Norway – a Pariah State

barnevernet-foto-cunoastelumea-ro

CITESTE despre cel mai recent caz aici – BARNEVERNETUL ATACA DIN NOU 18 ianuarie 2017

Norway – a Pariah State

In just the last 12 months I have written extensively on Barnevernet and the atrocities it commits against families under color of law. Norway’s 1991 Child Welfare Act clothes it with immunity, and this explains to a large extent the many and egregious excesses this administrative body, which operates outside of Norway’s legal system and without any meaningful judicial supervision or review, has committed for many years and continues to commit.

Last year, Norway published statistical data for 2015 related to Barnevernet’s activities. [Here’s the Report:  http://www.ssb.no/…/…/statistikker/barneverng/aar/2016-07-01] The statistics confirm what I have stated before: Barnevernet continues to wreak havoc in the lives of many families. According to the Report, in 2015 Barnevernet “assisted” 53,439 children and applied “care measures” to 10,069 children. As I explained in prior postings, a “care measure” is the act by which Barnevernet seizes children from their biological parents and places them in foster care. Without court order or warrant of any type. In 2014 9,611 children were taken away from their biological parents, and in 2013 9,078. Among the 9,611 children Barnevernet kidnapped in 2015 were the Bodnariu family’s five (5) children. Most of the kidnapped children are not returned to their biological parents but remain in foster care until they reach adulthood or are adopted. The minority of children who are returned, however, only see their parents after years of protracted hearings and, in some cases, litigation.

These numbers are staggering by any stretch of the imagination, and, I will add, frightening. The number of seized children grows from year to year, as you can see. The numbers are extreme and excessive considering Norway’s small population of 5,2 million. In a posting last year I compared the number of children taken away from their biological parents in Norway with the number of children taken into custody by the Texas Child Protective Services. Texas CPS takes into custody about 17,000 children annually. While this number still seems high, it is not necessarily excessive considering that Texas’ population is almost 28 million people. If the rate of seizure were the same in Texas as in Norway, the number of children taken into custody in Texas would be at least five times that of Norway, or over 50,000 children. But then, unlike Norway, in Texas children cannot be taken away from their biological parents except following court proceedings, sworn testimony and affidavits, the cross-examination of case workers and witnesses, and  court warrants and orders. Also the separation of children from their parents is for a very limited period of time.

None of this happens in Norway, however. Most of the children taken by Texas CPS are returned to their parents, and the majority of the other children are placed in foster care with their relatives. Only where no relatives exist or the placement with relatives is not feasible are the children placed in foster care elsewhere. The Texas practice is fairly humane, respectful of parental rights, and devised to maintain family ties and, generally, to ensure the child’s best interests. In contrast, Norway’s practice is inhumane and designed to hurt, both innocent parents and innocent children.

Crimes against humanity

I would call Barnevernet’s practice of kidnapping children a crime against humanity. No civilized state kidnaps children from their parents. Isis does. Norway and its officials are well aware of the atrocities committed by Barnevernet, one of its state agencies. For many years parents have protested, sued, cried, and pleaded with Norway to change its child protection system, and to make it more humane and more respectful of parental rights. Norway has refused to listen. It has turned a deaf ear to the pleas of thousands of parents from around the world, and a blind eye to the peaceful, public demonstrations of possibly hundreds of thousands of well meaning citizens around the world. Cumulatively, only in the Bodnariu case, more than 100,000 people demonstrated, peacefully, for the return of the children. The Bodnariu children were fortunate to be returned to their parents, but Barnevernet continues to attack and dismantle thousands upon thousands of normal, innocent families like ours, causing them much grief and harm. In the face of this massive evidence of official malfeasance and refusal to act or reform, one must conclude that Norway is a pariah state, a rogue state, a pirate state one might be tempted to say, one which, willingly condoning the intentional violation of civil and human rights, as well as parental rights, has lost all respect in the Family of Nations.

An Intolerant Norway

But there is more. Ishaan’s young mother and her extended family are Jewish. She has had her share of being bullied because of her ethnic and religious identity, being once called “Juta, Juta,” meaning “Jew, Jew,” by a boy in the neighborhood. This is reminiscent of what happened to the Bodnariu family and children as well. They, too, were targeted and bullied because of their Christian faith, in a Norway which claims to be an example of tolerance and inclusiveness for the rest of the world to follow. Far from it. Norway does not practice what it preaches. Satish Ligal, the baby boy’s Nepalese father, has been expelled from Norway. He lived there on a student visa and when the visa expired was expelled. He now lives in Portugal and is not even able to see his own son.

Note also that many of the impressions Linda expressed in her email to me are impressions I also formulated during the unfolding of the Bodnariu saga last year. Norway has a hidden agenda. Norwegians hardly reproduce and, for Norway to survive,  there is a need to convert to “norwegianism” or “scandinavianism” the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who currently live there, and, especially, their many children. Children of immigrants can no longer be killed, unlike the children storied in the First Chapter of the Book of Exodus, but the policy has the same aim  and is applied, morally speaking, by equally deplorable means.

I certainly hope that Barnevernet will immediately return Ishaan to his biological  mother and father. The child’s seizure is a crime against humanity, human decency, and a violation of civilized norms. It is a violation of the Laws of Nations to take a child from his biological mother because the mother suffers from post-partum depression. It is also a violation of basic human rights for the state to knock on one’s door and say „hand over your children to the state,” without court papers or good cause.

The family has written to the case worker requesting the return of the child. Their plea, however, was in vain. Surprisingly, the case worker responded, informing the family that “the baby is being taken very good care of” in foster care. Nothing was said, however, about returning the child to his biological parents.

Peter Costea is a civil rights attorney practicing in Houston, Texas. He also holds a PhD in diplomacy from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Boston, Massachusetts.

Reclame

CAZUL BODNARIU: Articole Juridice – PETER COSTEA – Some important judicial articles on the Bodnariu case by Civil Rights Attorney Peter Costea

Peter Costea Foto Parlamentul European.ro

Civil rights attorney practicing in Houston, Texas. He also holds a PhD in diplomacy from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Boston, Massachusetts.

Tot despre cazul Bodnariu – o colecție de articole juridice (în lb. engleză) ale dr. Petre Costea, avocat în baroul Texas, președintele Alianței Familiilor din România, una din organizațiile membre ale Coaliției pentru Familie. E unul din oamenii care au muncit serios și constant în favoarea familiei Bodnariu. După cum s-a văzut, nu degeaba.

  • In Norway, Barnevernet taketh children away and God giveth them back
  • In Norway, God giveth children and Barnevernet taketh them away! –

  • 66,6 hours in Norway 

  • Norway’s religious animus in the abduction of the Bodnariu children – 

  • Dreading the dreadful – Norwegians fear Barnevernet – 

  • A Norway gone Berserk – 

You can read all of these articles here –

http://www.culturavietii.ro/author/petre/ (via Coalitia pentru familie)

Norway flag

IN LIMBA ROMANA :

 Peter Costea OFFICIAL STATEMENT read at the APril 16, 2016 Protest in TEXAS  (Video) – https://rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/peter-costea-official-statement-global-protest-against-barnevernet-bucharest-16-april-2016-2/
Peter Costea la NASUL TV  – Peter Costea la Nasul TV despre cazul Bodnariu 

Peter Costea – Barnevernet Responds – with Falsehoods

Peter Costea Foto Parlamentul European.ro
You may recall on May 13, 2016 over 100 attorneys from around the world submitted a petition to Norway’s Prime Minister requesting the release of the Bodnariu children. On June 23 I received the below response from Norway’s Ministry of Children and Equality. (Note that “Family” is missing from the Ministry’s name). Though I appreciate the response I must respectfully call it what it is – hog wash. It is an agenda driven, irresponsible diatribe defending the most unlawful child protection services I have ever known. How can the Ministry defend, with a straight face, a system which allows the seizure of children from parents, on a whim, without court order, and the even more radical practice of depriving parents of their children without due process and in the absence of court proceedings?
Regretfully, Norway is not a land of freedom. It is not the perfect system the Ministry’s response purports it to be. Norway does not have even the foggiest idea of what civil rights are. The response pushes the same deception to which the world community has been used for years. It is full of distortions, falsehoods, and of “Norway can do no wrong” misrepresentations. But, in the end, don’t take my word for it. Read the response for yourself. Those of you who survived communism and lived under a totalitarian system, like I did, will agree with me, no doubt, that even the propaganda department of a ruling communist party could not have written a more deceptive statement.
See below:
Royal Norwegian Ministry of Children and Equality letter to Peter Costea

Peter Costea – IN NORWAY GOD GIVETH CHILDREN AND BARNEVERNET TAKETH THEM AWAY!

Redati copii inapoi- Familia Avramescu, Bodnariu si Nan. Norvegia FOTO AGNUS DEI

The Romanian families whose children were taken by Barnevernet: Avramescu, Nan, and Bodnariu.. there are more who have not come forward out of fear and threat from Barnevernet

Annually, in Norway, nearly 10,000 children are taken away from their parents on a whim by Barnevernet, Norway’s Child Protective Services. In midNovember 2015 it seized, unlawfully and without court order, the five (5) minor children of Marius and Ruth Bodnariu, a Romanian-Norwegian Pentecostal family living in Naustdal, Norway. The smallest of the children was three (3) months old at that time, and the oldest nine (9) years of age. Documents which surfaced since the children’s seizure reveal, scandalously, that the main motivation for the seizure of the children was the family’s religion. Fortunately, the Bodnarius, along with tens of thousands of their supporters around the world, have pushed back. [Details: www.bodnariufamily.org]
peter costeaThe five (5) innocent Bodnariu children were among the tens of thousands of children Barnevernet has snatched away from their parents on a whim in recent years. Norway has a long track record in this regard, but one dotted by shameless actions. For way too long. The seizure of the children is accomplished under color of law while Norway’s judicial system, politicians, and media look the other way, claiming that the world does not understand their country, and stubbornly digging in their heels. Statistics published earlier this year reflect the magnitude of this crisis which Norwegians ignore, believing and insisting through all media channels possible, including social, that their country is perfect and in no need to be lectured by the victims, their families, or the world. The statistics, however, send chills down one’s spine. It is impossible to argue with the numbers. And, after reading this piece, you will likely ask yourself, like many other rational people of good faith from around the world, how can anything of this nature and magnitude happen in Europe, or in 2016, or in a Norway which has signed multiple international covenants pledging to protect and respect human rights, including parental rights, and, ironically, is also a signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights?
Frightening statistics
In 2014, the most recent year for which statistics are available, Barnevernet took 9,611 children
away from their parents. In 2013 it seized 9,078, and in 2012 8,995. The total for the three years is 27,684. The ages of the children start at birth and go up to 23 years. From birth even because,
Page 2
as you will read below, some children are not even given to their parents after birth. These numbers are no doubt staggering and mind-boggling. They leave you aghast. The complete report, put out by the Norwegian government, is found here: https://www.ssb.no/en/sosiale-forho…. According to the same report, in 2014 Barnevernet launched 41,922 „investigations,” and completed 41,016. This would appear to indicate that almost 42,000 families were investigated by Barnevernet in one year alone. That is, investigated, not merely contacted or visited. The same report also informs that in 2014 Barnevernet received 59,996 complaints, or „notifications,” about children and youth. The number of investigations and of the children actually seized is staggering considering that Norway’s population stands at only 5.2 million people.
And it is not only portentous but also out of pace with similar statistics available from other advanced countries or states. For instance, in Texas, 17,378 children were removed from their parents in 2014 by its Child Protective Services. Yet, in 2014 Texas’ population stood at over 27 million, that is, more than five (5) times Norway’s population. [Details: http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/About_D…] The entire youth population of Texas, below the age of 17, stood at over 7 million in 2014. If Texas’ CPS were allowed to operate outside the bounds of the law, as Barnevernet does in Norway, and just as zealously, then more than 50,000 Texas children through the age of 17 would be removed from their parents annually in Texas as well.
Norway’s Child Welfare Act
In the statistical data provided by Norway, the children seized by Barnevernet are listed in the line-item called „care measure.” What is a „care measure?” The name is misleading and it is not what it suggests. To understand what it is, one needs to reference Norway’s Child Welfare Act („Act”), improperly so titled because, among others, the Act institutionalizes the monster Norway has created in Barnevernet, an outlaw institution which operates against the best interests of the children and criminalizes parents who practice responsible parenting styles.
Adopted in 1992, the Act pretends that its main purpose is to ensure that children and young persons „who live in conditions that may be detrimental to their health and development receive the necessary assistance and care at the right time.” (Section 1-1) While this objective is no doubt laudatory, the legal terms and structures designed to address the problems children and youth face are themselves the problem and the source of the much pain Barnevernet has inflicted on families and children alike. The Act addresses not actual problems but what Barnevernet assesses, or „may” view, as the Act states, to be an actual problem when one does not in fact exist. The „may be detrimental” language is extremely subjective and inevitably opens the door to abuse and irrational actions on the part of the authorities. I would venture to say that the Act, if enacted in the United States, would long have been struck down as unconstitutional for vagueness. In Norway, each municipality is tasked with „monitoring the conditions in which children live.” (Section 3-1) That is where the process of seizing children starts, on the basis of a very vague and subjective assessment of the status of the children. And, by the time the process ends in Oslo, Norway’s Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights, the road
Page 3
travelled will have been so extremely long, exhausting, costly, time-consuming, and designedly adversarial at every step of the way, that not a few parents will have given up by then.
The nomenclature „care measures” appears in Section 4-12 of the Act as „care orders.” They are the orders pursuant to which the 9,611 children identified in the 2014 Barnevernet statistical report were seized. Though they are called „care orders”‘ in reality no „orders” are issued. This terminology is misleading. No one in Norway signs „care orders.” There is no judge, court of law, or official document issued or shown to parents when Barnevernet’s officials show up at the doors of families requesting them to surrender their children.
So what happened to the 27,684 children seized by Barnevernet from their parents in 2012, 2013, and 2014 without court order, and to the children that continue to be seized? The vast majority of them end up in foster care, others end up being adopted, and some are returned to their parents. The return usually happens after years of protracted and exhausting litigation, first within the Barnevernet system itself, and then outside of it in the regular judicial system. This is what, in fact, happed to the Bodnariu children. Initially, the five (5) children were separated into three (3) groups and placed with three (3) different foster homes, in three (3) different Norwegian towns, hundreds of kilometers away from their biological parents and from each other. The foster homes, however, can more properly be called mini kindergartens, because the children live there with other children under the care and supervision of a caretaker called “foster parent.” The youngest Bodnariu child was returned to his parents in April, but the remaining four (4) continue to live with their foster caretakers. The caretakers are paid by the state for taking care of the children. However, since the children live with a number of other children, the appellative „mini kindergarten” or „mini day care center” would be a very accurate way to describe the reality of the living arrangements of the children. The children also vary in age.
But there are additional wrinkles, a paramount one being that the foster parents are not married. The women with whom the Bodnariu children live are not married to the men who live with them. They cohabit, and the Bodnariu children, along with the other children the women care for are, of course, not their biological children. Try, then, to make sense of the bizarre nature of these „families.” The adults are not married. So, there is no marriage. The adults have no children of their own. So, there is no natural or biological family to speak of. There are only „living arrangements” dictated by the state where the woman tasked by the state to care for a number of children lives with her boyfriend, and the children she cares for are not her biological children. Pretty complicated, isn’t it? Defiant of the nature’s norms? No doubt. Is this sort of „living arrangements” contemplated by Norway’s Child Welfare Act healthy for children in general, or, in this case, for the Bodnariu children? No rational person can say that it is.
Musical parenting
Lately, I’ve been reading Isabel V. Sawhill’s Generation Unbound – Drifting into Sex and Parenthood without Marriage. Published in 2014, the book is an eye opener. Its author is not a controversial person and cannot be labeled as an intellectual of the political right or left. She tries
Page 4
to stay in the middle and be nonjudgmental. She is a senior fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, a think tank with a liberal bent.
Some of the observations she makes in this book are astonishing and describe the horrible impact which cohabitation has on children. One particular section in her book discusses what she labels „musical partnerships,” by which she expresses the difficulties children face when their unmarried biological mothers drift in and out of relationships with various live-in boyfriends. The instability of the relationships and the constant changing of the boyfriends impacts not only the mother but particularly the children. The unstable and constantly changing family environment scars them. „This game of musical partners,” Sawhill writes, „affects children in various ways. In comparison with parents in stable relationships, cohabiting couples invest less time and money in their children. Mothers are likely to find the changes in their own relationships or household living arrangements stressful. This leads to harsher parenting and less time devoted to learning activities in the home. The children end up with lower scores and poorer physical and mental health than children in intact families, even after adjusting for other differences between the two groups.” (Pages 71-72) Notably, each sentence I reproduced here is heavily footnoted with supporting materials and studies published in credible scholarly journals and written by reputable scholars and psychologists.
But here is where Sawhill really hits the nail on the head: „In recent years, as musical parenthood or the family-go-round has become more common, the focus has been less on the absence of a father and more on how family instability affects children. In fact, a stable single-parent family in which a child does not experience the constant comings and goings of new boyfriends (or girlfriends) or the addition of new half-siblings has begun to look like a better environment than musical parenthood. When the adults involved end up with multiple children by different partners, they may have a larger number o children to support than if they had stuck with just one relationship. … Children need not just financial security but also a certain amount of stability in their lives and their relationships if they are to develop secure and trusting ties with others.” (Page 72) I take this to mean that in the foster parenting environments where the social parent is in a cohabiting relationship with diverse or successive live-in-boyfriends, this causes the children emotional turbulence. This, it seems, is a much worse outcome for a foster child than living with his or her biological parents even if the parents occasionally discipline her. [Note: I recommend a summary of Sawhill’s findings recently published by the Brookings Institution: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/soci…]
The new face of parenting in Norway (and elsewhere)
This precisely is the new face of parenting and parenthood in Norway which its Child Welfare Act institutionalizes and Barnevernet faithfully executes. Most of the seized children end up living with „musical partners” who practice „musical parenting,” and are dragged, against their will, into the new wave of „musical parenthood.” According to the Act, children can be removed from their parents by Barnevernet without court order or any order from a supervising government body. Barnevernet can even terminate the parent-child relationship without court
Page 5
order. Where children are not removed from their parents, Barnevernet can, nevertheless, appoint a „supervisor for the children” to monitor family life under the pretense of preventing harm to the children. (Section 4-4) Where children have lived with foster parents for „more than two years,” there is a presumption that they had become so attached to their foster parents, that it would be against their best interests to be returned to their biological parents. (Section 4-8) Under certain circumstances, even newborns can be removed by Barnevernet from their biological parents right after birth where the parents are entirely deprived of their rights to the children. (Section 4-8) Foster parents can object to the children being returned to their biological parents, but the Act does not provide for the birth parents to object to the foster parents Barnevernet selects. Likewise, the children cannot consent or object to being placed in foster care or to the foster parents. (Section 4-21) Foster parents also have priority in the adoption of the children they have fostered following the termination of the parental rights of the biological parents. (Section 4-20) They likewise can object to the attempts of biological parents to have „care orders” revoked and the children returned to them. (Section 4-21)
While Norway appears to be a trailblazer in the complete redefinition of parenting, the rise of social parenting in the Western World, and the promotion of the primacy of foster parenting over biological parenting, the trend extends to the United States as well. If not so much in practice, and not as extensively as in Norway, the writings of academics demand that it be so. In 2013 New York University Press published What Is Parenthood? Contemporary Debates about the Family, an extensive compilation of essays by a large number of legal scholars, sociologists, and activists. The book proposes, among others, „a diversity approach to parenthood in family life and family law,” the „uncoupling of marriage and parenting,” and demographic redistribution under the guise of „social policy and responsible parenthood.” A central theme of the book is a new definition of parenthood. It „defines parenthood more by reference to the quality of the relationship – or, to use a psychological concept, attachment – between adult and child than to whether a marital relationship exists between two opposite-sex adults or a biological tie between adult and child. It recognizes that adult-adult intimate relationships often produce and may be linked to parent-child bonds, as in marriage. However, it also recognizes that adult-adult intimate bonds are not always the anchor of parent-child bonds; some parent-child bonds form and flourish outside of marriage or other adult intimate relationship.”
Who are the foster parents?
Who are the foster parents to whom Barnevernet entrusts the seized children for care? Public statistical data on this subject is not available but one can fairly reasonably infer that most children end up being placed with unstable, cohabiting couples. What evidence is there pointing in this direction? Consider that in Norway only about 41% of the adult population between the ages of 21 and 79 is married, while about 28.5% of the people in the same age bracket cohabit.
[Details: http://family-studies.org/cohabitat…] Chances are, therefore, that most of the children Barnevernet removes end up in unstable cohabiting environments. The married couples likely have children of their own and fostering children may not be a viable option for them. And, according to the Norwegian media, some of the children end up with same-sex foster parents. Recently, Norway’s press commented on
Page 6
Barnevernet’s plans to speed up the placement of the removed children with gay couples as foster parents and then for adoption. [Details: http://www.nrk.no/sognogfjordane/fo…] Forget the fact that the International Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to a mother and a father, to know their biological parents, and to be raised by them. (Article 7) Forget, also, the reality that each one of these children initially had a mother and a father.
Because of lack of statistical data the dimensions of this new social experiment, risky one might add, are not fully known in Norway. But comparative statistical data exists for Great Britain where in 2015 8% of all adopted children, or 450 of the total, were adopted by homosexual couples. [https://www.gov.uk/government/stati…] This is a disproportionately high percentage considering that, according to an article published on May 15, 2016 in The Spectator, Great Britain’s homosexuals comprise only about 1.5% of Britain’s population. [Details: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0…]
Criminalizing children in foster care
The life of children in foster care is unenviable. The skies are not always blue in foster families. On the contrary, life in foster care can be very infelicitous. In foster care the children continue to misbehave as they did when they lived with their biological parents. In fact, their misbehaving worsens after their removal from parental authority. Foster parents are not allowed to exercise parental authority or discipline the children in their care. The increased misbehaving is attributed to the children living with non-siblings and to difficulties they experience in adjusting to the often shaky relationships of the foster parents. Frequently, the misbehaving consists of violence, breaking plates, the children thrashing their rooms, fighting with other children, breaking windows, sniffing glue. When aggressive acts of this nature occur, the foster parents do not discipline the children, but call the police instead. The police intervenes and the children are treated as suspected criminals.
Believing that the children might do well in other foster homes, many of the misbehaving children are relocated by UK’s CPS with different foster homes. The constant hopping around, from place to place, from one foster family to another, is impacting the children negatively. They move in and out of family environments and schools and cannot grow social roots. Other misbehaving children are placed in special juvenile homes, are charged with breaking the law, are hauled before judges, and some are pronounced guilty of criminal misdeeds. In other words, they become criminals. By the time they reach the age of 18, they are convicted criminals, entering society and the labor market with criminal convictions. Some of them even end up with long wrap sheets by the time they turn 18. They are victimized by the very system which the law designed to protect them.
Data on this little known aspect of life in foster homes in Norway is unknown. But, fortunately it is published in the United Kingdom and the data there is scary. According to an article published in The Guardian on March 29, 2016, while only 1% or so of children who live with their
Page 7
biological parents end up with a criminal conviction by age 18, 6% of children raised in foster homes end up with one or more criminal convictions by age 18. [Details: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/…] Surveys on children raised in foster care also reveal that they prefer to live with their biological parents in spite of the occasional abuse or neglect to which their birth parents subjected them.
God giveth children and Barnevernet taketh them away.
So, in Norway, as elsewhere in the world, God gives children. But only in Norway are they being taken away from their parents on a whim, and with an excess of zeal and ferociousness unmatched anywhere else in the world. One might ask why? What is really going on here? Is there something peculiar to Norway that compels it to act like this?
I have said it before, and I repeat it here. Since I have started to dedicate a lot of my time to study the Bodnariu matter, have familiarized myself with Norway’s laws on child welfare, read its statistics on the subject, and compared them with practices in other Western nations and Texas, I am inclined to believe that Norway is up to something extremely shameful. I am talking about an undeclared policy of demographic redistribution. Norway is aging. Norway is not producing children. It is importing them. The children of immigrants make up a disproportionately high percentage of Norway’s young population. Norway’s population below the age of 22 is about a million and a half. Some 200,000 of them, or a little over 13%, are children and youth born to immigrants. The overwhelming majority of the immigrants are non-Europeans attached to religions and traditional values alien to Norway’s increasingly secularized society. And these children and youth can be a problem for Norway’s future. In a few generations, if remaining steady, current demographic trends will change Norway so fundamentally that it will cease to be Norwegian or European. Barnevernet’s job, then, is to seize the children and place them in Norwegian homes where they will lose their ethnic and linguistic identity and become Norwegian.
And there is another piece of troubling evidence leading to the same conclusion. Though Norway has ratified the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, it has not signed its Optional Protocols. For good reason. Under the Protocols, parents and children from Norway would have the option and the right to lodge complaints with United Nations treaty bodies against Norway and its insensitive child abduction policies and practices. There are no signs that Norway will sign the Protocols. At least not in the predictable future. Because, as long as the Protocols are not signed, secrecy is ensured for Barnevernet’s sordid practices and the world will not become aware of them. And until Norway signs the Protocols or changes its domestic legislation, Barnevernet’s victims will be left without recourse, at its mercy, and immigrant children will continue to undergo compulsory conversion to become Norwegian.

Peter Costea – Norway rebuked at Houston’s international oil conference

OTC (''Offshore Technology Conference") is an annual event occurring in May in Houston, Texas,

OTC (”Offshore Technology Conference”) is an annual event occurring in May in Houston, Texas,

OTC (”Offshore Technology Conference”) is an annual event occurring in May in Houston, Texas, the world’s energy capital. It is the largest conference of this nature in the world. Thousands of international businessmen, diplomats, politicians, engineers, journalists, and investors from more than 100 countries converge on Houston for the occasion, attend events, and network for four days.

Houston’s Romanian community used this opportunity to protest, the first in May, Norway’s unlawful seizure by Barnevernet of the five (5) children of Marius and Ruth Bodnariu. Several members of the community picketed the conference in the morning holdings signs protesting Norway’s abusive and unconscionable conduct. Hundreds, if not thousands, of local and international visitors read the signs and were also given a specially prepared flyer protesting Norway’s insensitive action. Here’s the text of the letter:

On November 16 and 17, 2015 Barnevernet, Norway’s Child Protection Services, seized, without court order, the five (5) children of tender age of Marius and Ruth Bodnariu, a Romanian-Norwegian married couple, because of the family’s Christian faith. The family is Pentecostal. At the time of the unlawful seizure, the children were between three (3) months and nine (9) years old, and the parents 36. After the seizure, the children were dispersed to live in foster homes in three (3) different cities around Norway , hundreds of kilometers apart from their parents and from one another. This is unacceptable, and you can only imagine the harm and mental anguish this has caused the children and their parents.

The seizure of the children was done without court order and without any prior proceedings in a court of law allowing the police or Barnevernet to seize the children. The four (4) oldest children were seized from the family without the knowledge of their parents. The youngest child was seized by force after four (4) police officers and two (2) Barnevernet social workers arrived, under cover of darkness, at the family’s farm and demanded the three-month old baby be turned over to them. Anything of this nature would have been unheard of in the United States , Texas , or anywhere else in the civilized world.

The mother of the children is a pediatric nurse and has worked, prior to her marriage, with Romania ‘s orphans for years. The father is an IT specialist working for the municipality of Naustdal , the small town in South-West Norway where the family lives. Documents which surfaced in the course of the proceedings reveal, unmistakably, that Barnevernet was motivated, in seizing the children, by the family’s Christian faith. They state Barnevernet was „worried that the parents’ parenting style is based on the Bible.” This is a gross violation of human rights, of religious liberty, and of parental rights on the part of the Norwegian authorities.

The BBC has done a documentary on this tragedy, and on April 16, 2016 more than 60,000 individuals held many demonstrations around the globe, covering nearly all time zones, condemning the seizure of the children. Different publications in the United States and Europe have also condemned the children’s abduction and have demanded their release.

Please consider reminding your Norwegian business partners that neither Barnevernet nor Norway are above the law, and that Norway has an obligation to abide by international treaties which demand respect for parental rights, religious liberty, and the rights of children to know and be raised by their biological parents.

Please take the time to learn more about this case by visiting the official website of the global movement for the release of the Bodnariu children at www.bodnariufamily.org. Thank you.

Peter Costea

66,6 ore în Norvegia: Pornografia este prezentă în școli încă de la 12 ani….

OSLO citi center Photo oslo-norway.ca

Multe s-au spus și s-au scris despre sistemul de protecție al copiilor din Norvegia sau Barnevernet, așa cum mai este cunoscut în România, mai ales după apariția cazurilor Bodnariu și Nan. Pe 16 aprilie, în mai multe orașe din România, Europa, America dar și Australia, vor avea loc proteste pentru eliberarea copiilor familiei Bodnariu.

Unul dintre cei care au cunoscut realitățile norvegiene îndeaproape, românulGeorge Alexandru (Alexander) a fost nevoit să părăsească jobul din Norvegia după ce a dezvăluit cum se petrec lucrurile în această țară.

peter costeaAcum, afirmațiile lui George Alexander sunt întărite de mărturia unui alt român, de data aceasta cetățean american. Avocatul Petre (Peter) Costea, ce profesează de peste 25 de ani în SUA, a vizitat Norvegia la finalul lunii februarie. Acesta a povestit, pe pagina sa de facebook, câteva dintre impresiile cu care a rămas despre această țară și sistemul ei social.

Printre altele, acesta a povestit că în Norvegia, copiii sunt învățați de mici despre relațiile între persoane de același sex, iar pornografia este prezentă în școli încă de la vârsta de 12 ani. Mai mult, copiii sunt chestionați zilnic asupra vieții de familie, inclusiv în chestiuni banale, precum mâncatul dulciurilor sau discuțiile dintre părinți. Părinții sunt obligați să se izoleze de copii o perioadă de timp și nu au voie să îi întrebe despre ce au făcut în acel interval.

„Copiii sunt invatati in scoli ca relatiile sexuale intre persoane de acelasi sex si casatoriile homosexuale sunt normale si, incepind cu varsta de 12 ani, vizualizeaza pornografie la orele de clasa. Copiii vin acasa cu fata plina de rusine, confuzie, si se pling parintilor. Au dificultati cu stimularea sexuala produsa lor de vizualizarea pornografiei la scoala. Cind copiii ajung la varsta de 14 ani parintilor li se impune sa le acorde copiilor „timp liber” in fiecare zi. In „timpul liber” parintilor nu li se da voie sa puna intrebari serioase copiilor lor, de exemplu „ce faci”, „unde mergi”, „la ce te uiti”? Nici sa le dea de lucru pe linga casa. Timpul liber e desemnat, mi s-a spus, sa permita adolescentilor sa „se descopere personal” si sa-si descopere „identitatea”. Un parinte mi-a descris frustrarea si indignarea vecinului sau care nu putea sa-si intrebe fiica ce face cu prietenul ei in camera ei in fiecare miercuri dupa masa. Nici nu putea spune baiatului sa plece acasa”, a scris Peter Costea.

O altă întâmplare șocantă arată cât de mare este teroarea la care sunt supuși părinții de către autorități. O mamă a preferat să-și lase fiica să sângereze, decât s-o ajute, de teamă că trecătorii și autoritățile ar putea interpreta gestul ca unul de ascundere a faptei. Mama a așteptat ca autoritățile să ajungă la fața locului și să acorde primul ajutor copilei.

„Am mai auzit o poveste care practic m-a socat. O mama si-a dus fiica la mall, fata a spart o fereastra, s-a taiat, si a inceput sa sangereze. Mama a facut poze si a solicitat celor din jur sa scrie declaratii ori sa-i fie martori ca nu ea a cauzat vatamarea fetei. Nici mama nici cei din jurul ei nu au sarit sa ajute fata de teama sa nu fie acuzati de violenta. Interventia a fost lasata pe seama autoritatilor odata ajunse la fata locului”, a notat Costea.

