Freedoms and rights

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate or discuss the motion report on civil and political rights.

There are some sitting in the gallery and perhaps some watching us from home, so let us do our best to make this as interesting as possible for everyone who sees and hears this discussion or, if you will, the debate!

Mr. Speaker! The Moderate-led government has now governed Sweden for over two years, and the political debate now is not quite as it was then.

I can note that in the spring of 2023, two years ago, the Social Democrats' party leader traveled to the USA to study the Democrats' election strategy. What she came back with were claims that the government was a right-wing regime that fundamentally threatened our democracy and accusations that political opponents were lying.

The political tone then was very high, but it did not quite turn out as the Social Democrats had hoped. For the time being, the strategy instead seems to be focused on conflict over economic policy, on the financing of defense, and on job opportunities.

This, of course, we Moderates welcome. It is important, especially in a polarized world, that the policy issues are brought into focus.

Let us delve into precisely freedom, democracy, peace and justice. One can still say that these are some of the overarching themes for the proposals contained in this motion report. I want to point out some important reforms that the Moderate-led government is making within precisely this area. We are currently implementing several reforms to strengthen the protection of Swedish democracy and the rule of law. During the spring – in a few weeks – a government bill on strengthened protection for the constitution and the independence of the courts will be presented. This is historic.

In the proposition, there will be proposals to introduce a requirement that the second decision to change the constitution shall be made with a qualified majority of two-thirds of all members of the Riksdag. In the Instrument of Government, a provision that the courts shall be independent will be introduced. Provisions will also be introduced in the Instrument of Government regarding that judges shall be appointed by the Government following a proposal from a special body.

We also move forward with proposals to protect both politicians and public employees from undue influence. Among the proposals are strengthened personal secrecy and the possibility to omit the names of decision-makers in written communications. We have also taken the initiative for a democracy condition for payments from the public inheritance fund for state grants to civil society and state support to religious communities.

We also want to strengthen the individual's opportunities to litigate against the state in the administrative court. All told, one can say that the Moderat-led government is now making historical investments to strengthen our democracy and the Swedish rule of law. That is something I am very proud of.

I will comment on some of the proposals contained in this motion report, and I will begin with the abortion issue. There is a proposal to constitutionally entrench the right to abortion. That is very good. It is also what will happen. From the Committee on Freedom and Rights, which has worked during the last year and a half, there are now proposals that we should strengthen the protection for the right to abortion by constitutionally entrenching it.

This is typical Moderate politics: a modern Sweden with high growth, a strong protection for our democracy, and ensuring that we get robust rules that protect some of our most important values and choices.

To this is also added a law to, for example, modernize the abortion law in the form of a possibility to have home abortions. There are also proposals to codify the time limits that currently exist in practice. These shall be made into law. For example, one shall be able to have an abortion until week 18 without reason or cause.

And with us having a Moderate-led government, the word woman – which the investigator suggested should be removed from the law – remains in the proposal for an abortion law that may eventually come here to the Riksdag as a government bill. This is also typical Moderate politics. Obviously, we cannot have an abortion law in Sweden where the word women is removed and erased. The abortion law is, in essence, about the right for us women to have an abortion. Let me also tell you who are listening and watching that it is not certain that the word woman would have remained in the abortion law in the future if we had had a different color of government.

Another proposal raised in the motion's report is the revocation of citizenship for gang criminals. We also think this is very good, and it was something we Moderateres pushed for in the Freedom and Rights Committee. However, there are somewhat different opinions on this. I therefore have a question that it would be good to get an answer to. It does not need to happen in this debate or discussion, but at some point in the general debate, the voters probably need to receive a clear answer from the Socialdemokrater on whether they want to be able to revoke citizenship for gang criminals or not. This is an important question for the voters to get an answer to before the 2026 election.

I note that the Center Party has in a very meritorious manner submitted a motion for increased support to religious communities for security-enhancing measures. I think this is a very welcome proposal and a welcome approach. Let me also state that the Moderate-led government in the budget bill for 2025 increased the appropriation by 10 million kronor for just security-enhancing measures for the Jewish minority. We also have a long-term strategy underway to strengthen Jewish life in Sweden.

Since the attack against Israel by Hamas, the Jewish minority in Sweden has suffered enormous damage and been subjected to incredible difficulties when it comes to protecting their own security. The situation for Jews in Sweden is very problematic. I am glad that there is a broad consensus in the chamber regarding this. This is seen, not least, through the Center Party's motion that we need to change the situation.

I can therefore understand the concerns that exist in light of the news that came yesterday that a Left Party member – as it appears – has once again spread antisemitic material. There are therefore concerns regarding what a government formation for the Center Party should look like after 2026. It is naturally difficult to cooperate – and even more so to sit in government – with a party that repeatedly expresses views that do not contribute to strengthening the security of the Jewish minority or the situation here in Sweden.

The last thing I will comment on is the proposal that we should change the rules for how contributions are sent from the trade union movement to parties. We have a huge problem in Sweden. Party members in the Moderaterna, Sverigedemokraterna and other parties are members of, for example, a trade union which in turn sends money to the Socialdemokraterna. People who have political sympathies are thus members of a union to take advantage of their own rights in the labor market and so that the union will stand up for them and negotiate wages. If something goes wrong, the union shall stand on their side and protect their cause.

The same organization also provides money, without their consent, to a party that directly opposes their private and political views. This is, of course, something that needs to be fundamentally changed. This is not good. Therefore, the government has decided on additional directives for the 2023 transparency committee, which is to be reported on May 15. The committee shall see if it is possible to strengthen the voluntariness and ensure that every person who is a member of a trade union must voluntarily agree that money may be funneled further to a political party. I think this is really good, and it is also a proposal I want to point out in the report. We are following this closely from the government's side, and we have also taken active measures for it.

(Applause)

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

Amalia Rud Stenlöf (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by commenting on what Louise Meijer said initially. She spoke about not having a high tone in the debate. I thought the speech at times had a rather high tone.

I will comment on this with gang crime and revocation of citizenship a bit. I believe Ida Karkiainen just texted an article from us from March 12 of this year. In it, the Social Democrats stated very clearly that we want to revoke citizenship for those citizens who engage in activities that threaten the system. What we lack right now, however, is an invitation from the government and Gunnar Strömmer regarding discussing this further. It is one thing to have a high tone in this debate and another thing to actually execute it, if one wants to get things done.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 9 and reservation 12.

We live in increasingly restless times. Children and young people in Sweden today experience a lack of trust that politics can solve the societal challenges we face. And quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, is it perhaps not so strange when children grow up in a time characterized by war in our vicinity, gang warfare in residential areas, a housing market that prevents young people from moving out of their parents' homes or families from having the means to stay, and a police activity that has moved away from the countryside – a countryside where the bus no longer runs either. We find ourselves in a time when children go hungry to a market school that allows profits to go to shareholders and not to education. This is happening not least now when youth unemployment stands at 25 percent – even in the groups that have an education.

Few children are being born right now because young adults do not feel hope for the future. It is not so strange that young people doubt whether they will get a job in the future, how they will support themselves, or if politics actually makes any difference. It is not strange; it is frightening. But the situation is not a law of nature, and something can be done about it.

Mr. Speaker! I was in the USA during the final stretch of the last presidential election campaign. There, it became increasingly clear how divided the view of the world is, for example, which fundamental freedoms and rights different political camps considered, or did not consider, that other groups should have.

I remember one conversation particularly well. It was with a state legislator in the southern state of Louisiana. He was a supporter of the current president. I asked him what he was most proud of having accomplished in recent years, and he answered two things: Firstly, they have lowered the age limit for the death penalty and expanded the ways it can be carried out. Secondly, they have shortened the time for women to have an abortion to six weeks. That was what he was most proud of. He had done something about it.

Mr. Speaker! One might ask why I am standing here in the Swedish Riksdag today telling about something that has happened on the other side of the Atlantic when the debate concerns our fundamental freedoms and rights here in Sweden. But the fact is that we here in Sweden are enormously influenced by the political climate and the currents that exist in our surrounding world. Not least have we seen in recent months how quickly fundamental freedoms and rights can be removed purely constitutionally – if a president wants to, and we have indeed seen that in certain parts of the world. At the same time, there are representatives here in the Swedish Riksdag who have many times said that they have drawn inspiration from the current sitting president in the USA.

Mr. Speaker! For children and young people today, social media and gaming platforms are a kind of heaven and hell. It is there that they meet and socialize with their friends from Sweden and from all over the world. But they also function as recruitment sites for criminal and far-right groups.

The hatred, the archaic view of women, the homophobia and the racism online cannot only be seen as individual comments. They are written with the purpose to influence, affect and get the recipient to participate and act – to resort to violence if necessary. And it is far-right and racist organizations that are behind them. They want to do something to our fundamental freedoms and rights. They want to restrict the rights we today see as self-evident.

The Expo Foundation presented its latest report on the racist ideological environment in Sweden two weeks ago. It stated that after a downward spiral in recent years, the number of groups and the activity in the racist and far-right environment are now increasing instead. One of the trends highlighted is how Islamophobia and antisemitism have become increasingly coarser in the wake of the war in Gaza.

When the Committee on the Constitution met with representatives from the Institute for Human Rights – which the Sweden Democrats want to abolish – last week, they also stated that hate and threats have become increasingly common, not least among Jewish and Muslim groups over the past year.

