A specific penal provision for participation in a terrorist organization

Pontus Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we will debate the government's bill A special penal provision for participation in a terrorist organization. The proposal is to support the changes to, among other things, the terrorist crime act.

The proposal means, in short, that a new crime is introduced in the Terrorist Crime Act with the designation participation in a terrorist organization. The crime entails a special criminal liability for the person who participates in the activities of a terrorist organization in a manner intended to promote, strengthen, or support the organization.

The penalty shall be imprisonment for a maximum of 4 years. If the offense is gross, the penalty shall be imprisonment for a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 8 years. If the perpetrator has led the terrorist organization, the penalty shall instead be imprisonment for a certain period, a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 18 years, or for life.

It is also proposed that attempts to commit the new crime shall be criminalized. The Government further proposes that it shall be punishable to finance participation in a terrorist organization, to publicly urge and recruit for the crime, as well as to travel abroad with the intention of committing the crime.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal concerns an issue that the Sweden Democrats have championed in the Riksdag for a longer period and which became topical in connection with Swedish citizens choosing to travel to Iraq and Syria to fight for the Islamic State. Thus, the possibility of sentencing persons for participation in a terrorist organization is something that should have been introduced a long time ago. Regardless, it is good that the law is finally being implemented.

Terrorist organizations have not ceased to exist but live and thrive in many places around the world, even in Sweden. In Säpo's report from 2019, it is estimated that around 2,000 people living in Sweden are violent and that many of these have experience with weapons training. Due to the all-too-high immigration to Sweden over decades, it has also meant that many people who have become Swedish citizens sympathize with, belong to, or even fight for terrorist organizations around the world even now, which makes the law even more urgent. It could have been implemented as early as 2018.

The critics of the law refer, among other things, to the fact that it may restrict freedom of association. But I can assure those listening that one should not go after those who have engaged in Knäckebyhults idrottsförening, but rather persons who actively participate in organizations such as the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, or al-Shabab.

Swedish citizens who voluntarily choose to travel down to join organizations that commit crimes against humanity shall be punished severely. A problem previously has been that it has been difficult to link a person to an individual crime in, for example, Iraq or Syria. Therefore, this law will ensure that the persons in question are sentenced to some form of penalty when their participation in just terrorist organizations can be proven. Regardless of whether a person's task was to commit acts of terror, work as a cook for persons who commit acts of terror, or give birth to future terrorists, the perpetrators must face clear consequences. Therefore, the proposal to criminalize participation in terrorist organizations is completely the right way to go.

Mr. Speaker! I must, however, remind the audience that this is only a small - but important - part of what is required for the penalty for the crime to be in parity with the gravity of the crime and, not least, for the measures to be so powerful that we who live in Sweden receive the security we deserve.

On April 7, 2017, the terrorist Rakhmat Akilov, who had sworn allegiance to the previously mentioned Islamic State, chose to hijack a truck on Drottninggatan, just a few hundred meters from the place where we are currently located, and run over 5 people and injure another 15. That Akilov was an illegal immigrant cast further light on the importance of strengthening the internal immigration controls in the country, something that the Sverigedemokraterna and the new government agree must be done.

The act on Drottninggatan in 2017 was not the first time Sweden was subjected to Islamist terrorism. In December 2010, Taimour Abdulwahab committed a terrorist act in central Stockholm where, fortunately, only the terrorist himself perished. Abdulwahab was born in Iraq and later became a Swedish citizen. The act focused attention on the question of the possibility of revoking citizenship but also on the question of stricter requirements to obtain Swedish citizenship in the first place. Sverigedemokraterna has pushed this issue since long before our entry into the Riksdag, and with the autumn Tidöavtal, it is, like the question of internal foreigner controls, policy that will be implemented during this mandate period.

The wave of migration to Sweden and Europe in 2015 became, in some way, the culmination of a migration policy in Western Europe that had been mismanaged for far too long. The many acts of terrorism committed in connection with and after this migration wave also caused more and more people to understand the dangers of high migration.

