Economic sanctions against terrorism
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns a bill to freeze assets to counter terrorism financing. 1 S supports the proposal to fulfill international commitments and emphasizes the importance of preventive work, social equality, and addressing poverty to counter hatred 1 2. S argues that both violent Islamism and right-wing extremism are growing due to a diminished sense of community. SD supports freezing assets but advocates for the deportation of terrorists and stricter border control 3 4 5. M considers the threat to be real and that it is crucial to choke off financing 6. V supports the bill but demands probable cause to ensure legal certainty 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Anna Wallentheim (S)
Mr. Speaker! When I made my usual video call home to my seven-year-old daughter last night, my parents were sitting there while I was writing my speech for this debate. They naturally asked what the debate would be about, and I answered that it would be about economic sanctions against terrorism aimed at ensuring that Sweden fulfills its international obligations in the area of sanctions, as well as making it possible to freeze assets in accordance with a decision from the UN Security Council.
Then the daughter understood. There were many concepts that she obviously did not understand. But the UN was something she knew about. She said: The UN is something good, mommy. We have talked about it in school. They try to stop all wars in the world. They think a lot about the children and children's rights and that all families are different. But even if one is different, one is equally worthy.
I thought: Think how wonderful it is to be seven years old; when I told her what I was going to debate, she only picked up on the nice parts in that context.
Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, we live in a rather dark time. In addition to a tough economic situation that affects people's everyday lives and in addition to serious gang crime, conflicts and war, we unfortunately also have a situation where terrorism and violent extremism continue to be an imminent threat to our country and our way of life.
It is of course difficult to have a debate on this without mentioning the horrific events in Brussels on October 16 when two Swedes unfortunately lost their lives. What happened was an attack against Sweden, against our democracy, against our openness and against the sense of community that, among other things, sports should provide. We must never let terrorism triumph - not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.
Since the summer, Sweden has moved from being regarded as a legitimate target for terrorist attacks to being regarded as a priority target. In a time when Sweden and the world are becoming more dangerous and poorer every day, it requires decisiveness to increase both Swedish and international security.
As I have mentioned in previous debates on terrorism, the Social Democratic government took the initiative for a new national strategy against terrorism. This led to us being able to submit 28 propositions with legislative proposals specifically aimed at terrorism and violent extremism. The strategy then laid the foundation for two cross-bloc agreements on the fight against terrorism. It is, of course, something that we as a country should be proud of. It is a demonstration of strength.
It is welcome that the right-wing government continues that work. It has, for example, led to us making decisions that it shall be punishable to participate in terrorist organizations. We Social Democrats want to continue those conversations constructively, if the government is prepared to extend a hand for cooperation on this.
Today I stand here in the chamber together with a committee that is essentially in agreement regarding supporting the government's bill on, among other things, the freezing of assets to prevent and counter the financing of acts of terrorism. It is a bill that aims for Sweden to fulfill its international commitments and obligations in the area of sanctions.
These sanctions and asset freezes aim to promote peace and security, defend democratic principles and human rights, prevent the use and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, prevent cyberattacks, and combat terrorism.
Perhaps one of the other speakers will go into more detail. But I can state that we Social Democrats support the government's bill and the proposal in the committee report in its entirety.
Mr. Speaker! As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I sometimes wish that we could all see the world through my daughter's or other children's eyes. Perhaps that would make us see the issues a bit more brightly?
As a Social Democrat, I will always stand up for diplomatic solutions and peaceful negotiations when it comes to human rights and for handling conflicts. Terrorism and violent extremism we shall always fight, always hinder, and always have the right tools to prevent - but it requires more than that. Perhaps the most important thing we must do is to attack the root of the hatred, the threat to democracy, and the diminished sense of community. We Social Democrats therefore believe that it is time for a new national unity against extremism and for democracy and trust in our country.
In conclusion, we must also put even more effort into combating the causes of terrorism and radicalization and dare to address the underlying causes such as poverty, social inequality, and lack of education. It is not increased segregation, reduced investments in welfare, a harsh debate climate, or the spread of fake news and other rubbish on social media that is the solution, Mr. Speaker, but rather the belief in increased social cohesion, solidarity, and human rights.
Adam Marttinen (SD)
Mr. Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Justice's report on economic sanctions against terrorism. It will probably not be the debate on the topic that goes down in history, but it is perhaps so important that we stand behind the main content of the bill, namely to make it possible to freeze assets if persons are considered or suspected to be involved in the execution of terrorist acts.
I also want to emphasize the seriousness of the collective work the government is doing against terrorism, not only in Sweden but also in the rest of Europe - not least in light of the fact that we have had a horrific terrorist attack recently where two Swedish citizens were murdered by an Islamist terrorist.
It is sad to see how Europe has developed under socialist and liberal governments, and it is sad to see how even Sweden has developed under socialist and liberal governments.
