The FRA Law: Sweden as a Survellience Society

Sweden is likely to soon become the strictest country in Western society in terms of surveillance of electronic communication. On January 1st 2009 a new law will come into effect that has been given the informal name of “The FRA Law.”

FRA is an acronym for Försvarets Radioanstält, or in English the Defense Radio Institute, which is that authourity that will govern the use of signals intelligence that is legitimized by the new law.

The FRA Law is actually more of a movement that influences several different Swedish laws. It implies that wired communication can be surveyed whereas before only wireless communication could be surveyed. The law will also affect the way that personal information can be used.

On the other hand however the FRA Law has to follow several rules in order to gather and use signal intelligence. Among these are rules that require FRA to receive permission before they can gather information and a requirement that they will only use the information with direct consent from the Supreme Court. Furthermore signals intelligence will only be used on signals that cross Swedish borders. In other words they will not be allowed to gather information when both the sender and receiver are within Sweden.

Essentially the FRA Law is an attempt to reduce the threat of attacks from other countries as well as terrorism. The law has been strongly opposed by many politicians as well as ordinary citizens because of the way the law breaches their personal privacy. The are many that are worried that this law is a step towards a surveillance society not unlike the one in George Orwell’s famous novel “1984.” Some critics of the law have even dubbed it as “The 1984 Law.”

Personally I have mixed feelings about this. In one way it is always good to be careful with regards things like terrorism, especially in today’s world. In the same way Sweden is a country that has a tendency to be too careful. Of course terrorism is a reality, but where exactly is the threat coming from? Terrorist attacks are very rare in Sweden and it seems unlikely that this trend will change anytime soon.

Furthermore, the FRA Law infringes on personal privacy. It is a human right to think and say what one wants without having someone listening in. The problem is that this law is unlikely to be used in the way it was intended to and the potential for abuse is high. The likelihood that the FRA Law will uncover any terrorists is low this law could breed mistrust and suspicion within Swedish society. The FRA Law could also hurt the relationship between Sweden and other countries that aren’t fond of the law and could also awaken feelings of xenophobia because the law is essentially based on the mistrust of foreigners.

Ultimately I think this law is not as dangerous as it is made out to be but for the most part rather un-necessary.

The Belief in Free Speech

This post is half in response to Russ MacDonald’s post “That’s Blasphemy” and half in response to the appalling terrorist attacks this week in Mumbai.

While reading MacDonald’s article and then shortly thereafter seeing reports of the bloodshed in India I began thinking about the very thin line that exists between discourse and action as well as how this is related to the boundary between belief and conflict.

MacDonald characterizes free speech as “sacred” and insists on the necessity of its preservation. The connection is also made by MacDonald between speech and belief and the inherent danger implied by their restriction i.e. thought control, persecution one’s convictions.

These dangers, as evidenced by the UN’s recent “blasphemy”, are not restricted to fiction (1984 comes quickly to mind), but are clearly a reality. I understand everyone’s concern about the control of what we say or believe but on the other hand, as I have already mentioned, the boundary between talking and doing is often exceedingly thin.

The question raised by MacDonald’s blog is: Is free speech a unanimous, unbounded right or are there instances where free speech can, and should be limited?

Personally, I believe in the power of the word. I believe that words are indescribably (pardon the irony) more powerful than any weapon and, contrary to cliché-correctness, have the potential to speak louder than actions. Words can be used to convince, control, or even break a person down. In this context I also believe in, despite the power of words, the liberty to express oneself freely. At the same time however, due to the power and meaningfulness of words, I also believe there are times where people would be better off if they kept they’re mouth shut.

The recent news out of Mumbai is that the well-organized attacks were carried out by a group of terrorists that call themselves “Deccan Mujahedeen” which in English translates roughly to “strugglers from Deccan” which is a plateau in Southern India. As with any terrorist attack this one defies all logic despite appearing to be rooted in religious differences. The group of Deccan Mujahedeen, who many are speculating might be fronting for another, larger terrorist group, are a group of essentially unknown Muslim men (although boys might be a more appropriate term as many have described them as being very young) that are, to this point, only known by their name and their belief.

It seems that even in these most random, irrational acts of violence, that there is a belief to be fought for and a name to hide behind. When terrorism strikes through acts of violence these are the first things people want to know. A name and a belief. Who and why?

