Stronger protection for public employees against violence, threats, and harassment, etc.

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Threats, violence and harassment against public employees is a serious problem. No one should have to endure threats and violence because of their work. This type of actions must not be tolerated. The decision we have in the chamber today is an important signal that this is not accepted in a democratic society.

When officials are subjected to threats, they risk being unable to perform their work. Member Melin described in a meritorious way in the previous entry – regarding the previous report – how threats affect people to the very marrow. Thank you for that account, Member Melin!

In January 2020, a special criminal protection for blue-light activities was introduced, due to a number of riots and unrest where, among others, police and ambulance personnel were affected. It is a new graded offense, and there have been a number of convictions even in HD, in fact. It has been approximately four months of imprisonment on average for these violations and the crimes against people who do their daily work.

Today we take another step – one of several on the same path, one could say. We are now addressing the report A stronger protection for public employees against violence, threats and harassment etc. It is based on the government's proposition and an investigation that has examined these matters fundamentally. It should be said that we initially, when this product began to be developed, also had a small dialogue at the ministry on this issue.

It is very welcome, for it is unfortunately an increasingly rare guest in reality. When SD and the Tidöregeringen are to produce products, there is quite little dialogue with the opposition. We would have wished for a bit more of that. In this case, however, there was a good dialogue initially, and you should get credit for that.

I will not go through this, because it is your product and not ours fundamentally, but it concerns, among other things, a completely new crime regarding insult of a public official. One might almost say that it is being reintroduced, since this is something that has existed previously. There are also harsher penalty scales and other things in this. The purpose is crystal clear: to protect different people who, in their service, work to combat or prosecute crimes.

This is a measure that we Social Democrats support. There are certain parts in this proposal that many referral bodies have been hesitant about. This concerns, in particular, the anonymization of decision-makers and other matters. We need to follow this very carefully moving forward. This is not simple matter. Publicity and transparency are fundamental in a democratic society, and we must not take those things lightly.

I will return to some things a bit, but I primarily want to highlight the trade union referral statements. Both LO, TCO and Saco have above all emphasized that this does not generally replace workplace environment issues; rather, this must happen on two fronts. We parliamentary politicians have a certain fondness for working with criminal law. It is natural for us when we enact laws and so on. Society is, however, more complex, and work life is more complex.

Above all, TCO and Saco are very clear that the focus must not only be on punishing the perpetrator, but work must also be done on crime prevention and preventive measures to make the work environment safe and good in many ways. It is also possible to prevent threats and violence in many ways. This has been done for a long time together with the trade union movement.

We have been able to see that this also requires increased staffing, better resources, improved schedules and many other things that also contribute to a better working environment for the staff and which reduce vulnerability.

The trade union ST, which organizes a very large number of public sector employees, is on the same line. They also present several concrete proposals in their referral statement. This includes, among other things, a national reporting system to get a better overview of what the situation looks like regarding incidents of threats and violence.

This is what is wonderful about the Swedish referral system: If one reads carefully, one can find a number of nuggets that can, of course, be built upon further in the future.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats support the committee's proposal as stated. Those who uphold the welfare in society – the rule of law, our teachers, healthcare staff, social secretaries, case officers, and police officers – all have the right to go to work without being subjected to violence, harassment, and threats. Period. This also concerns the entire body of society. It concerns all of us.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report. Let us together and jointly ensure that our public employees receive stronger protection – a stronger protection that they deserve – and that we continue to work for a safe working environment.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! When we followed the development of the horrific triple murder in Uppsala this week, the social services premises in Södertälje were simultaneously shot at. The head of social services then said that it probably had to do with the exercise of authority that is worked with in the department for children and youth. The motive is still not public, but this shows a reality we cannot turn a blind eye to.

We need to realize that organized crime, but also individual individuals, threaten our society and that many parts of society are being attacked. In that case, both the resources and the tools for the public employees and what we handle today – the protection of the public employees – must be equivalent.

We in the Center Party said yes to the increased protection for police last year, and today we say yes to the protection proposed for other public employees. However, we think the differences in protection are far too large between different groups of public employees. We believe that more should be raised to the police level, if they are exposed to the same type and degree of threat.

If social workers, environmental inspectors, alcohol officers, bailiffs, correctional officers and tax inspectors are to stand on the barricades together with the police against organized crime, they deserve the same protection.

If we are to prevent children from being recruited into gangs, prevent companies from being used as criminal tools, and prevent the criminal economy from growing, the entire society needs to act. What is said in the report is that the proposed protection should be directed at individuals who act in the heat of the moment. But is there anything that organized crime does not do, which is acting in the heat of the moment? On the contrary, they act strategically, structurally, and calculatedly, and we need to do the same.

I want to take us all back one year. We experienced then, as now, a wave of violence, and the Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer called, much appreciated, representatives from all parties in the Committee on Justice to Rosenbad for talks on increased protection for police officers. The issue was quickly processed, quickly referred, and quickly legislated. The Center Party stood behind the proposal. I said a year ago in the speaker's chair that we do this because our democracy and the rule of law are in the balance. The public employees and others who perform public duties and exercise authority will be completely decisive in the work. We therefore need to protect and safeguard the police officers and police employees who work with the issues that were intended then. We need to safeguard their and their relatives' personal safety in order to be able to conduct an effective operation, in order to be able to recruit more, and in order to carry out the well-deserved expansion of Swedish police. But this applies then as now also to other public employees.

I also said that we need to safeguard the openness and transparency in public decision-making that makes our society robust and legally secure. Knowing who makes a certain agency decision is important for the person the decision concerns and also for scrutinizing media. It is important in order to be able to exclude or avoid conflict of interest or other improper considerations.

