Freedoms and rights

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! A few weeks ago, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Instrument of Government. Then we learned that it is based on popular sovereignty, free formation of opinion, and that governance is exercised under the rule of law. Since it was established, it has been supplemented with a description of freedoms and rights in Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government. It aims to protect individuals' freedoms and rights and guarantee free formation of opinion – but there we also have a responsibility. It is we who are elected or popularly chosen who are to carry the opinions and present what we stand for. We must take care not to over-juridify politics so much that what we stand for, present, and think does not become as important.

In the Instrument of Government, civil and political rights are a fundamental part. But, Madam Speaker, how does it work in practice? Well, in every case, there are elements of all the parts I described. There is, of course, a part that is public opinion and what the Swedes think. There is a part that concerns free opinion formation and what opinion leaders think about a proposal. There is also a part about how it should be applied under laws and what the legislation looks like. It is also about how a decision affects civil and political rights. It is this that we need to evaluate.

Madam Speaker! Let me tell you a little anecdote. The 2018 election was over, and we had election night vigils. It had gone, to put it mildly, so-so for us. I visited the Moderate Youth League's vigil. They were desperate. They were crying. There were statements such as "now Sweden is going to hell," "my education is wasted," and "my future is ruined."

When I tried to comfort them, I suddenly realized that we had completely different views on politics. They see it as a means to get what they want right now, right today, right here, while I see politics as a means to be able to influence development next time with better arguments. We will be able to reach a different decision another time. It may even be the case that those who we think so poorly of now have changed their minds and changed their opinion with good arguments.

I think the view on whether democracy is a way to get what you want here and now or a way to guarantee that you will always be able to evaluate situations is actually the fundamental basis that must be clear to oneself. We have a responsibility to explain that it is the long-term perspective that is decisive.

Madam Speaker! Today's matter concerns the civil and political rights that the original Instrument of Government was supplemented with, namely what applies to all citizens. It is important to carefully consider how we shall use the opportunity we have to determine what applies over time. It is clear that we shall then avoid including in civil and political rights such things as are actually grounds for political debate and political trade-offs. It must therefore never be the case that the catalogue of rights or the catalogue of freedoms restricts the possibility of having views on something that is not fundamental and important.

It is also important to state that civil and political rights are not tools to be used today to carry out what one wants in order to secure it for the future. There are countries where one sometimes speaks of a constitutional majority. We do not have such a thing, but there, they have used their majority to, through this type of decision, limit something that they consider politically difficult and troublesome. We should probably avoid that. Therefore, consensus is important.

I can state that we have a very large consensus here in the chamber on these issues. We stand, for the most part, united behind the committee report. There are some reservations with different nuances, but fundamentally we defend the exact same values.

Madam Speaker! When we make decisions about rights, we must let it go a bit slowly, investigate thoroughly and make decisions with deliberation. Therefore, I do not intend to go into details regarding the proposals. There may be good and bad things in them, but all of it deserves a significantly slower process than if we were just to say that we are now doing something about a certain proposal.

Madam Speaker! In summary, I come to the assessment that the report is well-considered, well-deliberated, and well-motivated, and therefore I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the Committee on the Constitution's report number 13 Freedom of Speech and Rights.

In this speech, Erik Ottoson (M) agreed.

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

Mariya Voyvodova (S)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Committee on the Constitution's report KU13 Freedom and Rights. The committee's report contains 40 motion proposals covering several motions on freedom and rights. I would first like to move for approval of reservation 4 in matter 7.

Recently, the Varieties of Democracy institute at the University of Gothenburg released its annual overview of democracy in the world. It is a gigantic project where more than 4,000 researchers in over 180 countries have contributed data. The report provides an overview of the situation in the world and how democracy has developed through the years.

It is a very gloomy picture that emerges. In this year's report, it is highlighted, among other things, that 71 percent of the world's population lives in some type of autocracy. It is a substantial increase compared to just ten years ago, when the proportion was 48 percent.

Madam Speaker! It is now clear that we cannot take democracy for granted even in Sweden. It is time for a gigantic public education project in defense of democracy. We can no longer sit still in the boat and watch; we need to act. We also need active citizens who are involved and have a grasp of what the government and the Riksdag are doing.

