Battleangel

It seems that Sweden has for the first time truly played out its one year old anti-terrorist law. And the results are awe-inspiring, but far from equitable. There is no doubt the law works, in fact it’s like cutting daisies with a chainsaw. Imprecise and provocative.

I just read this week’s column by Jan Guillou in Aftonbladet and I’m forced to agree with him.
The entire process is kafkaesque so say the least. “This is reminiscent of the witch-hunts and processes of days long past. But at least during these processes, the accused got the evidence presented before him”, says acclaimed author and journalist Jan Guillou. And as also pointed out in the article, these anti-terrorist laws are just a layer upon old laws. I.e. a “terrorist” conspiring to commit a crime has already broken a handful of laws as it is and could thus be apprehended without this new monstrosity. It adds nothing but a brick in the wall towards fascism.

Is this what it has come down to? Should Sweden endanger its freedom, the freedom of its people, to presumably protect someone else’s? There is no doubt in my mind that this crosses an unspoken boundary. Psychological biases work to presume that “bad things happen to bad people”. I.e. that if you have the security police breaking down your door your HAVE to be guilty. It is anticipated but simply not so. You should have the same fighting chance as anyone else. In the end it could undermine the notion that we exist in an equitable society, one where legal processes are open and fair and that is devoid of these cloak-and-dagger tactics. Sweden is and should be a society where no secrets are kept from the people in matters that concern the people.

Links: Sweden: Principle of publicity.