kagablog

May 11, 2008

Mobile phones ‘more dangerous than smoking’

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 10:27 am

Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and calls on industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation. Young people are at particular risk from exposure to radiation.

By Geoffrey Lean

Sunday, 30 March 2008

Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take “immediate steps” to reduce exposure to their radiation.

The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.

It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.

Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people to minimise handset use, and the European Environment Agency has called for exposures to be reduced.

Professor Khurana – a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers – reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.

He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes that “there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours”. He believes this will be “definitively proven” in the next decade.

Noting that malignant brain tumours represent “a life-ending diagnosis”, he adds: “We are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation.” He fears that “unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps”, the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to intervene medically.

“It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking,” says Professor Khurana, who told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents.

Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana’s study as “a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual”. It believes he “does not present a balanced analysis” of the published science, and “reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews”

May 10, 2008

Thieves hit Mbeki’s residence: president still sleeping

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 2:02 am

Johannesburg, South Africa
07 May 2008 09:47

Over the long weekend burglars climbed into the roof of President Thabo Mbeki’s official residence Mahlambandlovu on the Bryntirion Estate in Government Avenue in Pretoria and stole between R20 000 and R30 000 worth of aluminium.

Beeld reported on Wednesday that the 10mm aluminium wire which had been installed in the roof over the past three weeks, formed part of a network of the house’s electronic fittings, including closed-circuit television cameras and computer systems, that was designed to protect the house against lightning.

Kevin Bredenkamp of Ubani, the contractors who were supposed to install the aluminium cables, left the premises on Tuesday because he deemed it unsafe.

“We withdrew until we knew it was safe and that things wouldn’t be stolen again,” Bredenkamp said.

He said that the robbery must have taken place between Friday night and Monday night but was only discovered on Tuesday morning.

“We couldn’t climb on the roof [on Sunday] morning because the president was still sleeping and we were instructed to come back [on Tuesday],” one of the workers, Philip van Schalkwyk, said on Tuesday.

He said that when they had wanted to continue their task on Tuesday morning, they were shocked to discover that all the aluminium they had installed over the past three weeks had been stolen. - Sapa

Wikileaks and Internet Censorship - a comparative study

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 1:22 am

JONATHAN WERVE (Director of Operations, Global Integrity)
Tuesday February 19, 2008 Reposted from The Global Integrity Commons

Using data from the Global Integrity Index, we put a U.S. court’s recent order to block access to anti-corruption site Wikileaks.org into context. In summary: The Wikileaks.org shutdown is unheard of in the West, and has only been seen in a handful of the most repressive regimes. Good thing it doesn’t work very well.

Starting in 2007, Global Integrity added specific questions about Internet censorship to the Integrity Indicators, which are a set of 304 questions addressing the practice of anti-corruption in national governments. We have always held that a free and critical media is an essential component of good governance; adding an analysis of Internet censorship was an overdue refinement.

We asked two questions:

1. Are Internet users prevented from reaching political material on the Internet?
2. Are content creators prevented from posting political material to the Internet?

The results of this work are generally encouraging. In examining a diverse group of 50 countries, a majority earn a full score on both counts. Freedom of speech is a widely held right. Moreover, Internet censorship is difficult and is often ineffective in suppressing political activity. Most governments, aside from targeted libel restrictions, don’t bother regulating online political speech at all.

The Many Flavors of Internet Censorship

A few countries, however, are deeply committed to trying to make censorship work. On this list in 2007 are Algeria, China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Russia and Thailand. Each has it’s own flavor to the repression of online speech — Internet censorship is still in an experimentation phase, and even the most aggressive approaches don’t seem to work very well.

* Algeria has no firewalls or filters, but outlaws hosting content critical of the government, and monitors chat rooms for political speech.

* China is home to 1.3 billion people and has a highly scalable technological approach based on extensive content filters known satirically as the Great Firewall of China. China is also using technology to discourage content creation, deploying cute animated police characters (pictured above) to remind Internet users they are being watched.

* Egypt has limited technical means to discourage content creation, so it relies on an old-fashioned technique — harassment, beatings and arrests. Hala Al-Masry used to publish in a blog entitled “Cops Without Boundaries” until the government harassed her, “unknown people” beat her father, and she and her husband were arrested and signed a commitment to shut down the blog. Similar techniques haveshut down websites of opposition parties.

* Kazakhstan has little Internet capacity. The government uses this to mask censorship — rather than block sites, it slows them down, frustrating the users of political content into looking elsewhere. The KNB (formerly the KGB) has a special program called Bolat, which slows down, but does not stop, access to sites of terrorist organizations. Popular opinion holds that it is used to slow opposition party sites as well.

* Russia has a mixed bag of state persecution and neglect, allowing a rare opening for free expression in a country with highly restricted media. However, the sophistication of the attacks that do occur is frightening, with hackers singling out individual online targets. For instance, the website of Ekho Moskvy, a liberal Moscow radio station critical of the Kremlin, was brought down by a DDoS attack last year.

* Thailand’s military junta moved aggressively to shut down message boards and the formerly-ruling party Thai Rak Thai website after taking over the country in 2006. But the junta’s censorship cops work to keep the thinnest appearance of tolerance — message boards were allowed to reopen under the condition that they did not “provoke any misunderstandings.” Message received.

So how does the United States fit into this picture?
The court order that muzzled Wikileaks.org (covered here) was prompted not by the government but by a bank registered in the Cayman Islands. The bank used American courts and a compliant domain registrar to scrub the wikileaks.org URL from the Internet. It is extremely unlikely that this decision will stand up in an appeals court, but the larger point is that there is no reason this case should even be fought. Wikileaks should not need a legal team to explain to the courts that the First Amendment requires freedom of speech.

The whole event seems to encapsulate the constant criticism of governance in the United States: that the government has been captured by corporate interests, and that the world-leading rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place can be hijacked to serve as tools for narrow, wealthy interests.

Online Censorship: Sounds good, but it never works.

While there is much diversity in the style of Internet censorship among the world’s worst offenders, one common thread unites them: Internet censorship doesn’t work. Cut off one site, and a thousand more pop up. In China, censorship online is sparking criticism that off-line censorship has rarely seen.

So Wikileaks.org went offline, but Wikileaks mirror sites hosted overseas hold the same content, and the original site is still up and running from Sweden (http://88.80.13.160) without its easier-to-type URL. As it turns out, shutting down Wikileaks-the-website has focused our attention on Wikileaks-the-idea, which is spreading at the speed of light.

April 30, 2008

Albert Hofmann, the Father of LSD, Dies at 102

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 6:15 pm

By CRAIG S. SMITH
Published: April 30, 2008

PARIS — Albert Hofmann, the mystical Swiss chemist who gave the world LSD, the most powerful psychotropic substance known, died Tuesday at his hilltop home near Basel, Switzerland. He was 102.

hoffman190.jpg
Albert Hofmann in 2006.

The cause was a heart attack, said Rick Doblin, founder and president of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, a California-based group that in 2005 republished Dr. Hofmann’s 1979 book “LSD: My Problem Child.”

Dr. Hofmann first synthesized the compound lysergic acid diethylamide in 1938 but did not discover its psychopharmacological effects until five years later, when he accidentally ingested the substance that became known to the 1960s counterculture as acid.

He then took LSD hundreds of times, but regarded it as a powerful and potentially dangerous psychotropic drug that demanded respect. More important to him than the pleasures of the psychedelic experience was the drug’s value as a revelatory aid for contemplating and understanding what he saw as humanity’s oneness with nature. That perception, of union, which came to Dr. Hofmann as almost a religious epiphany while still a child, directed much of his personal and professional life.

Dr. Hofmann was born in Baden, a spa town in northern Switzerland, on Jan. 11, 1906, the eldest of four children. His father, who had no higher education, was a toolmaker in a local factory, and the family lived in a rented apartment. But Dr. Hofmann spent much of his childhood outdoors.

He would wander the hills above the town and play around the ruins of a Hapsburg castle, the Stein. “It was a real paradise up there,” he said in an interview in 2006. “We had no money, but I had a wonderful childhood.”

It was during one of his ambles that he had his epiphany.

“It happened on a May morning — I have forgotten the year — but I can still point to the exact spot where it occurred, on a forest path on Martinsberg above Baden,” he wrote in “LSD: My Problem Child.” “As I strolled through the freshly greened woods filled with bird song and lit up by the morning sun, all at once everything appeared in an uncommonly clear light.

“It shone with the most beautiful radiance, speaking to the heart, as though it wanted to encompass me in its majesty. I was filled with an indescribable sensation of joy, oneness and blissful security.”

