Jump to content

Sikh couple 'told they could not adopt because only white babies were available'


Recommended Posts

A Sikh couple claim they were told they could not adopt a white child because of their ethnic background.

Sandeep and Reena Mander, who are British-born and live in Berkshire, allege that they were rejected by their local adoption agency, Adopt Berkshire, as only white children were available. 

Mr and Mrs Mander, who are in their 30s and have been unable to have a child of their own, say they were willing to give a home to a child of any race. The couple are legally challenging the decision, with the backing of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Full article available at

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/27/sikh-couple-told-could-not-adopt-white-babies-available/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, KhoonKaBadlaKhoon said:

I can't imagine any court deciding against the Sikh couple. Plus, isn't it fashionable for many upper class white folks to adopt non white babies?

I wouldn't be too sure about this. David Cameron's Tory government was to make a law "to make it easier for prospective parents to adopt children from different racial or cultural backgrounds, Michael Gove has announced." Gove himself was adopted. But I don't know if that law got passed.

In any case, I am not too keen on interracial or inter-cultural adoption. Interracial adoption is not all peaches and rainbows. From a Time Magazine article on interracial adoption:

  • “I can’t tell you how often I hear white adoptive parents say ‘Well, we don’t have anything around. We live in a rural community. The closest black person is three hours away,’” says Goller-Sojourner,
  • “It only takes one or two people calling you a n—– to stick. The difference is that when a black person is called a racially charged name, they go home and get the love and support from parents who look like them. I went home and got that same love from people who looked just like my tormentors. "
  • Growing up, he was surrounded by white culture. His parentslistened to Lawrence Welk during dinner. His mother watched Masterpiece Theater and All My Children. They vacationed in Montana. He doesn’t remember a black person ever being invited into his house.
  • Today Goller-Sojourner wants to spare future generations of adoptees his long winter of self-hatred. Which means when he meets with adoptive parents he shoots down what he sees as a transparent resistance to diversity. 
  • She encouraged her daughter to apply for Chinese mentorship programs at UCal, though Scott resisted because growing up she found herself increasingly disinterested in exploring her Chinese culture.
  • She’s only attracted to white boys and the majority of her friends were white.

Interracial adoption is more to make the parents feel good than it is about considering the feelings and needs of the child.

In 1978, Congress passed a law called the Indian Child Welfare Act that governs removal of Indian (Native American) children from their homes:

  • ICWA gives tribal governments a strong voice concerning child custody proceedings that involve Indian children, by allocating tribes exclusive jurisdiction over the case when the child resides on, or is domiciled on, the reservation, or when the child is a ward of the tribe; and concurrent, but presumptive, jurisdiction over non-reservation Native Americans’ foster care placement proceedings.[2]
  • ICWA was enacted in 1978 because of the disproportionately high rate of removal of Indian children from their traditional homes and essentially from Indian culture as a whole. Before enactment, as many as 25 to 35 percent of all Indian children were being removed from their Indian homes and placed in non-Indian homes, with presumably an absence of Indian culture.

So basically, before this Act, Indian children were being systematically removed from Indian homes and placed into non-Indian homes, a process which could be described as a slow genocide. I support the way Congress acted to protect the Indian people.

But, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Which is why really don't have any problems with the adoption agency in the article above saying that this Sikh couple should adopt from India. What, exactly, is wrong with that? Secondly, why do they want to adopt a white child? Status? I do agree it's fashionable for liberal white parents to adopt non-white children as a token of their "virtuosity". Why's it good for non-white couples to adopt white children as tokens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2

I don't really care who adopts who, or whatever bogus excuse someone not from the family uses, but there are certain things every parent that adopts kids must know. One of these things is that they shouldn't control their desire to learn about their birth culture, which sadly many of these parents try to control and limit.

The bigger problem is homosexuals adopting any kids rather than some interracial adoption, because of they way society works and how everyone should be nurtured. 

We should also not pretend like race and culture is not a thing to most people, even among our own people, we are divided by man-made castes and other divisions. Every child should have a home, but that home should respect their own cultures, as well as the child should be willing to work towards the family.

We also don't live in a world where everyone believes in the concept of "One Human Race", and when these lots run around, it shouldn't bother the adoptive parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use