in the Daily Telegraph: ‘A child may be taken into care if he or she is being exposed to pornography, or is being abused – but not if the child is being habituated to this utterly bleak and nihilistic view of the world that could lead them to become murderers. ///

Even by Mr Johnson's hair-brained tendencies, this is one of the mosy ludicrous, and simultaneously sinister ideas I have ever heard!

George Orwell told of a fatalistic future with his nightmare of The Thought Police - and Mr Johnson wishes to make it a reality.

You cannot remove children from their parents on the basis that they 'might be radicalised'. How on earth is anyone supposed to measure a nebulous concept like that?

Where do we stop? Should we remove children from 'country people' in case they grow up to indulge in blood sports?

Do we remove children from all Jehovah's Witnesses in case they ever need, and are denied medical attention?

The whole idea smacks of blatant Nazi ideology - the idea of constructing a society on the basis of what people 'may' or 'may not' say or do in their own homes.

Mr Johnson should be ashamed of himself for pontificating such arrant nonsense.

Perhaps he shouold ponder the removal of his own children lest they be 'radicalised' into being right-wing crackpots when they grow up - after following his example.
AOG

First of all, would we not have to define what an Islamist radical' is? I couldn't disagree with the notion of the children of convicted terrorists being taken into care, but we would have to be careful about what call a 'radical'.

I would agree that someone who brings their children up to hate the notion of western freedoms, to actively hate those who are not Muslim and (most importantly) to carry out acts if violence based on these views should indeed have their children removed from them...

But in practical terms - how would this work?

Would we limit it to the children of convicted terrorists? Or spread the net wider to those who have been convicted of encouraging terrorism? Or wider still, and include those who follow strict religious doctrines which we strongly disagree with?

And should we only target Muslims?
SP, it should be quite easy. If you are convicted of any terrorist act, even supporting it then yes, the children should be removed for their own sake. If you are not convicted then no.

And yes, it should apply to all, not just Islamic fundamentalists.
The mantra of the welfare services is always that it is the 'best interest of the children that is most important', yet in practice intolerant religions of whatever flavour trump every other consideration..
youngmafbog - that is agreeing with Mr Johsnon's sweeping generalisation that all children will automatically follow in their parents' footsteps, which is an utter nonsense.

My father was an alcoholic wife-beater, I am neither, but under Mr Johnson's scheme, I should have been removed, in case I became as he was - it is funny, were it not so sinister and deeply frightening, that a man in a potential position of power can not only think like this, but think it out loud where other people can hear him.
////First of all, would we not have to define what an Islamist radical' is?////

Its very easy. Who ever does not agree with Western policies or especially American poilicies is a radical.
Nonsense, Keyplus!
Personally I think children in families with any kind of extreme ideaoogy, Islam/right wing christian/medicine hating but homeopathic loving etc should be instantly removed. But that will be with just my dictatorship head on rather than a practical soluition.

I do believe that there should be no religiously run state schools and that religion should be seperated out completely from politics where in my opinion, it has no place.
keyplus90

Hmmm...that sounds like a massive can of worms being opened.

Those who opposed the Iraq war could easily be swept up in to that category. I am sure that there are hundreds if thousands, if not millions, of people around the country who opposed the war, but wouldn't call themselves 'radicals'.

youngmafbog - I understand your argument that the children of those who have been convicted of committing an act of terrorism would be better off removed from their homes, but there are complications there too.

What if the father bombs an army barracks, is tried and convicted, but his wife knew nothing of his radicalism? Should she lose her children?



The murderer of Lee Rigby was brought up by strict Christians not muslims. I fear as usual, Boris is a bit muddled.

Tommy Robinson is currently languishing in jail. Should we go to his house and round up his three kids?

-- answer removed --
Careful Ratter, when they've finished with all the Islamic 'radicals', they'll come for all the White British Radicals as well ... and that means you!
Sounds exactly what the junta did in Chile. There they stole the children of Lefties and had them brought up by military families.
As an idea, it stinks.

1 to 20 of 64rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Should The Children Of Islamic Radicals Be Taken Into Care?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.