A specific penal provision for psychological violence

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam Speaker! There are people in Sweden who live in relationships where they never know what mood awaits them when they step through the door, people who weigh every word before they say anything, who adapt, who fall silent and eventually disappear as persons – not because they have been beaten every day but because they have been broken down mentally, step by step.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Justice's report on a specific penal provision for psychological violence. The Sweden Democrats welcome this proposal and support that psychological violence should be more clearly criminalized in Swedish legislation.

This is also an area that is close to my heart, not only because I have worked with this for many years and because my political work concerns violence in close relationships and honor-related violence and oppression, but also because I myself have experienced this. I know how it affects a person – how it feels to be slowly broken down, how self-esteem disappears and how one begins to doubt one's own worth, one's own judgment, and ultimately even oneself as a human being.

That is why it is very important that society begins to take this form of violence fully seriously. For far too long, people who have been psychologically broken down have stood without sufficient legal protection. We have had legislation that has often been better at seeing bruises than at seeing this slow erosion of a person's self-esteem, freedom, and security. But the one who is controlled, diminished, threatened, isolated, and humiliated day after day is also subjected to violence. It is violence when a person is broken down until she no longer dares to speak out, no longer dares to leave, and no longer believes that she deserves better. It is violence when a woman constantly hears that she is not good enough, that she is worthless, that she is ugly, that she is a bad mother, and that no one else wants her. It is violence when someone is monitored, controlled, and intimidated into submission.

It is also violence when children are forced to live in the midst of this. Children who grow up in environments marked by fear and psychological violence are often affected well into adulthood. They learn to adapt, to be quiet and to read the room to avoid conflicts. Many carry this insecurity with them their whole lives.

The Government now proposes that a new crime be introduced into the Penal Code: psychological violence. The proposal means that it will be punishable to repeatedly subject someone to violations, threats, humiliation, improper control or surveillance if the actions collectively are intended to seriously damage the person's self-esteem.

Madam Speaker! This is an important step forward. It is a step in the right direction, because we know that many women live in relationships where the violence does not always begin with blows. It begins with control – who she is allowed to meet, what she is allowed to wear, where she is allowed to go, and who she is allowed to speak with. Eventually, she has been isolated from family, friends, and the outside world. Her entire life revolves around fear and adaptation.

I have experienced all of this myself. In my case, I lost contact with my own mother and my own family, with relatives altogether. I lived in a society where one lived inside four walls and where no one outside knew you if you didn't have some work together and met each other in that way.

For many women, it becomes very difficult to even put words on what is happening because it is successively normalized. One does not notice this until it has gone so far that one thinks: Who am I at all? What do I want? I am not living my life. I am not living the life that I want to live, but I am living the life that he wants to live.

I have for many years worked with issues concerning men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, and honor-related oppression. Time and again, one meets women who say the same thing: The worst part wasn't actually the beatings. No, the worst part was that I eventually didn't know who I was myself. That says a great deal about how serious this actually is.

Madam Speaker! For this legislation to have a real effect, it is required that the justice system has the right knowledge and the right tools. Police, prosecutors and courts must understand how psychological violence, control and systematic degradation function in practice. It is about being able to see the whole and understand how people can be broken down step by step through fear, control and humiliation. A single comment may seem insignificant. But when violations, threats and control persist over a long period, people are broken down psychologically.

The Sweden Democrats have long pushed for stricter measures against violence in close relationships and honor-related oppression. We have been clear that society must dare to intervene earlier, more powerfully, and more clearly. Therefore, it is important that the crime can now also be included as a component of aggravated violation of a woman's peace, crimes against children's peace, and honor oppression. It strengthens the protection for vulnerable women and children.

Madam Speaker! Many people have lived in a prison without locks, bound not by chains but by fear, control, and psychological breakdown. For far too long, society has had difficulty seeing these crimes because the damage is not visible on the outside. Many have not been taken seriously because there have been no bruises to show. But even words can break down a person. Even control can destroy lives. Even fear can become a prison, and even psychological violence leaves scars. The difference is only that they are not visible on the outside.

Society must therefore become better at understanding that violence is not only about punches and kicks. Violence is about power. Violence is about fear and systematic degradation. Therefore, this bill is very important.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! It can be about comments that your dress is too black, too tight or too short, or that your ponytail is too tight or too high: "Do you think that is pretty?"

It could be that you take up too much space, laugh too loudly, or have too clear opinions. It could be that you are too quiet: "Hello, are you not interested? What will people think when you just sit there silently?"

