Ban on cousin marriage and marriage between other close relatives

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are dealing with a bill that should have been submitted many years ago. It concerns a ban on cousin marriage and also a ban on marriage between other close relatives. It is about Swedish law preventing honor oppression. Swedish law must never be tolerant of or accept honor culture in Sweden.

The proposition means in practice that cousins will no longer be able to marry in Sweden, by the marriage not being granted in the obstacle assessment. It also means that marriages between other close relatives will be stopped at the obstacle assessment. It means that half-siblings and adoptive siblings will also be stopped from marrying. If such marriages have occurred abroad, the main rule shall be that they are not to be recognized in Sweden.

The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on July 1 this year.

This is, therefore, yet another proposition where we are forced to clean up after the Social Democrats.

Mr. Speaker! This is an important change to create a more just society, for everyone who lives in and grows up in Sweden. There are girls growing up in Sweden today who know that when they reach the age of majority, they are expected to marry someone whom their family has chosen. Most often, it is precisely a cousin or some other close relative that they are expected to marry.

Girls and also boys grow up in families where marriage is not associated with love and choice but is a matter that engages the entire lineage, where one negotiates within the lineage, where the clan decides and where the individual's will lacks significance. It is precisely for that reason the law was needed, because it is not always possible to prove coercion. It is also not always possible to prove threats.

The one who grows up in an honor-based context rarely needs to have a knife to their throat to understand what the family demands. Often it is enough that the family says what they expect and the knowledge of what happens to the one who does not follow the clan's will. It was this that the Socialdemokraterna did not want to understand.

Mr. Speaker! I debated this with Morgan Johansson in the Riksdag in the spring of 2022, after I had several times during 2021 tried to submit an interpellation. But as you may remember, 2021 was the year when the government was forced to resign, was reconstituted, and returned again only to resign again. Every time the government resigned, the interpellations were removed, and they had to be submitted again.

Finally, I was at least able to submit an interpellation, and in that, I explicitly asked whether the government was prepared to take the measures needed to ban arranged cousin marriage in Sweden. Morgan Johansson answered then that according to Swedish law there was no obstacle to marrying a cousin, that it had been so for a long time, and that the important thing was that no one is forced to marry.

It may sound reasonable, but that was exactly the problem. The Social Democrats hid behind the principle that coercion was already prohibited. They consistently refused to see that coercion in honor environments is often hidden, subtle, and collective. They refused to see that the legislation was not sufficient. They refused to see that cousin marriage in these environments is not at all about romance, but about preserving control, property, and clan structures. It was not ignorance after eight years in power, it was political unwillingness. They chose not to see. The Social Democrats chose to turn a blind eye.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats had eight years. It was eight years when the issue of honor grew with every passing year. It was eight years when parallel societies in Sweden were cemented. It was eight years when girls and young women paid the price for a government that preferred to talk about values rather than make the necessary decisions.

When we raised the issue, we were met with excuses. When we demanded action, we were told that existing legislation was sufficient. When we pointed to clan structures, arranged marriages, and honor oppression, the Social Democrats tried to reduce the issue to an abstract discussion about the free choices of adults.

Free choice is not free, however, when the entire clan stands behind the decision and when every questioning can call into question the entire family's honor. Free choice is not free when the girl knows that a no can mean ostracization, threats, violence, or an entire life in conflict with her own family. Free choice is not free when the state blinks and says: "We intervene only when you can prove the coercion."

No, Mr. Speaker, the difference between us and the Social Democrats is that they waited for evidence after the damage had already been done, while we want to prevent the damage from occurring.

Mr. Speaker! Morgan Johansson said that the important thing is that no one is forced to marry. I agree with that, but the difference is that we also draw the practical conclusions from it. If one is serious about the fact that no one should be forced to marry, one must also be prepared to act when one sees that something is wrong, for how common is it, really, to choose a partner who is also a close relative, if one chooses freely, out of love?

There are studies on this, and it is not at all particularly common. Only 6 per mille of marriages in Europe, Australia and North America are entered into between people who are closely related. Of all marriages, 99.4 percent are therefore not cousin marriages or marriages between other close relatives. These figures come from the University of Oxford and are from 2015, and they should have been known to the previous government.

So, it is about 0.6 percent, according to the study. At the same time, we can state that it is much more common in certain groups. When marriage becomes a matter for the family instead of the individuals deciding, and when the family's honor and the clan's power become the basis for the marriage, the statistics look completely different. In the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, the figures for the proportion of marriages between people who are closely related vary from 10 percent up to over 50 percent of marriages, i.e., every second marriage.

If one is serious about combating honor oppression and if one is serious about equality, one cannot turn a blind eye to reality, as the Social Democrats did during their entire time in government. It is a massive betrayal of everyone involved.

A ban was needed. Clearer rules were needed. Swedish legislation was needed that marks that marriages between close relatives do not belong in a modern, free and equal Sweden.

Now we stand here with a bill that shows that the Sweden Democrats were right from the beginning. We cannot change what the Social Democrats should have done during their eight years in power but did not do. But now we are cleaning up after them and finally taking the step so that Swedish values regarding marriage shall apply to everyone living in Sweden. Swedish law shall defend our Swedish values.

With this, I vote in favor of the bill.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The prohibition of cousin marriage and marriage between other close relatives is something that all parties in the chamber today agree on. There is an important signaling value in this legislation.

At the same time, I want to say that there will be some difficulties in the practical parts of the law. It will be difficult to monitor lineages, especially when it concerns those who come to Sweden. We will need to follow up and see what the situation is with people who choose to live in a cohabitation relationship instead of registering a marriage.

Even though these difficulties exist, it does not mean that this is not important legislation to send a very clear signal: No marriage shall be entered into under coercion. We also need to follow up to ensure that the potentially weaker parties in these contexts receive protection and are not affected even more severely.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, this is not a new phenomenon in Sweden that has emerged in recent years entirely linked to what we usually speak of as honor-related violence and oppression. This has occurred in Sweden for very many years. It has been legal in Sweden since 1845 to marry one's cousin, for example, which many also did during the late 1800s and early 1900s and all the way into modern times.

When this happened previously, it was often about keeping the farm in the family. It was also about geographical possibilities for moving. Cousin marriage is therefore not something new in Sweden. But regardless of whether it is about then or now, marriage under coercion is never accepted.

Mr. Speaker! My interpretation of the legislation and the purpose of the law is that it is largely about countering the honor-related violence and oppression and the structure that exists. It is very good and important. But this legislation must not become symbolic politics.

For that reason, I want to raise what the Center Party has put forward in its special statement: Continued work will be required regarding education and knowledge for all those who encounter children and young people. Knowledge of honor-related violence needs to be included in the preschool curriculum. And what do we do when we discover that this is happening? How do we respond to the children, young people, and adults who are exposed?

There is quite clear research, from among others Växjö University, showing that one does not have that knowledge within social services, for example. How do we work with the individuals, the families, and the rest of the kin to actually counteract and break structural patterns?

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party also wants us to review how we work with abducted children who actually leave Sweden under duress. There are still empty chairs in the classrooms after the summer holidays. We have seen improvements, but this still happens. Therefore, Sweden must stand up for the children who are taken abroad, find them and help them come back to Sweden.

There is another area, Mr. Speaker, that I want to raise in this matter. If we truly want to counter honor-related violence and provide people with the opportunity for a life without oppression, we must stop deporting teenagers to, among other places, Iran and Iraq. The latest example being raised right now is Vana's, who is to be deported to Iraq. She already knows today that she will be married off when she arrives in Iraq. She must leave her sport, for she boxes, and she will not be allowed to have any job.

Mr. Speaker! If we are to truly counter honor-related oppression, we must also end the unreasonable deportations that are actually still taking place. Otherwise, this will only be symbolic politics and not real action.

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

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am thinking of the expressions "talking is easy" or "it is quite cheap to talk."

What I am raising here to ask Martina and Centerpartiet about is why, when there was an opportunity, the choice was made not to proceed and include this in the January agreement.

The Sweden Democrats were very clear when we finally got the opportunity to have something to say about. Then we made sure to include exactly this issue and several others regarding honor-based oppression in what later became known as the Tidö Agreement. We made sure to clean up the swamp of things that had not been done previously.

