“Say no to the evil, gender politics of the ‘Equality Act'”

February 26, 2021

Yesterday, in a “discussion” online with a young friend who asked what I thought about the “Equality Act, he informed me that it was a very bad thing.  Thankful that a person of his age could see the danger of such an Act, this morning has been spent reading articles about the results of the passing of such legislation.  Being aware of the Act for some time, it was important to read the text of H.R. 5 too.  It sounds as bad as it has been portrayed by many.

Twenty years ago, the idea that same-sex marriage would be legalized in America seemed almost impossible.  That the House of Representatives’ majority vote has passed H.R. 5 on to the Senate is another indicator of how far Christian ethics in America have eroded.  Many seem to think that this dark legislation will not pass in the Senate.  Those who are praying against the opening of yet another of “Pandora’s boxes” (a source of endless complications) are hoping these folks are correct about how the Senate will rule.  The fact that we are at this point, with a president who can’t wait to sign the legislation into law, indicates where we are as a nation.

After having read several articles on the topic, Michael P. Orsi’s in the Washington Times made an impression and his title is the title of this post. Below is the beginning of that article with a link to the remainder of it, a link to the text of H.R. 5, and links to a few other related articles.

This is an important issue.

Chris Reimers
——————————

Say no to the evil, gender politics of the ‘Equality Act’

House Resolution 5 bill covers ‘gender-related identity regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth’

– – Wednesday, February 24, 2021

The famous story of Jesus being tempted in the desert makes a point that’s relevant to our current politics, that evil always comes packaged as good, and carries a heavy price.

Satan points out to Jesus how easy it would be to use his special powers to relieve hunger. “Just turn these rocks into bread,” he urges.

Then he takes Jesus to the highest point of the temple, and suggests that he demonstrate his unique status by jumping off and letting angels catch him. Finally, Satan gets to the bottom line, offering Jesus dominion over all the world’s kingdoms, if only he’ll bow down and become a devil worshipper.

Jesus will have none of it.

Unfortunately, we humans aren’t as clear-seeing as the Lord. All too often we’re susceptible to evil ideas when they come wrapped in appealing images and comforting words. Such a deceptive proposal is House Resolution 5, a truly insidious piece of legislation known as the “Equality Act.”

This bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect individuals from discrimination not only on the basis of race, color, religion and sex, but “sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The name “Equality Act” is a triumph of ideological packaging. Who could possibly be against “equality?”

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE.

The Text of H.R. 5

5 Things You Need To Know About The Extremist ‘Equality Act’ House Democrats Just Passed

Why The ‘Equality Act’ Democrats Want To Pass This Week Should Really Be Called The ‘Destroy Our Daughters Act’

‘Blessings Of Liberty’: How ‘The Equality Act’ Viciously Attacks Christians, Freedom, Society, Sex, And You

Equality Act: ‘The Left’s New Woke Heresy Code’

Here is the first day of Senate hearings on HR 5 (March 17, 2021):

 


Hillary and Bill Clinton – zealous promoters of forced adoptions in the USA

November 29, 2020

By Marianne Haslev Skånland
Oslo, Norway
23 November 2020
Updated 25 November 2020

0.
In their political work, Bill and Hillary Clinton advocated early forced adoption of children having been taken into care by the social services and placed in foster homes. The ‘Adoption and Safe Families Act’ was passed in 1997, under Bill Clinton as president, promoting forced adopting away from their biological parents of foster children after only 15 months separated from their parents, if social workers (the CPS – child protective services) did not consider the parents to have ‘improved’ by then.

1. The attitude of social ‘experts’: Parents are unimportant

Pushing through forced adoptions in this activistic way did not come out of the blue. Propaganda idealizing the power of social workers seems to have been strengthened under Bill Clinton’s presidency. His wife Hillary Clinton was very active with her view that ‘it takes a whole village to raise a child’, presented also in a book:
“In it, Clinton presents her vision for the children of America. She focuses on the impact individuals and groups outside the family have, for better or worse, on a child’s well-being, and advocates a society which meets all of a child’s needs. The book was written with uncredited ghostwriter Barbara Feinman.”
It Takes a Village
Wikipedia, last edited 14 May 2020.

Although she is said to have warned against too much interference by social service agencies into family life, I also remember that Hillary Clinton has in some context straight out agitated in favour of every American family being obliged to accept a visit (inspection) by a social worker twice a year.

An American article from 2019 gives an account of the ideology that the ‘professionals’ know best and take best care of children, the aim being to raise them to be the kind of citizens many believe is ideal:
“The ideology of the Clinton bureaucrats who worked on the law might explain its focus.
“What happens to children depends not only on what happens in the homes, but what happens in the outside world,” Mary Jo Bane, who served as the Clinton administration Department of Health and Human Services’ assistant secretary of children and families, said in a 1977 interview.
“We really don’t know how to raise children. If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in families means there’s no equality. It’s a dilemma. In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.””

Clinton-Era Law Has Distorted Child Protective Services, Parents Say. Law Passed by Trump seeks to reform a system in crisis
The Epoch Times, 25 September 2019

2. What to do about the unsuccessful foster home industry

The CPS business of foster homes in America is large, but like elsewhere it is no success. The CPS in the USA is frequently said to be ‘a system in crisis’ or ‘a broken system’ and to have been so for a long time. This is apparent from the outcome of CPS actions, with results far from the ideal imagined by well-meaning psycho-social theorists.

