[Jim Lindgren, August 4, 2006 at 6:07pm] Trackbacks
Australian Official Nominates the Father of a Terrorist Detainee for "Father of the Year."--

Jon Stanhope, the head of the Australian Capital Territory (and a Labor Party leader) has nominated Australian Terry Hicks for "Father of the Year." Terry is the father of David Hicks, who was arrested in 2001 while fighting for the Taliban (against coalition forces including Australia).

THE father of terrorist suspect David Hicks has been nominated as Australian father of the year by ACT [Australian Capital Territory] chief minister Jon Stanhope.

Mr Stanhope compared Terry Hicks to Steve Waugh, Prime Minister John Howard and former leader Billy McMahon — all former fathers of the year.

The chief minister said Mr Hicks had stuck by his son, advocated justice and did it with grace — all qualities of a good dad.

"But the anguish of that news must have been nothing compared to the relentless pain and uncertainty that Terry Hicks has experienced every day since, as he tries, from afar, to support his son," Mr Stanhope said.

"That Terry Hicks has continued to behave during this terrible time with such public stoicism and courtesy and strength is a lesson to all."

I can understand considerable sympathy for the Terry (it must be painful to raise a son who would take up arms against his own country), but giving the father an award for parenting seems an odd suggestion.

Tip to Tim Blair, who dryly observes: "Well deserved, too. After all, he did such a fine job of raising the boy."

Erasmussimo:
Hold on, Jim. Let's take the opposite tack here. Suppose that Mr. Hicks had publicly disowned the kid, leaving him in the lurch. Would you consider this an honorable thing for a parent to do? I don't. While I don't expect every parent to stand by every child, I consider it a right honorable thing for a parent to stand by the child in any and all circumstances. Surely this case demonstrates fatherly love in the extreme. Mr. Hicks has not made any attempt to praise his son's actions; he has only attempted to help his son get through this time as best he can. Is that not what we find finest in parenthood? Anybody can love the kid who's captain of the football team, gets the PhD, lands a great job, marries a wonderful spouse and has a happy family. But is paternal love a reward for performance or a bond of blood?

Furthermore, I'll ask, what if it were the mother doing the same? Would you criticize a mother for standing by her child in any and all cases?

Lastly, Tim Blair deserves a rap on the knuckles for his knuckle-headed comment, "Well deserved, too. After all, he did such a fine job of raising the boy." Parents should not be blamed for the shortcomings of their children. My aunt's son got drunk, pawed a pretty girl, and shot her boyfriend. He's now in jail. My aunt was shattered by the episode, but she stood by her son throughout, even though she makes no defense of his actions. She is a good woman who raised her children carefully. All came out well save for this one son. Numerous studies have shown that, very roughly speaking, the objectively measurable behavior traits of a person are due to genetics, parental nurture, and childhood friends, in the percentages 25%, 25%, and 50%, respectively. THESE ARE GROSSLY APPROXIMATE NUMBERS!!! But they give an idea of what determines a person's character.
8.4.2006 7:54pm
James Lindgren (mail):
Erasmussimo:

I wasn't criticizing the father--for precisely one of your reasons. Even good parents can raise kids who go bad. And we all fail at some things, despite our best efforts.

A good baseball manager can nonetheless have a team that comes in last place--because of injuries, bad luck, bad upper management. The good manager might stoicly stand by his team, and be quite honorable, but you don't nominate him for the nation's "manager of the year" award.

Likewise, you shouldn't nominate people who failed in a major way as a parent for national awards for good parenting, even if they tried to do the right thing.
8.4.2006 9:37pm
Mike Lorrey (mail) (www):
Hear hear, James. Dad might be a peach, but I don't see any evidence for or against. Dad can support his son by being there for him, while vehemently disagreeing with his choices, though we don't know whether he does or not, however for such an apple to fall so far from the tree would indicate negligence of some fatherly sort, and if the apple isn't falling so far from the tree, then he certainly doesn't deserve the award, any more than Osama's dad should receive its equivalent from the Sauds...
8.4.2006 9:46pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
Not blaming someone and honoring them are two very different things.
8.4.2006 10:05pm
Erasmussimo:
Do we honor a father for how his kids turned out, or for how well he demonstrates paternal love? I suspect that critics of the award think that it reflects on the son; if it does, please produce evidence to that effect. Inasmuch as it is a "father of the year" award, it would seem to apply to the father, not the son. The father does not share the opprobrium due to the son for his actions (despite the insinuations to that effect by several ignorant commentators). The award, it seems to me, goes to him for carrying out his paternal duty to love his son even in the most difficult case. Surely if parents took excellent care of a congenitally quadriplegic son, we would consider them worthy of an award, even though it is clear that they are directly responsible for their son's condition. Why refuse to extend the same kind of thinking to the father in this case?
8.4.2006 10:43pm
B. R. George (mail):
Sir, I'm quite certain you are familiar with the meaning of the word "suspect". I will admit that I am not familiar with the facts of this case, and it's certainly possible that the public evidence against this young man is quite compelling, but your tone indicates a willingness to equate "terrorist suspect" with "terrorist". If we aren't willing to make that leap, the story gets a little more two-sided.
8.4.2006 11:55pm