In the Committee on Constitution, Mr. Speaker, we cannot propose changes to the labor market, education, or housing policy. That must be done by others in other committees, but we can do something concrete that strengthens our fundamental freedoms and rights. We can counter hate and ban racist organizations that profit from children and young people who find it difficult to see a future in today's gloomy world, who offer false promises to those who have lost hope. But once again, the Sverigedemokratiskt-led government says no to that proposal. It is as much frightening as it is slightly surprising. If we want Sweden to be that free country, measures against extremism and racism must be countered at all costs. We can do something about that – now, before it is too late.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This debate concerns about fifty motions on a number of different civil liberties and rights, which we have heard several speakers describe. I want to begin by moving for the rejection of all motions and for the approval of the proposal in the committee report. Many of the motions are in line with ongoing work, but there are other motions on issues where we do not share the same opinion.

In my second assignment as a substitute in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and as a spokesperson for aid policy, it often becomes palpable what an immense privilege it is to live in Sweden, where human rights and freedoms, as expressed in among other things the European Convention, are included in Swedish law. How our country conducts itself is continuously evaluated.

It is now clear that a majority of the world's population lives in countries where democratic development is regressing. Every year, the EU conducts an assessment of how Sweden and other countries comply with the law. Likewise, we have an independent judiciary and the relatively newly established and independent Institute for Human Rights, which also conducts annual reviews. We received the latest report this week.

Through the Instrument of Government, we not only have the right not to be subjected to discrimination based on gender, skin color, national or ethnic origin, linguistic or religious affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, age or other circumstances concerning the individual as a person, but the public power shall also be exercised with respect for all people's equal value and for the individual human being's freedom and dignity.

The Instrument of Government goes so far as to establish that the individual's personal, economic and cultural welfare shall be a fundamental goal for public activity, and these goals shall secure the right to work, housing and education as well as promote social care, security and good conditions for health. Furthermore, the public shall promote a sustainable development that leads to a good environment for current and future generations, work to ensure that the ideas of democracy become guiding in all areas of society and safeguard the individual's private life and family life. The public shall also work to ensure that all people can achieve participation and equality in society and that all children's rights are taken into account.

It is thus far-reaching civil and political rights that are established in the constitution. This also includes promoting the Sámi people and the ethnic and religious minorities' opportunities to maintain and develop their own cultural and community life.

These freedoms and rights are subject to political control, among other things through the reporting to the EU that I mentioned. A government's ability to live up to these freedoms and rights is evaluated, not least, in free and democratic elections.

Last year, I had the privilege of being in Brussels when the EU's evaluation was discussed with representatives from the different countries. We could then note that the political shift in Poland means that many of the things we have been worried about are actually being rolled back. They are rolling back the democratic freedoms and rights that have been restricted in one way or another.

The Instrument of Government also contains the positive freedoms of opinion: freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of assembly, freedom of demonstration, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. But just as there are positive freedoms, there are also negative freedoms of opinion. They entail a protection against coercion from the public to express one's political, religious, cultural, or other opinion. The public can also not force anyone to belong to such associations or to participate in demonstrations.

The law also protects against the registration of political views. It prohibits the death penalty, corporal punishment, and torture. It protects against body searches and significant infringements of personal integrity, among other things.

Mr. Speaker! The report we are now considering also reviews the European Convention, Union law, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and various investigations within the field. The Committee notes that a parliamentary committee named the 2023 Freedom and Rights Committee has dealt with a number of current proposals for constitutional amendments aimed at strengthening the individual's rights in various respects. This concerns, among other things, the right to judicial review, constitutional protection of the right to abortion, and revocation of citizenship in cases of serious crimes. The committee report is now being processed in the Government Offices.

The reason why many of these issues are being addressed is the development we have seen in the rest of the world where politics can remove previously self-evident freedoms and rights. Through the changes that are proposed, these various freedoms and rights will receive a stronger position and be able to remain.

(Applause)

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation number 1. But we naturally stand behind all our reservations in the report.

In the form of government, civil and political rights are a central cornerstone for the society we have built and are building stronger. In Sweden, one has rights and obligations. An example of an unspoken obligation is that one adapts to the country in which one settles. It is just as obvious for myself and for Mr. Speaker, if we were to settle in another country, as it is for those people who have chosen to settle in Sweden.

Do your duty, demand your right, the Social Democrat August Palm once said. Here, the Sweden Democrats take off from several of our motions in this report.

The development we see naturally places demands on society. The security situation in Sweden has changed with suspected sabotage on Swedish soil combined with an increased internal threat from organized gang crime. In the long run, this could threaten citizens' rights in society, which emphasizes the importance of a political governance that acts resolutely when system-threatening factors claim to advance their positions.

The Sweden Democrats believe that it is heading in the right direction. But we are far from satisfied. The Tidö parties have come a bit of the way, but very much remains to be done. It is a scarred Sweden that it will take many years to repair.

