In-depth follow-up of the work to prevent and combat violence against women

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

Men's violence against women is not just an acute societal problem. It is a violation of human rights and a threat to our democracy. The Moderate-led government has therefore taken powerful measures to strengthen equality, increase safety, and create real change.

But even if we see some positive effects, such as that the vulnerability to sexual violence among women and girls decreases and that more participate in recidivism prevention programs, there is far from any reason to be satisfied.

The way out of violence is far too difficult today. Therefore, the government is working with a departure program that is a whole. It is about safe housing, financial support, protection, as well as psychological and legal help.

In the action program until 2026, there are over 130 concrete measures. In addition to the surrender program, priority is also continued on concerted efforts against honor-related violence and oppression, increased support for children and young people who are exposed to violence, as well as deepened knowledge of the digital dimensions of violence and oppression, also with a focus on prostitution. Furthermore, several initiatives are underway to strengthen protection against psychological and economic violence, both through investigation for legislative work and through review of existing measures.

But equality is threatened not only by individual perpetrators but also by ideologies and political environments where women's rights are relativized, where honor is placed before freedom, where the group is placed before the individual's self-evident right to shape their own life, and where men are always placed before women.

One could think that all parties in the Riksdag worked unanimously for equality and everyone's equal value. But behind the rhetoric, there are fundamentally large ideological differences, not least in the view of which alliances one is prepared to enter and which values one is prepared to compromise on. Unfortunately, we have seen how the opposition repeatedly fails in its responsibility.

Vänsterpartiet cooperates with groups that defend honor oppression. Representatives march under Hamas flags and also receive great support from their party colleagues.

In the Social Democrats, we have seen representatives participate in Hamas-linked events and be defended by their party leader, while simultaneously maintaining contacts with Muslim organizations that have a view on women from the Middle Ages.

It is not individual mistakes I am speaking of, but a pattern – a pattern where one turns a blind eye to honor-based oppression and cooperates with forces that counteract women's freedom and equality.

It is not only bad that this is happening, but also that other parties accept it.

At the same time as the Centre Party refuses to cooperate with SD with reference to values, one chooses to cooperate with parties that excuse Islamist forces and oppose equality itself. What does that say about the Centre Party's priorities?

One cannot speak of equality and at the same time support parties that turn a blind eye to Islamist ideologies. It is not a coincidence but an active choice to put political alliances ahead of women's safety.

The opposition's gender equality policy lacks credibility. One speaks of gender equality but refuses to distance oneself from organizations that defend the oppression of women and honor-based violence. It is a double message. It is a dangerous path to take. It undermines the work for women's freedom.

The Moderate-led government does not compromise on human rights, equality, and women's freedom. It is high time that the opposition parties stand up for the same.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by stating that the Moderate member has an incredibly high tone in something that should unite us, given the national goals we have adopted in this chamber. It is actually quite remarkable from the Moderates.

Given this shifting of blame and almost talking more about the opposition than about their own policy, I want to address what the police have only in the last week established. Between 2023 and 2024, 17 women were murdered by a man in their vicinity. In three of the cases, the police had not even filed a report of violence, despite knowledge that violence had been committed. In a couple of the cases, it is stated, the women would have been alive if the police had not failed in their work.

Madam Speaker! We need to do everything in our power so that society does not fail these women. We cannot leave them behind. We cannot leave them behind in the violence. We must do much more. We must all join forces to take this responsibility and give them the opportunity to leave the violence.

We Social Democrats believe that a crisis commission is needed and that this is a crisis. Why do the Moderates not believe that this is a crisis?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I note that the Social Democrats want commission after commission. If the Social Democrats, during the eight years they were in government, saw this as a quick fix, I wonder why one is not already in place.

The Moderates and the Moderate-led government have changed the legislation bit by bit. We have increased the protection, and we are working with preventive measures.

What I raised here today is a fundamental democratic problem that we have both in society and in the Riksdag. I think it would be excellent if we could agree to counter men's violence against women with all our might. However, I cannot see this as a serious possibility as long as both the Social Democrats and the Left Party, and the Centre as well, support contacts with organizations that oppose this and have a view on women that, as I said, is from the Middle Ages. It does not rhyme well, and there is no longer any credibility in this. One hides behind other parties, but one does not stand up for the values that one actually supports.

It would be fantastic if the Social Democrats could finally stand up for women's rights in all areas, even in action, in the collaborations and contacts that one still has.

I would like to ask a question to the member. With the information that has emerged over a long period regarding Social Democratic members' and other representatives' contacts with Muslim organizations, for example Hamas, which stands for a view on women that is oppressive and violent and where women are not considered worth anything at all; how does that go together with the equality policy?

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Let us stick to the reality. We can look at the numbers. Does even a week go by – no, I do not think it does – without us seeing reports of women who have been murdered by their husbands, have been assaulted, or live under terror-like conditions 24/7? Women are exploited in a multitude of ways. These are societal problems that are played out before our eyes every day.

The Moderate member strikes his chest and speaks about all the good things the Moderaterna are doing and that it would make such a big difference. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. We are reaching out a hand.

A year ago, it was a week when three women were murdered. Before we went into a long holiday in the form of Easter – we know that it is incredibly dangerous for many women to be at home during a long holiday – we Social Democrats took the initiative for a crisis commission and said that we must sit down with all actors who can make a difference so that we do everything we can for these women and do not leave them to their fate.

It has now been over a year. The police report that even more lives could have been saved if they had not fallen short in their work. If the Moderaterna want to do everything, they can say yes to a crisis commission. Please do! We stand here with open arms, and we want to sit down and do the practical and actual work that is expected of politics. What is the member's answer? Shall we do everything we can or not?

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I stated in my speech that there is far from any reason to be satisfied. We see the reality we live in when it comes to violence against women. We fight by all means to counter the violence.

The Social Democrats were in power for eight years, and that is the reality we have taken over from you. It is, in itself, positive that you have great confidence in the Moderates' ability to solve everything in two years that you failed to solve during your long time. If you believe that a crisis commission was a quick solution, then it should have been in place. We do not see a crisis commission as a solution to all problems regarding men's violence against women, but we are more than open to cooperation and collaboration and to stand united in this work.

We are working step by step, that is, changing and strengthening the legislation in issues regarding safety and protection against honor-based violence against girls, women, and children. We have worked with preventive measures. Now it is also about working with a departure program. You are more than welcome to participate in all parts of the work. It is exactly that I am requesting from the Social Democrats. But it requires that we, without exception, without murky actors by our side, jointly stand up for the rights of girls and women. I do not see that today, but it would be very welcome.

(Applause)

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I cannot thank the member, but I must say that I am directly offended. I come from the Committee on Social Affairs, and I have sat there for eleven years. I have had close cooperation with Moderates and other right-wing parties regarding these incredibly important issues. But I have never witnessed the husband when you, in question of one of the most important issues in Sweden, regarding the vulnerability of women and children, devote the majority of your speech to attacking other parties' actions. It is not wise. I am truly, genuinely offended.

Today we heard on the news that Bandidos own healthcare companies in Sweden. We also see that the development for the women's shelters is that there are more private actors. We have also seen how it has gone with the HVB homes, that is to say that it is criminal private actors who take care of our most vulnerable children. Now we see a development with criminal actors, perhaps even Bandidos, who are to protect women and children.

I would like to ask the member the following: How do you intend to act to guarantee that our most vulnerable women and children do not fall into the hands of criminals?

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! You say that it is not wise for me to speak about fundamental values in the Riksdag. You know, I am actually afraid. The antisemitism and the connections to extremely unpleasant organizations that members of the Riksdag have shown, and which have been defended by a broad support in Vänsterpartiet, are frightening. It is a threat to our democracy, and I will continue to speak about it in the Riksdag as long as the hatred spreads. We will never achieve women's equal value and freedom as long as this is allowed to happen in the Riksdag.

It is frightening how a member of the Left Party tells me that what I am raising is crazy. Do you have no self-criticism? Do you have no self-criticism?