Madam Speaker! This week we heard on the news that the Supreme Court of the state of Florida in the USA prohibits abortion from week 6. In practice, this means a total ban. We see how the rights of women and girls are being threatened in country after country. All around the world, we see restrictions on the right to abortion and increased control of the female body. The US Supreme Court has even overturned the fundamental right to abortion. In Europe, a number of countries have recently adopted more restrictive abortion laws.

In June, there is an election to the European Parliament, and 27 countries and approximately 370 million Europeans will go to the polls. There is a fundamental reason why the right to abortion should be protected in the constitution and stipulated both in Sweden and in the EU. It is spelled the threat from the far-right, populists, anti-feminists, and abortion opponents. In recent years, we have witnessed a series of setbacks for girls' and women's rights across Europe as a result of right-wing populists and anti-democratic forces coming to power. They want to tear apart Swedish and European cohesion and worsen women's rights and the right to abortion.

We Social Democrats request in a motion that the possibility of constitutionally protecting the right to abortion in Sweden be investigated. The right to abortion is fundamental to women's rights. We remember the parties on the right wing who waved hot dogs and abortion contracts during the 2022 election campaign. It is now claimed by the government that the Swedish right to abortion shall be protected, and that is good. But we know that in these parties there are Members of Parliament who are opponents of the right to abortion.

For us Social Democrats, one thing is certain: Every attempt to worsen the right to abortion in Sweden will meet with a significant political backlash. We welcome all proposals that can lead to a strengthened right to abortion, either through constitutional protection or in other ways. We will always stand up for women's right to their own body and health.

In another motion by the Social Democrats, freedom of association is addressed. As stated in the report: In a notable case that was tried in the Svea Court of Appeal but which the Supreme Court did not take up for review, the transport workers' union was convicted because it had excluded a member because the member openly violated the union's statutes. I am not a lawyer myself, but the decision naturally raises many questions and thoughts. Is it, for example, reasonable for a court to take it upon itself to make its own assessment of the union's own statutes? Can one exclude members who violate the association's statutes? The Transport Workers' Union has taken the matter further to the European Court of Human Rights, and it is good that the question will be examined further.

Madam Speaker! Democracy is fragile. It may seem as self-evident as breathing, but that is no longer the case. Democracy can be quickly dismantled, and that also applies here in Sweden. Freedom and rights need active protection. The democratic conversation must allow different voices to be heard. The danger is if only one voice and one opinion are allowed and if conversation and arguments give way to threats and hate.

If we as elected representatives are to protect civil liberties, it is crucial that we understand both what we risk losing and what we are doing. This process extends much further than just one parliamentary term.

There is now an appointed constitutional law committee that will investigate several of the motions taken up in the committee's report. It is not the first time the Riksdag is about to change the constitution. What is, however, concerning and which the Committee on the Constitution has also noted, is that legislation is sometimes voted through without thorough preparation. The Members of Parliament then hardly have time to familiarize themselves with the proposals, and most often parliamentary anchoring is lacking.

Several referral bodies have been strongly critical of the high pace of legislation. Dagens Nyheter recently highlighted in a very interesting article that the government's haste can result in poorer laws. It is very important that this issue is highlighted. Is it a dismantling of a long tradition of legal certainty in Sweden that is taking place now when laws are changed quickly and it is not well-considered? Several referral bodies have pointed out that several of the measures may conflict with international and regional obligations and conventions that Sweden has committed to, as well as against our own constitution. It is extremely important that this issue is monitored.

On March 6, we celebrated in solemn form in the Swedish Riksdag the 50th anniversary of the new Instrument of Government being issued. Much has happened during this half-century, I could state as I sat in the beautiful chamber. Sweden has become a member of the EU. The European Convention on Human Rights has been incorporated into the Swedish legal system, and it has contributed to the civil liberties and rights being strengthened and the power of the courts increased. The political landscape admittedly looks very different. The time we live in places ever higher demands on us elected representatives to protect those rights. If democracy is to survive and liberties and rights are to be protected, it is crucial that we know what is at stake.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on the Constitution's report KU13 Freedom and Rights. I move for the approval of reservation number 1.

