State sanctioned sexual abuse in Sweden

FOR ENGLISH SCROLL DOWN

Så kan man åter läsa i tidningen saker som gör att man funderar på om inte allt är väldigt, väldigt,  mycket fel inom socialtjänsten och skola. I altruismens vingelkantiga app-butik, är "barnets bästa" ett slagträd i snart sagt varje ringhörna. Det är svårt att förstå, hur en människa med hänvisning till lagen kan mena att det är rätt och riktigt att en flicka ska åka till en pappa som misshandlar och våldtar henne. Det är ännu svårare att förstå hur någon, kan mena att en förälder som vill skydda sitt barn från dessa övergrepp, "saboterar umgänget."

I ett fall som detta, som My Vingren skriver om i artikeln i SVD, så måste väl varenda anständig människa förstå, att ett "sabotage mot umgänget," är det bästa för detta barn. Hur kan det komma sig att någon med reell möjlighet att sätta stopp för detta, avstår från att göra det?  Det måste anses vara närmast en kriminell handling.

Bara en person som är påtagligt verklighetsfrånvänd och med betydande brister i det mellanmänskliga samspelet, kan komma till slutsatsen, att ett barns lagliga rätt till båda sina föräldrar, betyder att barnet då ska bli brutaliserat på det här viset.

Detta är ytterligare ett exempel på, med vilket godtycke den svenska lagen kan tillämpas av de som har det i sin makt. Barn tvingas till en förälder som egentligen borde sitta i fängelse, socialtjänsten ser mellan fingrarna. "Barnets bästa," klingar då falskt i mina öron. Det är nog mer frågan om att socialtjänsten, inte har det civilkurage situationen kräver. Det är märkligt vad enkelt det är, att titta åt andra hållet, när det är ens egen säkerhet som är prio ett. Socialtjänstsekreterarna i det här fallet njuter säkert ostört av sitt fredagsmys hemma i soffan, medan flickan kastas in i helvetet. Sedan förväntas hon växa upp och respektera och känna förtroende för samhället och dess institutioner. Under dessa omständigheter är det alltså socialtjänsten i Sverige som har beslutsrätt i vad som är "barnets bästa." Den rätten är med all önskvärd tydlighet fråntagen den vårdande föräldern i Sverige. Det finns inget dokument eller lag som definierar "barnets bästa" och sunt förnuft fattas hos dessa beslutsfattare.

Det kanske kan finnas ett samband med att socialsekreterare runt om i landet, passar på att ge sig på familjer som hemundervisar sina barn? Detta är kanske ett kompensationsbeteende, så att det åtminstone ser ut som de gör något "för barnets bästa." Då ligger det tydligen inte i barnets intresse att få vara med sina föräldrar. Titta på fallet med Dominic Johansson som jag tidigare nämnt här i bloggen. I socialtjänstens motivering nämns bland annat, att pojken hade karies i två av sina mjöltänder(?!) och att han var allt för kontaktsökande (!?). Efter att Dominic omhändertagits, ändrades motiveringen till att han var överdrivet deprimerad (?!).

I Dominic fallet behövde inga socialsekreterare vara oroliga över att en aggressiv och våldsbenägen förälder, skulle orsaka dem skada. Dominics föräldrar var väl mer att likna vid fromma pacifister. De var på väg att flytta till Indien, för att syssla med humanitärt arbete. De kallades för "mänskliga rättighets extremister" av socialtjänsten. Så mycket mer "fruktansvärda" ansågs de vara än den våldsman som My Vingren beskriver, att Dominic omdelbart måste fråntas föräldrarna. Detta innan de hinner flytta till ett annat land. Så akut var det, att man ansåg sig ha fog för att storma, med beväpnad polis,  det plan som familjen redan bordat, och därefter skilja Dominic från sina föräldrar.

Jag undrar då, om socialtjänsten nu i helgen stormar in med beväpnad polis, när flickan som My skriver om blir våldtagen, för att undsätta henne?