Regarding the issue of protected housing, we are now implementing a reform that shall strengthen the protection for women and children as well as improve the quality of the actors who provide the operations. It has not functioned in the best way until now, and we have seen several examples of how criminal actors have run these homes. This obviously must not happen, and it is precisely for that reason that the changes we have implemented shall enter into force. We are also adding extra funds so that non-profit actors can raise the quality of the work. Furthermore, there are also several assignments, not least to authorities, for example Statskontoret, which shall monitor this, evaluate, and ensure that the quality is raised and that we keep out the unserious actors who today have been allowed to operate in these areas.

I say again that there is a frightening situation in the Riksdag today, and I believe that we will have to talk more about this going forward.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I just want to remind that we address each other with respect and therefore do not say "du" to each other. We address each other as "ledamoten" or by name.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for taking some of your time to answer the question.

There will be consequences of a restructuring of the entire market regarding the safety of women and children, namely that the voluntary women's shelters are being phased out in favor of private actors. This is a consequence of the bill on the permit requirement that was implemented this spring. One does not see the correlation completely, to be honest, but the problematic thing is that the proportion of women and children who are placed is falling sharply.

The National Board of Health and Welfare recently presented a report showing enormous differences in placements. It is also a question of the social services' work and the distribution of resources. This government has gone hard on the welfare state, and the social services therefore face challenges in that regard. I know that the issue is to be reviewed, but I wonder what the government considers. Investigate in all its glory, but what is the government doing here and now to ensure that these residences are not owned by criminal actors? We know that there have been great challenges, and Ivo has a huge task to handle.

What is the government doing to secure the particularly alarming development where fewer women and children are placed today than a year ago?

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! These changes are being made, as said, precisely to address the appalling situation that we have seen examples of, where criminal actors have been able to run these residences. We have also seen several other needs to increase the quality.

It is obviously very important that we care about the voluntary forces that exist and which in many cases do a great and important job of protecting and supporting women and children exposed to violence. We will follow this closely. As we have said, we have tasked several authorities to look at and follow the development based on the changes that have been made. But changes still need to be made. We have also provided funds so that quality can be increased based on the fact that requirements are being raised specifically for voluntary actors, so that they can also provide supplementation in cases where it is needed.

I see, therefore, the combination of all the serious actors working on this. It is important that they remain.

We are, of course, following how many are placed. Today there are fewer actors and residences, but at the same time there are more places. There is a great need to continue securing access.

There is also a very great need to secure permanent housing; the idea is that this is to be a temporary solution. It is also something that we have tasked the municipalities to work actively on.

There are many parts in this that we will continue to follow closely, and we care about all the different parts. But today it works in such a way that private actors are a part of this, and the supervisory responsibility is of course the same when it comes to them.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I join those who think it is somewhat regrettable that the government's representatives, after more than half of the parliamentary term, have such a tone when it should actually be about giving and taking and discussing each other's proposals in order to tackle one of our time's greatest problems.

I intend to devote my speaking time to what may be somewhat controversial: talking about the government's policy, about the Center Party's policy, and about what has happened during this mandate period.

We are experiencing a backlash without equal regarding gender equality. 28,000 people live hidden or with some form of confidentiality marking. We are not getting the better of men's violence against women. The police testify to a failure that leads to between 15 and 20 women dying every year. And the government is removing passages in the agencies' regulatory letters regarding gender equality integration.

The Government Commissioner says that the government will not compromise on women's health, but at the same time, one has an authority, the Swedish Tax Agency, which actively collects tax on the money that vulnerable women in prostitution receive from sex buyers and puts the vulnerable in an even worse situation.

The Chairman mentioned that the exposure to sexual violence has decreased. At the same time, Brå reports that every fourth young girl has been subjected to sexual violence. How does that add up?

I want to bring up two things. I thought I heard the member say that the Center Party associates with or supports organizations with murky objectives. Please explain which ones those are! If that is the case, it is very serious, and then I will take it with me and want to rectify it.

The member also mentioned the phase-out program. A very concrete question is: Exactly what does the government's phase-out program consist of? I have asked that question to the Minister for Equality previously but have not received a sufficient answer. I look forward to the member being able to provide more information about what the government's phase-out program consists of.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the tone, I do not really know what is required in this chamber or in the Riksdag at all to get our opposition parties to reflect on and react to the situation we find ourselves in. I am personally shocked and frightened to see the developments regarding both antisemitism and how one supports organizations with links to Hamas. There is nothing in that which is compatible with equality and the equal value of human beings.

I did not, moreover, say that the Center Party had links to those organizations, but I said that you support and cooperate with parties that have repeatedly been shown to have such links. One of my follow-up questions to the member will be: Do you see no problem at all with this, Helena Vilhelmsson?

When it comes to the Swedish Tax Agency and tax on prostitution, we have had the question raised previously. I have also then confirmed that it is an extremely regrettable situation, which I believe everyone thinks is absurd. It has to do with the tax regulations, which existed during both the Social Democrats' time and our time, and that the Swedish Tax Agency has started to act in this regard. It is something that we are looking at. I can guarantee that the Moderate-led government will change this regulatory framework, if it is possible to do so without opening it up for criminal actors to exploit it. It is a question that I am happy to return to.

When it comes to sexual vulnerability, we still see small signs of improvement. That is positive. But I also said that there is no reason to feel satisfied. The situation we have in Sweden today regarding both men's violence against women and girls' vulnerability to sexual violence and so on is completely unacceptable.

The delivery program is a whole, and in that we look at housing. It is a work in progress. I will gladly return to that.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party naturally distances itself from all forms of antisemitism. We have no formal cooperation with any of the other opposition parties. In the committees, we sometimes cooperate with government parties, sometimes with opposition parties – just as we have always done and just as the Moderates did when they sat in opposition.

I asked questions and received hardly any answers. But what that member said regarding the taxation of prostitution is very frightening. One changes it if it is possible to do so without the affected women suffering even more.

Then my counter-question, which the member is welcome to answer: Should one solve a problem by not solving another? Since when did it become the responsibility of the vulnerable women to contribute to ensuring that the police apprehend the criminal gangs? It is completely absurd. Solve the problem! Ensure that the prostitutes do not need to pay tax on their income!

Regarding the "lämnaprogram" (leave program), the member is very welcome to return to it in their final contribution. I still want to know exactly what it consists of. When I asked the Minister for Equality, it actually emerged that there probably aren't many extra tasks. Existing measures are already being bundled together and called a "lämnaprogram".

What I can see that the government has done and which should be included in a handover program is that it shall become easier to obtain the right to housing and that an investigation is being conducted on whether it should be possible to get a contact person throughout an entire process, from the moment the person leaves a perpetrator until they are convicted. But then—when it comes to financial support, help with new subscriptions and help moving? What happens in terms of financial support?

The government has bundled together already existing activities but has not allocated any new funds and calls it a transition program. It is not okay.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! In the question regarding the Swedish Tax Agency and tax on prostitution, I did not say that it is the responsibility of the prostitutes. It is obviously not.

Again: It is not a new problem, but it also existed during the Social Democrats' time. It could have been solved even under their leadership if it were a simple thing to do.

We are looking into this, as said. It is absolutely a situation that we all want to address. But to change a regulatory framework and at the same time open it up for even more exploitation by criminal actors is not a solution either. I think it is quite unnecessary to pit the two against each other; that is not what I said.

We will return to that question. It is a work in progress and I can absolutely guarantee that we want to get it right.

The leave program is an ongoing work. Several agencies have been tasked with reviewing how all the parts we have today can be improved. They are trying to package it as a program precisely in order to be able to look at the whole. We have very many different instances today that are supposed to help women, and there is a risk that things fall between the cracks.

What the member is raising may very well be things that need to be addressed in this program. It is, as said, an ongoing work. But I believe that trying to create a whole of it is a fairly good way of working. Then it is also easier to see which parts are missing. We know today that there are several steps that need to be taken. That women should be able to leave a relationship is truly crucial, I believe, for us to be able to improve their safety, freedom, and opportunity to ultimately live a safe and secure life.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's communication on the work to prevent and combat men's violence against women. It is based on the Gender Equality Authority's evaluation report Time to prioritize the violence prevention work.

