• Anti-smacking law insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga

    “That’s some of the reasons why the ACT party stands for the repeal of this anti-smacking legislation, and that’s why I do too,” said Mr Tashkoff Press Release: Friday, 26 June 2009
  • Recent Posts

  • Networkedblogs

  • Recent Comments

  • Christian Blog Topsites

    Christian Blog Topsites
  • Tags

  • Don’t Vote Labour

  • Unity For Liberty

    Anti-Smacking Petition
    Signature Counter

  • June 2021
    M T W T F S S
    « Feb    
  • abort73

    For more information about abortion and what you can do to help, please visit... Abort73.com http://www.abort73.com/
  • Archives

  • Statcounter since February 2008

  • online counter
  • Meta

  • Blog Catalog since May 2008

  • « | Main | »

    Why should we discriminate against children?

    By HEF Admin | June 5, 2008

    Sten Danielson: “The hostility – and anxiety – is reminiscent of racism”

    Aftonbladet, May 28, 2008.


    It is becoming increasingly common with children not being allowed on: flights, hotels, restaurants. But anyone who becomes uncomfortable by the proximity of a small child is in need of psychiatric care regardless of the reason for their phobia, not respect for their abnormalities.

    No, follow up the smacking ban with a legal prohibition against a child-ban, writes Sten Danielson.

    Recently, we have been “bequeathed” with a new phenomenon – no children on air travel, in hotels and business places where it is not in keeping with the natural order and security reasons, mental health care views or (rightly or wrongly) feared future destruction of character of the young to reasonably justify the prohibitions. The basis for these [prohibitions] has simply been some adults’ reluctance to have children in their vicinity.

    The discriminatory situation has the particularity of being completely irrational and thus the model for a violation of the victim’s human dignity. If I order food and drinks at a restaurant or a cafe and I do not infringe any code of conduct, if I go into a department store to buy a suit without being a disturbance in any way, if I order a trip to Thailand or the Caribbean and a hotel room to go with it and all the time I behave soberly and orderly and do not molest any travelling companion, it is of course completely irrelevant what skin- and hair colour I have, what religion I adhere to or if I do not have any at all, if I am a Moderate or Social Democrat, an Ecologist or leftist. If I am refused access with any such extraneous motives, I then have an objective basis to consider myself discriminated against.

    And my being a child it naturally just as unimportant as if the colour of my skin were white or black, etc. Anyone who feels uncomfortable in the proximity of a small child is in need of psychiatric care regardless of the reason for their phobia, not respect for their abnormalities, in the same way as if their phobia was about skin-colour, crooked nose or a name that suggests Arab or Muslim descent.

    I am not a “child romantic” and among the most idiotic things I heard in my long life on earth (75 years) is the cliché a psychologist blurted out in the 50’s that “there are no nasty children.” Children can be terribly nasty. How they have become such is a different matter. Often the children have probably taken over the wickedness of the adults (bad) examples. Children can also be wonderful, empathetic and loving. Around the same time as Engla was murdered two small siblings were murdered in Arboga. In a public letter bordering on what was unbearably gripping, the father of the victims wrote among other things, that the children always tried to help and support each other; when one was sad the other would give consolation. If we adults treat our youngsters from the start, with justice and respect and love they usually tend to go on to live with these characteristics as guiding principles.

    But if those around us treat our young ones with pathological coldness and evil (I will not hesitate before that judgement!) that tends to be associated with irrational discrimination, we can instead get a terrible terrorist and suicide bomber. Animosity towards children is animosity towards people, just as much as for example, racism and xenophobia.

    Children can be extremely difficult, everyone who comes into contact with them knows that. But most often this small vital passionate brat is at the same time double fun and triple wonderful! Again and again, we see in our youngsters this spontaneous love and joy and tenderness towards small and big, and all living creatures, which in spite of everything makes human life worth living. The adult who does not understand this is sick in the soul and in need of treatment.

    I’m sure you know the story of the boy who, after a raging storm went along the seashore and threw stranded shellfish back into the sea. When he was throwing back one of them a wise-ass adult said:

    “What does it matter that you throw in a few shellfish and save their lives? The storm has displaced thousands of them! ”

    “But for this one, it matters a lot,” the boy replied.

