Whether called religion or cult, there certainly seems to be a latent tendency towards religious-type belief in humans. Not that it unfolds in every individual, of course.

I remember reading, about 40 years ago, about a sect that had sprung up in the south of Russia, claiming that Lenin was immortal. But as unedited info from out of the Soviet Union was not all that lively at the time, I never found any follow-up or details.

I found a couple of articles in English but published in Czechia about the Czech case we discussed especially on p 5 of this thread. The articles are from the middle of December but new enough - i.e. they contain some interesting bits. The Czechs have not calmed down about this case. I love the photo of the demonstration outside the Norwegian embassy in Prague. Both articles are open for comments, by the way.

Czech children to spend fourth Christmas in Norwegian foster care
The Prague Post, 10 December 2014

Mother files new custody complaint in Norway
Step is needed for Czech government to increase diplomatic pressure
MyPrague Magazine, 18 December 2014

  

The India / Stavanger case was an example of how Norway holds on to the children at all cost. It took action even from the Indian prime minister to get Norwegian government members to at last put sufficient pressure on the CPS boss in Stavanger to let the children be taken to their uncle. Norwegian authorities on all levels have given the CPS the right to decide what is best for children - against all common sense, because it is so obvious that they do not: they have no competence, no knowledge, no life's experience, and no respect for all that is known of the outcome of being separated from one's family, to make any such decision. And the politicians just do not do what they should do: Cancel the power of the CPS and deal with the court system etc directly. Cf my suggestion of a little revolution by setting up a "client committee" to do the job: Political program for child protection in local administration.

Sweden is just like Norway when it comes to having an almighty social service which confiscates children with gusto, and takes care that the children should be cut off from their family completely and never return. The Sweden / Malaysia case is a clear example:

Malaysian family in Sweden - children taken

This is a long thread about the case - I hardly think any readers here will go into each article, but even the article titles give quite a bit of information, and the sheer abundance of articles shows the amount of publicity the case drew in Malaysia.

Here, the parents were charged with physical abuse of their children, and were later found guilty and given jail sentences. But why were the children not allowed to meet their relatives who went to Sweden to help? Oh no, no such thing. Again sit took action from the Malaysian prime minister, who sent a deputy foreign minister to Sweden to negotiate with the Swedish authorities for the children to be allowed to return to Malaysia. And notice an even clearer example of the Scandinavian country attempting to never let go: Even with the children back with their relatives in Malaysia, Sweden demands to have reports sent to them and claims to have custody rights! My guess is that the Malaysian authorities have had to say yes to that before Sweden would let the children out. One of the last articles (p 6 of the thread) is about this: Custodial rights return only if Sweden is satisfied.
  
One might ask whether Western countries have taken leave of their senses completely. It seems to be kind of slave states we are running.

  

  
I am very glad to see the video which Erik translated something from, because this was a case I remember fairly well, and I have in fact been wondering whether it was possible to find the video. And here it is! Cheers for barnefjern.org who found it and Erik for translating and bringing it to our attention!

The whole video, (including the part in which the psychologist Turid Kavli pressed and pressed the 6 year old girl into some kind of assent, by saying that she would not be let out of the room until she "confessed" that her stepfather had fucked her - Kavli uses just about the most vulgar and derogatory word for "fuck" too,) was actually a tv program sent on public television in Norway (about 10 - 18 years ago) either on tv2 or nrk, when the girl, then about 18-19 years old, had raised the case before the courts again, together with her stepfather (who had long since served his sentence, I seem to remember). He was then acquitted. Both the medical evidence and the psychobabble evidence used to convict him in the first court case had been perfectly incompetent.

In addition to interviewing the girl, they also interviewed Kavli, and as Scandinavian-speakers can hear, she makes no apology, in fact maintaining not only that she has done nothing wrong but fairly clearly sticks to it that although the proof might not be enough to ensure a conviction in court, it is so important to believe the children, and so many of them come afterwards and thank them. - Believe the children? Well, that girl was certainly one child whom Kavli did not believe.

Turid Kavli, as far as I remember, was later engaged to lead the so-called "trauma centre" in Trondheim, a place where they gave people psychotherapy and enticed them into "recalling repressed memories of sex abuse". The centre was at last shut down when a number of "patients" had complained that they certainly did not get any better from the "treatment" there, on the contrary they felt much worse.

But nobody has really taken the psychobabblers to task, ever. And just now in 2014 we are in Norway heading for a new deluge of sex abuse accusations, it seems, very many of which will no doubt be false and destroy new victims and families. Nor is it healthy for the future life of children to be pressed or psychobabbled into accusing their family members or others of abuse which has actually never taken place. Has anybody read Margaret Hagen's illuminating book Whores of the court ? She is/was a very realistic psychologist at Boston University doing research into perception. She investigated the psychobabble craze because her brother was suddenly accused of having committed abuse many years earlier, and she was thoroughly shocked at what clinical psychologists were doing. What did they base it on? On nothing, she writes. There is simply no research support at all for their claims.

All the people responsible for the last craze of false abuse accusations here in Norway had a set-back when the Bjugn case made it clear (though a lot of people will never admit it) that such accusations are quite often the product not of abuse but of unfounded speculations and beliefs of doctors and psychologists and social workers. But that was at the beginning of the 1990s. Now the crazies are back in full force.
  

I should perhaps have been more detailed about what I know and don't know about this aspect:

I too have seen a number of claims and even websites claiming that when children are taken by the social services it is in order to use them as sex slaves in pedophile circles, or even for organ donation (which would mean murder, of course).

I do not doubt that people who are inclined to commit such crimes, would find children bereaved of their parents very handy. But it implies a considerable degree of widespread conspiracy and I am by nature (or have become so through a long life) quite sceptical of conspiracy assumptions unless they are extra solidly proven. When it comes to CPS cases, the ordinary desire for jobs, money, prestige, children is such a prominent, clear motive for so many CPS workers, psychologists, foster 'parents' and people wanting to adopt, that we need go no further to show up the nasty sides of this 'business'.

In all the many cases of forced child removals around me which I know something of, the children are alive, and they are not planted in pedophile rings, although the percentage of foster children who end up in crime etc is frightening. But I do know of cases in which foster children are sexually abused by a foster parent or by foster 'siblings', or in institutions, and I am in no doubt that there are cases of people with pedophile interests going into the 'child care professions' or enlisting as foster parents with a special motive. Indeed one case immediately springs to mind: the 'Manavgat case': you can read about it by clicking into the article in The Hindu here: http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=7703 , and click the link in the article to "The Manavgat case in Turkey - Norway is the kidnapper".  

In that case, a foster father was vigorously defended and protected by Stavanger CPS (same leader, Gunnar Toresen, as in the India / Stavanger case ) against all claims by the boys' parents and other family that the foster father might be abusing them. The CPS would not even investigate (oh well, they are not awfully clever investigators, they are better as unfounded accusers of parents). When at long last the case against this foster father came up AND he was found guilty (and criminal cases are public, including the name of the defendant), and Toresen was later again asked about it, he said that such cases of abuse by foster parents were so terribly, terribly rare that they could never have foreseen it! - - Talk of upside down reasoning and upside down information.

  
There is some more news from Prague. Jan Simonsen has been to a meeting with a Czech EU-parliamentary representative, and afterwards to an interview on direct-sent tv. There will probably be a longer interview in a couple of days.

There are articles about it in several newspapers/websites. I have updated the Czechia thread on rbv:
http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=314&t=7715

Jan's own report of this is on his blog, but it is in Norwegian, unfortunately for most of us/you:
Kritiserte norsk barnevern på tsjekkisk TV (Criticised Norwegian child protection on Czech tv)
http://www.frie-ytringer.com/2014/12/13/kritiserte-norsk-barnevern-pa-tsjekkisk-tv/

One short (not quite accurate) article is in English:
Norwegian politician pledges help with Czech custody case
PRAGUE POST | The Voice of Prague, 13 December 2014
http://www.praguepost.com/eu-news/43262-norwegian-politician-pledges-help-with-czech-custody-case

Here is a video of the interview. Simonsen speaks English, it is overlaid by a simultaneous translation into Czech:
přehrát video
http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/1096898594-udalosti-komentare/214411000371212/video/369456
  

A propos what bryant.coleman wrote:

I did a quick search for Czech language articles about Eva Michaláková's case, with a combination of three words:
děti  (Czech, means "children")
Norsku (Czech, means "Norway" or "Norwegian")
barnevern (Norwegian, means "child protection")

The result was an overwhelming list of articles, loads of them.

Some include videos. The following two are worth looking at even if one cannot follow the dialogue. One understands most of what is going on anyway. Re the actual dialogue, I am useless, I understand only very few isolated words about things we knew already. Possibly somebody here is competent and has the time to give some more info about what they say? I noticed at Nemo1024 commented above on a Russian program, he might be Slavic-proficient?


This:
Vláda má požádat Norsko o vysvětlení případu odebraných dětí
http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ct24/domaci/294938-vlada-ma-pozadat-norsko-o-vysvetleni-pripadu-odebranych-deti/

contains a 2 minute news item, in which we see the case taken up in the Czech parliament.

•

This one is a Russian program, 28 minutes long, with Czech texting:
Juvenilní justice v Norsku - Teror byznysu s dětmi a stát ve státě - BARNEVERN
http://www.zvedavec.org/komentare/2014/12/6253-juvenilni-justice-v-norsku.htm

The Russian children's ombudsman is there several times, and many mothers, very unhappy. There are quick glimpses from the India case and the Poland case. Re the pictures from the India case, I am not sure that they have much important info about the case, because the pictures are mainly of the uncle.

A small addition still to what I have written about the India / Stavanger case:
At at the time, an Indian website carrying petitions - about all sorts of things, and luckily leaving their old threads in to be read - had an excellent suggestion, in comic style: "Throw a shoe on Norway"
http://www.haindavakeralam.com/hkpage.aspx?PageID=15323&SKIN=W

•

Here is another thread from them, where yours truly could not resist posting updates for readers:
" For Immediate Action - Norway's Child Protection Services Separates Indian Family"
http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=15314

Absolutely agrees with what I know and info I have gathered.. When I started to look into CPS matters, I found very informative websites from the USA, also some in Britain, and I corresponded with some of the people running them. In the US there were Cheryl Barnes, Pamela Gaston, Linda Martin, Freekaler, lots of sensible people writing e.g. on "Join hands" (until it was apparently taken over by other people with just about the opposite views), there are people in Canada struggling against the CPS, and in Australia. My French and German are not good, I am ashamed to say, so it is more trouble for me to find CPS-fighting people there, but they do exist.

The destructive actions and beliefs of the CPS make a very heavy international trend, fairly entrenched in the Western world, but tending to spread to other countries once they start increasing their production of social workers and psychologists.

Or what do you think, Tecshare?

I think many of us see it and I agree, especially as regards "commodity".

The terms "property" and "commodity" are problematic though. An accusation of treating their children as such is always being levelled at parents who want their children to be with them, not to be carted off to foster homes or other CPS places, once the CPS has got its eyes on the family and wants the children. The CPS (and many many ordinary people) say "The children are not your property, you know, and they are not a commodity, they have rights of their own".

Children should certainly not be the property of the state, of the school system, of various "child expert" professions, of social workers, etc. The reason is that that is not good for children, not for their objective safety, nor for their emotions.

I should say that in a good sense children are the property of their parents, just as the parents are the property of their children, because parents have feelings, instincts and impulses which are nature's best guard for the children. Children, on the other hand, have a complementary feeling of love, peace, safety when they are close to their parents, so that they tend to seek the parents when dangers threaten. Certainly there are individuals who fail utterly to love and protect their offspring, and then society is forced to step in and protect those children. But that is not the normal thing, it is an exception, while the CPS "believes" that the parents are generally just about more dangerous than anybody else. Real life is the opposite and research confirms this: children are more at risk of abuse and neglect everywhere else than with their own parents, and the children's feelings mirror this.

Compare the work of the utmost importance which the evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson have done on child abuse. It can easily be found by searching with their names, but if you find no better source, then I have made a summary of some of it here, especially in sections 7 and 8:

Child abuse which the child protection authorities do not want to know about - 2:
Violence against step-children compared to genetic children - Daly & Wilson's research
http://www.mhskanland.net/page62/page131/page131.html
15 May 2012

I think a couple of paragraphs from a reference I gave above, to "Is biological kinship irrelevant …", may also be relevant:

    "The above argument gives an evolutionary-genetic explanation of why it is that parents feel they must have their children with them, close to, and why children feel they must be with their own parents and seek to be near them when the world outside is uncertain, threatening, painful or difficult. Nor do I know of any other reasonable explanation of this behaviour in the research literature. If children and parents did not by instinct seek each other and stick together, the parents could not give care and protection in the practical situations where it is needed and the children could not receive it. The children would then be far more exposed to the dangers of this world. Giving priority to family solidarity as a matter of course is therefore perfectly rational behaviour and contributes, from an evolutionary perspective, to the fitness of the family line.
    This does not imply that family relationships are always idyllic. Some fail, and there is plenty of dissension and discord and plenty of problems. A household is a community which needs to fulfil several functions for its members. If not carried out by close relatives, who feel a nature-based love and solidarity, piety and responsiveness towards each other, these functions must be carried out by other constellations of persons. In that case the problems and conflicts and maladjustments and hatreds that arise are more comprehensive, more frequent and more difficult to overcome, and the number of such constellations which break down is correspondingly higher. This is serious for children, who most need a community which functions. Conflicts, violence and abuse is stongly over-represented in orphanages/children's homes and foster homes wherever they have been investigated in reliable research and brought into daylight (the authorities in all countries, including Norway, have a tendency to hide such facts to the best of their ability)."

Our Western social services & co simply do not understand the nature of family love. Magne Raundalen, the highly decorated psychologist who headed the committee set up by our authorities to investigate the nature of "attachment" and its possible relation to biology, said triumphantly in the important radio-and-tv program Dagsnytt 18 (news at 6 pm) - when they had concluded their work, that the committee had not found any research at all pointing to biological parents being in any special position relating to children. My own conclusion is of course that it means that Raundalen is incompetent to do research. After all, what about the world-wide evidence of what happens to children in orphanages and foster homes, while they are there and later in life? Even with adoption there are plenty of problems, actually. What about grown-up adopteds who search for their relatives? What about foster children who flee repeatedly and try to get back to their parents?
  

  
In the Czech case there are promising developments. The Czech parliament has passed decisions about what Czechia should do about this case and how child protection is to be in general, the Czech prime minister will request a meeting with the Norwegian prime minister, the Czech president is also active, they will take the case up in the European Union, the news in Czechia is chockablock full of the case, people comment, ridiculing the Norwegian CPS, drawing caricatures of them as ogres, and so on.

Some stuff is available in Norwegian, rather less in English (at least I haven't had the time or intelligence to find it), but here is a thread I have made for the case - there is something in English here as well, e.g the ridiculous statement Norway has come up with through the embassy in Prague (Norway always coughs up these silly blah-blahs about how good the CPS system is):

"Tsjekkisk familie hardt rammet av det norske barnevernet" (Czech family seriously injured by Norwegian CPS)
http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=314&t=7715

I have previously linked to Jan Simonsen's article here on bitcoin, but there is more information now.

*

Last night I pulled myself together and produced an English translation of an article I wrote 3 years ago about a Polish case; the case is rather revealing about the CPS:

"Judgment in Poland: a nine-year-old girl NOT to be extradited by Norway"
http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page229/page229.html

My hope is that although Czechs and Poles have neighbourly quarrels, this case, in which Poland protected the family from Norwegian child destruction, should encourage the Czechs too.

  

May I bring in another few links (many of them immodestly, since they are links to my own writings), as well as an important point that has not been mentioned yet.

The links, illustrating that this is quite a serious and entrenched problem:

Christopher Booker:
Indians join Slovaks in protesting against UK child snatchers
27 October 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9637487/Indians-join-Slovaks-in-protesting-against-UK-child-snatchers.html

Booker is a senior journalist/writer for The Telegraph, and has written extensively on the CPS atrocities taking place in Britain. You will find more articles of his on this question by googling his name plus some such words as "child snatching"; also, I have listed several of his articles here (where admittedly I have dealt rather harshly with him):

British press discovers the child 'protection' racket?
22 April 2012
http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page130/page130.html


Just now:

Jan Simonsen:
Child protection case damages Norway's reputation in the Czech republic
28 November 2014
http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page226/page226.html

Marianne Haslev Skånland:
Norwegian CPS action against Russian families - what is the truth?
26 November 2014
http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page224/page224.html

– Russia is alarmed at Norwegian child protection (CPS)
15 November 2014
http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page220/page220.html

**

The argument I think highly relevant is this:

The right of children to be with their own parents is as much the children's right as the parents' right. We hear almost exclusively from the parents of the injured and destroyed families, because they have a voice, while the children are mostly unable to stand up and be heard. But that does not mean that they do not suffer. Here is what Polish film-maker Roman Polanski had to say about life during the war, when he was a child:

"The strength that helped [my father] to survive is that he wanted to see me. He knew he had a child outside. …. I was a kid and I wanted to live; I wanted to see my parents. Among all possible type of suffering the greatest was the separation from the parents. I think for the child this is the saddest and most tragic – I would say – thing. Lack of comfort, hunger, whatever – it's absolutely secondary. But longing to see my father walking in the snow towards me, that was the real sad thing. Wanting to see my mother, who was taken the first."

The quotation is from the extra material on the dvd of "The Pianist":
http://www.mhskanland.net/page120/page187/page187.html

Article 8 in the European Convention of Human Rights is about the right to respect for one's private and family life. It makes clear that the right to enjoy one's family life is a MUTUAL right for parents and children. On this score the ECHR is quite a bit better than the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which to a greater extent talks of the child and his/her rights in isolation, and in downright opposition to the rights of parents.

The right to be together of course is overridden when the parents abuse the child or hinder it getting food, education, companionship of other children, and so on. But basically: The feelings of love that parents have for their children is not in opposition to the rights of the children, they are the same: the right to be together. Perhaps somebody might find something useful here?:

Is biological kinship irrelevant for the life of human beings?
11 March 2012
http://www.mhskanland.net/page62/page123/page123.html

Anyway, the mutual right to be together, considered in addition to the sufferings of a child (who is even more helpless) taken from its parents without compelling, protective reason, means that we should not in such cases ask so much: "Does this parent deserve to keep his/her child?", we should ask: "Does this child deserve to be deprived of its parent(s)?" All parents are imperfect, but they are the only parents that child has, and the love a child has for its parents springs from the most valuable sides of nature.

Marianne Haslev Skånland, Oslo

But I happen to know. It is not at all secret, since the mother, Sagarika, has with every right made totally public everything about the case. The child protection services (CPS) certainly DID use such things as hand-feeding and sleeping-arrangements as serious arguments. The son has some neurological trouble, which the BUP (child and youth psychiatry unit) and the CPS certainly did not bother about helping the family with. They branded the mother with a totally false and unfounded psychiatric 'diagnosis' and held that the son's trouble was that he had 'an attachment disorder' caused by the mother. 'Attachment theory' is a favourite quack diagnosis with the CPS, because it is quite untestable. It stems from psychoanalyst John Bowlby and has, in spite of research being done on it, very weak research support, and such support as there seems to be, could equally well be due to other causes.

Stavanger CPS tried to force Sagarika to sign away every right to ever go to court - in India!
They finally had to let the children go back to India, to stay with their paternal uncle, but Sagarika has succeeded in getting them back, going to the Indian courts. The local CPS where she lives has fully supported her, she has been thoroughly tested and evaluated by Indian psychiatrists and psychologists, who concluded that she was completely normal in spite of all she had been put through in Norway. She is taking the very best care of both her children, both with their daily care, finding special resources for the son and a special school for him, and her family fortunately understand completely all about the case and that Sagarika is blameless.

Articles relating to this India/Stavanger case:
Lots in Norwegian, but also lots of links to articles in English:
Indiske barn konfiskert - http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=314&t=6808

A very competent group of lawyers, politicians and social scientists in India has worked very thoroughly on this case and others. They have come up with several reports and a petition to the Indian Human Rights Commission.

The Confiscation of the Bhattacharya Children by Norwegian Authorities - A Case Study
http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?p=34177#p34177
http://r-b-v.net/dokument/case-study-final.pdf

We should note a sentence on p 30: "The Bhattacharya care proceedings make for sickening reading".

Humanitarian Crisis for Indian children and their families in confiscatory child care proceedings abroad
http://dokument.r-b-v.net/india/nhrc-petition-121012.pdf

Press announcement:
Save Indian Children From Confiscatory Proceedings Abroad
http://dokument.r-b-v.net/india/press-release.pdf

Suranya Aiyar - At press conference held on 12 October 2012 at the Women's Press Club
http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?p=32769#p32769

Materials Filed with Petition to NHRC
http://dokument.r-b-v.net/india/supporting-materials-with-petition-121012.pdf

Lots of articles here, some of them relating to the Bhattacharya case:
http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewforum.php?f=56

You might like to look at an article I wrote myself when the case was running. It was published by the newspaper The Hindu in Chennai:
The iron hand that rocks the cradle
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-iron-hand-that-rocks-the-cradle/article2842917.ece

*

Good luck to readers, Nemo and others. Even if Apraksin does not care, it is well worth caring and reading and finding documentation. The CPS is a menace and our Norwegian authorities lie endlessly about the "welfare" they carry out.

Marianne Haslev Skånland, Oslo