Mot den socialistiska människan!

Socialistisk fostran av pojkar som flickor och kvinnor som män… Mot det socialistiska Utopia! https://www.expressen.se/debatt/tank-om-lat-pojkar-uppfostras-som-pojkar/?utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=social_sharing&utm_source=facebook&social=fb

Annonser

Mot den socialistiska människan!

Socialistisk fostran av pojkar som flickor och kvinnor som män… Mot det socialistiska Utopia! https://www.expressen.se/debatt/tank-om-lat-pojkar-uppfostras-som-pojkar/?utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=social_sharing&utm_source=facebook&social=fb

Etablerad kolumnist vågar skriva icke-politiskt-korrekt. Bravo!

Paulina Neuding i dagens SvD:

http://www.e-pages.dk/svenskadagbladet/49755/article/784330/4/3/render/?token=6b5ae9d1e8902f2c0c48004c926107ae

Sweden –  abolishing Human Rights unnoticed

(Swedish below)

The most mandatory catalogue of Human Rights for Sweden is the European Convention of 1950. These Human Rights were established after the terrible assaults during the first half of the 20th century, ratified by Sweden in 1953.

Indeed, the ruling socialists found some of those rights troublesome – eg the protection of property rights, family life, parental rights…. The socialists wanted access to the children’s education, certain property, certain business etc. and these Human Rights were hindrances on the path to the Socialist Utopia. They invented excuses for getting around, saying that in order to be applicable, these Human Rights must be ”transformed” into Swedish law and the like. Only in connection with Sweden’s entry into the EU the socialists were forced to accept the European Convention as part of Swedish law. But even in cases where the Swedish state was convicted by the European Court of Justice, for example for abuse of families through forced childcare, one has found outings such as reference to the ”best interests of the children”, in order to avoid correcting the assault of the state.

Falling judgments against the Swedish state are embarrassing, of course, so people’s attention needed to be derived from such things. Paradoxically, this is made, for example, through extraordinary talks about the importance of Human Rights, though these are merely exemplified with the obvious ones, like the right to life, freedom of speech and such. We never hear socialist politicians speak about the importance of protecting property or parental rights. Instead, other ”Higher Values” ​​have been invented – in addition to the Best Interest of the Child, Gender Equality, Independence and Individualism, completed with Lidbomian ”rubber clauses” in law  (after a former socialist Attorney General) and smart Swedish state lawyers at the European Court of Justice.

The Swedish family Kullman-Andersson brought their case against Sweden to the European Court of Justice. The family could not cope with its living despite decent wages. They were refused financial support to reach subsistence level. The only support the family could get was in the form of day-care places for their children, so that they could earn a second salary for the family subsistence. Thus, the function of the family (right to family life, Article 8) was prevented  – and, consequently also their right to care for their children according to ”own philosophical or religious beliefs” in accordance with Article 2, First Amendment Protocol.

The European Court of Justice listened to the defendant of the Swedish state and did not support the family’s complaint. ”You can not claim state financial support for your family life” the court meant, or, expressed differently ”You must not be housewife at the expense of the taxpayers”. And the taxpayers ‘ association wrote that the sentence meant that housewives which cared for their own children now were considered ”labor refusers”.

That the Kullman-Andersson family would have been able to sustain well on just the husband’s wages, if only they had been allowed to keep their income for an existential minimum, instead of having to pay too much in open and hidden taxes, was a fact that the Swedish state lawyer managed to conceal to the European Court.  The case that it was not merely a question of the state giving the family money but of the state not taking away a family’s resources so that it could no longer care for the children themselves, was never considered by the court. Nor were there any comments on the fact that the only ”support” one could receive from the Swedish state was in the form of almost free public day care for their children, and this at a cost to the tax-payers far higher than what a supply contribution or tax deduction for the family would have meant.

With this judgment, the Swedish state has managed to abolish some important human rights for many middle and low-income people in our country. And this, without noticing by other than those who can not accept this forced-upon ”support” from the state. So, the trick is simple but effective: take away from the families their resources – their income – to the extent that they are forced to take advantage of the state’s offer, an offer ”one cannot resist”, to care for, and foster, their children for free.

Though, taking resources away from the families does not look so good either. That’s why the socialists hide it, and effectively. The income earner only sees an open tax of about 32% of his income. The fact that the employer is forced to pay about the same amount is not shown on the wage slip. And the VAT on everything you buy is hidden in the price. Like energy tax, excise duty, etc. … The Swedbank-economists have calculated that a normal income earner pays about 69% of the value of his work in tax – far above the visible 32%.

