General Image Release Form I Understand I Hereby Grant To: Fill & Download for Free

Mannerheim informed Hitler, that if they harm even one Finnish Jew, then the Nazis would be driven out from Finland. He is told to have said to Hitler: “Over my dead body” regarding Finnish Jews.In 1942 all Jewish POWs were put in the same barrack, isolated from other POWs. All and all the Jewish prison barrack had 218 prisoners.Some argue that they were isolated so they could be sent to Germany, but facts argue against that case:The Jewish POWs got better food and clothes than Finnish civilians.Germans were well aware of what Finns thought about them.Himmler:“The only thing confusing Finland’s and Germany’s relationship is the status of Jews. Other nations obeyed Germany and oppressed their Jews and destroyed them. The situation in Finland is different.”Hitler said in 1941 about Finland:“A partnership is going to be difficult - we should be careful politically. The Finnish people are sensitive and we can’t patronize them like we patronize the Slovaks.”General von Falkenhorst to Governor Hillilä:“I got strict orders from Hitler to respect Finland’s sovereignity. It wasn’t based upon political reasons, the reason was that Hitler respected and admired Finland.”Kivimäki reported in 1942:“Führer has ordered Germany not to interfere with Finland’s internal matters. I have heard the same from so many independent sources, that we can be sure about it.”When Himmler visited Finland Finns already knew, that Himmler had no authority to press Finland to act against Jews.The Mental Strenght of Finnish JewsSeppo Jyrkinen, 29.03.2015In 1942 most of Europe was occupied by Germany and the German soldiers were feared by Jews and non-Jews.However the behavior of Finnish Jews was strikingly opposite. Every time a Finnish Jew saw a German soldier face to face, he looked at the German with an expression saying: “I am not afraid of you!”German soldiers had been forbidden from talking politics with Finns. Finns had “Germanic traits” in German propaganda.Finnish Army supported the political leadershipFinnish leadership had formed a strict attitude even before the Continuation War began.Mannerheim had warned the Germans “very seriously for every attempt to form some kind of a Quisling-government, which would immediately terminate all co-operation between Finland and Germany.”In 1942 Kivimäki informed, that “Führer has forbidden Germany from meddling in Finland’s internal affairs.”Some funny examples of Finnish Jews and German soldiers in FinlandSalomon Klass – "During the war Germans were trapped by the Russians, and it was Salomon Klass who liberated them.Afterwards a German General with his cadre went to Salomon’s tent to thank the Finns. He was surprised that Klass spoke German so well.Klass wrote later on:“I couldn’t stop myself from replying, that I am a Jew and my native language is Jiddish…. Everybody stared at me. The General got up and shook my hand saying “Personally I have nothing against You being a Jew”. Then he said Heil Hitler and walked out from the tent. His cadre said the same and disappeared.”EDIT:Finnish Jewish soldier Harry Matso remembered the situation when Captain Salomon Klass was given the Iron Cross:"Salomon saved a group of German soldiers from a Russian siege, because as the commander of the battalion it was his duty. We tried to say to him 'why on earth would you go there to save them!? Leave them there. But Klass was a soldier and fullfilled his duty.""Klass sat in his tent when two high-rank German officers entered with an Iron Cross.""They aired their Heil Hitler slamming their bones, but Klass only sat and was not interested at all. Klass told them that he is a Jew in Finland's army and he does not want anything from the Germans. The officers went pale and left. "***Leo Skurnik told his boss General Siilasvuo after hearing he was awarded an Iron Cross:“Bro, you have to understand that as a Jew I can not accept a medal from Germany. You can tell the Germans that I will wipe my arse with their honorary medals.”Siilasvuo went to the Germans and repeated every word. The Germans demanded “appropriate punishment” to Skurnik.Siilasvuo refused and said:“Are you seriously thinking that I will turn over my best Physician!?”Lotta Dina Poljakoff was also awarded the Iron Cross. She went to take a look at the Iron Cross and left without saying a word. That was her way of saying FY to the Germans.Mikael Livson was a Lawyer for the Air Force. He refused to greet German Officers. They complained about his behavior, but Finns ignored their complaints.The Finnish Army was the only army in the whole world, where a Jew was allowed not to greet Germans and with the acceptance of their bosses.Aron Livson “My father had a clothing store in Kotka. One day his boss approached him and said, that there is a Jewish merchant in Kotka, your father, who kicks out Germans from his store.“I told him that it is his right and there is nothing one can do about it. My boss pondered for a while and concluded, that nothing can be done about it and that was it. Case closed. “Artillery man Bolotovsky was assigned as an interpreter to Syväri, because there were still pockets of the German 163rd division. But his assignments was cut short.“The Germans wondered how well I speak German. I didn’t tell them that our family had housed German refugees for years already, which is why we spoke German at home.“I jokingly replied to them, that I am Jewish and you are German, how it is strategically important to also learn the enemy’s language.