|
Som sagt, är jag ute och cyklar? -------- Original Message --------
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/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 meet international obligations of confidentiality and secrecy required so that Sweden can participate in international cooperation on, for example, free trade. The Chancellor of Justice criticises the bill for "dramatically expanding the field of confidentiality in a way that can hardly be intended": http://www.publikt.se/sites/default/files/6170-12-80.pdfThe main reason (as far as I understand the argument) is a conflation of government (regeringen) and parliament (riksdagen) by the using the word "Sweden" in a way that, as far as I understand, would make e.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=16560It 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 lawyer and I just read up on this yesterday. But if I am right, then I'd need some help to stop the bill from being passed. Parliamentary oversight has proven weak already. Best regards. //Erik |