Posts Tagged ‘NCHR’


Wednesday, August 18th, 2010


By Charles H. Francis, Esq.

Mrs Babette Francis, president of Endeavour Forum, Australia, has given her kind consent for the NCHRHEF and Family Integrity to publish her late husband’s, Charles H. Francis, essay “The Wrongs of The United Nations’ Rights of The Child” on their websites.

Ruby Harrold-Claesson and Barbara Smith

August 18, 2010.

After World War II, when the United Nations first became established, most people looked to it with hope for the future. Primarily it was envisaged as a world authority, which would serve to prevent wars and act as mediator and arbitrator when disputes developed between member nations. Secondly, as the gross violations of human rights by the Nazi regime became more fully known, the United Nations was seen also as a world body to establish and protect human rights throughout the world.

This essay discusses human rights in the context of the present “rights of the child” mentality prevailing at the United Nations. Legitimate concern for the world’s children has, unfortunately, given way to a dangerous and false vision of an autonomous child with the same objectionable humanist “rights” as any adult. This vision, if given legal effect or legitimacy of any kind, poses a real threat to the authority of parents and to the integrity of the family.


Most of the countries that played a major part in the early development of the United Nations and in the drafting of its first declarations had a strong underlying Christian and thus pro-family ethos.[1]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly fifty years ago, is evidence of this, asserting, as it does, “Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance,” in Article 25(2), and declaring, “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children,” in Article 26(3). The United Nations made similar declarations after this that tended to focus on improving children’s health, nutrition, safety, and education.[2]

There appeared to be a general agreement that such interests were ordinarily best served by keeping children within integrated families and under the care, guidance and control of their parents.


In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly introduced a new Convention on the Rights of the Child. It was promptly signed by 130 nations with, it would seem, singularly little debate or scrutiny and even less intelligent discussion on the legal effect of its provisions.

This Convention was full of platitudinous phrases and contained much ambiguous language. However, many prominent lawyers became aware of the problems and traps within it and lectured and wrote on its proper interpretation, warning their countries not to sign or ratify it. Most of the representatives of the various nations, which rushed like so many lemmings to sign the Convention, probably had no real understanding of its meaning. It was feted as a Convention in the best interests of children, and those nations that signed it were said to demonstrate a commitment to the prevention of child abuse. Those who expressed concern about possible interpretations of the Convention were falsely assured that parental rights were fully preserved by Article Five.[3]

A number of the supporters of this 1989 Children’s Rights Convention also maintained, quite falsely, that its main object was the protection of children, and that it did no more than provide for those rights that were already law in more advanced democracies such as the United States of America. In reality, had legislation setting out similar provisions to those of the Convention been introduced into the House of Representatives in the United States (or in Australia), it would probably never have become law.[4]

By 1989, however, many supporters of humanist philosophies had already realized it was far easier to implement their ideas by incorporating them in United Nations’ Conventions, which their countries might thereafter ratify, rather than by attempting the more difficult (if not impossible) task of trying to pass such provisions through their countries’ legislatures, where they were likely to receive much closer scrutiny, and where the legal interpretation and actual effect of the provisions might be the subject of proper analysis and debate.[5]

In essence, the 1989 Children’s Rights Convention was humanist (not Christian). Humanism denies and rejects God (as well as prayer, any divine purpose and theism generally) and all religions that place God above human desires. Despite its followers’ claims of neutrality, humanism is a secular religion, and is more dogmatic than any church teaching. Humanism recognizes and accepts abortion, euthanasia, suicide and countless other immoral acts, and works for the establishment of a completely secular society, which is its goal. It also realizes that the traditional family, marked by strong parental authority, is an obstacle to this goal and, therefore, seeks to dismantle it.

In consequence, the 1989 Convention gave to children a sphere of autonomy and freedom from control (in particular a freedom from parental control) and thereby introduced a radically new concept of children having rights entirely separate from their parents, with the government accepting the responsibility for protecting the child from the power of parents.

Professor Bruce Hafen of Brigham Young University has wisely pointed out that parents who subscribe to “children’s rights” thinking and “leave their children alone” so they develop their personalities are irresponsibly abrogating their parental duties, leaving their children a ready prey to a wide range of immoral and evil influences.[6]

Indeed, in England some of the strongest support for “children’s rights” has come from well identified homosexual and pedophile organizations, which long ago realized that the easiest way to obtain access to children was to demand their freedom from any form of restraint, thereby exposing them to the predatory behavior of those who would harm them.[7]

While some Articles of the Convention are praiseworthy (for example its prohibitions on slavery and child prostitution), there are five Articles in particular (12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, discussed below) that would create grave difficulties for parents seeking to exercise authority over children. These Articles appear to be the spearhead of a very serious invasion of parental rights.


Article 12 is the first to provide a charter of autonomous children’s rights. Its implications therefore require close attention. It assures to a child the right to express views freely in all matters affecting the child, the view of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

But who is to determine what weight is to be attached to those views? Obviously not the parents alone. Article 12 enables children to ventilate their disagreements with parental rulings in primarily public and legal forums.[8] Carried to its logical conclusion, the child will be able to demand state intervention to challenge any parental conduct the child doesn’t like (or conduct the child claims is not in his “best interest”). This is an absurd threat to parental authority.

Article 13 assures to the child the right of freedom of expression, which includes “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.” This Article will prevent parents from protecting their children from objectionable or immoral materials, often disseminated in schools. A recent case in Australia provides a most disturbing example: When a family tried to persuade their daughter’s school that some of its curriculum was inappropriate for young secondary students, the Department of Secondary Education invoked the provisions of the Convention as authority for overriding parental rights and wishes.[9]

We would do well, at this juncture, to consider some material that the United Nations has already approved for children, since we can assume that the Convention on the Rights of the Child would support the unrestricted dissemination of such material to them.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has already produced two sex education films, “The Blue Pigeon” and “Music for Two.” “The Blue Pigeon” is a cartoon targeted at 10- to 12- year-old children, and graphically depicts sexual intercourse between two children attending a children’s picnic. “Music for Two” depicts the fantasies of a young girl who foresees herself as tired, overworked and overburdened when married, and her husband as indifferent and uninterested. By contrast, sexual intercourse with a boy neighbor is depicted as a happy, commitment-free sexual relationship.[10]

It takes no genius to discern this message of approval for sexual activity outside of marriage and even for children at a very young age. Parents must understand that this is the type of “information” the United Nations wishes to “impart” to their children.

Article 14 declares “the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” The Convention affords parents and guardians only the limited right to “direct” children in the exercise of this right (although there is no real protection for this right; the state merely gives it “respect,” which, without means of enforcement, is somewhat meaningless). “Direction” of course implies that a parent will not be able to require a young child to go to church or Sunday school if the child does not wish to do so.[11]

American Christian leader Dr. James Dobson has suggested that the real freedom given by Article 14 is freedom from parental control in the area of religion. Parents are relegated to providing a state-monitored influence over the religious practices of their own children.[12]

Article 15 “recognizes” the right of the child to freedom of association and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. Such rights make it difficult, if not impossible, for parents to control the company their children keep, even though that company may be truly harmful. The Convention does not balance these “children’s rights” against those of parents (which should always serve the best interests of children), however valid and compelling. In some Australian towns where young teenage vandalism and crime is rife, teenage curfews have been introduced. Usually they have proved successful, but civil libertarians have already complained that curfews are a breach of Article 15 of the Convention. In this regard, the Convention appears to be directly opposed to the view of the United States Supreme Court, which has held such curfews lawful.[13]

Article 16 protects the child’s right not to be “subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy.” The inclusion of the word arbitrary may permit children to exclude parents from anything they consider private, including medical treatments, and presumably activity in the child’s bedroom or any other part of the home set aside for the child’s use. This Article greatly strengthens the position of Planned Parenthood, which routinely puts young girls on birth control pills without notice to (much less consent from) their parents. The United States Supreme Court has, of course, already upheld privacy rights for children in the context of abortion and contraception. Mature minors (maturity being determined by a judge) can have abortions without any parental involvement, and immature minors may have abortions if the judge thinks it is in their best interests.


The picture should be clear by now: The Convention is a very serious invasion of parental rights. A careful analysis of its terms proves that it is anti-parent. It takes many important decisions regarding the well-being of children (on education, philosophy, morality and religion) away from parents and gives them to the State, and ultimately, to the United Nations itself.

Most great civilizations have been destroyed not from without but from within. In almost every such instance, the breakdown of the family was key to the collapse. Responsible parents realize that children (especially adolescent children) need protection from their own actions, which spring from a lack of mature judgment. The Convention’s invasion of parental control can only make this task more difficult, if not impossible.

