Enjoy the view from my window, sort of live, for the next few hours while I am off to il Caffe to do my Swedish homework. (This is a test.)
Winter finally arrives in Stockholm
2
Category Archives: Sweden
Döm and Dömber
Remember Åke Green, the backwater pastor who publicized an obsessively homophobic sermon in 2003, for which he was convicted to a month in prison by a regional court? That court had stringently applied a vaguely worded law that prohibits agitation against ethnic groups and homosexuals (hets mot folkgrupp) — that decision has now been overturned by an appeals courtBBC version of events.. I originally blogged him here and here. While there is no doubt that this is a victory for Åke Green, the prosecution has the right to appeal the verdict higher up the legal food chain, so the story is not over, though we are certainly in the next chapter.
The verdict, in Swedish, is here, as a one-page PDFOK, this really pisses me off. Why is Göta Hovrätt using DRM technology to prevent me from copying and pasting bits from their PDF without me first plying the document with some secret password? What possible use does this restriction have? Surely legal verdicts are in the public domain, not copyrighted? I can view and manually retype the verdict but not command-C command-V — why?!. The reasoning behind the verdict, translated by me, follows below (because it’s important to read the whole thing):
The purpose of criminalizing agitation (hets) against homosexuals is not to prevent discussions about homosexuality as such in churches or elsewhere in society. Nor are statements that judge homosexuals or expressions of disrespect automatically punishable by law. When it comes to sermons, the constitutional committee has declared that citing religious texts and merely encouraging listeners to follow these texts’ precepts does not normally constitute punishable conduct. However, the boundary between what is and what is not allowed is by no means clear, and in interpretations of the law even the European Convention must be taken into account. The conclusion here must be that only in rare cases should statements made in a sermon setting be deemed as hets mot folkgrupperPlease read along in Swedish on the DRM-protected PDF and suggest corrections to my translation..
It is clear from the sermon and the pastor’s words that his main aim was to spread his literalist bible message. That which is apt to offend/insult/violate/injure (kränka) homosexuals in the pastor’s sermon is the bible-based categorical denunciation of homosexual relations as sin. His own addition, wherein he ties together citations, is not scientific and can, even if he has many reservations, be strongly questioned. The pastor’s exposition of these bible citations is notable for his choice of words, but their content is hardly more far-reaching than the bible texts he refers to. The right to preach a literal interpretation of the bible implies the ability to interpret and explain the bible in one’s own words, as long as the account is connected to the bible’s message. Even views that are foreign to the majority of citizens or even provocative may thus be expressed.
There is nothing that indicates that the pastor used the sermon situation as a cover to attack homosexuals. The purpose of the sermon appears instead to have been to explain religious views and opinions which the pastor holds on bible texts and also to influence people’s way of life. Such conduct must be regarded as falling outside that which is punishable by law as hets mot folkgrupp.
What a bizarre judgment this is. I think I like it even less than the first one. Whereas the original verdict declared that certain declarations by Åke Green in his sermon had no biblical foundation and were thus not protected by a constitution that protects the free interpretation of religious texts, this judgment seems to be saying that in fact the bible is a homophobic document and that thus Åke Green can’t be blamed for merely divulging its contents with some added vim and vigor. It’s as if the majority of the court held up their hands and said, “Hey, we can’t help it if the bible has homophobic passages, but if that’s what the constitution protects, so be it.”
Both these verdicts, then, have themselves engaged in the interpretation of a religious text — deciding what the Biblical God did or didn’t think about homosexuals. The first verdict concluded that there is no basis in the bible for virulent homophobia, and the second concluded precisely the opposite, using it to acquit Åke Green.
This is so unsatisfactory on so many levels. I have no religious beliefs myself, and certainly no beliefs that hold a text to be sacred; are my ethical opinions, when expressed, now less protected by the Swedish constitution than Åke Green’s, because they cannot find supporting evidence in a religious text? What makes religious belief more worthy of protection than my own sincerely held beliefs? Does this mean that Åke Green is allowed to say “I think homosexuals should be jailed” because it is his sincerely held religious belief, whereas if a garden-variety homophobe makes the exact same statement he is criminally liable because his convictions are not of Biblical/Koranic/Talmudic originWhat’s more, who gets to decide which texts are religious — the state or the believer? Does Dianetics count? The Book of Mormon? Falun Dafa’s Zhuan Falun??