Centerpartiet considered then, and considers now, that it was reasonable to make an exception and introduce the separate solution for police officers given the current crime levels. We believe that it needs to be done now. We said last year that it would have been preferable to treat the protection of police officers collectively and jointly with other groups of public employees. Already last year, the investigation that today's proposal is based on existed, but it has not been handled with speed. It has arrived one and a half years later, and it was a bit of a thumb-sucker in some parts.

Just as the government itself says, the entire society needs to fight organized crime. We therefore consider it reasonable that all public employees should receive the same protection in cases where one is combating serious organized crime and there is a tangible risk that the employee or someone close to them is exposed to threats and violence – just as for police officers. It should be the threat and the situation that are the same, not what profession you have.

This does not replace the work environment work that needs to be done, but it will need to be there in the most difficult cases. The Centre Party therefore demands a declaration that the government should allow an investigation into broader protection for public employees when it concerns the exposure of decision-makers' names.

I want to say at the same time that we consider the protection being introduced to be necessary, and there are occasions when the protection is sufficient. But there are many occasions when it is too weak. The vulnerable are given protection by today's decision by having their names not appear on the intelligence report, but as several referral bodies have pointed out, one can call and obtain names via telephone or request the document with names in the decision. Sweden can do better than this in certain difficult situations.

Centerpartiet otherwise views the bill's proposals regarding the clarification of the exercise of authority, the introduction of the crime of insulting a public official, that more crimes can be included in unlawful harassment, regarding certain increased secrecy, and regarding stricter sentencing scales positively. These are good and necessary legislative proposals.

But in order to obtain a more equitable protection for public employees, I move for the approval of reservation 2.

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

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! As a police officer, I know what it means to work on the front line, to meet people in crisis every day, to make difficult decisions in pressured situations and at the same time bear the responsibility for both the rule of law and safety.

I also know how it feels to be subjected to hate, threats, and attacks – a reality that has become increasingly common for both police officers and other officials. Social workers, teachers, healthcare personnel, and others are forced to carry out their duties in an increasingly harsher and more aggressive reality.

It is about the social worker investigating a child case or the nurse in the emergency room who refuses to issue a certificate on incorrect grounds. Not infrequently, it concerns threats that were previously not punishable: insinuations, "warnings" or provocations directed at police officers' children, home addresses or vehicles. These are threats that go through the uniform. They are well-studied and just vague enough to evade today's legislation, but they are still serious enough to create fear and self-censorship.

Madam Speaker! It is a deeply democratic problem when public employees hesitate to make decisions for fear of reprisals. When officials avoid fulfilling their mandate, not out of unwillingness, but out of fear of threats against themselves or their families, then the fundamental pillars of our society falter.

It is therefore pleasing that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is now presenting a complete package of legislative changes to create a stronger protection for these persons. The bill contains several important measures.

Firstly, the criminal law protection in the Penal Code is modernized and strengthened. The penalties for violence and threats against public officials are increased, and it is a clear answer that these are not trivial crimes. It is an important signal to the perpetrators. It is also an important signal to all public employees: The State stands behind you.

Secondly, a completely new crime is being introduced, namely insult against a public official. It may sound trivial to someone who has never been subjected to it. But as a police officer, I know that a seemingly "simple" insult can be the starting point of a sequence of events that completely spirals out of control. It is not reasonable that police are expected to tolerate violations in the line of duty that no one else would have to accept. By making this an independent crime, we get a tool that was previously missing, and this applies both preventatively and operationally.

Madam Speaker! Another important reform is that it will be possible to omit the names of decision-makers in certain agency decisions. It is a well-considered step – not to reduce transparency but to protect individuals who risk being subjected to crimes.

We have seen examples where authority employees are mapped out by criminals, sometimes as part of organized crime, in order to influence decisions or intimidate into silence. I note that Centerpartiet and Miljöpartiet in their reservations express concern for legal certainty or that the legislative proposals lack evidence. Let me then be clear. It is not legally certain when a social worker refuses to take a child into protection or when an official does not dare to make the right decision for fear of reprisals. In that case, we have in practice received a parallel society where threats trump the law. That is what is the real lack of legal certainty.

Madam Speaker! It is also pleasing that the government is now finalizing several of the Riksdag's previous announcements, including that police officers' personal data shall be given stronger protection. This is something the Sweden Democrats have pushed for a long time. I have myself seen how colleagues have been targeted with names and addresses on social media, sometimes just hours after they have made an intervention decision.

I also want to mention that the protection is now being extended to students at the police academy. It is crucial that the police officers of the future dare to complete their training without risking being ostracized even before they have put on the uniform.

Madam Speaker! Sweden finds itself in a serious situation. Criminal networks are growing, the threats against representatives of society are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and we see how the state is being challenged on a broad front. Then we must arm ourselves. Then we must ensure that those who uphold public Sweden, from judges and prosecutors to teachers and healthcare personnel, feel that they have the support of society. With this legislative package, we take an important step in the direction where honest and hard-working people are placed in the foreground.

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

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I requested the floor because the member in the speaker's chair stated, among other things, that this proposal for a decision means that social secretaries can make decisions anonymously. But that is not what this proposal means; rather, it is about the fact that the name of the decision-maker can be omitted in the notification of the decision. On the other hand, it is relatively easy to access it by requesting the document or by calling and asking. The bill also states that it is to prevent those who are in a state of agitation when they receive the notification, so that it has time to subside. I would like to hear the member's reflection on that objection, to see if we have the same view on it.

The Chairman also mentioned the Center Party's objections to such legislation. I perceive that we all have great respect for the principle of public access and for knowing who is making the decisions. That is raised by almost all parties.

