Freedoms and rights etc.
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M believes that freedom is linked to rights and responsibilities 1 and proposes investigations regarding abortion rights, gender identity, and religious issues 1. SD believes that honor culture is a threat and that veils should not be allowed in schools 2, as well as that a ban on discrimination on political grounds must be introduced in the Instrument of Government 2. S wants a ban on racist organizations to be included in a constitutional investigation 3. KD wants to increase state grants for security for Jewish congregations 4. L advocates for the right to abortion to be written into the constitution 5. V wants to strengthen the right to abortion through the constitution and introduce a third legal gender 6. C wants to investigate a third legal gender 7, expand the constitution's non-discrimination ban to include disability and age 7 and emphasizes that words in politics have significance 7. MP wants the right to abortion to be constitutionally protected 8, that the national institute for human rights have its prerequisites established in the constitution 8, and to investigate a ban on racist organizations 8, a third legal gender 8, separation of gender reassignment processes 8 and nature's rights 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Ulrik Nilsson (M)
Madam Speaker! Freedom is the best thing that can be sought in all the world - so it was skalded in 1439. At that time, it probably mainly concerned freedom from the Dane, but the words also have a value today. When we discuss freedom, it is something we hold very highly. In order for freedom to be secured, it is linked to rights, and therefore the committee report is titled Freedom and rights etc. But actually, it is about forms of interaction, about how we should behave towards one another.
It is clear that there are some simple principles. We can say: You can do quite a lot as long as you do not harm anyone else. We can also say: We have a protection, but we also have a responsibility not to harm the institutions that uphold the protection, because we are dependent on this common protection. It is thus responsibility for others, and it is responsibility for institutions. All of this is described with us in the Instrument of Government where the fundamental freedoms and rights are codified. There, it is described rather in the perspective that you shall not be subjected to certain restrictions of your freedom, while we often discuss it in positive terms, that is, what you have a right to.
I will not go through all the motions in this committee report, as that would take far too long. I will instead begin by declaring a general stance: There are reasons to proceed with caution. We can, after all, destroy very much that takes time to build up. Therefore, many questions are of the character "interesting point, may be worth considering but needs to be investigated significantly further."
Let us begin with some such things. An area that has recently become very topical is the question of protection for the right to abortion. There are a number of motions on that. It is very easy to see the reason why the right to abortion is being raised, as it has been questioned in certain countries. It has existed, and there has always been a discussion because it is also a moral issue for the individual. But it is not entirely easy to see how it can be directly included in a catalogue of rights or in the reasoning that lies behind it. Therefore, I think it is welcome that there is a broad consensus that this should be investigated, and then there may be an interest in emphasizing it more or less. In any case, an investigation will be carried out on how the protection for the right to abortion should be strengthened. Whether it then becomes in the form of constitutional law or elsewhere is something that the investigation must show.
A number of the motions concern the boundary between my own freedom and when I harm others. Two examples are motions on gender identity, LGBTQ rights and the like. One can, I think, allow very much as long as it does not go at the expense of someone else's opportunity.
A similar question of boundary also applies to some of the religious issues raised here. Should the wearing of a veil be allowed? I fundamentally find it difficult to see that anyone, by wearing a veil, would offend anyone else. But it is clear that if someone is forced to do so, it is a loss of civil rights and liberties for the veil-wearer. There, it is a question of balancing. The same thing can apply to everything from church bells to the call to prayer. When does it offend and when does it not?
To some extent, one still has to manage the fact that there is a balance between what one should tolerate and what one is allowed to tolerate in a free and open society. I can actually tolerate that there are one or two here in the chamber who may want to disagree with me. I do not intend to be offended by it, because I believe that is the very foundation of what we are doing.
Madam Speaker! There are also a number of motions concerning the protection of the possibility to conduct a civilized and talented conversation on difficult issues. It is about how we should protect ourselves against those who attack our democracy and how we should protect ourselves from outside influence. Just the fact that I intend to allow you to bark at me if you wish is perhaps the first and foremost protection for democracy, namely free debate – that we do not sweep it under the rug but for discussion where it should be conducted. Should it fail, that this is subjected to threats or other abuses, it is already illegal today. We can discuss this in connection with our discussion of freedoms and rights, and perhaps that is where the motions belong. But I am not entirely sure that the consequences will be that people would become less threatening if we simply pass another decision that it is illegal once again. In the first instance, we must conduct the intellectual discussion and debate here in the chamber, for that is how we protect freedom.
Madam Speaker! Here is a large number of motions, as I said initially. There is much to take in and reflect upon. There is much that is both good and alarming, and sometimes such that one might think is ill-conceived. But all this must occur with caution regarding the systems we have. The end of the first verse in Bishop Thomas's freedom song, which I let frame this speech, says that with freedom follows honor. This is perhaps an attitude that we should have. We shall act honorably and we shall be honest with one another, for then we also receive the honor.
Madam Speaker! I would like to move for approval of the Committee on the Constitution's proposal in the report.
Amalia Rud Pedersen (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1 from S, V, C and MP and reservation 5 from S and MP.
Madam Speaker! To be provocatively called various ugly racist words as a child by adults you do not know because your parents were born in another country, to find it even harder as a young adult to move out of your parental home in an already difficult housing market because you have a different surname than Svensson and Jansson, to again receive a no in an interview process as a job seeker solely because your skin color is a bit darker or your hair color is not as blonde – all of this is unfortunately everyday life for very many in Sweden today.
Madam Speaker! In recent years, racism and, above all, Afrophobia and hatred towards Muslims in our country have increased. Sweden has received stinging criticism from the UN regarding the extent to which racist acts of violence and hate are increasing and manifesting both in the online environment and in the physical environment. It is frightening. Racism stops people from living their lives fully as free people; it even kills.
Madam Speaker! Racism must be combated in a number of different ways. Like a mold fungus, it must be sanitized away with a number of different methods. Its spores must not be allowed to grow further in our society, and therefore we must combat it at both the individual level as well as the organized and structural level. The so-called everyday racism must be combated by more people daring to speak out and not allowing insults or so-called jokes, whether in the breakroom at work or at the keyboard in the evening.
Racism in the housing market and in working life is combated with general welfare based on community where racist structures are not allowed.
At the same time, we must also put a stop to the organization of racism. Such organizations pose a particular threat to our society and democracy, because they strive to undermine the civil rights and freedoms of some. We cannot tolerate that in a constitutional state.
A parliamentary appointed committee recently proposed a ban on organizations whose activities involve the persecution of certain groups. It concluded that this would be accommodated in the constitution, but that there were some concerns regarding the applicability in relation to the Instrument of Government.
In the so-called Tidö Agreement, the Sweden Democrats together with the Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals have already flagged that a constitutional review should be conducted on how it can become punishable to participate in criminal organizations. We Social Democrats want the issue of a ban on racist organizations to be part of the upcoming constitutional review.
Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties say they want to fight crime. Racism when it is practiced is a crime. I hope that one wants to fight racism as hard as one wants to fight the criminal gangs.
Gudrun Brunegård (KD)
Madam Speaker! The report we are considering today concerns civil and political rights, and the two previous speakers have raised many important aspects. I will focus on another part; that is not to say that I do not agree with much of what you have said.
In these days, Israel celebrates 75 years as an independent nation. It is a direct result of the international community's response to the horrific events that unfolded during World War II, when around six million Jews were murdered by other human beings. Six million! At that time, Sweden probably did not have many more inhabitants.
It is completely horrific how it could happen. But it happened against a background of many hundreds of years of antisemitism, where people of Jewish descent were subjected to systematic suspicion and harassment simply because of their descent. Many Swedes are unaware of this centuries-long structural antisemitism, and it is good that various measures have been introduced to spread knowledge among both youth and adults about what happened, with the explicit purpose that it shall not happen again.
For me, it was an eye-opener when I got to know a Jewish family in Kalmar during my teenage years. The wife told me that the husband, who was then in his sixties, often woke up screaming in panic from recurring nightmares. He relived the pogroms of his childhood in Poland with violent riots and arson attacks directed against the Jews in the town where he grew up. The terror of the little boy who was forced to flee through the flames lived on inside him, even though he had lived in safety in Sweden for almost fifty years after this.
It is among other things this that today's report deals with:
that public power is exercised with respect for all people's equal value and for the individual person's freedom and dignity
that the public shall counteract discrimination of people on the basis of gender, skin color, national or ethnic origin, linguistic or religious affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, age or other circumstances - that is, to prevent racism and antisemitism from gaining the upper hand again
that as a state offer a protection for vulnerable population groups and in this case national minorities.
Madam Speaker! A few months ago, a seminar was held here in the Riksdag regarding antisemitic hate crimes and the safety of Jews. Public places such as the street, clubs, restaurants, bars, demonstrations and manifestations but also the school, the home, the workplace and the internet – virtually any place can become a crime scene for antisemitic hate crimes. But above all, Jewish congregations and institutions are targets for terrorists and terrorist organizations. Taken together, a very serious situation is described with a threat to the safety of Jews and antisemitic harassment in the form of bullying, threats and discrimination.
As appears from the report, there is a government grant for "security-enhancing measures at organizations within civil society whose activities are affected by fear of threats, violence, and harassment", to quote exactly. Kristdemokraterna have actively contributed to the grant receiving increased funds to protect synagogues, Jewish schools, and institutions.
But that is far from enough. In fact, it is the Jewish community that itself finances the majority of the security work through membership fees. Given that we in Sweden stand up for all people's equal value and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender, skin color, national or ethnic origin and so on, we should be able to do more to protect the Jewish communities and make synagogues protected objects.
Madam Speaker! With these reflections, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the reservations.
Victoria Tiblom (SD)
Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats naturally stand behind all their reservations, but for the sake of time, I will content myself with moving to approve reservation 6.
We have come a long way in Sweden when it comes to civil rights, not least when it comes to the equal treatment of the sexes. Men and women are equal. But a frightening change is taking place in society, and we must safeguard our civil rights.
Madam Speaker! The culture of honor that is spreading is a threat to girls and women. In school, the culture of honor can manifest through girls covering their heads, hair, and necks with veils. The veiling of children and young people conflicts with fundamental values in Swedish society, where equality and the principle of everyone's equal value are central. Pre-school and primary school must never contribute to upholding segregating and honor-related structures or coercive norms from other cultures.
Therefore, one should not allow the hijab on children and young people in preschool and primary school or other public activities. Nor should staff be allowed to wear the hijab. It is of the utmost importance to defend our democratic, cultural, and secular values and to prevent people from being led into extremism.
Many societies in the world have actually never had any notion of freedoms and rights. The fact is that outside the Western world, the idea of certain freedoms and rights that may not be restricted has never been self-evident. In many parts of the world, it still is not. In our part of the world, it is, fortunately, self-evident. The fact is that we have had thoughts about rights for a very long time - at least a thousand years. But our freedoms and rights are not just something that dropped down from the sky. Nor is it something that any individual party in its goodwill has granted to the Swedish people. It is a fundamental part of our culture and our nation and has shaped these, while they have been shaped, over centuries.
Madam Speaker! Discrimination is another area where we have previously had very low tolerance. But now, discrimination is creeping into our society in various ways. The European Convention explicitly states that political discrimination must not occur in the exercise of authority against the individual or in an employment procedure when it concerns a public position. However, such an explicit prohibition against discrimination on political grounds during an employment procedure does not exist in the Instrument of Government. It does not belong in a democratic society that someone should not be considered for employment because he or she has the "wrong" opinions or is politically engaged in the "wrong" party. In our opinion, a clear prohibition must therefore be introduced against improper differential treatment of a person based on political opinion in employments within public, municipal, or regional activities.
There are good reasons to reflect on what the consequences will be of the current societal development if it is allowed to continue unchecked.
Madam Speaker! We Sweden Democrats are extremely skeptical that it is possible to maintain a free, liberal society for us all if the norms of the majority society are not protected.
Malin Danielsson (L)
Madam Speaker! It is in the Liberals' DNA to always start from the premise that all individuals should have the same opportunity and freedom to realize themselves, just as the same rights and responsibilities are tied to the individual. Therefore, we will always stand up for those people who today do not enjoy the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.
Madam Speaker! Discrimination is a way to limit someone's freedom. I am proud that the Liberals have throughout the ages initiated and pushed for protection against discrimination both in Swedish legislation and at the EU level, and we will continue to work to develop the protection.
Hate, hats, and racism are other phenomena that aim to limit others' freedom. Unfortunately, in Sweden in recent years, we have experienced firebombings against synagogues, swastikas in public environments, Jewish students being harassed in school, and antisemitic conspiracy theories being spread online. In the wake of the pandemic and Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, it has been further exposed how deeply rooted antisemitism is.
To safeguard our democracy, we all need to react against and counter threats and hate against those who are perceived as different or foreign. Forum för levande historia has an important task in informing about the Holocaust, but they are also responsible for following up on the national plan against racism. The new Institute for Human Rights makes important observations regarding racism, hate crimes, and discrimination in its first annual report, and it is important that they also continue to point out what the problem situation looks like in Sweden. During the Swedish presidency, a conference on the theme From words to action has been organized for the exchange of experience with other EU countries regarding how we can work more effectively against racism.
Madam Speaker! Since the mid-70s, Swedish women have had the right to free abortion. Before that, many Swedish women traveled to Poland to undergo an abortion. There it was legal, here it was illegal. Now the conditions are reversed.
The development of abortion rights is moving in different directions in different countries around the world. In Ireland, abortion legislation was liberalized through a referendum in 2018, where a large majority voted for a new and liberal law. In other places, the development is moving in the opposite direction. In Poland, the strict legislation has been tightened further, and the country now has Europe's strictest legislation in this area. In Texas, abortion rights were recently restricted. In addition to the limit for abortion there being lowered to week six, private individuals can now sue doctors who perform abortions or others who help by, for example, driving a pregnant woman across the state border so that she can reach a clinic.
Sweden is situated in a global environment, not in a vacuum. We are affected by international trends, both good and bad. The Swedish abortion law is an ordinary law, which means it can also be changed or cease to exist through a simple decision here in the Riksdag. The right to abortion is a fundamental issue regarding the right to life and health. One way to strengthen and secure the right to abortion is to write it in as a fundamental right in the constitution. The Liberals were first with this proposal, and the government has announced that an investigation will be carried out during the mandate period, which we are very pleased about.
Madam Speaker! Finally, I shall say a few words about the rights of hbtqi persons. When Barbro Westerholm, as head of the National Board of Health and Welfare, scrapped the disease label on homosexuality, Sweden took a gigantic step towards a more open and tolerant country. But change takes time, and unfortunately, there are still prejudices against people who break the norm. We notice this, not least in the debate about drag queens. However, the issue must not be diminished to being about this. The work with hbtqi persons' rights needs to continue with concrete proposals and actions that lead to increased freedom. The Government has designated additional agencies as hbtqi-strategic – most recently Forum för levande historia – and it is currently preparing important laws regarding, for example, gender identity. Another announced investigation concerns the ban on conversion attempts, which would increase the freedom for those hbtqi persons who are among the most vulnerable in Sweden today.
Jessica Wetterling (V)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 8.
This report contains, as previous speakers have said, many proposals that in different ways affect our fundamental freedoms and rights. It is such things as we often take for granted and see as self-evident – 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 practice our religion, regardless of which, and that we have the right not to be believers at all, that we are protected against major infringements of our privacy, that we are not registered based on political opinions, that we are allowed to move freely, that we are protected against discrimination and that we are guaranteed legal certainty if we are accused of having committed a crime.
Madam Speaker! At the same time, the freedoms and rights that we have must never be taken for granted. Research shows that democracy in the world is in decline, even here in Europe.
Despite the war in our vicinity, today's threats to democracy often look a bit different than before. It is rarely about violence. Instead, the change occurs from within by power itself, by authoritarian forces that gain ground and then in different ways attack the media, the academies, civil society, and 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 is now being swept away. The situation in the world is gloomy to say the least, and it is clear that we can never take our freedoms and rights for granted and that Europe unfortunately is no exception.
Madam Speaker! For the Left Party, a woman's right to her own body is a self-evident right, and likewise the right to free abortion. All women shall have the right to decide over their own bodies. Free abortion is also a prerequisite for all children who are born to be welcome. But it is also a health issue for women, both mentally and physically. It is the woman's right to decide if and when she wants to have children.
The right to abortion is, as previous speakers have also spoken about, enshrined in law in Sweden. But it is far from a self-evident matter. On the contrary, the right to abortion is repeatedly questioned. And around the world, abortion legislation is being tightened in a negative way.
We as a party oppose every restriction on abortion rights and argue that Sweden actively needs to work for the rights of girls and women throughout the world. We know that restrictions on abortion rights do not result in fewer but only more dangerous abortions. Even though the situation is not the same in Sweden as, for example, in the USA, the issue has become very topical over the past year with frightening examples even from Europe.
Today, all parliamentary parties stand behind the right to free abortion up to week 18. That is good, but even in Sweden there are groups that question and criticize the Swedish right to abortion.
Examples from our world clearly show that we cannot take this right for granted. Today, the right can be restricted through a simple parliamentary decision. Vänsterpartiet therefore considers that the protection for the right to abortion must be strengthened in various ways - I believe there is a consensus on this in the chamber even if there is a reservation, since even the government in its agreement has indicated that it intends to investigate the issue. One way could be the constitution. But if I understood the previous speaker from Moderaterna correctly, I also believe there is a consensus that there may be other ways to secure the right through legislation if the constitution cannot provide good protection. We are therefore not limiting ourselves to the constitution.
Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet also wants that all people should be able to freely define and express themselves and that they should have the right to decide over their own body 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 clearly that it must be a choice for the individual and not a compulsion. We believe 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. A modern gender identity law needs to be based on reality. We therefore believe that a third legal gender should be introduced while the possibilities of gender-segregated statistics can be maintained.
Malin Björk (C)
Madam Speaker! I stand behind the Center Party's all reservations in this report, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 7 under point 9.
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 be a self-evident truth in democratic Sweden. This respect and freedom shall encompass all people regardless of background, skin color, age, gender, or origin. Therefore, it is important to listen when we are alerted to the fact that there are people in Sweden whose freedom and dignity are limited by racism, antisemitism, and Islamophobia.
According to statistics from the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, hate crimes with xenophobic or racist motives have consistently increased over the last ten years. 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 do their best and achieve their dreams. It is fundamental and crucial for building a strong society.
Madam Speaker! When we see this most concerning development, it is imperative that we do everything we can to protect the groups in society that are most vulnerable. When the Discrimination Act was introduced, the possibility of eventually investigating a general and more comprehensive prohibition of discrimination was discussed. The Center Party considers that a review of the constitutional prohibition of discrimination should be made and that this prohibition should be expanded to correspond to the grounds for discrimination specified in the Discrimination Act. This means that even gender identity or expression, functional impairment, and age would be included in the constitutional protection.
It is a fundamental right in a liberal democracy to be or become the person one is. There are people who do not identify as either man or woman. And there is every reason to take this very important identity issue for individuals seriously. Therefore, we in the Center Party believe that it is time to investigate the introduction of a third legal gender.
Madam Speaker! If we look outward, beyond Sweden's borders, we unfortunately see a development that is worrying. In several countries, authoritarian forces have in recent years weakened and, in some cases, dismantled democratic and rule-of-law institutions. In Hungary and Poland, for example, political parties have won power through legitimate elections only to then dismantle liberal democracy from within. Here, the politicians have limited the opposition's influence, severely curtailed academic freedom, and restricted freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
Sweden's liberal democracy stands strong, but we must constantly safeguard it and our democratic and rule-of-law institutions. It is worth reminding oneself of this. There, we members of the Committee on the Constitution actually have a particularly important role. In our committee, these issues land—proposals concerning our constitutions, and ultimately the questions regarding our civil rights and liberties.
A new authority was recently established: The Institute for Human Rights. The Institute works to ensure human rights in Sweden based on our constitutional laws, the European Convention, and other international commitments. Recently, the management of this authority visited us in the Committee on the Constitution. They then emphasized the importance of being allowed to continue their work. I can do nothing but agree and proceed from the premise that the authority, now that we have established it, shall be given the opportunity to develop its work. I look forward to us in KU repeatedly receiving visits from the authority's representatives in the coming years and receiving their reports on how the work at the authority is developing.
Madam Speaker! When we in the Committee on the Constitution (KU) stand here and debate – just now the report on Freedom and Rights etc. – perhaps it does not always appear so exciting to an outsider. We do not usually polemicize to the extent that occurs in other committee debates. We do not usually indulge in sharpened arguments where objectivity can give way to the simple, the emotionally appealing, and the populist. But just this, I argue, is actually particularly valuable right now, in times when cheeky statements, quick attacks, and a polarized debate climate risk undermining trust in politics and thus also in our democracy.
I want to highlight a statement that the head of the Swedish Security Service made when she visited us in KU this week to describe the security situation, which is indeed concerning with several threat images against Sweden and against our democracy. She then emphasized that words matter. I also want to emphasize that. The words we use in politics matter. The words we choose in this speaker's chair matter.
Jan Riise (MP)
Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet has several reservations regarding this important report. But for the sake of time, I move for approval of only two – the opposition's joint reservation, number 1, which concerns abortion rights, and reservation number 5, which concerns racist organizations.
Madam Speaker! In several places in our world, we see how the right to abortion is being questioned and restricted. Even though the majority appears to be stable in Sweden, the development is moving in the opposite direction in many other parts of the world. Also within the EU, there are countries that restrict the right to abortion, with Malta and Poland at the forefront. And in the USA, the development towards stricter regulations is moving alarmingly fast.
But there are also groups in Sweden that question and criticize the Swedish right to abortion. Such proposals always start from the premise that it is someone other than the woman herself who should decide over her body. The right to abortion is regulated in ordinary law, which means that it can be changed or removed through a simple parliamentary decision.
There is, we in Miljöpartiet believe, every reason to provide constitutional protection for the right to abortion. We therefore welcome the parliamentarily appointed commission that is underway regarding this and a few additional issues within the area of freedom and rights.
Madam Speaker! In times of uncertainty, of strong forces and of external influence, or even just the suspicion that such occurs, it becomes all the more urgent to protect fundamental values and conditions. The best protection we have against rapid and unwanted changes is our fundamental laws.
I have just spoken about constitutionally protecting the right to abortion. I also want to mention academic freedom and human rights in this context.
We have reason to return to academic freedom later. It is not a subject in this report. But I intend to devote a few words to our brand-new institute for human rights.
By establishing a national institute for human rights, Sweden took a step towards a better realization of human rights. It is not exactly as if we have been first on the ball here. Already in 1993, that is 30 years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted the so-called Paris Principles stating that all countries should have an independent institution with the aim of protecting and promoting human rights in the country. Sweden has received a large number of reminders about this within the UN. But now it is in place, in Lund to be precise, for over a year now.
There are reasons to ensure the institute's long-term conditions both financially and by having its mandate established in the constitution, entirely in accordance with the intentions in the original investigation.
Madam Speaker! It is important that society shows that it distances itself from racist and Nazi organizations. Such organizations constitute a particular threat to society and democracy, because they strive to undermine or abolish democracy and the freedoms and rights of others, which cannot be tolerated in a constitutional state.
An investigation recently proposed a ban on organizations whose activities involve the persecution of certain ethnic groups. The proposal falls within the framework of the current constitution. There are concerns that such legislation could be difficult to apply due to the strict framework the Instrument of Government sets. In the so-called Tidö Agreement, the government base has already flagged a constitutional amendment to make it punishable to participate in criminal organizations. In our opinion in Miljöpartiet, the issue of banning racist organizations should also be part of a forthcoming constitutional investigation.
Sweden has received stinging criticism from the UN for a large number of hate crimes and continued racist violence, particularly against Muslims and Afro-Swedes. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is concerned about the reports of continued hate crimes in Sweden. Particularly serious is that it occurs during election campaigns, in the media, and on the internet. In our opinion, an investigation should therefore also be commissioned to produce a clear proposal on how Swedish legislation should best be designed to fully live up to the convention on racial discrimination. The investigation should, among other things, take a position on whether the convention on racial discrimination should apply as Swedish law.
Madam Speaker! There are people who today do not identify as either man or woman. There is every reason to take this as a very important identity issue for individuals seriously. The question of establishing a third legal gender therefore needs to be investigated.
The third digit in the last four digits of a Swedish personal identity number indicates whether the person is male or female. This enables statistical analyses from, for example, a gender perspective. We therefore want an investigation to be appointed to review the conditions for introducing a third legal gender without impairing the possibilities to conduct analyses and scientific investigations from a gender perspective.
New proposals have also been presented which mean that the administrative process for changing the gender that appears in the population register shall be separated from the medical process and that the age limit shall be lowered. We stand behind those proposals and believe that they should be presented to the Riksdag. All people have the right to have their gender identity recognized and respected and to have the correct gender designation indicated in their ID documents.
Madam Speaker! Finally, a few words about rights that have not until now attracted so much attention in Sweden but which we believe deserve to be mentioned. In recent years, several countries, including Ecuador, have included the concept of the rights of nature in their constitution. In 2018, the Supreme Court in Colombia decided to recognize the Amazon as a legal subject with rights.
Nature's rights mean a shift in our way of thinking and a change of the legal systems. The Earth's ecosystems and life forms are not seen as rightless objects subordinate to humans, but as legal subjects with inherent rights. Such a shift is one of the most important steps we can take towards creating a sustainable future.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.