You are told that your friends are not worth anything and that your family does not care about you. "It's just a stroke of luck that you get to keep your job – everyone sees how poorly you perform. Besides, it would be better if you could take a bit more responsibility at home. You're always working and are always so tired. You don't care enough. You don't understand me. I might as well be dead."

"You are sick in the head and lack empathy. You must seek help for that now. Who are you writing with? Why did you come home so late? You know that I can see everything, don't you? You are good for nothing. But you are lucky that you have me. Without me, you are completely alone. If you leave me, you know what will happen to the dog and perhaps also to the children." He will never be satisfied with anything other than full custody.

You tell a friend somewhat cautiously how you are doing. She acts decisively and warmly and takes you to the local women's shelter. In conversation with the support person, you say: But he has never hit me. He has never lifted a finger. He doesn't need to, because I obey anyway.

This bill is about psychological violence. We have long known what serious consequences it has for your self-image and for your mental and physical well-being, as well as what oppression and control it entails. Finally, we will make a decision that what you have been subjected to is a criminal act. It is not your fault.

Madam Speaker! Men's violence against women is the ultimate proof of an unequal society. The violence can occur in very many different forms. It can be physical, sexual and digital but also psychological. The violence is about gender, power and control.

In Socialstyrelsen's investigations of injuries and deaths two years ago, a new serious connection between psychological and physical violence could be seen. In several cases, only psychological violence had occurred before a murder was committed. There is a clear deficiency in society's safety net here.

The report shows that crime victims' accounts of psychological violence, for example, regarding the perpetrator having controlled and belittled the crime victim or having stalked, tracked, and threatened the crime victim after a separation, have not been taken seriously. It appears that the risks of psychological violence have been underestimated and that the perpetration of violence has rarely been noticed. Through the research, we know that psychological violence can have similar negative health consequences as physical violence: depression, PTSD, self-harming behavior, and physical illnesses.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say something about the children. Being subjected to coercion, surveillance, and repeated derogatory comments is, of course, incredibly harmful for children – for their health and self-esteem. Unfortunately, we also know that it can be directly life-threatening. Tintin was murdered on January 8, 2023, during a two-hour meeting with his father – a meeting that both the boy himself and his mother had strongly opposed.

Despite the social services' risk assessments regarding violence and the consequences of violence, as well as Tintin's need for treatment due to the violence he has been subjected to, the father was judged to have a right to visitation. In the referral response to the bill, the association Lex Tintin gives examples of a legal blindness where psychological violence has only been considered relevant and dangerous if it has fallen under already criminalized acts. I am convinced that a new criminal provision is needed.

Madam Speaker! At Trygghetens hus in Bollnäs, there is Shadh, who is 19 years old and employed part-time. She spreads information about violence in young relationships in schools and in podcasts with the aim of giving young people tools to build healthy, rewarding, and sound relationships.

The work highlights a violence in young relationships where the adult world is often completely absent. It concerns a violence where he decides over her choice of clothing and social circle. It is about a jealousy that is absolutely not romantic but constitutes an exercise of power. It is about digital violence, about threats of public shaming on social media, and about complete control via the Snapchat map. Men's violence against women begins with boys' violence against girls.

Madam Speaker! Psychological violence is harmful and dangerous. Therefore, I am pleased that this bill, which our government took the initiative for, is finally in place so that the Chamber can debate and make decisions on it. It is needed for the individual's redress – what you have been subjected to is a criminal act; it is violence. It is needed as a norm-forming and knowledge-increasing measure.

A specific penal provision will hopefully lead to an increased understanding of the dynamics of violence and provide, for example, school staff and leisure leaders with more tools in their violence prevention work. The penal provision can hopefully also function preventatively so that we can stop the horrific spiral of violence in time. We now know how harmful psychological violence is and how quickly it can escalate to deadly violence. A specific penal provision for psychological violence can hopefully contribute to saving lives.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I also want to raise some concerns we have regarding the bill and describe our reservations.

A question where the bill does not quite go all the way is the question of conversion attempts and conversion therapy. Here, society needs to better uphold everyone's right to sexual and bodily self-determination through a specific penal provision.

Another issue is economic violence. The National Audit Office shows that there are significant deficiencies in the state's work. Economic violence is about someone controlling, restricting, or exploiting your finances to exert power. It is a common but often invisible form of violence in close relationships. An investigation needs to be commissioned to more clearly define economic violence and to establish a clearer criminal liability. Everyone has the right to live in freedom, as they are, and with power over their own finances.

Madam Speaker! It is also worth mentioning that there is a concern regarding the bill and its upcoming application. There is a pushback against equality work, both globally and locally, and we are, of course, not exempt.

A recurring objection from several referral bodies working with women subject to violence is that the investigation's proposal on improper control is not included in the mandate of the government's bill because it has been considered insecure and unpredictable by other referral bodies.

We Social Democrats agree with several referral bodies' clear calls that, if the law is to have the intended effect, a specific understanding is required of how gender, gender identity, power, and control affect women and men in different ways in a society that is not equal. Without such knowledge, there is a risk that perpetrators who commit psychological violence could use the new legislation as a tool against their victim. That must not happen.

We mean that the legislation must be combined with knowledge-enhancing measures regarding the dynamics in violent relationships in order to be able to make legally secure assessments and provide adequate support. Important actors such as teachers, social workers, and healthcare personnel need to be able to receive support both on how the legislation can be used in a norm-forming and preventive way, and on how indicators of the occurrence of psychological violence or the victim's vulnerability can be identified.

The Social Democrats consider that the government should task relevant authorities with developing educational material for municipalities and regions and further task the Swedish Police Authority to complement police training with sections on the new penal provision. Educational material for the justice system should also be developed in cooperation with relevant actors. With that, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 3 on education.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I agree in principle with almost everything that Member Backeskog expressed from the rostrum. This is a very urgent proposition, and it is a very urgent bill in which we encounter a blind spot that has long been made invisible in the justice system. It does not solve all problems when it comes to violence against women – far from it – because it is a comprehensive issue and one of our time's greatest concerns. It is, however, a proposition in the completely right direction, and I agree with much of what Sanna Backeskog said.

What I object to concerns economic violence, something that Sanna Backeskog raised. Economic violence is a major problem. It is a controlling behavior that slowly breaks people down and causes them to become trapped in a long-term position of dependency. We must take this very seriously.

Madam Speaker! This bill on psychological violence aims at precisely economic violence. Addressing economic violence is one of the objectives of the bill, and the Minister for Equality pointed out when she was in the chamber quite recently that it is precisely economic violence that is the purpose of the bill.

My question to Backeskog is: Does the member mean that we need to go back to the letters which, in the first investigation on this, received so much criticism from the referral bodies that we had to redo large parts of the investigation? We had to produce new legislative proposals in order to be able to criminalize the controlling behavior and the controlling acts and in order to be able to assess this in a broad context and thereby actually be able to target the economic violence and achieve a criminal sanction.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Member, for wanting to further discuss economic violence! It is such a terrible problem, and it is so important that we here in the chamber can discuss economic violence and the consequences it has for the victims.

When I meet police officers, those who work in rural areas often tell me about elderly couples who have lived together their entire lives and where the man, from the time they were 17–18 years old, has had control over the woman's finances. She has not had any opportunities to decide for herself what she wants to spend the money on, and this can have very large consequences when it comes to being able to help her children and grandchildren, which is often what these women worry about.

Economic violence can involve very many parts. The Government argues in this bill that certain parts have been taken into account. I heard the member's question, and I think it is relevant, but I thought the Minister for Equality dodged a bit on the answer when the question about economic violence came up here in the chamber, actually.

The government itself states in the bill that there is no clear and comprehensive definition of economic violence. The government itself says that this can be compensated for in some parts – for example, when it comes to undue coercion – but not in all parts regarding economic violence. We do not have a clear investigation into all parts either, and that is what the Social Democrats want.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! It is completely obvious that we agree on the problem picture and that we largely agree that this is a good bill and that we will, in part, also address economic violence. It is positive, and it is positive that there is a broad consensus in the chamber among all parties on this.

What I still get a bit hung up on, Madam Speaker, is the fact that the bill says there is no clear definition. That was precisely the problem in the initial stage of the investigation, which is why a major course correction had to be made. In order to address specifically economic violence, we needed to focus on the pattern of actions in the larger context.

With today's legislation, every act is judged individually, and the problem is not every single act but the pattern of acts. Here we are in complete agreement, naturally. That was also why I objected. Yes, this is a problem, and yes, the bill aims at precisely that economic violence.

What was raised earlier was that the definition was part of the problem that made it necessary to rework the investigation based on the responses from the referral bodies and the responses from the law enforcement authorities. If we are to tackle economic violence, we therefore need to go this way instead, and the government has presented the bill in order to actually be able to tackle economic violence in the way that the law enforcement authorities have expressed is possible.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for raising important aspects of economic violence.

I believe that we are reading both the government's text, the investigation, and our reservation and motion regarding this matter somewhat differently. What we Social Democrats want to see is a separately appointed investigation and a separate penal provision for economic violence.

Certain parts of this bill on psychological violence also target economic violence, and that is good. We Social Democrats fully support that, but what we also say, and which I believe we agree on in this chamber, is that the bill on psychological violence should also function norm-forming. It should also function somewhat as a wake-up call for the agencies that come into contact with both the perpetrators and the crime victims.

