I am surprised, constantly over the sight on his own responsibility vs. that of others. As in the debate on the pregnant, plankande the mother in the subway where the debaters ask themselves if ”nedbrottningen” really was worth the 30 bucks that a ticket costs.
and with the prosecutor, reasoning that if the police/taxpayer/SL have a greater responsibility for foetuses and children than the mother herself. In their areas of responsibility are still writing Lucas Eriksson: ”With regard to the person's accompanying children and pregnancy so had possibly the best was to let the person continue their journey with the underground, despite the absence of the ticket and ordningsstörning, then her willingness to oppose intervention, that the situation escalated in a way that not only affected the person it ingreps.”
Well, even better would have been if the mother has taken responsibility. And in the first instance resolved the ticket, in the other hand received the supplement, in a third hand joined in to be rejected. Then had the whole of the violent and the situation could have been avoided.
with responsibility when I take part of the debate on the Swedish ICE-families. It is the parents who have the responsibility for the situation of children. But for the children where the parents are dead, there is no responsibility to repay. And whether or not the government has the responsibility for the Swedish, orphaned children – who has it then? Grandparents, who do not have a mandate to take the kids out of the al-Hol camp? Or is it perhaps the children themselves?
For Skråmo-the little ones seem a solution right now to be in sight. For them, as well as other orphaned children, is ansvarslinjen straight and uncomplicated. It rests entirely on the Swedish government. The extent to which parliament, the government or the Swedish people think that they have something to gain – or lose – on to shoulder the responsibility is uninteresting. In Sweden we let our children live, regardless of medical or social conditions. Why would we treat these children in a different way?
The moderate mp Hanif Bali reduces in the usual baliskt vis this a conflict between ”the good humanism” and ”the evil populism”. But this is about principles. And if Swedish law.
Bali writes in a debate article in Expressen that the children are ”technically” not have the Swedish citizenship: ”the children are all born in Syria as a result of the marriage between the incoming jihadists from all corners of the world”. It feels a little bit embarrassing to have to remind a legislator concerning the law Bill 2013/14:143 ”A citizenship based on belonging” – he, himself, was hammered through during the course of the alliance government.
For Skråmosmåttingarna and other orphaned Swedish children are ansvarslinjen straight and uncomplicated. It rests entirely on the Swedish government.
it is obvious that the child acquires Swedish citizenship automatically if born of a Swedish mother, regardless of where in the world the birth occurs. (I link to the parliamentary website so that the legislator, Bali-read and correct the inaccuracies in the article.)
, with one or two parents in life, the question is more complicated. Parental responsibility is in Sweden entirely so long as guardians are considered to dwindle, so much that the state goes in and tvångsomhändertar child under the LVU. Some argue that the IS-terrorists by taking the kids to a mördarsekt disqualified themselves as guardians, and that Sweden should fly home the kids, but leave parents.
But the LVU is a law but reach beyond the border to Sweden. It is not possible to make an involuntary commitment in another country. And would you take the hit the whole family, it is by no means certain that a court find that an involuntary commitment is justified. LVU is no penalty for the omsorgsbrist previously shown, without a proactive decision for the situation the child is in right now. And on Swedish soil, with parents who neither bends or knarkar, it would be difficult to argue that children are neglected to the extent that the state must intervene.
If you mean that the parents ' twisted religious or ideological habitual residence constitutes a reason – where do you draw the line? Shall the word of Life-children and nazistungar also regularly tvångsomhändertas, even if the parents are reading bedtime stories, hugs, and love their children? The state can't tvångsomhänderta children for what they might be like in the future.
analog to the story of the woman in the subway, to the prisoners of the ICE-mothers will continue to have responsibility for their children. The state has no responsibility vis-à-vis individuals – more than what follows from Swedish law – as to receive a Swedish citizen, but not to arrange airline tickets home. However, we as a nation have a responsibility towards the other nations.
It used to, we think, also Hanif Bali, when Morocco first would not receive the young citizens, who lived on the streets in Sweden. Now, think of Bali and other, that we should act in the same way.
And let me give yet another example of the Swedish inconsistency. Three years ago I wrote about Anna Sundberg, who arrived home to Sweden after 16 years as a jihadist. She gave out a book of mormon, was the guest of ”Skavlan”, and was interviewed in a range of newspapers. She was greeted by the red carpet, understanding and applause.
No one, absolutely no one, talked about that she should not have been allowed to return. But she was also blonde.