Among the most important measures to prevent future terrorist acts in Europe are not only sharper legislation, such as the one we are debating here and now, but also that we in Sweden, Europe, and other Western countries conduct a strict migration policy. A balanced redistribution at, for example, the EU level, I believe is the wrong way to go because I, as a Sverigedemokrat and a friend of the Western world, do not want more countries in Europe to make the same mistakes as we have made in Sweden, France, Belgium, or for this matter, Great Britain.

During Easter week, I and some colleagues visited Poland. Together with the government party Lag och rättvisa, we visited the border wall that the country recently built against Belarus. It is a wall over 180 kilometers long and 5.5 meters high, monitored by drones, thermal cameras, and the country's own border security. The wall was built in less than half a year as a result of the attempts at illegal migration that Poland was subjected to via the border to Belarus.

Europe's borders can be protected if only the will exists. Sweden's borders can also be protected if only the will exists. There is a reason why countries like Poland have been completely spared from Islamist terrorism. The answer to that question is not necessarily found in stricter punishments, even though it is fundamentally important that those who commit serious crimes always receive punishments that are in parity with the severity of the crime, that those who do this and are not Swedish citizens shall be deported from Sweden, and that foreign-born individuals who commit the most serious forms of crime shall be deprived of their Swedish citizenship.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of the government's bill A special penal provision for participation in a terrorist organization.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! As we heard from the previous speaker, we are in the chamber today to debate the Committee on Justice's report number 20 and the government's bill A special penal provision for participation in a terrorist organization. In order not to miss it at the end, I would like to begin by moving for the approval of our reservation number 4.

Mr. Speaker! Combating, preventing, and preempting terrorism is, of course, of the utmost importance. The threat from terrorism is a threat to the entire open society. Therefore, it is important that we have political unity and broad agreements to the greatest extent possible to prevent the spread of terrorism not only on a national front but also internationally.

This was, in any case, the starting point that the Social Democratic government had when it came to terrorism issues. The proposals that are on the table today are a continuation of the work and the investigations that the Social Democratic government started. This does not, however, mean that we do not see problems with the proposal that is on the table today. I will return to that.

Mr. Speaker! We unfortunately live in a time when we must be aware that Sweden's security is being exposed to ever greater risks. The threats from both state actors and ideologically motivated actors are increasing, and this is happening at the same time as the vulnerabilities in our society are becoming ever more extensive.

Globalization, digitalization and technological development contribute to a broadened threat profile from foreign actors and powers and create cross-border platforms where violence-promoting extremists can meet, be inspired and call for acts of violence.

To meet an increasingly complex and broadened threat from both state actors and violent extremist environments, we Social Democrats believe that this, just like many other parts of the justice system, the correctional services, and criminal policy, must be combated in several areas and from several perspectives.

As I mentioned before, it was an extensive task that the Social Democratic-led government initiated, and we invested a lot of time and effort into it when it came to issues regarding both terrorism and violent extremism.

Between the autumn of 2014 and the autumn of 2022, the government submitted, among other things, over 20 propositions with legislative proposals that were specifically aimed at terrorism and violent extremism. Among other things, a new terrorist crime law and a ban on terror travel were introduced.

Mr. Speaker! Every year, several terrorist attacks are carried out in the world. In recent years, terrorist crimes have developed into a serious international problem that we must take seriously.

This is, of course, a crime that has extreme consequences and which primarily affects innocent people. But it is also a crime that is often cross-border and which constitutes a test for the societies that are affected. It threatens both international and national peace and security. Terrorism is therefore one of the greatest threats to democracy.

We Social Democrats are aware that in order to meet the threat that terrorism poses and to counter the appeal of terrorism, intensive work is required both in Sweden and in other countries. But this work must, of course, be directed towards the root causes of terrorism in order to be able to combat it in the long run.