The new humanist philosophy, increasingly embraced by so many Western democracies today, and brought to the United Nations by their delegates, has enormous potential for harm, especially when applied to our children. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child reflects this philosophy and is, in many ways, diametrically opposed to what the United Nations had to offer the world in its 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We desperately need to re-appraise the United Nations’ present direction. We must realize that those humanist philosophies, which masquerade as a concern for human rights, will end up trampling them — just as the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child pretends to protect children, but damages the parental authority that is their best protection. The humanist element of such documents has the potential to destroy all that is best in Christian civilization, replacing it with a profoundly chaotic, harmful and ultimately evil empire.

How to control adults by means of ‘children’s rights
By Lynette Burrows

The Fight for the Family
By Lynette Burrows

The Folly of Sweden’s State Controlled Families
The lawyer, Mrs Siv Westerberg’s lecture to The Family Education Trust.

Smacking: Those Swedes must be crazy!
By Jean-Francis Held

The Empresses’ New Clothes or Smacking: those Kiwis must be crazy
By Ruby Harrold-Claesson

[1] – The United States and Great Britain were foremost among them. To some extent, the drafters of the postwar declarations were using 20th-century national constitutions as their models, adding the protection of the family and the child to those political and civil democratic rights that they wished to identify and preserve.

[2] – Such declarations included the Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1959, a valuable document that included Principle 6, providing that “the child shall wherever possible grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents.” The 1959 Declaration was in many ways not unlike the 1924 League of Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which had stated that “mankind owes to the child the best it has to give.” The philosophy of the 1959 Declaration was again essentially Christian, and anticipated that, at a later date, there would be further and more detailed provisions.

[3] – Article 5 reads as follows: States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights, and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention. But who is to decide what constitutes “a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child”? When this Article is read in conjunction with the child’s rights contained in Articles 12 to 16, and with the fact that parents have no right of control, it is apparent that this determination is not necessarily to be left to the parents alone.

[4] – The obvious legal implications of Articles 12 to 16, once properly understood and publicized (as they were in the U.S. Senate), are likely to lead to their rejection. (In Australia, the adoption of these Articles as Federal law would necessitate an amendment to the Constitution by referendum.)

[5] – In England, however, some unfortunate features similar to those of the Convention found their way into the Child Act of 1989.

[6] – Professor Bruce C. Hafen, and Jonathan O. Hafen (1996) Harvard International Law Journal 37(2), pp. 449-491.

[7] –  See “The Fight for the Family” 1998, Lynette Burrows — Family Education Trust, Oxford, England, ISBN 0 906229 14 6.

[8] –  Article 12(2) reads: [T]he child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

[9] – Newsweekly (Australia) January 24, 1998, at 17. The U.N. has a track record in this regard: Its Committee on the Rights of the Child has already criticized England for not having a way for children to dissent from parental views. The Committee’s criticism was made in relation to parents withdrawing their children from school sex education programs that the parents deemed unsuitable. U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Report on the United Kingdom, February 15, 1995.

[10] – “Behind the Mask of UNICEF,” Population Research Institute Review (1992), Baltimore, MD.

[11] – Professor Bruce Hafen, when speaking in Ireland last year, confirmed this interpretation of Article 14 when he said that a parent who might compel his child to go to Mass could well find himself in breach of this Article. The Irish News, March 26, 1997.

[12] – Satanic cults will no doubt make use (or misuse) of Article 14, which enables them to attract children away from the religions of their families more easily. Such cults are typically interested in young children or adolescents.

[13] – City of Dallas v. Stenglin, 490 US 19 (1989).

Comments from Ruby Harrold-Claesson on Deborah Coddington: Violence so ingrained

Thursday, July 17th, 2008
A lot of what Deborah Coddington has written in her article (see below) is completely irrelevant. Deborah Coddington, Sue Bradford and the other ideologically, politically correct advocates brains are so twisted that they can’t see the difference between violence and discipline. They portray good as evil, but they are the ones spreading evil in our world. They refuse to learn from what is happening in Sweden – the pioneer in “soft child upbringing”. Thomas Michelsen,  would have been alive today – but for the anti-smacking law.

Thomas Michelsen, 15, was clubbed to death by two Hungarian immigrant brothers in a school yard in Bjuv (Skåne) on Sunday November 20, 1994. “I will never forget the ‘kick'” one of the brothers said during the police investigation. After they had killed Thomas, the brothers went and ate at a pizzeria. Cf Youngsters tortured 55-year-old to death. They filmed when disabled man begged for his life. The youngsters went home and ate in between the battering sessions.

