Freedoms and rights etc.

Martin Westmont (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating here and now KU28 Freedom and rights etc.

Sweden should be on its guard. The development we see today places clear demands and emphasizes the importance of making the right priorities. The geopolitical situation in our global environment and a high risk of terrorist attacks on Swedish soil is a result of a naivety and many years of political misprioritizations.

The security threat we see could, in the long run, threaten our freedoms and rights. It further underscores the importance of a political leadership that takes responsibility and that is not characterized by the same naivety that has created the reality we must now deal with.

When system-threatening forces attempt to advance their positions and when groupings already today restrict or aim to restrict women's and children's opportunities and rights, even more must we all act powerfully and do everything in our power to prevent these forces from gaining a foothold in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Not everything is negative, however. We see a light far out there that reminds us of the light that we Swedes enjoy on that warm summer evening in our Sweden, which our relatives have built up with blood, sweat, and tears over generations.

The Tidö parties have taken important steps forward. The Sweden Democrats believe that the development is heading in the right direction, but much of the work that has been started remains. The government, together with the Sweden Democrats, succeeded in turning the Swedish ship just before it collided and sank to the absolute bottom when it comes to safety, growth, and the citizens' faith in the future.

A question we all must ask ourselves is whether we want to go back to a political order characterized by sticks and carrots or whether we want to continue on the path already taken, where it is made more profitable to work and where forces that want to restrict women's and children's opportunities in life are pushed back. It is fundamentally a question of freedoms and rights. It is precisely that which is at stake in the long perspective.

Madam Speaker! Rule of law and the principle of equal treatment are of great importance. We see a development where the EU is moving forward its positions, where the goal is to be able to have an overview of the democratic dialogue and the flow of information in the union. We have not yet received any more details on how that work will look in practice. But I still want to highlight the problems that often arise when EU bureaucracy is to interact with Swedish interests. We must avoid the introduction of supranational tools that can govern the possibilities of the member states' citizens for a free and open debate.

If the result of the work currently underway within the EU is that certain organizations, opinion leaders, or for that matter political parties are given poorer opportunities for the dissemination of information, it is a direct restriction of our civil and political rights.

We must not open the door to an arbitrary application of the law that risks hindering our freedom of speech. Protecting individuals from being disadvantaged because of political opinions is not about defending specific ideologies, but about defending the very foundation of a free and open society. Let us stand together against those who want to silence free opinion formation. Describing a social development that is anchored in reality must not risk being categorized with simplified labels, such as disinformation or election interference.

The European Convention prohibits discrimination on the grounds of political opinion, but only in connection with other freedoms and rights. Political opinion is not covered by the Discrimination Act. This means that in Swedish legislation today, there is a lack of comprehensive protection against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion.

In a democracy, it is crucial that everyone, regardless of political opinion, can freely express their views without risking being negatively affected by this. Therefore, the government should consider investigating how protection can be strengthened for those who, on incorrect grounds, suffer negative consequences due to their political opinions, for example, someone who is denied a position in a trade union despite the person being best suited in terms of competence.

Madam Speaker! What is the cornerstone of the work to safeguard our freedoms and rights? It is, of course, our Swedish constitution and the premise that all public power in Sweden derives from the people. That is also exactly what is stated in the first chapter and first paragraph of the Swedish Instrument of Government.

But, Madam Speaker, how does it square with the fact that we now have a proposal on the table that we should give a minority the power over our constitutional laws? Our constitutional laws are directly linked to our civil liberties and rights.

In the year 1896, just over 6 percent of the adult population had the right to vote. Previously, we heard the member from Vänsterpartiet speak about how in 1921, approximately 100 percent of the Swedish people, with some exceptions, had the opportunity to be involved in deciding over Sweden's future, and the side that received over 50 percent of the votes was given the opportunity to implement important reforms.

In the year 2026, more than 100 years later, one now wants to introduce a system where 33 percent of the Swedish people shall decide over parts of Sweden's development. We are taking a step backward in the work to safeguard our civil rights and freedoms in Sweden. It is nothing other than a development where we move towards a democratic deficit.

What we get is a barrier that can prevent necessary and popularly supported reforms from being implemented. It contradicts the core of the majority principle – the very engine of a representative democracy. If a minority of the members of the Riksdag is given a constant veto regarding important reforms that put the well-being of Sweden's citizens first, our ability to meet just those threats that our freedoms and rights can be exposed to is weakened.

Madam Speaker! We have today a party, the Sweden Democrats, which says that a majority decision should prevail. When a majority of the Swedish people want to implement legislative changes and reforms that are good for Sweden, a minority should not be able to say no. But unfortunately, that is precisely the development we are heading towards. For some reason, it was important to change the rules of procedure that have functioned so well in Sweden for so many years.

