We don't need such a law in Sweden

 

Stockholm

Sweden should not have a civil courage law

Oisin Cantwell

News columnist

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

Published 12.14

The debate about civil courage returns, like Halley's Comet, at regular intervals, writes Oisín Cantwell Photo: Nasa

Once again, the demands for a civil courage law are heard.

But the disadvantages of such a provision are greater than the advantages.

Hässelby, Stockholm, the night of Sunday.

A middle-aged man was left battered after confronting a group of youths who were causing trouble at a party.

This in a nation that is still debating the murderSkärholmen, 39-year Mikael was, as you know, shot dead under similar circumstances a couple of weeks ago.

Against this dark background, it is not strange that the political demands for a civil courage law once again result in headlines.

It is above all the Christian Democrats and the Sweden Democrats who want to see such a provision, and they are met with reasonable objections as well as a resistance that is based on ignorance at best and is ill-intentioned at worst and most likely.

The temptation to use Skärholmen as an argument against clauses of that kind is entirely understandable:

It is unreasonable to demand in law that we risk our lives to intervene in various situations.

But even if there is now no shortage of examples that intelligence is not a necessary condition for becoming a member of the Riksdag, even better, the politicians who want to introduce clauses about civil courage are not so stupid as to demand such a thing.

Their argument is far more reasonable than that. It can be about picking up the mobile phone and calling the police if we see a crime being committed. And don't we all have an obligation to intervene in one way or another if we see a child drowning?

The point is, however, that most of us are morally well-developed enough that we do what we can to help a fellow human being in need without asking ourselves what the law requires.

And those who, out of indifference, yawn and walk away would still not care about a ban on being a puke.

Why should we have such a team then?

No, it's not that I'm speculating that a Civil Courage Act would be next to meaningless. This is a question that has been investigated before. And in that work, it has been investigated, among other things, what it looks like in countries with such a provision.

For example in Norway, Denmark and Finland. Our neighboring countries have laws of this kind. But they are applied extremely rarely and attitude surveys show that the sections have not affected people to a significant extent.

It is not the first time this debate has been held. It is reminiscent of Halley's Comet, the celestial body that passes Earth every 76 years during its orbit.

Nor is it the first time I have written this text. I seem to do it every twelve years.

The last time was in 2012, when a horrible story about a man who fell from a subway platform in Stockholm and was knocked unconscious spread across the world.

Surveillance footage showed another man climbing down the trail. But not to help the unconscious, but to rob him.

In that column, I referred to the so-called Action Plan Investigation which laid out the toils of its work in 2011.

The Politicians were advised against enacting a civil courage law and an important point was made:

Such clauses risk reducing our inclination to raise the alarm and testify about crimes and accidents if we feel we have not done enough to help at the scene.

Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask was impressed and the government never presented the proposal.

Incidentally, there are already certain paragraphs in the area. One of the four Nazis involved in the murder of John Hron in 1995 was sentenced to prison for not ringing the alarm on his cell phone.

This is really not a question. Reasonable arguments for a civil courage law are not lacking. But I think the disadvantages are greater.