However, the idea under Clinton was that early cutting off of every bond between child and parents through adoption of the child by others would bring to an end the unfortunate sides of foster home existence. Social services in the USA were keen to support the legislative initiative and the number of children forcibly adopted away shot up:

Clinton Hails Illinois For Adoption Record
Chicago Tribune, 24 September 1999

U.S. Rewards State Adoption Efforts
Chicago Tribune, 24 September 1999

Then the adoption train was made to halt for a moment, as the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois found the law to be unconstitutional:
Foster custody law is voided
Chicago Tribune, 21 September 2001

Nevertheless, the adoption-enthusiasts found a way around this:
“DCFS and the courts made sure to have on hand people who could make on-the-spot assessments of parents’ problems and work with “recovery coaches”.
And the adoptions continued:
Heeding the call to adopt
Chicago Tribune, 20 October 2003

The programmatic believers in the 1997 law recognised that foster home arrangements are usually not very good for children, and certainly not in the long run. Whether wiping out the biological family is a cure, is nevertheless quite a question, in the light of the comprehensive evidence available about serious problems for all parties in a considerable number of cases, not only for the biological parents deprived of their children but also of the adopted children and actually of adoptive parents as well – not only in forced adoptions. (The little bibliography here can perhaps be a start for those not familiar with the facts already; it lists a few items out of a rich literature: Is biological kinship irrelevant for the life of human beings?.)

So the question is: Why do the ‘expert’ authorities, the CPS themselves, politicians who support the CPS, shut their eyes to these realities? They seem so firmly one-sided that the answer is probably that the system draws on other sources in addition to a wayward ideology of ‘the child’s best interest’. And indeed there are such additional sources and factors, such as the satisfaction drawn from power over others, that of belonging to a large set of benefactors to society, the security of being approved by leading authorities, and the large number of people involved in the sector financially.

3. Some ideological background

The favoured way of thinking behind the development in the Clinton era is found in other countries too. Trends in social work are rather international (The attitude of social professions involved in the child protection sector). In the area of forced adoption, cf the rather similar conditions in Britain to what has been taking place in the USA:
How social services are paid bonuses to snatch babies for adoption
Mail Online (Daily Mail), 31 January 2008

The child protection systems in Western countries operate on the basis of ideological, would-be scientific, psychological notions claiming that children are really better off when raised by or chiefly influenced by ‘ideal’ caretakers appointed by ‘experts’ and not by their faulty parents. A concomitant is that ousting the parents has supposedly little negative effect for the child.

The belief is essentially that all that matters in life from childhood to adult age, including feelings and ideas as well as behaviour, is formed more or less deterministically by the environment, primarily the social and material environment, and can therefore be modified at will by those in power dictating how a child’s environment is to be formed and restricted. A companion argument holds that assuming biology to be a cause of behaviour and of mental life is unscientific. A lot of evidence exists showing that this idea of biology and of science is untenable. It has, however, been widely held, in several waves of social thinking at least in the last 300 years.

Such a philosophy, simplifying the view (if not the actual understanding) of life and individuals, has of course been prominent in communist and socialist thinking, albeit with fluctuating strength in different periods, as the more extreme consequences turned out to be impracticable. But practically the same ideas are also found in politically quite conservative circles.

The line of reasoning about society has been observed in England and France at least from the Age of Enlightenment, the time before and around the French revolution, cf H.N. Brailsford (1913): Shelley, Godwin and their circle (Oxford University Press) (cf here, here and here). An important new surge in favour of environment at the expense of and even counter to biology can be found around 1900, starting in America particularly in psychology and social anthropology, cf How Norwegian experts came to reject biological kinship as relevant in child welfare policy. It has through the 1900s been, and still is, evident in much of linguistics and language teaching, even from leading linguists who claim to be ‘mentalists’ and ‘innate-ists’.

As clear an exposition as any of the materialistic, environmental-deterministic ideology regarding ‘the best interest of the child’ can be found in a recommendation to the Norwegian parliament in 2012 to demote ‘the biological principle’ in legislation and practice concerning children, especially that relating to the CPS taking children into care and declaring the child-parent relationship permanently nullified:

The Raundalen Committee’s evaluation of the biological principle, Recommendation NOU 2012-5, and the presentation of the Recommendation

This legislative proposal was no bombshell when it came; rather it represented the formalization of trends in social and psychological ideology consciously spread and strengthened through propaganda over a long time. The lack of realization is evident – realization that there is something more, something other than learning and environmental influence at the basis of children’s impulse to be with their own parents. An American friend when reading the explanations of the Raundalen Committee was struck by the deliberate rejection of any belief of biological bonds having a natural cause. He wrote to me: “I read the names and titles of these committee members and I thought, ‘Just who do these people think they are?’” The answer is: They are mostly leading members of the official Norwegian establishment of state authorized ‘child experts’, and with this authorization they believe they are the ones who know best and can diagnose and evaluate everything.

Another authority in Norway is the leader of the state’s professional committee for adoptions. Private adoptions are not allowed in Norway, so this committee holds great powers, and its leader is listened to with respect by makers of legislation. In the 1990s the leader was psychologist Karen Hassel. In a tv interview in 2001 she emphasized that adoptive relationships were very problematic indeed, often with years of rejection of the adoptive parents by the adopted child. About 4 months later she testified in court in a forced adoption case, and managed to say the opposite: that this adoption was no trouble at all and strongly to be recommended, without explaining the relationship between that particular adoption and those she had warned about on tv.

The situation here in Norway, then, is perhaps much the same as I find dominating in the policies of the Clintons in the USA, just more one-sidedly accepted in Norway? No one reading the Raundalen committee’s recommendations needs to be surprised at the impossibility of debating with the members of the Committee or their supporters. Nor is it surprising that the development since 2012 has been characterized by a continued belief within the CPS that their breaking up of families is in children’s best interest, likewise that the county welfare boards (making the initial approvals of taking children into care) and the courts support them, to the despair of the very large majority of parents and children in the hands of the CPS.