The verdict should have said that all speech expressing sincerely held beliefs (thus exluding perjury, libel, defamation and fraud) short of incitement to violence is protected. Period. Being convicted for hets mot folkrupp should imply violent action, or the ordering of violent action, or the verbal incitement of individuals to violent actions against a group. Åke Green is innocent not because he did such things in the name of religion; he is innocent because he did no such things, the origin of his beliefs being irrelevant.
How much is that silver lining in the window?
It was during my jog this evening, precisely as I wended my way under the Escheresque arches of Stadshuset, that it all began to make sense. How does Sweden manage to have both sky-high taxes and a quality of life that is the envy of the world? Where is the engine in this economy? If there is not some kind of virtuous circle operating, then where is the sleight of hand? Are Swedes climbing real stairs towards economic prosperity, or are they living in one of Escher’s illusory worlds, forever expending themselves on the climb, only to end up whence they came?
I could have found the answer earlier had I paid better attention to my own recent behaviour as an economic agent. Last week I bought myself a gorgeous Apple flat-panel monitor. Not because it was cheap, mind youSo it turns out this post was just lustful research in disguise.. On the contrary, I bought it because it was rather expensive. In fact, it turns out that the more expensive it is, the more I can deduct it from taxesSure, it’s akin to the old “sale” ruse, but it wouldn’t be old if it didn’t work, would it?.
That’s because I have an egetföretag, a legal vessel of sorts for paying taxes on the freelance writing, editing, developing and designing I do, both for fun and for profit. And boy are there taxes to pay. An example: Let’s say I charge 1,000 for an article. The buyer pays 25% VAT on top of that, in effect handing me 1,250. I end up paying the state not just the VAT but also around two thirds of the original 1,000 in taxes, both as corporate/income tax, and as payroll tax of sorts (I am my own employee). The remaining 350 or so is cash in the bank (or, should I choose to spend it at H&M, 25 further percent goes to VAT).
BUT. There is one glorious loophole. I can deduct the stuff I buy for my egetföretag from my firm’s pre-tax income. Continuing the example above, then: If instead of buying nothing — and being left with 350 — I buy a nice designer office chair for 1,000 plus VAT, I will pay exactly nothing in taxes. That’s because the VATs cancel themselves out, and my net income is effectively zero. But I did get a chair worth 1,000 for 350 in the process somehowBy the way, if my understanding of Swedish tax law is egregiously fallacious and I am committing multiple felonies, I DO NOT want to hear about it..
This explains a lot more than the purchase of my flat-panel monitor. It explains why virtually every single street-facing Stockholm office I can walk by is a showcase for the latest designer furniture. It explains Swedish companies’ aggressive upgrade cycles for technologies, their employees’ early adopter mentality, their Saab company cars and even their entertaining of clients on Stureplan.
Of course, other countries also let businesses, small and large, deduct operating expenses and investment spending from pretax revenues, but only in Sweden is the incentive to take advantage of the “sale effect” so hugeYes, corporate taxes in Sweden are below the European average, but payroll taxes are not. Employees are quite expensive to companies in Sweden, though they are also quite productive..
How might this microeconomic skewing of incentives have macro-level effects on aggregate demand? Although taking out “clients” for a 7-course tasting menu at Vassa Eggen might not lead to the development of anything but friends’ bellies, much of the other additional spending is in fact investment spending. Swedish companies are in effect being technologically innovative in order to avoid taxes. I think this means that for Sweden’s national income accounting, there is a smaller C (consumption) and a larger I (Investment spending) than there would be if there were lower taxes. And that is good for small countries that export to the world.
Of course, now that I am on a roll, let me ruin my theory by having it explain too much. For example, it could also explain why wages are relatively low: employees prefer to avoid paying income tax but instead get renumerated via company schemes (think company car, the work laptop at home, the company 3G phone…). Or how about letting tax incentives explain why Swedes are such famous globetrotters — perhaps because abroad, low-tax environments increase their buying power?
Or my favorite: I recently wrote an article (not yet published) on the occasion of 2005 being the Year of Design in Sweden, about the history of Swedish design. My thesis was that modern Swedish design is so successful because it is the result of a marriage between two specific historical traits — the older artisanal tradition that pushed quality, and the newer idea that design should serve to better the lives of the “common people.” IKEA, for example, leverages both notions.
But perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps good modern Swedish design got its break precisely because so much of it, like the Hasselblad camera or Källemo furniture, is so expensive, and Swedes collectively decided it would look great back at the office, where they could deduct it from taxable income.
Nyordslista 2005: iKapsel, förnischad, framtidig
Hade middag med Steffanie, Jonas och Erik hos Jenny ikväll, och snart började vi argumentera om svenska webb ord. Vi alla höll med att blogg behöver ha två g. Men vad gör man med svenska versionen av “to email”? Jenny sade maila, Erik sade eposta, och Steffanie sade mejla. Jag bara frågade, vad säger man då när man vill säga “web site” på svenska: web site, webbsidan, eller webbsajt? Jag tycker att man skulle antingen använda det engelska ordet, eller annars den svenska översättningen, men inte den svengelska versionen.
Vad är de svenska översättningarna för andra engelska teknologiska ord? Om “memory” blir minne, och “hard drive” blir hårdskiva, skulle “Firewire” blir Eldtråd? Och vi alla bestämde oss att vi behöver ett riktigt svenskt ord för våra iPod: Det skulle bli iKapsel, eller hur? Och vi alla ville ha den nya iKapsel hasa.
Fler ord som uppfanns: Från Jenny (update: Steffanie?) kom förnischad, som betyder att ers nisch är för liten. Och jag trodde att framtidig var ett svenskt ord som betydde “to be ahead of one’s time.” Det var det inte, men det är det nuupdate: Erik bloggade förnischad också, men har en bättre definition..
Och jag var otroligt glad när jag upptäckte att det finns ett svenskt ord för “mullet”: Hockeyfrilla! (Jag hade redan upptäckt den fantastiska kotlettfrilla, en av nya ord i 2004.)
Bloggöl
Even if you don’t speak a word of Swedish, do show up next Monday, 7pm, downstairs in the back. If you’re in Stockholm, that is.Erik och jag tänker “ta en öl” (dvs vodka gimlet, i mitt fall) nästa måndag, 24 januari, på Tranan, kl 19.00, och alla är välkomna. Det vore bra att ha en bloggkväll för att inviga året 2005 och träffa igen gamla bloggare, men nya bloggare och bloggnyfikna får också komma, naturligtvisst. Vi ses?
2005: The year in preview
Taking the adage “Think globally, blog locally” to heart, here are my predictions for what will happen this year in the Swedish blogosphere:
By the end of February, Sweden’s liberal bloggers collectively decide on a new tack for their online debates. No longer do they try to bolster their critique of the Swedish model with evidence of the country’s economic decline. The main problem with this tactic was that such evidence is mighty hard to come by — in fact, Sweden unhelpfully manages to stick tenaciously to the top of almost any league table you care to mention. Instead, liberal bloggers decide to argue that Sweden is doing so well despite the economic baggage of the Swedish model, and that market reforms would allow it to perform even more competitively, which is crucial for the future.
In March, Sweden’s left-of-center bloggers collectively decide that basic economic terminology is not in fact capitalist propaganda, and begin using words such as “comparative advantage,” “terms of trade,” “multiplier effect,” and “structural unemployment” in their blog posts when discussing economic policy. It becomes widely accepted that these notions apply to all economies, from Hong Kong to North Korea. The overall quality of economic and political debate rises drastically as a result.
In May, Bloggforum 2.0 disintegrates into a huge bullefight half-way through when someone is accused of being a proffsbloggare (pro blogger), and this person retorts by calling his accuser a noll-bloggare (nullbloggers, referring to the number of comments the typical post accrues). The conflict rapidly escalates — proffsbloggare and noll-bloggare battle lines are drawn, and both sides lobby the small but crucial popular-amateur blogger faction for support. The conflict simmers for the duration of the summer.
In August, eventhough it’s because it’s the middle of summer and newspaper editors are desperate for any kind of content, we get a first proper blog post to opinion-page article transplant.
In September, Stockholm gets its first commercial city blog, replete with targeted local ads. The people writing it had never even heard of blogs back in January. It gets written up in the press, and by the end of the year, it will be the first Swedish blog to consistently get over 5,000 visitors a day.
In October, Jinge is unmasked as a Timbro operative. It turns out he was paid to make the enemies of capitalism look paranoid.