What does this mean for free speech then? Even deeper, what does this mean for our right to believe and think? It seems logical that perhaps certain dangerous or seditious beliefs should be restricted in some way. (I am not in any way suggesting this be done)Yet this raises another question of what is worse, the potential violence incurred by these beliefs or the restriction upon our freedom?

When there is a terrorist attack it is usually the not the terrorist act but the backlash that is most destructive. In the terrible attacks in America on September 11th, 2001 almost 3000 people lost their lives. However in the even more terrible wars in Afghanistan and Iraq well over one million people have been killed to this point.

Over the past seven years there have been different names in front of different beliefs and through all this killing and devastation it seems that words begin to lose their power. Even the beliefs which are being fought for become forgotten amongst the loss and grief of those affected by the war. Yet in the end it will only be words that solve the conflict. Peace will not come from the silence left by exploding bombs. Only with the proclamation of the belief in peace, can peace actually be brought about.
Although terrorists such as the ones in Mumbai will try and reinforce their beliefs with violence they will not succeed for a belief is nothing without words and it is in this sense that MacDonald is completely right when he discusses the sacredness of free speech and the absurdity of impinging on it to protect a belief.

The Fear of Learning

If there is one place that a child should feel safe it is at school. Education is invaluable and every child should without any question be able to learn in a safe environment.

Why is it then that in the past week two there have been stories of death and violence involving innocent children in and on their way to school?

From last week’s school collapse in Haiti to this week’s violent attack involving the spraying of acid at a group of Afghani girls and teachers on their way to school in Kandahar, it is children who are taking the fall for the problems of others.

The attack in Kandahar is however more than just an attack on children. This was an attack organized by a cowardly group of men trying to prevent young women from going to school. These people can hide behind whatever religious or ideological guise they want but all they in actuality stand for is sexist misogyny.

The two questions that arise out of this are obviously: why are women mistreated in Afghanistan and secondly, and more importantly, what can be done?

The why is unfortunately the easier question to answer. Violent acts are always rooted in fear and the truth is that these men are clearly afraid of women. The scary part of this is that these attacks are far more systematic than they might appear from the outside. This was not a random act of violence but rather part of an orchestrated attempt to scare girls away from education. The sad part is that it seems to be working. According to reports out of Kandahar today the attacks have achieved their goal of frightening girls out of attending school. But why do groups like the Taliban not want these girls going to school?

Once again the answer is fear. The key to control over a group of people has always been to keep them uneducated. Educated women would no doubt learn new words like equality and women’s-rights. If women in Afghanistan ever learned these things they would understand that the Taliban’s Islamic costume is hiding a monster within.

In a way this event shows how far Afghanistan has come since the fall of the Taliban from power. These girls were, despite the violent act, on their way to school; a place they wouldn’t even come close to when the Taliban were in charge. When they were the status quo the Taliban were able to conceal their true character but since being ousted from power the Taliban have been reduced to their true essence. They are revealed through this act for what they really are; terrorists. This is beyond doubt an act of terrorism where the goal is to force people into an action through violence. So how is this stopped? Girls have been scared into staying home, so does this mean the terrorists win?

The way to stop terrorism is not to give in and give the terrorists what they want. Instead a way must be found to get these girls to school safely. There must be someone in Afghanistan that could do this; someone who’s primary interest is “fighting terror.”

Sound familiar?

Foreign troops from around the world are stationed in Afghanistan in the so called "war on terror", so where are they when blatant acts of terrorism like this one are taking place?

In a quote from Matthias Tomczak, the Australian convenor of the Support Association of the Women of Afghanistan (SAWA), he says that “one of the forces that actually are working against a solution are the foreign troops because they can't distinguish between Taliban and civilians and often hit civilians and people are afraid of them.”

The problem is clearly that the people who are supposedly fighting terrorism are equally terrifying as the terrorists. If the interest was truly in peace and eradicating the terrorists, protecting innocent civilians and denying terrorists from achieving their goals should be at the top of the list. Perhaps protecting these girls and making sure schools and the roads leading to them are safe would be a better, more peaceful solution for coalition troops than using the same violence and fear tactics used by the terrorists.

If these attacks were happening on American or Canadian soil, whatever necessary measures would be taken to assure the continued security and education of students. Why should Afghani students be treated any differently?




Will Grassby