4. The result of the Clinton administration’s ‘Adoption and Safe Families Act’

So a factor is money. As the Chicago Tribune articles as well as the one in The Epoch Times show, Clinton’s law created special ‘financial incentives’ to agencies for each child adopted out of foster care. There was apparently no reason then to stop when the children in care had been adopted away. On the contrary, there was reason for the CPS to go ahead and take new children into foster care, to be the next to be adopted away, with a generous government check as a reward.

In other words, the number of children taken into care did not go down as a result of the Clinton initiative, quite the contrary, the 1997 law “sparking a lucrative government-run business of child removal” (Clinton-Era Law Has Distorted …).

Keeping a child away from its parents for 15 months, with the kind of laws and rules the CPS possess, is child’s play. There is evidence in the USA as in other countries that social work establishments’ own actions and what they consider necessary changes in the lives of parents tend to take up a very long time, if demanded changes are even so concrete and sensible that parents can comply with them in the real world. The demands of the CPS can also make a family’s practical life impossible. CPS ‘diagnoses’ on the spot and ‘recovery coaches’ are unlikely to compensate for a child’s loss of its family, especially when surrounded by professionals who have no notion of the loss of family being a fundamental problem.

Let alone that far from every removal of a child from its parents is responsible and necessary from the start. The less real reason there has been for taking a child into care, the more the CPS will make demands that do not really help the child, and will resist letting go, since that would take away their power and tend to expose their actions from the beginning to have been unjustified. So once a child is taken into public care, it tends to stay in the system and be a factor supporting the CPS’s demands for more resources.

The action taken by the Trump administration, as described by The Epoch Times, seems to have hit the CPS effectively by clamping down on the money paid out to the CPS for breaking up families – viz on the very point the CPS is probably most keen to protect: “President Donald Trump’s Family First Prevention Services Act—which he passed by attaching it to a February 2018 spending bill”. With Joe Biden most likely heading for the White House, a real concern for American families targeted by the CPS will probably be whether his administration will revert to the Clintons’ idea of children and their needs. Policies regarding the taking of children into care and what happens to them are not usually a major political concern to the general population in a country, but for those who are hit by destructive CPS actions it is different – being forcibly separated from their family is a fundamental tragedy in the core of their hearts and their lives.

5. A different understanding of the needs of children

Scientific studies show that not foster care, not adoption, but a third option is far superior to them, even when the biological family is far from ideal.

THE EVIDENCE IS IN
Foster Care vs. Keeping Families Together: The Definitive Studies

National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, September 2015

Rethinking foster care: Molly McGrath Tierney at TEDxBaltimore 2014
TEDx Talks, on youtube, 27 February 2014

Literature about it has appeared in most countries. Also well-known: Although adoption as well as foster care are realized to be problematic, there is no will in social service circles to go to the core of what is wrong; instead they want to keep on doing variants of the same, and calling for ‘more research’. Much the same goes for the people researching these topics; they are themselves perhaps close to the ones who would be out of a job or would have to re-train completely if social services for children were re-cast. At the same time the amount of lying, in case work and in the courts, on the part of the social services in countries practicing these ideas of children’s needs, is striking, and is in itself a symptom of a system and an ideology failing deeply.

There have over the years been plenty of studies in the USA as well as in Europe showing most of what we need to know. There have also been many individuals and NGOs in the USA whose information has reached us here in Europe, as they have carried out excellent documentation and have published on the internet and elsewhere about abuses by the social services against families. An example is Fight CPS: Child Protective Services-CPS-False Accusations, which has been running for several decades, under Linda Martin’s well-informed leadership. It cannot be emphasized often enough how important information and the freedom of expression are in the work to combat a CPS system with unwarranted power.

Local, political initiatives to turn things the right way are certainly also found. Nancy Schafer, a senator in Georgia, did not shy away:
Nancy Schafer exposes the EVIL CPS
Constitution Man, on youtube, 14 April 2009

Chris Reimers in Arkansas wrote this about an initiative to reunite children with their parents which had been partly successful (cf comments to Natalya Shutakova, Another Mother Tormented by the Norwegian “Child Welfare Services” (Barnevernet)):
“a local politician has recently been able to get legislation passed in our state assembly that would help situations like Natalya’s to be avoided.”
Here is how:
“….. In the case of the local politician I’ve mentioned, it took three things:
1) People who were not afraid to tell their stories to the man who represented them in Little Rock, and
2) A man (in this case State Senator Alan Clark) who was willing to listen to them, take them seriously, and craft legislation that would uphold parental rights in certain cases. There were two new laws crafted, and only one of the two passed into law. Still, progress was made.
3) It took a group of lawmakers who would pass such a law.
It seems a minority of American representatives are willing to spend so much time on issues like these but there are some. It also seems like Norway would get stopped, in almost all cases, by the second and third requirements listed.”

**

See also

Siv Westerberg:
Foster-children as lucrative business
MHS’s home page, February 2005 / 25 January 2014

– : Child prisons? In Sweden?
MHS’s home page, 1995, 1998, 2006, 28 December 2018

– : Norway and Sweden – where inhuman rights prevail
MHS’s home page, 7 May 2012 / 11 November 2017

Senators want to see Children and Youth Services reform
Fox56, 27 March 2018

Connie Reguli:
Breaking up families in the name of child protection
Sunday Guardian, 13 October 2018

Do criminals have more rights than parents in Tennessee?
News Channel 9 (Fox 17 News), 14 November 2017

Marianne Haslev Skånland:
Separating children from their parents – is Norway better than the USA?
MHS’s home page, 16 July 2018

– : Demonstrations abroad against Norwegian child protection (CPS) – Barnevernet
MHS’s home page, 8 – 10 January 2016

– : Canadian documentary about child protection
MHS’s home page, 11 September 2013

– : The Council of Europe with a critical report on European child protection systems
MHS’s home page, 4 July 2018

