7. My final security screening 

The final security clearance interview was conducted on April 8, 2024. 

I have really had to struggle to get the documents that are the basis for the handling of my case (see appendix 3), but at least on May 28th I received the meeting notes from the final security interview/interrogation. When I read it, I got both shocked and sad, as I see that the notes are angled and contain several errors.

In addition to my unit manager, one of the authority’s security officers was also present. The meeting took about three hours. During the meeting, they asked many questions about what vulnerabilities I might have that Boethius could use against me and that could come to light in the process, but I understand when I read the notes that they are actually looking for vulnerabilities that they themselves should be able to use against me to justify their own decisions. 

I answer that I have no vulnerabilities that affect me in my professional practice. Despite that, they have subsequently formulated several. 

They say eg that I have a vulnerability linked to not understanding that there is a conflict of interest. It was not clear either in the conversation nor in the meeting notes what the conflict of interest would be, so a little difficult for me to respond, but I think it is basically a matter of misunderstanding about what the Mothers Rebellion are, plus that the people who claimed this are not that familiar with what happens within Sweden’s gas sector today[2].

I still maintain that there is no direct conflict of interest in working with security of gas supply and being involved in climate change in an organization like the Mothers Rebellion. I further explain my experience and view on real gas readiness in chapter 12. The official reason for the termination is summarized as follows[3]:

‘We cannot handle the risk that has been revealed regarding a conflict of interest, and as a result the employment ends. The authorities can no longer consider that trustworhiness and loyalty are consistent with the security protection requirements we have and the information that has emerged.’

As for lack of trustworthiness and loyalty, I address that in Chapter 8. 

I mention on the meeting that I’m divorced (since 2019) and single mother with two teenagers at home, and losing my income on a week and a half notice means I’m in financial trouble. This was dealt with in the following way:

(My divorce came up on my initial security clearance interview, in case anyone is wondering.) The vulnerable financial situation I ended up in was a result of the agency’s handling of the matter. If they really believed this themselves, they wouldn’t have put me through the financial pressure of losing my income at a week and a half’s notice. 

(And by the way; I wasn’t even down in the agency’s security archive where this classified information was stored, which was double-checked afterwards[4].)

Furthermore, I get comments that I have an unreasonable amount of private documents on the computer, and it is true that I also used the computer privately, as I didn’t have any other computer, but it feels very strange that it could be a comment in a security screening interview.

I attended all the mandatory introduction and security courses at the agency but was never told anything about restricting private use of the computer as an employee, nor is it regulated in the authority’s IT policy.

Furthermore, we talk briefly (again) about peaceful civil disobedience and I explain that I am aware that it breaks the law. I further state that I am aware that there are people who use peaceful civil disobedience and that I understand why they do it and the theory behind it. Considering  the difficulties there are, with getting the climate message out, despite tons and tons of research which are all showing the same thing, I have an understanding about that people are using that method.

I have explained several times before that I have never committed civil disobedience myself, nor have I ever encouraged anyone else to do so.  

This is addressed in the notes as below:

‘Comment from the Chief Security Officer; This reasonably contradicts the state’s value base and the principle of legality. Constitutes another vulnerability linked to the employee’s approach to complying with laws, regulations and safety regulations.’

That’s really not true. In addition, the state’s core values ​​are extremely clear with democratic values ​​and that you have the right to your opinion, and this applies regardless of whether you are security classified or not, as are seen for example below:

‘You have the right to express yourself freely in any subject without risking reprisals.’

The principle of legality in the state value base is summarized as follows: [5] 

‘The principle of legality means that the authorities’ activities must be supported by the legal order, for example laws and regulations. As a government employee, you must also know and follow the rules that apply in your particular authority’s operations. Citizens must be sure that the authorities follow the rules.’

There is nothing in what I have said that goes against anything in the state value base, including the principle of legality. I know and follow laws and regulations. I can also point you to the government inquiry into democracy, which states that peaceful civil disobedience is an important tool in a functioning democracy.[6] 

The briefing ends with us going through my private documents and I am allowded to copy parts of it onto a memory stick that I get to take home with me. During the process, I have not spoken to any managers other than my unit manager, i.e. neither HR, the newly appointed Chief Security Officer, nor my Department manager (except for 5 minutes in my entrance). 

I announced that I did not have time to register quite some documents in the document management system. I am not given the opportunity to make any transfer of my work to anyone. When I later open the memory stick at home, I see that a lot of my private documents are gone.