In December, a Swedish blogger will use the word “blogg” in a conversation with civilians and they will know what she is talking about. She will blog the occasion.
Jinge.se
Ikväll försökte jag lämna en kommentar till ett inlägg hos jinge.se om Bloggforums förment fördomen. Det fanns 19 kommentarer redan. Jinge påstådde att flesta deltagare på forumet var höger, så jag skrev:
Även om vi inte hade 50/50 män/kvinnor på Bloggforum, hade vi 50/50 höger/vänster, precis så att vi inte skulle ha sådan debatt som här. Kolla själv:
Per Gudmundson: höger
Dick Erixon: höger
Rasmus Fleischer: vänster
Rosemari Södergren: vänster
Johan Norberg: höger
Erik Stattin: ingen aning
Stephanie Hendrick: ingen aning
Gustav Holmberg: ingen aning
Roger Johansson: ingen aning
Henrik Torstensson: ingen aning
Mark Comerford: vänster
Hans Kullin: vänster
PJ Anders Linder: höger
Billy McCormac: höger
Jonas Söderström: vänsterVerkade inte vara en höger propaganda exercis, eller hur?
Därför att Jinge modererar sina kommentarer (enligt Jinge), blev min kommentar inte publicerad genast. Jag väntade, kollade, väntade, kollade… Slutligen blev det inte publicerad; istället blev alla kommentarer raderad, ersätt med:
Eftersom en läsare publicerade en lista på hur alla i panelen röstade i riksdagsvalet så tog jag bort samtliga kommentarer. Jag tror inte att det är förenligt med PUL att förteckna paritympatier även om över 90% pekar på (m) och (kd)..
Jag gillar det verkligen inte när man frågar om kommentarer men man inte respekterar dem. Jinge, varför skulle vi någonsin igen försöka skriver något hos dig? Det betyder bara att du kommer att få dåliga recensioner som här ovan.
The obstruction industry, part III
Argument 1:
The blockade is good for the Latvians
Argument 2:
The blockade is good for SwedenArgument 3: The blockade is good for Swedish construction workers.
Prime Minister Persson, to his credit, hasn’t attempted to pursue the argument that imposing Swedish wages on Latvian labor is for the Latvians’ own good. His argument in favor of the blockade have been more properly mercantilist:
There is a risk that we will have competition through underbidding, which weakens collective bargaining and opens us up to unfettered workforce immigration. This doesn’t just concern construction workers but also, for example, software programmers from India or people receiving health care. It becomes a whole new Sweden.Det finns en risk för att vi kommer att få en underbudskonkurrens som försvagar kollektivavtalen och öppnar för fri arbetskraftsinvandring. Det handlar inte bara om Byggnadarbetare, utan också om till exempel dataprogrammerare från Indien eller folk i vården. Det blir ett helt nytt Sverige.
That was a jaw-dropper of a soundbiteThe quote is a week old, but I’ve been playing catch-up with these posts. for me — I had always assumed the prime minister was a free trader. At least the internal logic is impeccable: There is indeed no difference between trying to keep out Latvian workers and trying to keep out Indian programmers, for the stated reason that they both can provide services more cheaply than Swedes can.
But the prime minister’s mention of software leads to an interesting mental exercise: Indian programmers don’t tend to come to Sweden to provide their services — they sell them from India, say via the internet. In the same way, what if the school the Latvians were building were essentially a prefabricated building, built in Latvia at the same wages they would have asked in Sweden, and then shipped to Sweden? Would this be acceptable to the pro-free trade left-of-center? Or is Sweden justified in imposing tariffs on the import of labor and goods to erase “unfair” competitive advantages? Is Persson seriously suggesting we put quotas on internet purchases of software from Indian companies? It would certainly be an original if kookie way to try to turn the thoughts expressed in his quote into policy.
Byggnad’s motivations for the blockade are understandable in that they are trying to protect the jobs of their members at their current wages. In the short term, such a tactic could well work, at a cost to both Latvia and Sweden as a whole. In the short term.
In the long term, a protected construction industry means that there is less incentive to remain competitive vis-á-vis the rest of the world. And that would be a pity, because Swedish construction workers are currently among the world’s most highly skilled; as are, for example, Swedish software programmers.