I missed Martina Johansson, and I missed the Center Party, in the debate that took place before the Tidö Agreement and before the new government took office. At that time, there was actually no one who supported the proposal that cousins should not be allowed to marry. Very few participated in the debate at all when it came to how we were to deal with honor oppression, honor violence, and so on.

I also want to remind that it is completely unreasonable to link this to any form of free immigration to Sweden. We cannot save the world by lifting the whole world here and believing that it would become better in that way. That was what the Center Party and the previous government did, and that was what led to the problems here in Sweden.

People did not escape the issue of honor when they moved to Sweden; on the contrary, the issue of honor moved into our suburbs and into our society. Cousin marriage was not a problem in the 80s, but it became one because of the policy pursued by the Centerpartiet and by the previous government.

I wonder: Why was this not included in the January Agreement?

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Eskilandersson, for the question!

One can always reflect on exactly which proposals are written into different agreements. When we evaluate this mandate period and stand in the speaker's chairs during the next mandate period, we will surely be able to highlight things that the Sverigedemokraterna chose not to include in a Tidöavtal and which will be pushed during the next mandate period. I am quite convinced that that will be the case.

My point with my speech is that Centerpartiet is for this change, but we must also work on broader fronts. Centerpartiet has also done this previously. We are working more with honor-related violence in a broader perspective. It is about detecting, addressing, and ensuring that we try to find methods of work to break the structures for those who are in Sweden, regardless of whether one is born in Sweden or not.

My point with linking this to the fact that it has happened before was that it is not a new phenomenon in Sweden to marry a cousin. That was my point. I am quite convinced that there were also previously instances where one did not marry entirely of their own free will, but to keep the farm within the family or for other reasons. Regardless, a marriage by coercion is never acceptable.

That the Center Party would want free immigration to Sweden, Mikael Eskilandersson, I am quite tired of hearing. We do not want free immigration to Sweden. On the other hand, we want those who have the right to be in Sweden to be allowed to stay in Sweden when they seek asylum. Deporting young people to honor-related violence and oppression – people who should be allowed to be in Sweden, who have gone to school in Sweden, who work in Sweden, who can speak Swedish and who could now be allowed to contribute – is something that the Center Party does not accept.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I welcome the fact that it is now evidently considered a sufficiently important issue to be raised, but I regret that it was not thought so earlier.

Martina Johansson says that it is nothing new in Sweden that one marries one's cousin. No, it was precisely for that reason that cousin marriage was forbidden once upon a time. Above all within the nobility, one married one's cousin, and it turned out that it perhaps was not so good. Then it was often about retaining power and such within the lineage.

However, we have moved past this. That is what is Swedish. We have evolved. We have moved past the point where one marries their cousin. That is why we were already able to repeal this legislation in the 1800s. We saw that there was no longer any demand for cousin marriages.

We also see in the survey I previously mentioned from the speaker's chair that it is only 0.6 percent who request to be able to marry a cousin or some other close relative. It is not the case that one chooses a cousin or a close relative particularly often if there are no pressures behind it, and it is precisely the pressures behind it that is the problem.

As Martina Johansson points out from the speaker's chair, there is also the question of how one actually controls that people are not cousins with each other. Therefore, I would like to proceed with a ban on cousin marriage that also entails a penalty. If one has married one's cousin with knowledge that one then broke the law, one should be able to be punished, just as one can be punished for bigamy in Sweden if one marries several times with knowledge that one is not allowed to do so. If someone were to succeed in bypassing the system, so to speak, we should be able to proceed with a penalty.

This is something that we can push for together during the next mandate period. I would like to take the opportunity to ask Martina Johansson how she views proceeding with actually making it punishable to marry one's cousin.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the clear question. I must leave it unanswered at this moment, for it is a question that I cannot take a position on here and now. I must simply return with the answer to that specific question.

I just want to take the opportunity at the very end to say that it is important that the work to counter honor-related violence continues. We must work with the structures. We must work with those individuals who subject others to honor-related violence, regardless of what background we have. That is the only way we can achieve a free Sweden for those who live in Sweden and have the right to live in Sweden.

Since this is the final turn in the exchange, the question returns to Mikael Eskilandersson rhetorically. The question is whether the Sverigedemokraterna are prepared to work during the next mandate period so that abducted children get greater opportunities and better help to return to Sweden, and how they intend to work with, for example, providing support and advice to all our social services across Sweden regarding how they should work with the entire family to break a pattern.