Centerpartiet has, however, said exactly the same thing as we did regarding the law that was enacted last year and which gave police protection. We stood behind that because we believe it is necessary. But we see that more groups have the same need for protection. Here, the Sverigedemokraterna are, however, in a completely different position. With today's bill, they say: No, that protection was not needed.

I therefore want to ask the members how they view the protection for social workers, inspectors, and others whom we believe need stronger protection.

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

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Of course, other individuals must also receive protection. But I want to take a step back a bit.

Centerpartiet has actually voted no to this proposal before, when it comes to protection for both police, teachers, and healthcare staff. But now they say that safety should be strengthened. I wonder why they did not vote yes to the proposal the first time.

I did not quite catch the question regarding the social services. Do you mean that there was not sufficient protection for those who work there, Ulrika Liljeberg? I assume you will have to clarify that in your next reply.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! Last year, the government proposed protection for police officers when there is a tangible threat against them themselves or their relatives when they work against serious organized crime. We believe today – it is also our proposal – that that protection should also be given to others, including social workers, environmental inspectors, and bailiffs when there is in the same way a tangible danger for the official or their relatives.

It is not, however, the proposal that the Sweden Democrats stand behind today. In that one, the police absolutely have the strong protection, but the only protection the social workers are given in this bill and this proposal is that their names are not included in the intelligence. But one can quickly call and ask to find out who made the decision.

Often, references are made in this chamber to past and future parliamentary terms. But I try to ensure that we are here and now. I wonder why the Sverigedemokraterna do not want to give social secretaries and other public employees the protection that the member obviously says one wants to give them. Why is one not in favor of it today? Why does one want to give the social secretaries a significantly weaker protection than what was given to the police last year, when they are in the same situation, with the same threats?

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

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Since I entered the Riksdag in 2018, we have pursued this issue. At that time, we were in opposition and did not get it through. Then the government did not want the bill to pass. But now we are finally getting it through.

It may seem insufficient in some parts. But it is, in any case, a step in the right direction that we have worked out. Now we finally get it through with this government and the Tidö parties. It did not come to fruition in 2018. Even then we were working and fighting. It is only now it comes, with the new government.

It is a step in the right direction. But there can certainly be several possibilities to develop it. It does not have to mean that we say no to it becoming an expanded protection. We will have to see. But I think it is a big step that we finally get this through and definitely for police officers. The mockery and hate and the harassment that police officers have to endure often degenerates into total [chaos]. It makes it so that police officers do not dare to perform their jobs. This also applies, of course, to social workers, teachers, and so on. There is a possibility to look further into it. One does not have to say that it is a total stop.

But I definitely want to point out that it is an important step we have taken now – thanks to the Tidö parties.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet believes that public employees should have a strong protection against violence, threats, and harassment. We share the government's view that this is a serious problem and that society must act to strengthen the protection for those who work in the service of society. But we do not stand behind the government's proposed increased penalties or the introduction of the new crime of insult of a public official.

Miljöpartiet has previously been involved in and implemented a number of increased penalties, for example regarding weapons offenses, rape, and the recruitment of young people into criminal gangs. We have also stood behind some of this government's proposals to strengthen the criminal justice system, for example when it comes to the protection of journalists. This was addressed in proposition 2022/23:106 and concerned the introduction of a specific ground for increased penalties for crimes against those who professionally practice journalism. It differed from the proposal that is now on the table in that this involves more general increased penalties.

It is clear that opinions on the issue differ. When we discussed how we should position ourselves regarding the proposals, we, as usual, took into account how different referral bodies have positioned themselves. Several trade unions have supported the proposals for increased penalties. Others have chosen not to take a position. Among others, Civil Rights Defenders and Sveriges advokatsamfund argue that the proposed increased penalties are neither expedient nor supported by research and experience.

On a principled level, it can be questioned whether harsher penalties reduce the vulnerability of public employees in reality. We should also keep in mind that the deterrent effects of punishment are debated. This has also been emphasized by, for example, the Institute for Human Rights and Stockholm University.

Against that background, Miljöpartiet does not share the government's assessment that stricter penalties are required for the type of crime highlighted in the bill. If the penalties for violence, threats, and attacks against officials are to be tightened, we believe they should be effective and evidence-based. We and several referral bodies consider that is not the case here. We also lack an assessment of the proportionality of the increased penalties.

Madam Speaker! We are also critical of the government's proposal for increased overlap between the sentencing scales for crimes of the normal degree and aggravated crimes, even though in other legislative contexts, a reduced overlap for graded crimes has been prescribed to ensure that the entire sentencing scale is used.

In recent years, a large number of legislative changes involving increased penalties and mandatory detention in several cases have been proposed and have entered into force. This, together with the expanded powers that law enforcement agencies have received and are proposed to receive, means that the general level of repression has increased.

Against that background, we believe that a collective review of the sentencing scales in the Penal Code needs to be carried out before further tightenings are implemented. The same demand has been put forward by, among others, Civil Rights Defenders. If the legislator continues to increase the penalties for individual crimes without conducting a collective review, there is a risk that the system will become incoherent and that the penalties for different crimes will no longer stand in the correct proportion to one another.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the proposed new crime of insult of an official, the chairman of the Journalists' Association says in an interview: "The new crime implies a restriction of freedom of speech. It is a very big thing to do. Today, defamation is criminal. But here, they want to go further. It is important that one should be able to criticize authorities and the exercise of authority even in problematic wording."

Several trade unions are instead positive towards the proposal for the new law, while Civil Rights Defenders are strongly critical. As mentioned, opinions differ quite significantly on this issue. Civil Rights Defenders write, among other things, in a comment: "Officials are already covered by the criminal protection against insults in chapter five of the Penal Code. The crime now proposed becomes almost a so-called qualified variant of the insult offense with a somewhat stricter penalty scale."

