Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Var går mötes- och demonstrationsfrihetens gränser och hur informerar polisen om sina beslut i mötesfrågor?

Friberg, Helen LU (2018) JURM02 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
RF strongly protects the freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate. Everyone has a right to express themselves and to organize and participate in public gatherings where opinions are presented. However, these constitutional rights are not absolute since the law puts limits to these rights. Among the limiting rules are factors such as keeping the order and maintaining public safety. OL clarifies the different grounds for limiting the
right to demonstrate through regulations on permission, terms, cancelling and prohibition. Order and safety are primarily the factors that can limit a public gathering.
If there is a risk of not being able to maintain order and safety an application asking permission to demonstrate can be denied. An... (More)
RF strongly protects the freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate. Everyone has a right to express themselves and to organize and participate in public gatherings where opinions are presented. However, these constitutional rights are not absolute since the law puts limits to these rights. Among the limiting rules are factors such as keeping the order and maintaining public safety. OL clarifies the different grounds for limiting the
right to demonstrate through regulations on permission, terms, cancelling and prohibition. Order and safety are primarily the factors that can limit a public gathering.
If there is a risk of not being able to maintain order and safety an application asking permission to demonstrate can be denied. An application can also be denied if there has occurred grave disorder – such as criminal activity – during a similar public gathering which already took place. It is the police who are responsible for granting permission to demonstrate in a public place. The police are also obligated to communicate their decision to the public according to FL. Some of the police ́s decisions to permit demonstrations get a lot of public attention and are criticized. In 2017 the police decided to allow the Nazi organization NMR to demonstrate in central Gothenburg at the time of the Jewish holiday Jom Kippur and the annual book fair. This decision received a lot of public attention and the police where widely criticized. The police received responses in which people expressed upset feelings and not being able to comprehend how the police could permit a Nazi organization to demonstrate at the given time. The criticism was met by trying to explain the law and the fact that the police have an obligation to base their decisions on the law. There is nothing in RF or OL that makes it possible for the police to deny a demonstration just because the organizer is a Nazi organization. If a message that threatens a group of people – for example Jews – is being presented during a demonstration the suspected offenders can be prosecuted according to BrB 16:8. But it is not possible to stop an ongoing demonstration because a message which is suspected to be threatening is spread. To be able to stop an organization from demonstrating on the grounds of it being a Nazi organization, the law would have to change. Although the police explained the effects of the law, on which their decision to allow NMR to demonstrate
was based, they received criticism because of a lack of understanding. This could be due to the fact that the police communication of their decision to the public differs from communication between people. The communication between people is said to be circular and built on mutual understanding or some kind of relationship. The communication between the police and the public could be described through Laswell’s model which views communication as a transmission of a message rather than a dialog based on reciprocity. The lack of reciprocity in the present case meant communicational difficulties because facts were met by strong emotions. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
RF ger yttrandefrihet och mötes- och demonstrationsfrihet – ”allmänna sammankomster” i OL – ett starkt skydd. Var och en har gentemot det allmänna rätt att meddela upplysningar och förmedla åsikter åsikter samt att anordna och delta i sammankomster där dessa sprids. Dessa grundlagsstadgade friheter är dock inte absoluta. RF ställer upp begränsningsgrunder där bland annat ordning och säkerhet är faktorer som kan medföra att yttrandefriheten inskränks. I OL konkretiseras grunderna för inskränkningar av allmänna sammankomster genom bestämmelser om tillstånd, villkor, inställande och upplösning samt förbud mot sammankomster. Det är främst mot bakgrund av ordnings- och säkerhetshänsyn som en allmän sammankomst kan inskränkas. En ansökan om... (More)
RF ger yttrandefrihet och mötes- och demonstrationsfrihet – ”allmänna sammankomster” i OL – ett starkt skydd. Var och en har gentemot det allmänna rätt att meddela upplysningar och förmedla åsikter åsikter samt att anordna och delta i sammankomster där dessa sprids. Dessa grundlagsstadgade friheter är dock inte absoluta. RF ställer upp begränsningsgrunder där bland annat ordning och säkerhet är faktorer som kan medföra att yttrandefriheten inskränks. I OL konkretiseras grunderna för inskränkningar av allmänna sammankomster genom bestämmelser om tillstånd, villkor, inställande och upplösning samt förbud mot sammankomster. Det är främst mot bakgrund av ordnings- och säkerhetshänsyn som en allmän sammankomst kan inskränkas. En ansökan om demonstrationstillstånd kan vägras om det är nödvändigt med hänsyn till ordning och säkerheten vid en sammankomst. Tillstånd kan även vägras om det vid en tidigare, liknande sammankomst uppkommit ”svårare oordning” vilket innebär att straffbelagda handlingar såsom till exempel våldsamt upplopp måste inträffat. Det är enligt OL polismyndigheten som beslutar om tillstånd för allmänna sammankomster. Polismyndigheten har även en skyldighet