Men's violence against women is the ultimate consequence of an unequal society and is a serious social problem that encompasses all forms of violence. Every year, around 30,000 cases of assault against women are reported to the police. In just under half of these cases, the victim and the perpetrator have a close relationship with each other. However, the number of unreported cases is large. The Swedish Crime Prevention Council estimates that around 80 percent of violence against women in close relationships is never reported to the police. Every year, around 17 women are murdered by a man with whom they have or have had a romantic relationship.

Parallel to this, we also see a worrying trend in Sweden where the number of women granted sheltered housing is falling dramatically, as is the number of days, while more are seeking help and support. Police reports of violence against women are increasing. The Women's Peace Barometer, which examines the municipalities' work, shows extensive deficiencies in the support for women and children exposed to violence. Seven out of ten municipalities state that the withdrawn state development funds for work against violence in close relationships will have a very or quite large impact on the work. Municipalities and regions are sounding the alarm about savings that have direct consequences for the work of securing welfare. A report from SKR shows that only every fifth woman is offered sheltered housing by social services.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats can unfortunately state that the government does not have the focus that this important issue requires. There are several clear examples of this. One of them is the question of the criminalization of psychological violence. Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer already in the spring of 2023 gave a promise to submit a proposal to the Riksdag, but even today it is conspicuously absent.

In its follow-up, the Gender Equality Authority highlights that the police have had a strong focus on combating organized crime. This is also important from the perspective of the goal that men's violence against women shall cease, as violence against women, sexual offenses, prostitution, and human trafficking occur in these environments. However, the focus on gang crime has directly negatively affected the work against men's violence against women, not least in the police's preventive work. There has been a deterioration in the work to achieve more effective crime fighting.

The police themselves testify that crimes committed against women and children have the lowest status within the Police Authority. We can never accept that. The government has established a council against organized crime but has not taken similar measures to combat men's violence against women. The police's special units are becoming fewer. For example, the successful unit Igor was disbanded with the reference that this should be integrated into the police's line operations, which draws strong criticism from the police themselves.

All this constitutes clear signals to the justice system regarding priorities – violence against women does not have the same priority as, among other things, gang crime. The follow-up shows, for example, that the processing times to obtain decisions on restraining orders are longer than they have been before. The government does not answer this in this letter. Furthermore, new and changed legislation regarding honor-related crimes and human trafficking seems to have yielded very limited results. Sweden also shows few or no convictions regarding human trafficking for sexual purposes.

We believe that it is absolutely necessary to increase penalties in this area, but it is even more important to ensure that today's legislation is applicable. It leads to convictions, which the follow-up we are debating today demonstrates. In its communication, the government does not respond to the proposals from the Gender Equality Authority. In the responses we receive, reference is made to ongoing investigations and to investigations that are already completed and tabled.

Madam Speaker! If it is not obvious from what has already emerged, I can say that the government should not be so satisfied. I want to emphasize that we Social Democrats consider the government's work to be far from sufficient. More should be presented here in the chamber of what the government wants to do. Measures that do not exist today are needed. Concrete and extensive measures need to be taken here and now.

We are alerted by the social services that more and more young women are selling sex to pay for debts, rent, bills, or food. That is not right. We are alerted that Thai massage parlors all over the country have extensive brothel activities where sex buyers evade the law. How can that be worthy of a rule of law state like Sweden? In its annual report for 2023, the police write that they have failed in their work against men's violence against women. Then the government cannot turn a blind eye or look the other way. You hold the government power and are ultimately responsible.

Madam Speaker! Over a year ago, we Social Democrats demanded that the government appoint a crisis commission to combat men's violence against women. At the time of the press conference where we presented our demands, three women had been murdered in a very short period. Now, the police themselves state that more women's lives could have been saved if reports of violence had been filed.

Against the background of this reporting, we want Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer and Minister for Equality Nina Larsson to come to their respective committees to account for what the government intends to do to break this development. The government must stop dodging its responsibility. It is time to take this to heart and make a decision to appoint a crisis commission. It is absolutely necessary, otherwise more women will suffer harm. That is what we said then, and that is what we will continue to say.

Madam Speaker! We stand behind all our motions, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 12.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against all motions addressed in the report.

The work to combat and prevent men's violence against women must never stop. Therefore, this in-depth follow-up is important.

Madam Speaker! Men's violence against women is the ultimate expression of a lack of equality. It is completely unacceptable that women in the world should have to live with the risk of being subjected to violence from a close relative or for any other form of abuse and violence. In the legislation, it must be marked that violence against women is a serious crime.

What I have just read is from the Christian Democrats' principle program. For the Christian Democrats, it has for a long time been an important issue. It is therefore a confirmation for us that more parties share that view and that the current government has taken women's vulnerability seriously and is now taking several measures. These are measures to work preventatively but also to provide help and protection to the women who have been subjected to it.

Madam Speaker! To ensure coordinated, long-term and effective work to prevent and combat men's violence against women, violence in close relationships and honor-related violence and oppression, as well as prostitution and human trafficking, the government has decided on an action program running until 2026. The action program is called Free and Safe without Violence and Oppression and covers over 130 measures.

Madam Speaker! Now, violence against women is not a niche interest. It affects so many in a negative way. Every year, more than 15 women are murdered by a man they have a relationship with. Last year, the figure was 17 women.

Often, the threat has been known for a long time. That close relatives, especially children and young people, are hit hard must not be forgotten. It can be that they have become eyewitnesses to the assault or are one of those who have lost their mother or a close relative.

In the follow-up of the work to prevent and combat men's violence against women, measures taken for children and young people will also be included. In a violent relationship and when someone is subjected to abuse in any form – physical, psychological or economic – close relatives are also affected.

The government therefore prioritizes measures for children and young people who experience violence, including violence in a context of honor. The measures include violence prevention measures in schools and strengthened measures for children and young people in care and social services.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democratic Women's Association has for several years argued that violence against women must be given the same priority as gang crime. I therefore want to agree with my own women's association and say that the work with the exit program must be prioritized higher.

An investigation is ongoing. The government is working on getting the program in place. But it needs to be prioritized, and it needs to mean a fast and simple path from a dangerous situation where one call should suffice. Then, a complete package of support measures should be offered so that more women can get help in time and not be subjected to violence with a fatal outcome.

Madam Speaker! All the work that is now being done is to achieve the sixth sub-objective, that violence against women by men shall cease. There are many decisive decisions and legislative changes that step by step lead to the goal being achievable.

But in the end, it is still about you and I, as fellow human beings, having to be responsive, capable of action, and brave enough to help the woman who is vulnerable. We must never turn a blind eye or take alarming signals lightly.

We need to remove the shame and the taboo in daring to speak out and lower the threshold for daring to ask for help. We have a responsibility to make a difference. We have that here in the Riksdag politically but also always wherever we are as fellow human beings.

The thought that it could have been my mother, one of my sisters, or even my own daughter who ended up in the wrong man's grip and was subjected to violence makes me never stop working so that men's violence against women shall come to an end.

(Applause)

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation number 7.

Men's violence against women is one of the most brutal expressions of insecurity in our society. It is a violence that occurs in what should be a human's safest place, their own home.

It is women who live in constant fear behind closed doors. It is children who learn to be silent when dad hits mom. It is lives that are torn apart in what should be the core of safety.

I know exactly how it feels to live in that. I have myself lived in a long relationship with a very aggressive man. No one noticed anything, not during all those years. Everyone thought well of him. He was charming, he did his job, and he maintained the facade. It is usually like that.

But behind that was a completely different face. Those who commit violence can be incredibly manipulative. They know exactly how to behave outwardly. They are pleasant to neighbors, helpful at work, and polite to strangers. At the same time, they are ruthless when no one is watching.

At the beginning, I was hit in the face. I got a split eyebrow. I got a large bruise over my cheek. I remember blaming it on the dentist having hit a nerve with the anesthesia, so that no one would understand what it actually was.