The Instrument of Government is one of our important constitutional laws, and the current Instrument of Government recently celebrated 50 years with the King and the Crown Princess in the Second Chamber. According to the Instrument of Government, public power shall be exercised "with respect for all people's equal value and for the individual human being's freedom and dignity".

Therefore, it is important that we have a clearer prohibition against improper discrimination based on political views during recruitment within public municipal and regional activities. An inquiry should be appointed to examine how the public can better protect those who are unfairly disadvantaged due to their political views.

With the abolition of official responsibility in 1976, different forms of abuse of the role as an official no longer lead to legal review except in the exercise of authority against the individual. In some cases, it may lead to an internal review within the authority. This process is not transparent and does not have the same norm-forming effect as criminal penalties. Regarding the common, public sector, it is explicitly stipulated in both the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights that political discrimination may not occur either in the exercise of authority against the individual or in employment procedures regarding a public office. Swedish law, however, lacks an explicit and adequate formulation regarding the prohibition of discrimination on political grounds in employment procedures.

A manager or principal who has denied employment with reference to the core values can therefore continue with this without risk of legal consequences, partly because the official responsibility has been removed for actions other than the exercise of authority, and partly because political opinions are not included as a ground for discrimination in the Discrimination Act. The fact that someone risks not being considered for a public position because they have the wrong opinions does not belong in a democratic and modern society. It is unreasonable that a large part of the population should have to feel fear that their political engagement will result in career-damaging consequences.

Madam Speaker! We Sweden Democrats want to update Swedish legislation and incorporate the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention more literally regarding political discrimination within the public sector. In addition to the fact that political discrimination should be prohibited under certain circumstances in the Instrument of Government, it should be investigated how protection against political discrimination can be ensured in employment at local and regional levels.

No person shall be discriminated against on the basis of their religious affiliation. That being said, there are religious communities that to varying degrees are both violence-seeking and extremist. This applies in the same way to political ideologies. Since the Swedish legal system, despite this general objective, manages to counter and deter religiously motivated crime, as well as, to the necessary extent, protect and accord different religious groups an adequate and purposeful protection, there should be no obstacles to, to a corresponding extent, including political views under the catalogue of grounds for discrimination in the Instrument of Government, Chapter 1, Section 2.

The constitution stipulates that no law or other regulation may be issued in conflict with Sweden's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR. The ECHR provides a prohibition against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion. Despite this, there is currently a lack of adequate protection against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion in Swedish law. The Discrimination Act, for example, does not include political opinion. In observance of the same considerations that apply in the ECHR, an investigation should be conducted on how protection against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion can be introduced in the constitution and in law.

Madam Speaker! In connection with such a change, an amendment to the Instrument of Government shall be made with the meaning that no one shall be treated differently or discriminated against on the grounds that they are considered by themselves or by others as Swedish.

Furthermore, one can read that the public shall promote the culture and community life of minorities in Sweden. This provision complicates the self-evident principle that immigrant groups in Sweden should be assimilated, not integrated. Cultural exceptions should only be reserved for Sweden's five recognized historical minorities.

Another overlooked but important symbolic issue concerns the Swedish language, whose position as the main language in Sweden should, of course, be enshrined in the constitution.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! This committee report, KU13 Freedom and Rights, deals with a long series of motions, specifically 40 of them, on the theme of freedom and rights. It is one of the finest things that exist in a democracy, to not say outright the very core of the concept of democracy.

The basis for the motion's consideration lies in the constitutionally protected respect for all people's equal value and the individual human being's freedom and dignity. Taste those words, and think about what they actually mean: all people's equal value and the individual human being's freedom and dignity.

The order is actually something that we Christian Democrats call personalism. From these concepts follows, for example, that the individual person's personal, economic and cultural well-being shall be a fundamental goal for public activity.

It is about the right to education, housing and work and a sustainable development that provides a good environment for both our children and our grandchildren, that is, stewardship, to use one more term from Christian Democratic ideology and philosophy.

The public shall work to ensure that the ideas of democracy become guiding in all areas and that the right to private and family life is protected for the individual.

