The road to hell is paved by good intentions

I have previously written a piece on evil.  I believe that the problem with "evil" is that it always cloaks it self in good intentions.
The communists brutal regimes around the world was rationalized by concern for the poor - that is good right? A good man is his brother's keeper, every body knows that. The Nazis was motivated by far reaching concerns for the German people - the German at least  seemed to think that was a pretty good idea at the time.

Now these ideas have hit rock bottom. Communism more or less committed suicide as did Nazism. Its a common mistake to think that totalitarian regimes doesn't mind the public opinion. In fact nothing could be more wrong. Why else did both the Nazis and the Commies spend endless resources on propaganda? Mass-meetings, education and indoctrination of the youth. Nothing is more important for a dictator than the approval of his people, there are just different ways to get it - that's all.

Contemporary politics have found the new Columbi egg of public policy - the magic words are - "It's for the sake of the children."

The Swedish government closes Lundbergs boarding school "for the safety of the children." In Sweden parents that doesn't take their children to the communal day care are suspicious, because the dogma has it that the daycare "is for the good of the children." When Swedish authorities kidnapped Domenic from his parents when they were moving to India, they did it "for the children", i.e. for Domenic, when they put Domenic's father in jail for wanting to spend time with his son it was "for Domenic's sake." The authorities were concerned that his parents taught him wrong values. Now Ms. Begler has the same concerns about Lundsbergs boarding school.

One might think that the children at Lundsberg would now if they are in any danger or abused in any way. When the whole school, all the students, say that they love their school and want to stay in their school, which has one of the best academic records of any school in Sweden by the way, the school Inspectorate only retorts that they do this "for the sake of the children." Never mind that the children lives at the school and has no way to go, at least not on such short notice (24 hours).

Ms. Begler, Director of the School Inspectorate cares for the children and that they are taught the right values.

The freedoms of all are constantly being encroached by reason of "it's for the children." Well here's an novel idea - why don't we let the parents raise their children? How about that?

I think every parent reacts if he or she thinks that their child is attending a school that is unsafe, teaches weird values or otherwise can be deemed to be unsound. It is also my experience that when people pay for something, they tend to be more demanding for quality and adequate results as compared to when people doesn't pay. This is why Hyundai owners always are more content customers than BMW buyers, it has very little to do with the cars and more to do with the expectations of the consumer.

Is there any person out there that honestly believes that the approximately 400 parents of the students at Lundsberg who pays appx $30.000,00 a year for their kids at this school, would accept that this school would act in any way - any way at all,  that would warrant that the government rush in and by force close it down, for the sake of the children?

It's ludicrous.

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?