Neo Nazi father bans black nurse from looking after his baby

[Burris]

Lemme guess, the babys father ist just the same white trash fucktard as that one who named his three children "Adolf H......, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation and Honszlynn (sic!) Hinler (sic!2) Jeannie" .

youtube.com/watch?v=kvMW9nY40jM

I always wonder why exactly this people fall for neo-nazism, that certainly might be - if the manqué postcard painter from Braunau would be in exalted position - within the ones who got presented with the one-way train ticket to death...

You're right, of course, but they never think about that shit: It doesn't occur to them that they would, even if accepted into the cadre, simply be expendable human material. The most likely outcome for them, however, would be that they'd never get the chance to present their pedigrees before they were targeted for murder along with all the other untermenschen.

It's kinda funny, actually: Most of the low-lives advocating for this crap never realize they're calling down fire on themselves. They always think they're going to turn out on top.

And yeah, I'm ashamed to admit I actually LOL'd when I saw the name "Honszlynn." That's some creative fuckin' spelling, there.

[Burris]

What disturbs me is that the father made an obvious attempt at intimidation (showing his swastika tat) and that seems to be ok.

Shouldn't threatening hospital staff have consequences? I would think that the nurse in question would have grounds for a restraining order and to ask that the father not be present on the ward when she was working.

I don't entirely agree with most of the posters here.

1) Unless the Swastika itself, whether as a tat or patch or some other thing, were explicitly linked to the threat of immediate violence, then it can't really be taken for a threat that he flashed it. It's free speech. If he wants to mutilate his body with hateful bullshit, that's on him.

2) There are some medical professionals and patients who simply do not get along for whatever reason. If there are enough staff members around to shift a patient to someone he trusts more, then it's not only expedient but prudent for the hospital to respect patient wishes. (Yeah, this guy's rationale for hating the nurse was complete bullshit, but better that he should show his true colors there then to have him start blaming the nurse for everything and filing spurious complaints with her supervisors just so he can score a white nurse in her place. He came right out and said, "Hey, I'm a racist pain in the ass. And that's why I don't trust the nurse who is looking after my baby. I want someone else." That's his right.)

EDIT: Over hubby's hospital stay, I've also seen nurses beg off of caring for certain patients with whom they clash. If there's enough staff, the request is granted just to keep a bunch of drama from erupting.

[Burris]

I think it's disgusting that anyone here thinks this man had a "right" to a white nurse. That's essentially what you are saying. The hospital should never have caved to his request. There is a vast difference between not wanting a male doctor to see your vagina or breasts and not wanting a black person to touch you, and if you don't see that, you just suck fundamentally as a person.

No; the jackass had a right to request a white nurse. He didn't have a right to dictate staff policy - and certainly not based on staff skin color. The hospital also had a right to 1) either accept or reject his request, and 2) protect its staff - for example the black nurse - from being pelted with bullshit by someone who walked in with an ax to grind. Their primary duty was neither to the man nor the nurse, but to the child.

And I have to tell you, if I found out one of the nurses working with my husband had "Aktion T4" tattooed across her back, for example, she wouldn't get within 100 feet of the man. Granted, she chose her beliefs whereas someone can't choose skin color, which is an innocent condition of being, and there would be little reason to suspect (beyond her personal prejudices) that the standard of care T4-girl provides would be in any way inferior to what another nurse could provide. She also has the right to free speech.

Doesn't matter. She wouldn't be working with my husband, full stop. My saying that, and making a request or filing a petition based on the personal beliefs of an individual, would be a form of discrimination. I would actively discriminate against her based on her personal beliefs even without a shred of evidence that those beliefs in any way impacted her performance.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Neither have I and I don't understand it.

There is no such right. You either consent to treatment, or you don't.

With a medically fragile baby, the "or you don't" part would be problematic, since the state may take over custody (procedures vary by state/province).