att kommunicera ut sina tillståndsbeslut till parterna och allmänheten enligt FL. Vissa tillståndsbeslut blir vida uppmärksammade och polismyndigheten kan då få ta emot kritik för meddelat beslut. Ett av polismyndighetens tillståndsbeslut som fick stort uppmärksammande och mycket kritik var beslutet att låta NMR demonstrera i centrala Göteborg samma dag som den judiska högtiden Jom kippur och bokmässan. I mailrespons från allmänheten uttrycktes oförståelse över hur polismyndigheten kunde tillåta en nazistisk organisation att demonstrera. Polismyndigheten mötte kritiken genom att förklara gällande rätt och framhöll det faktum att det var gällande rätt som beslutet baserades på. Det finns ingenting i RF eller OL som möjliggör för polismyndigheten att hindra en demonstration på grund av att det är en nazistisk organisation som är anordnare. Om det under en pågående demonstration framförs budskap som hotar eller visar missaktning mot en viss folkgrupp kan misstänkta gärningsmän åtalas i efterhand för hets mot folkgrupp. Det går dock inte att stoppa eller upplösa en demonstration av den anledning att det finns risk för att brottet hets mot folkgrupp kommer begås. För att göra det enklare att vägra en nazistisk organisation demonstrationstillstånd skulle det alltså krävas en förändring av gällande rätt. Trots att polismyndigheten förklarade det meddelade beslutet möttes detta av kritik från allmänheten på grund av oförståelse. Detta kan dels bero på att den kommunikation som riktas från polismyndigheten till parter och allmänheten inte har samma karaktär som kommunikationen människor emellan och dels på ett faktiskt missnöje med gällande rätt. Kommunikation mellan människor anses vara cirkulär och bygga på ömsesidighet och någon form av relation. Den kommunikation som riktas från polismyndigheten till allmänheten kan i stället beskrivas med hjälp av transmissionsmodellen som ser kommunikation som en överföring av ett meddelande snarare än en ömsesidig dialog. Avsaknaden av ömsesidighet i det aktuella fallet innebar kommunikationssvårigheter då fakta möttes av starka känslor. Om kritiken av polismyndighetens beslut baserades på ett missnöje med gällande rätt borde allmänheten ha vänt kritiken mot lagstiftaren snarare än polismyndigheten. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Friberg, Helen LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The right to demonstrate and the police communication on granting permission to demonstrate
course
JURM02 20181
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
statsrätt, offentlig rätt, mötes- och demonstrationsfrihet, kommunikation
language
Swedish
id
8941726
date added to LUP
2018-06-08 12:46:40
date last changed
2018-06-08 12:46:40
@misc{8941726,
  abstract     = {{RF strongly protects the freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate. Everyone has a right to express themselves and to organize and participate in public gatherings where opinions are presented. However, these constitutional rights are not absolute since the law puts limits to these rights. Among the limiting rules are factors such as keeping the order and maintaining public safety. OL clarifies the different grounds for limiting the
right to demonstrate through regulations on permission, terms, cancelling and prohibition. Order and safety are primarily the factors that can limit a public gathering.
If there is a risk of not being able to maintain order and safety an application asking permission to demonstrate can be denied. An application can also be denied if there has occurred grave disorder – such as criminal activity – during a similar public gathering which already took place. It is the police who are responsible for granting permission to demonstrate in a public place. The police are also obligated to communicate their decision to the public according to FL. Some of the police ́s decisions to permit demonstrations get a lot of public attention and are criticized. In 2017 the police decided to allow the Nazi organization NMR to demonstrate in central Gothenburg at the time of the Jewish holiday Jom Kippur and the annual book fair. This decision received a lot of public attention and the police where widely criticized. The police received responses in which people expressed upset feelings and not being able to comprehend how the police could permit a Nazi organization to demonstrate at the given time. The criticism was met by trying to explain the law and the fact that the police have an obligation to base their decisions on the law. There is nothing in RF or OL that makes it possible for the police to deny a demonstration just because the organizer is a Nazi organization. If a message that threatens a group of people – for example Jews – is being presented during a demonstration the suspected offenders can be prosecuted according to BrB 16:8. But it is not possible to stop an ongoing demonstration because a message which is suspected to be threatening is spread. To be able to stop an organization from demonstrating on the grounds of it being a Nazi organization, the law would have to change. Although the police explained the effects of the law, on which their decision to allow NMR to demonstrate
was based, they received criticism because of a lack of understanding. This could be due to the fact that the police communication of their decision to the public differs from communication between people. The communication between people is said to be circular and built on mutual understanding or some kind of relationship. The communication between the police and the public could be described through Laswell’s model which views communication as a transmission of a message rather than a dialog based on reciprocity. The lack of reciprocity in the present case meant communicational difficulties because facts were met by strong emotions.}},
  author       = {{Friberg, Helen}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Var går mötes- och demonstrationsfrihetens gränser och hur informerar polisen om sina beslut i mötesfrågor?}},
  year         = {{2018}},
}