It is of the utmost importance that legislative changes involving criminalization are preceded by an in-depth and nuanced analysis of how these may come to restrict human rights. The investigation has not analyzed what potential consequences the introduction of this crime may have in terms of freedom of expression.

In a constitutional state, it is fundamental that individuals feel they can criticize the exercise of authority even in less well-chosen wording, and we believe that the risk cannot be ignored that the new crime may dampen the willingness to present even justified criticism of the exercise of authority and administrative decisions. Great caution should be observed when a criminalization of expressions is considered, especially when it concerns expressions that occur within an unequal power dynamic.

After having taken note of the different positions that exist regarding these proposals, we have – even though opinions, as said, differ – landed on that we want to reject the proposals.

Madam Speaker! As the trade union ST points out, among others, harsher penalties are not a comprehensive solution when it comes to countering violence, threats, and harassment against public employees. It is primarily other types of measures that are needed to achieve stronger protection and tackle this extensive problem. I believe we all agree that this is deeply problematic and something we are trying to rectify. ST points out in particular that much can be done based on the employer's responsibility for the working environment and with the aim of strengthening employee protection. Miljöpartiet agrees with this.

We also mean that the proposal that a written notification of a decision does not need to contain information about a decision-maker's name if it can be feared that the person will be subjected to threats, harassment, or other serious inconvenience may have an effect, but it can be questioned whether omitting the name is a sufficiently effective measure. This is what we just heard an exchange of views about between Sverigedemokraterna and Centern.

Miljöpartiet argues that this measure should be evaluated. Our reservation and objection against just this part of the proposal is therefore not that we do not want to see this, but rather that we question whether it is effective enough and that we want to see an evaluation of it.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! For far too long, criminals without consequences have mocked, ridiculed, and humiliated police officers – often with a mobile camera in hand and an audience in the background. It is a pure dominance behavior in areas where the state's power is truly challenged. Young people are raised in and with this to laugh at the law and look down on the Swedish justice system. We must put a stop to this.

Therefore, we introduce a new crime: insult against a public official. The law enters into force as early as July 2. In many respects, we are reintroducing the former crime of deception of a public official, which unfortunately was abolished during the left-radical 1970s.

Police must endure a lot and exercise self-restraint, but police must not engage in misplaced tolerance towards enemies of society who threaten our democratic social order and our rule of law. The police shall intervene resolutely against these, report them for crimes and, if necessary, detain them immediately. Instead of withdrawing under a hail of insults, the police shall act with firmness and mark who is in charge. This has an important signaling value.

As a former police officer, I am very proud to stand here in the Riksdag's rostrum today and present this legislation. Sweden shall be a country with both law and order.

Madam Speaker! It is equally about maintaining respect for and protection of others, such as security guards, healthcare personnel, teachers, social workers, and so on. We do this because the development requires it. It is not a question of protecting vulnerable individuals, but it is about safeguarding our common democratic order.

It is of course not the case that every little insult will now become punishable. Many police officers, social workers, and other officials work with and close to people who are in vulnerable situations where there may be a connection to, for example, substance abuse or mental ill-health. All statements aimed at offending or provoking someone are not covered by criminal liability under the new law, but it should be required that the statement hits the person attacked on a more personal level.

Minor attacks on self-esteem or dignity that the individual can reasonably be expected to endure are therefore not covered. Isolated statements made in a state of affect that rather express personal anger or, for example, physical pain will also not constitute a crime in the future. It is therefore assumed that a certain tolerance in the exercise of official duties is required so that persons who are subject to interventions or other decisions can express their feelings in a way that is not entirely deliberate. This is entirely reasonable.

In many cases, however, insults occur which are a problem both by disrupting the police's performance of their duties in the moment and by strengthening the criminals' position of power in vulnerable areas. The investigation underlying the bill describes in particular how female police officers are subjected to gross insults.

When police officers are subjected to gross insults without any intervention occurring, it also creates a sense of uncertainty and insecurity among the general public, and this is also highlighted in the aforementioned investigation. I find it regrettable to hear politicians from the left wing standing here and completely ignoring these obvious problems. Harassment against police officers does not only constitute an attack against the individual but also against public activity. Therefore, the new crime falls under public prosecution.

Madam Speaker! We are doing even more. We are tightening the penalties for violence and threats against officials, especially in cases of serious crimes. We are expanding the protection so that even the relatives of officials are covered. We are making it possible to omit the names of decision-makers in reports in certain cases to protect them from acts of revenge.

We are now strengthening the justice system and the public sector in several ways so that those who represent the public can stand up against the strong criminal forces. The person who represents the state shall be able to do their job without feeling fear. This shall once again become a self-evident matter.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin the exchange of remarks by reminding that C stands behind all the proposals today, just so that there is no doubt about it. These are good and necessary proposals for a decision.

I also appreciate the great commitment that the member shows for police and other public employees. That is what many are doing here in the debate; there is no doubt about that.

Centerpartiet, however, has a proposal that the protection against other public employees, not just police, needs to be strengthened. It needs to become significantly more robust and stronger than it will be with what is proposed today. I wonder how the member and the Moderaterna view this, as well as how the member justifies the discrepancy that exists and which provides poorer protection for some who work for the state. I really appreciated that the member pointed out that those who work for the state should have good conditions, but I wonder why there are such large differences when it comes to protection.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like, in a similar manner, to thank the member for the Centre Party's clear position regarding this bill. I am pleased to hear that the Centre Party considers this to be both good and necessary.

