Jump to content

Interesting Swedish court case


Recommended Posts

https://www.wearequeeraf.com/this-landmark-swedish-court-case-is-a-huge-win-for-asexual-rights/

OK.  Interesting thing here. In short, two women live together, one dies. Swedish court rules life insurance goes to other woman despite parents arguing against this because they were friends and didn't have sex 

As the article says. Great for ace rights. But also really good for Aros in that it looks at what makes these relationships accepted for inheritance rights in terms of the connection between the people in that relationship rather than whether it fits with some narrow definition of a proper relationship. Two friends who live together and share their lives like they did met the requirements to get those legal benefits. 

Edited by roboticanary
eye carnt splell / edit 2: meet - met
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • roboticanary changed the title to Interesting Swedish court case

I'm kinda more excited to see swedish court cases in international news than about the actual case.

 

Just kidding, I agree it's great that non sexual relationships are recognized.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 6:44 PM, roboticanary said:

As the article says. Great for ace rights.

But it was the law, overruled by Sweden’s Supreme Court. Not some weird argument made by the parents.

Swedish legislators ... 🙄🙄

Edited by DeltaV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this as a political win as much as a social one. With few exceptions, I mainly side with Libertarian views. And one of those views is government has no business in people's bedrooms, whether they're trying to say who can or can't have sex, or in this case who has to.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for my grumpy last post. I don't like to be the curmudgeon considering so many people celebrate this ruling. I'll try to explain my position a bit...

On 8/14/2022 at 6:44 PM, roboticanary said:

Two friends who live together and share their lives like they did meet the requirements to get those legal benefits. 

This ruling is overwhelmingly interpreted by bloggers, activists and journalists who are influenced by the common law system (US, UK) in which the argument by analogy is very strong and very important (sure, they ain't lawyers yet they still intuitively understand how their legal system works).

But Sweden has a civil law system and so is very different.

IANAL and I'm not from Sweden, but I'm still from (continental) Europe. So believe me ... I learned this the hard way: The argument from analogy is regarded as rather weak in civil law systems. A judge may regard an asexual relationship as equal if its about inheritance (an issue that aces can easily solve by just writing a will), but see no contradiction in denying asexual relationships all other basic rights and benefits (immigration, taxes, ...).

So IMHO it's something Swedish legislators should correct. They came up with an archaic and ridiculous "cohabitation law". It's their job to fix it.

If I'm wrong and this ruling alone really give aces all (substantial) rights and legal benefits, you can 100% discount my nay-saying. I would be happy for our ace friends. 🎆🎇

But this remains to be seen. And I'm very skeptical.

Also the ruling, which I read in the meantime, again harps on about the difference between a "cohabitant" (hint: romantic) and a live-in friend. So is it really, in any way, good for aros?

21 hours ago, The Gray Warlock said:

And one of those views is government has no business in people's bedrooms, whether they're trying to say who can or can't have sex, or in this case who has to.

The Swedish government doesn't mandate anyone, like people living together, to have sex. Of course not.

This is about inheritance when the deceased did not leave a will. Or more precisely: who gets the death benefit (aka money) when the beneficiary is not designated by name in the life insurance policy.

It sure is likely that this woman wanted the money to go to her partner. But the theoretical possibility remains that she didn't.

After all, why didn't she got those very important affairs settled while she was still alive?

21 hours ago, The Gray Warlock said:

With few exceptions, I mainly side with Libertarian views.

Hello, fellow libertarian💛, nice to meet another one here. But I don't see how this ruling is libertarian.

For some right-libertarian there's only the will. "Intestate inheritance" is just owner-less goods and can be homesteaded.

A few left-libertarians have even proposed the abolition of inherited wealth.

Ofc, more mainstream libertarians recognize blood relations for inheritance. But they often stop with them. Wife / husband, partner => no will, they get nothing.

That's actually not surprising and quite sensible. Marriage privatization is the No. 1 libertarian proposal to get out of all these nigh infinite conundrums.

If the state already has such problems to accommodate ace 🍰 and aro :aropride: relationships, then just think about poly relationships. In no Western country they are recognized by law.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, DeltaV said:

This ruling is overwhelmingly interpreted by bloggers, activists and journalists who are influenced by the common law system (US, UK) in which the argument by analogy is very strong and very important (sure, they ain't lawyers yet they still intuitively understand how their legal system works).

 

fair point. also doesn't help that I miswrote 

On 8/14/2022 at 5:44 PM, roboticanary said:

Two friends who live together and share their lives like they did meet the requirements to get those legal benefits. 

when I meant to say 'met the requirements to get those legal benefits'

so that made the case seem a lot more general, sorry about that.

As for your skepticism, that is fair. i think you are right that it wont give aces all substantial legal rights/benefits. reading the article again i would say it is over optimistic at best.

I also had a look at the ruling (well, a hopefully reasonable translation of it) . It wont be some great victory for ace rights, but I think it will be quite useful. you are right to restrict things to inheritance, it isnt going to stop a court denying ace people in other cases.

however i think that is more important by itself than you make out. 'can easily solve by just writing a will' is not something i would agree with. writing a will is a massive ballache and there are a lot of reasons people might die without making a will. I don't think its totally fair to say its easily solved.

As for whether its good for aros, yeah, looking at a translation of the case, you are basically right, i put too much trust in the article initially. all hail the curmudgeon.

possible benefit that the supreme court defining whether the relationship counts under that seems to be less 'romantic' and more about wanting  to share/combine lives as opposed to living together. but to be honest thats a stretch, I think overall you are right to be very skeptical

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hate how so many people, particulary on Tumblr, got mad for 'making an issue of homophobia an ace rights issue', as if those things are exclusive, as if intersectionality doesn't exist. I've seen so many people be like 'ugh those darned aces they are trying to be a victim so bad' and its just so weird to me.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Harvest said:

I just hate how so many people, particulary on Tumblr, got mad for 'making an issue of homophobia an ace rights issue', as if those things are exclusive, as if intersectionality doesn't exist. I've seen so many people be like 'ugh those darned aces they are trying to be a victim so bad' and its just so weird to me.

Suffering can be a selfish thing. It's an easy inclination to be resentful over the way one has been treated. And when you make that resentment a part of your identity it can feel as an attack on your person to be called on to empathize with the suffering of others. "You haven't been through what I've been through!" becomes a defense used to close yourself off for fear of being vulnerable. It's more difficult, but ultimately much more healing, to look past your own pain and view the suffering of others with compassion. Even if it does seem minute compared to your own.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...