The Australian "custody sisters"

[lionking]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Kids need to be raise by relatives that hate their ethnicity to make them know their worth. Lying scumbag Italians.

It's quite clear you are trolling, but could you troll without building strawmen?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by lionking

It's quite clear you are trolling, but could you troll without building strawmen?

What strawman? That is the environment they were rescued into. Clearly it is an enviroment you support or you just constantly ignore the evidence of the unfitnes of the eviroment they were "rescued" into.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by lionking

Wrong. Extremely faulty logic.

Wow.

It was dead on, and that's all you have?

Please explain exactly which part of this breakdown is even close to faulty:

Your claim:

Originally Posted by lionking

And what if the "kidnapping" is justified? There are certainly circumstances where this is so.

Examining your claim:

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

You appear to be saying there are cases where kidnapping is justified and illegal.

Because if it was not illegal she could just go tell the authorities the reason for the kidnapping, they would take care of it in the appropriate manner, and it would then cease to be a kidnapping.

Therefore, again, you must be saying it is justified and illegal, both at the same time.

And it follows from that that you must be saying that the current law is unjust.

Literally the only way your claim is logical is if you believe the current law is not just.

This is because if the current law is just, then she could just tell the authorities and it would cease to be kidnapping.

Again, if you are not claiming that the current law is unjust, your claim becomes illogical.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

If you would prefer not attempting to refute that breakdown you could just recant your claim:

Originally Posted by lionking

And what if the "kidnapping" is justified? There are certainly circumstances where this is so.

Alternately, if you again merely respond with just "you are wrong" I believe you know that we will read that as a clear concession.


Those are the 2 easy ways out. Or you could try and specifically address the logic. It's up to you.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Again, if you are not claiming that the current law is unjust, your claim becomes illogical.

Turning this round, your implied claim here is that a just law can never have unjust consequences. Is that what you believe?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Wow.

It was dead on, and that's all you have?

Please explain exactly which part of this breakdown is even close to faulty:

Your claim:



Examining your claim:




Literally the only way your claim is logical is if you believe the current law is not just.

This is because if the current law is just, then she could just tell the authorities and it would cease to be kidnapping.

Again, if you are not claiming that the current law is unjust, your claim becomes illogical.

Repeating your faulty logic doesn't make it correct.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by lionking

Are you saying I'm anti-father? You couldn't be more wrong.

My impression would be based on this;

Originally Posted by lionking

Is this based on mind reading?

I'd simply like someone to articulate why the children are better off with the father, other than saying it's the Italian law (which the Amanda Knox case shows isn't infallible). The opposite is usually the case.

Please clarify, otherwise I'm reading you correctly. The second bolded sentence seems to refer to the first bolded clause.

Originally Posted by lionking

You are too emotionally involved to have a sensible debate with at the moment.

Too emotionally involved? So far the ONLY argument against returning the girls to Italy has been that they were emotional when they were forced to do so.

Quote:

All of these comments are questionable, to say the least.

So far the only questionable comments I've seen have come from you and the other opponents of the Australian courts. They are not based on fact and they require a total suspension of critical thinking.

Quote:

If you actually read what I wrote, you will see that I never said the mother rescued the girls from the father.

I have read what you wrote. I wonder if you have?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking

Nope. One person's kidnapped is another person's rescued.

You have absolutely no evidence that the mother is unfit. I don't know of any mother who wouldn't do what she thought was in the best interests of her children, courts notwithstanding*. You are dealing in personal bias not fact.

Originally Posted by lionking

Oh, and replace "rescued" for "kidnapped" and see how your post reads.

Originally Posted by lionking

And what if the "kidnapping" is justified? There are certainly circumstances where this is so. .

I think we could be forgiven for thinking that you were suggesting it wasn't kidnapping based on these statements.

Quote:

And ******* crazy mother? That's a reasonable way to continue a debate?

I think I'll leave you with your absolute certainties. At least some others see shades of grey.

Absolute certainties? Oh, you mean "Facts"!

Tell me, do you see an alternative to returning the girls to Italy that would be just? I mean, so far what you advocate is that the girls be allowed to remain with their mother and the father should go kick rocks. If you have another suggestion then you should put it forward, otherwise don't complain about the strawmen.

* Clearly you don't know many mothers. They are not imbued with mystical powers of infallibility simply by giving birth. They are quite human and suffer the same defects as the rest of us mortals.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Turning this round, your implied claim here is that a just law can never have unjust consequences. Is that what you believe?

Could you please explain what you think would have been the "just" outcome? I haven't seen many opinions on this other than "Let the mother keep the kids and the father should just accept his fate".

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by lionking

Repeating your faulty logic doesn't make it correct.

Simply stating that logic is faulty doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate where it fails.

[Wildy]

It's so simple people:

Removing kids from their life in a country they've lived in for 7-13 years through deception is good.

Removing kids from their life in a country they've lived in for 2 years is cruel and unjust.

Clearly we know which is worse.

[/sarcasm]

[BenBurch]

Wildy - exactly.

[DreamingNaiad]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Could you please explain what you think would have been the "just" outcome? I haven't seen many opinions on this other than "Let the mother keep the kids and the father should just accept his fate".

You seem obsessed with justice for the father and punishment for the mother. Where do the kids factor in to your argument?

The options for them were to stay where they were happy or be dragged across the globe screaming and fighting to somewhere they don't want to be.

Some articles I could find :
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/n...-1226490203021

-Not letting them speak to their mum seems spiteful and would only fuel their fear that they would never see her again.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/n...-1226488525352

-Says Australian embassy helped them leave Italy with one-way tickets because he wasn't supporting them financially.

----

This whole thing is a mess. Neither of these people have acted maturely and it's the children who are suffering for it.

Even saying that legally they had to go back surely you don't condone the violence used to achieve this, do you? And none of this 'the mum could have made it easier' stuff. At that age if I was throwing a fit there is no way my mum could've stopped me.

[DreamingNaiad]

Originally Posted by Wildy

It's so simple people:

Removing kids from their life in a country they've lived in for 7-13 years through deception is good.

Removing kids from their life in a country they've lived in for 2 years is cruel and unjust.

Clearly we know which is worse.

[/sarcasm]

When did anyone say removing them from Italy was good? I can't see it anywhere in the thread so maybe you can point me to posts that say the kids shouldn't go back and it was right of the mother to take them in the first place.

And when did two wrongs start making a right?

Clearly if one parent drags the kids away from their home the other parent can do the same? But the second parent is a hero of course and the first a villain.

This thread is becoming irrational.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

You seem obsessed with justice for the father and punishment for the mother. Where do the kids factor in to your argument?

...

I seem obsessed? Why, because I want the parents to do right by their children? I'm not in the slightest concerned that the mother be punished and I wonder why you have this impression.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Italy is no hellhole children would need 'rescuing' from. Australia seems to breed racists readily, hopefully the children will realize that particular training (to hate Italians) is useless.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Simply stating that logic is faulty doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate where it fails.

If lionking didn't demonstrate it, I did. Your logic demands that a just law can never have unjust consequences. That is a logic fail.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Italy is no hellhole children would need 'rescuing' from. Australia seems to breed racists readily, hopefully the children will realize that particular training (to hate Italians) is useless.

No more or less than any other place.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Italy is no hellhole children would need 'rescuing' from. Australia seems to breed racists readily, hopefully the children will realize that particular training (to hate Italians) is useless.

Evidence for that over any other diverse nation?

And Italians have a long history in Australia where there is wide appreciation for their cultural contributions.

[DreamingNaiad]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

I seem obsessed? Why, because I want the parents to do right by their children? I'm not in the slightest concerned that the mother be punished and I wonder why you have this impression.

So the scene at the airport, the villa and refusing to let them speak to her on the phone were in the best interests of the children?

I don't know of any parent who would want their kids treated like these girls were. It doesn't seem like the father has done right by them either. But all that seems to matter is that he had the legal right to have them back, so they get dragged away from their home again only this time it is apparently a good thing.

Perhaps their departure could have been slower. They could have been taken by social services a few days before and been spoken to by child psychologists to help calm their fears. Or he could have flown from Australia to Italy with them so they weren't just dragged off and handed to strangers.

The actions of the parents and the legal mess are irrelevant. The issue here is that the police and courts failed spectacularly in looking after these kids.

In the end they had to be returned or children in future custody cases could be jeopardised (if Australia won't return kids to Italy then Italian might not return kids to Australia).

But do you really support dragging them around in such a traumatising manner and failing to take their wishes into account? That is what I can't understand about this thread. Few people are condemning the brawl.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

Perhaps their departure could have been slower. They could have been taken by social services a few days before and been spoken to by child psychologists to help calm their fears. Or he could have flown from Australia to Italy with them so they weren't just dragged off and handed to strangers.

The actions of the parents and the legal mess are irrelevant. The issue here is that the police and courts failed spectacularly in looking after these kids.

In the end they had to be returned or children in future custody cases could be jeopardised (if Australia won't return kids to Italy then Italian might not return kids to Australia).

.

