marshtide: (Katherine Hepburn - Sylvia Scarlett)
”Kampen för rättvisa har också historiskt varit en stark drivkraft för rösträtt, mot apartheid, för jämställdhet, mot diskriminering och för rättsstat. För Moderaterna är rättviseperspektivet ständigt närvarande.”

Oh god, I have to go either cry or laugh until I cry now. Either way this merits tears.


"The fight for justice has also from a historical perspective been a strong driving force for the right to vote, against apartheid, for equality against discrimination and for the constitutional state. For the Moderate party the perspective of justice is a constant presence."

OK, that's a horrible translation, but the original quote is also pretty horrible. *eyes it* I.. no really, that's just badly constructed. I refuse to take the time to do a nice translation of something so crap. Anyway, uh... guys? Remember how you voted against universal suffrage? And against sanctions when Sweden was considering its stance on apartheid? And against basically everything except lowered taxes, actually?

OH RIGHT, details like that are just the Social Democrats coming with silly, irrelevant questions about history! Like we should care about history! Haha!

(Whole article @ DN)
marshtide: (Parkvakten)
Source: RFSL pressmeddelande - KD fördröjer viktiga förbättringar för hbt-personer

So there's been work going on to change some of the more shockingly terrible aspects of Sweden's laws re: trans people - namely the whole "divorce and sterilisation mandatory" thing, omg Sweden, aren't we over this whole forced sterilisation thing yet, for serious - and also to make it possible for single women to get help with becoming pregnant in Swedish hospitals. Basically almost all the parties are for this; it is seen as a Good Thing. Well, YEAH.

RFSL say:

När RFSL under valrörelsen förra året genomförde en enkätundersökning bland riksdagskandidaterna svarade 87,5 procent att de var för en förändring av lagen om fastställelse av könstillhörighet i vissa fall på så sätt att kraven på att vara ogift, steril, myndig och svensk medborgare skulle tas bort. Alla partier utom två, Kristdemokraterna och Sverigedemokraterna, har på olika sätt deklarerat att de är för en förändring.


When RFSL under the election campaign last year carried out a survey of the parliamentary candidates, 87.5 percent replied that they supported a change in the law regarding confirmation of gender assignment in certain cases in such a way that the requirement to be unmarried, sterile, legally independent and a swedish citizen would be removed. All parties except for two, the Christian Democrats (Kristdemokraterna) and Swedish Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna), have in one way or another declated that they are in favour of a change.

(Sverigedemokraterna, for the record, are the anti-immigration party. They are also in favour women being, like, Real Women, which means at home.)

So I mean, what could possibly go wrong? Those two parties are tiny. They're both hovering around the line which you have to cross to actually qualify to be in parliament at all. The big parties? They're for change, even the Moderate party, which isn't exactly renowned for its progressive thinking (and got terrible marks on the aforementioned survey otherwise - think I posted about that one at the time actually). The department of health and welfare (socialstyrelsen) has also published recommendations to the effect of CHANGE THIS NOW. So it really should be getting changed.



There is a problem. Of course there is a problem!

In this case, the problem is called Göran Hägglund. He's the leader of the Christian Democrats.

And as the Christian Democrats are part of the governing coallition, he's also the minister for social affairs.

Guess which department has control over these questions. Go on! Guess! You will be so surprised.

Or, I guess, not.

Yeah, so Göran Hägglund, Minister for Social Affairs, head of a party with four percent of the nation's vote, is effectively blocking the opportunity to give trans people basic human rights and to give women not accompanied by a man the right to get fertilisation help from Swedish hospitals (ALTHOUGH his party got elected to parliament, as the article points out, using a slogan to the effect of "let the family decide more". Hur hur.). He is doing it via the political equivalent of sitting in a corner and going LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. WHAT PROBLEM.

Let's have a big round of applause for the Christian Democrats!

"For a more humane Sweden" is another othe of the slogans they used last year, by the way.

(I leave you to guess how on earth I could possibly have got into an argument with some of their representatives on the street last year in the run-up to the election...)
marshtide: (Mårran)
Last year, when I was going through the previous round of studying Swedish, we watched an episode of a TV series in class. They were talking about money; how important people think it is/isn't; different financial situations. As far as I remember, it went something like this:

They had three guests.

One was The Richest Dude In Sweden (who says he had a deprived childhood & so can speak for poor people everywhere, but his parents were actually rich before the family lost everything while he was young).

One was That Dude Who Was Super-Rich and Lost Everything But Is Now Super-Rich Again.

And one was a lady of Finnish background who grew up in poverty in Sweden. Possibly also surrounded by alcoholic adults. She has decent means now because she wrote a book that people liked.

They spent a lot of time talking about poverty.

The guys in particular spent a lot of time talking about how:

* there is no real poverty in Sweden

* no-one is trapped in poverty! they just aren't trying hard enough!

* how terrible it was to be them

while the lady sat there and was like, you people are fucking idiots, I don't believe what I'm hearing, except she was unfortunately too nice to actually put it like that. The sentiment was definitely there though.

I was also like, you people are fucking idiots, I don't believe what I'm hearing. So I was pretty glad she was there.

1. There Is No Real Poverty In Sweden, at least, none that we, middle-aged rich white dudes can see. We would of course not care to think about the fact that some people are paperless and therefore effectively shut out from all support networks*, and that there are people who are too sick to take advantage of the support networks, and that there are people who no-one wants to take seriously when they say they need support. There are even people who fall into all of these categories at once! But, they are not far away enough to be REALLY poor. Everyone knows real problems in the world are ALWAYS somewhere else.

* there is like one charity in Göteborg that wouldn't shut up until it was allowed to use its funds to help paperless women, but all the normal Swedish safety nets? HAH.

2. No-one is trapped in poverty! You just aren't trying hard enough! You should, like, use your resources better. ...what do you mean, you don't have resources? Everyone has resources! Just like us! WE got out!

This is basically the same as the bullshit that is positive thinking, which I'm sure works fine for people in a really really privileged position dealing with a setback which they have all the tools to take in their stride, but which is so deeply harmful for people who have real, huge problems that are not their fault and which are to some degree beyond their control. This is a lot of people. I am tempted to say it may be the majority of people at some time or other. Most of us have problems that are not in our head, and the holy church of it's all in your attitude can go fuck itself.

Anyway, yeah. So the guy with a formerly-rich family admits that the idea that he was MEANT to be rich was there in his head from really early on. It was, like, the natural order of things! He was ENTITLED!

He is apparently not able to couple this idea and the privilege inherent in the education level and social level of his parents with the reasons for his success. No: anyone could do it. If they tried.

The guy who lost it all ended up on the street at one point, but got given a chance by one of those magazines made and sold by homeless people. He charmed his way out, essentially, and as soon as he got a bit of the way back up then - surprise! - all his old network was there for him. He does not see why other people couldn't do the same. Never mind socialisation, ideas about the right to a certain status, and a network of people who'll take you the rest of the way if you can make yourself look presentable enough to seem worth talking to again - that couldn't have anything to do with it.


You Just Have To Try Harder.

3. It is terrible to be us basically because sometimes the world has not seen fit to arrange itself around us and so we have been temporarily poor?

I mean, don't get me wrong. Ending up on the street is shit for anyone, but the concept that his experience was the worst it could possibly have been rather took away from my sympathy, I have to admit. (Oh, and it's still terrible to be him now that he's rich again, by the way. Because now he knoooooooooooooooooooows that people only love him for his money. Woe and sadness. Woeeeeeee.)

...God, I'm sorry, I'm making light of the suffering of others again.

It's a horrible habit.

In this case I was rather provoked, I think.

(All this came up again, incidentally, in the context of this wealthy white dude who has written a book about how he travelled the world and PEOPLE WERE REALLY NICE TO HIM, so you should always be positive and nice and believe in the essential goodness of human nature because PEOPLE ARE REALLY NICE TO RICH WHITE MEN. So we were talking about that and getting all pissed off and then I suddenly remembered this whole other thing. And I thought I should share! To brighten everyone's day, just as mine has been brightened. ...I'm so sorry.)


marshtide: (Default)

December 2012

30 31     

Style Credit


RSS Atom
Page generated Apr. 26th, 2019 03:45 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Most Popular Tags