Discrimination shall be countered whether it concerns gender, skin color, national or ethnic origin, linguistic or religious affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, age or other circumstances concerning the individual as a person. In this context, we can also mention that the opportunities of the Sámi people and ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to maintain and develop their culture and their community life shall be promoted.

I enumerate these freedoms and rights because they are so genuinely beautiful and so totally indispensable for a vibrant democracy.

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the so-called European Convention, and certain amendments and additions to it were incorporated into Swedish law in 1994. There is also an ongoing process for the EU to accede to the European Convention. At present, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights exists. But it is limited to the Union's institutions and bodies and to the Member States when they apply Union law. Therefore, there is a need to adopt the entire European Convention as part of EU law.

Madam Speaker! Among the motions treated in the report are, among others, motions to constitutionally protect the right to abortion. All the parties in the Riksdag stand behind the right to abortion today. The Christian Democrats have done so since the end of the 1980s. But given the developments in some countries, the question has arisen whether the right to abortion needs to receive stronger legal protection.

The question is now being treated as part of the work in the parliamentarially appointed committee which, on the government's assignment, is investigating some questions regarding the protection of the fundamental freedoms and rights according to Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government. I therefore see no reason to anticipate the positions that the investigation will come to.

Motions also concerning the review of citizenship in the case of crime are being handled by the 2023 Freedom and Rights Committee. We should therefore also await the committee's conclusions and proposals in that regard.

When it comes to motions on security-enhancing measures for organizations within civil society, there are state grants for such measures that provide the opportunity for protection of buildings and premises where activities are conducted, but also technical surveillance solutions.

The state subsidy to Jewish congregations and institutions to meet the significantly increased security threat against them was increased on October 25, 2023, by 10 million for guarding, emergency equipment, and disaster preparedness, in addition to the 30 million that were announced in the budget bill from and including this year, 2024. Given these decisions, it is reasonable to wait for the effects of them before more money is allocated.

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

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 3 under point 5.

As Ulrik Nilsson has already pointed out, we solemnly observed a few weeks ago here in the Riksdag that the Instrument of Government turns 50 years old this year. The Instrument of Government is one of our constitutional laws, where in the second chapter we find the provisions on our fundamental freedoms and rights, that is to say, what we are debating here today.

Chapter two of the Instrument of Government contains both the positive freedoms – freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association – and the negative freedoms of opinion, which provide protection against coercion from the public to express one's political or religious views. There are also provisions here that provide protection for citizenship and protection against infringements of personal integrity, for example, body searches.

These constitutionally protected freedoms and rights may only be restricted by law under certain conditions, and only if they are proportionate. This means that they may never go further than what is necessary to achieve the purpose one says one wishes to achieve with a restriction.

Madam Speaker! We live in restless times with a security situation in Sweden and Europe that is worse than it has been in a very long time. In addition, there is serious crime, where shootings and explosions create suffering and insecurity in our society. These are challenges that require us politicians to do our utmost to take measures that increase people's safety and security.

At the same time, it is extremely important to keep a cool head precisely in such difficult times and ensure that proposals presented which involve limitations of our civil rights and freedoms are analyzed carefully. Such proposals can and must never be drawn up lightly, but the consequences of them need to be highlighted in a profound and multifaceted way. We need to remind ourselves that every measure that limits your and my freedom must be proportionate and actually achieve the purposes that we as legislators say we want to achieve.

Madam Speaker! At the 50th anniversary of the Instrument of Government, both researchers and politicians participated, and from the presentations we were given, it clearly emerged that this constitution is not at all a graying 50-year-old, but one that is to a high degree developed in step with the times.

It should, of course, not be easy to carry out constitutional amendments, and I look forward to the government presenting proposals to make such amendments more difficult to carry out. It is a parliamentary constitutional committee that, in a report submitted last spring, has concluded that it is necessary.

However, we must not convince ourselves that our constitutional laws are sufficient in all respects. They can be strengthened and improved. As several members have already touched upon, work has been ongoing since last autumn in a parliamentary committee to review parts of the Instrument of Government. This is the so-called 2023 Freedom and Rights Committee, where I have the privilege of being present as the Center Party's representative. This is a committee that has received many questions on its table to investigate until December this year. A couple of them are a strengthened protection for the right to abortion and a strengthened protection for the right of ownership – something we in the Center Party welcome.