Many authorities, such as Försäkringskassan, as well as social services and the school, need to pick up on the warning signs that someone is subjecting others – or is being subjected – to violence. I therefore believe that specific penal provisions are very good and relevant. If we had had our own penal provision on economic violence, it would have shown that we in this chamber agree that this is a criminal act.

There are many different parts to economic violence. It can be about receiving an allowance and not having access to one's own finances. It can be about having to ask for money and about someone taking out loans in one's name. There are many different parts, but we believe that a new separate investigation – which we want to see – that clearly defines and targets economic violence and produces a separate criminal provision can be preventive and norm-building and make it easier for socially important agencies to detect this.

I hope that the Moderaterna will reconsider, but we must follow this legislation.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! There is violence that is visible, and there is violence that is primarily noticed through what it does to a person's life – that someone gradually falls silent, is restricted, is isolated, begins to tiptoe cautiously in their own home and loses faith in their own judgment. This is psychological abuse. It is violence.

Every year, around 15 women are murdered in Sweden by a man they are or have been in a relationship with. Behind every case of fatal violence, there is also a long-term pattern of control, fear, and degradation that has often been ongoing for a long time before physical violence occurs.

Men's violence against women is one of our time's greatest freedom problems, and psychological violence is often the very core of the control exercised in a destructive relationship. It rarely begins with blows, but rather begins with someone successively taking power over another person's everyday life and over her freedom of movement, relationships, and decisions. It can involve demands to know where the woman is and whom she meets, and about reading messages and controlling her mobile phone, or constantly questioning her choices and behaviors.

Many times it is also about economic violence, Madam Speaker, which we just spoke about here. It is about not having access to one's own money, being prevented from working, having to account for every purchase, and being forced to take on debts or being made economically dependent on the person who simultaneously exercises the control.

Madam Speaker! Psychological violence rarely consists of a single act. It is about a pattern that develops over time. The person who is subjected to it adapts gradually – not because she wants to, but to avoid conflicts, threats, or new violations. Eventually, the living space has shrunk so much that what previously would have been completely unthinkable has become everyday life.

It is important to say that psychological and controlling violence is serious in itself. For many people, it is precisely the constant control, fear, and degradation that becomes the most long-lasting and most restrictive. At the same time, we also know that that type of controlling behavior often precedes an escalation to physical violence and, in the worst cases, deadly violence. It is therefore necessary that society becomes better at detecting and understanding the patterns of control and psychological violence that occur long before the visible violence begins.

For a long time, the legal order has had difficulty capturing just this type of systematic degradation, Madam Speaker. Individual acts have sometimes been viewed in isolation, even though it is the cumulative effect for the victim that has been deeply destructive. A collection of minor incidents becomes completely devastating, and it is that reality that we now face with a specific penal provision on psychological violence.

It is important to be clear about what this entails. It is not about criminalizing general rudeness or relationship conflicts. The provision is therefore delimited and targets repeated violations, threats, coercion, and surveillance that collectively are intended to seriously damage a person's self-esteem. It is an important delimitation, because it is about people being systematically broken down through control and fear. It is also about the justice system having to be able to see the whole – the control pattern itself – and not just each individual act isolated from the larger context.

Madam Speaker! I think it is particularly important to highlight economic violence here. It is, in fact, a form of violence that has long been rendered invisible despite the fact that the consequences can be very serious. The person who controls another person's finances also limits her freedom and independence. Economic violence is ultimately about power – about creating dependency and making it difficult to leave the relationship. It rarely occurs in isolation but is often interwoven with threats, isolation, and other forms of psychological violence.

That is also why the new penal provision on psychological violence is designed to capture precisely repeated controlling behaviors and the cumulative breakdown that victims experience. It is about being able to legally address economic violence, something that both the investigation and several referral bodies have highlighted as important.

Madam Speaker! It also concerns the digital control that has become increasingly common in close relationships: installing tracking apps, demanding constant location sharing, reading messages, or monitoring contacts and movement patterns. It is a way to exercise control and create fear, and for the person who is subjected to it, it means never truly being left in peace. With this bill, we will address this behavior in criminal law.

Madam Speaker! This penal provision also has a somewhat broader approach because psychological violence and controlling behaviors also occur in other contexts. It can involve girls and women being restricted in their life choices, their freedom of movement, their social interactions, or their opportunity to make decisions for themselves about their daily lives and future. In some cases, it also concerns control linked to religious clothing.