We hear from the Social Democrats that we must attack the cause of why this terrorism hits so hard against us in our part of the world. If the Social Democrats get to decide, it is then about faith in increased social cohesion and that social justice is the way forward. I ask myself how that is going to work in practice. Are the Social Democrats going to persuade a radicalized Islamist to join in a social cohesion with us others? It seems that the Social Democrats truly believe that it is possible. The Sweden Democrats do not see that as a possible way forward. It is, however, associated with very great risks.
We have had terrorist attacks in Sweden with links to the Islamic State and with Islamist motives. They have been able to occur in our country because people have been able to be here illegally and because of irresponsible governments that have not primarily taken security seriously but have believed in a possible social cohesion in a multicultural Sweden. That is what the Social Democrats' governments have primarily believed in. Unfortunately, we have had to live with the consequences of that naive notion of how a society can hold together. We have had blood on our streets as a result of naive governments' policies.
In this context, there is a reservation from Vänsterpartiet in the report. They consider that the evidentiary requirements for when sanctions can be applied are set far too low. It is written that a higher evidentiary requirement could reduce the risk of sanctions being directed at innocent persons and also that certain ethnic groups are suspected to a greater extent than others. It is a consideration from the left that is recognizable, and it is a common thread through the collective policy of red-green governments. Other perspectives are taken into account instead of having security and the fight against terrorism as the main priority.
I wonder how a red-green government would have acted in relation to this small proposition. Presumably, Vänsterpartiet would have had their views pushed through. That would not be strange, for that is how it has been under red-green governments historically. Just this type of objection to a bill has been pushed through. We have had red-green governments that have protected perspectives other than security. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that there is a very broad majority from the committee side that goes significantly further than what Vänsterpartiet wants in this report.
In other respects, I am very pleased that we have a government that is free from the influence of the left, so that we can design a policy that truly puts the lives of Swedes and Europeans first when it comes to the fight against terrorism.
Anna Wallentheim (S)
Mr. Speaker! Member Marttinen swings high when he stands in the speaker's chair. I would like to ask a few simple and quick questions to the member. He speaks clearly about the radical Islamist being a problem. There is probably no one who thinks otherwise, but I wonder if anyone is born to be a radical Islamist.
Of course, one must always work with both. What the social democratic government did was to develop a new national strategy to work against terrorism. We submitted 28 propositions within this area, but we also believe that it is not enough. One must always work preventatively, even when it concerns these issues.
No one is born as a terrorist. No one is born as a radical Islamist. Therefore, it is incredibly important to work preventatively with this. Could the member answer my question? Should we not work preventatively? Should we not ensure that no children or young people are left behind? Should we not ensure that we catch those children and young people who grow up within these views? Should we not work against the equally hostile views of the far-right? Again: Is one born as a radical Islamist, or does radicalism perhaps have a certain skin color according to the member and the Sverigedemokraterna?
Adam Marttinen (SD)
Mr. Speaker! We simply have completely different views on what constitutes preventive policy and what can make a difference. One can read the reports that the Swedish Security Service has issued over the years. They reveal to us that the greatest growth of violent extremism in Sweden is within violent Islamism. It has a very strong connection to the large migration to Sweden, which not least Anna Wallentheim and her party have applauded over the decades.
I will answer how we should work preventatively. We heard that the red-green government delivered 28 propositions against terrorism. We would have been much happier if they had deported 28 violence-seeking terrorists from our country, but that was nothing the Socialdemokraterna managed to do during their time in government. The terrorists, on the contrary, remain in Sweden now, are flagged by Säkerhetspolisen and walk around on our streets. It is the result of the Socialdemokraterna's policy.
Sure, go ahead with your preventive policies! Propose social justice! Propose income distribution and all that! But I believe that the type of extremism we are talking about here is more deeply rooted than that. I do not believe that one achieves any greater success by distributing grants to those who are less well-off, but completely different measures are required. These individuals should simply be deported from the country, and the extremists who seek out Sweden should not be let in from the start. Then we will have come a very long way.
Anna Wallentheim (S)
Mr. Speaker! There are different reports that one can read with different eyes. We can certainly state that. The National Centre for Threat Assessment has stated that violent Islamism and violent right-wing extremism are currently feeding each other. That is the development we see in Sweden. We do not only have a growing Islamism but also a growing right-wing extremism that is currently ensuring that both of these groups grow too strong. Both sides of this extremism benefit in the long run from the fact that we have increased conflicts, that we have hatred, and that we have a diminished social cohesion. It is important that we dare to see all parts of this politics and that we also introduce policies that ensure we work preventatively. I believe in that. I will always believe in social equality first and foremost.
Another fundamental problem in Sweden today is unfortunately that we have a government base that makes impossible the comprehensive grip required in the fight against terrorism and violent extremism. Calls for book burnings are something that several point to as a growing problem and a way to support the hatred and the growing problems we see in the world. It has direct consequences for our country's security and leads to increased insecurity for many of the Swedish citizens who live here. It is such things that I also think we should dare to talk about, but it is very rarely that the Sweden Democrats dare to do so.
Adam Marttinen (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I can only state that illegal migrants who should have been deported from Sweden and Europe have carried out terrorist attacks and killed innocent people in Sweden and Europe. They would never have been in Sweden or Europe if the Sverigedemokraterna had been allowed to decide. Thousands of people who are in Sweden today and whom the Socialdemokraterna have welcomed constitute a direct terror threat to our country. It is a matter of people who sing songs with anti-Semitic lyrics about how they want to annihilate Israel as a nation. They would never have been here if the Sverigedemokraterna had been allowed to decide.
Both Europe and not least Sweden are in a serious security situation. I am thinking of all those connected to IS who could travel from Sweden to Syria and Iraq and participate in the acts of terror that were committed, only to then be welcomed back, even flown back, to Sweden with the Swedish government's good memories. They live here today as free citizens. That would not have been the case if the Sverigedemokraterna had been allowed to decide.
There are quite large differences between the Social Democrats' so-called preventive policy and the Sweden Democrats' orientation and view on how to build a safe and secure country. These are differences that I think are well worth highlighting in a debate such as this.
Mikael Damsgaard (M)
Mr. Speaker! Europe has in recent decades been hit by a long series of very serious terrorist acts. It has primarily concerned Islamist-motivated terrorism, but there have also occurred attacks with, for example, right-wing extremist agendas. After the terrorist attack on Drottninggatan four years ago, it became clear that the threat from terrorism is real even in Sweden.
Sweden has for a number of years had an elevated terror threat level. But during the year, the threat situation has intensified further. On August 17, the head of the Swedish Security Service decided to raise the terror threat level from a three to a four on a five-point scale. The terror threat against Sweden is thus assessed to be high.
The image of Sweden has gradually changed, and the threat of attacks from actors within violent Islamism has increased during the year. The disinformation campaigns of recent years regarding the Swedish social services have gained wide distribution in the Muslim world, as well as, more recently, reporting on Quran burnings. Sweden has gone from being a Western country among others to being singled out as a priority target for violent Islamists.
That this vulnerability is not merely a theoretical risk but a highly concrete threat became all too clear in Brussels on October 16, when two Swedish football supporters were murdered simply because they were Swedish.
The increasing and ever more visible antisemitism, both in Sweden and in the rest of Europe, makes the Jewish group particularly vulnerable. Hamas's bestial attacks on communities in southern Israel a month ago show that violent Islamism does not shy away from any means.
The Government is working broadly to strengthen Sweden's security in general and, therein, also the protection against terrorism. The Government submitted, for example, a bill to the Riksdag yesterday with proposals that, among other things, make it possible to revoke residence permits if it can be assumed that the person will engage in state-sponsored corporate espionage or activities linked to terrorism.
In the matter we are dealing with today, further steps are taken to prevent and counteract the financing of acts of terrorism by creating conditions to freeze assets for those who are suspected or convicted of crimes under the Terrorist Crime Act or are placed on sanction lists. Strangling the financing of violent extremism is of crucial importance to reduce the threat of terrorism, both in Sweden and globally. It is therefore welcome and important that we can take further steps today.
I note, however, that Vänsterpartiet is once again displaying a light-minded attitude regarding the threat from terrorism. It may seem that a higher burden of proof is of marginal importance. But in purely practical terms, it could mean that terror financing can continue for longer and on a larger scale than is necessary. It is therefore concerning that such a proposal is being put forward. But what concerns me most, of course, is that Vänsterpartiet could in the future become part of a red-green government and have an influence on Swedish counter-terrorism policy. Then I would be seriously concerned.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation. The Left Party stands behind the bill in its entirety with one exception. We think that much of the government's bill is valuable and important. We support that fully. But we are against this important measure, freezing, being carried out with a weak evidentiary requirement. According to the bill, it should suffice that one is reasonably suspected of a crime here or in another country. The decision needs to have a firmer grounding than that. We believe that it is important that it is probable grounds that shall apply.
It has been put forward here that this would mean that Vänsterpartiet in a frivolous manner opens the floodgates for terrorism. This is obviously a gross overestimation of the requirement that we put forward for reasons of legal certainty.
I am proud that Vänsterpartiet upholds the Swedish principles that should apply in a Swedish justice system and a Swedish democracy.
The higher standard of proof reduces the risk of mistakes, and we know that such mistakes already occur today where innocent people risk being included and where the risk increases if one has an ethnicity other than purely Swedish and is "non-white". We agree with the referral bodies' criticism in this regard, and the Council on Legislation has also commented.
I greatly appreciated what Anna Wallentheim presented regarding the fact that we must act much more preventatively. It is about tackling social injustices, ethnic discrimination, and that which breeds threats and hate. We shall not build our justice system and our politics on fear propaganda. We shall have respect for the evil that can strike and also act in our society, but we shall not take it so far that we deplete the legal principles that apply here.
It is extremely important that we hold fast to human rights and focus on a future where we build a Sweden where children have the right to feel hope and faith in the future, regardless of whether they are born white or with another skin color.
I move for the reservation to be approved.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.