Oh great, swedish terror-laws... yey!

[Lazul]

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,714179,00.html

Well for the once that dont know swedish, the swedish government are soon to vote on new laws against terror. The socialist (moron) democrats are now trying to pass laws that are the most anti-democratic law i have seen.

Jan Guillo, whom wrote the artical qoutes the new law and it says; " Innebörden i begreppet "utöva" skall förstås i en vidare mening än det straffrättsliga gärningsmannabegreppet. Detta innebär att personen inte behöver misstänkas vara en presumtiv gärningsman för att han eller hon ska anses kunna komma att utöva brottsligheten. Det kan således vara tillräckligt med att personen rent objektivt kan komma att främja en framtida brottslighet."

In english, it more or less says that you dont have to actually commit a crime, normal or terror related to be labeled as a terrorist or criminal. This is couse the police or SÄPO only have to objectivly come to the conclusion that I or someone Might commit or aid others in a criminal act.

How seriusly F**ked up isnt that?

[Kanamori]

Do you mean, actually arrested w/o any evidence? Is it a way to bypass juries and warrants? It sounds pretty bad, but I cannot accurately answer my own vague questions unless I can read it.:embarassed:

[Lazul]

well if the police "objectivly" come to the conclusion you "might" commit a crime or aid a criminal in the future they can come after you.

I dont like the way that sounds.

[Sjakihata]

"Detta innebär att personen inte behöver misstänkas vara en presumtiv gärningsman för att han eller hon ska anses kunna komma att utöva brottsligheten."


What?!

That's unheard of. And I thought the Swedes were even more humane than, we, the Danes. You must really sort that out - and remove that law.

Go get 'em tiger :duel:

[Papewaio]

Same kind of thing is happening here in Australia.

It is like old Joe and his communists are under the bed campaigns.

The funny thing is the politicians are asserting that the terrorists might take away our way of life therefore the politicians are doing a pre-emptive strike and definitly getting rid of our way of life.

Ah who needs civil liberties lets just let the governments handle everything. After all they have been so successful with their abilities in stopping terrorism so far...

[bmolsson]

I guess we all have to move to Saudi Arabia to be free......

[Soulforged]

[QUOTE=Lazul]
Jan Guillo, whom wrote the artical qoutes the new law and it says; " Innebörden i begreppet "utöva" skall förstås i en vidare mening än det straffrättsliga gärningsmannabegreppet. Detta innebär att personen inte behöver misstänkas vara en presumtiv gärningsman för att han eller hon ska anses kunna komma att utöva brottsligheten. Det kan således vara tillräckligt med att personen rent objektivt kan komma att främja en framtida brottslighet."
QUOTE]
Could you translate the exact text for me please? Thanks.~:cheers:

[Ironside]

:eeeek: :fainting:


" Innebörden i begreppet "utöva" skall förstås i en vidare mening än det straffrättsliga gärningsmannabegreppet. Detta innebär att personen inte behöver misstänkas vara en presumtiv gärningsman för att han eller hon ska anses kunna komma att utöva brottsligheten. Det kan således vara tillräckligt med att personen rent objektivt kan komma att främja en framtida brottslighet."

Hard to give an exact translate on this one, but I'll try.

The meaning of the concept "practice" is to be understood in a broader meaning than the perpetrator-concept as written in the law. It means that the person doesn't need to be suspected to be a presumptive perpetrator for he or she could be considered to be practice criminality. It can thus be enough that the person purly objectivly can possibly promote future crime.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The socialist (moron) democrats are now trying to pass laws that are the most anti-democratic law i have seen.

They haven't been socialistic since 1900, and democrats... having won every election since 1900 they have no pressure on them to be democratic. Hopefully they'll lose the next election. The best thing for Sweden would be if a new socialistic party could enter the politics and outmanouver them, since most Swedish voters seem to prefer socialist politics - it's the only way to get rid of this locked up situation, which can make them come up with such discussions. Besides, Thomas Bodstrom seems very paranoid from what I've seen, he's quick to think of people as enemies even though they aren't - such a person is very dangerous to give such powers. The Swedish people will have to lie low until they are liberated by some carpet bombing foreign nation... Sad... Oh, and as if it wasn't bad enough, the conservative parties of Sweden also seem to like anti-democratic laws of this kind. Quite odd that Sweden, which hasn't been victim of any terror whatsoever, and that the terrorists have promised not to touch because of their neutrality, are so eager to pass anti-democratic laws in order to fight a terrorism which doesn't exist.

[Lazul]

yeah there really isnt a good option to choose if you dont like the Social Democrats. the former communists are just confusing as a party, the liberals are acting like racist and the moderates are as naiv as allways.

[Snowhobbit]

You don't consider the Greens (miljopartiet) as a viable option.
"When I grow up I wan't to be a flower" Wouldn't that be the best slogan ever for them?
Ofcourse one could always try to tick in politicians that one prefer... Or vote for Donald Duck ~D
But these new terrorlaws are just weird, especially considering that they have been in development since just after 9/11 :dizzy2:

[English assassin]

It can thus be enough that the person purly objectivly can possibly promote future crime

I've long held a rather cynical view of certain aspects of the swedish legal system (it was the defence lawyers owing their duty to the court not their client that really got me), but does this really mean what it seems to mean?

A few questions: is it the police/prosecution, or a court that has to decide objectively that you might commit future crime?

Are you shown the evidence on which they are trying to put their case that you might commit crime?

What is the standard of proof, balance of probabilities, or beyond reasonable doubt? BoP together with a test of only "might" commit a crime means you could lock up just about anyone.

Does this really relate not only to terrorist crime (bad enough) but to ordinary crime? I could be locked up because, objectively, I might commit an ordinary crime in the future? That is truly stunning if so. Any ordinary crime, or only very serious ones like rape or murder?

If this is all correct, Swedish citizens in effect will be walking about free only for as long as the police decide not to lock them up.

[Lazul]

hehe actually Hobbit, i voted Green last election.

But back to the Laws. I asume its the police that does the objective asumption that I might commit/aid a crime/criminal.

[BDC]

I suspect the west is going to be having issues with these laws for a very long time. It's absolutely outrageous all these governments are getting away with it. Yes, maybe at the moment these fears aren't particularly justified. After all, there is a lot of interest at all levels are protecting democracy and people's rights. But maybe sometime in the future this won't exist.

[Meneldil]

Huh, well, that's rather out of topic, but I think people from Europe who bitch because their socialist parties 'aren't real socialists' or 'stopped to be socialist in 1900' are fooling themselves.
One of the biggest problem of France right now is that our socialists are still old school (= a la Jean Jaures) die hard socialists. And well, our communists are more communists than Marx. And what is trully scary is that the common french worker (who either vote for the 'Front National' (extreme right) or for the Parti Communiste) think socialists aren't leftist enough :dizzy2:
For these people, capitalism or (economical) liberalism are some kind of insults.

Now if you want some kind of Chavez to rule your country, be my guess ~:cheers:

[Soulforged]

The meaning of the concept "practice" is to be understood in a broader meaning than the perpetrator-concept as written in the law. It means that the person doesn't need to be suspected to be a presumptive perpetrator for he or she could be considered to be practice criminality. It can thus be enough that the person purly objectivly can possibly promote future crime.
Well if that's the exact meaning (no offense but I prefer always to have the text and interpret it myself, thanks though) then it means that everyone could be charged in a sistematic faceless way, because almost every people has the objective possibility of doing a crime. It's just absurd that the legislation is giving the power of interpreting hypotetical curses of action to the cohersional authority

[Rodion Romanovich]

I think people from Europe who bitch because their socialist parties 'aren't real socialists' or 'stopped to be socialist in 1900' are fooling themselves.

I assume you mean me ~D Actually, this is definitely the case in Sweden, and the socialist party is also very corrupt. I don't understand what you're saying, are you saying that Swedish socialists haven't stopped being socialists or are you saying that I said all European socialsts aren't socialists (which I didn't say and didn't mean)?

In any case, the socialists in Sweden keep destroying health care, dentists, creating a lot of stress and uncertainty rather than safety and guarantees for the future, and destroying education and law. The Swedish socialists have some people who constantly keep making mistakes when they try to look like socialists with the typical low sentences+understanding ideology, but end up being just plain stupid, creating loopholes for people who are rationally and deliberately planning crimes they will commit, while punishing those who have been pressured into madness or desperate measures by their situation. And at the same time they have other party members who want all "criminals" (and those have a quite strange view of what a criminal is) punished as hard as they possibly could, which means the system in the end is neither conservative or socialist:
- conservative: clear rules and hard punishments but also rewards for hard work. The rewards for hard work and dutiful behavior, i.e. a more or less guarantee that your situation will be fixed if you're legal, means hard punishments can be justified.
- socialist: clear rules, understanding for criminals who had a tough situation before the crime but with functioning systems for taking those out of crime. That there are preventive programs for criminals, as well as programs for taking previous criminals out of their criminality means it's justified with low sentences, which may increase if the crime is repeated. Socialistic system also has rewards for hard work, but slightly more limited than conservative system, because they put that below having an even greater safety than the conservatives have for those who happen to have bad luck because there were unpredictable errors in the system which led to a problematic situation, either poverty or crime.

Instead of any of these systems, they have a system where sentences are totally unpredictable, the rules are unclear, there's no possibilities in the future, hard work is seldom rewarded and everybody fears both criminals and the police and justice, whether they're criminals or not. They're not politicians with ideologies, they are professional bull****speakers who make loads of money from being elected - all of them have got huge houses, plenty of cars, private jets and stuff. It's not the same as the formerly poor who became socialists in around 1900 because they had lived through a tough situation themselves. Thomas Bodstrom, for instance, is the son of a former socialist, and he grew up in a quite protected home with good standards.

I'm personally not socialist, but the simple thing I'm saying is that a majority of the Swedish population likes socialism judging from how they vote. Therefore, it seems unlikely that it in the long term would be possible to get any other rule than a socialist government. That's why I think the best thing that could happen would be to get a non-corrupt socialist party. Either of the two systems I listed above are better than what's going on now. Even if I'd be a conservative, I'd say a functioning socialism according to above rules would be better than a malfunctioning conservative policy, and if I'd be a socialist, I'd say even a functioning conservative system would be better than a malfunctioning socialistic policy.

I don't know much about the situation in France, but I know that this is the situation in Sweden.

[Snowhobbit]

Just curiose, do you live in Sweden LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix?
Decent summary of what Sweden looks like, myself I'm a socio-liberal which means I damned if I do and damned if I don't considering the parties we have in Sweden at date. Ofcourse I'd love nothing more than being a politician and making everything right again, but that would probably entail more work than I could possibly pull of.
And I couldn't even vote last election :dizzy2:

[yesdachi]

Sounds like a great law…


If you’re the police!

:dizzy2:

[bmolsson]

Just curiose, do you live in Sweden LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix?
Decent summary of what Sweden looks like, myself I'm a socio-liberal which means I damned if I do and damned if I don't considering the parties we have in Sweden at date. Ofcourse I'd love nothing more than being a politician and making everything right again, but that would probably entail more work than I could possibly pull of.
And I couldn't even vote last election :dizzy2:

There are no realistic parties available in Sweden anymore. Everything is about taxes and well fare. Sweden need to get the entrepreneurs back......

[Lazul]

specially when the moderates-rightwingers claim to be a workers-party, then you know that politics in Sweden has become damn silly.

[Meneldil]

I assume you mean me ~D Actually, this is definitely the case in Sweden, and the socialist party is also very corrupt. I don't understand what you're saying, are you saying that Swedish socialists haven't stopped being socialists or are you saying that I said all European socialsts aren't socialists (which I didn't say and didn't mean)?


This was not directed only at you, but at all the people who complains about their 'not really socialist' socialists.

What I meant was that 19th-century-like-socialism is not a valid policy in a Western country in the globalized 21th century.