But then he started avoiding the face. Instead, he began to target the body. On one occasion, he hit me with an iron pipe over the thigh so that I got a bruise that lasted for several weeks. The beatings started little by little, but they increased more and more.

I was also isolated. Except for when I was at the store or traveling to work, he kept me away from everything and everyone. As soon as I had been somewhere, I had to account for whom I had met, whom I had spoken with, and how long I had been away.

I unfortunately even lost contact with my mother and my father, my family, relatives, and everyone because of him. He made sure that I became alone, that I became completely dependent on him. That is how perpetrators create power. They strip away everything around you until you no longer have anyone else but them – slowly, slowly.

As a woman, one doubts. One feels ashamed, one adapts, and one tries to hold everything together in everyday life, for the children and so that it looks normal. It becomes a part of life.

One learns to walk on eggshells, to sense the atmosphere, to parry mind games and tone of voice. One thinks several steps ahead at all times to avoid the next explosion.

One falls silent because one believes it is one's own fault. One believes that it is oneself who is too sensitive, too dramatic and too bad.

I know how it feels to have a lump in your stomach every time the front door opens and how it feels when you don't even dare to call anyone because you know that the conversation can lead to suspicion and to punishment.

The day I managed to break free, it felt like I didn't have any air anymore. That was what made me take the step. I had thought about leaving him for several years, but I hadn't succeeded. I had tried, but it didn't work.

The day I finally took the step, it came very suddenly. I just said: Now it's over. Just before that, I had texted someone in the village where I lived and asked if there was an apartment available, and there was. I wrote to him: I'll take it. I hadn't seen it, but I took it.

Then it took two weeks before I dared to enter the apartment, because he circled around it. I hid at a friend's place. At some point, I was actually lying on the floor when he walked by and looked in through her window. For the first period, I lived in fear.

I was looking over my shoulder the whole time. On one occasion, I went out with my friends, but I couldn't relax. I was constantly afraid that he would show up, and I asked my friends to check if they saw his car anywhere at any point. That fear persisted for many, many years. And I am still absolutely not completely free emotionally; this will persist for a long time to come.

Madam Speaker! I remember how it felt when it started to let go more and more. I remember when, for the first time in several years, I could go and shop without having to account for it and explain why. I remember when I could finally put on makeup, because I wasn't allowed to before. I remember when I could finally have my hair the way I wanted and decide over my own clothes. He had controlled everything. These are small things for others. But for me, it was freedom – a freedom that I had fought for for a long time.

Talking about this is one of the hardest things one can do. It violates everything one has learned to hide. Seeking help is not something one does from one day to the next… and it is difficult for me to talk about this now. It requires enormous courage. It requires a context where one sees, listens, and understands. It requires someone who sees through the facade – someone who dares to ask and who dares to listen without judging.

Therefore, society's support must be there, not just with paragraphs but with presence, with competence and with the right timing. The Government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has during the past year developed one of the most ambitious action programs ever to combat men's violence against women. The purpose is to increase safety in the home, in society and in the courtroom.

One of the most important parts of the program is the reforms that strengthen the protection for the victim of violence. Safety should not be determined by who shouts the loudest. It is the one who strikes who should be removed, quite simply. The restraining orders have been tightened. Protected housing has been strengthened with a permit requirement and a clearer child rights perspective. Sverigedemokraterna have supported all of this and, in several cases, been the initiators of it.

Socialstyrelsen has been tasked with developing new guidelines for how honor-related issues should be detected earlier, not least in schools and in social services. In the work against honor crimes, the penalties have been increased. 50 million kronor per year have been allocated for a period of three years, in addition to the more than 350 million kronor that are already permanently available for the work. And we know that more will come.

But we in the Sweden Democrats are not entirely satisfied. We want to see punishments that actually deter, even for those who exercise control at a distance or in a group. We want post-violence, economic extortion, and psychological oppression to be met with the same seriousness as physical violence.

The work is also strengthened through expanded operational cooperation between the police, prosecutors, correctional services, social services, and health and medical care. It is crucial that these actors cooperate effectively to protect the vulnerable, prosecute perpetrators, and prevent repeated violence.

It is therefore crucial that these crimes are met with the right proportions in the sentencing scales. The person who assaults their partner shall not get away with community service or a suspended sentence. The person who commits a sexual offense shall serve their sentence.

We have already seen several legislative changes during this parliamentary term. Statutes of limitations for certain sexual offenses have been extended. The possibilities for increased sentencing have been expanded. Investigations are underway to further strengthen the consequences for those who commit violence against a close relative.

Madam Speaker! We must not forget the violence that is not visible in bruises. Economic violence is an often overlooked but very serious form of control, where the perpetrator limits the woman's opportunities to live an independent life by denying her access to money, preventing her from working or taking out loans in her name.

This is a violence that in many cases continues even after the separation, which I too have experienced. It is the so-called post-violence, where the perpetrator exploits custody processes, economic pressure, and threats of social consequences to maintain control.

Just as important as the justice system is the treatment. What happens when a woman finally dares to report but is met with lack of understanding or insufficient competence from those who are supposed to help her? That is why the government, during the past year, has allocated funds for educational initiatives within both the police and social services. The purpose is to build up knowledge within the police and social services so that women exposed to violence receive the correct support from the very first contact.

Under the previous government's rule, we were flooded with value documents, but there was insufficient basic protection for women in reality. People talked about structures but ignored the cries for help from women's shelters. They called it equality but sacrificed safety to avoid risking criticism from identity politics groups. Project money flowed out into meaningless training and bureaucratic networks. It is not just a failure; it is irresponsible. And it is exactly that kind of politics that the Swedish people have grown tired of.

Madam Speaker! Let me be clear. Many of the reforms that are now being implemented would never have become a reality without the Sverigedemokraternas political pressure. It is we who have pushed to shift the focus from symbolic issues to protection, from gender plans to emergency housing and from value words to reality.

Madam Speaker! As someone who has personally survived a life of violence, I know how crucial the right politics are. I am deeply grateful that we finally have a government that, together with the Sweden Democrats, not only listens but actually makes a real difference for real.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I have now had the privilege of sitting in Sweden's highest decision-making assembly for just over two and a half years. There are few subjects I have debated during this time where we are as in agreement as we are regarding the Gender Equality Authority's sub-objective 6 – Men's violence against women shall cease.

I want to assert that every member of parliament in this chamber is as dedicated as I and my party when it comes to the fact that this must come to an end. In one of the world's most equal countries, women and girls are still afraid.

Women are unsafe when they are going to take that run in October. The economic anxiety primarily affects women in property division processes that drag on. Women feel fear when they are forced to leave their children for weekend stays with their former perpetrators. It is about the insecurity one feels when getting off the bus with a set of keys in hand as a lifeline if one is attacked. And perhaps the worst of all: There is a group of women who are terrified and fear for their lives in their own homes.

Madam Speaker! Your home is your castle, they say. Let that sink in! That castle can become a prison where one constantly has to keep track of one's jailer in order to protect oneself and one's children. Every little misstep or actually step – for it is the jailer who has decided what is right or wrong – can result in a derogatory comment, a threat, or even a blow.

Every time a woman is abused in her home, it is not only her body that is violated, but also her freedom, her dignity, and her fundamental rights as a human being.

Therefore, it is excellent that the government has decided on a new support system for those who wish to leave a violent relationship. Protected housing is now counted as a housing intervention in the Social Services Act. The County Administrative Board has been tasked with helping municipalities with the children's rights perspective. Property owners shall be able to evict a tenant who commits violence against a close relative. Several authorities have, through the Gender Equality Authority, received training regarding economic violence, and mandates have been given to improve the work with protected personal data.

Focus has generally shifted from the perpetrator to the crime victim, and as part of this, we have an investigation into legislation that could provide contact or access bans, if one wishes, to an entire municipality. All the measures listed are a selection of changes, and all are very welcome.

Madam Speaker! For me as a liberal, the individual, not the collective or the family, is society's smallest and most important unit. Therefore, the individual always takes precedence over the family's wishes, the kin's demands, or the congregation's norms – always.

