The change in our constitution can limit democracy

 

Oisin Cantwell 

 

Swedish democracy was curtailed today 

 

Published: Less than 50 min ago 

 

This is a commenting text. Analysis and positions are the writer's. 

 

Whistleblower Anders Kompass should be happy because he leaked the information about how UN soldiers committed abuses before these paragraphs came into force. Photo: AFTONBLADET/85768/ELVPIH 

 

COLUMNIST 

 

At 11:37 a.m. today, the Constitution Committee announced that it supports a constitutional amendment that threatens to restrict democracy. 

 

Had it been possible to reveal that the Swedish government sent two men to torture in Egypt about the upcoming law on foreign espionage applied in 2003? 

 

Fredrik Laurin, one of the journalists behind Kalla Fakta's internationally recognized scoop, doesn't think so. 

 

Of course, this concern can be dismissed as a journalist's overexcited and alarmist reaction. 

 

Let us instead listen to what the lawyers have to say about what is in the works. 

 

Mikael Rousti, lecturer in constitutional law, one of the engineers behind the legal product, believes that the publications a few years ago about Sweden planning to help Saudi Arabia build a weapons factory would have been criminal if the new paragraphs had been in place. 

 

So what is all this about? 

 

The new crime of foreign espionage will strengthen the protection of secrets within international collaborations such as the UN, NATO and the EU. 

 

The tinkering in the constitution is because this form of foreign espionage becomes a violation of freedom of press and expression. 

 

Among other things, it will be a criminal offense to reveal information that could damage Sweden's relationship with other states. 

 

In addition, it will be illegal to provide information that could harm Sweden. 

 

Whistleblower Anders Kompass should be happy that he leaked the information about how UN soldiers in the Central African Republic committed abuses before these paragraphs came into force. 

 

Even the responsible publishers at Sweden's newsrooms who reported on this scandal have reason to be grateful. 

 

For reasons that are easily understood, the original bill, which was presented back in 2017, was met with loud criticism from various referral bodies. Not least the media companies had opinions. 

 

The government listened to the criticism and introduced a valve in the form of a so-called justification exception. 

 

For example, a disclosure about crimes committed by international forces that has a journalistic purpose will not be punishable. 

 

But the valve is vague and untested. And it will be the state, not the responsible publisher, that decides what is justifiable. 

 

Since it is to be inserted into the constitution, the Riksdag must decide on the new law twice with elections between the decisions. 

 

In April this year, all parties except the Left Party and the Liberals voted yes to the law change. 

 

The majority's approach would have been reasonable if foreign espionage were today an unregulated area where it was free to harm Sweden without consequences. 

 

It's better not to be like that. For example, the Criminal Code's provisions on crimes against national security are useful. 

 

The fact that politicians manage to push through the new law almost completely without troubling questions is not a good mark for contemporary public discourse. 

 

Today, Thursday, the issue was up in the Constitution Committee. The liberals have swung and are now in favor. 

 

On November 16, the law will be clubbed in the Riksdag. The members can then decide that the matter is referred back to the committee. 

 

But that is not a realistic option. One third of the members of the Riksdag must support such a decision. We can forget that. 

 

Politicians and soldiers who want to be able to engage in abuse in conflicts undisturbed are to be congratulated