Anachronistic, comically out of date, and in this day and age, repellent? That a boy cannot be called "Sue" strikes an American as a fundamental attack on personal rights.
The problem is that "let's leave everything to the free market and have no rules" is appealing to large powerful cultures like the American one because they know that will favor them. It's less appealing to smaller cultures because it won't. It's kind of the reason places like Quebec have their rules like having to provide French language shop signs even though to Americans (and even English-speaking Canadians) that seems like a violation of the rights of the shop owner.
Traditionally our birth name isn’t our choice. And rarely do people change it. In America it’s not a trivial expense. Effectively the same “rule” exists: people have one name chosen by others.
Just because it may not be codified on paper doesn’t mean a reasonably similar organic habit doesn’t exist.
As a kid, everyone around you determines who you are to an extent by the options for learning they provide.
There’s a lot of laws that codify organic habit that will appear to reasonably occur without an explicit law.
Only in America would your name be a bigger personal freedom concern than child political prisoners no one brings up, or dying of preventable illness from lack of healthcare.
Here you're talking about parents naming their children, so it's not your own name, it's someone else's name. In Europe children are individuals with their own rights, they're not property of the parents.
Some parents do stupid things with names. In the UK you can call your children almost anything, but sometimes the state gets involved.
Here's a case where a mentally ill woman (who had previously had 3 children removed) wanted to call her children "Preacher" and "Cyanide".
> The mother's mental health continued to deteriorate following the conclusion of the first care proceedings. When it became known that the mother was pregnant there were, inevitably, considerable concerns about the mother's ability to care for the unborn twins and the local authority therefore issued care proceedings the day after their birth. An interim care order was made on 18 May 2015, and the local authority's interim care plan, to place the children in foster care until long term plans were formulated, was approved. A capacity assessment concluded that, notwithstanding her mental health difficulties, the mother had capacity to litigate.
> Meanwhile, on 15 May 2015, the midwife at the hospital where the mother had given birth to the children, contacted the local authority to tell them of her concern that the mother was proposing to name the children respectively "Preacher" (for the boy) and "Cyanide" (for the girl). The local authority were equally troubled about this proposal and brought it to the court's attention at the interim care order hearing.
> In the days following the birth of the twins, the local authority quite rightly decided that, rather than issue an application in relation to the proposed names of the children, they would attempt to work with the mother and encourage her to choose names other than the ones identified to the midwife.
> On 22 May 2015 there was a case management hearing before Her Honour Judge Garland-Thomas. At that hearing the mother gave an undertaking that she would not to register the birth of the children until the naming issue was resolved. The local authority indicated that in the event that the mother's position regarding the names remained unchanged, it was considering making an application to the court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under section 100 Children Act 1989 ('CA 1989'). During the course of the next few weeks, further efforts were made to discuss with the mother the appropriateness of the names she had chosen. At a LAC review (Looked After Children Review) on 8 June 2015, the mother said that she had chosen the name "Cyanide" because "this is how Hitler killed himself". The mother remained determined that the children should be called "Preacher" and "Cyanide" and accordingly, the case was transferred to the High Court for consideration of an application made by the local authority to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court under s100 CA 1989.
Once she's 18 the child can change her own name to Cyanide if she wishes.
> the principle of states interfering in ordinary parental decisions is surely to be condemned.
Why? Children are humans and humans have rights and it's important that the rights of the child are upheld and these rights will sometimes be in conflict with what a parent wants to do.
Children are not property of their parent.
From UNCRC article 3:
> In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions,courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
We have a list of approved legal names. (I know a guy called Sasha. His parents wanted to name him Sasha, but were told that isn't an approved name, it's a nickname. So his parents named him Alexandre, and everyone who knows him calls him Sasha.)
Given that in the US, at least one boy whose parents named him Marion grew up and subsequently preferred to be known as John, I'm not convinced having the list is a substantial infraction on parental rights.
Cousin comments have explained the point at length. There are apparently over 65'000 names on the sure-to-be-approved list, and parents can argue for their own. There were 86'000 births last year, and I'm pretty sure names follow a Zipfish law, so I bet there's a long tail of approved names that weren't even used. (top 200 names account for 21'000 boys and 16'000 girls)
Some freedoms I can think of off the top of my head that weren't true of the states last century (that I find more important than naming):
- freedom to effectively vote for candidates from a multitude of political parties.
- freedom to roam.
- freedom to open retail bank accounts in any major currency.
- freedom to talk back to cops without (any, let alone mortal) reprisal.
- freedom (not in my commune, but in nearby jurisdictions) to pay taxes in cryptocurrency.
- freedom to distill my own schnapps, drink it out of an open container in the middle of a public road, in front of cops, while driving (the last is an exaggeration, but pedantically true).
And a freedom-from that's important to me: on the few occasions I have to go to the big city, I know that the homeless-looking guy I see downtown has an apartment. He just looks like he's been sleeping on the streets.
No, they haven't. They've plastered over the obvious fact that, aside from sticking their nose where nobody wants it, they accomplish nothing (witness your example) positive.
And what-about-isms are hardly helpful. Thanks for a patriotic recitation of rights you enjoy - all very nice. But for the life of me I can't figure what that has to do with a bureaucratic committee that imagines that interfering with naming children is accomplishing something useful?
Speaking of sticking noses in, I propose the following:
For my part, I will faithfully, should my government wish to interfere with your freedom to name your children anything, do my utmost to dissuade them.
In return, could you please attempt do something about your government's (and your corporations', respectively) current interference with my constitutional freedom from nosey parkers?
"Art. 13 Right to privacy
1 Every person has the right to privacy in their private and family life and in their home, and in relation to their mail and telecommunications.
2 Every person has the right to be protected against the misuse of their personal data."
Not that simple? The corporations are collected data from people that offer it - facebook etc is a sign-up service. It's voluntary.
Sure we need some rules about what's reasonable to record. In fact, we're getting them. But reigning in corporations is harder than making a rule. Because there's money at stake, it's hard to get a ravenous corporation to change behavior with a little fine or whatever.
So sure, I'm on the side of privacy, as should have been obvious. But not sure I can fix this, sorry.
It is quite common for names to need administrative approval in Europe. Rarely is that an obstacle, it's just so that people don't name their kid "Fuck", "X Æ A-12" or something else that could cause them to have problems in life (that also can apply to foreign language names – the US is very liberal in this aspect, being made up of immigrants, but many European countries aren't).
> "Few Americans, for example, realize that we were at war with Bulgaria in World War II. Had the Bulgars developed sensational weapons, there would have been a sudden upswing of interest in them. People would have realized that Bulgaria, like Hungary and long-lost Avaria, was once a fierce Asiatic state grafted onto the European system; the fabulous power of the Old Bulgarian Empire would have become known, and the names of Krum, Symeon and the Czar Samuel added to our calendar of hate. But Bulgaria never did enough against the United States to count as an enemy, and even succeeded, by diplomatic ineptitude, in getting into a state of war with all the Axis Powers and all the United Nations simultaneously; Bulgaria escaped the fame which goes with hostility."
(coupled with north atlantic fishing rights as a current topic)
24 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 73.0 ms ] threadThis example in Finland seems pretty tame compared to America’s current effort to keep their culture “pure.”
Not so sure Americans should be leaning into “freer than thee” rhetoric.
Just because it may not be codified on paper doesn’t mean a reasonably similar organic habit doesn’t exist.
As a kid, everyone around you determines who you are to an extent by the options for learning they provide.
There’s a lot of laws that codify organic habit that will appear to reasonably occur without an explicit law.
Only in America would your name be a bigger personal freedom concern than child political prisoners no one brings up, or dying of preventable illness from lack of healthcare.
Let’s ogle how backwards Iceland is.
Sounds a little like a desperate attempt to explain away a silly old committee.
It’s an attempt at highlighting your hypocrisy.
Who are you to dictate what’s anachronistic and immoral in another country right now, America?
Empty rhetorical grandstanding in a desperate attempt to deflect ones own political failures.
Hours and hours of defining the problems. Little to no effort considering practical solutions.
Wow the internet sure has enabled greatness.
Deflect your hypocrisy all you want.
Why anyone would take Americans seriously while barking about how free they are from bureaucratic committee is beyond me.
Your bureaucracy just externalizes the gate keeping to corporate HR and universities admissions.
Why not be a bit more scientifically honest: has nothing to do with nation states and much more to do with human biology.
You possess no moral high ground. Endless deflection and projection with humans.
Is there any more hyperbole you can wring from this?
Some parents do stupid things with names. In the UK you can call your children almost anything, but sometimes the state gets involved.
Here's a case where a mentally ill woman (who had previously had 3 children removed) wanted to call her children "Preacher" and "Cyanide".
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/374.html
> The mother's mental health continued to deteriorate following the conclusion of the first care proceedings. When it became known that the mother was pregnant there were, inevitably, considerable concerns about the mother's ability to care for the unborn twins and the local authority therefore issued care proceedings the day after their birth. An interim care order was made on 18 May 2015, and the local authority's interim care plan, to place the children in foster care until long term plans were formulated, was approved. A capacity assessment concluded that, notwithstanding her mental health difficulties, the mother had capacity to litigate.
