A clearer provision on hate speech against a group of people

Peter Hedberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on the Constitution's report number 22, A clearer provision on hate speech. I would first like to move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

We have just had a nearly three-hour long party leadership debate with an EU theme. Even the proposal before us today has connections to the EU.

When the EU adopted the racism framework decision in 2008, it was to be implemented in November 2010. One purpose of this was, naturally, to address racist and xenophobic statements that cause societal and personal harm, including, for example, denying the Holocaust.

Sweden and several governments have for a long time maintained that the legislation we already have in the area regarding specifically hate speech meets the purpose of the EU decision. But the EU Commission informed Sweden in February 2021 of its assessment that Sweden had not incorporated the racism framework decision in a complete and correct manner.

The Commission pointed out, among other things, a lack of explicit mention in our legislation of the act of inciting violence, but also that Sweden lacked a criminal law provision that more specifically and clearly criminalized publicly insulting or disparaging genocide.

In addition to the EU Commission's intelligence and requirements for Sweden, we in Sweden must also take into account the increase in antisemitism that we have seen in our society over several years.

Against this background, we now have a proposal to take a position on today where we clarify existing legislation by explicitly criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust and certain other international crimes. It also appears clearly from the legal text that the regulations cover incitement to violence and that individuals in the protected groups are granted protection, victim status, and the right to compensation.

It is fundamentally a wise balancing act that both the government and the KU have made regarding the view on freedom of expression in relation to the proposals. It concerns a clarification of the Penal Code and the Freedom of the Press Act regarding hate speech, and is not intended to further restrict freedom of expression.

We highlighted in our position that legal processes may follow in the future that potentially affect freedom of speech. But as we know with all forms of legislation, the exact future application of the law is not always possible for us to know.

We Social Democrats agree with the assessment that any potential restrictions of or impact on freedom of expression that may occur in the future are compatible with both the Instrument of Government and the European Convention.

For us Social Democrats, it is also important that both the government and the committee have stated that it is about a clarification of existing legislation and codification of practice, and that the debate on genocide, its causes or consequences, can continue to be conducted in society.

It gives clear information about what these legislative changes aim for. Therefore, we believe that the evaluation requested in the Sweden Democrats' reservation is not necessary.

With those words, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the floor and move again for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and also for the rejection of the reservation.

(Applause)

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

Lars Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In today's report, KU22 A clearer provision on hate speech, a government bill is being discussed which proposes certain amendments to the Freedom of the Press Act and the Penal Code to clarify certain areas of application regarding, among other things, as we just heard, Holocaust denial and incitement to violence, and also to contribute with an additional protection for certain affected individuals.

This feels wise in light of the fact that we have seen an increase in these hate crimes in recent years and that they were among the most common reported hate crimes during 2022 according to the government.

It can also be mentioned again, as we just heard, that the EU Commission considers that Sweden does not fully meet the requirements for clarity in the current legislation. This is something that a dozen other EU members, similar to Sweden, must also clarify.

Sweden as a country may consider that we actually have existing legislation for these crimes. But since Sweden could risk being sued in an infringement action before the ECJ, an update of the current regulatory framework is therefore required.

The Government assesses that the potential actual restriction of freedom of expression that the proposal could entail is, however, compatible with both the Instrument of Government and the European Convention.

There are a number of referral bodies that have expressed certain concerns regarding the proposal, such as Uppsala University, the Prosecution Authority, the Swedish Union of Journalists, the Swedish Association of Judges, and the Publicists' Club. The Sweden Democrats therefore propose an evaluation of the legislative proposals after five years to ensure that these concerns have not materialized.

Antisemitism and other hate crimes have seen an upswing over the last, quite many, years. These crimes are naturally neither acceptable nor compatible with life in a free and democratic society. They must be clearly combated by all means.

I note that we have a largely united committee, which is good. In light of clear and straightforward instructions from the EU regarding what must be done on Sweden's part, we stand behind the government ensuring that these changes enter into force as soon as possible. In the case of the Freedom of the Press Act, two parliamentary decisions with a general election in between are required, and the changes are proposed to be launched on 1 January 2027, while the amendment to the Penal Code, which is not part of our constitution, can enter into force as early as this year, on 1 July 2024.

On behalf of the Sweden Democrats, I move for the reservation in the matter to be approved.

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

Susanne Nordström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

In Sweden, the right to express one's opinion is constitutionally protected, and that is through the Freedom of Expression Act. We must, of course, safeguard that; it feels important to say that in this context.

It can, however, be a bit tricky to interpret the law. It is freedom under responsibility that is the very point when it comes to different ways of expressing oneself. I have in this chamber on several occasions spoken about the importance of balance and about a balancing act that must be made in the name of freedom of expression. In one scale lies the needs of vulnerable groups for protection against derogatory judgments and expressions, and in the other scale lies the space for public debate and, additionally, the possibility to voice criticism.

Mr. Speaker! There are, however, statements that can be illegal, such as hate speech against a population group, which we are debating today. The legislation on hate speech against a population group was introduced in Sweden and began to apply on January 1, 1949. The intention with this legislation was to prohibit discrimination and promote equal treatment of different population groups. The law has been expanded and tightened over the years. This is good and necessary, because our society is under constant change. Our laws must keep pace with the passage of time; there is no alternative to that. And that is exactly what the current government has done: it has kept pace with the times.

Something happened after the internet was introduced. But I really do not want to blame everything on the internet, because it has also brought about very much good. Global communication has become better, circles of acquaintance have become larger and it is very easy to get hold of information. Thus, the spread of knowledge also increases.

The possibilities for expression have increased, and at the same time, endless possibilities for anonymity, incitement, and agitation open up, which can be misused to spread hateful statements.

Mr. Speaker! Let me be clear that I am truly in favor of free opinion formation and the freedom of speech we have in Sweden. But times change, as they say, and we must keep up. That is where we are now. The Government therefore proposes that the provisions on hate speech in the Freedom of the Press Act and the Penal Code be clarified and that the scope of application be expanded.

In the Freedom of the Press Act, the wording is now that hate speech means that someone threatens or expresses contempt for a group of people or other such group of persons with reference to race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, religious belief, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

What is new is, as we have heard earlier here, the wording regarding incitement to violence. It will clearly appear in the legal text that the regulation covers incitement to violence. One may also not deny, excuse, or obviously downplay a crime that constitutes or corresponds to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or crimes of aggression according to a ruling that has been issued by a Swedish court. This will provide stronger protection for individuals in the protected groups and give them victim status and the right to compensation.

As a consequence, the new bill also entails that a denial of the Holocaust and certain other international crimes is clearly criminalized. In this way, society also marks a distancing from such despicable acts.

Mr. Speaker! It is important that society takes responsibility for passing on knowledge about the Holocaust and other genocides and preventing similar events from occurring again. Through new legislation, conditions are now being created to prevent, stop, and prosecute hate crimes with xenophobic and racist motives to a greater extent.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Just as previous speakers have pointed out, this is a largely unanimous report.

The matter concerns clarifying the legislation known as incitement against a population group. The issue has been investigated by a parliamentary commission, in which I have served as the Left Party's representative.

Mr. Speaker! Racism is a poison in our society that aims to create division and mistrust. Several studies show that antisemitism, anti-Gypsyism, Islamophobia and hate crimes against the Sámi are widespread in our society and that they unfortunately are increasing rather than decreasing. The Government also notes in the bill that hate crimes with xenophobic and racist motives are among the most common hate crimes reported.

We as a society and as political parties in Sweden's Riksdag obviously need to do everything we can to counter this development and build an anti-racist society that instead is built on trust and community and where we see each other as safety and not as insecurity.

Mr. Speaker! For several years, Sweden has received criticism from the European Commission that we are not living up to the so-called racism framework decision. Sweden is not alone in receiving this criticism, as a number of other EU countries have received the same criticism from the European Commission. The previous government therefore chose to appoint a parliamentary commission of inquiry in which all parties have participated.

When we gathered in the parliamentary committee, all parties agreed – and that is likely still the case – that the existing legislation before this decision was made was sufficient. But the line that Sweden has put forward has not gained favor with the EU Commission, and therefore the parliamentary investigation submitted a proposal to the government to clarify existing legislation. It is simply what we are debating today: a clearer provision for hate speech against a population group.

Then one can also naturally reflect on what previous speakers have also touched upon, namely freedom of speech. Especially in KU, we usually discuss and debate this and the importance of free opinion formation and being able to meet each other's arguments. Is it then an effective way to forbid certain opinions? No, that is not what Vänsterpartiet thinks. We are, however, of the opinion – just as, I believe, the other parties are because we are largely in agreement in KU – that this is not doing something that is currently permitted and making it prohibited. That is what is important to emphasize in this matter. It is, as said, about clarifying existing legislation.

It does not mean an expansion of the criminal area or a restriction of freedom of speech. On the other hand, it is, as previous speakers have pointed out, a number of novelties or what I shall now call it. As Susanne Nordström pointed out, individuals will now also be able to obtain victim status. It is something that we view positively.

We also view it positively that through this clarification, it will hopefully become easier for law enforcement and crime-fighting authorities to interpret and apply the provision. It may of course also lead to more court proceedings, but that is nothing that Vänsterpartiet considers negative. On the contrary, we have previously criticized that the existing legislation on hate speech is not used in such a way as was intended.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! Post-truth - it became the word of the year 2016 in Oxford Dictionaries. The concept is defined there as "circumstances in which objective facts are less influential than appeals to emotion and personal belief".

Why did the word become so popular just then? Well, because post-truth politics was used to describe the debate in connection with the US presidential election in 2016 and the Brexit vote in the UK the same year.

In post-factual politics, public debate is largely disconnected from what are objective facts, and the question of whether the arguments put forward are based on truth or falsehood is attributed little or no importance at all. That this political state has developed so rapidly and spread across large parts of the world finds much of its explanation in what is today in every man's and woman's hand: a smartphone, and the social media therein.

Take in what I just said: We have obtained a political arena where the question of whether the arguments put forward are based on truth or are completely false can be completely irrelevant. It is a political arena that, in any case, I do not want to be in or contribute to its very existence.

Mr. Speaker! In a political climate where all circumstances presented are given equal weight and no fact is considered so absolute that it cannot be questioned, in a political climate where conspiracy theories spread like unstoppable forest fires in the internet's undergrowth, in a political climate where the title of the British journalist and Russia expert Peter Pomerantsev's 2014 book Nothing is True and Everything is Possible no longer describes only the situation in Russia but actually the situation in many parts of the world, not least the digital one - in such a situation, it is urgent to stand guard over the fact that freedom of speech actually has limits.

When the last voices from the Nazi death camps, those who carried testimonies of the horrors they lived through there, fall silent, who shall in their place, in such a post-factual political climate, confirm the horrific history and ensure that it is not rewritten, altered, diminished, or beautified?

Mr. Speaker! Several of my colleagues in the committee have already touched upon this: The bill that the government has presented, and which seven of the eight parties here in the chamber fully support, does not contain proposals that restrict freedom of speech in general any more than is already the case today. As several have pointed out, it is a matter of clarifications. It is not permitted today to say just anything. It can already today be punishable to deny the Holocaust. And even though there are some uncertainties regarding how practice according to the legislation we are now introducing will develop, it is important that we establish this: that freedom of speech has limits under certain circumstances.

Mr. Speaker! Wannsee is a prosperous and beautifully situated villa area that is quickly and easily reached by the commuter train from Berlin, a train journey I made a couple of months ago during my last in a series of my visits to Berlin - a train journey I want to encourage everyone who visits Berlin to make - in order at the Wannsee commuter train station to change to a bus that winds its way between the stately villas next to the lake where elegant sailboats lie moored at the water's edge.

In one of the grand villas, at the address Am Grossen Wannsee 56-58, high representatives of the SS and Gestapo and a handful of high-ranking civil servants from various ministries met on January 20, 1942. The decision on the Holocaust had already been taken, but at the conference, it was discussed and decided how Nazi Germany would organize and coordinate the extermination of the Jewish population.

Visiting the villa, which since 1992 has housed a museum and documentation center on the Holocaust, is a shocking experience. The protocols from the conference are there. The high-ranking jurists express themselves in a clinical manner regarding how Jews should be deported and exterminated. Also, photographs of those who were present are there, together with their respective CVs, many of them impressive. From the protocols, it appears that they also have the gift of the word.

My visit there, in February this year, has etched itself into my memory, just like the photographs of several of those who were at the conference. It is a useful image to carry with one.

Mr. Speaker! In a post-factual political climate, it is important for me to safeguard against the growth of claims in the internet's undergrowth that this bestial genocide, like other internationally recognized genocides, has not occurred. This clarification in the legislation is therefore warmly welcomed.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by expressing my regret that this matter has to be raised in the Swedish Riksdag. In our country, the equal value of all people is part of the very foundation, in the constitution. One might think that it should therefore be self-evident that no one should have to be subjected to any form of harassment linked to the fact that one belongs to a certain race or has a certain skin color, a certain national or ethnic origin, a certain religious belief or sexual orientation or gender-diverse identity or expression.

At the same time, we know that such occurrences happen. Not least have the recent antisemitic sentiments shown this, when Jews are urged to hide attributes such as the Star of David or a kippah when they go out. Antiziganism is also widespread, as evidenced by the hate crimes reported to the police in 2022. Overall, xenophobic and racist motives are most common among the hate crimes reported to the police.

I told you last week about my old friend, the German Jewish artist Lotte Laserstein, who managed to get to Sweden during the last month when the border was open for Jews before World War II broke out. After the war, her entire family had been wiped out except for her sister, who was a nervous wreck, and a cousin in Switzerland.

To tell her or any other affected person, survivor, or relative of the victims of the Holocaust that the Holocaust never happened or is exaggerated is, of course, an insult to both them and all the loved ones who were murdered in, for example, Ravensbrück, as Lotte Laserstein's mother, or in any other of the Nazis' death factories, and towards the stress that Lotte's sister lived in when she hid in Berlin during the terrible years when the Holocaust took place. Nevertheless, there is today no explicit criminalization of Holocaust denial in Swedish hate crime legislation.

Therefore, the government now proposes that the provisions on hate speech be clarified so that it appears that it is criminalized to deny, apologize for, or obviously belittle a crime that constitutes or corresponds to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or crimes of aggression according to a Swedish court or a recognized international court for crimes against international law - this if the act is intended to incite violence against, threaten, or express contempt for such a group or individual as referred to in the provision.

With clearer legislation, there are conditions to counteract antisemitic crimes and other hate crimes to a greater extent. It can also contribute to such an act being prosecuted in a more effective way.

The Government now clarifies that even individuals in the protected groups are covered by the wording of hate speech against a population group. In this way, individuals are given better protection against violations.

Already today, there is a paragraph on hate speech in the Penal Code. It is directed at the person who, through a statement or in another message that is disseminated, spreads threats or expresses contempt for a group of people or another such group based on skin color, national or ethnic origin, religious belief, or sexual orientation.

In the present proposal, the provisions on hate speech in the Freedom of the Press Act and the Penal Code are thus clarified so that denial of the Holocaust and certain other international crimes are criminalized. It is also clarified that incitement to violence is covered. The individuals in the protected groups are thus given protection and are granted status as victims and the right to damages.

The part that lies within the Penal Code shall enter into force at the mid-year point, that is, in just over a month. Since the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression are constitutional laws, the Riksdag's decision in connection with the processing of this report needs to be repeated by the Riksdag after the next election and can therefore enter into force on 1 January 2027.

This bill therefore balances the need to protect certain groups and to safeguard our constitutionally protected rights to express our opinions in speech, writing, image, or in any other way.

Freedom of expression may be restricted under certain conditions. This applies, for example, to national security, public order and safety, the reputation of individuals, the sanctity of private life, and the prevention and suppression of crime.

Even according to the European Convention, freedom of expression may be restricted by law in the interests of public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, or for the protection of health or morals or of the reputation or rights of others.

By a reference in the Freedom of the Press Act, offenses against the freedom of the press shall be considered offenses against the freedom of expression if they are committed in a publication covered by the Freedom of the Press Act and are punishable. It follows from this that hate speech against a population group is punishable as an offense against the freedom of the press or freedom of expression if it is committed in constitutionally protected media.

Mr. Speaker! The Government assesses that the changes within the constitutionally protected area do not restrict freedom of expression more than before but rather clarify it. The proposed changes aim to strengthen the protection against hate propaganda occurring on a racist basis and to protect vulnerable groups and individuals. For criminal liability, it is required that the act is intended to incite violence against, threaten, or express contempt for such a group or individual as referred to in the provision on hate speech against a population group.

With this, I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It doesn't start very well, my manuscript here. "We are discussing today," it begins. We are not strictly doing that, but we are saying that in all material respects we agree on this. That can still be considered a strength factor in this context, I think, because it is an important matter to make the legislation on hate speech against a group a bit clearer.

From my party's side, we have participated in the discussions, been active in the investigation that led to the proposal, and engaged in the debates.

Hate crimes with xenophobic and racist motives were most common among the hate crimes reported in 2022. Last year, especially after October 7, the number of reports of hate crimes on an antisemitic basis increased.

Other studies show how widespread antisemitism and anti-Gypsyism is in our society.

We agree with the assessment that it is clear that more needs to be done, even when taking into account ongoing efforts to spread knowledge about the Holocaust and to counter antisemitism and antiziganism and, in the long run, hate crimes. The work against anti-democratic and violence-promoting actors therefore needs to be further strengthened.

During our time in government, we established a center against violence-promoting extremism. We also appointed an inquiry which subsequently proposed a criminalization of, among other things, denial of the Holocaust, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Mr. Speaker! There has indeed been a lack of such an explicit criminalization of Holocaust denial in Swedish hate crime legislation. There are, of course, sufficient reasons - more than enough, one could say - to introduce such legislation. But furthermore, the European Commission has objections to the Swedish implementation of the so-called Framework Decision on combating racism, which is the EU's criminal law instrument in the fight against racism.

