Sweden allows convicted paedophile to adopt child

Post Reply New Topic

Is that why 80% of Swiss don't want to join the EU?

From last year: 'Blessing' not to be in EU: http://www.thelocal.ch/20120524/3386

The article begins with: A survey has found that the Swiss are even less in favour of joining the EU than they were last year.

From 2004: "The EU? It's political suicide to mention it in Switzerland" - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rland.html

(A couple of months ago, there was an essay by Dominic Lawson in The Times about Switzerland and their EU relations but it's behind a paywall. The gist of it was that EU membership is not wanted by nearly anyone in Switzerland, and the few politicians that want CH to join more or less keep their mouths shut because the electorate are overwhelmingly not interested.)

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetory ... etter.html

Last year: "Switzerland re-imposes migrant controls on some EU member states" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17764766

Now, tell me, how many of the main Swiss political parties want to join the EU again? Out of the seven parties in the federal parliament?

Whoops.

The Swiss don't want to be isolated or be on the margins, but they have no real wish or need to join the EU. They are one of the richest countries in the world. Joining them would not give them any benefits.



Naked, moronic bigotry proven.

I often read left-wing publications and sometimes they have the facts on their side.

The Commentator isn't religious in any way and in any case it's basically putting its own spin on an article from The Local.



Nah, we'll just endorse a child abuser getting even more contact with young children!

I agree on it that it feels strange, but because of my partner having studied law, I understand as well the problem for the official side.

Around here if you do a crime, get sentenced for it and fulfill your sentence, including eventual probation, then the crime is fulfilled and before law the person must be treated as everyone else again.

If I create laws, that cause someone being treated by governments otherwise for the rest of his life, which a general forbidance of adotoption would be, this conflicts with the right of being treated normal again after fulfilling the sentence.

But in general I think that this case is made up. Because on one side you have the general law of a citizen to be treated equal to others, as long as you have no active sentence.

On the other side, adoption rights are very hard around here, FOR EVERYONE, and only the parents, that are according to the oppinion of the youth-officials best suited, finally manage to adopt a child.

So I think the one thing they are discussing here, is the general right to be theoretically allowed to list for adopting a child as everyone else. But just as everyone else, being allowed to list for adoption is one side, while finally being allowed for adoption is another thing, so in western european countries you normally have hard background test, when listing for adoption and at least in my country if you have been in treatment for a mental illness (even if its two decades ago), means that you are normally sorted out, just as people beyond 35 hardly have any chances and so on. Because of the numbers of possible adotoption parents, being so much higher then the number of "offered" children, they are really choosy about it, and if you are not the "Kodak-family" its almost impossible to become adoption-parents.

So I think, that wont be of impact when it comes to normal adoption within the country. What I do not know, is about how much the youth office, was as well involved in adoption of foreign countries, so if they could denie one of their citizens, the adoption of a child of an foreign country, if the foreing country agrees to it.

This, from the headline article, seems to me to be the unbelievable bit:

So what's the point of this committee, if it doesn't get info about a would-be adopter's child abuse issues? Or was this some kind of aberration?

I don't know.

Swedish bureaucracy is seriously messed up if it can even consider making decisions like this.

Nothing we didn't already know however.

ok you got me i haven't been following it for quite some time last time I was their it was close , why would they join now with much of it in a mess, though thier are still a few star preformers like Germany,


when the farmers die out they will be a little more progressive on these matters they recieve so many hand outs it would make a French farmer /

Naked, moronic bigotry proven.

I often read left-wing publications and sometimes they have the facts on their side.

The Commentator isn't religious in any way and in any case it's basically putting its own spin on an article from The Local.

and your naked moronic bigtory is ok now

Hows Betty doing

I do not think that the EU membership has anything to do with whether or not this little girl is in a very questionable situation.

For anyone to blandly state that his risk of relapse is 'considered low', is beyond belief!

Those committee members own no computers?

They cannot read?

I can, and if his previous conviction was for a PROVEN molestation, if that conviction was not overturned because he was innocent, that kid needs protection, and he has no 'right' to adoption, or even visits with her.

In America, if you have been proven to have committed abuse of an animal, you are not legally allowed to own one.......why is this little girl not similarly protected?


Sylkat

Have any of you armchair jurists bothered to inquire into the views of the mother of this child?

This man is being permitted to adopt a step-child. That means that he is married to, or cohabiting with the mother of this child. And that means that he is already living with this child.

So where do the best interests of this child lie? I suggest to you that a child is better off with two parents who are able to exercise legal guardianship, rather than one. The child is better off when her stepfather is not a second-class parent, but is an equal partner in the family with the child's mother. Meanwhile, refusing the adoption would not do thing one to protect the child, because he is already in the family home.

There seem to be a great many commenters here who are incapable of critical thought, or understanding anything written below a sensational headline. Use the brains that you were born with!

We all have a right to an opinion.

If a woman allows a man who has been convicted of any sexual abuse of a child to live with her and her child, she is wrong; she is placing her own feelings above the safety and security of that child.

My opinion.

'Two parents who are able to exercise legal guardianship'?

Personally, I do not want him to have the power to make legally binding decisions regarding this little girl. How can he make decisions in her best interest, when he has apparently made decisions in the past, regarding a child, for the purpose of his own sexual gratification.

I do not understand what a 'second class parent' is.

I do not understand 'critical thought' as regards this apalling situation.

IF he committed a sex act upon a child, if he was guilty, he has no right to adopt a child, live in a home with a child in the family, and should have NO access to children,period.


Sylkat

Last edited by Sylkat on 11 Dec 2013, 4:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

unless their in agri business , they can do as they wish, just ask the live sheep export in Australia if in doubt

So no life long sentence for murderers, but life long sentence for child abusers? Most countries have laws, that grant their citizens, to be treated equal, as long as they are not actively enduring a sentence. I really do understand your issues about it, I feel as well not good about it, but by overdoing it and starting to witchburn, it wont be helped either. Your solution is not only interfering with the child abusers possibilities or non-possibilities, but as well with that of an never having done something illegal citizen.

Do you think, that as a normal citizen, the government should have the right to tell you, who you are allowed to marry or not? So instead of going a step back into the 19th century, when your parents told you, who you are allowed to marry, now a government telling you to do so?

Indeed. All that is happening here is that the adoption system is giving its red stamp of approval to a woman's poor choice of relationship partner.

The headline is not sensationalist - it is spot on.

The woman should be ashamed of herself.

Dear Schneekugel, I did not say he (they) should be imprisoned forever, I said he (they) should not legally be allowed to live in a home with children.

Much less allowed to legally adopt.


Sylkat

I did as well not speak of being in prison forever, but spoke of being sentenced forever, in the meaning of enduring lifelong penalty for a certain criminal doing. So the penalty never ends.

If someone murders someone, after he leaves the jail, he has done in sentence, and so will no longer be treated as criminal in his personal life. So the sentence ends for him.

While if someones will be sentenced to endure lifelong personal consequences, then he will endure a lifelong sentence.

Thats a thing, that simply dont exist here in europe, as long as it isn´t proven 100% that you are totally crazy and by all means will never acchieve sanitiy again. As example the Nazi terrorist Breivik that has an completely weird schizophrenic illusion of the world, or the austrian Fritzl that forced his daughter to live in a cave below his house, and who founded a "family" with kids with her, that as well were forced to live there.

Because of them being absolutely insane beyond any possibility of treatment, even when done with their prison sentence, they will be kept forever in closed psychiatric facilities, to protect society from them.

But as long as a bunch of official therapeuts is not agreeing widely, that someone WILL be doing a crime again, you have no right to punish someone for a possible, potential possibility of crime that he COULD do, after his official sentence is done. That would be like in the film, with the police having three prophets, telling them of future crimes, that people will do, who then get arrested for doing that future crime.

If you commited a crime, there is a sentence for it, and when the sentence is done, the sentence is done. We cannot sentence people afterwards, by taking them private rights, for crimes they possible could do in the future.

Thats if you forbidded to enter Fast Food restaurants, because of you being able to possible rob one store in the future.

If you want people to sentence in what way ever, to be in prison, or to loose personal rights in daily life, they must have commited a crime. You cannot sentence them for future crimes they have yet not commited.

And no, I definitly dont like whats the story is about, and have a bad feeling about that too. But if I want someone to be sentenced and be taken his personal and private rights, "I have a real sh***y feeling about it." simply is no sufficient reasoning. I absolutely think sh***y about it, but I simply dont see a legal way that cant be as well horrible abused the total other way. The moment we create laws, that forbid free people to engage with each other, because of one of the person, having a higher risc of commiting a crime or possible having a negative effect on a child, that can as well be misused for tons of other s**t.

^^

how do you now paedos aren't insane ?