Debate: “Why not ban racist organizations?”

Debate

Publication: 2021-05-19 11:01

Debate – Aws Al-Kahili, law student at Uppsala University, majoring in international law

It’s been a long time There was a paralyzed attitude toward the ban by racist and anti-democracy organizations, something that appeared to restrict freedom of association and led to countless lyrical explanations about its preservation, not least from the legal profession. The question is not whether banning racist organizations is – as it is – compatible with the constitution but whether there is a will to acknowledge the harmful effects of racism in our democratic society.

Just over a month After the end of World War II, the United Nations Charter came into force, the world’s first and most important document of international law. In 1965, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was born, and today it is signed by 182 countries, including Sweden.

Tuesday 4 May The Parliamentary Committee submitted a report to the government entitled “Banning Racist Organizations”. The report is based on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which Sweden has ratified.

“It has been 50 years since Sweden ratified the apartheid convention this year.”

The purpose of the apartheid convention was And the “elimination of all forms of racial discrimination”. Article 1 (1) of the Convention states:

Any difference, exclusion, restriction or preference due to race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin, the purpose or effect of which is to nullify or restrict the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights on a par with human rights or basic political and economic freedoms, social fields or Cultural or other areas of public life.

May 6th Professor Books. Mårten Schultz in Svenska dagbladet that “there is still reason to think more about future legislative work about the balance of interests between the reasons that speak in favor of these prohibitions on the one hand and the reasons that speak in favor of protecting freedom of association.” Martin Schultz puts his finger elegantly on the fear of touch that is equally found among lawyers and politicians. This is somewhat understandable but still unacceptable.

READ  Cross-country skiing in crisis? Germany lacks most things - the national team is not getting sponsors and it lacks coaches: three they can no longer afford - they have burned. "| Sports

It has been 50 years since Sweden ratified the Apartheid Convention.

It is also Just over ten years since the form of government was reformulated with, at the very least, inhibiting restrictions on freedom of association in Chapter 2, Section 24, Paragraph 2, which states that freedom of association may be restricted.

Pursuant to Article 4 (b) of the Racial Discrimination Convention States parties are obligated to prohibit all organizations that advocate racism and discrimination; In addition, Article 2 (1) (b) provides that states shall not sponsor, defend, or support persons or organizations involved in racial discrimination.

Not It is only possible to reduce the racist organizations without the existential necessity of democracy. In these contexts it is often said that “the strength and weakness of democracy is that it allows itself to be destroyed”. However, it does not contradict the principles of the rule of law – or the list of constitutional rights – to restrict freedom of association if it is necessary and proportionate. It is necessary so that there is no other effective way to confront racist organizations, right-wing extremists, as well as religious extremists. Proportionate in such a way that the benefits of restricting – or criminalizing – the freedom to organize some societies to organize outweigh the disadvantages of the goals acceptable in a democratic society.

Sweden is being repeated Criticized in two points, in terms of compliance with the RDA. One of the criticisms relates to the treatment of the Sami – the only indigenous people in Europe – who are subjected to racism and human rights violations. An issue that seems unimportant to politicians in the field.

READ  Prince William: We are not a racist family

The second criticism It is financial support and freedom of association for racist and extremist organizations. Article 4 (a) – (b) of the Racial Discrimination Convention states that states undertake to criminalize all racist propaganda and its financing, as well as an injunction prohibiting racist organizations that promote or encourage racial discrimination. Hence, this case targets organized racism, racist propaganda and financial support for organizations. Sweden’s response to criticism was, like that of the broken record player, that commitment to the convention was fulfilled through the penal code for incitement against ethnic groups in Chapter 16 of the Criminal Code. § 8. The criminal law text is not intended to regulate and finance the primary association with state funds, so the answer can instead be seen

Different ways of looking at racist organizations lead to different ways of looking at democracy.

In the proposal on Banning racist organizations, there are three reservations issued by representatives of the Swedish Democrats, liberals and leftists.

All reservations agree On a key point but with his partisan political differences and ideological motives. In general, it is stated that the proposed exemptions do not constitute a special cause of the state of emergency (the Swedish Democrats); That freedom of association must be left as it is and that various forms of racism are already criminalized today (the Left Party); And that restrictions on freedom of association should not be limited because it goes beyond what is necessary (the liberals).

What no reservations It clarifies, either due to reluctance or an incomplete understanding of international law, the fact that Sweden has entered into a binding agreement under international law. A short study of international law would provide politicians with a basic understanding of the duality of the Swedish legal system, which means that Sweden is obligated to clearly incorporate the agreement and its impact in Swedish law.

READ  Trump requests a partial recount in Wisconsin

what ever It can be understood in shorter studies of international law, that the state may not refer to national law as the reason for the failure to transmit international law, even if it is contrary to the constitution. Thus the agreement must either be incorporated (a separate law is introduced into the Swedish legal system) or by transformation (the treaty obligations are reworked into the existing law in the region). In all cases, the purpose of the agreement shall have the intended effect on national law.

Freedom of association or freedom from racism?

For a long time Time, the first gives more importance. This is also the reason why the so-called Northern Resistance Movement, the alternative to Sweden and other racist and anti-democratic organizations, regardless of the basic ideological and / or religious orientation, is allowed to operate in public spaces and unite. Whether they are neo-Nazis or fundamentalist Islamists. At the expense of the taxpayers, at the expense of minorities and democracy.

Do not misunderstand the question, It is about the survival of democracy. Think about this.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *