3 ms·
Small reminder that the left party described in your comment is actually formerly known as the communist party in Sweden and that they supported during WW2 the
by rdm_blackhole 3y ago
Small reminder that the left party described in your comment is actually formerly known as the communist party in Sweden and that they supported during WW2 the invading soviet forces vs Finland.
That may explain why she is interested in bringing this legislation forward. I think privacy is not at the forefront of preoccupations for communists.
- Arnt 3y agoWhen I grew up (far north in Norway) it was said that filling out a membership form in the communist party would get your phone tapped at once. She's older than I am and I'd be surprised of the Swedes treated their communists any different in first 30 years of her life. Anyway, my point is that she's been repeatedly elected. She didn't get her present job in an election, but someone who's won three elections in a row recently is democratically legitimate, even if the current job isn't directly elected.
- tankenmate 3y agoThis is a false equivalency argument. It would be just as false as saying "rdm_blackhole supports decriminalising incitement because he supports free speech".
- zosima 3y agoShe joined the the so-called Vänsterpartiet when their full name was: Vänsterpartiet - kommunisterna (VPK) aka The left party - communists. At that time the party had ties to eastern germany and the Soviet Union. She was elected to parliament as representative for vänsterpartiet - kommunisterna. There is no false equivalency whatsoever here.
- Arnt 3y agoIt sounded as if GP meant to imply the Swedish communist party's attitude to privacy was equivalent to something, without stating what. The Soviet communist party's attitude, perhaps? The Soviet one spied on everyone. The Swedish one was spied upon. That's not equivalent.