Marius Ruth Bodnariu Photo Active News

Iată textul postat de Peter Costea pe facebook:

Am petrecut 66,6 de ore sau cam asa ceva in Norvegia spre sfarsitul lui februarie 2016. A fost prima mea calatorie acolo. Am aterizat in Oslo cam pe la amiaza intr-o miercuri, si am plecat pe la cam putin dupa 6 dimineata sambata urmatoare din Bergen, un oras pe coasta de vest a Norvegiei. A fost o calatorie rapida care, insa, mi-a deschis ochii spre Noua Norvegie, unde familia, casatoria, cresterea copiilor si drepturile parentale s-au transformat in ceva ce pina acuma umanitatea nu a vazut si istoria nu a cunoscut, inclusiv realitatea socanta ca minorii si copiii pot fi luati de la parintii lor, si chiar decazuti din depturile de parinte, fara ordin judecatoresc.
Un caz umanitar
De-a lungul anilor m-am obisnuit sa aud ori sa citesc frecvent despre Norvegia. Mai tot ce am auzit ori citit provenea din mass media. Nu imi amintesc vreodata sa fi citit ceva negativ despre Tara Vikingilor. Ca avocat care a practicat avocatura de multi ani in Houston, am dat in judecata multe companii mari norvegiene pentru clientii mei. Asta m-a familiarizat, intr-o masura limitata, cu Norvegia, cultura ei, oamenii ei, si afacerile ei internationale. A fost suficient, insa, sa-mi dau seama de magnitudinea prezentei economice a Norvegiei in Texas. Deasemena, am cunoscut, tot prin intermediul litigiilor judecatoresti, manageri ai marilor companii norvegiene care fac afaceri in Texas.
Frecvent am citit si date statistice despre Norvegia. Norvegia e in topul tarilor din perspectiva multor categorii relevante si importante: sanatate, educatie, prosperitate economica, nivelul de trai, longevitatea vietii, si alte categorii similare. Rapoartele publicate de ONU dovedesc asta. In plus, Norvegia are bine cunoscutul fond suveran care inca e evaluat la cam 800 de miliarde de dolari, dupa ce a ajuns la peste 900 de miliarde in 2008 inainte de declansarea crizei economice mondiale si colapsul pretului petrolului.
Cu toate acestea, in doar 66,6 de ore, multe din impresiile mele privind Norvegia s-au schimbat. Sau, mai bine zis, mi-am format si alte opinii. Din nefericire, mai toate au fost negative si au fost cauzate de motivul pentru care am mers in Norvegia: un caz de rapire oficiala a copiilor de catre autoritatile norvegiene. Cu luni in urma, am acceptat un caz umanitar, pro bono, care implica Norvegia. Este un caz pe care astazi, dupa multa munca de cercetare si investigatii, il  numesc, asa cum ziceam, un caz de rapire oficiala de copii…….
 CONTINUAREA aici – http://www.activenews.ro/stiri-social/66-6-ore-in-Norvegia-Pornografia-este-prezenta-in-scoli-inca-de-la-12-ani.

Norway’s religious animus in the abduction of the Bodnariu children

Photo credit Hege Louise Lystad

Photo credit Hege Louise Lystad

Civil rights attorney practicing in Houston, Texas. He also holds a PhD in diplomacy from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Boston, Massachusetts. His website: www.costealaw.com

Questions have abounded whether the Norwegian authorities have been adversely motivated by the Bodnariu Family’s Evangelical faith in abducting their five (5) children in midNovember 2015. They have, and the evidence of it is plenty. Documents and minutes of meetings have emerged since the abduction showing that as early as October 13, 2015, more than a month before the children were taken into custody, the officials at Naustdal municipality disapproved of the parenting style of the Bodnariu parents believing it, after questioning the children, to be based on the Bible. They plainly state that Barnevernet „is worried that this is a way of upbringing which is justified by the Bible.” The authorities pivoted their contemplated removal of the children on the „attitude” the parents „have to their own faith and way of upbringing when it comes to religion.” The documents also mention that the children were „brought up to respect God and their parents’ values.” Barnevernet interpreted this as a possible conflict between the children’s assumed inability to live up to their parents’ value expectations and faith and that the parents’ religion could create an „inner conflict” in the children and a stressful family environment. Religion is bad for children, Barnevernet’s minutes seem to say, and too much religion is lawful justification for snatching children away from their parents.

There you have it, plain and simple. Not even Richard Dawkins could have said it better. Dawkins is famous for the assertion he made in his 2006 bestseller The God Delusion that teaching the Bible to children is child abuse. Undeniably, the Bodnariu family’s religion and commitment to Christian values drew the attention of Barnevernet officials and featured prominently in their discussions and strategy prior to the children’s removal. So, the statement that Barnevernet was motivated by a religious animus when abducting the Bodnariu children is accurate and supported by the evidence. The Bible is mentioned four (4) times in the minutes, God once, and religion once. Religion, in fact, appears as a separate subject of discussion in relation to what to do with the children.

Why would the family’s religion irritate Barnevernet? The answer is straightforward: Barnevernet embodies Norway’s secular parental ideology. When it conflicts with the parenting style of traditional parents or parents whose parenting style is influenced by religion, in this case Christianity, Barnevernet wins out. Always. Simply because, as an arm of the Norwegian state, it holds the sword and wields it over traditional families.

And, while this is unfortunate, it may not necessarily be that unexpected considering Norway’s advanced degree of secularization. In May 2012 the Norwegian Parliament voted unanimously to abolish the status of the Lutheran Church as the National Church of Norway. News reports at that time indicated that by 2012 72% of Norway’s population, or approximately 3,6 million Norwegians, were non-believers, and that only about 2% of the country’s population attended church regularly. Also, according to Gallup World Polls taken around 2005 only 23% of Norwegians viewed religion as an important component of their daily lives, and nearly 7% claimed to be atheist. Christianity is in decline, too. A global study on the future of Christianity, released in 2013, indicated that while in 1970, 98,8% of Norwegians claimed a Christian religious identity, by 2020 only 87,29% will do so. Also, by 2020, 3,4% of Norway’s population is expected to be Muslim.

One major implication of all this is that in secular Norway traditional and faith-based parenting approaches have become irrelevant, a thing of the past, and secular parenting ideologies replace them. This also explains why approximately 25% of all children taken into custody in Norway are children of immigrants who are known for their traditional values, and some are religious refugees. The rest of the children are removed due to the lifestyle choices of the biological parents, such as drug consumption or addiction, alcoholism, or mental problems. Immigrants and refugees are normally not known for engaging in risky life styles of this nature, but for their traditionalism, and, in family matters, for conservative approaches to family relations and child rearing.

Barnevernet is a reflection of the profoundly secular nature of Norwegian society. Sociologists, among them the world renown W. Bradley Wilcox, observed, as early as 2009, that as the welfare state, of which Norway is a foremost example, succeeds in eroding or even displacing traditional, family or faith-based morality, state-dictated morality rooted in post-modern values of the secular state replaces it. The state has become the mother and father of succeeding generations and welfare benefits replace parental responsibilities toward their children.

Read more here – http://www.culturavietii.ro/2016/02/24/norways-religious-animus-in-the-abduction-of-the-bodnariu-children/

FURTUL DE COPII ROMÂNI ÎN MAREA BRITANIE

a

FURTUL DE COPII ROMÂNI ÎN MAREA BRITANIE

Peter Costea: La începutul săptămâni am primit o informaţie din partea unei cititoare că recent autorităţile din Marea Britanie au decăzut din drepturi o familie de romani din Londra, le-a luat doi copii minori şi i-au dat spre adopţie unui cuplu homosexual. Un copil are opt ani şi unul împlineşte 5 ani anul acesta. Ştirea a fost verificată de mine personal înainte de a o publica şi sper să vă pot da detalii adiţionale în viitorul apropiat.

E vorba de Familia Florin şi Claudia Barbu cu care deja suntem în contact telefonic şi electronic. Invit Executivul României să negocieze, iar Parlamentul României să adopte, tratate bilaterale cu ţările din Uniunea Europeană pentru protejarea cetăţenilor romani minori pe care serviciile de protecţie a copiilor din aceste ţări îi iau de la părinţii lor. Cu permisiunea părinţilor vă pun la dispoziţie câteva poze ale copiilor:

CITITI si –

 

NORWAY’S ANTI-RELIGION MOTIVATION IN THE ABDUCTION OF THE BODNARIU CHILDREN ~ Peter Costea

Ireland 4 Bodnariu Family - Norway stop child kidnapping

Ireland 4 Bodnariu Family – Norway stop child kidnapping

Questions have abounded whether the Norwegian authorities have been motivated by the Bodnariu Family’s Evangelical faith in abducting their five (5) children in midNovember 2015. They have, and the evidence is plenty. Documents and minutes of meetings have emerged since the abduction showing that as early as October 13, 2015, more than a month before the children were taken into custody, the officials at Naustdal municipality disapproved of the parenting style of the Bodnariu parents believing it, after questioning the children, to be based on the Bible. They plainly state that Barnevernet „is worried that this is a way of upbringing which is justified by the Bible.” The authorities pivoted their contemplated removal of the children on the „attitude” the parents „have to their own faith and way of upbringing when it comes to religion.” The documents also mention that the children were „brought up to respect God and their parents’ values.” Barnevernet interpreted this as a possible conflict between the children’s assumed inability to live up to their parents’ value expectations and faith and that the parents’ religion could create an „inner conflict” in the children and a stressful family environment. Religion is bad for children, Barnevernet’s minutes seem to say, and too much religion is lawful justification for snatching children away from their parents.

peter costeaThere you have it, plain and simple. Not even Richard Dawkins could have said it better. Dawkins is famous for the assertion he made in his 2006 bestseller The God Delusion that teaching the Bible to children is child abuse. Undeniably, the Bodnariu family’s religion and commitment to Christian values drew the attention of Barnevernet officials and featured prominently in their discussions and strategy prior to the children’s removal. So, the statement that Barnevernet was motivated by a religious animus when abducting the Bodnariu children is accurate and supported by the evidence. The Bible is mentioned four (4) times in the minutes, God once, and religion once. Religion, in fact, appears as a separate subject of discussion in relation to what to do with the children.

Why would the family’s religion irritate Barnevernet? The answer is straightforward: Barnevernet embodies Norway’s secular parental ideology. When it conflicts with the parenting style of traditional parents or parents whose parenting style is influenced by religion, in this case Christianity, Barnevernet wins out. Always. Simply because, as an arm of the Norwegian state, it holds the sword and wields it over traditional families.

And, while this is unfortunate, it may not necessarily be that unexpected considering Norway’s advanced degree of secularization. In May 2012 the Norwegian Parliament voted unanimously to abolish the status of the Lutheran Church as the National Church of Norway. News reports at that time indicated that by 2012 72% of Norway’s population, or approximately 3,6 million Norwegians, were non-believers, and that only about 2% of the country’s population attended church regularly. [See Jessica Bluemke Norway Abolishes National Church, May 22, 2012: http://www.patheos.com/…/22/norway-abolishes-national-chu…/…] Also, according to Gallup World Polls taken around 2005 only 23% of Norwegians viewed religion as an important component of their daily lives, and nearly 7% claimed to be atheist. Christianity is in decline, too. A global study on the future of Christianity, released in 2013, indicated that while in 1970 98.8% of Norwegians claimed a Christian religious identity, by 2020 only 87.29% will do so. Also, by 2020 3.4% of Norway’s population is expected to be Muslim.

One major implication of all this is that in secular Norway traditional and faith-based parenting approaches have become irrelevant, a thing of the past, and secular parenting ideologies replace them. This also explains why approximately 25% of all children taken into custody in Norway are children of immigrants who are known for their traditional values, and some are religious refugees. The rest of the children are removed due to the lifestyle choices of the biological parents, such as drug consumption or addiction, alcoholism, or mental problems. Immigrants and refugees are normally not known for engaging in risky life styles of this nature, but for their traditionalism, and, in family matters, for conservative approaches to family relations and child rearing.

Barnevernet is a reflection of the profoundly secular nature of Norwegian society. Sociologists, among them the world renown W. Bradley Wilcox, observed, as early as 2009, that as the welfare state, of which Norway is a foremost example, succeeds in eroding or even displacing traditional, family or faith-based morality, state-dictated morality rooted in post-modern values of the secular state replaces it. [http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/more_government/] The state has become the mother and father of succeeding generations and welfare benefits replace parental responsibilities toward their children. Norway is one of the countries where, after decades of welfare-based family policies, people no longer depend on families or on one another for their wellbeing but on the state. Dependence has shifted from the family to the state.

Another byproduct of the Scandinavian welfare policies has been that younger generations of fathers and mothers do not know how to raise children. They no longer see in their own parents models of parenting and, as a result, are disoriented when they become parents. It is reasonable to assume that Norway adopted the Child Welfare Act of 1992, among others, to address the parenting ineptness of younger generations. Barnevernet was tasked with implementing a secular parenting approach which explains, to a great extent, the inevitable frictions between immigrant families who bring to Norway responsible parenting styles, and Norway’s Barnevernet which enforces Norway’s statist parenting ideology.

Note that in the past, and even today in most of the world, mostly orphans were put up for adoption. Societies were careful all along to respect and preserve the biological bonds between children and their parents. Instead of severing the parent-child relationship, they worked to improve the parenting skills of parents, the marital relationship, and the overall familial bonds. Norway’s Child Welfare Act is a major departure from this philosophy. Essentially, it grants the state the power to declare who is fit or unfit to be a parent and to take away the children of parents whom it deems unfit and give them to couples whom the state deems fit. This allows Barnevernet to snatch children away from their parents at will. There also is a presumption that Barnevernet’s selection of parents is always appropriate. For the biological parents to regain their offspring, they must undergo extensive psychological evaluation. “Experts” declare them fit or unfit as parents. Apparently, biology is no longer sufficient to grant them this status.

There is something very odd, sinister, and unsettling about this whole scenario and Norway’s parenting doctrine. One may even call is ideological aggression. The whole meaning of parenting has been turned upside down. In Norway, parenting no longer means biological ties between children and their parents. Instead, it means declaring as legal parents couples whom the state entrusts with the task to care for children. In a nutshell this is what sociologists term social or psychological parenting which has displaced biological parenting.

It is not surprising that Barnevernet views with suspicion parents who do not conform to Norway’s official and exclusivist parenting ideology. Unfortunately, this has affected the Bodnariu Family as well. Nor has its religion, however, been a motivating factor only in the abduction of the children. Events which occurred in the lives of the children following their abduction, now dispersed in three (3) different foster homes across Norway, confirm that there may well be at work a deliberate process to deprive the Bodnariu children of their religious identity. One of the children recently complained to the biological parents that the foster parents have already told some of the ch ildren that there is no God, no need for prayer, and that man has evolved from primates. This cannot be said to be in the best interest of the children to preserve their religious identity.

February 22, 2016

Petre Costea – Dreading the Dreadful – Norwegians Fear Barnevernet

Photo Obiectiv Vocea Brailei

Photo Obiectiv Vocea Brailei

Norwegians dread Barnevernet. Especially the parents, expectant mothers, and those who practice responsible parenting styles which conflict with Norway’s secular parenting ideology. This is the picture that emerges from the many electronic communications dispatched from Norway to the international team working on the Bodnariu matter, as well as the countless commentaries posted on different facebook pages around the world which relate to this incident. Together, they weave a compelling story of fear and apprehension of Barnevernet, an odd Norwegian institution which rightly may be described as a Stalinist monstrosity. Many Norwegians are fed up with it and are keenly aware that it brings shame on their country. It embarrasses them and, as you will see below, stokes fear in many of Norway’s families. The families, however, feel helpless. Their stories are remarkably insightful into the practice of the legal abduction of children in Norway, a dark aspect of Norwegian life which the world cannot access and which is not depicted in the mainstream mass media where any subjects adverse to Norway are taboo.

peter costeaTake, for instance, this desperate facebook comment from a Norwegian national: „Dear friends abroad. We are really thankful for your support in this matter. Thankful that you will give us your help. We need your help, we are fighting against this murder-barnevernet here. It’s a shame to Norway, but so it is and we have to go on!” Or this one: „OMG, Thank you World!! Its like living in hell up here in Norway. Our children does (sic!) not belong to the parents or the family anymore, its the Barnevern (sic!) and Gouverment (sic!) we give life to!!!”

Other comments decry that parents are being turned in to Barnevernet by their neighbors or anonymous callers. The latter might be a foe, a disgruntled coworker, or a mother envious that the kids next door do better in school or sports. Or the anonymous caller might seek vengeance because the parents stepped on the caller’s toes. One commenter revealed that anonymous callers turn in parents who drink alcohol in front of their children. One person opined that some of the anonymous callers are Norwegians who dislike foreigners, and another one complained of „cultural intolerance, racial intolerance and extremist nationalism” on the part of Norway’s institutions.

According to the messages received, it is not uncommon for parents to receive letters from Barnevernet summoning them for appointments in which they are interrogated about their children’s upbringing. One indignant lady disclosed the subjects, which I will call specious, on which she was questioned: why her son was not enrolled in sports, and why, the mother herself, did not attend a school function some weeks before the interrogation? The question about the son could indicate Barnevernet’s belief that he might not be developing well, while the question posed to the mother that she is withdrawn, anti-social, depressed, suffering from mental illnesses, or in need of counseling or medication. The mother breathed a sigh of relief when, following the interrogation, Barnevernet did not take her son away. But others have not been so lucky. Complaints also have implicated mothers who work late into the evening instead of being at home feeding their children.

The interrogation techniques also stand out. In much of Scandinavia, the commenters said, teachers no longer ask children if they are spanked at home because the children have learned to answer NO or not answer at all. They are keenly aware of the high odds that if they say they are spanked they will not see their parents or siblings again. For this reason, the educators resort to indirect and highly subjective approaches to obtain the answers they want. For instance, children are asked to draw on paper their concerns, worries, or what they dream about at night. The drawings then end up before „experts” who surmise from the drawings the children’s state of mind and whether they are neglected or abused at home. This guess work often becomes the justification Barnevernet uses to sever the children from their parents.

Parents also write that Barnevernet routinely holds individualized meetings with children behind closed doors, or „in camera” meetings as they are denominated in Norwegian law. Only state authorities and the children attend these sessions, to the exclusion of all others, including the children’s parents and attorneys. Children are asked about how they are treated at home by their parents. The interrogation often involves leading questions designed to trap or extort from them the answers or the „evidence” Barnevernet needs to separate the children from their parents.

Others have written that there is an unofficial script which Barnevernet follows to detach children from their biological parents and put them up for adoption. Others write that Barnevernet targets families with more than two (2) children, claiming that having more than two (2) children ipso facto makes it very difficult for parents to properly raise their children. Families with numerous children are fair game to be dismembered by the state. Targeted also are families who homeschool their children. Some have fled Norway. They are called families „on the run from Barnevernet.” In fact, one comment came from a family which moved to the United States to be able to raise its several children in accordance with the family’s Christian faith.

Just a few days ago I came across this powerful, yet painful, comment from a Norwegian gripped by fear of the Barnevernet. He and his wife have six (6) children and are expecting their seventh. They do not disclose the pregnancy „because the state is stealing children.” They „live in fear every day in Norway because we [could] never know who or when they steal children.” Barnevernet, he added, daily takes away from parents seven (7) children. One day his children played in the neighborhood with other children, and Barnevernet „stole four children from our neighbors.” His family had been investigated by Barnevernet „over 20 times.” After each investigation he and his wife developed medical problems. „Barnevernet are killing us slowly in Norway,” he wrote, also pointing out that some parents have committed suicide after their children were abducted. Others develop severe stress and depression. The commenter compared the struggle against Barnevernet to a „fight against satan.” He thanked Romanians for taking to the streets to protest Barnevernet’s atrocities, adding that the protests gave Norwegians „hope to win” their own „war” against Barnevernet. The protests gave him more hope than ever that the „war” will be won.

Rational fears

Are these fears irrational? Hardly. Consider some of the provisions of Norway’s Child Welfare Act („Act”), improperly so called, and which, by the standards of the modern citizen accustomed to the rule of law, are frightening. They legislate the nightmare that Barnevernet is. Section 3-1 imposes an obligation on „municipalities” to „closely monitor the conditions in which children live.” How is this „close monitoring” done? Some means have been identified already: anonymous callers, teacher complaints, periodic interrogations of parents by state officials, letters in the mail, disgruntled neighbors, separate meetings with children. According to Section 3-1the monitoring is intended to „bring to light neglect, social and emotional problems” of children and thus to avoid „lasting problems” for the children. This is all done under the pretense of Barnevernet pursuing „the child’s best interests.” Section 4-1 of the Act.

Following complaints and investigations, Barnevernet is empowered to take „measures” to rectify the problems children allegedly face, including the issuance of „interim orders.” Section 4-6 of the Act. This includes the issuance of a „care order without the consent of the parents.” In the vernacular, this means an order to take the children away from their biological parents. There is no time limit on how long the children can be separated from their biological parents. Note, though, that if the separation „has lasted more than two years” the Act imposes a presumption that returning the children to their biological parents and removing them from the foster parents could harm the children. Accordingly, the children are likely to be adopted by the foster parents. This means that, the longer the separation, the chances of the children being reunited with their biological parents become virtually nil and the children are put up for adoption. Section 4-20 of the Act.

The child-parent relationship, however, can be severed even before the expiration of the two-year period where „the child has become so attached to [the foster parents”] … that … removing the child may lead to serious problems for him or her.” Note also that the „foster parents,” not the biological parents, are „entitled to state their opinion” on whether the children should or should not be returned to their biological parents or, instead, be adopted by the former. Section 4-21 of the Act.

The Norwegians’ stories compel the view that in Norway it may very well be a crime to have many children. If you do, Barnevernet will get you, or to you, sooner or later. It’s just a matter of time before Barnevernet will knock on your door, with or without official summons. One may say that this is to be expected from a Norway which is, and has traditionally been, in the forefront of the global movement for population control. Socialist Norway takes from those who have to give to those who don’t. This is the basic tenet of socialism with which Romanians are well acquainted, having been victimized by it for nearly 50 years. Norway, however, extends this doctrine to families, demography, and procreation. Families with many children are dismembered and the children are redistributed to those who either do not bother to bring into the world their own progeny, abort their offspring, or are unable to procreate due to their non-procreative lifestyles. The dismemberment of the natural family, and the reconstruction of the artificial family, is Barnevernet’s job. No wonder Norwegians fear it and the rest of the world hates it.

Peter Costea is a civil rights attorney practicing in Houston, Texas. He also holds a PhD in diplomacy from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Boston, Massachusetts.

P E T E R C O S T E A
ATTORNEY AT LAW
HOUSTON, TEXAS

HT – https://www.facebook.com/notes/ionu%C5%A3-john-volo%C5%9Fen/dreading-the-dreadful-norwegians-fear-barnevernet-update-from-attorney-peter-cos/467028146831150

 

Alliance of Romania’s Families Letter to Norway Re: Parental Rights Violations in Norway / The Marius and Ruth Bodnariu Family

Marius si Ruth Bodnariu
Attached please find a note from Peter Costea to Norway.
You may contact Norway Embassy in your contry requesting updates in this case.
For USA:Royal Norwegian Embassy
2720 34th Street NW
Washington, DC 20008
Tel: (202) 333-6000
Fax: (202) 469-3990
E-mail: emb.washington@mfa.noFor Australia:

17 Hunter Street
ACT 2600
Yarralumla
Canberra
Australia
Post address
December 1, 2015

The Honorable Tove Bruvik Westberg                                      Via facsimile transmission
Ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway                             40-21-306-9890
Royal Norwegian Embassy                                     and via electronic delivery
Str. Atena 18
Bucharest
Re.:      Parental Rights Violations in Norway / The Marius and Ruth Bodnariu Family

Dear Mr. Ambassador, Your Excellency:
peter costeaGreetings! I am writing on behalf of the Alliance of Romania’s Families, a grassroots movement which promotes pro-family and pro-life policies and views in Romania and internationally. We also promote parental rights, among them the fundamental right of parents to live with and raise their biological children.
In recent weeks we have learned, with great concern, about the gross violation of the parental rights of Marius and Ruth Bodnariu. We have been in daily contact with the Bodnariu Family, attorneys, and other persons with direct knowledge of relevant facts and are very much disturbed by what we conclude is a de facto confiscation by the Norwegian authorities of the Bodnariu Family’s five (5) children. The children are small, from three (3) months old to seven (7) years. We are also aware of the recent decision of a Norwegian court to affirm the confiscation of the children and to severely restrict the biological parents’ access to them. It appears that the biological parents are only allowed to see the youngest of the children twice a week for two (2) hours. Dissociating a three-month old baby from his natural, biological and permanent bond with his biological mother is harmful to the child beyond measure and extremely traumatic to the parents, especially the mother. In this situation, the best interest of the child is not served, but the state has inflicted upon him grievous emotional harm. This, in our opinion, is a violation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The court also decreed that the mother can only see her boys, of whom one is nearly five (5) and the other is two (2), once a week. To our knowledge, neither parent is currently allowed to see the oldest of the children. The children have been placed, we have been told, in foster care with other families. Our organization does not believe in, and in fact rejects, social parenting and psychological parenting. We believe in biological parenting except in the most extreme of circumstances. We promote the primacy of biological parenting. We promote the right of biological parents to raise their biological children without state intervention. Once the state hijacks this relationship, the whole of society suffers and slides down a slippery slope.
We are cognizant that courts typically are to be accorded some deference and latitude in making their rulings. But even courts can sometimes be wrong, especially where, as here, the authorities provide evidence to courts which is misleading, obtained by questionable means, and, therefore, unreliable. Our communications with the persons directly involved in the case reveal an excessive zeal on the part of Norwegian authorities to secure incriminating evidence from the Bodnariu children against their parents. Leading questions were asked of them with the apparent design to inculpate the parents. This is an improper use of state authority, especially where, as here, it involves very young children.
We are further concerned that, to put it bluntly, the punishment does not fit the crime. In our opinion, the reaction of Norwegian authorities has been extremely subjective, an incredible display of totalitarian extremism. The Bodnariu family has been accused of spanking its children. Yet, the authorities translated this accusation into child abuse, which is the farthest from the truth. Biological parents have the inherent right to reasonably discipline their children. The fact that Norway has banned the corporal punishment of children does not mean Norway is right in this matter and the rest of the world wrong. In fact, the opposite might well be true. We note that according to the 2015 Good Childhood Report the happiest children in the world are reported to be Romania’s children. Norway is behind in sixth place [The Good Childhood Report 2015http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=21425641&msgid=1843430&act=S2U7&c=585695&destination=http://goodchildhood2015.childrenssociety.org.uk/] Reasonable discipline of children is a parental prerogative which the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has not abrogated. Though Norway might wish to be a step ahead of the Convention in this regard, the Convention does not give it the right to confiscate children from their biological parents. The reaction of the Norwegian authorities has been disproportionate to the improprieties the Bodnariu parents are alleged to have committed. It has been irrational and extreme.
Please also consider that Romania only escaped totalitarianism about a generation ago. Some of us recall, with horror, similar practices of the communist state, in Romania, the Soviet Union, and elsewhere in the totalitarian world, including Nazi Germany. In Romania, the communist state interrogated impressionable children to secure incriminating evidence against their parents. Not rare were the instances where, as a result of such evidence, the communist state separated the parents from their children, raised them in state-run institutions and turned them into reliable agents of the political police and of the totalitarian state. The excessive zeal of Norway’s Barnevernet reminds the whole of Romania of the inhumane practices of its totalitarian past. We can only hope that Norway will not drift in this direction.
Still commenting on the excessive zeal of Norway’s Barnevernet, we have been informed that Norwegian authorities have made highly inappropriate comments to the Bodnariu family about their faith and creed, as well as comments that „your children don’t miss you.” The Bodnarius are Christians, as are more than 99% of all Romanians. Romania is home to 20 million Romanian Christians. The diaspora is home to 5 million Romanian Christians. The Republic of Moldova is home to 3 million Romanian Christians. In derisively commenting on the faith of the Bodnariu Family the Norwegian authorities have insulted 28 million Romanian Christians worldwide. Norway has lost the Bodnariu case in the court of public opinion. It will take at least a generation before Norway regains its respect with the Romanian people. For the next decade or so whenever the people of Romania will think or talk about Norway, the confiscation of the Bodnariu children will inevitably come to mind. This is a scar imposed by Norway’s Barnevernet not only on the Bodnariu Family but on all of us Romanians.
In recent weeks we have additionally become aware that Norway seemingly targets ethnic families for similar treatment, not only Romanian. East European families and families from outside of Europe have also complained that Norway systematically violates parental rights in separating, on a whim sometimes, their children from their biological parents. There are even more serious allegations leveled against Barnevernet that it separates ethnic children from their parents by design to ensure the children grow up Norwegian, uprooted from their ethnic, religious, or racial identities. We can only deplore such policies and respectfully ask that they be stopped.
So, it is with these concerns in mind that we register this note of protest with your office. What happened to the Bodnariu family in Norway would not have occurred in today’s Romania, a country which only a generation ago freed itself of the totalitarian regime. Therefore, we encourage the Norwegian Government to revisit its policies on parental rights and to protect them.
We express our solidarity with the Bodnariu Family and with all families who have been victimized by Norway’s  Barnevernet. We call upon the Norwegian authorities to immediately reunite Marius and Ruth Bodnariu with their children and to cease violating their parental rights.
We close by assuring you that, in spite of the sometimes spirited nature of this correspondence, the people of Romania harbor feelings of friendship and admiration for the people of Norway. Feelings of respect and solidarity as citizens of our common home, Europe. Every Romanian child sooner or later reads the works of the great Norwegian writer Henrik Ibsen. Our nations are also connected by our Christian faith. We hope the people of Norway will understand our concerns and will grant our plea and the pleas of many others to immediately reunite the children of the Bodnariu Family with their biological parents.
 Very truly yours,
Peter Costea, PhD, President, Alliance of Romania’s Families.
For more information on the Bodnariu family case in English and Romanian –

„Impunerea căsătoriei între persoanele de acelaşi sex este un atac la democraţia din America”

ALIANTA FAMILIILOR DIN ROMANIA

„Impunerea <<căsătoriei>> între persoanele de acelaşi sex este un atac la democraţia din America”

Interviu cu dr. Petre Costea, si presedinte al Aliantei Familiilor din Romania
Interviu realizat de Bogdan Stanciu pentru ActiveNews.ro si CulturaVietii.ro
Revolutia sexuala a schimbat modul in care sunt intelese cuvinte precum “casatorie” si “membru de familie”
1. Curtea Suprema a SUA a decis, in 2013, cand a judecat neconstitutionalitatea legii federale care definea casatoria ca uniunea intre un barbat si o femeie (acum abrogata), ca statele care formeaza SUA au jurisdictie exclusiva în materie de legislatie a familiei. Cu toate acestea, prin decizia din iunie 2015 in cauza Obergefell contra Hodges, Curtea a anuntat nu doar ca in Constituție exista un drept la “casatorie” intre persoane de acelasi sex, ci mai mult, ca statele NU au de fapt dreptul de a-si stabili singure legile in aceasta materie. Cum privesti aceasta schimbare atat de radical si de rapida?
Intr-adevar, e o turnura rapida inspre rau. In secolul XIX si cea mai mare parte a secolului XX, Curtea Suprema a afirmat ca mariajul este un drept fundamental. Chiar daca Constitutia SUA nu precizeaza in textul sau un drept la casatorie, de fiecare data cand Curtea Suprema a discutat subiectul, a intarit ca acesta reiese din al Paisprezecelea Amendament al Constitutiei. In acelasi timp, pana acum circa 10 ani, era un dat acela ca mariajul este uniunea naturala barbat-femeie.
Totusi, dintr-un condei, prin Obergefell, Curtea Suprema a declarat casatoria o institutie reglementata de autoritatea centrala de stat. In mod traditional, sistemul federalist american, la fel ca si deciziile instantelor, recunosteau statelor componente asa-numitele „police powers,” ceea ce inseamna ca statele putea exercita anumite atibutii, intern, pentru binele general al cetatenilor. Aceste puteri includeau atat autonomia si autoritatea de a reglementa in materie de munca, sanatate, familie, casatorie civila, educatie sau transporturi.
Insa revolutia sexuala a schimbat modul in care sunt intelesi termenii “casatorie” si “membru de familie”. Strategii acesteia au reusit in a convinge 5 din cei 9 judecatori ai Curtii Supreme ca dreptul la casatorie este o problema federala, pana intr-acolo incat statele incalca libertatea indivizilor de a se angaja in relatii maritale. Cu alte cuvinte, Obergefell a stabilit ca Constitutia federala hotaraste si protejeaza nu doar dreptul la casatorie, ci si insasi natura casatoriei. Din 26 iunie 2015, statele se lupta cu impactul acestei decizii capitale, incercand sa inteleaga care le mai sunt atributiile, puterea de decizie, sau cum anume sa reglementeze institutia casatoriei. 
Impunerea “casatoriei” intre persoane de acelasi sex este un atac la democratia americana
2. Ce crezi ca este mai grav in decizia Obergefell: inventarea unui drept care nu exista anterior, sau anularea dreptului statelor de a decide asupra unui subiect care pana acum era de competenta lor – cu alte cuvinte, anularea autodeterminarii in favoarea guvernului federal? Ma refer la faptul ca 31 de referendumuri constitutionale statale din ultimii 10 ani au fost anulate acum de Curtea Suprema. Si in ce masura mai poate reclama America statutul de democratie, cata vreme cativa oameni, fie ei si judecatori, pot anula vointa populara?
Sunt multe victime ale deciziei Obergefell si e greu sa creezi o ierarhie a lor; in opinia mea totusi, ca om al legii, sunt de acord cu judecatorul Antonin Scalia care, in opinia sa separata, nota ca Obergefelleste un atac la procesul democratic. Asadar, prima si cea mai importanta victima ar fi, in opinia mea, democratia. Un principiu fundamental al formei republican de guvernamant, pe care copiii il invata la scoala in clasa intai, este aceea ca intr-o republica cetatenii se guverneaza singuri, iar rolul statului este acela de a proteja deciziile rezultate din aceasta autoguvernare. Ideea a prins radacini in constiinta publica a americanilor inca din primele zile ale Republicii. In 2015, Curtea Suprema s-a ridicat contra acestui principiu, descurajand si dezorientand multi teoreticieni ai dreptului.
Este o problema serioasa, cu adevarat extraordinara, radicala si anarhista, as adauga, aceea ca instanta suprema a anihilat, prin votul a 5 oameni, amendamentele constitutionale din 31 de state. Imagineaza-ti, mai mult de 60 de milioane de americani au votat pentru casatoria naturala doar ca sa-si vada voturile anulate de 5 indivizi! Asta e ceva fara precedent in istoria democratiei, scandalos e putin spus – si ar trebui sa alarmeze oamenii din intreaga lume. Daca se poate intampla asa ceva in SUA, ce ne putem astepta de la state cu mai putina experienta democratica?
Urmatoarea victima a cauzei Obergefell este federalismul. Federalismul este notiunea ca guvernul federal detine anumite competente si ca statele le au pe ale lor, iar cele doua tipuri de atributii nu pot fi niciodata in conflict. De decenii, guvernul federal insa a luat masuri care au erodat autonomia si autoritatea statelor. Acestea replica prin procese in instanta sau, precum au procedat de exemplu Oklahoma si Missouri, au adoptat asa-numite “Clauze de suveranitate” la constitutiile lor, care, in esenta, transmit guvernului federal sa faca pasul inapoi.
Din perspectiva valorilor, fara indoiala ca cel mai mare rau a fost cauzat familiei si casatoriei. DupaObergefell, statul (autoritatea federala) a nationalizat, efectiv, institutia casatoriei. Casatoria a devenit exclusive o institutie publica, separate de – si lipsita de – dimensiunea sa religioasa. Aceasta a dezorientat bisericile: daca ele continua sa ofere slujbe de casatorie, statul le-ar putea forta, in numele egalitatii si nediscriminarii, sa celebreze astfel de ceremonii pentru TOATE casatoriile: casatorii unisex, casatorii poligame, casatorii incestuoase… si asa mai departe.
Mai sunt si alte victime, din pacate – copiii. Prin Obergefell statul a hotarat ca mariajul nu mai este relevant in procreatie sau in cresterea copiilor. A fi parinte nu mai este, asadar, asociat cu a fi casatorit. Casatoria nu mai exista acum decat pentru “a asigura companie”.
As mai adauga o victima: libertatea de expresie. Odata ce statul a sanctionat o anumita viziune, versiune sau definitie a casatoriei, cu necesitate le va exclude pe celelalte. Efectul practic va fi acela ca indivizii care obiecteaza la decizia statului sunt in culpa legala. Libertatea de constiinta este, asadar, o fatalitate, la fel ca si libertatea religioasa.
Ia spre exemplu cazul lui Kim Davis, in acest moment intr-o inchisoare federala din Kentucky. Ea este ofiter de stare civila in comitatul Rowan din Kentucky si a refuzat sa emita certificate de casatorie pentru cupluri de acelasi sex. La inceputul lunii septembrie un judecator a impus ca d-na Davis sa stea in inchisoare atata vreme cat refuza sa emita acele certificate (intre timp cea in cauza a fost eliberata, n. red. CV). Obiectiunea ei este bazata pe convingerile religioase. Lectia, aici, este aceea ca daca statul adopta o institutie, respectiv casatoria “neutra”, atunci cetatenii trebuie sa promoveze doar versiunea agreeata de stat a respectivei institutii. Daca nu, sunt sanctionati penal.
Nu doar judecatorul Scalia si-a exprimat ingrijorarea fata de atacul fara precedent la adresa democratiei din cauza Obergefell. La fel a facut si judecatorul Samuel Alito, altul dintre cei 4 care au votat contra majoritatii. Intr-un interviu publicat de The Atlantic in luna iulie, el atrage atentia asupra multelor pericole pe care Obergefell le ridica la adresa democratiei si a libertatii in America. [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/samuel-alito-supreme-court-gay-marriage-ruling-liberty/399008/] Lista daunelor produse este lunga si include subminarea libertatii adevarate, expansiunea puterii Statului in societate in detrimentul individului, extinderea autonomiei personale in detrimentul binelui general, uzurparea libertatii de expresie, demonizarea criticilor la adresa “casatoriei” intre persoane de acelasi sex. 
Un declin lent, dar constant al libertatilor traditionale, inclusiv al libertatii religioase si de constiinta
3. Judecătorul Antonin Scalia a scris in opinia sa separata la decizia Obergefell: „Hotărârea de astăzi afirmă că, pentru cele 320 de milioane de americani, decisivă este o majoritate a celor nouă judecători ai curții supreme. Opinia […] este cea mai amplă extensie de până acum (și cea mai amplă extensie imaginabilă) a pretinsei puteri a curții de a crea libertăți pe care constituția și amendamentele sale neglijează să le menționeze. Această practică de revizuire constituțională de către un comitet de nouă persoane […] răpește oamenilor cea mai importantă libertate care le-a fost conferită prin Declarația de Independență și câștigată în Revoluția de la 1776: libertatea de a se autoguverna.” Esti avocat si crestin, american si roman, implicat in politica si in activismul civic pro-familie. Te rog in aceasta multipla calitate sa comentezi cuvintele judecatorului Scalia. Care crezi ca vor fi urmarile pentru Romania ale deciziei?
Asa cum am spus deja, sunt la fel de ingrijorat ca Scalia. Sunt complet de acord cu pozitia sa, a pus punctul pe “I”; eu n-as fi putut sa raspund mai bine. Si eu sunt om al legii. Am practicat avocatura in instantele americane de 25 de ani. E un timp lung, in care am vazut un declin lent, dar constant al libertatilor traditionale, inclusiv al libertatii religioase si de constiinta, in indiferenta tot mai pronuntata a judecatorilor. Pe de alta parte, acest declin a fost insotit de expansiunea drepturilor sexuale. Drepturile parintilor au avut si ele de suferit pe masura ce revolutia sexuala continua sa fie institutionalizata de instante si legislativele din state mai liberale. Spre exemplu, parintii nu pot obiecta daca copiilor lor li se preda la scoala ca homosexualitatea este normala, daca li se cere sa vina imbracati in haine ale sexului opus in timpul unor evenimente special; de asemenea, au pierdut controlul asupra continutului manualelor scolare etc.
Sunt ingrijorat pentru Romania, dar si plin de speranta. Ingrijorat pentru ca noua intelectualitate romaneasca este educata, in mare parte, in Vest si in SUA. Multi dintre ei au fost fermecati si momiti de gandirea occidentala, din ce in ce mai secularizata, mai anticrestina, mai antiumana si mai ostila traditionalistilor. Am avut norocul sa-mi intemeiez viata, de la o varsta frageda, pe invataturile Bibliei, care m-a ajutat sa nu alunec, intelectual vorbind, desi mi-am obtinut diplomele de studii universitare in SUA si Elvetia. Dar s-ar putea sa nu fie la fel cu tineretul nostru. Citesc cu ingijorare unele din comentariile din presa si din unele decizii ale Curtii Constitutionale de la Bucuresti. Inteleg ca au fost influentate, in sensul ca nu mai sunt gandite in tiparele traditionale, si ma tem ca ceea ce s-a intamplat in Europa Occidentala si SUA ar putea sa fie un model de actiune pentru ei in Romania. Daca oamenii de decizie si influenta sunt convinsi de argumentele Vestului ca copilul nenascut este irelevant, ca mariajul natural “si-a trait traiul si si-a mancat malaiul”, ca libertatea constiintei sau libertatea cuvantului trebuie sa faca loc altor prioritati sociale, atunci da, am putea in cele din urma sa vedem ceea ce s-a intamplat in Occident replicat si in Romania.
Pe de alta parte am si speranta. Romania este o natiune foarte traditionalista si cultura sa este de asemenea conservatoare. Istoria a dovedit ca in vremuri de restriste, recursul la traditie este cea mai buna reteta de supravietuire. Influenta religiei si a Bisericii in Romania este inca semnificativa. Cata vreme aceasta va fi situatia exista speranta ca natiunea si cultura noastra vor supravietui. Un alt aspect incurajator este acela ca toate cultele din Romania impartasesc aceeasi pozitie asupra valorilor crestine pe care secularismul le ataca: familia, casatoria, dreptul la viata. Liderii nostri religiosi se simt asadar incurajati sa continue promovarea vederilor biblice asupra acestora.
Urmatoarea batalie se da pe vocabular
4. In California, cuvintele „sot” si „sotie” au fost eliminate prin lege din actele de stare civila (http://conservativepost.com/breaking-governor-signs-law-banning-words-husband-and-wife-because-they-offend-gays/), intrucat nu mai reflectau „noile realitati” aduse de modificarile legislative care au acordat statutul de „familie” cuplurilor unisex. Exista perspectiva unei legislatii federale, obligatorii in toate statele, in acest sens?
Urmatoarea batalie se va da pe vocabular si terminologii. Versiunea “federala” a legii din California despre care vorbesti a fost initiata in vara de un grup de 20 de congressman-i Democrati. [Detalii:http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-declare-war-on-words-husband-wife/article/2567925]Ma indoiesc ca aceasta legislatie va fi adoptata. Cel putin nu in viitorul previzibil. Chiar daca ar fi adoptata, va fi limitata. De exemplu, schimbarea de termini pentru abolirea cuvinelor sot si sotie ar putea aparea in legislatia federala legata de familie, dar nu va putea, ipso facto, sa stearga acesti termeni din legislatiile statale. Cred ca in aceasta materie Curtea Suprema va hotari ca termenii legati de familie raman de competenta exclusiva a statelor.
Maniera in care companiile imbratiseaza agenda homosexuala este vazuta ca un “barometru al progresismului” acestora
5. Cum iti explici ca sute de corporatii, unele din ele aspru criticate pentru ca, spre exemplu, folosesc munca copiilor si platesc extrem de prost muncitorii din tarile unde si-au externalizat fabricile, au sustinut aprig, la Curtea Suprema, dreptul la “casatoria” intre persoane de acelasi sex? Credeti ca le pasa intr-adevar de drepturile omului?
Explicatia este simpla: corporatiile sunt preocupate de imaginea lor. Vor sa fie vazute ca progresiste. In ultimele decenii, maniera in care companiile au imbratisat agenda homosexuala a fost vazut ca un “barometru al progresismului”. In numeroase firme, conducerea a fost confiscata de homosexuali, de exemplu la Apple si la alte companii high tech din Silicon Valley. In mod firesc, ei si-au condus si adaptat filosofia corporatista inspre acceptarea si chair promovarea homosexualitatii. Activistii homosexuali au tintit si ei conducerile companiilor. Acesta a fost unul din scopurile majore ale Human Rights Campaign, o organizatie pro-homosexuala proeminenta din New York. Cea mai feroce batalie a fost dusa cu Exxon, gigantul petrolier, care de multi ani refuza sa insereze in politicile sale clauze contra “discriminarii pe criteriu de orientare sexuala”.
Privind a doua intrebare, am fost angajat in litigii de munca de 25 de ani, intamplator chiar in aria drepturilor civile si drepturilor omului, mai exact discriminarea la locul de munca. Asa incat am ceva experienta, iar experienta mea imi spune ca firmelor le pasa in primul rand de profit si doar foarte putin de drepturile omului. In cursul multilor mei ani de litigii de munca am accesat numeroase documente legate de modul in care unele din cele mai mari corporatii din lume isi trateaza angajatii din Lumea a Treia. Am fost scandalizat in special de comportamentul inuman fata de muncitorii din Filipine si Asia de Sud, dar si de cei din Afganistan, al multor firme care au sustinut chiar razboiul din acesta tara. Nu este o imagine prea grozava.
Libertatea religioasa continua sa conteze in ochii americanilor mai mult decat drepturile homosexualilor
6. Intr-un recent sondaj de opinie al Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SAME_SEX_MARRIAGE_POLL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT), 56% dintre respondenti considera ca protejarea libertatii religioase este mai importanta decat drepturile homosexualilor, fata de doar 39% care afirma contrariul. Care sunt urmarile deciziei asupra libertatii religioase, aflata la mare pret in Constitutia SUA? Au inceput ele sa se faca simtite deja?
Se poate analiza incidentul “Kim Davis” la care am facut aluzie si mai sus. Sondajele de opinie in Statele Unite continua sa sprijine libertatea religioasa mai mult decat drepturile homosexualilor. In interpretarea pe care o dau comentariilor publicate peste vara, se asteapta ca la un moment dat unele instante sa recunoasca exceptii pentru obiectorii de constiinta la diversele legi si decizii judecatoresti care impun agenda homosexuala asupra natiunii. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/?postshare=9631441585202242]
Crestinii, totusi, nu sunt singurii care reactioneaza. Insotitorii de zbor musulmani din America dau in judecata liniile aeriene pentru ca acestea sa se conformeze vederilor lor religioase care nu le permit sa serveasca alcool pasagerilor. Sofierii de camioane musulmani au initiat si ei procese care sa le permita sa refuze sa transporte alcool. Si Curtea Suprema a emis deja unele decizii favorabile acestor aspecte. Spe exemplu, anul trecut a decis ca firmele cu actionariat crestin nu pot fi obligate sa ofere asigurari medicale care sa includa avorturi. Anul acesta, musulmanii au obtinut o victorie importanta, cand aceeasi Curte Suprema a decis ca un important producator de haine din SUA, Abercrombie, nu poate sa le interzica agajatelor de religie islamica sa poarte baticul traditional la munca.
7. In statul Montana s-a inregistrat prima plangere administrativa contra legii care nu permite inregistrarea “casatoriilor” multiple. Asa a inceput si batalia pentru „casatoria” gay acum 10-12 ani. Credeti ca poligamia va urma acelasi drum cu „casatoria” unisex pentru recunoasterea legala?
La acest moment e greu de spus, dar cred ca legalizarea poligamiei nu este inca iminenta. Pana acum, cauza din Montana n-a ajuns niciunde. Nu cred ca instantele federale sunt gata sa recunoasca un drept la casatorii poligame. Nici Curtea Suprema. Judecatorul Kennedy a fost atent sa scrie in redactarea hotararii din cauza Obergefell ca mariajul este inca o institutie binara. Poate 40 de ani de acum inainte, cine stie, lucrurile sa stea altfel. Primul caz privind “casatoria” unisex a ajuns la Curtea Suprema in 1973. A fost respins atunci in mod clar. Totusi, 42 de ani mai tarziu, a fost declarata “drept constitutional”, polarizand natiunea.
Ca exista posibilitatea ca si poligamia sa devina legala in 40 de ani, este accentuat de faptul ca deciziile instantelor sunt ghidate de cultura. Daca in cultura vor fi acceptate “mariajele” poligame, atunci in cele din urma curtile de judecata o vor sanctiona si ele. De asemenea, numarul imigrantilor in SUA care practica poligamia este in crestere. Se estimeaza, de exemplu, ca aproape 100.000 de oameni din New York traiesc in relatii poligame.
Soarta casatoriei in SUA a fost pecetluita in noiembrie 2008, cand Obama a fost ales presedinte cu votul multor tineri crestini
8. Am auzit recent un pastor care spunea ca decizia Obergefell era inevitabila de cateva zeci de ani si acuza pentru situatia in care s-a ajuns in primul rand bisericile crestine americane, care, din 1954, cand au primit statut de exceptare de taxe din partea fiscului federal, au devenit din ce in ce mai timorate in a aborda subiecte sensibile (avortul, homosexualitatea, imoralitatea in media, atacurile la libertatea religioasa) de teama ca isi vor pierde facilitatile fiscale. Ce parere ai despre aceasta abordare? Tinand cont de diferentele istorice si culturale, poate fi acesta un pericol si in Romania?
Din pacate, cred ca este o macar parte de adevar in aceasta declaratie. Crestinii americani sunt divizati in ce priveste rolul lor in viata publica. Si asta nu este deloc surprinzator, considerand vasta diversitate religioasa din SUA. Asa-numitii protestanti principali (mainline protestants): episcopalienii, prezbiterienii, unele grupari luterane, unele grupari metodiste, au devenit indiferenti si au imbratisat avortul si homosexualitatea. Nu este un secret. Din fericire, totusi, numarul credinciosilor lor scade rapid, iar acei membri care nu sunt de acord cu noile “invataturi” se alatura denominatiunilor conservatoare. In grupul evanghelicilor, care constituie cam 25% din populatia adulta a SUA, este o constientizare mai mare a faptului ca crestinii trebuie sa se angajeze in viata cetatii pentru a schimba societatea in bine. Dar chiar si printre acestia sunt unii care nu doresc sa “zdruncine barca” si prefera separarea de lume ca sa nu se implice. Pe de alta parte, catolicii, adica 20% din populatie, continua sa pastreze, cel putin la nivel doctrinar, vederile extrem de conservatoare la adresa casatoriei, avortului, homosexualitatii si contraceptiei. Am observat excelente pozitii publice ale Arhiepiscopului de San Francisco pe aceste teme.
Adaug, cu riscul de a fi criticat, ca crestinii sunt in primul rand cei care trebuie invinovatiti pentru pierderea bataliei pentru casatorie in SUA. Soarta casatoriei a fost pecetluita in noiembrie 2008, cand Obama a fost ales presedinte, cu sprijinul tinerilor crestini. Majoritatea acestora au “defectat” de la opinia parintilor lor si l-au votat pe Obama. Consecintele? Obama a numit doi judecatori noi, radicali anti-familie si pro-homosexualitate, la Curtea Suprema: Elena Kagan si Sonya Sotomayor. Pe 26 iunie 2015 (ziua in care a fost emisa hotararea in cauza Obergefell, n. red. CV), ei au votat pentru “casatoria” homosexuala. Daca la Casa Alba ar fi fost un republican, “casatoria” gay nu ar fi fost astazi legala in SUA.
Romania, Bisericile din Romania si crestinii din Romania trebuie sa invete din lectia amara a fratilor lor americani. Indiferenta si confuzia doctrinara nasc consecinte adverse atat pentru credinciosi, cat si pentru societatea seculara. Daca liderii spirituali ai Americii ar fi predicat contra acestor pacate si rele sociale, probabil “casatoria” intre persoane de acelasi sex nu s-ar fi legalizat. Avem nevoie de asemenea sa evitam tentatia de a ne baza pe traditie, pretinzand ca noi, romanii, suntem o natiune crestina de 2000 de ani – si, ca atare, practicile sociale necrestine nu vor fi institutionalizate niciodata aici. Doar Dumnezeu ne poate proteja de rau. Traditia, nu.
9. Si ultima intrebare: Planned Parenthood primeste sute de milioane de dolari anual de la bugetul federal desi, iata, ultimul scandal cu partile de copil avortat vandute aduce in atentie si mai mult natura malefica a acestei retele de clinici de avort. Care sunt sansele ca aceasta finantare sa inceteze?
Ultimele informatii pe care le am sunt ca deja cateva state au oprit sprijinul financiar pentru Planned Parenthood, printre care Louisiana, Kansas si Missouri. Alte state ancheteaza clinicile pentru posibila violare a legislatiei anti-trafic de organe. Din pacate, Planned Parentohood are relatii inalte la Casa Alba si orice incercare de a o definanta prin lege federala va fi blocata de administratia Obama.
Mai mult  aici:

Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!


România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari