Saturday 19 March 2011

One of us

The human race seems to have a natural tendency to split itself into groups of varying sizes, the members of which claim to be better, more virtuous, cleverer, healthier or more beloved of God than all the other groups. Examples of such groups include supporters of Chelsea football team, Catholics, Girl Guides, Freemasons, Republicans, police officers, home educators, Nazis and even entire nations such as the French or English. Not infrequently, the identity of these groups is inextricably bound up with their opposition to other groups, whom they portray as being inferior and not as good as their own chosen group. So being a Chelsea supporter means believing implicitly that the supporters of the Arsenal football team are worse than your own fellow supporters, Nazis had a thing about the groups known as Communists and Jews, Republicans believe Democrats to be rogues or fools and of course the English often regard whole nations or races as being inferior to them. And then of course we come to home educators.

All too often, home educators, whether in this country or any other, define themselves by their opposition to teachers, social workers and local authority officers. They believe implicitly, just like so many other groups, that they are wiser and more virtuous than others and that they face enemies from outside the group who seek to destroy them. This sort of foolishness is generally harmless. Of course, just as with other groups, they reserve a special hatred for those whom they regard as renegades and traitors to their group; the present writer, for example! The danger arises when this identification with the group over-rides common sense and allows the members to be persuaded of things which a rational and objective observer would find incredible. This can lead to people believing all sorts of nonsense; scientology, that the earth is flat, that the British royal family are shape-shifting lizards, almost anything in fact. It can also result in the members of the group welcoming somebody into their midst and embracing him, simply because he claims to be a member of their group.

I have never been much of a one for joining groups. Living, as I have done, in various parts of the world for years, including Sweden and Israel, I have had ample opportunity to see the evils which attend the group mentality. I also have a very optimistic view of humanity, which leads me to suppose that almost all people, whichever group they belong to, are basically kind and good. I do not think at all that the Chelsea supporters are better than those who support Arsenal. Nor do I think the English better than the Germans, or the Conservatives better than Labour. All these groups contain roughly the same proportion of good and bad people; with the good vastly outnumbering the bad. What has all this to do with home education, my restless readers are asking themselves as they begin to fidget and check their emails, wondering when I am going to get to the point? Simply this. If we subscribe to the mindset that we, as home educators, belong to a group who are especially wise and good, who care more about our children than other folk and who are more right than others; then we are going to be less suspicious when approached by somebody who claims also to be a home educator. Since so many home educators also define themselves subconsciously by their opposition to other groups such as social workers and local authority officers, there is a natural tendency to assume that those supposedly persecuted by these groups are likely to be right and the social workers wrong. This is a deadly error.

My first wife was Swedish and in the seventies I lived in Sweden. I did not find it at all a socialist paradise, but nor did I think it a totalitarian state. There is, it is true, more conformity than is the case in this country, but just as with the British; most people are kind and reasonable. When a case like that of Domenic Johansson unfolds, home educators in this country experience a number of emotions, not all of them rational. The alleged victims are home educators, which means of course that we must assume them to be kind and loving parents. Those opposing them are social workers; these must be the villains of the piece! Finally, the whole affair took place abroad and this is where the typical British insularity kicks in. At the back of many people's minds is the thought, 'Well of course, foreigners! there's no telling what tricks they might get up to.' Our rational thoughts are thus suppressed and we overlook the inherent implausibility of the police being sent to stop an international flight from leaving an airport and then taking a child from his parents simply because they wished to educate him at home. Later on, when a man who may best be described as a complete maniac and may well be extremely wicked, turns up on a website in this country; he is welcomed with open arms because he tells us that he is a home educator who is concerned about the plight of a little boy snatched from other home educators in a foreign country. Common sense and logic fly out of the window and he is given an uncritical welcome because he fits all the criteria for being a member of our group.

Tomorrow, I shall be posting about the Domenic Johansson case, pointing out the inconsistencies and how the story has changed over the months since first British home educators were invited to support the cause of the Johansson family. The next day, I shall sketch out a possible hypothesis which seems to me a good deal more likely than the one to which so many parents in this country have apparently so far subscribed. I am doing this not as some sort of vindictive attack on the Johanssons, but because I have become seriously alarmed at some of what I have seen going on. I think that there might actually be dangers to home educating parents from some people involved with this case. If I am wrong, then I will be very pleased and if anybody can set me straight, I shall welcome the correction.

27 comments:

  1. Fair enough. Tell us what you've learned etc but PLEASE don't hypothesise. Too risky if you're wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'PLEASE don't hypothesise. Too risky if you're wrong. '

    I'm not sure what the risks are of doing this. People have been hypothesising about this case from day one. If I am wrong about anything which I say, all that is needed is for somebody to point out where I am mistaken. Everything which I mention is going to be backed up with quotations from supporters of the Johanssons and Christer Johansson himself. I shall also be quoting from the documents which were submitted to the European Court on behalf of the family. As I say, if I get anything wrong, I shall be happy to have others point it out for me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But by the tim e a correction comes in, if one does, your hypothesis will already by out there.

    Say if I were to publish on my blog some piece of nonsense about you which could be teribly damaging to your reputation and/or family life. You have the right of reply, obviously, but would any of my readers believe you? Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps some of it might come to the attention of your neighbours/employer/wife and daughters. What gives me the right to publish it in the first place?

    Even if it was the truth or close to the truth, or only a reasonable and credible hypothesis, what possible grounds would I have for doing that to you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'Even if it was the truth or close to the truth, or only a reasonable and credible hypothesis, what possible grounds would I have for doing that to you?'

    That depends. Suppose that I had launched a worldwide appeal, trying to get people to write to social workers in Essex on my behalf, sign petitions and contact the Queen. Imagine that you then discovered that I had been tricking you and that the case was very differnet from how I had represented it. Under those circumstances, you might well be justified in going public with your concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Please no more of the Johansson family case, I 've had enough of it! You've blogged quite extensively about them already. Guess what, I really don't care anymore. If people think their cause is one worth supporting, then that is fine for them, let them do so. But I for one am fed up of this whole thing cropping up again and again. I do not live in Sweden. I do not know those involved. Please Simon. I come here to escape all this. You have exposed the issues relating to this subject very well already. Now please, let them, and all who wish to go signing petitions with/or without examining the facts on their behalf get on with it. I'd rather you turned to examining more interesting and FRESH subjects relating to issues re. HE in this country.

    Rant over. I shall add it is YOUR blog and I am of course aware that is your perogative to cover whatever subjects or issues you like as its author. I guess I shall just have to check out for a few days!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Imagine that you then discovered that I had been tricking you and that the case was very differnet from how I had represented it."

    So do you think the HSLDA have been tricked into support this cause, or do you think they knowingly supporting members of a child abusing cult? I don't like the HSLDA, but this seems a new low for them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Now please, let them, and all who wish to go signing petitions with/or without examining the facts on their behalf get on with it."

    I'd rather he continue looking until he has some facts. So far it's all conjecture and possibilities, and if left as it is, could potentially be very harmful to the family if he's wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'I'd rather he continue looking until he has some facts.'

    But he's not planning to lay out all the facts. He can't do that because he has no real way of finding out. He's planning to lay out a hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Samantha

    I agree with you entirely.

    However, Mr Webb is like a dog with a bone and will no doubt continue on his course whatever wise counsel may be offerered him suggesting otherwise, regardless of how foolish it makes him look.

    Reading this blog has become increasingly tedious. Mr Webb has become as obsessed, dogmatic and ranting as those home educators about whom he complains.

    It is a shame that he is incapable of seeing that instead of criticising and picking constantly and attempting to be the saviour of the home ed community, his best, really valuable, interesting and entertaining posts are those in which he describes how he home educated his daughter - which could have a genuine, positive effect on how people home educate. However, the next few posts will bring more of the same rubbish so I too am checking out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "My first wife was Swedish and in the seventies I lived in Sweden. I did not find it at all a socialist paradise, but nor did I think it a totalitarian state."

    A lot can change in 30-40 years.

    "The next day, I shall sketch out a possible hypothesis which seems to me a good deal more likely than the one to which so many parents in this country have apparently so far subscribed. I am doing this not as some sort of vindictive attack on the Johanssons, but because I have become seriously alarmed at some of what I have seen going on."

    But if you have no facts, you could potentially do great harm to an innocent family and undercut support that they need. I agree the situation should be looked into, but I don't think you should be guessing at the reasons behind any 'facts' you find, especially as you tend to give things the worst possible interpretation and seem to believe pages that agree with your theory far more readily and uncritically than those that disagree with your views.

    You seem to see this as some kind of game, but people's lives are involved. If the Swedish state don't see fit to warn their citizens about this 'cult' and the result of involvement with it, maybe you are making connections that do not exist?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I sent all my children to state schools and have no axe to grind over the homeschooling issue. I count myself as being among the supporters of the Johanssons after reading about this appalling story on the internet and studying the documents available and seeing the photos and videos of an obviously healthy happy child with parents he obviously adores. I have never heard of this religious group/cult you attempting to associate the campaign with. Many of my friends and family members have joined the facebook group in support of the family for the same reasons as me, and none of them belong to this cult. For the record, I contacted Kelley, who administers the website in support of the family, whom the author of this blog implies is also a member of this cult, and she has also never heard of it. The supporters I know personally come from many and varied backgrounds, some are mainstream Christians, some agnostic, some atheist humanists. This diverse group of people may disagree on many issues, but on this point we are united; the action of the social services in Gotland is a human rights abuse which should appal any right minded person, whatever their belief system. The only justifiable reasons for removing a child from his family are abuse and neglect. Domenic’s parents have not been accused of either of these crimes by social workers or family courts in Sweden, unless you judge being home schooled by a highly educated mother with two masters degrees neglect:-
    oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/JohanssonOpinion.pdf
    And this application to the ECHR answers the insubstantial accusations that have made against them (home schooling, lack of optional vaccinations):-
    oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/JohanssonApplication.pdf
    Please also check out the family’s website which contains many photos of an obviously happy and well cared for child before his removal, and some disturbing images of a not so thriving Domenic since he has been in care:
    friendsofdomenic.blogspot.com/

    I cannot believe that the author of this blog, who has benefited from a more liberal and humane system which allowed him to home school his own child, would wish to deny that right to others. Or perhaps he finds it hard to believe, as many have before him, that a child could be torn from the arms of his loving parents for such insubstantial reasons, and is attempting to fabricate something more serious in an attempt to enable his continued state of denial.
    insubstantial accusations that have made against them (home schooling, lack of optional vaccinations):-
    http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/JohanssonApplication.pdf
    Please also check out the family’s website which contains many photos of an obviously happy and well cared for child before his removal, and some disturbing images of a not so thriving Domenic since he has been in care:
    http://friendsofdomenic.blogspot.com/

    I cannot believe that the author of this blog, who has benefited from a more liberal and humane system which allowed him to home school his own child, would wish to deny that right to others. Or perhaps he finds it hard to believe, as many have before him, that a child could be torn from the arms of his loving parents for such insubstantial reasons, and is attempting to fabricate something more serious in an attempt to enable his continued state of denial.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry, double pasted part of above comment.

    ReplyDelete
  13. More about the Royal Reptilians and the Flat Earther-9/11 truthers..Hey that reminds me, where's Pete and Caz today?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Vox Populi, vox Dei! Since there seems no interest in knowing anything more about this subject, I shall abandon it. I must answer one person who commented here though. Anonymous asked, 'So do you think the HSLDA have been tricked into support this cause,' Yes, there is not the least doubt about this. On June 25th last year, Michael Farris, a lawyer with the HSDLA, put his name to an application to the European Court. The claim was made in the application that,

    'Swedish officials removed this boy from an international flight solely to prevent his parents from moving to another nation and from educating him in a manner that is lawful in India, in Sweden, and in a majority of nations.

    It now appears obvious that the Swedish government intends to keep permanent custody of this boy simply because his parents wished to move to India and to homeschool him'

    A week later, on July 8th, Kelley Brautigam from the Friends of Domenic site, emailed me, saying,

    ' you state the Johanssons were trying to leave Sweden so that they might home school their son in peace elsewhere. Simon, nothing could be further from the truth! Homeschooling is not legal in India. Domenic was destined to attend school in India just a few short weeks after he was taken into Swedish custody. The family had their reasons to home school Domenic their last year in Sweden and never had any intention to home school him beyond that first school year.'


    Christer Johansson later confirmed this and it is now generally accepted that there was no intention to home educate the child in India. This means that the HSDLA made an untruthful and misleading application to the European Court. This is one clear example of the HSDLA being either dishonest themselves or being tricked by Christer Johansson and those around him

    ReplyDelete
  15. "'So do you think the HSLDA have been tricked into support this cause,' Yes, there is not the least doubt about this. On June 25th last year, Michael Farris, a lawyer with the HSDLA, put his name to an application to the European Court."

    I meant, have they been tricked by the family withholding the official reason given to them by Swedish officials to justify the removal of a child? How the child is going to be educated in Sweden or India is not a justifiable reason to remove and hold onto a child in my view. I would hope this is your view too.

