Kriminalisering av deltagande i en terroristorganisation - Skydd för demokratin eller urholkande av den?

The threat from terrorism has during the 21st century increased. When an act of terror occurred in Stockholm on the 7th of April 2017, the threat got even more apparent. Terrorism legislation has for a long time been a well-regulated area in Swedish law, however soon after this incident the Swedish government assigned an investigation to see if further legislation in the area was required. In the investigation, it was concluded that criminalization of participation in a terrorist organization should be established. The investigators also concluded that such a law would be compatible with the constitutional right to freedom of association. The constitutional council however concluded the opposite: that such a law would constitute a limitation of the right to freedom of association and therefore be in conflict with the constitution. A criminalization of participation in a terrorist organization has therefore not yet been adopted. The purpose of this essay is to investigate whether criminalization of participation in a terrorist organization could be compatible with the constitutional right to freedom of association. If not, it is examined if such a criminalization should be a permissible limitation of the right to freedom of association and therefore give rise to a change in the constitution. If so it is also examined why. To reach a conclusion Swedish law, legislative history, cases and legal literature is examined. An outlook is made over foreign law and the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR. Parallels are drawn between how you legally handle anti-democratic associations other than terrorist organizations in Sweden and abroad to try and find a solution to the legal problem. The conclusion is that criminalization of participation in a terrorist organization constitutes a limitation of the right to freedom of association according to how it is formulated today. However, the constitution should be changed so that such a criminalization is a permissible limitation of the right to freedom of association. The arguments in favor of this are that today´s society and the threats against it are completely different from the ones that existed when the right to freedom of association was introduced in the constitution. The main purpose with this right is to protect the free opinion formation and the labor movement, which does not conflict with the criminalization of participation in a terrorist organization. Furthermore, the right to freedom of association has a particularly strong position in Sweden which makes its opposing interests overlooked. The explanations for this particularly strong position are also examined. In several countries that in many ways are similar to Sweden legal possibilities exist to dissolve violent or anti-democratic associations, which also supports the fact that such a legislation should be possible in Sweden. The conclusion is that criminalization of participation in a terrorist organization constitutes a limitation of the right to freedom of association according to how it is formulated today. However, the constitution should be changed so that such a criminalization is a permissible limitation of the right to freedom of association. The arguments in favor of this are that today´s society and the threats against it are completely different from the ones that existed when the right to freedom of association was introduced in the constitution. The main purpose with this right is to protect the free opinion formation and the labor movement, which does not conflict with the criminalization of participation in a terrorist organization. Furthermore, the right to freedom of association has a particularly strong position in Sweden which makes its opposing interests overlooked. The explanations for this particularly strong position are also examined. In several countries that in many ways are similar to Sweden legal possibilities exist to dissolve violent or anti-democratic associations, which also supports the fact that such a legislation should be possible in Sweden.