No, we don't. Please see post 977.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
The Australian "custody sisters"
- Thread starter Charlie Wilkes
- Start date
No, we don't. Please see post 977.
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
I'm looking at post 913, where you respond to smartcooky as follows:
Your original statement can be paraphrased as:
because the girls, who were abducted(kidnapped, taken away, whatever label you want to hang on the act) by their mother, now want to stay with their mother, they should be allowed to.
To test this idea, the question was asked: if children were abducted(or whatever label you want to hang on the act) by a stranger and later expressed the same desire as these girls to stay with their abductor, should they be allowed to?
Intellectual honesty is all I ask of anyone.
If kerokiwi is paraphrasing me, I said that the children's interests are paramount, not their wishes. This is something many disagree with, but I do not resize from it.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
So someone from the court moves in because the kids wanted to stay with her and you hold that above all.
What should have happened? Be clear for the first time what you think the police should have done.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
So they should have been pulled out of that toxic situation with their mothers crazy family? So you agree with what happened then right?
I'm not going to comment on this trollish post other than point out that it's typical of the irrational hatred of the mother. "Toxic"? "Crazy"?.
Yeah, Skepticism 101.
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
I'm not going to comment on this trollish post other than point out that it's typical of the irrational hatred of the mother. "Toxic"? "Crazy"?.
Yeah, Skepticism 101.
I think it's pretty clear that the mother can be described as "toxic", if by that one means that she poisoned the minds of her children over the last two years. If she's crazy or not I'd leave for a court to decide.
It was clearly in the childrens' best interest to get as far away from their kidnappers as possible.
Clearly? Absolutely rubbish. It's arguable at best.
It is intellectually dishonest to claim I insisted this case be evaluated against a hypothetical case in which the abductor was a stranger.
I was not evaluating this case at all, merely the assertion that the children's wishes should be paramount. I simply offered a hypothetical to demonstrate that the claim as stated was probably not what was meant.
Can you show the post where anyone said that the children's wishes should be paramount?
joesixpack
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,531
Yes, it is far more arguable than letting them remain with their demonstrably unfit mother.
In fact, allowing them to remain with the mother is not arguable at all.
joesixpack
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,531
I'll take a stab at that. The children should have been separated from the mother days before the departure and held incommunicado. They should have had some time with a child psychologist during that time, and the transfer to the airport and the boarding of the plane should have been done with the press kept completely in the dark.
This in no was absolves the mother of her horrible actions , of course (or the press, for that matter). I think that justice was served by repatriating the children, I just think it could have been served a bit better. I think that's what DreamingNiad is suggesting.
Holding the children in solitary confinement would have been good for them?
(You've been using ridiculous hyperbole throughout this thread, it's my turn now).
joesixpack
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,531
Perhaps you could point me to the hyperbolic statements?
Oh, where to start without going through this whole thread. How about ******* crazy mother to begin with?
I mean, seriously, you don't see your use of hyperbole? And your highly emotional responses? Seriously?
I see a few comments suggesting that people have blind faith in the law and authorities.
I can't for the life of me find where anyone argued that position. Practically the whole world has laws concerning the protection and representation of children.
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the only way we can entertain the argument; "it should/could have been handled better", is if we ignore these laws and protocols.
That is not blind faith. It's just how it is. Maybe people aren't being clear. Maybe what they're trying to say is; "we need to modify the Hague convention."
Maybe we do. Fact is we live in a world full of law and regulation. The alternatives are pretty grim.
So the argument is "Australia should have told Italy to 'go jump', because it's upsetting for the law to be applied in this case".
Or
"The father is an ***hole for wanting his children to come HOME".
Instead of, "We need to re-assess these laws and the way we enforce them".
Which is still a pretty weak argument in light of the evidence.
Nobody has offered a 'real world' solution yet. All we have is "it was cruel/brutal/violent."
Meanwhile, back in reality, the law was enforced to protect the best interests of the children, and to the letter of the law. How can this be wrong?
I can't for the life of me find where anyone argued that position. Practically the whole world has laws concerning the protection and representation of children.
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the only way we can entertain the argument; "it should/could have been handled better", is if we ignore these laws and protocols.
That is not blind faith. It's just how it is. Maybe people aren't being clear. Maybe what they're trying to say is; "we need to modify the Hague convention."
Maybe we do. Fact is we live in a world full of law and regulation. The alternatives are pretty grim.
So the argument is "Australia should have told Italy to 'go jump', because it's upsetting for the law to be applied in this case".
Or
"The father is an ***hole for wanting his children to come HOME".
Instead of, "We need to re-assess these laws and the way we enforce them".
Which is still a pretty weak argument in light of the evidence.
Nobody has offered a 'real world' solution yet. All we have is "it was cruel/brutal/violent."
Meanwhile, back in reality, the law was enforced to protect the best interests of the children, and to the letter of the law. How can this be wrong?
Last edited:
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
The only evidence presented that the courts and police got it wrong thus far has been the video.
Everything else has been poisoning the well, assumptions, assertions, speculation, and of course waxing about how other courts in other places have gotten other things wrong.
Everything else has been poisoning the well, assumptions, assertions, speculation, and of course waxing about how other courts in other places have gotten other things wrong.
Yes, the law was enforced to the letter. That this is in the best interests of the children is far from evident. How can you say this with such certainty? The children don't seem to think so, and although this is not the wholly deciding factor, it is a factor. Don't you think the children's feelings should play a crucial role in deciding their best interests?
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
It did enter into it and it will again.
Seriously, this keeps coming up. The idea that the wishes of the children were not taken into account simply because the decision didn't match the wishes of the children is simply not accurate.
BINGO! That's all there is to it. The best interests of the children were constantly considered throughout this case. It's why it took so long.
The appeals were all without substance, yet allowed to stand over and again. If the court wasn't considering the best interests of the children, they would have been bundled off as soon as the father began legal proceedings. They weren't.
We can't have everything both ways. I'd rather have something like the Hague convention in place than no agreement to guarantee the return of children abducted from Australia or the U.S, U.K, N.Z and elsewhere.