Jenny’s Pennies

Why do this debate always seem to pop up around this time of the year? (For non-Swedish readers: the subject is whether the end-of-the-school-year celebration for our public schools should take place in a church or not. And not just any church, it’s always the Church of Sweden. Which was separated from the state eight years ago, but still holds a special position and has all kinds of influence, even though it legally should be considered as any other religious association.)

I’m too tired to even repeat the obvious arguments as to why compulsory school activities should not take place in a religious context. Study visits and such is totally ok of course, but anything resembling worship is out. Many people seem to think that it is so important that their children go to church on their last day of school, even if they themselves probably haven’t set foot in a church since their aunt’s funeral or the mandatory once-a-year Christmas visit. If church attendance is so important to them, well then they should take their kids themselves and not expect the school to provide them with hymns and prayer. And then there are those who say that it isn’t about the religious message (if there is any); that it is the atmosphere and feeling that matters. Do you know what I, a pretty convinced atheist, think about using other people’s sacred rooms to get some kind of atmosphere and feeling and tell them to please keep that being in the sky out of it? I think that’s pretty damn disrespectful! Either you use the church with the priest and blessing and the whole deal and then you have overstepped the boundaries of the non-denominational and freedom of religion-adhering public school. Or you tell the minister to please skip the God-references and just use the church as a cosy little gathering place because “it is supposed to be that way” and then you disrespect the people for whom the church isn’t just any other building. Both is wrong. (Kind of like getting married in a church when you’re not religious, just because it’s “such a beautiful place”. One of the most beautiful buildings I’ve ever been in is the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem - a Muslim mosque. I wouldn’t dream about getting married there, and ask the imam to “please keep the Allah references to a minimum”. But I’ve heard people asking that of the Church of Sweden-minister officiating their wedding. Geez, how selfish is that?! But I digress.)

So for the ones who think that going to church is really important for their kids: take them yourself! I’m sure it’s open when the non-religious, inclusive school celebration is over. And for the ones saying that a church is just like any other room, then moving the celebration elsewhere can’t be a big deal, right?

PS. I don’t know where this so-called “tradition” of having the end of the school year ceremonies in church comes from - I went to school in the 80s and early 90s and we never went to a church for ours. Neither did my parents, born in the early 40s and 50s, I think. Actually I don’t think my grandmother did either. So it can’t be that all-encompassing and ancient as some “traditionalists” are making it out to be.

According to our parliament, Swedish doctors are now supposed to put medical ethics aside and be used as a migration political signal system.Today, the parliament voted yes on the new legislation on health care rights for asylum seekers. But the right to health care for undocumented migrants and hidden refugees is not addressed.

Asylum seekers only have the right to emergency care (unless they cough up the whole cost themselves). But those who are in the country without the correct papers and those who have gone into hiding after being denied asylum will continue to be denied equal access to health care. Some of them are lucky enough to live in regions where the administration has said that they will become law breakers and put the medical needs of the individual first. Some of them are lucky enough to get help by the networks of volunteer medical personnel who provide health care to hidden people; in secret and without pay. But all are not so lucky.

Henry Ascher wrote in yesterday’s Dagens Nyheter: medical personnel are now supposed to give care and treatment, not according to the patient’s medical needs, not according to scientifically proven methods, but according to thirteen different “migration status criteria”.

“This is totally unique. Tax evaders, Engla-murderers*, pedophiles, Tv-license evaders, gang leaders and nazis, all have a right to get their medical needs assessed on the same grounds as everybody else. And it has to be that way for the public to have continued trust in us in health care. We manage health care. Other problems are managed by other bodies of society”.

But according to a majority of our parliamentarians, “sending the right signals” is more important than human rights, and doctors and nurses are now supposed to select among those who seek care.

As our minister for migration, Tobias Billström, put it:

The person who has never been interested in applying for asylum but comes to work illegally, hasn’t followed the laws and rules which applies to everyone else in Sweden. Should they then have the same rights as those who follows laws and rules and pays taxes?

I can think of plenty of people who hasn’t “followed the laws and rules which applies to everyone else”, some of them in Billström’s own party. Who’s next in line to be denied their human rights?

Previous posts:
Sickening. I have no other words right now. (May 12th)
Unite for Human Rights: access to health care for undocumented migrants in Sweden (my contribution to the Bloggers Unite for Human Rights event May 15th)

*Engla was a 10 year old girl who was brutally murdered earlier this spring.

(My post for Bloggers Unite for Human Rights)

Today, bloggers all over the world are joining together to blog for human rights. And there is certainly no shortage of subjects to chose from when it comes to this issue - there are huge human rights problems in the world today. But today I’ve decided to keep blogging about an issue closer to (my) home: the treatment of undocumented migrants in Sweden when it comes to health care. For background information, you should read this post from a few days ago.

PICUM, the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, wrote in their report “Access to health care for undocumented migrants in Europe” (2007):

The absolute lack of entitlements as well as the inexistence of any publicly funded reimbursement scheme to cover expenses incurred by hospitals for providing health care to undocumented migrants has led to numerous and serious consequences for undocumented migrants’ health. Similarly, it has put enormous pressure on health care providers and civil society organizations. Undocumented migrants constitute one of the most vulnerable groups in Sweden and failure by the Swedish government to recognize their presence and their very basic health needs contributes largely to their stigmatization and discrimination. Very few undocumented migrants attempt to approach health services in Sweden and most of them find numerous barriers against accessing appropriate health care. In the framework of a survey conducted by Médecins Sans Frontières in Stockholm from July to September 2005, 82% of undocumented migrants who had sought health care reported to have encountered barriers against access. They reported barriers such as being turned away by administrative staff at health care centers as well as indirect obstacles like the high costs of consultations and medication, the feeling that they were not entitled to access health care and the fear of approaching the services and being reported to the authorities.

The whole report in pdf-format is available at PICUM’s website.

According to Tobias Billström, Sweden’s minister for migration, the proposed new legislation seeks to address the issue of lack of regulation of health care rights for asylums seekers. In a reply to Maceij Zaremba’s article (referenced in the post a few days ago), he writes that the new legislation won’t limit the rights to health care to undocumented or “hidden” migrants and refugees any more than it does today: they will still be able to receive immediate and emergency care. (What he fails to mention is that they have to pay full price for that care.)

To formalize and regulate what rights asylum seekers have is all fine and well, but after that Billström’s reasoning starts to get really shady. It becomes all too clear that the government really wants to send a signal, and that being refused health care is seen as a proper punishment for being in the country without the correct papers. He writes (my translation):

It is not so easy as to say that everyone, no matter if they have the right to be in Sweden or not, should have the same rights. The person who comes here as an asylum seeker but is denied asylum after a due process shall return to their home country. The person who has never been interested in applying for asylum but comes to work illegally, hasn’t followed the laws and rules which applies to everyone else in Sweden. Should they then have the same rights as those who follows laws and rules and pays taxes?

Maceij Zaremba puts is perfectly in his reply, where he writes:

I don’t know if it is populism or ingenuousness that guides his pencil when he asks why those who doesn’t obey the law should have the same rights as the law-abiding. Doesn’t he know that in two areas (health care and judicature), blind equal treatment is necessary for our view of humans not to go rotten. Or does he mean that those who cheat on their taxes forfeit their right to a fair trial?

The example isn’t mine, but UN special rapporteur Paul Hunt’s, who tried to teach the government the principal difference between the right to housing allowance and the right to health and justice. If the latter are conditional, then democracy is corrupted.

(emphasis mine)

That my government wants to sort people at the hospital entrance is shameful. Even more shameful is that they expect the doctors and nurses to stand there at the door and send those not worthy away. When someone without the correct paperwork comes in to a health care clinic, my government expects the doctors and nurses to betray their profession and the medical ethics, and show them the door. Luckily, the medical community is fighting back. In the face of a law which expects them to break UN conventions and their medical oaths, medical personnel and health care civil servants are coming up with new and creative ways to ensure that undocumented migrants and hidden refugees are given access to a most basic human right: the right to life and health. And that right, Tobias Billström, cannot be forfeited by being here without the correct papers.

More information in Swedish:
Rätt till vård-initiativet
Vård för alla
The Facebook group Rätt till vård had about 30 members when I joined after reading Zaremba’s article May 11th. Now there are more than 2000 members! On Sunday May 18th at 2pm there is a protest outside the parliament building in Stockholm in support of equal right to health care. Read more here.

Usually I’m glad to be Swedish. Not proud, because I don’t understand why I should be proud of a coincidence, but yeah, glad. And we have a pretty good reputation around the world. It’s the inheritance of the Olof Palme years - that solidarity with the poor, the oppressed, the hungry and the exploited. Many still view Sweden as a country which stands for those values.

And among our own population, many still believe that we are the good-hearted, although they don’t see it as a good thing. “We can’t take care of everyone!” they whine. But those of us who are based in reality, we know that we aren’t taking care of everyone. We aren’t even taking care of those who we are obliged to take care of.

But for those who still lives with the delusion that Sweden is a compassionate country who cares about the less fortunate, we are getting ready to “send out new signals” and take that belief out of them. This is one of those times when I’m not happy to be Swedish. I’m ashamed and sad.

The subject is health care for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants. New proposed legislation says that the only health care they have a right to is emergency treatment, maternal care, abortion care and contraceptive advice. (Unless they are under 18, in which case they have the same rights as Swedish citizens does). And even if they have a “right” to this health care, they still have to pay full price for it: a delivery will cost 21.000 SEK, a broken leg 63.000. In the future, your rights as a patient will depend on what criteria you fulfill. Some will be able to get maternal care, some don’t. If you fall under paragraph four you will get your heart medication, otherwise you’re on your own.

Maciej Zaremba writes about this shameful legislation in today’s Dagens Nyheter. It’s a long article, and for once, I’m completely with him - every single word along the way. A piece (my translation):

In August 1920, my father stood in a tent outside Warsaw. He stitched abdomens together, applied bandages and amputated legs. Narcosis was unheard of, so both doctors and patients had to do with alcohol. The summer was hot, flies were feasting in the open wounds, corpses turned black before they were buried.
It was, you need to say, horrible sights. But in one respect less offensive than what is going on in Rosenbad*.
Most of the bodies that my father tended to were illegally in the country. They had neither visa, nor the four digits**. Soldiers in an invading army are as undocumented as anyone can be. But they were tended to in the same way as those people that they had just tried to kill.
Because for a doctor, meant my father, there are no fellow countrymen or enemies, legals or illegals. There are only patients.

That is the principle that minister for migration Tobias Billström now wants to change. It is impractical, according to Billström. “Sends the wrong signals”, he has said. By which he means that if a pregnant Iranian who has been denied asylum are given maternal care, she will immediately start to think that she is welcome to Sweden. Wrong signal! But if she is denied help and has a miscarriage, the voice of Sweden will sound clearly. Won’t be able to misunderstand. Same thing with a hidden Afghan who will see his cancer grow freely. The tumour becomes the right signal: that a no from the Migration Board really is a no.

Read read read!

Sweden is, together with Austria, the worst offender in Europe when it comes to equal treatment in health care. This according to PICUM, The Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants. No other countries have come up with the idea of using illness and injuries as a political signal, of thinking that sickness and maybe death is a proper punishment for failing to adhere to the authorities’ request that you should leave the country.

But there is opposition. To treat people differently depending on their legal status is not in adherence with the medical oath, and the Swedish Association of Health Professionals have said that their members will act according to the UN Convention: they will do their job no matter what background the patient has. A spokesperson for the Swedish Medical Association has called the law “disgraceful” and states that doctors won’t be able to adhere to it. And Region Skåne (the region in southern Sweden) decided almost unanimously (only xenophobic party Sverigedemokraterna were against) that asylum seekers who are hiding and other undocumented/uninsured patients have a right to health care, no matter their ability to pay for it.

The “Right to health care“-initiative is started by a large number of organizations who thinks that Sweden shouldn’t break the human rights conventions that we have signed by denying health care to undocumented immigrants.
There is also a Facebook group for the initiative (requires login).

The proposed law is supported by the Moderates, the Social Democrats and the Center Party. The Left Party and the Greens are against it, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals are undecided. On the regional/local level, Sverigedemokraterna (populist xenophobes) are of course for it - they also think that undocumented children should be denied health care, unless they have some contagious disease that could affect a real Swede.

If this goes through, it shatters the last shivering remains of the image of Sweden as a just society, where people are of equal value. But what does that matter, as long as we are sending out strong signals, right?

It’s truly sickening. Luckily, I’m a citizen with all my papers in order, so I can go see a doctor for my nausea.

*The Swedish government building in Stockholm.
** The four unique digits in the personal number given to every Swedish citizen.

So it’s Pentecost (a.k.a. Whitsun) weekend, which traditionally is a popular weekend for weddings here in Sweden. I read somewhere today though that nowadays, it’s more popular to tie the knot in August or September (something to do with the weather). What is also increasingly popular is to go abroad and get married. When you come home you send in the paperwork to the authorities, and your marriage is recognized in Sweden. Even if you have married someone who is underage and would not have been able to get legally married here - the authorities will make an exception to the age rule.

But they won’t make an exception to the sex rule. The Swedish gay couple Lars Gårdefeldt (who is a minister in the Church of Sweden, btw) and Lars Arnell got married (yes, married-married, the real deal) in Canada about two years ago. When they came home and sent in the paperwork, they were registered not as married, but in a “registered partnership” which is the name of formalized same sex relationships here.

They appealed the decision, and now, after being turned down in two other instances, the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) has given them leave to appeal. The couple seems hopeful, but Hans Regner, legal expert on the matter, doesn’t think that the court will acknowledge something we don’t have ourselves (i.e. same sex marriage). If the court recognizes their marriage as what it is - a marriage - then it will set a strange precedent: a same sex couple with the resources to travel to a country who allows same sex marriages will also be married in Sweden, but those who can’t or don’t want to get married abroad will have to do with the “registered partnership”. Of course that won’t work. So it would be a huge surprise if the court would do anything else than to turn down the couple’s request to be registered as married.

The gay marriage debate won’t be settled in courts - it is a legislative issue. And with over 70 percent of the population and all but one parliamentary party (a party which in the latest polls came in just above the 4% needed to be in the parliament) in favor of same sex marriage, I don’t know what we’re waiting for.

Media: SvD, DN

On International Women’s Day March 8th, a large number of local Amnesty groups in Sweden asked around 2600 persons about their attitudes towards rape. The results, released earlier this week, were pretty appalling. While 96 percent agree that rape is a large or fairly large problem in Swedish society, as many as one in five put at least some blame on the victim, based on for instance her looks, behavior, resistance and level of intoxication. The age groups most prone to victim blaming are young people between 15 and 25, and people over 66. When broke down by gender, the numbers reveal that men are more likely to blame the victim than women, and men are also more likely to believe that there can be extenuating circumstances to a rape.

While the study is not scientific, and thus shouldn’t be the basis of any broader conclusions, it does give a clue about peoples’ attitudes towards rape and sexual violence. Here are some of the general results:
- 62 percent has little or no trust in the Swedish justice system when it comes to the possibility of rape victims to get justice.
- about 20 percent put some blame on the victim if she dresses or acts “provocatively”.
- about 25 percent think that the woman is partly to blame if she flirted or made out with the rapist before the rape.
- about 20 percent believe that the woman bears some responsibility if she doesn’t resist or scream during the rape.
- about 20 percent put some blame on the victim if she was intoxicated by alcohol or drugs.
- less than one in ten believe that it is an extenuating circumstance if the rapist is intoxicated.
- about one in ten believe that it is an extenuating circumstance if the perpetrator and the victim are in a relationship.

That so many young people, and especially young men, are willing to blame the victim is horrifying but perhaps not surprising. What is needed is better sex ed in schools, with teachers who are honest and open and able to meet the young students at their level. Sex ed should be more than mere biology or risk awareness, it should also include discussions on such concepts as consent (which many people seem to have a problem understanding), respect, pleasure and how to know what you want and like (and how to understand what your partner wants and likes). We don’t need more “morality” or “purity” as some say, we need more openness, honesty, and better trained teachers. I absolutely agree with Amnesty that sex ed should be a mandatory course for those studying to become teachers.

That those over 66 are so willing to blame the victim is also disturbing. In the Swedish justice system, we don’t have juries but so called lay assessors who judge together with the judge (sorry, but I’m not versed in legal English - a description in English about the Swedish legal system can be found here). These lay assessors are appointed by the political parties, and due to the nature of this work and the experience/connections needed to be appointed, most of them are older men.

So given what Amnesty’s study tells us about the attitude towards rape among people aged 66 and older, maybe it’s not so surprising to hear about how rape victims are asked in court how many sex partners she have had previously and what she have done with them, or how far above the knee her skirt was. (For Swedish readers, if you haven’t read this book on that subject yet, do so immediately!).

I could do that analogy to the wealthy guy getting robbed of this big fat wallet and shiny gold Rolex watch here, but I won’t. I’m just sad, and I don’t know how we, as a society, should begin to address this problem. I do hope that the young people will wise up in the future as they mature and actually start thinking. But maybe that’s too optimistic.

Amnesty writes about the study in Swedish here (where you can also find all the results in pdf-format), SvD writes here, and the Local writes in English here.

I’ve been cut off from the news during my time in Bogaland (the fictional country where our exercised peace support operation took place) so now I’m trying to catch up with everything that has happened in the world and in Bloglandia.

The Swedish government has decided to make an oversight of the Swedish law making it illegal to buy sexual services. That is needed, as there are a lot of scattered studies, speculations, and right out lies about the effects of the law. But there has been no general governmental analysis of the law and its effects.

But (not surprisingly) the government has given the person conducting the overview a limitation: she is not allowed to propose that the law should be repealed.

So even if the governmental investigator Anna Skarhed were to find that the law has had bad effects on the safety and health of sex workers, that is has not limited trafficking or lead to less violence against women or less child pornography (which it is said to be doing), Skarhed is not allowed to say that it would be a good idea to repeal the law.

I’m not saying that it would be any better if the investigation were to be done with the goal that the law should be repealed. That would be equally bad - studies should be made with an unbiased starting point. It is one thing that the government gives limitations regarding scope, depth and main perspective of the investigations it orders. But they shouldn’t say beforehand what conclusion they want.

And of course it goes without saying that the directives of the investigation doesn’t mention that it would be a good idea to speak to actual sex workers about the effects of the law.

Isabella Lund has more (in Swedish).

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Member of parliament Fredrick Federly (Centerpartiet, the Centre Party) wants to arrange a PR party for Israel. For those of you who are not familiar with this particular …person (I was on the verge of writing something less polite there, but his own words and actions are all that is needed to figure out what kind he is): he donated money - a whopping 30 dollars - to the Israeli military during the conflict with Lebanon in 2005 and … ok, enough examples: he’s a neoliberal nut job.

Federley will invite foreign minister Carl Bildt to this “fancy party” (his own words), but doesn’t think Bildt will show up as he has “wrong opinions” about the Israel-Palestine conflict (that is, he doesn’t think that it is fine and dandy to kill innocent Palestinian children and that apartheid is a great idea). Federley’s dream guest, however, is Carolina Gynning, who won the Big Brother reality show in 2004 and is mostly known from the tabloids for her breast implants. Federley says:
- We need celebrities to elevate the discussion and change the way young people view Israel.

*blink* - ok, he really did say that. *blink again*

Fredrick, I know partying with celebrities and using reality show winners to elevate the political discussion is a lot of hard work, but I have a suggestion for you. Because you know as a politician that it’s important to listen to all sides of the story and to be willing to learn new things. So I suggest you read this book. It’s very readable, although the contents might disturb you a little. I am willing to lend you my copy.

Via Alliansfritt Sverige

The immensely tragic and terrible murder of a 10 year old girl is all over the news here. Understandably people are scared, angry and sad. But besides the empathy and solidarity with the girl’s family and friends, there is also a darker side to it, fueled by sometimes speculative and vulturelike media reporting. People talk about torture, death penalty and mob justice. Karin Thunberg, reporter at Svenska Dagbladet had to close the comments section of her blog because it totally got out of hand. She has written a very good column that you can read here, where she says:

We can’t begin to look at every stranger, especially if it happens to be a man, as a potential criminal.
What happened to Engla lies beyond what we, at least as outsiders, can feel or understand. For real.

But we win nothing if we start to see the exceptions as the normal. In the society where everybody is scared of each other and expects hell to lie behind the next turn, there it becomes even more dangerous to live.

For all of us.

Now media researcher and professor Stig Hedenius, has proposed that media should be less cautious about publishing names of criminals and of suspects in crime investigations (see also SvD here).
He argues that by publishing names of suspects, we can avoid tragedies such as this one. That if people had known the name of the 42 year old who has admitted to murdering Engla (and also to another murder years ago), then Engla could have been alive today.
That is of course a purely theoretical argument which relies on a lot of “ifs”.

The media and the public should not be a substitute for courts and the rule of law. I agree there are a lot of problems with our criminal justice system, but the solution must never be to dismantle the legal rights of the individual (yes, even if that individual is a murderer and pedophile of the most heinous and awful kind) and to let the profit driven media and revenge hungry public act as the prosecutor and the judge. There are other ways to make our criminal justice system better.

We already know that the media is driven by selling papers (or getting viewers) and making money, and that their track record of respect for truth and decency is less than perfect. A few weeks ago, we had another tragic murder case, where two little girls were killed and their mother seriously injured. Before long, media had pointed out the father/husband as the perpetrator. But oups, turns out he was innocent, and the suspect is now a German woman. And when foreign minister Anna Lindh was murdered in 2003, a man called “the 35 year old” was pointed out as the killer. No name was published in that case, but enough details to identify him anyway if you cared to. He was innocent too. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time should not get you plastered all over placards and front pages. That isn’t something we as citizens should have to live in fear of.

I’m not saying that names and pictures of suspects should never be published. If the police investigation is seriously stuck and a name/picture publishing would move it forward, then yes, it can be okay. But only in close cooperation with the police, and not without serious consideration of the consequences. Unfortunately, I don’t trust the media to make that call. Today one one tabloid screams “How he became a murderer”. As if they have the answers to that.

And they see their circulation go up when tragedies happen. Grieving mothers, monstrous killers, those thing sell. What is really public interest here? Do we need close ups of crying neighbours, do we need nosy interviews with people who went to school with the suspect 30 years ago? In whose interest are those things published? Not in the victims’ and not in the public’s anyway.

A 23 year old man hung himself in a bathroom in the jail in Mariestad. When the personnel found the man, they left him hanging there, locked the door and then called an ambulance. The paramedics managed to restore cardiac activity, but the man died two days later in a hospital. During the nine minutes that it took for the ambulance to arrive, the jail personnel did nothing, they merely let the man hang.

What the hell were they thinking? That he would escape? That someone else would try to save him (and that would be a bad thing)? That it wasn’t their job to do anything about it? That he obviously wanted to kill himself, so they did him a service by leaving him there? That only trained medical personnel would be able to take him down? The incompetence and negligence is so frightening.

This is only the latest of a series of examples of how bad our correctional treatment system is working. Only in the last few days, it was exposed that in 2005, a seriously ill man with pneumonia were left to slowly die in a jail cell in Nyköping. The guards thought that the man had drug abstinence so they did nothing about it, although several doctors say that his symptoms were nothing like those typically associated with abstinence. They guards documented the man’s condition in a protocol, but they didn’t care enough to call a doctor and explain the symptoms, or to take him to a hospital.

Both these men could be alive today had the personnel done their job properly. And the main responsibility lies with the director-general of the Swedish Prisons and Probations Administration, Lars Nylén. Some of his staff is clearly untrained on what to do in an emergency; the policies and protocols on how to handle suicide attempts, ill detainees and other such situation are clearly lacking or not communicated down to the personnel; and some personnel seems to have a frightening disregard for human life, which means they are unfit for their job. Or maybe they though that this was a proper punishment for the jailed person, in which case they are also unfit for their job.

Media: SvD, HD, Sydsvenskan, SR Ekot
Fellow bloggers: Jinge