Hemming threatens to name social workers in Parliament
Liberal Democrat Voice (UK), 7 January 2007

Jan Simonsen:
Rock hard criticism of Norwegian child protection from the president of the Czech Republic
MHS’s home page, 10 February, 2015

Article series about child protection published in Sunday Guardian in India
Series overview with links
MHS’s home page, 17 December 2017 –

Suranya Aiyar:
Family must come first
MHS’s home page, 14 February 2013 / 17 October 2015

– : Understanding and Responding to Child Confiscation by Social Service Agencies
MHS’s home page, 9 May 2012 / 20 September 2017

Octavian D. Curpas:
With Barnevernet, Norway is going South
MHS’s home page, 1 September 2016

Jan Pedersen:
The children of the state – The Norwegian child protection agency, Barnevernet, has created a society of fear
MHS’s home page, 27 November 2017

familien-er-samlet (the-family-is-together):
Flight, exile and taking chances
MHS’s home page, 11 November 2020


Natalya Shutakova, Another Mother Tormented by the Norwegian “Child Welfare Services” (Barnevernet)

September 20, 2020


Back in May, Natalya Shutakova was interviewed by well-known American author, Erik Metaxas. Four months later Natalya and her husband are still waiting for the return of their children who were taken from them by the Norwegian “Child Welfare Services” (Barnevernet) for no good reason whatsoever.

This request appeared on Natalya’s Facebook page on Sept. 6th:

“Urgent prayer request. Dear friends and family many of you know our fight to get our children back is still on. This week Monday to Friday we ask you to lift up prayers as we go into yet another court. Blessings to all.”

It seems that the latest court decision will be made in a few weeks. The results of that court decision will be noted here as soon as it is made public.

Natalya’s children are American citizens. Like Eric Metaxas, I am shocked and angered at this kind of intrusion into family life in Norway.

Please pray that these children are returned to their loving parents soon.

Chris Reimers



China Set to Pass “National Security Law” for Hong Kong Residents

June 3, 2020

Hong Kong
Photo by Ray in Manila/Flickr
(Click on Photo to enlarge)
At the bottom slightly right is Government House, constructed in 1851 and previously the official residence of The Governor during British Rule.

The development of new legislation aimed at the citizens of Hong Kong can be compared to decades of continued “Chinese Water Torture.” The constant and deliberate pace of Chinese intrusions into the freedoms of Hong Kong residents, is similar and more maddening than the torture named after the Chinese people (although, it probably didn’t originate in China…Link). The upcoming unveiling of the “National Security Law” will only make things much more difficult for the freedom loving people in Hong Kong.

Here is a brief history leading to the current state of affairs in Hong Kong:

1842 Hong Kong became a colony of the British Empire at the end of the First Opium War.

1898 After the Second Opium War, British influence was further extended when Britain obtained a 99-year lease of Hong Kong and New Territories.

1949 The Communist Party took control of mainland China.

1984 British Diplomatic negotiations with China resulted in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, in which the United Kingdom agreed to transfer the colony in 1997 and China would guarantee Hong Kong’s economic and political systems for 50 years after the transfer.

1987-1997 The impending transfer triggered a wave of mass emigration as residents feared an erosion of civil rights, the rule of law, and quality of life. Over half a million people left the territory during the peak migration period, from 1987 to 1996 before Hong Kong was transferred to China.

1997 (July 1) With the end of the 99-year U.K. lease, The whole territory was transferred to China after 156 years of British rule. “One country, two systems” became a constitutional principle of the People’s Republic of China describing the governance of Hong Kong (and other “new” territories).

2003 An attempt to introduce anti-subversion legislation (referred to as Article 23) drew fierce criticism by those in Hong Kong who were concerned about losing freedoms. After 500,000 people protested on July 1 to oppose it, the bill did not have enough support to pass and was suspended indefinitely.

2016 Protests resulted from Beijing’s ruling in August that voters would only be able to vote for their chief executive in 2017 from a list of pre-approved candidates. (Timeline of events…Link)

2019 In April, an extradition bill triggered the first protest of many. It would have allowed for criminal suspects to be extradited to mainland China under certain circumstances. These protests continued throughout the year possibly becoming the largest-scale political protest movement in Hong Kong history with organizers claiming to have attracted more than one million Hong Kong residents. (The Hong Kong protests explained in 100 and 500 words…Link)

2020, May 21 The Chinese Government proposed a new law on national security regulations that may be enacted in Hong Kong under the provisions of Annex III of its Basic law. It may set up the legal framework to prevent and punish subversion, terrorism, separatism and foreign interference.

Here is a description of the current events in Hong Kong by someone who lives there:

“The Chinese government is ending the ‘one country, two systems’ arrangement in Hong Kong. This idea is guaranteed by the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It is a legal agreement submitted to the United Nations. ‘One country, two systems’ means that Hong Kong maintains its autonomy (self-determination) except in diplomatic and military affairs. The Chinese government has NO RIGHT to involve itself in any part of Hong Kong’s self administrating affairs, including the law. (This is clearly stated in the BASIC LAW of Hong Kong…Link) The basic law, is a ‘constitution’ for Hong Kong. It states said that laws in mainland China cannot be applied in Hong Kong directly.

“Now, this new national security regulation legislation will bypass and override the basic law (as well as the legislative council in HK), and will apply mainland China’s law to Hong Kong directly. What does it mean? It means that China breaks its promise that it will not intervene in Hong Kong’s affairs (promised in Sino-British Joint Declaration). It means that the ‘one country, two system’ arrangement will become ‘one country one system.’ It means that the Chinese government will directly rule Hong Kong, in effect, stealing Hong Kong’s sovereignty. It is the same thing that the Chinese government did in Tibet. The Chinese invaded Tibet in 1950 and allowed for an autonomous administration led by the Dalai Lama. The Chinese government broke its promises and the 14th Dalai Lama had to flee the country to escape. What happened in Tibet is happening in HK right now. It is the same thing.”