All other parliamentary parties have voted for an order where a minority shall decide over a majority. We in the Sverigedemokraterna stand here alone and know that we have a majority of the Swedish people behind us. It is also why the other parliamentary parties have said no to the Sverigedemokraterna's proposal for a referendum on this issue so important for Sweden.

Mr. Speaker, the future will give us Sverigedemokrater right – in the same way as we have been right when it has concerned the defense policy, the energy policy, the migration policy, and the justice policy. One hope, Madam Speaker, is that the other parties intend to consider this carefully. There is still an opportunity to rethink and take responsibility. Let us hope that the other parties in the Swedish Riksdag take advantage of that opportunity.

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

Lena Malm (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by describing the present in approximately the same way as my fellow party member Amalia Rud Stenlöf described it here in this chamber a year ago. I believe that many of us can state that the situation is still the same – it escapes no one that Sweden finds itself in a time characterized by anxiety and crisis.

Children and young people in our country feel a lack of trust that politics can solve the societal challenges we face. Those who are young are growing up with war in our near surroundings, gang violence in residential areas, a housing market that has closed the door for the young, and a welfare state that is faltering. Many young people doubt that they will ever be able to move out from home, get a stable job, or even feel security in their immediate environment.

But the fact that the situation is like this right now is no law of nature. Politics can do something about it, if the will exists.

Madam Speaker! The strength of our country is that we can express ourselves, criticize, and drive opinion in the issues we are engaged in. That is not the case in all parts of the world. Right now, people are fighting for democracy and freedom of expression in the Middle East, particularly in Iran. According to the Institute of Foreign Policy, violations of human rights are common in Iran, and the country's electoral system blocks candidates who are not considered sufficiently religiously devout. Regime-critical demonstrators risk being killed or arrested, and corruption is widespread.

The same institute points out that many warn that democracy is threatened even in the USA, a country that has long been considered a stable democratic state governed by the rule of law with regular elections and strong protection for freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

These examples are two countries that are currently at war with each other.

It can be stated with sadness that democracy is retreating globally and is currently at its lowest level since the 1980s. 72 percent of the world's population live in autocracies. Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland top the lists of stable democracies, but many countries, even in Europe, are experiencing an autocratization where democratic institutions are being dismantled.

It is extremely important that we in Sweden continue to agree that all public power derives from the people through free elections, that the people rule through elected representatives with freedom of speech and statutory rights protected in the constitution, and that public power shall be exercised with respect for all people's equal value and for the individual human being's freedom and dignity.

Madam Speaker! We all want to be treated with respect and be able to make independent decisions. Many young people have seen or heard something racist during their schooling. Every fourth child with a foreign background reports having been discriminated against and/or harassed. Among children with Swedish origin, every seventh child reports this, all according to information from Rädda Barnen.

If one encounters discrimination in any form, one should feel the support of society. Therefore, we must continue the work for human rights and against patriarchal norms, honor culture, racism, and structural discrimination. I can state that in this context, there are some restrictive motions that have been rejected.

A special investigator was tasked in May last year with proposing rules that prohibit or otherwise counter foreign funding of religious communities and other activities with links to extremism or anti-democratic environments. The purpose is to reduce risks of radicalization, prevent foreign actors from influencing Swedish religious environments, and limit the funding sources of extremist environments. The investigation report is to be presented later this autumn.

We Social Democrats look forward to the commission's proposals and believe that the government should prioritize the work of developing new rules in this area. For us, this is part of a broader line in our party aimed at ensuring that operations that receive state subsidies or that operate in Sweden do not work against democratic principles.

Madam Speaker! The Expo Foundation presented its report on the racist ideological environment in Sweden 2024 one year ago. It shows that the number of groups and activities in the racist and far-right environment is now increasing, after a downward spiral in recent years. One of the trends highlighted is how Islamophobia and antisemitism have become increasingly coarser in the wake of the war in Gaza.

Madam Speaker! Even the Institute for Human Rights, which the Sweden Democrats otherwise want to abolish, states that hate and threats have become increasingly common in recent years, not least among Jewish and Muslim groups.

Recently, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, CERD, has reviewed Sweden's compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the committee submits recommendations approximately every four years. The review was conducted in November 2025, and both the MR Institute and civil society provided CERD with information. They expressed concern in several areas and gave specific recommendations to strengthen protection against racial discrimination.

The Committee points out several serious deficiencies in Sweden's work against racism. Among other things, it highlights the low clearance rate for hate crimes, limited opportunities to identify and prove racist motives, increasing hate propaganda, even from public figures, as well as the need to involve civil society to a greater extent in the work with action plans. CERD emphasized that Sweden must strengthen its mechanisms for preventing, detecting, and following up on racist crimes and expressions.

The committee also expresses concern regarding extensive and recurring discrimination against minorities and persons with a migrant background. The recommendation covers issues such as large socioeconomic differences for persons with a non-European background, racial profiling and the police's powers, discrimination within school, work life, health and medical care as well as the housing market, and increasing hate crimes against Muslims, Afro-Swedes, Roma, and Jews. CERD requests better statistics, stronger protection systems, and more effective measures to counter discrimination at a structural level.

A third area where the committee expresses significant concern is the rights of the Sámi. In its recommendations, CERD highlights, among other things, the need for stronger protection for Sámi land rights and genuine influence in decision-making processes, measures against the ever-increasing attacks on and the growing killing of reindeer, as well as targeted interventions against violence affecting Sámi women. The committee also warned that extensive exploitation projects risk being carried out without sufficient consideration for the Sámi's rights and culture.

Madam Speaker! Based on the concern and crisis situation in Sweden that I began by addressing, we in the Committee on the Constitution cannot propose changes to the labor market, in education, regarding housing policy, or in other political areas. That is done in other committees. But we can do something concrete that strengthens our fundamental freedoms and rights: We can counter hate and ban racist and Nazi organizations that profit from children and young people who find it difficult to see a future in today's gloomy world and make false promises to those who have lost hope.

The question of a ban has been investigated, and the parliamentary committee that investigated this proposed that the legislative changes should enter into force in July 2022. That proposal has been referred for consultation and is being prepared within the Government Offices. I can say that it is as frightening as it is surprising that nothing has happened since then. If we want Sweden to be that free country in the future, extremism and racism must be countered at all costs. We have an obligation to do something about it. We must do it now, before it is too late.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this report is about 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 that we have the right to practice our religion, regardless of which it is, just as we have the right to not be believers at all.

It is important that we are protected against major infringements of our privacy, that we are not registered based on political opinions, that we can move freely in society, and that we are protected against discrimination.

As a conclusion to my speech, I would like to move for the approval of reservation 12.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! The motion report that we are dealing with in the chamber today covers a large number of motions concerning our fundamental freedoms and rights. The proposals concern, among other things, issues regarding freedom of expression, property rights, as well as threats and hate against elected officials and religious communities. It is also in this that I will make some points in my speech.

Before I move on to the substantive issues, I would however like to highlight something that deserves to be mentioned in this debate. During this parliamentary term, several significant reforms have been implemented to strengthen the protection of citizens' fundamental freedoms and rights. We have, for example, passed the first of two decisions that constitutional amendments in the future shall require a qualified majority – that is, support from two-thirds of the members of the Riksdag – specifically to strengthen the protection of civil freedoms and rights. In the same way, we have taken the first steps to constitutionally entrench the right to abortion.

Freedoms and rights are important. It is also a neighboring task to manage them. Rights, in fact, collide with one another. One person's freedom can simply restrict another's. But that is not a weakness in the system. It is a consequence that every open society has to manage in democratic processes.

Madam Speaker! Property rights are for me a fundamental principle in Sweden and mean that a person or an organization has the right to own, use and decide over their property. Several motions in the report concern the need to strengthen the constitutionally protected property protection.

Property rights are not just a legal principle. It is about the trust between citizens and the state. It is an issue that engages me and Moderaterna strongly.

Property rights and a vibrant democracy are inseparable. Nowhere where property rights have been abolished has society and democracy had a favorable development. Yet we see how landowners, forest owners, and farmers are repeatedly forced into situations where species protection rules, shoreline protection, and environmental legislation restrict their right to use their land, without reasonable compensation. It is not acceptable.

The committee refers to the fact that the Moderate-led government in July 2025 appointed a new parliamentary committee with a mandate to investigate exactly this, namely the right to compensation in cases of restrictions on use and the question of an explicit proportionality requirement. The mandate is to be reported in August this year. It is the right way forward. I look forward to the result.

It does not matter whether it is about a forest owner in the countryside or a villa owner in the suburbs: the principle is the same. The person who, for example, owns and cultivates their land shall be treated with respect, not as an obstacle for the bureaucracy. Property rights are an important freedom for the individual and something that must be carefully balanced against the common needs of society.

Madam Speaker! Freedom of expression is a central part of our democracy in Sweden and means that people have the right to express their opinions, thoughts, and ideas without risking censorship from the state. This right is protected in Sweden's fundamental laws.

Freedom of speech makes it possible for citizens to criticize those in power, participate in public debate, and spread information and different opinions. At the same time, it is not entirely unlimited, as certain expressions can be prohibited by law. This concerns, for example, hate speech against a group, defamation, threats to order and safety, and threats to national security. That is why we have a legal system and a constitution that specifies the framework for these trade-offs. That is why constitutional amendments require broad political anchoring and careful preparation.

The Moderates believe in individual freedom. But we also believe that freedom must have a robust protection and that this protection requires wise trade-offs – not simple answers.

Madam Speaker! Let me say something about the limitation of freedom of association for violence-promoting organizations. In the report, the need to limit freedom of association for associations that systematically exercise or promote violence, threats, and coercion is addressed. It is an important issue. Freedom of association is a cornerstone of democracy, but it should not be able to be misused as protection for organizations that threaten the safety of ordinary citizens.

Even within this area, the government has submitted proposals that freedom of association shall be allowed to be restricted for associations engaged in serious crime for economic gain. The constitutional amendment is proposed to enter into force on 1 January 2027, and recently, the investigation commissioned in March last year submitted its report with proposals on criminal liability for participation in just criminal associations. It is a comprehensive and powerful measure against organized crime, and it is moderate policy: to use the tools of the rule of law to protect the citizens' freedom.

Madam Speaker! Some of the motions addressed in the report raise the need for increased support to religious communities for security measures. It is an issue that touches on something fundamental, namely the right to practice one's faith in safety. That right is not self-evident in Sweden today. We know, for example, that anti-Semitic hate crimes have increased and that just over seven out of ten congregations have been subjected to some form of crime. Jewish congregations are subjected to hate, threats, and in the worst cases, violent crimes. It is unacceptable.

The allocation for security-enhancing measures for religious communities and civil society organizations was increased for the current year. The Jewish Central Council receives, in addition, targeted support for its security work, a support that was increased in the budget bill for 2025.

The Government has made a decision on a national strategy to strengthen Jewish life in Sweden and counter antisemitism. It is a ten-year commitment with clear objectives that Jews in Sweden shall be able to live openly, safely, and securely. A national coordinator has been appointed, and the Police Authority has been tasked with strengthening investigative capacity so that more antisemitic hate crimes can be prosecuted.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that we take the protection of civil liberties and rights seriously. We strengthen the constitution. We protect the right of ownership. We combat criminal organizations and threats against religious communities. We do all this to strengthen the freedom of all law-abiding citizens.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 11, which concerns the protection of academic freedom.

This is a report that contains very many different motions, which we heard earlier. Vänsterpartiet stands for a good deal of them. There are many proposals that in different ways affect our fundamental freedoms and rights. It is such things that we usually take for granted and see as self-evident. It concerns, for example, respect for all people's equal value, that we have freedom of speech, that we have the right to participate in meetings, to demonstrate and to practice our religion, regardless of which it is, and that we have the right not to be believers at all. It is about that we should be protected against major infringements of our privacy, which we have debated earlier today, that we should not need to be registered based on political opinions, that we can 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 that we can, for example, through the asylum program, provide protection and support to among others journalists and artists so that they can exercise their freedom of expression here. It is a way to show concrete solidarity when the opportunities in their own home countries are small.

Madam Speaker! Our freedoms and rights can and must never be taken for granted. Research shows, in fact, that democracy in the world is in decline, even here in Sweden and Europe. Threats to democracy today may sometimes look different than how they have looked historically. We have war and violence in our vicinity, but there are also other threats aimed at creating unrest, insecurity, and a lack of trust in society. These are also serious challenges. It can occur through disinformation, troll factories, and cyberattacks.

Threats can come from the outside, but not infrequently the threats against democracy come from within 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.

Madam Speaker! Exactly one year ago, I visited New York together with a group from the Riksdag. We were on a study visit to the UN. We also met many other organizations. We were actually met by a society and people in shock. In a very short time, the new Trump administration had banned specific words, such as diversity and inclusion. Regardless of whom we spoke with, the same picture was given. People were shocked.

Since then, developments in the USA have proceeded at a frantic pace. We have seen a development with flagrant attacks on the democratic pillars. The judiciary has been destabilized. Journalists are threatened, discredited, and mocked, and freedom of speech is not respected. The idea of an arm's length distance to culture is but a memory, and in the libraries in the USA, people are ordered to clear out inappropriate books.

Universities are under massive attack and are now being portrayed as enemies of society. This can be seen by the withdrawal of funding and the withholding of research grants. In a report from Scholars at Risk, it is noted that over 40 attacks have been made against academic freedom in the first half of 2025 alone. At the same time, hundreds of experts warn that American democracy is being dismantled. The free speech organization PEN America has compiled over 350 words that have been banned or flagged as problematic by federal agencies – and the list is being continuously updated.

Madam Speaker! We are certainly not the USA, but the world's developments are very much influenced by what happens in the USA. We need to take these issues very seriously. We cannot be naive about the fact that the developments occurring in several parts of the world could also happen 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 educational institutions also constitute an important foundation for democratic development and public debate. We have previously heard from the Social Democrats examples of when we here in the Riksdag have had research days and met researchers who can contribute to our policy development. This is extremely important.