    If there are good reasons to hold onto the child (neglect or abuse), either the family has not been told what they are (which is obviously wrong) or the family have have been told and are withholding the information from others. But it seems unlikely that lawyers acting on their behalf would not have access to that information. If there is a good reason for holding the child, why would they take the issue to the European Court where it will immediately be thrown out when Swedish officials tell them about this mystery reason?

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'Since there seems no interest in knowing anything more about this subject, I shall abandon it'

    Oh Simon, that's not why people have asked you not to continue. It's because we don't think HYPOTHESISING about a family you don't know is a very good idea.

    If you had the FACTS that might be a little different. But you don't. You just have a number of ideas. The same as the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'If you had the FACTS that might be a little different. But you don't. You just have a number of ideas. The same as the rest of us.'



    Well here are a few facts. This is one of Christer Johansson's websites;

    http://www.mepprograms.org/mcf/index.html

    Here is another one;

    http://www.manaiastudio.com/

    Following these leads should set folk on the right track.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What a talented photograper Christer Johansson is. Truly stunning images! And 'Children of the New World Foundation'...presumably the charitable trust the Johanssons were setting up to help the victims of the Indian earthquake before the Kafkaesque events which tore their world apart. And your point is Simon?

    ReplyDelete
  19. '...presumably the charitable trust the Johanssons were setting up to help the victims of the Indian earthquake '

    Nothing of the sort; Indigo children. Also look at the journal on the second site about the projected trip to Bulgaria.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A different anonymous20 March 2011 at 13:34

    Simon wrote,
    "Nothing of the sort; Indigo children"

    Where does it mention Indigo children? On the main page it states their aim as:

    Self sufficient housing, food production and
    education facilities


    "Also look at the journal on the second site about the projected trip to Bulgaria."

    So what?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Still not getting it I'm afraid. These are very tenuous links. I can't find any connection between the 'foundation' and idigo children. Adding Bulgaria to the mix seems to be like adding 2 and 2 and getting 5. And even if parents hold new age views, would this be a reason to remove their child into care. There are many unusual creeds, religious and otherwise. Surely you are not claiming 'to be better, more virtuous, cleverer, healthier or more beloved of God than all the other groups'. Wasn't that the point of your original post? Children are brought up with the views of their parents on politics, religion, lack of religion, etc., which they quite often happily discard in adolescence. What they don't discard, and what cannot be replaced is the deep, instinctive and nurturing love of their parents.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 'Where does it mention Indigo children?'

    Juan Kock

    http://www.childrenofthenewearth.com/free.php?page=articles_free/global_alliance/kock_juan/article1

    ReplyDelete
  23. 'Where does it mention Indigo children?'

    Juan Kock

    http://www.childrenofthenewearth.com/free.php?page=articles_free/global_alliance/kock_juan/article1

    I can't find any link between this site and Christer Johansson's websites.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 'Where does it mention Indigo children?'

    Juan Kock

    http://www.childrenofthenewearth.com/free.php?page=articles_free/global_alliance/kock_juan/article1'

    I can't find any link between this site and Christer Johanssons.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Okay - perhaps I am bring dense; but despite the similar sounding names are "Children of the new World" and "Children of the New Earth" actually linked?

    ReplyDelete
  26. This is of course why I was going to post about this in detail. I can't be doing with presenting the case piecemeal in this way! I shall give chapter and verse on this topic soon, when I feel that there is an appetite for hearing more about the Johanssons.

    ReplyDelete
  27. There is apetite, and there is need for more information on this! This issue is not only about sweden, because in a globalised world this practices concerns all and any of us!
    Samantha, you can run but you cannot hide: your escapism wont save you the day something like this happens to you or someone you love.
    I´ve had the chance to get to know Christer and Annie, and despite the things they are going through, they are amazing and hearty human beings. All they want is to get their son back, to be a family and get on with their lifes!
    They have been severly mistreated and their human rights steped on time and time again, and this concerns us all! Specially in a state like sweden wich honours itself with being so humane and fair, this misconduct from the authorities has to be lifted and scrutized!

    Today, the grandparents of Domenic was cited to a meeting to see their grandchild, wich they have not been able to see since november. In the last minute, social authorities said this meeting would not be arranged, accoording to them because "Domenic did not want to see them". How can this be confirmed? The fostermother has stated that she "wants to keep him and never let him go".

    L.
    A friend of the family

    ReplyDelete