
Germany Seizes Children in Homeschool Raid - thejteam
http://hslda.org/hs/international/Germany/201308300.asp
======
superuser2
I'm surprised to see HN jumping to support the right of parents to raise
children in ideologically-driven information vacuums.

Censorship by parents is censorship, too. Learning to think critically and
being presented with information which may challenge your parents' religious
beliefs are basic freedom of speech and freedom of information principles. I
would call them human rights.

Let human beings decide for themselves whether to disregard science, believe
in God, believe the Bible is literally true, etc. I'd rather have a little
state overreach than fundamentalists whose beliefs have solidified before they
were ever even exposed to ideas that didn't fit their parents' version of
reality. That's bad for politics, bad for science, and unfair to the children.

Everyone has a right to at least be presented with the scientific view of the
world. They don't have to believe it, and their parents can certainly offer
alternative views at home. But in my mind a child is a person with at least
some rights which supersede those of her parents. Education has got to be one
of them.

~~~
rickjames28
You're actually surprised to see HN folks coming to the defense of
parents/individual rights and against statist intervention into every aspect
of a person's life?

I think it's pretty clear that you leftists believe that the state really
"owns" the children. That's a sad thing to see here on HN.

~~~
wonderzombie
You'll get a lot more out of a discussion if you don't argue with a caricature
of your interlocutor's opinions. I'd _love_ to go on about about libertarian
ties to right-wing, Christianist movements, which themselves are inextricable
from white supremacy and a hostility towards women, but it's unfair to assume
that you, personally, hold any such beliefs.

So let's talk about children, and the state.

The state believes that _parents do not own their children_. This is
relatively uncontroversial, if you want somebody to be able to protect
children from the depredations of shitty parents. Kids are fragile and easily
influenced, and they can't make adult decisions. They're defenseless,
_particularly_ against their parents.

Generally education is considered critical to a child's welfare, and for good
reason. Basic literacy and arithmetic are important if you're to have
citizenry capable of participating in a democracy.

Put it all together and perhaps you see why a society might be just a wee bit
concerned about how parents treat their children, including whether and how
they educate them.

~~~
jlgreco
> _The state believes that parents do not own their children._

I think the fundamental problem here is that some people believe that children
simply must be owned by _somebody_ so when you say _" parents do not own their
children"_ their mind automatically inserts _"...instead, the state does."_

Of course children are not owned _at all_. Neither parents nor the state owns
them.

If parents abuse their children, it is the responsibility of the state to
intervene; just as if a homeless man mugs you, it is the responsibility of the
state to intervene. If somebody abuses their elderly parents, it is again the
responsibility of the state to intervene (yet nobody thinks that implies that
the state owns the elderly...). What do we pay them for, if not to provide
protection from other dangerous members of society?

~~~
superuser2
You hit the nail on the head. I was trying to understand Rick James's
position, and it occurred to me that if you thought of parents as having the
right to total and complete control over everything about their child (as some
conservatives do) - what we're calling ownership - then the thought of
transferring that right to the state is indeed pretty disgusting.

Commenters are articulating this pretty well, though. Children have their own
rights, and the state enforces them. Even a "ward of the state" is not _owned_
by the state, the state is just the entity which is currently responsible for
meeting his needs.