A prerequisite for this to work is that educational institutions have the right to self-determination and are free from undue governance. But last year, a report was released from the Swedish Council for Higher Education regarding academic freedom in Sweden, and 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 consistently highlighted that there is a need to consider a stronger and broader protection of academic freedom than what we currently have in the formulations in the Instrument of Government.

Academic freedom consists of several parts that we need to safeguard. We have motioned for this and also raised it in this reservation. We need stronger protection for academic freedom in our constitution.

Madam Speaker! I will have time to cover two other matters that we have raised in our motions which are being addressed in today's report.

One is about the children's and youth organizations, which I have also spoken a little about earlier. In a survey from LSU – it is an umbrella organization that gathers Sweden's children's and youth organizations – 80 percent of their members point out that they experience that their democratic space has decreased over the last five years. This is primarily due to reduced economic resources – I mentioned earlier the missing 50 million, for example – but also due to increased controls and more administration.

A very important point is that they experience a changed view of civil society and that their representatives are increasingly subjected to hate and threats because of their engagement. It is, therefore, children and young people in our country who report this. Particularly vulnerable are young people who belong to minority groups.

This year's figures show that 36 percent of the responding organizations have been subjected to threats and hate. This is an increase of 5 percent since the previous measurement. This, in turn, has meant that many keep both activities and meeting places in our country secret. They hide contact details for elected representatives in order to protect them. Many organizations also devote significant resources to security work. We believe that this is a threat to our democracy. If young people already at the beginning of their organizational involvement experience insecurity, there is a great risk that they will not dare to take a place in the public debate. They are intimidated into silence.

The survey results show that it is often adults who are responsible for the hatred against children and young people, and it feels even more serious. Unfortunately, few choose to report it to the police. What that is due to needs to be investigated further. We see that changes are needed in the regulations for grants for security-enhancing measures in order to reduce the vulnerability of children's and youth organizations.

Madam Speaker! The second matter that I would finally like to raise is that the Left Party considers that all people should be able to freely identify and express themselves and have the right to decide over their own bodies in other ways – it concerns, for example, the issue of 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 very much. 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. The Left Party considers that all people have the right to have their gender identity recognized and respected. We have also included this in one of today's motions.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! As we have noted in previous debates, International Women's Day was celebrated on Sunday. Since other members have highlighted the full scope of today's motion report, it feels appropriate that in my speech I focus on an issue that is very much about women's equal value and the right to avoid subordinating themselves to a patriarchal and honor-related oppression.

I am referring to the oppression of women that stems from the view that women's bodies are impure and must be hidden so as not to mislead men – as if men do not have the ability to control their impulses and desires in the same way that it is expected of the woman to erase her own desires and subordinate herself to the man. It is not enough that the hair must be covered; it also concerns the face and, in some cases, the eyes.

This extremist Islamist viewpoint and its application, "burkocracy" as Ebba Busch calls it, the Christian Democrats want to ban. I want to ask you to note that our proposal for a ban applies to full-body coverings such as the burka and niqab, not merely the headscarf, or veil as one says in everyday speech.

The religious coercion and control has spread in recent years. Many who fled Islamist regimes to come to freedom in Sweden experience that the same oppression and control has moved here to our Swedish suburbs. Soheila Fors, an Iranian-Kurdish woman who has lived in Sweden for about twenty years and who herself has experienced and left this Islamist oppression, wrote the other day about a woman who had contacted her. The woman had put on makeup and gone out to shop. When she came home, she was called and told by acquaintances that she was not allowed to go out because it is Ramadan.

This external pressure has gone so far that these extremist forces sexualize little girls and want to force children in preschools in Stockholm, Malmö and in other places to have covered hair. They even demand that Swedish secular preschool teachers ensure that little girls have their hair covered all day, even during play.

How then does a burqa ban go together with freedom of religion, a human right that we do cherish?

Freedom of religion means both the freedom to practice one's religion as well as to change religion and to have no religion at all. The European Court of Human Rights has on several occasions examined the issue of headscarf bans when countries such as France have introduced bans on wearing clothing that covers the face or when students or teachers in Turkey have been forbidden from wearing a headscarf.

The European Court of Human Rights' conclusion has repeatedly been that the restriction on clothing does not prevent the individual's opportunity to practice their religion. When the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court in Sweden have examined the question of the burqa ban, they have, on the other hand, concluded that it is not possible in relation to the European Convention and Swedish religious freedom legislation according to the Instrument of Government.

I note, however, that both my own party and several other parties have a great commitment to marking more clearly against the women-oppressing Islamist oppression and introducing bans on full-body clothing.