[2xx1xy1JD]

Surely though any patient or relative of a patient could sue if they felt the patient had not been treated correctly. The skin colour of the nurse attending would be absolutely irrelevant to this. So bending to Mr. Nazi's wishes doesn't prevent him suing (in fact, if he will show a tat of a swastika to intimidate, I think he would be up to all sorts, and the law may not have been his friend in the past.)

Of course he has the right to make the request. However, he doesn't have the right to have it honoured. Free speech means "you are allowed to say things". There is not an additional clause which says "And there will be no consequences you don't like."

Changing from a black to a white nurse IMO was craven IMO and it doesn't prevent him suing. What it does do is shout loud and clear "Racists are welcome here! Show us your Nazi tattoo and you can pick the whitest nurse you can find! We'll screw over our employees to make you happy!"

Of course, it doesn't prevent anyone from being sued.

I am, however, aware of cases in which there were lawsuits filed that contained outrageous racist claims against medical personnel (alleging that if an 85 year old Jewish man with cancer died, it must be because the Arab medical resident killed him, or that if someone had medical complications, it must be because of a Jewish conspiracy with the medical staff). I can't see these cases succeeding, but can understand if hospital personnel themselves may switch off with someone else to avoid a situation where someone is more likely to cause problems.

Now, voluntarily switching to deal with a difficult patient (or patient's father) is very different than giving anyone the impression that they have the right to request that hospital staff be a particular race. It would be fun to see this POS have an emergency on Christmas Eve and try to find white Christians to treat him.

[Anny Nym]

You're right, of course, but they never think about that shit: It doesn't occur to them that they would, even if accepted into the cadre, simply be expendable human material. The most likely outcome for them, however, would be that they'd never get the chance to present their pedigrees before they were targeted for murder along with all the other untermenschen.

It's kinda funny, actually: Most of the low-lives advocating for this crap never realize they're calling down fire on themselves. They always think they're going to turn out on top.

And yeah, I'm ashamed to admit I actually LOL'd when I saw the name "Honszlynn." That's some creative fuckin' spelling, there.

Did happen this way in the 1930s and they definitely didn´t spare the sickly white babies...

Also, Jesse Owens won the Olympic Games in Berlin, 1936 -so this guy definitely is also a case of being "holier than the pope" here... :ugeek: (or was this already mentioned?)

I did a massive *scratcheshead* bec. I don´t see the nazi cadre in HONSZlynn. Just Honecker came to my mind, but I wouldn´t be suprised if Lynnies parents didn´t know the difference between Stasi and Gestapo.

I am just thankful, our very own cellar nazi dipshits aren´t allowed to name their children neither "H....." not "Hinler" or "Honzlynn". They have to stick with Alwine, Arne, Hedda, Hildrun, Horst, Mechthild, Sonnhild, Ute, Volker und Wolf :mrgreen:

[Burris]

Did happen this way in the 1930s and they definitely didn´t spare the sickly white babies...

Also, Jesse Owens won the Olympic Games in Berlin, 1936 -so this guy definitely is also a case of being "holier than the pope" here... :ugeek: (or was this already mentioned?)

I did a massive *scratcheshead* bec. I don´t see the nazi cadre in HONSZlynn. Just Honecker came to my mind, but I wouldn´t be suprised if Lynnies parents didn´t know the difference between Stasi and Gestapo.

I am just thankful, our very own cellar nazi dipshits aren´t allowed to name their children neither "H....." not "Hinler" or "Honzlynn". They have to stick with Alwine, Arne, Hedda, Hildrun, Horst, Mechthild, Sonnhild, Ute, Volker und Wolf :mrgreen:

"Honszlynn" cracks be up because it sounds like the parents were trying to sound, oooh, all Germanic and shit by feminizing the name Hans. Y'know - they heard that some German guys are named Hans and were thinking "Hanslien? That would be SO COOL !!1!!!eleventy!1!!!" And that, I really do think, is where fucking "Honszlynn" came from.

And of course they never think about what happened to so many of the enforcers and bruisers - people like themselves - who worked for the SA before that org was, ahem, 'disbanded.'