Though Dr. Hofmann’s father was a Roman Catholic and his mother a Protestant, Dr. Hofmann, from an early age, felt that organized religion missed the point. When he was 7 or 8, he recalled, he spoke to a friend about whether Jesus was divine. “I said that I didn’t believe, but that there must be a God because there is the world and someone made the world,” he said. “I had this very deep connection with nature.”

Dr. Hofmann went on to study chemistry at Zurich University because, he said, he wanted to explore the natural world at the level where energy and elements combine to create life. He earned his Ph.D. there in 1929, when he was just 23. He then took a job with Sandoz Laboratories in Basel, attracted by a program there that sought to synthesize pharmacological compounds from medicinally important plants.

It was during his work on the ergot fungus, which grows in rye kernels, that he stumbled on LSD, accidentally ingesting a trace of the compound one Friday afternoon in April 1943. Soon he experienced an altered state of consciousness similar to the one he had experienced as a child.

On the following Monday, he deliberately swallowed a dose of LSD and rode his bicycle home as the effects of the drug overwhelmed him. That day, April 19, later became memorialized by LSD enthusiasts as “bicycle day.”

hoffman02190.jpg
Dr. Hofmann, date unknown, with a chemical model of LSD.

Dr. Hofmann’s work produced other important drugs, including methergine, used to treat postpartum hemorrhaging, the leading cause of death from childbirth. But it was LSD that shaped both his career and his spiritual quest.

“Through my LSD experience and my new picture of reality, I became aware of the wonder of creation, the magnificence of nature and of the animal and plant kingdom,” Dr. Hofmann told the psychiatrist Stanislav Grof during an interview in 1984. “I became very sensitive to what will happen to all this and all of us.”

Dr. Hofmann became an impassioned advocate for the environment and argued that LSD, besides being a valuable tool for psychiatry, could be used to awaken a deeper awareness of mankind’s place in nature and help curb society’s ultimately self-destructive degradation of the natural world.

But he was also disturbed by the cavalier use of LSD as a drug for entertainment, arguing that it should be treated in the way that primitive societies treat psychoactive sacred plants, which are ingested with care and spiritual intent.

After his discovery of LSD’s properties, Dr. Hofmann spent years researching sacred plants. With his friend R. Gordon Wasson, he participated in psychedelic rituals with Mazatec shamans in southern Mexico. He succeeded in synthesizing the active compounds in the Psilocybe mexicana mushroom, which he named psilocybin and psilocin. He also isolated the active compound in morning glory seeds, which the Mazatec also used as an intoxicant, and found that its chemical structure was close to that of LSD.

During the psychedelic era, Dr. Hofmann struck up friendships with such outsize personalities as Timothy Leary, Allen Ginsberg and Aldous Huxley, who, nearing death in 1963, asked his wife for an injection of LSD to help him through the final painful throes of throat cancer.

Yet despite his involvement with psychoactive compounds, Dr. Hofmann remained moored in his Swiss chemist identity. He stayed with Sandoz as head of the research department for natural medicines until his retirement in 1971. He wrote more than 100 scientific articles and was the author or co-author of a number of books

He and his wife, Anita, who died recently, reared four children in Basel. A son died of alcoholism at 53. Survivors include several grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Though Dr. Hofmann called LSD “medicine for the soul,” by 2006 his hallucinogenic days were long behind him, he said in the interview that year.

“I know LSD; I don’t need to take it anymore,” he said, adding. “Maybe when I die, like Aldous Huxley.”

But he said LSD had not affected his understanding of death. In death, he said, “I go back to where I came from, to where I was before I was born, that’s all.”

this obituary first appeared in the new york times

April 28, 2008

Lights. Camera. Cellphone Action.

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 8:19 pm

By LAURA M. HOLSON
Published: April 24, 2008

Who says cellphones are good only for talking? Today they are bringing together two unlikely brand names: Nokia and Spike Lee.

24cell190.jpg

Spike Lee will assess the video, music, photos and text material created by consumers with their cellphones, then help assemble the various snippets into a three-part film.

The director is teaming up with Nokia to make a film using videos created with cellphones.

Mr. Lee, the director, is teaming up with Nokia, the cellphone maker, to direct a short film comprising YouTube-style videos created by teenagers and adults using their mobile phones.

By hiring Mr. Lee for the project, Nokia is seeking to combine the populist appeal of user-generated content with the power of a famous director’s pedigree. The film will have three acts, each three to five minutes long, with the theme loosely based on the concept of humanity.

“I’m interested because it’s a great collaborative effort,” Mr. Lee said. “Within five years, new movies will be made with devices like these.”

He added: “I like working with people who have talent but aren’t in film school.”

The project is an experiment for Mr. Lee, but it is also a way for Nokia to promote its wares. Cellphone companies are all trying to position their products not just as devices for talking, but as multimedia devices that can play music, search the Web and capture video.

Many companies are also preparing for a new wave of mobile entertainment, as social networking on sites like MySpace and Facebook migrates from the Web to cellphones.

Nokia in particular is trying to turn itself into an entertainment-friendly company, much the way Steven P. Jobs has changed Apple’s image with the iPod and iPhone.

Nokia, based in Finland, said it surveyed 9,000 consumers last year and concluded that by 2012 one out of every four consumers will create, edit or share entertainment with friends, instead of getting it from traditional media outlets like television or movie studios.

And that, Nokia executives said, led them to seek out a movie director willing to dabble in mobile video.

“This is not a marketing gimmick,” said Craig Coffey, Nokia’s vice president for North American marketing and a former PepsiCo executive. “The notion of social networking and entertainment is real.”

There have been several other efforts in the realm of films that were shot with or meant to be viewed on phones. Most have involved independent filmmakers or young Steven Spielbergs in training. In 2006 Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute announced a partnership with the largest wireless association in Europe to sponsor five short films for mobile viewers. They were created by, among others, Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, who directed the Academy Award winner “Little Miss Sunshine.”

Early last year, Paris held its own mobile film festival for novice filmmakers, sponsored by the French mobile operator SFR. Similar festivals have been held in Hong Kong and Yokohama, Japan.

John Stratton, the chief marketing officer of Verizon Communications who works closely with media companies to offer content to customers, said he did not expect films shot on phones to become their own genre. “But the notion of shared media is powerful,” he said.

That is one reason Nokia chose to exploit the social networking possibilities of mobile phones. Contributors can upload material created with their phones — video, music, photos and text — to www.nokiaproductions.com for review by Mr. Lee and assistant directors who will help revise entries. Mr. Coffey said other site visitors will be able to peruse these and combine them with their own material to make something new.

24cellb190.jpg

Mr. Lee, who in recent years directed “Inside Man” and the documentary series “When the Levees Broke,” conceded that he will be in unfamiliar technological terrain.

“Me, I’m personally a dinosaur,” he said. “My children have to help me turn on the television.”

During an interview Mr. Lee corrected himself twice, remembering that he was supposed to call the cellphone a “mobile device.”

Mr. Lee said he would assess the submissions to the site and even write a blog giving young filmmakers advice. “We want people to send sounds, music, maybe a baby crying in the park,” he said.

And if thousands of aspiring Spike Lees show up seeking feedback on their work? “I can only do so much; I have a full-time job,” he said. Then he added: “We’ll manage.”

During the months-long project, visitors to the site will be asked to vote for their favorite videos for each of the film’s three acts. After that Mr. Lee will pick a winner for each act and edit them into the final film, which will have its premiere next fall in Los Angeles.

The film will also be available for viewing online, but Nokia has yet to work out one important detail: which carriers will distribute it to viewers on mobile phones. Nokia hasn’t found anyone yet. Sounding like a hopeful Hollywood producer, Mr. Coffey said, “I’m optimistic.”

this article was first published by the new york times

April 22, 2008

jantelagen (the law of jante)

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 3:44 pm


April 16, 2008

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 10:43 am

032.jpg

April 8, 2008

helene gurley brown

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 2:42 am


April 7, 2008

dislocation/re-location

Filed under: miscellaneous, art — ABRAXAS @ 4:57 pm

05.jpg06.jpg

March 25, 2008

baader meinhof - in love with terror part 7

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 12:59 pm


March 24, 2008

baader-meinhof: in love with terror part 6

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 10:44 am


Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 1:52 am

068.jpg

March 23, 2008

Islam on the Outskirts of the swedish Welfare State

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 10:50 pm

By CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL
Published: February 5, 2006

In few places on earth is the air fresher than in a Swedish housing project. Take Bergsjon, which sits five miles from the center of Sweden’s second-largest city, the stately Dutch-built port of Gothenburg. Home to a Volvo plant and some of the world’s biggest shipyards, Gothenburg was long an industrial powerhouse. Bergsjon was built between 1967 and 1972 to reward the workers who made it that. Bergsjon resembles the places Swedes love to retreat to in midsummer — quiet, pristine, speckled with lakes and smelling of evergreen trees — but it is only a short tram ride away from the city’s giant SKF ball-bearing plant. The center has no cars. Its 14,500 people live in apartments set within a lasso-shaped ring road, on grassy hills that climb toward the country’s rustic uplands. As Asa Svensson, a municipal coordinator for the development, notes, “It was planned for people who like to be in the country.”

