I have noted that this old image of Annie Lööf from SVT’s Aktuellt is circulating on social media again. “In Sweden, it is forbidden to be criminal,” the caption on the image reads, and comments usually suggest that this proves how utterly imbecilic Annie Lööf is to say such a thing.
Image likely from Aktuellt, February 21, 2012. But is the text authentic or manipulated?
But is the image actually authentic? Admittedly, those who subtitle TV programs are often forced to compress statements quite heavily, so this could possibly be what the subtitler thought was a fair summary of what Annie Lööf said. However, it could also be a Photoshopped image.
The last time this image went around the web, I wrote to Aktuellt to ask, but unfortunately received no reply. The image shows the older Aktuellt logo, so it should be older than March 5, 2012, when Aktuellt launched its new design.
The Swedish Radio program Tankesmedjan i P3 addressed the matter on February 23, 2012, and on the program’s website, they also wrote about it under the headline “It is illegal to commit crimes.” The audio file itself on the website was titled “In Sweden, it is thus criminal to be criminal.” In the program, this causes great amusement, yet they quote Annie Lööf with a longer excerpt than what appears in the TV image, where she says:
“In Sweden, for a very long time, it has been forbidden to conduct activities with a criminal purpose, and it still is and will continue to be so in the future.”
The Social Democratic magazine Tiden’s Facebook page also reproduces the longer quote and cites the source as SVT’s Rapport on February 21, 2012. Political scientist and commentator Ulf Bjereld likely heard the same phrasing in Aktuellt that same day, as he tweeted:
“In Sweden, it has long been forbidden to conduct activities with a criminal purpose.” Annie Lööf just said in SVT Aktuellt.
Bjereld apparently considered any further comment superfluous.
When the TV station did not respond to my email, I wrote instead to Annie Lööf’s department, the Ministry of Enterprise, and received a reply from Joel Kanebjörk (Oct 19, 2012, reg. no. N2012/3636/BREV):
“Minister for Enterprise Annie Lööf has previously pointed out that it is forbidden to conduct activities with a criminal purpose. This was in connection with deliberations regarding Annie’s and the government’s vision to simplify and increase freedom for the country’s entrepreneurs. Part of this vision has been to reduce the number of regulations for entrepreneurs, precisely to increase freedom and profitability. Against this background, an implication has been highlighted suggesting that the government has simplified things so much for businesses that it is now easier for them to resort to criminal acts.”
Well, then the statement perhaps doesn’t sound quite so tautological. If you search through old government bills and legal texts, you also find quite a bit regarding “criminal purpose.” For example, the Trade Names Act (1974:156) prohibits registering a firm that “is contrary to law or other statutes.”
In Government Bill 1973:115, legislation is requested because it can “be suspected that at least part of the significant income provided by sex club and posing activities is utilized for a criminal purpose.”
In a motion to the Parliament (1997/98:L912), it is stated that it is not “justifiable that the Foundation Act is used for a criminal purpose. A review should take place to close the loopholes that make economic crime possible…”
It remains an open question whether the specific image is manipulated or not. But it can be considered established that Annie Lööf was likely referring to these types of ulterior motives within certain activities.”
I think I see what she’s trying to say. Something along the lines of “normally legal things can become illegal if it can be proven that you’re doing them with criminal intent”. Like you’re buying a car for example, which would be legal. But if someone can prove that you’re buying that car with the explicit purpose of using it to run someone over in a preplanned assault, then it can be treated as illegal. Which might have been too much for the translator to reduce into a short and accurate one liner.
Maybe she’s just an idiot though, who knows. I don’t even know if that’s how the law works over there.
DahGangalang@infosec.pub 2 months ago
Link to actual translation?
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
“Viral: Annie Lööf and the criminal offenses
I have noted that this old image of Annie Lööf from SVT’s Aktuellt is circulating on social media again. “In Sweden, it is forbidden to be criminal,” the caption on the image reads, and comments usually suggest that this proves how utterly imbecilic Annie Lööf is to say such a thing.
Image likely from Aktuellt, February 21, 2012. But is the text authentic or manipulated?
But is the image actually authentic? Admittedly, those who subtitle TV programs are often forced to compress statements quite heavily, so this could possibly be what the subtitler thought was a fair summary of what Annie Lööf said. However, it could also be a Photoshopped image.
The last time this image went around the web, I wrote to Aktuellt to ask, but unfortunately received no reply. The image shows the older Aktuellt logo, so it should be older than March 5, 2012, when Aktuellt launched its new design.
The Swedish Radio program Tankesmedjan i P3 addressed the matter on February 23, 2012, and on the program’s website, they also wrote about it under the headline “It is illegal to commit crimes.” The audio file itself on the website was titled “In Sweden, it is thus criminal to be criminal.” In the program, this causes great amusement, yet they quote Annie Lööf with a longer excerpt than what appears in the TV image, where she says:
“In Sweden, for a very long time, it has been forbidden to conduct activities with a criminal purpose, and it still is and will continue to be so in the future.”
The Social Democratic magazine Tiden’s Facebook page also reproduces the longer quote and cites the source as SVT’s Rapport on February 21, 2012. Political scientist and commentator Ulf Bjereld likely heard the same phrasing in Aktuellt that same day, as he tweeted:
“In Sweden, it has long been forbidden to conduct activities with a criminal purpose.” Annie Lööf just said in SVT Aktuellt.
Bjereld apparently considered any further comment superfluous.
When the TV station did not respond to my email, I wrote instead to Annie Lööf’s department, the Ministry of Enterprise, and received a reply from Joel Kanebjörk (Oct 19, 2012, reg. no. N2012/3636/BREV):
“Minister for Enterprise Annie Lööf has previously pointed out that it is forbidden to conduct activities with a criminal purpose. This was in connection with deliberations regarding Annie’s and the government’s vision to simplify and increase freedom for the country’s entrepreneurs. Part of this vision has been to reduce the number of regulations for entrepreneurs, precisely to increase freedom and profitability. Against this background, an implication has been highlighted suggesting that the government has simplified things so much for businesses that it is now easier for them to resort to criminal acts.”
Well, then the statement perhaps doesn’t sound quite so tautological. If you search through old government bills and legal texts, you also find quite a bit regarding “criminal purpose.” For example, the Trade Names Act (1974:156) prohibits registering a firm that “is contrary to law or other statutes.”
In Government Bill 1973:115, legislation is requested because it can “be suspected that at least part of the significant income provided by sex club and posing activities is utilized for a criminal purpose.”
In a motion to the Parliament (1997/98:L912), it is stated that it is not “justifiable that the Foundation Act is used for a criminal purpose. A review should take place to close the loopholes that make economic crime possible…”
It remains an open question whether the specific image is manipulated or not. But it can be considered established that Annie Lööf was likely referring to these types of ulterior motives within certain activities.”
-translated
404@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
I Sverige är det förbjudet att vara kriminell.
“In Sweden it is forbidden to be criminal.”
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Not a huge difference or should I say not very different
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 2 months ago
In difference, it is considered to be insignificant.
pmk@piefed.ca 2 months ago
No but the swedish subtitle is not what she said either.
EtAl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
A distinction without a difference.
herrvogel@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I think I see what she’s trying to say. Something along the lines of “normally legal things can become illegal if it can be proven that you’re doing them with criminal intent”. Like you’re buying a car for example, which would be legal. But if someone can prove that you’re buying that car with the explicit purpose of using it to run someone over in a preplanned assault, then it can be treated as illegal. Which might have been too much for the translator to reduce into a short and accurate one liner.
Maybe she’s just an idiot though, who knows. I don’t even know if that’s how the law works over there.