Volker and Wolf? FFS! God damned neo-Nazis. LOL! (And they probably make the same excuse about Jesse Owens as - I think - Hitler did: 'Well of course animals can outrun men.')

[slickcat79]

No; the jackass had a right to request a white nurse. He didn't have a right to dictate staff policy - and certainly not based on staff skin color. The hospital also had a right to 1) either accept or reject his request, and 2) protect its staff - for example the black nurse - from being pelted with bullshit by someone who walked in with an ax to grind. Their primary duty was neither to the man nor the nurse, but to the child.

And I have to tell you, if I found out one of the nurses working with my husband had "Aktion T4" tattooed across her back, for example, she wouldn't get within 100 feet of the man. Granted, she chose her beliefs whereas someone can't choose skin color, which is an innocent condition of being, and there would be little reason to suspect (beyond her personal prejudices) that the standard of care T4-girl provides would be in any way inferior to what another nurse could provide. She also has the right to free speech.

Doesn't matter. She wouldn't be working with my husband, full stop. My saying that, and making a request or filing a petition based on the personal beliefs of an individual, would be a form of discrimination. I would actively discriminate against her based on her personal beliefs even without a shred of evidence that those beliefs in any way impacted her performance.

So, there's really no other way to keep their employee from being verbally or physically assaulted than to comply with a racist's requests? If he did any of that, he could be removed from the area. Most larger hospitals employ their own security or police who have the specific job of protecting the safety of their staff. If their primary duty is to the child, they should be seeing to the care of the child, not accomodating completely unnecessary requests from his parent. And if they wanted to protect the nurse from feeling the effects of racism, they clearly failed.

I also think your example about your husband is nearly the opposite of the situation here. There is absolutely no reason to think that the nurse had any negative feelings towards white people in general, or this patient/family in particular. If the father had never said anything about the black nurse, she would never even know how he felt. Not only is there no reason to think her feelings would impact the care of her patient, there is no reason to think she had any negative feelings whatsoever.

[Burris]

So, there's really no other way to keep their employee from being verbally or physically assaulted than to comply with a racist's requests?

Racist-dipshit could make the nurse's life hell without assaulting her either physically or verbally. He wouldn't even have to look sideways at her; he'd just need to sit there and nitpick and report her for everything he thought she had done wrong.

So the hospital had a couple of options: They could try to boot the parents out while still caring for their child, which I suspect would involve not only a restraining order but at least some temporary change in guardianship, or they could ramp down the hostility in the work environment by assigning the black nurse to child of parents who appreciate her skills and don't see her as subhuman.

I also think your example about your husband is nearly the opposite of the situation here. There is absolutely no reason to think that the nurse had any negative feelings towards white people in general, or this patient/family in particular.

Yeah - if you're normal and not some brainwashed Nazi dipshit with an IQ smaller than his shoe-size. For all we know, he might believe all black people secretly want to kill whitey - some sort of genetic imperative to preserve their own race against extinction, or some other pseudo-science shit - and that the nurse went to the NICU specifically to knock off the babies of her racially superior competitors.

The Nazis certainly cultivated such ideas about Jewish doctors and other professionals, so it's not like the father had to come up with an original thought here.

[Anny Nym]

"Honszlynn" cracks be up because it sounds like the parents were trying to sound, oooh, all Germanic and shit by feminizing the name Hans. Y'know - they heard that some German guys are named Hans and were thinking "Hanslien? That would be SO COOL !!1!!!eleventy!1!!!" And that, I really do think, is where fucking "Honszlynn" came from.

And of course they never think about what happened to so many of the enforcers and bruisers - people like themselves - who worked for the SA before that org was, ahem, 'disbanded.'

Volker and Wolf? FFS! God damned neo-Nazis. LOL! (And they probably make the same excuse about Jesse Owens as - I think - Hitler did: 'Well of course animals can outrun men.')