The Bergsjon housing project was built as a reward for Swedish industrial workers. Today, 70 percent of its residents were born abroad, or have parents who were, and at least 40 percent are on welfare.

But now the shipyards are gone. The Swedish industrial workers Bergsjon was planned for no longer live there. Today it is inhabited mostly by immigrants, many of them refugees, of a hundred nationalities. Seventy percent of the residents were either born abroad or have parents who were. The same goes for 93 percent of the schoolchildren. You see Somali women walking the paths in hijabs and long wraps and graffiti reading “Bosna i Hercegovina 4-Ever.” A few years ago, the mayor of Gothenburg declared, “The prospects of turning Bergsjon into a normal Swedish neighborhood are almost nil.”

Forty percent of the families are on outright welfare, and many of the rest are on various equivalents of welfare that bear different names. Far below half the population is employed. There are reports of a rise in recruitment to criminal gangs — and to radical Islamic groups, too, although none of the authorities can give a clear idea of how Islam is practiced and where. In October, Mirsad Bektasevic, a 19-year-old Swede from near Gothenburg, was arrested in Sarajevo in an apartment that contained suicide-bomb vests, explosives and a newly made video presumably intended for broadcast. Bektasevic, who was born to Muslim parents in prewar Yugoslavia and found refuge in Sweden as a 6-year-old, reportedly ran a Web site supporting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In October 2004, Osama bin Laden disparaged George Bush’s claim that Al Qaeda hated freedom by saying, “Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example.” Sweden may have kept its distance from the Iraq war, but it has been unable to shelter itself from world events.

There are places like Bergsjon ringing the major cities across Sweden. They are all terra incognita to the vast majority of native Swedes. It would be wrong to overdraw the picture. Svensson, who has been working in Bergsjon for 25 years, says she has never been attacked or felt insecure there. The public spaces are clean, and the apartments are large. In the wake of last fall’s riots in France, journalists from France and Germany visited Sweden’s public housing, and some hailed it as a model to be imitated. But clearly, various experiments close to the heart of Swedish democracy and Swedish socialism have gone wrong. Swedes pride themselves on the success of the cradle-to-grave welfare state they developed over the last 70 years. For its foreign defenders throughout the cold war, it was an ingenious way of avoiding the pitfalls of both American-style capitalism and Soviet Communism, of achieving both equality and prosperity. But neighborhoods that were built to keep citizens close to nature now keep them far from the job market. Policies meant to protect people from persecution now expose them to neglect. Swedes have begun to use a word — “segregation” — that they used to employ only when lecturing other countries. A sobering realization is beginning to spread that the Swedish system cannot be easily adapted to a society in which a seventh of the working-age population is foreign-born.

The Garlic Express

As Hemingway might have put it, Sweden has become a multiethnic, multicultural and racially divided country in two ways: first gradually, then suddenly. The gradual part started with World War II. Sweden was neutral, but it fell under Germany’s sway. Indeed, the historian Byron Nordstrom has described this neutrality as “a sham” and Sweden as a “virtual ally” of the Germans. Sweden provided million of tons of iron ore to the Nazis and permitted the free movement of troops across its territory. This neutrality would have two important consequences in the half-century that followed. The first was spiritual. The ambitious Swedish welfare state, defended in the first decades of the century on grounds of ethnic, and even volkisch, solidarity, was maintained and expanded, but on different rationales — expiatory ones, you could say, like egalitarianism and humanitarianism. The second consequence was logistical. At a time when all of Europe’s infrastructure needed to be rebuilt or replaced, Sweden had one of the few undemolished industrial bases on the continent. In retrospect, its astonishing postwar growth rates — 4 percent a year until the oil crisis of the 1970’s and 7 percent for most of the 1960’s — were almost inevitable. All Sweden lacked was sufficient people to man its factories. A result was a series of temporary labor agreements with foreign countries along the lines of Germany’s Gastarbeiter program, starting with Italy and Hungary in 1947 and spreading to Yugoslavia and Turkey two decades later. (Finns, many of them Swedish-speaking, streamed in throughout the period.) As they did in Germany, the laborers proved considerably less temporary than anticipated. But in contrast to the German case, the immigration has been a success by any economic or cultural criterion you would care to use.

When the boom stopped all over the West in the 1970’s, labor unions sought — and got — restrictions on work-force migration. But one door was left open: political asylum. Polish Jews fleeing state anti-Semitism and Greeks fleeing the dictatorship of the “colonels” began arriving in the late 1960’s, and Swedish immigration since then forms — to use a metaphor of the economist Torsten Persson — “a ringlike pattern of political crises,” from pro-Allende Chileans in the 1970’s through Kurdish nationalists in the 1980’s to Somalis and Bosnians in the 1990’s. So began the “sudden” phase of the emergence of multiethnic Sweden. Since 1980, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, half of all residence permits granted — almost 400,000 — have gone to reunite families from various geopolitical disaster areas. A lot of these places were in the Islamic world. So Sweden now has a Muslim population of 200,000 to 400,000; the higher tally would place it among the most heavily Muslim countries in Western Europe.

Goran Johansson, Gothenburg’s Social Democratic mayor, was a labor boss at SKF in the late 1960’s, back when the tram line used by foreign workers was known as the Garlic Express. When the Yugoslavs started coming, Johansson recalled on a dark afternoon at City Hall earlier this winter: “I introduced these guys around. They directly found work and met Swedes every day. They had temporary housing, but they moved out quickly — often with Swedish women. Compare that to today!”

Sweden suffered from bad decisions and bad timing. In 1985, it shifted responsibility for integrating immigrants from its employment bureaucracy to its welfare system. Then, between 1990 and 1994, squeezed between an expanding state sector and increasing global competition for its industries, Sweden underwent the worst economic collapse of any Western European economy in decades. G.N.P. contracted by 6 percent, and employment levels declined by 12 percent. This was the moment (1992) when asylum applications were reaching a peak of 84,000 a year — to a country of only 9 million. The vast majority were accepted. That is, before family reunification is even reckoned in, Sweden was adding almost 1 percent a year to its population by welcoming some of the most desperate and traumatized people on earth.

Sweden had been trying to link immigrants with jobs and communities, along the lines Johansson still suggests. But such plans buckled under the size of the influx. The country now scrambled simply to house the newcomers. As it happened, empty housing was something Sweden had in abundance. Facing a housing shortage in the early 1960’s, its government undertook an ambitious plan to build a million residences. It came to be known as the Million Program. The apartments that resulted compare well with other European subsidized housing, but Swedish culture is not built around apartment living, and native Swedes were unwilling to stay in them once they had enough money to afford their own houses. When the immigrants began arriving en masse, there was an obvious place to stick them. Assar Lindbeck, the dean of Sweden’s welfare-state economists, points out that they were sent to areas where there were empty apartments — which are “by definition in an area of high unemployment.”

Cool Million

By now, so fully has the immigrant population become associated with the Million Program that the immigrant magazine Gringo has coined the term miljonsvenskar, or “million Swedes,” to describe the people who live in these apartments. The editor, Zanyar Adami, 24, a Kurd who arrived with his parents from Iran at age 6, brought out the first issue of Gringo in August 2004. He has since won the country’s most prestigious journalism award.

Adami wants to defend and even glorify the culture of the newest Swedes, but admits that he is confused about what that culture is. Growing up as he did in newish housing in Hasselby, west of Stockholm, brought feelings of alienation, loneliness and inferiority. His own journalistic career began when he went out to a disco with seven Swedish-looking friends and was singled out to be turned away at the door. He went home and wrote a white-hot article that was published to considerable fanfare in Dagens Nyheter, the most influential national newspaper. “There was this feeling,” he recalls. “‘A Swede is better than a foreigner.”‘

But alienation is by no means the whole of it. Adami is just as keen to show he does not have any chip on his shoulder. Sitting in the Cinnamon coffee shop in the upmarket bohemian neighborhood of Sodermalm, Adami says: “My father is an economist and works as a taxi driver. He’s always positive about Sweden, even if he’s discriminated against. That’s affected me a lot.”

