The government has just made illegal wiretapping legal...

Forostar said:
Everyone his own way. I guess I would have enough reasons to be pissed off at least.
Click to expand...
So if the dutch parliment voted a law saying everybody named "George" would be killed, you'd only be pissed off, and not scared in any way?
 
Forostar said:
Let me read that new law of yours, to judge if it's really like that.
Click to expand...
You do so, and mind you that the whole integrity protecting paragraphs are a big joke, changes made in the last minute to have it approved.

Did I mention that the ex. head of the Swedish Security Service strongly ctitized this law, saying it's lunacy, lawyers have found that these integrity protective measures are a hoax only to please the mob that will NOT work in reality  (Oh, and the departments that are to supervice FRA heard about it from the newspapers, and not from the government, that they were given this assignment).
 
In the light of such an important law: This already is rediculous:

The law was passed by the Swedish parliament on June 18, 2008, by a vote of 143 to 138, with one delegate abstaining and 67 delegates not present.    :uhm:

Further I can't really find the name/killing part. I advice you not to trust anyone who'd try to make people that afraid.
 
Forostar said:
In the light of such an important law: This already is rediculous:

The law was passed by the Swedish parliament on June 18, 2008, by a vote of 143 to 138, with one delegate abstaining and 67 delegates not present.    :uhm:

Further I can't really find the name/killing part. I advice you not to trust anyone who'd try to make people that afraid.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing: If one delegate from one block is missing, then one delegate from the other block must lay down his vote too (this is how the system works) and then counts as not present.

Edit: That George thing, you do realize I was only making a comparison?

So, for example, since 33 from the right block was missing, the left had to remove 33 of their votes.
 
I believe Yax means that when one fundamental right (the right to privacy) is infringed, we come into danger of having all of our fundamental rights infringed.
 
It would be laughable if it wasn't so god damned bad! The thing is that politicians throughout the western world don't seem to understand that they're only playing into the hands of the terrorists. Every infringement of our freedoms and rights is a win for the terrorists. They're winning, and not by flying in to buildings or blowing up tube stations but by scaring the shit out of politicians, making them write legislation that'll do the terrorists' work for them. I'm not scared yet, I'm only really, really pissed off!

And I'm also very concerned when a law such as this one is passed and 20% of our representatives can't even be bothered to vote? What the fuck is that all about?

The downside of democracy, I guess, we get the government we deserve...
 
I believe Yax means that when one fundamental right (the right to privacy) is infringed, we come into danger of having all of our fundamental rights infringed.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Actions that are taking place in Western nations at this moment to infringe upon rights and freedoms are where the anger comes from. What this signifies for further action against fundamental human rights is what to fear; and fear greatly.

Why do I feel many conspiracy theory discussions are imminent?
 
I think that throughout the course of human history, specifically the history of republican and democratic governments (NOT as in the US political parties, but as in the form of governments), there is always a gravitation towards centralization of powers during national security crises.  That is why the judiciary is separate to the legislative branch and the executive branches (though not all modern western democracies have an active executive branch) - to provide a balance based on preponderance of law and written constitution.  Which is why, in the USA, the Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in federal US court - for example.  Because sometimes government does something that it shouldn't do, and it's the job of the judges to say, "dude, wtf."
 
Anomica, the answer to why 20% didn't vote is: Kvittning, as the term is in Swedish. With every member of the parliment absent from one block, one member must put down his vote on the other side, and therefore counts as not present. So basically, if 20 fro the social democrates are absent, 20 from the right block must proclaim themselves absent too, in order to sustain the powerbalance in the chamber.
 
LooseCannon said:
Yax, Anomica is from Sweden too!
Click to expand...
I know, but with all the respect, this quote "And I'm also very concerned when a law such as this one is passed and 20% of our representatives can't even be bothered to vote? What the fuck is that all about?" implies he does not know about this particular measure in the voting, or I could have misunderstood.
 
What are the practical and realistic risks, possibly a result from this new law?

I'll try to make the first step (using fake-names).


1.
Terrorist Akan Hurdebrut is on the phone with someone in Tanzania. He says: "The stuff has arrived. Tomorrow I'll bomb the city hall of Lund"

What's the consequence: Hurdebrut will be arrested and is suspected of a crime.
Good? Not good?


2.
Innocent dude Elman Mannscheidt is on the phone with his girl in Albania. He says: "I hate this terrible new law. Now we can't have exciting talks anymore, that same bomb we had last week won't happen anymore babe"

What's the consequence:
A. Mannscheidt will be arrested (see 1)
B. Mannscheidt will not be arrested
C. Optional...please fill in

In other words, would someone say when the law will work and could someone say when the law will not work.

Do you people think that the police will make mistakes?
With terrible consequences? Without trial?
And that all people in Sweden have no rights anymore?
 
First off, FRA won't catch any terrorists. They don't communicate by msn messenger. They use encrypted messages. If they use i.e. 256bit AES encryption, it'll take 30 years minimum for a 2,5 quad core processor to crack it. FRA will use 14000 xeon processors, but they still won't catch any terrorists. It will take too long time to crack, and too long time to discover.
 
Yax said:
Here's the thing: If one delegate from one block is missing, then one delegate from the other block must lay down his vote too (this is how the system works) and then counts as not present.

So, for example, since 33 from the right block was missing, the left had to remove 33 of their votes.
Click to expand...

If I understand this law, it is just plain ridiculous.  Why should Party X be punished with 33 less votes, if 33 members of Party Y choose not to attend a vote?  Like Anomica, I'm wondering "what the fuck" is going on when politicians are not present to vote on such a controversial law.

@ Natalie, Yax and Anomica: Do you honestly believe a year from now this law will be in place?
 
The coalition has 7 more representatives in the parliment than the left block, with 178 to 171 delegates. It's very rare to have all 349 delegates present at a vote, by obvious reasons, such as, they are all divided into small departments where they are supposed to be "specialized" within the area, so sometimes the vote only takes place inside these small departments.

Other times, some politicians may be in Gothenburg or somewhere else, or maybe don't care enough to get their asses down to the parliment.

But, since the coalition has 4 percent more delegates, then you have to maintain that powerbalance during votes so the opposition can't outnumber them if some are missing. That's why we have "kvittning", to maintain the 4 percent advantage the coalition has.

But, I agree: They should really try to be present all of them.

But what's more ridiculous is Fredrick Federley, a delegade frm Centerpartiet (the coalition). He strongly opposed this proposition, and named himself the protector of Sweden's integrity. The coalition couldn't take that, so they tried to force the delegates who opposed.

Fredrick Federley said he wouldn't back down. Hell, he eve WEPT during a parliment debate that was broadcasted nationally, and then that little twit votes yes. Days after, he whines about how SÄPO (National Security Service) has to watch him 24/7 since he has recieved threats. NO WONDER! That backstabbing bastard should have seen that coming, that people would be pissed. Of course, threats on his life is way out of line, but what did he expect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top