-------- 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
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