Gringo is a large-format, buzz-chasing magazine with a broad sense of humor and almost absurdly sophisticated graphics. Its articles depict life among the children of refugees as better than it is sometimes portrayed. The ghettoized svartkalle — or “black head,” in the Swedish slang — comes off as positively cool. (Youth slang also has a term for ethnic Swedes: They are called Svennar, or “Svens,” much as American ghetto slang used to refer to white people as “Chuck.”) Adami sometimes says that Gringo’s project is to create a new Swedish national identity. A recent article on “new Swedish words” included several Arabic ones, like habibi, haram and hayat. Every issue carries the motto “Sveriges svenskaste tidning” (”Sweden’s Most Swedish Magazine”). “Mainstream Swedish media give an idea of the country that is 40 years out of date,” he says. “Typically, their editorial staffs are middle-class, middle-aged, living here in Sodermalm.” On the other hand, Adami recently moved to Sodermalm himself.

A generation ago, Nalin Pekgul looked at Sweden through Adami’s eyes. When she arrived in the community of Tensta from Turkish Kurdistan with her parents in 1980, Tensta and the neighboring development in Rinkeby seemed to offer the best of both worlds — Swedish security and a cosmopolitan mix of cultures. Forty percent of Tensta was immigrant then, much of it Greek. Today immigrants and their children make up closer to 85 percent of the residents. As in Bergsjon, dependence is at astronomical levels. A fifth of the women in their late 40’s, to take just one of many possible indices, are on disability benefits. Pekgul, who sat for eight years in the Riksdag, the national Parliament, now heads the National Federation of Social Democratic Women. Her decision to stay in Tensta, among people she grew up with, has been an important symbol.

So it was national news when Pekgul let drop in a radio interview that she was looking to move elsewhere, citing rising insecurity and Islamic radicalization. “People are using Islam to distance themselves from Swedish society,” she says, sitting over chocolate-covered oatcakes and tea in the building she grew up in. “Ten years ago when I was a member of Parliament, people would see me on the tiniest cable stations. Now, when I’m on big national programs, only one or two people will ever say they’ve seen me. Everybody else is watching Al Jazeera.”

Last January, Pekgul had a public discussion with the French feminist Fadela Amara about changes in France. “Whenever she talked about France,” Pekgul recalls, “it sounded like we were undergoing the same changes France did, only 10 years behind. It was the first time I had thought: I’m going to have to leave. It’s not going to get better.”

Burning Cars

“In segregated areas,” Mauricio Rojas says, “schools are the key.” Rojas, 55, is a charismatic economic historian with a bewitching intellect who fled Chile in the early 1970’s. “Many Swedes think the areas are interesting to live in,” he says. “And they’re right. But they won’t stay if they don’t think their kids are getting a Swedish education.” Such blunt opinions have been Rojas’s trademark since he began his career with the free-market Liberal Party. Immigrant politicians (although not voters) have gravitated to the Liberals, from Rojas to the Congo-born parliamentarian Nyamko Sabuni. This is perhaps not surprising in a country where the Social Democratic Party has been in power for all but a handful of years since 1932 and “progressive” is a synonym for “establishment.”

Rojas estimates that the tipping point where white flight begins comes when immigrants reach 20 percent of the local population. The reason is that — given the tendency of immigrants to have more children — school systems then become half-immigrant. Kids come home speaking a “Rinkeby Swedish,” with flat intonations and lots of slang derived from Turkish and Arabic, and the ethnic Swedes scatter. In Rinkeby and Tensta, that point was passed long ago.

“You have segregation,” says Bjorn Hjalmarsson, the principal of the Bredby School in Rinkeby. “It’s an enclave here.” Of the 400 students at Bredby, fewer than 10 speak Swedish in the home. Sweden introduced a wide-open school-choice program in the early 1990’s, and that affects a district like this. Some ambitious parents send their kids to schools in the city center, the only way to make connections with ethnic Swedes and thus (parents feel) to rise in life. The most conservative Muslim parents, who see Sweden as immoral and atheistic and don’t want their daughters going to school dances, use the area’s “intercultural” schools.

The students in the English class for 15-year-olds come from Somalia, Syria, Turkey and Iraq. Many of the girls wear head scarves or hijabs. If Bredby is a representative school for the area (and it appears to be), then Sweden is getting educational outcomes far, far better than those of other European countries and the United States. The kids’ English — a third language for all of them — is excellent, even if it takes them a while to get over their shyness in using it. They don’t bring up politics, and they are unanimous in considering the United States “cool.” They want to know how much American journalists earn and whether Tupac Shakur is really dead. “You can get famous there,” say two of them. The only dissent on the question of America’s coolness comes from the Swedish-born teacher, and this is not surprising. Particularly since the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime, which numbered among its victims many relatives of the Kurds and Iraqis who sought asylum in Sweden, you find more unapologetic pro-Americanism among the children of Muslim immigrants than among those of Swedish stock.

Ethnic Swedes seldom come to Rinkeby, and many of these students get nervous and feel they are being “looked at” when they travel far from the neighborhood. What divides the students most sharply is the question of whether they are Swedish. When asked, half of them nod vigorously yes; the others nod vigorously no. “I’m Swedish,” says one Somali girl. “And I’m proud to be Swedish. I’m born here.” One of her friends snorts.

Could something like the French riots, with burning cars and rampaging gangs, happen in Sweden? “Absolutely,” says one lanky boy near the window. “People burn cars here all the time. Not because they’re angry — because they think it’s fun.” And, in fact, the charred patch of ground visible next to the school entrance that day marks the spot where a car was driven up to the wall of the school the previous weekend and set alight.

‘Sweden Will Never Accept You’

Swedes aren’t used to endemic crime, and they aren’t used to associating certain neighborhoods with crime. Late last summer, there was a spectacular armed robbery by a gang from the town of Tumba. A month later, there was an attack on a police station in Ronna, a Million Program neighborhood in the city of Sodertalje, by Swedes of Assyrian Christian background. The incidence of violent crime is 37 percent higher in Sodertalje, at 13 incidents per thousand people, than in the rest of Sweden. While such figures would not cause an American’s jaw to drop, they are part of a growing impression that society is losing its grip. Youths have discovered that if you hammer the panes at bus and tram shelters, the glass will rain into a pleasing arrangement of vitreous pebbles. Such piles are visible at several stops on the tram that connects Bergsjon to downtown Gothenburg. This hobby caused about 2.7 million Swedish kronor ($350,000) worth of damage last year, according to an official in the Gothenburg mayor’s office. Among Somalis, the chewing of khat, an addictive low-intensity stimulant popular in East Africa, is widespread. Shipments of khat arrive daily (as they must, for the drug spoils quickly) from middlemen in England and Holland. On more than one occasion in the summer of 2004, transit authorities stopped bus traffic to Tensta because of attacks on passengers. Firemen and emergency medical technicians have been attacked in the suburbs of Malmo, Sweden’s third-largest city.

Just as Pekgul’s young immigrant neighbors complain that crimes against Swedes are taken more seriously than crimes against immigrants, you frequently hear allegations from white people that the more violent among the miljonsvenskar pick out ethnic Swedish youngsters to rob. According to Johnny Lindh, the police commissioner in Rinkeby, this may be statistically true but does not mean that crime is motivated by race. It is more likely that white Swedes in the center of Stockholm are easier marks — identifiably middle class and unlikely to have developed the habit of defending themselves aggressively.

According to the National Council for Crime Prevention, citizens of other countries make up 26 percent of Swedish prison inmates. Among those serving sentences longer than five years — which in Sweden are given out for only serious crimes like major drug dealing, murder and rape — about half are foreign citizens, and these figures exclude the foreign-born who have become Swedes. Again, to a non-Swede, the scale of this problem is small. In 2004, there were only 329 people serving sentences of more than five years in all of Sweden. Still, the association of crime and immigration is not a figment of the Swedish imagination. Last summer, the left-leaning tabloid Aftonbladet revealed that a number of Muslim extremist groups were recruiting in prisons. The largest is a group called Asir, perhaps named for the Saudi province from which four of the Sept. 11 hijackers came.

It is where crime interacts with the world of Sweden’s hundreds of thousands of Muslims that people get most passionate. There can be few countries in Europe where natives know less about the ways of the Muslims who live among them than Sweden. The isolation of the apartments where immigrants mostly live has a lot to do with this. But even those who live and work in those areas find it hard to be precise about Muslim ways, and particularly about Islamist radicalism — although all are fairly sure that it is increasing.

“We have some people here who can’t leave Sweden,” says Commissioner Lindh in Rinkeby. “If they went to the U.S., they would be imprisoned.”