We must be clear here: it is not the clothing itself that is the problem, but the problem arises when a person is not allowed to choose for themselves. It arises when someone is forced, for example, into religious clothing or when threats, shame, social control, or fear are used to force someone to live in a certain way. It arises when the demands of the family or the surroundings become more important than the individual's freedom and self-determination. No girl or woman should have to live under that type of control and restriction.

Madam Speaker! Conversion attempts were raised here earlier. It is a particular form of psychological violence, and this bill means that society also takes an important step to better address conversion attempts directed at hbtqi persons. In Sweden, every human being should be able to live openly and freely regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Still, we know that people today are subjected to pressure, threats, and psychological stress in order to make them change, hide, or deny who they are. It can involve demands to hide one's identity, threats of being ostracized from the family, and about blaming, isolation, or pressure linked to religion or other social contexts. For some, it also involves threats of being sent abroad against their will or being subjected to so-called treatments or rituals in order to change their sexuality.

This is an attempt to control and break down another person's identity, and it is important to clearly state the following: No human being should have to hide from their family or be pressured to refrain from living as the person they are. That is why it is important that the legislation can now more clearly capture repeated threats, coercion, and violations used in such conversion attempts.

Madam Speaker! Psychological violence is real violence. It can be just as destructive as physical violence. Sometimes it is more long-lasting, and sometimes it is harder to heal from. For many women, it is precisely the psychological and economic violence that causes freedom to gradually disappear.

No legislation alone will solve men's violence against women. It requires knowledge, preventive work, support for crime victims, and a justice system that understands how coercive violence actually functions. But society must also have laws that better reflect reality – laws that see what has previously been invisible and that better capture the systematic oppression behind control, threats, and degradation.

No human being should have to live in fear in their own home, Madam Speaker. No human being should have their living space shrunk bit by bit until freedom has disappeared. And no human being should have to feel that society does not see the violence she lives in just because it does not leave bruises.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the bill.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation 2, which concerns conversion attempts.

In the reservation, the opposition jointly demands that we proceed and cover all forms of conversion attempts that occur, even if some are now covered in the bill. We believe that this is very important and that one must not miss individual incidents or those that are not clear, so to speak. We believe that specific legislation here could also mean a lot when it comes to covering the purpose of these violations and that it would have a normalizing effect to proceed with this.

With that said, we in Vänsterpartiet support the bill and otherwise move for approval of the committee's proposal.

Psychological violence is something that for a long time has been problematic for the law to handle. That it exists in real life we have been aware of for a long time – in any case since the investigation Kvinnofrid, where the crime of violence against women was proposed, was published in 1995. At that time, it was argued that criminal liability should cover already criminalized acts but also behaviors that were not criminalized but in an effective way contribute to creating a situation that can be compared with psychological terror. This is interesting to note today, as we seem to believe that the issue is new.

New analyses have emerged in connection with the crimes against children. Even here, there have been problems tackling the psychological violence. I would like to assert that we still have not covered this. We could say that the psychological violence is a rather empty space. Attempts are being made to mark against it with point interventions.

The conventions are clearer. In the UN Declaration of Human Rights for Women, there is mention of physical, sexual, and mental harm. The Istanbul Convention is even clearer in its definition of violence against women and includes every case of gender-related violence – physical, sexual, mental, or economic. Here, economic violence appears in a clear way. It is extremely important that we try to address it.

Psychological violence is an intentional behavior that seriously affects another person's psychological integrity. It is the repetition that creates specific damages. I think we have received very good examples from the rostrum, not least from Sanna Backeskog, on how this successively breaks down people.

Of course, we must not forget the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We must keep the children in focus when we talk about psychological violence. The introduction of the classification of crimes against children's peace has indeed brought about a breakthrough, but there are also other dimensions of what children are exposed to that fall under psychological violence.

One can harass and threaten through material violence, which involves sentimental value. One can also direct the violence toward pets. It can be extremely difficult and unpleasant for both children and adults. It can involve objects that a vulnerable person has inherited or received from someone who meant very much. Violence against pets is, from a legal perspective, a matter of property damage. Animals are things within the law, but they can be incredibly valuable emotionally.

Even the digital consequences are now extensive. One can monitor a person very intimately and actually follow every step.

As has been emphasized earlier here in the speaker's chair, it is usually not just about one form of violence but a whole palette. It can begin with power and control in the form of psychological violence to then successively transition into different forms of physical violence and sexual violence. All of this has very serious consequences, but what remains inside is what truly leaves deep marks and implies a risk to the person's mental health. This is something that research highlights. I am among those who have been able to follow the women's shelters' work since the end of the 70s. This is more than well known, but unfortunately, it is not always noticed in the same way within our professions. They should know more about this.

