A manifestly ill-founded Google search on Peter Klevius.
Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.
How come that Google and Bing get completely different search results for 'peter klevius'?
And the only image that pops up in Google is Peter Klevius old profile pic that didn't even exist anymore at the time of the screenshot.
But Bing found loads of Google's (Blogger) Peter Klevius images!
After all, Peter Klevius uses Google's Blogger since 20 years ago with thousand of images and posts.
And why does this ECHR application always pop up instead of any of Peter Klevius scientific revelations?
The ECHR application questioned the legality of hidden and subjective criterion for compulsory care of a child, and the blaming of the mother, and the pathologizing of both the mother and the child - for the purpose, as it seems, to protect the school . Hower, this aspect was swept under the rug with the 'margin of appreciation' broom.
Moreover, the manifestly ill-founded' has actually nothing to do with Peter Klevius, but relates to previous handling of the case. After being asked Peter Klevius for free took the case to ECHR, not for previous legal technicalities, but instead tried to utilize the main flaw in the case, which was the new concept of 'pathological symbiosis' that 1990 had been secretly introduced in the Act LVU. However, the Commission utilized the slippery 'margin of appreciation' even though the main point of Human Rights is to guide legislation so not to constitute a violation against Human Rights - which 'pathological symbiosis' clearly constitutes. Peter Klevius revealed this in his thesis Pathological Symbiosis in LVU.
Do note that that the Swedish judicial system (at least at the time for this matter) puts comparably more emphasize on preparatory works by the legislator than most other similar countries. A drawback of this is that the text in the act doesn't necessarily tell the story an average reader might think it does. So in the case of the new criterion nothing of it is visible in the act where the wording 'some other condition in the home' is the same as in the old act but now also contains'pathological symbiosis' However, to realize this one has to read the preparatory proposition to find it.
The concept is not mentioned in the text of the act LVU § 2 but falls under “…some other condition in the home …” (which is mentioned in the text), and is then hidden in the preparatory works where these “other conditions” are exemplified (Government’s Bill 1989/90:28 p 108). Because most Swedes, including many lawyers, do not always read the preparatory works that carefully, if at all, one is obliged to seriously doubt the intention with this arrangement, especially when we do know that “…some other conditions in the home…” had a totally different content before the act was revised (SOU 1986/20:304).
Also note the strange email response from the one that had prepared the insidious and Human Rights violating text in the proposal for the Act 1990.
This email correspondence is in an appendix to the thesis:
Peter Klevius: Do you know anything about whether this (pathological symbiosis) was discussed/debated in the Parliamentary hearing, e.g. in committees etc.? Any names?
Christina Gynnå: The best thing to do is that you search for the parliamentary report. Because “pathological symbiosis” is not a criterion for compulsory care, I would believe that it was not debated in the parliament, but it would be best if you go through the report. You are on completely the wrong track if you intend to attribute individual phrases to me. You can't even be sure that I'm the one who wrote the special motivation, let alone that I'm the one behind including the example you're stuck on. You can contact the other co-authors: and see if they can recall the question. You can also try with other managers, not least the head of the then Legal Secretariat who was responsible for the bill Who It Was, I can't remember, but you should be able to find out for yourself. Grateful if you would like to stop contacting me. I have nothing more to add on the matter.
This correspondence happened a couple of decades ago. However, Peter Klevius thesis proves beyond any doubt not only that the elusive and ill-founded concept 'pathological symbiosis', contrary to Christina Gynnås email, was introduced in the Act LVU 1990 as a criterion for compulsory care, but also that it was welcomed and used by the social authorities. Moreover, it was (deliberately?) insidiously double hidden from casual searches: In the old Act LVU there was a criterion called 'some other condition in the home' (apart from e.g. physical or sexual abuse) which were named in text of the which did not refer to 'pathological symbiosis'.
Collection of comments from others than C. Gynnå involved in the writing of the proposal:
Sven Hulterström (Minister of Health and Social Affairs at the time when the proposal 1989/90:28 was written): Cannot recall the concept.
Karl-Ingvar Rundqvist: Cannot recall the concept.
Christina Bergenstrand: Does not recall anything about ”pathological symbiosis”. Besides, her main focus was judicial.
Göran Ewerlöf: Does not think there exist any particular basis for this. We clearly apprehended it as belonging to child psychiatry. There where no researchers or references involved.
To top it all Peter Klevius also asked Swedish parliamentarians who had followed this legislation more closely. However, no one incl. Gudrun Schyman (the founder of Sweden's feminist party FI), could recall any mentioning about the new concept 'pathological symbiosis'.
Comments
Post a Comment