So the police have a pretty good idea of what’s going on in the mosques? “No,” Lindh replies.

The Great Mosque of Stockholm dominates a busy square at Medborgartorg, three subway stops south of the city center. Reportedly financed by a sheik from the United Arab Emirates, it has a highly varied body of worshipers and leaders. Last summer, a window opened onto the mosque’s internal politics. Swedish public radio broadcast the content of anti-Semitic cassette recordings being sold there. And various rival mosque leaders began to use the pages of the right-leaning tabloid Expressen to hash out their differences and expose each other’s agendas.

An Algerian-born, Saudi-educated conservative imam, Hassan Moussa, announced in the pages of Expressen that he was receiving death threats from within his own mosque. Moussa, who said he had been “shocked” by the London bombings that summer, called on Sweden’s integration minister, Jens Orback, to establish a council to combat extremism. In expressing his opposition to violence, Moussa recalls over coffee at the Culture House complex in central Stockholm, “I decided that I would leave the word ‘but’ out of my sermons.”

Moussa didn’t gain much from going public. He lost influence within the mosque, according to someone knowledgeable about its inner workings. But his article brought many new Swedish Muslim voices out of the woodwork, the most forceful of whom was the Iraqi-born writer Salam Karam. Karam had long criticized Moussa himself for his “double messages” and his intimacy with the hard-line Muslim Brotherhood, so he opposed Moussa’s council on the grounds that Moussa would probably wind up serving on it. But Karam applauded Moussa’s change of heart and added some horror stories of his own. One involved a prominent imam who had been ostracized and condemned as “a Jew who converted to Islam” because he had opposed suicide bombing and suggested that Muslims vote for the Christian Democratic Party. (In general, the Social Democrats command a loyalty among Swedish Muslim voters approaching that of African-Americans to the Democratic Party.)

Swedes increasingly get the sense that these are not just exotic or foreign stories. “Radicals are abusing the situation in Sweden to recreate the old culture,” says Lebanese-born Kassem Hamadé, who reports on Islam and Islamic radicalism for Expressen. “One of the most important appeals to potential members is: ‘Sweden will never accept you.”‘

Irresistibly Seductive

Sweden’s immigrants are far from the poorest in Europe, but they are among the most excluded. Is outright prejudice to blame? A recent study by the economist Dan-Olof Rooth found that Swedish-raised children adopted from other lands, who often look different, did worse when looking for jobs than similarly situated ethnic Swedes. Channel 4’s Kalla Fakta (”Cold Facts”) and other national news shows routinely practice “sting” journalism, showing, for example, that an apartment “open” for a Swede is somehow “taken” when a non-European shows up or calls. Real-estate companies have campaigned for the removal of satellite dishes — which tend to mark an apartment as home to unassimilated immigrants from developing countries — from apartment windows on the disingenuous reasoning that they could hurt someone if they fell.

But when Swedes discuss immigrant issues, the background attitude is less often prejudice than political correctness. Problems are constantly fudged — and resolved in such a way as to establish no principles and offend no one. In one recent case, two girls were forbidden to wear full burkas to school in Gothenburg — but only because teachers supposedly could not tell them apart. There are shibboleths: education is hailed as a panacea for the ills of exclusion, even though the “problem” immigrants who came from the developing world after 1980 have, on average, more academic qualifications than the successful ones who preceded them.

And there are taboos: the practice of second-generation Swedes returning to their ancestral countries to find husbands and wives, for instance, is common, particularly among families from Turkey. Neighboring Denmark has passed laws limiting the practice. In Sweden, public discussion of this kind of endogamy is muted, although Swedes complain in private that it slows integration and unacceptably widens the number of potential new immigrants. “It’s nothing you can talk about,” says one educator at a Million Program school. “In general, we despise the Danes for raising this.” The rise of a right-wing anti-immigrant party, along the lines of the Danish People’s Party, appears unlikely in Sweden — in part because memory is still fresh of the New Democracy Party, which stormed into the Riksdag with more than 6 percent of the vote at the height of the economic downturn in 1991 but then performed erratically, embarrassing even its most ardent followers.

Dilsa Demirbag-Sten, a Kurdish immigrant author and television personality, says the focus is too much on discrimination. “Are immigrants discriminated against?” she asks over coffee in the Hotel Lydmar on a sunny Saturday morning. “Definitely. But it is not the only reason they have problems. They are also discriminated against by the racist, anti-Semitic honor culture that many of them live under.” Demirbag-Sten, whose new book describes honor culture in Kurdish Sweden, says that the larger problem, in her community, at least, is a new kind of political Islam, one that knows how to probe liberal institutions and use them to advantage. She is particularly frustrated that recent government reports, thick with postcolonial theory and quotations from Edward Said, address neither immigrant anti-Semitism nor immigrant antifeminism. “The focus on discrimination is a way of avoiding the real problem,” she says. “Because if the problem is not discrimination, then the problem is the Swedish system itself.”

This would indeed be troubling news for Sweden. Although its vaunted welfare state was called into question in the 1990’s, it has since shown much more resilience than anticipated and retains its place as the foundation stone of the national self-image. No one expects the Social Democrats to be chased from power any time soon. And yet this system poses particular problems for welcoming newcomers that other systems do not. When the state winds up allocating goods and services, more things are “decided” and fewer things “happen.” Most Swedes are proud that 40 percent of apartments are public housing, distributed according to need. But that means that immigrants clustered together in apartment buildings far from the labor market can more plausibly blame the government for “segregating” them, even if this segregation arose purely from Sweden’s desire to help the world’s most unfortunate, regardless of their race or country of origin. The welfare state’s good deeds never go wholly unpunished.

An argument now in vogue, particularly on the left and in academia, holds that Sweden suffers from “structural discrimination.” Abdirisak Aden, a Somali-born Muslim who is also an active member of the Social Democratic Party, advances this view when he says, “Whether you’re Ahmed or Svensson, you should be equal in the labor market.” This takes the stress off of intentional discrimination, which is hard to document, and focuses on the ways ethnic Swedes and minorities would still be unequal in the labor market even if employers were not themselves biased. The “structural racism” school emphasizes the inequalities that immigrants face because of their relative lack of access to capital and social networks.

The problem is that the solutions it offers may involve dismantling more of Swedish society than anyone would be comfortable with. Consider a 2004 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report, which saw a possible source of inequality in the fact that two-thirds of the jobs in Sweden are filled through “informal methods.” Those “informal methods” have never been a problem before. “Informal methods” — whereby a man can, say, introduce his neighbor’s nephew into the union local — may even be necessary in an egalitarian culture, where people have little chance to exercise what the social theorist Francis Fukuyama calls the “thymotic” urge, the will to stand out. They may be the lubricant that keeps a free, socialist society from hardening into a system of bureaucratic authoritarianism. Zanyar Adami may be right when he says, “I see no contradiction in having a bigger, more open Swedish society that keeps the old Swedish virtues.” But he may also be wrong.

Mauricio Rojas, the free-market politician, once wrote that, in the 20th century, Sweden has “improved living conditions for its citizens at the expense of limiting their vital alternative choices.” It unlocked the secret of one-size-fits-all well-being. Maybe Sweden is now simply too diverse to benefit from the mass-produced prosperity and security that suited it so well for almost a century. Critics of capitalism used to cite Joseph Schumpeter and Daniel Bell to show that the free market is ultimately undermined by its own successes: the wealth the work ethic creates makes people want to work less. The welfare state has its cultural contradictions, too. It rests on consensus, which is another way of saying a lack of cultural variety. The stronger the consensus, the more room a welfare state has to grow. But as consensus strengthens, so does a certain naïveté, a belief that your own idiosyncratic habits are something that no one else could fail to find irresistibly seductive. Sweden’s biggest immigration problem may be a matter not of crime, unemployment and Islamic radicalism but of something else altogether: that its newcomers understand perfectly well what this system erected in the name of equality is and have decided it doesn’t particularly suit them.

Christopher Caldwell, a contributing writer, is at work on a book about immigration, Islam and Europe.

this article first published by the new york times

baader meinhof - in love with terror part 5

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 12:20 pm


March 22, 2008

baader meinhof - in love with terror part 4

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 11:54 am


March 21, 2008

baader-meinhof: in love with terror part 3

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 1:47 pm


March 20, 2008

The Folly of Sweden’s State Controlled Families

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 12:43 am

The lawyer, Mrs Siv Westerberg’s lecture to The Family Education Trust.

London, 19th June, 1999.

Thank you very much for your invitation to come here and talk about the situation in Sweden. I am a founder-member of an organisation called ‘The Nordic Committee for Human Rights’, which consists of other lawyers like myself, university lecturers, doctors, teachers and many other professionals. We are all very worried by the situation in Sweden with regard to the family. We are doing our best to establish contacts with other countries where a similar trend, against the private family and in favour of the state-controlled family, seems to be developing. I want to tell you about it.

Sweden has, during the last decades, developed into a kind of socio-medical totalitarian state. A totalitarian state where families are deprived of the right to care for and educate their own children; and are deprived of the basic human right to both family life and private life.

The European history of the twentieth century has some horrible examples of how a democracy can turn into a totalitarian state. Mostly such a transformation is brought about by armed soldiers and policemen in uniform. Those soldiers and policemen use brutal physical violence against anyone who refuses to obey their orders. For every citizen in those states it is immediately obvious that those brutal servants of the state are their enemies. It is immediately obvious to the citizen that this is the end of freedom. From then on they know you are permitted just to say things or do things or even think things that the totalitarian state permits. Otherwise something very bad will happen to you.

But the development in Sweden towards a socio-medical totalitarian state wasn’t like that. In fact the army and the police have very little power in Sweden. Instead, the government achieved their totalitarian power by using persons whom the ordinary citizen believes to be their friends. Where other European dictatorships once used policemen and armed soldiers to make the citizens obedient, the Swedish authorities use doctors, nurses, midwifes, teachers, pre-school teachers and child-care assistants to do their dirty work for them.

The Swedish authorities chose to ‘medicalize’ a lot of different features of daily life and to describe various kinds of quite normal behaviour as ‘pathological’. For instance, a fond and protective mother has been described as having an ‘unhealthy, symbiotic relationship’, with her child; it was enough to render her an unfit mother. Or take, for example, the fact that it is sometimes untidy in a house where a family where four small children are living. In Swedish court proceedings, that can be developed into a theory that the mother must have some psychiatric disease and that the children’s health is jeopardized when the house is untidy; because an expert, a child-psychiatrist, says so.

And for the ordinary citizen such a method is almost more dangerous than using armed soldiers and police. If you were a Jew in the nineteen-thirties in Nazi-Germany, you knew very well that the Gestapo was your enemy. You knew that it was wise to avoid having anything to do with them. But in Sweden they use officials whom you, in the beginning, believe are your friends.

Because most people believe that the midwife in the maternity welfare clinic, the doctor you consult when you or your children fall ill, your children’s teachers, the social officials that poor people meet when they have to ask for some economic support at the end of the month, - you believe that they are your friends, not your enemies. Initially these professional people are friendly; they seem to be really interested in you and your family’s wellbeing.

They are so friendly and nice to you that you get confidence in them. So you confide in them concerning your family’s life. You tell them that, as the mother of four small children, you are sometimes terribly tired and exhausted from all the jobs you have with the children. In that moment you can’t even dream that a few years later you will get those words thrown back in your face in a court proceeding. A court where the Swedish authorities are going to deprive you of your right to care for your own children. Court proceeding where the Swedish authorities intend to take your children into forcible care and send them to a foster-home.

And often your words have been distorted. Now it is, ” years ago Lisa Svensson told her doctor that she wasn’t up to looking after her children”. In a state that took the rule of law seriously, and followed court procedure, you would get the chance to cross-examination witnesses. The mother’s lawyer would be given the chance to look seriously into the eyes of that doctor and ask him: ” Did Mrs Svensson really utter those exact words to you? Before you answer my question, please, Doctor, remember that you are giving your evidence under oath”. And than that doctor would very likely say: “Well, what she actually said was that she was very tired.”

But in Sweden, cases concerning taking children into forcible public care aren’t heard in the civil courts but in the administrative courts. And there you very often are not given the chance to cross-examine witnesses and experts. The proceedings in these administrative courts seem to me to be more or less a parody of impartial court proceedings. The proceedings are a mixture of oral and written evidence and ‘hearsay’ evidence is permitted. From the moment that I, as the lawyer of those unhappy parents who are going to lose their child to the Swedish State, enter the courtroom, I feel that not only the social authorities, but also the court, is against me. The judge and the officials from the social welfare centre are talking to each other in a very cordial manner. It is obvious that both feel that they are a part of the same very powerful authority system.

During the last twenty or thirty years Swedish families step by step have lost the basic human right to family life and private life. In thousands of families this has lead to thousands of parents losing their children. The Swedish State has taken their children into forcible care and placed the children in foster-homes; mostly very bad foster-homes too.

The biological parents are permitted to see their children for just a few hours, just a few times a year; even then, under close supervision by social workers and /or the foster-parents. If the children were very small when they were taken into forcible care, they will soon forget their parents. And children and parents will soon become strangers to each other.

The social workers and the foster-parents strengthen this situation. They regularly tell the foster-child what bad and dangerous people the child’s biological parents are. If you tell a small child things like that over and over again the child will soon believe you.

Pretty soon the child will say that it doesn’t want to see the parents anymore, because it thinks they are dangerous. And so the foster-parents and the social workers tell the biological parents that they are not permitted to see their child at all, because their child is afraid of them. To prove this, the social workers and the foster-parents take the child to a psychiatrist - who derives his or her main income from co-operation with the social authorities. It thus follows as night follows day, that the child psychiatrist will write a doctor’s certificate asserting that the child’s mental health will be jeopardized if the child is obliged to meet its biological parents.

All such theorising is pure nonsense. No scientifically acceptable method exists, whereby psychology or psychiatry can forecast what would happen to a child’s feelings in these circumstances. It is a cruel lie. The question of how often a child should be allowed to see its parents after it has been taken into forcible care, is not a medical question at all. It has been ‘medicalised’ simply in order to make the decision seem reasonable and ’scientific’.

If there is a dispute between the biological parents on one side, and social workers and foster-parents on the other side concerning the access - and very often there is such a dispute - that dispute should be resolved by an impartial court - not by a child psychiatrist. There should be extremely strong reasons for deciding to prevent parents from seeing their own child less than once every week. And there should also be extremely strong reasons for supervising children and parents when they meet each other too. How is it possible to retain personal family bonds when somebody is listening to every word that children and parents say to each other? And here I am sorry to have to tell that I have never heard of a foster-child in Sweden who was permitted to see its parents as often as once a week. In most of the cases I have encountered, the parents are permitted to see-their own child for just a couple of hours once every second month or still more infrequently.

In the very few cases I have heard of where parents and children were permitted to see each other slightly more often - it is never as often as once a week - all of those cases had a happy ending. That is to say, the child moved back to its biological parents and the family was reunited.

Neither is it typical for the foster-parents and the social authorities to accept that it is in the best interest of that child to move back home to its own parents. On those rare occasions when it happens, it is invariably for another reason. Namely, that the child escaped from the foster-home and ran home to its own parents. And when the child had done so a number of times, both the social workers and the police gave up forcibly fetching the child back to the foster-home.

Thus, it is my considered opinion that the reason the social authorities prevent parental access to their biological children, is because they know the child will escape back home if they are allowed to retain the bond with their family. Social workers and foster-parents know very well that if the child is given the chance to compare the care, grounded in true love, that the child gets form its own parents; with the care the child receives in the foster-home, the child would prefer to live with its own parents.

But when those enemies of the parents, the social workers, have a doctor’s certificate as proof that a the child will suffer psychologically if they see their parents often enough to know them, the parents very seldom have any possibility of getting the court to change its decision. A real ‘unhealthy symbiotic relationship’ has developed where the courts are the willing slaves of expert opinion whilst the experts are dependent upon social workers for much of their livelihood.

The question at the front of your minds may be, why are social workers and foster-parents so eager to take children from their parents in this way? The answer, I am afraid, is largely financial. If the foster-parents lose the foster-child, who moves back to its own parents, the foster-parents lose the very high income they have from the fosterchild. What is more, a large part of their income is tax free which is a considerable benefit since taxes are so high in Sweden. A few years ago I calculated that in Sweden a fostermother having three or four fosterchildren will have a higher income than a university professor has after tax.

As for the motives of the social workers who provide the source of this lucrative income - other people’s children - for the foster-parents, their motive is also largely financial. There simply would not be anything for social workers to do if they did not constantly ‘talk up’ the supposed problems of ‘child abuse’. Sweden has no real poverty; a homogenous population and very few real social problems. Practically speaking, there should be very little for social workers to do - unless they make work for themselves. This they do by means of remorseless propaganda against ordinary families. They tell us in reports and surveys how people are neglecting or ill-treating their children on a hitherto undreamed of scale. And why didn’t we hear about this in times past? Because we didn’t have wonderful social workers then who could uncover these abuses!