“The next morning Major Siistonen said that he advices me to stop interpreting, without any condemnation of my behavior.”The above mentioned incidents were minor and even funny to Finns, but from the POV of Nazi racial ideology they were absolutely shameful.It also proves how the status of Finnish Jews was strong inside the community. Finnish Jews never felt that they were less worthy or fearful in front of Germans.And more importantly; it was clear that the Finnish soldiers supported and protected the Finnish Jews who stood up to the Germans.Jyrkinen - Suomenjuutalaisten henkinen vahvuusEDIT: There are more stories if you are interested in reading:FINLAND OPENED AN EMERGENCY ESCAPE ROUTE TO UNITED STATESFinns have had to suffer for this sin for decades; After the Winter War we were again under an attack from Soviet Union and Germany was the only one offering us help - because the Western nations refused to give help to us.Today researchers still try to prove how Finns were also guilty of the Holocaust.In the continuation war about 300 Finnish Jews fought beside Germans. Germany even awarded three of them an Iron Cross, but they all refused to take it.When Himmler was in Finland in 1942, Finnish spies microcopied his material in secret. He had a list of Finnish Jews, nearly 2.000 names.PR Jukka Rangell shut him up by saying:– Wir haben keine Judenfrage(we don’t have a Jewish problem)***Finland did send Jews on a boat trip - but to freedom, to America!During the Winter War 450 American Finnish volunteers came to Finland.They returned back home on a cargo ship to New York; m/s Mathilda Thordén.The ship had only 14 cabins, yet it carried 167 passengers. About 100 had taken part in the fighting, the rest were civilian persons.But among them were 18 Jewish refugees, who were allowed to take all the cabins.American volunteers had to live in the cargo area. They voiced critisism about the Jewish refugees, who according to them were treated better and got better food than they did.The Finnish leadership fooled Sweden and Germany by going against the rules. Only Finnish or Swedish citizens were allowed on board.The refugees needed a special permission from the Foreign Ministry for the journey. The political scene had rapidly changed, which caused problems.They all had to sign the following certificate:”I hereby confess, that I am aware of the dangers and want to take the risk by boarding the ship to US.”Suddenly Thordén Lines Oy sent an alarming cable from Boston:”Kattelus Hujanen Martinpelto Tanttari Tuuli Nemeschansky taken ashore Tromsö.Germany had occupied Norway and despite proper documents, six volunteers had been arrested by the Germans in Norway. Finland’s leadership paid attention to the last name.Abraham ”Abi” Nemeschansky was a Jewish bureaucrat, born in Turku 16.5.1901, who had moved to Haifa in 1932.When the Winter War broke out, he returned to defend his old homeland. Now he was on his way back to Haifa, Palestine.Finland sent a note to Germany about the arrests.All men are releasedSoon Ivalo informed the headquarters, that all men had been released the previous day and they were on their way from Stockholm to Finland.The Finns' bluff worked.***Finnish officials tried twice in 1942 to get Sweden to receive 150 Jewish refugees from Central Europe.Sweden's PM Hansson refused, citing 'financial matters'.***Mannerheim pays his respect to Jewish War Heroes in Helsinki Synagogue.In 1944 Mannerheim attended a Jewish memorial for fallen Jewish War Heros.He asked a soldier where he had fought last.– Against Germans in Lapland.– Well done, Mannerheim replied and tapped the man's shoulder.***What happened to Abraham Nemeschansky, who was arrested by Germans?He lived a long life and died 80 yrs old in Haifa, Israel, on 2.1.1981.Suomi avasi pelastusreitin juutalaisille AmerikkaanEDIT 2: This shows how Finland is demonized even in United States. Imagine how difficult it has been for Finnish Jews to explain to the other Jews that they were not Nazis. Finland was the safest country for a Jew during the Holocaust. And Finns are eternally grateful for the input of Finnish Jews *taking a bow*Unrecognized Courage04/13/2017 03:23 pm ETThe rejection earlier this week by French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen of France’s responsibility for its police having delivered thousands of its Jewish citizens to the Nazis for deportation to the death camps in 1942, elicited justifiable outrage at home and abroad.The behavior of European countries during the Holocaust remains a hotly debated topic.How strange and unfortunate then is the refusal of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to commemorate a positive action unparalleled in World War II:Finland’s saving 100% of its Jewish population, despite the presence of hundreds of thousands of German troops and the Gestapo on its territory and Nazi demands for the Finnish Jews’ deportation.The complex history of Finland from 1939 to 1945 provides necessary context for the government’s stance on Finnish Jewry. After the Finns gave the invading U.S.S.R. a bloody nose at the outset of the 1939-40 Winter War, the massive Soviet numerical superiority in troops and materiel ultimately compelled Helsinki to sue for peace. Finland was forced to cede one-tenth of its territory, including the country’s second city Viipuri (Vyborg), to the aggressor.Unable during the next year to conclude defensive military partnerships with the U.K. or Sweden, Finland turned to Nazi Germany, allowing German troops to transit its territory preparatory to invading the U.S.S.R.When war broke out in June 1941 and the Red Air Force bombed Finland, the government in Helsinki declared itself a co-belligerent, not an ally, of Germany to show that the relationship was a marriage of convenience.Finland needed German military might to survive, but it did not want to be associated with Hitler’s ideology. Partially as a result of this distinction, the U.S., unlike the U.K., never declared war on Finland.Able-bodied men from the small Jewish community, like all other Finns, flocked to the colors, and several distinguished themselves. In what has to be one of the great ironies of modern history, three Jewish Finnish soldiers were awarded the Iron Cross by Nazi Germany. All three refused to accept the decoration, one of them expressing himself in the grossest possible language.The Finnish