So, if a modern family of type Kullman-Andersson had escaped with 32% in taxes – instead of 69%, it would have been possible for the family to live without support from the state and without need to give up their children’s care and education to public, almost free of charge creches.

But – that is precisely what the Socialists want to access, the children’s care and fostering. Children must be freed from old-fashioned bourgeois values ​​and become the individualists which will populate the socialist Utopia. And this in contempt for some Human Rights – which was stated shamelessly clear in the social-democratic program ”The family of the future” (Familjen i framtiden).

So, the state succeeds in depriving the Swedish people of some annoying Human Rights. Not through violence or police intervention, but through a system of high hidden taxes without regard to the burden of supporting a family, in combination with targeted, high-level subsidies, so that alternatives and freedom of choice do not have a chance.

Thus we have got a system of political-economic deprivation, which, insidiously, in the dark of both the European Court and the citizens, abolished some human rights in our country. Effective – but hardly honourable!

Krister Pettersson        The Family Campaign Foundation, Sweden

SVENSKA

(S)verige avskaffar Mänskliga Rättigheter så att det inte märks

I ett par ”kataloger” är de Mänskliga Rättigheterna förtecknade. Den mest förpliktigande för Sverige är Europakonventionen från 1950, upprättad efter de förfärliga övergreppen under första halvan av 1900-talet, ratificerad av Sverige 1953.

Fast – de styrande socialisterna fann några rättigheter besvärande – t.ex. detta med skydden för äganderätten, familjelivet, föräldrarätten…. Socialisterna ville ju  komma åt barnens fostran, viss egendom, viss verksamhet. Man krånglade för att slippa undan sådana hinder på vägen mot det socialistiska Utopia. Hittade på, att för att rättigheterna skulle vara tillämpliga, måste de ”transformeras” till svensk lag. Först i samband med Sveriges inträde i EU, tvangs man ta in Europakonventionen som svensk lag. Men även i fall där svenska staten fällts i Europadomstolen, t.ex. för övergrepp mot familjer genom tvångsomhändertagande av barnen, har man hittat på undanflykter som t.ex. hänvisning till ”barnens bästa”, för att slippa rätta till övergrepp som staten fällts för.

Fällande domar mot svenska staten är ju genanta, så folks uppmärksamhet måste avledas från sådant. Paradoxalt nog genom extra mycket tal om vikten av Mänskliga Rättigheter, fast man då bara exemplifierar dem med rätten till liv, förenings- och yttrandefrihet och sådant – aldrig hör vi socialistiska politiker värna om äganderätt eller föräldrarätt.  I stället har man hittat på andra ”Höga Värden” – som det nämnda Barnets Bästa, och begrepp som Oberoende, Jämställdhet, Genus och ordnat med Lidbomska gummiparagrafer i juridiken och har skickat smarta ”svenska-staten-försvare” till Europadomstolen.

Den svenska familjen Kullman-Andersson fick sitt fall mot Sverige prövat i Europadomstolen. Familjen kunde inte klara sin försörjning trots en hyfsad lön och fick inte något ekonomiskt stöd för att nå ens existensminimum. Det enda stödet man kunde få var i form av daghemsplatser till barnen, så att man kunde skaffa en andra lön till familjens uppehälle. Därmed hindrades familjens funktion (rätten till familjeliv, artikel 8) ansåg familjen – och följaktligen också deras rätt att fostra sina barn efter ”egen filosofisk eller religiös övertygelse” enligt artikel 2 första tilläggsprokollet.

Europadomstolen lyssnade på den svenska statens försvarare och stödde inte familjens klagan. ”Man kan inte kräva statens finansiella stöd för sitt familjeliv” eller uttryckt annorlunda ”Man får inte vara hemmafru på skattebetalarnas bekostnad”, var domens innebörd. Och Skattebetalarnas förening skrev, att domen innebar, att hemmafruar som vårdade egna barn nu ansågs vara ”arbetsvägrare”. Att familjen Kullman-Andersson väl hade kunnat försörja sig på en enda lön, om man bara fått behålla tillräckligt av inkomsten för ett existensminimum, i stället för att betala alltför mycket i öppna och dolda skatter än vad man orkade med, var något  svenska statens försvarare lyckades dölja bakom principen, att en stat inte skulle behöva ge finansiellt stöd till en familj för att kunna vårda och fostra sina barn. Att det inte var frågan om ge familjen pengar, utan om att staten inte skulle ta ifrån en familj dess resurser så, att den inte själv skulle kunna vårda och fostra barnen, fick domstolen aldrig klart för sig. Inte heller hade man synpunkter på, att det enda ”stödet” man kunde få, var i form av att familjen lämnade barnens vård och fostran ifrån sig, till en kostnad för skattebetalarna långt högre än vad ett försörjningsbidrag eller skatteavdrag skulle innebära.