The strategy those of you who are Swedish construction workers should pursue, then, is the same as that which Swedish software programmers are successfully pursuing: Exploit your technological advantage over your competitors. This means not competing on price, but delivering products and services that other countries can’t provide at any price.
For Swedish programmers, this means — for a host of reasons — producing some of the world’s best games, or some of the world’s most complex simulators. It means not wasting your talents on the easy stuff, which tends to be commoditized, which the Indians can do just fine, and where the ready supply of available labor depresses wages (though they are excellent by Indian standards).
To Swedish construction workers, schools and houses are relatively simple to build, hence commodities, and these should be left to the Latvians, who are more than capable at this work. Instead, go after the hardest, best-paid building contracts — not just in Sweden, but all over Europe. Bid on contracts for clean rooms in Polish laboratories. Bid on building emergency rooms in Norway. Bid on making skyscrapers in Latvia. And if the Latvians complain, I’ll write another post just like this one defending your right to compete on their turf.
In other words, don’t race to the bottom. Race to the top, where you don’t need legislative crutches to to help prop up wages. And in order to get there, LO and Byggnad should use their considerable funds to ensure that union members are equipped for the task, rather than squandering the money on lobbying activities aimed at maintaining the status quo, an effort that is doomed to fail in the end.
In any case, if the Swedish government’s reaction to foreign competition is to try to prevent it, does this not betray a lack of confidence in Sweden’s ability to take on the world? Wouldn’t it be better if Persson stood on the tarmac in front of SAAB planes in fighter pilot gear, telling the world’s economies to “bring it on” with their free trade? (I just wish!)
No, instead, we get fearmongering. We are told ordinary Swedes should support Byggnad because this is the thin edge of the wedge — there are far more foreigners out there ready to steal far more Swedish jobs. Except that they can’t, in most cases: They’re not qualified. Latvians are not taking my job because they can’t edit English as well as I can. Poles are not taking over the the receptionist’s job because they don’t speak Swedish and English as well as he can. Persson’s floodgates argument is hokumQuestion: Does the relatively low amount of commenting to these three posts by Swedes mean that you on the whole agree with me, or is my post beneath contempt, or are you not all that interested? I for one believe this to be the most important economic debate facing Sweden right now… up until Poland introduces the 15% flat tax a few years hence..
In the end, it’s up to Byggnad’s members to decide their future. If a particular construction worker would prefer to remain in Borås or Åmål and just build average, typical Swedish run-of-the-mill buildings, then the news might not be so good for him — he’ll have to accept lower wages to remain competitive.
The obstruction industry, part II
Part I should to be read first.Argument 2: The blockade is good for Sweden:
Let’s imagine for a moment that these pesky Latvians have successfully taken over a large segment of the Swedish building sector by constantly underbidding on wages. What would happen? It would cost less to build a house. More houses would get built. More houses would be on the market. It would become cheaper to buy or rent a house.
These savings would apply to all Swedes who consume housing. The money saved can be put to productive use, or consumed, and a multiplier effect guarantees that Sweden as a whole gets richer. The average Swede is better off if the price of housing goes down.
It follows that the average Swede won’t be better off if the blockade is successful and Latvians are kept from competing. Then why isn’t there a groundswell of support by average Swedes for the Latvians, purely for selfish reasons?
I can think of a couple of reasons. Maybe everyone believes in “ordning och reda,” loosely translated into orderliness, a system intended to mitigate market effects on wages, so that over time no one particular labor group comes to be at a comparative wage disadvantage, even if new disruptive technologies (computers) or changing political realities (the common market) would warrant such relative wage discrepancies, over time.
In other words, the average Swede might prefer to avoid income discrepancies over time by keeping wages rigid, rather than by allowing wages to fluctuate according to the market but then using tax revenues to redistribute income or retrain workers that are losing out. They might trust ordning och reda over a market-based mechanism because they believe it benefits them individually, even though they accept it produces less wealth for Sweden as a whole.
Or maybe Swedes are nationalists, and prefer to over-pay their compatriots for a job that foreigners will do for less. I doubt it, though.
My own favorite theory (that I just made up) is that when it comes to the housing market, there is an asymmetry in the way in which the interests of producers and consumers are defended. While those who supply the labor that goes into the production of housing are well represented by Byggnad, those that consume the eventual product are not; there is no association of house buyers and renters (that I am aware of), because if there were, they’d be demanding to know why there is such a long waiting list for affordable housing in Stockholm for everyone except LO leaders, and why the Latvians can’t come over to solve the problem, as they are clearly itching to do.
