Maskeringsförbudet och proportionalitetsprincipen - en motiverad begränsning eller en alltför långtgående inskränkning?
(2016) LAGF03 20162Faculty of Law
Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Under lång tid var den rådande uppfattningen att ett maskeringsförbud skulle strida mot regeringsformen och Europakonventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna. I samband med ”Göteborgskravallerna” 2001 kritiserades Polismyndighetens bristande förmåga att upprätthålla ordning och säkerhet och denna uppfattning förändrades. Den 1 januari 2006 trädde lag (2005:900) om maskeringsförbud i vissa fall ikraft vilken omfattar exempelvis demonstrationer och den 1 mars 2017 väntas lag om maskeringsförbud vid idrottsarrangemang träda ikraft vilken främst riktas mot maskerade supportrar. Debatten kring maskeringsförbudet är het, kritiska röster menar att ett maskeringsförbud är verkningslöst för att komma tillrätta med ordningsstörningarna... (More)
- Under lång tid var den rådande uppfattningen att ett maskeringsförbud skulle strida mot regeringsformen och Europakonventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna. I samband med ”Göteborgskravallerna” 2001 kritiserades Polismyndighetens bristande förmåga att upprätthålla ordning och säkerhet och denna uppfattning förändrades. Den 1 januari 2006 trädde lag (2005:900) om maskeringsförbud i vissa fall ikraft vilken omfattar exempelvis demonstrationer och den 1 mars 2017 väntas lag om maskeringsförbud vid idrottsarrangemang träda ikraft vilken främst riktas mot maskerade supportrar. Debatten kring maskeringsförbudet är het, kritiska röster menar att ett maskeringsförbud är verkningslöst för att komma tillrätta med ordningsstörningarna medan polisen och rättsväsendet ser maskeringsförbudet som ett hjälpmedel för att stävja ordningsstörningar.
Den här uppsatsen syftar till att undersöka om maskeringsförbudet så som det är utformat i de två maskeringsförbudslagarna enligt proportionalitetsprincipen är ett proportionerligt verktyg för att motverka ordningsstörningar eller om det utgör en alltför långtgående inskränkning i de konstitutionella fri- och rättigheterna. Eftersom ordning och säkerhet utgör en grundlagsenlig inskränkningsgrund har särskilt fokus lagts på den reella intresseavvägningen mellan maskeringsförbudets positiva effekter i praktiken enligt dess syfte, och dess negativa effekter i praktiken i form av den faktiska inskränkningen av de konstitutionella fri- och rättigheterna. Slutsatsen är att maskeringsförbudet är proportionerligt i fyra av fem steg. Vad gäller den reella intresseavvägningen finns dock anledning att vara kritisk, då mycket talar för att vissa friheter inskränks alltför långtgående i förhållande till de av lagstiftaren väntade positiva effekterna med lagarna, som inte har infriats i den omfattning som förväntades vad gäller den ikraftträdda maskeringsförbudslagen, och som riskerar att inte infrias i den kommande maskeringsförbudslagen när denna träder ikraft 2017. (Less) - Abstract
- For a long time the prevailing opinion in Sweden was that a masking prohibition would be a too far-reaching restriction on constitutional human rights, and thus contrary to both the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. In the wake of the “Gothenburg riots” in 2001, massive criticism was directed at the Police Authority for not maintaining order and security, which helped change the prevailing opinion.
On the first of January 2006 the Law on the Prohibition of masking in some cases took effect, which is aimed at public meetings such as demonstrations. On the first of March 2017 the Law on Masking Prohibition at sporting events is expected to enter into force, which is mainly directed at masked supporters. The debate... (More) - For a long time the prevailing opinion in Sweden was that a masking prohibition would be a too far-reaching restriction on constitutional human rights, and thus contrary to both the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. In the wake of the “Gothenburg riots” in 2001, massive criticism was directed at the Police Authority for not maintaining order and security, which helped change the prevailing opinion.
On the first of January 2006 the Law on the Prohibition of masking in some cases took effect, which is aimed at public meetings such as demonstrations. On the first of March 2017 the Law on Masking Prohibition at sporting events is expected to enter into force, which is mainly directed at masked supporters. The debate surrounding masking prohibition is intense, with critics claiming that a masking ban is an ineffective way to deal with the disturbances while the police and the judiciary on the contrary sees it as a means to quell disturbances.
This paper aims to investigate whether the masking ban as it is designed in the two masking prohibition laws, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, is a proportionate tool to counteract disturbances, or whether it constitutes a too far-reaching restriction of the constitutional rights and freedoms. Since order and security is an acceptable constitutional restriction, special focus is placed on the real balance of interests between the positive effects of the masking ban in practise due to its purpose, and its negative effects in practise in terms of its actual restriction of the constitutional rights and freedoms. The conclusion is that the masking ban is proportionate in four of five stages. As for the real balance of interests, there is reason to be critical. There are indications that certain freedoms are excessively restricted in relation to the positive impact of the laws expected by the legislator, which has not materialized to the extent anticipated, or as in the case of the upcoming law; is in danger of not materializing to the expected extent when it enters into force in 2017. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8896507
- author
- Falk, Alma LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20162
- year
- 2016
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Statsrätt, Konstitutionell rätt, law, constitutional law, maskeringsförbud, masking prohibition, masking ban, Konstitutionella fri- och rättigheter, Constitutional human rights
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8896507
- date added to LUP
- 2017-02-04 16:49:26
- date last changed
- 2017-02-04 16:49:26
@misc{8896507,
abstract = {{For a long time the prevailing opinion in Sweden was that a masking prohibition would be a too far-reaching restriction on constitutional human rights, and thus contrary to both the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. In the wake of the “Gothenburg riots” in 2001, massive criticism was directed at the Police Authority for not maintaining order and security, which helped change the prevailing opinion.
On the first of January 2006 the Law on the Prohibition of masking in some cases took effect, which is aimed at public meetings such as demonstrations. On the first of March 2017 the Law on Masking Prohibition at sporting events is expected to enter into force, which is mainly directed at masked supporters. The debate surrounding masking prohibition is intense, with critics claiming that a masking ban is an ineffective way to deal with the disturbances while the police and the judiciary on the contrary sees it as a means to quell disturbances.
This paper aims to investigate whether the masking ban as it is designed in the two masking prohibition laws, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, is a proportionate tool to counteract disturbances, or whether it constitutes a too far-reaching restriction of the constitutional rights and freedoms. Since order and security is an acceptable constitutional restriction, special focus is placed on the real balance of interests between the positive effects of the masking ban in practise due to its purpose, and its negative effects in practise in terms of its actual restriction of the constitutional rights and freedoms. The conclusion is that the masking ban is proportionate in four of five stages. As for the real balance of interests, there is reason to be critical. There are indications that certain freedoms are excessively restricted in relation to the positive impact of the laws expected by the legislator, which has not materialized to the extent anticipated, or as in the case of the upcoming law; is in danger of not materializing to the expected extent when it enters into force in 2017.}},
author = {{Falk, Alma}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Maskeringsförbudet och proportionalitetsprincipen - en motiverad begränsning eller en alltför långtgående inskränkning?}},
year = {{2016}},
}