I have great respect for the member's expertise in these matters. It is not the most constructive for those views to be discussed here and now, when the decision on a new law is to be made tomorrow.

The best thing would have been if the Center Party had been part of the discussions and negotiations that have been ongoing for a long time to design this and much other legislation.

Instead, the Centre Party chooses to sit on the sidelines with its arms crossed and not want to cooperate with the Moderate-led government which is doing this and much more, and which is absolutely open to the Centre Party's support for discussion and negotiation on legislative proposals.

It is the Centre Party that has chosen not to be part of the process by not wanting to support the moderate-led government and Ulf Kristersson as Prime Minister.

I would like to turn the question around and simply pose a counter-question. Was it really so wise of Centerpartiet? Was it the best way to constructively try to influence, so that we should stand here and have exchanges of remarks at the last minute instead of being part of the government cooperation? Would it not be better to, in the future, instead support the Moderate-led government?

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! Regarding the entire government constellation, the current government and government constellation have a mandate for this parliamentary term. How the next government and government basis will look is something the voters will decide in the election next September. I intend that we set this aside and wait.

Regarding the process, one must adapt as the situation demands. Since the Center Party is not part of the government base during this parliamentary term, we did what we felt was necessary to increase the protection for more public employees.

We highlighted it in the deliberations that the government invited to last year in April. We highlighted it in the speech I gave a year ago, so that it would be clear what the Center Party thinks. We included it in the follow-up motion that we have written to the bill.

For safety's sake, I highlighted this in my speech to remind that we said this already a year ago, and we have written it in a follow-up motion. Nevertheless, the government presents a proposal that we assess does not provide sufficient protection for the important officials in the state who are to do a job against serious organized crime.

I still think that the Centre Party has done what we could given the parliamentary situation that prevails. We highlighted the issue a year ago both internally and externally. We have highlighted it in follow-up motions, and we have highlighted it today.

Still, the Moderate-led government chooses not to provide protection to the public employees who stand on the barricades against the gross organized crime. When they are exposed to a tangible threat of violence or harm to themselves or their loved ones, they do not receive that protection. I wonder why the Member of Parliament does not want to give them that.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! It is not so much about what I want and do not want to do. Now, this has been preceded by an investigation directive, an investigation that has been referred and subsequently a referral to the Council of Legislation, and then a government bill has been drafted.

I take note of what the member said here initially about this being good and necessary. That being said, there is, as with all legislation, certainly a potential for improvement.

I have great respect for the member's competence, background, experience, and expertise. I hope that it will be of use in a closer cooperation moving forward.

I can also state that it will be very difficult to achieve anything more and further improvements with the others who have participated in the debate here today. We heard the representative of Miljöpartiet take the floor in the debate and express very strong criticism against large parts of the legislation.

This exchange clarifies two things, namely how important it is to have a continued constructive dialogue and that we constantly continue to develop the legislation. We need to continue with this in the next mandate period.

We have begun a systemic shift this mandate period. We will need to complete it during the next mandate period. That will require all the good forces in Sweden's Riksdag. But unfortunately, we do not find them on the left side of Swedish politics.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I assume it is I who am the politician on the left wing, whom the member referred to.

Earlier in another exchange, it was mentioned that a constructive dialogue is very good. It is important to be objective when we debate difficult proposals. Therefore, I wonder initially how the member perceived my contribution.

Did the member perceive it as that I and Miljöpartiet mean that the crimes we are discussing here today are not serious, not something that society should care about, and not something that it is important that we take accurate measures against in order to resolve? Was that what the member considered I said? Because that was not what I said.

In my speech, I tried to be non-confrontational and point out the difficult trade-offs that the legislator always needs to make. One needs to exercise great caution when criminalizing new areas or, as in this case, re-criminalizing an area, and be sure that one takes measures that one believes will have as many positive effects as possible and as few negative effects as possible.

The area of human rights is often characterized by weighing different interests against one another. That is also the case here. I think that is the explanation for why so many of the referral bodies, who otherwise quite often agree, have not been in agreement on this issue.

It splits the opposition on the left wing, even though I suspect that the Center Party might not feel targeted by the designation the left wing. But the opposition as a whole has different views. I also think that shows that we have made different trade-offs. But no one means that this is something that is unimportant or something that we do not care about.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! As so often there can be a consensus that a problem exists. What often separates the right side from the left side is the causal analysis of the problem, what it is due to and what is an appropriate and effective solution.

I note that there is a very clear pattern. We on the right see that the individual has a great personal responsibility, that our actions ultimately depend on our values, and that we have a free will. On the left side, individuals are far too often deprived of their responsibility and blame is placed on structures and socioeconomic factors.

When it comes to solutions, we see that we have had an enormously lax criminal law. The police have been tied up and have had far too few powers. This is expressed, not least in the fact that police officers are forced to stand with their heads hanging when they receive insults raining down on them. They then have to get into the car and drive away with their tails between their legs.

It is no coincidence that it is the case in that way. It is decisions that have been made in the Riksdag that have meant that the police have been far too limited in what they can intervene against.

If there is any party in the Riksdag that has to the greatest extent been an opponent to all the changes that are required, all that the system shift entails, it is the Green Party. This also comes very clearly to expression in the speech we just heard here.

Do I understand the member correctly that she is positive about us now introducing a new crime, insult against officials, so that the police will not have to be forced to leave a scene and let the criminals exert their power, but instead can intervene resolutely?

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is very clear that I must become clearer. I thought I was being excessively clear in my speech. As stated in our reservation, we do not support the proposal. I assume the member has noted that.