    Jesus said that if we do not become like children, we will never enter the kingdom of heaven. He understood.

    So let us now without further delay follow up the smacking ban with a legal prohibition against a child-ban in virtually all communication, places of business, hotels and guesthouses, stores and events in public places! And there should be both proper fines and prison sentences for those who break that law!


    Reply 1 – Disruptive children [are]

    the parents’ responsibility

    By Caesar von Walzel, former parent of small children,

    age 64 yrs, healthy! Stockholm


    Aftonbladet, 2008-06-03

    The former Region assessor’s article about a child-ban is perceived by me as depressing reading for two reasons.
    1) The comparison of a vast number of racist examples that claims that someone might have the same aversion to children in general. A total miss of the point! It is DISRUPTIVE children who are disruptive, just like all other ill-mannered, loud-mouthed or drunken elements in a public place. (They are, of course, nor welcome – or?) The paying guests at a restaurant, on an airplane, the beach – and so on have the same right to the atmosphere that they are visiting and also the right to expect it. For example, calm when eating, repose or relaxation that a well-decorated restaurant or other place chosen for the purpose may offer, instead of being forced into a “kindergarten-atmosphere”!

    Of course, it is the parents’ responsibility to ensure that their children do not destroy for others.

    In the editorial of SvD one could read about disturbing things in a swimming center, in which it is clearly stated that the parents of young children are the most aggressive ones. I share that view.

    The parents of young children have the same rights and obligations as other persons. I was able to extend / change the “prohibition” to the prohibition of the incompetent selfish parents who are accompanied by disruptive and unmanageable children. Other families with children are of course welcome.

    2) The good assessor seems to represent the kind of past “sovereignty” who believes that people who do not share his view, have phobias and need psychiatric care. I can inform him that fortunately, we have left this type of one-party-regime and authoritarianism behind us in our Nordic democracy. With this kind of argument you lose the most important thing in a debate piece, namely the facts!


    Children ARE disruptive!


    (swedish children are disruptive)

    “It is becoming increasingly common with children not being allowed on: flights, hotels, restaurants. But anyone who becomes uncomfortable by the proximity of a small child is in need of psychiatric care regardless of the reason for their phobia, not respect for their abnormalities.

    No, follow up the smacking ban with a legal prohibition against a child-ban, writes Sten Danielson.”

    That is what is written in the beginning of an article in Aftonbladet. What nonsense! Just because you do not want screaming, annoying and ill-bred kids around you, doesn’t mean that you are in need of psychiatric treatment! On the contrary: it is healthy to react against the screaming, fussy and wild kids everywhere, for example, in cafes, patisseries and restaurants as well as in museums and in churches, etc. It has nothing to do with the need for psychiatric treatment when we want to sit in peace and quiet and drink a cup of coffee or attend a church service or other celebration at church without kids, who are carrying on.

    It is of course the parents who are destroying their children and thus destroying for their children, it is the parents who are the most aggravating. Too many of them seem not to have a clue about how to bring up their children and are unable to keep track of them and teach them into show consideration for other people.

    The article in Aftonbladet is among the most diffuse and stupid, I have read in a long time. One wanting not to have children around when you want to relax or enjoy a culinary or cultural experience has nothing at all to do with “discrimination”, which the author is trying to make it seem to be. And if it really were a question of discrimination, it is rather the parents with hyperactive children who are crying and fussing who discriminate against others who have not chosen to have all the noise around them in different situations.
    And – as always – there are several sides of the issue. All children are not disruptive, all parents are not ignorant and don’t-give-a-damn. Even though many are.


    Sweden has created great problems for itself by removing parental authority. Linda Skugge said it in 2003 We are bringing up a generation of monsters, Roger Lord said it in 2005 “The children are embarrassing Sweden, in October after the fatal shooting of a teenager in Rödeby, many people said “Shoot another one and now we have a chorus criticising this piece.

    Topics: Sweden | No Comments »