2020, May 28 China’s legislature has approved a proposal to impose a highly contentious national security law in Hong Kong, in an unprecedented move that critics say threatens fundamental political freedoms and civil liberties in the semi-autonomous territory. The legislative process of writing this law will take some time and only then will it be known what the written specifics are.

2020, June 3 (TODAY)(English starts at 20 seconds.)

Predictably, the people of Hong Kong are back in the streets en masse. In the video above, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (a pawn of Beijing), says that the new law must be passed and states:

“The International community and some of the foreign governments have been adopting blatant double standards…(The U.S. and U.K. are mentioned)…why should they object, resist, or even condemn and take the sanctions against Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China?”

The U.S. and United Kingdom on Friday urged the U.N. Security Council to take action against China’s crackdown on freedoms in Hong Kong — after China initially stopped the matter being discussed by the body…(Link)

Chief Executive Lam’s statement about “blatant double standards” appears to be directed at the U.S. because of the George Floyd Protests (timeline link). Some might think that the events in the U.S. are tied to some sort of communist takeover like the attempt occurring in Hong Kong. Just like the good protesters in Hong Kong (we are not talking about sinful looters now) most of the protesting occurring in the U.S. is nothing like the socialist effort in Hong Kong. The evidence of communist propaganda is evident for all to see.

The Future of Hong Kong

Apart from a miracle, this legislation will be written. The people of Hong Kong are very resourceful. Many facts about the success of the people of Hong Kong could be stated. One, in particular, summarizes the community there well. The last List of countries by Human Development Index (Link) has Hong Kong as 4th on its list. A country that is in the top ten in several worldwide statistics has the Chinese communist government foaming at the mouth.

So, how much credibility with the world will the Chinese be willing to sacrifice in order to “control” the people of Hong Kong? Hong Kong is not North Korea. We will find out what happens in Hong Kong. If the Chinese show themselves to be as tyrannical with the people of Hong Kong as they have been with people of different religions in their own country (Christians and Muslims in particular) the world will know. Will the world care? I know that Christians will care. Please pray for the people of Hong Kong. Ask God to allow them to keep their beloved freedoms. Ask God to help their leaders to have wisdom. And while you are at it, please pray for the people of China.

I would like to thank my Christian friend in Hong Kong for keeping me up to date on the things happening in his country.

Chris Reimers

According to Open Doors, here is the situation in China:

Region: Asia
Persecution Type: Communist and post-communist oppression
Persecution Level: Very High
Population: 1,420,062,000
Christians: 97,200,000
Main Religion: Atheism
Government: Communist state
Leader: President Xi Jinping

Sources:
Time
NYTimes
Wikipedia “Hong Kong”,“Handover of Hong Kong”“New Territories”
Sky News
ARIRANG NEWS
RFA 自由亞洲粵語 (Mr. Trump’s recent comments on the situation)
Hong Kong Free Press
BBC “Hong Kong protests: Timeline of the occupation,” “The Hong Kong protests explained in 100 and 500 words”
CNN
FOX
South China Morning Post
Open Doors USA


Careless Ease

May 24, 2020

Americans Are Excessively Eating, Drinking, Smoking Pot, Playing Video Games And Watching Porn While Quarantined (Link)

Looking 20 pages deep into a Google search on “Porn watching during the coronavirus” you will still find articles (like the link just above) about the increase in the viewing of pornographic materials during the times in which we are living. The video above was made by a Christian who once had a serious addiction to pornography. He is now the head of a 30+ year old ministry attempting to help those whose lives have been ruined by it. The ministry is called Pure life.

You can find the Pure Life story here (Link). You can find their statement of faith here (Link)(You have to scroll to the bottom).

Any addiction is debilitating, particularly spiritually. Addictions create bondage; they don’t create the freedom the person using such destructive behaviors is seeking.

So, where does someone who gets to the place that they know they are out of control go to start a healing process? The same internet that took you to the places that put you in bondage has many sites that can be very helpful. Here is one that lists several resources for sex addiction issues (link).
There are similar sites for any type of addiction.

“Addiction is when the body or mind badly wants or needs something in order to work right.”

The reason why I think sexual addictions are particularly destructive is that God created sexual relations to be a beautiful thing when the relationship has its foundation on an institution that God created: marriage.

You can find many places on the internet that describe the signs of porn addiction.

If you have the signs, I think you should seek help. The best place, in my opinion, to find help would be from someone who has been there and from someone who is a Christian.

There are many instances in the Bible like this:

“Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he saved them from their distress. He sent out his word and healed them; he rescued them from the grave.” -Psalms 107:19-20

Like all addictions, until a person is willing to admit there is a problem there will not be a solution. I am saddened that many Americans, and many throughout the world for that matter, are turning increasingly to destructive things during this time of uncertainty.

Chris Reimers

This is a good video that describes the true Gospel message as described in scripture. The Gospel message is the most important message. This video has helped many to understand it better:


Landmark Report Exposes the Realities of Norwegian Child Protection

May 10, 2020

Samnanger Fjord
By Aqwis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samnanger#/media/File:Samnanger.jpg
(Click on Photo to see the beautiful Samnanger area)

A report detailing Norwegian Child Welfare Service (Barnevernet) abuses has been published in Norway. Final Report-Investigation of Three Child Protection Cases-Samnanger Municipality, was published by local authorities on the Samnanger Municipality website. Investigators discovered incidents of maltreatment occurring there over several years. An official apology has been issued along with compensation, though the current mayor regrets that it is a very modest amount compared to the devastation to the lives of the families involved. The report is also critical of the County Governor (the state’s head representative in a Norwegian county) for not stopping Barnevernet’s actions. In 2013, he produced a report that identified no problems.