Mr. Speaker! Recently, we have seen several corruption scandals in the EU. In 2022, it emerged that forces were trying to gain influence in the European Parliament. Now it has happened again: a new corruption scandal where members of the EU Parliament are involved. It shows that the EU is no guarantee of security for our freedoms and rights. It is primarily Sweden that must stand strong and have clear lines against the EU in order to protect Sweden's citizens.

After deficiencies within the EU were discovered regarding corruption, some reforms were moved forward. But we know that, according to Transparency International, it was not enough. Here in Sweden, we must be vigilant. The EU is primarily about cooperation between countries. It should not be about a central European governance. We must always stand up for every EU country's right to self-determination.

In the Instrument of Government, we can read that Swedish democracy is based on free formation of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage. It is realized through a representative and parliamentary system of government and through local self-government.

Mr. Speaker! Free freedom of expression is what we must safeguard and protect in Sweden. We must not allow restrictions to be introduced on free freedom of expression. Here, the Sweden Democrats will always fly the flag high and safeguard the cornerstone of our democracy: the free word.

Free opinion formation should not be confused with disinformation. Instead, meet those who have a different opinion with good arguments, not with supra-national instruments that stifle the debate!

In a democracy, it is crucial that everyone, regardless of political opinion, is allowed to express themselves freely and without fear of reprisals. If people are silenced or discriminated against because of their opinions, open debate and thus democracy are undermined.

According to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, discrimination on the grounds of political opinion is prohibited. But this protection only applies in connection with other freedoms and rights specified in the convention or its additional protocols. Therefore, there is currently no comprehensive protection against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion in Swedish legislation. For example, political opinion is not covered by the Discrimination Act.

The government should consider investigating how we can better protect those who are unfairly disadvantaged because of their political opinion, which we also motion for in this report. How can we maintain a democratic order if we do not protect people who are negatively affected because of their political opinion? Of course, a political stance, as long as it follows Swedish law, should not be able to result in someone being discriminated against, for example, not receiving a position in a trade union despite being best suited for the position in terms of competence. I have a hope that all parliamentary parties can stand behind that, Mr. Speaker.

When we talk about discrimination and equal treatment, I must mention the Institute for Human Rights. I think it is a bit up for debate. Is the Institute for Human Rights a credible authority that one should take seriously? We cannot have an authority that does not actively work to curb all kinds of racism in society. That in itself contributes to a more divided society. Yet, that is exactly what happens. We have an authority that turns a blind eye to racism when it affects Swedes. Do not make distinctions between people! Racism and prejudice are equally loathsome regardless of who is the perpetrator and who is the victim.

We consider that the activities carried out by the Institute for Human Rights have major shortcomings and that the protection of human rights can be handled in a more efficient manner by other authorities.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about our democracy. Let us safeguard democracy, which generations of Swedes have fought so hard for and which many other countries around the world can only dream of. We must see the value of freedom of expression and diversity in the debate, because it is the core of our democracy. Let us stand strong together and say no to those who want to silence free opinion formation with simple explanatory models such as disinformation and election interference as soon as a political line advocating an opinion other than one's own gains ever greater spread among the citizens. Here we all have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to keep the anti-democratic forces at bay before they gain a grip on the EU and Sweden.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a large number of proposals concerning our fundamental freedoms and rights. There is much to say about these proposals, but in this context, I would like to raise another aspect that we in the Liberals consider to be just as important as the freedoms and rights that we establish in the constitution. It is about how we guarantee that these freedoms and rights are respected by our authorities and norm-setting bodies, such as the government and the Riksdag.

Mr. Speaker! The protection of our fundamental freedoms and rights is, ultimately, the aspect that determines whether a democracy develops in a more or less liberal direction. In a liberal democracy, these rights are not only strongly protected but constitute the central goal and meaning of the system of government. In an illiberal, a non-liberal, democracy, it is, however, an unrestricted majority rule that dominates.

Mr. Speaker! Since antiquity, these two conceptions of democracy have stood against each other. The first democracy, the Athenian one, perished when the demagogues transformed majority rule into a tyrannical instrument that knew no boundaries. The death sentence against Socrates stands as an eternal reminder of the danger of such a conception of democracy.

This tyranny of the majority, as John Adams, Edmund Burke, and Alexis de Tocqueville called it, was and still is a threat to both the rights of the individual and the minority. It was to create a bulwark against this threat that the first modern democracy, the American, set strong barriers against constitutional amendments, created a complicated system of checks and balances, and already in December 1791 adopted a bill of rights with constitutional status.

As is well known, Sweden followed a different path. The development of our democracy was characterized by the philosopher Axel Hägerström and the so-called Uppsala School's legal realism, with its view that absolute human rights do not exist, something that was enthusiastically embraced by the emerging social democracy. Popular sovereignty was not to be restricted by natural law principles or constitutional obstacles. The Social Democrats wanted it to be easy to change the constitution, and the fundamental freedoms and rights preferably should not be written into the constitution. Instead, it was sufficient with a few hardly binding sentences, which was the case in the new Instrument of Government adopted in 1974.

