The country that elected (and still loves) George W. Bush, really can’t get embarrassed easily, so when I read Washington Post reporter and jingoist Sally Quinn’s juvenile Op-Ed tantrum called, “Does Germany Condone Kidnapping?” I was surprised to feel a deep sense of national shame welling up. How could anyone give this person a public forum to express her painfully ill-considered and unexamined views?
The garbage smells like this: German citizens are kidnapping American children and the German courts are helping them. In some cases, the American parents are denied visitation rights. In others, they’re forced to pay child support, and if they refuse, they can be arrested for being “a deadbeat dad.” You know, we have a word in English for a person who refuses to pay child support. It’s “deadbeat dad.”
The basic conceit in her article is that German courts are so inferior to American courts that if the German court has the audacity to rule against an American citizen in a child custody case, then America has the right, no, the duty, to force the German court to reverse its ruling.
The most galling part of her article is these two sentences, “If ever there was a human rights violation, these kidnappings are it.” Yes, right up there with genital mutilation and genocide. Followed by: “One might even call them acts of terrorism.” No, one wouldn’t. Not if one had a shred of sense. The implication that there’s any comparison between this scenario and the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks is abominable. Her reckless use of the phrase “acts of terrorism” rapes the memory of the victims of Sept. 11. Her editor’s decision to unleash this manipulative drivel on unsuspecting civilians is far better qualified to receive “act of terrorism status, but it’s best not to go that route.
I wonder whether Sally Quinn would be as shocked to learn that American courts aid and abet these kinds of “kidnappings” on a regular basis? Worse yet, the crime is usually Yankee on Yankee. Ms. Quinn predicts that the Germans courts’ inevitable response that “the country’s courts are independent and that nothing can be done,” will be a “dishonest and specious argument.” Considering that she’s criticizing an argument yet to be made, she’s one to talk.
Popularity: 1% [?]