Initially the published report was freely readable and available for downloading. The municipality removed it from its site after a recommendation of confidentiality was made by the County Governor. After a meeting was held by municipality officials, those supporting the investigation results allowed for a few changes in the report and republished it back onto the municipal website. The Governor has written to the mayor of Samnanger, demanding that the report be taken off of the internet again. Apparently, he wants to launch his own investigation into the legality of the investigation and publication done by the Samnanger Municipality.

It seems that the municipality intends to try to litigate the negligent actions of certain employees. More than 20 million crowns (more than 2 million dollars by the current rate) has been paid out for “child protection” of the victim children: to psychologists, foster homes, and home visits. “Advice” was given to the parents before the children were taken and afterwards, in order to “help” the parents improve their “parental skills.”

The 71 page report is only available in the Norwegian language with the exception of the initial thirteen key points listed below:

Main conclusions

“The investigation has revealed that the child welfare service in Samnanger in the investigated cases on a number of points have been in violation of both the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Child Welfare Act and good administrative practice. This includes:

1) “Lack of writing and documentation. There is a pervasive feature in all three cases that the child welfare services’ assessments are to a scant extent documented. This is a violation of good administrative practice and represents a legal security problem for the affected children and parents.

2) “Lack of hearing of children’s views. The child welfare service is obliged to collect and consider taking into account the views of the children when when the children are old or mature enough to have an opinion. It is not likely that the children have taken part or had their views referred to and considered

3) “Lack of options reviews. The child welfare service is obliged to consider gentle alternatives when performing emergency placements. This does not appear to have been done.

4) “Lack of assistance. The Child Welfare Service is obliged to implement adequate relief measures where this is possible, rather than choosing more invasive intervention. This was not done sufficiently.

5) “Lack of reassessments when the situation has changed. The child welfare service is obliged to consider the case again if changes in the family situation have taken place which may be important. It is nowhere stated that this has been done.

6) “Failure to assess foster homes after taking children into care. The obligation first to consider foster homes in the child’s family or close network has not been complied with.

7) “Lack of justification for separating siblings. Siblings’ need and right to grow up together is not considered, and the placement of them in different foster homes is not explained or justified. None of the children in the three cases have been allowed to grow up with one or more siblings.

8) “Lack of culture-sensitive understanding and competence. There is no consideration for children’s right to know their ethnic, cultural and linguistic background.

9) “Inadequate supervision of foster homes. The obligation to follow up children in foster homes has not been complied with in accordance with the requirements of the Child Welfare Act.

10) “Lack of role understanding – confusion of roles. In Samnanger Municipality the roles as social leader and child welfare leader were combined in one position during the period the cases were being handled. These are two different functions with different tasks. In the present cases, it seems that the roles have been confused with each other, with unfortunate results for private parties.

11) “Lack of information to parents. The child welfare service has waited unnecessarily long to inform parents about child detention and emergency placement.

12) “One child has been completely deprived of her childhood through unwise public taking into care.
The child appears significantly injured after the placement.

13) “Extensive use of coercion and medication. Several of the children have been subjected to coercion, medication and disproportionate use of force.”

Final Report-Investigation of Three Child Protection Cases-Samnanger Municipality. (Link)

——————————————————-

EDITORIAL

Dear defenders of the family in Samnanger,

To this point the infamous Barnevernet has received a good amount of its criticism from outside sources. There were the worldwide protests in 2016 that brought thousands of people into streets on six continents. Just two months ago there were unanimous convictions at the European Convention on Human Rights where Norway was found in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (My article about it is here). As Samnanger residents probably know, there are close to two dozen cases still pending at the ECtHR. I am also aware of many other Norwegian citizens who have been justly critical of your “Child Protection Services.”

I applaud the courageous leadership in Samnanger!!! Your determination encourages similar actions by Norwegians to bring justice and hope to others.

The Barnevernet has weaseled its way into your small population. I can imagine living in a town that has had the same population for the past 50 years (around 2,400). My guess is that a community of that size for that long is a place where people know one another pretty well. Something of this magnitude, in a place your size, must be having a very divisive effect. The County Governor is too late in his attempt to stifle this report. If he can remove it, it will not go away. A quote by Olav Terje Bergo is appropriate here:
“Efforts to make it disappear will be like trying to put the toothpaste back again into a hundred thousand toothpaste tubes.”
I am aware that the report has been sent to at least six different countries. As an official document of the Samnanger Municipality, it is perfectly legal to be copied and quoted.

I hear from your country that the coronavirus shutdown has created a constant drumming of pundits on TV, newspaper, and radio communicating that they are concerned about the “vulnerable” state of children today. The comments are meant to help Norwegians see that home environments are now more unsafe than ever because children are not around their protectors: school teachers, kindergarten teachers, health nurses (in the schools), psychologists, and coaches. I wonder if those responsible for removing children from loving parents have children themselves in Norway? If so, who is watching their efforts as parents?

I am also hearing that several CPS offices complain that they are receiving very few messages of “concern” now. Imagine that. They surmise that children are being treated badly and that nobody can really see what is going on inside the home. Children only have Barnevernet personnel to protect them now and the coronavirus is keeping them at a distance. At least there is one good thing about the virus!

God gifted parents with the abilities, delights, and responsibilities to raise children. Any government that thinks otherwise is foolish and sometimes evil. There are always exceptions but we all know the Barnevernet has gone beyond inhumanity in thousands of cases. There is a spiritual, natural, and moral law that states: “You reap what you have sown.” I pray for the victims and the perpetrators of crimes like the ones in Samnanger. I pray that those who have ears to hear will listen and wake up before it is too late.

