Christer Johansson's rights

Christer Johansson has less rights than thieves, rapists and murderers

Domenic and Dad, a close, loving relationship.

On Monday, November 22, 2010, a distraught Christer Johansson left a social services state supervised visit, taking his only child, Domenic, with him. Johansson did not have permission to take his son home, but did so in response to 18 months of pleas by Domenic to be allowed to go home to the family he loves and misses. After calling authorities on Wednesday, November 24th to turn himself in, Johansson now sits in a Visby, Sweden jail cell. All of the citizens of the Swedish island of Gotland have been breathing a sigh of relief ever since Johasson's incarceration. And rightly so! The lives of Gotland's citizens are much safer now that this loving, caring, gentle and sensitive father and husband is safely locked behind bars.  

Today, December 20, 2010, Christer Johansson was brought before a Swedish judge to face trial for his crimes against Sweden. While we do not yet know the outcome of this "trial" what we do know in leading up to today's legal circus is that Christer Johansson has less rights than Swedish thieves, rapists and murderers. 

Since November 24th, the behind-the-scenes legal battle has focused on securing the best possible defense for Johansson, who has requested representation by Trygve Emstedt, Gävle, a lawyer with 30 years experience specializing in human rights. Incorporated into Sweden's constitution in January 1995, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), under Article 6, guarantees every Swedish citizen the right to choose their own representative and the right to a fair trial as provided within the foundation of a legally secure process.

Father and son, a strong, loving bond.

In direct defiance of Swedish and European Union laws, Gotland City Courts have refused Johansson's guaranteed rights by rejecting his appeal for of a defense by Emstedt and has instead continues to maintain Shantu Brahmbhatt as his public defender.  Apparently, everyone in Sweden enjoys the guarantee of ECHR Article 6 except Christer Johansson. 

There two very good reasons why Johansson has rejected Brahmbhatt as his counsel. First, having only recently been accepted to the bar in June 2010, Brahmbhatt has only negligible and even questionable experience before the court. Naturally, Johnasson desires, and is guaranteed, to exercise his right to obtain the best defense available while he defends his right to liberty. 

Secondly, Johansson is only too aware of Brahmbhatt's inept legal counsel, for it is Brahmbhatt who was appointed by Gotland City Courts to defend Annie Johansson's rights as Domenic's mother. All who have been following the Johansson case since 2009 realize Brahmbhatt, as Annie Johansson's defender, has done little more than appear before Gotland's courts and has simply followed the edicts of Gotland Social Services. To date, Brahmabhatt has never forged an independent defense of Annie Johansson's rights, therefore it is not to be expected that she would forge an independent defense of Christer Johansson before the Gotland bench today. Earlier this year, Annie Johansson appealed to the courts to have Brahmabhatt removed as her public defender. Her appeal was met with a thumbing by the Swedish courts, as well.

In addition to fact that Article 6 of the ECHR, ratified in Sweden's constitution, guarantees Christer Johansson the choice of legal representation, the aforementioned reasons should have been enough for Gotland City Courts to grant Johansson new legal counsel. However, as we've witnessed since June 25, 2009, when armed police swarmed an India bound jet just before it taxied the runway at Sweden's Stockholm-Arlanda Airport removing then 7 year-old Domenic without a warrant and without ever charging Christer and Annie Johansson with a crime, Sweden's courts, especially those on Gotland Island, seem to operate under their own laws of justice, ignoring the rights of this family under Sweden's constitution and the ECHR.

Below is translated text from a story out of Sweden regarding Christer's trail today 


Dad on trial for kidnapping
I only wanted to see my son. That's how the man in his 40's explained it who was today on trial for illegally having abducted his son placed into foster care.


It was last November, when the man was meant to have had a supervised meeting with his son, that he pulled his son into his car and drove away. For a couple of days he kept his son with him before the police could arrest him.


Today the main proceedings took place at Gotland district court. The prosecution against the man was charged as kidnapping, or possibly illegal deprivation of liberty.


The man explained his actions with having to see his son, but he doesn't feel he's committed any crime.


The court considers it proven that he's committed the acts he's been indicted for, but before a sentence and sanction is delivered, he's to go through a major investigation by forensic psychiatry.


Hence the main proceedings won't end for another four weeks. Until then the man remains in jail.

********************
In another news account from Sweden, we've learned that Domenic gave a video testimony regarding the time he spent with his father and family after Christer took him home for a few days. According to the news account, Domenic told the court that when his father took him, he was scared at first but then he thought it was really great to be with his father and other relatives. He described his time away from state care as an adventure and had nothing negative to say about the experience.

This story can be found here:   
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=94&artikel=4250998

Update on Christer

Update on Christer's Situation/Contact Information

To the best of our knowledge, Sweden continues to hold this father in jail. The original information we received said he'd have some sort of trial on December 10th. However, we are now learning that the trial can be held as late as December 14th or 15th and it seems this might be the case. 

Sweden will NOT take Christer to trial until they have a psychiatric finding assigned to him. This is typical in child dispute cases such as these. Most parents who object to what has happened to their family are almost universally given a psychiatric diagnosis to which the socials can subsequently point claiming they were right all a long for taking and keeping the child. We've read this script over and over in many cases such as these in Sweden. You can dig through this huge pile of documented cases to learn more. 

Ruby Harrold-Claesson, although one of Christer's attorneys in the EU Human Rights case, has been denied access to Christer while he is in jail. The Swedish authorities claim the EU case has nothing whatever to do with Christer's actions of two weeks ago. We, and many others, beg to differ. We believe Christer's current incarceration has everything to do with the merits of the EU case and thus, Harrold-Claesson should have access to Christer while he is jailed.

Aside from what we've shared in this post, we are not aware of any further developments at this time. 

If you'd like to send notes and letters of encouragement to Christer (he is fluent in English) while he is held in prison, you can do so by following these instructions:

First, place your letter/postcard in an envelope. On that envelope write: 

                          To Christer Johansson, 690615-3231

Next, place this envelope into another envelope and on this outer envelope write this address: 

                          Kriminalvården

                          Klient och säkerhetsenheten

                          SE–601 80 Norrköping

                          SWEDEN

Once received, Kriminalvården will send your letter to Gotland and will see that it is delivered to Christer.

Annie (holds a Masters Degree in English) can be contacted at: 

                         Annie Johansson
                         c/o Rune Johansson
                         Alva Gudings 363
                         623 46 Hemse
                         Sweden

Guest Writer: Daniel Hammarberg

The Domenic case is far from unique
By Daniel Hammarberg, human rights activist and author of The Madhouse: A critical study of Swedish society

Since Sweden introduced barnavårdslagen, "the child welfare law," in 1924, the act which enabled the state to take children into custody without their parents' consent, quite a few Swedes have faced relocation into foster care on dubious grounds. As the supply of foster homes wasn't nearly enough to meet the new demands of the grandiose plans for solving societal ills through foster care, the state swiftly established orphanages where sometimes upwards of 30 children were brought up. In the mid 20th century, at the peak of the days of unbridled foster care, no less than one in 30 children at any given time resided in foster care - half of them in actual families, the other half in orphanages. Since then, the proportion of the total population has gone down somewhat, but these dreaded child institutions are still around, now referred to as HVB-hem - treatment homes.


Two opposite developments have taken place; on the one hand, the poverty that afflicted early 20th century Sweden was nearly eliminated during the 1950's and 60's. On the other hand, as the original reasons to take children into state custody were disappearing, social workers created new reasons to seize children. While before, children could be taken due to their parents not being able to afford their sustenance or outright physically abusing them, now questionable psychological theories on the development of children see the light of day, instead. Delusional Freudian beliefs are now used to justify separating a child from his or her family. As the legislation upon which the foster care system was based has progressed, not only is actual harm to the child used to make a case, but now also projections of psychologists on the future development of the child are heavily considered.

While the early incarnations of barnavårdslagen, "the child welfare law," were fairly specific on the grounds upon which to take a child into custody, these later developed into general clauses which in today's LVU law lets the government seize children if "... any other condition in the home" warrants it as per §2, or as far as the conduct of the child goes - "... any other socially destructive behaviour" as per §3. What is considered to meet these conditions is for the social workers as a profession to decide, and the administrative courts that try the cases rarely question the opinions of the social workers.


Any use of naked force and oppressive measures will eventually meet resistance, and in Sweden as a possible counter, we've witnessed the use of Newspeak for what was previously a blatantly controversial use of state authority. The 1924 law didn't mince words when it laid down the rules, and here children could be described as "degenerates." An orphanage was still called an orphanage, and society didn't need to disguise its aims to any noticeable degree. 

In today's society, the same public authority circulates such phrases as barnens bästa i centrum, "the best interests of the child," and similar. The government insists it's only doing what's right for the child these days, with little regard for birth family bonds which are so very critical for a growing human being, without which a person has little hope of becoming a well-adjusted adult. Children can be mercilessly torn from families where an independent observer will have little understanding for the state's actions. Perhaps "the best interests of the child" is merely Newspeak for the state's willingness to seize children from families that refuse to conform and cooperate with the state. The "care" it's felt that the children "need" is rather the oppressive measure of a covertly totalitarian state that's ensuring that society won't have to deal with functional families independent of the state, with the strength that's inherent in an intact nuclear family.

Over the years, several horror stories have emerged from the Swedish foster care system; in the 1970's, Sweden's political elite made use of girls placed at orphanages as prostitutes, some as young as 14 years old, in what was called the Geijer affair. In 1983, German magazine Der Spiegel published an extensive article entitled "Kinder-Gulag" im Sozialstaat Schweden on the state of foster care at the time, likening it to the Soviet system of Gulags. Back then, Europe still enjoyed good investigative journalism as well as a European Court of Human Rights that still had the ability to influence the way public authorities operated. Not so today, when mass media is oh so silent on the topic of foster care abuses, and the ECHR is virtually useless as an institution for the individual families to seek redress for their grievances due to being flooded with cases.


There have been other cases recently, similar to the Domenic one. During the summer of 2009, an Iranian man named Esmail and his Swedish wife Susanne, who have three children together, found these taken at the airport as they were leaving for Iran after having only made a brief stop in Sweden. An anonymous report about alleged child neglect had been made against them, and still today they've not been able to get their children back.


The future looks even more bleak. In a parliamentary bill the other year, 2008/09:So555, the Left Party of Sweden wanted to make it a crime attempting to leave Sweden with children who had legally been taken into state custody, and the authorities were going to be alerted whenever anyone with a LVU order on them attempted to leave, just like criminals. To support the bill, they quoted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the CRC. The bill was voted down, but overall when one browses the bills that have been written on the LVU law, they all have one thing in common - the call for greater jurisdiction and possibly more spending as well.


To learn more about the state of contemporary Swedish society, feel free to have a look at my new book "The Madhouse" where I cover all the things above in greater detail; for now only available as an E-book but soon to be available in print as well.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0046ZS2PA


Or take a peek at my new blog at


http://www.danielhammarberg.com/

As Their Rights Are Trampled, So Are Yours....

While Myths and Fantasies Abound, Truth Quietly Awaits Those Willing to See

An ongoing debate continues across the web regarding the validity of the Johansson Family's claim of human rights violations at the hands of Swedish Social Services. One need not look far to find assertions regarding this case; assertions rooted in myth and fantasy, yet held up as the Holy Grail for why a little boy was stripped of his basic human right to be loved and cared for by his family.

It seems people would rather remain comfortable in their suspicions than seek the truth. Many seem content to acquiesce in being part of the problem, rather than working hard to become part of the solution. Could it be the truth is simply too horrific to face? Is it just easier to believe there were valid reasons to strip this family of their rights, than to confront the insanity occurring within the borders of Sweden?

Domenic, in happier times, flourishing under his parents care.

There are two sides to every story. The Socials have their side, as do the Johanssons. As for the Social's side, the public is provided their reason for taking Domenic in an article published in the Swedish press in June 2009. (Use Google Translate if you need the article in English.) In this article Lena Celion, chair of Sweden's department of Children and Education, emphatically states it is Domenic's "right" to be enrolled in school, and it is the "municipality's duty" to force Domenic to attend Swedish public schools, even when the family had clearly communicated their intentions to leave the country and raise the boy in his mother's native land of India. Celion concludes her argument in support of removing the boy from his family by stating, "It's his right. We are doing this for the boy's sake."

The "boy's sake" and the "municipality's duty" are the reasons the Socials have publicly stated for taking Domenic, and the court documents this writer has read clearly support the Social's public claims of the boy's "right" to a public school education as cause for his removal. Yet, while many will not accept as truth the Johansson's side of the story, many of the same people also do not accept the Social's publicly stated side of the story. Why? Is it because such an abuse of power by a government entity is too difficult to believe? Is it easier to dismiss the Socials' reasons for taking the boy than it is to face the reality of their reasons?  Is it easier on the minds of the populace to turn a blind eye to the truth than to believe a child's life and rights can be destroyed for the sake of a public school education? And when we consider the Social's "concerns" for Domenic's rights, we should also consider what Domenic's answer would be if he were asked. Surely, this same little boy who is reduced to tears at the end of each state supervised visit with his parents, if asked, would beg for his right to be home with his family!

Yes, there are two sides to this story. You've just read the social's side, now consider both sides in context. You have a unique opportunity to do so because the human rights attorneys aiding the Johanssons have made legal documents available for you to read.

Domenic today, suffering under state care, with all his rights removed.

If you are one of those who does not believe the Johansson's version of the story and who also dismisses the Social's public statements, then we ask you consider the position of the attorneys defending the Johanssons. These attorneys are privileged to all court documents from both sides of the argument. Therefore, it is fair to say that these same attorneys have read all the claims made by the Socials, yet they continue to stand by the Johanssons. The fact that the attorneys have read and seen all complaints, yet have still pressed on with this case is an indication to any reasonable person that something on the Social's side is seriously amiss. All one need do to learn both sides of the story is read the appeal to the European Courts on Human Rights.

As for this writer, I will trust those who have the unique privilege to information from both sides of the story and who, after reading and legally considering all the information, continue to press forward in the effort to see Domenic restored to his family.  For as the rights of Domenic and his parents are trampled, so are yours and mine. And as their rights are restored and protected, so are yours and mine.

Catch 22: Cruelty at its Utmost

Excerpt from the December 2009 Court Decision analysis article

Late 2009, about 6 months after Domenic is stripped of his parents.

By December 2009, six months after their precious son was ripped from them, Christer was a man willing to cooperate fully with Visby Social Services, in an effort to restore Domenic to his family. In a sworn statement before the Chamber Courts, this father agreed to follow the entire care plan devised by the Socials for Domenic, with the exception that Domenic's care be provided while he continued to live in mandatory foster care. The Johanssons were willing to do everything and anything Social Services of Gotland demanded, so they might finally have their son restored home.

The most cruel aspect of this case is boldly recorded in the December 2009 Court decision. In a Catch 22 scenario, the Johanssons lose their son if they agree to the entire LVU care plan, which includes mandatory foster care; and the Johanssons lose their son if they agree to the entire LVU care plan, with the exception of mandatory foster care. In conclusion, the court wrote, " Question is therefore if needed care can be given voluntarily. In the care plan is, among other things, said that Domenic should be placed in a foster home which Annie Johansson and Christer Johansson have not agreed to. Chamber Court can therefore state that needed consent to needed care is not present. In such a case, the Provincial Court’s decision to give Domenic care according to LVU should stand. The appeals should therefore be denied."

In other words, the Johanssons submitted to every demand of the Social Services of Gotland. Those demands included what some would describe as a coerced court admission that they had made wrong choices for Domenic as accused by Social Services. The demands also included that the Johanssons must agree to everything in the LVU care plan, including mandatory foster care for their son. Therefore, they were damned if they submitted to all demands and damned if they did not. The maximum possible compliance was obtained from this suffering family, including denying their own natural way of life. Then, when they were in complete submission, they were denied everything.

How to understand this case?
 

Add caption

The plain and simple facts are these: A loved, fortunate and healthy child was taken without legal process from his parents for indeterminate (and faulty) ideological reasons. His family was then punished for the trauma they had experienced, and because they did not simply acquiesce in the loss of their child. There is nothing legal, nothing logical, and nothing just in this scenario. That it could happen in a modern and supposedly democratic nation defies belief. Any free citizen of good will, in any country of the world, should be concerned when a government has the power to act in this way unhindered. This case should concern all of us. All parents, all families, and all who believe in human rights and human dignity.

Read entire article here.

Read Petition Sent to European Court of Human Rights

Read the Entire Text of the Petition Sent on Behalf of the Johanssons to the European Court of Human Rights

Thank you to all helping in this case and thank you to the rest of you supporting them, spreading the news of their plight and praying for this grieving family. Thanks to HSLDA, ADF and Harrold-Caesson, the entire world now can read legal documents which back all the claims by the Johanssons of maltreatment, severe psychological abuse and grave injustices at the hands of the Swedish government. You will find the document here: Petition to the European Court of Human Rights on Behalf of the suffering Domenic, Annie and Christer Johansson, as well as extended Johansson family in Sweden and Extended Kumar family in India.