I och med domen, har den svenska staten lyckats avskaffa några viktiga mänskliga rättigheter för många medel- och låginkomsttagare i vårt land. Och det, utan att det kan påtalas, utan att det märks annat än av dem, som inte kan acceptera det enda ”stödet” från samhället. Tricket är ju enkelt: ta ifrån familjerna deras resurser – deras inkomster – till den grad, att de tvingas att utnyttja statens erbjudande, att nästan gratis vårda och fostra deras barn så att de kan skaffa en nödvändig andra inkomst.

Fast, detta, att ta ifrån familjer deras resurser, ser ju inte så bra ut. Därför döljer man det. Effektivt. Medborgaren ser bara en öppen skatt om ca 32 % av inkomsten. Att arbetsgivaren tvingas betala ungefär lika mycket, får inte synas på lönesbeskedet. Och momsen på allt man måste köpa döljs. Liksom energiskatt, punktskatt etc… Swedbank har räknat ut, att en normalinkomsttagare betalar ca 69% av sitt arbetes värde i skatt – ingalunda 32%.

Så, om en modern familj av typ Kullman-Andersson hade sluppit undan med 32% i skatt – i stället för 69% – hade den mer än väl kunna försörja sin familj utan stöd och utan att behöva lämna sina barns vård och fostran ifrån sig.

Fast – det är ju just detta som socialisterna vill komma åt. Barnens vård och fostran. Barnen skall ju befrias från gammaldags borgerliga värderingar och bli de statsindividualister, som det socialistiska Utopia skall befolkas av. Och detta utan minsta hänsyn till några Mänskliga Rättigheter – så skamlöst klart utskrivet i s-programmet Familjen i framtiden.

Och den (s)venska staten lyckas med detta,  att beröva det svenska folket några så besvärande mänskliga rättigheter. Inte genom våld och polisingripande, utan genom ett system av hög, dold skatt utan hänsyn till försörjningsbörda. Detta i kombination med riktade, skyhöga subventioner, så att alternativ och valfrihet inte har en chans.

Så har vi fått ett system av politiskt-ekonomiskt förtyck, som försåtligt, i skymundan för såväl Europadomstol som medborgare, effektivt avskaffat några Mänskliga Rättigheter i vårt land.  Effektivt – men föga hedersamt !

Kommer Alliansen och/eller SD att fortsatt upprätthålla denna förfärande politisk-ekonomiska styrning? Fortsätta att förfölja och köra ut hemskolande familjer ur vårt land? Fortsätta att förvalta ett socialistiskt system i grav konflikt med flera mänskliga rättigheter som det nuvarande?? Man undrar… nu, inför valet.

Krister Pettersson           BILAGT     Hemmafrun arbetsvägrare Sunt FörnuftHemmafrun arbetsvägrare Sunt Förnuft

(Angående referenser till texten:  Marx och Engels – Om familjens ursprung m fl, S-programmet ”Familjen i framtiden – en socialistisk familjepolitik”,  Europakonventionen och fällanden domar http://www.nkmr.org och t ex https://svjt.se/svjt/1989/665, ”lidbommeri” – myntat uttryck för svävande lagtexter typiska för s–märkte justitieministern Carl Lidbom, se https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Lidbom  och  https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidbommeri )

Sweden –  abolishing Human Rights unnoticed

Hemmafrun arbetsvägrare Sunt FörnuftThe most mandatory catalogue of Human Rights for Sweden is the European Convention of 1950. These Human Rights were established after the terrible assaults during the first half of the 20th century, ratified by Sweden in 1953.

Indeed, the ruling socialists found some of those rights troublesome – eg the protection of property rights, family life, parental rights…. The socialists wanted access to the children’s education, certain property, certain business etc. and these Human Rights were hindrances on the path to the Socialist Utopia. They invented excuses for getting around, saying that in order to be applicable, these Human Rights must be ”transformed” into Swedish law and the like. Only in connection with Sweden’s entry into the EU the socialists were forced to accept the European Convention as part of Swedish law. But even in cases where the Swedish state was convicted by the European Court of Justice, for example for abuse of families through forced childcare, one has found outings such as reference to the ”best interests of the children”, in order to avoid correcting the assault of the state.

Falling judgments against the Swedish state are embarrassing, of course, so people’s attention needed to be derived from such things. Paradoxically, this is made, for example, through extraordinary talks about the importance of Human Rights, though these are merely exemplified with the obvious ones, like the right to life, freedom of speech and such. We never hear socialist politicians speak about the importance of protecting property or parental rights. Instead, other ”High Values” ​​have been invented – in addition to the Best Interest of the Child, Gender Equality, State Individualism, completed with Lidbomian ”rubber clauses” in law  (after a former socialist Attorney General) and smart Swedish state lawyers at the European Court of Justice.

The Swedish family Kullman-Andersson brought their case against Sweden to the European Court of Justice. The family could not cope with its living despite decent wages. They were refused financial support to reach subsistence level. The only support the family could get was in the form of day-care places for their children, so that they could earn a second salary for the family subsistence. Thus, the function of the family (right to family life, Article 8) was prevented  – and, consequently also their right to care for their children according to ”own philosophical or religious beliefs” in accordance with Article 2, First Amendment Protocol.

The European Court of Justice listened to the defendant of the Swedish state and did not support the family’s complaint. ”You can not claim state financial support for your family life” the court meant, or, expressed differently ”You must not be housewife at the expense of the taxpayers”. And the taxpayers ‘ association wrote that the sentence meant that housewives which cared for their own children now were considered ”labor refusers”.

That the Kullman-Andersson family would have been able to sustain well on just the husband’s wages, if only they had been allowed to keep their income for an existential minimum, instead of having to pay too much in open and hidden taxes, was a fact that the Swedish state lawyer managed to conceal to the European Court.  The case that it was not merely a question of the state giving the family money but of the state not taking away a family’s resources so that it could no longer care for the children themselves, was never considered by the court. Nor were there any comments on the fact that the only ”support” one could receive from the Swedish state was in the form of almost free public day care for their children, and this at a cost to the tax-payers far higher than what a supply contribution or tax deduction for the family would have meant.

With this judgment, the Swedish state has managed to abolish some important human rights for many middle and low-income people in our country. And this, without noticing by other than those who can not accept this forced-upon ”support” from the state. So, the trick is simple but effective: take away from the families their resources – their income – to the extent that they are forced to take advantage of the state’s offer, an offer ”one cannot resist”, to care for, and foster, their children for free.

Though, taking resources away from the families does not look so good either. That’s why the socialists hide it, and effectively. The income earner only sees an open tax of about 32% of his income. The fact that the employer is forced to pay about the same amount is not shown on the wage slip. And the VAT on everything you buy is hidden in the price. Like energy tax, excise duty, etc. … The Swedbank-economists have calculated that a normal income earner pays about 69% of the value of his work in tax – far above the visible 32%.

So, if the Kullman-Andersson family had escaped with 32% in taxes – instead of 69%, it would have been possible for the family to live without support from the state and without need to give up their children’s care and education.

But – that is precisely what the Socialists want to access, the children’s care and fostering. Children must be freed from old-fashioned bourgeois values ​​and become the individualists which will populate the socialist Utopia. And this in contempt for some Human Rights – which was stated shamelessly clear in the social-democratic program ”The family of the future” (Familjen i framtiden).

So, the state succeeds in depriving the Swedish people of some annoying Human Rights. Not through violence or police intervention, but through a system of high hidden taxes without regard to the burden of supporting a family, in combination with targeted, high-level subsidies, so that alternatives and freedom of choice do not have a chance. Thus we have got a system of political-economic deprivation, which, insidiously, in the dark of both the European Court and the citizens, abolished some human rights in our country. Effective – but hardly honourable!

Krister Pettersson

Väljare okunnigare än apor på zoo?

”Vi har sämre koll på viktiga fakta än aporna på zoo” skriver professor Rosling i sin sista bok Factfulness. Att det är så illa, beror på våra fördomar, våra gamla kunskaper och slagsidan i medias information. För att bättra oss, skriver professorn, måste vi bland annat lära oss, att aldrig bara betrakta ett enda faktum, t ex en enda siffra. Vi måste alltid kunna jämföra denna enda siffra med minst en annan. Annars kan vi inte förstå vad ett faktum eller en siffra står för. Genom att jämföra ett faktum med ett annat, en siffra med en annan, kan vi däremot börja förstå vad fakta säger, vad siffror visar. T. ex. om något blir bättre eller sämre… Hur något står sig i en jämförelse… Om det som stöds av en siffra kanske motbevisas av en annan…

Med fakta i form av flera siffror, kanske åskådliggjorda i diagram eller staplar, kan vi börja förstå något och skapa oss en uppfattning. Då, med flera fakta, kan vi bli bättre än aporna på zoo. Då, kan vi inse om något är bra i jämförelse med något annat. Då kan vi förstå, att något kan vara illa, men ändå bättre än förut. Endast så, kan vi inse, om viss utveckling är bra eller dålig …

Och just detta, att åskådliggöra tillstånd och utveckling med hjälp av staplar och diagram, det var något politiker ofta tog till när TV var nytt. Vi äldre minns,  hur politiker i TV-rutan kunde lyfte upp en skärm med diagram eller staplar för tittarna att se.

Men – sådant ser vi ju så gott som aldrig nuförtiden. Åtminstone inte runt sådant som är verkligt viktigt och intressant. Nej – numera verkar det mest vara pajkastning med enstaka fakta politiker emellan. Trender och utveckling – har vi gjort rätt, blir det bättre eller blir det sämre – hur är vi i jämförelse med andra länder … sådant är det ont om i rutan, och i debatten. Vi tittare behöver tydligen inte lyftas över apornas nivå.

Fast nog finns det många, och viktiga fakta, trender, ut- eller avvecklingar över tiden som vi måste studera, förstå och ta ställning till. Vi väljare. Och våra politiker. Blev det så bra som vi ville, eller blev det sämre? Sådant borde väl belysas ordentligt, i  synnerhet nu inför ett viktigt val. Vet vi egentligen alls, om saker – ja om livet – i vårt land,  har blivit bättre eller sämre över tiden? Eller i jämförelse med likartade länder? Vet vi alls, om våra politiker eller våra media ger oss en allsidig bild, eller bara lösrykta och sammanhangslösa fakta, framkastade för att ge sken av att stödja någon partilinje?

Här några fakta, siffror, trender och jämförelser som kunde behöva bättre belysas och förstås, för att inte bara vara obegripliga halvsanningar, kanske undanskuffade som politiskt obekväma:

Hur är det till exempel med Sveriges utveckling i ländernas välståndsliga?  Det sägs ju, att vi arbetar mer, har högre sysselsättning i Sverige än i andra länder. Då borde vi väl också bli rikare, ha bättre välstånd, än de andra efter många decennier. Men fakta över vålståndsutvecklingen i Sverige från 1970 visar ju tvärtom?

Eller detta med att mer och mer pengar läggs på skola och utbildning. Mer än i privata skolor. Mer än i andra länder. Och förskolan sägs ge bättre skolresultat. Men, då borde ju detta synas i allt kunnigare ungdomar, alltfler anställningsbara … fast pisa-studierna säger tvärtom.

Eller allt detta politikertal om vikten av bra skola, vård och omsorg, om god vård av barn och äldre, så vuxna inte behöver bekymra sig om de närmaste. Trygghet är ju något av det viktigaste i vårt land. Men, siffror och fakta runt psykisk och fysisk hälsa, främst bland barn, ungdomar och kvinnor, spretar åt ett annat håll.

Om vi lämnar trender och utveckling och går på fakta och jämförelser med andra länder, då. Trygghet, ja. Men siffrorna för självmord är högre här än i ”otryggare” länder. Jämställdhet är vi bäst på i Sverige, sägs det. Varför har man då fler kvinnliga VD:ar per capita i USA?

Svåra, men viktiga frågor! Nog är de – och många andra frågor runt samhällsändringar och experiment, ibland med hela befolkningen – väl värda att faktastuderas, att belysas med mer än en siffra eller något lösrykt påstående. Sånt måste man ju göra i alla andra verksamheter. Om man provar något nytt, måste man följa upp, kolla, att alla kurvor pekar åt rätt håll, annars får man ändra, göra om.  Så varför gör våra politiker inte det?  Och varför kräver inte opposition och våra media att sådan uppföljning och faktakoll görs? Det verkar ju i stället vara tvärtom. Ja, verkar det inte vara så, att våra styrande tycker det är rätt bra, att vi väljare har sämre koll på fakta om utvecklingen i vårt land än aporna på zoo.

Inte skall vi väl ha det så. Inte, om vi vill vara en upplyst, och inte en bakom-ljuset-förd demokrati!