Regarding the constitutional protection of property, there are currently no explicit limitations. Therefore, the Center Party wants a proportionality requirement to be introduced when it comes to infringements on property rights.

When it comes to the right to abortion, the developments in the USA and also in some European countries show that this right cannot be taken for granted. Unfortunately, there are forces that have made or say they want to make it more difficult for women to undergo an abortion. This is extremely worrying, and therefore the Center Party wants a strengthened protection for the right to abortion. This applies both at home and in the EU, where we, ahead of the election to the European Parliament, raise the question of strengthening the protection for the right to abortion.

Madam Speaker! It appears from Chapter 1, Section 2 of the Instrument of Government that public power shall be exercised with respect for all people's equal value and for the individual human being's freedom and dignity. This is and must continue to be a self-evident truth in democratic Sweden. Freedom in the Center Party's sense is not granted only to some of us. All people, regardless of background, skin color, age, gender, or origin, shall be given the opportunity to expand their life chances and feel freedom.

That is why it is important to listen when we are alerted to the fact that there are people in Sweden whose freedom and dignity are restricted by racism, antisemitism, antiziganism, Islamophobia and discrimination. According to statistics from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, hate crimes with xenophobic or racist motives have consistently increased over the last ten years. The same applies to hate crimes with antisemitic or Islamophobic motives.

These are grim figures that show a development in society that we must break. We cannot and must not accept that people in our country are limited by prejudice and discrimination. We must stand up for every individual's right to freedom and the opportunity to make the most of their abilities and their dreams. It is fundamental and crucial for building a strong society.

One step in protecting groups that are subjected to hate crimes because of their worldview is to ensure that the places where they meet to practice their faith are safe places. Hate crimes are unfortunately increasing now against both synagogues and mosques. It is welcome that the government has increased the appropriation for security-enhancing measures for religious communities. But the Center Party does not consider that sufficient. To protect these groups' right to practice their faith in safety, we want to see long-term and ongoing investments in security measures, and not just one-off measures.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! A couple of weeks ago, the Riksdag solemnly observed that it is 50 years since the 1974 Instrument of Government came into force this year. The biggest change compared to the 1809 Instrument of Government was, of course, that the monarchy's power was significantly reduced in favor of the Riksdag and the government. But another important change was also made: the individual's fundamental rights and freedoms were strengthened by being incorporated into the Instrument of Government.

In the anthology *En författning i tiden - Regeringsformen under 50 år*, compiled for the 50th anniversary, several researchers and authors of the various parts state that these fundamental civil and political rights did not achieve any significant impact with the new Instrument of Government. It was not until Sweden took the step into the European community and also incorporated the European Convention into Swedish law that the judiciary, and also the politics, began to seriously address individual civil and political rights.

Last year, the government appointed a new constitutional commission with the aim of examining whether some new fundamental freedoms and rights should be introduced in Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government so that we can take further steps to strengthen the protection of freedoms and rights. Among other things, the right to abortion, the right to judicial review, and a general protection against discrimination will be considered.

Madam Speaker! Since the mid-70s, Swedish women have had the right to free abortion in Sweden. Before that, many women traveled to Poland to have abortions performed. There it was legal, and here it was illegal. Now the conditions are reversed. Just promises of a restored abortion right were an important election issue in the Polish election that was recently held. The new liberal government in Poland has promised to restore the right for women to decide over their own bodies.

The development of abortion rights is moving in different directions in different countries. France became just a couple of weeks ago the first country in the world to constitutionally protect the right to abortion. At the same time, we see entirely new consequences of the restrictive abortion laws that some American states have adopted, where it is now being discussed whether frozen embryos should be seen as children.

Unfortunately, women's right to decide over their own bodies tends to become a symbolic issue for those who want to restrict the freedoms and rights of people. Therefore, there is a point in reviewing how the protection of this freedom and right can be strengthened, just as we are now doing in the investigation that has been commissioned.

Madam Speaker! I am proud that the Liberals have throughout the ages initiated and pushed for the protection against discrimination that exists in both Swedish legislation and at the EU level, and we will continue to work to develop the protection.