The opposition to the separation of powers and, above all, to the courts' right to review a parliamentary or administrative decision was fundamental from the side of the Social Democrats but also from other political parties, such as the Center Party. Opposed to this view were the bourgeois-minded parties such as the Liberal Party and the Moderates, who defended the idea that a strong constitution would protect our fundamental rights and set clear limits for all exercise of public power.

Mr. Speaker! Since the 1970s, much has happened. The liberal-democratic position has won important victories, not least thanks to the interventions of the European Court of Human Rights. That the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into Swedish legislation was a decisive step in that direction, likewise the prohibition on issuing a law or other regulation that conflicts with Sweden's obligations under the European Convention, as well as the successive adaptation to EU law, not least that we abolished the so-called manifest requirement, which meant that a court could decide that a law contrary to the constitution could not be applied, but only if the error was manifest.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal from the 2020 Constitutional Committee to strengthen constitutional protection by requiring a qualified majority of two-thirds at the second vote in the Riksdag is a major liberal democratic success that we in the Liberal Party wholeheartedly support. We consider, however, that this important reform is not a sufficient protection against potential abuse of power as long as the judicial review institution is not strengthened in a decisive way.

A constitutional court would be the best way to establish an effective review body for laws and ordinances as well as government and other agency decisions. The highly regarded German constitutional court in Karlsruhe could serve as a model for such a court. The German court's powers include both abstract and concrete constitutional review, that is, both review of whether a law in itself follows the constitution and review on the grounds of an individual case. The review should also be made not only after a law has entered into force but also before, through constitutional review ex ante. That is how it works, for example, in France.

Mr. Speaker! There are, of course, risks with a centralized system for law or norm review. The primary one is that it can be politicized, that is, used as an instrument to enforce a party-political or ideologically biased interpretation of the constitution. This risk of politicization has been relevant for a long time in the case of the US Supreme Court, but more recently also in countries such as Poland and Hungary. The risk must, of course, be taken most seriously, not least regarding the appointment of the members of the norm-reviewing body.

The German appointment system has so far avoided this risk through a combination of formal and informal requirements. The formal aspect is that a two-thirds majority is required in both the Bundesrat and the Bundestag to elect new judges. The informal aspect is a political consensus culture that prevents blocking minorities from arising, as they often do in, for example, Spain.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, it is worth reminding that no political system in the long run is immune to illiberal tendencies if a people's majority stands behind authoritarian leaders. We need to keep that in mind in the time we are living in now. As Ronald Reagan expressed it in January 1967: Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than a generation away from extinction. This applies if the majority of the people are not prepared to defend it.

Finally, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving for the approval of reservation 10. Even though Vänsterpartiet has several reservations in this report, it is only reservation 10 that I move for approval.

This report contains, as previous speakers have pointed out, many proposals that in different ways affect our fundamental freedoms and rights. It is such things that we often take for granted and see as self-evident.

It is the respect for all people's equal value, that we have freedom of speech, that we have the right to participate in meetings, that we have the right to demonstrate and to practice our religion, regardless of which, and that we have the right to not be believers at all. It is that we are protected against major intrusions into our integrity, that we are not registered based on political opinions, that we are allowed to move freely in society, that we are protected against discrimination and that we are guaranteed legal certainty if we are accused of having committed a crime.

For Vänsterpartiet, it is a self-evident truth that every human being has an inviolable value. For a long time in Sweden, we have seen it as a self-evident truth to, for example, through the asylum program, provide protection and support to among others journalists and artists to be able to exercise their freedom of expression here as a way to show concrete solidarity when the opportunities are difficult in the home country.

Mr. Speaker! We can never take our freedoms and rights for granted. Research shows that democracy in the world is in decline, even here in Sweden and in Europe.

Today's threats to democracy may sometimes look different than before. Even though we have war and violence in our vicinity, there are also other threats aimed at creating unrest, uncertainty, and a lack of trust in society. This happens through disinformation, troll factories, and cyberattacks.

Threats can come from the outside. But not infrequently, the threats against democracy also come from within, from power itself, when authoritarian forces gain ground and then, in various ways, attack the independent media, the free academies, civil society's space, and the foundations of the justice system.

According to the research institute V-Dem, the progress that has been made for democracy in the world since the fall of the Soviet Union has now been completely swept away. The situation in the world is gloomy, to say the least. It is clear, therefore, that we can never take our freedoms and rights for granted. Europe and Sweden are unfortunately no exception.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we have a tradition of safeguarding our constitutional laws in particular. They are more difficult to change than ordinary law, and changes to the constitutional laws often occur after questions have been investigated where all parties have participated. It is precisely to find broad consensus on which changes we shall make to our constitutional laws.