 Till vänster en lycklig Dominic från tiden med föräldrarna, och till höger, Dominic efter att socialtjänsten omhändertagit honom från hans föräldrar och socialtjänstens så kallade "välvilja" haft sitt inflytande på honom.

ENGLISH

One of the most credible Swedish daily's, the conservative SVD, has an article that makes you wonder, if not there is something very, very wrong in the social services and schools in Sweden. In the imbedded confusion of the "app store" of misplaced altruism, the "best interest of the child" has become a valid justification in just about every ring corner. It is difficult to understand how a person with reference to the law can mean that it is right and proper for a young girl to be forced to go to a father that beats and rapes her. It is even more unconceivable to understand how anyone can think that a parent who wants to protect their children from these abuses, is "sabotaging visitation."

In a case like this, like the one My Vingren writes about the article in SVD,  surely every decent person must understand that a "sabotage of visitation," is what is best for this child. How can it be that someone, with a real and tangible capability to put a stop to this, refrain from doing so? In my eyes that is an act of no less than criminal neglect. 

Only a person who has a substantial lack of a sense of reality and obviously are in want of every notion of decency, may come to the conclusion, that a child's legal right to both parents, means that the child must be brutalized in this way.

This is another extreme example, of the arbitrarily application of the Swedish law by those who have the power to do so in Sweden. A child is forced to a parent who actually should be in jail, social services turn a blind eye. "Best Interests," is in this case nothing but lip service in my ears. It's probably more a case of the social services, lacking the moral courage this situation requires. It is amazing how easy it is, to look the other way, when it is your own safety that is priority one. Social secretaries in this case, are most certainly enjoying their friday at home on the couch in front of the TV undisturbed, while this little girl is thrown into all the anguishes of hell. Then she is expected to grow up and respect and have confidence for society and its institutions. There are no laws in Sweden that holds officials accountable for their actions or neglect. In light of these circumstances, it becomes clear that the social services in Sweden, superseding the caring parent, are the ones that decides and defines "the best interests of the child." This right to decide what's best for your child is quite clearly deprived the caring parent in Sweden. There is no document or law in Sweden that defines the "best interest of the child," and in want of common sense the decisions makers repeats the same mistakes over and over again. 

There might actually be a correlation between the neglect of the social workers in these violent cases, and the ostensible ease by which the social workers seemingly without restraints, jump to the opportunity of persecuting families that are home schooling their children. This is perhaps a compensatory behavior, in this way, it at least looks like they are doing something "for the best interest of a child." Since it is apparently not, in the child's best interest, to be with their parents when it comes to home schooling. Look at the case of Dominic Johansson, who I have mentioned earlier in this blog. In the social service's rationale for taking Dominic into custody, they mentioned among other things, that the boy had cavities in two of his baby teeth (!?). They also said that the boy was abnormally outgoing, and too trusting(!?). Later, after Dominic had been in custody, the justification was "modified" to that of the opposite, that he was excessively depressed (!?).

In the Dominic case, no social worker had to be worried that an aggressive and violent parent, would cause them harm. Dominic's parents were more akin to pious pacifists actually. They were about to move to India to engage in humanitarian work. They were called "human rights extremists" by the social services. In fact, so much more "despicable" were Dominic's parents considered to be by the social services in comparison to the violent assailant My Vingren describes, that Dominic immediately had to be deprived of his parents. This before they could move to another country. So imminently acute was the perceived "immediate danger" for Dominic's safety, that the social services felt they were justified to storm, with armed police, the plane the family already had boarded, and then remove Dominic from his parents. This was three years ago, and Dominic is still not back with his parents.

I wonder if the social services, with the assistance of armed police, will storm in this weekend to save this little girl that My Vingren writes about from being abused and raped? 

In the Photo above: To the left Dominic from the happy times with his parents.  To the right, Dominic after the questionable "benevolence" of the social services was forced upon him and he was separated from his parents.

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?