It is a simple technique and effective. Unfortunately, it is also difficult to refute except by individual cases which, taken together, show beyond any doubt, that the principal perpetrators of family and child-abuse in Sweden are the social workers themselves.

But now some of you might be wondering whether all this forcible taking of children into care and sending them to foster-homes affects also ordinary middle class families in Sweden? Do those children who are forcibly taken into care by the state, have parents with severe mental illness; or problems with drugs or alcohol? The answer is, No.

I, and other Swedish lawyers who specialise in helping parents against the social authorities in child-care cases, have estimated that it is only in about ten percent of cases that the parents have problems with alcohol, drugs or mental illness. The remaining ninety percent are quite ordinary families who never had any such problems.

So how do they fall into the clutches of the social Services? Well, in Sweden, there is a special emphasis on targeting the so-called ‘poor’; as well as a disproportionate number of immigrant families. The social support system for poor people has been so good for many years, that poverty is never a reason for a family being without food, clothing or a roof over their heads.

The process whereby poor, but steady and conscientious, families lose their children often starts in the following way. The father or/and the mother goes to the social welfare office to ask for some economic support. Usually they immediately get economic support. But at the same time they get a social worker into their lives. And that social worker starts mixing into the family’s life, for instance asking why the wife is a housewife? Why doesn’t she go to work in a factory and leave her four small children for eight or ten hours a day in the kindergarten?

Then those poor people feel hurt and humiliated. They might tell the social worker that it is none of her business. The social worker then gets annoyed. She is used to having power over those people to whom the social services give economic support. She is not used to opposition from them. So there is a dispute between the poor family and the social worker. Finally the social worker takes her revenge by finding fault with the family’s way of caring for their children and she arranges for the children to be taken into forcible care.

When uncontrolled power is given to almost any person, that power will be abused. Naturally enough, social workers would like to use their power against middle class families too. The reason they mostly confine their abuse to poorer families is that they are both more common and more likely to have asked for the economic help which brought the social worker into their lives in the first place

However, middle-class families in Sweden are coming up against the social authorities in increasing numbers. As you might know, Sweden has had a social-democratic government for most of the twentieth century. The social democrats do not like private schools, private hospitals, private kindergartens or private homes for aged people. So, for a long time, they have made different kinds of trouble for those who attempt to initiate business in any of these areas. The result is that Sweden has very few private alternatives to public care when it comes to both the young and the old; far less than in other Western European countries. That means that even the ordinary middle-class family has no choice but to turn to the social authority for a kindergarten for their pre-school child, or a home for their grandmother when old.

And so even the middle class family has to meet a social worker sometime. Every time you do that in Sweden there is a danger for your children because there is the risk of dispute. For instance, say you have a criticism to make of your child’s teacher at the kindergarten she attends. Your child is unhappy there so you tell the school social worker. She will be annoyed because she works in a monopoly and isn’t used to criticism. She strikes back. If your daughter doesn’t like the kindergarten, there must be something wrong with your daughter, not with the pre-school teacher!

And the fact - it is immediately a fact - is that if there is something wrong with your daughter, it is your fault! You haven’t given her the right care and education. The social authorities start an investigation of your family. In a few days two social workers come to inspect your home. They ask you and your husband the most personal and intimate questions about your life. If you tell them it is none of their business, those social workers will strike back.

They will write a report that you and your husband don’t understand what is in the best interest of children and that you refuse to co-operate with the social authorities. And in another few weeks you get a letter calling you to a meeting in the social council. They will meet and decide then that your children should be taken into forcible care and placed in foster-homes.

So, for the last few years it has not been only poor people asking me to represent them. Amongst my clients there have been teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers and managing directors who have all had their children taken into forcible care. I have taken nine cases to the European Court - more, I believe, than anyone else; and have won seven of them. However, it has had no effect on the authorities or on their policies. They have not even complied with the intention of the European court to return the children to their parents.

So, when I tell you that the Swedish authorities deprive families of their right to rear and to educate their children as they want, you must remember that the ordinary middle class family in Sweden is living under a real threat that if they do not do exactly what the authorities tell them. They risk losing their children.

But now you might say, why can’t you appeal such ridiculous and wrong decisions to a court in Sweden? Well, you can appeal, but your chances of winning are very small.

If a child psychiatrist or psychologist told the truth to the court, that there is nothing wrong with a child who doesn’t like school, that particular ‘expert’ would never again be invited to work for the social authorities. Thus the major part of their career would be terminated. Neither could they hope to make up the deficit by private practice since most of their clients would not be able to afford to engage them. Catch 22.

How about the judges then? you ask. Do they really believe all that bogus science about the damage parental love can do to a child’s health? Well, the Swedish state orders judges, policemen, social workers, teachers and so on, to go to lectures and conferences where they have to listen to lectures from psychologists and child psychiatrists. They have to listen to a load of pseudo-scientific rubbish, spiced with Freud and phoney theories about normal childish behaviour. Unfortunately, even quite intelligent people can be propagandised in this way by those whom they believe are better qualified to know these things.

About five thousand Swedish children are at present in forcible care in foster-homes and institutions. Add to that about ten thousand children who are taken “voluntarily” into care. That is to say, their parents are told that unless they sign papers which say they gave up their children voluntarily, they will never see them again.

Thus Sweden has about 15,000 children in care out of a population of 8 million. Britain has 40,000 in care out of a population of 58 million. If Britain took children into care at the same rate as Sweden, there would be more than 100,000 children in care and, I hope, a big fuss made.

So this taking of children into care is a big business in Sweden. And for the persons who execute this care it is a financially very good business too. So, lots of foster-parents, social workers and child psychiatrists would lose their income if this terrible policy came to an end. Therefore, all those people who depend financially on this system, will use every legal and illegal means to allow this business to continue.

When I say ‘illegal’ I mean, for example, that it is not unusual in Sweden for social workers and foster-parents simply to refuse to give a child back to its parents even after a court has decided that care should cease. It sounds incredible, but it happens.

The Swedish government also uses more subtle methods to ensure that it retains an ideological power over the education of every child in Sweden. One method is the financial system in Sweden.

During the last thirty years the tax and benefit system has, step by step, been changed so that today it is more or less impossible for a family to live on just one income. That is a fact both for people with a low income, for middle class people and also for families where the husband has a rather high income. Swedish law requires that every adult is responsible for his or her own support. So a few years ago, Sweden abolished widow’s pensions in general social security insurance. Nowadays a housewife whose husband suddenly dies, is obliged to go out to work.

For some time now, the Swedish courts in divorce cases have not awarded the wife any maintenance from the ex-husband. Not even if she has been a housewife and mother for twenty years. With a very high divorce rate, who would be a housewife in such a country?

Therefore every women in Sweden is more or less forced to have gainful work outside the home - even if she is the mother of seven children. What do you do with your small children, their care and education, if you have to work away from home eight hours a day? This terrible system, that forces every woman to be away from her home and children all day, was completed around 1975.

As for what happened before 1975, the system was much the same as everywhere else in the civilised world. A woman with children was a housewife with a family that depended on the husband’s income. It was husband and wife who decided their children’s care and education and also the question of who should look after their children if they decided to work. That is impossible today. They don’t have the right and, besides, all the grandmothers who were once so much part of the family unit, are now having to work themselves, to earn a living.

Before 1975 a well-qualified person, even after tax, had a good living and could afford to employ a nanny or an au pair to take care of the children and the housework while they worked. Today in most Swedish middle class families, it is impossible to have domestic help. Taxes have been raised and there has been a levelling of all salaries. So after tax there isn’t so much difference between the salary for a qualified job and the salary for an unqualified job. So, for instance, a teacher or a young doctor, paying tax, would not be able to afford the services of paid domestic help.

So both people with low incomes, and professionals have no choice. You have to leave your small children for eight to ten hours every day in state governed care. In statistical terms, a child is in a day nursery from the age of one year till the age of six years, will encounter, on average, 275 different grown up people who care for them. As for their own parents - they are lucky if they see them for more than one or two hours a day.

By this means, everybody is delivered into the embrace of the state and its servants. By this means too, the state has succeeded where many other tyrannies have failed, in controlling the family. That is to say that power over the most important aspect of their lives, has been taken out of the hands of ordinary men and women and has been invested in employees of the state.

It is a tyranny which ever way you choose to look at it. Like the forced sterilisation programme pursued by the Swedish government, unnoticed, for forty years so this one will run and run, unopposed by a Swedish public that is too intimidated to protest.

It is in the hope of alerting educated opinion outside of Sweden that I come to speak to you today. You may not be able to do anything for us in Sweden since that is our responsibility - but, at the very least, I hope that you will recognise the simple techniques by which the state can seek to gain power over its people. In resisting such moves here, you may be able to isolate and shame Sweden into putting her own house in order.

this article first appeared here

March 14, 2008

just say no to the war on t

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 11:05 am

022.jpg

filmobile

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 8:46 am

019.jpg020.jpg

filmobile: Exhibition, Conference & Screenings - 4 April – 4 May 08

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 8:45 am

FILMOBILE is a network project developed at the University of Westminster bringing together the mobile phone industry, filmmakers and artists working with mobile devices. In April and May 2008 FILMOBILE is organising a major international event consisting of a gallery exhibition, cinema screenings and an international conference. This event will explore the cultural and economic impact brought about by new mobile technologies and initiate debates between artists, the media and the new mobile industry.

The FILMOBILE EXHIBITION at London Gallery West will feature mobile art works by Mark Amerika, Camille Baker, Bebe Beard, Melissa Bliss, Elly Clarke, Romain Forquy, Steve Hawley, Brian House, Brooke A. Knight, Simon Longo, Anne Massoni, Kasia Molga, Sylvie Prasad, Michele Pred, Henry Reichhold, Max Schleser and Jo Thomas.

The FILMOBILE CONFERENCE at The Old Lumiere Cinema includes more than 22 speakers from the USA, South Africa, Australia, Germany, Italy and the UK addressing the global impact of mobile technologies in the domain of art, media and communication. A live web broadcast with the Mobilefest in Brazil is scheduled to take place during the conference. For detailed conference program see www.filmobile.net.

To complement the event, SCREENINGS of world premiere mobile feature productions, including SMS Sugar Man, Why didn’t anybody tell me it would become this bad in Afghanistan, NAUSEA and Max with a Kaitai will also be presented at The Old Cinema.

For detailed program information see: www.filmobile.net

The events are free to attend but registration via email or text-message is essential. Email to info@filmobile.net or text FILMOBILE to 81707 including your name and email address to register (texts cost 1 standard message).

FILMOBILE EXHIBITION at London Gallery West, Watford Road, Harrow HA1 3TP (tube Northwick Park)
Exhibition Private View:
Thursday 3 April, 5pm – 8pm at London Gallery West
Featuring a live performance by Jo Thomas and Visual Rhythms
Exhibition Opening Times:
4 April to 4 May, 2008. 9 am to 5pm daily

FILMOBILE CONFERENCE AND SCREENINGS at The Old Lumiere Cinema, 309 Regent Street, London W1R 8AL (tube Oxford Circus):
Friday 4 April
4pm – 6pm: FILMOBILE Conference
6.30pm - 8.30pm: FILMOBILE Cinema screening
8.30pm: FILMOBILE Reception

Melissa Bliss (Artist), Emma Bewley, (TV Producer Leo Burnett), Tony Fish (AMF VENTURES), Helen Keegan, Kasia Molga (Artist), Dennis Morrison (zizzl Films), Emily Renshaw-Smith (Current TV) and Jo Thomas (Sound artist),

Saturday 5 April
10:30 – 18:30 FILMOBILE conference

Bebe Beard (Suffolk University, Bosten), Camille Baker (SMARTlab, University of East London), Professor Emiliana De Blasio (University of Campobasso, Italy), Mark Brill (Ping Corporation Ltd, immedia24), Chris Chadwick (ICDC, Liverpool), Elizabeth Evans (University of Nottingham), Daniel Florencio – Mobile content producer (Brazil / UK), Professor (Dr) Lizbeth Goodman (SMARTlab), Marcelo Godoy (Mobilefest, Brazil), Paulo Hartmann (Mobilefest, Brazil), Professor Steve Hawley (Manchester Metropolitan University), Larissa Hjorth (RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia), Monica Horten (University of Westminster), Brian House (Knifeandfork – New York, USA), Dr. Thomas Meyer (University of Siegen, Germany), Max Schleser (University of Westminster), Professor Michele Sorice (Crisc-Cmcs, University of Rome, Italy and University of Lugano, Switzerland) and Dr. Terry Wright (University of Ulster).

FILMOBILE is supported by the University of Westminster, HEIF (Higher Education Innovation Fund), London Westside, CREAM (Centre for Research and Education in Art and Media), London Gallery West, Immedia 24 and the new media eXchange. FILMOBILE is part of the NODE.London Spring ’08 season – http://nodel.org. FILMOBILE works in collaboration with the Mobilefest in San Paulo, Brazil.

Press images available on request.
London Gallery West, University of Westminster, Watford Rd, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3TP
FILMOBILE www.filmobile.net e: info@filmobile.net m: 0791 9032 166.

March 13, 2008

Sweden continued eugenics policy until 1976: Social Democrats implemented measures to forcibly sterilise 62,000 people

Filed under: miscellaneous — ABRAXAS @ 9:28 pm

By Steve James
19 March 1999

For over 40 years, young socially marginalised working class women in Sweden faced the danger of forced sterilisation. This was carried out under laws intended to purify the Swedish race, prevent the mentally ill from reproducing and stamp out social activities classed as deviant. The last sterilisation took place in 1975.

Between 1934 and 1976, when the Sterilisation Act was finally repealed, 62,000 people, 90 percent of them women, were sterilised. 15-year-old teenagers were sterilised for “crimes” such as going to dance halls. One woman was sterilised in 1960 for being in a motorcycle gang. Orphans were sterilised as a condition of their release from children’s homes. Others were pinpointed on the basis of local neighbourhood gossip and personal grudges. Some were targeted because of their “low intelligence”, being of mixed race, being gypsies, or for physical defects.

The issue has assumed the character of a national scandal, although similar revelations have emerged in other countries including neighbouring Norway, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Belgium and the United States. Per head of population, however, only Nazi Germany sterilised more people than Sweden. How could such a programme be sustained in a country famed during the post-war epoch for its apparently enlightened social policy?

The Swedish Institute for Racial Biology was opened in Stockholm in the early 1920s. It emerged as part of a worldwide interest in eugenics–the notion that human stock could be improved by selective breeding, much like cattle. From the start, the Swedish institute was fascinated with the notions of racial purity, which were to be made notorious by the Nazis. The Swedish institute invited German speakers on Aryanism.

The Sterilisation Act was passed in 1935, under the government of the Swedish social democratic party (SAP). The Act shortly preceded the founding of the so-called “Swedish model” of welfare capitalism, based on a vision of national unity between large corporations and workers. The concept of the “people’s home” (folkhemmet) accompanied a close corporatist relationship between the Swedish employers’ federation and the major trade union federations. This was promoted by the trade unions, and the SAP, as an alternative to the bitter class struggles that had raged across Scandinavia since the turn of the century, and as a barrier to social revolution.

The relationship was formulated in the town of Saltzjoben, and the “spirit of Saltzjoben” was invoked on many occasions to anoint new agreements between the trade unions and big business. Yet, in the basement of the “people’s home”, social policies promoted by the Nazis were maintained by the social democrats. The Sterilisation Act was directed against the most oppressed and vulnerable, those without any legal or political voice. In the 1930s and 40s the victims were also those who simply failed to fit the racist stereotype deemed acceptable in order to ensure full membership in Swedish society.

Files recently released from the Swedish National Archives make clear that from the 1950s, after the Institute for Racial Biology was wound up, sterilisation continued based on an agenda to promote social conformity. Those targeted were misfits and rebellious young people. The young woman who hung around with a motorcycle gang was described as being “without good judgement”, with “no concept of ethics”. Her doctors were, in addition, sure she was sexually active, and so she was sterilised.

People deemed likely to burden the state with the cost of child allowance payments were also targeted. When the new benefit was introduced in the 1950s, the rate of sterilisations doubled. In some cases, sterilisation was also made a condition of obtaining an abortion.

In 1997, the Irish Times, quoting the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, reported on the work of Maija Runcis, a doctoral student who spent eight years researching 5,000 case files. The files brought out the horrible detail of a process reminiscent of a witch trial.

“Each file starts with a form applying for permission to have the person sterilised. This could come from a relative, social worker, teacher, politician or even a neighbour. ‘These people would have the application forms in their possession, fill them in and send them to the Medical Board,’ said Ms Runcis. There would also be a doctor’s report and often results of intelligence tests. ‘They would ask questions like: name the King of Sweden, what is the population of some city and where in the country is another city? They were ridiculous questions. I can’t answer some of them.’ The medical board, in Stockholm, would assess the applications. A single official, invariably a man, would finally sanction the operation. ‘They made about 20 decisions a day.’ The most disturbing cases Ms Runcis found were those of the teenagers, some as young as 15, who accepted sterilisations in return for a release from a children’s home or special school. ‘It was a form of blackmail and these people didn’t have