The newly established Institute for Human Rights highlights in its recently presented annual report how extensive the problem of discrimination is in Sweden. In the report, it can be read, among other things, that the Equality Ombudsman estimates that over half a million people in Sweden have experienced being subjected to discrimination in various ways during 2022. Above all, it concerns discrimination based on gender, ethnic origin, and age. At the same time, the Equality Ombudsman received only 3,594 reports during the same year, and these primarily concerned discrimination based on disability and ethnic origin. According to the Equality Ombudsman, there may be various reasons for the low number of reports. Among others, it is likely that few know about the possibility of reporting experiences of discrimination or where to turn to do so.

The annual report from the Institute for Human Rights is an important tool for us to obtain an updated picture of the situation regarding our freedoms and rights and to be able to ensure that they are also met in the future.

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

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! What I am going to say during the next few minutes you have largely heard before. It is perhaps some kind of evidence of the Committee on the Constitution's often unanimous statements on matters and things. It may be that things will come in a somewhat different order or with a somewhat different emphasis, but we will take that as we go.

As we have already heard, a parliamentary committee was appointed during 2023 with a mandate to investigate "some questions regarding fundamental freedoms and rights". These modest words, therefore, refer to changes in our constitution, specifically the second chapter of the Instrument of Government. The committee's directive was discussed, among other things, with the members of the Committee on the Constitution before it was delivered.

It concerns, among other things, the right to abortion, the right to judicial review, and a general protection against discrimination. Furthermore, the committee shall investigate whether there are instances where it is justified to revoke a citizenship. It shall also address other issues regarding property rights and possibilities to, in certain cases, make restrictions on the freedom of association. The committee shall submit its proposals no later than December 1 this year, i.e., 2024.

Several of the issues that the committee is to work with also appear in this year's motions. I intended to focus on two issues, one that is parallel to the investigation and one that we have raised in our motions.

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the right to abortion. From the perspective of the Green Party, we have in our committee motion on equality expressed our concern that women's rights regarding abortions appear to be decreasing in many countries around the world. Women's right to have an abortion must be defended and secured. It is connected to women's right to decide over their bodies and their lives. It is a self-evident part of a feminist policy, and we want the right to abortion to be constitutionally protected.

We also mean that Sweden should continue to clearly stand up for women's right to abortion in international contexts and try to influence those countries that have abortion legislation that does not stem from the pregnant person's right to decide over their own body. It is also important that aid funds go to work for sexual and reproductive health and rights as well as civil society organizations that try to influence the situation in their own countries.

We in Miljöpartiet, together with the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, and Centerpartiet, welcome that the question of constitutional protection of the right to abortion is currently being investigated, as previously pointed out. We shall not anticipate the events. We have no reservation in the matter but refer to our joint special statement, where we, among other things, point out that the right to abortion can never be taken for granted with the restrictions we see in different parts of the world. There are also proposals or thoughts based on the idea that someone other than the women themselves could make decisions about women's bodies, which we naturally completely distance ourselves from.

We participate in and, of course, follow the development of the work within the Committee on Freedom of Expression and Rights. For the sake of clarity, it should also be said that a constitutional protection for the right to abortion concerns the right to terminate a pregnancy; other issues, such as the timing of an abortion, are, as they are now, found in specific legislation.

Madam Speaker! Today we are speaking about civil and political rights. In that context, the right to feel safe in the exercise of one's faith and activities in religious communities has a self-evident place.

A few weeks ago, I visited the Jewish community in Gothenburg. It is the country's second largest – the largest is here in Stockholm. The insecurity and anxiety that many there feel is partly about values and an antisemitism that is frightening. This anxiety has existed for many years but has naturally worsened significantly after Hamas's terror attack on October 7, 2023, and the need for support is therefore even clearer. To some extent, security-enhancing measures can contribute to reducing the anxiety. It should, of course, be possible to visit one's community without feeling insecure.

In the government, Miljöpartiet took the initiative that a strategy for Jewish life in Sweden should be developed. A unified description of the conditions for the Jewish minority and a mapping of Jews' obstacles and opportunities are important to secure the continuity and development of Jewish life in Sweden.

