The mask of equality

Sven Danielsson, a 70 year old inhabitant of the little town of Grycksbo in Sweden took a walk the other day. Probably enjoying one of the first days of springtime in Sweden. He was jumped by three masked and violent animal lovers with baseball bats that beat him to the ground.
The reason?
In an interview about his life in the local newspaper Mr. Danielsson had said that he wanted to increase the hunting on wolf. He enjoys taking walks with his dog, "Packall" and the increasing numbers of wolves in the area had him worried about the safety of his dog. All the assaulters had said while beating him was that he should keep from expressing his thoughts on the subject of wolves.
I have expressed my concern for public safety due to the increasing numbers of wolves in Sweden in other postings on this blog, but it seems that there is an aspect of the public safety that I have previously missed. It used to be that people living close to the woods where wolves were known to roam brought their rifle with them for protection when they ventured out into the woods - just in case.

Never did it occur to me that people also must be prepared to defend themselves against the wolf collaborators. The punks that prefer to beat up a 70 year old man just because he doesn't like wolves, particularly not the ones that want to harm his dog. Nowadays land owners not only must put up fences to keep the wolves out, they also need to put up safety fences to keep the militant punks out of reach.

It also used to be the case that you could express a different opinion in Sweden without having to fear being beat up by masked punks with baseball bats. The Ku Klux Klan used to mask themselves before beating someone up that they found to be disagreeable to them in some fashion. Now animal lovers and wolf huggers in Sweden has adopted this established model of terror to reach their objective, a world without "wolf haters." And in that "noble" quest all means are acceptable. The mask is back on and the punk wearing it wants to beat somebody up.

Swedish professor claims big gov't is bliss

Professor Bo Rothstein is criticizing a suggested policy by the Swedish Center party to work towards a "small government." Rothstein, professor in political science at the university of Gothenburg, declares in an article in the Swedish daily Expressen, that a large government is best suited to give people the circumstances to achieve happiness. 

He declares that research support this view, such as the fact that many third world countries have small governments. That might be, but to go from that, to – “see, small government means poverty”, is a conclusion that the research does not support. It seems to me that in this discussion between small and big government somewhere there should be a reservation for the result of simply “bad governments.”

In other areas of life bad results are usually attributed to lack of competence rather than size primarily.

Also Prof. Rothstein suitably avoids bringing up the soviet experiment with its government totally subjugated by its Leviathan complex. When discussing government size and success and happiness, I think the total failure and collapse of the soviet giant should be very relevant part of any balanced discussion. The United States, having built an economic empire of unprecedented historic magnitude, have done it with a rather small government with explicit regional differences and freedoms. It is interesting to note that the United States at its present state, has the biggest government it has ever had, and it has the greatest economical problems it has ever had. I don’t draw any lengthy conclusions from that. It could be seen though as an indication of a reality opposing the socialist dogmas that are broadcasted from Swedish universities. 

Prof. Rothstein also seems to equate or confuse building wealth with sustaining wealth. These are two concepts that are very different.  It’s a mistake to infer that it's the current state of affairs that have created our present standard of living, when any logical analysis makes it overtly clear, that the source for the present wealth lies in the predominating attitudes and the political systems of the past. Which incidentally almost universally were comprised of smaller governments than today.

Öka föräldranärvaron i idrotten. (Also in English)

Svensk text längre ner.


The Swedish Athlete and world champion Patrick Sjoberg stepped out last year and told the world about the sexual abuse within the athletic community. What is interesting is the discussion that followed in Sweden. In DN:s article, you can read that what Patrik Sjöberg encountered by some was called "an isolated incident."

This is interesting, and I'll stay a little with this, for I think it is very revealing. It is precisely such a claim that in Sweden usually is taken for good, and subsequently, you can sweep the whole issue under the carpet. "An isolated incident," nothing to worry about in other words. Above all, in the Swedish mindset it is important to not get excited and "rock the boat," because who knows, you might even be perceived as a troublemaker.

The question that I ask myself is: If one speaks about any nominal frequency of sexual abuse in this way, after one of the country's most prominent athletes emerged to the contrary, what basis do you really have for such a position? What is the basis for the assumption that abuse does NOT occur, when a leading sports profile just said that abuse is ACTUALLY occurring? Very strange way of reasoning and very unpleasant. It follows that the discrediting of Patrick Sjoberg is implied.  The signals you send to youth in sports by such a stance is - you're on your own. It's like muddying the waters in advance to curb any other would be reports of abuse. In the case of Jimmy Savile in England, the victim's stories were not taken seriously either, maybe they also thought it was a question of an "isolated incident."

