Som sagt, är jag ute och cyklar?
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Sweden is about to change its law on transparency regarding doocuments related to international cooperation on 20 November Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:49:28 +0100 From: Erik Josefsson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> CC: [email protected] I'm on deep waters here, but maybe others can swim? Sweden is about to change its law on transparency regarding documents related to international cooperation on 20 November 2013: http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Utskottens-dokument/Betankanden/Arenden/201314/KU6/ http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Debatter--beslut/Debatter-och-beslut-om-forslag/Debatt-om-forslag/Debatt-om-forslag-2013-11-20/?sid=72641 The bill proposes a new confidentiality provision to protect the public interest, which I think is the same "public interest" expansion as Ante is covering in the FFII Ombudsman complaint: http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1956 The purpose of the new confidentiality provision is to ensure that Swedish authorities can meetinternational obligations of confidentiality and secrecy required so that Sweden can participate ininternational cooperation on, for example,free trade. The Chancellor of Justice criticisesthe bill for "dramatically expanding the field of confidentiality in away that can hardly be intended": http://www.publikt.se/sites/default/files/6170-12-80.pdf The main reason (as far as I understandthe argument)is a conflation of government (regeringen) and parliament (riksdagen) by the usingthe word "Sweden" in a way that, as far as I understand, would makee.g. ratification by parliament (riksdagen) redundant for confidentiality in international agreements to take legal effect: http://euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sandbox&diff=16561&oldid=16560 It is also my understanding that certain things in the Swedish legal system of freedom of expression is the competence of the Parliament only. These might also conflate into a government black hole when it comes to e.g. TTIP. I can be completely wrong. I am not a lawyerandI just read up on this yesterday. But if I am right, then I'd needsome help to stop the billfrom being passed. Parliamentary oversight has proven weakalready. Best regards. //Erik