government in a remarkable “in your face” demonstration of its beliefs erected a field synagogue for Jewish troops at the front lines close to where the German and Finnish military sectors met and where German officers frequently were present.So perhaps what unfolded in August 1942 could have been anticipated. Hitler dispatched Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler to Helsinki with a ship intended to transport Finland’s Jewish population to the death camps.But in a private meeting Prime Minister Johan (Jukka) Rangell quickly silenced Himmler, curtly telling him: “Wir haben keine Judenfrage” (“We do not have a Jewish Question”).The leader of the Finnish armed forces, Marshal Gustav Mannerheim, also made clear that with Jewish Finns fighting and dying in his army, the government in Helsinki would not cooperate in the deportation of their community.No country’s history, however, is spotless, and wartime Finland had to make painful compromises. Finland turned over to Berlin 28 civilian refugee foreigners, including eight Jews from Central Europe, seven of whom died in extermination camps.It is worth noting, that when the Finnish media reported on the deportations, a scandal erupted, and ministers resigned in protest.Two years later Mannerheim ordered 160 Jewish refugees without Finnish citizenship sent to neutral Sweden to save their lives. The eight non-Finnish Jews who were deported in 1942 are now honored in downtown Helsinki in a monument dedicated by the Prime Minister of Finland in 2000.***The central issue, however, is that in order to save every single one of its Jewish citizens, Finland was willing to risk suffering the same fate as its Baltic neighbors Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which two years earlier had lost their independence through forcible annexation by the U.S.S.R.***A few weeks ago I had a telephone conversation with a historian from the U.S. Holocaust Museum about why the story of Finland is not exhibited there.She asserted that Finland was not unique in saving its Jews, citing the cases of Denmark and Bulgaria. I’m not sure why uniqueness should be the criterion for exhibitions, but in any case I reminded her that before Denmark carried out its famous fishermen’s boat rescue to Sweden, several hundred Danish Jews had already been sent to the Theresienstadt concentration camp. I added that although Bulgaria deserves great credit for also having saved its own Jewish citizens, it was complicit in the Nazi annihilation of the Jewish community in Macedonia, an area claimed by and under the control of Bulgaria.Only Finland was able to save all its citizens on its territory.Equally important, the downside risk to Finland was substantially higher than to other countries. I agreed with her that the importance of the Finnish army to the anti-Soviet war effort did make abandonment of Finland by Germany to the U.S.S.R. unlikely. But such speculation is far easier to make from the comfort of 21st century America than it was on the ground in the war-torn Europe of 1942. Finland had no guarantee that Hitler would agree to leave Finnish Jewry untouched and simultaneously continue militarily to support Finnish independence. If one is to indulge in counter-factual history, just imagine if every other European country with German troops on its soil in World War II had acted the way Finland did.Given the enormous stakes for the country, Finland’s behavior stands as an unparalleled act of principle. The U.S. Holocaust Museum would do well to memorialize the Finnish story, both to illustrate that in the real world moral choices are usually complicated, and to provide the public with an inspiring example of courage on a national scale.Michael Haltzel, former foreign policy advisor to Vice President (then-Senator) Joseph R. Biden, Jr., is Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.Unrecognized CourageEDIT: Here you can see how much was done to save the Finnish Jews - and Jewish refugees from the Holocaust.The Ryti-Ribbentrop contract that put fear in the Jewish community was actually genious. Finland was depending on arms and food from Germany, hence Hitler tried to pressure Finland into occupating Finland by refusing food and arms to Finns.Finland’s leadership came up with the following idea: President Ryti will sign Personally the contract, after that Ryti and his government would resign, hence invalidating the contract, and Mannerheim would become Finland’s new president.Hitler was furious when he heard about it, because he knew he could not walk over Mannerheim and that Mannerheim would not bend to his demands.A German official was told afterwards, that Mannerheim could never had signed the contract, because Finnish people would never had accepted it.Anyway, here is how it went down:German soldiers appearing in Helsinki caused a panic in the communityFinnish Jews wanted to be saved in summer 1944An emergency plan for Finnish Jews was made in summer 1944. All two thousand Finnish Jews would have been transported to Sweden for their safety.Turun Sanomat23.4.2016 7:13”Stay on the frontier, don't come to Helsinki. It is too dangerous here" - this is how one Jewish family adviced their son, who was fighting on the frontier in summer -44.The panic in the Jewish community occurred, when German soldiers arrived in Helsinki during the Ryti–Ribbentrop-contract.– Phones were ringing after members of the Jewish community had seen German soldiers in Helsinki. One interviewed told how his uncle had called him saying "The circus has now arrived here too", according to Phd Simo Muir, who is a researcher at Leeds University.The worry for Finland's Jews had grown after March -44, when Germany occupied Hungary after Hungary's peace negotiations. The occupation of Hungary was a catastrophe for Hungarian Jews.– It caused immense fear and pure panic amongst Jewish refugees in Finland, but by June also amongst Finnish Jews. Seeing German troops and additional arms in Helsinki was the last drop. That is when Finland's Jewish community started to ponder about their own fate.Finnish Jews knew about the massmurders at an early stageEvents in spring and summer -44 compelled the Finnish Jews to make an emergency plan. The plan was to evacuate all 2.000 Finnish Jews to Sweden.– Finland's and Sweden's Jewish communities had negotiated the plan with Swedish and American officials. In United States the War Refugee Board was behind the emergency plan for Hungarian Jews. In this operation Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg participated, Muir tells.United States had promised to finance the emergency plan and all visas were ready. They only waited for the signal to go ahead.The Finnish Jewish community had during the years got information from Swedish newspapers about the destiny of European Jews. The details, for example how the death camps operated, were revealed in summer -44.– However it was perfectly clear that it was massdestruction by the end of -42 to both the Finnish and Swedish Jewish community. According to information they gained, about two million Jews had been killed by then.Which explains why the Jewish Council sent a warning letter to every Synagogue in December -42. The letter was to be read out loud to every member of the Jewish community. That is when the Jewish community knew that Jews were killed systematically in German-occupied nations.Stockholm had a special Finland-unitSimo Muir believes, that the emergency plan had been discussed even before the Ryti–Ribbentrop contract. Chairmen from the Finnish Synagogues had visited Stockholm, where they had strategical negotiations.– Swedish documents reveal, that Swedes saw first Norwegian and then Danish Jews arrive to Sweden. They waited all the time when Jews from Finland would arrive.Stockholm's Synagogue had a unit for refugees, and in summer -44 they created a special Finland-unit.Loyality to Finland was important for the Finnish JewryUnited States terminated all diplomatic relations with Finland after the Ryti–Ribbentrop-contract 30.6.1944. When Americans left Finland on a ship to Sweden, all Jews who had a Nansen-passport were given the possibility to board the ship and travel to Sweden with the Americans.Only one Jew travelled with them.– Americans were stunned, Simon Muir said.He believes that the Jewish community was extremely careful not to break the image of their loyalty towards Finland.– In other words leaving with the Americans, Germany's enemies, and leaving Finland did not look good.Nansen-passports were given to those Jews who were a part of Finland's Jewry, but weren't citizens of Finland.The Finnish Jews were very worried already in 1942. Finland had handed over eight Jewish refugees from Central Europe to Germany. And the Council had sent a warning letter to all Finnish Synagogues.– Still the Finnish Jewry trusted Finnish officals, even after they handed over eight Jewish refugees. The belief was, that Finnish officials would never hand over their own citizens. That would never had passed in the government.The situation changed dramatically in June -44, which is why the emergency plan was drawn up. However Finnish officials were against evacuating a huge amount of Jews.– When Sweden was granting visas to all Finnish Jews, Finland's leadership informed their negative stance. Only children, over 65 years old, sick and pregnant - according to evacuation regulations - could leave, but the rest should stay in Finland.Yet according to infomations the Finnish officials and leadership was prepared for their departure. For example in Turku many ships were ready to take off.– Some Jewish families had moved to the coast. Some Jews also left to Sweden on their own in summer -44.The emergency plan was never taken into use, due to the political and military situation changing in Finland in autumn 1944.Suomen juutalaiset haluttiin pelastaa kesällä 1944If you want to read more about what it was like, here is a new book written for foreigners in particular, so that they can understand the complex situation in Finland and how Finland saved their Jewry from the Holocaust:Strangers in a Stranger Land: How One Country's Jews Fought an Unwinnable War alongside Nazi Troops… and Survivedby American Jew John B. Simon, who has lived in Finland for 35 yearsAmazon.com: Strangers in a Stranger Land: How One Country's Jews Fought an Unwinnable War alongside Nazi Troops… and Survived eBook: John B. Simon: Kindle StoreThank you all for your compassion for the Finnish Jews xxx It gives hope to the mankind.A day after the Kristallnacht in Germany, one Finnish Jewish man remembered what happened in school:The teacher walked in the classroom and ordered everyone to stand up - except for two Jewish students - and told about the Kristallnacht in Germany and said:“ Mankind has now stooped below humanity”He remembers how his classmates were both shocked and ashamed.PeaceEdit:Are there Jews in the Finnish Army?Finnish Jew Salomon Altschuler served in the Continuation War in Aunus.In summer 1943 a German unit arrived. The Military Police asked around if there are any Finns who can speak German.Our Captain told the Military Police, that we have a Corpral who speaks German. I replied that I know only a little German from school.He told the Captain, that he speaks Jiddish; a combination of German, Polish and Russian. That was good enough and he was assigned to be an interpreter. He had heard before the war the destiny of Jews in Germany and did not feel good about the assignment.I said to our Captain: “Freaking hell, do not send me there. I do not want to see them!”Our Captain replied: “Corpral Altschuler, I order you to be an interpretor.”The German commander asked me if I’m Finnish. I told him that my nationality is Finnish and my religion is Jewish.He asked me if there are Jews in the Finnish army. I replied, that in our army religion doesn’t matter, that we have Finns, Germans, Russians etc. We are all equal.Altschuler remembers to this day what the German commander replied to him:“I am not SS. I am not SA. I am not a Nazi. Ich bin Wehrmacht, I belong to the army.”“Personally I have never had any hatred for Jews. I am an Engineer and I had many Jewish pals in my office. I can’t stand those blackshirts. They are not any soldiers.”After that the cooperation with the Germans worked normally. Their Unit was transferred elsewhere after six months.When they were leaving the German Captain wanted to see me, he wanted to personally say goodbye to me.’Altschuler, we are leaving. I will never forget you.’That was the the last thing I heard from him.Salomon Altschuler joutui sota-aikana saksalaisen upseerin tulkiksi – ”Onko Suomen armeijassa juutalaisia?”

I am pro-choice, but I have never bought the argument that life doesn’t begin at conception, that it’s just a clump of cells and has no right to consideration. I prefer to think of the question as a conflict between two competing dreams of which only one can be the victor; although I side with the mother’s dream I see gray in this decision that so many paint in black and white.The crux of Tate’s position espouses this same conflict; the rights of individual ownership over a shared experience. A few hours ago, immediately after reading this question, then her story, then her arguments, I would have said that some mistakes were made but for the most part I thought she was right. Now, I just think that she’s right.As I see it, there are really two questions here, two foci of contention. The first is whether Tate has a right, in the context of her daughter’s expressed objection, to continue to press to write about her at all. The second is whether she had the right to do so when her children were too young to give an opinion or express consent. The consent issue is more straightforward, so I’ll take aim at that first.I’d like to be clear that although this question asks for my opinion on Tate’s claim, I want to separate the question of choices I would make from the question of choices that I could make; this distinction is the driving force of my shift away from my original position that perhaps she had made some mistakes. Like any pro-choice person who might never choose to have an abortion themselves, my answer needs to be not about my own personal choices, but about the range that is acceptable within our society, and I want this framing because I want you, readers, to look at it through the same lens. It’s easy to summon quick outrage in sympathy with her daughter’s upset, but in the absence of the expressed objection, would her actions in using details and images of her daughter’s life as a toddler and a pre-schooler have been outside the norm? I claim the answer is no.I have kids, and consequently I am a long-time peruser of a variety of one of the richest internet resources for kids’ arts and crafts, which is blogs. Quite frequently these blogs are lifestyle blogs, and names, ages, and small snippets about the family’s children are contained therein. I also come to these blogs via the internet recipe search route, and while details of the children’s lives are more often absent here unless the meal preparation was a joint activity with them, it’s reasonably common to see the home page with a nice family photo of the parents and all the kids.In fact, there is an entire blog (probably more than one) devoted to content exactly like that which Tate claims to have produced: thoughtful essays about parenting that may illustrate or support the writing using details or anecdotes about the kids.[1][1][1][1] Sometimes those essays have names and ages,[2][2][2][2] sometimes they don’t but contain far more details about a child’s actions.[3][3][3][3] I have seen links to articles from that blog here on Quora, and the questions I have seen on these links have never been about whether or not the author violated their kids’ privacy by telling these details of their preschoolers’ lives without their consent. I have seen authors here on Quora give details or stories about their kids in this fashion while answering questions, and the comment sections are never full of the readers’ reservations that the author gave specifics about their child.The point made by the above observations is that this type of content, content that references specifics of a child’s life before they are of age to even consent to their representation, sometimes with names and ages, is everywhere, and outrage about the violation of privacy of those too young to consent is not. Yes, there is occasional discussion about where the limits should be, as Tate notes herself, but in general it is accepted as within the norm.Hopefully, I have made this point well enough that you are now thinking about times in the past when you may have seen similar content and accepted it without a second thought, questions about whether or not the children were old enough to consent to use of their stories never having crossed your mind. Possibly, you may be thinking about the question of the value of that content. I certainly find it valuable, in ways that have benefited not only myself, but also my children. And judging by some of the comments that do appear on those blog articles and Quora answers — you know, the comments that aren’t about the author’s crime against the privacy of their children — many others find value in it too.Possibly you don’t find anything worthy in it, but rhetorically assuming that you do, or at least that you accept the argument that others do, perhaps you are now considering whether such compositions could be written to have the same impact and resonance in the absence of those stories. Anecdotally, I can tell you from my own experience here on Quora that I believe the answer to that question is no. In one of my recently written and most-upvoted-ever answers here,[4][4][4][4] I opened with what was functionally a tacit admission that my own 15-year old son struggles with chores and is routinely