When I grew up (far north in Norway) it was said that filling out a membership form in the communist party would get your phone tapped at once. She's older than I am and I'd be surprised of the Swedes treated their communists any different in first 30 years of her life.

Anyway, my point is that she's been repeatedly elected. She didn't get her present job in an election, but someone who's won three elections in a row recently is democratically legitimate, even if the current job isn't directly elected.

This is a false equivalency argument.

It would be just as false as saying "rdm_blackhole supports decriminalising incitement because he supports free speech".

She joined the the so-called Vänsterpartiet when their full name was: Vänsterpartiet - kommunisterna (VPK) aka The left party - communists. At that time the party had ties to eastern germany and the Soviet Union. She was elected to parliament as representative for vänsterpartiet - kommunisterna.

There is no false equivalency whatsoever here.

It sounded as if GP meant to imply the Swedish communist party's attitude to privacy was equivalent to something, without stating what. The Soviet communist party's attitude, perhaps?

The Soviet one spied on everyone. The Swedish one was spied upon. That's not equivalent.