So now it turns out in this study performed in Sweden, that there are about 5 percent of active in youth sports, who have been subjected to sexual abuse in Sweden. That would mean more than tens of thousands of children and young people victimized by sexual offenders(!). In other words, There is reason for parents not to delegate their parental responsibility uncritically to a coach or other functionary in sports. It's not entirely unreasonable to think that there might be an increased risk that adult persons that spend their free time with other kids in the sporting environment, with all that this entails in terms of physical proximity, could be motivated by unhealthy motives.

Now, I don't think its reason to be an alarmist, but I do think that many parents are acting more than a little naive when they send their children right and left to different activities, without being present themselves. A parent may not always need to be there, but probably quite a lot. It is in the nature of a predator, not to choose a victim who appears to have a very good relationship with a parent.

A majority of the country's sports leaders are genuine and passionate about their sport and want to continue a good and healthy sporting tradition, I personally know several of them. The problem is that it's not carved in the foreheads who is a predator and who is not. No one wants to think that a person one has a somewhat decent relationship with, is a pedophile or sex offender. It is easy to think that because all the other parents and adults have faith in a sports leader, that that person is reliable! The only way to ensure that children can safely develop in sports and benefit from sports, is that it must be under the loving and watchful eye of a parent.  Parental responsibility cannot be delegated away. The children live in the belief that the adults take care of and protects them from danger. It is a trust that calls for reflection.


IN SWEDISH

Sjöberg tog steget ut och berättade. Han är något så ovanligt som en rättfärdig människa. Det som är intressant är den följande diskussionen. I DN:s artikel kan man läsa det som Patrik Sjöberg råkade ut för av vissa kallades för "en isolerad händelse."

Det här är väldigt intressant tycker jag och jag ska stanna till lite vid detta, för det är väldigt avslöjande tycker jag. Det är just ett sådant påstående som yttras och som liksom tas för gott, och vips så kan man sopa det under mattan. "En isolerad händelse," inget att oroa sig över med andra ord. Framförallt ska vi inte hetsa upp oss och "rocka båten," för vem vet man kanske till och med skulle uppfattas som besvärlig.

Frågan som jag ställer mig är följande: Om man nu uttalar sig om den eventuella obetydliga frekvensen av sexuella övergrepp på detta sätt, efter att en av landets mest framträdande idrottsmän trätt fram, vad har man egentligen för belägg för en sådan hållning? Vad baserar man så att säga antagandet på, att det INTE förekommer övergrepp, när en ledande idrottsprofil precis framfört att det FAKTISKT förekommer övergrepp. Väldigt märkligt sätt att tänka, eller kanske det är mer att inte tänka. Ett väldigt obehagligt sätt att förhålla sig. För det ligger i farans riktning att misstänkliggöra Sjöberg i samma andetag. Vad sänder man då för signaler till idrottsaktiva som råkat illa ut? Det är lite som att i förväg lägga ut dimridåer för att stävja eventuella andra framträdanden. I fallet med Jimmy Savile i England, fanns det inte heller någon vilja att höra de utsattas berättelser, kanske tyckte man också i det fallet att det var frågan om någon "isolerad händelse."

Så nu visar det sig i denna undersökning att det är ungefär 5 procent idrottsutövare, som råkat ut för något. Det skulle betyda att om man slår ut det på hela landet att det rör dig sig om cirka tiotals tusen barn och ungdomar, beroende på hur man räknar (!). Det finns med andra ord anledning för föräldrar att kanske inte delegera föräldrarollen helt okritiskt till idrottsledare. Det är ju inte en helt orimlig tanke, att det kanske finns en ökad risk för att vuxna personer som på sin fritid ägnar sig åt, många gånger oavlönat, att harva runt med andras ungar i idrottsmiljö, med allt vad det innebär av fysisk närhet, så att säga får något annat ut av det hela.

Nu ska man ändå inte måla fan på väggen. Jag tycker att många föräldrar agerar mer än lovligt naivt, när det bara släpper iväg sina barn till höger och vänster till olika aktiviteter, utan att själva vara närvarande. En förälder kanske inte alltid behöver vara där, men nog ganska mycket i alla fall. Det ligger i sakens natur att en "predator" som det kallas i USA, hellre väljer bort ett offer som verkar ha  bra relation med en förälder.

En övervägande del av landets idrottsledare är genuina kämpar som brinner för sin idrott, sina adepter och lag. De vill föra en bra idrottstradition vidare, jag känner flera av dem. Problemet är att det inte är ristat i pannan vem som är vem. Inte en enda människa vill ju tro, att en person man har en något hygglig relation med är pedofil eller sexualförövare. Det är lätt att tro, att eftersom alla andra föräldrar och vuxna har tilltro till idrottsledaren, så är den personen pålitlig! Enda sättet att se till att barnen tryggt får utvecklas idrottsligt, är att det får ske under en förälders trygga och vakande öga. För det går inte att delegera bort föräldraansvaret. Barnen lever i förvissningen att de vuxna tar hand om och skyddar dem från faror. Det är ett förtroende som manar till eftertanke.

Aftonbladet
Expressen
DN

The slippery slope of Swedish totalitarianism

      These children are also taught to be free in the state school and banned from homeschooling.

I'd like to address the bizarre and inverted prevailing attitudes in Swedish society on parental, child and family rights. In doing so, this article by a Swedish columnist, Sakine Madon,  in a major Swedish daily newspaper will serve as an excellent backdrop.

Ms. Madon is comparing homeschooling with imprisonment of the children. Her column is addressing the fact that an orthodox Jewish family was permitted to homeschool their four daughters in a court decision recently. Ms. Madon is questioning the reasons for the decision, which is based on religious rights. She makes a point out of comparing it to another court decision apparently not to the liking of Ms. Madon, where a Swedish court ruled that children of the Muslim faith, did not have to participate in taking showers naked with other children in school. Personally I don't see how children will be able to learn the "virtues" of Ms. Madon's "ideal state" when forced to undress in front of others. It is not clear though in Ms. Madon's column in what way this is relevant as to homeschooling.

Ms. Madon praises the new Swedish educational code, which prohibits parents to base applications for homeschooling on religious or philosophical reasons, although Ms. Madon doesn’t exactly put it that way. As commonly is the habit of the suppressors of these fundamental rights of the family in my experience, she misrepresents the truth by stating that the new law, prohibits religious and philosophical reasons to keep children out of school. With the intentional implication, that homeschooled children does not receive education.

Ms. Madon adds what at first may seem to be a voice of reason when she states that homeschooling is motivated under certain circumstances. But unfortunately, this seemingly gracious standpoint is negated by her next statement; “that it is the best interest of the child, not the parents interest that should be ruling.”

Ms. Madon’s view is the kind of view that the Swedish society uncritically accept as a truth, that parental rights are adversarial to the child's.  This view is also apparent in Swedish laws, wherein a child can be taken into protective custody and parental rights removed, without even notifying the parents about it or allow them to oppose such actions.

The essence of this view, so appalling to myself and to all who uphold civil rights and concepts as due process and the rule of law, is that it is not within the competence of the parents, to decide what is best for their child, it is the prerogative of others. This is plainly obvious in Ms. Madon’s column. She is obviously, accordingly to her, in her own eyes at least, better equipped to decide on parental decisions, than the actual parents of any child.

Ms. Madon finally directs criticism against those who criticize her and her views as being violating on civil rights by turning the world upside down. She writes in essence:

“We that criticize homeschooling are described as prejudicing. The editor tries to sum up our motives: “Its about what the children cannot be allowed to become, they are not allowed to become like their parents.”

On this Ms. Madon answers: No, it is about the freedom of children to become something else than their parents.”

Ms. Madon’s final statement is chilling in its full implications, as the state must force children to be free. Every nightmare society construed  until this day, have all been obsessed by making the children their possession. To make children mere creatures of the state. Among these are the Communist Soviet, Nazi Germany, North Korea, China and Cambodia. Individuality of any kind is not allowed, it need not be religious views that are suppressed, any way of life that does not please the collective is by right suppressed. This is evident in the Alexander Aminoff case, where parental rights was taken away from a mother and the boy taken into official custody because his mother, an outspoken critic of local authorities,  intended to take her son with her on a job related trip. The authorities kidnapped the boy by force with the help of Swedish police. He was kept in custody for years until he at age 15 finally managed to escape to the neighboring country of Finland. The European Court of Human Rights later vindicated the family and the boy and mother received damages from the Swedish state.

It is also notable that all the totalitarian regimes share another view with Ms. Madon, and that is the aggressive atheist and anti-religious view. This to such a degree that the passing on of religious views from one generation to the next, is looked upon as a violation of the rights of the child and something the state should prevent and legislate to counteract. Which is exactly what Sweden is doing, in violation of universal human rights.

In this specific case it is a question of the Jewish faith. With values, traditions and beliefs that represent the oldest continuing human tradition in our history as a species. It has been upheld for thousands of years, often under adverse circumstances from one generation to the next. In itself a remarkable accomplishment. But were it for Swedish politicians and conformist demands, its ancient traditions would be erased from the face of the earth. So that all can be "perfectly happy" in the ongoing creation of our brave new world were all must shower naked together. Is memory so short?