So it is about power and control and about the living space shrinking. Within research, there is talk of the normalization process of violence. One is successively reduced as an individual, and self-esteem disappears.

Something that complicates matters, and which I consider to be serious, is that our paragraphs today do not always hit the violence occurring in young people's relationships. These relationships can be much more temporary and short-lived, and they may not be perceived as close relationships in a criminal law sense. The wording regarding psychological violence will be able to remedy some of these deficiencies.

I would also like to point out the development we are seeing regarding practice. The court is drifting away from what was the intention of the legislation on crimes against women's peace. Repeated minor acts are not being treated as crimes against women's peace or violations of peace. The Supreme Court has made a statement that I hope will gain traction. I believe that this reform regarding psychological violence can contribute to us understanding that the most serious is not always that which gives rise to visible injuries, blood, physical altercations, and so on. The most serious can instead be the continuity of the violence.

We must constantly demand knowledge. Vänsterpartiet has done so repeatedly and continues to do so. The entire social apparatus must become much more competent in this area.

The referral bodies have generally been positive towards the reform but have also pointed out risks. I would like to dwell a little on this.

Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer, Unizon, Roks and even the Prosecution Authority have pointed out that this can be misused. They mention that men sometimes bring counter-accusations that the woman would have forced the man to use physical violence by exercising psychological violence. I believe that one really must be vigilant here, but one must also realize that psychological violence is not an excuse for the other party to resort to physical violence or perhaps even gross physical violence.

We must once again brake this through competence and knowledge. We must not accept these forms, which can be used both in cases of abuse and in issues of custody and visitation. Unfortunately, we see such examples in practice today, which in some cases have devastating consequences. Tintin was mentioned earlier, and there are more cases where children have been killed as a punishment directed at a woman.

We must be aware of the gender power dynamic and monitor that it is not abused so that crime victims are affected.

I would also like to ask questions about the prescription rules. It may sound strange, but they have caused problems regarding crimes against women's peace and crimes of violation of peace. How should the prescription period be calculated? Should it be based on the individual acts that constitute the crime or from the time when the violence ceases? That question is hanging in the air now.

The Council on Legislation requested that this be elaborated in the bill. This has been done to some extent, but it is very ambiguous. It is meant that it could be when the crime in its entirety has ceased, but it is left to practice to determine if it should proceed in a different way.

Here it is important that we continue to follow the legal development and that we do this in a serious manner, so that it has the desired effect and is not misused and so that different forms of stumbling blocks do not enter into this as well. We know that the legal system unfortunately is often contradictory when it comes to reforms that are to benefit women and children.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of all reservations.

I also want to say initially that I agree with almost everything that has been said from the rostrum during this debate. I do not believe there is anyone in the chamber or otherwise who considers it acceptable to use psychological violence against women in the way that has been described here. It is also for that reason that the now proposed legislative change will be introduced into the Penal Code and we will get a completely new crime.

Psychological violence is, in this context, a completely new concept within criminal law, and it is not entirely easy in all respects to grasp what is meant by psychological violence. We are moving within an area that in many ways is about human relations and how what we say and do affects and is perceived by our fellow human beings. A supporting part of the proposal is that the coercion shall be improper, but the line between proper and improper influence is not always razor-sharp.

Just as it has been said from the rostrum, psychological violence is reprehensible, but it must also be strengthened and proven purely legally and criminally that it is a punishable act. We already have today a number of criminal provisions that include undue influence, for example unlawful threats, unlawful coercion and gross violation of peace, which are clearly linked to threats of violence or other pressure to intimidate.

Madam Speaker! Common to these crimes is that a limit has been crossed for what is permissible and thus punishable. In the now presented proposal, an additional element is added which means that it becomes a crime to, on repeated occasions, subject another person to various forms of harassment that are considered improper. This can involve behaviors of a purely bullying nature in the form of derogatory remarks, threatening behavior, or various forms of surveillance that are not individually considered punishable. What is common now is that the harassment collectively is intended to damage the self-esteem of the person who is subjected to it.

Unfortunately, the picture is that this type of violation has increased, not least due to digitalization and new surveillance technology which has facilitated the existence of those who want to persecute, harass, or in other ways make life more or less unbearable for the person affected. It is therefore good that we now get an amendment that provides a better opportunity to prosecute the type of perpetrators who have been mentioned and those whom I choose to call bullies.

The legislative change means that psychological violence shall also be included as a component of other crimes against public order and honor-based oppression, and that the crime of insult shall also continue to be included as a component of these crimes.

