Parental Inquisition | Democrat = Socialist

by Peter Kamakawiwoole writing at Parental Rights

Sweden and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

There’s an old saying that once you reach the top, you can only go down. For the nation of Sweden, however, reaching the top was only the beginning.

Sweden has long been regarded as a model nation, whose policies and laws are at the cutting-edge of international thinking on children’s rights. Sweden was the first nation to completely ban corporal punishment, the first to make sex education a mandatory feature of its educational curriculum, and the first to offer working parents free child-care for all children between the ages of 1 and 12. Thus, it should come as no surprise that on June 29, 1990, Sweden became the ninth nation in the world – and the first industrialized Western country – to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

And apparently, such innovations were only the beginning.

The modern regime in Sweden enjoys broad discretionary authority over parents, and is presently engaged in what Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson has termed a “parental inquisition.” The inquisition is broad, affecting educational decisions, child-rearing practices, parental discipline, and even the removal of children from their homes. The state wields incredible power, guided solely by its own “insights” into the child’s “best interests.” Against such power, no child or family is safe.

Sex-ed: No exemptions… period

When it comes to schools teaching children about the birds and the bees, American parents are used to two familiar words: “opt out.” Even parents who do not take advantage of parental exemptions are aware of their availability.

Apparently, that option has become outdated in Sweden.

In March 2008, Sweden’s government sought to take its trend-setting policies on mandatory sex education to the next level by eliminating all exemptions for parents – including parents with religious and philosophical differences.1 According to the state, all students, irrespective of religious or cultural beliefs, should receive instruction in the same subjects, and parental “exemptions” were being used as a ploy to keep children in ignorance. “Our belief in a tolerant society,” state officials wrote in a local paper, “should never result in us covering our eyes when women are the victim of attacks or being denied their rights with the excuse that it is a part of their culture or religion.”2

According to the state, the changes were primarily aimed at Sweden’s large Muslim immigrant populations, many of whom claimed religious exemptions for sex-ed classes.3

Although the proposal prompted a national debate, particularly among the nation’s major newspapers, nearly all of them came down firmly in favor of the government’s position. According to one paper, “religion has its given place in people’s lives. But in school, religious convictions ought to be studied, rather than be in control.”4 Another paper opined that eliminating the parental exceptions would be a good thing because it would give individual students “more power to decide for themselves whether or not they want to attend lessons which their parents find objectionable.”5

via Parental Inquisition | Democrat = Socialist.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Posted on Monday, March 16th, 2009 at 2:30 pm in Childhood Indoctrination, Children's rights, Parental rights.

Share/Save


Bookmark and Share

Subscribe via RSS! or Follow EndOfReligion on Twitter!


Comments (2)

Follow this discussion | Leave a trackback | Login

Make sure you follow the hyperlink to the web site that published this post. There you will find links to Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson's writing. The irony of allowing parents to opt their children out of sex ed classes is that these children are the least likely to receive sex education at home or be given sex education material. Children in the USA have a 14th amendment right to equal treatment, yet their squeamish parents can defeat their own children's rights. Something is not "right". The difference between us and the Swedes is they unambiguously come down on the side of children. We side with parents. When decisions are being made that effect children shouldn't children's interests come first?

Make sure you follow the hyperlink to the web site that published this post. There you will find links to Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson's writing. The irony of allowing parents to opt their children out of sex ed classes is that these children are the least likely to receive sex education at home or be given sex education material. Children in the USA have a 14th amendment right to equal treatment, yet their squeamish parents can defeat their own children's rights. Something is not "right". The difference between us and the Swedes is they unambiguously come down on the side of preparing children to make wise choices about their sexuality. We side with nervous uncomfortable parents who rather than see their children learn honest and truthful information about their sexuality would prefer they learn mis-information from unreliable sources such as other uninformed children. When decisions are being made that effect children shouldn't children's interests come first?

Post a new comment

« »