Collective control where the family's and the kin's rights are seen as more important than the individual is characteristic of honor-related violence and oppression. In Sweden, we should have come further than that. As a liberal, I can never accept the family's right over the individual.

The government and also some of the opposition parties have now landed on the fact that we shall have a seventh sub-objective that addresses honor-related violence and oppression. This is welcome. Honor-related violence and oppression is also a result of a patriarchal oppression, but the expression is something else. When you are subjected to honor-related violence and oppression, you have an entire family against you. Often there is no relative you can call, no spiritual leader where you can get support, and also no one in your residential area who you can get help from. These are structures that go far back in history.

Honor-related violence and oppression creates so many victims – the girl who is guarded by her brother, the brother who is expected to spy on his sister, the relative who is not allowed to love whomever they want or even make the most obvious individual decisions.

Just as it is important to strengthen the work against men's violence against women, it is important to make honor-related violence visible with a new seventh sub-objective. Thank you, Juno Blom, Nyamko Sabuni, Robert Hannah and many, many others who have stood here in the speaker's chair and spoken for the least free in our society! At that time, the Liberals were alone in their fight to make the honor-affected visible. Patience and perseverance are the recipe for political success, and now it is yielding results!

The most important thing to achieve our gender equality goals is still the preventive work: the blow that is never delivered, the psychological terror that does not occur, or the persecution that is avoided. Already in preschool, we must be attentive to gender-stereotypical patterns. In school, there must be discussions regarding machismo culture and gender roles. Children's and youth's rights must be highlighted and communicated. Therefore, the Swedish National Agency for Education's mandate is important, as they have now received clear directives that the school should not only pay attention to honor-related violence but also have a systematic quality work regarding this already in preschool.

Equally important is the investigation that has now been commissioned to shed light on the role of preschool and school in addressing the oppression. It also concerns changes in migration policy with education on Swedish law, better SFI, municipal interventions, and parenting courses.

Mr. Speaker! When the first blow is struck, the justice system must take over and impose harsh penalties on the perpetrator. I am proud that Sweden has come this far in the work of equality. It has been a hard-fought battle driven by previous generations of women's rights activists and feminists. Today, the responsibility rests on us. Women and girls still live with fear of violence in all social classes, in all ethnic groups, and at all ages.

All women shall be allowed to live their best lives, and when we no longer need to stand here in the chamber and once again discuss men's violence against women, regardless of place of upbringing or social structure – only then can we fall silent.

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

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech, which I appreciated – we probably sign off on everything!

I would particularly like to highlight what the member began their speech with, namely that there is a political consensus on these issues and a great commitment when it comes to men's violence against women. I especially appreciate it in light of how the debate started – it was a bit in flux regarding whether there actually is a political consensus behind the gender equality goals. It is therefore pleasant to hear a government party declare that is the case.

Against the background of the communication we are debating here today, based on the in-depth follow-up that the Gender Equality Authority has conducted, I would like to return a bit more to the protected housing. In my speech, I described a problematic development that both Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner and several women's organizations, including Unizon, are raising their voices about and trying to demonstrate, namely that housing is being closed down. Not least in Norrbotten County, a lot of housing and activities are being closed down right now.

I wonder what the government wants to do about it. Is there anything on the table to stop this negative development?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Sofia Amloh, and thank you also for the praise!

We agree on the goal. Sometimes we have slightly different views on how we should get there, but this is an issue that we must work on together.

I think it is perfectly reasonable with the oversight duty the government has introduced to increase quality. This has led to a lack of specific housing in some places, which is a concern. We have also seen that fewer people are being placed; this applies to both children and women. But if I have the correct information, there are the right number of places in total. There are therefore unoccupied places, or how one should put it.

I share the concern that special housing is not available in all municipalities or in the vicinity of all municipalities. It is also the case that it is the social services departments that make decisions on who should be allocated a special housing unit. In those instances, positions are sometimes taken and decisions are made that may not align with what we would wish for here in the chamber. Other types of security are chosen for this group.

I can tell Sofia Amloh that I see it as a problem. I have also seen the organizations' cries regarding this. I also know that the government is looking into it to see how it can be supported so that we get a better balance across the whole country when it comes to protected housing.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! This is a major problem considering how many women's shelters are now actually being cut and disappearing, while at the same time we see that the municipalities are not placing women and children who are in need of it. This is a literally life-threatening combination.

I agree with the licensing requirement and that it is something that needs to be done, but one must also provide funds so that the quality of the operations can be maintained. The problem is that it has not been done. The municipalities have very large costs for these placements, and this falls into the assessment of whether someone should be placed or not.

I want to highlight this, because it needs to be taken into consideration.

The government has responded that they want to look into this and that they might do something about it. But they are pushing it back to 2026. By then, I believe we will have let it go far too long. We believe that things need to be done earlier – at least look into this, evaluate, gather knowledge, and look at the development in order to be able to act. I recommend that the member consider voting on our motion on follow-up later this afternoon, so that a change can be achieved sooner.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Amloh, for the urge to vote for the opposition's proposal! But that is not how it works when one sits in a governing party; instead, we work internally on these issues. I can assure the Member that both the former Minister for Equality and the new Minister for Equality, Nina Larsson, have this under scrutiny and are looking at how we can work further. It does not stop with a Minister for Equality, either; this is a collaboration between municipalities and regions. It is structural changes and attitude changes that are required. I have full confidence that our representatives view this as seriously as the opposition does, and therefore I will cast my vote today for the government's proposal.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I was just a small child when I witnessed men's violence against women so brutal that the memory never leaves me. A mother of several children in the area where we lived was beaten to death by her husband. I did not know the family, but I knew who they were, who the children were. It was said that it was one of the children who had alerted the police. Another child sat and patted the mother's body when the police finally arrived at the scene.

The despair I felt then lives on in me even today. How can something like that even happen? Who can do something so horrific? I did not know then that violence in all its forms would accompany me throughout my entire life. It was, for example, the man who sat and waited on our way to school almost every day for several weeks, comments about our bodies during our upbringing, and the discomfort of the teacher who wanted to enter the changing room after sports.

I did not know then how we would be exposed on our tentative path into the adult world, what protective mechanisms we would need to develop, and what guilt we would need to carry. It was a matter of not walking through the dark park, not wearing the short skirt, not getting too drunk, and not blaming oneself. I did not know then how many times I would hear about loved ones' hideous experiences with a man who had taken liberties and gone too far. And fortunately, I knew nothing about Mia then. Her, my friend, who was murdered by a man she had had a close relationship with. Her, with a son, whose little body I walked behind on the way to her final resting place.

I must admit that I actually sincerely wished that I had just been unlucky to have my life path bordered by all this violence. But unfortunately, that is not the case. Men's violence against women occurs among us all the time. We can look at the statistics. 75,000 women are subjected to men's violence annually. Every third week, a woman is killed by a man. In 2021, 38,300 reports of assault crimes and 8,600 cases of rape against women or girls were reported. That is more than one rape per hour, around the clock, all year round. Every fourth girl in ninth grade who has or has had a relationship has been subjected to violence by a boy.

We must also not forget that the dark figure is extensive. Brå estimates that around 80 percent of all violence against women and girls is never reported to the police.

All women and girls are affected by men's and boys' violence against women and girls, either directly or indirectly. It is precisely the fact that the violence is structural that makes it so that no one really acts.

Mr. Speaker! Perhaps the report that the police published just a few days ago is one of the most important things to have happened for women in a very long time. The police's operation Beta has reviewed 17 cases of femicide that occurred in 2023 and 2024 to see if, and if so, how the police can become better at preventing women from being killed.

The police's own criticism is not a pleasant read. Several of the women who were murdered could have been alive today if the flaws identified had not existed. Let me quote the national chief for Operation Beta, Jale Poljarevius: ”During my now 36 years as a police officer, I have never seen anything like how culture affects a specific issue as when it comes to men's violence against women.” The culture he refers to is that women are not taken seriously. We are rendered invisible until death.

Quite honestly, this is inexcusable and a real disaster. But it has also given us something we perhaps have never had before. We have now, in the most brutal way, finally had it in black and white. It is a public acknowledgment that structures and the subordination of women permeate our system and cost lives, even from the police.

Mr. Speaker! The police's testimony sheds light on what we believe is a problem for society as a whole. This is particularly evident from the document being handled here today. In all the objectives stated in the follow-up, we can see exactly the same pattern for exactly the same reasons. Violence against women and other forms of violence in close relationships are neither made visible nor countered in proportion to the impact of the violence on the person affected and society at large.

We do not detect the violence in time. We do not have a clear plan once the violence has been detected. Crime fighting is, as we know, not satisfactory. The level of knowledge must be raised and the coordination developed.

We see major deficiencies in the core activities of social services and healthcare. There are enormous deficiencies within the justice system. Not even the deficiencies reported in the death investigations receive proper attention. It sounds almost bizarre, but unfortunately, it is no less true.

Men's violence against women and violence in close relationships is structural and permeates our entire system. Therefore, the violence is not taken as seriously as is actually required to stop it.

Mr. Speaker! To prevent and stop men's violence against women and violence in close relationships, a new perspective and a holistic approach are required. It is required that women's and girls' equal right to freedom is placed at the top of the agenda and funded accordingly. It is required that the work proceeds from the premise that the oppression is about gender differences, and we must listen to the expertise. But above all, action is required.

An acute area that requires us to act here and now is women's and children's right to protection. Socialstyrelsen's latest report shows very alarming figures indicating that fewer and fewer women and children are coming to protected housing, and this without any tendencies toward the violence decreasing. In the worst case, it means that the lives of several women and children are hanging in real danger without them receiving protection.

Kvinnojourerna have, over 40 years, gathered experience and knowledge based specifically on the horrific violence women and children are subjected to and its mechanisms. Their activities play a decisive role in society, not only because they can offer acute protection and thanks to their long-term work with women, children, and girls subjected to violence, but also to counteract violence structurally. All of this is connected. What they do not know about how women's and children's lives can be saved is almost not worth knowing.

The work of Kvinnojourerna is based on knowledge, empathy, low thresholds, and a methodical approach to giving vulnerable people power over their own bodies and their own lives again. They can be in a safe place, begin to breathe and heal. It is allowed to take time.

The volunteer women's shelters are an invaluable resource for truly protecting women and children. The problem is that their activities are now threatened.

With the new law from 2024, there was an ambition to raise the quality requirements for protected housing. Unfortunately, it has gone a bit wrong. Besides being expensive, complicated, and bureaucratic, it is serious that the requirements set to obtain a permit do not keep pace with the actual needs of those exposed to violence. For those who might not quite know, it is easy to believe that the outer protection should provide safety and that the shell protection is central. But that is often not the right way to go. One misses what the women's movement knows, namely what is required in terms of time and strength to be able to leave, become whole, and become free. That is what is required to save lives.

Before the law came, we warned of what we are now seeing. Several clinics across the country are forced to close, and completely different ones are beginning to take their place – such as those who know how to make money from women's vulnerability and make a profit at women's expense. We have completely created a market of men's violence against women.

From the Left Party's side, we see that this could be one of the biggest setbacks that can occur in the efforts to save women's lives and stop the violence. Therefore, the government must act. We are in complete agreement with the united opposition that the reform for protected housing must be followed up, but we choose to highlight our joint reservation with S and MP regarding the operational form of protected housing. Women's and children's lives are not a business operation. I therefore move for approval of reservation 13.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker, listeners and members! Today we are experiencing a backlash against equality that we have not seen in modern times. We are not getting a stop to men's violence against women. The view on equality among young people is alarming. The pay gaps persist or increase.

It is difficult to truly take in the knowledge that Donald Trump and his followers, who at a furious pace are now doing everything to eliminate the rights of women and minorities. It is about those in power who spread hate at every media opportunity and strip away the security of millions and millions more people.

This is spreading. We in Sweden are not immune. We remember and are horrified by the sexism that was uncovered last winter within the local politics in Alingsås. This happened in silence at first, but then also in public.

Why do I begin with such reflections? Well, this is about the mechanisms behind men's violence against women. The jokes on the schoolyard, the jargon in the locker room, and the sexism in the chats shift the boundaries of what is accepted. It creates a breeding ground for the violence that affects thousands of women in Sweden every year.

I unfortunately believe that we need to be alarmist, but people also need to understand why we are alarmist. Regardless of what laws we enact in this assembly, it does not matter if people do not understand what problem we want to address with the law. Otherwise, people will not report, and it will not have an impact in the court rulings, which leads to the fact that we cannot see crime victims or identify perpetrators.

Mr. Speaker! Who then are the perpetrators? I usually ask the following question in different contexts: Hands up – how many of you know a woman who has been a victim of a sexual offense? And: How many of you know a perpetrator of a sexual offense? The number of hands raised is different for the different questions.

Unless all women are lying, we must learn to find and dare to see who the perpetrators are. For this, a shift in perspective is required. I intend to focus my speech on exemplifying what I mean.

The government often talks about shifting the policy and focusing on the crime victim instead of on the perpetrator. That is how it goes, considering the results we see. This is harder than that. It is in the walls and in the spine. We must start doing something about this and work with more than just tightening the penalties. Because, honestly, they reach a very small part of the perpetrators. We know that 80 percent of the perpetrators go free. Therefore, we must work with more than tightened penalties. Otherwise, the intensified follow-up that we are discussing today will look the same the next time the question comes to the chamber.

Mr. Speaker! I have worked in traditionally male environments for almost my entire life – first within the forestry industry and then within politics. It was probably not until I became active within Centerkvinnorna that I truly learned to see, and saw, the glass ceiling.

One of my first decision points in the municipal executive board concerned grants to a women's shelter in a neighboring municipality. The decision was no, because "we didn't have any woman living there at that exact moment," which was a remarkable decision and reason in itself. What would have happened if we had had one the following week?

What was gnawing, however, was that there was even an item on the agenda. We never had any item concerning contributions for placement in a nursing home for a person with substance abuse or addiction. Such a decision was made by the delegation, and the whole thing went automatically.

There are some sayings that are very dangerous. One is "No real men hit a woman." It is completely crazy to say that. Who is it that hits if it is not real men? It is not monsters or fake men who hit, but it is precisely men, real men. And we must stop nagging about strong women. If we say "It is good – you must be strong. You must step forward," we are simultaneously saying that the norm for a woman is to be weak.

You all remember Metoo, don't you? Some straight guys said: "It's so hard to know where the line is now. Are you not even allowed to give a hug?" But the strange thing was that if those same straight guys went to a gay club, they knew exactly where the line was. Strange!

Unfortunately, we still often teach our girls not to let themselves be pushed down. Stand up, we say. What we should do is teach our boys not to push down. The most dangerous thing for a man is to associate with a man. The most dangerous thing for a woman is to associate with a man. Who is it that must change their behavior?

Mr. Speaker! When a woman becomes trapped in a violent relationship, there must be an exit program. For me, such a program is a coherent program. When the woman has finally decided to leave her partner, perhaps for the first, second, or tenth time, she should receive the help she needs: a specific contact person throughout the entire process and contact with social services and healthcare, as well as help with housing, a new school, moving, leisure activities and a job, and financial support. Precisely such a program – an exit program – exists for men who want to leave criminal environments.

Let me quote from a report from the Equality Agency: "A person who wants to quit the criminal life is offered an 18-month long treatment program ... commissioned and funded by social services. This is followed by two years of aftercare and follow-up, which is free of charge for the municipality. During the first year, there is support around the clock and it includes interventions regarding housing, therapy, drug addiction, employment, debt restructuring and leisure activities. This is followed by a six-month long exit program so that the client becomes more self-reliant."

What does a woman who leaves a violent relationship get? She gets almost nothing of what I just read out. It might be a question of a restraining order and, in the worst case, protected identity. How can it be like this?