What it does not mean is that we do not care about things such as addressing difficult social problems and crime. I also gave a number of examples of when Miljöpartiet has stood behind various measures – and also personally been involved in pushing them through in government – which have also concerned increased penalties. It is therefore not the case that Miljöpartiet is consistently against increased penalties or, for that matter, criminalization. What I tried to highlight is that one must weigh different interests against each other when legislating in new areas and deciding on increased penalties.

From the right side – if we are now going to have this speech against each other – I think there is often a misunderstanding when one talks about structures. To see structures and that people are affected by them is not the same thing as stripping the individual of their own responsibility. It is, however, something that can be helpful when one tries to identify which persons, for example, may be in the risk zone of ending up in crime.

I recently met two police officers from Noa who were working on a project called Rätt Kurva, which I thought was a fantastic initiative. It relies quite a bit on seeing structures and being able to identify risk groups. People who have certain characteristics and background variables run, purely statistically, an increased risk of ending up in crime. How can we counteract that? It is a fantastic piece of work that requires one to see structure, and it does not strip individuals of responsibility.

Regarding sentencing, we think it is important that they are accurate and that it can be demonstrated that they have an effect. We all want to get to grips with crime. Fewer people should commit crimes in the first place. Therefore, preventive work is very important. The sentences that are then handed down must be proportionate and also have an effect so that crime decreases.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! Effect, the member concluded with. It is important that legislation that we decide on in here has an effect.

One effect of the proposal is that the possibilities increase for police to intervene when the justice system and our democratic social order are challenged by the enemies of society. When the state's power is truly challenged – when young people stand in vulnerable areas and watch how violent criminals mock the police and chase them away from there – it is a real problem, which we solve with this legislation. That police can take these individuals into custody and show who is in charge has an immensely important symbolic value. Obviously, the Green Party does not see the need for it, and I regret this.

That type of important and necessary repression is in no way in opposition to the social crime prevention work that the member describes. The member mentioned a project within the police that has a German prototype named Kurve Kriegen, where they collaborate with social services and parents to ensure that children get on the right path in life. They shall ensure that they develop good, healthy values and a morality that means they do not let themselves be impressed by the grossly criminal and that they definitely do not let themselves be led to participate in this type of attack on the police force.

But when it fails later, the former must be there. We need a powerful social crime-preventive policy and a police with powerful powers. Miljöpartiet consistently opposes the latter. It is naive, and given the internal security crisis we have in Sweden, it is directly dangerous.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! What we are discussing now is to try to protect public employees and limit the vulnerability to violence, threats, and harassment that they risk.

It is obvious that the question is difficult, and it is not self-evident how we should handle it. It is about how we can be able to protect fundamental principles of objectivity, legality, and equal treatment and that they must not be set aside. These are fundamental principles in a democracy and a rule of law.

I gladly admit that there have been many discussions within Vänsterpartiet regarding how we should approach the proposal. We have, on one hand, referral bodies that have said that it risks challenging human rights, and on the other hand, a number of trade unions that state that we need these reforms. It is not obvious how we should choose, but we have actually chosen to follow the trade union voices to a greater extent.

Then it applies, which I believe we can agree on, that we follow the legal development very closely. There are also some things that we perhaps can be more in agreement about than others. Being able to hide information about personal names when notifying about decisions is a measure that I believe is good – then we can discuss whether it is sufficient. It does not mean that we set aside the possibilities for transparency, because it is possible to obtain information on who the official was. But it will at least result in a certain delay so that the person who is upset about a decision has time to reflect a bit more before acting in any cheeky or harassing way.

I also believe that it can be important that we have personal data that is protected when it concerns personnel matters and, for example, police officers in training. I do not believe that we should challenge the system and make it all too easy to classify people and then track them in their homes and private lives.

The difficult question is, in a sense, the one concerning insult against a public official – something that is common. I have worked in local politics previously, primarily within social services, and I have had many contacts with the correctional services. There is a great vulnerability to this, and it sometimes becomes almost a never-ending story where someone constantly harasses but does it in a way that does not reach the classic crime categories. It would be needed to have an opportunity to mark something better and perhaps put a stop to such behavior.

There is also reason to see what the government writes in the bill and what the purpose is with this. It is not just about someone throwing out an impolite comment, but it must have a greater depth to be able to end up in this. For criminal liability, it can typically be assumed that it is unprovoked assaults and attacks that hit the official – as one prefers to write in the bill, but I prefer to say the employee – on a more personal level. It may not only be directed at the individual but also at relatives and children, and the one who is exposed becomes worried about what could follow if one does not obey the one who harasses.

It can also be such things that are grossly offensive because they allude to the fact that the official has made a decision based on their ethnic origin, their sexual orientation, their gender identity, a disability, or some other distinctive trait that the person in question has. These are attacks that are deeply offensive and which have nothing to do with discussing a decision or a measure in substance, but are directly aimed at the person.

It is intended that the crime should fall under public prosecution. I have noticed in the debate, not least on social media, that some believe that public prosecution means that the prosecutor must bring a charge. That is not the case. Public prosecution means that it is not necessary for me, who feel affected by the crime, to specify anything for prosecution without the prosecutor having to examine this. It shall be examined on objective grounds whether it is sufficient in such a way that the requirements for the crime are met: Do we have sufficient evidence that it concerns this crime? And do we also have sufficient evidence that it is this person who has committed the crime? It is, therefore, something completely different.

One thing I find interesting is that in the volume of referral responses, there are two themes that constantly recur: This should be able to be handled with a better working environment, and this should be able to be handled with a better budget.