In recent years, several constitutional inquiries have been carried out where a broad consensus could be reached precisely through this method of work. In large part, these inquiries have submitted proposals on how we can strengthen our courts' independence, make the constitution slightly more difficult to change, and strengthen our preparedness to handle severe crises.

Mr. Speaker! Karl Marx was right. Just a few days ago, the rector of the School of Economics, Lars Strannegård, wrote this in Dagens Nyheter. As a member of the Left Party, one can be surprised and perhaps a little pleased by such a quote. But unfortunately, there is a much greater seriousness behind what the rector chose to quote in his debate article.

The quote from Karl Marx is: "Everything solid is fluidity, everything sacred is profane, and people are finally forced to see their life situation and their mutual connections with sober eyes." The meaning of Marx's quote is that everything can change. Nothing is secure, nothing is sacred, and not even the most respected parts of society are immune to the market economy's rampage.

Strannegård further argues in his debate article that the development we are now seeing in the USA is completely in line with Marx's analysis and prophecy. What we are now seeing are pure attacks on what we believed was stable and fundamental, such as the democratic values that the USA, according to its own statement, has wanted to protect and preserve through, among other things, military interventions around the world.

But on the American home front, flagrant attacks on the democratic pillars are now underway. The justice system is being destabilized. Journalists are threatened, discredited, and mocked. Freedom of speech is not respected, and words such as diversity and inclusion are banned. The idea of an arm's length distance to culture is but a memory. Libraries are ordered to purge unpleasant books.

In the USA, the universities are also under massive attack and are now being portrayed as the enemies of society. Funding is being withdrawn, and research grants are being withheld. According to Strannegård, it is possible that the damage already inflicted on the universities may be impossible to repair.

Mr. Speaker! We are certainly not the USA. But the world's developments, both in the USA and in the rest of the world, are something that one needs to take seriously. We cannot be naive about the fact that the developments occurring in several places could also occur here.

Our Swedish universities and colleges rest on academic freedom. This means that their activities rest on the fact that academic freedom shall be promoted and protected. The activities at the higher education institutions also constitute an important foundation for democratic development and public debate.

A prerequisite for this is that the educational institutions have the right to self-determination and are free from undue governance. But last year, a report was issued by the Swedish Council for Higher Education on academic freedom in Sweden. According to it, employees at our educational institutions consider political governance and political influence to be the greatest threat to academic freedom.

Several organizations within the higher education sector, such as the trade union for employees at universities and colleges, SULF, Sveriges förenade studentkårer, Sveriges universitets- och högskoleförbund, and Sveriges Unga Akademi, have unanimously highlighted that there is a need to consider a stronger and broader protection of academic freedom than the current formulation in the Instrument of Government.

Academic freedom consists of several parts. It concerns both research, education, and independent higher education institutions. That universities and colleges have autonomy is to ensure that research and education are free from undue governance and can freely publish and disseminate knowledge. Vänsterpartiet considers, in line with these organizations, that academic freedom needs to receive stronger protection in our constitution.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: Vänsterpartiet considers that all people should be able to freely define and express themselves and that they should have the right to decide over their bodies in other ways, for example, through gender identity. For many, gender identity is self-evident, but for others, a legislative change involving the introduction of a third legal gender would mean an enormous amount.

A fundamental principle for the introduction of a third legal gender is, of course, that it shall be a choice for the individual and not a compulsion. Vänsterpartiet believes that all people have the right to have their gender identity recognized and respected. We also believe that it is up to each individual to determine their own gender.

I will conclude by saying a few additional words. Just as previous speakers have touched upon, an investigation has been conducted regarding strengthened Jewish life. This year marks the 250th anniversary of Jewish life in Sweden. As has been mentioned here, there is a broad consensus when it comes to strengthening Jewish life. But I can state that the government, unlike Vänsterpartiet, unfortunately did not provide sufficient resources in its budget to fulfill the proposals that the investigation has put forward.

I can also state another thing: If there is anything that has succeeded in uniting the opposition in the Swedish Riksdag, it is the demands that the former chairman of the Committee on Justice should resign as a result of the statements he made about, among other things, Quran burnings. The result instead was that a liberal member resigned after having stated that the limit for such expressions is when they concern Jews and that they are then not acceptable.

Unlike other parties in this chamber, the Left Party takes all forms of racism seriously. We want to see a society where gender, name, background, and where one is born do not determine life's opportunities – a society where everyone has the same right to freedom, security, and a life free from oppression. We want to see a society that actively counters racism.

In this speech, Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V) concurred.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to move for approval of reservation 8.

Last year, we celebrated here in the Riksdag that the Instrument of Government turned 50 years old. It is one of our fundamental laws where we find provisions regarding our basic freedoms and rights, that is to say, what we are debating here today.

In the second chapter of the Instrument of Government, we find the positive freedoms: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. There are also 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 against infringements on personal integrity.

These constitutionally protected freedoms and rights may only be restricted by law under certain conditions and only if the restrictions are proportionate, that is to say, that one may never go further than what is necessary to achieve the purpose one intends to achieve with the restriction.

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, we have 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, precisely in such difficult times, to keep a cool head and ensure that proposals presented which involve limitations of our civil liberties and rights are carefully analyzed. 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 achieve the purposes that we, as legislators, say we want to achieve. They must, therefore, truly be effective.

Mr. Speaker! It is important that changes to our constitutional laws are not made in a rush. Therefore, we have a long tradition in Sweden of such changes being developed within the framework of parliamentary committees, where all parties are represented. It is committees that usually are given ample time to thoroughly review different proposals as well as the consequences of any changes.

That is also why we have established a fixed practice in Sweden to only submit proposals for constitutional amendments that have reached a broad majority in such parliamentary committees. This fixed practice is very good and important to stick to, but the protection for changing the constitution needs to be further strengthened. We were many parties who agreed on this when a previous constitutional committee reviewed the issue.

It is therefore welcome that the government will, as I understand it, soon present proposals to formally make constitutional amendments more difficult. As my colleague in the committee, Louise Meijer, said here a short while ago, it will soon require a two-thirds majority of the members of the Riksdag in the second round of voting when an amendment to a constitution is to be adopted. Since we have several proposals for constitutional amendments awaiting us ahead, I look forward to the new rules on qualified majority at the second vote applying to all of these expected proposals for amendments.

Our constitutional laws need to be changed sometimes; they may need to be strengthened and improved. In January this year, several proposals for amendments were presented in a report prepared by a parliamentary committee, where I had the privilege of representing Centerpartiet. We in the committee achieved a pleasingly broad consensus on a couple of important issues. These concerned, on one hand, giving the right to abortion a strengthened protection, and on the other, ensuring the constitutionally anchored right to judicial review, which several other speakers have touched upon.

Something we, however, did not achieve broad support for was to give property rights a strengthened protection. This is something that I and the Center Party truly regret. The current situation with forest owners and other landowners who have to endure encroachments on their property rights without being compensated for it is completely unacceptable.

That is why we in Centerpartiet have a separate statement in the report with proposals that I myself have heard welcomed by, among others, LRF. These are proposals that mean one must immediately appoint a new investigation that only has a focus on the ownership rights issue and not on an additional five issues. So many we had to handle in the last committee, which I sat on, and furthermore in a very short time. These are issues that are complicated and that one needs to ground, and I believe this is what is required for us to achieve a broad majority.

We look forward to such an initiative from the government's side, and we naturally hope that the majority of the parties in the Riksdag also understand the extent of the need for this change.

Mr. Speaker! From Chapter 1, Section 2 of the Instrument of Government, it appears 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.

Therefore, it is important to listen when we are alerted that there are people in Sweden whose freedom and dignity are limited by racism, antisemitism, antiziganism, Islamophobia and discrimination. According to statistics from Brå, 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.

Centerpartiet believes that we need to further strengthen the protection against discrimination. We therefore want to see an amendment to the constitution that expands the prohibition of discrimination so that it corresponds to the grounds for discrimination specified in the Discrimination Act. This means that gender identity or expression, functional impairment, and age shall also be included in the constitutional protection.

(Applause)

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As a newly elected Member of Parliament in the autumn of 2022, I was proposed by my party to take a seat in the Committee on the Constitution and was then immediately drawn into the constitutional discussions regarding foreign espionage. At times, the waves of the debate were quite high there.

With this steep learning curve behind me, I also had the opportunity to participate in the constitutional investigation presented in January, which concerned some civil and political rights and to what extent such changes should be made in the Instrument of Government.

In the report we are now discussing, there are some of the questions that the investigation discussed. Pending the preparation within the Government Offices, the committee proposes to reject the motions that deal with these questions.

From the Green Party's side, in line with the other parties, we have shared the view that the right to judicial review and the right to abortion can be added to the Instrument of Government. When it comes to the right to judicial review, it is largely an adaptation to current practice; it should be possible to have one's case reviewed. With the right to abortion, it follows that the more detailed questions regarding the right to terminate a pregnancy are regulated in ordinary law.

Mr. Speaker! Over the years, a number of motions have been submitted regarding possibilities to revoke citizenship, partly for various crimes, and partly for false information or improper influence at the time of application. These motions have been regularly rejected, and it is proposed that the same will be the case this year for these motions – which without exception have been submitted by members representing the parties in the government base.

The question of possibilities to revoke citizenship was discussed on several occasions also by the 2023 Freedom and Rights Committee, i.e., the investigation I just mentioned. We and Vänsterpartiet saw ourselves forced to submit reservations when it became clear that the government parties would like to see that a fairly extensive amount of crimes could lead to the citizenship being revoked.

For our part, it is important to emphasize citizenship as a sign of integration and community rather than something that can be used in addition to the system we already have for holding criminals accountable and imposing sentences.

I would like to agree with what Member Malin Björk has just raised: Since there is a consensus on a two-thirds majority at the second instance when a constitutional law is to be treated, all decisions made on the basis of the investigations that now exist should be covered by the new rule so that no one can later question that we have done correctly.

Mr. Speaker! After many rounds, the law on the determination of gender in certain cases could be adopted during the spring of 2024. It provides the opportunity for young people from the age of 16 – and obviously all those who no longer consider themselves young people – to decide their own gender identity.

The fight for rights is not over just because one battle is won and a law is passed. Developments in Sweden and examples from Europe show that we cannot only work for the next reform; rights that already exist need stronger protection.

Strengthening the protection for a vulnerable minority in Sweden is an important task for politics. As I see it, additions should be made to Chapter 2, Section 12 of the Instrument of Government – that is, the paragraph concerning that no one may be disadvantaged for their sexual orientation – to include gender-diverse identity and expression in the provision. This would clarify that laws and regulations may not disadvantage trans people, which is important because trans people's rights are increasingly questioned in the public debate.

Mr. Speaker! The state shall protect the residents' right to practice their faith in safety. Despite this, religious communities and individual believers continue to be subjected to hate, threats, harassment, and violence. To address this, religious communities can apply for state support to invest in security-enhancing measures, for example, surveillance cameras, security doors, and guards. It is good that the possibility to apply for support exists, but it is not enough. The Jewish congregations, for example, use disproportionately large parts of their budgets on security.

We mean that the support for security measures must be further reformed so that it can be designed in a more purposeful way and to enable more long-term and ongoing investments instead of one-off efforts.

Mr. Speaker! A strong and vibrant democracy is built on fundamental principles of a free academy, independent courts, a free press, and a free culture. Academic freedom, however, is something more than the freedom to freely choose research questions and research methods and to publish research results. Academic freedom also encompasses higher education as well as the organization, funding, and appointment of boards and rectors of educational institutions.

In a report from the Swedish Council for Higher Education, it appears that every other teacher, researcher, and doctoral student considers that academic freedom at Swedish universities is challenged today. Academic freedom is challenged through political influence and through how the funding system functions.

In my opinion, the government must initiate an investigation that takes a broad approach to academic freedom in the constitution and also proposes strengthened protection for academic freedom throughout the entire legislative chain, encompassing both higher education and research as well as the institutions' organizational form, funding, and appointments of boards and rectors.

Mr. Speaker! I have reached the end of this compilation of civil and civil rights that are important to us in Miljöpartiet and intended to conclude with a few words about the Institute for Human Rights. Member Martin Westmont argued earlier that it should be abolished. I hold a diametrically opposite view and argue that the institute does great good.

It was established on 1 January 2022. The Institute's tasks are to monitor, investigate and report on how human rights are respected and realized in Sweden. The Institute shall submit proposals to the Government on measures that are needed, have contacts with international organizations and otherwise participate in international cooperation. The Institute shall also promote education, research, competence development, information and increased awareness of human rights.

As a smaller authority, the institute was included in the investigation that was to review exactly how smaller authorities are organized and whether some of them could potentially be merged into larger operations. The investigator concluded that the Institute for Human Rights should not be subject to any changes, at least not for the time being, partly because it is a new authority, and partly because its matters are important even though several other authorities are partially active in the area. We should be glad about that, I think.

Freedom of speech and rights

I would like to conclude by highlighting the institute's recently published annual report for 2024. There, a special chapter is devoted to the elderly and, among other things, a discussion on the possibility of a special convention on the human rights of older persons – this in connection with the discussion on discrimination. Here, they actually address precisely what Martin Westmont called for.

It is a working group within the UN that has been tasked to identify, as it is called, possible deficiencies in the protection of older persons' human rights and to consider measures. The UN working group notes that the frameworks we have are not sufficient and that there are deficiencies within, among others – please note this – the following areas: discrimination, violence and neglect, right to self-determination, palliative care, care, social insurance and economic security, education and lifelong learning, access to justice, right to work and access to the labor market, right to the best possible health, access to healthcare, participation in social life, accessibility, infrastructure and participation in decision-making processes.

Ageism is cited as a reason behind these deficiencies.

Furthermore, we are constantly pointed out that the Riksdag does not represent the elderly particularly well. I can personally think that it is not just dependent on how many members have reached a certain age, but certainly; there is a point. Pleasantly enough, four of the ten members of Parliament who have passed 65 years of age are, by a strange coincidence, also members from different parties in the Committee on the Constitution. Perhaps this is where the fight against ageism begins.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the floor and move for approval of reservations 3 and 11.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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