Miljöpartiet welcomed the government's decision to task a special inquiry with submitting proposals for a national strategy for strengthening Jewish life in Sweden. The inquiry's report has now been submitted to the Minister for Culture, and it is important that the inquiry's conclusions are taken into account.

A review has also been conducted of the contribution for security-enhancing measures to religious communities, associations, and foundations. The Swedish Government Offices, which conducted the review, concluded, among other things, that the contributions do not to a sufficient extent benefit the groups that need them most. This needs to be changed so that the funds can be distributed in a more purposeful and long-term manner.

The greatest obstacle to Jewish life is the widespread antisemitism in society and the lack of safety and security around Jewish institutions. The lack of safety and security limits many Jews' opportunities to live a Jewish everyday life and to live openly with their identity. It causes difficulties for Jewish organizations to operate and develop in Sweden and makes it harder for Jewish culture to be practiced.

Hate and threats against individuals and organizations cause many Jews to experience insecurity, anxiety, and fear. The security arrangements that the Jewish institutions themselves need to arrange are costly and take resources from other activities. That the Jewish minority should be able to feel safe and secure therefore constitutes a necessity for Jewish life in Sweden. This applies in particular to children and young people.

Another obstacle to Jewish life concerns the access to and capacity of Jewish organizations. Congregations, associations, and schools play a central role in everyday Jewish life by offering religious services, cultural and leisure activities, education, children's and youth activities, as well as social events.

We welcome the reinforcements of the support for the religious communities' security that have already been decided and look forward to participating in the preparation of the investigation on strengthening Jewish life in Sweden. I also want to mention the motion on policy for the Swedish minorities that we raised during last year's general motion period. In it, we state that a review of the grant for security-enhancing measures to religious communities, associations, and foundations has been conducted by Statskontoret, which, among other things, concluded that the grants do not to a sufficient extent benefit the groups that need them most. It needs to be changed so that the funds are distributed in a more purposeful and long-term way.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 3.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Freedom of association is completely fundamental for a democratic society. It is perhaps also one of the most beautiful things that exists in democracy - that people join together in an association to together fight for a goal that they consider important.

Within the trade union movement, it is done within the framework of the union pledge: We in this room promise and swear never to work for lower pay and worse conditions than what we have now promised each other. It is a fantastically beautiful pledge that means that as a worker, one manages to stand up against the forces that want to worsen things for you.

That members of such an association uphold this promise is fundamental for the trade union promise to function. If it is broken, the association's purpose is also broken. Therefore, it is completely self-evident that members who work against the trade union promise must be able to be excluded from these associations by the associations themselves.

Now, say that a member is part of another association that believes that safety representatives should not be union-based so that they are no longer protected by the trade union representative act, which supports the world's richest man in a conflict over collective agreements and the Swedish model, which believes that the state should decide how the unions' money should be used, which wants to take the unemployment insurance from the unions and which does not want the union's members to receive deductions for their membership fees even though the employers do. Then it is quite obvious that the member breaks the union promise.

At the regional level in Region Skåne, politicians step in and demand that the union chairperson resign because this union chairperson chooses not to act in a way that suits the party in question.

Locally, it is denied, among other things, that the undersigned joined Kommunals members in the operations in order to be able to follow them and have democratic oversight in the constituency. In that case, it is quite obvious that the trade unions say that the member breaks the union promise. That member should not be in the union.

It is completely absurd that the state then interferes and stops and intervenes in the freedom of association to such a mild degree that one undermines the entire purpose of the said association.

Then one can use the argument that the unions have a special position in Sweden. Yes, of course they do. But it is also free to start other trade unions, which the organization that this member is part of, besides the union, tried to do. They were so damn bad at it that nothing progressed, but one is free to start other trade unions.

It is not a problem that associations are allowed to decide for themselves. It is something beautiful. It is something fine. It is the core of democracy. Therefore, I naturally want to move for approval of the individual motion 1182 and the S reservation.

In conclusion, I just want to say one thing. I have no problem with a principal at a municipal school firing a Nazi or a violent Islamist. They should not be teaching our students. I understand that the Sweden Democrats have a problem with the first group being fired, but I do not understand why the Sweden Democrats are standing here defending the right of violent Islamists to be teachers.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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