It is about wanting measures in the ordinary work environment that allow one to be prepared. It could be having space for something as banal as just having time to talk: What is it that we have experienced? Is this a risky situation? Can you accompany me on an official visit? Can you sit next to me when I have a visit from a person I do not trust? Can we work together and be two in a certain matter? Can we train ourselves in what the police do with what they call dialogue police, i.e., de-escalating a conflict so that it does not constantly become an escalation?

I believe that all professions benefit from airing and building up such issues. I also believe that it is actually an employer's responsibility. However, the employer cannot always provide this if there is not a certain budget to be able to work in that way.

Here I want to once again point out that it is not reasonable that we constantly lean on criminal law and forget the important preventive work that can reduce these problems for real and fundamentally.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is we members in this chamber who enact the country's laws – laws that individuals, businesses, associations, and everyone else have to comply with. We also have authorities, courts, and municipal administrations that must ensure that the laws and rules are actually followed.

Officials in the administration review applications of all kinds. These may concern building permits, serving licenses, environmental issues, or financial assistance. They can also involve more intrusive measures, for example, the compulsory removal of children or distraint due to debts.

Regardless, the official must ensure that decisions are processed in accordance with applicable law. The assessment shall satisfy both the individual's rights and obligations as well as the public interest of legality, necessity, proportionality, and objectivity.

Every day, thousands of decisions are made across our country. As a rule, they occur by consensus and without drama, and this has been the case for a long time in our country, where the regulatory framework is largely based on trust and mutual respect.

Madam Speaker! In recent years, however, a shift has occurred, not least because organized crime has established itself. We have also noted an increased proportion of individuals who in some way consider themselves above the law and demand their rights without legitimate grounds.

Violence, threats and harassment against public employees is now largely a reality that officials and employers have to contend with. The vulnerability has become commonplace and now occurs within the entire public administration.

Let us state that crimes and other improper acts committed against a person because of his or her performance of duties is an attack not only against the person who is subjected to it but, in the long run, also against democracy and the rule of law.

We see an increased incidence of attempts at unauthorized influence with veiled hints about various problems that may arise in the event that the person does not meet demands that are fundamentally improper. This is, of course, unacceptable, Madam Speaker. It fundamentally threatens people's trust in the public sector and creates fear and insecurity among the case officers. No one should risk being attacked, either verbally or physically, for doing their job and following the laws that we have enacted in this chamber.

It cannot be ignored that there are public employees who, consciously or unconsciously, refrain from taking service actions or making correct decisions out of fear of being subjected to threats and harassment.

There is, as mentioned here, of course work environment legislation and other measures intended to protect the individual official, but it is not enough. We as politicians and legislators must stand up for those who are subjected to [harassment/mistreatment] and provide them with the support that is required. Decency requires that we provide the support that should be obvious for those who are in public service.

Therefore, we are now strengthening the criminal protection for civil servants and practitioners of certain socially useful functions. The penalties are increased, and a new crime, insult against a civil servant, is introduced.

A clear purpose of the offense of insult against a public official is that it can be considered that the offense is an attack not only against the individual but also against public interests. It may involve grossly derogatory statements that also create public order disturbances and hinder the individual official from performing their work in a certain situation. The purpose may be to influence, seek revenge, or throw the official off balance in connection with the performance of their duties.

Grossly offensive statements and content also occur through emails and letters as a consequence of the exercise of authority, or as a form of revenge. Technological developments further mean that officials are harassed and offended in ways other than before. At the same time, relatively few prosecutions for insults occur each year, which, given the current problem picture, gives reason to fear that the willingness to report this type of crime is low.

To ensure that certain aggravating circumstances have a clear impact, specific qualification grounds are introduced for the crime of aggravated assault against a public official. This may involve violence of a serious nature or the use of weapons or explosives. In this context, a damage assessment is also made.

Last but not least, Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize that we also strengthen the secrecy surrounding the personal data of public employees.

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

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! We get the society that we accept. We get the society where we show where the line is drawn between what we accept in behavior and what we do not accept in behavior.

25 years ago, I upset the judiciary in this country. It was after a 28-year-old man had been acquitted after spitting in a police officer's face. The court had stated in its judgment that a police officer must tolerate a certain form of offensive treatment.

In this case, the offensive treatment was being spat in the face. According to the court, it was something that a police officer must accept. To walk up to a police officer and spit in their face is no problem. It should not be punished. It should be acquitted.

Once again: We get the society we accept.

I agree with the verdict regarding the spitting, but I am however doubtful whether society even 25 years ago agreed with the Göta Court of Appeal. I believe that most normally functioning people did not think it would be okay to spit in a police officer's face and be acquitted for it.

Today, the judiciary has fortunately realized what signals it sends by acquitting a person who spits in a police officer's face. Today, there are several judgments against persons who have spat in a police officer's face. The criminal classification is offensive behavior.

Madam Speaker! As said: We get the society we accept. Perhaps it is not strange that some individuals, when they deal with police, believe they can behave however they want and that they can call police whatever they want. We have no laws that say otherwise. Society has accepted it.

We have ended up with a society where police can be called both one thing and the other without any reaction. That someone calls a female police officer a "fucking bitch" and a "fucking whore" and tells her to go to hell happens if not very often on a daily basis. But the legislators, that is to say those who have sat in this house longer than I have, have accepted it. They have indirectly said that it is okay to call a police officer gender-based insults and a "fucking whore."

Now, finally, there will be a change. The government wants to add a law against insulting a public official to the penal code, which will make it illegal to call police officers derogatory words. In other words, it will be the end of seeing police officers just standing and taking insults from people who have not learned how to behave.

Now I have heard the Environment Party's presentation, and I have heard the Environment Party in the exchanges of remarks. I will try to break down what the Environment Party wants and thinks, so that I get it right.

As I have interpreted it, Miljöpartiet does not think it is okay for police to be called bad things. I hope that is correct. But one does not think it is serious enough to stand behind the bill for a new criminal classification, i.e., insult against a public official. I don't quite understand how that equation adds up. That is, in itself, not the only thing I don't understand about Miljöpartiet. I have to think about that a bit more.

I believe that insult against a public official should be punishable. We Liberals believe that it should be punishable. Fortunately, the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Sweden Democrats also believe that it should be punishable. Even the Social Democrats believe it. And hold on now – the Left Party also believes that it should be punishable, albeit with the caveat that one must still safeguard freedom of speech.

I am sorry, Miljöpartiet – it doesn't matter what you think on this issue. From this summer onwards, it will be punishable to call a police officer a "fucking pussy" and a "fucking whore." On behalf of Sweden's police, I thank the government for the new law. It will make a difference out there in a world that demands we stop accepting bad behavior.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the opportunity to clarify! I believe I have been quite clear. I have tried to express something quite fundamental in a constitutional state regarding which behaviors are desirable and which are not, and how we are to address various problems.

For me, it is the case that it is not possible to criminalize or legislate away everything that is bad. I also, of course, do not think it is acceptable to call police officers, social workers, or other people by derogatory terms, as the member just exemplified from the rostrum. But what we are discussing is whether this will hit the mark and whether it is proportionate compared to other interests.

I do not think it is uninteresting if we restrict freedom of speech. It may have to do with my professional background; I am a trained journalist. That may be why I care about this. But it does not mean that I do not think these behaviors are undesirable. We shall try to address them. I also do not think it is unimportant that we have a crime. I also think that we should work on that. But what we are discussing today is more at the design level. Which punishments are proportionate, for example? Will they have an effect?

It does not automatically become better in terms of effect and reduced crime in the long run just because we have harsher penalties. There are different interests that must be weighed against each other – on one hand, the police's right to avoid being addressed with offensive words, and on the other hand, freedom of speech and the fear of disproportionate criminalization, especially when there is a power imbalance. That is what we are discussing, not the basic view that I assume we all share, namely that what has been expressed here is problematic.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ulrika Westerlund, for the introduction!

One must understand how it works out there in what is called reality, where the police are located. It can be in a place where there are 20–30 individuals who do not think the police should be there. They think it is their square, their neighborhood, or their park and that the police should not be there. They walk up to the police and tell them to get out of there. I will not use more swear words than necessary, but they use a lot of derogatory words. "Get out! You shouldn't be here, you fucking" – and so on. That is how one expresses oneself. In my world, that is not freedom of speech.

In practice, it works such that for the police to be able to intervene, for example by removing a person from a location or even detaining a person, it is required that they interrupt an ongoing criminal act. If a person continues with their insults, one can actually use Section 13 of the Police Act, which is what it is about now, and physically remove the person from the location. I know from experience that it is not fun for such people. They want to be on site. They want to be where it is happening. It is not fun to sit at the police station or be driven home to their parents. That tool disappears or, more accurately said, is missing if there is no law at the foundation.

Just insult against a public official is a perfect law that could serve as a basis for the police to be able to use the Police Act's Section 13 and ensure that persons are removed from a location.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Before this debate, I have, as I said, done some research on what different actors have said on the issue. Among other things, quite a bit has been written about a similar law that was abolished about 50 years ago. At that time, it was written in the investigation that submitted the proposal that the provision corresponding to the one we are now discussing would risk infringing on the right to free criticism of, among other things, authorities, which is so strongly asserted and exercised in public debate.

In the investigation that came out in the 70s, it is also argued that the law rather weakens than strengthens the trust for an authority that is subjected to the spreading of rumors. It is an example of whether this has the intended effect. Will it provoke more anger? Now you are not even allowed to say offensive words – one could go completely crazy – when the police come in and do what is their task in our society. One can think of that, for example, on a day like this.

I think it is worth not dismissing previous insights into why we have repealed laws and what it was due to, especially now when we have a legislative process that many actors have pointed out is moving very quickly. I understand that the government and the supporting party are keen on moving forward quickly. One might be uncertain about whether one will retain government power after the next election. One wants, therefore, to do as much as possible. But it has been criticized in itself for the fact that one does not quite get an overview and necessary reflection.

Again: This is not about us in Miljöpartiet not wanting to tackle crime, that we would ignore it, or that we would ignore whether civil servants are treated poorly when they carry out their profession. We naturally think, just like everyone else, that these are important issues. What we are discussing are the methods and what we believe they will have for effects. The different experts in the different fields are not entirely in agreement.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I too have read the responses from the referral bodies and noted that there are several instances where they also do not quite understand what reality looks like. I could make a list of ten areas, which I shall not mention here, which I recommend the members, yes everyone, to go to on a Friday night together with the police. Then one can hear how the talk goes and sense the atmosphere.

It is extremely ungrateful and frustrating to, as a police officer, just stand there and receive insults. But I dare say that 90 out of 100 insults pass. You take it and grit your teeth. Here, however, we get a tool that allows one to report a person and, in doing so, proceed to take the person from the scene, something that cannot be done today. As long as the person in question remains there, it will be restless. This will come as a side effect when the law enters into force.

Stronger protection for public employees against violence, threats, and harassment, etc.

I understand, of course, that Miljöpartiet does not think it is okay for police officers to receive a lot of insults. But I do not see that the law restricts freedom of speech and do not quite understand the concern that the member for Fram expresses. It surprises me a bit that Miljöpartiet does not stand behind this specific law. I understand the reasoning against the other increased penalties, but regarding the law on insult against a public official, I really thought that Miljöpartiet would stand behind it.

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)