Madam Speaker! What can cause headaches, in any case for my part, is that the concept of psychological violence lacks a uniform definition and therefore allows for some room for interpretation. Depending on who you ask, the answers may differ. Furthermore, a large number of actions can fall under the concept of psychological violence depending on who is the observer and is to pass judgment.

Here I think the government has landed well on what is legally and thus criminally considered to be psychological violence. Criminal protection should be given against repeated violations of a certain degree of severity. The central question is which behaviors are considered to be of such a nature that they should be criminalized and to what extent they fall outside current criminalization.

Here, the importance of delimiting the criminal liability for actions that do not individually constitute a crime but which are to be criminalized together is emphasized, so that only those cases that are truly punishable are covered. Therefore, the requirement is that it must involve threats, coercion, or surveillance that is improper. That something is improper means concretely that it is unacceptable with regard to prevailing social or ethical norms. Fundamentally, it is about an overall assessment of both the action, its consequences, and the parties' relationship.

Madam Speaker! It is important to emphasize that psychological violence is an intentional crime. The perpetrator must therefore have the intention to subject the victim to repeated violations of various kinds. The Government also highlights the risk that the penal provision may be used in custody disputes or in other contexts where disagreements can evoke strong emotions. A clear and careful assessment of the elements of the offense and concrete supporting evidence is therefore required so that the decision is not based solely on credibility assessments.

I think this is a tricky area. We all agree that these are punishable behaviors, so I hope that good methods are developed for those who are to handle, prosecute, and judge in these types of cases. It remains to be seen where the boundaries lie, but I am convinced that ways will be found for this.

Madam Speaker! There is a broad consensus in the committee to support the proposal.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! Violence is not just punches and kicks, and violence is not just bruises and broken bones. The most devastating violence in the long term is often that which is not visible on the surface. It is the silent, destructive violence that day by day, word by word and action by action, erodes a person's self-esteem, restricts her living space, and imprisons her in a reality marked by fear and control. It is this we are talking about today: psychological violence. It is a serious social problem that has operated in the shadows of the law for far too long. We know that it affects thousands of people, not least women and young people, and that it is often a preliminary stage to even more serious crime.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party welcomes and supports the primary proposal to finally introduce a specific penal provision for psychological violence. It is a proposal that we and many others have long requested because the current legislation has proven to be insufficient. The possibility of prosecuting systematic violations as crimes of violation of peace has in practice been limited, especially when physical violence has been absent. To now criminalize repeated violations such as improper threats, coercion, and surveillance is a major and necessary step to give crime victims the redress they deserve and to give the justice system the tools it needs.

Being able to be exactly who one is must be protected by the public sector. I therefore become a little concerned when I hear that government representatives want to replace families' opinions and decisions on what a woman may or may not wear with the state's decisions on what a woman may or may not wear. I therefore want to take this opportunity to say that C supports the line that the individual person shall always decide for themselves what they shall wear.

Madam Speaker! Even though today's proposal is a big and important step forward, it is not a complete step. The proposal has a serious flaw, and that flaw is called conversion attempts. Conversion attempts, i.e., pressure and coercion aimed at making someone change their sexual orientation, their gender identity, or their gender expression, is a deeply harmful practice. UN experts have equated it with torture, and we know that conversion attempts risk leading to mental ill-health, depression, and in the worst cases, suicide.

The government argues that the new law on psychological violence will also cover these practices through the legal text's undue coercion. And certainly, it is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. We in Centerpartiet share the concern that has been expressed by several referral bodies and which forms the basis for our joint reservation with the other parties in the opposition.

Firstly, the bill primarily targets repeated violations, but a single conversion attempt – a single forced so-called therapy session or spiritual exorcism – is too much and can be deeply offensive and traumatizing. Such individual incidents risk falling outside the new law.

Secondly, the proposal does not capture the very purpose of the act. Just as with honor-related crime, it is important that the legislation does not only look at the individual perpetrators but also at the underlying motive, which in this case is to deny a human being the right to their own identity, their own life, and their own body.

Madam Speaker! An explicit ban on conversion attempts would send a clear signal to society, to vulnerable LGBTQI persons, and not least to the groups and individuals who engage in these harmful practices. Such legislation would have a powerful normalizing effect and clearly mark that this is completely unacceptable in Sweden. Several other countries have already understood this and introduced bans, but Sweden is lagging behind.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, our position is clear. We stand behind the bill in its fundamental part regarding the criminalization of psychological violence, which is a major step forward. But we demand that the Riksdag also make a declaration to the government to promptly return with a bill that explicitly prohibits conversion attempts.