> Meanwhile, on 15 May 2015, the midwife at the hospital where the mother had given birth to the children, contacted the local authority to tell them of her concern that the mother was proposing to name the children respectively "Preacher" (for the boy) and "Cyanide" (for the girl). The local authority were equally troubled about this proposal and brought it to the court's attention at the interim care order hearing.
> In the days following the birth of the twins, the local authority quite rightly decided that, rather than issue an application in relation to the proposed names of the children, they would attempt to work with the mother and encourage her to choose names other than the ones identified to the midwife.
> On 22 May 2015 there was a case management hearing before Her Honour Judge Garland-Thomas. At that hearing the mother gave an undertaking that she would not to register the birth of the children until the naming issue was resolved. The local authority indicated that in the event that the mother's position regarding the names remained unchanged, it was considering making an application to the court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under section 100 Children Act 1989 ('CA 1989'). During the course of the next few weeks, further efforts were made to discuss with the mother the appropriateness of the names she had chosen. At a LAC review (Looked After Children Review) on 8 June 2015, the mother said that she had chosen the name "Cyanide" because "this is how Hitler killed himself". The mother remained determined that the children should be called "Preacher" and "Cyanide" and accordingly, the case was transferred to the High Court for consideration of an application made by the local authority to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court under s100 CA 1989.
Once she's 18 the child can change her own name to Cyanide if she wishes.
Why? Children are humans and humans have rights and it's important that the rights of the child are upheld and these rights will sometimes be in conflict with what a parent wants to do.
Children are not property of their parent.
From UNCRC article 3:
> In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions,courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
Finland seems pretty tame compared to America’s current effort to keep their culture “pure.”
Not so sure Americans should be leaning into “We are freer than thee” rhetoric.
Given that in the US, at least one boy whose parents named him Marion grew up and subsequently preferred to be known as John, I'm not convinced having the list is a substantial infraction on parental rights.
Some freedoms I can think of off the top of my head that weren't true of the states last century (that I find more important than naming):
- freedom to effectively vote for candidates from a multitude of political parties.
- freedom to roam.
- freedom to open retail bank accounts in any major currency.
- freedom to talk back to cops without (any, let alone mortal) reprisal.
- freedom (not in my commune, but in nearby jurisdictions) to pay taxes in cryptocurrency.
- freedom to distill my own schnapps, drink it out of an open container in the middle of a public road, in front of cops, while driving (the last is an exaggeration, but pedantically true).
And a freedom-from that's important to me: on the few occasions I have to go to the big city, I know that the homeless-looking guy I see downtown has an apartment. He just looks like he's been sleeping on the streets.
And what-about-isms are hardly helpful. Thanks for a patriotic recitation of rights you enjoy - all very nice. But for the life of me I can't figure what that has to do with a bureaucratic committee that imagines that interfering with naming children is accomplishing something useful?
For my part, I will faithfully, should my government wish to interfere with your freedom to name your children anything, do my utmost to dissuade them.
In return, could you please attempt do something about your government's (and your corporations', respectively) current interference with my constitutional freedom from nosey parkers?
"Art. 13 Right to privacy
1 Every person has the right to privacy in their private and family life and in their home, and in relation to their mail and telecommunications.
2 Every person has the right to be protected against the misuse of their personal data."
Deal?
Sure we need some rules about what's reasonable to record. In fact, we're getting them. But reigning in corporations is harder than making a rule. Because there's money at stake, it's hard to get a ravenous corporation to change behavior with a little fine or whatever.
So sure, I'm on the side of privacy, as should have been obvious. But not sure I can fix this, sorry.
My context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap
> "Few Americans, for example, realize that we were at war with Bulgaria in World War II. Had the Bulgars developed sensational weapons, there would have been a sudden upswing of interest in them. People would have realized that Bulgaria, like Hungary and long-lost Avaria, was once a fierce Asiatic state grafted onto the European system; the fabulous power of the Old Bulgarian Empire would have become known, and the names of Krum, Symeon and the Czar Samuel added to our calendar of hate. But Bulgaria never did enough against the United States to count as an enemy, and even succeeded, by diplomatic ineptitude, in getting into a state of war with all the Axis Powers and all the United Nations simultaneously; Bulgaria escaped the fame which goes with hostility."
(coupled with north atlantic fishing rights as a current topic)