Centerpartiet has motioned for a decommissioning program, including a decommissioning fee, in the budget over several years. The government speaks, as it says, about certain measures that are already being taken and packages them together, but they have not added extra funds and, above all, no funds directly to the person who is vulnerable.

Speaking of protected identity, there are today 28,000 people living with some form of confidentiality marking or protected population registration. And speaking of valuation issues: During the pandemic, we decided here in the chamber on restrictions. One could not do what one wanted when one wanted it. One could not go to the cinema or football matches all the time. Never has the need to go specifically to the cinema and football matches been as great as it was then. What criticism we received! It was discussed whether what we did here was legal.

When the restrictions were finally lifted, everyone said: "Oh, how nice! Now we can live a free and liberated life again." But we forgot that 28,000 people will never get to do that. In some way, we accept it.

The Swedish Tax Agency has, over the years, been tasked with ensuring that those with protected identities can live a life as normal as possible. Should one not be able to live a normal life? That is how the mandates to the authorities should be.

As late as last winter, it was discovered that authorities in an almost structured manner revealed the identities of protected persons by allowing individual citizens to call and request to have documents released. These were issued without any problems, but oops – there was a confidentiality marking! In this way, people's identities were revealed.

What did the heads of the authorities say, and what did the Minister for Justice say? Well, one cannot influence the human factor, and the objective is, of course, that as few as possible should be exposed. "As few as possible" – is there a number? How many are okay? It is that no one should be exposed. That is the objective.

This perspective is taking hold. In some ways, it is okay; one cannot do everything. Today, we can send people to the moon who broadcast videos, but we cannot achieve an IT system or secure a system with dual controls before documents are sent out. How can that be?

We must start early, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that Ungarelationer.se now finally seems to be getting steady funding. I have spoken about Ungarelationer.se and its funding here in the chamber for many years. I am not confident yet, but I hope it works out. Ungarelationer.se is almost the only site, the only organization, with, of and for youth.

When I found out that the most common question there read "Do you have to agree to strangulation?", it actually hurt a little that this seems to have become a norm. For me, it is obvious: Easily accessible, violent pornography leads to a completely distorted view of sexuality, consent, and body image. There is research on that. What we need to do is to prevent this and to have very good education in school about sexuality, consent, and relationships.

In conclusion: When it comes to easily accessible pornography, it is not as it was before, that one watched pornography on TV or bought a magazine, but today one uses the mobile phone. There are figures that show that children and young people use the mobile phone for 2.2 months under a year. Today, the average age to get a smartphone is nine years. It should not even be called a phone, because one does everything other than call with it. If one wants to have a phone, one can buy a phone.

Today we are still telling our children that it is dangerous to walk across Sergels torg in the middle of the night – you are not allowed to do that. But something that is significantly more dangerous, which the police also testify to, is the mobile phone. That is where the perpetrators are, and there they find their crime victims. But when it comes to the mobile phone, we leave the children with all the responsibility. Why are children not allowed to buy Nocco while they are allowed to have a mobile phone with a subscription, where with two clicks they are available to the world's perpetrators? For cigarettes and cleaning products, there are directives on how they may be used, but when we buy a mobile phone and start a subscription, we receive no directives at all. Why is that?

A tip for the government: Work on this! The operators want to develop this, and they have a great responsibility. But we, society and the state, also have a responsibility to work hand in hand with them.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation 4.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Every third week, a woman is murdered by a man she has or has had a relationship with. Every time a woman dies, it is a personal tragedy – that it happens, but also the time before it happened. Over the years, we have received so many testimonies about women who have suffered in relationships, which the surroundings have seen but society has turned a blind eye to.

But it is not just about personal tragedies. It is also a structural societal problem. A society where women cannot move freely or feel safe in their own homes, or do not dare to leave their partner, is a society where democracy and the rule of law are faltering.

Miljöpartiet sees that men's violence against women is one of Sweden's most serious social problems, which must of course be combated – and with all possible force. In the communication that we are debating today, the government accounts for the work being done linked to men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression. It is actually clear that the government takes this issue seriously.

In many parts, they have continued the work that Miljöpartiet, through our equality ministers Åsa Lindhagen and Märta Stenevi, began during our time in government. We then launched a 40-point program against men's violence against women, with a long series of measures to combat the violence. It concerned preventive measures, support and protection for those exposed to violence, stricter penalties, and increased investments in competence and research. As a result, it has become easier to issue restraining orders and sentence people to ankle bracelets. The penalty for aggravated crimes against women's peace has been tightened, and investments have been made in the police and in more specialized investigators.

But is enough being done? No, obviously not because women continue to be severely assaulted and murdered. Still, we see no end to it. In addition to action programs, a budget was needed but also more concrete investments that make a difference in reality.

An important part that we also hear a lot about is that we need to develop new ways of working to address the violence. More evidence-based methods are needed to counter men's violence against women. But it is also important that the methods that exist and that are seen to work are developed and evaluated.

That is why we in Miljöpartiet have a proposal for a cooperation organization that can bring together different actors in the work of developing effective methods and ways of working against men's violence against women. We also want the Gender Equality Authority to be tasked with developing an organization to improve research and methods to counter violence against women.

We must also step up the work of strengthening the culture of consent. Sexual violence exists in all of society, and it is clear that the normative work must be broadened. Today, this work is mostly focused on children and young people. It also needs to be strengthened, but we also need to broaden it to more adults. We want the government to give a clear mandate to the Gender Equality Authority to work on including adults in the change work to create a culture of consent in all of society.

We also want to see a zero vision. A zero vision for men's violence against women would constitute a clear signal that society needs to mobilize significantly more and be an important steering tool for the continued work. Now the committee wants a more inclusive formulation, but we believe that the view of the overarching problem is then obscured. We want instead that it should be clearer that the zero vision shall apply specifically to men's violence against women.

Mr. Speaker! We all seem to be in agreement here that the entire society must join forces against the issue of honor. But even there, the work is proceeding far too slowly. As it stands now, the knowledge in the area is too low. The support is not sufficiently structured, and what has been decided is not being implemented. Camilla Mårtensen from the Liberals spoke clearly about this just a moment ago – how vulnerable a person in an honor context actually is. It is unacceptable. I am glad that we all agree on this.

The government has now decided to move the National Centre against honor-related violence and oppression to the Gender Equality Authority. We are concerned that this could have consequences. There is a great risk that the work will be delayed and that this will ultimately affect individual vulnerable people. We therefore want the government to follow this development very closely. The reorganization must not risk the operations. The resources required must be secured so that the move does not affect the operations. We must do more for those who are vulnerable to honor-related violence and oppression, and that work must absolutely not slow down.

Protected housing has also undergone a major reform, and now a clear follow-up is needed. We can state that it is lacking because, at the current time, it is extremely difficult to obtain statistics on how the outcome has actually looked since the law came into force. Which operations have been able to continue, and which have had to close? How has it affected privately run residences and residences operated under the auspices of the municipality?

We know that the government has given a mandate to Statskontoret to follow up and analyze the effects of the reform, but the final report is not due until 2027. We think that is far too late. The government must prioritize the work and report the results significantly faster than that.

When it comes to protected housing, it is absolutely crucial that we stop unserious actors. This applies both here and in the rest of the welfare sector. Furthermore, we in Miljöpartiet consider it completely unacceptable for companies to make a profit on vulnerable women. Therefore, we believe that private actors should not be allowed to run protected housing, but those residences should only be allowed to be run by municipalities and non-profit organizations.

I also want to say something about the Swedish Police Authority. When we wrote our follow-up motion, we could state that it is clear that the Swedish Police Authority has been forced to de-prioritize violence against women, especially when it concerns vulnerability to prostitution and human trafficking for sexual purposes. The Swedish Police Authority itself assessed that this was due to a redistribution of resources and a restructuring of the operations.

In light of the report we received from the police last week, we see that it is completely different things that are needed. What we heard – how they deprioritize, how they have not taken violence seriously and how they actually might have been able to prevent some women's deaths – is something that I hope the government will really take seriously and follow up on. This is something I would have liked to see the Minister for Justice out and raging about. It might come, because this is an entirely unacceptable behavior of a police authority. The police said so themselves as well. It is probably also illegal. So we cannot have that.