Krister Pettersson  Sverige o Italien i värfärdsligan

Culture Shock and Disbelief at the Swedish System

I was very glad to find your page and think it is very important to have these resources and viewpoints available.

I am a recent immigrant to Sweden from Australia. I moved with my three children to live with my Swedish husband, largely due to the fact that he had work here (and was unable to find a job in Australia) and, as a small business owner myself, my work is quite flexible.

I had always believed Scandinavia and Sweden to be a socialist utopia with fantastic systems to support families. At first I saw the free education, almost free childcare and many low-cost family activities on offer, and thought that things were fantastic. But upon enrolling my children into school and becoming part of society, I realised just how much is wrong.

My three children have been raised to be well behaved, independent and hard working. They attend school to learn and are expected to do well, they are expected to eat what they are given, follow the rules and use manners. These things were a given when we moved here, but things went downhill fast.

My first experience with the Swedish system was when my son began skipping mother-tongue classes at school. I was furious. Lessons are not optional, and it is important for him to keep up in English, which is a far more useful language to be proficient in, world-wide, than Swedish. Upon discussions with him, however, I was told that he wasn’t able to do anything during class because the children were throwing things around the room and misbehaving so badly that he couldn’t learn.

I spoke to the school and teacher, and this was confirmed. Whilst at the school I witnessed children beating each other up in the playground, whilst teachers stood by helplessly. Shocked, I believed that it must be because we live in an area with a high immigrant rate and believed the ‘bad area’ must be the cause of the behavioural problems. I very quickly pulled my son out of the school and enrolled all of my children into the prestigious English school, which advertises itself on its strictness and American-style discipline. But what I found there was that bullying and violence was common and bullies were offered counselling to help change their behaviour, whilst well-behaved children were given constant behaviour tickets for stupid trivialities such as forgetting to take off their shoes for class or lining up the wrong way.

My children very quickly learned how to swear, how to speak back, that violent behaviour towards them from other children (from the native Swedish children) went completely unpunished, that they need take no responsibility for their actions / behaviour, that they had every right in the world, and that if they didn’t like something they could call the police or social workers to get their parents in trouble.

After several months I was being held hostage by a nine-year old that if I didn’t do exactly as he wanted he was going to tell the school and police. I had phone calls from the school for not feeding my child (He was given nutritious meals and expected to eat them whether he liked the vegetables or not), for not abiding by my responsibility to send him to school every day (We took my children to Poland for four days for our honeymoon with some relatives who had flown to Sweden to visit) and for not clothing my child (He had refused to attend school until he found the jacket he wanted, which was in the wash and refused to wear anything else).

Meanwhile my eldest daughter was learning no Swedish, because her class was so badly behaved the teacher simply left the room and couldn’t cope as they had no rights to discipline the children. And my middle daughter was being relentlessly bullied at school with the bullies only offered counselling which led to her feeling depressed and suicidal.

After a year here, my children learnt all kinds of rude behaviour and backchat, refusing to submit to discipline such as having their phones taken away or being grounded.

Eventually it got to the point where I attempted to take my daughters phone for her rude behaviour, she violently wrestled the phone away from me twisting my wrists and received a slap in the face. No marks were left, and I feel the slap was justified and necessary, as do my family who were horrified at seeing the children’s behavioural decline.

I smacked my children at times when they were small, as is common / accepted in Australia but had not needed to do so for a long time. Next thing I am now being chased by Social Services for having broken Sweden’s anti-spanking law.

My children have learnt that they have won. That they can behave however they please, without any consequences.

We are a family of Australian citizens living temporarily overseas, conducting our private lives. My children have not been raised to become spoiled brats, and I don’t wish for this to happen now. I don’t wish to conform to Swedish standards. I find Swedish children on the whole to be self-centred, ill-mannered brats who would not be capable of functioning in the corporate world outside Sweden. I am not seeing success here on any level. Educational standards and behaviour are appalling, and my children would be better served growing up in the third world.

I am disgusted and furious that the state has the right to interfere in family lives, including children stolen from parents for non existent crimes such as home schooling, but cannot fulfil basic obligations such as protecting its citizens from crime.

I truly hope that organisations such as yours can begin to make a difference, and that at some point Sweden wakes up from its follies and looks at the true best interests of families and children, instead of attempting to impose its blanket ideologies, which are not supported by facts. Sweden is such a beautiful and progressive country in so many ways but is failing miserably in raising the next generation.

Renee Johnson, reneewasaweener@yahoo.com.au
Gothenburg, Sweden

http://www.barnensratt.se/index-en.htm