"Wanna-be big bad REICHSDEUTSCHER 2.0 101 - Don´t!: Do not try to feminize "Hans". Never. Ever. Just no."

H. was simply fuhrer-ious about Owens sucess:

independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/hitler-was-there-but-jesse-had-gone-to-fulfil-a-dream-1770303.html

By the way, he ten names above are names of Barbara & Horst Rosenkranz´children.

They are like your average Quiverful family. Just with nazis. Nazis and weird beards.

[Burris]

"Wanna-be big bad REICHSDEUTSCHER 2.0 101 - Don´t!: Do not try to feminize "Hans". Never. Ever. Just no."

There's not much about the actual NSDAP that can make me laugh, but dumbass attempts to imitate what hicks around here – North America - mistake for German culture almost always crack me up.

The first time I saw "Honszlynn" - and it was here on FJ - I laughed so hard I cried. My first thought: "You tried to feminize Hans? Okay; I guess dumber things have happened" And then my second thought: "...and you didn't even spell 'Hans' correctly, but phonetically instead?"

LAWL!

H. was simply fuhrer-ious about Owens sucess:

independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/hitler-was-there-but-jesse-had-gone-to-fulfil-a-dream-1770303.html

I seem to recall newsreel footage of Hitler just sitting there, rocking baaack and forth, stunned that Jesse Owens had just owned Germany's finest runners.

You know, I think Hitler was actually a bad tactician because he was such a sore loser. Most of the crushing, crushing losses that happened on the Ostfront were ultimately his fault in some way:

'Oh, what's that? You're trapped in Stalingrad with over 100 000 of my soldiers and the Russian General just offered you an honorable surrender? Fuck you, Paulus. I'm the Fuhrer. Suck my diiiick.'

By the way, he ten names above are names of Barbara & Horst Rosenkranz´children.

They are like your average Quiverful family. Just with nazis. Nazis and weird beards.

Ah, sweet merciful crap! Instead of a thousand-year Reich, it's going to be a thousand years of this shit before humanity eventually vomits out the neo-Nazi bug some people seem to have caught.

[Mama Mia]

The hospital could have just said "No, I'm afraid we can not honor your request to change our staffing. The nurses we employ are all very well qualified and changing the schedule is not an option as it would be disruptive to all of our staff and patients. I'm sorry that upsets you" - if the guy continues to complain give him a copy of whatever sort of complaint form you have. Not complicated. If the guy starts to get agitated tell him to calm down or you'll have to ask him to leave and he doesn't want that because his baby needs him to be calm to get the best care and best chance of getting strong etc. blah blah. If he is still agitated tell him he can come back when he can speak respectfully. Call security if that doesn't work.

In the social services field I work in we get people bitching all the time because if they were x ethnic group they would get all sorts of benefits and they don't wan't a social worker who is x ethnic group.

There are two primary ethnic groups in our area (anglo and latino), we get this from both. The answer to both is a politely worded "tough cookies". repeat firmly as needed.

[justlurking]

I still don't understand what's so problematic about the hospital telling this jerk that he can leave and find another hospital if he isn't satisfied with the service they provide there. That at least puts the responsibility back on him. He can either suck it up, and allow the highly competent/well trained staff to provide the medical care his baby needs, or he can risk jeopardizing his child's health by removing him from the hospital--all in the name of "white power". It would destroy me as a parent to know that my child died all because I couldn't put aside my prejudice in order to ensure that they receive the help they need.

[2xx1xy1JD]

The hospital could have just said "No, I'm afraid we can not honor your request to change our staffing. The nurses we employ are all very well qualified and changing the schedule is not an option as it would be disruptive to all of our staff and patients. I'm sorry that upsets you" - if the guy continues to complain give him a copy of whatever sort of complaint form you have. Not complicated. If the guy starts to get agitated tell him to calm down or you'll have to ask him to leave and he doesn't want that because his baby needs him to be calm to get the best care and best chance of getting strong etc. blah blah. If he is still agitated tell him he can come back when he can speak respectfully. Call security if that doesn't work.