Well, in fairness I must agree on these points. You've presented them very clearly here. I'm certain that the transfer could have been handled in a much more professional way.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

If lionking didn't demonstrate it, I did. Your logic demands that a just law can never have unjust consequences. That is a logic fail.

I think you are mistaken. My logic demands no such thing. Please reread those posts and you will see your error.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

I think you are mistaken. My logic demands no such thing. Please reread those posts and you will see your error.

I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

When did anyone say removing them from Italy was good? I can't see it anywhere in the thread so maybe you can point me to posts that say the kids shouldn't go back and it was right of the mother to take them in the first place.

Sar-cas-m.

Quote:

Clearly if one parent drags the kids away from their home the other parent can do the same? But the second parent is a hero of course and the first a villain.

Well if you consider that to be the case here then yes. Yes he can, and he has the law on his side in this instance.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by lionking

And what if the "kidnapping" is justified?

And what if Bigfoot is real!
And what if Sylvia really can talk to the dead!
And what if Saddam really had WMDs!

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas!

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Yep

Many people are assuming that they know all about this family; assuming that the father is blameless in any of this; assuming that the mother is unfit.

Yes, a lot of assuming is going on alright.

I don't care personally. There is a law and it is the same for everybody. What she did was parental kidnapping. If the father was to blame for something there is the police you can ask. People here seem to automagically think the mother has a right to remove forcefully custody of the kids from the father and that's pretty disgusting.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Italy is no hellhole children would need 'rescuing' from. Australia seems to breed racists readily, hopefully the children will realize that particular training (to hate Italians) is useless.

Have you ever watched an episode of Jersey Shore?

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by lionking

Nope. One person's kidnapped is another person's rescued.

You have absolutely no evidence that the mother is unfit. I don't know of any mother who wouldn't do what she thought was in the best interests of her children, courts notwithstanding. You are dealing in personal bias not fact.

If italy's law is the same as here, then the law is pretty clear : in case of custody dispute if one member of the family take the kids and flee in another country it is called family kidnapping, and that's why there is the hague convention. You are only assuming it was a rescue.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by lionking

Less fit for what?

She defied a court. That doesn't necessarily make her an unfit mother. Oh, and replace "rescued" for "kidnapped" and see how your post reads.

ETA "Hostage"??? Some are really letting their emotions get out of control.

She broke the law, and showed her kids the wrong example. If something wrong was going on she could have told 1) the italian court during the custody battle 2) the italian police 3) the aussie court. She did none of those.

I dunno for you but showing your kids you want to break the law when favors you is clearly showing a bad example.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by lionking

Again, completely wrong. The mother's action do not ipso facto make her an unfit mother. Your claim, prove it.

Miother broke the law and fled into another country bypassing the rule of law.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by lionking

I'm not suggesting any such thing. My point is that the mother's actions do not make her unfit, as so many assume without any evidence at all.

No. You are getting it as wrong as a creationist trying to get a crocoduck.

We have very few scant fact.

Here are there :
1) she apparentely told the father she would go into holiday during a custody battle before the italian court
2) she never came back
3) she fought tooth and nail to not give the kid back despite the custody dispute still going on
4) she never gave evidence or information pertaining to the kids being in danger with the father to the italian or australian court

Those are facts. Based on those facts the mother broke the law and did a family kidnapping. YOU are tying to muddy the water by adding "what if". Well sorry, but the fact we have do not warrant the conclusion you wish. If you have more fact than those feel free to add them. But as far as I know of the story that is the extent of it.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

So the answer to my first question was no. People aren't saying they should be allowed to stay because what the mother did was ok. Only that the kids should have had some say. Your saying that because she dragged them half way around the world illegally that they should be dragged back in order to make things right. But it's not about the mother or the father, it's about the kids. And this incident was certainly not in their best interests psychologically.

The problem is, a single family member kidnapping the child has month, years to psychologically work on them. Please don't tell me that don't happen, I had it happen in my family and it is disgusting to see it at work (no kidnapping involved).

You have no way to know if that's not what the mother did.

But by your post above it seems you see it as OK to make a kidnapping a fait-accomplis ?

Now that's beyond disgusting.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by lionking

Wrong. Extremely faulty logic.

The logic was impeccable.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by lionking

Repeating your faulty logic doesn't make it correct.

The logic was not faulty. It was impeccable.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Turning this round, your implied claim here is that a just law can never have unjust consequences. Is that what you believe?

That is indeed the implication. But in this case, it is beside the point, because the Australian embassy facilitated her exodus. They set her up with one-way tickets out of Italy and even changed the schedule to an earlier flight, to mitigate the risk that the father might interfere. Watch the 60 Minutes link Katy posted if you doubt any of this.