It is not enough to simply remove the young people who are subjected to honor-related violence. The feeling for them often becomes: I am just locked up in a new place with people who do not love me. It is not working with the issue properly if we want to break the honor-related violence.

But thank you for an exciting exchange of remarks!

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Some debates can be both complicated and difficult, but I would like to assert that this debate is quite simple. The government's proposals are quite clear and aim to counter honor-related oppression and other pressures in the context of entering into marriage. The proposals entail a ban on cousin marriage and marriage between other close relatives.

We are also quite united in the Riksdag on the direction: Honor-related violence and oppression have no place in our society.

It is easy to talk about zero tolerance, but it must also be reflected in the legislation. The protection for, above all, women and girls living in a context of honor must be strengthened in both criminal and civil legislation.

A ban on marriage between cousins is an important measure to ensure every person's right to decide over their own life. All people in Sweden shall have the right to decide over their own life and whom they shall marry.

Child marriage is in many cases part of a culture of honor that restricts the freedom of girls and women. A ban is an important step to push back honor-based oppression and ensure that freedom actually applies to everyone in Sweden.

The legislation must clearly stand on the side of the individual. A ban on cousin marriage is an important part of the work for every person's right to choose their own life and their own future.

Of course one can, as the Center Party did, wonder if this is symbolic politics. I mean, however, that it is not, because at an early stage we can say that this marriage cannot be entered into in Sweden through Skatteverket.

Then it is one thing to say: This is what we do. But what do we do then? I mean that the work does not end here. It is not the case that we legislate on values. The legislation applies to what one is allowed to do in Sweden, but the values remain. We must work with the values, both in the family, in school, and in society at large, to ensure that we do not have any honor-oppression in Sweden.

In one way, it is important that we do this. It is not just symbolic politics. But I also mean that we do ourselves a disservice if we believe that we can be satisfied with this. We must continue to work so that these values no longer occur in Sweden.

Then perhaps many women and girls get to travel abroad and marry, and then come back here. Therefore, it is important that we do not accept cousin marriages entered into in some other country but also stop that part. I also think that shows that this is not symbolic politics.

However, it does not mean that this will not occur. We must constantly work with those values. Many say that we do not have any values in Sweden, but I assert that we do. We have common values that we must stand up for, and everyone must be included in those values.

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

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Freedom is the right to own one's own life, to shape one's own future and to personally choose whom one wants to love and share one's life with. For us liberals, this is a fundamental right.

In the shadow of our open society, however, thousands live in a lack of freedom dictated by honor culture and clan structures. Then we cannot hide behind formulations about tradition, culture, or custom. In Sweden, the individual's freedom takes precedence over the clan's demands. In Sweden, the child's future takes precedence over the family's control. In Sweden, no girl, no boy, no woman, and no man shall be pressured into a marriage to preserve honor, loyalty, power, or control within a clan.

That is what this bill is about.

The Government now proposes a ban on cousin marriages and marriages between other close relatives. We also propose that such marriages shall, as a rule, not be recognized in Sweden if they have been entered into abroad. It is necessary. For if Sweden prohibits an order here at home but simultaneously accepts that the same order is bypassed through a trip across the border, we have not enacted a law with force, but rather we have left a back door open – and that back door shall be closed.

Mr. Speaker! Marriage shall be a free choice between two independent individuals. It is a liberal and democratic basic principle. The state shall not choose people's partners, the family shall not do it, the kin shall not do it and the clan shall not do it. The human being shall choose their own life.

But we know that reality does not look like that for everyone in this country. We know that there are young people who grow up with freedom on paper but not in practice. One goes to Swedish school, one learns about equality, democracy and human rights and one is told that one has the right to shape one's future, but at home one is met with something else: a law where the family's reputation weighs heavier than one's own will.

In such environments, cousin marriages are rarely just a private love story, but rather a structure to ensure loyalty and a way to keep, first and foremost, women and young people under control.

Mr. Speaker! That is precisely why this proposal is so important. It is not about casting suspicion on individual people. It is not about the state interfering in love. It is about the state protecting the right to love and protecting against coercion, pressure, and control.