criticized for not making his family contribution. I don’t fool myself that that answer was such a high level above the rest of my content that it would have been so popular without that attention-grabbing first line.Maybe, you might not have gone in that direction of questioning whether that presentation is really necessary for the value of the content. Maybe you found that easy to accept because you think the real issue is about how much is OK. “Oh,” you might be thinking, “that answer where you talked about your son in the first line is alright, you didn’t really give anything away that’s so unique to him, and it was only the one sentence anyway.” One of the reasons that I have never liked the “it’s not really alive right after conception” argument for choice is that the question that immediately follows is “Well, then when is it really alive?” Despite the fact that there is an entire branch of mathematics built on the foundational concept that if you make a bunch of connected pieces tiny enough eventually they become one continuous thing and not a collection of separate things, this process doesn’t go well in reverse. Looking at a continuous spectrum and picking out a discrete point to be the bright, shining line of division where everything on one side is OK and everything on the other isn’t — that’s hard, and the answer is almost always one that everyone agrees is a compromise, a judgment call. So before you get too far down that path of “but”: but it’s OK if it’s not too much, but it’s OK if they don’t use the images, but it’s OK if they don’t use the real names, I’m just going to highlight what I view to be the extreme end of this spectrum that our culture considers acceptable. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jon & Kate Plus 8, 19 Kids and Counting, and The Real Housewives of <insert locale here>.I have never watched these shows, nor paid more than passing attention to them as a cultural phenomenon, but in an (admittedly brief) stint of internet research, I don’t find any controversy over the parents’ right to place their children on these shows, to make them part of the focus of the shows, to intrude on their privacy. I found expressions of concern, but they were about working conditions, child labor laws, behavioral problems of the lifestyle and whether proper consideration is being taken for the child’s welfare.[5][5][5][5] [6][6][6][6] They were not about whether these shows should maybe not exist at all because they violated the children’s rights to privacy.For the Duggar family, I found criticism of their religious views, of their political views, and of their lifestyle, but the only criticism I found relating to anything that “maybe shouldn’t be aired to the public” was when they shared photos of their miscarried baby.[7][7][7][7] In light of the outrage expressed in the comments of Ms. Tate’s article I find this ironic. The veil of culturally acceptable privacy was pierced by photos of their dead child, when the dead are commonly considered not to have any rights of privacy to violate, but not one squeak about how nobody had asked the 3 children born during the tenure of the show if they wanted to participate and whether or not the parents had been presumptuous in simply adding them in.Of course, the fact that I did not find those discussions does not mean they are not occurring, or that they are not there to find. But I think the lack of prominence does mean that a parents’ right to make decisions about high level public access to details of their children’s private lives is not only a legal perspective, but a normative one. Maybe that won’t always be true. Maybe it will change. I’ve written elsewhere, many times, that just because something is legal or common doesn’t make it right. But before any change can happen I want to see conversation, not castigation. Consideration, not knee-jerk reaction. Evaluation of the pros and cons of all the parties with a stake, not just a confirmation-bias position taken with 20–20 hindsight.For myself, personally, I recognize that the slippery slope argument I gave above is a logical fallacy. Saying that it’s hard to know where to put the line is not a sufficient justification for not having one, nor is it even the case that one does not already exist here; there are laws about use of one’s own child’s images in the context of child pornography etc. Nonetheless, I feel that the value equation is sufficiently complex that I don’t believe the greatest benefit comes from an external mandate. I’ll note that my position that Ms. Tate should retain the right to make choices is not the same as saying that I don’t think she should have to answer for the choices she makes. It’s just that it’s not us that I think she should have to answer to, any more than I think that a woman who chooses to abort a baby should have to justify her decision to the public. And I concede that it’s possible I would feel differently about that, were it not that I so strongly agree with the other perspective of her position, that she has an ownership stake in this shared experience and that gives her rights too.My grandfather’s camera was everywhere, and I hated it. He was no respecter of whether or not you had a fork halfway into your asymmetrically opened mouth when the shutter went off, and I was an unpopular tween with self-esteem issues who couldn’t understand why I was so socially inept. The last thing I needed was six million bad pictures of myself. I eventually came to an agreement with my parents that I would allow my picture to be taken and stop hiding from the camera, if I were allowed to take possession of both the photograph and the negative of any picture I disliked. But should my desire to control those permanent recordings of myself have had primacy over my family’s desire to have permanent reminders of family gatherings, ones that would have failed to represent the family experience had I been universally absent from them? Have they no vested