Preventive measures are required to reduce radicalization and recruitment to violence-oriented extremist and terrorist groups. This means that people in vulnerable situations, people in exclusion, people with mental health problems, and children in vulnerable environments must receive help before they are caught by radical views.

At the same time, we clearly see that repressive and controlling measures are necessary to avert acute terrorist threats and to be able to prosecute persons who commit this type of terrorist activity. For us Social Democrats, it is therefore important that we have a broad view of terrorism and that we see the threats from the increasing right-wing extremism as equally serious as those from terrorists from, for example, Daish.

Mr. Speaker! Even though we Social Democrats have for many years carried out intensive work against terrorism, and even though the proposal that is on the table today is part of the investigation that we commissioned, we are concerned.

The Council on Legislation and several referral bodies have, in fact, submitted extensive criticism of the government's proposal. But despite that, the government chose to submit a bill only a few days after the Council on Legislation had expressed its opinion.

It is obvious that there is not enough time to seriously be able to analyze the Council for Legislation's views. Even though the government made certain adjustments, we Social Democrats believe that the Council for Legislation's fundamental criticism was not taken into account to a sufficient extent.

Among other things, I want to mention what the Council on Legislation and other referral bodies point out regarding the concern that resistance and liberation movements also risk falling under the definition of terrorist organization. These are movements that, through actions against their own country or against the authorities, attempt to achieve democracy. It is, of course, worrying, and it is something that the government should not take lightly.

It also does not become any less problematic if Swedish citizens could be accused of participating in a terrorist organization through fundraising, by providing premises, or by participating in meetings.

In the referral to the Council on Legislation, it can be read, among other things, that with the new definition, it could in today's light be the case that both the ANC in South Africa and the FNL movement in South Vietnam could be covered by such legislation. These were, moreover, two movements that created great engagement among people in Sweden. The Council on Legislation understands it as that those persons' actions could have been punishable according to the new proposals.

Another aspect that I would like to highlight is that we Social Democrats also do not want to risk the work of investigative journalists. This applies regardless of whether it is about highlighting the positive in various freedom and democracy movements or attempts to infiltrate terrorist organizations to obtain information about their members.

We do not want to see the journalists' work in any way lead to them being accused of participating in a terrorist organization. Here, the government argues that it is important that journalists' work should not be restricted, and we truly hope that the government lives up to this.

Mr. Speaker! We stand behind the work against terrorism, against terrorist organizations, against acts of terrorism, against participation in terrorist organizations, and so on. It was a task that we were involved in starting. We therefore choose today to stand behind many of the parts that we see in the bill.

As I mentioned in my introduction, it is of course of the utmost importance to combat, prevent, and preclude terrorism. But let me conclude by being clear.

We Social Democrats believe that the government should have conducted a proper analysis of the Council on Legislation's objections. But in the absence of such an analysis, and given the serious objections that the Council on Legislation and other bodies put forward, it is extremely important that the legislative change is carefully monitored.

Our reservation today is therefore that the government should continuously monitor and evaluate the effects of the new penal provision. We will not accept that either liberation movements, engaged citizens for democracy, or journalists risk being classified as participating in terrorist organizations.

If it still happens, we will demand changes that ensure we live up to the work we began. It is the work against terrorism in its true sense. It is important that it happens.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Europe has in recent decades been hit by a long series of very serious terrorist acts. These have primarily involved Islamist-motivated terrorism, but there have also occurred attacks with, for example, far-right agendas.

We all remember the attacks in Paris in 2015, just as we remember the attacks in Oslo and on Utøya in 2011. In recent years, we have also seen several attacks in, among others, France, Austria and Germany. After the terrorist attack on Drottninggatan in 2017, it became clear that the threat from terrorism is real even in Sweden.

Sweden has had an elevated terror threat level for a number of years. According to the Swedish Security Service (Säpo), the threat of terrorist attacks in the short term is primarily posed by lone actors with ideological links to violent Islamism or violent right-wing extremism. We also see how these movements are increasingly characterized by a so-called hybridization, where they attempt to incorporate conspiracy theories and narratives from anti-establishment extremism into their own propaganda.