In the social services field I work in we get people bitching all the time because if they were x ethnic group they would get all sorts of benefits and they don't wan't a social worker who is x ethnic group.

There are two primary ethnic groups in our area (anglo and latino), we get this from both. The answer to both is a politely worded "tough cookies". repeat firmly as needed.

You're right.

Occasionally, we may have a reason to try to accommodate requests for the same ethnic/linguistic group - there are situations where it does make a difference that someone is able to have health or social services without language or cultural barriers. Requests for "not group X", though, are something that I have never seen accommodated.

[Burris]

I still don't understand what's so problematic about the hospital telling this jerk that he can leave and find another hospital if he isn't satisfied with the service they provide there.

Because he wasn't the one being treated. His minor child was. If he had asked for a white nurse as a patient, administrators could have easily told him to suck it up or piss off.

But they can't tell the guy he can't see his kid just because he's a vocal racist who makes the black nurse he hates uncomfortable because she knows he requested someone white to replace her.

That at least puts the responsibility back on him. He can either suck it up, and allow the highly competent/well trained staff to provide the medical care his baby needs, or he can risk jeopardizing his child's health by removing him from the hospital--all in the name of "white power". It would destroy me as a parent to know that my child died all because I couldn't put aside my prejudice in order to ensure that they receive the help they need.

That's just...that's not a chance the hospital should have been willing to take just for the pleasure of blowing this idiot off. He's not the one who would be refused service; his kid is. (And while we're on that topic, I wonder how having a kid in NICU fits with being Superman, master of the universe? The father is obviously a hypocrite in addition to being a dumbass.)

[OkToBeTakei]

I think the hospital failed the nurse. Even if they removed her and changed shifts in order to protect her, they failed to to protect her. If she lived here and the same instance occurred she would have a cast iron grievance case.

But I have a question. Litigious cases tend to be about unfair treatment and or dismissal etc. It would be very unlikely even though should this case have happened here that any massive financial gain would be awarded to the nurse or lost by the hospital. Financial recompense would tend to occur if it was warranted as in, a person being unable to work therefore a large payment re. work/pension would possibly be negotiated. Personal hardship awards would be nominal and would only cover any lost work and a good will payment reflecting the crime. ie Racial Discrimination.

It would be doubtful the case would get to the point this nurse is faced with. The hospital has let her down but as I am unsure of discriminatory law in the US and differing states I wonder is suing her only recourse. Is it about money? Is the system in regards to to the health sector being private MAKE it about money?

[kb2]

Hospitals are required to offer care, but they are not required to convince people that they have to undergo care. If you died because you refused to allow the only doctor on call to treat you because he or she was "_____," that's on you, not the hospital. They are also not required to convince parents that their child has to undergo care. If a parent tries to withdraw critical medical care from a child in a situation with a good prognosis after treatment, CPS can step in and require the child receive that care. (For instance, if Jehovah's Witness parents refused to allow their child to have a blood transfusion. The hospital wouldn't be responsible for converting the parents to a different religion.) So yes, the hospital could say, these are the people who can work with your child and if you don't like it, your options are either suck it up or try to deny your child care and have us involve CPS and give this care to your child with these people anyway.

If the nurse felt threatened or harassed, she could have requested different shifts herself, but clearly she didn't want protection above having non crappy shifts.

[meda]

I think the hospital failed the nurse. Even if they removed her and changed shifts in order to protect her, they failed to to protect her. If she lived here and the same instance occurred she would have a cast iron grievance case.

But I have a question. Litigious cases tend to be about unfair treatment and or dismissal etc. It would be very unlikely even though should this case have happened here that any massive financial gain would be awarded to the nurse or lost by the hospital. Financial recompense would tend to occur if it was warranted as in, a person being unable to work therefore a large payment re. work/pension would possibly be negotiated. Personal hardship awards would be nominal and would only cover any lost work and a good will payment reflecting the crime. ie Racial Discrimination.

