Fwd: Sweden is about to change its law on transparency regarding doocuments related to international cooperation on 20 November
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@gmail.com To: us-eu-ttip@lists.riseup.net us-eu-ttip@lists.riseup.net CC: mshears@cdt.org
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/Ar... http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Debatter--beslut/Debatter-och-beslut-om-forslag/D...
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
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@gmail.com To: us-eu-ttip@lists.riseup.net us-eu-ttip@lists.riseup.net CC: mshears@cdt.org
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=72641The 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.pdfThe 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=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 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
Follow the money... /j0nas
On 2013-11-13 09:43, Erik Josefsson wrote:
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@gmail.com To: us-eu-ttip@lists.riseup.net us-eu-ttip@lists.riseup.net CC: mshears@cdt.org
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=72641The 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.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
-
19x20 -
Erik Josefsson