Chris Reimers
Edited by Professor Marianne H. Skanland

Recommended:

The importance of freedom of expression, illustrated from “child protection” in Samnanger municipality in Norway (Link)

This post on Professor Skanland’s homepage gives additional details about the Samnanger report and states:

“Those in Samnanger who have fought for truthful publicizing can find support in judgments from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning freedom of expression.”

The article gives examples of ECtHR cases in Norway, Iceland, and Belgium. The ECtHR “makes it clear that not only do people have the right to impart information about important and controversial things, the public has an equal right to receive such information…it is necessary in order to have the kind of society we want to live in.”

America’s founding Fathers would have appreciated this perspective.


NORWAY VIOLATES PARENTAL RIGHTS…AGAIN!

March 24, 2020

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, France
Photo by Guilhem Vellut

On March 10th, two important child welfare case decisions were made by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Unanimous convictions were made in both cases, clearly and strongly denouncing Norwegian authorities.

In each case, Norway was found in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the Convention describes the right to respect for private and family life. It states:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
(Guide on Article 8)

EHtCR judges found that Norwegian officials were guilty of unexcused and unbridled intrusion into normal family life in the March 10th decisions. These same officials/authorities were found guilty of being “responsible for a situation of family breakdown.”

In the case of HERNEHULT v. NORWAY, the Court noted a recent case where precedent had been clearly declared:

“61. The general principles applicable to cases involving child welfare measures, including measures such as those at issue in the present case, are well-established in the Court’s case-law, and were recently extensively set out in the case of Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway.”

Back in September (10 September 2019), in the case of STRAND LOBBEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY, the ECtHR judges in Strasbourg found Norway in violation of Article 8 by a vote of thirteen to four.

In the second case decided on March 10th, PEDERSEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY, the Court also referred to the Strand Lobben case:

“39. Other relevant material relating to domestic and international law is referred to in the Court’s recent judgment in the case of Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway.”

The citation of previous litigation in both HERNEHULT v. NORWAY and PEDERSEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY explains how the Court came to its united condemnation.

The two cases have several similarities. One is that the wives in each case were not born in Norway. Hernehult’s wife is a Romanian national, and Pedersen’s wife comes from the Philippines.

Each case originated in an application against the Kingdom of Norway lodged with the ECtHR under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Hernehult applied in March of 2016 and the Pedersens applied in August of 2015. The Hernehult settlement was 26,893 U.S. dollars for non-pecuniary damage, and the Pedersen settlement was 37,637 U.S. dollars for non-pecuniary damage and 10,216 U.S. dollars for costs and expenses.

Over 20 similar cases are slated to be decided by the EHtCR in the coming months. No one knows how many more applications against the Kingdom of Norway are forthcoming.

Editorial

How many more decisions like this will have to be made before the Norwegian Child Welfare Services, otherwise known as the Barnevernet, will begin to see that the world is waking up to its crimes? I am pleased by these wise decisions of the ECtHR. It is obvious that they can now see through all of the miasma belched into our habitat by the Barnevernet and Norwegian officials. I’m not aware of anyone who is satisfied with the settlements made, but these recent decisions are steps in the right direction certainly. The ECtHR’s references to the Lobben case in the March 10 decisions reveal recent, positive movement. The court is clear…it is using “well-established” “case law” for its decisions. I am very thankful and yet…

How can any reparations repay someone for a child stolen?

In the Pedersen case, paragraph 68 of the ECtHR judgment speaks for itself:

68. The Court emphasizes that to the extent that these decisions implied that the authorities had given up reunification of the child and the natural parents as the ultimate goal, the conclusion that placement must be considered to be long-term should only have been drawn after careful consideration and also taking account of the authorities’ positive duty to take measures to facilitate family reunion. However, in this case the decision to impose a very strict visiting regime cemented the situation at the very outset, making it highly probably that the child would become attached to the foster parents and alienated from the natural parents, thus precluding any realistic possibility of eventual reunification. Indeed, this is precisely what happened in the present case. In this respect, the Court recalls that where the authorities are responsible for a situation of family breakdown because they have failed in their obligation to take measures to facilitate family reunification, they may not base a decision to authorize adoption on the grounds of the absence of bonds between the parents and the child (see Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, § 208).
You can read the details of the case and the court’s decision HERE.

In, 2013, Mr. Dan Mikael Hernehult moved to Norway with his wife and three boys and before the year was out (November 4th) the child welfare service issued emergency care orders for all three children in accordance with section 4-6 of the Child Welfare Act. (You can download a PDF copy of the Child Welfare act here.) They were placed in emergency foster homes the same day. The sad account does not stop there. You can read the details of the case and the court’s decision HERE.

Many in Norway have been hoping and praying for the type of decision made in the Hernehult case. In it, the Norwegian authorities were convicted of wrongfully taking two of the boys into care in the first place. This is an opening salvo of, hopefully, many more decisions like it.

Professor Marianne Haslev Skånland is the one who referred me to Paragraph 68 in the Pedersen case and she was particularly pleased with the decision in the Hernehult case. She writes:

“The judgments have made things increasingly clear, up to now, when they write so clearly that they (the ECtHR judges) both condemn the taking into care of two of the children, AND the failure to return them.”

She also states:

“I am really most of all glad of the judgments from February 2020 which I found against Russia and Romania. Not because I am glad to see that in those countries, too, they have social services which more or less frequently make enemies of parents and seem to delight in disrupting family bonds. But because I see a trend in what the ECtHR is doing: They now seem wide awake to the fact that they have a duty to carry out here: help combat a very destructive trend – the trend of believing that biological parents are of no importance to their children and that the social services can provide children with better conditions and satisfactory ’stimulation’! That is pure, speculative psychobabble – quackery, and all experience disproves it.”