------
GabrielF00
The Home School Legal Defense Association helped kill American ratification of
the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Killing US
ratification of this treaty, which would have helped extend rights that the US
pioneered to people overseas, was absolutely abhorrent. The UN treaty was
essentially based on existing American law, was ratified by 130+ nations and
had no potential impact on American education. You may remember that Bob Dole
was wheeled onto the Senate floor to urge ratification. Homeschool advocates
opposition was based on disinformation ("the UN is going to take your kids") I
would take anything they have to say with a grain of salt.

~~~
rdtsc
Yes I don't completely buy their argument. This appeals to Americans quite a
bit because there is significant homeschooling compared to other "Western
Countries" (Just a hunch, I couldn't find much unbiased data on this).

It seems _sometimes_ the reason, with one case in my own circle of friends, is
the bad quality of local public schools.

However I think large number of cases are related to religious education.

I believe that is the intended goal of the German law. To not let parent teach
children about God's miracles and water can be turned into wine if you pray
hard enough, or how dinosaurs went clubbing with Adam and Eve and stuff like
that.

We are battling crazies in Southern states who are pushing this crap even into
the public schools. So I believe in this country these German families will
find many sympathetic years.

Now, the question I don't know is, how bad is the quality of schools in
Germany. Are gangs, bullying, racism pervasive? I can see an argument made in
that case, otherwise, sorry, I'll side with the majority of Germans
(presumably as a democracy they could have overturned this law many years
ago).

~~~
einhverfr
I think there is something much larger at stake though.

The question as you put it, I think, is whether culture should be allowed to
arise from the grass roots or whether it should be formed by the state in
public schools.

You put it in one way but what about when it comes down to cultural values? We
have extended the definition of bullying so far as to cover stated ideological
opinions in the US, and therefore we use public school (as I think you are
advocating btw) to destroy the diversity and pluralism that has traditionally
underscored our society. But what if Indian immigrants want to teach that
there is value in the caste system? Must the state use public schools to try
to stamp out such a view?

I am btw a large proponent of homeschooling because I think it represents a
way for parents to take control of passing culture on to the next generation
and that this helps encourage a tolerant and pluralistic society. If Indians
want to teach that the caste system is a noble part of India's heritage, bully
for them. If Catholics want to teach that radical individualism is harmful,
and that marriage is extremely important because it supports the key
relationships that hold society together, particularly between parents,
grandparents, and children, bully for them.

Accepting and encouraging such diversity is important for our nation.
Encouraging culture at the grass roots, I think, is universally important, and
it is worth noting that public schools have been, since the time of Lycurgus,
an institution intended to destroy that role, and foster the primary loyalty
not to one's parents or family but to the state. While this may have worked in
ancient Sparta on that scale without destroying the local nature of culture,
it cannot scale to the level of a modern country.

I can't help but think about this in relation to the responses I get every
time I suggest that the US should try to implement a Canada-style state-by-
state single payer system for health care. A few on the right get upset at any
notion of single payer, apparently believing that "private sector" is a
magical incantation of great power, but the big objections I get are from the
left. "But we can't let Alabama run their own health care system! That would
be a disaster!" is one typical response. It is as if the role of the
government in a democratic country is there to save people from democracy and
that, paraphrasing Orwell (in "Animal Farm"), that people are free to make
decisions as long as it is decisions that those in power like. But what if
families should take responsibility for raising children? What if the general
problems of state government belong properly to the residents of that state
(aside from things which clearly violate the Constitution, including the Equal
Protection Clause, of course)?

I don't understand this hostility towards localism.

~~~
rdtsc
Thank you for a good reply, it was a well thought out post.

> I don't understand this hostility towards localism.

I wonder if tolerance for diversity should also include tolerating other
countries making their own laws, in this case Germany. It is a democratic
country, apparently the majority don't mind this ban on homeschooling. Now
yes, I am speaking from a far away perception. Anyone from Germany please help
us out here. Is this this seen as such an egregious abuse of power people's
power is just not enough to overturn it or is this what most would agree with?

> The question as you put it, I think, is whether culture should be allowed to
> arise from the grass roots or whether it should be formed by the state in
> public schools.

I think you might have slightly misread my comment though. It wasn't my
intention to say that this law (making homeschooling illegal) should be
enacted here in US. I recognize that it probably wouldn't pass and it might
not be right.

According to stats I found on some .gov site (after 3 seconds of searching) is
that about 3% of students in 2007 were home-schooled in US. The number was
rising. So it might be higher now. Some states only let parent who have a
masters degree or higher to home school their children, that is an interesting
approach.

My original point was more about saying how some countries might choose to
make it illegal and I agree with that. Given public schools are safe and
decent and provide a good baseline of education. Lack of emphasis on
individualism and cultural expression is just well not part of their culture.

Now going back to US or I guess discussing home schooling in general. It seems
some things are complimentary -- say one can teach their child to do math in a
better way, more efficient, and more intuitive. In general (with exception, I
agree) that is complimentary with what they maybe learning in school.

Others are not, like maybe the example with creationism, or how we teach
history -- "telling them American Indians were exterminated using bio
terrorism by the US government" vs implying that the settlers came to this
lush, empty continent, like a God's promised land, with a few native
inhabitants who strangely chose to live in mosquito infested swaps or the most
absolute dry and inhospitable canyons. There is a propaganda and mentality
shaping going on. But it is both ways. Because teaching kids about how great
the caste system is or about how the earth is 5000 years old is also
borderline on child abuse in my book. I don't usually subscribe to all
cultures are just as good. There are fucked up beliefs and fucked up societal
conventions. So I imagine that would be the argument against it ( I am not
really sharply for one or the other in US, I haven't made my mind yet).

> But what if families should take responsibility for raising children?

But what if they are crippling them should they be allowed? Putting them in a
compound and telling them about trumpets on the hill or how there are lizard
aliens living among us, instead of learning about integrals and derivatives.
Can't you see how perhaps other countries' citizens might agree with having
the government step in.

> It is as if the role of the government in a democratic country is there to
> save people from democracy

I guess it is inevitable that we'd end up discussing generalized political
stuff. But alright, we are already in it. The role of the government in the
democratic society, ideally, the way I see is to work for the people. People
want protection from foreign invaders, they make their taxes into tanks, they
want to drive everywhere, they make taxes into roads, they want healthcare,
they turn taxes into subsidized pills and doctors' visits. I also don't
understand the big obsession in this country with "let the states do it" vs
"let the federal government do it". Does it really matter that much. If
Alabama can do it, let it do it, if it is easier on the federal level, let's
do it there. The reality is -- it hasn't happened. We are stuck with a broken
piece of shit health care system.

~~~
derwagner
> It is a democratic country, apparently the majority don't mind this ban on
> homeschooling. Now yes, I am speaking from a far away perception. Anyone
> from Germany please help us out here. Is this this seen as such an egregious
> abuse of power people's power is just not enough to overturn it or is this
> what most would agree with?

In Germany, no-one cares about homeschooling. Other than some neo-nazis,
religious cults, and some Christians who believe their children's minds would
be poisoned if they were exposed to regular children, that is.

In Germany, this is seen as religious wing-nuts not getting their way, nothing
more.

~~~
hga
Errr, rather obviously the state cares a lot about it as well.

------
emhs
Absent any evidence of abuse, true neglect (homeschooling doesn't count,
regardless of Germany's laws on the matter), or other violation of a
worthwhile law, this can only be considered further evidence of consolidation
of power in the hands of the State and governmental overreach.

~~~
fennecfoxen
The best part is that even in the US, after a family of homeschoolers sought
and obtained asylum from Germany here, our own Department of Justice appealed
the court decision and asked to have them deported, making excuses about how
the goal of the mandatory public schooling is so laudable (tolerance etc).

Other fun facts to point out:

* the German government is officially going to "look for possibilities to _bring the religious convictions of the family into line_ with the unalterable school attendance requirement"

* the laws that eliminated the homeschooling option literally date back to the Hitler regime.

~~~
skylan_q
_the laws that eliminated the homeschooling option literally date back to the
Hitler regime._

It goes further back. The Prussian regime was basically the founder of our
current institutionalized public education system in the west as we know it
today.

~~~
fennecfoxen
Yes, but from what I understand you could still get a couple of loopholes and
exemptions in the pre-Hitler Youth era.

------
rafski
As a natural extension of a welfare state paradigm, children are property of
the state and parents are merely temporarily assigned guardians.

In Germany and Norway, children are taken from their families on a decision of
a social worker, no court is needed. All it takes is a teacher's report
stating that a kid is "sad".

Google "Jugendamt" to read the horror stories. A classic scenario involves
forbidding a divorced foreign parent to speak in their non-German language
with their kid, ever.

------
gallamine
"Authorities even took the children’s passports, making it impossible for the
family to escape ... "

Now that's low. How is that even legal?

~~~
barry-cotter
Passports are state property, they don't belong to you. Besides, they're the
state's children, they're just letting the biological parents mind them.
Should they be found deficient, better parents can be found.

~~~
rickjames28
What do you mean "they're the state's children"?

~~~
barry-cotter
That was hyperbole, sarcasm or cynicism depending on how charitable one feels
like being. There's no Schnelling point between children are their parents and
children are the state's. The trend is definitely towards the state. That's
the entire point of things like Child Protection Services, declaring people
unfit parents, etc.

But what I said was bitter libertarian snark influenced by reading
homeschooling/unschooling stuff and the tiny children's rights movement.

------
shrnky
The majority of comments from the illustrious Hacker News crowd seem to
indicate we are disturbingly at ease with the Persecution of homeschoolers.

I feel as long as students are making the grade on standardized tests, there
shouldn't be an issue.

This works out perfect for both parties. Whatever aspect of public schools the
parent takes exception to can be avoided and the kid still get's an eduction.

By forcing parents to send their children to public schools you are in effect
giving the perception of indoctrination.

~~~
icebraining
They don't force children to be sent to public schools - private schools are
specifically protected by the German constitution.

~~~
hga
Is it safe to assume they cost money and/or are regulated by the state?

~~~
icebraining
Probably both, yes.

------
jimzvz
This is disgusting.

Which is the best country in the world to raise children? It needs to be safe,
have little government interference, have exposure to "the real world", a
culture of hard work, an open culture that is receptive to a multitude of
ideas about the world, have challenging problems, multi-lingual, etc. Any
ideas?

------
nhangen
Meanwhile, here in Florida (USA), we have a state sponsored virtual school
system that doesn't require a single step inside of a school building. Maybe
that's one thing we get right here.

------
rafski
At least it's an ethos.

------
rickjames28
Just another example of socialist statism run amok. You would think with
German's recent past, the authorities would be wary of snatching kids from
their parents and putting them who knows where.

~~~
hga
Indeed. Every time someone jokes " _It sounded better in the original German_
" I think of cases like these and think " _It still does_ ".

~~~
sentenza
You are aware that one of the reasons we do this is to take away parents
ability to indoctrinate their children in a nationalist ideology?

In German _public_ schools, children learn about the Holocaust, the Wars, the
STASI multiple times over the course of their education, with progressing
depth of discussion as they grow older. How many other states educate their
resident children on the bad parts of their history this thorroughly?

Sorry, but your views from afar are quite skewed.

~~~
hga
I'm sure it's skewed from your viewpoint, but that doesn't automatically mean
it's invalid.

In this case, my most general principle is that the ends do not justify the
means.

More specifically, the danger I see is in the totalitarian method, where the
state requires that "You must believe _this_ ", be it National Socialism in
the '30s and '40s, or after that Communism (till ~1990) or Social Democracy.
As long as the state uses this method, and the people are sufficiently
comfortable with it, _what_ the state is insisting that you believe is
obviously subject to change.

" _How many other states educate their resident children on the bad parts of
their history this thorroughly?_ "

How many states feel they have a _burning need_ to educate their children on
the bad parts of their history? Which of the ones that didn't murder millions
of their own people?

Then there are the results: Do any states need to self-extinguish? With a
fertility rate of 1.41, you're just about at the "lowest low" threshold of 1.3
from which societies don't recover. By the end of the next century this
discussion will be irrelevant, because there won't be any Germans left to
discuss it with....