The shooting in Rödeby and the Riccardo Campogiani killing – both on October 6, 2007, and most of the other incidents of youth violence would not have taken place – but for the anti-smacking law.

Here’s a refreshing ‘mea culpa’ from one of the people, if not the person, who way back originally inspired what has become ‘Child protection’ hysteria in the UK!:–unleashed-politically-correct-monster.html

‘I launched Childline to protect the most vulnerable – but unleashed a politically correct monster’

By Esther Rantzen

9th July 2008

By the way, have you seen the following articles (both linked to the NCHR’s web site)?

Child protection damages public health
Press Release 21st May 2008

Child protection
By Jean Robinson

Keep up your good work.

All the best

Deborah Coddington: Violence so ingrained

– that’s the real tragedy

5:00AM Sunday July 13, 2008
Deborah Coddington

Why are we aghast at the revelation Tony Veitch beat his partner so badly she reportedly ended up in a wheelchair? This is New Zealand, remember, violence is our answer to everything. Every other morning we wake to news that another child is “fighting for its life” in Starship Hospital and “police are investigating” suspicious injuries. Or worse, another child has died at the hands of his or her “caregivers” (a misnomer, if ever there was one).

Physical and sexual abuse of children is so rife we’ve given up trying to do anything about it.

The Children’s Commissioner, Cindy Kiro, a genuinely well-intentioned woman, spends more time as commissioner of studies and reports than actively campaigning against cruelty to children.

Why not a children’s commissioner visiting every school in the country, giving every child her phone number, telling them to call her if someone so much as threatens to lay a hand on them in anger or lust?

Dream on, Coddington. This is a country where the only petition in recent years to gain enough signatures to repeal a law was one which advocated the smacking of children (to Kiro’s credit, she spoke out against this campaign to bring back Section 59 of the Crimes Act).

We water down the horror of violence within families by calling it “domestic violence”, much like we make pussy cats more acceptable than their spitting, clawing, yowling feral cousins, by defining our pets as domesticated.

Maybe we’re shocked Veitch paid hush money to his former partner – $100,000 we’re told – to “compensate” for her trauma and loss of income. He’s not the first wealthy abuser to pay to keep the public away from his shame, but truth has a nasty habit of coming out.

Sadly, violence is everywhere in this Godless country – the rich and famous are not exempt. Every single night children are cowering in their bedrooms, hiding under the blankets trying to block out the noise of Mum and Dad (if he’s their real dad) yelling at each other, chasing each other around the house, pushing, belting and kicking each other.

These kids don’t get paid hush money, but nonetheless they go to school the next day and pretend nothing happened. They kid themselves their home life is as happy as today’s television equivalent of my era’s Brady Bunch.

Those kids grow up, become criminals, and Sensible Sentencing advocates more violence, demanding incarceration with hard labour. Yeah, like that will make a difference to someone who’s never heard a kind word of praise. As Celia Lashlie wrote in her book Journey to Prison, we imprison criminals as punishment, not for punishment.

What happened after the violent attacks against Asian people in South Auckland? Calls for more violence by some 10,000 members of the Asian community, angry because politicians aren’t lining up anyone who looks like a thug and locking them up if they’re even thinking about being naughty. And because he viewed the New Zealand police force as so ineffectual, Peter Low, leader of this anti-crime organisation, threatened to bring in the Triads, advising Asian people to defend themselves with violence.

Er, excuse me, but aren’t most violent crimes fuelled by methamphetamine addiction, and isn’t 90 per cent of that drug’s importation carried out by Asian gangs?

Low was quickly ridiculed, but unionist Beven Hanlon wasn’t when he called for prison guards to be armed, preferably with taser guns, after an inmate badly injured a guard with a yard broom.

In sport, violence is called biffo; if you’re an All Black you get a growling. In New Zealand, traffic violence is called “I own a bigger car so you can’t change lanes”. What did Sir Edmund Hillary say when he reached the top of Everest? “We knocked the bugger off.”

Last week I was appearing on Willie Jackson’s Eye to Eye programme and another guest, whom I’d never met, greeted me with, “My brother hates you”.

Veitch isn’t the first high-profile New Zealander to beat up his partner, and he won’t be the last. If anything good comes of this tragedy, it’s that New Zealanders face up to the intrinsic violence in our national culture. Goodness me, a pig just flew past my window.


Why should we discriminate against children?

Thursday, June 5th, 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.