We must ensure that the Police Authority instead prioritizes violence by men against women in the same way that violence by men against men is prioritized. Now we see even more clearly – and we hope that the government also does – that the resources and, above all, the clarity regarding the police and the police's mandate must change.

The entire result we see in this area shows that we must do more and not less. Therefore, Miljöpartiet wants to significantly strengthen the preventive work. It is not enough to act when the violence has already occurred. We want a mandatory training on violence in close relationships for all staff within the justice system, social services, and the school. It is about knowledge but also about a change in attitude.

We also want all municipalities to guarantee access to women's shelters and protected housing without profit motives. Support for vulnerable women must never become a market. It is the opposite of what we see today. The alarms are sounding that women who need help are not getting it.

We also know that many women do not leave a violent relationship because they simply cannot afford to. We therefore also want to see financial support for women exposed to violence, including rapid access to housing. Economic independence is a prerequisite for freedom.

We also need early interventions in schools, in leisure activities, and within culture to change destructive masculinity norms. It is about giving boys alternatives to violence and control and building a future where young men are shaped into equal people and not into perpetrators. But we must also invest more real money in schools, in social services, for the women's shelters for support and protected housing, and in the police. The action lists that we see here are good and necessary, but they must also be followed up with resources. There, the government has a great deal of work left to do.

We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but I would particularly like to urge approval of reservation 6.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Previously, I was a member of the Committee on the Constitution, whose work largely revolves around Sweden's constitutional laws and civil liberties and rights. After six years in KU, where I for a period had Mr. Speaker as the committee chairman, I was placed in the Committee on Civil Affairs after the 2022 election to, among other things, continue working on certain constitutionally related issues such as children's and women's right not to be subjected to violence, something that the civil law legislation generally shows extensive deficiencies regarding. That is also why I am here today and participating in this debate on the government's communication Deepened follow-up of the work to prevent and combat men's violence against women.

I naturally stand behind Sofia Amloh's speech and her demands. Since the communication spans many areas, including civil law, I also participate on behalf of our party specifically with a starting point in the civil law legislation's impact on what we are discussing today, namely the work to prevent and combat men's violence against women.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats work systematically and methodically against men's violence against women and children within all relevant policy areas, including civil law. We did so in government when we took the initiative for legislative changes, and we have continued this work in the Riksdag during this parliamentary term.

We really appreciate the consensus that has existed in the Committee on Civil Affairs between the parties in the Riksdag regarding many of these issues. A clear example is the legislative change we made last year, Safer Homes for Children. Our government started the work, and this government finished it. We have also appreciated the good contact with the Minister for Justice.

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is our joint announcement regarding time limits in property divisions to stop these processes from being used as economic violence. We Social Democrats set the ball rolling in the Committee on Civil Affairs, and it resulted in all parties standing behind this. Among other things, our Social Democratic motion, which concerned exactly the time limit in property divisions, was approved.

This afternoon I will go to the Ministry of Justice again for another issue that we have pushed for in the government, together with several children's and women's organizations and also other parts of the opposition, namely that children should have the right to their own counsel in court proceedings concerning them.

Mr. Speaker! We therefore perceive that there is a very large consensus regarding these issues, at least in the Committee on Civil Affairs. There, we work together against violence. That makes the civil law amendments stronger and more stable. That is good. But it is also quite clear that it is required that we, from the Riksdag's side – we Social Democrats together with other parts of the opposition – and from civil society's side, push the government and the Ministry of Justice so that something happens in these issues in civil law.

This has also become clear when it comes to the possibility for women who are victims of violence to keep their housing. This, Mr. Speaker, is the concrete example I want to discuss a bit more here today, in connection with what is stated in the communication.

The most dangerous place for a woman in Sweden today is the home. There, women are tortured, raped and murdered year-round. When a woman manages to separate from a violent man, society must be there, as must the law. The law must be on the side of the woman subjected to violence – not on the side of the perpetrator and the perpetrator of violence.

An important piece of the puzzle for someone to be able to leave a violent relationship is to secure an arranged housing situation, and it is often very difficult for a woman subjected to violence. When we Social Democrats were in government, we therefore took on this issue along with a long series of other issues concerning men's violence against women. Specifically regarding the housing issue, we started, as a first step, by amending the Rent Act, so that women subjected to violence can retain the rental contract and that the perpetrator must move out.

We appointed an inquiry that produced a concrete legislative proposal. Our goal was clear: it is obvious that it is the woman who should be able to stay in the shared home and the perpetrator who should move out. It was the former Minister for Justice, the Social Democrat Morgan Johansson, who gave the head of the legal department and subsequently the chief counselor Magnus Hermansson the assignment to investigate strengthened rental law protection for women subjected to violence.

This assignment was subsequently reported to Gunnar Strömmer when he took office as Minister for Justice. We Social Democrats have here in the Riksdag, in both motions and written questions, drawn the government's attention to this investigation and pressed for it to be enacted into law.

It is good that this happened last year, when the Riksdag made a decision on this legislative change. It is a sign of strength for Sweden and for our work against men's violence against women that prepared legislative changes can be implemented even when a change of government has occurred. This was a victory for justice and common sense – and against violence.

Mr. Speaker, the legislative change applies only to women living in rented housing, as this legislation concerns the rental housing regulations. This was an important first step. It was possible to get it through in the Riksdag, and we are pleased about that.

The Social Democrats and the Moderates have, by virtue of this law, achieved a broad parliamentary consensus on the principle that the woman subjected to violence shall be able to stay and that it is the man committing the violence who shall move.

Now that we are in agreement, the next step must be taken, Mr. Speaker. This principle shall, of course, apply to all women subjected to violence and all men committing violence, regardless of housing form.

The next step is therefore reasonably to have the government appoint an inquiry that reviews the condominium act and the regulations concerning the eviction of condominium owners. Condominium owners can also be evicted. A condominium unit can be forfeited in various situations, for example, if one does not pay their fee, if one disturbs their neighbors, or if one neglects the apartment.

There is not an identical regulatory framework as for rental apartments, but there is a corresponding regulatory framework in terms of when a housing cooperative apartment is forfeited. Obviously, it should therefore be possible to make corresponding additions or amendments to the Housing Cooperative Act that were made in the rental apartment regulations in order to strengthen the ability of victims of violence to retain their housing.

Mr. Speaker! So the government has also expressed itself in words: Women who are victims of violence shall have the opportunity to keep their housing.

Mr. Speaker! It is not reasonable that a woman who is subjected to violence by a partner should risk being forced to break away from her familiar environment and leave her home. These are Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmers own words. They are good words, but they cannot only apply to women subjected to violence in rental housing.

The Minister for Justice has not been the only one in the government who has spoken in general terms about the home and the household and about the victimized woman's possibility of remaining there. The Minister for Equality from the Liberals has also done so. The then Minister for Equality said last year: We must have a regulatory framework that both makes it possible to stop the home from being used as a crime scene, and strengthens the victim's possibility of being able to keep the residence for their own part.

But, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it seems to be only words from the side of the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Equality, and the Government. They have not done anything more regarding this.

Having somewhere to go is often completely decisive for one to be able to leave a violent relationship. That the woman has her own home where she can stay is crucial to reducing the risk that she is forced back to the violent man. Still, the word housing is mentioned in only a single point in the government's letter, which we are addressing here today. But there the words still stand, again, from the government: ”No one should have to stay in a violent relationship for fear of, for example, losing their housing.”

I repeat. It says housing, not rental apartment.

The question remains: When will the government take the next step? We Social Democrats took the first step in government. Now it is time for this government to take the next. When will we see an investigation that reviews the condominium act and the regulation that applies to the eviction of condominium owners – corresponding to the changes that have been made in the rent regulation in civil law?

If the government is serious about its beautiful words regarding housing, then the time is now. Otherwise, it is just words, and in them, no woman at risk of violence can live. Concrete action is needed.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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