Sweden has for a long time been cautious in its encounter with honor oppression. Many in this country live in an everyday life where their life choices are determined by others. Many have been told that they are free, but that is not their reality. We have failed many for too long, and that failure must end.

Mr. Speaker! The ban on cousin marriage must also be seen in a larger context. Where kinship-based structures are strong, marriage does not just become a family matter, but it becomes part of a power system. It can be used to build parallel societies, reinforce clan loyalties, and keep people away from the norms and institutions of the common society.

We have seen how criminal clans have emerged in our country where loyalty to the clan is placed above everything else, where a culture of silence protects perpetrators and where children are raised into an order where the bonds of blood weigh heavier than the principles of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish law must be clear about what it protects. It must protect the child, not the tradition. It must protect the young woman, not the family's honor. It must protect the individual's freedom, not the clan's control.

The Liberals have for a long time, primarily through my representatives Nyamko Sabuni, Robert Hannah and Juno Blom, pushed for a tougher and clearer line against honor oppression. It is a question of freedom. It is about girls' right to finish school, about young women's right to choose a partner, about boys' right to avoid being forced into family strategies and about children's right to grow up without their future being decided at a kitchen table by relatives who believe they know best.

This is a step along the way, Mr. Speaker, but there is still much left to do in this area.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Civil Affairs' report 33, which concerns the introduction of a ban on cousin marriage and marriages where one party is a direct descendant of the other's sibling. According to a unanimous committee, such marriages shall as a rule not be recognized in Sweden. Furthermore, it shall no longer be possible for half-siblings and siblings by virtue of adoption to obtain permission to marry.

Mr. Speaker! The purpose of these legislative changes is to counter honor-related oppression, coercion, and other pressures in the context of entering into marriage. The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on July 1, 2026. All parties in the Riksdag stand behind this. It is positive. In Sweden, we stand united against honor-related violence and oppression.

Mr. Speaker! Honor-based oppression has no place in Sweden. The Social Democratic-led government initiated several measures to stop honor-based oppression. Among other things, honor-based oppression was made a specific crime – regardless of whether one is a cousin or not. It was a crime.

In 2020, the Social Democratic-led government also strengthened the protection against honor-related crimes through the introduction of a new crime, namely child marriage. At the same time, a new specific ground for increased sentencing for crimes with honor motives was also introduced. Additionally, a travel ban was introduced to protect children from being taken abroad to enter into child marriages or to be subjected to female genital mutilation.

It is a sign of strength for Sweden that the work against honor-related violence and oppression continues even after a change of government. I want that to be said. The unity that prevails in the Riksdag on these issues is important.

Mr. Speaker! The work must continue, not least within the area of family law. Reports of oppressed and abducted children and women continue to arrive. Parents who subject children to honor-related violence and oppression shall not have a share in custody or be a residential parent. Visitation shall also not, as a rule, be carried out.

We Social Democrats have during the current parliamentary term proposed to review an expansion of when a change of custody should be initiated in cases of domestic violence, including in cases of honor-related violence and oppression, specifically to protect children from parents who engage in honor-related violence and oppression. But this has unfortunately not won support in the Committee on Civil Affairs, and the Tidö parties have previously voted against this. But we hope that we all in the Riksdag will find agreement on this in the future as well.

The work against honor-related violence must continue. We have not fully solved this with previous legislation, and we will not fully solve it with this legislation, but this is a task that must continue regardless of the color of the government. We are united on the issue, and we think it is important that the chamber shows unity on the issue towards Swedish society.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats move for approval of the committee's unanimous proposal for a decision.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Leif Nysmed is speaking here about the importance of us being united in the work against honor-based oppression. He raised several examples of what the previous government actually did against honor-based oppression.

But there, I want to assert, Leif Nysmed gives a somewhat too positive picture of how it looked eight years ago. For all those bills, regardless of whether they concerned child marriage or honor oppression, we had to issue a notice to the government, sometimes several, before the issue was even raised or acted upon.

Regarding the issue we are debating today, cousin marriage, there was no interest at all in raising it and making it into legislation. As recently as 2022, when I had my last debate with Morgan Johansson on the issue, he was clear that cousin marriage should not be prohibited because it was a matter of a legislation that has existed for a long time in Sweden, that is, being allowed to marry one's cousin. It was the coercion that was the problem, and therefore the coercion must be proven. That is what my previous statement in the rostrum was about.

