Freedom of association and terrorist organizations (pending constitutional proposal)

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! The debate on our constitutional laws and their importance is currently ongoing with great force, and I welcome that debate. I am quite sure that all of us in KU would wish that constitutional issues and the defense of them and our civil rights would be debated a bit more often because this is what we work on most.

This matter, KU4, regarding freedom of association and terrorist organizations is being debated now for the second time, because constitutional amendments must always be processed twice with an election in between.

Madam Speaker! Now I shall move on to the matter itself. I first want to state that today it is a crime to commit acts of terrorism. It is a crime to finance terrorism. It is a crime to incite terrorism. It is a crime to recruit someone who is to commit an act of terrorism. It is a crime to provide support to someone who is in any way involved in something related to terrorism. It is a crime to travel abroad to participate in terrorist activities. It is a crime to begin a journey if the intention is to participate in terrorist activities, regardless of what happens next and so on.

In other words, it is prohibited and punishable to prepare, plan and carry out acts of terrorism. Nevertheless, terrorist crimes occur in Sweden and in other countries where the legislation is often stricter than here, for example in countries where it is also prohibited to be a member of an organization that engages in terrorism.

This proposal is precisely about making it possible to ban membership and participation in organizations that engage in terrorism. It may sound obvious that it should be forbidden to be part of a terrorist organization, but it is truly a completely new step when restrictions are made on our fundamental freedom of association.

Swedish freedom of association is regulated in the Instrument of Government and is expressed as a freedom to associate with others for public and private purposes. These rights were introduced in the Instrument of Government in 1976 and have hardly been changed at all since then. When changes have been made, it has generally been that our freedoms and rights have been expanded. Restrictions on our central freedoms and rights have not been considered particularly often.

I and Vänsterpartiet cannot see that there are any strong reasons to make restrictions on the fundamental civil and political rights in this situation. All actions are already prohibited.

Our Swedish legislation usually aims at what someone does, not who they are or what they think. It is a fundamentally important order. Vänsterpartiet does not want to criminalize people for their thoughts or for which organizations they belong to, but the focus must lie on preventing and punishing criminal acts that individuals commit themselves or together with others.

One question one can really ask is who should decide what constitutes a terrorist organization. Sweden cooperates extensively internationally, also regarding crime fighting. Is it then organizations that Orbán considers to be terrorist organizations that the Swedish police should investigate if people here are members of? What happens with those who have been granted political asylum in Sweden and who are members of an organization that Erdogan in Turkey considers to be a terrorist organization? Here in Sweden, there are quite a few Kurdish refugees whom Erdogan considers to be terrorists. We have received very concrete examples of this now that we are applying for membership in Nato. It is even to the point that representatives for the Turkish regime name individuals they want extradited from Sweden.

There is no unambiguous definition of what a terrorist organization is. Anti-democratic currents, which we see in many places in Europe, can influence which organizations will be affected. Many organizations that fight for political freedom or against dictatorships are considered terrorists by their country's leadership. ANC in South Africa was perceived by the regime as terrorists, while almost the entire rest of the world considered that the organization was waging a completely legitimate struggle.

There is, therefore, a risk that organizations with democratic purposes are classified as terrorist groups, while a ban does not hit the type of lone actors who have carried out some of the very worst terrorist acts in Europe and in the world at all.

Several of the recent years' horrific acts of terrorism have been committed by lone actors. How common is it, really, that terrorists act in an organized manner in a regular association activity? It appears very unclear. Neither Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo, Anton Lundin Pettersson, who carried out the school attack in Trollhättan, nor Akilov, who ran over and injured people with a truck here on Drottninggatan, were members of any association when they committed their acts.

The government argues that this constitutional amendment is an important tool to combat terrorism. However, it could miss the mark, and furthermore, we in Vänsterpartiet wonder how it is intended to function. Is the police to request access to the membership register for the organization IS? Will it, in practice, lead to some terrorist acts being stopped?

Instead of such ineffective restrictions on our freedom of association, we should invest in things that work. International cooperation and cooperation between authorities is what Säpo also highlights. Continue to develop that! Stop the new recruitment to violent groups, and act as soon as young people are radicalized! Invest in breaking the isolation for the young people who seek out violent sites online! Prioritize vulnerable areas, where we know the risk of ending up in violent groups is greatest! Counteract the environments where radicalization is taking place!

With this proposal, we only risk making it harder for people who want to defend democracy, while those who want to commit acts of terrorism will hardly care. All acts of terrorism and all attempts at acts of terrorism are already criminalized today. Therefore, I move for approval of the reservation.

(Applause)

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

Susanne Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! We have a duty towards our inhabitants and also towards those who visit our country. One should feel safe here.

I want to be able to feel safe when I walk home on the streets of Linköping after a late cinema screening or, for that matter, when I buy a hamburger in Borlänge. I want to feel safe with the knowledge that there is no place for terrorist organizations in our country's laws. Just today, we have the opportunity to make it illegal to associate with terrorists and to be part of a terrorist organization in the form of an association.

A terrorist organization should no longer be able to call itself an association and thereby enjoy our freedom of association. The ability to unite with others for general or individual purposes is, just like freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of assembly, freedom of demonstration, and freedom of religion, fundamental to our democracy. It is precisely our democracy we are safeguarding here – a democracy where terrorist crime does not belong.

Madam Speaker! It is not, thank goodness, possible to prosecute people for how they think, but interaction with terrorists and participation in terrorist organizations requires that society takes all necessary measures to combat all forms of terrorism with all its might in order to safeguard the democratic system of government and our open society. Thus, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam Speaker! We live in a time characterized by great uncertainty. It is a restless time when many people have questions about what the future holds. We have more violence in society and in the world than we have had for a long time.

In this time, the open, democratic society is characterized by a difficult balancing act between the openness and freedom that we need and the need to protect the open and democratic society.

This constitutional proposal is not seeking to limit people's freedom. It is seeking to protect the open, democratic society. The public has the right to demand that society takes the measures needed to protect our open social order, and it is with this purpose that the bill has been drafted.

I believe that the effects on society if people perceived that we are not taking the measures needed to protect society would be utterly devastating. I therefore move for approval of KU's proposal for a decision.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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