The Government submitted the bill A special penal provision against psychological violence on February 24 this year. The proposal means that it shall be punishable to repeatedly subject another person to violations, including in the form of undue coercion or undue surveillance, if the violations have been intended to seriously damage the person's self-esteem. The penalty is proposed to be imprisonment for a maximum of four years. Just today, the motion period expires.

I therefore assume that the question of criminal liability for forcing someone to wear a veil and full-body clothing will be able to be examined under this new law, even though we today, according to current routines, move for the rejection of all motions.

Girls and women in our free Sweden should not have to be forced into a religious compulsion that restricts their freedom to choose their own clothing. I therefore wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report on Freedom and Rights etc. It may sound large and a bit abstract, but actually, it is about the most concrete things we have: the freedom to be oneself, the security of believing what one wants, and the right to manage what one owns.

Sweden shall be a country where one can live one's life without having to look over one's shoulder. But unfortunately, reality does not look that way for everyone today.

Madam Speaker! I want to begin with the safety of our religious communities. It should not matter at all whether you wear a cross around your neck, a kippah, or a veil – in Sweden, you should be able to go to your place of worship without feeling fear. But unfortunately, we see how the hatred and the threats are increasing. When a synagogue needs to have guards when people are going to prayer or just for a gathering, it has gone very far. When a mosque is subjected to vandalism because one does not share the views of those who pray in there, it has gone very far. Then it is an attack on all of us and on our entire open society.

Centerpartiet wants the state to take greater responsibility for the security of the churches. It should not be up to the individual parish to choose between repairing the roof or hiring guards.

Madam Speaker! Heat and hatred are directed not only towards religious communities and religious people but also towards elected officials in their roles. This affects the safety of our elected officials. The same shall apply to those who have chosen to engage politically. If local politicians in our municipalities fall silent because they or their families are threatened, our democracy begins to crumble. Therefore, it is necessary with powerful measures against the threats that are based on hatred towards religious beliefs and towards those who carry our common democratic mandate.

Madam Speaker! All of this is also connected to our protection against discrimination. We in the Center Party want a society where it is your competence and your character that count, not your surname, who you love, or whether you have a disability. We see that discrimination still persists, not least on the labor market. It is an enormous waste of human potential. We want to strengthen the protection so that no door is closed simply because one does not fit into a certain mold. A strong protection against discrimination is not a left-wing or right-wing issue, but a matter of freedom.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to raise an issue that is very close to Centerpartiet's heart, namely the right of ownership. Sometimes ownership is talked about as if it were only about law or large companies. But for us, it is about people. It is about the farmer who wants to pass the farm on to the next generation and about the forest owner who has cared for their forest for generations.

Unfortunately, we see a development where the public sector, the state, all too often intervenes and restricts people's right to use their own land without providing reasonable compensation. It creates enormous uncertainty. If one cannot trust that what one owns and manages is actually one's own, the motivation to invest and to care for our land also disappears.

Centerpartiet wants to strengthen the constitutional protection for property rights. It must be clear. If the public wants to limit your use of the land, you shall have the right to full compensation. It is not more difficult than that.

Madam Speaker! Freedom and rights are not something we can take for granted. They must be defended every day and in every decision. We defend the believers against hatred, we defend the individual against discrimination, and we defend the landowner against state overreach. That is how we build a Sweden that holds together and where one is safe regardless of whether one lives in a large city or in the countryside.

Madam Speaker! With that, I move for approval of the Center Party's reservation 2.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating an important report and proposal, which I move for approval, on how the protection of our fundamental freedoms and rights can be strengthened. It is a pressing issue that touches the very core of our legal order.

In this context, I therefore want to highlight an area of concern that is of decisive importance for how these freedoms and rights are actually upheld in practice. The true protection of citizens' freedoms and rights is not, in fact, solely about which laws we enact in this chamber. It is equally about how these laws are respected and upheld in society.

Madam Speaker! A new unfreedom has taken hold in our country. It characterizes life in the other Sweden, the Sweden of exclusion, not least for the tens of thousands of young people who live their lives there where the most basic civil and political rights are violated or absent. These young people and their families live in Sweden but still do not.

In her acclaimed autobiographical book Ett ord för blod, Faysa Idle writes: ”One can say that we live in parallel worlds in Sweden. It is the same country but still completely different places. Traveling just one kilometer can sometimes be like traveling hundreds of miles.” She, raised in Tensta, tells of a life in the shadow of marginalization and honor oppression, and about Islamists and criminal gangs who exploit young people's search for belonging and offer them another community, a parallel community that in its macabre way can fill ”the emptiness that ate us from the inside,” as Faysa so well expresses it.

Faysa tells about a sister who begins using a niqab at home, about moral police who begin to appear in more and more places in Järva, about her terrifying upbringing journey to Kenya, about a brother who is killed and another who becomes heavily criminal, and about a reality where "killing someone became a routine, no big deal" but just "a small step on the way to paradise or life as a ghetto king."