The obstruction industry, part I
Dear Social Democrats, LO umbrella union members, Byggnad union construction workers:
So which is it? Nine months ago, your organizations prophesied the end of the Swedish way of life because the accession of poorer countries to the EU would bring hordes of lazy social tourists, eager for the handouts but not keen to work. It turns out you had it exactly wrong: They are not keen for the handouts, but eager to work — and willing to compete for the privilege.
Now it turns out you don’t like this either.
The Latvian construction workers at the eye of a brewing EU storm as they try to build a school and a house on the outskirts of Stockholm — despite your union blockades — are a textbook example of the benefits of free trade. Their temporary presence in Sweden, constructing straightforward buildings at wages below the average local rate but generous by Latvian standards, constitutes the entire raison d’être for the EU’s common market.
And yet you persist in thinking that foreigners who come to Sweden to work cheaply are a danger to the wealth of your nation. You are wrong, and I hope to convince you by the time I’m done that what’s best for Latvia, for Sweden and for the Swedish construction worker is one and the same thing: Latvians should be allowed to take over as much of the Swedish building trade as they can, by competing on price while observing existing Swedish and EU laws.
Because the blockade has been so brazen and this is just a blog, I need not be polite: On this issue, your leaders are either being demagoguesDemagogue: “A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.”
or dumb, and on three different counts. Let’s take a look at the first one today:
Argument 1: The blockade is good for the Latvians.
I first came across this curious piece of reasoning back in February, when those of you at Byggnad funded a tasteless advertising campaign depicting foreign construction workersI railed against it then, too. in cheesecake poses on billboards across Stockholm, the message being that workers are being exploited if they come to Sweden to work at wages below the Swedish collective bargaining rate but above their own.
Byggnad’s official justification for its blockade of the Latvians — that it is motivated by a sincere desire to defend foreign competition from exploitation — is telling: Because bald protectionism is no longer acceptable, the argument must now be constructed so that protectionism is not the stated intent of Byggnad policies but instead arises as an inescapable consequence. Swedish blogger Chadie falls for this ploy at face value, and is unblushing in her defence of Byggnad: Apparently, the blockade is an act of tough love, a signal to the workers of the world that Sweden stands by their right to collectively price themselves out of the Swedish market. Yes, this is a kinder, gentler protectionism, for their own good, even though they might not appreciate it now. Let’s destroy their economic prospects in order to save them, shall we? Let’s kick out all the rungs between them and us on the ladder of economic prosperity, because the climb is so demeaning.
Nevermind that the bemused Latvian construction workers, when interviewed, feel that it is they who are exploiting an excellent economic opportunity in SwedenNevermind that they get free room and board, free travel to and from Latvia, free phone calls home, and accident insurance as mandated by Swedish law..
Nevermind that Latvia’s government is taking the matter to an EU court for arbitration. “This goes against our understanding of why we joined the EU,” a very peeved foreign minister fumedNevermind that the concept “voluntary collective bargaining” is interpreted by Byggnad to mean “price cartel enforced by boycotts.”.
And nevermind that if you actually delve into the specifics of this case, Byggnad’s chances in court aren’t good. In negotiations prior to the blockade, Laval un Partneri Ltd, the Latvian construction company, actually offered to raise the wages of their workers from the Latvian collective bargaining rate of 85kr/hr to the Swedish collective bargaining rate of 109kr/hr. But that wasn’t good enough. The union demanded that the Latvians work at one of the highest average local rates for construction workers in the country, at 145kr/hr.
Why? This DN analysis piece points out that other foreign construction companies have previously been been allowed to pay 109kr/hr without complaint. If it turns out that Byggnad is using blockades selectively as a negotiating tactic with companies that offer the collective wage but don’t otherwise subscribe to the rules of collective bargaining, in order to provide an “incentive” to join while also driving up average wages, that would be discriminatory, and a tough sell in a court of law.
Nevermind all that. Byggnad, you clearly have the best interests of the Latvians in mind. And now the ungrateful little upstarts are taking you to court for it.
Coming up:
Argument 2: The blockade is good for Sweden.
Argument 3: The blockade is good for Swedish construction workers.