Even though global terrorist organizations such as Daish or al-Qaeda have been weakened in recent years, it is important that there is well-developed legislation in place to meet threats from this type of organization.

Mr. Speaker! The question of criminalizing participation in terrorist organizations has a long history. After the terror attacks in Paris in 2015 and after Drottninggatan in 2017, cross-border agreements were concluded on how the work against terrorism should be strengthened.

In the 2017 agreement, the participating parties, following pressure from among others the Moderaterna, agreed that participation in terrorist organizations should be prohibited. This was one of many other issues. In 2019, the then government decided on a referral to the Council on Legislation with such a proposal. Since the Council on Legislation at that time alerted the government that a ban on participation in terrorist organizations could imply a restriction of the freedom of association and that it required an amendment to the Instrument of Government, the government needed to reconsider the issue.

On 1 January 2023, the amendments to the Instrument of Government finally entered into force. This means expanded possibilities to limit freedom of association by law when it concerns associations that engage in or support terrorism.

Sweden has extensive legislation regarding terrorist crimes. On July 1 last year, the new terrorist crime act entered into force, which consolidated the legislation against terrorism from several laws that had been added at different times. Simultaneously, the new law on special control of certain foreigners entered into force, which increased the possibility of keeping persons who pose a threat to Sweden's security in custody and under surveillance. We Moderates had for several years pushed for these legislations and welcomed the new laws but noted then, before the election, that several problems remained to be solved and that the sentencing scales for several crimes were too mild. And so it still is.

The question raised by Sweden's extensive counter-terrorism legislation is whether there is a need for legislation that also criminalizes participation in a terrorist organization.

From the perspective of the Moderates and the government, the answer is a clear yes. There are actions that in themselves are not punishable but which obviously can contribute to strengthening a terrorist organization's activities. In principle, all forms of support to a terrorist organization - whether it concerns material assistance or assistance in the form of participation in the activities - contribute to maintaining and strengthening the organization and thereby its ability to commit terrorist crimes.

It can involve someone who travels to an area controlled by a terrorist organization and where, on site, the association assists by, for example, providing equipment, setting up camps, arranging meeting premises, organizing activities, cooking food, or arranging transport.

In order to further improve the possibilities to prevent and combat terrorism, the government therefore proposes that the criminal terrorist legislation be tightened - this by introducing a specific criminal provision for participation in a terrorist organization.

In order to be convicted of a crime under this law, a person shall participate in the activities of a terrorist organization in a manner intended to promote, strengthen or support the organization. A prerequisite for it to be a matter of participation in the activities should, according to the bill, be that there is a concrete and qualified connection to the organization.

It appears from the penal provision that the act does not constitute a crime if it is minor or if it is justifiable given the circumstances. Examples of justifiable acts could be journalistic work, wallraffing journalists, or participation in resistance movements in dictatorships where one works for a democratic system of government.

When it comes to the Social Democrats' reservation, it is a bit difficult to see what they actually want to achieve with the proposal to follow up on the legislation. I note that by approving the bill, the Social Democrats share the government's assessment that there is a need to criminalize participation in a terrorist organization. I also note that the Social Democrats do not have any concrete proposals on how the law could be clarified. It feels a bit like the Social Democrats want to have their cake and eat it too.

The Government has addressed the criticism from the Council on Legislation in various ways in the bill, and we assess that the proposal meets the requirements that can be placed on this type of legislation. Regarding the follow-up of the legislation, it will likely take several years before we have a clear picture of how practice has developed. If there is then a need for a review of the legislation, all members here in the Swedish Riksdag have the opportunity to raise the issue based on a concrete problem area.

The penalty scale in the new legislation is proposed to be imprisonment for a maximum of 4 years. If the crime is aggravated, the penalty scale is proposed to be imprisonment for a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 8 years. If the perpetrator has led the terrorist organization, the penalty scale is instead proposed to be imprisonment for a certain period, a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 18 years, or for life.

The penal provision entails expanded possibilities to intervene against persons who travel to areas controlled by terrorist organizations and participate in their activities but where other terrorist offenses cannot be proven. This applies, for example, to situations that can be likened to the one where persons from Sweden traveled to Syria and Iraq to join IS. With a criminalization of participation in terrorist organizations, the possibility of operating with Sweden as a base to assist terrorist organizations in other countries is also reduced.

By voting yes to the government's proposition later today, we strengthen Sweden's protection against terrorism. But we also make the world a little safer. Sweden simply must not be a haven for terrorists.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet moves for the rejection of the bill and thus stands behind our reservations. I move, however, for approval only of reservation 1, which is the one that marks the rejection of the bill.

The proposal we are now debating in the Riksdag means that a new crime is introduced in the Terrorist Crime Act, which is already extensive. The designation is participation in a terrorist organization. The crime involves a specific criminal liability for those who participate in a terrorist organization in a manner intended to promote, strengthen, or support the organization.

The Government further proposes that it shall be punishable to finance participation in a terrorist organization, to publicly urge or attempt to recruit for the crime, and to travel abroad with the intention of committing the crime. I already imply with these words that even attempts are criminalized.

The sentencing scale is extremely sharp: imprisonment for a maximum of 4 years. But if the crime is aggravated, it is raised to a maximum of 8 years. If the act has involved the suspect leading a terrorist organization and they are convicted of this crime, the maximum sentence is 18 years or even life imprisonment. The legislative changes are intended to enter into force quite soon - already on June 1 this year.

Why does Vänsterpartiet then move for rejection? Of course, terrorist crime is very serious and a threat to the system. It is one of the greatest threats to democracy, the free exercise of human rights, and economic and social development. Therefore, it should be punishable to plan and carry out terrorist acts. I am, however, in line with the Council on Legislation and several heavy referral bodies, strongly critical of the government's proposal to criminalize even participation in an organization.

The possibility of restricting freedom of association when it concerns associations that engage in or support terrorism was introduced through a constitutional amendment as recently as January 1, 2023. We were therefore forced to compromise on the constitution for this to be possible. There is a risk that this is one step further on a slippery slope.

I view with great concern the development that has occurred since the beginning of the 2000s and which today has led to us beginning to approach a surveillance society, if we are not already there. Questions regarding personal privacy and human rights are repeatedly being sidelined.

Every restriction has been justified based on ostensibly good purposes, such as the expectation that it would provide more effective crime fighting and a general increased protection for our inhabitants. Taken together, however, it becomes a whole of over two decades of tightened laws regarding, for example, camera surveillance, secret coercive measures, signal intelligence, alien control, and measures aimed at preventing terrorism that is alarming, especially if we take further steps. Every restriction that is accepted tends to pave the way for even more and even more intrusive tightenings.

The consequences for the social climate and democracy in the long term of these laws are in themselves worrying and difficult to oversee. As recently as 2022, the majority of the Riksdag voted through the new terrorist crime law. In addition to the many and disparate laws being gathered into a single piece of legislation, the scope of criminal offenses was significantly expanded. The penalties for several of the crimes were tightened, and a general basis for increased penalties was introduced. Reasonably, this extensive reform should have been in force long enough to be evaluated before further new proposals are submitted.

Through the new law, Sweden also has extensive criminal legislation in the area. These are large steps that have already been taken. The government's proposal can therefore be said to result in an over-criminalization.

Fighting terrorism by banning organizations and thereby restricting the constitutionally protected freedom of association and upsetting our fundamental principles is, we in Vänsterpartiet believe, completely the wrong way to go. Instead of punishing people for their thoughts or which organizations they belong to, the focus should lie on preventing, deterring, and punishing the criminal acts that individuals plan and commit, either alone or together with others.