Through the Framework Decision, the EU Member States have committed to criminalizing certain racist and xenophobic hate speech. Alongside more general provisions on such propaganda, there is a commitment to criminalize the public denial, refusal, and flagrant trivialization of certain crimes when this is done under certain more specific circumstances.

It is about genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes according to the definition in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It also includes crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity as they are defined in the Statute of the International Military Tribunal, that is, the statute for the so-called Nuremberg trials against Nazi war criminals after the Second World War.

When the framework decision was to be adopted in Swedish legislation, the assessment was made that the existing Swedish legislation would correspond to the requirements that the framework decision sets. But the Commission was of a different opinion, and in February 2021, Sweden received a formal questioning of our failure to implement such legislation that incorporates the framework decision's provisions. Under all circumstances, we should report such provisions to the Commission, they thought in Brussels.

In the response to the Commission, the government defended Sweden's method of implementing the framework decision through a more general regulation than the framework decision's provisions. At the same time, the government stated, in order to accommodate the Commission, that there were reasons to have an investigation conducted to see if it is possible to supplement existing criminal legislation with a more explicit criminalization of the acts currently in question.

Even though the government maintains the view that the acts are punishable under more general provisions, it is argued that there could be a value in introducing a penal provision that explicitly targets just those acts.

Mr. Speaker! The investigation I just mentioned was tasked with taking a position on whether a specific criminal liability should be introduced for, among other things, public exoneration, denial, or so-called flagrant denial of genocide. Through supplementary directives, the investigation was also tasked with taking a position on whether criminal liability for hate speech against a population group should also include incitement to violence and acts directed against individuals in the protected groups.

Society must not tolerate violence, threats, and hate regardless of which ideology lies behind it. We in Miljöpartiet want to prevent extremist and violence-promoting attitudes from arising. We want to act when they are put into action, with the rule of law as the foundation, because it is the values of an open society that we must defend.

Mr. Speaker! It can be perceived as problematic when freedom of expression becomes part of the issue. We, of course, safeguard the Swedish freedom of the press and freedom of expression just as naturally as others do. We must be very careful about those. They constitute the very foundation of our free formation of opinion. Every conceivable restriction must be examined carefully. In this context, it is required that the act is actually intended to incite violence or threats, that is to say, more than someone expressing different forms of contempt towards a group or an individual. The overall assessment is that the proposals are compatible with both the Instrument of Government and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Green Party views positively the proposals which also mean that individual crime victims shall receive better protection from the provision on agitation against a group.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! When this matter was initiated in 2001 and a parliamentary inquiry was commissioned, the Liberals were skeptical. Denial of the Holocaust is extremely serious, but you cannot just throw in a ban. It doesn't change anything fundamentally, said our then member of the Committee on the Constitution. At the same time, we actually think that when the EU Commission directs criticism towards countries, they should listen, regardless of whether it concerns Hungary, Sweden, or anyone else.

The parliamentary committee has scrutinized the issue and arrived at a solution that is well-balanced and works within the framework of the legislation we already have in Sweden. My colleagues have explained the clarifications being made in existing legislation which clarify the provision on hate speech in relation to the denial of the Holocaust and certain other international crimes. I do not intend to repeat that. I would, however, like to go back to what my wise colleague said in 2001 when the matter first became relevant, regarding that criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust does not change anything fundamentally.

In today's society, it is easy for those who want to spread what is called alternative facts, but which should be called lies, with the help of digital channels and algorithms that control what we see. Just the term alternative facts testifies to the fact that we have lost our footing. We are no longer in agreement about what is fact. It can also be difficult for the individual, in the incredible flow of information that we encounter daily, to distinguish between fact and lie.

That the Holocaust, for example, happened is a fact, and we must repeat it time and again and never forget. Repetition is the mother of learning, as it is often said. This applies not only to students struggling with vocabulary but also to our entire society and our collective knowledge base.

Many efforts are being made to ensure that the group that chooses to buy the lie and deny the Holocaust does not grow large or larger, which are far more effective than the one we are debating today. It is about the school educating every student on what happened during the Holocaust, that memorial trips to the Holocaust's sites of remembrance continue to be made, and that the work that Forum för Levande historia does continues to be managed and developed - if you may tell us about this - so that it also reaches future generations. The list can be long and needs to be constantly replenished. Now we are adding to it with this proposal, but the long-term work needs to continue for the foreseeable future.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 19.)

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