It would be doubtful the case would get to the point this nurse is faced with. The hospital has let her down but as I am unsure of discriminatory law in the US and differing states I wonder is suing her only recourse. Is it about money? Is the system in regards to to the health sector being private MAKE it about money?

In the US, unless she had a union and could utilize the grievance process, then her only remedy is a lawsuit. Only about 12% of hospital nurses in th US are covered by a union contract, so odds are she did not have that recourse. The way discrimination law is enforced in this country is by litigation. Sometimes the EEOC (federal) or a state agency charged with enforcing state anti discrimination law will sue on behalf of an employee after an investigation, but enforcement always involves a lawsuit or a settlement brought about because of the threat of litigation.

[dawbs]

FWIW, last I knew this is actually a hospital where nurses are union--but I've known a few people who work there and they didn't find it was a place where the union watched out for it's lower-level staffers. Not that my 2 data points are actually data :)

[OkToBeTakei]

In the US, unless she had a union and could utilize the grievance process, then her only remedy is a lawsuit. Only about 12% of hospital nurses in th US are covered by a union contract, so odds are she did not have that recourse. The way discrimination law is enforced in this country is by litigation. Sometimes the EEOC (federal) or a state agency charged with enforcing state anti discrimination law will sue on behalf of an employee after an investigation, but enforcement always involves a lawsuit or a settlement brought about because of the threat of litigation.

Thanks meda. It really is so different here I am having a hard time trying to figure out the legalities :?

[OkToBeTakei]

FWIW, last I knew this is actually a hospital where nurses are union--but I've known a few people who work there and they didn't find it was a place where the union watched out for it's lower-level staffers. Not that my 2 data points are actually data :)

Are not all nurses in a Union? Is the union hospital based? Or a totally separate entity?

[dawbs]

Are not all nurses in a Union? Is the union hospital based? Or a totally separate entity?

From what I know, not all in unions. So some hospitals would have unionized nurses and some would not.

This is one of those things that would vary GREATLY by state/region/etc.

Said lawsuit happened in Michigan where unions are currently being weakend by new laws (

(I know at least other hospital in Flint, went from non-union to union in my lifetime/memory-I'm in my early 30's so...not that long ago. No idea where it stands now)

[OkToBeTakei]

From what I know, not all in unions. So some hospitals would have unionized nurses and some would not.

This is one of those things that would vary GREATLY by state/region/etc.

Said lawsuit happened in Michigan where unions are currently being weakend by new laws (

(I know at least other hospital in Flint, went from non-union to union in my lifetime/memory-I'm in my early 30's so...not that long ago. No idea where it stands now)

:(

Not so good. Here Unison is a huge union which covers most public sector workers including teachers and nurses. There was a one day teacher strike last year for instance.

The decision to be part of a union and which one is down to the individual and nothing whatsoever to do with an employer. JFC probably can explain unions way better. Suffice to say as a nurse it would not cross my mind to NOT be in one.

[Mama Mia]

I'm really surprised at the 12% union rate for nurses in the U.S. - I was under the impression that virtually all hospitals had contracts with Unions - like teachers, police, etc.

[meda]

I'm really surprised at the 12% union rate for nurses in the U.S. - I was under the impression that virtually all hospitals had contracts with Unions - like teachers, police, etc.

As someone who works for a labor union, it always amazes me how people overestimate union density in the US. I went back and checked, 12% was too high a number. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 13.6% of healthcare workers are covered by a union contract. That number includes, LPNs, CNAs, techs, therapists, etc...so the actual number of RN's is significantly lower.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

About teachers, police, etc... 34% of education employees are unionized, and something like 34.6% of public employees are unionized. Almost 1/2 of states do not allow full collective bargaining rights for public employees, and in some cases where bargaining is allowed for some public employees, police, firefighters, and other "essential employees" are expressly prohibited from joining a union. North Carolina is generally considered the most restrictive, it is actually illegal for any municipality to enter into a collective bargaining agreement (group contract, union or otherwise) with it's employees.