There are a series of vague definitions of the concepts of terrorism and terrorist organization in the law. A general conceptual shift also risks leading to members of completely peaceful organizations and persons who support liberation, resistance, or democracy movements being affected by the law. The Council on Legislation points out, among other things, that we perhaps would not have been able to support ANC's struggle in South Africa or the FNL movement in Vietnam if this law had been in force.

There are several other points of concern where peaceful activities risk being branded. Several referral bodies point out that the boundaries for what becomes punishable are very wide. In my opinion, the criminalization of everyday actions is not acceptable. In the preparatory works, organized childcare, cooking, and arranging of activities are mentioned, among other things. There, the boundaries become very difficult to draw. It is also mentioned that doctors in peacetime can risk committing a crime by caring for people who are considered members of a terrorist organization.

I am further concerned that it will mean limitations for the government to act when Swedish citizens are imprisoned by authoritarian regimes for alleged terrorist crimes. I am also concerned about how the extradition legislation will be able to be affected.

A question that is also raised by the referral bodies is according to which country's law the terms terrorism and terrorist organization shall be interpreted. Is it a requirement according to Swedish law or according to the other country's law that shall qualify for this crime? So far, we have seen that Swedish courts have signaled against this in extradition cases, but I believe many can understand that I have Turkey and Erdogan in mind here. What will this be able to mean moving forward?

I would like to conclude by raising something that Lund University stated in its referral response. They are not convinced that there are sufficient grounds to justify the introduction of a participation crime and mention that there may be negative consequences of the criminalization on other measures against terrorism. How are we to evaluate training, defector activities, or intelligence work? That should also be considered.

In summary, we in Vänsterpartiet believe that there are several very serious objections to the bill, and we motion, as stated, for its rejection.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Gudrun Nordborg listed a large number of increased penalties and new laws that have been introduced in recent years. The Moderates and the government believe that these are important so that we can carry out solid work against terrorism, punish the guilty, and have a sufficiently strong protection against terrorist crime. This concerns the new terrorist crime law, laws on special control of certain foreigners, and so on. This was legislation that the Left Party voted against, so it is not so surprising that one is also against this legislation.

But I still want to ask a question to Gudrun Nordborg. There are, and it also appears from the bill, a number of actions that in themselves are not punishable but which obviously support terrorist organizations. It could be about people who traveled to Syria and helped out, for example by babysitting. In that way, they made it possible for others to commit acts of terrorism.

Does the Left Party mean that it should be free to travel to a terrorist organization and there support the activities through actions that are not in themselves punishable?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for an exciting and charged question.

I would like to invoke the Left Party's principles that we naturally want to try to prevent and limit terrorism as much as possible. The preventive work is extremely important. Unfortunately, the majority turns a blind eye to such efforts and goes entirely for that one should punish, penalize, and punish even more.

When it comes to those who went to IS, I do not believe that anyone went there solely to look after children. But if one did, I do not think it should be criminalized. If, on the other hand, one was more active in actions involving violence and threats in the arena one arrived at, we obviously consider that to be extremely serious.

We also do not want anyone to go down and supervise children in so-called terror environments. No children should be in terror environments. We must try to prevent that. But we need to do it in other ways than solely through punishment, harsher punishment, and more punishment.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are well aware, as I said in my previous contribution, that the Left Party has voted against almost all sentencing increases within the area of terrorism in recent years. That is, in itself, no news.

It is, however, a clarification that Vänsterpartiet does not think it should be criminalized to travel to, for example, Syria to support IS or similar organizations through actions that are not in themselves criminal according to the terrorist crime act. It does not have to be about trafficking children; it can be about providing transport or setting up camps for the terrorists, simply doing things that enable the terrorist activity. But Vänsterpartiet still thinks that should be legal.

That position raises an adequate question about the Social Democrats' government base. It is, after all, together with the Left Party that the Social Democrats have the opportunity to create a majority here in Sweden's Riksdag. It causes some concern for me.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is no news that the majority is for punishment and more punishment and that the Left Party is critical of going that way alone.

When it comes to drawing boundaries for what is legal or illegal, it is not the case that one likes everything that is not criminalized. Of course, we should act so that it does not happen. But we do not believe that criminal legislation is the way to go all the time. Much else needs to be done to prevent people from becoming interested in terrorism and illegal acts of violence at all, or from approaching groups that act in that way.

Of course, we must do everything we can to prevent. We do this by building a strong Sweden with welfare and schools and a Sweden where we include all citizens and residents, even if they are new to Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! We often talk both here in the chamber and in the media, and every day a little more, about shootings, violence and murders - serious crimes. We do that here today as well, but with a significant difference; today we are dealing with terrorist crimes and terrorism. Terrorist crimes differ from other crimes.

For the individual who, for example, is hit by a bullet and is injured or dies, the difference is completely insignificant. It is equally important to prevent and preclude, and when it has unfortunately occurred, to prosecute and punish, regardless of whether it is a so-called common crime or a terrorist crime.

But a terrorist crime is, according to Swedish law, an act that can seriously harm a state or intergovernmental organization and with which the intention is to instill serious fear in a population or population group, force public bodies or an intergovernmental organization to take or refrain from taking an action. It is also to seriously destabilize or destroy fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures.

The National Centre for Threat Assessment, NCT, makes continuous assessments of the level of terror threat in Sweden and against Swedish interests abroad. The threat level is assessed to be at level three out of five. Level three means an elevated terror threat and that NCT assesses that an attack could occur. They assess that the primary threat of attack against Sweden during 2023 will likely come from individuals motivated by a violent right-wing extremist ideology or a violent Islamist ideology.

The difference is, therefore, that terrorism threatens our entire democratic society, and the total consequence is much greater than the individual act.

Mr. Speaker! It is against that background that we need to establish the legislation that we are now debating. It is about introducing criminal liability also for participation in a terrorist organization, a penalty for those who actively participate in a way that is intended to promote, strengthen, or support the organization. It is important to get this in place. It is important that we as legislators signal that we view this with extreme seriousness.

We have, however, taken note of the opinions of the Council on Legislation and others and also noted the additions that the government has made. We believe that reasonable balance has now been struck. Passive participation by, for example, merely being present is not punishable, but a concrete and qualified connection to the organization is required.

We also see the statements of motive regarding what is trivial and justifiable and thus falls outside of criminal liability, which concerns, among other things, journalists, humanitarian activities, and medical and spiritual care, as a very important, necessary, and welcome clarification of the proposal.

The government needs to continuously follow up on this legislation. We from Centerpartiet will also do so, both to safeguard liberal rights and to protect us from the devastating consequences of terrorism.

With that said, we move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! To the members of the Committee on Justice, I shall say that it is Malte Roos who is the member and substitute. But I am stepping in for him today. It was decided a long time ago that I should take these questions.

I want to clarify that Miljöpartiet considers that Sweden should combat terrorism with full force. In that work, a solid criminal law regulation is important. That actions concerning participation in terrorist organizations are criminalized to a greater extent is important.

We stood and continue to stand behind the Constitutional Committee's and the Riksdag's assessment that it should be possible to restrict the freedom of association for organizations that engage in or support terrorism.

The government now proposes that a new offense be introduced in the Penal Code on Terrorist Offences called participation in a terrorist organization. It is proposed that it shall be punishable to participate in a terrorist organization, for example by taking care of equipment, setting up camps, arranging meeting premises, organizing activities, cooking, being responsible for transport, and taking care of children. It was also the Fundamental Law Committee's proposal that prepared the ground for the proposal the government has now presented regarding a criminalization of participation in terrorist organizations.

Mr. Speaker! Without abandoning our principled position - the one I have just described - we nevertheless believe that this bill should be rejected. Not because we do not understand the spirit of it and share its ambitions, but simply because this, in our opinion, is a poorly designed law.