Madam Speaker! What Faysa describes occurred in the same country, in the same Sweden, which proudly regards itself as the natural home of freedom and equality. This is true for the majority of those who live in our country but not for everyone, for example, not for every fifth child growing up in Malmö in environments where the culture of honor prevails, according to a report from 2018.

According to this report, prepared by researchers at Örebro University who investigated attitudes among youth in grade 9, almost half of the boys who lived under honor-related violence norms considered it quite bad or very bad that women and men have equal rights according to Swedish law. Almost one-third of the girls who grew up under the same circumstances also considered it so. Just over 40 percent of the boys thought it was quite bad or very bad that Swedish law prohibits female genital mutilation, and, frighteningly, one-third of the girls in this group also considered the same. Eight out of ten girls who grew up under honor-related chastity norms were not allowed to socialize with male friends at home – and so on.

Against this background, it is extremely alarming that a report from the city audit in Malmö found that the issue of honor is, in practice, ignored by Malmö's preschools. As Sydsvenskan wrote: ”Preschools in Malmö disregard reporting concerns for children living under honor oppression. One of the reasons: The staff fears the parents, an audit reveals. From January to October last year, only a single report was made – among 20,000 Malmö children.”

It is a shocking fact given that professionals within school, health care, and social services have a reporting obligation in case of suspicion that a child is being harmed. This means in plain terms that many of our laws are merely a lip service for a non-negligible part of our population.

Madam Speaker! On the Gender Equality Authority's website, the following can be read: ”After the summer holidays, school desks will stand empty all over the country because children have been taken abroad for child and forced marriages, 're-education trips' or because families want to escape the authorities' involvement.”

All these abuses are prohibited according to the laws the Riksdag has enacted, but the school desks are no less empty for that. The Gender Equality Authority further states that the application of new legislation is proceeding relatively slowly and that there is a lack of guiding judgments for several new criminal classifications, such as child marriage offenses, travel bans, and honor-based oppression.

Madam Speaker! It is good that new and stricter laws are enacted in this area, but we must realize that it is not primarily a lack of legislation that is the main problem, but its very limited application. The reasons for this circumstance are many. The authorities' sluggish actions are one, but according to the report from the city audit in Malmö, there is another important reason for the preschools' reluctance to report concerns, namely fear.

Let me give some concrete examples taken from the aforementioned Malmö report: the threat from the guardians or their networks and relatives, the risk that the children will be harmed if the staff raise sensitive issues with the guardians, and the fear that guardians will choose to keep their children at home.

Madam Speaker! Here lies a decisive component in the new lack of freedom: honor-suppressing cultural norms maintained through pressure and threats – or direct harassment, assault, and in extreme cases murder – against those who could reveal or revolt against these norms. The grim message that the Malmö report conveys is that the application of the laws becomes almost impossible in environments where parallel norms and power structures prevail.

Faysa Idle describes in her book the honor culture's grip on both the older and the younger generation and how this led to horrific acts of violence and that many young lives were wasted. She writes: Honor was the most important of everything. Anything could lead to blood.

This is how she describes the culture of silence that prevails in many of Sweden's parallel societies, where snitching or informing is the worst and most dangerous thing one can imagine: Here, no one talked. The Swedish justice system had nothing to work with. She adds: You reap what you sow. Society had treated us like shit by abandoning us, so no one said a word to the police, not even the parents of the dead.

This illustrates the devastating interaction of exclusion and its impact on how our laws and regulations are complied with. Exclusion leads to the emergence of alternative communities where criminal gangs, crime-ridden clans, and Islamists thrive. They offer both belonging and identity as well as access to resources and status.

Madam Speaker! Breaking this dialectic or interaction is Sweden's most difficult challenge. It requires major efforts from the outside – from the well-meaning and secure side of Sweden. But what will be decisive in the long run is what is done from within, by all those individuals and families who no longer want to live in oppression and insecurity. We must see them, trust them, and invest in them.

The public has obviously a very important role to play in this context, but without the mobilization of those affected and civil society, the prospects for success are practically non-existent. This has largely been the missing link – the blind spot – in Swedish integration policy.

The perspective has all too often been that we, that is, Authority Sweden, should integrate them, that is, people who have immigrated to our country. It may sound obvious, but in reality, it is a flawed perspective. Without the active participation of those affected, as subjects and driving actors in their own lives, the integration process cannot succeed.

We can facilitate the path, provide tools and create clear incentives for integration, but we can never replace people's own role in this process. In other words: A successful integration presupposes a shift in perspective, from welfare state paternalism to the individual's own will, responsibility, and empowerment.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! A strong and living democracy is a construction with several supporting cornerstones. At its foundation lies a well-balanced thought on how the common activity shall be organized, with courts, general elections, and free formation of opinion.