A reasonable person in her situation would assume that embassy personnel understand the law - especially as it pertains to international travel - and would not aid and abet a violation of the law.

Therefore, she had reason to believe, at that time, that what she was doing was lawful.

60 Minutes tried to contact the embassy about this. The embassy had every opportunity to say, "ah, but she misled us! We didn't know what was really going on!"

But they didn't. They simply refused to comment.

[DreamingNaiad]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

The problem is, a single family member kidnapping the child has month, years to psychologically work on them. Please don't tell me that don't happen, I had it happen in my family and it is disgusting to see it at work (no kidnapping involved).

You have no way to know if that's not what the mother did.

But by your post above it seems you see it as OK to make a kidnapping a fait-accomplis ?

Now that's beyond disgusting.

No, I think their return should have been done in a calmer more civilised manner. There is no way they could legally be allowed to stay.

See my last post for what I think should have happened I'm not typing it out again.

This has happened in my family too. One parent kept the child, refused to let her see the other and badmouthed them. When she was 16 she found the other parent and has the greatest bond with them now. That same side of the family threatened to do the same to me.

[fitzgibbon]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

If you love someone, laws do not matter to you. I'd break the law for my mom. I'd lie, cheat, steal, murder, and genocide for her.

That isn't love!

That's love, Manson-style!

Fitz

[lionking]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

* Clearly you don't know many mothers. They are not imbued with mystical powers of infallibility simply by giving birth. They are quite human and suffer the same defects as the rest of us mortals.

Again, your emotional involvement makes a sensible debate with you difficult, and your reading comprehension isn't the best either, but let me comment on this. If you have a look at my user profile you will see my age. I've made it clear in many posts that I have a lot of kids and am part of a large family. My work also puts me in direst contact with many mothers. This "clear" comment is as "clear" as many of others you have made, that is, not at all.

The hatred you display for the mother in question is quite telling.

[DreamingNaiad]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

That is indeed the implication. But in this case, it is beside the point, because the Australian embassy facilitated her exodus. They set her up with one-way tickets out of Italy and even changed the schedule to an earlier flight, to mitigate the risk that the father might interfere. Watch the 60 Minutes link Katy posted if you doubt any of this.

A reasonable person in her situation would assume that embassy personnel understand the law - especially as it pertains to international travel - and would not aid and abet a violation of the law.

Therefore, she had reason to believe, at that time, that what she was doing was lawful.

60 Minutes tried to contact the embassy about this. The embassy had every opportunity to say, "ah, but she misled us! We didn't know what was really going on!"

But they didn't. They simply refused to comment.

You would think they would have checked with the father before giving her plane tickets since they knew the kids have dual citizenship. If I were her I would have believed it was legal to do this because the embassy surely wouldn't take part in anything illegal.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

That is indeed the implication. But in this case, it is beside the point, because the Australian embassy facilitated her exodus. They set her up with one-way tickets out of Italy and even changed the schedule to an earlier flight, to mitigate the risk that the father might interfere. Watch the 60 Minutes link Katy posted if you doubt any of this.

A reasonable person in her situation would assume that embassy personnel understand the law - especially as it pertains to international travel - and would not aid and abet a violation of the law.

Therefore, she had reason to believe, at that time, that what she was doing was lawful.

60 Minutes tried to contact the embassy about this. The embassy had every opportunity to say, "ah, but she misled us! We didn't know what was really going on!"

But they didn't. They simply refused to comment.

if the argument is that the mother did not kniwingly break the law, how do you account for the second illigal disappearance of the girls?

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

That is indeed the implication. But in this case, it is beside the point, because the Australian embassy facilitated her exodus. They set her up with one-way tickets out of Italy and even changed the schedule to an earlier flight, to mitigate the risk that the father might interfere. Watch the 60 Minutes link Katy posted if you doubt any of this.

Watching that now and I think the people involved need a kick up the bum.

Quote:

A reasonable person in her situation would assume that embassy personnel understand the law - especially as it pertains to international travel - and would not aid and abet a violation of the law.

Therefore, she had reason to believe, at that time, that what she was doing was lawful.

No, a reasonable person could still believe that the Aussie Embassy was taking a contemptuous attitude to local law (perhaps international) while holding the children's interests as primary. (Note I am not advocating any normative claims of my own on that.)

Quote:

60 Minutes tried to contact the embassy about this. The embassy had every opportunity to say, "ah, but she misled us! We didn't know what was really going on!"

But they didn't. They simply refused to comment.

Has there been a review of their actions yet? If not, not commenting would be prudent.