To begin with, the current bill has met with powerful criticism from several referral bodies. The Council on Legislation, which consists of some of the most prominent lawyers Sweden has, directed sharp criticism at the proposal and advised against the referral proposal becoming law. Among other things, the Council on Legislation's knowledgeable and experienced lawyers considered that there is a clear risk that the proposal will result in an all-too extensive criminalization given the need that may exist. It is also doubtful whether it meets the requirements for clarity that must be imposed on criminal legislation. We share the Council on Legislation's conclusion that the proposal in its current form should not be used as a basis for legislation.

Mr. Speaker! Unlike the government, the Green Party believes there are grounds to follow the Council on Legislation's recommendation in this case. We propose that the Riksdag reject the bill. At the same time, it is important to achieve legislation that, without being too far-reaching, penalizes to a greater extent various acts concerning participation in terrorist organizations. We therefore propose that the Riksdag urge the government to return with an alternative proposal that involves merging the offenses of participation and association into a single penal provision.

Miljöpartiet considers that the proposed criminalization is intended to serve a legitimate purpose, namely to combat terrorism, even though several referral bodies have questioned whether the criminalization will actually lead to the desired result. We also question, however, whether the participation offense, as it is designed in the bill, is required to achieve the purpose or if there are less intrusive alternatives that could achieve the desired result.

The government justifies its proposal by stating that terrorism is a comprehensive societal problem and that there are punishable forms of participation in a terrorist organization that are not criminalized. Miljöpartiet fully supports the government's view that terrorism is a comprehensive societal problem. We fully support the work of preventing and combating terrorism and see comprehensive criminal law regulation as an important part of that work. At the same time, it is not self-evident how such a regulatory framework should be designed to achieve the desired result.

The Council on Legislation notes in this context that a criminalization of the crime of participation is not required for Sweden to comply with the EU's terrorism directive and poses the question of whether there are grounds to go further in the criminalization than what the directive requires. Other referral bodies are also hesitant. The Swedish Bar Association does not believe there is a basis for the conclusion that there is a need for the proposed criminalization. The Bar Association also considers that the effects of the crime of joint action should be investigated before any new legislation is introduced regarding participation in a terrorist organization. Civil Rights Defenders find it difficult to see that a further expansion of the criminal area is necessary because many of the acts that would be covered by the crime of participation are already criminalized today.

The question then is how the legislation should be designed to make the criminal regulation sufficiently comprehensive without the criminal liability and its consequences becoming too far-reaching. In restrictions of fundamental civil liberties and rights, the legislator – that is, we – must always consider whether a certain measure is necessary or if there are less intrusive alternatives that can achieve the objective in question. Evaluating the effects of the criminalization of the crime of samröre, as Sveriges advokatsamfund proposes, could be a good starting point. Miljöpartiet believes that the government should take a step back and reconsider the design. For these reasons, the Riksdag should reject the government's proposition.

Mr. Speaker! To summarize our reasoning: We in Miljöpartiet fully support the need for comprehensive and extensive legislation regarding participation in and association with terrorist organizations. But the proposal we now have to take a position on has such significant flaws that we want to urge the government to return with an alternative proposal that involves integrating the association offense and the participation offense into one and the same provision, this because it is our duty to first investigate whether other, less intrusive alternatives can achieve the desired result. We are bound to do so according to the so-called proportionality principle.

Terrorism is an abominable phenomenon that puts people in terror and fear of being subjected to oppression and many different crimes. Global terrorism must be fought by all means, with preventive measures, with economic sanctions and obviously with criminal legislation.

But it is not reasonable that we, as legislators, should pass laws that do not have the precision and direction that our voters can demand. With the greatest respect for our justice system and our legal principles, it is unreasonable not to better define what we mean by punishable acts. It risks opening the door to future arbitrariness. It is our duty to enact laws that are sustainable and understandable from the beginning. It should not be unclear what is reprehensible and what is not.

A specific penal provision for participation in a terrorist organization

With that said, I would like to conclude by moving for the approval of reservation 1.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 15.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)