Looks like the Germans haven't changed much since the days of Hitler. The Nazis took the children away from parents and raised them the way they wanted them to be - good little puppets of the state.
Germans Could Have Their Children Snatched For Anti-Migrant Facebook Posts


Opposing influx of “refugees” puts people at risk of being fired

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
September 29, 2015



Germans who make racist anti-migrant posts could have their children snatched by the state and be fired from their jobs, according to the German Lawyers’ Association.

In an article entitled Racism and parenting: Threatening loss of custody?, lawyer Eva Becker, Chair of the Working Group on Family Law in the German Bar Association, outlines the conditions under which “xenophobic” Facebook posts could lead to parents being targeted.

Although Becker asserts that merely opposing the settlement of migrants in Germany would not lead to parental rights being terminated, such views could easily lead to someone being fired from their job.

Expressing a desire for violence against the migrants would constitute evidence enough for a family court to remove children from the home, according to Becker.

While this appears to be a high bar, idle threats of violence are made by countless people on the Internet every day, with the vast majority going completely unpunished.

Given the apparent cover-up of rapes being committed by “migrants” in Germany, the notion of an irate father making violent comments in a ‘heat of the moment’ Facebook rant is entirely plausible. Although such comments are obviously abhorrent, should they really lead to children being taken away from their parents by the state?

Becker suggests that racist and xenophobic statements made in the presence of a child that constitute a “negative influence” would also be investigated by the authorities.

Becker advises ex-partners to collect screenshots of Facebook comments and other Internet activity if they are considering bringing a case before the family court.

As we highlighted yesterday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was caught on a hot mic discussing plans with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to censor anti-migrant Facebook posts in Germany.

“Are you working on this?” Merkel asked. “Yeah,” Zuckerberg responded before their microphone was cut.

Those found guilty of “refugee baiting” remarks will be hit with fines up to €5000 euros or 120 days in jail. The program will be overseen by Network Against Nazis (Netz gegen Nazis), a group led by left-wing activist Anetta Kahane.

As we previously reported, Kahane worked as a Stasi informant under the codename “Victoria” from 1974-1982. The Stasi’s role was to spy on the population of East Germany and to use its vast network of informants to hunt down political dissidents.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/germans-...ook-posts.html


Translated version - GERMANY has a lot of experience with putting children in camps to raise them way that they want them.

"CONCERNED CITIZENS"
Racism and parenting: Threatening loss of custody?

In all matters relating to custody and access is only one at the center: the child's welfare.
Source: DeMeyer / gettyimages.de

The discussion about reception and accommodation of refugees promotes some pleasant but also shocking pages of Deutsche evident: More and more people speak out "concerned" to openly xenophobic or even demonstrate against refugee homes.This can these people not only cost Facebook and real friendships, but also their jobs. Can it have an impact on the access and custody of their child? That should especially mothers and fathers interested, the joint with a xenophobic active ex-partner educate her child - and worry that the child by him or the wrong values ​​are taught, they fall into the wrong circles, respectively.

"Children can not properly classify much, they are so much more suggestible than adults," explains lawyer Eva Becker, Chair of the Working Group on Family Law in the German Bar Association (DAV). However, when it therefore go, the access rights to restrict a parent or to withdraw, first count only one thing: the welfare of the child.
It is one of the child's welfare - and common sense

This means that the political or religious convictions of a parent only has an effect on rights of the child when it is jeopardized. If one parent has only a controversial opinion, is not enough that to deprive him of the right of access or restrict.Responsible for this is the Family Court.

Where is the line? "What counts is the common sense, common sense," says Eva Becker. A dramatic example: Anyone who says that it would prefer it if in his neighborhood no Syrian refugees would live, so that the child's welfare is not tangent. Does a father or a mother, however before the child that would be best to kill all the refugees, it clearly exceeds thus the critical limit.

Worse than statements generally weigh actions: There is something else to talk in the presence of the child with friends disparagingly of asylum seekers, as the child take to xenophobic demonstrations. But even here, not one action per se, but the impact on the child. A mother who attends the lectures of a so-called hate preacher, while the child is in daycare, and in time with the child about the content of these sermons says nothing, thereby jeopardizing not the child's welfare.

Criminality not initially decisive

When handling legal matters, it is also only once irrespective of whether the parent is liable to prosecution with his statements or actions. This also applies to outside political commitment. Another example: One of the parents has been active in the drug scene as a dealer and therefore was attacked and beaten on several occasions.He would probably get no visitation rights with the child - but not (only) because of criminal activities, but also because a renewed attack is likely and thus the child is in danger.

Even apolitical, harmful influence can cost visitation rights

Negative influence of the child, which can lead to the deprivation of rights, may not always be politically. So it'll be before that grandparents trying to incite the child against the ex-son-or ex-daughter. You may have been always against the parents' relationship and are now trying the discharge over the child. In such a case, which can deal with the grandparents will be banned.

Accompanied or reduced handling possible

What opportunities have mothers and fathers now, to protect the child from the negative influence of the other parent or other relatives? Is the child's welfare at risk, the right of access is often initially limited. A accompanied handling is possible. Then, for example, is a teacher present at the meeting who can intervene if necessary. It is also possible to prohibit certain acts, manifestations or meetings in the presence of the child.

Loss of custody only ultimate consequence

The affected parent Displays unreasonable or he does not change his behavior, give him or her the handling can be completely denied. So far, only talk of the rights of access - it is suspected that a parent influences the child in the wrong direction, this is first restricted. The Custody, which is mainly about decisions about the child is deprived of one parent only in the final analysis. Suspected to be occupied

The question remains: Suppose you suspected that the ex-partner the child conveys values ​​that can damage it - how could that prove? Lawyer Becker admits: "In oral statements word against statement. The affected parent can deny everything afterwards. "The statements of children could of course be considered. However, I'm on the age and maturity of the child.

"As a rule, the court must, however, not solely rely on the information from children. Often is also known from other sources that he who moves in circles critical or more often, for example, expresses xenophobic ", informed the family law expert from Berlin. Be so, are also given easy evidence and witnesses.

Racism on the Internet? Collect screenshots and printouts

The Internet in general and social networks in particular, the possibility to provide excellent services. Who is concerned about the attitude of an ex-partner, could be found confirmed in his comments, what he suspected. Attorney Becker advises to make the relevant pages of screenshots or print the pages. If it came to the process, such evidence may be helpful.

Youth welfare office does not always turn on offer

Many wonder also when the youth welfare office must inform. "That one must not" informed Eva Becker. "Sometimes it's even better not to do that." If you'd had earlier conflicts with an employee of the Youth Welfare Office, it was unhelpful to or contact with his worries to him or her.

If you suspect the first step should be to reach agreement with the other parent in a two-person conversation to establish a basic consensus of values ​​to be conveyed.

When should you turn on a lawyer?

If you suspect that your ex-partner their child may face harmful influences, and a private conversation leads to no solution, you should appoint a lawyer. A lawyer or a lawyer can tell you how to behave in a particular case and what documents you need for it. A family law expert can also decide whether it makes sense to turn to the Youth Welfare Office or not. Because: While youth welfare offices for working families, struggling lawyers for the parents. Here you find a lawyer or a family law attorney in your area.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&<acronym title="JavaScript"><acronym title="JavaScript"><acronym title="JavaScript"><acronym title="JavaScript">js</acronym></acronym></acronym></acronym>=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A//anwaltauskunft.de/magazin/leben/ehe-familie/1178/rassismus-und-kindererziehung-droht-verlust-des-umgangsrechtes/&edit-text=