With this said, I move for approval of reservation number 2.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet also welcomes that the government is now moving forward and criminalizing psychological violence. We have, like several others in here, long advocated that criminal liability needs to be reviewed in order to strengthen the protection for the person who is subjected to it. Several Nordic neighboring countries have already introduced similar legislation, and it is in line with the Istanbul Convention.

I intended to spend some time talking about what my colleague has just used a part of his speaking time to discuss, namely the ban on conversion attempts.

The Government has chosen to incorporate the ban into the legislation against psychological violence. The Government justifies this by stating that the violations covered by the proposal on psychological violence can also affect conversion attempts and that existing penal provisions such as unlawful coercion, assault, and unlawful threats already provide good opportunities to intervene against various forms of conversion attempts.

At the same time, it is clear that the proposed penal provision on psychological violence primarily targets repeated violations, threats, or undue coercion. It also does not cover all situations that may constitute conversion attempts, for example, when someone expresses an opinion on how another person should express their gender identity or sexual orientation in order to get the person to change it.

We in Miljöpartiet see an obvious risk that the regulation will not be sufficiently accurate and that certain forms of conversion attempts fall outside the provision on psychological violence. This is also emphasized by RFSL and RFSL Ungdom, who point out, for example, that it should not be required that the violations have been repeated. They also propose a specific criminalization of conversion attempts.

The Government refers in its assessment to the investigation, which received an additional assignment from the previous government in the summer of 2022. The investigation concluded that a criminalization of conversion attempts is not needed because the most serious forms of conversion attempts are already criminalized through, for example, assault and unlawful coercion.

We do not share the investigation's conclusion. Just as with honor-related crime, there is a value in that the legislation does not only capture the individual acts but also the purpose behind them, in this case to deny a person the right to their sexual and bodily self-determination and to pressure someone to change or suppress their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

A specific conversion crime could furthermore have an important normative effect and clearly mark how the legislator views these acts, as well as contribute to increased awareness that conversion attempts are unacceptable and offensive. Perhaps the normative effect is the most important when it comes to crimes that most often occur in secret.

Madam Speaker! The problem with conversion attempts is not negligible in Sweden. Almost every fifth young LGBTQ person in Sweden stated in MUCF's mapping in 2022 that they had been subjected to some form of conversion attempt in its broadest sense. The UN equates conversion attempts with torture, and research shows that it can lead to depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal thoughts.

Conversion attempts can occur in many different forms, ranging from religious practices, forced marriages, and exorcisms to more subtle but pressuring conversations aimed at changing or hiding a person's identity. RFSL and Miljöpartiet argue that today's legislation does not cover all expressions and that a ban therefore needs to encompass attempts to change both sexual orientation as well as gender identity and gender expression, even when it concerns individual and isolated incidents.

Conversion attempts can be an expression of honor-related violence and oppression in the same way as, for example, virginity checks, virginity certificates, and virginity interventions, and they should therefore be treated collectively. It was unfortunate that the investigation did not propose criminalization and that the government followed the investigation's line. It would have been better with a unified and clear legislative proposal where it clearly appears that all conversion attempts of hbtqi persons are prohibited.

We also want, like RFSL, to point out that conversion attempts can occur even in contexts that are not usually seen as honor-related. It is important that all victims get access to support and help and that it is clear what constitutes a crime, regardless of whether the conversion attempt occurred within an honor context or in another context.

It is clear that conversion attempts are harmful both to the person being subjected to them and to hbtqi people as a group, and that it can lead to, among other things, stigmatization, mental ill-health, and suicide attempts, even if it is not the methods that are already criminalized that are used.

People who have been subjected to conversion attempts in Sweden have, among other things, told about total social exclusion from a, often religious, context that has been the person's entire world, constant verbal pressure to change and other actions aimed at creating shame and guilt and attempts at conversion. This is unacceptable. Furthermore, it is likely that conversion attempts can begin in these types of occurrences and then proceed to more severe actions. A ban on conversion attempts would be legislation with a normative effect, and it should be put in place.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say something about the concern raised by some previous speakers regarding the criminal provision on psychological violence. Among others, Sveriges advokatsamfund, Åklagarmyndigheten, Roks, Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer and Unizon have pointed out that the criminal provision on psychological violence could be misused, for example in connection with custody disputes or to dismiss the occurrence of physical violence. Justitiekanslern and Roks also point out that it will become a matter of significant application problems, and several additional referral bodies request clarifications of the law.

These are views of great importance that should have had a greater impact in the government's preparation of the matter. We support the introduction of a criminal provision for psychological violence, but we understand the concern raised by certain referral bodies. We believe that the government must carefully monitor how the legislation is applied and ensure that any deficiencies and unintended consequences are addressed.

With this, I move for approval of reservation 1.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 May.)

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