I want to assert that the Social Democrats have been a brake for eight years and have truly tried to prevent the introduction of laws against honor oppression, while we have repeatedly submitted motions to the government primarily to get something through.

I welcome that Leif Nysmed and the Social Democrats, now in opposition, have reconsidered and suddenly want to be driving in these issues. It is welcome because it was needed that more are driving in these issues.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Mikael Eskilandersson for the remark.

One can certainly discuss who is "setting" the policy. In the opposition, we have many announcements and submit many interpellations to drive the policy forward. That does not always mean that the government is not dealing with those issues and putting forward proposals. We also know that announcements do not need to be handled immediately – they can be put in desk drawers. However, that has obviously not been the case in the issues that Mikael Eskilandersson highlights; even the government at that time thought those issues were important. Having an announcement in the Riksdag does not mean that the sitting government does not think the issue is important; sometimes one kicks in open doors.

The proposal regarding the cousin gift is a specific part. Previous governments have worked with the broader allocation, just as Morgan says; there are many forms of honor oppression. It is difficult to prove whether certain persons are cousins if they come from abroad, which makes it easy to circumvent the proposal. It was therefore perhaps not the most prioritized, but what has been important has been to address honor-related violence broadly.

Many times it is not about cousins being forced to marry each other. There can be other structures that prevent people from marrying each other for cultural reasons. Among other things, it can be the case that families' different religious backgrounds, for example Muslim and Christian, prevent someone from marrying the person they want to marry. In that case, it has nothing to do with cousins. In this country, one should have the right to marry the person one loves and wants to marry.

There is also a larger perspective. But we think that this is an important step. Now that the proposal is on the table, we are not against it.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot help but almost smirk when I hear Leif Nysmed talk about how one in Sweden should indeed have the right to marry the one they love. Perhaps one should take that on a bit more in the Socialdemokraterna, for it was the Socialdemokraterna that excluded a member because the person had fallen in love with a sverigedemokrat. This matter of free love does not quite rhyme with that.

I want to remind that there was never any announcement regarding the issue we are debating today, cousin marriage, because there was no consensus during the processing in the committee. The cousin marriage issue was primarily driven by the Sverigedemokraterna. Eventually, we pushed it through in the Tidö Agreement; then we prioritized it as hard as we could. We also prioritize several other parts regarding the honor issue, and much of that consists of things that the previous government did not finish and which one quite often seems directly unwilling to do.

But if the Social Democrats have now woken up and realized that there is a worrying honor culture in Sweden that needs to be combated, I wonder how far they are prepared to go. Are they prepared to introduce a penalty for, for example, cousin marriage? I see it as a natural consequence. That was how it was done with child marriage. It was made impossible to marry a child. Then one proceeded and introduced a penalty for it. It would be a reasonable way to proceed even when it concerns cousin marriage, so that cousin marriage is associated with a penalty if one deliberately bypasses the law and hides from the Swedish authorities that one are cousins.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Mikael Eskilandersson for the question.

Firstly, I have not claimed that any announcement regarding cousin marriage passed during the previous term. I spoke about the other issues that we discussed.

Secondly, I actually have to give an equally boring answer to the question that Martina did. It is probably not impossible that this could be needed. But let us now see what significance the legislation has! Legislation always needs to be evaluated. We usually reserve ourselves in that way anyway and will do so in the next debate as well. I think it is reasonable to investigate whether this would be needed. Let us first investigate that and see if there is a need!

I also want to raise another issue. We are talking here about honor-related violence, even in a slightly broader perspective. As I took up in my speech, during this parliamentary term we have moved forward with proposals that parents who subject children to honor-related violence and oppression should not have a share in custody or be residential parents; nor should visitation generally be carried out. You have voted against this, Mikael Eskilandersson. I hope that you can change your minds. The Tidö parties have done so. I hope that we can move forward in that issue, because I believe it is an important step in the work to address honor-related violence. The issue is larger than just the cousin's gift. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will move forward in unity. We are actually in agreement on this issue and have been in many other parts as well.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 26 May.)

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