interest?While you are thinking about that, I’ll note that on a routine basis parents grant the interest of others in a shared environment under circumstances where the level of investment in a particular child is much less: I refer to the media release so common in waiver forms for children’s activities. Here is an example, from Part A of the medical form of the Boy Scouts of America that must be filled out by the parent for any child attending any camp or overnight scouting activity where their parent will not be present:I also hereby assign and grant to the local council and the Boy Scouts of America, as well as their authorized representatives, the right and permission to use and publish the photographs/film/videotapes/electronic representations and/or sound recordings made of me or my child at all Scouting activities, and I hereby release the Boy Scouts of America, the local council, the activity coordinators, and all employees, volunteers, related parties, or other organizations associated with the activity from any and all liability from such use and publication. I further authorize the reproduction, sale, copyright, exhibit, broadcast, electronic storage, and/or distribution of said photographs/film/videotapes/electronic representations and/or sound recordings without limitation at the discretion of the BSA, and I specifically waive any right to any compensation I may have for any of the foregoing.[8][8][8][8]Have you ever checked a box like this, giving permission for images and recordings of your child to be used? Did you do a serious assessment of the pros and cons? Did you ask your child first? If you did, were they of an age where their consent was in any way meaningful?I spend a week every summer volunteering at a Cub Scout camp in an administrative role, and I handle these forms. I can tell you that my experience is that very, very few parents withhold this permission. I suspect strongly that for most parents, the thought process is something like: “Well, of course it’s reasonable to expect that this organization will take pictures etc. for a variety of reasons including advertising, and of course it would be extremely difficult for them to single out my kid and make sure he isn’t in any photos when they’re just getting candid shots of a group while the kids are doing their stuff, and really, what’s the harm?” There is a casual assumption that in a group activity, where it’s reasonable to take pictures or video of the group, it’s reasonable to grant permission to other invested parties to have control of those images. That is not a legal assumption, or the waiver would not be required. But it is the way that average people behave.My husband is sensitive to me telling other people (friends, etc.) stories about him that he perceives to portray him in a less than positive light. We don’t always agree about which stories these are; I’ve occasionally relayed something about a shared experience that I thought was fine in a group dinner with friends and had him tell me later that he was upset that I had shared that. Does he have the right to tell me that I am not allowed to discuss anything he does with other people, in order to guarantee that no mistakes are made? Forget the mistakes, does he even have the right to tell me that I can’t say anything about him to others, even if I am as much a part of the story as he is, unless he has approved it in advance? Let’s imagine that I came here on Quora and asked that question: “My husband won’t allow me to talk about him to others unless he approves what I have to say in advance, what should I do?” I’m willing to bet that after I waded through the ocean of responses telling me I was trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not know that the right answer is to leave him, I would find some very helpful answers explaining to me that this was controlling and unhealthy behavior on the part of my spouse, and that I should consider leaving him or at a minimum seek counseling. I doubt that I would find any answers upholding his sole right to determine the use of our shared experience.Another answer here suggests that we should flip the tables; consider how we would feel about the child sharing their experience without the parents’ permission. Alright. I’ll go there. In an elementary-school assignment to tell which room in the house was their favorite and give five reasons why, one of my children wrote that one of the reasons he chose this room was that when Mom and Dad are arguing you can’t hear it in there. As you may imagine, I had an uncomfortable moment envisioning what the teacher would think as she read that. But should I have made him change his response? I can see the headlines now: “Parent forces child to rewrite schoolwork to conceal evidence of family dysfunction.”In each of those examples, it’s wrong for one party to have total control of the joint narrative, and Tate is not saying differently; she does not propose that her control at this point in time should be total. Of her daughter’s rights she notes:Certainly, my daughter is old enough now that I owe her a head’s up and a veto right on the pictures or on portions of the content … Amputating parts of my experience feels as abusive to our relationship as writing about her without any consideration for her feelings and privacy.There it is, clear as day, she feels that writing about her daughter without any consideration for her daughter’s perspective is abusive. That doesn’t appear to me as callous disregard for her daughter’s part-ownership of their mutual experiences. But note also a key point; her daughter’s right to consent is related to her age. Not a specific age, but it doesn’t need to be; this is about development and maturity. Maturity is always a key component of consent; no four year old could meaningfully consent to a parent’s use of content.That’s important, because Tate also says this:So my plan is to chart a middle course, where together we negotiate the boundaries of the stories I write and the images I include. This will entail hard conversations and compromises. But I prefer the hard work of charting the middle course to giving up altogether — an impulse that comes, in part, from the cultural pressure for mothers to be endlessly self-sacrificing on behalf of their children. As a mother, I’m not supposed to do anything that upsets my children or that makes them uncomfortable, certainly not for something as culturally devalued as my own creative labor.Writer Christine Organ has described how “we seem to be creating this unrealistic image of the mother as all-giving, all-knowing, selfless, superhuman who will gladly give up the last piece of apple pie to please her lip-smacking, big-eyed child.” Surely, there’s a way to cut the pie so that I can write about motherhood in a way that takes into account my daughter’s feelings and respects her boundaries. But if I simply cordoned off motherhood as a forbidden subject for my writing, we would never know.In my experience, Tate and Organ are right about the cultural pressure on mothers to place their children’s desires first, and their own needs last. And when children are very small that is not unreasonable. But I do not think it is the case that when parents become pregnant, they are signing up for 18 years of unmitigated second seat, 18 years of subjugating their individuality and personhood to their offspring. Rather, at some point during the process of maturation, children gradually become aware — or they should — that parents are people also, and sometimes they will come first. That 18 years of growth and maturation is a long, slow process of equalization of autonomy between parent and child. We cheer the developmental milestone when our toddlers begin staking out their territories of self-control. Yet over the years, increased privilege is built on the back of concomitant increased responsibility.When I was old enough to care about how I looked in photographs, old enough to be negotiated with on the basis of my consent, I was also old enough to understand that my parents and family had a right to want photographs of me. I think the situation is similar here; if Tate’s daughter has reached the age where she is mature enough to be owed consent, then she is also old enough to be expected to understand why it is unreasonable for her to expect totalitarian control over an experience that doesn’t belong only to her. Maybe she doesn’t understand it right now, but to me that simply means that she has growing to do; growth that will occur through that process of negotiating the boundaries. Growth that needs to occur, that should occur, that will inform her daughter of her own right to personhood when she is on the other side of this equation with children of her own. Growth that will never have a chance to happen if Tate cedes the battlefield immediately rather than pressing for a treaty as she proposes.Footnotes[1] Scary Mommy: A parenting community for imperfect parents[1] Scary Mommy: A parenting community for imperfect parents[1] Scary Mommy: A parenting community for imperfect parents[1] Scary Mommy: A parenting community for imperfect parents[2] The Question That Changed The Co-Parenting Relationship With My Ex[2] The Question That Changed The Co-Parenting Relationship With My Ex[2] The Question That Changed The Co-Parenting Relationship With My Ex[2] The Question That Changed The Co-Parenting Relationship With My Ex[3] If You See A Kid Having A Tantrum In Public, Do This[3] If You See A Kid Having A Tantrum In Public, Do This[3] If You See A Kid Having A Tantrum In Public, Do This[3] If You See A Kid Having A Tantrum In Public, Do This[4] Jennifer Edeburn's answer to My mother says I don't 'contribute' to the family. How do I do so and become more responsible, practically?[4] Jennifer Edeburn's answer to My mother says I don't 'contribute' to the family. How do I do so and become more responsible, practically?[4] Jennifer Edeburn's answer to My mother says I don't 'contribute' to the family. How do I do so and become more responsible, practically?[4] Jennifer Edeburn's answer to My mother says I don't 'contribute' to the family. How do I do so and become more responsible, practically?[5] Do children ever belong on reality TV?[5] Do children ever belong on reality TV?[5] Do children ever belong on reality TV?[5] Do children ever belong on reality TV?[6] ‘Kid Nation’ - Television[6] ‘Kid Nation’ - Television[6] ‘Kid Nation’ - Television[6] ‘Kid Nation’ - Television[7] Duggars Share Photos Of Miscarried Baby At Memorial[7] Duggars Share Photos Of Miscarried Baby At Memorial[7] Duggars Share Photos Of Miscarried Baby At Memorial[7] Duggars Share Photos Of Miscarried Baby At Memorial[8] https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/HealthSafety/pdf/680-001_ABC.pdf[8] https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/HealthSafety/pdf/680-001_ABC.pdf[8] https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/HealthSafety/pdf/680-001_ABC.pdf[8] https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/HealthSafety/pdf/680-001_ABC.pdf

MY ANSWER: Everything. Climategate 2.0: Medieval Warm Period tough to erase How does one erase 300 years of inconvenient warming? From the Climategate 2.0 e-mail collection, someone named Pollack (possibly alarmist Henry Pollack) But it will be very difficult to make the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] go away in Greenland. The chart below from the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990 shows why alarmists want to erase the MWP. Read Climategate 2.0. Michael Mann erased almost 1000 years of accepted climate history by rubbing out the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Reason to scare the public about so called global warming that was not happening. It means an objective review of alarmism by independent judges proves in law that the scientists tampered with data to fake a climate crisis that d(more)