To this belong free media, free culture, freedom of association and a free academy. Without these things, our common existence would become poorer and encourage significantly less development, both individual and societal, in the form of dialogue, discussion, experiences, discoveries, knowledge, creativity, reflection and respect. Part of this is already protected in our constitution – in the Instrument of Government – but not everything. We also have ongoing discussions about expanding and clarifying the sections on freedoms and rights.

I had intended to start by saying a few words about academic freedom, but I feel compelled to provide an alternative description of what Member Westmont took up here earlier regarding that we are on our way to establishing a minority rule when it comes to legislation, even though the Member has now left the chamber.

The Sweden Democrats are naturally in their full right to describe reality in the way they wish, but the truth is that it concerns a proposal for a constitutional amendment where a qualified majority is required to be able to make decisions. It is not about a minority being able to decide what happens. It can possibly decide that something should not be implemented, but not describe what the laws should look like.

One could also say that Martin Westmont's party has pushed through quite a lot through the Tidö Government, with the help of a very small majority.

I thank Member Svärd for pointing out that seven of the eight parties actually stand behind the constitutional proposal that will be returned in the autumn.

Now I shall move on to academic freedom. To begin with, academic freedom is more than just the currently constitutionally protected freedom to freely choose research questions, research methods, and publication of results. Academic freedom also encompasses higher education, the organization and funding of universities, and the appointments of boards and rectors. Academic freedom is also students' right to choose their path – which courses and programs they wish to follow – and their right to ask critical questions and have an influence.

There is a survey that the Swedish Council for Higher Education conducted in 2024, called Academic Freedom in Sweden. Almost all researchers, teachers, and doctoral students place great value on academic freedom, but half of them are simultaneously concerned that it is being eroded. Collegiality is highly valued but is also perceived to be pushed aside by administrative burdens and clearer governance through both politics and funding.

One must remember, Madam Speaker, that practically all countries invest state funds in research and higher education. That would hardly have been done if it were not perceived as profitable and good for the state. The one who succeeds in calculating more precisely how much an invested krona yields will probably receive fine prizes, but that it is a plus is something everyone agrees on. For among other reasons, we believe that the protection for academic freedom needs to be strengthened in the constitution.

Madam Speaker! The work on human rights in Sweden has certainly moved forward in recent years, not least with the establishment of the Institute for Human Rights four years ago. The Institute shall monitor, investigate, and report on how human rights are respected and realized in Sweden.

The Institute has pointed out a number of shortcomings regarding human rights in Sweden in its annual reports. There are many examples, but among others, a comprehensive section of the activity report for 2024 is devoted to discussing the rights of the elderly, an area that might otherwise not be discussed as much.

We propose in a reservation regarding this point, among other things, that a mechanism shall be created for the follow-up and reporting of various commitments. We also have a proposal concerning how board members are appointed. Memory-sharp colleagues, remember last year's KU review of the government's handling of precisely this.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I shall say something about the rights of nature. I realize and understand that for many this sounds like a thought-lapse of a rather difficult kind. How would it work? But there are ways of looking at our world as also having rights to live and develop in a sustainable way.

In my previous work in the international research program on urban futures, the term "synvända" was used. I note that the Swedish Academy is not familiar with the expression, but it means to see things in a different way.

In Ecuador, the concept of "nature's rights" was introduced into the country's constitution nearly 20 years ago.

Some years later, Colombia followed and recognized the Amazon as a legal subject with rights, after which a group of young people sued the state because the ongoing deforestation affects the climate and thus their right to a healthy environment, food, and water.

In New Zealand, the Whanganui River and Mount Taranaki were granted legal rights just under ten years ago. These are rights based on the worldview of the indigenous people, the Maori.

I understand that a change of perspective can take time, but it is an interesting question to reflect upon. How would it go if we designated Lagan or Torne älv, or why not both, as national rivers and gave them such protection? It would mean that the ecosystems and life forms associated with the rivers are not lawless and subordinate to humans but are independent legal subjects. It could be something that is actually needed to create a sustainable future. Our current form of government turned 50 last year. Perhaps when it turns 100, it will be completely obvious that it also includes a paragraph on nature's rights, regarding the rivers' right to restoration and recovery as well as the right to exist and develop. What is unthinkable today may perhaps not be so tomorrow.

In conclusion, I want to mention that we have reservations regarding the religious communities' work on safety and security, the protection against discrimination, constitutional protection for the rights of LGBTQI persons, the protection of academic freedom, and the work on human rights. I naturally stand behind all of these, but I move for approval only to reservation 15 regarding the rights of nature.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 21.)

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