Private entrepreneurs in Finland make money from children. Attitude towards Russians

Representative of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies in countries Northern Europe Finnish political scientist Johan Beckman told the Izvestia newspaper about the features of Western juvenile justice. But it must be recognized that all the technologies and juvenile organs listed in the article are already present or are in development in Russia.

A brief analysis of justifications for reducing criminal liability. Establishment of general rules governing rights, obligations and guarantees, such as mental, physical and educational development, showing respect for the dignity of the child. In the face of an apparent increase in juvenile crime, society, gripped by fear and uncertainty, is discussing the possibility of reducing criminal liability. Authors promoting this thesis say that it will reduce crime, thereby apologizing for juvenile delinquency.

If you live with children in the West or even travel there, you have no guarantee of protection from persecution by the guardianship authorities - juvenile justice.

The most characteristic and terrible thing in juvenile justice is the removal of children. Since social services declare that the main goal of their activities is the well-being of children, and these children should be isolated from possible threats as quickly as possible, in many countries it is allowed to remove minors from their parents without a court decision, based on the subjective assessments of social welfare officers, that is, just like that.

For example, in Finland, the child protection law states that the grounds for removing a child may be the concern of a social services employee, that is, again, his subjective opinion. And it could turn out to be anything, because different people can evaluate certain situations completely differently.

For example, if parents do not work, this may concern social services, since non-working parents are not able to properly provide for their children. But if parents work, this can also be a cause for concern. social workers, because working parents do not have the opportunity to devote enough time to their children.

The focus of attention is often on Russian families living in the West. We remember the well-known case of Alexandra Fomina from Helsinki: her daughter disappeared - she simply did not return home from school. According to social services, which decided to seize her, they received a denunciation from a neighbor - the mother allegedly spanked her daughter.

Juvenile justice is the sword of Damocles. In many countries, social services have the right to make surprise visits and remove children from families at any time, without a warrant or court decision. They usually come with the police. Moreover, any confrontation between parents is classified as a serious criminal offense. Parents have no right to protect their children.

Recently, Finnish father Jan-Erik Kurhala posted a video online about the seizure of his own children: the police, together with a social worker, came to the house and forcibly took his seven-year-old twin sons. When the boys were taken away, they shouted that they wanted to live at home. All this happened in front of the sisters and brothers, who remained with their parents.

The most terrifying video about the forcible abduction of children caused international scandal. It has received millions of views on all continents. As a result, the Finnish Ombudsman for Children, Maria Kaisa Aula, was forced to resign.

But soon Jan-Erik Kurhela received a notice from the prosecutor's office that a criminal case had been initiated against him on several counts because he had filmed the seizure of his own children and subsequently made this recording public. Firstly, according to the social worker who decided to remove the children, the video allegedly constitutes a violent act against her, because at that moment she was very upset and was not ready to become a “YouTube star.”

Secondly, the father allegedly did not have the right to film his children in own home, therefore one of the criminal cases was initiated under the article on distribution personal information. Of course, the “bouquet” also included articles about insulting the honor and dignity of employees of Finnish social services. The case is still being considered, but the father who filmed the seizure of his children faces a real prison sentence.

Initiating a criminal case in this case is most likely an attempt to stop the practice of filming the actions of social services. The human rights organization “October Movement” was created in Finland. The first step of this organization was a letter to Pavel Astakhov asking for help. The Russian Children's Ombudsman and his staff have been monitoring events in Finland for several years and responding to them in accordance with Russian laws and international agreements.

Another aspect of the issue is, so to speak, the phenomenon of privatization of juvenile justice. In Finland, for example, most orphanages are private. For one child, foster parents or companies can receive several thousand euros per month.

Juvenile justice is a huge business with an annual turnover of hundreds of millions of euros. Children removed from their families actually become prisoners in private orphanages, and it is extremely difficult to get them out of there.

Often, social services make decisions to prohibit children from communicating with their families, and then the removed children do not have the right to call their relatives, write letters, or maintain any contact with their parents. This practice is often used “in the interests of the child”: if a child lives in confiscation until adulthood, he can bring hundreds of thousands of euros to private firms.

The situation is absurd: social services can use maximum violence against children at any time, up to complete isolation from society - without justification, explanation of reasons and evidence of the “guilt” of the parents.

Moreover, any action of parents aimed at protecting their child can be interpreted as behavior that is “harmful to the health of children.” Fighting against juvenile justice is very difficult. There have been several cases where social services have been fined, but they still continue to operate.

Juvenile justice is the Gulag of the 21st century. No one knows exactly how many children are caught up in the network of “children’s camps” in Europe, in what conditions they live, or how many private orphanages there are. Parents and children often cannot understand why children ended up in these private prisons in the first place.

There are several reasons for the existence of such a system.

Firstly, there is a liberal law that allows children to be removed from the family without specifying reasons and without a court decision. In addition, anti-family ideology dominates in power, which defines a normal family as an environment harmful to children. Juvenile justice extremists consider even heterosexual relationships undesirable.

But there is also an economic reason. In the juvenile justice industry, every child seized earns their guardians several hundred euros every day. And no one is ready to give up this profitable business yet.

Just as in Finland the topic of juvenile justice is not covered in the media, in the same way it is not raised in Russian society. In the same way, each case of juvenile tragedy in a family, both in Russia and in Finland, is presented as an isolated case, and the destructive anti-family orientation of the work of child protection authorities is denied.

Alexander Institute specialist Hannah Smith considers Finnish juvenile justice methods to be sovereign and responsible highest standards. Hannah Smith considers the visit to Finland of the Russian Presidential Commissioner for Children, Pavel Astakhov, “not in keeping with good diplomatic manners.” Ms. Smith also calls on the President of Finland to clearly indicate to the Russian leadership the inadmissibility of such interference in the future, recalling that in Finland such conflicts are resolved in accordance with Finnish legislation, without the participation of government leadership, that this is a matter for the relevant authorities.
Also, the Minister of Basic Social Services of Finland, Paula Risikko, stated that “in the activities of the Finnish social service authorities in the situation discussed in Lately in the public, no illegal actions have been identified that would give the Ministry of Social Welfare and Health a reason to take action.” At the same time, not a single case of Russian-speaking parents turning to child protection societies that have extensive experience in resolving situations is known.
President Niinistö directly stated that “children are not a political instrument” and the Russian side’s demand for the creation of a joint commission for the protection of children is impossible because it is illegal.
At the same time, on May 29, 2012, the State Audit Office (VTV) (fin.) Russian. published a report criticizing the Finnish child protection system, pointing out a number of existing problems. Thus, in 2012, despite 11 complaints of child abuse, social care authorities did not take appropriate measures, which led to the death of an 8-year-old girl.

It is used as the last form of protection of the rights of the child and is used only in cases where there are no mechanisms for caring for the child, as well as the necessary living conditions, or in circumstances where the behavior of the child himself threatens his health and safety (the latter refers to the use of narcotic drugs by minors, criminal acts and related aspects). An additional factor for removing a child from the family is the inability to implement the program recommended by the social service to stabilize the situation. Before removing a child (over 12 years old), interviews must be conducted with him and his relatives. If one of the parties is against the measure of removal from the family, the decision of the social service on removal must be confirmed by the administrative court (a child over 12 and any of his guardians have the right to challenge this decision in a higher authority, up to the highest court).
Subject to the fulfillment of the above prerequisites, social service workers of the regional community are obliged to remove the child and provide him with decent living conditions, which is implemented either as an urgent protective measure or ordinary removal (the latter is a longer stay of the child outside the home or place of social stay). Seizure, as the execution of a decision by a social service bureau, can be carried out against the will of the recipients, but is often made with the consent of both parties. The placement of a child outside the family is terminated if the reasons that gave rise to it have disappeared, as well as when the child reaches the age of 18 (until the age of 21, the social service is obliged to provide support to those under guardianship).
Urgent cases of removal of a child include a situation in which: the apartment has been turned into a brothel, or the mother is engaged in prostitution, as well as in cases where traces of beatings are clearly visible on the child (in such a case, state care is guaranteed to all children of the family), while the circumstances of the removal are never issued for public discussion, and controversial issues are resolved in court, in a closed meeting. There is no concept of “deprivation of parental rights” in Finnish legislation, so parents always remain parents.
In his article, the chairman of the Anti-Fascist Committee of Finland, human rights activist Johan Beckman, states that “juvenile justice is one of the main weapons for the fascistization of society and the destruction of the family as the main institution public life" As of 2011, there were 17,409 children in public care in Finland and the number is increasing every year. In addition, the Finnish researcher notes that “juvenile justice is a weapon in the hands of atheists, used by them for new persecution of Christianity.” As an example, Beckman cites cases of oppression that Orthodox Christians are subjected to in Finland: one of the victims of this persecution was, for example, Rimma Salonen. The case of Anton Salonen, widely discussed in the Russian media, during which Russian and Finnish citizen Rimma Salonen was deprived of her maternal rights due to a dispute over child custody, according to Johan Beckman, revealed a number of aspects in juvenile justice in Finland that destabilize Finnish society.
Similar controversial methods of applying juvenile justice are considered the case of Robert Rantala, in which in February 2010 the boy was isolated from both parents at once, and the case of Yulia Putkonen, in which Finnish social services removed the child from his Russian mother and placed him under the guardianship of his Finnish father, working in Russia. . In 2012, a wide public outcry both in Finland and in Russia was caused by the Case of Anastasia Zavgorodnyaya, from whom the guardianship authorities seized four children at once, including a newborn.

Wikipedia.

3 years

Comments 5

Juveniles, in principle, are not obliged to love anyone, so they are not going to replace parents for selected children. They don’t give a damn what happens to these children later, unless of course they confiscated them for resale.

The more families are destroyed, the better the juvenile works.

Juveniles are only engaged in terrorizing prosperous families, since they have no profit when working with alcoholics, and they extort bribes from prosperous families.

Yeah, it's all complicated. Yes, and we are heading towards this... children are unpredictable creatures, with increased anxiety and maximalist views. I think every child, even in the most prosperous family, wanted to someday run away from my parents. Only someone only dreamed about it, and someone realized it. And now, if a child leaves home twice, the parents are deprived of parental rights... And these bans on punishment? Well, if he doesn’t understand differently? On early stages You can only knock the crap out...

Everything is complicated. Difficult ((((

Caution: children!

When moving abroad, especially to Britain and Scandinavian countries(including Finland and, in many respects, Estonia), it is worth understanding that there is a completely different understanding of family, marriage and relationships than in your homeland. Yours soul feelings, suffering and other emotions will be incomprehensible. Most likely, all your emotionality will be attributed to mental instability - and this means a potential danger for your child. And now it’s not far from parting with him.

Therefore, first of all, when going to live (work, get married with plans to have a child) abroad, you need to study the living conditions in that environment. You, dear ladies, go to a antenatal clinic before the birth of a child - why don’t you consult before the change of the world? Understand that all your ideas about good and evil are relative.

And there is no malicious intent towards you: in Finland, for example, more than 2,000 children are taken away from their parents a year, and in 99 percent of cases this happens to Finnish families. It doesn’t matter what your nationality is: problems can arise in any case - you are Latvian, Polish, Russian or Tatar. Or even an ethnic Finnish woman, but raised in the USSR.

Whose child?

Problem family conflicts between people different cultures also that women from the ex-USSR and countries of Eastern Europe most often they want, on the one hand, to be treated like a knight, even patronizingly, and on the other hand, they want to command their patrons, and they are infuriated when a man begins to treat her as an equal, without making allowances for the weaker sex.

Russian consuls at meetings with the Russian-language European press always try to clarify an important thing. Russian women (as well as Ukrainian women, and Moldovan women, etc.) for some reason believe that if they themselves have Russian citizenship, then in some mysterious way this extends to their children, beyond the wishes of their fathers.

Which is not true at all. Parents must obtain Russian citizenship, the child must receive a passport. If the child is from a foreign citizen, then you need to obtain the appropriate permission from the father. But mothers, having quarreled with the fathers of their common children, leave for their homeland, without thinking that they are committing a crime under the laws of the country they left, and violating the rules of their own homeland - often overstaying their children’s visas.

Nowadays it is easy to find women's clubs in all Nordic countries. Contact them, read the forums and for God’s sake don’t think: “This happens to others, but it won’t happen to me.” Spend a few evenings to at least know that putting pressure on pity with tears there will only aggravate your situation.

Most likely everything will be fine. But prepare seriously for the move - and then it will truly become the beginning of a new and happy family life.

Why are our women being taken away from their children?

ABOUT similar cases they tell in Finland, Norway, France. Why do they manage the destinies of mother and child in this way and is this system aimed only at immigrants from Eastern Europe, says our colleague, journalist Konstantin Ranks, who works in Northern Europe.

This is a typical story: our women come to the West and find themselves in conflict with the law - and as a result lose their children. They are in despair and do not understand how the system can be so cruel, how the bond between mother and child can be broken.

We only learn about these cases when they affect our women. In fact, this is a typical story that is repeated several hundred times a year and which surprises no one. I know a British citizen living in Helsinki who lost two children. The reason for taking away the children was the disorder in the apartment.

The flip side of equality

The most typical case of family conflicts is bad marriage with a foreigner who ends in divorce.

Our women are accustomed to the fact that the child almost always remains with the mother. But this is ours. Everything looks different there. For example, in Finland, women received equal rights with men back in 1906. Equal rights- equal responsibility. Both for men and women. And if the father fulfills all the duties of a parent, it means that he has the same rights to the child as the mother. The state, represented by the court, which acts as an arbiter in the dispute, does not give anyone an advantage. Otherwise, the court will be accused of sexism, that is, discrimination based on gender.

That is, any of our women who marries a citizen of the Nordic countries or Western Europe should remember that there the mother does not have a priority right to the child over the father. There they perceive the child not as a continuation of the mother (“you are my little blood”), but as an independent fruit of the love of two people. That is, in this moral system parental love and the fact of birth are two different things.

The state takes full responsibility for raising its new citizen. Parents must help the state in this matter, and if they do not fulfill their purpose, then the child is taken from the parents and transferred to another family, which will follow the instructions for raising children. The rights of children are protected by the so-called juvenile justice system.

This terrible concern

Juvenile justice, judging by the Russian press, is some kind of gloomy creation of the West, directed against family and childhood. But the truth is, as always, more complex and multi-colored. We should not forget that three and a half centuries ago, neither in Russia nor in Western Europe there was no concept of childhood as such.

Wars led to the formation of a huge mass of street children who had no prospects. And in 1619, Sweden for the first time passed a law on the creation of orphanages for every municipal formation, having the status of a city. Three decades later, schools appeared in the cities of Sweden, in which children of the poor and graduates of orphanages were taught crafts. Poor people themselves sent their children to state provision: It was easier to live this way.

Sweden in the 17th century was one of the most important countries in the world, a powerful military and political power. Her example of working with children was an example for all of Protestant Europe - including Britain.

TO end of the XVIII centuries in Sweden and Denmark came to the conclusion that best place to raise children is their own family, and measures have begun to be strengthened financial assistance poor families. But it took another century for the first laws restricting child labor to appear. In 1909, for the first time in the world, an appeal was published in Finland to pass a law banning domestic violence against children.

Picked up the baton Soviet authority, when in 1918 the decree on commissions for minors was adopted. The fight against homelessness was won by the mid-20s. But Soviet law did not go any further. In Europe, these ideas were further developed, and already in the early 80s, all corporal punishment of children was prohibited, and rules for the upbringing and care of children were formulated, which in 1989 were included in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Childhood experts say that even in the most democratic countries of the world, every year there is one case per two to three thousand inhabitants when the living conditions of a child in the family become unacceptable. For example, in Russia, according to official data, more than 2,500 children die at the hands of their parents every year.
This different mentality

During World War II, neutral Sweden took in several hundred thousand children from warring Finland and occupied neighboring countries. Children were brought from the Baltics, Denmark, and Norway. The adoptive parents broke themselves into pieces to give the arriving children at least a little warmth. After the war, children returning to their homeland remained in close contact with their adoptive (temporary) parents. In general, we can say that in the Nordic countries the principle “The whole nation, the whole country is one big family for the child and the old man."

In the countries of Eastern and Southern Europe a completely different attitude towards family. If in Scandinavia children go to school early Big world, live separately, and in old age calmly move to comfortable boarding houses, then in our opinion, sending parents to an almshouse is a shame.

In our society, the family is essentially a closed system. The state is not considered "home" - rather it is a hostile environment from which one should stay away.

People lack the skills to interact competently with the government. In fact, other than humiliated petitioning and bribery, we do not represent any of the tools for interacting with the bureaucrats - unlike our northern neighbors, who understand perfectly well how to communicate with the state.

The story of Irina Bergset, who tried to take her 13-year-old son to Russia after her divorce from her Norwegian pedophile husband, is noteworthy. Norwegian social authorities saw Irina as a hysterical woman who cried(!) during the inquiry, and did not understand how sending her son to a foster family could harm him. But the Polish court, which heard the case of Irina and her son (they tried to escape through Poland, where they were detained), sided with the mother and released the mother and her son to their homeland, Russia. The Poles easily understood Irina’s arguments: for Polish society they are understandable, but the arguments of the Norwegian side are completely alien.

Of the 97 children who took part in the study, only 11 returned home after five years in state custody.
THL Health and Wellbeing conducted a study which found that only 10% of children taken into social care care returned home due to a change in health. life situation however, of these, a third were later placed back into care.

According to research, most often a child, after reaching adulthood, begins his own life, where custody ends.

It also turned out that 2/3 of the children needed psychiatric and psychological help.

Social workers assessed that for 86% of children, social services interventions met the children's needs. Social workers also believe that the situation of most children has changed for the better compared to the situation in which the decision about custody was made.

The THL Health and Wellness Office analyzed the situation of 97 children from 2006 to 2011.