I got in to this a bit late and really wish I could have been there both this morning and tomorrow. But my schedule prohibits trips to the capitol, so the live web feed will have to do. The Centre Party showed that they could play the game as well as anyone else. All 29 of their MP’s demanded that the bill goes back to the drawing board, of sorts, or they vote and sink the government. Problem is there are alot of loopholes available at the moment to sneak Lex Orwell past the public and the media. Announcing the new vote and voting can be done in a matter of hours if timed well and its unclear if the announcement must reach all MP’s before the vote.
I was quite hopeful earlier but this is starting to smell.
There where a few more speakers, but none added anything that hadn’t been covered earlier today, though not by me so far. If you read swedish you can follow the links to the live blogs that where at the parliament today.
Gunvor G Ericsson (mp)
She asked the very interesting question where all the fear is coming from. There is no established threat to swedish interests on a scale that warrants this enormous breach of our Civil liberties.
Gunilla Whalén (v)
More of the same, though I guess its hard to be original when you asked for time at the stand at the door and only have four minutes to play with. Still, she, like most was astounded by the public interest in the issue and cited a few emails. One of which pointed out that someone with families abroad would be constantly monitored.
The way she worded her objection to the Centres demands that the bill be sent back for a new round of considerations made me smile: more control of the ones controlling the controllers will simply not work.
Finn Bengtsson (m)
At the end evil rears its head and brought a dictionary as a weapon. The threats are real! I have big words to prove it. He could have been speaking lolspeak for all i care, it would have made just about as many listen. His main reason to enact Lex Orwell seems to be that:
- This area needs regulation
- Discontinuing FRA would be irresponsible.
- Since the opponents have no alternative, we must vote yes.
Strange reasoning since:
- FRA is acting illegally today and this obviously means there are laws regulating their actions. Which they ignore.
- Keeping this operation alive even though it violates laws and produces no results is the irresponsible option. Even more irresponsible is to extend their jurisdiction and ignore their history of organized crime.
- The alternative is obviously to have no mass surveillance of our citizens and it is far better than avoiding imaginerrorists.
The vote is tomorrow and from what it looks like the bill will be sent back to a improvised round of considerations. No one knows when the next vote will be, or who will be present. In all this day was pretty anti climatic.
Update: I forgot to mention that Karl Sigfrid that I mentioned earlier as one of the four needed to stop the bill got an offer he couldnt refuse and will now not vote at all. Our primeminister carries a nasty whip apparently.