|
Nu har en juristkompis sagt vid sidan
om att jag har rätt.
Ni på listan som också har juristkompisar, kan ni dubbelkolla?
Det här är mycket större än DFRI. Hjältarna i styrelsen som redan
jobbar för fullt kan inte paketera och skicka detta vidare.
Sverige och Sveriges regering sviktar nu när de behovs som mest.
Ska försöka skriva artikel om Riksdagens avskaffande.
Känns som om det är en direkt riktad attack mot just Sverige.
Sverige var det enda land som ändrade sin lagstiftning för att
anpassa sig till ACTA (större befogenheter för tull/polisen att
ingripa mot immaterialrättsintrång).
Nu ska vi för-anpassas för att kunna förhandla om TTIP.
//Erik
On 11/12/2013 12:51 PM, Erik Josefsson wrote:
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/
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 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.pdf
The
ma in 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=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 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
|