Marianne’s description of Barnevernet philosophies as “speculative psychobabble” fits my understanding perfectly. She has broad knowledge of child welfare services inside and outside of her home country of Norway. HERE, on her homepage, you can see links to the Norwegian cases leading up to and including those mentioned in this post.

With all of the challenges families face in our time, the last concern should be about government entities separating loving families. Many countries are having similar problems. It is important that we become aware of the philosophies of child welfare in all countries.

I appreciate those who have worked so hard to create awareness about this important issue and I congratulate those who have spent years fighting to see that these cases made their way to court.

Chris Reimers


The Strasbourg Offensive…December 7th, 2019

December 3, 2019


Tor Åge Berglid is a man on a mission with a team of other like-minded people making protests all over the world. He is a Norwegian who has been very active in the attempt to publicize the horrible actions of his country’s “Child Protection Service.” Called the Barnevernet, the Norwegian CPS is government funded (like those of most countries), and it can be very cruel. It is not unusual for the Barnevernet to steal children from their parents in Norway.

Tor’s main goal is to unite people and he believes that “the focus is to lift other people up and tell them that their voices are important, to join into this question about what constitutes family life. Is God’s idea of family life better than the state’s attempt to do a better job?”

Recently, Tor and others represented those who are sick and tired of families being destroyed by the Barnevernet. In a national T.V. debate, he went head to head with the Norwegian Minister for Children and two other “important” Norwegian officials. Many, including me, were pleased with his effort.
Here is a short clip in Norwegian where one can get a sense of Tor’s passion:

Unfortunately, too many people in Norway are afraid to speak out. The percentage of those unaware of the problem is hard to figure since the government propaganda machine constantly spews out words of wonder about its child care system among other things. Advertisements encouraging people to become foster parents make the job look easy and lucrative. The propaganda drowns out the voices attempting to share the reality of the situation.

After having the recent privilege of speaking to and messaging Tor, I informed him that I would do my best to share my views on these developments as a Christian. John 1:5 states: “The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” In this verse, the light is referring to Jesus Christ. According to the Bible (the book of Acts) “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Knowing these truths, and that Christianity once held great influence in Norway, it is sad to “hear” mostly silence from “Christian” leaders and pastors in response to such tragic human rights offences.

God is a righteous entity who loves his creation. He is an advocate for the helpless and hurting. One day, all the cruelty that man has dished out will be exposed. Those who have asked for forgiveness will have been forgiven. Those who “did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind..” (Romans 1:28)

Tor’s statement is evidence that there are people in Norway who know what is happening and still care. They want transparency. I am in contact with others like him. They are still in the fight. They have not given up in spite of the fact that the current against them is strong.

Norway’s recent record at the The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or ECtHR) is not good. They have been spanked more than once for human rights violations. More cases are currently pending at the court in Strasbourg, France.

What is Norway’s response? It appears that a new batch of laws dealing with “the Welfare of Children” is being worked on. My current understanding (from what I believe to be very good sources) is that the new laws will only make things worse.

I have come to the same conclusion as Steven Bennett, the British writer who published “Stolen Childhood: The truth about Norway’s child welfare system.” Steven, a Christian, believes that the system needs to be completely dismantled and restarted with new founding principles that really stand for the rights of every child.

See book description HERE.

It can be argued that the first institution created by God was the family. Norway, though a recent focus for very good reason, is a reflection of what is happening to the family in much of the world. It appears that evil forces are out to destroy that which God has created. One need look no further than recent laws passed by the Supreme Court of the country where this blog originates, America. The family has been redefined to mean just about whatever someone wants it to be. Sadly, this problem is increasing throughout Europe and the current beachhead there is now in Strasbourg, France at the EHRC, where the cases brought forward will test humanity in the consideration of how much power the state should have in family life.

I agree with Tor and Gro Hillestad Thune (who wrote the forward to Steven Bennett’s book) that the state should let the parents do the parenting unless intervention is absolutely necessary, and even then with caution.

I admire people who are willing to stand up for those suffering at the hands of those with unbridled power. May God bless Tor and those like him who have invested in the lives of families.

Please pray for those who are involved in organizing and raising awareness that the family is in crisis in much of the world. You may not be able to make it to an event but your prayers can be very powerful. We saw evidence of that in the Worldwide protests that took place in 2016.

“…let justice roll down like waters And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” (Amos 5:24)

Chris Reimers

This video is only the tip of the iceberg:


Abortionists Sue the State of Arkansas

July 7, 2019

I am very thankful for Jerry Cox and the Arkansas Family Council. Jerry and his team have been on the front lines at our state capital for years fighting for Godly values. Arkansas has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country partly due to the diligence of The Arkansas Family Council. May God continue to bless Jerry and the rest of those working so hard to uphold righteousness in our wonderful state.

Chris Reimers


Has This Really Happened in Only 15 Years?

June 9, 2019

Ruins of the Library of Celsus
Photo by heydrienne

“In Pew Research Center polling in 2004, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 60% to 31%.

Support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown over the past 15 years. And today, support for same-sex marriage remains near its highest point since Pew Research Center began polling on this issue. Based on polling in 2019, a majority of Americans (61%) support same-sex marriage, while 31% oppose it.”

The quote above is taken from an article entitled Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage which was published less than a month ago.

One can look up numerous articles which try to explain this change.

I think we need to find the Book again, the same Book that was found in 2 Kings 22. The article published by the Pew Research Center shows that the Book has been lost again, at least in the minds and hearts of many Americans. Adherence to that book is the only solution for our nation. I wonder what will happen in the next 15 years.

“On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage, legalized it in all fifty states, and required states to honor out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses in the case Obergefell v. Hodges.”

It has been almost four years. Why does it feel like 40?

Chris Reimers


%d bloggers like this: