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 --------
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 <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@xxxxxxxxx>
To: us-eu-ttip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <us-eu-ttip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: mshears@xxxxxxx
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 away that can hardly be
intended":
http://www.publikt.se/sites/default/files/6170-12-80.pdf
The 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=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